BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Naruto vs Luffy

thanks and continue Luffy in his second gear seems faster than anything we've seen in Naruto, in ep 272, when he uses the first time, we have thought of so great is its speed. Luffy has a certain resistance to various types of thick materials, any physical attack Naruto would be useless, since a sword was used against him in the first episode and was broken to pieces at once. Luffy attacks is much worse, coming to destroy an entire ship with only physical attacks, showing up to fold an entire city, breaking it up with your strength, without any kind of Haki. It is more than remarkable that when Naruto get some direct attack of Luffy, will be in serious trouble. When you mentioned the view in the user's chakra, chakra let's remember that the world is not the OP, only Haki.
Naruto vs Luffy

That... was difficult to understand... however I will proceed. The Kyuubi inside of naruto is akin to the gomu gomu no mi in some ways. Due to the kyuubi sealed inside of him naruto possesses an advanced healing factor, shown after his fight with the demon brothers (when he tried to drain the poison out of his blood by stabbing a kunai through his hand, and moments later there was no injury.) and also during his fight with pain (when he is impaled six times with rods that prevent him from using his energy, he becomes enraged at the death of hinata, and is shown to be healthy once he calms down.) Naruto also has complete control over the chakra (energy) in his body, as shown by his early training with kakashi, during the zabuza arc. Naruto also has the ability to summon the sage frogs, who were able to defeat pains summons with relative ease. In response to the haki ability to anticipate attacks and discern the surroundings, naruto learns to work with the kyuubi and can detect negative emotions and sense chakra, meaning that similar to the sharingan and the byakugan naruto can see attacks before they happen, and utilize his superior speed to dodge any technique luffy can use. VOTE CON! I await your response
Naruto vs Luffy

Thank you for the debate, let's begin. just to have an idea of what to discuss, I'll put some quotes in this debate as 1 - Gomu Gomu no mi - Devil Fruit powers it grants to the User who eat it, turning into rubber, it is only made R03;R03;of rubber, can stretch as well as understand, inflates, and not feel physical pain by means common (example - if it hammering the finger unintentionally, will not hurt it). 2 - Gear Second - Luffy to be made R03;R03;of rubber bombards masses thick rubber, which can activate your bloodstream throughout the body, as he makes an adrenaline whenever you want, getting extremely fast, strong, agile, and resilient, etc. 3 - Third Gear - Luffy can inflate its members rubber leaving them with large ma"ivamente thunderous attacks. 4 - Haki - mysterious spiritual force present in all living things, the first is the observation haki such as anticipate attacks, have awareness of what goes around, etc., the 2 weapons, physical attacks can leave much more powerful, as Haki put on a stone and playing in a tree, cut the tree and the damage is unusual, also make invisible barriers for defense, and virtually indestructible. 3 has very few (Luffy has), it is the intimidation or the King, he intimidates the mind releasing its golden, needing a minimum of mental effort to be conscious in front of the 3 haki user and can even break things. That, hopefully, have a great debate.
RESOLVED: Affirmative action is a failure and should be repealed

I believe you are thinking of the New Haven firefighters and it wasn't Kagan, but Sotomayer who originally withheld the decision [1]. This is, again, something that went before the supreme court, and was found to be in violation of section 7 of the 1964 civil rights act. And these policies should be shot down every time someone tries to use them. But, we should note that these are not Affirmative Action policies, these are anti-affirmative action policies, as it is the Affirmative Action laws which are shooting this discriminative laws down. So I will repeat that Affirmative action laws, like the civil rights act of 1964, are what is correcting these discriminative policies from staying in place, and if we remove them, such discriminative policies will continue to be formed and only hurt americans, our society, and our economy. Thank you, [1] http://www.csmonitor.com...
RESOLVED: Affirmative action is a failure and should be repealed

My opponent states that "AA is the system of quota hiring of racial minorities..." I'd like to point out that such a definition cannot really apply to this debate as there are no legal policies that require that, and so, nothing to repeal. The supreme court already established in 1978 that quotas are a violation of the constitution and defined as racist policies by the civil rights act of 1964 [1]. Affirmative Action is already being upheld to the true intent of the civil rights amendments by the EEOC [2], and it clearly states that it is about "equality" not "reverse racism." I think my opponent and I can both agree that reverse racism (which is just another form of racism), however, I have shown that this reverse racism is not what affirmative action is, nor is it any policy which should be "repealed." Also, all previous arguments extended. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.eeoc.gov...
RESOLVED: Affirmative action is a failure and should be repealed

AA is the system of quota hiring of racial minorities to the disadvantage of white males. Although I am not quite legally a minority, if I had a little bit more Native blood I would be legal. However, I would not desire to be hired based on my race. I have no problem with making it illegal to discriminate, but to institute racial regulations into a non-racially charged workplace is counterproductive. I support anti-discrimination laws, but I oppose quota systems of hiring.
RESOLVED: Affirmative action is a failure and should be repealed

I am going to assume that we are talking about legal Affirmative Action (AA) as it pertains to the USA. What is AA [1]? If you look online, you'll find many "definitions" which claim that AA is the promotion of a "protected group" in an attempt to undo past "harms." But none of these hold any merit to any law which could be "repealed." When talking about officially repealing something, we must be talking about a law to repeal, or a governmental policy. When looking through the EEOC [6], we see that no where is one required to promote any "protected group." In fact, all it calls for is to, "make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information." If we look at the original AA documents, executive order 10925 [2], executive order 11246 [3], executive order 11375 [4], and the civil rights amendment of 1964 [5], we see that no where is promotion of one "protected group" over another in those legal laws. Infact, title 7 of the civil rights amendment of 1964 actually classifies any reverse discrimination as a violation of the amendment (unless you were a member of the communist party, they're cool to discriminate against). We can see that the really AA is not something that should be repealed or pulled back in any way, as it only promotes that people should be hired on their merit and nothing else. AA, as viewed in blogs and on talk radio is something entirely different, and is not what we really have. Thank you. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com... [2] http://www.eeoc.gov... [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] http://www.archives.gov... [5] http://www.archives.gov... [6] http://www.eeoc.gov...
Male Homosexuality is a Mental Illness

All of your pathetic arguments and from folks like Kinsey- who was a known homosexual pervert child molester, and the American Psychological Assoc, which is a liberal group trying to lie and distort the obvious facts that I have put forth I dont really need to rebut any of your silly arguments, since they are all put forth from these biased sources who have a clear agenda - pushing and legitimizing homosexuality Again, my arguments are all true (1) Gay men are typically promiscuous, and have no concern about the health conseqeunces to themselves and others (2) Many gay men think they are women- which is delusional (3) there is a pathological obsission with youth and the sexualizaion of young boys in the gay community (4) there is a clearly stated desire and movement to legitimize gay sex along with the way nature intended , with ,man and woman, and to equate Gay marriage with marriage and shove it down the throat of traditional religious folks (5) the depression that occurs from the pain of the sexaully degenerate lifestyle often leads to horrible problems with drugs like speed and ex you have NO IDEA what you are talking about because (1) you are only 19 (2) you are a girl (3) you have had no experience living in a city like San Francisco, so you can see through the PROPAGANDA and see the facts of the lifestyle up close and personal I rest my case The psychological association was CORRECT in terming male homsexuality a mental illness, and should reinstate it as so
Male Homosexuality is a Mental Illness

I am going to argue the pro-side here from a basic standpoint Make homosexuality, until 1975 was diagnosed as a mental illness. Male homosexsuals tend to live lifestyles that are dangerous from a health standpoint. They have repeated anal sex with tons of randoms in dark places, and risk getting AIDS, and other STDs, or more recently, MSRA. If someone is leading a life that is leading to their destruction, that is basic mental illness. Anyone who think of harming themselves or others is mentally ill. if you are having random sex with people then you are a risk to others and yourself. there are serious consequences to immoral sexual behavior. And here is another take on the perspective Many gay men pretend thay are women. they are not. if you pretend you are something you are clearly not, this is delusional. This is starting to make its way into the schools now- encouraging homosexual behavior and legitimizing it with marriage between and man and a woman, which is clearly the way we are designed. And this is why I am going to take this position- the basic human family is a man, woman and children. This is what I believe brings the most happiness in life. I think that for many, the homosexual lifestyle is a dead end, and not satisfying. I also think part of the mental illness of male homosexuals is the perverted desire for children and very very young boys. there is a clear obsession with youth and there is not an insignificant percentage of male homosexuals that promote relations with children as young as 5 years old. For now, a clear portion of society CONDEMNS this behavior, and there are murky laws like statuatory rape etc Once society allows the fundemental building block of society, the family, to be breached, the society will decline, Rome is a perfect example of this in history. the main point is that unattached, non-commited sexual realtions are harmful to the person and the soul. Finding someone to love and care about is paramount. I think that the man-woman relationship is incredible and perfect , and it provides the best environment for having and raising kids. its a free country, and consenting adults have the right to behave in whatever sexual way that they want I am mostly for manogamy. As much as any relationship is manogmaous, it is a good relationship. But with freedom comes responsibility. To summarize, here are the mental illness aspects to male homosexuality (1) dangerous repeated unhealthy sex - anal , random this is a danger to their and others health and well being (2) obsession with youth, and attempts to sexualize young boys this is a danger to the children (3) delusion of thinking one is a "female trapped in a mans body" (4) attempts to legitimize gay relationship as EQUAL or SUPERIOR to, one man and one woman , and marriage. to teach homosexual details to children as young as 5
I Am Legend A Good Movie That Disappoints

HOLD ON, YOU KNOW YOU PICKED THE WRONG SIDE. IM SUPPOSED TO BE CON. SO ANYONE READING THIS, IM SAYING THAT IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE, HE IS SAYING IT IS NOT. JUST SO YOU DONT GET CONFUSED WHEN YOU VOTE FOR ME. :- ) "But like renzzy at the bottom suggest there was no logic[al] reason for him to have kill himself" Lets look at it the other way. There was no reason FOR HIM TO LIVE. His wife is dead, his kid is dead, his dog is dead. He couldnt care less about life. He tried to kill himself at the dock but the girl comes. When he sees the butterfly tatoo on her she practically converts him to christianity by saying that everything happens for a reason, and that GOD sent her to him. So he thinks he is going to heaven, where he will be able to see his kid and wife, and heck even his dog. But you say. "he could have been able to duplicate the blood instead the hicks at the "sanctuary" in the end will have to figure out how to get more of the blood and whatever is in it." But you forget, or dont pay attention. This is a GOVERNMENT ran safehouse, not just some hicks. Apparently they know what they are doing, know about the vampire things, and know a whole lot more than you think they do, because they lived. They have access to literally all the equipment in the U.S. Not only that but other countries can come and help duplicate the blood. He doesnt need to be around. He would just be depressed and lonely, but now hes chillen with his family. "This is my first debate so i'm a newbie but i just wanted to get off that this movie could've been better" You picked a safe topic, when we talked about this before, you said the movie SUCKED, remember in spanish class. The sides are you think the movie was bad, i think the movie was good. But converted you in person so you picked an easy title. Voters note that he was supposed to be against the movie, me for it. As our arguements show. "cliff hanger ending with "We are His Legacy" That is no cliffhanger. Modern day technology lets us extract DNA easily and duplicate it. WE DID THAT IN 8TH GRADE SCIENCE CLASS. They will cure the disease. The only reason he was alive was to fix the problem. That was the whole storyline. When he fixed it in his mind it was over. He fixed it, end of story. "Finally I could feel the disappointment this film gave at the end. I mean at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean and 300. PEOPLE CLAPPED AT THE END!" I saw it the day it came out and guess what PEOPLE CLAPPED at the end. "The Ending May Be Due To The Writer Strike" WHAT!?! Im sure you readers will completely drop this arguement. haha. Its obvious who won this round. I have shut down every arguement. Just because he worded the resolved in a way to make him look good doesnt mean he wins. Its obvious that i still won. He says the ending disappoints and i have enlightend you on why it does not disappoint. So i win. I dont want to sound cocky but thats what you have to do in debate. Thanks for the oppurtunity to show you why I am Legend was a GREAT movie. But dont let your opinion on the movie sway your vote. I have out debated the opponent. wait what was it *owned*
I Am Legend A Good Movie That Disappoints

I never said the movie wasn't good I consider it a one time watcher, but it was good for me But like renzzy at the bottom suggest there was no logic reason for him to have kill himself and if you argue that there was no reason for him to live the booty he had every reason to live he could have been able to duplicate the blood instead the hicks at the "sanctuary" in the end will have to figure out how to get more of the blood and whatever is in it. This is my first debate so i'm a newbie but i just wanted to get off that this movie could've been better!!!!! If they called the movie "The Cure" instead of "I Am Legend" Then He wouldn't of had to died and the movie could have a decent ending then the cliff hanger ending with "We are His Legacy" What are they trying to get off. Are They Going to make a sequel or say they're going to save the world with a vial of blood. Finally I could feel the disappointment this film gave at the end. I mean at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean and 300. PEOPLE CLAPPED AT THE END!!!!!!!! And I believe that if they would have ended it better then people would have reacted the same. The Ending May Be Due To The Writer Strike but thats a debate for another time ;P Thank For Reading Owned
I Am Legend A Good Movie That Disappoints

"The Ending Was Real Weak" Can you explain when the movie changed to the "ending" and why it was weak. "I Just Started Reading But Its Nothing Like The Story" The movies are NEVER like the book. I have also read the book, the story is not that great, wait till you read the ending in the book until you make judgements. Right off the bat we knew it was not going to be like the book. 1- In the book he's white 2- In the book he has no dog. 3- In the book he drives an oldsmobile. I could go on forever but my point is that you should have never even thought the movie would be like the book. But i personally, and many of my friends/family members thought the movie WAS BETTER.
zelda better then final fantasy

Just because Zelda is more popular, does not mean it's objectively "better" than FF. Again, my opponent has failed to respond to my argument pertaining to the subjectivity of art. If something is subjective, there is no way to say it's "better" than other things in it's category. There really isn't much left to say in this debate. Nothing constructive has come up, and it's quite obvious who the winner is.
zelda better then final fantasy

Yes, it is true that Zelda and FF are differently constructed games - I never contended that. In fact, I'm sure that many reasons why people like Zelda or FF is in how the game was constructed (obviously). However, that's not the point. My argument was that my opponent cannot show how, in an objective manner, Zelda is a "better" game than FF. This is because calling a game is purely subjective, as saying a song is better than some other song. We can't show that Zelda is mathematically correct and FF is not, or that Zelda is parsimonious. There is no standard for which we can truly compare these games, or anything to do with media, so my opponent's resolution is negated. Zelda is not better than FF because neither are better than the other.
zelda better then final fantasy

Ok, first I'd like to say that I'm a little new so don't blame me for my non challenging response. Now on to the debate first you said that Zelda and ff where the same, I'd like to let you know that that is not correct. In a way of such you would not know, Zelda is a rpg action based story, in other words it is an "role playing game" that follows a specific sequence until the end, in this story there is loads of action, for instance, you kill a guy over here, he shrieks more come to the aid of his, so in other words this game uses real lifetime choices. On the other hand Final Fantasy uses a technique called fictinary sequence making everything seem easy to do, also in ff there is no choice you have to do what the game tells you or you merely die, thus making Zelda better.
zelda better then final fantasy

ok then I thank you for thy rebuttal. Well in my case I have a lot to answer for on this one I mean shure they are both the same but have you ever heard of entertainment my friend. Well there's alot to say I would love to say that I am a Zelda fan but I will play ff once and a while, it is not nearly as fun based as Zelda and I believe that ff would not nearly be the same as Zelda.
zelda better then final fantasy

.. In the true path of being a douche, I argue that neither Zelda or FF is better than the other. Because calling games "good" is inherently subjective, it is meaningless and baseless to attempt to place one game at a righter platform than the other. Unless my opponent can find an objective basis for calling a game "good" or "better" than other games, his arguments are simply irrelevant. So there you go - Zelda isn't better than FF. FF isn't better than Zelda. They are both on the same standing.
Ban all illustrated Bibles now!

Although I do not believe what Brian_Eggleston believes on this issue, I do believe that he is a worthy opponent and, in general, a nice guy I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents [Value, Value Criteria, Definitions, and Observations] --> he agrees with all of them. End of story [Contentions] "I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well" I have 2 responses --> My opponent is saying that he does not believe in separation of State and Church. Because he is arguing on the Church's behalf, and because the Church is FOR the separation of State and Church, this is hypocritical and counterproductive to what the Church wants --> We do not continue to give welfare checks to the deceased or provide social programs for them, so why should we continue to try to promote happiness to the dead? It is not the government's job to promote happiness after death. Besides, if you agree with my opponent, isn't heaven the state of pure happiness? "Destroying all illustrated bibles....would be good for the economy" I have 1 response --> Destroying all illustrated Bibles would cause thousands of people to lose their respective jobs. But, some people would regain those jobs (the people that rewrite the Bible), yet some, like the people who illustrate Bibles, would lose their jobs and would become a detriment to society. So, as you can see, this would be negative for the economy Now, I will move on to my opponents case "radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic..." I have one response --> Pope Benedict the 16th, Jesus' successor, openly acknowledges that it is from Jesus, when he says, "An image that has not been made by human hands." "It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures" I have two arguments --> Once again, these pictures are not dangerous. Because they pose no eminent threat to society or to the government itself, as well as the fact that the government should become affiliated with religious aspects of people's lives, there is no reason for this act of banning bibles --> Agreeing with my opponent restricts one right to freedom of speech. If two different illustrators have two different depictions of Jesus, and you like one better than the other, does that make the 'worse' one wrong? Of course not "An extension of the last analogy" --> Because he attacks with the same argument, I can defend with the same argument. Simply refer to my last argument [Voting Issues] --> he agrees with my value, value criteria, definitions, and observation. I attacked all of his points and defended all of mine [Conclusion] All government's should be secular, or non-religious. Because simple illustrations that aid the learning ability of the youth do not pose any eminent threat to society or the government, the government should not get entangled with the Church. Who knows, maybe a nuclear holocaust would ensue. And we do not want that to happen. Thank you