BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pokemon one round Debate

BOP is shared You have 48 hours to write your argument after you accept Rules: - Any rebuttals given by my opponent will result in an automatic Forfeit. - You must argue why your chosen Pok"mon is your favorite, not why it could beat mine or other Pok"mon. - In your first few sentences you must say In all uppercase letters who your favorite Pok"mon is. - You need to have at least 1 photo or link to a photo. - Sources are required . - Failure to follow or breaking any of rules will result in a forfeit. Judging: - Judge by who made a better case. - DO NOT JUDGE BY WHICH ONE IS STRONGER!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: My favorite Pok"mon is PIPLUP. Piplup is a water type Pok"mon, basic, and Generation four. http://www.debate.org............ 1. Piplup is one of the strongest swimmers 2. Piplup has tons of Self-Pride 3. Piplup is Cute 4. He is adapted to where he lives 1. Piplup is a penguin. Therefore Piplup is a strong swimmer. He is able to dive for 10 minutes at a time to hunt for food. When he evolves into empoleon his fins become so sharp that he can cut through 10 feet of ice with his flippers. Empoleon is one of the fastest swimmers but he is not the fastest. (golduck is) 2. Piplup is very proud of him/herself. He can't walk very well but when he falls, his self pride isn't hurt. In fact he will even puff out his chest. He refuses food from humans because of his pride. His pride has it's flaws, but it's really handy in a battle. It means he will never give up. 3. Piplup look is very cute and unique. Just look at the pictures (I would add links but the take up like 2,000 characters) (Just look up "piplup" in google and look at the images) 4. Survival of the fittest. Piplup is adapted to survive in arctic waters. He lives in very cold areas where there's less of a struggle for food. Conclusion: Piplup is my favorite Pok"mon Sources: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com............ Pok"mon Trading card game http://webcache.googleusercontent.com............(Pok%25C3%25A9mon)+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
God doesn't exist.

There are many things that have not been uncovered about the creation of heaven of hell and earth the bible just gives the basics.God doesn't have magical powers he is.....well..God,he is the creator of all things he is always watching as well.First off in the old testament God was an unforgiving God.You would die if you ever sinned more than once.Until he sent down his son Jesus and because of him God is forgivable and loving and kind.If Jesus never came,trust me you and even me wouldn't be here.About Lucifer,he is basically trying to get people to distrust God,to make people not to believe,to make people to disobey God.And which miracle are you talking about? Lets finish this debate in the comments.
God doesn't exist.

I think that the big bang theory is more realistic. I mean, A man who creates angels. One angel Lucifer who turned bad basically then God created a place for him to stay. In my opinion it is like saying that I, a normal, mortal being, will create a place in the sky for all my enemies to live. You didn't say anything about the so called miracles. You are basically saying that God has 'magic powers' so to speak. That doesn't sound very realistic Also are you implying that all atheists will go are filled with Lucifer's bad thoughts?
God doesn't exist.

I'm sorry about the typing auto correct won't work on this phone.First off I don't know how God was created,that still puzzles me.Anyway he created heaven as his city.I don't know to much about heaven's creation but,God had angels.There was one angel in particular named Lucifer who thought he was better that god.God found out and Lucifer fled and wanted to crush God and all of the other angels.So he is the devil and God made hell for Lucifer where he and all the other bad souls go to. Lucifer tries to get into people's heads and fill it with bad thoughts such as people who don't believe in god.The more people defy God the more people go to hell.About the whole creating life thing.How do you think life came?.We evolved form monkey's,that's just dumb. God made us after making the heaven,hell,earth,and all it's animals.
God doesn't exist.

People who don't believe in him always say why doesn't he help people.The simple answer is "Free Will". God gives you a choice to be good or bad, it's your decision on which side you choose, in the end it will be decided if you go to heaven or hell. Second about the desieses. People who get these desieses will go to a better place.Like my aunt she was a strong god believer and i know she is in a better place. Besides the reason god has desieses on earth is because of the things Adam and Eve did and how they ate the fruit when god told them not to. So the punishment was that humans would not be immortal and other things that are irreverent to our argument right now.
God doesn't exist.

First off, there was a story in the bible,, a flood of some sort, im not sure if there was an exact name for it - Anyway, there was no geological proof that it actually happened. There are bad things in the world, such as war and illness eg cancer etc - why doesn't God stop them, if he loves us with all his heart then why would he be letting someone suffer relentlessly, when you have the power to stop the pain easily. This does not seem like love to me. about the virgin Mary - A woman cannot have a baby and still be a virgin, simple as that.
It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

My opponent doesn't want to admit Liberal Christians are responsible but he didn't refute it. There are no atheist leaders effecting policy like Christians are. But to say there's no such thing as Christian Sharia is a fantasy lived by Pro. Remember those laws about banning abortion, education of evolution (scopes monkey trial), and gay marrige? Who supported those laws? Christians! Abortion and Gay marriaege bans were found UnConstitutional of course.Again Pro blames the Crimes of Muslims on Atheists who are also against Islam as demonstrated by Pro and I. He has nothing more to say. That Hitler quote doesn't even mention Atheism. Pro accuses Atheism of lumping Islam together but it appears Pro isdoing the lumping of non-chritians vs christians. Its pathetic fear mongering.Saying Japanese Interment worked makes no sense, how does he defne "workd"? It stripped American citizens of the proterty, freedom and dignighty, there was no evidence they were spies. That's why the Government officially apologised to amend wrongs, justification post injustice is not justification!I extend all of my arguments.
It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

Pro admits his violent intent. Arresting people and putting them in cages, especially when no law has been broken, is an act of violence. Pro admits his plan is unconstitutional, but "Not once we take over". Justification post intellectual genocide is not a reasonable justification.My opponent claims because Atheists let Muslims in, and a minority of Muslims commit violent crime, Atheists ought to be eliminated. Muslims are not Atheists FYI. Again I point out atheists only make up 3% of the US population, and politically speaking compared to Christians, Atheists hold no power. It wasn't Atheists in Congress writing the legislation that would allow Muslim immigration, it was Christians who hold the majority of political power in the US. The decline of Christianity is not the fault of Atheists and completely ignores the growth of other religions. Any criticism Pro has for Islam proves his hypocrisy. He's against ISIS yet is arguing to be just like them. My opponent is an unabashed hypocrite and is very ignorant of European culture in response to the mass immigration of Muslims. Many laws have been passed in European nations to preserve their culture and maintain secular authority. Yes there have been attacks, but a mismanagement of immigration is not the fault of Atheists. In fact, it was Christians who have argued that Muslims ought to be let in [2].As for suicide and Atheism, my opponent's claim is purely speculative, correlation doesn't equal causation. And on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, God isn't on the list. Pro doesn't care about the Atheists and homosexuals slaughtered by Muslims. The point of this debate is that he wants HIS religion to be the doing the slaughtering. He misrepresents Dawkins, he in no way advocates for religion, merely he acknowledges that some religions are worse than others, that the secular but ignorant are preferable to the militant but ignorant. But Pro doesn't care that Atheists like Dawkins would agree with limiting Muslim immigration, he wants to blame atheists for Muslim immigration! While at the same time wanting Dawkins to be thrown in jail and worse. Dawkins says he doesn't know of violent Christian terrorists, well they exist [3]. A few examples beings in 1996 Eric Rudolf bombed the Centennial Olympic Park killing 1 and injuring 111 and in 1998 he bombed an abortion clinic. In 2012 6 people were murder by a Christian at a Sikh Temple. Any argument Pro has to ban Muslims based on terrorism is an argument to ban Christianity as well.Pro says Atheists must be purged from society, yet his entire argument is based on Muslims. Pro has not provided a cohesive argument as to why Atheists are the problem he says they are.Sources:[2] http://www.politico.com...[3] http://www.salon.com...
It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

Definition: Militant - combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.Pro thinks that Christians ought to become militant, as in take violent action against atheists. This is illegal and if taken to the political realm unconstitutional. Killing people based on their beliefs is immoral, and if my opponent believes his religion is a religion of peace, it is anti-thetical to his religion. Pro seeks to copy the tactics of ISIS by violently wiping out criticism.Pro claims Atheism is destroying the West, given that most secular western countries are the most powerful cultural bloc in the world I find that hard to believe. Western civilization has been on the upswing since the Enlightenment. If my opponent thinks reason and science were politely allowed to exist he is calling for a rejection of such things and wishes to go back to the dark ages where the church had political authority. He wants his religion to dominate regardless of merit. It should be noted that atheists only make up 3.1% of the US population [1] so if my opponent is going to argue that we are the cause of Western decline he's going to have to account for how such a small minority could bring down the most powerful nations on earth which are majority populated by Christians. He says atheists are militant against Christians, influential atheists are not calling for violence against theists. When it comes to matters of the law, again we live in a secular society. The separation of church and state is held up by 2 centuries of legal precedent. Atheists merely seek to hold Christian politicians - who would ignore the Constitution in favor of Christian supremacy - accountable for their actions. I guarantee my opponent will mistake a lack of Christian favoritism as oppression.In conclusion, what Pro calls for is immoral, illegal, and hypocritical. With Bronto as an example of Christianity, why would we want more of his ignorant beliefs to control society?Sources:[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...
It's time for Chridtianity to become militant against Atheism

"Most Republicans are Christians. Most Atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are Democrats. This is common knowledge." And yet roughly 3 out of 4 Democrats believe in God [9]. Again I repeat, Atheists only make up 3% of the US population, it is Liberal Christians who pass the legislation that allows for mismanaged Muslim immigration and crime. Atheists have nothing to do with it, we don't support Islam either - even Pro has cited Dawkins proving this. What Con has tried to do is create a straw man. "If I can just prove that one Christian ever in history blew himself up then I can justify all 452 Islamic suicide bombings in 2015." This isn't a quote from me and is misleading, I already addressed this point. Muslim killing Muslims in the Middle East and Muslims killing Christians in Africa has nothing to do with Atheism or the decline of Western Society as Pro fear mongering claims. It seems to have zipped over Con's head that none of those things [laws about banning abortion, education of evolution (scopes monkey trial), and gay marriage] are a physical threat to anyone. It seems to have zipped over Pro's head that he is arguing for Christians to become violent against non-Christians ie a physical threat. Pro's ignorance is baffling, the scopes monkey trial was about putting a teacher in jail against his will and for no good reason other than Christian supremacy; that's violence! Pro is trying to argue that because Christians aren't as bad as ISIS their militancy against non-Christians should be forgiven - BUT THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS DEBATE IS FOR CHRISTIANS TO BECOME MILITANT LIKE ISIS KILLING ATHEISTS AND ANYONE DEEMED UNDESERIABLE BY HIS "CHRISTIAN" STANDARDS. By Pro’s brain dead logic ISIS is only so extreme becuase of how extreme Christians are. Bush jr. is Christian and his wars have killed millions of Muslims. But I digress, those laws are example of terrible reason Christians can point to treat others as lesser. Thank goodness the Secular Nature of the Constitution, for both the First Amendment to call BS on wack job Christians like Pro and the Second Amendment for when Christians try to establish a Fascist Theocracy. "Sure it does. It saved our country and won the war. Apologies by a Nazi like Obama do not constitute anything. American forefathers didn't apologize because war calls for extreme measures, and we won the war by extreme measures." Pro tried to say I was using objective morality, yet here he is believing in an all loving Christian God saying genocide is acceptable. Did our Founders have to wipe out the Indians and enslave Africans? Extreme measures are what Pro would say. I thought Christians were supposed to condemn such atrocities, only if they are committed by a Muslim is Pro's position. Calling Obama a Nazi shows your position has nothing to do with degrees of militancy, Pro is the most extreme form just like ISIS and Hitler. He feigns civility just like the Muslims he wants gassed alongside atheists. Pro is a hypocrite. Not all Christians are bad people, but Bronto sure is. Vote Con! Sources: [9] http://www.pewforum.org...
Students should have school off for Veterans day.

Yes, cookouts can be fun. Usually, if you're at one with beloved family members(exception of aunt martha) you will enjoy yourself. In my experience, cookouts usually start at around 3:30 in the afternoon, still warm out but starting to cool down. In the United states, most high school convene at 2 pm, and most elementary and middle schools convene at 3pm. Just in time for the family cookout, no? No school should be adding this day to the long list of holidays just because people want to be home to prepare the hamburgers earlier than usual. There are parades on D-Day to remember veterans who fought and died for our country, so another on Veterans day would be a nice, although useless sentiment.
Students should have school off for Veterans day.

People should have work/school off because it is a day where we can celebrate, by doing parades, having cookouts, and many other things. Your argument is that we should celebrate them every day, although I agree, I do not believe that we should have parades, cookouts, and other celebratory activities. My father is 5th group 1st battalion in the united stated special forces, so I know about respect.
GHost

I am not a dam GHost. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Jenkins only knows two dam words in the King's English, pancake and antidisenstablishmentarianism. He told me he only knows two words. If I was a GHost, Jenkins wouldn't know. I would be to good at ghosting to be seen. If I is a ghost, why do I eat your food? I eat the food from your cabinet all the time, when it is common knowledge that ghosts don't eat. Lastly, it is hot and ghosts make it cold. If ghosts were real, we would be frozen.
GHost

Listen, dem fried is what is is. If its made in a pan, it's fried. Anyways, you is a ghost. Jenkins told me. He said there would be ghouls coming to take him away, but I didn't believe him. Then what happens? You come and take him away! What does that make you? A ghost! But now, Jenkins goin' die because bisquick makes him bubble in way incomprehensible by the human mind. He will die slowly and in the most painful way cause ghosts like you be snatching up my mammals.
GHost

Pancakes aren't fried. Your argument is wrong. For those of you who are confused, the link is in the comments. I have put a pancake on Jenkins' head because he wanted it. His head was cold and I lacked rabbit hats, so I made him pancakes. I am not a ghost because ghosts are not real and I am, as far as we know. TheGamer1998 thinks ghosts are real because he sucks. He also thinks it can get to hot for a breeze. I carried off Jenkins. It was easy because I am a squatter in PatJC123's home. Now I am in a different home using someone else's pancake mix to properly cloth a rabbit that I stole.
GHost

You are the biggest farmer I've ever heard of! You disgraceful sod, you put a pancake on Jenkin's head. Also, maybe YOU are the ghost. Now, I seen with my balls (in my head of course) ghosts carrying off Jenkins. It's not up for speculation, it is fact. Therefore, you are a ghosts, and ghost is real. Also, a ghost wouldn't want people to think ghosts is real, which only further explains how Mr. Harrison here is a ghost. And finally, take that pancake off Jenkin's head, he's allergic to fried goods!
GHost

Jenkins is not real I will now prove this using science. I will also prove ghosts not real using sorcery. What is real? Are we real? Who is real? We are not real, therefore, Jenkins isn't real. If we aren't real, than ghosts aren't real because we created dem' ghosts.Try walking around your house like a chicken for a day. If GHosts was real, they would be laughing in your face, and posting pictures on the Internet. But they don't, I know because I do this while in women's clothing all of the time. Anyhoooo, read anything TheGamer1998 posts on this website. This is further proofs that ghosts suck. I took Jenkins, and we are snuggling now, here is a link to his picture.
GHost

Ok, I got a one argument for this little dump truck. How do you explain the disappearance of Jenkins? All I did was put him on the floor, opened the front door, and walked away to do crystal meth. Then, I came back and Jenkins was gone. Then I look out the window, and I see some ghostly figures carrying Jenkins off into the darkness. I shot my gun outside to try to scare the ghosts, but then the cops came and took me to the "Monmouth Country correctional facility" until I "calmed down" and "stop shooting at things, Mr. Cucurullo". I need mah rabbit!
Is this site not a debating site? Maya and me will share our knowledge on world and universal views.

For I have shown you what I know. Maya9 lets have a debate. Lets see your deepest secrets of the world and universe for you know mine. Come out Maya9, come out underneither that rock! I see you but others do not. Come out under niether that rock for that you are scared of the light. Come and show them the darkness for all can see. You see you all will be blinded because you can not see in the dark. But only in the light. Maya9 can only show evil darkness. For that show us your secrets and that God will be the light so we can see them like there is no darkness. Come out and let you Maya9 show competely all of your side? Everything like I have done. Who agrees? For a debate is to swap ideas so lets debate. A 5 rounder, 8000 word debate with 72 hours on the time. And if that you choose not do debate why have you joined this site. You might as well leave your self. And never come back. Who agrees with me here? Is this site not for debating? If you disgree you might as well all leave and never come back. Who ever wants to stay in the membership of this site will stay and want to hear everything what Maya will say about her religion. However, for those who go and leave this site by resigning and does not join anyother debating site, does not want me and Maya to debate, and let her show everthing on conspirocies and UFO's, ghosts and aleins. Everything!!!! Like will do. I want a debate. So let the debate begin.
Is this site not a debating site? Maya and me will share our knowledge on world and universal views.

This really sucks, you have no knowledge anyway on this subject, you I not going to express my views out like a rich man with too much money. Who ever would like to know about it then just ask. I wanted Maya9 to debate, and if she did, we would be in a much better state. However she closed her account. Never mind. Im done here. Great debate.
people have free will

The concept of "free will" comes from the natural desire to be in control of "ones destiny" However this is but an illusion manifested out of necessity to adhere to an agenda through "choices, intentions and efforts"- summary of Sam Harris I hope to prove that free will is in fact an illusion. I will also illuminate the unnecessary bond we have with said illusion! I believe the concept of free will comes from preference. I will tell you why the idea of not having free will is not worth shying away from! So if we determined philosophically or scientifically that we do not have free will, nothing would be lost. We would just be looking past another illusion that our minds create out of self inflation while being subjected to the harsh reality of chaos! You cannot describe the universe in such a manner that would be coherent to the notion of free will!- Sam Harris The reality of having conscious control over your actions are only true to the point of motor function and your choice to react to an uncontrollable event is limited within the boundaries that are defined by the environment and genetic structure! Everything you think you are consciously aware of is actually a result of causes in which you have no conscious control over! So if I were to ask you to remember someone in your life you would not have control over who came to mind you would only be witness to the event of causes that your brain had manifested into your conscious mind! It has been tested through neuroscience that even the choice to raise either your left or right arm cannot determine "why" you made your choice. In fact through displayed imagery scientists could determine which hand you were going to raise before you did. It still came through a chain of causes that inevitably made you raise either of your hands! When you think you have made a choice that you helped change the outcome of an event.. that is an illusion. You were just part of a single event that was continued by your bodies natural process to react. Everything boils down to prior causes that led up to the event to choose. This does not mean that you have free will only limited choices based on the events that proceeded!