BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Black Lives Matter Movement supporters are the true racists.

Thank you for accepting the debate, despite your peculiarity to already state the rules of debate. First we must understand how racism has come to be defined, and then I will offer points on their hypocritical notion of racism. Racism has been defined by liberal whites and non-whites, of course. Liberal whites claim that racism is believing that race is real or relevant to modern day life. Non-whites, on the other hand, have come to define racism as prejudice accompanied with power- thus, arbitrarily (stereotyping- of which you seem to be familiar) giving the term to whites. If you haven't already caught the contradiction, non-whites have now become racists in the eyes of liberal whites! And the non-white definition, believing that racism is prejudice plus power, only heaps on further instances of racism from liberal whites! The paradox is, on the two sides, you are either a racist for accepting the reality of race, or you are a racist for denying it. The Black Lives Matter movement charges the justice system with being racist, and prejudiced toward blacks. The founder of Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, of whom many know nothing about, creates a saint out of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur. She, in fact, was also a communist. Many Black Lives Matter supporters decked themselves with shirts that read "Assata taught me." This, of course, is a sign of lifting up murderers! The cops to which they will only readily identify in the media, as white, are the murderers to them. A profound argument, against the Black Lives Matter movement lies in the alarming statistics of black on black crime, or black babies killed due to abortion. The phrase should be, "Only CRIMINAL Black Lives Matter." Furthering the charges against them, Martin O Malley, visited a room full of Black Lives Matter activists. He said during his speech, "All Lives Matter," but later had to apologize because he offended the crowd. Therefore, it is clear that the Black Lives Matter movement seeks only the regression of whites.
POkemon is better than Sonic

Pok"mon revolutionized gaming more than sonic when it came out because it introduced trading and online battling and lots of customization with moves and evs. It also introduced npcs who you battle to level up get moves, and evolve which are all things sonic does NOT have. I am not good at debates so I will just put lots of ! again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POkemon is better than Sonic

I believe that Sonic is the best representative of the gaming sphere of the time, in rival to Pokémon. Sonic and Pokémon, even though being extremely well-known, are two separate spheres of games. Sonic revolutionized gaming when it first came out, and still continues (even with some bad titles) to try and draw the player back into the childhood nostalgia that they first experiences. Pokemon continues to produce an almost identical looking game every couple of years. Now, lets debate!
POkemon is better than Sonic

I think that Pok"mon is better because Sonic is just you running around collecting coins. Pok"mon is you leveling up catching your team to fight, breeding, traveling, and fighting the gym leaders! Sonic is just an excuse for Capcom to make money! Pok"mon is full of battles and excitement but sonic is 1 battle and you running and dodging obstacles. Pok"mon is WAY better than Sonic. Go game freak and Nintendo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!this it to make room !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POkemon is better than Sonic

Actually Megaman I think came out first and THAT revolutionized sidescrollers because of all the enemies and being able to get different weapons. Also my opponent has only opinions in his argument. Those are opinions. But Pokémon DID. It introduced everything that games STILL do not have today. Sonic just increased the speed of the game! Later Sonic games had more obstacles, which made it harder. Pokémon first introduced having different characters to fight as. I hope that you'll vote for me Thx
POkemon is better than Sonic

Even though Pokémon revolutionized the RPG genre of video games, Sonic was a completely different genre-defining game in its many features. Sonic helped revolutionize the idea of the platformer, while also becoming a sensation with younger gamers at its release. With its innovative ideas of speed and the player being in control of the character while he speeds through the land, gamers both new and old flock to this game. Sonic helped push along the ideas which modern games follow today!
is technology making our brains foolish

actually i wanted u to give a start up argument and so i wrote wat u saw listen technology has been created by humans its has not landed from outer space . we humans have created technology , to create it , we need to be smart from our brains and so we are . the fact is ,the level of the advancEment in the technology depends upon the level of the intelligence or smartness of the organism's brain . since human technology is getting more and more advanced every day the level of our smartness or intelligence is increasing every day , if it was decreasing or if it was making our brains foolish then our technological development would have slowed down. and so i have proved the cause , since u can not deny that our technological growth is decreasing . can u for ur second argument i would say that its is completly irrelevant since we here are toking abt is tech making our brains go foolish . we are not toking abt whether it is causing destruction to us by the creation of weapons. ADVICE - STRICT TO THE TOPIC PLZZZ.....
is technology making our brains foolish

I was allowing you to post your argument. You are saying that technology is making people smarter and want to debate this you must have an argument. My position is that technology is not making us smarter. Since you failed to post your arguments I will go ahead with mine. Presentation 1) Television. People are spending a lot of time watching television and not everything being watched is educational. People are giving up time they could be using to study or learn something new in order to watch TV[1]. 2) Weapons. Technology is being applied to weapons. This leads to children having to worry about being their safety during school hours. If you have heard of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, safty is above the needs for intelligent growth[2]. [1] http://www.ait.net... [2] http://www.ait.net...
Famer's Story Writing Debating Tournament, Imabench vs Ren!

"He was f*cking his son????" - Horatio "Yeah, and really hard too...." - Mart "And you immediately alerted the authorities and left?" - Klaus "Well not exactly......... At first I was horrified at how hard he was f*cking his son..... But I couldnt stop looking..... I just watched it go on and on, it was actually a thrill to watch. I soon started ROOTING for him before I even knew why, he was just SO GOOD AT IT that it was baffling. He was doing things I didnt even think was POSSIBLE, I even wanted to use a few moves against MY OWN son...... The way he was f*cking his son at Modern Warfare 3 was truly a spectacle to watch" - Mart "Oh THATS what you meant" - Ginger "What the hell did you think I meant?" - Mart "Wait, so then why did you retire out of nowhere?" "Watching the kids dad play video games while I went around making his dream for him, doing whatever I wanted in his mind against his will, it finally got to me. I think that what we are doing is wrong because even though we only use it to prove a persons guilt when there is already overwhelming evidence, that its just not our right to intervene a mans own subconscious to trick him into admitting guilt. Jenson was innocent all along but his own subconscious tricked him into thinking he was guilty. we still havent found the actual rapist and his rape count as of Tuesday topped 2,000,000 cases...............I retired because this isnt a 100% safe business like I was promised, so I left it all behind immediately and disappeared." - Mart 00:05............. 00:04.......... 00:03........... 00:02.......... *click* Mart stopped his watch. The catastrophe was averted, everything was cleaned up, and he finally got the truth out. The team soon disbanded after the incident, they all keep in touch though and regularly get together. They do reminisce about their accomplishments over the years and the crazy characters they played in people's dreams. After years and years many of them started to have their own dreams again since the drugs that they used in entering other people's dreams made it so that they couldnt dream themselves unless they to were sedated..... The drugs prevented them from dreaming for a long long time but after they retired from the practice, the effects of the drugs wore off. They all grew old and wise, made their own money and their own careers, but the remarkable part is that 50 years later all of them had passed away in their sleep. Dreaming.
Famer's Story Writing Debating Tournament, Imabench vs Ren!

"Everything is connected," Mart concluded. "Delving into the minds of people -- it's not what you think it is." "Elaborate," urged Horacio."Well, I mean, think about this. We're invading the minds of people. Do you realize some of the things I've seen? Some of the things I've manifested by mistake? Take Arthur Jensen -- oh my God, and what a good guy, too--" began Mart."The Arthur Jensen? The one who's case was dropped? You know what happened with that?" Horacio interrupted gregariously."Oh, indeed," Mart continued, "let me tell you."So, I was strolling through his mind, created a rather nice landscape, I'd say, when I noticed a door out of nowhere. I had a pretty bad feeling about this door, and I was pretty reluctant to open it. It was pretty surreal overall; it was as though the very dimension of the dream permeated my emotions and began to affect and manipulate them in ways that I was so beyond control, I was almost oblivious. I didn't want to open the door so badly, I started crying, and I was on my knees begging, please, don't make me open this door. I was sobbing on, the ground, tears steaming down my cheeks and seaking into my shirt, to the extent that my shirt was sticking to my chest and I was heaving and sobbing so hard that my chest hurt. And suddenly, I stopped, I got up, did one of those stuttering breaths (I was completely pulled together by now, btw), and I got up and opened the door. There he was, fvcking his son, and what was I do to, to see the glee in his eyes, the utter abandon in pure bliss. And it stank; God, the smell was atrocious, and his nose was flaring and he was exhaling steam -- sweating all over."I notified the authorities and disappeared."Everyone remained silent, frozen in time.
Famer's Story Writing Debating Tournament, Imabench vs Ren!

That man’s name was Marteuse Ricotti. If there was anything about him, he knew all the right people. So, he called Adam Kazama out of Okinawa and Henri Beughel out of the Netherlands and set up a webcam conference in ten minutes. In the meanwhile, he made his way to the nearest vehicle, expertly disengaged the driver’s side door lock, and sat inside. Once inside, he hotwired it like a pro, or a delinquent at least, and in three minutes flat, he was making a left at Bloomington Blvd. He stopped at a CVS and picked up all of the surgical masks -- well, he left a few behind just in case -- and brought them to the front counter. Then, to their great annoyance, he claimed that he wanted only three, figuring their lazy as ses would have the rest right there behind the counter when sh it went down.Actually, they were quite lazy, but also stupid, and left it sitting right there on the counter. At just that moment, their manager angrily screamed from his office for two of the employees to come to his office, and they all paraded back there to see what the commotion was about. There was a customer left wandering the store, and when he saw that everyone had left from the front momentarily, he walked out with everything he had in his hand, several candy bars, and, inexplicably, all of the surgical masks that were on the counter.So, yeah. That’s what happened to them.Mart pulled into a Shell gas station and put the car into park, letting it idle. He took out his mini notebook and prepared to have the conversation that might save Califronia.
Ert flot

I know you're just kinda going around messing with people, but I'll play along I guess, I mean why not? Most people who genuinely believe in flat earth tend to start with the conclusion, and work backwards. Moreover I don't pay attention to flat earth because it is not to be taken seriously. Most of those who claim to believe flat earth are trolls such as yourself. Though I remember seeing a video series by a YouTuber called "CoolHardLogic" debunking a bunch of flat earth arguments. I do feel sorry for those who actually believe flat earth, in my experience they tend to be mentally ill.
This house supports unfettered freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " 1st Amendment US Constitution Despite the freedom guaranteed the citizens of the United States of America to "free speech", there are historically rooted exceptions. Of these exceptions, manner of speech is the most controversial. While restricting the use of bullhorns in residential neighborhoods at night is not overly detrimental to the freedom granted, restricting of the message of the user or the bullhorn just may be. The question therefor must concentrate around content, and what content may or should be restricted. Examples of speech that has been restricted [1] " To incite actions that would harm others Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). " To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). " Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). " Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007). These limits to speech have been tested in the courts and unhealed.
Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life

I would like to apologize for saying that God is the opposite of logic because that is not true. God is completely detached from logic. But here's a question for you: if you don't believe that the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, what makes you think it was God? Why does it have to be a cognitive and all powerful being? That is the extent of my third argument because it expands into so much more.
Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life

When logic is up against the absolute opposite of logic (god), as god is everything that logic isn't, there is no way that logic can win. This creates a situation where both sides have to argue with "lack of logic," which, once again creates a situation where logic cannot win. However, the problem with the argument for god is that one cannot use logic for defining god without breaking the fact that god cannot be defined and is everything that logic isn't. This leads to an infinite paradox in which neither side can win the argument. Since an argument is not based in logic, there is nothing within the realm of logic that can defeat it. This makes the argument for God just as effective, from a logical standpoint, as the argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that A=A does nothing to support your claim, as it comes from an assumption that everything has limits, and therefore refutes God. There is plenty of evidence for "supposed events" such as the Big Bang, such as gamma radiation and universal expansion. This is not to say that the Big Bang is a completely infallible theory. It has many holes that need explaining. This is not to say that you can simply fill them with god. Science is the process of finding these answers.
Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life

From what we do "know"(Because there are a limited and finite number of absolute truths A=A), there is no evidence that either proves nor disproves the existence or compatibility of God within the structures that are(Universe and the Rules it abides-physics). Contrary, due to the nature of the information we do "know", I am more inclined to believe that there was some supreme force(God) that set things into motion(possibly Big Bang). Because of the inability for science or religion(we are only human) to provide adequate evidence for supposed events, we will not debate the validity of possibility of the Big Bang or religious events or anything specific(Both are easily disproved as a result of uncertainty), this argument is designed to show us all that we really don't KNOW as much as we think, and must leave the room of possibilities to those things that can't be absolutely proven incorrect, such as our origin or purpose. RESPECTFUL AND THOUGHT PROVOKING DEBATE PLEASE
The teaching of the Trinity have Confused Christian who believe in it.

I believe I can rest my case from this particular excerpt from John. "15 "If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper who will be with you forever. 17 That helper is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it doesn"t see or know him. You know him, because he lives with you and will be in you." So, here we have Jesus (Member of the Trinity) saying that He will ask the Father (Member of the Trinity) to send a HELPER who will be the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit, Member of Trinity) . He goes on to explain that He lives within us, and that the world can't accept Him because it doesn't see or know Him. He explicitly calls this "unintelligent force" a HIM. He directly states that it is an individual who is to be a helper to the Apostles. So, you're wrong. The Holy Spirit is an individual and a member of the Trinity. God is one, yet three different people. It's similar to a cube. It consists of six individual squares, yet it makes up one shape.
The teaching of the Trinity have Confused Christian who believe in it.

I accept your challenge Pro. So, you said The Bible does not support the Trinity. Well, since you said the Bible that includes both the Old and New Testament. (I apologize for my lack of quotations, my computer seems to be broken at the moment.) A better argument would have been that the Old Testament does not support the Trinity. (It still does, but it would have been a harder debate). So, lets begin. I will reference a number of Scripture that references the Trinity. (1.) In Genesis 1:1-2 we read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This part of the Scripture clearly speaks of the Holy Spirit. A member of the three part Trinity. It talks of God, and then it says The Spirit of God. (2.) "Let us make Mankind in our image" is another famous quotation that references the Trinity. Some would say that it's said in the form of the royal "we". However, given the earlier portion of the Creation account that talks of The Spirit of God we can infer that it was actually God conversing with the other two of the Trinity. (3.) "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [Matthew 28:19]. (4.) "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" [2 Corinthians 13:14]. So, I have given you four examples. Two from the Old Testament and Two from the New Testament. Be reminded Pro, you said that it wasn't found in the Bible. The Bible consists of Old and New Testaments. I would also like to remind you that this debate isn't over if the Trinity makes sense to you or not, or whether or not Jesus was the Messiah/Son of God. Its purely over whether or not we can find mention of the Trinity in the Bible. Nowhere does it explicitly say "God is three different aspects" its inferred, implied, and shown through the language, and the plural nature of God's name. Then the later New Testament which has Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit and the Triune God. I eagerly wait for your arguments.
Would the United States be able to take the world in a global dominion campaign

Previously you mentioned that the Americans that have immigrated to America wouldn't let this happen. Why did they move to America in the first place? Because they liked it better than where they started off. Think back to Vietnam, what did we have our soldiers doing then? Killing civilians that fought back, do you think they enjoyed doing it?? No, but they had their orders and a soldier follows his orders. Civilian casualties happen all the time, its just So yes they would maintain the attack on the world. As you so clearly stated to we have the equipment to maintain the attack as well. And what we lose we could just re-stock our nation with the equipment and men of conquered countries. Also your spy argument, the part about surveillance, America has superior space tech. We could make it to were the rest of the world couldn't utilize space and that would leave them virtually blind. Hell, they wouldn't even be able to predict the weather. Canada isn't going to put up much off a fight and invading Canada is going to solve our "fuel problems". And Mexico doesn't threaten America either, they don't have the military capabilities. If we took Canada and Mexico it would effectively block any land attacks in addition to the already stumped air and naval attacks. Nobody has the ability to attack America and end it by destroying us, our space superiority would allow us to see any oncoming attack before it happens and then we could effectively counter it. That's not an option then. So beating us on the battlefield?? As you so graciously pointed out we have the equipment for the attacks, so battlefield defeat is highly unlikely. When all you have is a hammer everything else looks like a nail.
Would the United States be able to take the world in a global dominion campaign

America may have the equipment to pull of the task, but the world is not willing enough. Firstly, Americans would not back this attempt to take over the world, including the American troops that would be fighting it. The world would easily join forces to put an end to a start of any attack before it starts. There are spies all over America from other countries. The nations of the United Nations all agree that it is okay to spy on the Nation's happenings. They can deploy spies and surveillance provided it doesn't invade privacy. If an aircraft carrier loaded with equipment were to start going over the Atlantic, they would get smoked by enemy aircraft and ships. The equipment may be there, but the resistance would be too strong.