BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Falcon Punch is the greatest move ever.

As I will explain, Mr. FlaconPunch, The Falcon Kick is a far superior move, that is highly regarded as one of the strongest weapons in Captain Falcons arsenal. The Falcon kick does all of the things the Falcon Punch cannot. It is very fast, so it is far more likely to hit the opponent then the Falcon Punch. It is NOT a neutral B move, so Kirby CAN'T steal it, and it actually can be used in any situation, unlike the Falcon Punch, which really is only useful if you are: 1) Playing someone who has little idea of what the R and L triggers do. 2) Playing some unfortunate person who just broke their shield. Also, the Falcon Kick can be used to get back to the stage! I bet you didn't know that! All you have to do is use Falcon Kick instead of using Up + B and you can jump again! So if done correctly, The Captain has 4 jumps, not 3, greatly increasing his survivability. So I say to you, what move is better? A huge gamble that has a very low chance to hit and leaves you very vulnerable to attack while using it, or a very fast move that almost always hits, AND is able to help you come back to the stage? The choice is yours Mr. FlaconPunch.
Falcon Punch is the greatest move ever.

Since the beginning, Falcon Punch has been the best move to use. Its slow, but powerful attack is sure to knock all of your opponents off the map with one swift blow. Sure, one may say that this move is slow and almost a nuisance; however, any well timed Falcon Punch is sure to leave your opponent dumbfounded. Overall reasons why Falcon Punch is the best: 1) Powerful 2) Its the B move, which means Kirby can use it as well 3) It can be used in any situation, no matter how small or large the map
Hitler's lack of persistence costed him the Battle of Britain

The Wehrmacht had just taken Dunkirk, clearing France from any army resistance (French Resistance aside). Adolf Hitler immediately orders the destruction of Britain's RAF to clear any possible attacks on his landing craft while the Wehrmacht was setting off for England. So Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, orders the BF-109 fighters to attack ships in the English Channel in an attempt to draw out British fighters. The fighters would then fight back, allowing the Luftwaffe to wipe them out. But the attack fails: Goering's planes shoot down 400 planes at the cost of 1000 of their own. Hitler orders Goering to halt the attack on the RAF. My point in summoning a challenger is to attempt to point out that had Hitler carried out these attacks, he would've wiped out the RAF, which was at breaking point, to allow Wehrmacht soldiers to cross the English Channel and fight a couple of "divisions" comprised of old men in their 40's, old women, granny's and Boer War veterans.
Hitler's lack of persistence costed him the Battle of Britain

I would, as it is the final round, like to point out to my opponent for the last time that Britain's RAF could've Ben beaten had Hitler stopped the attacks on London and continued attacking the RAF. With no military intelligence, Hitler was in the dark about the RAF's strength. As it is the final round, I shall summarise the points I have made: 1. The resuming of attacks on the RAF would've wiped out the Spitfires, proving even despite their skill, they would've been overpowered by the He11's. 2. Britain had basically no army at all after the losses in the Battle of France, as they mostly surrendered after being trapped in Belgium, or one of the 200,000 killed at the Battle of Dunkirk. My arguments mean Con may make a rebuttal on my point above and then Con must summarise the points he has made.
Hitler's lack of persistence costed him the Battle of Britain

I am going to italicize pro's quotes so that I can give some structure to his arguments. My opponent has helped my theory. He changed targets, meaning had he continued attack the RAF, he would've won. I was afraid my opponent was going to bring this up. This rebuttal is based on a misunderstanding of my arguments and of the resolution he created. The resolution is, "Hitler's lack of persistence costed him the Battle of Britain. " It is not that Hitler had a lack of persistence against RAF, but with Britain. If that's not enough, let's look at pro's first argument. He had this to say to his challenger, "My point in summoning a challenger is to attempt to point out that had Hitler carried out these attacks. .. " Hitler still fought with the RAF - it's just that he concentrated on London more, which I showed was a mistake. Furthermore, Hitler's armies were in no way short of supplies. Britain were sending convoys across the Atlantic for oil tankers, so that proves the British were shorter of oil than the Germans. I never argued that the Germans were short of supplies. I argued that Hitler's and the Luftwaffe's mistakes created a shortage in planes. I think my opponent is confused about my high-octane fuel argument. He should look back to that to see what I was actually arguing. The German generals simply didn't want to convince Hitler to beat Britain, but what makes you think the Home Guard and half a depleted army would've beaten off such a strong and successful country? The BF-109's were much more powerful than the Spitfires and more stable and strong. Because the Germans never got past the RAF. Now I'm not going to argue the difference between the BF-109 and Spitfire as that would be a different debate, but they were good in their own setting. "So the British discovered that the Spitfire was better at medium altitude in a turning fight, while the Germans that the Bf 109E was better at high altitude in a high speed combat. "[1]Overall, "The Spitfire was one of the greatest fighters of all time. It had been introduced in 1936 but was still around to shoot down a German jet aircraft Me 262 in 1944. It became the symbol of the Battle of Britain. " Further, "Flying from bases in France, it [BF-109[ had only about 10 minutes of fighting time over London. It could not escort the bombers on deep penetration missions in Britain. " The Spitfire was a worthy opponent, and the BF-109 wasn't the best plane for the operation. [2]Had the Abwehr, the German military intelligence agency, known the RAF's strength they would've told Hitler and Hitler would've spanked Montogomery, Dowding and the Home Guard. I've already shown how the British held their own during the battle. I also showed how the Germans made several costly mistakes, and how this helped them lose the battle. Sources[1]: . http://theaviationist.com...[2]: . http://www.airforcemag.com...
Hitler's lack of persistence costed him the Battle of Britain

My opponent has helped my theory. He changed targets, meaning had he continued attack the RAF, he would've won. Furthermore, Hitler's armies were in no way short of supplies. Britain were sending convoys across the Atlantic for oil tankers, so that proves the British were shorter of oil than the Germans. The German generals simply didn't want to convince Hitler to beat Britain, but what makes you think the Home Guard and half a depleted army would've beaten off such a strong and successful country? The BF-109's were much more powerful than the Spitfires and more stable and strong. Had the Abwehr, the German military intelligence agency, known the RAF's strength they would've told Hitler and Hitler would've spanked Montogomery, Dowding and the Home Guard.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people.

As most people know, I have done this topic previously, but I was Aff., now I will be Neg. I would appreciate it if the person was familiar with LD style, however if you are tempted to debate this and you are not an LD debater, that's fine, but prepare to suffer technical consequences as the round advances. That is a warning. Anyway, good luck however accepts. Since this is LD, the Affirmative usually starts, so I will let him/her go first, I will simply state definitions. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. =============================================================================== I negate: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people. [Definitions] 1. Morally permissible: conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong. 2. Kill: to take away the life of. 3. Innocent: free from the action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes.
Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms

Interesting points. Thank you for a well thought out argument. 1. I accept the suggested statement that uniforms make it harder for children to identify each others' socioeconomic status, however I doubt that that necessarily stops discrimination. Clothes are usually an obvious flag of how much wealth the family of the child has. However, once you remove that as an identifying factor, you'll just find more subtle trends being utilized by high income students. Things like watches, jewelry, backpacks, and even school supplies. Even if all the children are dressed the same, those that wish to victimize others will find a way to identify their victim. 2. It's funny that you say clothes are a distraction when I've always felt the inverse is wildly more distracting. But to be serious, I doubt this. When one observes an easily distracted child, they'll notice that if there's no stimulus to distract the child they'll generally end up fidgeting or finding some other way to amuse themselves. Clothes aren't the issue here. It's the child's attention span. And if that's the issue, it seems that we would be doing the children a disservice by sending them out into the world without teaching them how to focus when something as common as a t-shirt can steal their attention. 3. Your presence at the school identifies you as part of the student body. I doubt that promoting school spirit is worth taking away the right of the child to project their personality through their attire. To respond to this, please explain to me the merits of school spirit and how they improve the education of a student. 4. Conformity is not something to strive for. Conformity suppresses creativity, which is extremely important in the adult world. Look at the field of adverising, which is taking in massive amounts of graduates every year. Your main objective is to think up some kind of catchy ad campaign that will sell the product in question. In making everyone think the same, we hamper their ability to perform these kind of jobs. And by making them all feel like they are the same through promoting matching attire, we're shaping their minds as well. There's also the issue of over achievement. By leading children to emulate their peers, you may suppress the capabilities of those that go beyond their fellow students in potential. 5. Someone that has malicious intent is generally going to plan out their ill doings on the campus. Uniforms are not hard to obtain. Even if they didn't match the students, assuming they wanted to cause true harm, the teachers and administration would likely be powerless to do anything. This point is ineffective if the majority of attacks on schools are examined. The only true way to stop this trend is by arming teachers or putting armed personnel at the schools. In addition: Out of curiosity, how do you feel about religious articles? These can definitely contribute to children classifying each other, but it seems that we as a culture don't want to restrict students from fulfilling the obligations of their faith. Would you say such articles are allowed, or prohibited?
Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms

Thank you for givng me the benefit of doubt. 1) Benefits of Uniforms1. Uniforms may increase a students self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion".2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the clasroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side".4. Uniforms support conformity. Although some may think this isn't that great of a thing and that kids should express themselves, in the end, life is truly about conformity. Humans strive to be like each other and don't want to be the odd one out. Uniforms support this and put all students on equal terms instead of wealthy students coming in with their fancy jeans and shirts and the less fortunate students coming in with ratty looking clothes. 5. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. I await my opponents response.
Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms

Hello. Simple debate, I will be Pro and I will argue that students should wear school uniforms in private schools. DefinitionsUniform - Identical clothing issued to school students to wear during school. Student - Person who is recieving an education whether through school, or by other means. Rules1. Forfeit will resut in an auto loss and all 7 points going to the other person.2. No semantics.3. No trolling.4. Nothing that would be considered innapropriate to the average DO member i.e plagiarism.
Is Home Schooling The Answer

Home schooling is actually a program; you can't just say you're teaching your child at home, you have to sign up with a college. Your child will receive a test before the year is over to make sure he has been taught required lessons in order to pass to the next grade. Often the home schooled students are high achievers. And as I have already mentioned, it has already been proven that home schooled student is more advanced then public schooled students.
Is Home Schooling The Answer

Firstly i would like to say that a frog who has grown up in a well does'nt know that how much big is the ocean.same way a child who receives education at home has many restrictions he cant develop qualities required for an individual to face the world. Secondly the parent whoes teaching the child must put a hold on their career and even when the child goes for seeking job the public school student will be given more preference. Hence i think that home schooling is not a good option.
Is Home Schooling The Answer

Perhaps home schooling is the answer for many families, considering how high the drop out rates are, the schools are trying to teach morals, discipline, or fashion. The schools are blaming parents, the Government and the children on the drop out rate, refusing to improve the system that is failing many children. It is the teacher's job to give a basic education so that children will be prepared for college. It is not their job to raise our children, to teach morals, how to dress, or to discourage them by punishing them for forgetting to wear the school badge. It is the parent's job to make sure their children receive an education, have good moral standing, and become law abiding, productive adults in our society. So I don't see any problems with a parent teaching their child at home, or even finding a private school that has a low to no drop out rate.
If Democrats can get their act together they should be the ruling party

The Democratic party has it flaws, You mentioned the dishonest way Bernie Sanders was dealt with in the primaries in the Presdidential election of 2016. Well I agree, In 2016 i bit my tongue, Held my nose and voted for Clinton, Though my heart was with Bernie and his broz. I heard a fair analogy applied to antoher situation but I will use it here, In WW2 we made a military alliance with Uncle Joe Stalin, Not because we felt Stalin was a nice guy, He was not. But out of simple necessity, The NAZI military threat was much great, Blitzkrieg eat the winter war in scary ness. Clinton may be an annoying skin rash, Were Trum is MAlignant malenoma. I hate to compare the Democratic party to Stalinists, Obviously they aren't that bad. . Not quite. . But the Republicans have decided to play the role Franco did in relation to the axis. . He might not have been as blood thirsty as Stalin but he wasn't going to do anything to help defeat Hitler,
If Democrats can get their act together they should be the ruling party

I'm going to make this a little short, No getting their act together will not have an impact. Their only hope is if President Trump upsets a lot more people before the 2020 election, The next election is completely dependent on him because the democrats betrayed their constituents by rigging the primary between Clinton and Sanders. Even if they win the next election, That means they won't learn their lesson and will keep making the same mistakes and never be a 'ruling party' as you say.
If Democrats can get their act together they should be the ruling party

Trump was not the cause, He was a symptom but he proved this nation and it government have become disfunctional, And have come to no longer serve the needs of it citizens only the interests of the powerful and the wealthy, If we can learn to put aside our petty differences abandon the destructive insanity of identity politics and the absurdity of politically correct fads and stick to the facts to science, Common sense and common decency, The Demcratic party could possible serve to heal the wounds in a divided and angry nation.
Who thinks Obama. Is gonna destroy america

May I ask where you came up with- I mean heard that Obama was creating Muslim (see, spelled it right again) camps. If you are referring to the camps in Syria, that is because these people are running away from ISIS and the government is making refugee camps so they do not get killed for running away, not like concentration camps. They are 100% made for helping the people from being killed by the Islamic state. Also, I still want to know what you meant by: and he knows how to trick people to blame everyone else but them selves. I am just curious, because I want to get down to the core of your argument. -Here is a link to buy a fourth grade writing book before you add you next argument. I suggest you learn sentence punctuation. http://www.christianbook.com...
Who thinks Obama. Is gonna destroy america

Okay, first of all, you are an idiot. Let's just get that out of the way before I start my rebuttal. Your spelling is atrocious, and your facts are out of whack. Obama never sent nuclear weapons to other countries, and certainly has not started Muslim (notice how I spelled that word right) camps. If he had, international would have him arrested for genocide. Along with that, he never said he would fulfill his fathers dreams, and even if he had said that, that is not the way he would have meant it. Lastly, I do not know what you mean by: "and he knows how to trick people to blame everyone else but them selves". I think you need to invest in a dictionary, and a fourth grade writing textbook.
Eight reasons christianity is false

Taken from. . . Atheist Alliance International: There is very little that we can prove in this world. We can look for evidence to support claims people make and when there is robust supporting evidence, And no contrary evidence, We can conclude a claim is probably, But not definitely, True. However, It is easier to prove something is false"all you need is one piece of contradictory evidence. So, What about Christianity? Is there evidence that contradicts, Or casts grave doubt on Christianity? I think there is rather a lot. To keep this article brief, I will describe the falsifying evidence without giving all the sources and details but, Actually, Most of it is so well-known, That even Christians should be aware that this evidence exists. 1. There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered. 2. There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence. 3. There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, And no evidence that they are propagated by gods. 4. There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, Should never need to change. 5. There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, If Christianity were true, Billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent. 6. There is clear evidence that the Bible, Supposedly inspired by God, Is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe. 7. Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son"s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous. 8. There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed"all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, All honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, Just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist. All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings. We know that faith and feelings can be used to believe in any god at all"including non-existent gods. So faith and feelings cannot help us determine if Christianity is true. But that is all Christians have. Rules: Prove christianity to be true. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures. He tries to pretend he's a god, But he's not.