BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Note who is right Kira or L

Welcome then Myself Talach Sumer im a boy. Plz intorduce ur self also to counter my intro. Let start then, Oh no my favourite is L. I have total crush on this character. But in debate i m taking Kira sides. Kira is good, Intelligent and as a normal college kid. He just want to be crime less society. ! Criminal less society! For that he take a hard action to banish such creatures by killing them with the help of death note. He knows as his father in police that the legal procedure for justice is lame and not much effective to make his dream true. He certainly make crime rate fall by killing. His action r just like god which stand againts for injustice. Even its way r bad but the changes in soceity r appreciate by many people even though they name him kira God of justice God of the new world. His actions r for the creation of new good living crime less criminal less society only.
Death Note who is right Kira or L

Hey thanks for that day we settle in round four that's good. once again thanks for forfiting round four. I m totally out of mind yesterday. but i post some small argues on that day in comment box. Plz check if u want. I know that is not considerable argues. Its must be in the proper round not in comment box! Lets start then, Well i have less points and also favour to prove that Light was right. i simply revel for u that" it's tough on kira side to argue with flawless" On the starting scenario light only kills the criminals which deserve to die, Either by law or by him " which is right things" but the L take this thing out of the box and made him kira. Which now both do right and bad things. and the bad things for only his self defence. On just when appearance of L he challenge Light to kill him. Make him to, Take out his crazyness to became a ruthless person. ON ur points of views, Its concluded that killing a person is not right either he is criminal or not. Then L is also wrong as Kira. Because he let light to kill Linda L Taylor. Actually L put his dummy to test light. Knowing that the cause of linda death. He knows it at all, Whats gone to happen. But he just lay low and watch linda die. And from this he challenge light, He creates rivals games along light to kill him he just tease him to be crazy and make some flaws. but light yagami was intelligent. He over came all lines, Barrier that L establish to capture him. But here this action of L change the light into kira he does the killing thing as a game. L only wants to capture Kira. BUT such a way he's using cause light to kira tranformation he make light to be panic on situtation but kira over this but he became ruthless. It's all L treating ways of things that the rightness of light goes to self defence murder. its started with linda taylor where L manupulates "creates rivalry" the condition of light to be bad person. if L makes some other judgement at first then may be a chances that the light yagami would called by another name at the end "not by kira" THAT'S ALL I GOT in these debate. Plz u have to square my points. make A good stand for L. My favourite. but on end i say the rightness of a things is not to be judge by how cruel, Or bad he is its needed to be noted that whats reasons behind it. in my case Kira side his idea r good to create crime free society but the way he choose is bad but he's action and ways r totally work in the series. people r still confuse some to take a side in between L and KIRA. MY DEBATE OVER now.
Death Note who is right Kira or L

"I m not saying that saying that Kira is innocent person at all. His hands r bloodiest from all other character in series. " Then how can Kira be right? "But its initiative was simple that, Bad of worst guys need to be don't exits. But as he gain the power of death note he become ruthless, Kill anyone who threat to his dream. " So then, How can someone who's a ruthless and merciless killer be right? "And the war started between kira vs L. And history taught us that every thing is fair in war. We just have to surpass our enemy no matter what it takes. That what kira do. " The idiom, "all's fair in love and war, " doesn't apply here because it was the police vs Kira. Kira had followers, Yeah, But they were never organized nor trained in armed conflict. Furthermore, L didn't seek to kill Kira; he sought to capture Kira and hold him accountable for his crimes; Kira neither wanted to get caught nor answer for his crimes. He was evading the very "justice" for which he claimed he murdered. "Kira killed those innocent people for only his self defence perspective. " It wasn't self-defense. Neither Ray Penber, Nor his wife to be, Naomi, Initiated any form of violence or aggression toward him. And to make matters worse, Naomi, Was only investigating the death of her fiancee. And when Naomi was close to discovering the identity of Kira, Kira reveals himself to her (taunting her) just before he compels her to kill herself. Where is the "justice" in that? What about his sister Sayu? She was only a hostage of Melo but he considered killing her because he didn't want SPK to discover that Kira had an attachment to Sayu Yagami. Where's the "self-defense" in that? That wasn't self-defense; that was self-preservation. "HE do really feel pain"bottom of the heart' for killing those people (ray penber, Naomi, L, His sister, His assiatants etc. . ) but he do that such a terrible thing to survive againts L. " Kira was without remorse. Even in the end of the series when his identity was finally discovered, He showed no remorse for his victims. He didn't even have remorse for his dead father when Matsuda brought up the subject. He showed no restraint in manipulating and killing his followers, Either (e. G. Kiyomi Takada. ) And was the least bit affected when learning of their deaths. "but he do that such a terrible thing to survive againts L. " So how does this make Kira right? How is he any different from any other criminal who's just trying to "survive" against the police? "the death note corrupted the light yagami. After he give up the owner ship of book he just opposes the idealogy of KIRA also for a bit of time he on L side to find out the x kira. " So if the Death Note corrupted Light Yagami, Then how can the product of the Death Note, Kira, Be just or right? "AT LAST THE FAULT IS IN THE POWER WHICH ITS GOES ITS CREATES MIND DISORDER just same happen to KIRA. " So once again, How is Kira right?
Death Note who is right Kira or L

WELL I M quite impress from ur knowledge on subject. Its pretty good from me on the debate. Its kind of i m facing some tough guy. I m not saying that saying that Kira is innocent person at all. His hands r bloodiest from all other character in series. But its initiative was simple that, Bad of worst guys need to be don't exits. But as he gain the power of death note he become ruthless, Kill anyone who threat to his dream. Even his intelligence is as super as L. He get its rival. And the war started between kira vs L. And history taught us that every thing is fair in war. We just have to surpass our enemy no matter what it takes. That what kira do. Kira killed those innocent people for only his self defence perspective. Not such as he motivated to kill criminals. HE do really feel pain"bottom of the heart' for killing those people (ray penber, Naomi, L, His sister, His assiatants etc. . ) but he do that such a terrible thing to survive againts L. but its quite on L side then, L knows that Linda L Taylar was going to die. As tough is it good from legal side. the death note corrupted the light yagami. After he give up the owner ship of book he just opposes the idealogy of KIRA also for a bit of time he on L side to find out the x kira. its totally fault of that book and the shinigami riuk that's only wants entertainment. AT the end of series riuk words r just gives the sympathy to light yagami as a fare well and sorrow that he convert such innocent person wages to death end. AT LAST THE FAULT IS IN THE POWER WHICH ITS GOES ITS CREATES MIND DISORDER just same happen to KIRA.
god is real and can be proven empirically

The fact is that con has left the definiton of god as undefined, in any debate, such a thing must absolutely be defined. Most people will state characteristics such as omipotence or transedence...ect, con litterally does nothing, the term god is arguably the most wide of all definitions to be honest. Because he didn't define it, I defined it, as is only fair. It is much to late to change the definition now lol, and you should never argue in the final rounds. I do not have to base my definition of god on some mainstream religion, that is to say that only mainstream religions are plausibly valid which is idiotic, even if my definition of god came from my own personal religion that is good enough. But, I would like to tell everyone that I actually am part of a religion who defines god this way, its known as LeVayan Stanism, here is what we believe: "In Satanism each individual is his or her own god—there is no room for any other god and that includes Satan, Lucifer, Cthulhu or whatever other name one might select or take from history or fiction." Thus just for your personal content, I actually am following a mainstream religion.I am god! I am Human! All humans can be emprically human! God can be emprically proven!That's it, thanks for the time you put into the debate it was actually fun lol, but next time define your terms man...
god is real and can be proven empirically

I am sorry, but when speaking to people of even average intellect I would assume that certain definitions that are common place would not have to be so narrowly and specifically redefined as to prevent someone from seeing a word and giving it a new definition. Full Definition of GOD (according the the merriam-webster dictionary) 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler Obviously you cannot prove the 1st, 2nd or 4th empirically, my guess is you will than choose some half attempted idea at saying that you have supreme value, and that because you yourself give it. However you have forgotten to prove yourself to have supreme value even as a human. What makes you so much more supreme than others? Or if you are claiming to be a god, has anyone else been able to support your claims to supremacy? Other than redefining words do you have any other way to prove this? No, the answer is simply no. I would of at least respected and appreciated a theist argument on morality, or science, and trying to make that somehow fit within parameters, but no, you took an argument. Changed it's core concept to fit your own, and when I won't accept your completely ridiculous definition you call me ignorant? How about this, you are not a god because I say so? There, I have proven from my "beliefs" (which yours or mine cannot be proven) that you are not, now we have dumbed this possibly entertaining and interesting debate to a person with issues of false grandeur, psychosis, or just a very poor concept of words. Take your pick or concede that your original argument was foolish. It was an attempt to immediately confuse words and push this discussion to position where you can talk about yourself. You even admit in your own argument that you chose to define it, and yet when I use a definition that is so common and widely known you accuse me of not making clear what is an obvious statement. Also, do you mean atheistic satanism or theistic? If theistic than you are wrong, if atheistic, than well my friend you are still wrong. If you alone in your head define yourself as a god than I seriously hope that you may find therapy and help, because you are insane.
god is real and can be proven empirically

Pro failed to define what god is, as such the interpritation is up to me and my understanding of what god is. The first round is always for rules and clarification, so you see, as you have failed to do that, it is no longer fair for you to control the definition. Your argument is pretty close to ignorant, you cannot assert in the resolution that there is a god who exists, and he can be proven empirically, to then state that we must justify god as he is defined in christianity, toaism, judiasm, islam, or what have you, as this is contradictory to all of those religions. We are clearly arguing that there is an god, and this god can be proven empirically. I am the one true god and thus I will of course prove my existance empirically. For starters you have already conceeded that I am human, any human is able to be empirically proven and thus I exist. I am god and thus god exists. Further empirical proof shows that because I am responding to your argument uniquely, I am most likely a person. Please do not be confused my son, the argument would begod=me=human not human=god=me, even though technically they mean the same thing it is misleading to do it the second way. In any case you clearly understand that by god=me and am not saying that the definion of god is the definition of me, besides I explicitly stated that I am god in the round before so this semantical thing doesn't work out. I define god as me, this is because I am god, I am also a human as con conceedes and any human can be empirically proven to exist, thus god empirically exists.Even though I dont have to be part of a mainstream religion to show that the god I speak of, me, exists that there are religions that exist which claim that the self is god such as satanism. I am god, and I am a human and thus I win this debate automatically. Thanks for your time and I look forward to next round.
god is real and can be proven empirically

I disagree, and you are wrong. While I admire that you have a bit of creativity and a bit of cunning, in all religions and beliefs god carries at least some supernatural abilities. Even in non Abrahamic faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism as supernatural entity still remains. However, before you go on and say "Well i am my own religion and I make it up so I can be what I want". This is in a sense equivocation, as you have deliberately taken a statement, change around it's obvious intent to make it into a argument which I have to argue your misuse of the word "god". Now that I have pointed out your obvious and logical issues, let me rip apart your argument piece by piece. "God=me" "I am god according to what I believe" One, god = me, from that statement am I to assume that god has the same meaning as me and vis-versa, if that is the case you have added on another unnecessary definition that does nothing to enhance the debate but to confusion and muddy the discussion. And two you fail to mention what you believe, do you say that you are omnipotent? Are you implying that you have a rebirth "nirvana" cycle where you are a god of sorts in a Buddhist way? (Which good luck proving empirically again). And while using observation is one of the main criteria of the empirical method, please do not pretend that no logic plays into it, it is not based solely on logic, as it requires a way to prove to our senses that something is true/untrue. Your comment that you are a human just conceded your loss by the way. Unless we are going to also now say that human = god = me. Which is just throwing more confusing terminology into an again creative, but very very poorly thought out argument. Again, let me restate, you are using words as they are not normally used, you are going against your own claims in once sentence than in the next supporting you original viewpoint which itself is just an attempt at an argument, and while I will concede that you are a human, you are not a god, and you have no proven any god like qualities empirically. You may invent whatever random thoughts come to your head, but me and you both know that anything you say now is an attempt at defense and you have already lost this debate. I look forward to your rebuttal!
god is real and can be proven empirically

God=meI am god according to what I believe, I can only assume that you meant god according to the opponent's belief and I believe that I am god. Empirically means according to observation and not solely on logic or faith. In this debate I will show why I exist empirically, firstly, let me note that I am a human, this claim is supported by the observation that I am on this website, as it is unlikely that someone that is not a human is posting a specific argument to a specific person. This claim will be confirmed when I reply to the next round's post, showing that I understan what is going on and am most likely a human. I maintain that if I exist, and I am god, then god is empically real. Thank you, I look forward to next round!
Students shouldn't be allowed to leave school early for extracurricular activities.

Students should still leave during school hours because the quicker the students get to their activities the sooner they can get home. It will be illogical to make students go home at an ungodly hour just so they can make sure they get every bit of education material for the day. You argument at a first glance seems like a logical one but when you actually think about it, it is flawed.
100 zombies would lose against 100 Spartans

Thank you. And alright, If somehow only the 22% of Spartans immune to the virus were selected to be a part of the group,and had also somehow have zombie fighting experience, then the Spartans have a greater chance than the previous hypothetical group. Because, I would think a Spartan would have a more difficult time fighting a zombie for the first time. The way zombies attack and fight is unorthodox. The zombies fight like animals. And as cool as it sounds, I doubt the Spartans practiced fighting against animals. That's only in the movie, "300. " Spartans are use to fighting people with swords and shields. You must of misread the part about education. I said that the zombies were not intelligent. I know that the Spartans knew everything there was to know about war and fighting people at the time. There is no denying that. But again, I know that the Spartans would have an extremely difficult time fighting this new opponent. In round 2 my opponent said, "The Spartans in question are all seasoned veterans that were not affected by the green flu, thus they should know how to kill the zombies as they have survived up to this point. " Meaning, the Spartans have fought Zombies before. Therefore it's more than 100 zombies. The only way it can truly be 100 vs 100, is if the Spartans have no zombie fighting experience. In round 2, my opponent said. "but when I formed this debate, I was assuming that the Spartans in question were all from the 22% that are immune to the virus" I would say that , he should of said something along those lines before I accepted the debate. Otherwise, my initial point about the infection stands strong. My opponent has not refuted this point. Finally, the title at the top of the argument reads, "100 Zombies would Lose against 100 Spartans. " As if implying that there is a 100% chance that a million tested scenarios would run over and over again, and the clear winner, 100% of the time would be the Spartans. This is not the case. I think I have given a decent argument that would give the edge to the zombies.
100 zombies would lose against 100 Spartans

Well worded, I can concede your point on the infection topic, but when I formed this debate, I was assuming that the Spartans in question were all from the 22% that are immune to the virus. To some comments about how uneducated the Spartans were, they were taught to administer all blows to be killers, ex.. To the head or the chest of the target, both of which would kill any normal zombie. The Spartans in question are all seasoned veterans that were not affected by the green flu, thus they should know how to kill the zombies as they have survived up to this point.
100 zombies would lose against 100 Spartans

Zombies have a greater chance in defeating the Spartans. I wish my opponent luck and thank him for this opportunity. So, In most zombie scenarios, there is usually a reason for the sudden appearance of zombies. In the game "left for dead", the zombies were a result of a virus called "green flu". "Green Flu; a HIGHLY contagious virus causing extreme aggression, mutation to the body cells, and loss of higher brain functions. " This virus comes into contact with most humans in the game, turning a large portion of the people in the world in to zombies. If at least one of the zombies were to come into contact with any one of the Spartans, the infection might spread to a large amount of the soldiers. This is a highly contagious virus. And the Spartan strategy of close quarters combat does not help them. I would consider 100 or so Zombified Spartans a lose. Even if the infection did not kill the entire Spartan unit, the Zombies would still win. What's scarier than A Zombie and a Spartan? That's right, Zombie Spartans. Zombie Spartans are just as strong, if not stronger than the Spartan survivors. Note: Immunity to the infection in left 4 dead, is 22% of people. If the infection did not transform, let's say 22 Spartans, the other 78 Spartans that were on your side are now brain starved, infectious, Zombie Spartans. And They're in the mood for some Greek. I think I remember you saying, "zombies only win by having sheer numbers. " 178 Zombies(max) to at most, 22 Spartans. Also, the zombies are definitely dumb. Strategy is not their strong suit. But, Zombies in left for dead and Zombies typically seen in more recent movies, are certainly not slow runners. . http://left4dead.wikia.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
100 zombies would lose against 100 Spartans

Zombies are slow and dumb, the dead are meant to stay dead, and the Spartans were the best of their time, zombies only win by having sheer numbers, and the Spartans' shield would push the zombies back. Just for clarification, I am speaking of regular zombies from left4dead. Also, this is staged before the Spartans were all killed off, when Sparta was in its prime.