BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

"Ok, Team Rocket killed a Marowak. Whoopie. TG's plan calls for the death of EVERYTHING. "If they were willing to murder a pokemon to achieve their goal, then what else were they willing to do in the name of their plan, and once again a world without spirit is not a world without life. "Isn't it the entire team in general that counts? And you say that their pokemon are for weaker, whereas TG has pokemon like Glameow, Zubat, and Wurmple. "In your first round argument, you stated that "Team Rocket workers have better pokemon" so no, it is not the entire team that counts, just the workers, and almost every team has weak pokemon. Rocket, Magma, Aqua, Plasma, and Galactic all have weak pokemon. Have a very (late) happy New Year!
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

"Team Rocket only asks for a one-world government, that way nobody dies and nobody neets to get hurt." Ok, Team Rocket killed a Marowak. Whoopie. TG's plan calls for the death of EVERYTHING."In R/B/Y, Team Rocket is only consisted of the grunts and Giovanni". Isn't it the entire team in general that counts? And you say that their pokemon are for weaker, whereas TG has pokemon like Glameow, Zubat, and Wurmple.
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

"Team Rocket only asks for a one-world government, that way nobody dies and nobody needs to get hurt" A one world government would not necessarily be good, especially run by an international crime boss. You said that Team Rocket's plan involve no death, but in the games they have already killed a Marowak, and who knows how many more innocent people and pokemon they would have killed to reach their goal. "Team Rocket does have admins" Here is the quote from my argument: "In R/B/Y, Team Rocket is only consisted of the grunts and Giovanni". My argument specifically says in Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow they do not have admins, which is correct. In G/S/C they do have admins, but their grunts are significantly weaker, made up of Rattatas, Sandshrews, Zubats, and Muks."Did you know that Giovanni was actually trying to save the world" This is only fan speculation, which means it might not be true. Even if it was true, he might have used the Mewtwo for evil thing once he captured it, like taking over the world and ruling with iron fist maybe. In the games, Cyrus only says that he wants to create a "world without spirit." This does not necessarily mean that he will kill everyone. Sources: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net......http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net......The GamesGood luck in the next round!
Science is more dependable then religion at finding truth

Hello Con, Yes I am referring to the, "god of the gaps". I am saying that religion doesn't prove anything. If you have no proof then how do you think other people will accept this. How do you prove your religion? I can say that I believe in a giant spaghetti monster that lives in space and that is true because it is my religion? People always ridicule Scientology because of it's crazy beliefs and cult like activities. Your saying that we can just assume their beliefs are correct? Morality doesn't require god. If you need the threat of eternal hell to make you not murder people you are not a good person. The existence of god and hell shouldn't affect how you treat others. You should do good because you want to help others not because your trying to get your eternal reward. Life has no meaning. It is called nihilism and it says that life has no meaning. While most people see this as just being edgy the original intent was actually optimistic. If life has no original meaning you give it your meaning. Instead of a god you chose what your life is about.
Science is more dependable then religion at finding truth

This depends entirely upon how you define truth. Truth is defined in philosophy as a justified true belief (with the exception of gettier cases) So in order for a statement to be true you must affirm that 1. It is justified 2. It is true 3. You believe it You seem in your opening statement to be attacking a straw man. What you are referring to is the "God of the gaps" which is that if we don"t know something about the physical world we fill that physical explanation gap with God. This hypothesis has been universally rejected by contemporary theologians. Science is a powerful tool that is extremely limited. Science helps explain the physical world and is locked into a form of reductive physicalism. You can"t use it to prove non-physical beings like God (which is proved by philosophy backed up by scientific evidence) or non physical ideas (ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics). This gives it a very small range of determining truth. Religion however is not limited in this sense. You can use it to determine purpose to the physical world and how it interacts with non-physical ideas. In fact everything that matters to most people can only be explained by the existence of God. Morality, Meaning of life, Why we exist, And pretty much everything in terms of why can be explained by religion, But not science.
Woman

While it is true that on average women outlive men, that does not show that they are physically stronger. Women are often times better survivors because our brains function differently. Women are more cautious and therefore often times live longer than men. Women are stronger when it comes to the immune system because we have to be. That, however, does not show physical strength in an effective way. As I have stated in Round 1, men should have a hiring advantage over women in certain fields, such as physical labour, because of their superior strength. Men should get this advantage because more often than not the father in a family is the one who makes money for the family, especially when his wife is pregnant. If the mother has to take care of her child and can't work, how the baby survive? If the mother's attention is split between a job and the child, the child will more likely suffer from it. Whereas if men could get hired easier, it will give the liberty for the mother to stay and take care of the child, and in the long run give the child a better chance to survive. From a historical standpoint, men were always the ones running populations and creating things for the benefit of the population. If it wasn't for men then society wouldn't be where it is today. Yes, you could argue that men have been given more advantages to allow them to do so and if women had the same advantages they would have done the same, but no. The fundamental way women think is different from men. Without the male brain, none of this would have happened, women are physically made to be caretakers by evolution. It had to be the careless male mind that made the steam engine. When given the chance men do amazing things for society, while women can do the same, our brain works so differently that at some point the cautious part of our mind will take over and prevent women from going to the next step. This is not an argument over who's stronger or who's better, but if women are equal to men. The answer is no, women are not equal. From either a physical or mental standpoint. Men and women are just too fundamentally different to be equal, and men should have the advantage if one side gets it. They have had it for centuries upon centuries and the world is pretty okay. Women are simply not capable of the same things men are and for that reason, men and women are not equal and women should not have the same rights.
Woman

Physical strength can be defined in different ways. What was yet to learn was that, beneath our skin, women bubble with a source of power that even science has yet to fully understand. We are better survivors than men. What"s more, we are born this way. "Pretty much at every age, women seem to survive better than men," says Steven Austad, an international expert on ageing, and chair of the biology department at the University of Alabama. For almost two decades, he has been studying one of the best-known yet under-researched facts of human biology: that women live longer than men. His longevity database shows that all over the world and as far back as records have been kept, women outlive men by around five or six years. He describes them as being more "robust". When it comes to longevity, surviving illness and coping with trauma, one gender comes out on top are women.( I'm sorry I just thought that was not true and I think you had a amazing statement. Again I'M SORRY).
One volunteer, is better than ten forced men.

P:"But don't you think that having death as a consequence would trigger the opposite effect?" Clearly not which is why I said it. P:"Whereas someone who WANTED to do the work would have all the motivation in the world by simply having a will to do something for free, because they think it will better someone's life." Slavery bettered the lifes of plantation owners and slaves were forced. P:They would wonder things like "Whats is even the point if we are not going to be able to have freedom anyway?" We're not arguing about whether or not freedom is important. The can wonder that if they want but does that wonderment hurt the effectiveness of their bullets when they strike a target. I think not. P:They would have a stronger determination, and willpower to get the job done, and more than likely would be able to take down ten soldiers singlehandly who had been forced in the army. No, logic to prove this statement no statistic, I believe it is a null and void clearly straw man argument. P: "But if they had willingly wanted to, one of them could double that work, and have spirit in getting it complete. More spirit and will, = getting more done." Once again no logic or proof. He is guessing. The pyramids, cotton, killing enemies, are all tangible and oservable things that forcing people to do has created. P:"While fear can be a great motivational factor" Conceeded this which is great for the use farther on. P:"Love and will are just as great motivational factors if not greater ones. Armies led with courage and a want to get things done always have had the better luck in the end of any war. Someone who has been forced do something has been raised with fear. Is it more likely that someone rushing into battle is going to be more succesful with fear, or with courage and hope?" Genghis Khan and Hannibal examples Machiavelli provided evidence of how this was false because they succeeded far more than any virteous army leader had/has. Fear of what happens when and if the soldier fails is highly motivational when talking about Hannibal who would dismember his own people if they failed or pissed him off. In His last round he summed up his points. 1) Well, I think that slaves, soldiers, Hannibal, and Machiavellian ideals and observations clearly disprove that 1 volunteer can achieve more than 10 forced men. 2) Forced people are more obligated thank you for conceding this. I don't care how it gets done or how effeciently the point is 10 forced people get it done better than one volunteer. I thank you for reading your vote and since I have discredited all aff arguments and have shown through the negative that 10 forced men are better than 1 volunteer than I urge a negative ballot.
One volunteer, is better than ten forced men.

Unfortunately my opponent was unable to respond. Quick once over of my case: 1.Volunteers are more comitted in getting work done, thus they will be able to get more done than someone who is unwilling. 2. Forced people are more obligated get work done, yet they lack will to do it, whereas a volunteer wants there to be a change and will make an active movement to complete their goal. Thankyou, -philosophical
One volunteer, is better than ten forced men.

His case C1) Sure a volunteer may actually WANT to get the work done but the FORCED are just as likely to get it done because they face dire consequences such as death. Motivation seems to be the basis of his argument here. Well, 10 forced African chiilder soldiers are more effective than 1 male volunteer soldiers. I get bullets fired just as effectively and more are actually fired from the 10 children soldiers thus allowing 10 forced children to be better. If he wants to word play and use the term men than 10 FORCED conscript men fire more bullets and they are just as deadly as if fired from 1 man except I get more. C2) Will to work/motivation again seems to be the basis. Well, Slavery is a prime example of how this is bull sh!t. Back in the old America where blacks were slaves, stuff got done, they didn't get paid, they were motivated by the threat of death or beating and were FORCED to do the work and the work still managed to get done effectively and if it didn't you knew you would be beaten. So, I would contend that 10 men forced men can get more work done in 1 day than a single volunteer My Case Point 1) Machiavelli VIolence and cruelty are often the force driving men to do what they need to. An instance in which cruelty is necessary and forces 10 or more men to act, is when the prince is commanding his troops in war. Here Machiavelli uses the example of Hannibal, whose "inhuman cruelty" enabled him to hold together and maintain control over his army. Machiavelli points out that the same people who praise Hannibal for his accomplishments also condemn his cruelty, and yet without the cruelty he could not have accomplished everything he did In conclusion My opponent's arguments fall short and Machiavelli proves that ten forced men can accomplish more than 1 volunteerman ( I reserve the right to add more contentions in round 3 but will not add points in round 4)
One volunteer, is better than ten forced men.

I believe that one volunteer would be more likely to get more work done than ten forced men for the following points: 1. Volunteers actually WANT to get the work done. 2. Forced people don't have as much will to get it done. Contention one: Volunteers actually WANT to get the work done, wheras forced people are less likely. I mean, these people volunteered for because they had the will to do so. They wanted to get whatever needs to be done, and volunteered they're service. When someone really wants to get something done, they will be more likely to go ahead and do it. For example: If a mother tells her kid to go clean his/her room, or he/she will be grounded, how much effort is the kid going to put into cleaning? But let's say that kid had a date coming over that same day. Isn't going to be more likely for him/her to want to clean it to make a good impression? They're going to want to put a heck of alot more effort into it, because they are doing it for something they want to do rather than what their parents wants them to do. Contention two: Forced people don't have as much will to get it done because chances are they probably don't want to do it. Alot of time when you are driving down the road, and you see construction workers, more than half of the time they are taking a break or goofing of rather than actually working. They get paid by the hour, so the longer they procastinate the better it is for them. However If someone volunteered to do the work, they would be more obligated to do the work. Good luck to my oppoent in the next round :) -philosophical
Gay marriage

Nobody said that they'd have to draft their own contracts (although that would be an option, think LegalZoom). The way I envision it is that various law firms specializing in contracts would have a "basic package" as it were. This contract would be what your average "marriage" would entail. Things like power of attorney, executor of wills, things that are included in marriage today minus the financial aspects. The clients would be free to alter this basic version with the help of the lawyers. As for divorce, I would think that the actions that would nullify the contract would be spelled out in said contract. If they aren't then that's wither their fault or the fault of their law firm. In the latter case the group might have cause for a lawsuit, but in the former they should've been more competent with their legally binding documents. Same with not anticipating the consequences. One should always be fully aware of what they're getting into when entering into a binding agreement.
Gay marriage

My basic argument is that the government has no cause to regulate the personal lives of citizens via a one size fits all contract. Which is what marriage currently is in America. Most of the non-financial benefits that come with marriage can be gained through various forms of contracts that do not require marriage, and the financial benefits that come from marriage are discriminatory on the basis of relationship status. For instance, there is no reason that a person should be exempt from certain taxes simply because they're married to the deceased, no reason that they should get preferential treatment when being considered for a government job, no reason that they should be entitled to increased amounts of governmental benefits simply because they're married to a governmental worker. Therefore, it is my position that the current legal concept of "marriage" be abolished in favor of the government simply enforcing private contracts between individuals.
Why Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is the best music genre (Pop and most Country is terrible)

All music genres have pros and cons depending on the person. If they only had cons they wouldn't exist and even if I can't come up with a pro I am positive they exist. I can't make an accurate statement about heavy metal or rock because I don't listen to them. But rap (the good kind) usually will raise awareness of political social and various other subjects while expressing how an artist feels about these subjects. Rap also uses language techniques such as rhyming to establish an idea in an educated and intelligent way. Pop music is good (using that term lightly because I don't like it either) because it speaks to a large audience or is just catchy in quite a few cases. Although I rarely listen I would say rock and heavy metal are a bit harsh and loud and wouldn't appeal to everyone. As stated before music is based on opinion so you can't really make a lot of factual statements about one genre being better than the other.
Why Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is the best music genre (Pop and most Country is terrible)

I can prove it and watch this debate (by the way for next round, what's your favorite music genre?): Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is actually a good genre unlike most others. Classical is the second best, while Country and electronic is okay, and leaving pop music and rap to suck (I know that there's more music genre's but these are the only one's I want to touch on. Pop and Rap music aren't good. List one good thing about them and I will debunk it. And while you're at it list one bad thing about Hard Rock and Heavy Metal (You cannot use Blood on the Dance Floor as a band against me because I'm fully aware that they suck). Let's see what you come
Why Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is the best music genre (Pop and most Country is terrible)

You can not definitively prove this because music is inherently based on opinion and not fact. You can list reasons why the music is good but it is impossible to actually prove that it is better than say electronic or country music. This might be true however if you are talking about specified effects I.e. Rock helps develop brain matter more than country. But I assume that this is not the basis for your claim since you have provided no evidence to suggest this.
Why Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is the best music genre (Pop and most Country is terrible)

I'm sick and tired of people saying Hard Rock and Heavy Metal (both old and modern) is for satanic, emo, gang, etc people. I'm tired of people's stereotypes and I'm here to prove that Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is not even close to those stereotypes, but I'm here to prove that it's the best music genre. And as long as there's kids in an old garage sick of BS, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal will never die.
Is the g-string the most susceptible to breaking on an acoustic six string steel guitar

First, my opponent accused me of fallacy. After the g-string breaking incident, I read on string breakage and asked other guitarist and the result was the g-string is usually the first to break and is the most common. That along with my experience has led me to the conclusion that the g-string breaks the easiest. Also according to the data, you cited, the g-string is not even a distant second. If you examine data closely it's mostly all other string other than the high-e. From what I recall it the number go like this, four claim the b-string, four claim the g string, two claim the d string, and a surprising two claim the e low. The numbers other than the high-e add up to 12/18, which is about 66%. The remaining six claim the hi-e, which is 33%. Secondly, my opponent says there is a sharp edge on my saddle and other malfunctions on my guitar. I do not think there is anything abnormal about my guitar. I was able to tune the replaced g-string up to g#. I even did it on elixir's g-string, which is often criticized for breaking easily. I got that g-string up to A. Elixir g-string gets criticism on both their light and medium gauge g-string. That also holds true for their Nonoweb and Polyweb acoustic brands. In addition, my opponent claims plain strings are more common than wound. Not true when it comes to acoustic. Plain g-strings are irreverent to the debate because they are mainly used for electric guitars not acoustic. The debate is about acoustic strings not electric. Plain g-strings do not go on acoustics because of intonation. I have experimented with many acoustic strings brands and not even one of them has a plain g-string. Furthermore my opponent thinks I think tension is main factor. He proves this by talking about why d-string breaking easier than the others should be the debate. The d string is slightly under more tension than the g-string; however, it is thicker, has a thicker core, has higher tensile strength, and is able to stretch out more. While tension is not how high the note is tuned, it should be taken in to consideration. Think about why b string and high e string are just plain as opposed to being wrapped. If the b and hi e were wrapped they would not be able to tune all the way. Moreover, my opponent believes the high e string is the only string that can be bought. It is possible to buy other strings separately too. At my local Guitar Center, for example, you can buy Ernie ball strings separately. Finally, Although the g-string tensile strength is stronger than the b and high-e strings it is still not stellar compared to the first three thicker strings the low-e,a,and d. All these factors, Low tensile strength, high tension, and a thin core make recipe for an easy breakage on the g-string. I enjoyed this debate and learned a lot. Thank you. http://mudcat.org... http://www.thegearpage.net... http://www.acousticguitarforum.com... http://acapella.harmony-central.com... http://www.justplainfolks.org... `
Is the g-string the most susceptible to breaking on an acoustic six string steel guitar

You made a lot of good points about the high e string. However, the g-string is not always plain like the high e is and is more prone to breaking because of the amount of force put on it. The first string I snapped was the g-string. I snapped it by loosening it. Never snapped the high e for that reason. Most bends are performed on the g-string. In fact, the b string is harder to break than the g-string. My b string was able to tune up seven frets. Could not accomplish that with the g-string. The b string and high e are under less tension than the g-string. Tension is not how high the string is tuned, it is the amount of force put in to it. Counterargument 1 The high e string is the thinnest. True, but the g-string's core is under more strain than the high e according to coleclarkguitars. In addition, the core of the g-string is more delicate than the high e because it is thinner. Counterargument 2 "Plain G-string is more common than the wound G-string." Plain G-Strings are rare on acoustic steel guitar. http://www.coleclarkguitars.com... http://www.frets.com...