BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Brotherhood Reform

I address your points on behalf of the Brotherhood, I speak as its leader and as a humble representative. Presently, there is a heated discussion going on between members of the Brotherhood regarding the change of the current profile pictures. While we have not come to a decisive decision, we are experimenting with many different designs in order to find one that properly represents us. We understand that our prior profile pictures do not properly represent us, however, our intention was never to use these pictures to represent hate or racism, rather, those pictures represented a visual sameness and equality, they also represented strength and a boldness to express ones honest ideas. Importantly, you must understand that the Brotherhood is constantly growing, not just in man power, but in an ideological sense. Our ideas change and evolve as we explore various controversial debates. We don't want to be judged based on our profile pictures, we would rather be judged based on the substance of our debates and the discussions we have. The Brotherhood would like to thank you Jim, for showing that you not only care for the well being of the wider DDO community, but you also care for each individuals rights to express their beliefs and discuss them freely. We believe we share mutual principles of fairness. We thoroughly look forward to working with you in the future and perhaps welcoming you into the Brotherhood at some point once a consensus can be made. Kind regards, Masterful, leader of the Brotherhood.
Brotherhood Reform

Hello, this is more of an announcement than an actual debate. Many people have been stirred up by the recent rising of the Brotherhood, a DDO organization that promotes community, free speech, and open mindedness. However redeeming these qualities are, it's worthy to note that white supremacy seems to be the foundation, and one of the requirements to join is to have a Neo-Nazi skinhead as a profile picture. I believe the basic principles of the Brotherhood are honorable, but because of its racist tendencies, it has a bad name. I'm publically asking chairman Masterful to reform the Brotherhood and make it a group for everybody wanting community, free speech, and open mindedness. If this includes racism, so be it, but don't make it necessary to be racist (or have a racist background picture). I believe if this reform is made, then the Brotherhood will truly be a great organization and an asset to DDO.
Bidoof is a terrible Pokemon in battle

"Yes you are right simple can be a good ability BUT, there are alternative Pok"mon that are actually good that also have the ability simple like Swoobat." Yes, there are alternatives, but that does not make bidoof a terrible pokemon in battle, as he CAN be pretty good. "PLUS, Bidoofs speed is pretty low and normal people use Pok"mon with high speed and attack so the opponent would normally go first and make Bidoof faint before Bidoof can use anything." After a curse/amnesia with your simple ability you become incredibly beefy, and speed doesn't matter as much. Obviously if you get one shot you are useless, but that goes for any pokemon really. Also in your original debate topic you never specified that we were only talking about pvp battles, so we are also talking about in game battles. In in game battles he can perform relatively well, therefore he is not terrible in battle. " Also, Bidoof has a horrible move pool, only covering a few types." Untrue, as you can see from his movepool here ---- http://www.serebii.net... he has a somewhat decent movepool. His movepool isn't the most important thing, as he only needs one or two moves outside of amnesia/curse/rest. The moves he does have are good enough for him to be played somewhat decently.
Bidoof is a terrible Pokemon in battle

Yes you are right simple can be a good ability BUT, there are alternative Pok"mon that are actually good that also have the ability simple like Swoobat. PLUS, Bidoofs speed is pretty low and normal people use Pok"mon with high speed and attack so the opponent would normally go first and make Bidoof faint before Bidoof can use anything. Also, Bidoof has a horrible move pool, only covering a few types.
Bidoof is a terrible Pokemon in battle

We are arguing that bidoof is a terrible pokemon in battle, which includes in game battles. Yes he is less strong than bibarel, but the pre-evolution can still be strong, just less so. Despite bidoof's low stats, it has one key ability that can make it a pretty powerful pokemon, simple. "Simple doubles the effectiveness of stat modifiers. For example, if Defense Curl is used, the user's Defense stat will increase by one stage, but the effect of that stage is equal to the change of two stages" By using a bidoof with the moves Yawn / Curse / Quick Attack / Waterfall, he can be extremely potent as long as you max Sdef. After a single curse you'll end up with +2 Def and +2 Atk, already making you a formidable force. So, in general, when used correctly and effectively, Bidoof CAN be a decent pokemon, thus making it not terrible.
Bidoof is a terrible Pokemon in battle

Okay first of all, Bidoof is a pre evolution and Pokemon cannot be as strong as they can unless they are fully evolved. Bidoof has pretty low stats overall too, with an EV yield of one.Yes,Bidoof CAN be good in battle if it is an in game battle and if Bidoof is at level 100,but normal people in real life use GOOD Pokemon like Ampharos or Greninja.
God Can't be All Powerful, Knowing, and Good V. 2

Again, I'm very sorry for forfeiting. That said: "1. Eradicate evil and eliminate free will and the meaning of humanity 2. Allow the possibility of evil and allow for human life to have meaning" But the "good" decision isn't necessarily number 2. My opponent says that free will seperates humanity from animals because we are able to tell right from wrong, thus giving our actions more meaning. But this does got give us a better life. Our lives will certainly be made worse if we are victims of evils like theft, murder, rape, and others. Even if we feel good about doing the right thing in certain situations, too often then not the costs outweigh this. Although I may get some joy out of being morally astute, I may also be in physical and emotional pain- fear, doubt, lonliness; all caused by evils. My opponent also says that free will leads to other goods; that is true. But again the costs outweigh the benefits. God (the Judeo-Christian God we're using for this debate) originally intended humans to be this way; Adam and Eve could not tell good from evil and lived in the paradise Eden. Only after they gained that knowledge were they punished and susceptible to suffering. Free will is not necessarily a good thing because even though some people might get meaning out of it, by being good, they are victims to other people's evils, and even those evil people are victim's other other evils; it's a chain reaction. Having free will is not a better choice then not having it and living in a paradise. Free will allows us to make evil decisions, and thus perpetuates evil on the world. And all-good God is looking out for our happiness, and thus would choose to give us the best possible life free of pain. I am not saying that God isn't all good, though. Again, he could not be all powerful, or not be all knowledgable, and is not able to completely control humanity. But, if he were all three, he would certainly give humans a life without pain, and since there is obviously suffering in the world, this cannot be the case.
God Can't be All Powerful, Knowing, and Good V. 2

C4747500, sorry this took a while, and thanks for debating. For those of you just joining us, C4747500 wanted to debate me on this so here goes: Please vote for whoever debates the best, and not who you agree with. Also please understand that I'm not saying God isn't good, or that He doesn't exist. This debate deals with religious philosophy. The traditional Judeo-Christian view of God is that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. However, this can't be, because to be all three at the same there is a contradiction. If God was all of these then there shouldn't be any problems in the world. I'll use an example of a murder taking place, but this is applicable to any "bad" thing. A)If God is all-powerful, then He has the ability to make happen whatever he wants, so He should be able to stop the murder. B)If God is all-knowing then He knows that murder is going to take place and so can be prepared to stop it. C)If God is all-good then there is no reason that He wouldn't want to stop the murder. Since this is God we're talking about, his levels of power, goodness, and knowledge would be ideal; God is not a superhero running around, He can do whatever he wants with no exceptions or limitations. Thus, no murders would happen. But we know that they do, and so do a lot of other terrible things. Therefore God can't be all three of these things. The argument was brought up before that God might have a particular reason for allowing a certain thing to happen. For example, a world leader is about to be assassinated, but God knows that in the future this leader will start a nuclear war, so He might let the assassination take place for the greater good. But if God was all powerful then he could stop the nuclear war from happening Himself without having the leader killed. As to Free Will, exchanging an ideally perfect world (key word ideally- remember this is God) for making my own choices isn't much of a trade. I'd rather not experience the joy of doing the right thing by myself if it meant that someone else was going to get killed. Why would God have us suffer when it would be so easy to fix? This contests the "all-good" idea, but it's possible that a lack of power/knowledge explains this. There are always three possible explanations for all of these scenarios.
Sex before marriage

Yes humans are meant to repopulate this earth, And I respect you as a person, you are a good role model for millions of children out there that are going thru that same situation as we speak...You sound strong as a person. Your story is a sad story, and I'm sorry you had to grow that way...See, I believe Two people really need to re valuate there situation and think about there future before they even think about bringing a child into this world. The story that you wrote about growing up was very interesting, and I've heard it countless times before. And I believe its extremely admirable that you are taking responsibility and raising your son. But the environment you lived in I believe pushed you to become this strong-hard person. It sounds like to me you didn't have the opportunity to be a kid, and you had to grow up faster than you ha liked, and that just isn't fair to you. No child should ever have to grow up in an environment where they move from town to town, with a mother or father that drinks and parties. My opinion is that your parents stole your childhood, and as a product of there selfishness and irresponsibility you had to grow up faster than most ids, and that isn't fair to you at all...Having a child at the age of 17 is so young, you cant experience anything life has to give and offer, you cant pursue any dreams...you have to be there for your son double now because he doesn't have a mother now, and that's not fair to him either...As to your statement on pushing kids as hard as you can depending on age...That to me is just horrible, why would you want to do that to your child, you should just want your child to be happy and grow up being a kid...just enjoy and encourage your child as they grow and learn...They grow up very quick, and if you push them at a young age, then your gonna miss all the joys they can show you...A kid should be a kid...To me it sounds like your going to push your son out of childhood quickly just as your parents did to yourself, because you have a fear of your child going thru the same thing you did. So intern your pushing him into adulthood to make him a strong person, so he will be able to face this unfair world...I'm sorry, but that to me sounds like a product of your environment, only because you stated you had to adapt to any environment your mother put you in...You shouldn't have had to grow up without a father, you shouldn't have had to grow u with a mother that wasn't there, food on the table and a roof over your head isn't enough, we are human beings, and we need love, a child needs to be loved...we aren't animals....
Sex before marriage

You make a good point, but I don't think technology has anything to do with it...Sex has to do with the human make-up, we as human beings always have the desire to have sex, Its our nature...Since the beginning of time people have been having sex unprotected with multiple partners, and as a result children are born...This is were I make my point...When people find out they have become pregnant, they have to make a decision...they either abort the child, or they bear the child...giving it up to adoption, or keeping it themselves...This is where I believe the stem of all the problems begin...Sex is the most beautiful act between two people that are in love with eachother, sex is not a bodily function like going to the bathroom, and since the beginning of time people have been doing just that. Any sexual desire people think they can capitalize on they take advantage of...As a result, these people that don't even know eachother, people that aren't planning to spend there life with eachother have children, and these children have to grow up in environments that aren't fit for anyone...Its all about environment...If a child grows up in an environment where to parents are fighting all the time, then that child is going to grow up thinking fighting is the norm. If a child grows up in an environment where the parents are separated, then the child grows up without a mother or father...There are so many different situations that stem from such a simple desire that people cant control, and the sad thing is allot of the parents choose to just end the problem by aborting the child....But just take a minute to think how the world today would actually be different if every child brought into this world was born as a result of two people in love....Children would grow up in a house full of love and parents that are a role model to there children...Children are like sponges, they adapt to whatever environment they live in, and they become a product of there environment...
Sex before marriage

what your saying is having sex before marriage causes a lot of problems being more specific on what kind of problems it causes in our modern day society would help a lot. Like saying sex before marriage is the reason why we think how we think as an individual is not right, or sex before marriage causes a lot of people to go into debt with the economy is not right, or marriage not lasting long or relationships don't last long cause people decide to have sex before marriage is not right, you cant blame having sex before marriage on how society is today. when you speak of sex before marriage having a big role on how people are today you have to be more specific on what kind of problems. If your talking about pregnancy rates going up on the people who are not married to let you know women can get pregnant with out even having intercourse with any guy. You cant really blame sex for how society is, or the way people think or act, its a new age a new time sex isn't the root of problems. Want to blame something blame technology while technology got more advance that's when people changed and made society the way it is. Even with out sex today will be the same as it is with sex, sex isn't even the issue like I said that changed modern society. The technology of today changed the way we think, the way we act. I also get what your saying to, but like I said want something to blame is technology not sex, like I said sex is a choice not a problem starter, it does not have any affect on the whole world what you and your partner are doing behind close doors, what goes on behind close doors stays behind close doors.
Sex before marriage

Sex before marriage I believe is a choice that people should make themselves. That's a big part of life today is making your own decisions and if going out and having sex before marriage is what someone wants to do then its a parent or friends power to try and help them be safe about the choices they make. I am a parent my son is about two years old as he grows I wont be there everyday to watch him, but if he chooses to go out and have sex before marriage its in my power to teach him yes abstinence is the better way to go. He will make his own choices if I am next to him or not, so when I teach him about having intercourse, I tell him to be safe, sex before marriage like I said is a choice people make not society make that choice for everyone who do not want to wait for marriage to make love to there spouse. Should ask oneself a question unless you actually went your whole life as a child to a teen all the way to marriage not having no sex then this is a topic to be argue.
Sex before marriage

you miss understood alot i said, Im not going to push my child and yes he has a child life, and as for you to say you cant pursue any dreams or anything like that cause having children at a young age your wrong. i pursuing my dream not only to be a good father but also to become what i always wanted to become thats a soldier of our country. people choose to give up on pursueing there dreams when having children but alot of people dont. you kind of offended me alittle i didnt go through what i went through to just give up, no everything happens for a reason. my parents were married and then they had me after marriage. things don't always go as planned in the world, things happen you cant control them. All happens a reason, i told you my mother even though she was how she was she taught me a valuable lesson and so now my father taught me avaluable lesson. as for me pushing my son, no I want what a child should have and thats a life they should choose to live, with my guidence my son will make his choices i can only hope and pray i teach him right and the best i can. He has a life, regardless if me and his mother not together, he's my world all i want is for him to be happy. No i wasnt a product to the enviroment and no one is a product to there enviroment, were students to the enviroment we learn from the enviroment, grow strong all of us as a one in the world.
competition leads to the death of relationships

I will begin my first argument with some assumptions. First, although you have chosen the Con side, I believe you will be arguing "pro" based on your first post, and as such I will be arguing Con. Second, due to the wording of the title, I believe that you will be arguing that ALL kinds of competition necessarily lead to the death of ALL relationships; I will be debating that this is not necessarily true. I submit that if I can show any instances in which any kind of competition has not destroyed relationships, then I will have won this debate. Now to begin, the sole piece of evidence you used to support your argument was world war I, and specifically, how competition was a factor of the conflict. However, I believe this is a mistake. Even if competition was the sole cause of the war, this one instance doesn't define the whole of human relationships. I believe that there is more than one kind of competition; some destroy relationships, some don't. First, there is the competition for life and death. In this kind of competition, any relationship (if one ever existed) could be expected to take a hit. Second, there is competition for dominance, where pride is on the line. In these instances, relationships, if extant, could be damaged. However, there is also competition for fun, where, in the interest of having fun, some people will choose to put their pride aside and and compete with each other for fun. Sure, there are still hurt feelings sometimes, but these kinds of competitions have the ability to bring people together, to create friendships, and produce good, wholesome feelings. I can attest to this, as I love this kind of competition, and I have made friends this way. If this weren't true, why would friends gather together to play video/board games together? If your assertion was true, they would ALL become enemies, and would no longer compete together, but I think we see the opposite. Note: This is not to say that there aren't relationships that haven't been hurt because of competitive activities, but I would argue that even then, pride is probably the culprit.
Government impose restrictions on school lunches

My contender has committed a fallacy. He is assuming that funding and imposing restrictions are the same. Furthermore, if there is a vending machine in a public school, then the vending machine is most likely also being funded by the government. I fail to see Pro's stance on this topic.My contention remain unaddressed:-Private schools are not under the jurisdiction of the government, therefore they should not have imposed restrictions on their school lunches by the government.
Government impose restrictions on school lunches

I fail to comprehend as to how Pro's question supports his stance.Pro is claiming that because the government imposes restrictions on school lunches, children are getting fatter because the food imposed by the government is not healthy. Therefore, the government should not impose restrictions on school lunches BECAUSE it gets children fatter.Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to my contention:-Private schools are not government funded. They are not owned or supported by the government. Therefore the government should not impose restrictions on private school lunches.
Christianity does not support determinism

In my experience few people defend Christianity intelligently, so your defense was much appreciated I'm going to make this argument mercifully short. I provided you with Bible verses saying quite explicitly that determinism is true and you did not disagree with this interpretation instead you presented verses that say something contrary. Thus, by your own admission the Bible supports determinism. Since the Bible is the basis of Christianity, we can conclude that Christianity supports determinism even if it also supports freewill. Sure, there may be some theological conundrums with this fact, but that doesn't matter because we can never fully understand God, we only have his words to guide us. So, because of the way you phrased the debate, I necessarily win the debate because I have proven that Christianity does support determinism.