BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone
Naruto Vs. Debate

I will begin by thanking my opponent for this debate. ---- I would like to point out that Bubun Baika and Baika are two different jutsu; as a result, I have not contradicted myself and my opponent is in error. ---- I thank PRO for accepting my condition and would like to note that I did not intend to accuse him of intending to do so; I have simply seen many, many debates on this site won through cheap semantics and intended to keep the debate from being reduced to semantics. I apologize for offending my opponent. I would also like to note that neither team has foreknowledge of the terrain; thus, my previous knowledge of the terrain is irrelevant. ---- I will now defend my rebuttal. I would like to note that my opponent has failed to prove that Hidan, Kakuzu, or Kisame are capable of using this techinque, as well as that Itachi is incapable of using it; thus, this point is irrelevant. The fire heart is actually made up of Kakuzu's threads, not actual fire. It is merely capable of using a fire ninjutsu. Furthermore, Kakuzu is not quick enough to separate one of the hearts from his body in the mere moments it would take for Itachi to fire a Gouenkyuu at PRO's team. Thus, my opponent's attempted defense is invalid. My opponent has failed to show how his team will counter Deidara and Sasori. Furthermore, his attack strategy is irrelevant, as his team will be stunned by Gouenkyuu and thus will not be able to enact it before being attacked by my team. ---- I will now summarize the battle for viewers. Itachi leaps up, propelled above the sword by Shinra Tensei from Deva Path. Itachi uses Gouenkyuu. PRO's team, unable to counter Gouenkyuu in time, is stunned and injured. While PRO's team is stunned, Kabuto finishes Edo Tensei summoning Sasori and Deidara. Together, Itachi, Sasori, Deidara, Kabuto, and the paths of Pain swarm my opponent's stunned, injured team, which lacks the power and capabilities to fight off such a team, especially given that one of their members will be instantly eliminated by Destiny Threat [14]. ---- I will end by weighing the debate for viewers. ARGUMENTS: CON has defended his arguments from refutation and successfully refuted PRO's arguments. Thus, I urge a CON vote for Convincing Arguments. CONDUCT: As both participants have excercised good conduct, I recommend a "tie" vote for Conduct. SPELLING/GRAMMAR: While CON's grammar has largely been correct throughout the debate, PRO has made a number of grammatical errors, such as "my opponent, neglected" (misuse of comma) and "opponents" (no apostrophe) in R2, among other mistakes. Thus, I urge a CON vote for Spelling/Grammar. SOURCES: PRO and CON have cited an equal number of sources throughout the debate; thus, I urge a "tie" vote for Sources. ---- I will end by thanking my opponent for the debate and the viewers for their time. ----
Naruto Vs. Debate

I will begin by thanking my opponent for this debate. ----- What I meant by this is that my opponent's video has no bearing on this debate. Kakuzu is capable of catching one of Choji's enlarged punches, a "Bubun Baika no Jutsu" punch [16]. However, Nikudan Sensha is an attack derived from Baika no Jutsu rather than Bubun Baika. As a result, my opponent's video has no bearing on this debate, as it depicts Choji using a technique unrelated to Bubun Baika. ----- I accept this condition; however, my opponent failed to define whether my team has knowledge of the battle. I define them as having as much knowledge of the battle as my opponent's team. I ask that my opponent refrain from using semantics to attain a cheap victory by placing my team at a disadvantage; I will do the same. ----- I will now respond to my opponent's counter. First of all, my opponent does not specify what jutsu this is and does not provide evidence showing that Kisame, Kakuzu, and Hidan are capable of using it. However, I have clear reasoning and evidence showing that Itachi is far faster than Hidan, Kakuzu, and Kisame. My opponent's lack of arguments prevents him from successfully countering my claim. As to the Fire Heart, the fire heart has never been shown to be capable of absorbing fire attacks. Thus, Gouenkyuu will still strike. As to the time paradox, the summoned "corpses" are made with sacrifice bodies, coated with ash and dust in the shape of the deceased's body, and made to resemble the deceased [13]. The bodies are not actually the bodies of the present fighters. Furthermore, even excepting Nagato, Itachi, and Kakuzu, my opponent has failed to show how he will counter my team of Pain, Itachi, Kabuto, Deidara, and Sasori. ----- I will now counter my opponent's argument. As the fire heart is incapable of absorbing fire ninjutsu, Gouenkyuu will still strike. Stunned, Kakuzu will not have time to release the hearts from his body [16]. Thus, Itachi will not be captured. Furthermore, there is a massive metal sword in the ground between Pain and Kisame, preventing this strategy from working. As my opponent's team is stunned, Kabuto will be able to Edo Tensei summon Deidara, Nagato, Sasori, Itachi, and Kakuzu. My team will still mobilize, and my opponent's team has no means of countering two Itachis, all six Pain bodies, Sasori, Deidara, Nagato, Kakuzu, and Kabuto. Kisame and Kakuzu can be instantly incapacitated with Destiny Threat from each Itachi, and there is no way for Hidan to fight off all of the remaining assailants. In summary, my opponent's team has no time to enact any strategy due to Gouenkyuu, and my team's far greater numbers combined with Destiny Threat prevent the opposing team from mounting any sort of offensive or defensive. There is no way for my opponent's team to be victorious. ----- I will end by thanking my opponent for this debate and the viewers for their time. Please vote CON. ----- SOURCES: [16] http://naruto.wikia.com...
Naruto Vs. Debate

I do not necessarily disagree with this claim, but I would very much appreciate it if my opponent could clarify what he means by "Nikudan Sensha is not Choji's fist expansion technique," as I do not see exactly what he means by this. I do not contest the fact that these teams were selected beforehand. I thank my opponent for providing a place to do battle in. I would also like to note that since my opponent, neglected to describe the the state of mind of any of the combatants. I shall do so now. My team is entering the arena fully aware of the oncoming battle. My opponents team is waiting to spring a trap. My team is aware. My opponents team is anxious. That puts me at a psychological advantage. While it is true that I never presented an argument, it is because I used my R1 statement to describe my challengers. My counter arguments: Although I do admit that Itachi has great speed, my opponent provides no evidence to support the idea that Itachi is faster than any other ninja with the jutsu that allows the ninja to go faster than an average human. Kakuzu's Fire Heart could absorb any sort of fire attack, as his entire essence is fire. [1] Thus rendering the sense of shock on my team invalid. If Kabuto were to use Edo Tensei to summon Kakuzu, Itachi, Nagato, Deidara, and Sasori, he would be making duplicates of living and present people, for the purposes of this debate. If this technique were to be successful, it would create a time paradox in which all thoughts and actions are invalid. [2] Since the rest of my opponents arguments are centered around these two ideas, and I have disproved them, I will now provide my own arguments. My Argument: Once the fire is absorbed by the fire heart Itachi will be in the air, motionless, for a nanosecond. Just enough time for the wind heart to propel Itachi upward. The water heart will create a small water prison around Itachi making him uncomfortable and immobile. The high wind velocity will quickly freeze this water prison and make Itachi completely immobile. Simultaneously, Kisame will throw Samehada at Nagato. Samehada will easily fly though the air, and the steel of the large sword in the center of this chamber, embedding itself deep in Nagato's chest. This will not kill Nagato, as it purposely misses his vital organs, merely puncturing a lung, however, it will stun him, incapacitate him, and create a massive drop in his chakra. This will render the other bodies momentarily useless. This will give Hidan more than enough time to savagely kill each body. Meanwhile, Kakuzu's lightning heart uses the immediate seconds of Itachi jumping to shoot a bolt of lightning at Kabuto, killing him instantly. I would once again like to thank my opponent and the eventual voters. 1=. http://naruto.wikia.com... 2=. http://www.springerlink.com...
Should help people in need

That was a very impressive argument just there. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's just 5:30 AM in Irish time. I would however, like to register a small complaint, a very small one indeed. You've used sources in the place of your own argument, without actually explaining the source material and instead copy-pasting it out and working off it. From the proper sourcing format, my opponent has been working with essay efficiency, but they've missed a much more important aspect of essays which any student can tell you; answer the question. You see, the motion is "Should help people in need". While your response was impressive, it focuses on "Desire", which is not necessity. A need is something that a person will suffer detriment from a lack of. A desire is not. True, there is little ground on which to provide moral imperative for one to aid another who merely desires something rather than suffering by lack of it. But that is not this debate, and if it was, maybe you could have clarified that. Each of your sections addresses desire, and I have no shame in admitting they're damned difficult to comprehend. I will need you to explain several terms for me here too. What are the AC, the AFF and the Kritik? Look, I'm sorry if you were expecting a full sourced answer, but I can at least explain in more detail why the need and the desire are different, and even accepting your argument, we can still be morally inclined to aid those in need. A need is something considered essential to the person, to the extent that its absence leads to a reduction in their quality of life. A desire is something that a person would be preferable to having but will still not suffer through lack of; it is a luxury rather than a necessity. A person will need and desire food. They will desire food that is pleasing to their taste, but it is the nutritional value they will suffer without. A person needs nutrition, but only desires sweet foods. If one is in a position to aid someone in need (keeping in mind that of they were not in that position, to provide aid would place them in need as well), then to deliberately deny that person the aid would mean their inaction leaves them at least indirectly responsible for that person's diminished quality of life. True, morals are a very subjective issue, and morals are defined by general consensus. But herein lies the consensus; an action which increases the overall quality of life of the population can be considered a morally good action. If one was to withhold aid (inaction is very much an action) from someone, assuming providing such aid did not diminish the shared quality of life between aider and aidee, would be considered an immoral action. Morals are standards of behavior, to be the founding of right and wrong, and so incline one to follow them. Conclusion: Your detailed argument completely missed the point of the debate, which means I don't really have much to do but explain my argument in more detail, which I did. If someone is in need, which you can afford to aid without becoming in need yourself, then you would be indirectly harming that person by denying them aid, which would be immoral.
9/11 was a false flag operation

On September 11th 2001 the United States was attacked. Since this infamous attack there have been a myriad of conspiracy theories surrounding the events on that day. The most common theory is that the United States government was behind said attack. I find this position to be insensitive, dangerous, and wrong. Given the evidence presented I believe that the official story is correct and that the Government of the United States was not behind this attack. This is the position I will argue. Rules 1. All sources must be cited 2. No insults, name calling, or disrespect 3. Arguments are to be stated in first two rounds.
I am possessed by the Devil.

My opponent appears to be taking the "absences of evidence is not evidence of absences" to the extreme. I will not commit the fallacy of believing that the absences of an argument as a sign of no argument at all. However, it is vital to note that such a tactic can only cast doubt, and my opponent has the BOP. It is I who is trying to cast doubt. I will allow my opponent a chance to slightly adjust his argument. I personally recommend adding more, rather than taking any out.
I am possessed by the Devil.

Typically team debates are not done on DDO, so you naturally have an unfair advantage with having the devil being on your side. But, I shall allow it. Since my opponent made no mention of the BOP for this debate, it naturally falls on the individual (or team) to provide the proof to back his claim. In order for my opponent to affirm the resolution, he must be able to prove that 1) the Devil exists. 2) my opponent exists. and 3) the Devil has performed the action of "possessing" upon him. If he cannot prove all three, the resolution is negated. I will allow him to make the opening arguments.
I am possessed by the Devil.

Terms an definitions I ask my opponent to agree upon. I- the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself. Am-1st person singular present indicative of be. Possessed- spurred or moved by a strong feeling, madness, or a supernatural power By- to and beyond the vicinity of; past The- (used to mark a noun as being used generically) Devil a.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the supreme spirit of evil; Satan. b. a subordinate evil spirit at enmity with God, and having power to afflict humans both with bodily disease and with spiritual corruption. I am possessed by the devil as of last Sunday, the day before Monday. At a time of approximately 6 AM in the morning EST. I was sleeping in my dark, yet quaint one bedroom apartment when suddenly an extremely strong force entered into me. This force, later to be referred to as the Devil, made me feel as if my very bones were burning with the anguish of all of my lost regrets and doubts. Since this force has entered into me, i have experienced blackouts every 12 hours and often awaken in strange positions around the city. As of two days ago I have began seeing a Psychiatrist and a Priest. When I met with the Priest I had an overwhelming presence inside of me urging me to not heed this man's advice. This man, the Priest, told me to seek salvation in our lord and savior. It also has come to my attention that I have acquired a new mark during one of the blackouts. We burned...I mean I...seemed to have burned 666 onto my forehead. We feel great anxiety when we come close to christian relics. We know this because his mom left a crucifix under his pillow and we could sense its presence even before entering the room. This proves that I exist and am able to posses those who have weak souls.
Football (international) is better than football (American).

I don't "hate" soccer, and I certainly don't hate soccer fans. My comments are "disparaging" only to the extent that they're true. Soccer was devised by impoverished people -- I'm not attacking them, I'm attacking their conditions (arrived at through no fault of their own). And I'm CELEBRATING the socio-economic conditions that allowed Americans to have the time to develop the more complex, American football. You cite one game -- the Super Bowl -- and act as if it is THE way football is played. Yes, there is far too much time between plays (TV time outs) in the Super Bowl, but it is an anomaly. And while the game may draw extremely casual fans (i.e. women) who care more about the half-time show and commercials, that is not the real draw. If it were, then it would be easy to simply stage the half-time show and commercials without the game. You are "troubled" by my opinion of the "less fortunate"? What exactly is my opinion? That they are the victims of interventionist government policies? The poor in America are victims of the welfare state and fiat-money central banking. The poor of Africa and the rest of the world are victims of the IMF/World Bank and American military hegemony. I place exactly zero blame on the poor of the rest of the world, and very little on the poor here in America. What about my opinion do you find so offensive? I have made no stereotypes and the only thing I find offensive is your celebration of a game conceived in poverty over a game conceived in comparative economic freedom. Yes, NFL teams are filled with players from poor economic backgrounds who have worked hard to achieve -- this has nothing to do with my argument. The poor in America are much wealthier than the poor in, say, Africa. I do hope one day that Africans are rich enough to have indoor plumbing, healthy and well-rounded diets, the Internet and cell phones, and American football.
Football (international) is better than football (American).

Reading your response it's obvious to see that you hate soccer. This hatred precludes you from discussing this topic objectively, a fact that is clearly exhibited in your disparraging comments. On the other hand, I happen to enjoy both sports (go Giants). I just happen to favor one over the other, so maybe my point of view is skewed as well. It's true that popularity doesn't equal quality. But we're talking about two types of popularity. Popular music may enjoy success in the short term, but only quality music stands the test of time. It's unfair to compare the popularity of soccer to that of pop music. We've seen how quickly the latter can crash and burn. But soccer has been around in its current form since the mid-19th century and is only growing in popularity, and this surge is hardly confined to the less fortunate. I'm not an economist, and I don't feel like sorting through journal articles to verify your claim that football generates the most revenue. You made the claim, the burden is on you to back it up. But we can agree that popularity is irrelevant. To say that football is not slow is like saying NASCAR isn't boring. The die hard fan would disagree, but the average person wouldn't. In the superbowl, the biggest game of the year, play on the field takes a back seat to clever television commercials and the ridiculous spectacle called the halftime show. It must bother even you that it takes four hours to play a one hour game. Even Napolean himself couldn't think strategy for that long. The NFL sells out their fans to maximize revenue from the biggest game of the year. Of course I can't begrudge them for making money. I find your stereotypes troubling and bordering on offensive. There's no need to level insults at me, or anyone else that prefers a soccer match over a football game. In your argument you called soccer fans/players poor, stupid, malnourished, socialist, uneducated, and ignorant. Soccer is enjoyed all over Europe. The European Union, incedently, has a greater GDP than the United States, according to the CIA World Factbook. Would you suggest that all Europeans are described by your stereotype? Even more troubling is your opinion of the less fortunate. Let's say that soccer has its roots in the poor and oppressed laboring class. So what? I'm sure I don't have to point out how many NFL teams make their rosters with minorities that escaped abject poverty by playing football. I shouldn't have to mention the thousands more that earned a college education on the gridiron. And am I to understand that you claim that football is enjoyed by intellectuals? I'm not sure where you're watching your football, but you might want to venture forth from your ivory tower and take a trip to the local sports bar. Of course, if half the people who watched football spent all the downtime in the average NFL game discussing social issues, who knows what we'd accomplish. Maybe we could solve world hunger and all of the poor bushmen of Africa would become football fans.
Football (international) is better than football (American).

American football is clearly superior to international "futbol" (aka soccer). But first, let me answer your augments: "Football, at least by its definition throughout most of the world, is the most popular sport in the world." -- So what? Just because something is popular does not mean it's the best. Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, and the New Kids on the Block were some of the most popular musical "artists" of the early nineties -- were they the "best"? Of course not! But I'd rather listen to them than watch a boring game of soccer! "Football of the NFL variety is one of the least popular." -- American football is easily, by far and without rival, the most popular sport in the United States. America is, by far and without rival, the #1 economy in the world. More money is spent on American football than almost any other sport, globally, and that is a good proxy for its popularity. Saying it is "one of the least popular sports" is entirely inaccurate, and irrelevant anyway, as pointed out above. "American football is a slow, complicated, and inaccessible game that is based on brute strength." -- American football is not slow. There is a MENTAL component that is lost on dim-witted soccer fans who are not used to using their brains. Between the bursts of speed that characterize the actual play, an intelligent American's mind races with potential strategies of the opposing teams. As for complexity, why is that a negative? Yes, soccer -- a game for impoverished peasants with vegetarian diets and no formal education -- is much simpler. So is arm wrestling. The simplest possible game is probably foot racing. By your logic, foot racing is thus the best game possible. Should everything be dumbed down as much as possible? I don't think so. And finally, the "brute strength" factor. This shows your ignorance of the game. "Brute strength" is less and less a part of the game every year. An emphasis on speed, quickness, agility, and coordination is more important than mere strength. And what of the kicker? Most are former soccer players who have virtually no strength, like most malnourished victims of European socialist states. And yet they play a vital part of the game. "Children in the dirt streets of Africa don't play American football with a balled-up rag" -- You are right. But if Africa was ever lifted out of poverty, then there WOULD be a desire to play a real sport. Soccer emerged from poverty. It is a simple game to be played by people who are uneducated and unable to afford basic sports equipment. The original soccer players chose a game that emphasized feet in a manner to liberate them from the labors they had to endure with their hands all day. Soccer grows out of the poverty of feudalism. Celebrating soccer is the moral equivalent of celebrating starving Africans and oppressed people all over the world. American football is a game devised by liberated, thinking people, who, through the wonders of capitalist division of labor, had the time to invent and perfect a complex, thinking-man's game. Soccer sucks!