BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[League Of Legends] Mid laner Faker Of SKT T1 is the best mid laner (Global)

An issue that you bring up immediately would be that your claim in the title was that faker is the best mid laner in the world. Not just one of the best, but the best. Overall I agree with your definition of a mid laner, but I feel as though it is somewhat closed. I would add on that a great mid laner should be able to work well with their team. On to the categories. Mechanics/1v1 There is no doubt that you are right about Faker having great plays in 2013. However, the year 2014 has shown Faker to have become faulty as SSW Pawn was able to out duel faker many times in one set(). Faker at one point seemed to be getting desperate and wasted a flash to try to kill pawn. Champion Pool There is not a doubt that faker has a huge champion pool. Is that necessarily good though? To look at it this year, Faker seemed to have gone quantity over quality as when pawn and Faker"s talon are compared, Faker most of the time lost with talon( the previous link had faker playing talon). Even though pawn and dade might not have high champion pools, they seem to do better with the champions that they have at their hand. I believe you are correct about Dade"s esceptions. Stats Correct me if I am wrong, but isn"t the trend usually for League of Legends to give the most awards to the best players team who win the world finals? SKT won in 2013 with faker having clutch plays. Same went to CJ Blaze whose team won 2012. Synergy Faker has good team fights when his team is able to set up well around him. However when in lane, it is clear that bengi and him do not work well in professional league compared to pawn and dandi or insec and Corn/ryu. Overall, Faker is still a great player. Considering him to be the best at mid lane though would be saying that he beats everyone at most or all of the categories. 2013 was a prime year for him, in the current season though, he has not shown as well.
[League Of Legends] Mid laner Faker Of SKT T1 is the best mid laner (Global)

As for this debate, I will be trying to prove that Faker is in fact one of the best mid laner world wide. However, before I begin, I would like to provide a definition of what ¨The best Mid laner¨ actually means.The best mid laner: To be able to overcome a variety of aspects against most players in the mid laneMechanicsFaker's mechanics are known to be godlike by many professional analysis (lol.gamepedia.com/Faker)One of Faker's most known play was the Zed vs Zed ryu against KT bullets, during OGN (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0suIFAAClvg)On this play Faker was obviously below 31% of health and Ryu was well at least 90% of health when Faker initiated the duel, and Faker left the duel with the victory and only lost around 20% of health, when both players had pratically all the same items (BoRK) but only Faker had QSS, which I may add that Faker had to play well to get that fed. Champion PoolFaker's champion pool is beyond what any other mid laner has ever possessed, as during the season 3 world Faker was able to bring a meta of Riven mid, and Zilean mid and more, plus many LCS/OGN commentors have even stated that Faker's champion pool is very large (http://de.wikipedia.org...) while compared to the likes of Dade, Dade is known to have a low champion, who is best for his Yasuo, good with Zed, and needs skills with skillshot champions, but with the exception of Ziggs and Orianna (Correct me if I'm wrong)StatisticsFaker has also has won as personal rewards, MVP of the OGN Champions Summer 2013, Best KDA of OGN Champions Summe 2013 plus MVP and best KDA mid lane of The OGN Champions Winter 2013.(Made this short because I just wanted to list points, so con can argue upon)
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

Since my opponent has not provided a definition of abortion I'll just go with "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.". Generally I would agree with pro, that being that in most circumstances abortion should be illegal however I will argue that there slightly more circumstances where abortion should be legal that are not simply covered by threats to the mothers life. Instances where there is no chance of the fetus's survival There are a number of conditions where the fetus has no chance or an incredibly low chance of survival, in these cases it is immoral to criminalise abortion for a number of reasons. For one it will not increase the quality of life or particularly extend the life of the fetus due to it either already being dead or imminently about to be and therefore the majority of the arguments against abortion are rendered void. Furthermore it is incredibly traumatic to make a person carry a dead fetus to term as can be seen in this story from Texas [1]. In addition while there might not necessarily be a particularly high risk of death there are health risks in a pregnancy and health risks to carrying a dead or dying fetus that again while not necessarily lethal are harmful [2]. Very early abortion Within the first 3 days of a pregnancy there is the option to take the so called "morning after pill" which can be used up to 5 days after unprotected sex [3]. At this stage what could become a fetus is a morula of only around 16 cells [4]. While it is technically living there is a substantial difference between this and later pregnancies where there are basic nervous impulses and the beginnings of homeostasis allowing the use of the morning after pill and even encouraging it to at least a degree would decrease the rate of later abortion. This helps deal with the problem where in countries where abortion is banned there are just as many abortions as in countries where it is legal [5] by allowing some ability to terminate pregnancies in the very early stages. [1] https://www.reddit.com... [2] https://www.meb.uni-bonn.de... (this appears to have some formatting issues) [3] https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk...
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

I think the problem with comparing pre-1970s rates of abortion is three fold. For one before the 1970s the idea of abortion in general was a lot less normalised and as a result other approaches were taken to dealing with unwanted pregnancies for instance here in Scotland there were around 20 "magdalene laundries" which were effectively prisons for "fallen women" similar things existed in England and lasted until the mid 1990s in Ireland with less extreme alternatives in the United States. A second difference is that this was the time when the structure of the average family began to change considerably with the rise of single parenting which had not been seen in such big numbers before and due to the smaller numbers this meant that there was much increased support from the community for single parents in the rare occasions they did appear. And lastly there is a significant increase in people who generally do not want children which was not seen previously. And while of course the legalisation of abortion across a considerable amount of the western world contributed significantly to the first thing that I mentioned you cannot put the genie back in the bottle and the situation is very different to the 1970s therefore criminalising all abortion again would likely be simply a failed policy as it has been in much of Latin America. On your second point yeah for keeping abortion for dead or dying children legal would be less than 1% of abortions but if you agree with the very early period abortions then that would be a substantial fraction of abortions given that around 65% of abortions occur after 9 weeks (although I do not know if that includes the use of the pill) [1] Also apologies for not posting this earlier. [1] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

You do make rather good points... The only problem I have is that as you can see from American history, http://www.nrlc.org... Abortion rates skyrocketed due to the legalization of abortion. Overall, I think I might agree with you now. Of course, all of these situations are extremely rare, so <1% of abortions currently occuring in countries that allow abortion in any circumstance would fit into these ones.
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

"If the child is already dead, it is not considered an abortion to remove the baby. If the child has zero chance of survival, then it is going to die naturally anyway." By both the definition I provided at the start which you did not contest and legal precedent in the United States it is. Furthermore there are circumstances such as with that case from Texas that I cited where the baby is alive but has zero chance of survival. If by "If the child has zero chance of survival, then it is going to die naturally anyway." you mean that it is acceptable to abort a baby with no chance of survival then I claim victory, if you think that it is not please provide an argument to that affect. "While I undertand your point about very early abortion, I still think it should be banned. If you can prove that the number of abortions would go down by permitting very early abortion, I would understand." The problem is that statistics for this are not exactly readily available however we know the following: Abortion rates in countries that do not have abortion bans are the same as those which do (technically it's a little higher in those where it is banned) [1]. Most abortions take place in the early term of the pregnancy [2]. Mexico where abortion is permitted in spesific circumstances in early stages of pregancy has a much lower rate of abortion than the United States (there's clearly more at play than just the laws though I will concede) [3] With these facts considered it would be at least a fesible conclusion that permitting early stage abortion would assist in lowering later rates of abortion. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] https://www.cdc.gov... (American statistics) [3] https://lifeinalargefamily.files.wordpress.com...
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

If the child is already dead, it is not considered an abortion to remove the baby. If the child has zero chance of survival, then it is going to die naturally anyway. While I undertand your point about very early abortion, I still think it should be banned. If you can prove that the number of abortions would go down by permitting very early abortion, I would understand. I would make it very strict for people attempting to get an abortion, so that the number would go down significantly.
Abortion should be illegal save for a threat to the mother's life.

"Very early abortion: Since it is alive (even though relatively small), it should be illegal." I mean the first question is why? The other more important point is that pro didn't even seek to address my main point with this which was that allowing early abortion will help to reduce later abortion. This is because it provides an easy option for termination early within the pregnancy preventing desperate resorts later on. Part of the reason that this should be allowed is that in countries that have banned abortion there is no statistically significant change in the rate of abortion and as a result of this in order to counter abortion later where the increased development of the baby, the ability for it to feel pain and the relative consciousness they experience. "No chance of Survival: If there is even a 1% chance, it is immoral to reduce it to 0%." Right but often here we're talking about cases where the child is already dead or has zero chance of survival which was made clear by my argument.
Imaginary Robot Master Competition

He is based off an object, but it is metaphorical and he is based off of hate. That was stated when I shown that he was born of hatred and it festered in him. He is the personification of hate. Just because I did not name him hate man, does not mean I violated the rules. The weapons and stuff still would work the same. My adversary made a false accusation, I just went with a spiffy name. The rules are abided by as far as being based off something. In addition even if you were to agree that I made the robot wrong, the worse I would suffer is conduct not a full 7 point FF. This was not specified and in actuality it would balance out the loss of conduct because of him calling for it My adversary just chosses not to debate this in any regards stating he does not exist. Stating that adamantium could not exist in the realm of mega man is a fallacy. Anything can exist in any realm, there are cross overs all the time. So his armor remains. how he would win * time flux to slow down time * speed boost to increase his speed after time is slowed * he is moving at the speed of light, and with one swift move he would severe my adversary into with this energy boost and sword Militia man would be virtually useless int his fight because of his inability to move. My adversary chose not to debate this so there is no reason to believe Veigner would lose
Imaginary Robot Master Competition

My opponent has broken the rule that states that the robot master has to be based off of an object. Since he has not, my opponent has forfeited 7 points to me. How Militia Man could beat Dr Veigner: Adamantium, in it's wiki article, states that it is a FICTIOUS metal that is used in the MARVEL COMICS(http://en.wikipedia.org...) . The only way Marvel is ever related to Megaman's univers, being made by Capcom, is the Marvel vs. Capcom video games. So, Dr. Veigner simply could not exist. Since he doesn't exist, he counts as dead, meaning that Militia Man would win by doing nothing at all. This was fun, and hope to do it again some time.
Imaginary Robot Master Competition

Dr Veigner Born and bread as a machine, technology is all veig knows. From an early age he was a robot himself that was created by his human master. His hatred toward humans led him to eventually kill his master and become a master himself. He designed the mighty nourma jean. One of the most powerful robots ever made, but he himself is powerful. He has a - Time Flux capacitor (slow down time) - accelerator engine in his feet - sword that extends from his hand. - tail that is equipped with a laser beam in the back but can be used for offense as well - grappling hook on his left hand adorned with spikes - his chest opens up and contains lock on missals - a camouflage capability that makes him invisible. - He is also made out of adamantium , the hardest metal in the universe. Adamanitum is the strongest metal ever found in the universe. Extremely flexible, light weight , and beyond durable. It has been known to hardly take any damage from bomb blasts. I will await my adversary's fight round then post mine
Imaginary Robot Master Competition

Militia Man is an over the top Robot Master, designed to look like an American soldier. Militia Man has a arm that can attach multiple weapons, as the list below: -AK-47 Assault Rifle -LA914 Sniper Rifle -Flamethrower -Death Machine -Grenade Launcher -Anti Aircraft Missile Launcher His pack is also a RC controller, that controls up to 10 RC tanks that can shoot real assault rifle bullets. Militia Man is a robot made from a liquidmetal alloy, providing extreme durability, and is a light weight material, allowing agile robots. This alloy is surrounded in a protective layer of Keplar, the same substance used for bullet proof vests. Although I really don't have time to explain any more right now, I will explain more in the How Will I Win round. On to you.
Imaginary Robot Master Competition

Have an imaginary Robot Master you want to pit in a fight? This is the debate for you! You have one round acceptance, one round where you tell all about your Robot Master, and one round that tells a scenario in which case your robot master will win! it's that simple. Any questions can be told in the comments, and I will do my best to answer them. This debate has the same rules as my last debate like this (http://www.debate.org...) Let's do this!
Rape of women is totally ok

My opponent's argument consists of 2 points: 1) God approves, and 2) Women deserve it. I'll refute both of these points, and make my own arguments.Rebuttal:God Approves: "Rapists marry the whores they violated."Nice misdirection. You mean 'rapists marry the victims/women they violated'. Now, is that fair to the woman? We should be able to choose our spouses, not be forced to marry because of rape.And uh... I'm an Athiest. What authority does God have on what's right and wrong? How does he choose what's moral?Women deserve to be raped:"Women have ruined the whole white world with their stupidity and feelings."White world? That sounds both racist and sexist. And what did they do to ruin you?"Women don't like that I don't like them so they won't allow me to enslave blacks, kill gays, drive away Jews or ban Muslims."Don't pick on Congress. There's this thing called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which make things fair for blacks, whites, men, and women. Don't blame any random women. Instead, blame Barack Obama, the president of the last 8 years, and the guys that wrote the Constitution."The female race has stripped men of their masculinity."Do they hinder? Or do they help men?"We can't even beat our children! Pedophilia, incest and bestiality are about to be as okay as homosexuality."Blame Child Protection Services. I'd rather not talk about the 2nd sentence. Well, my opinion is "People are people. Let them have opinions, and let them be people". I'd better add that to my list of quotes.This 2nd point is obviously troll. I'd better talk to Jirachi about what it makes of this situation.Argument:Unwanted pregnancy:I don't think rapists use condoms. If a woman is raped, they'd be stuck with a child they don't want. Yeah, abortion is a thing, but in the short term, there's an unwanted infant.Fairness and Equality:Everybody has rights. Raping ignores those rights, and is against the Constitution.
Rape of women is totally ok

Thank you for accepting con. First let me start by saying that all the important religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) allow the rape of your enemies, meaning nonbelievers. If you rape someone of the same religion as you however, you give the father 50 shekels and they become your wife, as you have violated her. Therefore God doesn't make a big deal, and sometimes approves totally, of rape. The biggest problem in rape is sex with someone you aren't married to. You can't rape your wife, because she is your property. Then lets go on to the next point: women deserve it and secretly want it. Women have ruined the whole white world with their stupidity and feelings. I do not like the blacks, Jews, Muslims or gays. Women don't like that I don't like them so they won't allow me to enslave blacks, kill gays, drive away Jews or ban Muslims. The female race has stripped men of their masculinity. Just look at men today! Look at education. We can't even beat our children! Pedophilia, incest and bestiality are about to be as okay as homosexuality. Like I said earlier, the biggest problem in rape is the fact that you aren't married. So, we should legalize rape, and do as the Bible says: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."" Rapists marry the whores they violated. This is the will of God.
Policy Debate: space topic 2011-2012

Here are the rules: 1. You MUST know how to do policy debate. If you don't know what I am talking about then do not accept the challenge. 2. You may either use Google docs or this to post your argument, I will use Google docs for my arguments 3. The winner gets all 7 points 4. Round one is acceptance It will go as follows: rd1: acceptance rd2: 1AC 1NC rd3: 2AC 2NC/1NR rd4: 1AR 2NR rd5: 2AR, con must either forfeit the round or do not bring up anything about the debate, to make it seem more like policy debate. (my bad I forgot to change the rounds)
Policy Debate: space topic 2011-2012

Correct, U.S. does give money to NASA. Still, the USFG (United States Federal Government) is providing money to NASA so clearly the USFG is having a part of this plan, and clearly topical.My opponent dropped everything else except this accusation; also my opponent did not give any reasons why to vote for him because of this T argument, I said that clearly in my last speech and still nothing so my opponent can not bring anything up about that so there is no clear reason to vote for Con/Neg. But my arguments still stand on why there needs to be a space elevator, because if we don't switch to it then reaching space will cost far too much money, the Earths ozone layer will be depleted, and the Earth will have so much space debris that no one can get into space. Vote for Pro/Aff.
Policy Debate: space topic 2011-2012

I clearly addressed T, I said "we meet" for your USFG T argument because I said that the USFG will fund NASA, I gave a counter-definition for the word "The" for a debate of T. You gave no voters for T or why it is important so therefore T is not a voter in this debate. You dropped all your arguments, and agreed all to mine, so I win this debate. I mean really, a SPACE elevator not topical? All I have to say to that is ... Vote Aff/Pro.
Morals are subjective not objective

In Pro's closing statement:“Morals derive from ones own conciousness and can differ from person to person therefore they are dependent on what the subject believes therfore they are subjective.”Throughout this debate Pro was treating morals as values, where Con was treating morals as one's “external” process of right or wrong relative to another's Unalienable Rights. The “object of thought” to do the right or wrong “external” event effecting others, relative to one's values or society's norms, has both elements of being objective and subjective. In closing, I find it the moral thing to do, to thank Pro for a learning experience that I will value in future debates and in my personal life. I look forward to meeting Pro again, on the debating floor, for another constructive and learning experience.
Morals are subjective not objective

Objective 1. Of or pertaining to an object. 2. Of pertaining to an object, contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; esternal; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever is exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings, and apposed to subjective. Morals are within the mind alone and not objects therefore we can conclude they are not objective. Subjective 1. Of or pertaining to a subject. 2. Especially, pertianing to, or derived from, one's own consiousness, in distinction from external observation, relating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, ones's own internal states. Morals derive from ones own conciousness and can differ from person to person therefore they are dependent on what the subject believes therfore they are subjective.
Morals are subjective not objective

We are parsing words here. According to your definition of “Objective” in part, “... or having the nature or position of, ... external; ...or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings and opposed to subjective.” Is not morality “having the nature or position” through the “object of thought or feeling” by doing the right thing, an “external” process, relative to social norms, and as a result, generates subjective feelings in others?