BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Goku's spirit bomb is more powerful than Naruto's bijuu bomb (Tailed Beast Ball)

Rebuttles"Look dude Naruto can make thousands of clones himself and Kurama."First of all, this debate is about a spirit bomb vs a bijuu bomb, and does not involve any other jutsu. Nowhere does it say that Naruto would be allowed to make 2000 bijuu bombs.Secondly, even though I have already shown that you argument is pointless, I will say that making all these clones wouldn't help. As said on the naruto wiki, " all of the clones are given an equal amount of chakra directly from the user"[1], thus if naruto made one clone, he would be at half his chakra level, and if he made 2000 clones, he would be at 1/2000 of his regular chakra level. Necessarily, all of his attacks would only be 1/2000th of what they could be, and if all 2000 bijuu bombs hit Goku's spirit bomb, they wouldn't be any more effective."Ya know Spirit Bomb is destructive but so is Naruto's bijuu bombs."According to the Naruto wiki, "Kurama's own Tailed Beast Ball can create an explosion that is far larger than the Hokage Monumen and the mountains around it"[2] I will admit that that is quite impressive, but compared to one of Goku's spirit bombs, it is puny. I will show the potentional of a spirit bomb in my arguments."His are just stronger and can make a great clash."This claim is supported by nothing, and will be proved to be untrue in my arguments.ArgumentsGoku's spirit bomb is no doubt much more destructive than Naruto's bijuu bomb. When Goku was learning how to use the spirit bomb, he was told by King Kai that if used improperly, it is powerful enough to destroy Earth[3], how could an attack that can only destroy a village possibly be stronger than one that can destroy an entire planet, furthurmore, a spirit bomb is made by collecting good energy from all creatures, and can be drawn from even the entire universe, giving it limitless power[3]. [1] - http://naruto.wikia.com...[2] - http://naruto.wikia.com...;[3] - http://dragonball.wikia.com...
All Dreams Will Come True

By "dream," I mean an ambition; I do not mean one of those mental experiences experienced during sleep. You don't think your dream will come true, but there are many public suggestions that it will come true. It would be bad if all these admired sources, including music lyrics, music videos, and statements by important people including the president of a prestigious college and the President of the United States, were lying to us about all our dreams coming true and anything being possible. It would be dishonest, misleading, and counterproductive in developing a better society. Perhaps those sources could even be legally sued or criminally prosecuted for misleading and deceptive business practices. I do not want to believe false nonsense. I wonder whether there is anybody from the present or past who has had all his or her dreams come true. I don't know of any such person. It would be great for all my dreams to come true.
All Dreams Will Come True

It seems I often hear that all dreams will come true. It seems I hear suggestions of the type in music lyrics, movies, speeches, and statements by significant figures. Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a college I attended, said in an NPR interview on March 4, 2009 "The advice I give to young people is fundamentally to not let others put limits on who you think you can be, ... ." Around the time President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017, he said "Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done" (@WhiteHouse on Twitter, https://twitter.com..., posted Jan. 21, 2017, last visited Jul. 16, 2017), suggesting that any dream can come true. All of this evidence suggests that all dreams will come true.
should we use the password pill

Alright, I am going to stick to traditional format for debate.org and as this is your first debate this is how it usually is: round 1. acceptance round 2. Main argument round 3. rebuttal or refuting the others statement round 4.disproving rebuttal or presenting new evidence round 5. if disproving rebuttal in 4 then final evidence and if new evidence in 4 then final rebuttal and conclusion. Now to the debate: Using a password pill is the start for something that would help anyone with one of the biggest problems in the world. Health. In the very source used to start this debate it says that it is originally just something to use to monitor your health and the data would be seen only by a doctor and yourself. This has several aspects of helpfulness; 1. In the source it talks about helping diabetics. No more shots to test blood sugar because the pill would tell you when your blood sugar was too high or low. 2. It could help in detecting cancer. If we could find it before it became too large than it could be removed or early kimo could be used. 3. Heart attacks could be forewarned of happening and so help in getting to paramedics as soon as possible. 4. Tell you when to take your medication and how much of it. The pill is being expanded to be used in a password capacity. Aside from unlocking unwanted things it would have a certain radius of "unlocking". If someone gets on one of these devices then you have to be close enough to know about it. Having your phone unlocked on the table where your sitting is not much problem except for pesky siblings. It also has another aspect. Imagine your phone gets stolen. They can't unlock it unless they are within a certain radius of you and so the point of stealing is lost when you can't use it or only when within eyesight which is quite suspicious when you are looking at someone with phone identical to yours. As for people using the computer when it is being unlocked by you then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure because you are standing RIGHT THERE. If you can't tell that someone is using something of yours when you can see them doing it then that is your fault. To the invasion of privacy health wise it is a simple choice: your health and well being or privacy. If you want privacy, fine, but don't be angry when you find out you have a tumor. The whole use of the pill is beneficial to you as a convenience and a necessity. Over to you Con! http://www.businessinsider.com...
Everyone should be treated equally.

Everyone: (pronoun) Every personTreat: (verb) Behave toward or deal with in a certain wayEqually: (adverb) 1- In the same manner. 2- To the same extent or degreeI completely disagree that everyone should be treated equally. To be treated equally strips a person of their individuality and personal achievements. Certain individuals deserve to be recognized above others and also deserve to have their achievements awarded. If everyone were treated equally then the rapist would be just as worthy of glory as the couple who is trying to fight world hunger, and the chef who spends his free time cooking for the homeless is no better than the murderer killing children in their own beds. Equality is not as nice as it sounds. Equality doesn't guarantee that everyone is treated in a proper manner. Equality is a guarantee that everyone is treated in the same manner, whether it is good or bad. In order to have a society in which people agree that they are being treated fairly and properly there needs to be diversity in how these people are treated, which is to be in direct reflection to the actions of the individual. This is where the concept of Communism goes awry. If the lazy farmer gets paid just as much as the hard-working farmer, then why should the hard-working farmer put forth so much effort if it is not to be rewarded? When an individuals achievements are not recognized, then the individual stops trying to achieve. Eventually, these individuals produce the collective bare-minimum, and the total quality of life goes down. Basically, total equality puts the entire strength of the rope at the weakest thread. Those that are stronger are not allowed to compensate because the weak thread cannot hold up to the same expectations. Equality isn't as good as it may seem to be.
Everyone should be treated equally.

I am taking the stance that everyone should NOT be treated equally. The layout of this debate is as follows:R1- AcceptanceR2- Opening ArgumentsR3- RebuttalR4- Defense & Final ArgumentsR5- Defense & Closing StatementsIf anyone fails to follow this outline it is an automatic forfeit.Sources do not have to be cited.Forfeiture of a round because of time should not be held against the debater unless it is for the 3rd or 4th round. More than 2 forfeitures should be counted against said person.I do ask that my opponent takes this debate seriously and argue intelligently. I will ask that those judging follow the voting system and not personal oppinion. Thank you all, and good luck to my opponent.
Macs Are Better Than PCs

Macs may be better than PCs when it comes down to certain things to certain people but overall PC's have a better capability and better compatibility with most of the new software that is released. When you stated that PC's do have the more customizable options and more capability of different software you also said it was a flaw. The flaw was that it wasted money. This only matters to the people who don't have money to waste. To the people who do have the money to spend on such advanced equipment and better software, this is not a flaw. Since your statement was Macs are better than PCs, i have proven this is not entirely true thus resulting in con being correct.
Macs Are Better Than PCs

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement. I stated that Macs are competing against much larger companies. What I meant to say is that Apple is only one company competing with many different PC companies of equivalent size. All of these similar companies are selling the same item which generalizes as being called the PC while only Apple sells a Mac to which all of these PCs are competing with. You stated the same argument as earlier that a PC has a wider variety of "advanced components" that could be added which is not a simple task to perform. While a Mac does not have as many upgrades available, the few that are are very straight forward and simple. The reason Macs do not have the vast amount of upgrades that a PC has is because of what I mentioned earlier. PCs are manufactured by many different companies using similar designs so there are more people creating PC compatible software. Macs break away from the PC template to provide consumers with an easy-to-use, quick, compact computer that incorporates an aesthetic feel. I still agree with my statement that Macs start out with better software than the PC. A Mac doesn't need the complicated tinkering with that you suggest a PC needs. A Mac starts out with everything a computer owner could need and/or want. Not only does the Mac have better security, a smaller, sleeker design, and an easy interface, but also a starting processor that is generally faster than most PC starting processors. IN conclusion, although not having the customizing features that PCs have, Macs are a well rounded and an overall better computer than PCs.
Macs Are Better Than PCs

Macs start off with the same basic software components first of all. The PC has more different advanced components that you can only put on a PC than a mac does to have on a mac. What you have said is simply that the mac already starts off with better software but that is not true. What stops a person from modifying a mac is compatibility issues. Many advanced software components tend to have compatibility issues when on macs when PCs do not. I also only stated that apple was an old company because you stated "although competing with a much larger companies, Apple has managed to keep up with innovative ideas and incorporating a sleek design as well." I was just trying to state that it is a much larger company then you state it to be. It was one of the first computer companies and it still makes high quality computers to compete with PC's hence MAC vs PC videos have been created.
Macs Are Better Than PCs

Ha, that link was pretty funny! Thanks for accepting this debate! Let me start out by saying that I agree with you, PCs do have more customizing ability to enhance function and ability and that's all well. But I also think that that could also be seen as a large flaw or weakness if you will. What you have essentially stated in your argument is that PCs, although starting with only the basic necessities, can be modified and beefed up in order to bypass a Mac if the person has the right know-how and the time/money to spare. With Macs however, you are already given those modifications that you would have to go to extra measures to put on a PC. Now, sure a person could buy and modify a PC with the right skills, but what's to stop that person from also modifying a Mac. Assuming that the normal person has the capability to modify a PC like it seems you have, then there should be nothing stopping that same person from performing similar operations to a Mac. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that you seem to be assuming that the average person is capable of modifying a computer, when in reality, the average computer is afraid to open it up, let alone tinker with its memory or RAM. Also you brought up the point that Apple was one of the first computer companies. This is true but the personal computer predates Apples by a full year, giving the PC plenty of time to get a leg up in the computer industry. Steve Wozniak designed the Apple I in 1976 while Ed Roberts created the first actual "Personal Computer", the Altair 8800, in 1975. Although only a year, this shows the PC was created before the Apple I, showing that in no way should the order of events excuse PCs with a chronological handicap...
Macs Are Better Than PCs

http://yasik.kiev.ua... To simply put this in words: 1. A PC is given more customizable options and therefore is given the bigger capacity to have more graphic and function capabilities. 2. Apple was one of the first computer companies ever created so it is not hard to say that they are easily at the head of computer technology of the time. They were the first company offered the chance at producing the mouse so they are hardly anything less than a top-notch company. 3. Macs are simpler and easier to use to the beginner. PC's again have more customizable options and have more tools that the more advanced user might need.
Macs Are Better Than PCs

I am new to Debate. org and I wanted to get a feel for the site. Because of this, I chose a fairly simple topic to argue, that being "Macs are better than PCs". I understand this is a mostly opinionated topic and based largely on preference but please, humor me! My argument is that Macs are better than PCs. I agree with this for several reasons. One, being that I have both owned a PC and a Mac and the Mac has functioned at a much higher level than the PC both in graphic quality and in processing capability. The second, is that, although competing with a much larger companies, Apple has managed to keep up with innovative ideas and incorporating a sleek design as well. Thirdly, Macs are just simply easier to use. You can take organize your data with simple, easy to use programs that come installed on the Mac. You can switch between spaces with just a push of a button as well as other ways of dividing your work in an easily accessible way. Lastly, the design is easy to navigate and understand. Not, only is the system easy to use on its own but, if a person cannot fully comprehend how to do something, they can simply search their question on the help menu always available at the top of the screen.
Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate

As pro forfeited this round i have no points to counter. I would however like to draw your attention to a diologe between pro, feverish and myself in the comments tag. This diologe begins with the earliest comment in the list. Feverish suggests that pro misused redundant and suggested using abundant. pro responded with "Suppose for a moment that I did mean 'abundant'. Doesnt the fact that you understood my meaning suggest that context was sufficient enough to override any obvious misuse..." then when i commented saying i thought he actually meant redundant he said "that is indeed what I meant. I started that response with 'suppose for a moment', positing the hypothetical..." this leaves the obvious problem of how is the voter supposed to know if he meant redundant or abundant. Clearly we were both sure of our positions, and it is by complete luck that this got cleared up definitively. I admit that defining redundant is the over-use i was talking about, and an insignificant detail that has minimal effect on the debate, however had it been a more important word than it would have been critical, and since i doubt pro realized he would be mis-understood, it is clearly logical to define all critical words. And it is therefore wise to do so. Also a close reader would notice my last line in my previous paragraph is a direct reference to the definition i provided. Having a concrete definition in front of you can help make solid evidence that by the definition of the word something is correct or incorrect. This is very critical in theology debates, were you are working complete in the abstract. In conclusion, in this debate i have demonstrated that there is clearly a measure of wisdom in defining words, therefore pro's resuloition "I think its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using." is negated because by definition absurd means "completely devoid of wisdom" (wasn't defining absurd so wise here)
Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate

I think its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using. It makes no sense. If someone doesnt know the words meaning, he should just look it up in a dictionary. That is what they are for. And if that person is still too stupid to understand the argument he has no business taking a position. You arent defining. You are redefining. If I redefine the words Im using, each and every one of them, then who is anyone to say my position is wrong? I might as well make up random noises with definition. Its not right to make people filter through not only your arguments, but each redefinition you choose to give. English isnt that hard. If youre not fluent enough to pose an argument then dont waste my time. If you are fluent enough, you ought not need me to tell you what everything means. Now there is context too. Some words can be ambiguous in meaning, but a lot can be gathered from context. Again, the reader ought to be intelligent enough to read a debate on whole and recognize its intended meaning BEFORE formulating rebuttal. Which would be both non-partisan and intelligent on the side of the reader. And yes, a position could still seem ambiguous... but that would be the fault of the writer and his sentence structure and syntax, and has nothing to do with the definitions of the words being used. I tell you what... if you need any word here defined for you, feel free to google it. By "Google" I mean search on a popular, respectable search engine. By "it" Im referring to the word youre confused about. By "word" I mean a sequence of letters that form a concept you should already know. By "letters" Im talking about those little figures that get strung together in text. By "confused" I mean... By "a" I mean... By "the" I mean... By "I mean" I mean... Do you need me to define "define" too? What is written under the word "dictionary" in a dictionary? Ad absurdum... gimme a break. I dont remember Plato or Descartes being faced with this sort of modern "intellectual stupidity." Asking for definition is what ignorant small-minded people do to escape from the obligation of formulating a defence for their position when a counter-position offends them. Its much easier not reading an argument, not trying to understand an argument, not rebuting... and simply insist "oh, youre too ambiguous for me to comprehend"... "my ignorance and fear and prejudice and resentfulness is your fault".
War with Iran

While you are correct that shouldn't attack every nation that threatens our allies, Iran has threatened the U.S. itself and has made alliances with our most mortal enemies, and has begun and is being quite successful in preparing to start a violent conflict with the U.S. our allies. 1) It is true that we have developed a ABM system that can effectively shoot developed a ABM system that can effectively shoot down certain missiles that could be aimed at us, but the curtain systems that we have are incapable of taking out an ICBM. These are the preferred type of missile that are used in detonating nuclear warheads by most nations including Russia, which is the nation that is equipping Iran with the means to make nuclear weapons. Therefore, ABMs are ineffective at preventing a nuclear attack on our soil. 2) Furthermore Israel does indeed have a far more advanced arsenal than Iran, but they are badly out numbered. Iran and its Allies completely surround the tiny nation, and the current riots in the Arab countries has put leaders in power that have sworn to wage violent jihad on Israel and those who would come to her aid. 3) Iran and all her allies are funding radical Islamic terrorists through out the world. This has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers and citizens, and other innocent people around the the world. They are posing a threat to U.S. interests in the Mid-East. 4) Again, ABMs can not neutralize ICBMs. Once more, Israel is to badly out number by Iran and her allies. By the time we get there to Israels aid our bases in the the Mid-East will be over rand and Israel annexed by Iran. Thus, we must attack them before we have a second Pearl Harbor where we know there is a threat and we do nothing and we get attacked. 5) It is always the obligation of the bigger countries to defend the people that can not defend themselves. The U.S. has done it in the past, and should do it in the future especially in Iran. I would like to share a quote most people has heard at least once. 'With great power, comes great responsibility.' The U.S. has the power and the reason to liberate those people. Therefore, it is our responsibility to help them. While it is true that China and North Korea are known for their human rights violations and a war with them would cost millions of lives, It is just to help those people as well. The fact is we can for China or North Korea, but we can for Iran and we must. 6) We should have attacked Germany when we saw Hitler building a giant war machine, and then maybe 40 million people might have not lost their lives. We should have attacked when it wasn't a matter of 'if they attack', but when it became a matter of 'when they would attack.' We are facing the same situation with Iran, and must not make the mistake of waiting till they attack us. In conclusion we must neutralize Iran's threat, liberate the Iranian people, and finally deny radical Islam another chance to wage violent jihad against the free people of the world. 1&4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (look at Current tactical systems & United States) 2) http://theworldisshaking.blogspot.com... 3) http://www.zionismontheweb.org...