BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rob Lucci vs Itachi

Disclaimer: PRO misunderstood my R1 request. This has been worked out and resolved in the comment section. Without further ado, let us proceed!================================================================================Greetings members of DDO! My name is Logical-Master and I'm presiding over the contender position today. In today's debate, it is my contention that Itachi would best Rob Lucci in combat under the terms the instigator has provided. To demonstrate, I will provide multiple arguments demonstrating such.Contention #1: Itachi could drown Rob Lucci.Although PRO has crafted the terms of this debate as such that the fight between these two characters takes place in a barren wasteland, this is not a limitation for Itachi [1].As we can see for ourselves, Itachi doesn't need existing water sources to perform water release jutsus and can produce large amounts of water with ease. Attached is what a standard water dragon jutsu looks like. Note its collosal size. It is my contention that were Itachi to pour all of his chakra into this technique, he could flood the immediate area the instant the fight begins. And given Itachi's speed with jutsu [3], it's reasonable to conclude that he could pull off a collossal chakra pumped version of this technique the instant the battle began and before Mr. Lucci had time to process escape.Even if Mr. Lucci is somehow quick enough to stop Itachi from pulling off this tactic successfully, Itachi could alternatively distract Rob Lucci with a shadow clone. As noted, Itachi's speed with jutsu is incredible. Even if he is barred from using genjutsu in this battle, like any standard Naruto shinobi, he could use smoke bombs or incidenary devices to add to his deceptive strategies. No matter how you look at it, Mr. Because Mr. Lucci is a devil fruit user, his weakness is being submerged in water.[4]. Thus, Mr. Lucci would be all but vanquished while submerged in a large volume of water, making this a flawless victory for the genius sharingan wielder!Contention #2: Itachi could burn Rob Lucci alive with the amaretsu.Itachi's ameretsu is a technique that produces flames as hot as the sun's surface. In short, they are effectivally capabele of burning through anything.[5]. If Lucci is hit by this technique, he is finished. There is nothing he can do to recover aside from quickly severing whatever body part the flames have began to burn.Contention #3: Itachi could seal Lucci away forever with the Susano'oItachi could seal Rob Lucci away just as he did Orochimaru. Itachi's susano' is equiped with the sword of totsuka. This blade enables him to seal away anyone that the balde touches. [6]. Since Lucci has no defense against sealing techniques, the moment he even so much as touches the sword, he'll be sealed away.And that'll do it for now.Sources:[1] http://www.mangapanda.com... (Naruto 587, page 11).[2] http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net...[3] http://www.mangapanda.com...(Naruto 142, page 9)[4] http://onepiece.wikia.com...[5] http://www.mangapanda.com...[6] http://www.mangapanda.com...
Rob Lucci vs Itachi

Look, there is nothing wrong in this debate , my demands were just, things that happen in reality, I just took the genjutsu skills ( it is only the manipulation of chakra in the victim's brain, in the One Piece universe has no chakra only Haki , we should work on realities of individual proposals in each anime , never wanting to get their forces equalize , but , based on the what we have, so the genjutsu was ejected from the battle, as it not only with Lucci , but any character other than Naruto , the genjutsu would not work , it's no difference to name but a qualitative fitness, differences in origin and use) , expeculei the location of the fight and said that version would be based on both to make this battle . No more, I'll let you start the sequence of arguments to simulate this battle . That if you accept my conditions , as before, the second time I have shown why these rules . If you do not accept these riddles , I will not make any debate , just going by the rules based on me that I did as I said . Of course , but I think they will be at their best , but the conditions of the versions I did for them are very fair , for exploiting its maximum in their best battle techniques . But of course , immortality , regeneration and maximum stamina are not the least bit honest . I only will this debate if you agree with my terms , otherwise only lose the chance to be able to stipulate a very interesting battle to fans of this series , we will probably all enjoy at the end ( or not kk ) .
youth from 21 century is awful

I disagree. I have not been eyed suspiciously in a store. I have never not been given a student discount when providing a student ID. I don't think it is the media that is portraying youth as 'awful'. Some kids and young adults do not know how to behave in public. They are treated with the same respect that they give...none. But well mannered kids and young adults who have truly grown up are not treated the same way. Nor should the be. Respect is earned, not given.
youth from 21 century is awful

Every young person has had the experience"a shop attendant eying you suspiciously or a bus driver refusing to give you concession rates despite the presence of your student card, concession card and every piece of evidence you could possibly need. Every young person has been the victim of unfair judgment by others. Many claim this is the fault, at least partly, of the media and the way it portrays young people. Arguably, media focus on youth drug addiction, vandalism, unprotected sex, as well as many other "negative" issues, has led some people to view young people in terms of stereotypes and gross generalisations.
A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

In the course of human events, it is necessary for oneself to look towards another way of thinking. They could have believed in a supreme deity, god, gods, deities, or nothing at all. But, some people find it greatly needed to change and it will seem right. But, can a person really just call themselves atheists and yet feel something for a higher being? Is it possible to do so without even the smallest belief in supreme beings? I believe that is so. Nobody can just give themselves a new religion to practice. They have to really know it is the right one.
A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

Pro does not respond to any arguments so they can all be extended for their validity across the flow. Pro presents new arguments in the last round (conduct) but I will still go over them briefly. Rebuttal"In the position currently of a man who does not believe in God, he probably never did. He cannot just believe in God at first. He s to feel some shred of doubt or uncertainty in God's existence. If a man decided to go to the left when turning into a parking lot instead of turning right, like if he always turned right, that is not something you are born with. "Pro essentially forfeits here. He states that it is possible to not be god, thus it is possible to be an atheist. Resolution negated. Ok, you aren't born with it. This has no pertinence to the debate"You develop your habits and continue to tweak them for efficiency. Belief or disbelief in God is not changed for efficiency, it is changed at their liking. God is not the issue forthhand. It is only the issue of either believeing in God your whole life or not. Feelings come from pain, when nerves are damaged and sends signals to the brain to say it is damaged. "Exactly, believing god is changed at their liking. A topic so vague and abstract like god's existence is always determined by arbitrary discretion. Again, this gets us nowhere. The fact that he is saying you can disbelieve in god again causes me to win and him to concede. "The feelings of sadness or happiness are of creation for only our species. We cannot control what we do sometimes, and that can be used against us. We "feel" God because our local religious leader told us to do so and that we can do it very easily. "Pro reiterates the same thing he is discussing, we "feel" god. He states it is because our religious leader told us so. So essentially because your religious leader told you child molestation was correct, you would do it and believe in it. That's great logic right there. There really is no need to discuss this further. Pro makes no direct response/argument but just rambles on some point I can't understand. Conclusion:Pro fails to respond to any of my points and arguments. Again it is "possible" to believe in god. God is not "felt" for everyone. I think Pro wanted to debate whether it is correct to disbelieve in god but that is not very pertinent. Indeed any body can believe what they want to believe or otherwise you would be violating the liberty of the individual. Ladies and gents, it is cleary possible to not believe in God.
A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

In the position currently of a man who does not believe in God, he probably never did. He cannot just believe in God at first. He s to feel some shred of doubt or uncertainty in God's existence. If a man decided to go to the left when turning into a parking lot instead of turning right, like if he always turned right, that is not something you are born with. You develop your habits and continue to tweak them for efficiency. Belief or disbelief in God is not changed for efficiency, it is changed at their liking. God is not the issue forthhand. It is only the issue of either believeing in God your whole life or not. Feelings come from pain, when nerves are damaged and sends signals to the brain to say it is damaged. The feelings of sadness or happiness are of creation for only our species. We cannot control what we do sometimes, and that can be used against us. We "feel" God because our local religious leader told us to do so and that we can do it very easily.
A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

Disclaimer: I would like to state these are also not my real beliefs. A person can not just walk out on their own religious beliefs and become something they are not. The person already knows that they believe or not believe in something and can not switch. The invisible man in the sky has to be felt, it is not something you can just see. If you never saw a real palace before, it's not like they don't exist. They just haven't been seen by you yet. The heaven and hell idea is a bit skeptical, but it just shows how that man in the sky loves people who get by following his rules and does their best to stay like that. The famous art people know and love were created by Christian or religious artists, including Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Rembrandt, Giovanni Bellini, Caravaggio, and Annibale Carracci. The Renaissance and Baroque came upon us when religion was a greater part of our lives. No one knew of science, they could only believe in what could eternally save their souls, not their bodies. Sources: 1. http://www.oil-painting-shop.com...
A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

Disclaimer: These are not my real beliefsAll I must do to win this debate is to prove that a certain can decide to become an atheist. I can be an atheist simply because I am not "feeling" this invisible man in the sky that is too scared to show himself. There is no scientific justification to believe in him, so I do not have to. It has never been empirically proven so I indeed can be an atheist even if my views are proposterous. As a matter of fact, many great philosophers have been atheists. From communist Karl Marx to others like Ayn Rande, Friedrich Nietzsche, Democritus, and more. [1] It is indeed possible to be an evidence and Pro needs to justify why I can not be. If Pro would like I will present a case in the next round however as of now it is indeed possible to be an atheist regardless of whether it is correct or not so vote CON. Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Pluto is a planet

In this round, I will refute my opponent's arguments since he has the entire BoP.Definitions-My opponent here cites the Oxford Dictionary to be able to define Pluto as a planet - but the sad thing is, his very own source says that Pluto isn't a planet. "The planets of the solar system are either gas giants—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—or smaller rocky bodies—Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. Pluto, formerly regarded as the ninth planet, was in 2006 reclassified as a dwarf planet." This means, that because he cited the source trying to advance his case, he concedes to all information that is carried within it - he concedes through his source that Pluto is not a planet.Arguments-First and foremost, my opponent has plagiarised at least part of his case from here [1], a website about popular science; because of this violation of fair use of sources, I propose that he at least loses either the sources or the conduct points- citation of sources is necessary to a good debate, and if this was real-life debate then you would be disqualified from the round and maybe the tournament.Now, he effectively cited popsci.com by plagiarising it, and the article that he copy pasted from has this: "Even comets can have atmospheres and complex surfaces, says planetary scientist Carolyn Porco, and asteroids can have moons. Geological characteristics are not even a part of the IAU's definition." This means that, true, Pluto does have geological activity, but so do comets, and most of the astronomical bodies within the Solar System. BUT, the most important thing to note, is that this means nothing when you are actually defining a planet.None of the other arguments in this debate are even relevant enough to rebut, it's mostly just background and what one scientist says, which can be easily refuted by what the IAU says: that Pluto is not a planet [2]. And honestly, the IAU has many more credentials than someone who has a vested interest in Pluto being a planet, so that they can get more money.Part of what you said is that the lines we draw between Planet and non-planet are arbitrary and depend on size; that's completely false. The lines we draw between planets and nonplanets is: 1. is in orbit around the Sun, 2. has enough mass to be near-spherical, 3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. So yes, the lines we draw in our intuitive mind between planets and nonplanets in terms of size are arbitrary, but the requirements for planethood just aren't met by definitions of planet from someone who has more credence than a dictionary.[1]. http://www.popsci.com...;[2]. http://www.iau.org...
America is a Christian Nation

I'm sure you did. Even if they weren't true Christians they still followed the Bible and still classified them self's as Christians. They put laws into effect that were taken from the Bible. These laws still survive today, "like do not murder" a law, and in the Bible. You think you would just come up with right and wrong on your own, but how do you know that? You didn't decide that murder was bad all by your self. It is what the world has told you and the world got it because it was the law. If you go to remote tribes in Africa they will kill someone and then pay for his worth in goats to his family. The founders of this country were Christian and that is the national religion so our laws are formed around it. We are a country with the freedom of religion. So you can pray to whatever God you want to, but should understand that America is a Christian nation with Christian laws. I was going to talk about the sep. of church and state, but the instigator put a 1,000 on so check out comits
America is a Christian Nation

No, this isn't the main argument, I just don't think it correct by stating all my evidence in the first argument and have nothing to fill the rest out with. No, the founding fathers were not all Christian. Some of them were, factually, deists (which isn't a form of Christianity, but more a form of agnosticism or atheism). People do not need the bible to give them morals. For instance, I don't need a book to tell me that murder is wrong. If you think about something hard enough you can find the answer out yourself. I had an entire paragraph typed out but my computer messed up and I forget what the rest said.
All human beings belong to a same race.

Thank you for your comments. I've read it all through again and I still think my reasoning is sound. Granted, I did not use the same proof as you and I have used general rather than formal language. It's true, as you claim, that I may not have understood anything you say (certainly, I don't understand what you mean by "blatant assertion". It sounds like a criticism, but how can an assertion be too obvious and at the same time wrong?), but in that case wouldn't it have been more courteous to explain the flaws in my argument?
All human beings belong to a same race.

== Flaw == The proof of inductive increment breaks down for K=1 (or K+1=2). When the size of set is 2, there are only two elements in the set. The situation looks as shown in the following figure. As per P(1), all the elements in set ‘A’ must have a common race. However there is only 1 element in 'A', i.e. 'b'. We assume that its race is ‘p’. Similarly elements in set ‘B’ (i.e. ‘a’) also have a common race. However the set A and B are now disjoint and no common elements between them. As a result there is no compulsion that human being ‘a’ will have the race ‘p’. This breaks down the proof. The arguments is correct for K>=2. An alternative way to look at the proof is that the base case should have been K=2 rather than K=1. It is does not appear feasible to prove P(2), breaking down this approach as well. (By common observation, P(2) is false) == Opponent’s response == After looking at the flaw, it should be apparent that my esteemed opponent has failed to spot the problem in my argument. She has made a blatant assertion that my ‘argument does not follow’ without any explanation. In fact, she has failed to demonstrate that she even understands my arguments. == Conclusion == This proof a modified version of the ‘All horses are of same color’ proof presented by Polya[1]. Should be an easy win for me. VOTE PRO.== Reference == [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
All human beings belong to a same race.

Let us use proof by mathematical induction. == Inductive Hypothesis == P(n) ≡ In any set of n human beings, each of the member belong to a common race. Proving P(n) for arbitrary n, would be sufficient to affirm the resolution. == Base Case == P(1) is true. This is trivially true as there is only one person in any such set. The person can only belong to one race. == Inductive Assumption == Let us assume P(K) is true == Inductive Increment == If P(K) is true, then P(K+1) must be true. Proof: Consider a set ‘X’ of human beings of size K+1, as shown in figure. Also consider two members of set – ‘a’ and ‘b’. Let us define set A = X – {a}. Size of A is K since it is formed by removing one element from a set of size K+1. As per our inductive assumption (P(K) is true), all members of set A must share a common race. Without any loss in generality we can assume that this race is ‘p’. This means all members of set ‘X’, except ‘a’, belong to the race ‘p’. Let us define set B = X – {b}. As in case of ‘A’, size of ‘B’ is also K. Thus all members of this set too must share a common race. However all members of ‘B’, apart from ‘a’, belong to the race ‘p’. This means that ‘a’ too must belong to race ‘p’. The natural observation is that all the members of set ‘X’ now belong to race ‘p’. Thus all the members of set ‘X’ share a common race. The preceding analysis can be applied to any set of size K+1. This means all sets of human beings of size K+1 share a common race under inductive assumption. This proves P(K+1) under inductive assumption and confirms the inductive increment. == Inductive Argument == We have already established that if P(k) is true, then P(k+1) must be true. We also know that P(1) is true. This means that P(2) must be true. But if P(2) is true, then P(3) is true. That makes P(4) true. Usual inductive argument establishes that P(n) is true for any arbitrary natural number n. This completes the proof and affirms the resolution.
All human beings belong to a same race.

== Structure of Debate ==R1 is for acceptence. In R2 I will present a proof that all human beings belong to same race under certain assumptions. (The assumptions are listed below). In R2, my opponent must explain the flaw in my arguments. If my opponent is successful in doing so, I will concede the debate in R3. Alternatively I will explain the flaw in R3. Con does not have to do anything in R3.Please note that the resolution is not true (Under my assumptions). Voters will vote Pro if Con is not able to spot the mistake in my arguments in R2. In either case, the flaw will be obvious by the end of debate.== Assumptions ==We assume that there is a well defined set of possible races. We also assume that there exists a well defined method to assign a race to each human being. It doesn't matter how the method breaks the tie, as long as the method is deterministic. A perticular human being will be allowed to be part of a single race.In simple terms, my opponent will not be able to point out persons who may belong to no race or more than one races. We will assume that we are allowed to use some genetic feature to break the tie and assign a unique race to everyone.== Disclaimer ==1. This debate has nothing to do with racism. The resolution could have been - 'All mobile phones belong to same brand'. This would have caused no significant change in my arguments.2. Personally I recognise that races exists. The world would be boring if we were all alike. Our races should not matter in our daily life - except as an identity. However my opinions are irrelevant to this debate.The Holy Quran - 49:13O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
Morality > Nature

Nature- the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations Moral- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character Basically, nature means anything BUT humans, and moral is JUST humans. With this in mind, it appears that nature and morality are indeed independent. It's true that many believe nature created humans, but this does not mean they cannot be independent. Your "car-to-engine" example was good, but it does not quite represent what is going on. I would describe it as the relationship between Great Britain and America. America would not have existed if it wasn't for Great Britain. However, the American colonies exposed the injustice of Great Britain and rebelled, just like human morals expose the injustice of nature. Of course not all of nature is immoral (many acts are actually good), but there are still some spots to clean up. Humans, not perfect themselves, have created injustices of their own (as you have mentioned). However, I believe we have the capability to get ourselves together and to establish a new world full of good traits (just like America became an independent country, full of freedom).