BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Piece is a superior Anime to Naruto (Mangas excluded)

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I am a huge fan of both One Piece and Naruto, but I believe that One Piece is the slightly better anime. Let's say that there are 4 major criteria for judging an anime on: 1) Character Design This point definitely goes to One Piece. I agree that Naruto has some pretty cool looking people in it, but ALL THE BOYS HAVE SPIKY HAIR!!!! One Piece characters are WAY more varied in design. Look at a picture of the Straw Hat Pirates. Then look at a picture of the Konoha 11. Look at a picture of the 7 Warlords. Then look at a picture of Akatsuki. Look at a picture of the 3 Admirals. Then look at a picture of the 3 Legendary Sennin. If asked which group of characters looks more interesting, someone who has never watched either show before will always choose the One Piece characters group (except for maybe the Admirals-Sennin comparison). 2) Character Development Ask anyone who has watched both shows. They will tell you that One Piece's character development is much much MUCH better than Naruto's. In One Piece you get emotionally attached to every one of the Straw Hats, as well as all the people they befriend along the way, and even some of the villains. In Naruto, you get attached to some of the main characters (e.g. Naruto, Kakashi, Jiraya, Itachi), but everyone else is sort of just there. I mean, just look at Sasuke, one of the main characters. Barely any of the viewers even like him anymore, even though Naruto himself wants him back more than anything else. That is not a good sign of character development. 3) Plot This is a bit harder to decide. In my opinion, both of them have equally awesome plots, with similar methods of building suspense, excitement, and emotion. The only thing that I think gives One Piece an edge over Naruto here is that almost half of Naruto is FILLERS that no one really cares about. 4) Fighting Mechanisms Let's face it. Everyone in Naruto has basically the same powers, with each character having only one or two special moves unique to them. Naruto (the character) is the only exception to this pattern, having wide arsenal of unique powers. Meanwhile in One Piece, NONE of the main characters share any of the same powers. Everyone has totally different powers and fighting styles, making battles much more interesting than the ones in Naruto. This is why I think that One Piece has better fighting mechanisms than Naruto. Notice that I do not consider music a criteria because it is 100% opinion based and is cannot be debated. Again, thank you for the debate challenge. I look forward to your arguments.
The US Should Ban all Firearms

In this round, I will refute my opponent’s case. The first argument that Con makes is that guns aren’t just for hunting, they are for defending against criminals as well. But the amount of people that actually use guns in self-defense are miniscule. According to the U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2007-2011, only 0.8% of victims used a firearm in self-defense. The least used method of self defense. The second argument that Con makes is that guns help protect themselves against a tyrannical government. This point is wrong because1) There are already more than enough ways to check the government’s power and stop a tyrannical government from forming. Such as separation of powers (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches), checks and balances, the Constitution, the ability to vote on decisions (democracy), rule of law (government must follow its own laws), the United Nations, and many, many others. The chance that the US would become a tyrannical government, and the people would have to take over to stop it is no miniscule a possibility that the benefits that I listed far outweigh this. 2) Even if the people were to get to the point where they have to take over the government, what chance do they have? It's a few people with some shotguns and rifles against tanks, special operations, advanced missiles, etc. A revolution would only be a bad thing since it will result in a great number of lives lost, as well as an extremely (almost zero) possibility of winning. Again, banning guns saves lives, even in this instance. After this, Con makes a defensive argument that automatic weapons in fact did exist during Colonial times. This has no impact for Con’s side unless I bring up the argument that assault weapons didn’t exist during the Colonial times. I did not make that argument, thus no impact. In the end, Con’s case is entirely negated.
The US Should Ban all Firearms

I will do my best to abide by the rules within the round limit and to make and prove my case. Good luck and good sportsmanship! I believe that firearms shouldn't be banned for a variety of reasons. To start, the founding fathers of America knew of the utmost importance of what simply having firearms can have on a nation. When Thomas Jefferson and John Addams were drafting the Articles of Confederation, then later, Constitution, They made sure to give U. S citizens the right to bear arms. They knew that guns were for more then just hunting. They knew that guns were not just for self protection against criminals, but to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, just like the one that they barley managed to best by the skin of their teeth from a few years earlier in 1776. People who oppose gun ownership will say "But there were no automatic weapons back then! " Nope! there were actually SEVERAL WORKING automatic weapons made even before colonist were thinking of revolution. For example, There was the Puckle-gun,(an automatic cannon mounted to navel ships), Lorezni Flint Lock pistol(lever action repeating pistol), and Pepperbox firearms(Multiple Barrels on a stock). The founding fathers, when they became presidents later, actually enjoyed shooting prototype guns. In the next round, I will explain just what really happens when guns are outlawd.
The US Should Ban all Firearms

This is a debate between me and @Raskuseal. This is a rematch of a previous debate we did, in which there were inadequate rounds for a proper debate. Thus, the rematch. Resolution The United States should enact a nationwide ban on all firearms by the state and federal governments. Terms United States: refers to both federal and state governments, this helps to focus the debate on the issue of a gun ban, rather than the role of a government, or other irrelevent issues. Should: I’m going to use Whiteflame’s definition, “This simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from 'could,' as what we are discussing is whether abolition should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases." Firearm: Any kind of gun. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP will be shared. Meaning that Pro has to convince the judge of his stance despite Con’s reasons, and Con has to convince the judge of his stance despite Pro’s reason. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Debate Format Round 1: Con’s opening case. Round 2: Pro’s opening case then Con’s rebuttals of Pro’s opening case. Round 3: Pro’s rebuttal of Con’s case, then Con’s defense of his case Round 4: Pro’s defense of his case, Con waives round. In Con waiving the final round, he should say, “no round as agreed”, or something along the lines of that.
This debate will get 6000 views before voting period starts.

When pro was online the debate got 4500 views in 45 min... When pro was offline it got 60 in 12 hours. Since pro just sat at his computer and clicked refresh as much as he could then I have met my burden of proof to show that the pro does indeed have no life, and that the DDO community did nothing to give him these numbers. I also meet my burden of proof to prove that te Pros mother is a whore among other things as well
This debate will get 6000 views before voting period starts.

I accept this debate and if this debate gets more than 6000 views before voting starts, then the pro concedes that his mother is a dirty, stinky, dumbass hoe who has long boobs and old chewed up titties who likes to have unprotected anal sex with strangers in Walmart bathrooms for money to buy cigarettes and gives them to her dead beat husband (Pro's dad) in jail for being a sex offender who likes to f*ck little boys 8 and under who is serving 10 to 20 years in prison.... Your move Pro....
The Bible is sexist.

Hi all! I know this has been debated before, but I think the topic is interesting enough to bring back again. I will be arguing that the Bible, Old Testament and New, shuns women and portrays them as completely inferior to men. My opponent must argue against this and convince me that the Word of God states males and females to be equal.Rounds:Round 1 - acceptance (no arguments in Round 1, please!)Round 2 - opening argumentsRound 3 - defense and rebuttalRound 4 - final defense and conclusionI have this debate locked for now, to ward off the trolls. If you'd like to debate with me, please leave a comment and say so. Look forward to some spirited argument!
Kobe is way better than lebron. no doubt bout that.

Well i think kobe's better than lebron because people just wait to see what he'll do next. lebron is totally predictable. everyone knows what he does already so dat makes him borin n it gets ppl be more interested in kobe. (tha better player). n yes sometimes he can be a ball hogg. but hey if ur just dat good, it doesnt matter how much of it u r. kobe bryant makes plays that others in the league are not capable of making,(including lebron) and most of tha times he makes other players look effortless(lebron). and kobe is so good because he has more confidence in his ability than anybody else. which makes him better than lebron. He believes he's the best player on the floor everytime he steps out there. n hey he's right. =D
Kobe is way better than lebron. no doubt bout that.

i dont know why u hav to copy n paste for. u should just tell me what u already know coming from you. BUt i think what ur tryin to say is that lebron is better which he is not at all. Kobe is a ball hogg, once again, just because hes good. believe me if ur not good n ur a ball hogg then dat makes no sense at all. but anyways kobe is better n lebron will never be.
Kobe is way better than lebron. no doubt bout that.

Here were my points, none of which Pro has addressed: 1) Lebron's dominant in size, speed and power 2) LJ is huge but agile and versatile 3) LJ rules the league in rebounds and blocks 4) LJ has more points per game 5) LJ has a better FGP 6) LJ has more 3-pointers 7) LJ has more of offensive and defensive rebounds 8) LJ has more steals 9) LJ has more blocks 10) LJ is a key player in tight situations 11) LJ is a better passer and more of a team player 12) LJ has better court vision than Kobe 13) LJ is a better leader 14) LJ is more hard working 15) LJ has shown more maturity and poise 16) LJ makes everyone around him better 17) LJ has shown better numbers in his time in the NBA than Kobe 18) LJ at this rate will pass KB in stats in a shorter time than Kobe and probably over-all Pro's only points have been that Kobe is unpredictable (a.k.a. inconsistent), and that Kobe has more confidence (cockiness). This is a simple numbers game of 18 points vs. 2 points. Let's see what Pro has to say in the final round before I make my concluding arguments.
Kobe is way better than lebron. no doubt bout that.

tha reason that kobe is a ball hogg is cuz sometimes its necessary. n if he was a ball hogg only that would be bad but since hes a ball hogg everyonce in a while, it doesnt matter cuz hes good. n every play dat lebron does, im sure kobe has done sometime in his career. the way kobe plays is NOT predictable at all every time he plays people wanna see his next move while with lebron every move he does is already expected by tha ppl. Ok wow lebron dunks in almost every game omg. but that doesnt make him better cuz while he's dunking, kobe is making all his moves n is not afraid to go against anyone n show what he gots. so i think KOBE is better. he's just TOO good.........
Kobe is way better than lebron. no doubt bout that.

The fact that Kobe is a "ball hog" is what makes him predictable. Also, just as there may be plays LJ can't do that KB can, there are also plays that LJ makes that KB can't. So, this is a moot point that goes both ways. People might wait to see what Kobe does next, but LJ is consistently phenomenal. Extend all of my arguments that Pro did not address.
Are movies good for us

Hello again, to continue from where we left off, i shall restate the topic: Movies are good for us. just curious,does "you talk too much" look like an argument for this topic? From my experience, when you are watching movies you talk less. Also, I like talking, and that is why I debate, and technically speaking, I'm typing. my second point is that movies can be harmful to children (note that Pro and I are both 14 (his profile admits it)so in this case the "us" in "movies are good for us" means adolescents ) there is extensive research that watching some types of movies can have bad effects. example include horror tidewaterparent.com/2013/10/22/can-watching-horror-films-harmful-children/ Thanks
Are movies good for us

Good morning (Australian time) debate.org. Today I shall be debating the topic "are movies good for us". First of all, the name of this debate should be a statement, such as "movies are good for us". this allows "Pro" to agree with the topic and "Con" to disagree, hence, pros and cons. secondly I shall provide a definition for the debate seeing as the affirmative (pro) didn't include one. according to the oxford dictionary of english. this definion is correct (although "Pro" may disagree if he chooses) That movies (a cinema film) are good (beneficial, physically or mentally) for us (the general population) I agree that movies are entertaining, but they open a world of horrible scenes that if children get their hands on them... well, I don't even need to finish that. Also, movies can be a massive time waster. You've got a massive English assignment due tomorrow, you should be freaking out. But you always wanted to see that new movie. It looks sooooo good. So you go see the movie, you comment on how "entertaining" it was, then you get a big, fat zero on your school report. "Oops". but here's the big twist, you don't care! You saw a good movie. That's all that matters. your English grade : who cares. Your math exam : I never liked maths anyway. if this trend continues, you become a couch potato. or in this case a movie potato. so yes, movies are entertaining, but when there are other (more important) matters at hand, movies can become too entertaining. I don't believe that we should abstain from movies forever, but too much of anything is never good and that includes movies. people should try to limit their time spent in front of the screen. Thank-you for debating this topic with me Pro. if you want to learn more about the structure of a debate (highly recommended) then see these websites http://www.debate.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... (the debating method that i use) note : when i criticize your debate, i mean to help you become a better debater. please don't be offended
I will not contradict myself

Thanks for the response. Thanks for answering my first question in round one question. Now, moving on, have you ever been gay? Did you respond to my very first statement? Are there any false statements in the Bible or Koran? Do you like to sexually objectify women? Are you sexist? Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed? Is it acceptable to beat your wife? Are you in favour of the death penalty? Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)? Do you enjoy looking at women’s breasts?
I will not contradict myself

Are you a homosexual? No. Is killing never morally acceptable? No. Do you really live in California? Yes. Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts? Yes. Do you enjoy looking at boobs? According to Merriam Webster, boobs is defined as a stupid awkward person. Therefore, no I do not enjoy looking at boobs. Have you ever picked flowers freely? Yes. Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document? Yes. Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence just by observing them is wrong? Yes. Are you a law-abiding person? Yes. According to Merriam Webster's to abide is to accept without objection Do you enjoy being happy? Yes.
I will not contradict myself

Challenge accepted, let’s begin. Are you a homosexual? Is killing never morally acceptable? Do you really live in California? Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts? Do you enjoy looking at boobs? Have you ever picked flowers freely? Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document? Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence just by observing them is wrong? Are you a law-abiding person? Do you enjoy being happy? Done for now, good luck.
I will not contradict myself

Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. 12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent. Let the debate begin!
Christianity debate.

My opponent still fails counter my logical proof. He says, "Second, "all powerful" itself means "power over all other things that exist" - not "the power to do anything". I counter with: First let's remember the word of God is supposed to be read as inerrant. "Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is flawless." Second my opponent is assigning powers to God different to those assigned to him in the Bible "Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27 With God all things are possible." "Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible." So, yeah, all powerful = "the power to do anything." Let's get the sandwich example. My opponent maintains that I go to a sandwich shop and know that I'm going to order a sandwich on white bread, but I can choose wheat if I want in the present. It's all about freewill and what not. The problem is I'm not God (all knowing and all powerful). Now let's look at God. Viewers, please pay close attention here and reread if you have to. Here we go: If he knows with 100% certainty (which he should because he's all knowing) he will order white bread that means he would HAVE to choose white bread and couldn't choose wheat regardless of whether he wanted to or not, thus he is not all powerful. If, however, he is able to change and not choose white i.e. what he knew he was going to do and chooses wheat instead, regardless of whether he wants to or not, then he's not all knowing. Think about it this way. I say, "I can fly, but I choose not to." It's the same as God saying, "I can get wheat, but I choose not to." Both are actually impossible things for both of us to do. God literally can't because then he wouldn't be all knowing. Yes it's hard to understand, but it makes it logically impossible for him to be all knowing and all powerful. So, once again, resolution negated. I'll briefly cover the flood again, even though I technically don't need to. The flood: I can't get to your source and therefore any of the pictures. Anyhow, I will repeat myself. There are problems with the flood theory. Even if one thing looks consistent with the flood theory we have to make sure everything that should be able to be explained by the theory is consistent with the flood theory. If there are inconsistencies with the flood theory the flood theory must be modified, reworked or thrown out. My opponent still hasn't addressed the inconsistencies of the flood. At the risk of repeating myself, look at the inconsistencies in round 2 and some I repeated in round 3. If inconsistencies aren't addressed there's no reason to believe the flood happened. So until he answers all these points, showing the flood and inaccurate depiction of reality, I still win this one too. The resolution is negated.