BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"The Mysterious Mare Do Well" is MLP's Worst Episode Yet

There are many reasons why MMDW is MLP's worst episode. Let's start off with the fans' most heavy complaint. The character development. You see, the episode is about Rainbow Dash, an amazing pony, who goes off selflessly to save lives merely for fame [I'm pretty sure there isn't even money involved in here]. She did get a little arrogant, I admit, but then her friends go off pretending to be a "mare-do-well" who saves the day way before Rainbow Dash can even arrive at the scenes. But, this doesn't really do any good to Rainbow Dash's character. It's basically saying that she saves tons of lives, yet she can't wash in her glory and fame? The scenery did show her getting a little distracted, but ultimately she did save the pony in trouble. That was close! [from http://mlp.wikia.com...] The only times when she started failing was because of her friend's distractions with the new Mare Do Well. [And just how odd is that!] They didn't really give her much of a chance at all, each individual having stronger attributes than Dashie, so it was really no competition at all. And what were they supposed to teach? Being humble? Seriously? They showed off their skills to appear stronger to the crowd and to Dashie, isn't that a bit hypocritical? And they all resolved it "with friendship". Oh great. I think I'm going to face-palm whoever created this episode. It just simply doesn't work out; a life-saving hero can't be arrogant and showy? Bleh.Well, that's actually pretty much it. It was because the lesson didn't really quite work out that made the episode fail and be the worst MLP episode ever made. Other episodes are bad in other ways, but most of them don't fail at justifying their lessons. However, in my opinion, MMDW really didn't manage its lesson. No comedy, no romance, some mystery (not a lot), and some suspence and action, but really no heart at core to move us or entertain us like other, much more well-done episodes.
"The Mysterious Mare Do Well" is MLP's Worst Episode Yet

Round one is acceptance.The mysterious mare-do-well: http://mlp.wikia.com...MLP: My Little Pony:Friendship is Magic. "Yet": All the episodes up to "Make New Friends But Keep Discord" [including that episode].This debate does not include shorts or movies from MLP. We will argue over what makes an episode horrible and if there is a worse episode than The Mysterious Mare-do-Well. My opponent may try to defeat my generalized arguments, or he/she may choose an episode to argue against me within round one.Good luck and have fun.
The friend zone does exist.

First I'd like to clarify what exactly I can conclude the F-zone actually is; a term for unrequited attraction, simply that. Also known as rejection. in such a case, how can it "not exist"? Rejection is a regular occurrence and therefore, most obviously exists and in no way is giving it a new and trendy name (The Friend Zone) perpetuating ANYTHING or causing it to be nonexistent. but getting past this obvious fact, if we delve into the clear implications of a deeper meaning to it "not existing", I infer that you believe that friendship is a natural escalation of most relationships and should not be seen as strange, and romantic feelings either occur or do not occur and neither party is at fault for wanting or not wanting to be with the other person. Yes this is a fair statement, but who said that putting someone in the friendzone meant that it was an action of discrimination or choice to begin with? The act of preferring friendship or a relationship with a specific individual can be both natural OR a choice by the other party and nothing in the word friendzone specifies that discrimination of the potential love interest is involved. The stigma of this word is simply based on reading far too into it's meaning. Even going beyond those two truths, it cannot be denied that friendzoning is still real and DOES happen. it may not always been such an active choice but sometimes it is. In this case of friendzoning where there was an active choice to deny a person's affections, it's not uncommon. it's not 100% of the time a choice but it DOES happen. Therefore whether you define freindzoning as active rejection or passive lack of interest, it's clearly real.
The friend zone does exist.

The friend zone (fzone) most certainly exists, and is undeniably a negative phenomenon. A phenomenon that no one is at fault for letting happen, but both parties CAN be at fault for perpetuating. Those are my main points that I will focus on defending. I would first like to define and distinguish between two different kinds of fzone, then I will allow any potential cons to make their opening arguments. So, quite simply, the fzone is any situation where person A is attracted to person B and would like a relationship more significant than friendship with them, but person B is only interested in a platonic friendship with person A. Now there are two sub-context that fall under the above context. Pre-disclosure fzone is the above situation but person A has not disclosed their feelings or desires to person B. Post-disclosure fzone is the above situation where person A's desires have been disclosed but not reciprocated (whether they were simply rejected or given an elusive response) yet the two parties continue to interact outside of necessity. Finally, while the fzone is certainly gender neutral, the negative aspects are experienced exponentially more by men than women. Also, fzone deniers are pretty much always referring to unrequited male attraction when denying the fzone, i.e. slamming the nice guy trope and accusing men of claiming entitlement to sex. Therefore, I will refer to the fzone with the 'man is attracted to woman who just wants to be friends' context in mind.
Metal Is The Superior Music Genre!

As someone who is involved in almost every type of music aside from "metal" and "rap", I can easily say there is a reason. I'd say that metal is the worst form of music (unless you include rap, which shouldn't be considered music at all but for some reason is). The application of music theory is almost non-existent and it overall is just so unappealing. Not just the sound, but also the musicians themselves as most of them dress like they were possessed by Satan himself and give off a completely negative energy with both their speech and actions. I have never once heard any uplifting metal song that would make me and a majority of the sane population feel better. Of course, none of this can factually prove that "metal" isn't the superior music genre, but also, nothing can confirm that it IS; this is a debate based on opinion alone. Though I'm not usually one to make assumptions, I will take my previous experiences with "metal" music listeners and say that I don't expect any respect to come from my opponent. But if any is given, that would be great!
Elmo from sesame street is mentally unstable

In response to Pro, it is possible that Elmo may be particularly adept at playing the piano, but he is no were near the level of Mozart, Ludwig Van Beethovin, or Leberace, nor is he even remotely skilled in the art of song composition. Any small child could come up with lyrics as basic as that. With that i would like to quote the Lyrics: "La La La La, La La La La, Elmo's World La La la La, La La La La, Elmo's World Elmo luvs his goldfish, His crayons too! That's Elmo's World!! Elmo luvs u!" http://www.youtube.com... With lyrics that basic, it is safe to assume that Elmo is by no means an expert song writer, which is to be expected of someone with his mental capacity. As far as Elmo communicating with the Sun, Moon, stars, and for sake of convenience from here forth all inanimate or otherwise incommunicable objects in general, this is merely an insight to his imagination, on a children's entertainment/education show. Remembering that Elmo, and the creator(s) target demographic is young children, it would be benefical to tap into their creative minds to make the education more enjoyable and exciting for them, to achieve optimal success. As far as Elmo being shown in likeness to a constellation is either mere imaginaton to add "flavour" to the segement and/or limited only to the world which encompasses "Sesame Street". To argue that it is showing Elmo's "Megalomania" is just slanderous, and a last ditch attempt to burden a character's reputable name, and to associate it with a psychological disorder, as anyone of a sound mind can clearly see this is not true. If we accuse Elmo of "Megalomania" for using his imagination, then we might as well admit every single child in the world to psychological evaluation immediately. As for accusing Elmo of being on LSD (Lysercic Acid Diethylamide), these claims are unfounded, there is no indisputable proof that Elmo has been under the influence, and being child like, i doubt Elmo would even know how to administer the substance. Not to mention it would be in terrible taste if the creator(s) of "Sesame Street" would allow anything remotely relating to drugs, as it could unbalance a child's innocence by exposing them to something they are not mature enough to comprehend. In closing, it is clear that Elmo is not mentally unstable, but in fact a normal 3-4 year old child character, who's purpose in the show is to encourage kids to use their imagination, and to make learning more fun. There is no underlying mental instability of Elmo, nor is their any erratic behaviour exhibited by him that would cause one to raise alarms about his stability. This was an enjoyable debate, but I'm sure our observers will decide who the true winner is. But i will say, I would expect the balance to be tipped in favour of reason in terms of the result of the ultimate victor. It's Decision Time, Vote Con. Yes We Can Debate.org, yes we can, let your voices be heard!
Elmo from sesame street is mentally unstable

My opponent wishes to argue that Elmo gives representation to the mentality of 3-4 year old. If this were the case Elmo would not be that adept at the Piano, nor would he be able to write his own song. As a testament to Elmo's mental instability there are various occasions were he communicates with objects and stars. The communicable skills of the sun have yet to be found by research, but con will probably argue otherwise. . http://www.youtube.com... It is very likely that Elmo was exposed to a mind altering drug prior to this encounter with the sun. It also highly unlikely that Elmo (a solid object) can sit on a cloud (warm air absorbing with water vapor) . Elmo will further proclaim in the video provided that he is a constellation, such a statement is not an invigoration of the imagination, but a open door which reveals Elmo's megalomania. The character Elmo continually gravitates to claims that are not based on reason or science. Elmo's delusions continually proceed him, my opponent may argue that Elmo's circumstances are but that of his imagination, this is not congruent to many of the opinions held in his various public statements. Elmo in the following video is talking to a plant . http://www.youtube.com..., by which he thus starts imagining to watering planets in a city. It is very likely that Elmo is under the influence of a mind-altering drug known as lsd (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide). My opponent may state that Elmo is Anthropomorphizing objects and carrying dialogue with them, however this is not congruent with the events that occured. The objects are responding therefor proving this is not a stimulation of the mind but a condition of insanity.
Elmo from sesame street is mentally unstable

Then if we use you're argument we might as well bring into question the sanity of all children around the world. Elmo is protrayed in the series "Sesame Street" as 3-4 years old in it's world of continuity, and being of that age, one cannot reasonably expect someone with the mental compacity of a 3-4 year old to come up with a musical masterpiece To do so would be unfair, not to mention unrealistic. Musical Talent progresses with age, you dont see any 9 year olds for example as a member of an established band, because he/she has not yet acquired the skill set required. The same could be said for Elmo, as a toddler/young child like character. Only in exceptional cases does a young child, or child period have exceptional musical talent, as he/she would be a a childhood prodigy, which is anything bet the norm or standard. As far as referring to one self in the third person, there could be a multitude of reasons as to why someone would do such a thing. Taking into consideration the character's portrayed age into mind, it is likely equivalent to a "childhood phase" that any normal child would eventually "grow out of". At worst this could be considered eccentric behaviour if it persists later on in life, but this is by no means a clear indicator of mental instability. Taking age into account, I would say Elmo is anything but insane for his age. He is a perfectly sane 3-4 year old character.
Elmo from sesame street is mentally unstable

Throughout the dawn of humanity, human being have always trifled with such questions such as that of our own sanity. In order to define that which is insane we must first take a good look at the definition of sanity sanï¿½iï¿½ty (sn-t) n. 1. The quality or condition of being sane; soundness of mind. 2. Soundness of judgment or reason. It may be fair to purport that Elmo is just a child's figure merely demonstrating his own creative merits. When such creative merits, however are repetitive and often in 3rd person one must question the judgment of Elmo. I will grant that Elmo may be trying to channel an avenue by which youngsters can relate to him, but this avenue which he constantly channels undermines his character and moral dignity. The following video gives sound reason to question Elmo's sanity http://www.youtube.com... It is unlikely to believe that these characteristics embody any definition of sanity.
Elmo from sesame street is mentally unstable

I will humbly accept this challenge. You see it is unfair to state that Elmo is unstable mentally, as his purpose is to entertain young children who indeed watch the series "Sesame Street". When he mentions Elmo's World, he is stating a world of pretend, or make believe. Such behaviour is healthy for all children to exhibit, and if anything Elmo is encouraging healthy childhood behaviour, not showing mental instability. To say one such as Elmo exhibits "mentally unstable behaviour" is slanderous and degrading to one such as him who should otherwise be looked upon as an example to not only Childhood Education, but to a promoter of a healthy childhood as well. I await your response, and good look good sir.
Removing homework as an activity in school

Pro did not refute my argument. He merely states that homework is not a good thing. The information presented in that link is irrelevent to my point. In that link it says "after a survey found that 11-year-olds were doing between one and 12 hours a week and those over 11 between 7.5 and 20 hours. "--> This does not justify the action of removing the homework as an activity in school. As I said in round 1 that within limits, there is a positive interaction between the amount of homework which is done and student achievement. I also said that too much homework is bad. However, limited amount of homework is not bad. I also said how "10 minute rule" works. By following that rule, Students don't have to spend a lot of time in doing their homework. "In 1929, a leading education journal asked "Is homework necessary?""-- For the sake of the space and character limit: http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu...
Removing homework as an activity in school

No, homework should not be eliminated. But, there should be a limit of homework. A review by researchers at Duke University of more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 showed that, within limits, there is a positive interaction between the amount of homework which is done and student achievement. The research synthesis also indicated that too much homework could be counterproductive. The research supports the '10-minute rule',the widely accepted practice of assigning 10 minutes of homework per day per grade-level. For example, under this system, 1st graders would receive 10 minutes of homework per night, while 5th graders would get 50 minutes' worth, 9th graders 90 minutes of homework, etc.(http://dukenews.duke.edu...)
Free will

"This definition fails because it is not possible, not even in theory, to recreate a situation identically. The impossibility follows from the properties of the natural world, as I recited in R1." I believe i stated that an identical situation was theoretically impossible and would like to remind Pro that that just makes it impossible to test, and holds no relevance in an argument as abstract as ours. In response to his counter arguments, which because they are numbered i will not copy: 1. Again that just makes testing it impossible. 2. Reproducing the circumstances would only be required to test my ideas, and my argument doesn't say it can be done, it says if it is done and free will existed then the results would still be different, which we know is not the case, therefore free will does not exist. 3. I get it one cannot test my theories, i think that is stated in the test you quoted from me. a reader might have noticed how all of Pros arguments simply make it impossible to test, but we were never going to test it anyway. Pro has offered nothing that i haven't already stated myself, just in a different form and only what he can use against me "For this debate, I am only claiming that Pro has not provided a definition of "free will" that works with the known laws of nature, and therefore the resolution cannot be affirmed." You offered no reason why my definition doesn't work, you just explained countless times how it is untestable. Pro has offered no reason to believe we have free will, so unless you entered this debate with the belief that we do, which most of you did, you would vote for me. However i have offered abstract reasons to believe we do not have it so those of you who believed we do can also vote for me. I used unachievable circumstances to help you, the reader, visualize my arguments, and i constantly said that they were unachievable. In Pros previous argument, others then the quotes he took from me, i can not find anything we have not both already said. Yes that means i said it as well because non of it is contradictory to free will. I would like to Remind the reader again that the argument is about Free will existing. I used the concept of deterministics as a springboard and would like to apologize if pro thought that the debate was that the universe is deterministic.
Free will

Free will is the ability to make different choices to an identical situation at the same time. I already see several problems people will have with my definition which i will attempt to make a preemptive strike on. 1. You might argue that under identical circumstances one would inevitably make the same choice, which is precisely what i am arguing, (i don't know why i am telling you this, it would have made winning easier if you fell into this trap) 2. When i say identical situation i mean identical to the sub atomic level, all particles have the same velocity each time and all quantum fluctuations and other randomness variables pro mentioned repeated exactly (this is completely for arguments sake, and the inability to reproduce the quantum fluctuations only means that it is theoretically impossible to test.) 3. at the same time is, similar to point two, purely theoretical. What i am saying is that the identical situation is playing out in two separate locations, possibly different universes, possibly an identically earth in our own universe. and is mentioned only for arguments sake, the inability for this to exist only makes it impossible two test, and like point two, does not diminish the value of the argument.
Free will

I apologize for the delay in this response. Pro has conceded that in a universe without the randomness he has pointed out within our own freewill would exist. He has however, not explained how the random quantum fluctuations give us any more free will than my theoretical mechanical universe. Pro argues that we have free will citing our ability to choice to go to the store. "We certainly have influence over whether we go to the store or not. We don't have influence over when and where particles appear by quantum fluctuation." although this may seem convincing it is a 'self evident' fact which a specificly requested not to have in the beginning of this debate. It only makes sense if you already belief you have free will, stating 'we have free will because we have the free will to choice to go to the store' also, what is it about the quantum fluctuations that give us this ability.
Free will

I cannot argue against his claim that knowing only the location and velocity off all particles does not mean perfect predictability. However, the unpredictable variables are not influenced at all by the human mind, so even if future events are not predictable, humans have no influence over them. Consider a universe where there are not these random variables to deal with. If humans exist in this theoretical universe, which I am not claiming could actually exist, than all events would be pre-determined in the way I described. If we were to create those same arrangement of particles in our own universe would he then have free will? I admit that all events might not have been predetermined at the big-bang, which I did not intend the argument to, and I apologize for any confusion about that. I am arguing that free will does not exist. I believe that pro would not object to basic science supporting my view, then when we add all the forms of randomness he mentioned we still have no reason to believe we have free will. I cannot offer any sources to definitively prove a lack of evidence however pro has offered no sources, or arguments, which give humans any influence over the randomness of the universe.
Free will

First, to clear any possible confusion, I am arguing that free will does not exist and that all events, past present and future, were determined at the big bang. Also, I would ask that my opponent avoid self evident facts, if you can not prove it the only reason you have to believe it exists is your belief itself. Back to the argument, my basis of thinking is that if one knows the location and velocity of every particle in the universe as well as a complete understanding of the laws of physics he would be able to perfectly predict all future events. I admit that these circumstances are entirely impossible for countless reasons, but none of them detract from my original statement, everything is predetermined. The fact that it is impossible to know both the location and velocity of a particle at the same time is irrelevant because they still have a velocity and location, and our knowledge of them does not affect them. Consider a simple universe with only one particle, clearly the particle will travel in a straight line at a constant speed based on the laws of physics. Now add one more particle to the universe, if we knew all the laws of physics, we would be able to perfectly predict all of their interactions, and thereby every position they will take in the future. Now add ten more particles, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a google (10^100) particles, why do we have any reason to believe that at any point these will cease to follow the laws of physics and act in unpredictable ways, and if it can be perfectly predicted consistently it is predetermined