BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pikachu is a pokemon.

I will start by analyzing my opponent's semantic trickery and move on to extend my case.A1: Pokemon has an accentMy opponent attempts to dismiss the entire case due to not using an accented e. However, prefer the pro's interpretation of both pokemon and "pokémon" being legitimate to use for a few reasons. A. Predictable Ground- my opponent is nitpicking over details that are redundant. Referring to pokemon without an accent is predictable ground, con's interpretation detracts from debate by changing the topic from the resolution to grammar, wasting pro's character amount and derailing the heart of the topic. B. Formatting and ease- The accented E can cause formatting errors and takes significantly longer to input, for the sake of both of us, the E was purposely unaccented, don't punish the pro for attempting to maintain a relaxed and simple debating environment. C. Reasonability- Err pro, pro's interpretation preserves fair limits while maintaining a topical focus on the resolution. D. Con must prove specific ground abuse, semantic arguments exist to provide ground for a fair debate. If the con can't prove what ground they have lost, they are playing a semantical game to avoid debating more substantive issues. I will now go on case.On caseTo keep this brief, the con has dropped, and thus conceded, all of the affirmative case. My opponent concedes the completeness of all four steps of my proof, and that Pikachu is indeed a pokemon. I extend the entirety of the pro's case that Pikachu is a pokemon by repeated official clarification. After having addressed his one semantic argument and having extended my case for Pikachu being a pokemon, back to con.
Pikachu is a pokemon.

Thanks for making this debate, tiscooler.I'm going to keep this short and simple.My opponent believes Pikachu is a "pokemon," as shown by the resolution.However, there is no such thing as pokemon or Pokemon.There is such a thing as Pokémon, though.Pikachu is a Pokémon, not a pokemon [1].Take a look at my first source, Bulbapedia, a website used specifically for Pokémon.It says "Pikachu (Pokémon)." It does not say "Pikachu (Pokemon)."My opponent claims that Nintendo owns the Pokemon franchise. No, it owns the Pokémon franchise [2].Therefore, since Nintendo owns Pokémon, it can say whatever about Pokémon, and it has. It has called Pikachu a Pokémon, not a pokemon.Back to you, Pro.Sources:1. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...2. http://www.pokemon.com...
Pikachu is a pokemon.

Good day DDO, today I will be proving that pikachu is a pokemon. DefinitionsPikachu: Pikachu is an Electric-type Pokémon introduced in Generation I. [1a][1b][1c]Pokemon: Pokemon is a media franchise published and owned by the video game company Nintendo [2a][2b]I will prove this as follows:Company ClarificationA proof that Pikachu is a pokemon;P1. Nintendo publishes and owns the pokemon franchise.P2. Nintendo thus can make true, official statements about pokemon.P3. Nintendo has repeatedly referred to Pikachu as a pokemon in all official sources. [3a][3b][2b]P4. Thus, Pikachu is a pokemon.I rest my case.Sources[1a] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...[1b] http://www.serebii.net...[1c] http://gameboy.ign.com...[2a] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2b] http://www.youtube.com... (A video of Pokemon Yellow's startup, where nintendo's logo is clearly visible, along with the aforemented pikachu)[3a] http://www.pokemon.com...[3b ]http://www.smashbros.com...
Pikachu is a pokemon.

Thanks for the debate. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.Final Refutations"...my opponent conceded my predictable ground argument, which states that referring to pokemon without an accent is a predictable spelling and use."Now your statement has kind of clarified this term for me. I must point out however, that there were three other reasons you created why the Opposition's semantic argument should be ignored, and this is solely one of them. Regardless of whether it is standard or predictable, it is not the formal or correct manner to be written, especially within a debate. I do interpret that by 'pokemon' you mean 'Pokémon,' however, it is not 100% interpreted that way due to the error. Just Google the two words. You will find that Googling 'pokemon' shows less relevant images, compared to 'pokémon.'"On formatting and ease, no warrants were given to the effects of miswritten words and is thus my opponent's point only a statement, not an argument, you can vote pro on formatting."Had there been no miswritten word, I would not be sitting down here with you and debating this topic. That is warrant enough. It seems very much like you ignored my point anyways."...my opponents failed to prove any ground lost abusively due to my use of unaccented pokemon."There is no refutation here. My opponent simply regards all that I say as faulty and should be tossed out without any proof or reasoning. Therefore, it is clear that Pokémon with an accented 'e' is important."Pokemon represents the franchise as well as the individual members thereof. Err pro, he should have asked round one for clarification." Yes, it was an error by the Pro for not defining all the terms at the beginning of this debate. The Proposition is at fault for failure to recognize his own mistake. The attempt to clear it up in the last round is ven more faulty. As a result, the Opposition should win.Pikachu is not a media franchise, nor is it a pokemon.Thank you.
Photography is an art form

Hello, debaters. The resolution is as follows: "Photography is an art form." By "photography," I mean "the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces," and by "art form," I mean "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." As is customary in any philosophical debate, the definitions of these terms are not fixed. They are open to discussion and change. Pro's position must prove that photography fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions of something being a form of art. Con's position must prove that photography does not meet these requirements and is something else besides art. For the sake of fairness, I would prefer the Contender merely accept the debate and that we begin making arguments in Round Two. Let's have a civil and productive argument.
Photography is an art form

I do believe that photography is an art form, and am interested in hearing the case against this. That said, since it was said that the "definitions are open to discussion and change", I would prefer to use dictionary definitions. I hope this doesn't turn into an argument over semantics. To be thorough, I'll lay down a few definitions I believe are relevant. All definitions pulled from " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... " ~~~~ Photography (noun) 1: The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) ~~~~ Art form (noun) 1: a) form or medium of expression recognized as fine art 2: a) an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed b) an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement ~~~~~ Fine Art (noun) 2: an activity requiring a fine skill ~~~~~ Fine (adj) 4: Superior in kind, quality, or appearance : excellent ~~~~ Art (noun) 1: Skill acquired by experience, study, or observation 2: a branch of learning 3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill 4: a) the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic arts
Minecraft Factions Is The Best Minecraft Game Mode.

The Minecraft Factions plugin game-mode, essentially, is about creating a faction, establishing a fortress, and raiding other fortresses that belong to different factions. "Endless stuff to learn and do" is an exaggeration-the game can get boring, tedious, even. You need materials to construct a fortress that won't get instantly obliterated by sixty people in enchanted diamond armor-which brings me to my next point-there's no balanced game mechanic! Basically, the only way to actually survive is to walk out many blocks in a trip that could take hours just to get past the massive wave of spawn-campers. You and your friend could be minding your own business in a house when all of a sudden a horde of many overpowered soldiers rushes into your house, steals your items, and then burns your house and immolates you in the blaze. You'd be powerless to stop it. This is an unfair game mechanic and one that discourages many from playing. I will concede that the Factions plugin is popular on YouTube-however, these "YouTubers", as they are known throughout the Minecraft community, have an advantage-they are well-known and are likely to recieve support from other players throughout their gaming session. A random new player, on the other hand, will most likely be slaughtered as soon as he steps outside a safe zone. Camping is a real problem, and so are the other problems I've illustrated above. I await your argument.
Minecraft Factions Is The Best Minecraft Game Mode.

Minecraft Factions is not better than any other gamemodes in Minecraft. Technically, you can't even call them game modes, as they were not created by Mojang AB-instead, the proper term to use here would be "plugin game-mode" or simply "plugin", as the Factions plugin was created by an independent team of developers known as Bukkit. I gladly await your argument for Round 2.
REMATCH! On Balance People's Lives are Changing for the Better

REBUTTALSThanks, spaceking for your rebuttals. As I have nearly run out of time, I will keep my own rebuttals short.Middle Ages vs. Modern DayI agree with my opponent that it is a common misconception that slavery no longer exists. However, there is a primary difference between modern day slavery (or human trafficking) and Middle Ages 'slavery'. This is that human trafficking is a publicly considered as a bad thing and there is an increasing international awareness about the issue. In fact, it has garnered attention from the White House itself. President Obama stated in 2012 that: “Our fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights causes of our time, and the United States will continue to lead it...” However, during the Middle Ages the lords couldn't care less about the life conditions of there seemingly insignificant serfs/slaves. Due to the fact that this was a social norm at the time nobody, especially those in the higher classes, would ever object to this form of slavery. My opponent claims that serfs could at least work there way off the land. This is not true whatsoever because the serfs were bound to the land and they would never be able to leave no matter what. The villeins were a different story because if they managed to compile enough money they could buy their way off the land. However, this is an unlikely scenario because the villeins would never be able to obtain enough money to do this. As for the next argument about torture/punishment. My opponent claims that these punishments somehow were justified. I would like to ask my opponent how beheading a peasant for something as innocent as stealing a cabbage is justified? This argument is makes absolutely no sense. Victorian Era vs. Modern DayI would like to ask my opponent how World War II qualifies as a modern day scenario? The War ended over seventy years ago and the world has changed tremendously since then. Because of the war the world has improved immensely due to the increased awareness of international atrocities. As for the Civil War, I don't even understand this argument. Also, let it be noted that my opponent has failed to address my arguments about industrial conditions and European Africa. Apologies for the shortness of my response.
REMATCH! On Balance People's Lives are Changing for the Better

REBUTTALI'll have to keep this short as I only have 30 minutes left. 1. Over PopulationMy opponent claims that there is not enough food to feed the world. This is incorrect as there is enough food for over 10 billion people as of right now [1]. With the increased usage of GMO's (with are safe, mind you) it is probable that we will have enough food for the entire world for at least a century. 2. More crimeThe reason why there has been more reported crime is because of two reasons. One being that since their is a higher population, as my opponent mentioned earlier, it is inevitable that crime rates are going to increase. Also, due to a better equipped police force there has been more arrests and less unreported crime. Therefore this argument actually goes against my opponents claim that the world is turning for the worse.3. Corrupt politiciansThe flaw with this argument is that politicians have been corrupt since the dawn of time. The only reason why their have been more convictions is because people are now more aware of political corruption. 4. Chinese IndustryMy opponent claims that Chinese industry has decreased in quality (both for the workers and environmentally). This is untrue on a few regards. For one, historically the Chinese workers would have been exploited completely by the white men, as I showed in my original argument. Nowadays, Chinese industry is led by China, NOT European influences. As for the environmental impact, I acknowledge that China has dreadful air quality. However, China has made great strides towards changing this as they have spent 760 billion yuan ($76.8 billion) on improving air quality and decreasing pollution from industries [2]. ConclusionWhile it is true that the quality of life today is anything but perfect, when we compare it historically, as I showed in my original argument, it is clear that our lives have improved greatly. I apologize for the shortness of my rebuttal, I will make sure to expand upon it next round. Sources[1] http://www.oxfam.ca...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...
REMATCH! On Balance People's Lives are Changing for the Better

Middle Ages vs Modern dayFirst off, let me tell you that slavery is still prevailent in modern days, regardless of what my opponent claims that "people are prevented from enslavement". [source: http://en.wikipedia.org...]30 million is absolutely terrible. It is a huge drop of quality from the serfs. At least later the serfs could earn their way out of the land, and 23 million people were freed by the Russian emancipation reform. [Mee, Arthur; Hammerton, J. A.; Innes, Arthur D.; Harmsworth History of the World: Volume 7, 1907, Carmelite House, London; at page 5193] Therefore, we can conclude: in modern day there are more slaves than serfs during the Middle Ages in Russia. Not to mention that I haven't accounted for the population growth that might have occured between 600-1800 CE (therefore making the original serf numbers much, much smaller). As for the grave punishments, while they were harsh, they are arguably needed. There's a reason under Draco's rule, his famous Draconian lawcode pretty much prevented all crime. You don't do crime under Draco. You kill, you die. You steal, you die. Hey, maybe the original law codes were better! They might not be fair, but they're justified. Victorian Era vs modern day Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty sure victorian era-- or at least, nearing the end of it--is part of modern development. I'd say that the last 100 years count as a progress that we can use for evidence that people's lives are changing for the worse. In fact, I'd even stretch the statistics out to the last 150 years. Unless my opponent can source a WORSE genocide a long time ago (much more long time ago than nowadays), then we can only assume that genocides are growing bigger, badder, stronger. Thing about the pattern starting from 1900's to modern day:-Namibia genocide (opponent already sources its terribleness) -World War One (37 million deaths!)-World War Two [ from http://www.nationalww2museum.org...]: Battle Deaths 15,000,000 Battle Wounded 25,000,000 Civilian Deaths 45,000,000 -War on Terror (110,000 soldiers and civilians dead, more still fighting over the old religious issue of Sunni vs Sh'ites, 150,000 soldiers STILL FIGHTING TO THIS DAY!!) [source: http://owni.eu...]Not to mention that 3,000 people instantly died due to the 9/11 terrorism incident.But of course, we cannot forget the incredibly bloody war--the civil war--with about 750,000 deaths! [source: http://www.nytimes.com...]The three most deadly wars of all time happened in modern day--the last 150 years--and the War on Terror is still occuring. The world is definitely NOT improving. Before, there were deaths, indeed, and of course, people died in combat, died in war, but to have so many consecutive devastating wars--not to mention WWII being the DEADLIEST MILITARY CONFLICT IN HISTORY, we have no choice but to believe that the world is changing for the worse, not the better. Back to you. I hope you get time to refute my original arguments while rebuilding your own.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Pro says "My opponent's criticism here is akin to saying the apple I wish I had right now is not red because it doesn't presently exist. existence is no predicate for quality. " Yes Pro, if something doesn't exist, it doesn't have color, just like a non existent God doesn't have the quality of perfection. The concept of a red apple in your hand is very different to an actual red apple in your hand. The concept of God with the "quality" perfect, is very different to an actual God with the an actual "quality" perfect. Pro says "3. Everything with P must EX" & "For a detailed discussion of this point, see my last argument with my opponent. " Well lets go over that last argument shall we ? Pro says "So how do we know that something perfect exists with certainty? Well, there is a dichotomy here: either God (aka something perfect) is a thought object, or God really exists. However, as my argument shows, God is not perfect if God is just a thought object. By postulating God, you postulate perfection, and thus existence. " 1) God is not perfect if God is a thought object 2) God is perfect 3) Therefore God exists This assumes that perfection exists in the first place, I remind Pro that the CONCEPT of perfection does NOT prove that perfection ACTUALLY exists. Now Pro tries to justify that perfection exists and says "How does the postulation of existence mean that God really exists? There are two kinds of beliefs: true and untrue" 1) Perfection only exists as a concept (in the mind) 2) Perfection exists in actuality Pro goes onto say "Let us assume it were true that God did not actually exist. If God did not actually exist, it should be possible to say God does not exist without committing a logical contradiction. " As I said before "God does not exist" I also said "Perfection does not actually exist" I have also said "Perfection exists as a concept and not in actuality' There is no contradiction here, cause unlike Pro I have not assumed that Perfection actually exists in the first place. Pro says "However, as the Descartes argument shows, there is a contradiction between something we have postulated as perfect and non-existent. " Well lets look at Descartes argument shall we ? Descartes says "Because I cannot conceive God unless as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and therefore that he really exists:" & "for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence, that is, a being supremely perfect," Descartes lack of imagination isn't a proof that their concept of perfection and/or God corresponds with actual existence. This ontological argument has being one big circle jerk.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Pro says "So how do we know that something perfect exists with certainty? Well, there is a dichotomy here: either God (aka something perfect) is a thought object, or God really exists. However, as my argument shows, God is not perfect if God is just a thought object. By postulating God, you postulate perfection, and thus existence. " Okey either. .. .. . 1) God/perfection exists only as a thought object 2) God/perfection exists as a thought object and actuality Now pretty much anything can exist as a thought object. .. .. .flying invisible time travelling gremlins anyone ? But of course we can't assume that God/Perfection actually exists in order to prove that it exists. Pro goes onto say "In our present case, the alternative is the non-existence of God. Let us assume it were true that God did not actually exist. If God did not actually exist, it should be possible to say God does not exist without committing a logical contradiction. " Okey Pro, allow me too say. .. .God/perfection does not exist. .. .. .. .. .looks like I just said it without any contradiction eh ? Pro says "However, as the Descartes argument shows, there is a contradiction between something we have postulated as perfect and non-existent. " Its only a contradiction because you ASSUME that perfection/God exists in the first place. Now consider this argument that does NOT assume that perfection/God exists 1) God/perfection may or may not actually exist 2) We should not assume that God/Perfection exist 3) It is claimed that God/perfection may not exist 4) Thus there is no contradiction between 1) & 3) Now compare that to this argument that ASSUMES that perfection/God exists. .. .. .. .. 1) Assume perfection/God exists 2) It is claimed that God/perfection may not exist or 2b) It is claimed that God/perfection does not exist 3) Premise 2) and 2b) contradicts premise 1 4) Therefore God exists This is clearly logically fallacious as you have assumed God/perfection exists, in order to prove that God/perfection does exist. As far as the contradiction goes. .. .. .just stop ASSUMING that God/Perfection exists in the first place and the contradiction disappears. I look forward to Pros reply.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

His single objection I deal with in detail below. In his first premise, my opponent states that if it is possible something exists, it is possible that something does not exist. If I have a pen it is certain (and therefore possible) that the pen exists. Anything certain to exist, obviously, is impossible to not exist. But let us assume that nothing is certain to exist - a sort of agnostic nihilism. Thus it follows that nothing has true meaning, for all meaning cannot be certain when we do not know it exists. However, this is absurd because my opponent's premise is itself a form of meaning. Therefore my opponent's first premise is self-defeating. So how do we know that something perfect exists with certainty? Well, there is a dichotomy here: either God (aka something perfect) is a thought object, or God really exists. However, as my argument shows, God is not perfect if God is just a thought object. By postulating God, you postulate perfection, and thus existence. How does the postulation of existence mean that God really exists? There are two kinds of beliefs: true and untrue. To work out which beliefs are correct, one must see if the alternative can be excluded. Descartes himself gives the example of coming across a body of water and determining that it's a bay. This is not a true belief, however, because upon circumnavigation the "bay" it may, in fact, turn out to be a lake. Thus we cannot say it is a bay because our experience logically contradicts our hypothesis. In our present case, the alternative is the non-existence of God. Let us assume it were true that God did not actually exist. If God did not actually exist, it should be possible to say God does not exist without committing a logical contradiction. However, as the Descartes argument shows, there is a contradiction between something we have postulated as perfect and non-existent. Therefore this position is untenable. Since we have ruled out the alternative, we know it is really true. I hope this answers some of my opponent's problems with the Descartes argument, and I look forward to hearing what he brings up next. I would like to ask that my opponent brings up all his points in this round (even if he doesn't elaborate too much on them all) because this is the last round that I can respond to.