BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Naruto is a good show

Let me post Con's rules: "This is going to my arguments which hopefully Pro sufficiently argues against them. What I deem sufficient is facts not opinion. When I states facts. I simply what Pro to show opposing evidence that clearly states why the fact is wrong. No opinions. Try to list examples why these points are not the case. " Before I continue, This will be my last time debating with this individual. I clearly followed every single rule. Everything you listed was not a fact, It was more so an opinion and as a matter of fact, It's from a Youtube video, Not your own words. Which is not fair. This shows that you are not credible. I did list examples. Most notably on my points 5, 7 and 12. What really is happening is that you can't handle the heat and you know I am winning. I am no longer giving you anymore energy. I'm over the situation and I tried staying civil, But now you're just being really annoying. So I am now leaving the situation. ~ Also, I'm going to reply to the comments you posted on the last debate: "Naruto is gifted with the NTF does not mean he is clever. That was my point. Gifted I used was the NTF not him being born intelligent. It is not a contradiction" - Okay thanks for clearing that up because the way you were typing at first came off that he was born smart, Clever & intelligent. ~ "I said he was gifted and was stupid which he is. Does he knows the fundamentals of being a ninja? No. When he becomes Hokage is he not forced to learn them? Yes. So even though he was a living God he still did not know the fundamentals. " Your whole argument makes it seem as if you hate Naruto. Again, This is what the academy is for. So Naruto can learn the fundamentals of being a ninja. This applies to real life, When a baby is born and growing up, They don't know everything right off the bat. You slowly learn everything. He learns about being Hokage - what's wrong with that? Just like you have to learn and train how to be a cop, How to be a nurse, Or how to be a lawyer. ~ I answered all of your rebuttals. I posted about 7 comments responding to them. ~ "Yeah Naruto is a god in the end. And? That's what he deserves, He worked hard up to that point. " - Yes that's my rebuttal. ~ "Naruto was born gifted, Did he deserve that? No. " It was beyond Naruto's control that he got the Nine tailed fox. Minato sealed it inside of him, Minato even said the reason why he gave Naruto the Nine tailed fox is because he thinks that one day, He will be able to use the power for good reasons. Which indeed happened. So yes, Naruto does deserve the Nine tailed fox. There will be no longer any communication between us whatsoever. I shall block you. You can block me back. I'll have fun showing my friends all of our debates so they can laugh at how stupid you sound. Thank you for the entertainment
Naruto is a good show

Round 2, I pasted your rules which shows and proves that I read the rules. And in Round 2 I PROVED that I followed your rules. What the heck more do you want from me? That's why I said you are a hypocrite. Don't preach to me saying how I haven't responded to your points which I did TWICE. I did in this debate and our last debate. You haven't even counteracted my claims in my points nor have you answered any of my questions that I respectfully requested for you to explain to me. So don't put it all on me. This is embarrassing.
Naruto is a good show

With that being said, I'm done. Don't be a hypocrite and don't be contradicting. You titled this "Naruto is a good show" but not once ever have you talked about the show in any of our debates. You started this debate off talking about Naruto. And I even listed a golden list of why Naruto is great in our last debate, It's no need for me to put it again. There is nothing else to talk about. I'm new to this website and you're the very first person I had an open debate with and you handled everything very poorly. I hope future debates I have on here will be with mature people who know how to debate, Who uses their own words and who goes with the topic at hand instead of commenting something completely different that had nothing to do with the debate, In order to make the other person mad. Hopefully I don't run across another dumb person like you because this was ridiculous. With that being said, I clearly won this debate and had this debate gone normally and been a success, I still would have won. Have a good day.
Naruto is a good show

"How is Earth being spherical a fact? " I'm not gonna have a debate with you about the earth. If you need some information on earth, Look it up. If you don't think the earth being round is a fact, Then okay. I'm not bias. I pointed out Naruto's flaws. Not just a great things about Naruto. I've been proving you wrong this whole time, But you don't see it as that, You just want me to kiss your a**. No thanks. Naruto isn't a religion to me. Hopefully you learned your lesson in the future to have a proper debate. How are you going to debate on a topic that you don't know 100% number 1. And number 2. You use a Youtube video as your argument? Use YOUR words, Not someone else's. You need common sense. I followed all of your rules, For the 20th time. ~ Replying to your debate: I did go by the premise. "targeting quotes that are not made in the debate. " well you made them last debate, And now you want to switch things up and take certain things out of your debate on this page. I suspect you took them out because I called you out on them and you had no rebuttal to it. Examples: "Naruto is wrong" "Naruto is born with kekkei genkai" "Naruto wants to be Hokage for attention" you never added those back in. I put those back in for you so I can prove to you how they are not true. Yet all you keep saying is that I never counteract your claims. Yes I am. This technically isn't a new debate. It's the same debate as before but on a new page. You put your same argument and I put my same response in a proper, Appropriate manner. Sidenote: This website is about debates. Not every single thing are facts or has to be facts. Humans have opinions and we voice them. My opinions about Naruto happen to be valid and have some truth behind them, Which in turn makes them a fact. For example, I provided proof that Naruto isn't born with kekkei genkei with the link I sent. I don't have to keep explaining myself in the comments. This point of all this is to DEBATE. On THIS page. You started the whole commenting thing which was stupid. You're being a hypocrite. How are you going to try to preach to me about me not counteracting your claims (which I am) yet you haven't even proved my points wrong on my last response (Points 1 through 13) and all the questions I asked for you to answer in the beginning of my response to you still haven't answered. Like "Naruto is wrong" I told you to please explain that. Also the "Naruto wanting attention from being Hokage. " thing. And everything else. Practice what you preach and don't be a hypocrite. I was interested in continuing this debate and I wanted to see where it goes but your childishness prevented this debate from being a success. All you've shown is your ignorance. This is a debate. No one has to kiss your a**
Naruto is a good show

I simply what Pro to show opposing evidence that clearly states why the fact is wrong. No opinions. Try to list examples why these points are not the case. If you did not go by my premise why did you accept this debate? I said the points I made were facts. You did not counter my claims with facts of your own. Side note: You put too much emphasis on how I say something instead of what I actually said you were typing at first came off that he was born smart, Clever & intelligent and Your whole argument makes it seem as if you hate Naruto. This would not be a problem if directly refutted my points instead of thinking how he meant. That is not important. You are also targetting quotes that were not made in the debate. If it was used as facts to prove my facts wrong then I will allow it but you didn't. This was a new debate with new arguments. Examples I said he was gifted and was stupid which he is. Does he knows the fundamentals of being a ninja? No. When he becomes Hokage is he not forced to learn them? Yes. So even though he was a living God he still did not know the fundamentals. You comments were not sufficient proof of non-existent facts that proved my facts wrong. Example of opinions which I did say I wanted: That's what he deservesHe worked hard up to that point. Examples which Pro thinks he rebuts my claims but he doesn't:It was beyond Naruto's control that he got the Nine tailed fox. Don't care if you block me and I am not going to do the same and why did you not explain yourself in the comments? Maybe I have backed you up in a corner and stated what wasn't proof and what is fact.
Ocarina of Time better than Majora's Mask

To further my Point. Ocarina of Time was revolutionary, but as the technology was new, Nintendo fell back on old reliable methods to create a masterpiece, but it had it's flaws, one being it's length, for many children of the 90s their attention span was short and their time limited. Majoras mask took everything that made Ocarina of Time Great and compressed it down while adding a pressure to "just finish this bit" in one session, knowing you only had a certain amount of time, made the game fun
Ocarina of Time better than Majora's Mask

While my oponent has chosen to be rather rude and with no points for Ocarina of Time, I'll take a much more civil aproach Pro for Majora's Mask 1: Majoras mask took what Ocarina had and twisted it into something new and unique, it had an actual evil villain who did not care for the usual "here is my plan, try and stop me hero" that is so common in the zelda games and instead it was up to you how you went about the puzzles and trials.
Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government.

I am going down the Negative flow and then affirmative. 1)the seperation of church and state is not constitutionally mandated, it is just a theory posed by Madison in the Federalist Papers. therefore, the US must mandate it. 2)males can reproduce it has been proven that males can reproduce."Oral doses of female hormones were administered to Mr. Lee to make him receptive to the pregnancy"(RYT Hospital). this is why the US must grant the right to homosexuals to have marriage, according to you since you say that reproduction is a major foundation of marriage 3)in my definitions, i clearly state that "Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women." therefore, polygamy has no ground in this debate. thus, it should be dropped from this round. However, i will debate the fact of love. if anyone denies the right of homosexuals to get married, then they are being discriminant. What makes it more just for a heterosexual couple to get married than it does a homosexual couple? If the United States Cannot grant gay marriage, then they will only be promoting sexism and thus they will be considered hypocrite by the rest of the world. 4) once again, polygamy doesn't apply to this debate seeing how my definition holds and you drop it completely so therefore you agree with it. 5) if economics were a factor in homosexual marriages, then the United States wouldn't allow any marriage at all. moreover, if they cannot have the equal right to have all of their "spouse's' stuff collected, then this only weakens the inherent right to equality granted by our declaration of independence and our pledge of allegiance that we have taken everyday since kindergarten. Also, it doesn't matter if they can create a will or a co-signer on a house, they cannot be co-signers on a marriage certificate. that is all that matters in this debate. 6)You drop the discrimination argument, therefore you concede the fact that by not allowing gay couples to marry, you will then allow discrimination to occur. this discrimination will weaken our credibility in the world because then peole don't know if we are promoting sexism or not... 7) all you say is that polygamy is bad and this has no room in this debate. gay or straight love is all the same and therefore, they should have the right to get married like any straight couple...
Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government.

"i now pronounce you husband and husband." It is because i agree with the Hit hit movie I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, i am compelled to affirm the resolution Resolved:Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government. Definitions: Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women. should: implies an obligation legalized: the act of making something practicable by law United States Government: The congress, executive, and judicial branches. contention 1: Discrimination we must look to the fact that heterosexual couples can get married, but not homosexual couples. this is unfair due to the fact that the United States "tolerance" in our schools. moreover, the US also values liberty as a major point. thus, homosexual couples should have the right to marriage. Contention 2: Religion This anti-gay marraige outlook by the United States is very hypocritical due to the fact that the the Bible says "But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23). thus, there must be love in our lives, or else there is total anarchy. also, i should point out the fact that the United States says Under God in the pledge of alliegence, means that everyone is Under the Christian religion, no matter if they believe in it or not. thus , the United States values Religion as a major point.
People are the cause of most animal's extinctions

There is a few problems with my opponents arguments. 1. The resolution is being argued by him. He has yet to make an argument that supports his resolution. 2. Even if humans we do change the resolution to; Humans caused most of the animal extinctions, since they began to exist on this planet. We still have a problem. The problem is that he has shown how mankind makes animals extinct. He hasn't shown that mankind makes most animals extinct. 3. My opponent is trying to debate a fact. If he finds some stat that confirms humans have caused most animals extinctions, since they arrived on the planet. We still have a problem. It's un-debatable. Facts just aren't worthy of debate.
People are the cause of most animal's extinctions

Sorry for not specifying but humans didn't even exist at the time of the dinosaurs. Anyway, lets get started on some reasons, shall we. Reason number 1: over hunting and or fishing. A species that met this sad fate was called the Tasmanian Tiger. Farmers were upset that they were killing livestock, so what do they do? They put a bounty for them and wipe them off the face of the Earth! The last Tasmanian tiger passed away in a zoo in the 20th century. Luckily, we have DNA of this lost species, if we can make cloning more productive, Tasmanian citizens may hear the cry of this beautiful creature once again in the twilight. Reason number 2: Deforestation. Over half of the known plant and animal species live in the rain forests. But more and more rain forests are disappearing every day. Sadly, some of the creatures could not be saved, but we can still help others by cutting down on deforestation (pun not intended). We already have enough buildings and other crap, People! We don't need more room!
Voluntaryism

1st question answer: Monopolies only really spring up because of government intervention. Whether by restricting trade with other nations or making it next to impossible to jump into a market, 9 times out of 10 it`s the government`s fault. With free trade, monopolies have almost no chance, as the competition is maddening. 2nd question answer: you need roads. I need roads. Just about everyone needs roads. People will take care of them because, let`s face it, you need them and, if you are a business owner, your customers need them to get to you. So, you`re gonna contribute time, money, or both to make sure the roads work. You know, "Roads" is the #1 argument people make for statism. 3rd question answer: Bitcoin would be managed by people all over the world keeping a ledger, keeping track of how much everybody has. It`s an extremely effective currency, being almost unhackable, capable of being used anywhere, only 21 million will ever be produced, and it can be divided to 0.00000001 bitcoin. 4th question answer: Normal people don`t run around naked. They don`t cut in line, even though there`s no law against them doing so. They tip their waiters and waitresses, even though such isn`t required by law. Why? Because they`re decent people. 5th question answered: there wouldn`t be an army. As Isoroku Yamamoto said in WWII: "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." He took our armies head on, but he was scared of the PEOPLE. If people are defending themselves like they should, they will stop an invasion. And don`t say "WARLORDS!!!!!!!" Because we don`t need a morally exempt entity in place to keep morally exempt entities from springing up. Unfortunately, your last comment is probably going to make a question, and this is my last comment so I won`t be able to answer it. So please don`t ask a new question in your last comment. Thanks!
Voluntaryism

Thanks for responding! Voluntaryism would solve these problems by having privately owned inspection fields to find fraud in business. If you disapprove of what a business is doing, you can personally boycott it. Roads would be maintained because everyone needs them, so people would contribute money and/or effort to keep them paved. Bridges could charge tolls until the expense is paid for, or be privately funded. Bitcoin would be the choice currency, being effective while not relying on any government or institution. Freedom at the cost of having to take responsibility for yourself and others.
Voluntaryism

I will accept your challenge. I do not see an established question or hypothesis so I will assume your question is "Should we replace our society/government with a society based on Voluntaryism?" I find Vountaryism to be a very nice ideal or Utopia but as with all Utopia's to have some glaring flaws. You have a society reliant on bitcoins however I don't see how people would have access and the ability to transfer them easily. While apps and smartphones will help this transition, people in rural areas, averse to technology and those who live at lower technology standards would have difficulty using such a system. Without a regulatory body around such a monetary system dangers of other currencies arising and competing would be an issue as any bank could freely issue its own money without fear of reprisal. A multi-currency system often has dangerous levels of inflation, fraud and restriction on trade. Roads being maintained by the people is quite general and I am not sure what you mean by this. Is there an owner of the road? is there a body that is in charge of keeping the roads maintained? would people be compensated for their road maintenance, if so how is that money collected and dispersed correctly? If not what is the incentive for people to maintain the road? Road maintenance, especially in our modern era is expensive and hard work, unless properly motivated a return to dirt roads would be the norm. Dirt roads are very dangerous for vehicles and heavy loads traveling on them which can seriously affect economies. I would ask that in the next round you expand on this topic. When you say everything would be privatized I must ask if the FDA, the EPA and other regulatory bodies would be privatized. I ask because if so by any amount of study of human nature it is easy to see that corruption and bribery would become rampant. Similarly without a regulatory body monopolies and trusts would be easy to set up, especially if there is no regulatory body over currency. It would not be difficult for corporation owners to collude and basically decide what currency is worth what and where. My last issue with the idea of Voluntaryism is courts and officers of the law. From what you have suggested a dissolution of a government also means a dissolution of courts and the officers that enforce their judgement. Doing so will lead to privatized cops, which are gangs who are paid to keep corporate interests safe. Courts will either be nonexistent or exist primarily as mob courts which will result in lynchings and mob justice which, despite the name, is unjust.
God exists

Happy to think with you today. My contention will be that there is no evidence for God's existence. The state of the universe is how we would expect it to look with our current understanding of logic and reasoning. No one can disprove or prove God exists, Much the same as no one can disprove or prove that Unicorns exist. This is exactly how you would expect things to look if Unicorns, And God, Did not exist. The Burden of Proof is on the one who makes the positive claim, And as so, The first arguments are yours. As a point of clarification, Are we arguing for a specific God (i. E. Christian, Et cetera), Or the concept of God?
Do you think that there should be more high pitched intruments in an orchetra or more low pitched

My opponent has missed the point of the virtual cello ensemble. The “song for 8 cellos” was not meant to be an example of an orchestra, but an example of how the melody stands out against 7 other parts. It is irrelevant that the instrument happens to be a low pitched instrument. The point has nothing to do with the voice, but the melody. In any orchestra, a small percentage of the instruments play the melody, and a majority of the instruments support it – much like the virtual cello ensemble I referenced - thus the lower ranged instruments/parts are more in demand than instruments playing melodic parts. Pro has not addressed this point. Secondly, Pro claims my other example supports ‘high pitched instruments play the melody’, and that is most certainly correct. However, that is not something a musically literate person would deny nor is it what this debate is about. This debate is about whether we should increase the number of high or low pitched instruments. In addition, Pro has missed the point of this example as well: the higher pitched instrument is more easily heard. If this is true, which it is established by the comparison of the piccolo and horn solo, then it follows increasing the number of high register instruments (playing melody) to greater than that of the low range instruments will drown out the low ranged instruments. Lastly, Pro did not address my first argument – high range instruments do not always play the melody. If we were to increase the number of high range instruments, we would likely (for the sake of balance) be increasing 2nd and 3rd parts. These parts do not generally play the melody, but provide harmony which is played in a lower range than the 1st part. Essentially, increasing the number of higher range instruments will do the same thing as increasing the number of lower range instruments: provide support to the melody, not increase the number of instruments playing the melody. My opponent has made no case for herself, and has not addressed my arguments. For these reasons, I ask the reader to vote Con. Thank you for setting up this debate, Pro. It has been a nice change of pace, and I hope to debate you again.