BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pokemon is Better Than Yu-Gi-Oh

I agree in having a good stress relieving debate as well. My oponents states that YGO (Yu-Gi-Oh) is something to fascinate people in Universities and studiers of anchient history, but this is, as stated by parody series of YGO such as "abriged Series" (. http://www.yugiohabridged.com...), a "Childrens card game", and it is. Its goal is that of entertainment for children, not for people in universities and studiers of anchient history. I dont mean to offend anyone who is older and plays YGO, but its main target in sales is children. Also, it is not primarily about Ancient Egypt and history as much as it is about a card game between short kids with huge hair. Pokemon, on the other hand, is not confusing young minds with things such as ancient egypt and history, but as a fun way to raise a team of your own warriors to fight for fun. And for a comparison between the card game of YGO and Pokemon, YGO is very graphic. Graveyard? Traps? Life points? Attacking? this game acts as though it is a matter of life and death, not a simple card game. While there are many cards in the game, a large margin of those cards have images of blood and gore, with monsters eating eachother and ripping eachother apart. How is this a good way to affect the kids these days? In the Pokemon trading card game, there is simple things, like discard piles and prize cards, no death and life points and such. Its a much more simple and less graphic way to play card games. And there is not a single card that shows pokemon ripping nor eating eachother apart. As for the television series, they say that the so called "heart of the cards" deals with getting emotionally attached to cards, and that somehow incorperates with getting lucky. It almosts seems like gambling, but I'm not even going to go there. But giving kids the idea that if you think hard enough about a card being what you want it to be on top of your "deck", makes kids think that they somehow will get it. And then, to there most likely dissapointment, they see it is not it. How does thinking hard enough about something will make it happen? In pokemon, it involves skill, not mindless guessing and hoping, but skill. In the games, the only time you have to worry about chance is if a certain risky attack will land or not. I again thank my oponent for this debate and am glad to partake in it. Have fun with this. :)
Pokemon is Better Than Yu-Gi-Oh

Yu-gi-oh's premise is old Egyptian card games, which, to many people, is fascinating, hence why past cultural studies (ancient history) are offered in school, university etc. It is this fascination which makes the franchise so popular and successful. The mechanics of the card game are relatively simple and are accessible to people of all ages. However, it also challenging enough to reach into higher dimensions of competitive play. Variety is abundant in the card game as there are about 5000 (I can't find the actual amount, but I think we can agree on this) different cards available. There are many different tactics and strategies to be found within different combinations as a result of the huge variety. The television series offers excitement and life's-lessons rather than in depth tactics (or even abiding by the rules). "Heart of the cards" reminds children that winning isn't everything as the spirit in which you play is, ultimately, the most important.
Pokemon is Better Than Yu-Gi-Oh

And I am supportting the affirmative. Ok, so Pokemon is better because of the franchise it has created. It has had over ten successful years and has appealed to many kids and even adults more so than any other game about anime battling monsters. It has cards, tv shows, posters, and most popular, the games. Being able to create your own team to what you prefer and able to endure on a long journey that will lead to hours of entertainment. Yu-Gi-Oh, while still popular, focuses primarilly on a card game. It has a TV series about kids playing cards. Really? watching kids play with cards for 30 minutes? Not fun. The video games are just playing cards as well, and also lack the fun of the Pokemon games. For these basic reasons I support Pokemon over Yu-Gi-Oh.
Due to Irrationality, Capitalism Needs Nationalism to Survive

The problem with my opponents' arguments is they refer to dependent, not independent economies. Hong Kong, Switzerland, and New Zealand are primarily involved in international finance and trade which means they need nationalism elsewhere. Without external nationalism, the internal internationalism in those countries would be unsustainable. Please remember that the proposition did not say "Capitalism needs internal nationalism to survive." It only said "Capitalism needs nationalism to survive." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "New Zealand has a market economy that depends greatly on international trade, mainly with Australia, the European Union, the United States, China, South Korea and Japan." "As one of the world's leading international financial centers, Hong Kong"s service-oriented economy is characterised by low taxation, near free port trade and well established international financial market." "The economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most stable economies. Its policy of long-term monetary security and political stability has made Switzerland a safe haven for investors, creating an economy that is increasingly dependent on a steady tide of foreign investment. Because of the country's small size and high labor specialization, industry and trade are the keys to Switzerland's economic livelihood. Switzerland has achieved one of the highest per capita incomes in the world with low unemployment rates and a balanced budget. The service sector has also come to play a significant economic role... ...The majority of the working population are involved in the Tertiary or Services sector of the economy (71.0% in 2012)."
Due to Irrationality, Capitalism Needs Nationalism to Survive

The parameters of the debate are somewhat restrictive, but I will try my best to abide by them. Let's begin As con, my burden of proof seems rather simple. It is my belief that based on the resolution and nature of the argument, I do not have to do anything other than point out a scenario where capitalism survived or still survives, and nationalism was not necessary, as this would prove that capitalism does not necessarily need nationalism to survive. Nationalism: : a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries There are many examples of prosperous nations with market economies that are not nationalistic, let's look at some examples: Hong Kong: Ranked #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong is anything but nationalist. in 2005, 67.4% of Interviewees on an HKPOP poll said they did not want Hong Kong to be independent of China Switzerland: Ranked #5 on the Index of Economic Freedom, Switzerland is one of the least nationalistic countries in the world, and even considered by some a multi-national state. New Zealand: Ranked #4 on the Index of Economic Freedom, New Zealand commonly identifies with Australia and is rarely seen as nationalistic by any sense of the word. http://www.wzb.eu... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.google.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Due to Irrationality, Capitalism Needs Nationalism to Survive

Simple debate, simple point. Unfortunately, human nature is not necessarily rational. Yes, there are many rational individuals who think before they act, but human nature is diverse. Many people entail "consciousness on the ride" where despite being perceptive of their surroundings, their judgment is emotionally overridden. In turn, capitalism requires these emotionally judgmental people to be balanced against one another. If they're not, then they will violate private property out of selfish laziness. Some will do it because they're unwilling to produce themselves. Others will do it out of spiting the wealthy. Then, there will be those who want to help the less fortunate, so they're simply willing to steal from those who applied themselves to become successful instead of appreciating voluntary relationships. These emotionally judgmental people by default target rational people. They target those who think before they act, and save before investing. They intrinsically engage in dialectic before analytic reasoning, and seek to compare and contrast themselves against others to obtain a sense of self. That is on an individual level, they seek out those who think things out instead of feeling things out, and as feelers, they seek to enslave thinkers to their will. To avoid this, feelers must be bent on comparing themselves against each other. That is they must be divided among nations, and expected to compete against one another so the capitalists can survive. If human nature was necessarily rational, internationalism could rule instead since the desire to compare and contrast would not target savings and investment. Unfortunately, human nature is not, so nationalism is needed instead.
Hamas are justified in their actions

While some mainstream media may have a pro Palestinian bias, I have found it is rare to find any that actually voice support for Hamas. In fact they are considered terrorists almost universally, even by 'so called' neutral media. I'm taking this position on what is Hamas' current position as I do realize that documents such as the Hamas Charter of 1988 are deeply antisemitic and were made back in a time when Hamas were bitter following a succession of failed battles. I'm excited to take a debate against someone as I do truly believe that this is a neglected view point which does have some justification for it.
Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

I'm enjoying this round and I hope for it to be good until the end. 1.Morality-Your argument is that since we can't solve all of it, we shouldn't solve any of it. That's a terrible argument. Your saying other, countries would push back against the US but in the end, they wouldn't. North Korea is a country that no one likes and is causing global issues. You also said we can't police the world but, we've been doing that forever. That's what WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea all were. 2.Political-Even if a lot of countries don't want the means, the ends still justify it. Fascism must be stopped. It is inherently evil. It failed because we gave insurgents government control. We could give control of the North Korea to South Korea and not only would that make them happy with us again, but it would make sure it won't backfire. 3.Existential-The proof is North Korea's threats. North Korea threatens to nuke Japan, South Korea, and the United States constantly. I don't know what to say besides we can't buy your argument that they want peace. We either believe everything they say or nothing. Either way, I believe this argument is a wash. If you agree, say it's a wash in the next speech and we will both drop it. If you don't then say you want to continue it. 4.China-Let's truly look at the China argument. Why would China try to bail out a super hazardous, small and effectively bad country? Just because China hates the idea of a democratic country on its border doesn't mean it would go to war for North Korea. It uses its threats as a bargaining chip and nothing more. 5.Lives-Even if the death count would be high, it would be worth it for the sake of human rights. I would rather die in a fair would than live in an unjust one. For the sake of human rights and the logical conclusion that no one would try to bail out the hazardous and inherently evil North Korea, I urge an aff vote.
Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

We should invade North Korea for a multitude of reasons. The reasons range from moral, political and existential. 1. Morality-There is a multitude of human right violations in North Korea that need to be ended. These include censorship, lack of right to a jury, lack of freedom of speech, etc. These will not be ended on there own without outside forces. 2. Political-North Korea is the most fascist of all countries in the world and that needs to be stopped for the sake of democracy. This also applies to their communist economy but to a lesser extent. 3. Existential-North Korea is trying to accomplish nuclear proliferation. If they achieve this goal, then the first nuclear attack since WWII will happen. Kim Jong Un is insane and will attack the United States, Japan or even South Korea. This will lead to a nuclear attack against North Korea by who they attack or an ally. The nuke would spill over the edges into China and lead to a nuclear war that would lead to the extinction of humanity.
Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

(I would ask to not have any new evidence in the final speech.) 1.Russia-I proved there would be no Russia war because we have common interests and Russia wants to improve American relations with president Trump. I find it unfair to the aff to say "I never said Russia would put troops in North Korea but it's possible." Not making a definite stance on the argument makes it unfair to me because I can attack but then you'd drop it but if I don't say anything you'd call me out on it. 2.Morality-Human rights issues are one of the most terrible things in the world, and for you to just say "some human right issues," like it means nothing. It's sad that we talk about unfairness and basic rights violations that our founding father's fought for is just treated like a second-hand issue. Now you keep saying that I haven't proven that we won't go to war with China but not only did I show that they use threats as tools, but we and China have so many adjoining goals that we won't go to war. Also if North Korea won't do these threats, then they won't use it for defense because we can't just believe 3.Political-You've actually dropped the core point of the political argument. I was saying was we should end fascism. Also, I proved that we would not fight China. 4.Existential-I've proven there will be no China war but, North Korea has threatened to nuke other countries. If you get to believe there claims at defense only, then we have to believe their claims of nuking other countries. 5.China-Proved there would be no war. Since we have competing evidence, we just have to hope that the judge listens to the logic found only on my side. Your side of the debate is the weakest I have ever seen. The reason I say this is because you only have one argument, China. On human rights you say, it doesn't matter because war, which is wrong and immoral. If someone had a scrap of humanity, they would not just ignore human rights because of a disproven war. Politics, you say fascism can exist because there could be a war. The existentialism you say it doesn't exist because North Korea says so. North Korea says it will nuke other nations. You just like to ignore that fact. Don't buy the negs China war. There is evidence on both sides, so we have to go by logic. China would never risk itself for North Korea. For the sake of human rights, ending fascism, stopping North Korea's nuclear threats vote aff.
Anything of too much is deadly. Therefore moderation is a key to a well being

Okay, sorry for not posting, see comments. Firstly, moderation is different for every being. For instance, someone suffering from a disease may need more medication than a healthy being. So, the medications for a sick being may seem extreme, but in fact, it's not. This is what people need to accept. You are saying that the statement is completely incorrect whereas I am meant to be saying that it is completely true. I believe that this statement cannot "rule" over our way of life. Moderation can save your life in some instances, but sometimes having extreme amounts of something, such as wealth, is not "deadly" as such. To conclude, I'd like to say that the statement is not useless, but is simply not going to save our lives in all circumstances.
Anything of too much is deadly. Therefore moderation is a key to a well being

I will not further argue, as the Pro seemed to have forfeited a round. But as the final round, I would like to conclude that absolute statement of "anything of too much is deadly" is not true all the time. It's more of a heuristic, or a rule of thumb in our society as it occurs often, but not an absolute statement of truth. Thank you all for reading this debate.
Anything of too much is deadly. Therefore moderation is a key to a well being

I would like to focus on two topics: money and health. MONEY A lot of people believes that having enormous wealth, especially through lottery, can be harmful. However, I believe that is not the case for all. If the money is not one of the primary driving motivators in their life, I believe they will be able to overcome the side effect of having wealth, such as greediness and covetousness. One of the exemplar is Dobri Dobrev, a 98-years old beggar (more can be read through the link below). And although it's a case study, i believe if at least one person is able to, I believe it's possible (regardless how difficult it might be) for everyone. HEALTH Health, being one of the factors in the well being of a person, cannot be deadly to a well being. p. s. I couldn't expound greatly with 1000 characters limits that I've set up. Sources (Dobri Dobrev) . http://www.9jabook.com...
Anything of too much is deadly. Therefore moderation is a key to a well being

First, I would like to define the key terms. Deadly = causing or able to cause death. Moderation = avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits Well being = the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous (in all aspects - physically, emotionally, financially, etc) First round will be the acceptance of the definitions and of the debate. Second will be the proposal of argument Third will be the counterargument and closing. I'm a novice in debate, so I hope to learn from this experience. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
X to the Zeroth Power Equals One

0 is a real number. 00 is not equal to 1 (it is undefined). X0 is only equal to 1 for X not equal to 0; the resolution is false.00 is not equal to 1 The limit of 0X as X approaches 0 is 0 The limit of X0 as X approaches 0 is 1 Both tend towards 00; 00 is undefined.
X to the Zeroth Power Equals One

Somewhat ironically, my opponent's graph from http://en.wikipedia.org... (see: In Analysis) was actually a visual demonstration of why from an analytic point of view 00 is indeterminate since xy is not continuous at the origin. Depending on f and g, the limit of f(t)g(t) as f and g tend towards 0 can be found to be any nonnegative real number, ∞, or undefined. The fact that for f and g under certain conditions the limit is 1 does not help my opponent's case considering the many functions where this is not the case.My opponent's source http://www.math.hmc.edu... also states that 00 is undefined, but if it could be defined it "should" be 1.My opponent is correct that there are contexts such as the binomial theorem where it is useful to treat 00 as 1; however, there are other contexts where treating 00 as 1 is problematic and leads to contradictions, such as in analysis. Depending on the context in which 00 occurs, you may want 00 to be 1, indeterminate, or undefined. For this reason it would be innaccurate to state that 00 = 1; the resolution is negated.Thanks to Subutai for an interesting maths debate.
X to the Zeroth Power Equals One

It is true that x0 equals 1 for every non-zero value. It is only reasonable to assume that the function equals 1 when x is zero also. Here is a graphical representation. It is a plot of z = xy. The red curves (with z constant) yield different limits as (x,y) approaches (0,0): The green curves (of finite constant slope, y = ax) all yield a limit of 1.Think of it another way. Equations such as the binomial theorem require 00 to equal 1 for x=1 in order for that equation to be valid. The power rule in differential calculus requires 00 to equal 1 for x=0. Here is an example of how the binomial theorem requires this. Using this equation: After expanding the binomial power using the binomial theorem and with a little other algebra, we have: Pulling the k=0 terms out of both equations yields: More algebra yields: That produces: At this point, we must consider whether 00 equals 0 or 1. Indeterminacy is not an option, since the situation is real and is required to continue the simplification. If we take 00 to equal 0, the final formula for Sp(N) is off by a linear constant –N. Choosing 00 to equal 1 yields the right answer. For example, for S5(10), if 00 equals 0, we end up with the erroneous answer of 220,825, while is 00 equals 1, the verified result of 220,815 is determined. In general, the sum ∑n=0->∞ an(x-c)n is problematic at x=c, and this can be fixed by defining 00 to equal 1, which arrives at the verified correct answer, whereas defining 00 to equal 0 produces an incorrect answer. Either way, indeterminacy is not an option because the equation needs to be solved.____________________________________________________________________________________________http://mathscitech.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.math.hmc.edu...∑ = sum ofBinomial Theorem:
X to the Zeroth Power Equals One

Limits are useful in showing what functions tend towards, however they do not show what functions are equal to. For example, limx->0 0/x = 0, however this does not mean that 0/0 is equal to 0. XX may tend towards 1 as X approaches 0, however it is not equal to 1. My opponent's proof involves opperations which are undefined when X = 0, therefor it does not show that XX is 1 when X is 0. Consider the following steps in my opponent's proof:exp( 0*log(0) )log(0) is undefinedlimx->0 log(x) = -∞0 * -∞ is undefinedexp( log(0)/0-1 )Both 0-1and log(0) undefinedlimx->0 x-1 = ∞-∞/∞ is undefinedexp( 0-1/ -0-2)Both 0-1 and 0-2 are undefinedThus exp(0-1/ -0-2) is undefined and is not equal to exp( 0 ) thus 00=/=1 (it is undefined)Even if rewritten as exp(-02/ 01) this opperation still involves division by 0 which is undefined.My opponents proof shows that XX tends towards 1 as X tends towards 0, however 00 remains undefined as shown above. Thus, X0 is not 1 for all real numbers; the resolution is negated.
X to the Zeroth Power Equals One

My opponent seems to agree that X0=1 for all cases except where X=0. He says that that value is undefined. However, using math, it can be shown that for that value, the equation is also equal to 1. Think of the function XX and what happens as X approaches zero: = = = = = = =e0 =1 Therefore, because =1, 00 =1 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Reference: http://www.askamathematician.com... lim = limit exp = eX (d/dx [f(x)]) = Equals the derivative of some function, f(x).