BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

I agree, AT THIS POINT, there is no proof of their existing of anything that could be considered "supernatural".However, the idea of the supernatural is still valid. People throughout history lived through stories of the supernatural.(Roman and Greek mythology, the Bible, horror monsters such as vampires, werewolves, etc)The Harry Potter Books, any sci-fi movie that has technology beyond our comprehension at the moment...Story-telling, movies, and books are a source of entertainment. Entertainment is very much a valid idea in today's world. The TV show by the same name as the term in question: Supernatural, is a show regarding the hunting of these 'supernatural monsters'. It has been going on for over 10 seasons. its longevity as a show (200+ episodes) validates the term as a great source of entertainment.The Harry Potter Books, probably one of the most successful book series of all times, adapted into movies. The entire plot based on the supernatural wizarding world. The Bible, the most popular book of all time. It's supernatural stories (Creation of the World, Jesus Miracles, God(/Creator) spiritually communicating with prophets, Jesus rising from the dead). These stories have formed a religion.The Christian religion (as well as others) is a supernatural story regarding the creation of the world, sin, and the perfect, immaterial forgiveness of those sins.Anyone who states religion is not a valid idea in today's society is fooling themselves. Yes there are people who, individually, do not believe in the Christian religion, but they understand that many people (1 billion +) do believe as this "supernatural story" of Christianity to very much be a valid idea in the real world.So to recap, Entertainment and Religion are two very valid ideas in today's society in which the supernatural is glorified or believed. Thus proving the supernatural is a valid idea in the real world as well.
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in any real sense. It implies that there are things beyond the natural world that are still able to, in some way, affect the natural world. There exists no solid evidence of any supernatural event and there exists no way to reproduce and test any claim of a supernatural event. I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world.
User Mikal has a second account, inductivelogic, that always votes for him.

I wish he would have took this lol.To clear the question, i know him personally in real life. I use to live down the street from him before he moved. I also have docked him points in debates and he has beaten me in a few. Which is why he the only person on my list at the moment because I added him. He talked me into making an account and I enjoy see how people think. I don't see how I could cover my tracks where as this the case. Hypothecially even if it were true, I do not have the time to offer debates on two accounts lol.Thank you for sharing your thoughts though. Since this is opinonated I will forfit the rest of the rounds, just thought I would clear that up <3
User Mikal has a second account, inductivelogic, that always votes for him.

Here is some overwhelming circumstancial evidence supporting my assertion. Mikal has won 11/11 of his debates. Impressive. Until we look at his profile and notice a "friend" named inductivelogic who seems to always be involved with Mikal. Proof #1:Inductivelogic has voted in 9 out of 11 of Mikal's debates, the other two debates involving Mikal vs. inductivelogic, meaning inductivelogic wasn't eligible to vote. However, he did make it pretty obvious that he was debating himself as i'll show the conversation below Proof #2: Inductivelogic has voted in Mikal's favor 100% of the time. That's right. In all 9 debates in which he was eligible to vote, Inductivelogic has given Mikal the vote. Proof #3:Inductivelogic's only friend is Mikal. Not only is it extremely unusual for inductivelogic to have been voting in all of Mikals debates, especially always in Mikals favor, but his only friend is one that has exremely high voting involvement for Mikal. Proof #4: Inductivelogic's personal info including relationship status, ethnicity, ideology ect are all basically opposite of Mikals. One thing in particular, inductivelogic's religion is listed as Deism, and Mikal's religion status is Atheist. Inductivelogics only friend Inductivelogics info Link to this picture . http://s23.postimg.org... Mikals info Link to this picture: . http://s16.postimg.org... Next, here are 9 of the 11 debates in which inductivelogic was eligible to vote in, the other 2 were against inductivelogic. I'll present my evidence and see if you think those 2 debates seemed fake (for the purpose of granting Mikal easy wins). I've shortened the title of Mika's won debates for simplicity but feel free to see them through Mikals account - I provided a link to both accounts below. objective morality is there a god hundreds years old gun control gay marriage college basketball Christianity harm bible true Semi auto ban In the 2 out of 11 debates Inductivelogic didn't vote for Mikal, were against Mikal. See if you think this isn't a fake conversation. Obviously, the outcome was meant for Mikal to win. Conversation 1: . http://s23.postimg.org... Conversation 2: . http://s13.postimg.org... In conclusion: I am asserting that 1) inductivelogic is Mikal's second account and 2) that inductivelogic is an account meant to benefit Mikal by voting for him and letting him win debates. If you doubt any of my information I have posted on their accounts, here is a link to them. Mikals account: . http://www.debate.org... Inductivelogics account: . http://www.debate.org... ****NOTE: All of this information is accurate as of Friday, July 19 1:25pm. I would not be surprised if this topic makes him cover his tracks.
The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

Rules:Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.You must agree that this will be a fair debate, using unfair advantages is not allowed.No use of profanities or swear words.No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.No threats or implications thereof.No cheating.My name is Emily Molloy, chairman of the Royalist Tea Party."At the beginning of July, 26-year-old Mallory Loyola gave birth to a baby girl. Two days later, the state of Tennessee charged her with assault. Loyola is the first woman to be arrested under a new law in Tennessee that allows the state to criminally charge mothers for potentially causing harm to their fetuses by using drugs." - http://goo.gl...The Royalist Tea Party believes this is yet another instance where, instead of putting policy towards making a situation better, we put policy towards criminalization. And wow, is this frustrating to read about. First round is acceptance for my opponent, after acceptance I will then provided my arguments that the government has no business arresting this person on such "assault" charges.
The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

Pro has dropped every argument except the one that prenatal exposure to marijuana is harmful. I extend every other argument, including all seven of my rebuttals. Because these arguments have gone unanswered, voters should take the Con side by default unless they find it to be completely without merit.Pro's argument that I have failed to provide actual evidence is just not true. My sources [5][6][7] from Round 3 cover the effects of prenatal exposure to marijuana in great detail, backing up the examples of dysfunctions related to marijuana that I introduced in Round 2. The evidence is so well documented that anyone with basic computer skills can find it - you do not need to be a researcher to confirm everything for yourself. As was my job in the debate, I have collected ample evidence for voters to verify that my statements are correct.I am very disappointed that Pro has chosen to essentially forfeit the last round of the debate.
The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

"This is what I could find by searching for a few minutes with minimal effort and no with no experience looking up medical studies."I am not going to answer any of your arguments. You have failed to prove the evidence. And I don't mean an article that you read that says it's bad, I mean the actual statistics. Actual reports that say cannabis causes these problems in children. You won't get any. The only thing people are going to say is to stop because it can harm your baby. This is clear vote for Pro as Con can only talk and talk and talk about how it does harm and how this and that and this. Con has failed to prove any actual evidence. Thank you for this debate.
The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

(1). The research also states:..... "No studies have shown that prenatal cocaine exposure causes unique developmental dysfunction"...."Despite the lack of supportive research, the belief that drug babies suffer permanent damage".... "Richardson and Day, who have done extensive research on drug-exposed infants, published preliminary data about the use of cocaine, crack, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other drugs during each trimester of pregnancy (Richardson and Day, 1994). Their data and analysis show that "the effects of cocaine use on infant outcome were an illusion."(2). Where's the evidence? And I don't mean an article that you read that says it's bad, I mean the actual statistics. Actual reports that say cannabis causes these problems in children. You won't get any. The only thing people are going to say is to stop because it can harm your baby. What the government is doing is taking her freedom away just because they, and others, don't like what she does with her own child and own life. We cannot even prove it actually does harm, yet can talk and talk and talk about it. The bottom line is, we officially don't know, so why make it a crime if it's just a theory?(3). We favour restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognise the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. Tere's nothing wrong with THC during pregnancy. It's not going to hurt the fetus. The only debatable issue is smoking it. I don't think any type of smoke that enters your lungs during pregnancy is good, but again, it's not going to hurt the baby. And another problem is that if you smoke the whole pregnancy, you and your baby will test positive if drug tested and then you could get in serious trouble from CPS if you do not have a medical marijuana card! But other than that, there's no evidence that THC is harmful to you or your baby. These are just theories people talk about, the government has no business to treat these people like criminals.
The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

Now let's begin with the arguments. Our country chooses to waste our tax dollars by locking up these kind of people instead of getting them the care they need. In fact, there's no injury to the fetus as studies have found that exposing fetuses to these kind of drugs is about as harmful as exposing them to cigarettes. [1]Stopping completely could cause a miscarriage - so putting her in jail may well accomplish the pregnancy termination. [2] This country is supposed to be a capitalist society with individualism. "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. "[3] "Individualism is a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. "[4] Like other health issues, should be addressed through our public health system and not through our criminal system or our welfare system. That's just harsh and extremely uncalled for. Plus, the criminalization of pregnant women impacts women[6] who often end up losing custody of their children. [5] Sources:[1] . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...[6] . http://goo.gl...
Abortion

My opponent has taken an absolute stance by stating "Elective abortions are immoral" which on the face of it heavily implies "all elective abortions". If I can point to at least a plausibly common situation where elective abortions are not immoral, then the vote should go to me."If they are unable to or uninterested in having a child of their own at that point in their life they should be having protected sex or practicing abstinence. The baby should not be prevented from living their life because of their parents poor decision making."Many, if not most, of abortions are a result of failed contraceptives, not failure to use contraceptives. The parents, in these cases, have not made any poor decisions. Also, about 1 percent of all abortions are due to rape. Was it a poor decision on the part of the victim to be raped, NPerez? Maybe you should do counseling."In addition, if the parents truly believe that they are unable to take care of their child there are alternatives."In some cases, the stress the fetus places on the mother's blood pressure and health in the third trimester is too much and would result in the death of the mother and fetus. In cases like these, it is clearly not immoral to save the life of the mother at the cost of the fetus which wouldn't have survived anyway.
Abortion

Elective abortions are those in which the abortion is open to choice by the parents of the baby. By having the choice to kill a baby is violating the moral principles of a human. Many abortions are conducted due to lack of care from the parents. If they are unable to or uninterested in having a child of their own at that point in their life they should be having protected sex or practicing abstinence. The baby should not be prevented from living their life because of their parents poor decision making. In addition, if the parents truly believe that they are unable to take care of their child there are alternatives. Abortion is not the only route; the child can be put up for adoption that way they can live the life they deserve to live.
Goku is stronger than Vegeta

Goku's mental outlook on fighting and life is to put all effort into it as hard as possible in one go.He fights with all his might only conserving energy if he happens to feel mercy upon his enemy.He is naturally more curious and creative a character than the more rational, pragmatic Vegeta. This is the only reason he divulges into the different expert levels of the super saiyan often just for the sake of it. Vegeta is a super saiyan, he just doesn't bother to always delve deeper and deeper into the mysteries of his power and only fights to win (often hiding his true potential until the moment he has to unleash his super saiyan self). Goku goes all out in every single fight pretty much.Vegeta is an assassin by nature, he isn't an artist and doesn't care about the aesthetic aspect of fighting. Due to this, he often doesn't bother to fight that well but has actually come extremely close to beating goku completely when he decided to go to his Oozaru mode (ape mode) something which goku fails to master fully.Goku is a crazy lunatic hell-bent on being the hero all the time. Vegeta appears less strong because he only fights as is necessary to beat his opponent, he never does a move more powerful than what he thinks is minimum requirement to win.http://www.youtube.com...
Goku is stronger than Vegeta

I totally disagree.I think that Goku gets all the attention because DBZ pretty much revolves around him. It's like thinking Harry Potter is a stronger wizard than Dumbledore just because he is the main character.Vegeta might be officially ranked second class in comparison to Goku but they literally are at the same level man.Every amazing thing about Goku is also present in Vegeta. vegeta is just the more humble guy of the two, he shows off less often and keeps more to himself in fights, preferring to conserve energy than unleash full strength at once.
Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

Topic:Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical.Structure:R1: Acceptance onlyR2: Core cases only (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals (no new responses)Other:The Law: http://michigansvoice.com...Context: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Thanks:In advance to my opponent, and to the inane legislators of Michigan who made this debate possible by passing into law this affront to morality.
resolved that fraternities be banned in schools.

Fraternities have been part of education system since Phi Beta Kappa was founded in 1776. While in recent years some fraternities have gone "off track" the majority have been productive institutions established for the betterment of the community and student population as a whole. Fraternities are philanthropic organizations created for the betterment of the community in which they are established. Furthermore, Fraternities provide opportunities for like minded people to create close bonds and develop professional relationships that last for years.
Father's should have equal rights as women in abortion.

http://www.menandabortion.info... There are many father's who disagree with this issue and no they are not rapist. I do understand what you are saying but the law can enforce this and make it strong against bad fathers. There is also things to say against abortion and women's choice with abortion. Abortion does make the woman's body suffer just as much as having a child. http://catholiceducation.org.... Abortion also hurts the father so I think its way better of if the law were to change.
Father's should have equal rights as women in abortion.

I'm just trying to say there is a way a father/male were to have a right to choose just as much as the mother/female could. I don't think it matters the timeline of proof I have shown. . http://www.sciencedaily.com... I read again what you wrote about why not letting men having equal rights. I disagree with this because all of the court has to do is just as much as they basically do with custody battles. I see no difference. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Father's should have equal rights as women in abortion.

Your spelling, grammar and overall structure of thought is very distracting. Both of your sources are pure conjecture and unforgivably outdated. http://www.menandabortion.info... http://catholiceducation.org... "There are many father's who disagree with this issue and no they are not rapist." This is a generalization that is incapable of being false. That's like saying "There are many boys that prefer chocolate milk." To say so makes no ground in either direction. No matter how the law is worded, how definitive or specific the idea or purpose it can still be misused. All laws can be misused. "Abortion does make the woman's body suffer just as much as having a child." This is religious, faith-based claim that has no grounding in any study performed to date nor can it be demonstrated by anecdotal evidence. It is used to reduce the physical contrast of the two in order to minimize pregnancy. You have yet to prove that a loving father, in a committed relationship with a stable person has suffered the loss of a child due to an abortion he was not consulted about. You have concluded the solution to a problem that you have not proven to exist. Please provide proof that your solution has a problem to be applied to.
JOKE LD - Moral Obligation and the "Tickle Cream of Death"

This debate is to follow the structure of an LD debate and is based off of the following scenario from the book "Sticky Situations" :"This is Tricia's first big slumber party. She has had as many as three friends spend the night at her house, but she has never been to a party with a dozen girls all getting together. She's really looking forward to the party. All through the early part of the evening, a couple of the girls teasingly warned the other girls not to be the first one to fall asleep. Although Tricia asked why, no one would tell her. They only laughed and said, "You'll see!"Try as she might to stay awake, Tricia was really tired, so she made the terrible mistake of being the first one to fall asleep. A few hours later she was awakened by a funny smell and a damp feeling on her head. Staggering into the bathroom, she discovered that her so-called friends had given her the "royal shampoo" - Vaseline, shaving cream, eggs, honey, and flour. She is beside herself. How will she ever get all of this junk out of her hair? As she fusses about the state of her head, she hears giggles and whispers coming from the direction of the living room. "Yeah," she mutters to herself, close to tears. "Laugh now. I'll get you all!"Tricia is angry beyond words. She can't believe that the girls she considers her friends did this to her. It would serve them right if she were to stomp out of there, grab her sleeping bag, and go home. Of course, it's two o'clock in the morning, and her parents probably won't appreciate being awakened by the phone. What is she going to do?" Regarding the above situation the resolution for this debate will be -Resolved: Tricia is morally obligated to "Tickle Cream of Death" her friends.For the purposes of today's debate the following definition applies -Tickle Cream of Death: refers to a punishment where one applies whip cream to others' hands and tickles their noses."her friends" will be taken to refer to the friends who subjected Tricia to the "royal shampoo" treatment. Both sides are expected to have a value and criterion and debate in a manner typical to LD debate. The character limit for each post is 10,000 characters, there is 72 hours for each post and the voting period is set for 1 month. There are four rounds following the format of -1 - acceptance2 - cases3 - rebuttals 4 - summaries No new evidence is allowed in summaries. Judges please note this is to be a "joke" debate given the nature of the topic, while typical LD structure should be applied, the heart of this debate is ... well silly. Please include a detailed RFD when you vote and you might find this more enjoyable to read if you are familiar with how LD is structured and enjoy nonsense. And with all of those beautiful serious aspects aside, I look forward to what should be a light-hearted debate with my opponent, though certainly a challenging one as well.