BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.

Mr 12jPerry, I disagree with you that people under the age of 18 should not be taxed. But I see that you disagree about having Flat.Fair. Tax. I believe that is the best way to improve our economy, middle class, the poor and etc. Paying income tax I believe should not be used. People work hard to earn their money and we take a huge chunk of what they make? Our Government should not be able to take money from our income period. They should have just a flat tax and sales tax is ok. Then taxing under the age of 18. I think it depends. Kids are maturing real fast and that they are working harder for a lot of money as well. I think that if you have a job then you should pay taxes. You are a working person now and you should pay the flat tax, not the income tax..as I stated income tax should be abolished. To close my opening argument, I believe that having income tax is wrong. We should have a flat tax, and teens who have a job should be taxed.
Without a break

Without a break In the spacious town The predator is lurking His favourite command Is without a break Molesting children without a break Kissing them without a break Sun has risen, Time has come again In the battle I go again To kiss children without a break Each molester is worth of fame Each is a soldier winning battles Each is molesting children without a break On this wide planet There is plenty of molesters and rapists Plenty of people who would molest children Without a break Take a small child without a break Tear apart her clothes without a break Make love to her without a break The battle is going on without a break Molesters will molest without a break I like to molest children without a break How many children have you molested Without a break In the spacious town, The predator is lurking Lurking without a break An inspiration for this poem comes from North Korean song "Without A Break"
tv or shopping

Walking during shopping is called exercise, Not at all. Can you go shopping daily just to get entertained, You can watch tv daily. You can use tv to educate yourself there are lots of channels giving good stuff from current news to ancient ones. U get to know what is happening around the world. TV is entertainment with knowledge. Shopping is nothing but waste of time, What do you do exactly, Go from shop to shop to buy something and comeback, That my friend is not entertainment. With tv you get to watch things you could never see in life. Buying new just creates an illusion of happiness.
Pokemon is superior to Digimon

Firstly, my opponent has completely ignored my arguments about the ways Pokemon has ruined kids lives. Secondly, I have already said that Pokemon was just a sellout and lost interest quickly, while digimon is still favored by many over the world. Thirdly, digimon appeals all ages so when a child grows he/she will continue to like digimon while Pokemon will die out fast. Lastly, digimon expresses something new every season like characters and themes so kids can love each one per season while Pokemon is the same team rocket and ash with his gang. For all these reasons, i cannot see anything but a negation ballot Thank you and Vote Negative
Pokemon is superior to Digimon

Pokï¿½mon keeps the continuity. By adding generations of Pokï¿½mon, (up to 5 by now) They have changed it. Yes, it does have the same process. But its not that simple. There is villains (team rocket, team Galactic), side adventures, (Poke-Contest and crazy mishaps), it has always and forever will be the most memorable anime. (Close to Dragonball Z). Digimon introduced new ways every season and kids and teens alike had to adapt and closely pay attention to understand this new way of evolving or way of the game. We all know kids and tweens alike don't have very long attention spans, so they get bored of it. Pokï¿½mon has the same evolution for a reason. It appeals to kids simplistic nature and they're ability to understand quickly, "its evolving" (Spelling my bad). Digimon success is nothing to that of Pokï¿½mon. Right now, if you asked people what Pokï¿½mon and what Digimon was. More would respond to Pokï¿½mon. Pokï¿½mon has always been original and will forever be the same. It docent change because it wants people to remember how it was and for it not to get worse. As when something changes, most likely happens
Pokemon is superior to Digimon

The Digimon anime is not as generic. Just look at the different seasons: Season 3 took a turn for a more older audience. It introduced a different form of digivolution, and viewed the main characters as "Tamers" as opposed to "Digidestants"(which was what the kids were called in the previous 2 seasons.) Not to mention the ending finale was sad as hell. Season 4 of the Digimon series introduced a totally new way of evolving, (which I admit took some getting used to, but after awhile it was proven to be pretty kickass) in which the children THEMSELVES were the digimon. Season 5, yet again, was made to appealed a more broader audience. The main characters were teens(16+) as opposed to tweens(11+) I can go on and on. Pokemon never swayed away from their formula ONCE. Ash leaves town. Ash beats gym leaders. Ash somehow ends up in new region. Ash has two companions that are replaced. It's just a RDR( Rinse, Dry, and Repeat.) Pokemon was a sellout that lost its interesting-factor early on in the first series. The multiple adaptations and remakes made the plot... tiresome. Sooner or later, the characters were just that, characters; nothing original about them to create a sense of realness. For that, I give my respects to Digimon. If you think pokemon is better... Pokemon ruined so many kids lives: 1) Knowing trainers eat meat in pokemon but there are no animals so what do they eat? (pokemon meat) 2) With the original lavender town music in the game made 300+ kids suicide because of depression 3) With the episode "Electric soldier Polygon" made 700 children report seizures and head aches
Pokemon is superior to Digimon

First. The sheer number of fans Digimon has is nothing compared to Pokï¿½mon. Pokï¿½mon sells more memorabilia in a day then digimon does in two weeks. (not a fact, common sense). Pokï¿½mon has many running t.v series and Digimon had 3 series to air in America. With Pokï¿½mon having 4. On top of countless movies Pokï¿½mon has put out compared to Digimon 2. Also, Digimon does not have a very well known character that every household knows. Everyone remembers the yellow mouse, Pikachu "Pika- pi". Yet, Digimon fails to have a character as wildly popular and well known as this one. Vote Pro!!
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

Hey. Just because you don't have anything more to say, doesn't mean you waiving round 5 means that I have to do that too. Why would you make a 5th round if you weren't going to use it? Why didn't you specify that you would eliminate the 5th round at the start of the debate so that I knew what I'd be getting into? If you had said so in earlier rounds, I might have accepted not saying anything more at this point. You didn't. Using the fifth round to terminate the 5th round isn't going to fly. I'm not going to forfeit my 5th round just because you forfeited yours. I'm very disappointed that you didn't respond to most of my actual points like Tyson's knowledge or his counter-skill. You might have made a case against the counter-skill, but you've ignored my entire case and only responded to my responses to yours. This debate could have been so much better. Tyson's record - http://boxrec.com... 6 losses out of 58 matches is a 10% rate of loss. Muhammad Ali's record - http://boxrec.com... 5 losses out of 61 matches is an 8% rate of loss. not much difference between 8% and 10%. Since their stats are about the same, what matters is some measurement of their skill, not their past fighting record. And it says here that Ali got knocked out once, so you saying that he never got knocked out before is a straightup lie. Both are fighting in their primes for this fantasy matchup and their past record includes matches after their primes, so that's one more reason why we shouldn't be using past records to determine which one would be stronger. Ali might have a sturdy chin, but a concussive blow to the head, not the chin mind you, would still cause a concussion. Not having been knocked out before doesn't mean you can't be knocked out. Even if Ali's faced heavy punchers, if these heavy punchers never land a clean blow, then that doesn't really count. the best way to test Ali's 'super-chin' is to have someone like Earnie Shavers slug a clean hard blow on Ali's chin without Ali running or defending or dodging and see if Ali doesn't get knocked out. Saying that he's faced an opponent is not the same as saying that he's survived a blow from that same opponent. Tyson would win because he'd probably land a lot clean blows on Ali based on his counter-style and his knowledge of Ali's fighting. Oh and Joe Frazier in his prime actually beat Muhammad Ali in his prime. Yes Ali did fight Frazier, like you said, but Frazier beat him. Ali only beat Frazier 5 years laters - neither in their primes. Not only that, it was a non-title match. So. You've given a lot of dishonest evidence. Tyson beats Ali. http://www.youtube.com...
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

-Tyson Knocks People Down- Yes over 70 of Tyson's many knockdowns. Knockouts & Knockdowns aren't the same thing. Tyson's punches blow people to the ground. If you fight Tyson, you're probably going to get knocked down if not knocked out. Tyson's knockout rate in his prime before he started his decline was at near 100%. -Past Fighting Record- Past records in the pro-scene can be evidence of skill, but it's not sheer evidence of superiority. Guillermo Rigondeaux is the probably the best fighter in his division and he came in with no professional record, and he came in and beat the best fighters in his division straight-up. Records are subsidiary to skills. More heavyweight champs fought doesn't mean anything if the heavyweight champs skills aren't any different. Tyson's beaten heavyweight champions three times: Frank Bruno, Bruce Seldon and James Smith the Bonecrusher.Ali may have beaten more heavyweight champions because Tyson was the only heavyweight titleholder for a time so anyone he fought during that time couldn't possibly be a heavyweight champion. Anyway, what matters is that both have shown themselves to be really good fighters, so building on the merits of past competition is irrelevant. With less accomplished fighters, it might have more weight to this debate, but not much. Skill is what matters, and this is Mike Tyson vs. Muhammad Ali we're talking about here. Past record doesn't matter for this specific fight. -Reach- Reach isn't that big a factor after a certain point in skill level. Pacquiao has short reach, but he's one of the best boxers in Asia. Tyson has fought and beaten larger, longer-reached opponents. He's a fighter who knows how to close distances. Boxing matches aren't about who can stretch their arms out the longest. It helps, but most punches are actually pulled with bent elbows at short distance in these rings. I've said this many times. Tyson's gap-closer stick-to-the-opponent method of fighting makes him the perfect fighter to put against Ali. -Why Tyson would win- 1 - very likely highly superior knowledge of Ali's fight-patterns 2 - Tyson counters Ali's dodge-sustain and point-scoring fight method. Tyson 3 - Tyson is a knockout fighter who pulls some of the most powerful punches in boxing. The odds of in-his-Prime Tyson knocking out in-his-Prime Ali is humongous.
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

Yes it does 'have anything to do with what kind of skills he has.' Because he has fought better competition and defeated more world champions than Mike in his entire career. Mike has lost to medicore fighters like Buster Douglas, Kevin Mcbride, and Danny Williams. Tyson's chin is questionable. He has been ko'ed 5 times in his career, meanwhile Ali has never been ko'ed in his entire life. Anyways still there is no chance that Mike can ko Ali because he isn't known for one punch power. Also pro states that Tyson will finish Ali via unanimous desicion. There are two problems here from making that bold statement true.A.) Mike had breathing problems in his youth which caused him to not go 100% in his fights. I got this statement from the movie 'Tyson'B.) Mike also has never been in many rounds as Ali. Which means that Ali has more experience than Iron Mike. And 'bragging' you say ? Everying i said about Ali's record wasn't in a boastful speech, it is a fact that Ali has beaten better competition and is a 3 time world champion.It's just true that Mike hasn't faced the same caliber of oppenets as Ali. But if it you thought i was 'bragging' than that is your foolish opinion.Ok 40 people that have never been ko'ed before, i need a link to support this claim. And how many of those people are actually world champions or true boxers ?Now let's compare their weight and height:Ali is 6 ft 3 in, and 236 pounds, 78 reachhttp://boxrec.com...Tyson is 5 ft 10 in, and 216 pounds, 71 reachhttp://boxrec.com...These statistics show that Ali has the more superior build and stronger then Ali. Tyson lacks the reach by 7 inches, and is 5 inches shorter, and weighs less meaning that Tyson will lack the power and is not superioly stronger than Ali.Muhammed Ali's accolades speak for themselves:- Defeated more world champions than Tyson and any heavyweight boxer.- Gold Medalist in the light heavyweight division in rome 1960- 3 time world heavyweight champion- defeated guys like Sonny Liston (2X), Joe Frazier (2X), Floyd Patterson, Ken Norton, Archie Moore, George Foreman, etc.- More experience than Tyson and faced more rounds then him- Has never been ko'd before in his entire boxing career.- Has more wins than Tyson- Has less loses than TysonMuhammed ali will win via 15 round unanimous desicion or ko in round 10. There is no way Tyson can pass through round 15 because of his lung problem and will probably get ko'd. Also, Ali can't be ko'ed because he faced hard punchers like Earnie Shavers, who is widely considered as the hardest puncher in boxing history.
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

My opponent does not provide any objective measure in the previous round to prove why Ali would beat Tyson. Bragging about Ali's record on who he's beaten doesn't have anything to do with what kind of skills he has. Countervideo: Here's a 10 minute video of over 70 of Tyson's many knockdowns and some of his quick moves in dodging bullet-speed punches http://www.youtube.com... Look at the opponent Tyson has fought in his career: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Every one of these fighters, especially those after the first few, are incredibly skilled and have god-like fighting records (many are undefeated). Doesn't mean a thing to this debate since both have been proven to be extremely able fighters, Bragging about the people that either fighter's beaten doesn't have anything to do with proving how one would be better than the other if they were to fight each other since both have beaten extremely good fighters. So back to the statistical differences that actually matter in this hypothetical matchup: Statistically, Mike Tyson has KO'd 44 times with nearly 40 of these KO targets being undefeated fighters. Mike Tyson has KO'd nearly 40 people who have never been KO'd before. Ali won't be any different. Again, Tyson has a nearly 90% knockout ratio. Just because Ali hasn't been knocked out before, doesn't mean he can't be. Tyson has knocked out nearly 40 never-been-knocked out fighters. Both in their primes: Tyson knows the ins and outs of Ali's style and fighting. Ali doesn't. Tyson's method of fighting involves getting up close an closing gaps, which directly counters Ali's evasive, running style as shown in my opponent's video. My video shows that Tyson is at least as fast, if not more so, than Ali. There were a couple clips between the 2 and 3 minute mark in my video showing Tyson dodging some extremely fast shots both in slow motion and in regular speed. Tyson is really fast. Faster than Ali if the videos are anything to go by. I think Tyson would knockout Ali, but even if he doesn't, Tyson would at least win by unanimous decision since his technical knowledge and counter to Ali and Ali's methodology makes him the perfect fighter to pit against Ali. In his prime, Tyson's knocked out fighter after fighter without losing a single round. Each and every one of these fighters were undefeated with many having a long record under their belts. Most of Tyson's losses occur when he was nearing his retirement and far from his prime. In his prime, Tyson was a god (pardon the expression) in the ring. Every factor points to Tyson most likely being able to beat Ali if both were to fight in their primes.
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

-Ali's Chin-The reason why Tyson's ko percentage is higher than Ali's is because Tyson has fought lower level competition compared to Ali. Mike Tyson biggest wins are from Larry Holmes and Micheal Spinx. Mean while Ali has wins over former world champions like Sonny Liston (2X), Joe Frazier (2X), Floyd Patterson, Ken Norton Etc. And there is absolutely no way Mike can ko Ali. Ali has never been down for the ten count in his boxing life. In fact, heavy handed boxers like Earnie Shavers and George Foreman can't knock down Ali. Now let's talk about speed, Ali's quickness and defense is superior to Mike's by a long shot. As seen in this video ->
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

-Ali's Chin- There are many factors in boxing to a boxer's assets as a boxer, and the ability to take hits is universal among boxers. Boxers are usually trained to take hits to their bellies, and some can take hits to their neck and face without flinching. It's about building resistance in these areas. Now even if Ali can take hits, if Ali hadn't knocked out George, decision by judge, based on the 8 rounds of domination, would have meant George winning the match. And even if Ali can take hits, a concussive blow to the head is still a concussive blow to the head, no matter how sturdy his chin is. According to Tyson's record, Tyson's opponent's, barring the initial few, are all incredible fighters with equally incredible records. Against these opponents, Tyson has 50 wins and 6 losses with 44 knockouts, which is nearly a 90% ratio of knock-outs. The odds of Tyson dealing a concussive blow on Ali is very high. The odds of Tyson knocking out Ali is very high, especially since we're talking about Tyson in his prime. http://en.wikipedia.org... Compare this to Muhammad Ali, who has 56 wins, 5 losses and only 37 knockouts. Ali knocks someone out in (37/61 - 60%) of his matches. That's almost as little as Mayweather(26/47 - 55%), who is known for his victories by decision for his technical, defensive superiority. I agree that Ali's evasiveness and endurance makes him a great fighter, but as mentioned before, Tyson's abrasive gap-closing fighting style is a great counter to Ali's style. And again, Tyson adores Ali, following and watching Ali almost obsessively. Tyson definitely knows the ins and outs of Ali's fighting. Compared to these factors, Ali's chin means nothing. I think Tyson would knock Ali cold, but if he doesn't, Tyson would still win by judge decision.
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

Ali Fought Better Competition: There is no question that Ali has fought the better competition. He defeated many great legends and fought and defeated more would champions than any other heavyweight in history such as Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Earnie Shavers, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, etc. Mike Tyson's best wins are from Michael Spinks, Larry Holmes, and Trevor Berbrick.Ali Has The Better Chin: Muhammed Ali chin has been tested multiple times during his career, a good example of his chin is his famous fight against George Foreman. This man has defeated Ken Norton and Frazier in only a few rounds, and made it look easy. But during the fight Ali was beaten viciously for 8 rounds and was losing terribly on the score card. But was never down and knocked out George. Ali also fought big punchers like Earnie Shavers and big cat. None the less, Ali has never been officialy knocked out. While Mike Tyson was knocked out 4 times.http://boxrec.com...
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

Tyson and Muhammad are both great boxers, and their scores are very close. Tyson has 44 knockouts during his professional career with 50 wins total and 6 losses. Muhammad had 56 wins but only 37 knockouts and 5 losses. The difference between the two aren't major. Muhammad is known for endurance and outlasting the opponent. Tyson is known for incredible speed and skill. Now we know Tyson may or may not have asthma, but it's never affected him in a fight. In fact, if we were to take both in their primes, I'm pretty sure Tyson would last the full 15 rounds. If we were to pit them in a fight of infinite rounds until one is knocked out, I think Muhammad would win by superior endurance, but 15 rounds is definitely manageable. Remember, we're talking about these two boxers in their primes here. Muhammad is an evasive fighter who opts to outlast his opponents, but Tyson is great at closing distances. So Tyson is a perfect counter to Ali's style in that regard. Now Tyson is known to be greatly inspired by Ali. Ali was Tyson's hero and it was Ali who inspired Tyson to box according to this boxing documentary: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Tyson believes Ali would beat him if they were to fight both in their primes, but I think that's his hero-worship speaking. With the way Tyson follows Ali, Tyson most definitely has a very clear picture of Ali's style. Tyson would be much more prepared than Ali if they were to fight both in their primes. Ali in his primes knew nothing about Tyson. Tyson in his primes worshiped Ali. Knowledge of style and such preparations goes in favor of Tyson. Tyson should know the ins and outs of Ali's style. Add to the fact that Tyson is one of the best heavyweights, all these factors: the knowledge, the counter-style, etc. show that Ali would probably lose to Tyson.
Muhammed Ali Vs Mike Tyson in Their Prime 15 Rounds *FANTASY*

What would happen if two of the greatest heavyweight boxers (In their prime) who never fought clashed in a 15 round battle ? Where will it take place ? Madison Square Garden Date: May 6 Pro: Ali Would Win Con: Tyson Will Win My Opponent will state his reason why Iron Tyson will defeat Ali. Rules: -No Ear Biting :-) -This fight will take place in the ring -No Forfeits