BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aegislash v. Magikarp

Alright, let's get this debate underway.Reasons Magikarp would lose ;_;1. Magikarp has very low damage unboosted.As the title says, Magikarp, without the proper boosts, has very low damage. This allows for an easy swords dance in turn 1 by Aegislash. With the low damage output, in fact, many Swords Dances can be set up without worry.2. A majority of Magikarp's kit is useless.2 of his moves (Flail and Splash) are completely useless (one being useless because it doesn't affect Ghost Pokemon and the other for just simply doing nothing, respectively). Bubble doesn't affect Aegislash much at all due to its low damage, and Dragon Rage only does 40 each turn. Assuming these pokemon are all high levels, this isn't much in comparison to a lot of damge-dealing moves available on other Pokemon.3. Aegislash's Shield Forme base stats are high in defense.Another valid point, as HP isn't the only thing that matters (with the exception of Dragon rage which is still very low damage). Bubble wouldn't deal much damage either. 4. Substitute soaking up that damageThis allows for more sword dances from Aegislash.5. While slower, Shadow Sneak/King's Shield are Priority movesIn other words, they always move first. With enough attack, Aegislash can OHKO Magikarp. If not, he can prioritize King's Shield and cause Magikarp's damage to be reduced, not to mention an attack block. Then Aegis can try again (with that many SDs, Magikarp should be dead, but hypothetically speaking here), and the second would be sure to kill.All reasons why Aegislash could win in a fight vs Magi.I await my opponent's refutations.
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:

Reason #1: That's my point, I agree the Louisiana Purchase helped better the United States HOWEVER it did not go with Thomas Jefferson's belief as a anti-federalist. This is all against your usage of the constitution to support your belief of the US returning to the gold standard. "While he might have written the Declaration of Independence, he definitely did not author the Constitution. Instead, that document was mainly written by James Madison. Jefferson spoke against a strong federal government and instead advocated states' rights. He feared tyranny of any kind and only recognized the need for a strong, central government in terms of foreign affairs." Thomas Jefferson disagreed with his own beliefs, he believed in strict interpretation of the constitution and no where in that constitution did it permit him to make the Louisiana Purchase. Thomas Jefferson also did not write the constitution, you're mistaken. He was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence but not the constitution. Language changes over time we don't speak the same English has the authors of the constitution. We can easily state the usage of the "necessary and proper" clause stating the usage of metal in creating currency is outdated. The constitution allowed the creation of the Army and Navy but no where did it permit the creation of the Air Force. If we followed strict interpretation we wouldn't be able to adapt with time and create a necessary Air Force. If we followed your method of strict interpretation, we should abolish the entire Air Force (The Air Force is constitutional as the government used the necessary and proper clause, we could use the necessary and proper clause on how we should create currency too.) You're right, there was no inflation during the gold rush. My source was wrong on that. I still stand by my reason 3 for inflation: ""Reason #3; Gold and Silver keep their value, paper gravitates toward its intrinsic value- zero:" That is false. "Between 1879 and 1933, when the United States was on a full gold standard, the inflation adjusted market price of gold fluctuated from the $700 range (1890s) to the $200 range (1920s). From 1934-1970, when the US was on a partial gold standard, the inflation adjusted price of gold went from $563 to $201." The value of gold fluctuates, it does not guarantee a stable worth. http://www.macrotrends.net...... The above link directs you towards the price of gold in 100 years, the value of gold does not remain consistent." My point is the gold standard is not immune from inflation. You didn't provide your source measuringworth.com until now. I could plug in 10 years and get similar results too, 1994 to 2004 the US economy grew from 9,905,400 million to 13,177,500 a 71% growth rate in the span of 10 years or 7.1% GDP growth each year. You still have not provided any source to say we actually have enough gold and silver privately to back up our current GDP of 16.34 trillion as of 2015. Source: http://americanhistory.about.com... http://aboutthomasjefferson.com...
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:

Reason #1: The Louisiana Purchase allowed America t become a better country. The Louisiana Purchase didn't create a agency which contained power granted to another under the constitution, as is the case with the Federal Reserve being granted power given to congress. Also, Thomas Jefferson WROTE the constitution, so I think he would know if the purchase was unconstitutional. Your 'interpretation' of the constitution is demonstratively false, because 'coin money' means to stamp gold or silver certifying that it is of a certain weight and purity, this is the legal definition, not interpretation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... %28money%29 True, the price of Gold in 1980 was unstable, but this was because the dollar was worthless and inflation was high, so gold was overvalued, and once people noticed this, its price dropped. However, these fluctuations occurred under fiat, not a gold standard, so let's asses the price of gold under the gold standard, in 1840, the price of gold was 20.67$, in 1860 it was 20.67$, in 1880, 20.67$, 1929, still- 20.67$. And still no, there were no recessions in 1884 or 1890, regardless, we had 3 major panics under the gold standard, 1873, 1893, and 1907, 1873 and 93 were caused by European manipulation of the stock markets and 1907 was caused by JP Morgan, none of these 3 were caused by the gold standard. 1929, 1970, 1980, 1990's and 2007 were caused by easy money policies and fiat money flooding the economy, which allows for bubbles to be created. Also, there was no inflation during the gold rush, infact we only had some deflation of 1.9% per year. see here: http://www.westegg.com... Also, I provided a source for saying that the economy grew at ~6% annually, here is my source: https://www.measuringworth.com... As you can see, the GDP in 1873 was 149,462 million 2009 dollars, in 1874 it was 152,180 million 2009 dollars, a 1.82% GDP growth rate, in 1880 the GDP was 207,245 million 2009 dollars, in 1890 it was 344,747 million 2009 dollars, a GDP growth rate of 66.348%, divided over 10 years this is a GDP growth rate of 6.6%. And as I said before, any amount of gold or silver would do as a nations currency, and it it very clear that there is enough gold or silver in private ownership to use as currency, in a gold standard system, all the pre 1964 coins will appear in currency since people are almost guaranteed to be payed in silver at their job. In 1900 15 million silver quarters were minted,, keep in mind we aren't even counting dimes, in 1901 10 million were minted etc. between 1900 and 1919 alone 261 silver quarters were minted.
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:

You haven't done a good job in rebuttaling my points, and you made a number of errors, first of all, the constitution doesn't need interpretation, I don't know where you got this idea. Did you read my argument, because the constitution clearly indicates that we should gave a gold standard, not an interpretation. I would go over this but I already posted so what's the point, go back and see round 2. Secondly, both FDR and Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard, FDR took us off the basic gold standard where gold is the money of the United States and put us on a gold/fiat system with aspects of a gold standard and aspects of fiat, it was Richard Nixon who took us off the gold standard completely. Thirdly, golds value does not fluctuate, you didn't even provide a source to your claim, but either way, I could say that the dollar is even more unstable than gold, assuming this is true, because a dollar was worth 24$ in 1913, then it went down to 14$ in 1928, then it rose to 18$ in 1933, then it collapsed all the way down to 1$ in 2016. Here is my source: http://data.bls.gov... Your fourth error is almost embarasing, the gold standard never caused any financial panics, there was no panic in 1879, there was one in 1873 but this recession, as well as 1893, was actually caused by fractional reserve banking, so banks collapsed, and people lost their money. 1907 was caused by J P Morgan convincing everyone we were about to plunge into a depression, so everyone withdrew their money from the bank and caused one. Also, 1930, 31, and 33 were all one big depression caused by the federal reserves easy money policy. I.e., it was the opposite of the gold standard. Your fith, and perhaps worst error was saying that inflation occurs when a large sum of gold is found, this is completely false and you should know it, the inflation that we experienced during the gold rush had nothing to do with an increase in the gold supply. The population of California jumped from a few hundred thousand to a few million in a few months, so shopkeepers couldn't keep up with the demand and raised their prices. Believe it or not barely any gold was found during the gold rush, the only people who struck it rich were the shopkeepers and merchants selling the miners materials and equipment. Your sixth error is saying that a gold standard would stem economic growth, while I proved in round 2 that this was false, under the gold standard, pur economy grew at ~6% annually, infact, during the recession of 1873, our economy few at ~2% annually, just as much as we do over a good year under fiat. Finally, I never said we should go under a complete capitalist society, maybe in that our economy has minimal government influence, but regardless I only said that, by competition, conservative banks will be "naturally selected" to survive, while fraudulent banks will go under, thus making our economy more stable in the long run.
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:

Actually we are more than capable of returning to the gold standard, and any increment of gold and silver would do. We have 260 million ounces of gold in the treasury, and 804 ounces of silver, which at the market price of 1,250$ an ounce of gold and 20$ an ounce of silver, we have 325 billion dollars in gold and 16 billion dollars in silver, which may not be enough, but keep in mind, if gold and silver become America's currency, people will spend their private gold and silver reserve's as well because they know they will get played in gold and silver later. We will see old 1964 coins reappear in circulation as well as old gold coins. You never replied to my previous arguments though so please do that or you lose.
The United States should return to the Gold Standard:

It's just impossible to return to the gold standard at this point. "As of 2012 the US treasury held about 260 million troy ounces of gold reserves. At the market price of gold, about $1,662 an ounce (as of Dec. 27, 2012), that would equal about $434.6 billion in gold.: It's economically impossible to return to the gold standard, our money supply is currently around 2.6 trillion and if we had return to the gold standard our current money supply would face a huge deflation. The federal government can be abusive in using it's power but returning to the gold standard would not fix any of our problems. The US economy is deeply engraved into the rest of the world. If our economy falters so does the rest of the world leading to another depression. This is why we should not return to the gold standard. Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com...
We shouldn't have to put up with this any longer.

I am glad that my opponent posted a comment below because I was genuinely concerned that his situation had detoriorated because my opponent stated that "Really! I am sick". But then I thought that my opponent was so concerned about "the cause" that he had actually gone off to make a stand. My opponent should lose for the fact that he didn't even ask for the number of the tailor that could have kept the fabric of society together. Nor did he provide a medical cerificate to prove that he indeed was sick nor did he prove that he had gone out to make a stand. That is tantamount to particpating in the evil that he is so against. :)
We shouldn't have to put up with this any longer.

On to the debate. Can you prove that you are "sick" of what is going on? Do you have a medical certificate for this so called illness? Also a name for your illness? "People are suffering and dying". Last time I checked people were having a good time, I probably need to drop in to the hospital to check on this fact. Verified, I just got back from the hospital and it is the most horrible place. It is full of sick people and people that are dying. "The very fabric of law and order is being unraveled" I know a really good tailor. He gives a 5 year guarantee that the fabric won't unravel! "Well, I'm not going to tolerate this any longer. I am TAKING A STAND!" Are you going to be a doctor or a tailor? "This is an atrocity beyond measure, and anyone who is in favor of it is evil." I disagree, have you ever heard of "THE GREAT ATROCITY" that was far worse than the "atrocity beyond measure". And they were the epitome of EVIL, these new instigators are just quasi-evil!
Same Sex Marrige Is Wrong

But in the final analysis, the single best reason to legalize same-sex marriage is not because it's benign, or because it is inevitable, or because it is what our legal history demands of us, or because it is more conducive to family life. It is because legalizing same-sex marriage is the kind thing to do. I am constantly amazed at what lesbian and gay couples tell me about the friendships they have with social conservatives have very traditional ideas of what a relationship should be, but who nevertheless treat them with great kindness, generosity, and warmth. Likewise, nearly every conservative critic of same-sex marriage will happily admit that they have close lesbian and gay friends whom they care deeply about. Same-sex couples seeking marriage rights are obviously determined to stay together, or they wouldn't be trying to get married. So why make their lives more difficult? I feel confident that most conservatives wouldn't slash gay couples' tires, or kick over their mailboxes, or prank call them at 3am. So why pass laws that will prevent them from being able to file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property? Social conservatives routinely speak of their moral obligation to promote legislation that upholds the values they live by. When that becomes a reality, the very kind and loving people who make up the majority of social conservatives in this country will be among those working to help their lesbian and gay neighbors, rather than working to make their lives more difficult. https://www.google.com...
Same Sex Marrige Is Wrong

*This is not meant to offend any one* It declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent.> 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus the book of laws states that a man may not have sex with another man. God created woman for man and man for women.> <"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." "Genesis 1:27 God created man to be with women not man to be with man. > < "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29) God made man and women to have sex, and multiply.>
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

I did not concede the debate, but I did indeed say that there is no firm standard for being saved. HOWEVER, the reason for this is that being saved is not about what you do. It simply doesn't work that way. You must be willing to risk everything in order to receive the reward. Jesus did not die so you could just be a "good" person. He expects sacrifice. Denying oneself and taking up one's cross is referring to the sacrifice that Jesus expects. Following him is just that -- following him. Not just doing good things, but going all-in for him. I would like to thank Pro for coming up with this debate. It was very interesting and really got me thinking.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Obviously my assumption was incorrect. I believe that there is no "magical formula" for being saved. Many Christians feel that they need to do something to be saved, much like the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16. He "became very sad" Jesus turned his world upside down by telling him to leave his possessions and follow him. However, our faith should be more like Zacchaeus in Luke 19:6. Zacchaeus dropped everything he was doing and "welcomed him gladly. " Kyle Idleman, in his book Not a Fan, puts it this way: "We want to be close enough to Jesus to get all the benefits, but not so close as it requires sacrifice. " Jesus did not call us to just do good things like the ruler, but to sacrifice for him like Zacchaeus. As he says in Matthew 16:24, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. " I believe that this is as close to a "magical formula" for getting to heaven as possible, but the ultimate decision lies with God. I now turn over the virtual podium to Pro. Sources: Idleman, Kyle. Not a Fan: Becoming a Completely Committed Follower of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Print.
Homosexuals Are Not Going to "Hell".

At this point, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden of proof. He asserts conclusively that homosexuals are not going to "hell." However, not only does he concede that in order to not go to hell one must repent -- meaning that a homosexual CAN go to hell -- but that it is a sin. If we were to assume that God exists, hell exists, the Bible is accurate, etc.., this is the syllogism we are left with.A. If (x) is a sin, you should, according to the Bible, be going to Hell.B. If you repent, according to the Bible, you will not go to Hell.C1. If you do not repent after committing (x) sin, you will be going to Hell, according to the Bible. My opponent states homosexuals are NOT going to hell -- meaning that not a single homosexual can go to hell, and if one does or could, my opponent loses this debate.However, this statement not only has no truth value whatsoever, meaning he cannot fulfill his burden of proof, but it is simply not the case. An atheist or agnostic will go to hell, according to the Bible, regardless of whether he or she is homosexual or heterosexual. At the same time, a believer in, say, Islam, will go to Hell, according to the Bible, if the Christian God is the real God, and vice versa, and the same can be said of any religion. So the notion that my opponent can make this positive statement is ludicrous. He cannot fulfill his burden of proof and thus has already lost this debate.My opponent's argument is this:A. If you repent, you will not go to hell.B. Homosexuals can repent.C. Homosexuals are not going to hell.A and B are true, but C is not because not all homosexuals will "repent," nor will all of them follow the same religion and so forth, so on. My opponent cannot argue conclusivley that his conclusion is sound. Because he bears the burden of proof, he has lost this debate.
Homosexuals Are Not Going to "Hell".

So, according to the Bible, you are not to have "sexual relations" with someone of the same gender as that is detestable. There are other areas where the Bible mentions sex between two homosexuals and whatnot, but I'll focus on the most important part, in which the Bible blatantly states that homosexuality is wrong. Let's pretend that God exists. He says homosexuality is wrong, therefore making it a sin. It is then placed alongside other supposed sins such as cheating, lying, committing adultery, whatever actions God has deemed impure (this is laughable in my opinion, but I digress.) So, homosexuality is a sin. Great. What makes it any different from other sins? According to God, if you repent for your sins, you'll be forgiven for them and won't have to go to "Hell". Just because homosexuality wasn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments doesn't mean homosexuality wouldn't be a sin. Since homosexuality would be a sin, as long as you repent for it, then you're all taken care of. It's extremely unfair and pointless on God's part, seeing as people have to ask for forgiveness on something they didn't even get a say in, but again, I digress. By the logic that if you are homosexual you will go to "Hell", that means we're all going to this "Hell". Homosexuality is no different than other sins, and not one person on this planet is perfect. If homosexuals are going to "Hell" for sinning, then heterosexuals are, too. Everyone is.
The US is justified in preempting the spread of nuclear arms.

To be sure, this was a great debate which is why I'm sad that I have to cut this last round short. I have been traveling and I put it off a bit too long. Thanks to Roy for a great debate! Summary-Conclusion - My opponent ignores the argument that states have no incentive to give the destructive power of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. It would be too risky in the international community and for themselves. The incentive just isn't there.- The incentive is not there for dictators to use nuclear weapons either. The threat of destruction and condemnation by the international community is too strong to be ignored. - Stronger preemption could lead to higher conventional tensions, military operations abroad and economic damage. These things could be replaced by nuclear peace, which my opponent conceded as a valuable and legitimate peace option. - Nuclear peace works. Spreading nuclear weapons to states decreases the threat level of high risk conventional military situations.- There has been no instance in which a state has supplied heavy weapons or nuclear material to terrorist groups. Just as governments don't give away fighter jets and battleships, neither would they give away nuclear material. The incentive just isn't there.- Dictator's, while not savory to westerners, are not irrational idiots. They have every incentive to play by the rules of the international system and not launch nukes around. - My opponent's only two issues with nuclear proliferation are terrorists and dictators, both of which are paranoid fears. My opponent is arguing that nuclear preemption is JUST, not just desirable but JUST.If there was harder evidence that nuclear proliferation is as damaging as my opponent wants to believe it is then maybe you'd have a just argument for preemption. But in this case, all we have seen is nuclear peace between states. Yet my opponent wants to throw around economic sanctions, military operations in the name of possibilities in the future. This may be a desirable position but it is not a just one. You cannot spill blood in the name of nuclear preemption on a whim saying the future might be worse if we don't. You can't economically ruin a country for wanting a nuclear defense against other nuclear states. It's not just, especially since nuclear proliferation has shown to increase PEACE between states.Concerns over nuclear proliferation's side effects in the future are causing bloodshed, economic hardship and unjust action in the present. It's not justified.Don't let the emotional appeal to your sense of fear override the facts of history and nuclear peace. Nuclear preemption is not just.