BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

ok first as a bout the economy frieza had more money yes but even though he had money that only got him empoyees and cell is technically a one man army so he does not need any people also about the destroying the destroying more planets frieza was a sissy and attacked from space while the sayans knew nothing exept Bardock also the Namekians they only had power levels of 3000 not that much compared to cell. About killing more characters while killing more characters in the story at that time Krillin was weak compared to now also vegita and so there was a big advantage to that when now they were prepared by all means and knew what the threat was even though frieza survived more he got his butt wooped by a super saiyan 1 while cell got his butt wooped by a SSSJ2 so that is a big difference also he survived the planet explosion because of king cold.
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

Preface I am grateful to Pro for instigating this open debate, I assume from the wording of the resolution that the burden of proof is shared. That being the case I will spend this round to build my own case for Frieza being better than cell and will address my opponent in the following round. The resolution 'better' is worded very vaguely, and reminds me very much if the age-old question of 'are boys better than girls?' that many of is were faced with in school. The naive male persons would of course cite their physical superiority, and the females would cite their generally superior examination results, ability to bear children, etc. Therefore it is quite apparent that determining the 'better' of the two, Frieza and Cell, requires weighing up all the positive and negative attributes of both characters, to get the whole picture. I will concede very quickly that Cell is demonstrably stronger than Frieza in raw Ki, and would have the advantage over Frieza in a direct conflict. This is just one of many attributes they battle on, however, much more needs to be assessed. That being settled I is I'll establish my main contentions. C1. Frieza contributed more to the economy Cell employed precisely zero people over the course of his lifespan, and in fact killed most people that would be a benefit to his cause (future trunks (time travel), piccolo (dragon balls)). Frieza employed hundreds of henchmen, and also commandeered the Saiyan race, which he used frequently on missions to conquer and sterilize planets for sale. Frieza was in the planetary trade business and therefore was most likely maintaining a substantial monetary flow. That being the case, cell contributed substantially less to the galactic economy than Frieza did. C2. Frieza has destroyed more planets than cell has Cell is quoted as stating he wanted to blow the Earth up, but clearly failed in his mission to do so. Even in his climatic kamehameha struggle with Gohan, he could not destroy the Earth dispute the otherworldly energy output produced. Frieza, however, is known to have destroyed many planets, including Namek and Planet Vegeta, which are home to some of the strongest warriors that exist in the universe (the Nameks and the Saiyan race). Frieza clearly sports far superior planetary-destroying credentials than cell does. C3. Frieza has killed more main characters than Cell Frieza killed both Krillin and Vegeta, dispute Vegeta being far and away the strongest Saiyan at the time and Krillin with his substantial plot armor. Cell only managed to kill Future Trunks in his quest, who was likely weaker than Vegeta at the time. It follows that Frieza trounces Cell in this area too! C4. Frieza is more durable Frieza has survived: Being sliced in half A spirit bomb A planetary explosion The only significant survival story of cell's was having his right arm blown off by Vegeta's final flash attack. I daresay Frieza clearly demonstrates greater tenency than Cell here too! Conclusion: I think I have laid down plenty of reasons to think Frieza is better than cell! Over to Pro!
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

OK I will tell why Cell is better than frieza what I define cell is Perfect Cell what I mean by frieza is Final Form1) Cell can turn super saiyan but frieza canAs you know frieza beater like crap by Goku and Trunks by turning into super sayan and cell can beat frieza by turning super sayan even though frieza in final form he lost to super sayans but lets take cell he has sayan cells human cells and the worlds best fighters combined even though cell lost to Gohan during DB battle of the Gods 1 when Vegitas brother said they are stronger than frieza but Avo Cado lost like crap also cell has Goku's cells that lets him have infinite power levels like Goku but Frieza goes over 1 million so that is why cell is better than frieza
Hitler was a good man

I shall be arguing that Hitler was not a good man and was in fact, a bit of an a**hole. "Although Hitler may have wiped out about 6 million Jews"Just a friendly tip Pro... Its not really the best idea to argue that someone was a good man, and the first thing you mention was that he killed 6 million jews....... Just saying. " he believed he had a reason."That certainly doesnt excuse him of his actions! His 'reasons' for killing 6 million Jews was all based on personal bias against them, and the reason he killed millions and millions of others (Catholics, Jehovas Witnesses, the handicapped, political enemies, etc.) Was also based on his own personal bias. He did not have a good reason to kill all those people and even if he did have a reason, having a reason doesnt excuse anyone from doing really bad stuff. If I had a 'reason' to strangle newborn babies minutes after they had been born while forcing their mother to watch me do this, it wouldnt make me a good man...."He wasn't stopped by others, and he did what he believed in, and he pursued his goal to the very end"1) WWII was the worlds attempt to stop him, 2) Doing what you believe in doesnt justify a man's actions or make them less terrible then they are, and 3) Pursuing your goals to the very end doesnt make you a good man either. the 9/11 hijackers pursued their goals to the very end but that doesnt make them better people, it makes them significantly worse. The same logic goes for Hitler since his goals involved personal bias, death, and flat out murder. "He was a man who brought forth positive change to his country, and commanded the troops who fought for it."And how was Hitlers rule beneficial to Germany exactly? Following WWI Germany had no economy, mass unemployment, and was in many ways a third world country.... After WWII Germany had all of those same problems, but now on top of that had been bombed to smithereens, basically had no infrastructure at all, now had no unified government since Germany was occupied and split into 2, remained a divided country for close to 30 YEARS, had become synonymous with the most infamous forms of government to ever be devised (facism and Nazism), and had now become synonymous with the most evil act in history (The Holocaust)..... Not exactly an 'improvement' On top of that, here is a list of stuff Hitler did that makes him even more of an a**hole:1) Invaded numerous sovereign peaceful nations simply because he wanted to expand Germany's territory.2) Denied basic human rights to his own citizens 3) started building concentration camps within 6 months of seizing power. 4) Started the most lethal war in history 5) Controlled everything in the lives of citizens to make him and his party immune to any criticism and effectively transformed Germany into a giant cult meant to do his insane bidding
Hitler was a good man

I believe that Hitler was a good man. Although Hitler may have wiped out about 6 million Jews, he believed he had a reason. He wasn't stopped by others, and he did what he believed in, and he pursued his goal to the very end. Hitler saw how France, along with the Triple Entente, utterly destroyed Germany in the first World War. After the war, Germany was blamed for the war and had to pay massive reparations, even though there was no country's fault.Germany was ridiculed and the people were treated like dogs for 11 years after the first World War. Hitler rose to power with another goal: to restore Germany to it's former aptitude.He wanted revenge on the countries that had damaged Germany's reputation. He wanted revenge on the countries that laid waste to Germany. He wanted revenge on the countries that blamed Germany for the first World War. He was a man who brought forth positive change to his country, and commanded the troops who fought for it.
School Uniforms Shouldn't Be Required

REBUTTALS1. However, some jobs require choosing clothing carefully. If students aren't trained in school for these jobs, then they will have a hard time choosing which clothes to wear and which clothes should not be worn.2. While there are other ways to express oneself, clothing is the majority of what is expressed: one can express that they like their beard... One can also show their love for Airmax in a live debate... And so on. This just shows two examples of how one can express their personality or likes throughout their clothing. Thus, it is irrefutable proof that uniforms restrict the freedom of expression, which goes against the US constitution. Again, I stress the fact that we are expected to uphold the constitution. [2]In addition...two students even won a Supreme Court case against armbands!! [1] If even armbands can express personality, just imagine what shirts and pants can do. Source [4] supports this further with ""Clothing choices are rarely neutral, and our inner secrets can be read in our choices. " As shown, clothing really does express your personality.3. Uhhh....I did. The Notre Dame University study performed by two "professors of sociology"? [1] Another link that proves that uniforms have negative impact.4. Sorry about that. Here: http://www.gate.net...;. Your argument about military is irrelevant, we are talking about school uniforms. As for Einstein, who knows if he was in his right state of mind? I mean, he even stated himself "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly." [3] This is really strange, I mean. He could have definitely done more. Was it the stress upon him? Was it too much work? We might never know, but this just show how complicated the situation was to Albert Einstein. 5. However, for poorer families, it is much harder to get a massive 156$ for the beginning of the school year and spend all their money on it, rather than spending just half as much per month, because we know that salary is paid monthly, therefore each month the poor family has to save up a little bit in order to pay the 156$. But let's not forget that they already have to pay taxes. [5]6. One way less, one way more. I have already shown that the silence cue is practically a bait for bullies.Congradulations that you think you defeated my resolution. You may as well be the first person to beat me in a School Uniform debate, but I have attacked stronger than ever. (Especially the first round)Back to you, con.[1] http://aclunv.org...;[2] http://constitutionus.com...;[3] Cohen, J.R.; Graver, L.M. (November 1995), "The ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm of Albert Einstein", Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics 170 (5)[4] https://psychologies.co.uk...;[5] http://www.tax.ohio.gov...;
School Uniforms Shouldn't Be Required

I thank 9spaceking for his response and for instigating this excellent debate.I should like to remind all that since 9spaceking instigated this debate he chose the resolution and the Proposition position himself. As such I did not force him into accepting the BoP, he put the BoP on himself. I once more cite the Latin rule: "Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat."With that in the clear, let us now begin!1. My opponent has conceded this. 2. My opponent has conceded this. 3. He did not summarize what negative impacts and why these negative impacts occured. If his argument bases itself solely on the expression argument he has himself conceded it earlier and therefore this point becomes moot. Also I have tried many times, the page fails to display. 4. He makes a positive claim, which seems quite trollish. In essence discipline is needed because schools help to prepare children for the future, where they will have to follow a set of laws, such as that of a country. A school teaches them all this. Also by raising this point 9spaceking concedes that uniforms help in discipline. 5. I do not have access to source 3, also it is a purely American source and American law cannot be applied to other countries. 6. My opponent has conceded this. 7. My opponent has conceded this. 8(a). Let me start by clarifying that according to the rules you placed the BoP on yourself, whether it put the odds in my favour or not is irrelevant. 8(b). I think I will argue with pictures later. First of all you have the burden to prove that such an evil scientist lives. You also have the burden to show that these children will be made into robots. Also there is a brown haired person who does not cross his legs. Untill you can prove this your argument is moot, the resolution does not stand, and I win. s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />School Uniforms are often hot: s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Sweet Jesus! s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Ajab
School Uniforms Shouldn't Be Required

2. Unfortunately this I must concede. So many conceded points!!3. I did summarize it. If you look back I stated that this link was to the Notre Dame research which showed school uniform's negative impacts.Link one last time in hope that it works:http://aclunv.org... .4. Uh, yes?5. I meant source 3.6. Oh, snap! I can't rebut that. Now I have to drop the other half.7. Curse you!! I can't rebut that either.8. Looks can be decieving.It seems that I have lost most arguments. However, I remind you that Ajab had unfairly put the BoP on top of me, which I didn't realize was fair until in the comments section... "If you had said we had shard BoP, it would have been more fair", pretty much conceding that he made the debate unfair.Finally, I will pull out my trap card, as we never mentioned whether trolling was allowed or not. Good luck countering the troll argument presented below. Look at those smiling students. They look pretty happy, don't they!Well, I'll tell you something--you're wrong! They aren't happy. Why? Because they love the race they are... Look at their skin color! No offense, and not being racist, it's true--they all have the same skin color! And their uniforms--their uniforms all have to same colors! We can logically deduce that if uniforms are worn then people have the same skin color. This is actually a crude experiment by an evil genius scientist to turn all the school's poor children into his evil robot slaves! Look at them, they're all the same--shoes, hand motions, even the creepy way they smile is exactly the same! If you aren't convinced, take a look at this other picture... Look! They're all the same! Sure, the blond girl seems to be unaffected as the others, but streaks of brown can be seen! Oh god, save us! And only one person has glasses on! Look at the guy on the left, the guy two seats to the right, and two seats to the right, and the guy two seats to the right...that's right! All of them are trying to cross their legs, copying the guy on the rightest and the girls too! It can be concluded this photo was taken while the transformation was happening...this is terrible! THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE FORCE SCHOOL UNIFORMS TO BE REQUIRED The consequences are unimaginable. One word? Destruction. Two words? Take-over. Three words? [BLEEP] us all.I know, you might say "hey, what proves that these robots are destructive? Why couldn't they be nice?" Well, I say, it's the evil genius scientist who designed these robots. He's gotten so far ahead that the earliest one of his robots has grown into an adult! Look at her eyes, how they bore into you....they hypnotize you and yet they look faraway, having lost their sentience long long ago....how terrible! Fortunately these robots have yet to outnumber normal human beings, so we should stop them while we still can! Ban school uniforms!! Good debate. :P
The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

As you can see my opponent has conceded all of my arguments and therefor I win this debate. He has not given anymore reasons for why science can even possibly create life. He only says something about God, but as he said this is a debate about how life started, not about how what started life got there. Therefore he has accepted that it is impossible for science to create life. If anyone can please answer me one question, how do you believe in evolution when it doesn't make any sense, and why do you?
The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

I think we can see pretty clearly that God has taken great pains to make sure that if you want to get in touch with God it will not happen through any purely logical process. The stupid notion of an Eternal God probably came from that scene in Genesis where Abraham planted a tree and call on the name of "Everlasting God." Abraham may have had a tendency to exaggerate. There is nothing infinite in time or space in the physical Universe.
The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

First of all I would like to point a few you things out to you the reader of this debate. In my opponents last argument he makes absolutely no try to defend himself from my critiques and I will assume the they have been conceded. He only goes on and on about how stupid I am and that I absolutely need a case. He also gets very stuck up in that I have stupid ideas and also says that, "Another startling thing is that the Challenger gets to take a stand, and it does not have to be complete opposition to the Instigator's position. Here are the rules:" Rules?? All the rules he gives are subject to the Lincoln-Douglas style debate, but if you will just take a quick look back to the beginning I state, "This will be a free debate not subject to any format. I will accept the first person who wishes to debate and will let the affirmative go first as is usual." By accepting my debate challenge he agreed to my terms and therefore accepted that this debate will not be subject to any format, including Lincoln-Douglas. On the lack of a negative case. 1. Intelligence cannot be present without another form of intelligence putting it there. As my opponent himself said, "You cannot create intelligence without intelligence." He was at that time talking about God, but if he has done any reading of the Bible God is believed to have always been and always be forever. In saying this he also contracted himself when saying that science could have created life, or is he saying that all the life here on earth is unintelligent? Maybe he is saying that science itself has intelligence. Although science does not posses any intelligence of its own and therefore could not have created something as complex as the human cell. In which each cell hundreds of gigabytes worth of information is stored, how did that get there? Did science put it there? I think not. 2. Even If it were possible for science to create life the chances are hundreds of trillions to one. For life to be formed, so called scientifically, which isn't possible, even the most studied evolutionists say that around 250 proteins would have to be present which is close to impossible without someone putting them there Thank You, I await my opponents response
The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

Ok first of all all I have to do as the negative is prove him wrong on every situation he presents. If he thinks I need an actual case of mine own then please tell me. My opponent says that life could have arisen by science, "For those unfamiliar with the term, the scientific theory holds that life arose by other than intelligent design, with chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe." Then he goes on to say, "You cannot create intelligence without intelligence." So is he saying that humans aren't intelligent, because the last time I checked, "chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe." don't have any intelligence of their own. So how they come together to make something as complex as DNA, in which every little piece of a strand holds a ratio of around five gigabytes of information? If that's not intelligence then what is? My opponent also says, "And what is this "Vengeance is mine" garbage?" What this means is that in the end all vengeance will be gods because in the end he will decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Isn't that vengeful? He also says, "Is this God's first Universe? Can God be an atheist?" Well we obviously don't know, we only know the things of this world, of which God is not. By saying is God an atheist are you saying that God doesn't believe that He himself exists? "And why does God demand that we worship Him? Just because you create something does not mean you have the right to ask it to worship you especially if it doesn't want to be worshiped and so, following the Golden Rule, does not worship. Anyway then shouldn't God worship us?" Obviously we don't deserve the praise, he does, and hes given us grace enough, there isn't a single person who gos one day without breaking one of the ten commandments which is why he sent Jesus to fulfill the law, because if he hadn't we would all go to hell. If you create something then don't you deserve to be worshiped especially if you are a very gracious creator? Thank You I will await my opponents response.
The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

The beginning of life can be explained (by) other than intelligent design at least as well as the "intelligent design" explanation. That explanation is called "science." For those unfamiliar with the term, the scientific theory holds that life arose by other than intelligent design, with chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe. The creation of the Universe is another matter altogether. I may be oversimplifying but it does leave open the possibility of God creating the Universe but not life. By "intelligent" I mean something exhibiting intelligence. Well then who created that intelligence? And so on. So that's not much of an explanation. You cannot create intelligence without intelligence. And why does God demand that we worship Him? Just because you create something does not mean you have the right to ask it to worship you especially if it doesn't want to be worshipped and so, following the Golden Rule, does not worship. Anyway then shouldn't God worship us? And what is this "Vengeance is mine" garbage? Scientific studies have shown that vindictiveness is not effective. Is this God's first Universe? Can God be an atheist?
You should follow stoic principles

While many life changing action where done without caring what others thought, they still feared for their lives and freedoms. They desired to have what they wanted and they created fear in the minds of others, the minds that were unsure. They created circumstances and situation where one had no choice but to fall victim to their own personal desires, apathy was thrown out the window and replaced by sympathy people began to care for one another and for another persons desire and fear. many great men stood side by side facing fear in the face with desire at their backs for the country we are in today. Soldiers to this day fight with fear all around them for the desires of people they don't even know., for counties that aren't even their homeland, for countries that have killed their family.