BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Garchomp V.S Swampert

However, I do not understand rules 2 and 3, since they seem to contradict each other. Therefore, rule 3 should be removed. In addition, I would like to add some rules. 8. PP (number of times a move can be used) will not be used for this debate. The pokemon can use the move until they die, faint, or become over-exhausted. 9. The pokemon will not be limited to 4 moves. They can an unlimited moveset, so long as they can actually use those moves. That's all. I hope my opponent enjoys this debate as much as I do.
Garchomp V.S Swampert

This will be a one-on-one battle against to Pokémon. I will be battling as Swampert, my opponent will be Garchomp. I have made it 5 rounds just in case our Pokémon don't die in the first three or four.Rules1. No use of semantics or linguistics.2. No items are allowed to be used.3. Your Pokémon is only allowed to use items during this match.4. You are not allowed to call upon allies or other Pokémon, An Ally in this match is refereed to anything that is living or can think on its own.5. Your Pokémon is not allowed to evolve during the match even though both our Pokémon are at full evolutions.6. Both Pokémon are at Level. 100 with max stats.7. You are only allowed to use moves that your Pokémon actually know, Just to make sure it does, after every battle you are to post a source in which that move is involved in that Pokémon's move list.I await my opponents acceptance and he is allowed to add any rules that I didn't just previously include.
Corporal Punishment Is Wrong

Note: This is actually my 2nd attempt at this debate, as my first debate had that glitch when my opponent forfeited on Round 3. In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in schools, homes, or other places is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson. Definition, according to dictionary. comnoun physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority. I will be targeting home and school corporal punishment.
Windmills has more cons than pros

I'm talking about windmills. Have you gone through Ohio on US30? There are over a hundred windmills. Windmills are a worse way to give energy. I would agree that solar panels are better because they don't inter-fir with wild life, they don't destroy scenary, and they are a good way to get energy. There isn't always going to be wind. What happens when we loose power and there isn't any wind? The windmills wouldn't generate energy and therefore your kind of screwed, you wouldn't have electricity, no hot water, nothing to cook your meals, and no air conditioning in hot weather. This is a very bad thing. I'd rather depend on solar panels than windmills.
Windmills has more cons than pros

Of course wikki is reliable. Everyone uses it. It is nothing but a collection of papers - some peer reviewed. Windmills are simply not that dangerous to birds - and in fact may be a net benefit. You think windmill noise is a problem?Try doing a shelter in place when a refinery has an 'accidental' release of sulfur dioxide or other noxious fumes. I would agree that windmills should be placed away from homes - just for the sake of argument. Many are. Or what about the soldier who had to go to Iraq to secure our oil fields from Saddam Hussein? Fossil fuels come with obvious, blatant and dangerous costs. Wind energy helps reduce our use of these cost. It is initially expensive, but I think it is worth it.
Windmills has more cons than pros

Wiki page is not reliable. Windmills Are dangerous. Here are the disadvantages. The strength of the wind is not constant and it varies from zero to storm force. This means that wind turbines do not produce the same amount of electricity all the time. Luckily, wind energy isn't produced in isolation. It's added to widely connected energy grids with 24 hour spot energy markets. It's added to grids that span thousands of kilometers and have many types of generation and demand. Up to about 20% of a grid's generation capacity, it requires very little backup. Some people see large wind turbines as unsightly structures and not pleasant or interesting to look at. They believe that wind turbines degrade the landscape. Wind turbines generate noise. A subset of people who live near wind turbines find this noise annoying. A subset of those people get stressed by it. Wind turbine noise does not make people sick. Birds are killed by wind turbines. Studies show that wind turbines do not threaten the vast majority of bird species populations. Killing birds, in other words, does not threaten birds generally. That said, wind turbines should not be sited on raptor migration routes, as the Altamont wind turbine farm was. The best evidence is that song birds migrate at 2000-4000 feet, far above wind turbines and sea birds avoid them according to radar and thermal studies of North Sea wind farms. Bats are also killed by wind turbines, due to barotraumic stress (the reduced air pressure behind a wind turbine blade is damaging to bat's lungs and heart). However, bats are not killed in significant numbers compared to their populations by wind turbines. Bats are, however, killed in significant numbers in North America by white nose syndrome (300,000 in one cave alone.)
Windmills has more cons than pros

"There isn't always going to be wind. What happens when we loose power and there isn't any wind" Right. There will be no power when there is no wind. So what? There's no solar power when there is no sun, no fossil fules when that dries up, no thermal when there is no heat... etc... Wind has a unique place in the generation of renewable energy resources. Of course you are not going to use it exclusively, and you you should use it away from certain settings - some of which I agree - but that doesn't mean you don't build windmills.
Volvo will only make electric cars - bad idea!!

My first point of debate will be based solely on the usability and practicality of owning an electric car. As you have mentioned Volvo headquarters is based in Sweden, a country I lived in for 5 years. Sweden is a cold country like Canada in comparison. Most of the population lives in the south of Sweden where it's generally warmer. Now for an electric car the main source of power is batteries. These batteries lose approximately 30% of their usage during cold weather. Since Sweden is cold 6 months of the year, you are losing 30% of the power of the vehicle right off the bat, this means you will travel 30% less distance. Now the average distance right now for electric cars from a full charge is approximately 300 km, now reduce that by 30% and you can see how these cars are only practical for short distances in the city. People that live outside the city will not find these vehicles useful. My next point is you need recharge stations, there are not that many around currently, last thing you want is leave the city for a cottage trip and have no plug, also the plug is a special adapter, it's not like you can plug it into a regular wall outlet. Also in order to charge the vehicle, it takes between 1-2 hours, so now what do you do while you are on the road, I pull up in my gas powered car at the gas station, I fill up and I'm out of there in 5 minutes, while you wait an hour and a half for your charge. My final point of this round is that electricity costs money, you might think you are saving money by not buying gas, but you are plugging your electric car at home at night, now your hydro bill at home goes up triple each month, so you don't buy gasoline, but your utilities bill is like $1000/month. And the charging stations will not be free either so you will pay for charges on the road. Are you really saving money or is your concern more for the environment. We can discuss that in the next round
Volvo will only make electric cars - bad idea!!

Firstly, thank you for opening this debate.I will be arguing that Volvo making only electric cars is a good idea.Firstly Volvo is headquartered in Sweden, and thusly it is a popular choice of a car model there.Sweden imports more crude and refined petroleum than it exports (1).This means that when it comes to petroleum, Sweden is reliant on other nations, namely Russia, Norway, and Denmark for their petroleum.Sweden then has less control over the price of refined petroluem goods such as gasoline for automobiles, and they are largely determined by other countries exports of it to them.If sweden were to become less reliant on imports of petroleum, then they would not have to import so much from other countries, and so the prices of petroleum there would become more determined by domestic factors.Say Volvo begins making only electric cars, sicnce they are popular cars in Sweden, more Swedish people would own electric cars, which would in effect reduce the domestic demand for petroleum, and by simple suuply and demand, the price of petroleum would be expected to drop. This would allow for industry in Sweden that is more dependent on petroleum to prosper from the lowered prices.Essentially a decrease in the demand for petroleum would cause industrial growth in Sweden.Unless you only drive Volvo for some reason, this would likely not affect you. You could always purchase a gas powered car, in fact, if you were planning to purchase a gas car from a competitor of Volvo, you would likely see a lesser price due to less demand for gas-powered cars from the increased demand for electric cars. (1) http://atlas.media.mit.edu...
Jersey Mike's is better than Subway.

Today we shall be debating about which sandwich place is better; Jersey Mike's or Subway. I am upon the position of Jersey Mike's, while my opponent shall be in the position of Subway. To begin, lets look at the common review for Jersey Mike's, than Subway. In the area of Dallas, the reviews they gave for Jersey Mike's was a 4/5, while Subway only received a 3/5; and this is the common message with a quick Google search. If the public state that Jersey Mike's has higher reviews, isn't it the better place? Secondly, Jersey Mike's have fresher ingredients than Subway. What do I mean by that, well if you have ever entered a Jersey Mike's, they cut their meats right in front of you. Which shows the freshness of their food, as well as the professionalism when making their food than Subway. Anytime I ask for a sandwich at Subway, they make it but are a little bit sloppier than the Sandwich Artists from Jersey Mikes. I will agree that their prices are a little more expensive, but you are definitely getting your moneys worth. With their variety of sizes of a sandwich, fresh meat being cut right in front of you, and making the sandwich as professional as they can achieve. Entering a Jersey Mike's results in an enjoyment that many would favor, over Subway restaurants.
Jersey Mike's is better than Subway.

This is a fun little debate that I wanted to do. Which sandwich shop is better; Jersey Mike's or Subway? I am on the side that Jersey Mike's has better subs, than Subway; and my opponent will argue the opposite. For the rules, there is really no rules. Only rule is that the first round is acceptance only, than everything else is fair game.You can use sources if you like, but is not necessary. This debate is more about on who can withstand with their opinion from the first round, to the last.Definitions:Jersey Mike's and Subway: Chain restraunts that are very popular among consumers when looking to eat a sandwich. Better: To improve on, or surpass the opponentGood luck to whoever accepts the debate!
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

Given that your opening to this argument is very vague, it is hard for me to know where to start. As far as I can tell, you are saying that life in the kingdom of God will be rough because God's ways are not our ways. But, Scripture refutes this. Philippians 2:12-13 says, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." What this means is that when we are living holy lives in the Kingdom, it is ultimately God who is working in us. We should note that both the believer and God share a common goal in the working out of salvation: it is for God's good pleasure. Furthermore, Matthew 6:33 says, "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Therefore, given that a) through regeneration our deepest desire is to do what God wants and b) seeking the kingdom/God's righteousness leads to provision, kingdom life is not a tribulation.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

First, I was glad to debate this with you, and would love to debate again in the future It seems we have (somewhat) come to an agreement on the fear and trembling of Phil. 2:12-13. However it is not just for The Quakers and Shakers, it is for all believers. And it is not sporadic, ecstatic, craziness. It is a fear and trembling that is normative to all relationships between God and his covenant people. My voters: 1) my opponent conceded (in some measure) to my argument from Phil. 2:12-13 2) Pro's contention that we can forge a reality for ourselves is highly subjective. Pro essentially admitted that I could forge a reality where I am right and Pro is wrong. He did not refute. 3) My argument from Heb. 12:26-29 was not addressed. 4) Pro's autonomy argument was without biblical evidence, and I provided evidence to refute. In sum: a) that God is in control b) the kingdom can't shake c) God is king, and we are his subjects, therefore excluding autonomy, the kingdom is not a tribulation.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

If the quaking of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the shaking of the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing (shakers) is an addictive experience felt in the presence of God, then I'll agree that fear and trembling is less of a tribulation and more of a thrill. But I propose that if Mathew 7:2 is instrumental in our fate, and forces experienced in waylaying the traveler await our pleasure, then the tribulation is a real prospect for the future if not discerned in the present.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

"The contention is that fear and trembling is not consistent with a state of tribulation." My contention is that fear and trembling, in the context of that passage, and indeed the greater context of all of Scripture, is not the same thing as tribulation. Fear in the Bible is mostly associated with "fear of the LORD." We fear him because he is great and powerful, and we are not. Therefore, in Phil. 2:12-13 the fear and trembling has to do with the humbling nature of salvation, not tribulation. In regards to your last paragraph: if what you said is true, then what I said still stands. I can forge a reality closer to my understanding of truth, a reality where I am right and you are wrong. Your argument collapses on itself. Hebrews 12:26-29 makes it clear that we have received a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Note especially, verse 26 and 27, that say God is removing the things that can be shaken. The removal/tribulation is for the wicked (Rom. 2:9). But it doesn't shake.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

The contention is that fear and trembling is not consistent with a state of tribulation. "To be autonomous is to create our own laws." We are autonomous in the choice of whether to obey laws and whether or not to test the authority and work towards a new paradigm. "..I could use those tools to forge a reality in which my position is true." In bucking any system we counter a reality which something has forged to be a truth. Successfully bucking a system brings the system's truth into question, even to the point of proving it false. Thru hearsay some accept that Jesus actually walked upon water, and the laws that we obey naturally come as second nature. In questioning whether the Bible is a falsified document at best and if the laws we abide by as second nature are erroneously based we can forge a reality closer to our understanding of truth, until something comes along to prove otherwise.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

"My interpretation of the evidence in the Bible is that God gave me the tools in the New Testament to forge a new reality for myself." If that is the case, then I could use those tools to forge a reality in which my position is true. From what you have said, God gives us the tools to forge a reality. Therefore someone could take those tools and forge any reality they want to, if indeed it is "for [themselves]." So your position falls. "Fear and trembling" doesn't equate with "tribulation." We "work out our own salvation (not tribulation) with fear and trembling." This is a working out of the salvation that has been brought to us and nothing in the context hints at tribulation. You contradict yourself when you say "God allowing autonomy of His subjects within His control." If we are subjects in His kingdom, then we by definition are not autonomous. To be autonomous is to create our own laws. But as Christians, we are follow a King and obey his laws and commands. See Ps 1:2; Rom 7:12
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

Apparently the " fear and trembling" in your example doesn't equate with you as a "tribulation". The evidence that supports my contention to your contention of my premise is in the dictionary under "tribulation". My interpretation of the evidence in the Bible is that God gave me the tools in the New Testament to forge a new reality for myself. Battling my ego is my biggest task in The Kingdom Of God because the ways of God are not my ways and my ego surely rebels. The Bible asks us to "Be in the world but not of it", this ties in with 'suffering fools gladly'. There is some evidence of God allowing autonomy of His subjects within His control; 'Free will', for example, to pursue goals that may conflict with popular expectations. The proof of this is that the Ten Commandments are Old Testament and superseded by the New Testament. My faith in the tools provided by the New Testament to overcome adversaries lead to my existential resolve, but the journey meanwhile is a tribulation.
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

Simply stating that my contention from Philippians 2:12-13 "does nothing to dispel the argument," in fact "does nothing to dispel [my] argument." My opponent has not provided evidence or a different interpretation of this passage to show how my contention fails. Therefore, my contention still stands. The assertion "our deepest desire is to do what God wants" is not misleading in any sense. Nor is it based on a misconception of the premise that "God wants us to be happy and gives us the tools to that end." I disagree with that statement. Happiness in the Christian life is found in God himself, he does not give us the tools to find it elsewhere. My opponent says "working on faith in a seemingly mad world is a tribulation." I must ask, where is the biblical evidence for this? The Bible points in the opposite direction. God, and King of kings and Lord of lords, is sovereign over everything. He controls all events. As a Christian faith in him leads to existential resolve, not tribulation
The Kingdom Of God Is A Tribulation

The contention of: Philippians 2:12-13 says, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." does nothing to dispel the argument that The Kingdom Of God is a tribulation. Furthermore the assertion that " our deepest desire is to do what God wants " is misleading due to a misconception of the premise; God wants us to be happy and gives us the tools to that end; But working on faith against a seamingly mad world is a tribulation.
Superman Vs....

I choose that Gandalf the White is better than superman and would win in fight or conflict, or otherwise. I attack my opponent's premise that Superman is the most powerful being in the world and will start off with these main points. 1) Gandalf is the Master of the elements, he could easily summon up kryptonian fire or likewise and attack superman. Not to mention using Superman's flying as an extension of his strength- which is very much so weakened by the fire- He would not be able to fly away due to the drainage of his strength. 2) Gandalf's wisdom will help him conquer, not only is he strong but smart. And using intelligence as an extension of power we can easily see that Gandalf's cunning and experienced fighting style would help him win a fight, and obviously makes him more powerful. 3) We must compare past fights and experiences when determining power, as we can see a Wizard who has destroyed and conquered dragons, orcs, evil wizards, and all the collected forces of darkness and evil. When we compare this to a bald guy with a cape, tights and undies, we can see Gandalf powers. Now to basically elaborate on my first point: Gandalf is the master of elements. He can summon fire, smoke, ice, wind, water, etc... to combat superman and transitively prove more effective and powerful than superman. Superman can be easily deceived and injured, not to mention intimidated by these Wizard tactics. I will elaborate on this point fully in later rounds. But as we can obviously see Gandalf is ever so powerful and is a master of nature, not to mention master of fighting and deception. Now moving on to my second point: We must compare intelligence as well. Gandalf is a smart man who; Sees the future, Sees things happening elsewhere and knows how to save Middle Earth. When we compare that to a guy who has heat/laser vision and is living in an ice cave. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing his living arrangements, it just seems like a guy with heat vision shouldn't live in an ice house. Not to mention Superman falls for a smart-mouthed reporter, who isn't very smart. Again I will elaborate on this fully in further rounds. Finally on to my third point: We must compare past experiences. When we look at Gandalf we see a strong, cunning and experienced wizard who has defeated armys of orcs and goblins not to mention has defeated Dragons and evil wizards like Saruman. When we compare this to Superman all we see is a Bald guy who has a weakness of a simple element; A glowing rock. Like all my other points, this one will also be fully elaborated on in further rounds. It is for these reasons I think Gandalf the White is more powerful than superman, not to mention I have made 3 comparisons of Gandalf to Superman with Gandalf winning each one. Obviously we can see that Gandalf has better strengths, abilities, etc... than Superman, It is for all of these reasons I urge you to vote for Gandalf. Thank you.
Recent Bandai Namco Gundam Video Games should not be given positive reception

Wait what, Why did you forfeit. also I realised my argument last round may not have been exactly the most coherent so let me crystalise it in the meantime. I believe that Gundam as a franchise is holding itself up with their Gunpla and anime so it's death isn't tied to the video games. Video games are not the main reason which grab gundam fans, But if Gundam as a franchise wants to get people who play video games into gundam, They should make a great game whcih would catch everyone's attention. At this rate, However, The anti-consumjer practices and laziness is very coherent and would not bring many fans from the video game market. This should not be rewarded with positive reaction, Even if it would chase gundam away from the west. As you can see from the previously mentioned video, He is not afraid to point out problems adn even starts a "f**k you bandai" slogan. We should not drop our standards and we should not be lenient with Bandai if they release a gundam game here once in a blue moon as they have done little to impress. Again, Our standards should not drop and I believe that if we are strict enough on Gundam they either must change, Or stop sellign games here entirely. If the latter occurs, I believe it is for the best as we do not deserve to be treated they way they treat us now.