BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

PRO: "To attack this i will only say this....how do shinigami's come to be.....originally they do have to come from somewhere so we can conclude that Yagami became a shinigami..." My Response: This is clearly the non sequitur fallacy at work. How does us not knowing where Shinigami come from lead us to the conclusion that Light must be a shinigami? If shinigami came from mars, saturn, or neptune, how would that lead us to the PRo's conclusion? It doesn't. PRO: "and alos the book that i meantioned earlier has a page for what happened to yagami after he died we never know what happends to people when they die" I've scanned each chapter synopsis statement and I have found nothing to suggest this. Of course, even if I had, it would be PRO's job to provide this information. This is something which he doesn't do. I challenge PRO to provide a scan of the page which he is referring to so that we all may observe it. Although I don't have to, I'll address something which I had found in the comment section. A commenter stated that Light Yagami probably lost his memory when he became a shinigami, hence being why he hasn't continued his role as Kira. First, there is no evidence to suggest this. Second, the evidence against this is that its implied that no new Shinigami come into existance. After all, the Shinigamis which I listed in round 1 were the Shinigamis at the beginning of the series as well. Since no new Shinigami was added to that list, there is now way Light became a Shinigami. Furthermore, why would Rem care about Misa dying if this were the case? Rem could simply let Misa die and continuing looking after her in the Shinigami world? Heck, she could even restore Misa's memories with her death note. Finally, extend the rest arguments made from round 2 to this round as PRO clearly drops them.
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

to attack this i will only say this....how do shinigami's come to be.....originally they do have to come from somewhere so we can conclude that Yagami became a shinigami... also my mistake on the author thing i meant to say the author of the book but i was a little busy writting papers..so my bad....also this is a fun debate no need to take it seriousi mean...c'mon it is only a theory and alos the book that i meantioned earlier has a page for what happened to yagami after he died we never know what happends to people when they die....who knows........
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

If this were a Apollo Justice/Gyakuten Saiban game, this music would start playing during this round: http://www.youtube.com... No one is saying that nothing is stopping shinigami from lying. My point is that there is simply not motivation for the Shinigami King to lie. In Rem's case, her motivation stemmed from the fact that she thought helping Light would save Misa Amane. My opponent cannot prove there is a motivation, thus there is no reason to consider his argument on this issue. If my opponent is suggesting that Ryuk has no way of knowing where people go when they die, then it is my opponent job to prove this, as the burden of proof would belong to him in this situation. Just because Ryuk didn't know how other Shinigami could die, it does not mean he is somehow lying about heaven and hell not existing. As for endings, it is only best that we refer to the canon ending. The only canon aspect of Death Note is the Death Note manga (which is what I cited). Nevertheless, regardless of which ending we consider, there is never anything to suggest that Light Yagami becomes a Shinigami in any of them. As for the book which my opponent cites, it is NOT written by the author of death note. On his link, it will list the author of the "Fun Fact book." Here is the author/artist which is listed: Fujie, Kazuhisa /Komen, Daniel / Now the author of Death Note is none other than Ohba Tsugumi ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), thus this book wasn't written by the author of Death Note. Furthermore, if you'll note the list of questions which the book promises to cover, there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION CONCERNING HUMANS BECOMING SHINIGAMIS or HUMANS NOT BECOMING NOTHING AFTER DYING. Add all of this to the fact that my opponent dropped most of my arguments in his most recent round, and I have conclusively dismantled my opponent's case. I await the next round, but it's already clear that your vote must go to CON. There's no way I'd post a link to that phoenix wright music vid otherwise. :D
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

indeed, this is well but i will attack....in the beggining before l died the shinigami named REM actually helped yagami lie..so what stops any shinigami to lie....and also to say this...in the anime...ryuk does not know a lot of what he is saying....in the episode where REM show's up and surprises RYUK with how A SHINIGAMI DIES and RYUK DIDNT know!!!... so thus proving my point does RYUk know where or where not people go where they die...the evidence provided by my opponenet is helpful....RYUK srtangles yagami and kills him.....really there are many endings to this series of DEATH NOTE in the movie RYUK writes his name in his deathnote...same in thew anime.....but in the manga he seems to take matters into his own hands and kills him with them.....so really could there be a true ending to this anime... and does evryone go somewhere when they DIE......Death Note: Fatally Fun Facts (Mysteries and Secrets Revealed!) (Paperback)actually tells us that they eventually go somewhere...this is written by the author....and it also explains a lot of things that you and the world would love to know...if you read it will explain a lot.........http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp... look it up if you'd like...and buy it....
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

Despite the number of rounds this debate possesses, I will make this debate as swift as possible. First, I'll prove that Yagami Light did not become a Shinigami. Then I will address my opponent's case. First, lets observe the death note manga chapter 107, page 14, 15, and 18-19: http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... From reading these pages, you'll note that neither heaven or hell exist in the death note series. All humans go to MU (nothingness). In other words, they cease to exist. Furthermore, the Shinigami realm is never referred to as MU, so this is more evidence against my opponent's theory. Next, if Light were to merely become a Shinigami, what would stop him from continuing his work as Kira? Absolutely nothing. However, the fact of the matter is that Kira's activities ceased upon Light Yagami's death. Finally, for conclusive evidence, let us refer to all the Shinigami which the writer declared to exist; we shall refer to the special "How to read" chapter of the Death Note manga: http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... All of the Shinigami in the Death Note universe are listed in these pages, but you'll note that there is no mention of Light Yagami, Mikami, or Misa Amane. This is because they are NOT Shinigami. Now in response to my opponent's case: My opponent says that Light, Mikami, and Misa all committed suicide, thus became Shinigami. This is clearly the non sequitur fallacy as merely committing suicide does not lead to the conclusion that they have become Shinigamis. Thus, this is not to be considered evidence of my opponent's claim. Furthermore, what purpose would there be for the Shinigami king to lie about rule #8? Absolutely none. In conclusion, my opponent has no evidence to support the idea that Light became a Shinigami. On the contrary, there is conclusive evidence to show that he hasn't. Given that this is the case, my opponent cannot uphold the resolution, and therefore cannot win this debate.
In Death Note..Yagami Light Became a shinigami

well just to start i will say that in the end of the series yagami did indeed die but....as the rules go....if you are to ever use the death note and write in it....you are not sent to heaven nor condemned to hell...so in the end it would only indeed mean he would become a shinigami......also to make my argument stronger the rules say when you die you become a mere nothing....yagami layed there and died.....misa amane ended committing suicide...and also mikami....he committed suicide and bled to death...this proves that they all become shinigami...and that a rule created by the maker of the note...lied about one rule...which is: "rule #8. The human who uses this note can neither go to Heaven nor Hell."....but they go to the shinigami world...
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

<> You failed to address that his intentions may not be to make you laugh. You simply might be the retard that he thinks you are and you happen to find EVERYTHING funny because you're retarded. < 1. ppl u like that like you 2. ppl that u don't like but they like you 3. ppl u hate that hate you>> You are *SO* wrong! You forgot a whole plethora of people. (i.e. People that you like that hate you. AND People that you don't care about that don't care about you.) You do not understand human nature; nor do you understand Solarman1969. Accept it and move on. He's a bad person and he's not trying to make you laugh. < > In real life, it doesn't work this way. Sometimes, you like folks that don't like you back. Like in this case. < > He's not here to teach. You're projecting. < > Irrelevant. <> I'd bet money that he could stab you with a knife and you'd probably try and convince me he was a good person. You sound like a battered wife making excuses for her abusive husband. < 1. Makes people laugh. Good trait.>> I made people laugh too. That doesn't mean I'm a good person. <<2. Honest. Good trait>> Sure, a good trait, but not exclusive to good people. <<3. Helping debate. Good trait or 3. Nice. Good trait>> He's not helping and you haven't proven or given specific examples as to how he "helped" anyone. You probably just made that up. < > You also started a sentence and gave up. < > Then do it! I've already said that Solarman1969 is just like me and you never disputed it. Now you're agreeing with me that I'm evil, so logically Solarman1969 is a bad person, just like me. Thank you for making my victory in this debate so easy, cody. You're still a you-know-what!
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

"You must be very young, very sheltered or both. I'm a very bad person that has lots of fun (being mean) and I laugh (about it). " I never said that he laughs at what he does. I said his actions are comedic to me and make me laugh. Making someone laugh has no bad qualities to it. It has good qualities to it. Thus he is not entirely bad. Honesty is a good quality. What you said was not an honest statement. Why? There are three types of people 1. ppl u like that like you 2. ppl that u don't like but they like you 3. ppl u hate that hate you If it's the first one, you wouldn't say that. If it's the third one, it's not mean. If it's the second one, it's honesty and they will learn u don't like them and maybe stop liking you. In Solarman1969's case, he is trying to educate people. Thus, honesty, and his "teachings" are good qualities "He's just making debates easier to win" Not true, my first response to one of his posts was start debating him in the comment box. then, someone else joined in. Then we were all debating something. And if he is, then he is nice enough to try and make other people's scores better. "No, you've proven that he has qualities that are neither good or bad by themselves. His intentions speak to the kind of guy he really is -- a bad guy." Not true 1. Makes people laugh. Good trait. 2. Honest. Good trait 3. Helping debate. Good trait or 3. Nice. Good trait So I have said he has some good qualities. I "The only way you can "prove" the Solarman1969 is to prove that you are Solarman1969" noooooooooo. i could prove you are a bad by posting all your rude remarks. Then I would prove you have at least some evil in you. ", he's a bad seed, as he's just like me." "No one is safe from me. I make fun of the elderly, short people, fat people, tall people, ugly people, beautiful people (who are also dumb people) and the handicapped (like yourself) -- I make fun of EVERYONE." See, you have not proved once that Solarman1969 has any bad traits. And I still stand by my reasons why he has some good traits. So you lose
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

<<1. Having fun is exclusive to people that aren't entirely bad. Hell I never said he was a good guy. But it makes me laugh reading his arguments so I consider that a good quality. Tell me what is evil about laughter.>> You must be very young, very sheltered or both. I'm a very bad person that has lots of fun (being mean) and I laugh (about it). < > I understand humor quite well, but he's not trying to be funny. And if he is, his humor is lost on me. In any case, he's a bad seed, as he's just like me. <<2. Speaking one's mind does not = bad You don't contest that he is not a liar. So he is honest. Which is a good quality.>> Honesty is a quality, neither "good" or "bad". It is what it is. If I went up to your mother and said, "You're a disgusting fat cow that makes me want to hurl everytime I look at you", would that make me a good person because I was telling the truth? No. <<3. i am retarded. ok. anyways. He is making people debate better. This is good.>> I'm glad we can finally agree on something. As for him making people step it up, you're wrong, again. He's just making debates easier to win; that's all. <> No, you've proven that he has qualities that are neither good or bad by themselves. His intentions speak to the kind of guy he really is -- a bad guy. <> You don't know that, just as you don't know that Solarman1969 is a good person. << :) besides, would u make-fun of a retard>> No one is safe from me. I make fun of the elderly, short people, fat people, tall people, ugly people, beautiful people (who are also dumb people) and the handicapped (like yourself) -- I make fun of EVERYONE. The only way you can "prove" the Solarman1969 is to prove that you are Solarman1969, at which time I can report you and have both of your accounts canceled, so you see... You lose.
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

1. Having fun is exclusive to people that aren't entirely bad. Hell I never said he was a good guy. But it makes me laugh reading his arguments so I consider that a good quality. Tell me what is evil about laughter. People that debate him like it is a real debate look, to me, as if they do npt understand what a joke is. 2. Speaking one's mind does not = bad You don't contest that he is not a liar. So he is honest. Which is a good quality. 3. i am retarded. ok. anyways. He is making people debate better. This is good. I proved that Solarman1969 has some good qualities. So he is not all bad. "as cody30228 has clearly made it a point to have someone else attack Solarman1969 on his behalf. Yeah, cowardly, but what do you expect from a retarded kid" u don't mean that :) besides, would u make-fun of a retard
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

Solarman1969 IS that bad of a person. How do I know? Because "it takes one, to know one." As a bad person, I can speak from personal experience and both Solarman1969 and I are bad persons. <<1. He knows how to have fun>> That trait is hardly exclusive to good people. I know how to have fun too and I'm rotten to the core. < > Does this make them bad people? No, it does not. <> As of right now, he's lost thirty debates. Anyone who debates him seriously looks like a winner. They don't look badly. <> Once again, you're wrong... probably because you're a kid. (And retarded.) <<2. Not shy>> How many people are "shy" online??? Not that many, since you don't have to face the folks you choose to insult. < > I doubt that, as he'd have greater notoriety. He's just an average, run of the mill, bad guy. That's it. < > Again, this is the internet. Who cares about "courage" when it comes to speaking your mind? A lot of were like this, in this aspect, long before Solarman1969 even knew what the internet was. He's not fearless and good and true. He's a bad guy that wants to take a crap on folks when he can, just like me. < > And he's a bad person. <<3. Reverse-psychology>> *scoff* Kids are retarded. They can't help themselves. Anyway, listen to me. He's a petty jerk and he likes to think he knows better than everyone on the site. He's a borderline troll, except you can see some kind of effort to organize his thoughts and present his rants after an orderly fashion. That doesn't make him a good person. He's a jerk and I know because I'm a jerk too. (I realize this argument is rude, but as I always root for underdogs, so I've decided to join Solarman1969, as cody30228 has clearly made it a point to have someone else attack Solarman1969 on his behalf. Yeah, cowardly, but what do you expect from a retarded kid. *pounding limp wrist into chest repeatedly*)
Solarman1969 is not that bad of a person

After being on this site for a few days, there is no one who has ticked me off more than Solarman1969. I thought he was obnoxious, mentally insane, ignorant beyond belief, and a child-hater. I have seen 2 debates over how horrible he is. Now i realize he might not be that bad. GASP! I know this is insane. But I have some good reasons why Solarman1969 is not evil. 1. He knows how to have fun Many debaters on this site and in real-life do not understand how to have fun. I must applaud him for attempting it. So what he is a horrible debater, he has fun and anyone he debates him seriously looks bad. I wouldn't be surprised if he himself took up this debate 2. Not shy What I mean is , he is the most politically incorrect person in history. He has no fear to speak his mind. We should all be more like him in this aspect. What is worse, a lier or a fool? A lier. Solarman1969 is not, well usually, a lier. But he is always a fool 3. Reverse-psychology I am almost positive this is an accident. He tells everyone that young kids are retarded. So what happens, all the kids try to show him up by being better than he. Thus he causes us to try harder. I think this is a good thing ***No i still do not like Solarman1969. But I was bored, wanted to debate, and wanted to see other people's responses.
There should be a debate section for philosophy and "other" topics.

I sent in a comment to the editors yesterday. I think there should be a traditional forums type thing on here. Since its kind of hard to "debate" some things. But forums would we much better for discussion. I know nothing about website design but so many websites have forums that i dont think they are too hard to create. As long as they keep the real simple style and interface of this website i'll be happy. (and yes im changing my advocacy cuz im just putting different ideas out there...not really anywhere else i can do this so i figured id use the platform while i had it)
There should be a debate section for philosophy and "other" topics.

You're changing your advocacy but it's not too important. It's perfectly reasonable to have different sections just as long as it doesn't get too excessive. Right now I think many topics could be condensed and a few could be added. At the very least it could be said that an "other" section is needed. It doesn't matter how it's set up. Personally I think a drop down box is the best. But we shouldn't restrict the debate topics to a set out list. That's why "other" is needed. Most importantly the main point of this argument is to point out that we need sections for more types of arguments regardless of how the further structuring is laid out. After all, I didn't even have anywhere to put this.
There should be a debate section for philosophy and "other" topics.

Instead of making more categories (the top bar looks crowded enough as it is) there should be an option for the instigator to choose from a long list of topic choices. There could be broad categories like they have now...and then subcategories within those. I personally just think that would be cool...might be a bit unrealistic for the website designers. As long as the sections are added then I will be happy. I don't care where it goes. I just want a place to put it. Anyway, it's not like we couldn't trim up. Science and technology could easily be combined. Just as education could go under politics and sports could go under entertainment. There are many things we could do. All I ask for is a philosophy and others section for me to write in. I don't care how I get there.
i could beat up tate

Although you may have both taken self defense classes and are moderately the same stature, I believe Tate would win in a fight. While a major portion of this argument takes in to account the physical side of things, your personalities matter as well. For example, Tate is a stubborn individual and would insist upon winning. His pride would not allow for him to lose. You, on the other hand, are able to admit defeat, while having victories mean less, due to months of constant defeats and victories.
i could beat up tate

The major flaw of your argument is that you haven't the faintest idea whether or not Tate is stronger than you or not. You also don't know if he runs. Your entire premise is based on a guess that Tate doesn't do something you do. Besides that, strength is not the deciding factor of a fight. Merriam-Webster says to fight is "to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat" The topic we are debating is whether or not you can beat Tate up. I believe that if this was a refereed wrestling match, you could undoubtedly beat Tate due to your experience. But in a fight, he is quicker, and sharper, while you'd rely on brute force.
i could beat up tate

This is true, Tate would try to think about it before fighting. But a truly good wrestler learns to assess his opponent well in the heat of battle. I have one matches doing this and lost to people who did when I didn't. It comes as small things, rising an inch or two when they go for a shot, taking a stutter step or a step backwards before they attack. I have this, Tate would predict what I will do rather than trying to learn what my flaws are while he can see them. You shouldn't count your chickens till after they hatch. Secondly, I could go a lot longer than Tate. I run two to five miles every other day. And as a result, my body is in great shape. My endurance is near perfection. I have doubts as to how in shape Tate is. Lastly, Although we are close in stature, I would argue that I am stronger, I lift daily. Let me know when Tate can dead lift 305.
i could beat up tate

On the contrary, Tate has had both victories and failures, just not in the same aspect as you do. Really, Tate's stubbornness leads to his inevitable tendency to do whatever he needs to - he's more willing to fight dirty. He has to win, and you would very much like to but are not banking on your victory. To quote a great author, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." -Mark Twain Not only that, but Tate has a far more analytical personality than you do. While you were trained, as a wrestler, to get in and fight, he was trained to think things through quickly and incapacitate his opponent more quickly.