BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

Main Argument 2:"your sub argument of how the word fun cannot be comparative or superlative, every adjective has a comparative and superlative form. An adjective that is one syllable adds the endings -er and -est respectively. Any adjective that is more than two syllables adds more and most to the beginning respectively."Sub Argument 2: Since you mentioned that, I have something to say. Not every one syllable word has to have -er or -est. In fact, some two or more syllable words could have -er or -est. You could find the word funner in some dictionaries, but adding more and most make sense. For example, the word popular has to have more and most. But again, saying the term depends on how you see the word. Some people might think to add more and most and others don't because they believe to saying slang than using proper language. I am not saying that you like to use slang a lot, I am just saying. You can talk like that to your friends but you can use it however you like. Contractions could be considered slang, but how you believe it is how you believe it. I like using the full meaning of the contraction rather than using the contraction itself. I am very proper and I do not talk slang. In fact, my family is very proper. My friends like using slang, but that is ok.Conclusion: It is not how it is informal, but it is how you believe it is.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

Once again, I thank you for debating me. I have enjoyed it very much. Now onto my arguement... To your sub argument of how the word fun cannot be comparative or superlative, every adjective has a comparative and superlative form. An adjective that is one syllable adds the endings -er and -est respectively. Any adjective that is more than two syllables adds more and most to the beginning respectively. Since fun is considered can be considered an adjective and it has one syllable the terms "fun" and "funner" are gramatically correct. While I agree it is slightly informal as said in last argument due to the history of the word, it is, nonetheless, gramatically correct as a word and should be appropriate for almost any use.
Children should be vaccinated

Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled " CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999", "Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to "compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list." In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. "CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999." EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html.
Children should be vaccinated

Mothers need to vaccinate their children in order for them to avoid getting fatal diseases. Most diseases are prevented by getting vaccinations. Due to vaccinations diseases like smallpox have been eradicated. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) on their website wrote an Article title Smallpox writing "Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949." Vaccines have allowed and continue to allow protection to children from diseases that were once deadly.
Pit Bulls "In The Community"

If your going with that statement that you can say that dobermans would also be viscous because of their "breed" they were bred to be guard dogs; the name comes from the very first owner who was an accountant. Guarding what their job but now it's grown out of them aside from the natural dog instincts that many dogs have. Its nurture over nature; pit bulls are known for their violence why? Because they are the first choice in dog fights because of the muscle that they have. No one can blame a dog for violence when that's all that they have known. That like saying a abused kid was asking for it when they didn't but blaming them because they did the act without knowing anything different.
Pit Bulls "In The Community"

I believe that pit bulls should not be allowed in the community. Many pit bulls are purebred, which is a bad thing in itself. Purebred dogs are just a way to get dog sellers rich. There is no such thing as a different "breed" of dogs, they are all just dogs. "Purebreds" are just what the breeders decided to do to get dogs to have certain traits. These dogs are often inbred, and have many genetic problems with them. Sometimes, "purebred" dogs are forced to copulate with their parents. Also, pit bulls are known to be a particularly vicious species, causing many dog bites throughout the comunity.
League of Legends is the most popular online game right now

According to my opponent's source, from July 2011 thru Jun 2012 (366 days, approximated via a sum taken from sources 2 and 3 ), League of Legends (LoL) amassed nearly 1.3 billion playing hours. However, Diablo 3 amassed over 172 million playing hours in just 45 days (released mid-May, 2012), according to the same source. Check this out:45 days Diablo 3=172 million hrs.45 days LoL=1,300,000,000 hrs x (45/366)=a little more than 159,836,065.6 hours.Diablo 3 is seeing a faster accumulation of playing hours than League of Legends, making it more popular than LoL.2) http://www.timeanddate.com... 3) http://www.timeanddate.com...
League of Legends is the most popular online game right now

You are right. But that was 3 years ago. According to a new list provided by DFC Intelligence in conjunction with Xfire, League of Legends gamers logged nearly 1.3 billion hours of gameplay. In second place was World of Warcraft, which despite some usage declines, still registered more than 600 million hours of gameplay (not including Asia). http://www.forbes.com...
League of Legends is the most popular online game right now

Readers and opponent, because my opponent implicitly associated popularity with the number of users of a game, as Con, my task is to merely provide a game that has more accounts than League of Legends. Therefore, my argument is as follows: Runescape, with over 130 million accounts (over 170 million accounts in 2010 [3]) and over 8.5 million active accounts [1], has more accounts than League of Legends, which only has 15 million accounts and 1.4 million active accounts [2].1) http://mmohuts.com... 2) http://www.gamasutra.com... 3) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...
Violent video games should NOT be banned

How does Call of Duty make you lose respect? If any thing, I've gained even more respect for past wars. It all comes down to Mentality. If you play Call of Duty (or any shooting game) and it makes you want to go shoot some one, then you should not be playing video games at all. If you can't see that video games are fantasy, then why should you be playing them? Parents should make there kids go outside once in a while. Yes, WiiFit is an good game for doing more then just button mashing and sitting down. But with any game, kids are going to get bored of it, and go play something else. Kids don't need to be bothered by school all of the time. Let them have a break! Some kids are just not athletic. And what's wrong will using electricity? I see no problem with electricity use.
Violent video games should NOT be banned

I think video games should be banned because there are much more better things to do that are more healthy for you. Not only do they take little physical movement but they also use electricity. Kids should be involved with a sport or school. But a pro to video games is the wii. Some games on it are actually good exercise for you. Try the " WiiFit" It all depends if video games are getting in the way of better things that you can do. Violent video games are not just violent on the screen-the violence can often be seen in the players actions afterwards. Popular war-based games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft can make the player lose respect for military and past wars. They also lose respect for the sanctity of life by underestimating the seriousness in killing or injuring another being.
Violent video games should NOT be banned

Many people have many studies that contradict others. Parents should not allow children to play video games if they have home work. If Call of Duty wants me to buy a gun (witch I can't) and go shoot some one, then wouldn't Mario want me to jump down pipes and smash Venus fly traps? Video games do not lead to obesity. The reason why more kids are playing video games then before is because they have become more available. I go back to the parent. If the parent sees a decline in academics, social skills, and see an increase in isolation, then they could just stop the kid from playing video games. And yes, if they do play online they could pick up on bad language and behavior. But, they will only say it if they want to. Most games that you could go online to play asks if you are over 13. Yes, they could lie. When a kid starts up his game console, he always runs the risk of picking up the language and/or behavior. But when they start fighting, they are doing what they think is acceptable. The parent should be the one to censor what games the kids play. If an eight year old beats some guy up with a bat because of Grand Theft Auto, its the parents fault for letting him play it!
Captain America is better than Iron Man

Hey, I wouldn't say Captain America is better than iron man because the captain's main weapon is his shield which was actually made by tony starks father. Not only does Tony Stark build the first Iron Man armour in a cave, he builds the arc reactor that powers it (and all the suits that followed) in the same cave. While he may not be good at hand-to-hand combat, he knows how to build things so that he doesn't have to get dirt under his nails. And each suit of armour he builds is fully-loaded with all kinds of weaponry and defence systems. iron man can fly It may not seem like much, but being able to fly is a huge advantage in this fight. For the most part, all Iron Man has to do is keep a safe distance, simply stay up in the air, and fire his weapons at Captain America until he goes down.
Captain America is better than Iron Man

Please read/consider the following: You CANNOT forfeit or abandon this debate. If you have a reasonable excuse to do either, CONTACT ME ASAP- otherwise, you agree to lose this debate. Set-Up: Round 1: Acceptance/ position statement Round 2-3: Points/ rebuttals Round 4: Final rebuttals/ closing statement (conclusion) I believe that Captain America has shown through comic book/ movie history to be better than Iron Man, "on and off the field."
DUI Is Good, not bad.

It is unclear what my opponent is advocating. He says DUI is bad. Since he does not say what DUI stands for, and there is no such word as dui, I must assume he is talking about Diving Unlimited International. Diving Unlimited International is very good. I don't know anyone that wants to have water in their clothes when their SCUBA diving nor anyone that wants their skin to become pale after diving. I know I sure don't. DUI solves for this. As for price, let me tell you something! Not only are their suits affordable, they now have a 'Buy now, pay later' consumer finance plan! That's really great for a guy like me who can't afford a dry suit right now. I don't see why that's bad. My opponent says that many die from DUI. I urge him to prove even ONE person that's died from a dry suit. They are honest, hard-working people at Diving Unlimited, and they wouldn't dream of killing anyone, nor would the dry suits themselves. My opponent has no proof why Diving Unlimited International is bad.
Several religions restrict free-thinking

Thank you for that response.1) IslamI need my opponent to be more specific. The fact that Muslim women generally wear the same thing does not justify the position. And the examples provided otherwise are extremely fague. Everyone has daily tasks they're required to complete, and even in the religious examples, people generally feel some sort of gratification for completing those tasks.2) ChristianityAllow me to explain why Levitical Law isn't applicable anymore.Levitical Law (the law in the Old Testament that my opponent referenced) was only ever meant to be temporary. Here's the misinterpretation. People see it as an overall religious law. Levitical Law was actually a form of governance meant for Ancient Israel.The laws that apply to modern day Christians are all listed in the New Testament. The 10 commandments were all restated in the New Testament, making them applicable.A proper exegesis of the Bible is needed for this debate.
Several religions restrict free-thinking

As I did not include one about Islam, here you go. Islam is a very strict religion and you can tell, by having women wear certain clothing, forbidding certain activities, and making them perform certain daily tasks a day. This is making people essentially cattle, having them do the same thing just like everyone else each day. Also, for Christianity, the bible originally restricts asking psychics, getting tattoos (which restricts people from expressing themselves), women are not allowed to wear certain clothes, getting remarried after divorce ( which is what most Christians do if they are divorced), using polyester, or trimming beards. Doesn't this make people slaves to this religion? (as there is a lot more of these pathetic laws that make people completely give in to the religion) People say these (especially ones from the old testament) don't count anymore, well then your 10 commandments, original sin, and objections to gay marriage don't count either.
Several religions restrict free-thinking

Thank you for instigating this debate. Here I'll just move into the debate to explain why these religions do not restrict free will. 1) Misinterpretation I believe my opponent has misinterpreted what the verses mean. I'm going to be specifically talking about Christianity, as my opponent did not provide the verse from Islam that he believes restricts free will. The verse he's talking about basically just says that the God of Christianity is the only God. This doesn't mean Christians aren't allowed to explore other ideologies and belief systems. It's just a verse that keeps Christianity consistent. The Bible wouldn't make sense if there was more than one God. So this verse does not restrict free will. It's just a statement that people need to agree on if they want to follow that religion. 2) Choice People who are religious are choosing that religion. Now at an earlier age, you can argue they are not choosing, but before the age of say 10 or 11, no belief system is truly there's. Some people figure it out by 13 or sometime in the later teen years. Either way, when people are capable of making an autonomous choice toward their belief, they usually choose. Some take longer than others, but in the end, you can leave a religion and follow a different belief system if you disagree with that religion. Why is that important? That means you don't have to follow any ideologies you don't want to. That extends to mean that the people who do follow those ideologies are freely choosing to do so.
Several religions restrict free-thinking

I believe that several religions restrict people from being able to think their own thoughts. Specifically Christianity and Islam's laws are very restrictive and do not allow people to express themselves. A basic law is in the ten commandments, it restricts people from looking in to other religions. I personally disagree with religious ethics as they repress people's freedom of speech and create social taboos that will always bother me. This may be short, but I usually don't spend most thinking on my opening remarks and wait for an opponent to attack me.
It's been said that the first gun was made to kill man.

Now you're trying to widen the definition to absuive terms. Were slingshots and bows first used to hunt? Probably. But those aren't guns. However, if you're going for first mechanized projectile weapon, that would be the crossbow, which was used in battle. But that doesn't even matter, because you're making the definition of gun too wide. Most definitions are more than just a projectile wepaon. They include shooting the projectile through a metal tube, and often the cause of the projectile is an explosion. You can't just say that "this is a gun" and win. There has to be more criteria.
It's been said that the first gun was made to kill man.

Well what about the first random projectile shooter type weapons although completely innaccurate, I'm still thinking they had to use them to kill animal prey. Even if not used by english men but by indian people and it does not have to be gun powder to be called a gun in my book. So it could be a mechanism or pressurized launch or even a release of tension in a handheld gun form that what im thinking was used to kill animals prior to the use of killing another person. Later on came weapons of higher accuacy to use for battle.
It's been said that the first gun was made to kill man.

Thank you for starting the debate. First of, I agree that it seems logical that the first guns would have been made for hunting. But, logical though it may be, this was not the case. It is an issue of how gun-powder technology evolved and the practicality of early guns. First, we must look at how gun powder technology evolved. Gun powder was of course used in the Orient for fireworks. Eventually, Europeans discovered hat it would have a use in warfare. This lead to the invention of the cannon during the early 1300s. IMPORTANT: The cannon came before any type of hand gun. Now, if you cosider a cannon a gun, then go ahead and vote PRO, as you obviously wouldn't use a cannon to hunt. Technology then evolved into the hand cannon during the late 1300s. This would meet the qualifications to be the first gun. It's handheld, it uses gunpowder, and itsends a projectile to cause damage. These hand cannons started appearing ON THE BATTLEFIELD. (NOTE: These dates work around the European technology tree. Some sources say that other countries had some of this technology earlier, but this doesn't cahnge the fact that this technology was used for military purposes. Looking at the practicality, the battlefield is where they were practical. They were too innaccurate for hunting, but they could still cause damage to soldiers marching close together or enemies at point-blank range. They also had a great use in the ability to knock a knight off of his horse. However, because of the horrible accuracy of these cannons, they weren't preferable to bows and arrows in hunting. The evolution of the gun was inspired by military concerns, not hunting concerns. Guns weren't really used in hunting until after the Middle Ages were over. They were used on the battlefield by the soldier, however, on a much larger scale during the Middle Ages (even though other weapons were still used as gun powder technology had not yet come into its own) than in the forest by the hunter.
It's been said that the first gun was made to kill man.

I believe that there was a much greater need to kill an animal with a gun, before there was a need to kill another person with one. So it's the somewhat of the age old question who came first the chicken or the egg? I mean think about it, I'm sure people got pretty tired of using weapons prior to the creation of the gun to kill an animal (ex: bow and arrow) or trying to chase the animal down on foot. So I'm thinking that the gun was created originally to kill an animal in order to kill one quicker and more efficiently before people began using guns as a means to kill another person.
Unless God can find the square root of a negative number, he is just as imaginary as the answer.

Imperfection of Math As I had mentioned in my earlier post, yourargument only shows the imperfectness of mathematics. How else do you getinfinitely long answers for some sums, such as 10 divided by 3. These only showthat math is imperfect, though it is the best tool we have to interpret naturallaws. It’s our limitation. Can you describe the color red to a blind man? It’simpossible. That’s because of the limitation of the human language. Would youblame that also on God? In fact, math is also a language, but much more precisethan our verbal language. However, examples like the one you raised only showsthat it is not precise enough. Illogicality of your question Finally, your comparison between ‘imaginary numbers’ and ‘godof gaps’ is inexact. Let me explain. Take for example the square root of 64. Itis 8. 8 became a square root because of the existence of 64. 64 is the cause, 8 is the effect. If you translate it into god terms: 64 is god, 8 is theuniverse. Now apply this logic to your question: -1 becomes god, andthe imaginary number is the universe. Therefore, what we know for certain is God, and what isimaginary is the universe. In other words, you have found God. Your search is for theuniverse. Hope that explains the inappropriateness of your example todisprove God.
Unless God can find the square root of a negative number, he is just as imaginary as the answer.

Mathematical operations are invented by humans... Who is it that invented humans?... Oh yeah! Oh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeea!God is omniscient, so he knows everything. This means that he is superior to humans in every way intellectually. Thus anything god is incapable to grasp proves that there are limitations on his knowledge and his omniscience is disproved. If his omniscience is disproved but he is defined as being omniscient then he immediately is rendered an impossibility that is 'god of the gaps' because he helps answer a question of origin without really being the right answer. In the same way, a square root of a negative number is labeled as i. i is 'imaginary' and is a concept number based outside of the number line to enable the number-line to coherently function despite being flawed. Similarly, God, being the impossibility that he is as he is both omniscient yet can't tell the square root of -1, for instance, is equally impossible and exists outside the true reality so as to answer the questions that enable reality to be understood despite its flaws.god is literally doing to reality in the process of philosophy what i does to the number line.Thus, God is just as imaginary as i unless he can truly find the actual answer to what the square root of -1 is. This is not chicken or the egg, this is mathematics.