BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do Monsters exist

Through this debate slave his literally proven that the only type of evidence he can understand is hearsay and conjecture. In this debate I have made serveral fundemental case ending points which have been all-but negated. One of the first and most obvoius points was the definitions, my next point was obviously the lack of proof. Slave uses an extremely unnecessary format which has made it hard for me to keep track of his arguments, you honesetly can't even tell which arguments are important and which are not because its all one segmented block of text. Also Slave never did tell me what Ameen meant lol. The debate was poorly carried out but let me just give my points the best I can now.Argument on definitionsstandard procedure1.) It is standard procedure to define all terms in an instigator's debate2.) It is commonly known that if a debater does not define normal terms, such as 'do', 'exist' or like I have said 'monster', then the normal terms are going to be used3.) Slave123, the instigator of this debate, has not defined the normal term 'moster' and thus the regular definition should be used4.) The normal definition implys that monsters are imaginary and thus cannot exist5.) the resolution cannot be affirmedabuse1.) Slave123 has not fulfiled his burden to provide standard definitions 2.) In lew of his ignorance, he has provided 6 other definition on which the debate was to operate3.) His definitions make the debate impossible to win and thus he has attempted to make a 'debate trap'4.) this is abusive as it destroys the educational value of the game and moves goal posts 5.) thus he should at the very least lose conduct pointsArgument on proof1.) The burden of proof is on Slave1232.) The definition of the resolution, that monsters exist, implys that all monsters exists.3.) slave has not shown that all monsters exist even IF all the ones he supposes are proved, really are.4.) Thus it is impossible for him to win this debate1.)The burden of proof is on Slave1232.) In order to prove the existance of monsters he would need credible evidene3.) Pictures are often faked and dont alone prove anything, videos of testimony are influced by things such as hullutionations or hysteria and better yet these testimony just prove they saw Something but not necessarily moth man or the like. Videos are the same, they dont neccesarily prove anything either and as I stated for instance the alien creature was just a monkey. Pro didnt prove otherwise4.) Thus Slave has used invalid evidence and proves nothing5.) being that his evidence is invalid it would be illogical for him to be victorious in this debate.Slave, I'll have to apologize if you think I am an 'arrogant, blind' idiot, but if we look at the facts your case makes no sense. I thank anyone who read this, these are my points, have a good day/night
Do Monsters exist

Your welcome "Argument Uno monster-an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening. Pro has lost this debate by definition. Even if we assumed that monster means something non-human or a non-known animal, Pro still hasnt shown sufficient evidence to back his resolution. " that is not the only definition, according to Con's own source it could also mean, "something that is extremely or unusually large" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So I have not lost this debate based on what the dictionary says, Monster has many meanings Full Definition of MONSTER 1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 2 : a threatening force 3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind 4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty 5 : one that is highly successful This is from Con's own source Merriam Webster's dictionary and I have provided plenty of evidence monsters exist, I have shown that there were over 100 mothman sightings I ask Con when in history did 100 honest people, get together and conspire an event that never took place, and then believe it, and not seek publicity, etc? And I ask Con was Linda Scarberry a liar? Mad? or legit? If you read Mothman facts behind the legend, and read her interview, or even watch her interview on youtube, it is clear she was telling the truth amen, and what about Marcella Bennet? She saw the Mothman close up, and it was definitely no barn owl or crane, there is definitely something to the Mothman phenomenon, and the Mothman is an abnormal creature, so thus a monster in the true sense, and my theory is that Mothman and other monsters are interdimensional, Con hasn't proven any flaws in my theory amen, and what about all the pictures I posted on the first round, I doubt they are all photoshopped, I invite Con to do research on those photographs and debunk all of them, the baby alien one is real, the jersey devil one is real, the bigfoot one is still being debated, but Con did not even address my photographic evidence? "Argument Dos Although Pro has succeded in divulging speculation he has not shown suffiecient evidence to back his claims. I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on Pro. Nice profile pic by the way Haha, I'm liking the beard. " I provided plenty of evidence, the baby alien picture is real, and it is definitely a monster by definition, these things are real, the question is what are they, my theory is that they are interdimensional or ultraterrestrial, Con has yet to debunk my theory amen, and thanks for the compliment on my beard, thanks, Please watch the above video ^, it is part of the debate, the first video proves the baby alien is not from earth, the second video is an interview with Marcella Bennet, JazakAllah khair ameen
Do Monsters exist

Let's begin:Argument Unomonster-an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening. Pro has lost this debate by definition. Even if we assumed that monster means something non-human or a non-known animal, Pro still hasnt shown sufficient evidence to back his resolution. Argument Dos Although Pro has succeded in divulging speculation he has not shown suffiecient evidence to back his claims. I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on Pro. Nice profile pic by the way Haha, I'm liking the beard. Citations. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com... -TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Do Monsters exist

Monsters do exist,All matter is made up of energyWe can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum Electromagnetic energy only makes up a small portion of the matter and energy content of our universe,Most of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy, It is highly possible that there could be other worlds out there made up of different forms of matter,these other planes of existence share the same space as ours but are made of different forms of matter and energy,the plane closest to our physical plane is the etheric plane,it is here where the Jinn lurk,the Quran says Jinn are made of smokeless fire, this could be a description of how matter is like in the etheric plane,angels are made of light so probably occupy higher planes of existence ameen,Now there is a lot of proof these Jinn can desguise themselves as monsters,they can materialize by changing their atomic structure and enter our reality,they can come in the forms of animals, humans, and monsters ameen,The Mothman is the best example of a real Monster case, It was seen by over 100 people,there is no way 100 people got together and conspired the whole thing,there is no way it could have been a sand hill crane either, since it has no neck and is broader then a sandhill crane,it can't be an owl either, since Marcella Bennet saw it just a few feet in front of her and was looking up at it and said it was bigger then a man,owls are very small compared to the Mothman,so it can't be an owl,Mothman is real ameen and of coarse Jinn can desguise themselves as Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, Chupacabra and many others,here is some more proof of other monsters ameen, s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" width="236" height="332" />
Muhammad raped Aisha

If a rapist is said to be a prophet of God,that is nothing but IRONY. it is a widespread rumour that prophet muhammad[s. a. w] is a terrorist,which i believe he is not. *. The pro must be able to tell us how the prophet was a rapist. *the pro's points should be void of hatred and hypocrisy,but with reasonable points. * allegations that wont be supported by evidence should not be brought up *straw man fallacy is welcomed *FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE * it is a fact that Quran is the holy book of Islam and bible for Christians. the authentic hadiths are ones respected by Muslims.
Kissing is just like shaking hands. It has no meaning in itself.

Since jiantutri forfeited the round I will just reiterate: Convincing Argument: -Jiantutri made no attempt to refute the final meaning of "special meaning" in the last round. Since I rebutted the problem with his definition of "special meaning" , I see no reason to accept his definition. -I explained why kissing and handshaking are dissimilar. Again jiantutri made no effort to make a rebuttal Conduct: Juantutri forfeited, a move of improper conduct Spelling/Grammar: Juantutri had a run-on sentence "I claim that it will not have meaning if we didn'" I have no idea what Juantutri meant. I'm not sure about any grammar or spelling errors I made, but please feel free to post them in the comments section both to help others vote correctly and help me improve as a debater. Convincing Sources: I gave one citation, Juantutri gave no sources.
Kissing is just like shaking hands. It has no meaning in itself.

I reject the definition since there would be nothing to debate. Your definition of "special meaning" means "emotions", while your definition of kissing means "no emotions". if I look up "special" or"meaning" in the dictionary, no definition involves the words "emotions", so I had no way to infer your meaning earlier. 1)Another difference between kissing and handshakes. Hands are washed frequently while lips are not. By joining lips, you make your self susceptible to the diseases herpes,mononucleosis, and hepatitis which can't be rid of by washing. [http://infectiousdiseases.about.com...] Simply kissing a stranger is hazardous to health. 2)So it doesn't involve emotion if people don't involve emotion? That's self-evident in everything,making this debate pointless. Kissing decreases stress, releases endorphins, and increases oxytocin(positive mood neurotransmitters). This response can't be explained by "society" www.bestkisses.com/kisses-for-heal
Kissing is just like shaking hands. It has no meaning in itself.

I found that I did not define my first claims well. I would like to define "special meaning" as meaning involving emotions such as love. I would like to give these counter arguments: 1. Shaking hands and kissing (exclusively "joining lips" as I have written it) are similar in these ways: a. they involve two persons joining/touching body parts that are similar with each other; b. they contain meaning that are given by society and its traditions and not for the actions themselves. Example, shaking hands does not have anything to do with meeting people. They could have pinched each other's chests, etc. Same with kissing. 2. Yes, kissing has meaning and that is joining of the lips. But it has no special meaning if people won't imply so. You can kiss a snake and still not love it. I do not say that kissing must not have significance in our society or that it's meaning replaced. I claim that it will not have meaning if we didn'
Kissing is just like shaking hands. It has no meaning in itself.

Pro has two parts to the resolution. The first is that kissing is like shaking hands. The second is that kissing has no meaning in itself. Definitions: Meaning - the sense or significance of a word, sentence, symbol, etc. ; import; semantic or lexical content Like - Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to. Shake hands- The grasping of hands by two people, as in greeting or leave-taking. C1) Shaking hands and kissing are not similar The two actions are different by definition. The act of kissing involves the joining of the lips while a handshake involves the grasping of hands. Furthermore, the action of handshaking involves a greeting or leave-taking while kissing does not. C2) Kissing has a meaning Pro has stated that kissing has a meaning. He just gave the meaning of kissing. //joining the lips (not for affection or emotions as it will defeat the purpose of this//
Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

While I agree that all businesses, not just EA, want money and do not really care how they get it, I would like to say that other game developers seem to produce products that aren't broken and listen to what the fans have to say. I'm not saying that all companies care, of course, but there definitely are some out there. As I've stated before, EA has completely ignored what fans have had to say and taken many franchises in a different direction. I would go as far as to say that if they keep doing what they're doing, the only thing keeping them afloat would be the sports games they produce and possibly The Sims. I would also like to say that, while these decisions may make them money, it does not mean that fans will stick around. For example, look at the XBOX One: many people have lost faith in Microsoft for many of their decisions revolving around the console and people have switched over to competitor Sony. This concludes my final statement. I hope you enjoyed this debate. :)
Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

I agree with you on your last point. I feel that Diablo 3 was a big downfall for EA, but as a whole they are still a great game-making organization. Many other aspects of EA are going downhill, but EA games still has a big advantage with one franchise of games: EA Sports. EA sports is a big advantage for them. I know many people, and personally myself, that still purchase all the new EA Sports game like Madden. I was very satisfied with their ability to make such great sport games. Also, I was looking at the EA games stock and they are actually not doing too bad. If you were to look at the stock progress in the past year you would see that EA made a great climb. Although if you were to look at the five year you would be able to notice that they took a dramatic drop in sales in 2008 and stayed steady ever since. I feel that the increase this year could disprove your debate of them making bad decisions, because those "bad" decisions are making them money. I do feel that some of those profits may be because of them using humans as a piggy bank, but it has only done good for them. I do feel that at a personal level with the customers, EA is making bad decisions, but as a big business franchise in gaming, I feel they are making the right decisions to help make money. To all businesses, not just EA, they do not care how they get their money, just as long as they get it.
Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

(I apologize for going off topic, but I am absolutely elated that someone took on this argument :D ) If you look at it from that perspective, then you can excuse the idea of Origin. However, Steam generates many sales and EA is already a big company. Why would they need to be noticed whatsoever with a burden of a program that serves only to hamper you? On top of that, Steam has a large amount of sales and games such as The Sims, Mass Effect and more would definitely make a large sum of money during those periods. As for what you said about people not minding the creation of an Origin account, I can agree with you. However, it's more the always on-line DRM feature that has appeared frequently as of late that is an issue in my eyes. And, unfortunately, I really see Origin as a program to serve one purpose: to support the always on-line DRM. I would also like to add, as a side note, that Diablo 3 is a prime example of the downfall that always on-line services provide. However, EA went along with the decision nevertheless which supports the claim that they treat their customers like "human piggy banks".
Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

I agree with you to a certain extent with this Electronic Arts topic. I do feel that following getting voted Worst Company in America they would have turned their company around and put forth better games, service, and trying things differently. Although this year I did not expect them to get voted it again. I feel that there are lots of bad companies out there and EA is most definitely not the worse. The voters must just have a bone to pick with EA and took out on them at the polls. I do not feel that they are necessarily making bad decisions at this point. I feel that that EA is just trying to become more popular and wanted to beat out the competition by making Origin. They probably feel that more users will notice them with this new service and their sales would go up, but obviously that backfired. Electronic Arts makes successful games that many people, especially kids, enjoy playing, and I'm pretty sure they would not mind making and Origin account real quick to start playing. In my opinion, EA is making the right decisions, it's just they are getting bad results and a negative impact on their company and organization.
Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

I would firstly like to say that I am looking forward to this debate and I hope to have fun talking about the topic. Simply put, I do not agree with the decisions that Electronic Arts (EA for short) are making. To start off, they have created something named "Origin". It is a counterpart to the highly successful gaming service "Steam" for computer systems. For many games created by EA, you must have an Origin account and unfortunately must be on-line at all times. This decision is rather unpopular among fans of the company's games, with a notable disaster taking place on the launch day for one of EA's games "Simcity" where some reviewers called the game "unplayable". Many Amazon customers who had bought the game were vowing to never give EA a cent of their money. To add insult to injury, any "good" reviews on the product were full of satire and mockery, making a fool of the game in general. Second of all, it's rather clear that they treat their customers as one giant ATM. They expect money from it, and this is why they were given the title of "Worst Company in America" in 2012. Did they learn from their mistakes? Did they improve within that year? The short answer to that is no. In fact, this year they were once again named the "Worst Company in America" to which Consumerist said "Following last year"s surprise Worst Company In America victory by Electronic Arts, there was hope that the video game giant would get the message; stop treating your customers like human piggy banks, and don"t put out so many incomplete and/or broken games with the intent of getting your customers to pay extra for what they should have received in the first place. And yet, here we are again, with EA becoming the first company to ever win a second Golden Poo from Consumerist readers. " Lastly, they have made changes to many of the games that they have. The Sims 3 now requires constant internet service and an Origin account to play, greatly angering people who have been playing the first instalments of the game since they were children and those who have been lifetime fans since the main fanbase consists of people who play games in their spare time with no need for such a feature. Dead Space 3 had a complete change in tone, and was more an action game compared to a horror. This lead to poor sales. Simcity 2013, a reboot to the smash-hit franchise "Simcity" failed miserably, and an attempt to stop piracy ended up costing the company more money than what they would have lost if they kept the simple format of being able to play offline.
so i herd u leik mudkipz

What is All of that is irrelevant to the topic? Is pie irrelevant? Or are you just the irrelevant one? Mudkips are the answer to what life is for. And talking about irrelevant trying to make a Yu-gi-oh joke in a Pokemon Debate. The only thing that they both have in common are there both anime and were made by 4kids in America and screwed somewhat by 4kids.
so i herd u leik mudkipz

No vote pie, pie is good, food is good During a Papal audience, a business man approached the Pope and made this offer: Change the last line of the Lord's prayer from "give us this day our daily bread" to "give us this day our daily chicken." and KFC will donate 10 million dollars to Catholic charities. The Pope declined. 2 weeks later the man approached the Pope again. This time with a 50 million dollar offer. Again the Pope declined. A month later the man offers 100 million, this time the Pope accepts. At a meeting of the Cardinals, The Pope announces his decision in the good news/bad news format. The good news is... that we have 100 million dollars for charities. The bad news is that we lost the Wonder Bread account! Do you wonder what is in wonder bread? So back onto the topic, i know u leik bidoofs. Bidoofs r liek mudkipz but cooler, and there trainers live in a town who let little girls watch what happens at the day care. I am done with my argument which sounds like mint, which is making me hungry. VOTE Liopleurodon 08 it will guide your way.
so i herd u leik mudkipz

First off I do have chat log 13:16 [~Serebii] haha Kirby's a hooker now 13:16 [@Kirby] I wish I was [17:41:34] if i say the name of pokemon #493 in here do i get banned [17:41:34] * Awayebii sets mode: +b *!*@8B63E765.FEB4983C.F9862D6D.IP [17:41:34] * SPPGuest5827 was kicked by Awayebii (ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ DONT ADVERTISE! Kick Number 112933 ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½)(09:22:34pm) (@Apollo_11) Now... (09:24:00pm) • @Apollo_11 steals Leona's collection of signed three stooges underwear. And for that log I can tell that you want to be a hooker and say #493 and Advertise. Also my point was not off topic, it is the topic that is off of the point of the off topic point of the topic. So now eat your pie.
so i herd u leik mudkipz

First, my opponent states: "so i herd u leik mudkipz. i know u do." How do you know? I would like to see some proof please. The only way you could prove it is by an audio file or by a chatroom. And you have no proof. Actually, you have to prove that you HEARD that i like mudkips, and you can't relly prove that you heard that can you? I think not. Next, my opponent says: "the mudkipz r cute n if u ain't likez them u r part of the evil muffin man's clan who touches kittens inappropriate . Why does the evil muffin man's clan that touches kittens, we just don't know, was he touched as a child or did he have his but kicked by Cat woman? What ever it is he hates kittens." Totally irrelevant to the topic. And so is the rest of your opening argument. ----------------------------------------------------- Vote Con for obvious reasons. Also, I will not be online to rebut my opponents future points until this coming sunday, but I think it is obvious that I have won this debate.
so i herd u leik mudkipz

so i herd u leik mudkipz. i know u do. the mudkipz r cute n if u ain't likez them u r part of the evil muffin man's clan who touches kittens inappropriate . Why does the evil muffin man's clan that touches kittens, we just don't know, was he touched as a child or did he have his but kicked by Cat woman? What ever it is he hates kittens. mudkipz r cute, just like kittens if u ain't likez them u r part of the evil muffin man's clan who touches kittens inappropriate . Why does the evil muffin man's clan that touches kittens, we just don't know, was he touched as a child or did he have his but kicked by Cat woman? What ever it is he hates kittens.. Mudkip is a fish, a mud fish pokemon. What the freak is a mud fish I don't know. Does it roll around in its own poop or does it eat poop or does it liek to take poops, does it liek to make poop pies or does it just like pie. Those r my opining argumints.