BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Garchomp-Mega should be moved to Ubers.

All my reasons above as to why Mega Garchomp would not be usable competitively in Ubers still stand: his ability is unusable, his typing gets countered hard, his few stats that are lacking are easily taken advantage of, he lacks a priority move, he lacks a team role to play that others cannot do better, and that almost all Ubers teams carry multiple pokemon that would wall or completely counter him. If Mega Garchomp was in the Ubers tier almost no one would use it. Every competitive team in Ubers would have, on average, two or more pokemon that could counter Mega Garchomp. Because of this, and the other reasons restated above, Mega Garchomp would become nearly unusable. Ultimately, if this question were to officially come up on Smogon it would be up to the fans. Smogon's tiering system was created to allow any pokemon to be usable, to have a place on a team, to truly belong. Not to be alienated by being out done in every area by its fellow Dragons. Mega Garchomp does great in OU and that home should NOT be taken away from him. He should stay in OU where fans will continue to use him.
Garchomp-Mega should be moved to Ubers.

Here is my closing statement. Mega-garchomp is one of the new mega pokemon that is simply too good for OU. It has insanely high attack, above-average defenses, and a pretty good ability. Mega-garchomp's main, if not only flaw is his speed stat of 92. Nevertheless, mega-garchomp is a terror in OU; sporting only three weaknesses and having an extremely diverse movepool enabling it to be a baton pass reciever, a wallbreaker, part of a sandstorm team, or even just a plain old sweeper. For these reasons, mega-garchomp should be moved out of OU and into the uber tier, were it would be more evenly matched. Mega-garchomp would be better in ubers, using his normal ubers set of outrage, dragon claw, earthquake, and stone edge; enabling it to hit nearly everything in ubers for a lot of damage. It can find a spot on a sand team, (which are more common than first thought of) on a hyper offense team, or just on a regular uber team. His stats, movepool, and usage are just too much for the OU metagame. He would be better suited among the ubers.
Garchomp-Mega should be moved to Ubers.

Thank you for providing the background knowledge and you did get everything right. Good luck to you as well. (This is my first debate, so I'm sorry if its terrible) I would like to start off my attack with the recent ban of lucarionite in OU. Yes, I will admit lucario is a beast, as well as my favorite pokemon. And I do believe that it, along with its mega evolution, is very good. Was it right to send it off to ubers? I don't know. But if lucario is sent to ubers, I think garchomp should be too. Here is why. Lucario has very good stats as a mega. 145 attack, 140 special attack, and 112 speed is nothing to laugh at. Lets compare this to the stats of mega garchomp. Mega garchomp has better HP and attack, as well as better defense and special defense. Plus he has sand force along with an extremely diverse move pool consisting of moves such as, but not limited to, outrage, dragon claw, swords dance, earthquake, stone edge, brick break, crunch, and aqua tail. Throw this diversity in along with sand force, STAB, and that huge attack and you have a sweeper. Garchomp's admittedly lackluster speed can easily be remedied with either tailwind (talonflame is a great partner for garchomp) or some speed boosts. (mainly scolipede , who will probably scare some fairies away) I have found that scolipede and garchomp work very well together. Lets see how mega Garchomp matches up against some of the most used pokemon in OU. (They might not be officially most used, but they are pokemon I have seen a lot.) 252 Atk Mega Garchomp Dragon Claw vs. 0 HP / 252 Def Rotom-W: 121-144 (50.2 - 59.7%) -- guaranteed 2HKO (Garchomp will almost guaranteed survive 2 hydro pumps) 252 Atk Mega Garchomp Stone Edge vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Talonflame: 708-836 (237.5 - 280.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO (Garchomp can take a priority choice band brave bird) 252 Atk Mega Garchomp Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Mega Scizor: 150-177 (43.6 - 51.4%) -- 6.6% chance to 2HKO (Garchomp can kill scizor faster than scizor can kill garchomp.) 252 Atk Sand Force Mega Garchomp Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252 Def Mega Tyranitar in Sand: 308-366 (76.2 - 90.5%) -- guaranteed 2HKO 252 Atk Mega Garchomp Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252 Def Aegislash-Shield: 236-282 (72.8 - 87%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery/252+ Atk Aegislash-Blade Shadow Sneak vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Mega Garchomp: 72-85 (20.1 - 23.7%) -- guaranteed 5HKO As you can see, Garchomp matches up pretty nicely against some of the main pokemon in the OU metagame. (I'm sorry if I missed some; these are just the ones that came to mind) Given Mega Garchomp's incredible base stats, diverse move pool, and amazing usage, I think he should be moved out of OU into ubers.
Garchomp-Mega should be moved to Ubers.

I accept. I, as Con, will be arguing that Garchomp's mega form should stay in the OU tier. Background knowledge for voters: **Isn't evidence for debate or an argument, just some necessary background knowledge** The ranking system we will be arguing about in this debate is a tiered system created by the online Smogon community. This system does not follow the official Pokemon VGC Rules. It is made by fans for fans for the purpose of fairness. By separating the pokemon into tiers based upon their usage amount and competitive prowess, it makes it so a mediocre pokemon can be used against other mediocre pokemon without the threat of a OP pokemon completely decimating it. This allows for more balanced teams and strategies. The two tiers covered in this debate will be Ubers and Over-Used (OU). Ubers - The highest tier, typically where you find the best of the best of pokemon. They typically have elite base stats, move-pools, abilities, or a combination of those three. Mostly comprised of pokemon in the legendary category. OU - The second highest tier. Similar to Ubers, it has elite pokemon found in it. However, these pokemon are not considered a powerful enough threat to the pokemon found in the Ubers meta to be a viable option for use in Ubers. But they are also considered to powerful for use in lower tiers. OU and lower pokemon can be used in Ubers but it is recommended that they are not. Thus concludes the background knowledge. Side note: I typed the above based off of my memory and understanding of the system. I would like to request the Pro correct anything I got wrong and add anything I left unsaid as an addition to the background knowledge for the voters. Thanks ahead of time.
Homosexual acts are immoral

Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length. ===Definitions===Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. To keep the debate focused I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality. For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality. ===Resolution and BoP===The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3.
Free will is an illusion

Free will is merely an illusion. I understand that this is disturbing to many and will cause a visceral, adversarial reaction in some. It is disturbing for people to be told that they are not, have never been, and will never be in control of the wants that arise in consciousness and therefore the consequent actions. I blame no one for succumbing to the illusion of free will - the feeling that in any given circumstance, one could have chosen otherwise. Most people want to believe that their good deeds have merit and their morally praiseworthy actions are in fact morally praiseworthy. However, even a cursory examination reveals that this simply cannot be a condition that any logical person supposes.One cannot control what it is that they want - they cannot dictate their own impulses and tendencies. We have no idea what we intend to do until that intention itself comes into existence. In no way is it possible to be the author of one's own conscious desires. Perhaps you can decide what you will do next, but you certainly cannot decide what you will decide to do."Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star." - Albert Einstein"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." - Bertrand Russell“How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware?” - Sam Harris"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur SchopenhauerThere are, of course, many deep implications of this - for the justice system, religion, morality, etc. However, that is not what I wish to debate here. I simply wish to contend that free will is a mere illusion in our current reality.
The polite lick

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Seeking her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.
InVinoVeritas is, by far, the strongest debater on DDO

In my mind, it is clear that Dogknox is by far the strongest debater on DDO. If Dogknox is the strongest debater, then the resolution is negated, because two debaters can't both be the strongest [1]. I will now present my arguments in favor of Dogknox being the strongest debater. They will be brief, as my opponent has presented no case of his own, which he probably ought to do as Pro. Arguments:Contention One: Dogknox has never lost a debateAs can easily be seen by viewing Dogknox's profile here [2], he has never lost a debate. On the other hand, my esteemed opponent has lost 35 [3]. The strongest debater possible would never lose a debate. Dogknox has never lost a debate. Therefore, Dogknox is the strongest debater possible, and that means he's better than InVinoVeritas. Contention Two: Dogknox has never been defeatedWallstreetatheist wrote of Dogknox [4]:'Dogknox correctly interprets the scriptures, church history, and the philosophy of religion. You guys can't refute what he says, so you resort to insults and accusation, which implicitly concedes your own intellectual defeat. Sad. 'Truly, no one can ever refute what Dogknox says, preferring instead to resort to insult when they find themselves unable to overcome him. If no one can overcome Dogknox, he must be the strongest debater. Conclusion:Dogknox is the strongest debater, therefore the resolution is negated. Sources:1. CommonSense 2. . http://debate.org...;3. . http://debate.org...;4. . http://debate.org...
Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

The resolution is "Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens. "This debate is intended to be a Lincoln-Douglas (LD) styled debate. All styles of LD cases are acceptable. Please refrain from accepting this debate if you are not familiar with LD debate and are not familiar with the styles in which it is debated. The Round Structure will go like this:Round One: Pro accepts and states case. I repeat, you will start off in the very first round. The first round is not for acceptance. Round Two: Con case + rebuttals, Pro rebuttalsRound Three: Con rebuttals, Pro rebuttals.
Government Intervention to completely and utterly destroy any remnants of the Amish way of life.

I am not American but after spending years horrified by the Amish way of life I want to express my utter disgust and literal urge to puke at it through this debate (You think the problem of female oppression is in Middle East? Well I think you Americans need to use your good old Police force and Secret Service for the prevention of oppression back home!)First round is acceptance.Definitions (in direct context of this debate)Government Intervention: Direct terrorising, using guns, blackmail and force to brutally ensure that the Amish send all their daughters (and also sons) to school or pay for some extra help with school (since some have a lot of catching up to do), to force the men to let their women be free if the women so wish and to ensure that any Amish member who despises the Amish way of life is completely free to be entitled to a 21st century quality of life not the piece of sh!t quality of life the Amish force them to have. Most importantly to make clear that from the moment of intervention and onwards, they will arrest any an all Amish adults who abuse their wives and children with caning, paddling, ANY FORM OF FORCED INITIATION OF SEX WITH WIFE THAT SHE DOES NOT SHOW ANY CONSENT TO and any other form of abuse under the law of United States of AmericaAmish philosophy: Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. One of the greatest needs of our time is men who will assume the responsibility that God has placed on their shoulders. Not to accept that responsibility is to lie down on the job, to fail God’s will.Amish Child Discipline methods: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT NO LESS!Corporal Punishment: Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with the open hand or with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings.Please do not bother taking this debate if you do not have in-depth knowledge of the Amish way of life and also not if you are a stupid liberal who will argue that governments should respect all ways of life (I will destroy any libertarian believe me).
Government Intervention to completely and utterly destroy any remnants of the Amish way of life.

I see...Well, I should hope the judges of this debate consider the arguments proposed, as the coming forfeits of my opponent are not entirely their own fault. I am certain, could they be here, they would have posted some form of argument.I also request the judges dismiss what my opponent has said about losing the debate; that seems more to me to be the result of feeling defeated in being banned, than so much as feeling his arguments were inferior.In short, please vote based on the arguments presented. I will not be making any more arguments for the remainder of this debate, as my opponent will not be here to counter-argue, and I feel it would be against the spirit of debate to attempt to use their personal situation to my advantage.
Open Debate - Genetic Alteration for Human Fetuses, or Selective Breeding? Opponent Chooses.

I will be taking Pro on this one, and my opponent will be delegated as Con. [Note] This debate is open to the first person that accepts. I welcome any opponent. Definitions: Selective Breeding - The principle of sterilizing certain portions of the population (or preventing them to breed) to generate desirable traits across an entire species. (In the case of humans). Genetic Alteration - The concept of altering the genome of a human fetus to generate desirable traits in offspring. I can take Pro on both. Opponent chooses. Rules: 1 - No trolling 2 - No ad hominem 3 - No profanity 4 - Empirical evidence 5 - First round is short introduction and acceptance. Arguments and rebuttals permitted on all rounds. Round 5 is not a conclusion only, new arguments and rebuttals can be made on top of wrapping up. Thank you RC - 9282
Open Debate - Genetic Alteration for Human Fetuses, or Selective Breeding? Opponent Chooses.

I'm going to call "selective breeding" by its proper name, eugenics. Eugenics has no basis in factual science, and is usually only proposed by people who don't mind inbreeding!!!!!! If you erase the fact that eugenics has no desirable bennefit for mankind, you're left with a sad person who fears other races, and people who are different.(people who don't mind inbreeding). I accept!!!
Friday Night Lights is the best Drama television series

Apologies for my response being somewhat late. My opponent is arguing that the best drama series on television is Friday Night Lights. I would like to dispute this in this first round simply by referencing two different sources. Both of these sources show Friday Night Lights as 56th best [1] and 53rd best [2] drama series ever. Even these two lists should give a bit of insight to this topic, clearly showing that Friday Night Lights, while good, was not the best drama television series Sources: [1] -http://www.imdb.com... [2] - http://m.ranker.com...
People can be proven wrong.

The reason that I'm answering "B-O-T" is because, unlike our Private Messages, these are available to everybody. "B-O-T"continues to deliberately put out Crazy, Lying, Garbage, instead of valid arguments, true statements, logical reasoning, etc. It's obvious that "B-O-T" is a lost cause. He's Lost this Debate. ONCE AGAIN, just showing a movie ( which *** insists ISN'T a movie !) in the Kangaroo so-called "court system" DOESN'T meet BOP. (Check it out.) It's IMPOSSIBLE to show pictures, movies, etc. , of so-called "crimes" . "Crimes" , "criminals" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , "robbery" , "illegalities" , etc. , DON'T EXIST. Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as Presumption of Innocence, Legal Due Process, etc. (Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" , there can't be any such things as "crimes" .) I never claimed that movies can't tend to SUPPORT the prosecution. As I already pointed out, if my arguments are, in fact irrelevant, why keep bringing them up, wasting everybody' s time? I already stated that I didn't threaten to charge you with defamation. (For one thing, as far as I can tell, I wouldn't have Legal Standing to bring such a Lawsuit. ) You didn't refer to scientologists at first- you specifically accused LRH of kidnapping. THAT is why I warned you about false accusations, libel, slander, defamation, etc. You stated before that scientology kidnapped people, & that you could prove it. I'm glad that you've admitted that you were wrong. You've stated again that scientologists kidnapped people, but you haven't proved it. MORE Libel, Defamation ? If you want to insist that it was, in fact, scientologists who did, in fact, kidnap people, prove that they were, in fact, scientologists, & that they did, in fact, kidnap people. BOP is on YOU. Purity: It was YOUR premise FOR THIS DEBATE that "People can be proved wrong. " That, obviously, refers to absolute truth. YOU didn't write, for example, "Most people can be, basically speaking, proven more or less wrong. " I already proved that your "Purity" arguments were wrong (see above). You called me an autistic child in your PM to me- on Wednesday, Dec10,2014@12:11:24PM The Message you CLAIM that you sent me on Dec 10 doesn't agree with the Message I have on my site. I'm quite willing to allow the Moderator(s), etc. , to check my Messages out- ARE YOU ??? The Message that I aparently received from you reads : " I hope you are content being a cowardly troll, because so far that's all you've amounted to. " Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy ? Prove it. BOP is on you. Telling the truth is being extremely rude? Prove it. BOP is on you. Telling the truth is extremely offensive? Prove it. BOP is on you. Nobody in their right mind would consider what I've written in this Debate "trolling" , or even "borderline trolling" . I have no intention of conceding. "B-O-T" has obviously Lost this Debate. Everybody Please Vote For me !!! THANK YOU ALL !!!
People can be proven wrong.

You accuse me of "ranting" before, & apparently are still insisting that I'm "ranting" . I'm not. You continue to refuse to take me seriously. You keep insisting that you have to be right, & that I have to be wrong, without ever bothering to check out or think about my arguments. You keep deliberately refusing to try to see or to understand my point of view. For example, as I've pointed out to you over & over again, BOP is on the Prosecution in the so-called "criminal justice system" . The prosecution CAN'T meet the BOP by showing a movie. It just doesn't work like that. Period. I NEVER threatened to charge you with kidnapping, &, as I wrote before, how could a RELIGION kidnap anybody? You DID call me an autistic child. You DID call me a cowardly troll. You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. There is no way that you can win It's obvious that I'm wasting my time. As I wrote in my Message PLEASE don't write to me again. I just don't have time for your cr*p !!!
People can be proven wrong.

You're using the same arguments that you used in your Messages to me. Since I've already refuted them, I see no reason to repeat myself. As I've already pointed out, it's the PROSECUTORS, not the DEFENSE who have the BOP in the so-called "criminal justice system" . The Defense isn't required to prove, or challenge, anything whatsoever. Your claim that if you show me a bunch of pigs & claim that I can see that the pigs you've shown me can't fly, then insist that that proves that no pigs can fly doesn't make sense. Nor does your apparent claim that Wings are necessary to fly. Check out Wikipedia articles on Levitation, Physical Mediums, such as D. D. Home, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, maybe even Transcendental Meditation, etc. If 999 out of 1,000 people who smoke heavily supposedly get lung cancer, & 1 doesn't, that proves that smoking DOESN'T cause lung cancer. Thank you for pointing out that, in your personal opinion, many of my arguments are what you call irrelevant. If they are, in fact, irrelevant, why bother repeating them? I believe that your claim that wrongness isn't a negative is wrong. You had plenty of time to present your evidence before but you admit that you didn't. My claim of absence of evidence therefore WAS correct. In your Messages to me you called me a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll, & now you tell me that trolling is against the rules? If I'm a troll, what else can I do but troll? Why don't you use your mind instead of writing Dumb things?
People can be proven wrong.

Please remember that you've taken the Negative, not the Positive position. As I understand it, it's Impossible to prove a negative. It's Impossible to prove Impossibility. It's Impossible to prove Absence of Evidence. One person might claim there's no evidence. Another person might insist thst there is, & present it. L. Ron Hubbard stated in his 1950 book on Dianetics that Absolutes have to be considered logically Impossible. BOP to disprove that is on you. Pure Truth, therefore, cannot exist. Pure Falsehood, therefore, also cannot exist. A person cannot, therefore, be completely right or completely wrong. A person, therefore, cannot be proved right, or wrong. Since you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim, I also claim Absense of Evidence.