BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chuck Norris Is The Ultimate Character In Mugen

Your first two arguments are incorrect due to the fact they were the wrong definitions of the word ultimate (not wrong definitions, but not the ones I meant). And as can plainly be seen in the Mugen video the Luigi was incapable of attack therefore not better than Chuck Norris considering the fact Chuck Norris (who I shall call C.N.) is the greatest in terms of attack and defense and as could be seen in the video it was a draw considering the fact the time board ran out and neither one lost any life points (as well as the fact C.N. has the effect that if he gets destroyed you get destroyed [draw game] and you suffer the mysterious blue screen). And the rest of our arguments were either addressed in this paragraph or the definition was not in the proper context. One of the main points of my argument is that C.N. cannot be beat due to the fact his effect only allows for a victory or a draw (in the case of the draw your computer will say its a draw and show you the blue screen or straight up crash) and for those who may consider this cheating all I have to say is this: Mugen is an open source computer fighting game therefore there is no cheating when it comes to how you design your characters (unless you use the f1 [its one of the f keys] key in the middle of the game to instantly K.O. your opponent and even then C.N.s effect still works). http://mugencharacters.ucoz.com... http://www.mugenation.com... http://gcnmario.free.fr... http://www.mugencharacters.org... http://www.esnips.com... http://mugencharacter.ucoz.com... http://mugenguild.com... http://mugenguild.com... http://mugenguild.com... http://www.xentrik.net... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Chuck Norris Is The Ultimate Character In Mugen

My argument is that Chuck Norris is the ultimate Mugen game character. Mugen is an open source computer fighting game for all those who don't know. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.mugenation.com... http://mugen.en.softonic.com...
necessity to unplug devices when not in use....

I am sorry that my opponent was not able to get their round up. I do hope that whatever conflicts that may have come up get resolved in a positive manner. Being as this is only 3 rounds, I cannot pass this round, and so I will present my arguments this round. The first thing we should note, is that this debate is in regards to "turned off" not just sleep mode. So let us look at some common things that we may have in our homes and how much energy they have. Here are some common things, Computer with LCD Monitor, DSL, Printer, TV, and "Game Console." If we look at how much energy they consume when "off" we can see what it really means [1]. Computer - 2.84 W LCD Monitor - 1.13 W DSL - 1.37 W Printer - 1.58 W TV - 2.88 W Game Console - 1.01 W That"s a total of 10.81 W from 6 devices. But what does "10.81 W" really mean to you or me? How can we translate that into something of significance? Well, let"s say that you are only on each item for 2 hours a day (on your computer and DDO for only 2 hours a day? Suuuure), that means that we are only arguing over 22 hours of "off" vs "unplugged" time. So for these 6 items, that is 237.82 WH (let"s round up to 240 to make it easy) per day. The average cost of residential electricity in the US is currently 11.59 cents per kWH [2]. Or in other words, it is less than 12 pennies per 1,000 WH. This means that 240 WH that we are plugging and unplugging 6 different devices for is only costing you 2.76 cents per day (that"s for all 6 devices, not for each). So we are arguing about the "necessity" of trying to save 2.76 cents per day? At that price point there is no "necessity" of doing anything. The resolution is refuted. Thank you, [1] http://standby.lbl.gov... [2] http://www.eia.gov...
necessity to unplug devices when not in use....

This is the closest that I've had to an energy debate in a while (namely because no one is accepting my other one, go check it out /shameless plug). To clarify, we are arguing about unplugging devices that consume any amount of electricity while supposedly turned "off. " There is no threshold of how much they need to consume before being necessary to unplug, however we will not be arguing for those that are actually off when turned off (unless my opponent wishes to). I will allow my opponent to make the first argument. Thank you
SJW's are psychopaths

You triggered me, i sexually identify as a female male bigender tzeentch neutrois khorne intergender demifiend demiboy hellboy genderqueer / non binary pangender/poligender epicene genderfluid transgender will of fire third gender Agender/genderless bipolarjunction transistor androgyne civil/attack helicopter demigod unown F nazi earth moon mars jupiter separatist stargate trans-am mayonaise between 1 and 3 knots southward bigender androgyne and neutrois bigender third gender adn demi-boy nurgle a turn off australian male agender version 1 curse of hatred agender gendervoid femme slaanesh travesti n-b aliagender butch monsoon necron demiagender assassin sun mercury venus saturn uranus neptune pluto zion rate of genderfluidty prince transnigger dont sexually harrass me you cis white male scum
SJW's are psychopaths

1. You cited a few extreme SJWs who do not speak for the majority.2. SJWs are addressing a wide range of issues that affect society such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.Racismhttp://www.alternet.org...Earl Sampson was stopped 258 times by the police in four years. All those times he was accused or ARRESTED for trespassing at the store where he works.http://www.reuters.com...A few years ago ABC's "What would You Do?" did an experiment where they had 3 white kids spray paint, jump on and destroy a car for three hours. Only one person called 911. Then they had 3 black kids vandalize, jump on and destroy a car for three hours. Ten people called 911. ONE 911 call vs TEN 911 calls. Then at the end of part one someone called 911 TWICE saying 2 black men SLEEPING in a car "look like they're possibly getting ready to rob somebody".Sexismhttp://gender.stanford.edu...http://everydayfeminism.com...A Yale study had researches sent out fake applications to top, research-intensive universities in the United States. All applications were identical, except have were named John and half were named Jennifer. Professors were asked to evaluate how competent this student was, how likely they would be to hire the student, how much they would pay this student, and how willing they would be to mentor the student.The professors were more likely to rate John as more competent and pay John a higher salary. Female professors showed bias too. http://www.yalescientific.org...http://news.yale.edu...http://gender.stanford.edu...This study only focused on STEM fields, but on average woman make 78% of what a man makes, even when factoring education, work hours, etc. The gap is worse for woman of color.http://www.aauw.org...Ableismhttp://everydayfeminism.com...http://thatcrazycrippledchick.blogspot.com...SJWs are addressing "inspiration porn", which is when an able bodied person calls a disabled person inspirational for doing ordinary things.Calling a disabled person "inspirational" is fine if you are actually inspired by the person. if you are calling a disabled person inspiration because you decided the person has it worse off than you, that is offensive. It is insulting to suggest someone has it worse off simply because they live in a different body. Transphobia Laverne Cox Speech on Sexism & Transphobia
SJW's are psychopaths

1. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.https://en.wikipedia.org...2. Social justice calls for accountability. For example, in social justice "racism" is defined as widely held attitudes, or beliefs held by the majority of oppressive people that result in widespread, systematic discrimination against the minority group. By this definition, people of color cannot be racist. Since the oppressors are the ones that are creating the system of oppression, social justice calls the oppressors to dismantle the systems of oppression.http://everydayfeminism.com......http://www.alternet.org......http://everydayfeminism.com......I also recommend this social justice subreddit to learn more.reddit.com/r/socialjustice101Basically, social justice calls for people to examine their own prejudices and beliefs and to try to change them so people can be treated fairly and have equal opportunities without regards to race, gender, etc. at one point in history, women couldn't vote. People had to change their attitudes 3. You only cited extremists.I cited a few articles in point #1.4. Social justice is one of the most peaceful movements in history, compared to Nazism and other violent movements.I never heard of violence in the movement, but I know some are extreme in their beliefs. However this does not speak for all SJWs
Regarding the British Monarchy!

I am going to prove that pro's arguments are false. Pro's contention 1:He claims that we are forum members, which we are not. Although there is a debate.org forum, his argument was not posted to the forums, so his claim is not true.Pro's contention 2:My aim of the Project is to analyze the branding of the Royal Family and finally assessable the Royal family"s chances to survive in the near future. In order to improve my results, I have made a survey to get a better insight of the British populations opinion regarding the issues accounted above.This argument does not prove anything about the british monarchy.Pro's contention 3:1.Click the link. 2.Fill in your answers. 3.Copy the Survey and PM my user. As simple as that! http://www.tinyurl.com...... Btw. I wouldn"t mind at all if you could share the survey with friends, or family too  (In case the link does not work, just PM for the Schedule) If you have any further questions please do not hesitate and send me a PM, and I would happily answer your question ASAP! Thank You very much!Nope, it is not. He actually meant Click the link. Click it again. Link doesn't work. PM me. No response. Wait for an response. Fill in your answers. Copy the Survey and PM my user. As pro has not provided any arguments, I win due to the burden of proof being on him.
Regarding the British Monarchy!

Good afternoon fellow Forum Members!  As my username reveals, I am a 20 year old Danish student, carrying out a college project, about The British Monarchy. My aim of the Project is to analyze the branding of the Royal Family and finally assessable the Royal family"s chances to survive in the near future. In order to improve my results, I have made a survey to get a better insight of the British populations opinion regarding the issues accounted above. I would be very pleased if you could find a couple minutes of your valuable time to answer my Survey. By following these simple steps during the survey, I would be very happy, as it helps me organize the answers much easier  1.Click the link. 2.Fill in your answers. 3.Copy the Survey and PM my user. As simple as that! http://www.tinyurl.com... Btw. I wouldn"t mind at all if you could share the survey with friends, or family too  (In case the link does not work, just PM for the Schedule) If you have any further questions please do not hesitate and send me a PM, and I would happily answer your question ASAP! Thank You very much!
A Conversation w/ an Atheist

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say about the afterlife; my personal belief about it is not particularly interesting, as I just don't think it exists. You're going to have to specify what you want to discuss here.In terms of atheism as a whole, I would just like to make sure you know that atheism is not an established belief system. There is no blanket moral code or lifestyle you must follow in order to be an atheist; it really is a simple as "Do I believe in God or not?" You probably already understand this, but I just wanted to make sure since you did ask about my view of morality as well as the corruptibility of science, and I just want to establish that none of that really matters here. The only thing that actually matters is whether or not you believe in God, and your answer to that question should be your starting point. I understand you probably just want me to prove that it is possible for one to be both moral and non-religious, and hopefully I convinced you of that. Since we do have a lot of rounds left, maybe we could discuss something else that's related? I am curious about your own view of religion and how you think it has affected you. I don't know how interested you are in free will, but maybe we could discuss that as well. Anyway, let me know.
A Conversation w/ an Atheist

You have made some interesting points, I definitely agree that life is not simple, and that morality and free will are perception based illusions to protect our thought process from the unknown. However, some may argue that so called unknown is god, protecting us, Sikhism itself is about becoming a more charitable, egoless man. However I feel its been tainted by corruption as many Sikhs themselves are boastful and ego prone. Having read your comments I would now like to ask you where you draw the line between doing good for yourself, and doing good for others?, including addressing personality traits such as being charitable, honest, and humble- for those are typically the 3 main requirements a religious man requires. IE demonstrate that you can have those characteristics w/out the need of religion. I certainly know some people outright are proud to lie, esp. my parents, some people on here even state that it has evolutionary benefits, eg white lies, but again there is a so called line. After that we will go on to talk about your thoughts on evolution, for its one of most backed theories amongst non-belief, and most hated theories amongst religious folk, vice versa for creationism, I mean when I always debate on this topic I bring up the indirect correlation between education and belief in god, however I do realise science and the education system is subject to corruption, just like the religious industry. Anyways since I should be unbias, where do you relate to these two aspects I've highlighted...?
A Conversation w/ an Atheist

Rules - This is not a debate, its a conversation, i will simply be having a discussion w/ an atheist Pro, il remain impartial n unbiased throughout. You can vote Pro at the end if you feel they conducted themselves professionally well. R1 just acceptance . The reason I want to debate this is bc allow i believe in god, i do show contempt towards him, so im at a crossroads and would like more info about why atheists are atheists. Note that Pro can't use the we can't see god argument, bc its like the falling tree in the woods dilemma. Conversly, if a religious ddo user wants a conversation about god , feel free to set me a request .
LGBTQ+ Rights

Sadness, Shadows Traditional Marriage, and rights floodgates There is a unseen, unwritten line of what governments should allow and should not allow. The minute we keep giving homosexuals and transgenders more and more rights, we will open the flood gates. Firstly, it we let homosexuals be allowed to marry, and now we have people cutting off there given genitals and replacing them with the opposite! ! There is a line to what governments around the world should allow. Allowing these things can cause sadness for the person who is homosexual or transgender and should they try and adopt, they will not have both a mother and a father.
LGBTQ+ Rights

I believe that every person has a right to love whoever they want to love and be whoever they want to be. As a biromantic asexual demiboy (I'm still kind of questioning. And if you don't know what it is, look it up.) I am a strong supporter of LGBTQ+ rights. If someone gets a gay marriage, it's none of your business. Don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Also, who cares who marries who as long as both (or more, if you have an open relationship) people are happy? Would you really be as cruel as to block someone from happiness?
You Should NOT fear Death

It seems you are not sure what you mean when you stated "fear is a product of man's inability to accept their own mortality and limits". What I attempted to explain to you is that if what you say is true, and you are suggesting that we should not be afraid of Death, then we should "accept our own mortality and limits" in order to prevent such product as fear. You merely stated to accept our limitations and the fact that we are subject to die but never mention what to do after accepting that. Similar to "Forgive and Forget", you only mention only one part without explain where to go from there. By merely accepting what you are suggestion, "accept our own mortality and limits", that alone would suggest that we humans have our limits and will eventually die. That's it, nothing else to go by except those I just stated. That alone is not sufficient in order to live a "more fulfilling life" as you suggested. You stated that after we accepted these terms, "we will live the lives we are intended to live" without giving actual reasons to support that claim. Also, does accepting something means we will not fear it. Like I mention before, we are not simply rational people, meaning that we ourselves does not have to make sense. Even if we were to accept that Death is inevitable, we still want to live, our desire would cause us to favor life over death. This desire would cause us to fear Death since we, while alive, do not want to die, even if it does not matter in the end. Simply because something is natural, we shouldn't be afraid of it but instead accept it. If a tornado is heading to a person's direction, besides accepting that it is something that occurs naturally, would the person be afraid of it. The running away from the tornado would indicate that the person is indeed afraid. Although that alone is not the only method in dealing with fear, it is one of the most common. For something to occur naturally, does not absolutely indicate that we should not fear it. In conclusion, naturally occurring events [does not equal] should not fear.
You Should NOT fear Death

I think you are profoundly confused the fact that I man needs to accept their mortality and limitation and somehow made that to mean man needs to be a victim. The statement "fear is a product of man"s inability to accept their own mortality and limits" means that man is in denial that life will end and as a result "fears" this thing we call death for some unknown reason which is absurd because death is unknown and the only thing we know that it actually is for a fact is the absence of life. No where in this sentence does it state, lay down and die, do not fight, do not protect yourself, do not survive, do not live, eat, maintain or strive for more. It simply states that as a result of man"s inability to accept the fact that we will NOT LIVE FOREVER we build a fear of death which is unwarranted. It is not until we accept our immortality and our limitations as human beings that we will live the lives we are intended to live. Evolution is indeed intended to be survival of the fittest so the fact that we would lay down and let wolves eat us is just ridiculous and our species would be extinct, so that just makes no sense. We have an innate sense to eat and drink water to live, we are not suicidal by nature that is not my argument " my argumetb is that death " a natural occurrence for everyone " as natural as birth, as natural as breathing, is not something to be feared. Your example of being an emotional being I am unsure what the point is here again? That scenario would not work on an Act or Rule Utilitarian Ethical Person however it may work on someone with a different ethical or moral value system " that is an instance in which it would be dependent on the person. I still don"t know how that fits into why one shouldn"t fear death though? Stoics accept their fate as divine will, neither good nor bad, so pain wouldn"t even play a factor in this instance and they wouldn"t even need to understand it " they would just accept it and they would NOT fear it they would just FACE IT. Taoists avoid fear all together by following the natural way or path of the Tao and for them, unlike the Buddhist, it is to harmony with all which is right dependent upon the behavior of the individual. Many other philosophers will argue that death is simply a natural event that gives life meaning and calls for acceptance of its inevitability. In otherwise, the way of the universe. Then there is always Epicurus and Lucretius who claim that "we do not fear our past non-existence, we should not fear our future non-existence .. our death." Bernard Williams claims that Death gives us Meaning to Life " so once we realize that death is not to fear then our life has greater meaning.
You Should NOT fear Death

"robs us of our freedom"... Freewill vs. Determinism case would suggest that Fear is a restriction placed on Humans. Human-beings are known to have limited to begin with since the start of modern humans. Without "this restriction of Fear", are we consider Human? Wouldn't suggest that we would be less human or human-like if we were to break this "restriction"? Also you haven't stated what freedom does that take if one exist. I would assume that you are an advocate of Free Will but how far? I don't know. You may just simply pick and choose (specified Free Will) what freedom we have or go as far as having complete/full control on our life. "fear is a product of man"s inability to accept their own mortality and limits" So you suggest that man should accept their own mortality and limits? What are the consequence of doing so? Here is an example: A man is camping by himself in the forest. Later at night, he woken up by a sound by a nearby bush. It turn out that a pack of wolfs are invading his camp site. If he was to accept his death and limitations placed beyond him, he would most likely let the wolves devour him. I would have suggest the man to continue on surviving, whether or it is with fighting or fleeing or an unorthodox method since there is more to life than just being eating by wolves. People would most likely take my suggestion since they have the desire to live to the fullest and would go out of their way(limits). You keep suggesting that we should be rational in term of Death and things that cause us to fear. Although we are rational-beings, we are also emotional ones. Given the example where if one was by his/her -self, walking pass a bridge, and spot on one side 5 babies dying, and on the other side 1 baby where belongs to the person walking by the bridge, although the most rational thing to do is to save the group with 5 babies, the one person would probably save his or her baby instead. Also in my case with the world where almost everyone is being controlled, although it was implied, I would to be clear that since we are being controlled, it would suggest that we as the individual are "unaware" of the fact that we are being manipulated by something other than oneself. -No Pain Now suggesting Pain is Bad simply because majority of the people in history categorized it as "bad" is simply absurd. Simply because Pain is Bad to majority of the people does not make it true. If a world were to exist where there are two type of humans, the "normals and the crazies" between 99% vs 1%. Then there can be two answer: Either Majority is normal and that 1% is weird/crazy or that 1% is normal and the everyone else (99%) is crazy (weird). -Pain is not an indicator for what is Good or Bad Conclusion: You should fear Death since fearing Death would make you Human that possess the capacity to overcome since Fear is an instinct where it does not require a source.