BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism Is A Good Idea

This is my first ever debate on this site and i am looking forward to it. Please do not criticise my debate, because as i said; this is my first time. :) Communism; run well, is a much better system than Capitalism. It is a system that is based purely on equality. This is not only money; but liberty and power also. In communism; there is no ruling body; everybody has equal say in their society. There is no tax and there is no GST. Money crisis has basically been abolished. Perhaps in a Communism System, if we implement some of the more extreme theory's of Karl Marx, we shall abolish money all together. Instead, paying workers with an availability to resources, equality and power as everybody else. There is no group of people superior to another, so therefore freedom and power is given to everybody to a certain degree. Since Therefore, if communism was implemented than those groups who were previously above everyone and were higher in the heirachy, would no longer be able to influence or overpower the ruling of any other previously lower class citizens. This would lead to minimal corruption also, i may state. Capitalism is basically based on the nature that everybody is greedy, and it's a 'hit or be hit' situation. The quote: Dog eat Dog, comes to mind. It relies on peoples ability to be better than one another, a competitive government system. But say a child was born and was biologically blessed with extreme creativity, and grew up to be the best of the best in his line of work (lets say; an artist), Any other child who is the best at their line of work (medical) would be classed above the other, just because they have a *Different* skill to the other. The point of my analogy being that no matter how good you are at what you do, someone will (basically) always be better than you, and you will never be treated the same as a person above you. Therefore; the fact that communism implements equality is a brilliant trait to have in a government system. Capitalism is too competetive and too brutal. I will now hand it over to my opponent, Thankyou
Parody Challenge

I had to work all day Saturday. My boss really can be an @ss. I wanted to see the Ohio State game and see that fan slammed in the grass. So I watched ESPN for the highlights but then my cable went on the blink Had nothing to do but to sit and to stew and by 9 I had started to drink So I blame it all on the cable guy by midnight I"m completely torched The day started out with some football in mind It ended passed out on the porch For round 2, would you like to pick a new song?
Parody Challenge

It's nine o'clock on a Saturday The regular teens file in There's a rich man sitting next to me Really hungry for good ol" "Burger bin" I say, "Son, can you buy me a burger now" I am really hungry but broke And it"s sad and its sweet And I wish I could eat, "When I had a job to make dough!" Without a paid job, you're a hobo, man Sitting on the park bench tonight Well I was in the mood for some Mickey Dee"s I" ll just eat for now, actually I won"t
Parody Challenge

This is an open debate for a parody challenge. There will be a contest as to who can make a better parody of a song. I will give my opponent the privilege of picking the song. First round will be acceptance and decision of which song will be used. If the song does not follow the rules, I will begin the next round with my own parody. RULES: -The song picked must be widely known -The song picked must consist of at LEAST a verse and a chorus -The parody must consist of at LEAST a verse and the chorus -The parody must be somewhat PG (No sexual content or bad words) Idea taken from http://www.debate.org...
Deep Space Nine was the best star Trek show.

CharactersMy opponent contests that the DS9 characters are not as interesting and that Sisko in particular is not very memorable. OK I will concede Sisko may not be as memorable as the like of Kirk or Picard but as I brought up, DS9 was an ensemble cast so the Captain wasn’t always hogging the spotlight and a well balanced cast is more interesting than one that revolves around a single person. Alien CivilizationsMy opponent particularly contests Ferengi civilization. The fact is that they were meant to represent humanity in its current form while the humans on the show were the future of humanit. See the clips on the right to see how they had an understanding of economics that had been forgotten by humans of the future and their unique perspective on human nature. As for Nog’s PTSD not being particularly a Ferengi issue. This is true it could have happened to anyone with the same effect but I think he was chosen as he was a young officer who had seen a lot of action, but I don’t see how that proves any point for my opponent. Other DifferencesMy opponent questions why I brought up the unique aspects of the show, It is because it shows how the writers were more creative and less formulaic. The Space Station doesn’t travel through Space but all manners of aliens come to them and the Wormhole makes this possible. MoviesMy opponent brings up that DS9 does not have any movies. This is true. However it’s not all about the Numbers. It had an influence on the other shows. Insurrection and First Contact make reference to DS9 directly. Nemesis mentions the Dominion war. Dr. Bashir makes an appearance in an Episode of TNG. The First Episode of Voyager takes place of DS9. Those are examples of its influence on other shows but there was also potential for the characters. I think there is still potential for the characters even though they did a pretty good job of wrapping up their adventure. They all go their separate ways but that opens up more possibilities not less. In closing I don’t think my opponent has shown how DS9 is not the best Star Trek overall using a number of criteria. I thank my opponent again and wait for his final comments. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Deep Space Nine was the best star Trek show.

I am going to show my criteria for why DS9 was the best Star Trek. I will start with the fact that it was philosophically the deepest. Sure the other shows did deal with controversial issues but not on such a consistent basis as DS9 did. There are several points where it pushes the bounds of ethics to get you to think but none more apparently than the Episode "In the Pale Moonlight" where Sisko, who is usually a highly ethical character in desperation goes to the one character whom he can trust to be reliably unethical, Garak (I will discuss him more in a bit). While I don"t condone this course of action, it shows the humanity of Sisko. [see first clip] [1] . http://www.youtube.com... It even addresses the issue of PTSD after Nog loses his leg. DS9 was also the best in terms of character development, we got to see the characters evolve over 7 years, in the other shows the characters developed very little. Oh sure in the original series once we get to the movies we can see Chekov mature and in TNG Riker grows a personality with his beard but in DS9 every single character that plays any sort of role in the storyline develops. I would like to make a special not of Garak. He was originally intended to be a single appearance character but he proved popular with fans and became one of the most complex characters in Star Trek. DS9 even had the opportunity to develop 2 characters introduced in TNG further, O"Brian and Worf. DS9 also dealt with a larger supporting cast of characters. It even develops the Ferengi who were introduced in TNG but never quite lived u to their potential in that show. Part of the reason characters were able to develop more was in part due to DS9"s reliance on story arcs as opposed to stand alone episodes. The only other show to do that was Enterprise. In fact the whole second half of the final season was considered one continuous story. Just as the Original series tried to make strides in acceptance of minority groups , DS9 by having a Black Captain really completes Roddenberry"s vision. It even examines racism directly in the episode "Far Beyond the Stars". [2] . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... While the other shows (with the possible exception of Enterprise and certain aspects of Voyager) were very Utopian, DS9 shows the horrors of a dangerous galaxy. It also showed that the Federation itself was not the Utopia it appears to be by introducing Section 31 as well as the Maquis" dissatisfaction. [3][4] Sure the Maquis play a role in Voyager but really only the first season. . http://www.youtube.com... Now some might argue that DS9 was lacking when it came to ratings but remember the same was also true of the Original series. I await my opponent's response and pass it on to him. 1 . http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode) 2. . http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode) 3 . http://en.memory-alpha.org... 4 . http://en.memory-alpha.org...
Deep Space Nine was the best star Trek show.

I accept, and note that the burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate that DS9 is the "best" of the Star Trek series. Also note that there is some ambiguity as to what "best" means. I think it goes without saying that we not determining "best" by any one single metric such as longest running, most viewed, etc... because what fun would that be? Instead "best" will represent a composite of a broad range of metrics, at least some of which may be subjective. The weight assigned to each metric will be subjectively determined by each individual voter, with consideration given to the arguments which we will present here, and the skill with which we do so. Engage.
Experiments on fetuses intended for abortion

I do not understand why you want to force an unwanted Debate but fine, I learned my lesson. Next time I emphasize the human factor because some people do not understand that the word 'abortion' is linked to humans rather than to plants. If we do experiments on plant embryos, we can change them from the start and create new kinds of plants (like the plant that produces oil that scientists are working on these days). If we do it correctly a whole new worlds will be open to us, we could use the energy that the plant takes from the sun, we can create new vitamins and medicines, we could even create organic homes and all kinds of wonderful things.
Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

Look, the origins of Latin and modern mathematics may be different, but what they do have in common is that they are both systems based on logical rules in which the consequences of those rules are used. In mathematics, we look at our given conditions, quantify them according to the rules of mathematics, and spell out the results in our language of numeric symbols. In Latin, we look at our observed world or intended message, grammatize it according to the rules of Latin, and spell out the results in our language of spoken phrases. In math, there are multiplication and trigonometry tables. In Latin, there are declension and tense tables. Yes, the systems have different purposes and symbology, but to carry out any analogy to a ridiculous extreme is to defeat the purpose of the analogy entirely, in that it is meant as an explanatory mechanism. The fundamental idea remains the same: logical systems that describe reality. Look, I'll be level here. Mathematics describes reality, so finding out that a mathematical pattern appears in reality is EXPECTED. Just as with Latin. The words we use in Latin also describe reality, so it's no surprise when something described in Latin with a sentence "Necabatur" turns out to correspond to reality (a man was killed). Same thing with English. If I say "Look, a bird!" it shouldn't be particularly surprising or suspicious if you turn around and see a bird. It also isn't evidence of the intervention of a higher power. Same thing with mathematics. If mathematics says "Look, a pattern!" it shouldn't be particularly surprising or suspicious if we turn around and see that pattern in nature. Again, it isn't evidence of the intervention of a higher power either. And as for your rebuttal to my mirror analogy. Again. Analogies are not meant to be stretched to ridiculous limits. If I say "You know, John Stuart Mill is like Machiavelli because they both believed the end justifies the means" it makes no sense for you to say "Well no because John Stuart Mill didn't live in Italy in the 16th century." See the problem here? This is what you're doing when you take my analogies and stretch them to ridiculous meanings they were never meant to have. Over to you, pro.
Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

Your entire argument can be summarized as follows: A system of logical rules intended to mirror reality has mirrored reality. Therefore, God exists. No, I'm being quite serious. I don't mean to be rude, but I did post an unrefuted argument in the first round which just happens to refute your current argument. I'm not going to post the same argument twice, so just tell me: why does my Latin example not work, and your Fibonacci sequence example work as evidence for a designer? And if my example is evidence of a designer, why do we all not speak Latin? Again, both mathematics and Latin are sets of logical rules intended to mirror reality. Granted, they have different purposes, mathematics is for derivation and Latin for communication, but all the same, mathematics is really just a mirror to the universe. And you're telling me that because we can see a reflection in that mirror, that this is evidence of a designer. Seriously now. Over to you, Pro!
Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

The existence of A creator is very evident throughout the display of the Fibonacci Sequence. Math was created/discovered by humans to represent change, if the Fibonacci Sequence is complete coincidence then how do you explain the golden ratio? Either nature is self aware and corrected itself over and over again until complete perfection or a creator did exist at one pint and programmed the universe much like a computer is programmed to run by a computer programmer, only in a language that the programmer can understand. Math represents change whether you are losing or gaining or finding angles; math is there to show change so humans can easily interpret it. If this change were to just be in one set of things or items then yes you'd be correct, but these set of numbers can be seen repeating themselves across the universe. Through plants, the spirals of galaxies, waves, and the stunning distance in separation between parts of your face and even your finger seems to go about using the same numbers. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 and so on. http://io9.com... (I don't know how to post individual pictures onto the debate so here is a good website that shows some of my examples listed above plus more.) http://www.goldennumber.net... {Golden Ratio attributing to beauty.) The link above takes you too a website where a beauty pageant took place, out of 8,045 one woman; Florence Colgate's face was taken and perceived to be the most beautiful. Everything on her face, is directly proportional with Phi, or the golden ratio: 1.68. Which is actually pretty crazy if you think about it. The fact that human beings are attracted too this ratio on other peoples faces, however this can speculate many different things but the major one that it does point out that a creator stamped in the back of our brains that we are to chase and seek out this golden ratio. To study it, and to get as close to it as possible. If this ratio can attract human beings in a sexual manner, or a physical manner than this is no mere coincidence. Once again, this creator could be much like a computer programmer, starting up the computer too work and allowing the programs he installed himself to work on there own without his constant supervision or approval. However we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god/creator, we can only guess and hope that their is one or that their isn't depending on how you take life and go about it. On to you con.
Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

I accept and will reiterate my argument. Mathematics is merely a set of rules to be used as an analogy for reality. These rules have logical consequences, including patterns like the Fibonacci sequence. Because these rules were meant to mirror reality in the first place, it's no surprise that a consequence of the rules would be reflected in reality. This may be hard to grasp, but here is an analogy. Latin was created as a communication method meant to represent reality on some level or another. The word "necabantur" means "they were killed" in Latin. And since murders do occur, it surely must mean that this coincidence, between Latin and reality, can't be coincidence. There must be a higher power involved! This is why I don't think that the Fibonacci sequence proves that there is a God or divine creator. Over to you, Pro!
Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that there is a god/creator? (Attempt #2)

Surrealism I would like to apologize for the first debate being a timed disaster. You can re-use your opening first round argument again if you'd like; I haven't had much time to review the information to begin a rebuttal nor will I because frankly that's cheating and I'm not all about that. Does the Fibonacci Sequence prove that a creator or god does exist somewhere in the surrounding universe? pro is supporting that it does, in-fact prove that a god or creator was behind this mathematical sequences. The Con portion of this debate will explain why the Fibonacci sequences does not prove the existence of a god/creator. You may use any means necessary. You may use anything to support your theory/argument (Videos, Pictures, Recorded Scientific Data, Books, Theories from other Scientist or data, Etc.) please label them however you choose or whatever layout best fits how you would like to describe your debate. 1st Round is stating your proposal and why you believe so (Acceptance as usual) 2nd Round is rebuttals + any added information to further your proposal 3rd Round is rebuttals of the rebuttals + any added information to further your proposal 4th Round is closing statements I hope to find someone else who is just as interested in this as I, and I am open to constructive criticism about this or my horrible grammar and spelling which you will have to endure with during this debate. If you don't know what the sequence is here is a video that should explain it to you completely. https://www.youtube.com...... (Finger Print of God Video) https://www.youtube.com...... (The Fibonacci Sequence: Natures Code)
Naruto would beat goku in an all out fight.

Now likes get started, first for my argument might come off as angry but here we go so it seems to me that all peoples reasoning for why goku would win is because he can destroy big things, which in a battle between characters like these, destructive capabilities has about 30% to do with the outcome and I would like to point out the fact that since I'm fair and I don't fan over only one the goku is EASILY more PHISICALLY stronger I would have to say also that naruto is immensely faster seeing as how he matched sasukes speed which was teleporting and kept up with kaguyas demension shift which is instant and also reacted to and countered it meaning that not only is naruto instant but he also has instant reaction speeds, but there are also many other factors that play in to this like the fact that naruto has precog meaning naruto can see all the moves coming at him before they even happen. Now to the point where you were talking about the moon feat well, where should I start damn first off the sage of six paths made the moon on his death bed without much struggle at all so there's that and one can not simply make a moon your gonna need some sort off jutsu or creation technique and unlike dbz the amount of energy you have dosent tell you how strong or fast you are like how sasuke WAS easily more powerful than naruto but narutos rasengan bested his chidori every time, which brings me to my next point about the rasengan, it dosent focus really on the outside but actually damages you INTERNALLY meaning that if goku were to get hit with it he couldn't do much of anything seeing as how he isn't as nearly as durable on the inside as he is on the out when charged with ki, not to mention that goku would have been dead right now if it weren't for a senzu bean when he got shot in the shoulder with a tiny laser in his strongest form ssgss ultimately depowering him immediately. When you said goku probably wouldn't get hit with a rasenshuriken I agree that it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world but I would say for naruto it wouldn't be to hard seeing as how they can cross oceans in a second can be controlled with his mind along with being expanded IMMENSLEY and knowing goku he would rather try to hit it head on or dodge it now not only would hitting it head on destroy him but say goku dodged it this time, well that's easily believable but he would never dodge it and run away like 25 metres but he would dodge it narrowly letting it slip past maybe metre or so away from his shoulder which would than be a perfect opportunity for naruto to expand it immediately and BAM goku loses because it destroys you at a molecular level. Okay before I finish this up (sorry for the long book) I will mention one more thing. .. TRUTHSEEKING BALLS that would comepletely wipe goku out of exsistance because through yin release they destroy ALL types of energy at a sub-atomic level, through yang release they do the same thing but to all types of matter and finally through yin-yang release they destroy and NEGATE all types of techniques, they (and I cant stress this enough) are ONLY effected by SAGE CHAKRA. NARUTO wins.
Naruto would beat goku in an all out fight.

Now- let's take something into context. When Goku was facing Nappa, Vegeta, and the Saibamen, Goku was moving so fast that he could not be seen by Krillin, which is a human just like Naruto. Can Naruto move this fast? Probably not. And even IF Naruto was fast enough to outrun Goku, Goku is simply too strong for him. He wouldn't be affected by normal attacks and could easily block and/or dodge his Rasen Shurikens. If Goku could beat Majin Buu (Fat), and Majin Buu (Fat) could destroy the Universe, AND Goku could block Buu's attacks, then it's obvious that Goku could block Naruto's attacks and that the Rasengan is nothing more but a simple ki blast that Goku can block, or dodge with his speed. Now, Even if naruto goes Kurama on Goku, Kurama can't destroy planets. Master Roshi in the Original dragon ball, with a power level of 100, destroyed the moon. The sage of the six paths, which is more powerful (Or close) to Naruto in power, Made the moon- But this took him great effort. Now, with the thought that Goku has a power level of.. Over 9000.. It means that he could easily destroy and/or build the moon about... Over 90 times. This would be an Impossible job for Naruto, and could kill him. So in abilty, Goku obviously wins. He could wait untill Naruto is out of chakra and easily Kamehameha him, Goku wins.
Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why

Hello. I am in the position that teens should buy violent video games with parental consent. Teens should not be allowed to buy these games without consent because parents can decide on what sort of effect it will have on their teens.For instance, if a teen has reactsed negatively to violence in the past, than the parent has a right to refuse that their child play the violent game. I believe that teens should be able to play violent games with their parents' consent. Otherwise, they should not.
Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why

You confuse me, but I will reason with you. Let me get my point across the voters: I think that parents should decide what is right for their children. This is different than what my opponent argues - that teens should be allowed to buy and purchase whatever they like. My argument is that violent video games shouldn't be outlawed for teenagers, but should require parental consent to avoid things like increased aggressiveness and becoming less-agreeable, found in studies.