BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Pokemon TCG is a better TCG then Yugioh.

Alright, I'll start off with some refutations. You say then PTCG is very complicated with unneeded aspects but just look at Yugioh and all of this fusion and tribute summoning and all of that which makes it furthermore complicated then Pokemon. Pokemon is a way easier TCG to learn then Yugioh is. And you said that all the attacks are limited but in Yugioh there's only one attack with ATK power. Also please name some unnecessary and excessive attributes of Pokemon. You also stated that there are many strategies in Yugioh but there is so many in Pokemon such as the popular Garbodor strategy or Darkrai and its damage spreading. How is Pokemon limited? There are so many cards that are unique and the aspect is so much easier to understand then Yugioh ever will be. On to my points. Pokemon is an easier game to understand. As a kid I would always play the Pokemon TCG and loved it. However, that being said, I also played Yugioh but that took a little while to fully understand and it just wasn't as appealing. Pokemon also has furthermore card events then. Yugioh does and it's community is way better. Every year Pokemon has official tournaments for both the video game and the TCG.Tons of people go and participate and it's so much fun. The winner always gets a big prize and it goes on until the world championships where everyone from around the world who has won in there hometown and nationals gather to participate in a worldwide tournament. As you see Pokemon is way more supportive then Yugioh and an all around better TCG.
The Pokemon TCG is a better TCG then Yugioh.

I'll start by saying why the Pokémon trading card game (PTCG) is inferior to the Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game (YTCG).What makes the Pokemon franchise so enjoyable in the first place is the idea of raising these animals with specific traits and attacks and keeping them all together in a battle-like sense. With the PTCG, all of this essentially goes out the door. Moves are limited, levels are limited, and all specific traits are limited where the video game would have free reign. When the card game is over, there is nothing to show for it- you simply have to hope you can evolve your Pokemon at the right time later. Furthermore, Pokemon available are limited. On top of this, the card game involves many attributes which are excessive, unnecessary, and needlessly complicated.The YTCG is simply what it always was- a card game. There are no boundaries to the cards that can be made, as there are no prior requirements or criteria for each card. This provides a world of opportunities and countless strategies, whereas with the PTCG, there are relatively few cards that must be kept together to have any coherent strategy. On top of this, the basic gameplay is much more simple to understand, and is thus enjoyable for all ages. I once taught my grandma how to play, in fact, when I was a wee tyke.As a franchise, Pokemon takes the cake. No contest. But simply based on the TCG, Yu-Gi-Oh! wins hands down.
A good God is out there, for sure!

Pro accepted the challenge to defend the proposition "A Good God is out there for sure."Considering Philosophers think it's hard to prove anything "for sure", proving that a god - let alone a good god - exists, is certainly a tall order for sure! In fact, it has been impossible for all of human history. No one has proven a God, let alone a Good God exists.Pro is simply not going to be able to prove (for sure) his statement, and by default, I win the debate.Further, I win the debate because I have an argument against a good god existing, even using Pro's own criteria (the Bible).Continuing:In order for Pro to defend the proposition "A Good God exists out there, for sure!", Pro will have to show that a God exists and acts Good. Citing the Bible that says God is Good, or any other claim is not proving his case.Many people claim that if a God exists, it is an Evil God, or an amoral God. These claims simply contradict the premise that a Good God exists.Pro has to prove, for sure, why these claims are not true, while his claim is true.This is the basic debate and Pro has not even attempted to engage the challenge.As poorly as I have debated, I have, at least, debated. Pro has not.As much as one may disagree with my position, I still win the debate because I am actually debating the issue.
A good God is out there, for sure!

1. Pro is begging the question by presupposing a Christian God exists. His challenge is to debate the existence of a Good God.Asserting a Christian God exists is not debating.In response I can simply say the Greek Gods exist, and they are not to be believed to be Good.Pro has not argued his case. He has simply asserted it.2. However, if he wants to argue from the Bible, I only have to quote the Bible:Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.The Bible says the Lord (aka God) deceived people into saying evil things, then had them killed. Only if Pro redefines Good to mean "decieving someone to make them say something that will have them destroyed" can he argue this is Good.Or, here:"...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," Exodus 20:53. The evidence of suffering is evidence against a Good God, regardless of the religion. In order to argue from a theodicy (an apology of suffering), one has to show the God they believe exists has a reason to allow suffering AND remain silent.Apparently, if Pro is right, a Good God is sitting, hands folded, while a mother in Somalia is raped and her baby cut from her womb.Something the Christian God has commanded:"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)If this is Good, then we can expect this same kind of thing in Heaven. Yet, the Bible teaches that this is eactly the kind of suffering we can expect in Hell.If Pro things what God does is Good, and the suffering is necessary for some greater Good, then how can he explain Heaven which invloves no suffering, but Hell includes eternal suffering?("He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4)Is Pro a Satanist and claiming Satan is truly the Good God because of all the suffering he provides?Or, is Pro admitting the Christian God is deceptive in placing a high premium on suffering, only to take it all away once you get to Heaven?This is deceptive.Pro is refuted.
A good God is out there, for sure!

I won't take much time here, I just want to understand how Pro defines "deceit" for this debate?A quick Google search says:de·ceit /diG2;sēt/ Noun The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth. A dishonest act or statement. Synonyms deception - fraud - cheat - trickery - trick - guile For example, I'm sure Pro isn't a Young Earth Creationist, and so we'll use a common example: that if the Earth is 6,000 years old, then it appears God has constructed a Universe that is deceptive. It appears to us, despite a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old.This surely isn't that Christians don't want to see the truth, since most scientists who are Christian assert God would not create a universe that appears 15 billion years old.So, most Christians accept the God of the Bible that requires a literal and inerrant view of the text does not exist, but that a different one does. One that requires more nuanced exegesis.One that requires either an effort to get an PhD in Christian Theology, or a simple revelation, but not a God that is revealed if reading the Bible literally, as if there are no errors to the text.I don't know if Pro is Christian, and I don't need to argue against a Christian God, only a Good God, but I would like a point of reference for how we are going to use the term "deceit".
Giving Murderers the Death Sentence should be illegal

I stand in negation of the topic and believe that murderers should be given the death penalty. I assume by murderer that there is undeniable proof that the person on trial for murder is guilty. Look only at the price of housing an inmate (life sentence being the alternative in my mind) and look to the economy today. We don't need extra burdens. It's not that police are above everyone else, it's that the law frowns on murder. With 5 min and 500 char. that's all I've got time for.
Giving Murderers the Death Sentence should be illegal

I think that the police giving murderers the death sentence should be illegal because by killing them, are the police really any better then the murderers. I think that it is really hypocritical because that's like saying "You killed a person/people, now we're gonna kill you." This would make the police murderers themselves. Murder - taking someone's life. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... May not be a good source however, its a source none the less...
Is Bullying a Natural Process

The fact that you reacted rather aggressively proved my point in the last argument although it wasn't my intent to respond late. You didn't like that I was not faster in responding so your immediate response was to attack me an labeling me being indecent which is unwarranted. Just like you I had problems getting back to you since I also am a student and work full time. I actually had to resort to using my phone for that near-essay that I wrote which also took a long time to edit and actually write out. I had to re-write much if it several times for it getting lost on my phone. Either way, it wasn't intentional and I was trying my best, but instead of simply stating that I took too long you decided to also insinuate that there was something wrong with me personally because the outcome was not favorable. And that is the same pattern you see in bullies; they don't like something so they react aggressively. It also proved people are not automatically kind; kindness and understanding was not your natural response, aggression was your natural response. I still looked forward to your response, and I apologize if you were offended, however to was not intentional.
Is Bullying a Natural Process

Hi there. Good subject, I look forward to our debate :) Rather than bullying being part of nature, it is really more about how a child is brought up and about it's environment. More often than not kids that bully have an underlying problem of either being bullied, abused or having a lack of love at home. There is a fear within the child and anger. I am no psychologist and I'll probably have to do some research for my next comment. But as an opening statement, I am saying that bullying is not a natural process. Kindness is a natural process. Also animals are territorial and they do what is in their nature to do. They aren't exactly bullies in the same sense that humans are. Bullying by all means should be punishable or at least there should be help offered to the bully as a means of rectifying behavior. Bullying affects victims in a really bad way. Many suicides and kids grow up really afraid and afraid of being themselves. They usually also blame themselves because they buy into the 'I'm a looser and deserve to be bullied' emotional abuse thrown at them. Bullying is a very serious matter and it is by no means a natural human behavioral pattern. I'll even go as far as to say that cyber bullying is also a problem and should not be tolerated. Here's an article on statistics of bullying and suicide. http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... There's also a law against bullying and cyber bullying. For there to even be one, there had to have been many an incident of serious victimization and consequences thereof. For interest sake; if you had a child and he or she was bullied in a serious way and perhaps committed suicide or just grew up really fearful and broken instead of whole. Would you still think it is natural?
Is Bullying a Natural Process

While there has been a growing movement against bullying in schools and online, is it that bullying is a process that has been taken to far for too long, or have we as a society simply gotten fed up with a process that has been a part of human nature. We see bullying as intimation or threat towards another person, however bullying in itself is a behavior pattern that can be seen in all kinds of species. Animals use the same process to defend themselves and their territories, and humans use it in a similar way. We bully those who are seen as a threat, seen as weaker, or as something that we do not understand. While it is mean for the weaker party, humanity has evolved to do it. That said, are we doing society a favor by going after "bullies" with pitchfork in hand, or are we actually weakening ourselves by letting a natural behavior become unnatural.
Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy

Applying a tax toe everyone in the Uk would be worse than a school charge because the people who would pay the tax would be people who spend more money if every year 16 year olds have ï¿½1000 less to spend then it will not affect the economy as mucha as they probably wouldnt spend it on worth while things possibly even drugs.Therefore by applying the charge would also go a small way to reducing problems with drugs in the Uk.Widespread taxes are also likely to affect poorer people in society who already recieve about the same amount as those on benefits an extra tax may make these people more likely just to pack in there job and live on benefits so far from gaining money the government would have to pay out more in benefits.
Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy

With 1000 euros per annun, I think I can fully formulate the argument I brought in the last round while refuting the counter-points by opponent brings. He writes:Counterpoint B: Having government charge for schooling would lead to higher rates of drop outs.In my opponent's response to my counter-point he writes:""as much as this may cause many 16 year olds to leave education I believe many would then be able to go back in later years of life""He believes that they will go back later in life. But my opponent provides no reasoning behind this conclusion. Assuming that they had to leave school at 16 for a small 1000 euros per annun, and coupled with the probability that they will have a spouse and possibly children, the odds of them going back to school would be considerably improbable given their condition as teenagers. My counter-point B has been dropped by my opponent. Instead of responding to it, he brings another argument. He writes:""raising tax levels would result in people spending less and the worsening of the economy""Raising taxes does not necessarily cause a worsening of the economy. I have two reasons for this. The first is that 1000 euros from every 16+ year old who goes to school in the U.K. could be much more spread out if it were applied to every tax payer in the U.K. This means that instead of having 16+ year olds who are still in school pay the fee and have them tighten their wallets, thus worsening the economy according to my opponent's line of reasoning, it would be spread out among the entire country, thus minimizing the negative affects.The other reason for this is not necessarily my own line of thinking, though I wish to point it out as a sort of Reductio ad Absurdum refutation of my opponent's point. He argued in his R1 post that the more money the government makes, the better off the economy is. So by his line of reasoning he has conceded this point. Since the government is making money, they are going to spend more and thus help the economy.
Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy

First of all small charge=ï¿½1000 per annun as much as this may cause many 16 year olds to leave education I believe many would then be able to go back in later years of life on the other hand raising tax levels would result in people spending less and the worsening of the economy .Using the same reasoning having 16+ year olds pay a small amount for education would mean the government may be able to reduce taxes leading to people having and spending more money therefore boosting the economy.
Abortion

I see what you, but as you said, the fetus feels pain between the 20th and 27th week of development. It is alive always because the sperm and ovum are living organism, so the embryo is. But it is not a human being, it is just an organism as a virus is. When you have unneeded virus or cells you can delete them. I am not comparing an embryo to a virus, I am just saying that you should have the opportunity to about without any problems. I think that every woman has the right to decide if she wants to carry a baby in her body for 9 months. Imagine that you are a woman, and you are raped, would you carry your rapists baby? Obviously the baby has no fault but you neither. When it comes to abortion, it is a difficult decision, and there are some countries where it is not legal. In my opinion making abortion illegal does not prohibit woman to abort, they still do that but it is more complicated.
Abortion

I guess I'll start. When Having The argument for Pro-life or Pro-Choice, I believe The Argument can be simplified to one question. When Does Life Begin? Most People i have this conversation with dont believe in killing a baby after birth so Is It at Birth? We know that a fetus feels pain somewhere between the 20th and the 27th Week of development so I would Have a hard time believing it isn't alive. So is it before the point when we feel pain? well if you argue that, then you probably think people in comas aren't alive either and i don't support that either. So i'm Interested to hear from your opinion where life begins and i am open to having my mind changed.
The United States ought to focus on domestic aid, rather than foreign aid.

I accept the challenge. This debate should be weighed on net benefits. The side that can prove that their arguments would produce the most net benefits should win the debate. The CON will argue that the U.S. Federal Government would produce an optimal amount of net benefits by focusing aid spending on foreign aid programs rather than domestic aid programs. The con proposes that the term "focus" be defined as " A plurality of total spending and effort".
The United States ought to focus on domestic aid, rather than foreign aid.

"No new arguments/rebuttals may be made in the final round."Almost the entirety of Pro's final round is comprised of rebutals.The only non-rebutal statements Pro made were in the Definitions at the very start and Conclusions at the very end.DefnitionsMy definitions come from the standard English dictionary as well. It is up to the judges to decide which definition makes more sense and which definition is abusive.The Pro's statement about the role of government is a completely new argument.Pro violated the terms and conditions of the debate by posting rebutals in his final round and by attempting to instert a completely new arguemtn in the final round. I urge readers and judges to ignore the Pro's points I urge judges to reflect on this when you vote.Conlsuive StatemtnsThe Con has shown a viable method of organizing massive funds for foriegn aid, and has shown that money put to use in less developed countries provides more net benefit that money in highly-developed countries, such as the U.S.I would provide extensive arguments to refute the Pro's undignified claims, but such an act would violate the honor of an honest debate as it would be a rebutal in the final round. I refuse to commit such a betrayal as the Pro has done.For my arguments, as my fairplayVote Con
Atheists have a poor logic, that is why they can't admire the existence of God.

Before we proceed any further, I want to make sure the “or” in the definition presented by my opponent is duly noted. In the definition, an atheist is defined either as someone who lacks a belief in a god or who makes a positive claim denying the existence of a god. In this debate, I intend to primarily defend the former of these uses of the word atheism as I attempt to counter whatever points Pro wishes to make. Additionally, as BoP was not discussed by my opponent in his opening statements, I assume that he bears it, given that he is the one making the claim in this debate. So, as long as I can demonstrate that his reasons for thinking that atheists have poor logic, I have done my part.
Atheists have a poor logic, that is why they can't admire the existence of God.

According to Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition, [atheism] is Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.* {online: http://www.infidels.org...} *this is a general description of an atheist Let me briefly describe my belief. I am a Christian and fully(without doubt) believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah who was promised to the Jews and the one to save the gentiles(non Jews). And that the is no other way to heaven(or God) but through Jesus Christ. So, for a long time I have been asking my self why do [other] people deny the existence of God. I couldn't answer this question because I did not fully understand atheism at that time. Since I accepted Jesus Christ as my LORD and saviour, I started to study the holy bible so much and, as a result, discovered a lot of things about God. I am currently studying Physics and Mathematics as my academic disciplines, and also interested in Psychology and Philosophy. Does this matter to mention? Yes. These are my main four points of argument. I will use them (Physics{or science}, Mathematics, Psychology & Philosophy) to show that atheists (in general) have poor logic in their reasoning and conclusion of God. Terms: PLEASE NO CUSSING, OR USING OF GOD'S NAME IN VAIN & and let us stick to the topic without emotional attachments. Breaking this will lead to the debate being forfeited because I take my God seriously. Round #1. accept the topic and Terms
abortion is wrong and kills babies

"abortion is wrong"- To what standard? "[abortion] kills babies"- The precise term is fetus. When I think baby I think happy bouncy baby boy. About the size of a one year old. - Are you a woman? - Hopefully you just awnsered no, unless you lied on your profile. -Will you ever give birth?- Not unless there is a breakthrough in modern technology and you are able too. *Gasp!* This means you will never give birth! Or need an abortion! Who decides for women's bodies? A- Themselves B- Children or C Irresonsible Men! -Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!- Congrats, you win free control over every womans body! What are you going to do know?
abortion is wrong and kills babies

Thank you for making another debate so soon! I have been deing to redeem myself, and this is the perfect oppurtunity. Soo... here I go. "id bet all of those babies would grow up and live full lives. not become homeless or something stupid like what u said." All of them? Then why are the orphanages over-crowding even WITH abortion? will another 45 million help? No, not really. "if a law passes where there is no abortion if u do get one u will go to prision for MURDERing a baby." Don't you see! There won't be any survivors to be in prision! They will be DEAD. Do you care for a woman or an unwanted fetus?
abortion is wrong and kills babies

abortion kills 45,000,000 babies a year. that is enough for a whole state. there are 2,000,000 parents wanting to adopt just in the united states. id bet all of those babies would grow up and live full lives. not become homeless or something stupid like what u said. pro life means you are pro death. how could you say that? the right to live is in the constitution. it also says murder is punishable by law. if a law passes where there is no abortion if u do get one u will go to prision for MURDERing a baby. like the way it should be.