BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
scariest Fnaf animatronic

I disagree Mangle has some terifying jump scares. Let's observe. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...We can see that Mangle was no where to be seen in these jumpscares and this is Mangle's best. Now let's look at Springtrap's (3rd video) http://www.youtube.com... Here we can see that Springtrap is hiding in plane sight and that the user of the game is staring straight at him before looking away and then at the camera. This is a terrible mistake that is made and it shouldn't have been made. When we look at Mangle we can see that he is a good canidate amongst fans for bite of 1987 for his ceiling swing attack scene in the Office (see first video). Campared to Springtrap who's not even being concidered for comitting this attrocity. (http://videohdtv.co...)
scariest Fnaf animatronic

The reason I think Springtrap is scarier than mangle is how the game was made its harder to spot Springtrap well Mangle is fairly easy to spot, and another reason is when Springtrap is in your office you die well you can still win the game if Mangle is in your office. Yes there some thing I find unsettling about Mangle but I find Springtrap far worse.
Brock, from Pokemon, is Asian

I would like to apologize for forfeiting last round. Now, let’s go straight to the arguments. http://www.youtube.com... Definitions asian - a person born, raised, or living in Asia [1] mexican - a person born, raised, or living in Mexico [2] Arguments 1. Brock is Mexican. Mexican Brock In the series he has both worn a sombrero and dress in traditional Mexican clothing in the show on multiple occasions, sings Takeshi's Paradise [3] and even has a dancing Ludicolo. Brock and Ludicolo Brock has also been known to be a gym leader and own a large collection of pet rocks [4]. He is of short stature compared to most adults in the series but still taller than any of his traveling companions and he flirts with every woman he meets. Brock is also known for his ability to perform just about any task imaginable and does much of the gang's cooking, cleaning, and general care-taking. Jack-of-all-trade Rebuttals 1. “Asian people have a little darker skin than usual, and slanted eyes, which looks like they are squinting. Brock, the rock gym leader from the Pokemon series. fits all of these descriptions, therefore, he is Asian.” Mexicans also have darker/brown skin. Brock having slanted eyes doesn’t mean he’s Asian. Not all brown, squinted eye guys are Asian. Left: Guy with squinted eyes - Right: Brock I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I would also like to apologize again for my forfeit last round. VOTE CON!!! Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...; [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...; [3] ; [4] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(anime)
Brock, from Pokemon, is Asian

(note, i apoligise if i offend any users/viewers who are from Asia, i am not racist, i just feel that Brock is a different race, that's all) Although i cannot identify what Asians look like, there is no example of it on wikipedia, check if you don't believe me, i do know what they look like. Asian people have a little darker skin than usual, and slanted eyes, which looks like they are squinting, ( i apoligise for any racist stuff i say) Brock, the rock gym leader from the Pokemon series. fits all of these descriptions, therefore, he is Asian. Although there are not any continents in pokemon, there are regions, there asre still the different races. I mean, it would be boring if everyone in the Pokemon world was white, right? I await for my opponents response and rebuttals.
Eminem is a better rapper than 2Pac

I love both Eminem and 2pac. However, I am going to have to disagree upon this one. I know what most people will say: "2pac is dead." "Em is still around" Both statements are true but that doesn't show the amount of lyric stability that each of the rappers have. So dissecting each rapper is pretty black and white. Eminem's rap style is generally fast, slurred to fit words into rhymes, all the while incorporating jokes, profanity, and subtle middle finger's to today's society and the world we live in whether it has to do with poverty, news, politics, or his life in general. Now 2Pac is different in a sense that he is not as fast as Eminem when it comes to rhyme. However, 2Pac is a lyrical combatant when it comes to inducing metaphors and juxtapositions in his lyrics. 2Pac was a lyrical genius, not even on a music industry standpoint like eminem, but on a literacy standpoint. He made his songs easy for the most uneducated man to understand. He was a person that was easy to connect to and love since all he ever wanted was the world to be a better place. Eminem's gain though was for the respect and loyalty and to vent his frustrations. See the difference? All I'm saying is that in comparison. 2Pac is a great lyricist and raps for the world and for everyone that has ever dealt with pain. Em raps for the betterment of himself and to "stand up for the little guy" so to speak.
vigilante justice

True, America became what it is today partly do to vigilante justice. However while it was needed to make America what it is today, there is no point in it anymore. What is left to gain with anyone being able to give justice which they see fit. What that amounts to is what would become a land of do as you please, and as some may find that to be an ideal, America is not fit for that. Just look at this country for what it is, it is organized, bringing freedom for anyone to deliver justice as they want would break the machine this country is based on. While the idea of it may seem pure at first, it will bring more corruption to the forefront, which is not necessary for growth. Crime can not be stopped, but it can be put on notice, but vigilante justice would only bring more conflict that will just stop any progression for America.
Skyrim is the greatest RPG ever made

I am sorry! I have been busy! I can refute your previous arguments. 1. When I played skyrim, it took at least 20 minutes for me to reach a city. When I reached the city, i could not find my objective! The map is flawed and it does take a long time to get where you want to go. 2. In Red Dead Redemption has an online play that lets you change characters, roam around, hunt, become a fugitive and fight the cops, and get into gang shoot outs. Story mode has additional games such as five fingers and arm wrestling. Their is also a dlc that lets you play poker, liars dice, and undead overrun, which is like nazi zombies. Skyrim has not come out with an online game yet. 3. http://www.uesp.net... As shown in the link, these weapons that have differations, are all different versions the weapons I posted before. Magic can also be found in diablo 3 which is a story RPG that lets you roam free later on. I have negated the pro's previous statements. I have also proven that skyrim is not the best RPG because of many reasons! There are too many RPG's to accurratly name skyrim the best RPG.
Skyrim is the greatest RPG ever made

1. One of the greatest parts about Skyrim is it does not require you to do a specific dungeon or go from point A to point B. If you ever can't beat a certain area you can always try a whole new quest line and come back to the original dungeon when you feel you are ready. 2. Red Dead Redemption simply does not allow nearly as much freedom and certainly not as much character creation and customization as Skyrim. In Red Dead Redemption you are pretty much struck to a main story line where as in Skyrim you can be whatever you want to be. If you want to be a thief then you can complete the thieves guild quest and become a master thief, if you want to be a noble warrior you can join the companions in Whiterun and eventually become the harbinger. 3. First of all there are dozens of different differantions of weapon is in Skyrim, and your "useless club" is called a mace. You also forgot to mention magic which can give you the power to incinerate your foes and then raise them from the dead to fight for you.
Skyrim is the greatest RPG ever made

Let me first start out by saying that Skyrim is one of the worst games I have played and here is why! 1. You can get stuck on one part very easily. I played for an hour, and got stuck in the cave level, and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't beat it. 2. Red Dead Redemption is far superior! A cowboy skyrim, but with better free roam and zombie DLC! You can also play poker and liars dice. 3. The weapons are the worst! All you can choose basically is an axe, sword, shield, or bow and arrow. and don't forget your useless club! To sum it up, Red Dead Redemption is a far superior RPG than Skyrim. Heck, any game is superior to Skyrim!
The Bush Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans

I was under a different assumption about this debate. I thought this debate to be over the tax cuts implemented by George W Bush in 2001 and 2003. This appears to be a debate over either the consequences of an income tax or the consequences of increasing an income tax. In this re-guard I am in full agreement. I would argue we could debate the flaws in the Byrd agreement. I would also say we could argue the Bush tax cut's merely on the face value with the American public. Fact's will always be overshadowed with politics. Did the Bush Tax Cut's help the economy during it's recession? Yes they did. Do tax cuts help the economy; yes. The question will become, can an administration easily pass tax reform with the name George W Bush always hanging over their head? The answer is simply no. With all the Pro's of a lower income tax, one must ask themselves one question. Is an income tax necessary? Congressman John Linder say's no. Congressman Dr. Ron Paul say's no. Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson Says no. Instead of arguing on what income taxes to have and not to have, the argument should be shifted to the necessity of an income tax. The public lost faith in George W Bush. Sitting around discussing whether or not to let the tax cuts expire or not is the wrong approach. All one does in that discussion is shift the focal point in the current status quo. This needs to change. If Bush Era politics continue and the economy doesn't improve rapidly enough, people will lose all faith in tax cuts helping everyone. It would be more advantageous for politicians to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama and propose an option that is clear, to the point and show's how revenues will increase and help cut spending ( removal of the IRS via a fair tax) We can debate income tax cut's increasing revenue and helping the economy ( of which we are in agreement) or we can discuss lowering income tax versus ending it. If not I apologize for entering this debate, I had a misunderstanding as to what you were trying to debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://mises.org... http://www.heraldtribune.com...
The Bush Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans

Alright. First of all, tax cuts have been shown to stimulate job growth in the nation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. After their full passage in 2003, the economy went from a recession to an expansion, with a net total of 4.53 million jobs being created between May 2003 and December 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives. Even this does not reveal the full impact of the tax cuts, as it includes the disastrous recession losses in 2008 that were caused by the implosion of the mortgage bubble. With this track record of growth, it would be foolish to assume that repealing even parts of the tax cuts would not have a negative impact on the American economy. Secondly, the tax cuts had the interesting effect of increasing government revenue, including on the national level. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States federal government collected $1.8 trillion in taxes in 2003, before the full impact of the tax cuts on the economy, until revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007 before the recession struck the United States. Next, eliminating the tax cuts for the highest income earners would not solve our debt crisis. As reported by wsj.com, eliminating the cuts for those earning more than $1 million a year would only add about $40-$50 billion dollars in revenue, about 3% of the annual US deficit. More often than not, it would also hurt the economy, as was implied by President Obama himself when he said "You don't raise taxes in a recession." Doing so merely takes the money out of the private sector, where it can be used productively, and moves it to the government. Finally, tax rates are already too high. The top tax bracket is 35% according to taxes.com. This means that 35 cents is taken for every dollar someone earns, and is given to an irresponsible government that has failed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Raising taxes merely punishes the achievers in the United States and gives to an undeserving government.
The US Should Increase the Military Budget

You seem not to understand that your logic applies to every other major country. China has a 215 billion budget. Let"s say they want to decrease it. The Chinese version of you would say, "But we need it for our military bases, etc." We have 800 military bases around the world, according to https://www.thenation.com.... Why do we need this plethora of bases? We could cut some down that are unnecessary. As for ISIS, the Obama power vacuum did not strengthen ISIS. They were already doing what you said- you have to go back to Bush and realize invading and leaving a bunch of rubble causes the rise of militant extremism. Now, the US has always lived in a time of peace, basically. The last time a major amount of foreign troops were on our land was in the War of 1812. Sure, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but this was Kamikaze with no ground invasion. confirms this by stating the chances of a full control of US territory is unlikely. We have more than 3 million square miles, lots of varying weather, and a few islands. Plus we only border 2 countries. Also, having a budget of, say, 500 billion dollars (*only*) is not an inability to respond. By that logic, China and every other country is unable too. But you contradict that. How does the left contradict itself? I see the right as that. The US does not prevent war- we advocate for it. Look at the Vietnam War, the Cold War, or more recently, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, it is not much less than if we suddenly had to increase it- and even if so, we could make minor cuts to a few programs as necessary. Again, we don"t need it. In conclusion, we should focus on allocating the net money from the mega high military budget to better things like NASA. the EPA. and universal healthcare. Thank you.
The US Should Increase the Military Budget

Yes the US spends more than our competitors like China. However this is necessary for several reasons. The U.S. maintains military bases across the globe. In order to uphold our presence worldwide these bases need our funding. Some may not like it but it is also undeniable the U.S. has a role as the world police and if our military was cut down it could result in a power vacuum with serious consequences. This is what happened in Iraq when Obama withdrew the U.S. military. A power vacuum ensued which gave ISIS its start leading to thousands of deaths and the fracturing of Iraq. We live in a time of peace but the institutions that uphold this peace are less solid than they appear. Recent tensions in countless areas around the world all have the potential to start global conflict which would prove the high spending on U.S. materiel an asset than a burden. In the South China Sea, Ukraine, several regions in Africa, Venezuela there is instability which can spread to areas nearby. If this were to happen and the U.S. were unable to respond it would be morally wrong and lead to more deaths. The left who supposedly cares so much about globalization and human life seems to contradict itself when discussing the military spending. The fact is the U.S. acts as a cohesive agent worldwide preventing war and instability. Yes, this costs money but much less than if the U.S. is no longer obligated but required to increase spending in an era of war.
The US Should Increase the Military Budget

Right- the current US military budget is about 597 billion, soon to possibly increase to 651 billion. According to http://www.globalfirepower.com..., the US has 8848 tanks, 41062 AFVs, 13444 aircraft, 1.4 million active personnel with 1.1 million in reserve. We have *12* aircraft carriers in service, where the rest of the world combined has 8 (in service)! I don't know if you are one to say the military is collapsing, but that is not true. The Stockholm IPRI (https://en.wikipedia.org...) tells us China has a 215 billion budget, yet this is the highest proposal of a budget for that country. Cut the US budget in half, and we are still ahead by more than 100 billion dollars. America's M1 Abrams, often called the best tank in the world, has a primary 120 mm gun and is capable of 45 miles per hour. America has never been invaded and is likely the hardest country to completely invade. Why have such a high military budget when we obviously don't need it? The money could go to other things such as the environment, healthcare, and NASA. Trump has been criticized for his 54 billion increase, mainly because he cut a double digit amount of programs and institutions. The facts are that we don't need this budget at such a high amount.
The US Should Increase the Military Budget

Regardless of who started the war it remains clear ISIS would have had a much more difficult time gaining control of the Iraq's population centers had American troops been present in the country. The country was not ready for the U.S. to leave and the result is Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian and Russia and the U.S. fighting in the middle East today. Ironically this drastically increases our military budget.You seem to miss the point. The U.S. does not spend as much as it does to defend the U.S. borders because the U.S. is relatively in-conquerable. Weaker and developing countries across the globe rely on our support to uphold the balance of power and prevent other military factions from taking over. Again referring to ISIS. It may seem like the U.S. has an excessive number of bases and personnel stationed abroad but these forces act as a fabric to make our military operate as effectively as possible and maintain the global world order. Arbitrarily decreasing the budget makes weaknesses in the U.S. military and foreign policy. You seem to be unaware of the result of the Cold War. By spending on weapons research the U.S. was able to bankrupt the Soviet Union and effectively win the Cold War. At the time liberal advocacy groups lobbied for reduced military spending. This, again, is an example of the left and their policies being wrong. Iraq as previously described is in a state of war because of the removal of American troops, and Afghanistan has not improved significantly since U.S. troops there left the country. Another reason the U.S. has to spend more than it should is because European allies in NATO spend less than the agreed upon 2% of GDP. Mattis recently discussed this with Von Der Leyen, and other Euro military leaders, but until the U.S. doesn't have to overspend to maintain NATO a decrease in budget could be hazardous.Across the board the government could be more efficient and it should be a goal for all federal organizations to reduce wasteful spending.
Censorship should be Eliminated

1.“China is irrelevant. China is a communist country, give me an argument with a democratic-republic government, then that argument might become valid…” So what if China is a Communist country? China is still full of living and breathing human beings, just like the United States. Also, what does a democratic-republic government have to do with anything? Last time I checked, our Pledge of Allegiance said, “…and to the republic for which it stands…” not “and to the democratic-republic for which it stands.” Finally, you end this statement by calling my argument not-valid just because I mentioned China. Need I remind you that at the end of that contention I stated, “Our internet here is not that bad, sure, but if censorship continues to exist, and we continue to let the government do what it wants, nothing will stop our Internet from becoming just as bad.” 2.“A parent does not have time to be constantly monitoring their children. Parents have to work.” Internet Filter systems do exist, such as K9 Web Protection, Net Nanny, and more. 3.“[That’s] a specific situation….” (That included 184 suspects, like teachers and police officers} 4.“…What if someone was running a blog, and posted pictures of children?” My parent has posted a picture of me on a social media website; I am not bullied for it. Bullying is always going to exist, pulling content will not stop that. 5.“I did not. We are strictly talking about the Internet.” I invite you to recheck your definition of censorship. We are strictly talking about, as the topic suggests, eliminating censorship. The topic does not say the word, “Internet.” 6.“As you mentions earlier…” Mentioned? Again, thank you very much for your time. I did enjoy this debate very much. May the best debater win!(My apologies for the large amount of spaces)
Censorship should be Eliminated

China is irrelevant. China is a communist country, give me an argument with a democratic-republic government, then that argument might become valid. " a parent should be nearby to make sure a child is not being exposed to this; if an adult is on a website like this, perhaps they should be expecting this. Also, it is against the Consitution for one to delete another"s statements, etc. (Freedom of Speech). There is a difference between deleting someone"s profile from your website and deleting their posts." A parent does not have time to be constantly monitoring their children. Parents have to work. It is not unconstitutional! It's clear. You cannot use your 1st amendment right to violate someone else. This is why students have limited free speech in school. "On March 26th, 2011, it was reported that the world"s greatest pedophile"... Thats a specific situation. What if someone was running a blog, and posted pictures of children? Then the content should be removed. However, you don't think it should be apparently. So now there is a person in jail, and a traumatized toddler who will be faced with bullying the rest of his life. "You mentioned the other types of censorship in your definition, but only talk about the internet is here. What about films? Books?" I did not. We are strictly talking about the internet. However, I will let you know that I did that dictionaries are not written specifically upon the request of a word. There are many types of suppression. As you mentions earlier, with China and what not. Did you really not know there were other forms? censorship of speech censorship of ideas censorship of the internet. Thanks