BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kira is better than L

Let me establish that "Light" is the same character as "Kira".New arguments: 1. L planned everything perfectlyL planned his own death as a variable, knowing that his successor(s) would catch Light. He also chose Light as his successor, knowing that he would be kept close to the task force, and found out by his real ones. Both L and Light died, the difference is, Light lost when he died, while with L, it was all part of a grander plan, a scheme much bigger than himself. L's measure of victory is not "who died first", but rather "Was justice served", and we can clearly see that it was.2. Under pressureLight and L both faced extreme pressure. L was having the entire world counting on him to bring justice, and Light had the entire police force of the world looking for his identity. However, L consistenly has shown himself to be cool under pressure, even as he learned that he would probably die. Light gave in to the pressure, made stupid mistakes, and got himself killed in the process. L accepted the pressure, adapted to it, and planned everything accordingly.3. MoralsLight brought it upon himsel to judge the fate of millions of people. He has been responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler. L was fighting for the the basic human rights of millions of people. In planning Lights ultimate demise, L has single handedly saved more peoples basic human rights than every other attempt do so by any organization, ever. L is clearly the morally superior individual.====================================================================================Rebuttal:"What would L be without Watari? He wouldn't be even nearly as mobile and most lkely wouldn't be able to do anything."The same could be said for Kira. First of all, Light/Kira was born as the son of the police chief, which gave him access to police records and confedential information. Also, Light/Kira had the help of the mass media to relay his messages, as well as a devoted girlfriend. Also, L could easily use anonymous IRC and disposable phones to find someone else to carry his laptop. "Everything Light did was by himself with solely his mind"That is a blatant lie. Light would have had no knowledge of Ray Penbar following him if it weren't for his Shinigami telling him so. Also, the only reason Light had the Death Note was because Ryuk decided that he was bored, so he dropped it and allowed him to find it. "In the end, it still took L and 3 successors a whole police force and SPK to defeat [Kira]"That is true, but what Pro fails to acknowledge is that Light had a notebook with which he could have anyone killed with a name and a face, a host of supernatural shinigami which were invisible to law enforcement, an obsessed, devoted girlfriend with even stronger powers than him, a devoted servant with even stronger powers than him, and his father as the police chief. "And L had a lot more people at his disposal"That may be true, but Light had supernatural god like powers, and allies even stronger than himself.
Kira is better than L

Well played. And while I appreciate that reference. I have counter points. Consider this, what would L be without Watari? He wouldn't be even nearly as mobile and most likely wouldn't be able to do anything. Ryuk really just offered some instruction about how to use the death note, but everything that Light did was by himself with solely his mind.In the end, it still took L and 3 successors (I include Matt.) A whole Police force and the SPK to defeat. And L had a lot more people at his disposal. There were far too many allies. Light only had Misa, Kyomi, and Mikami.
Kira is better than L

I accept your metaphorical tennis match (only viewers of death note get that reference)L was able to gather several followers to his bidding as well, without even meeting them face to face. Kira didn't kill a shinigami, he manipulated her into commiting suicide, which was willingful on her part. He didn't force her to do it. Light killed L, but it was part of L's plan. L wasn't working towards staying alive, he was working towards making sure justice was served. He took over the task force, but even with the task force, he got beaten by Near.
Animal testing should be banned.

Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.
Animal testing should be banned.

The results obtained from animal testing are used to check whether a particular medicine or cosmetic product would have any side-effects on human beings. The body systems of animals are different from those of human beings. Aspirin is widely used for the treatment of fever, pain, inflammation, etc. in human beings. However, this very medicine proves to be toxic for mice. Most experiments are conducted on animals which cannot be a reliable source for predicting results on human beings. http://www.buzzle.com... Not only the effects but its very costly to upkeep these animals. There are many other methods you could use. Animals have hyeart beats just like us, why make them suffer?
Abortion should be legal.

Recall the argument I put forth that being....... 1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans 2) Abortion is a human killing another human 3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion C) Therefore we should not allow abortion [Abortion to save the life of the mother] Con points out abortion where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I did alluded to that before, granting in such a circumstance that abortion is justified, this does not justify the MAJORITY of abortions where the life of the mother is not at risk. As such this does not justify abortion in the general sense. [Financial considerations] Con brings up some financial factors that apply in some cases of those seeking abortion such as being below the poverty line or on unemployment payments. But how exactly does this justify the killing of a human that takes place at abortion ? this link was not made. Most people don't allow poverty as a justification for allowing a human to kill another human so why make a special exemption here ? [Inability to feel pain] Con says..."Based on a 2010 study by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, most fetuses can't feel pain until at least their 26th week" But this sets a dangerous precedent, what exactly is being put forward here ? that it is ok to kill a human as long as the human to be killed will not or can not feel pain ? Consider those who can not feel pain..."Congenital insensitivity to pain is a condition that inhibits the ability to perceive physical pain. From birth, affected individuals never feel pain in any part of their body when injured. People with this condition can feel the difference between sharp and dull and hot and cold, but cannot sense, for example, that a hot beverage is burning their tongue" [1] Can we kill such people on the justification that by killing them they won't feel any pain ? The point here is that even if killing will not result in pain this is insufficient to justify said killing. As such Pro can't use lack of pain as a justification for abortion. [Closing comments] I contend that Pro has not being able to justify abortion outside of a very limited circumstance (life of women at risk) and thus has not being able to justify that abortion should be allowed in a more general sense. I thank Pro for the debate. [Sources] [1] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion should be legal.

Argument in support that abortion (generally) should be illegal. 1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans 2) Abortion is a human killing another human 3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion C) Therefore we should not allow abortion Defending P1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans Hardly controversial and for most people if not all something that is already assumed. If not on principle at least for pragmatic purposes. Defending P2) Abortion is a human killing another human What is human and thus what is not in this argument is defined on scientific dna/biological grounds as Peter Singer explains..."It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo Sapiens". Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." [1] Defending P3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion It should be noted here that justification has more narrow scope than may appear to be the case at first glance. A reason/explanation in of it's self is not sufficient to establish justification. For example it could be said that a reason/explanation that a cop shot the black man is that black man was not respectful to the cop thus the cop decided to make an example out of him and shoot him. Although a reason/explanation most people would not consider this a justification for a killing in such a circumstance..........well why not ? Because a justification when it comes to human beings killing other human beings requires a high burden and we don't give out free passes for killing for any ole reason. The justification has to be able to hold up to scrutiny. Pro brings up some points in order to provide justification for allowing abortion, I will argue against them in more detail in the next round. C) Therefore we should not allow abortion I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
Abortion should be legal.

First I want to specify that, although I believe abortion should be legal, it should only be when something is wrong with the pregnancy. I feel this way because when the mother to be's life is in danger due to a failed surgery, and infection, or any other possible failure of pregnancy, it is not right to force her to live out the pregnancy, if she feels it is not worth the risk. In 2013, approximately 289000 women died due to failed childbirth, according to http://www.who.int.... http://www.cdc.gov... says that almost 4,000,000 babies are born each year, meaning that in 7% of births, approximately, the mother dies. That is a lot of mother's deaths. However, the number of failed pregnancies that kill mothers compared to the number of deaths to mothers during abortion is very high. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1/100000 (or .001%) of abortions resulted in the mothers death in 2010. Based on a 2010 study by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, most fetuses can't feel pain until at least their 26th week. Most abortions take place before week 13. Only 1.4% occurred after week 21, which means that even less than that occur where the baby feels pain, according to the website http://www.abort73.com.... Based on a University of California at San Francisco study, women denied abortions became 3 times as likely to be below the poverty level than women granted access to abortions. 76% of the people rejected access needed unemployment benefits, compared to the 44% of women who received abortions. Also, people rejected access to abortions due to having an abusive partner were over twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.This is my proof that says that abortion should be legal. Thanks for reading, and it is now your turn. Good luck.
Abortion should be legal.

On a personal note I am pro choice, but that doesn't mean I don't argue for the other side of various things I don't believe in. There are various reasons for doing so, like challenging your own beliefs as well as being better informed of the other side. I also find sometimes that I am better able to argue against a position if I have argued for it because by arguing for something I often find myself asking how would I counter this line of reasoning, in other words you learn the weakness of the other side better.............or maybe that is just me. For the purpose of this debate I will argue that abortion in the general sense should not be allowed. Notice the emphasis on the general sense. With most rules there will be always be exceptions, the most common one for the pro life/anti choice position regarding abortion is to save the life of the mother. Also I will seek to negate Pros arguments that seek to justify abortion, that is to say justify abortion on demand with none or very limited restrictions. I look forward to Pros opening argument.
nature always existed

Nature is not logic. Nature is the description and presence of the physical, natural world around us (time, space, mater). Logic is an abstract concept. It can be used to explain the natural laws but it itself doesn't take up space, time or matter. Since the Universe (time, space, matter) had a beginning, that means nature had a beginning. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause that caused it. I believe this cause is God but there are other theories going around.
nature always existed

Everything that exists in the physical universe is considered natural. Logic is not an actual object. It's our perception of what makes sense and what doesn't. "Causes cant exist without effects". I agree. Effects can't also exist without causes. Everything that happens in the universe has a cause. In turn, the Universe itself has a cause. Science can't explain this cause. If the Universe had a beginning, it must have a cause. That cause is God. If God doesn't exist, the Universe wouldn't exist. If you deny the existence of God (the cause), you should also deny the existence of the Universe (the effect).
Peanut butter is good for you

Hank, there are plenty of substitutes for peanut butter in one's diet. So as you make fun of my allergy, I state that it neither bothers me nor has an affect on my health. Why did you make this a debate topic? Also, if you mean to debate whether or not peanuts/peanut butter is good for you, then I do not reject that, of course unless a certain individual is being discussed who indeed is allergic, thus making it detrimental to their health.
The CIA Was Right in Torturing Terrorists

I'd like to define "harsh interrogation methods" as it is. Torture. There is no if and or buts about it. Even in the report my opponent sources, it's defined as torture. This is not a debatable issue. It is concrete. This issue where our government acted unlawfully. To go in favor of this is literally agreeing with Hitler and the Nazi movement. What I wonder is if my opponent even read what he sourced. [1]"The overall detention and interrogation program did not produce unique intelligence that led terrorist plots to be disrupted." According to the report cited by my opponent, torture did not stop any terrorist attack. Of course it is difficult to get information like that from some one who's innocent. [1]26 people where known to be innocent and tortured regardless. 6 people, tortured. were the CIA's own informant, and hundreds more were up in the air. With a law proposed at the dawn of this program, non of the prisoners saw trial. [2]The torture methods included insects, diapers, and mock burials. The one that the CIA went to as non harmful, water-boarding, [1]"was physically severe, including convulsions and vomiting." Some prisoners were forced to stay awake for at least 180 hours either standing or in stress positions. [1]"At least four CIA detainees were subject to rectal rehydration or feeding without medical cause." This means, not only is my opponent in favor of torture, but also rape. [1]https://www.cia.gov... [2]http://thinkprogress.org...
The CIA Was Right in Torturing Terrorists

We have established that the CIA did in fact use harsh interrogation methods. These methods yielded credible information. [1] If this did in fact yield credible information, then why should they not use it? Using harsh methods may seem like overkill, but the rewards are far greater than the risks. Gaining solid intelligence could mean the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of people saved from a terrorist attack. Do Americans really want another 9/11? [1] https://www.cia.gov...
can WW III become a reality and can it become a air, space, sea, and finally space.

Your previous statement is that there will not be a WW3 since the UN will stop it somehow. So I proved to you that the UN are nothing but mediators but hold no true clout. A country regardless of what the UN saids will do as they please. Now russia seemingly to boost there military prowes to the US pretty much telling us we will do as we please and holding military exercises near US territory (right outside of california). Which has put US at an uneased growing tension with russias agressive moves.Also china expanding there military strength and having skirmishes with its neighboring countries such as india, malaysia, south korea, japan, and etc. Japan a peaceful nation is starting to drift away from the US. Protection and expanding there own military prowes due to growing international tthreat. I dont know what part is BS as you stated when i was counter arguing with hour statement in regards to the UN super power stopping WW3 when they cant even stop 2 disputing countries
can WW III become a reality and can it become a air, space, sea, and finally space.

Everything that my opponent has a to say is just BS to my case. I am sorry to use that "word", but EVERYTHING THAT MY OPPONENT HAS SAID, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A WORLD WAR, therefore everything my opponent has said is irrelevant to my case. Of course there are going to be wars in space, but your resolution was about a potential world war 3.
Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.

In the last round I established that there is strong evidence for evolution and many of the creationist claims against evolution are myths. The central arguments creationism has like the lack of fossils are easily debunked and that is why there so few creation scientists. I want to throw out a couple more for good measure. A central creationist claim is that most mutations are harmful. In actuality most are actually neutral. Only 3 out of 175 are harmful (1, CB101). Another is that bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex and would lose function without all parts. However we have already found cell structures that act as filters that have partial flagella structure (CB 200.1). I don't have time to go over all these claims, however from these examples we can tell that creationism is based on myths that have already been debunked. "you gave none of your alleged evidence for the argument against Creationism." You referred to creationism as what was being debated in the Ken Ham debate. This creationism claims that God individually made all species. Evolution contradicts this creationism so all evidence for evolution is evidence against creationism. As said before, the central creationism arguments have been debunked and so cannot be taught. Also, in order to teach something as anything other than a myth and as mere opinion in public school it requires evidence. So as long as no evidence is provided for creationism it should not be taught as a non-myth. Evidence against creationism is not required. Since no evidence for creationism was provided in this debate there is no established basis for it to be taught. This debate has shown that creationism is faith-based while evolution is evidence-based. Its lacks any verification and its arguments have been debunked. So it is no better than flat earth beliefs and like these beliefs, should only be presented as a myth and opinion-based. 1: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.

As I said before, I came in looking for facts to support an opinion that I could then use to base my belief in either one or the other. So, while I'm not disagreeing with you, I would like to clarify my question, or at least, to further it. I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I'm no longer saying it is incorrect. But, though you gave me substantial supposed evidence toward that side of the argument, you gave none of your alleged evidence for the argument against Creationism. Before accepting one side, I'd like to know why the opposing choice is so unfit for belief. If you have an answer, it'd be much appreciated. Thank you. (And seriously, no need to be robotic. I'm up for a nice discussion.)
Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.

Would you teach flat earth theory in public schools or the idea that the moon landing is faked? Would you teach that the sun goes around the earth? No. These ideas have been thoroughly debunked. Creation is exactly the same. Creationism and Science 97% of scientists believe in evolution according to a pew research poll. There is virtually no scientific support for creationism (1). Creationism Main Arguments The main arguments of creationism are based on bad science. One argument is that all human evolution fossils would fit in a coffin. However this is false. There are now 4,000 human evolution fossils(2, CC030). Another argument is that macroevolution has never been observed. Evolution is very slow so it would be hard to observe them. We have many transitional fossils showing evolution. Creationists claim that we lack transitional fossils, however we find many. For example Homo Erectus (humans), Homo Habilis (humans), Archaeopteryx (birds), Tiktaalik (land animals), Dorudon (whales), and Mesohippus (horses) are just a few of the vast number of transitionals we have (3). We also have evidence from retroviruses which are DNA insertions from viruses that were inherited. We find these virus genes including insertion points all over our DNA. 98.5% of these are shared in both humans and chimpanzees. Now why would we share retrovirus insertion points if these insertions happened to humans and apes independently and we did not inherit these from a common ancestor. When we look at the minor DNA differences between these insertions among the various apes and us, we find a hierarchal family tree of differences that closely matches the one we have already (4). Creationism is based on bad refuted arguments, evolution has solid evidence. 1: ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904 2: talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html 3: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils 4: evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm