BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Bidoof is the best Pokemon ever.

. .. Bidoof is clearly the best. This starts from no foundation. This statement does not express what it's the best at. Is it the best at level one? Is it the best at level 50? Is it the best at level 100? I shall challenge this statement from each of these benchmarks. Stat comparison between Bidoof and Pikachu: At LEVEL ONE: Pikachu starts off with a base stat total of 300. Bidoof starts off with a base stat total of 250. At LEVEL 50: Pikachu has 3 superior stats to Bidoof and 1 equal stat. Bidoof has 2 superior stats to Pikachu and 1 equal stat. At LEVEL 100: Pikachu has 3 superior stats to Bidoof and 1 equal stat. Bidoof has 2 superior stats to Pikachu and 1 equal stat. I shall also note now that no evolutions are involved in this, so there's no comparison between Raichu, Pikachu's evolution, and Bibarel, Bidoof's evolution, because if Bidoof is Bibarel, then it's no longer Bidoof. And what about the amount of moves it can learn in battle? Bidoof wins on that account, because it can learn more moves than Pikachu can (with or without evolution). So let's compare Bidoof to Mew. I feel it unnecessary to elaborate, unless Pro wishes that I do so, on the number of moves that Bidoof can learn. All that need be mentioned, I feel, is that it cannot learn all of them. Mew, on the other hand, can learn every TM as well as HM in the Pokï¿½mon world. To summarise: Bidoof is not the best, because if one seeks powerful stats, then they can simply look to Pikachu, an easy-to-obtain basic Pokï¿½mon, and if one seeks versatility, then they can simply look to Mew. Smogon University Without Moody, there are many Pokï¿½mon that are superior to Bidoof. Abusing Moody to its fullest is banned in most standard games. On top of that, Bidoof is not the only Pokï¿½mon that can know Moody. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... . http://www.smogon.com...
Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical

This is a team debate for BSH1's tournament.Teams are as follows:PRO: ShabShoral and Bob13CON: Lannan13 and DanielleFormat:1. Acceptance2. Aff constructive, Con constructive and rebuttals3. Rebuttals4. Conclusions (no new arguments)Definitions:"Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision" - The decision to raise the price of Daraprim (pyrimethamine) to the equivalent of $750 a tablet. "Was ethical" - Was morally permissable; was an act which can draw no legitimate moral criticism, or one in which such criticism is outweighed by the factors in favour of the act. The act *ought* to have been done.
Genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption by the FDA.

I am most terribly sorry that I forfeited the last round. I had an unexpected pile of work to do. Also realize that I was currently debating 6 other people. Please give conduct to Pro.Also, I do realize that my opponent is arguing for GMO's. When I accepted this debate, I thought she was arguing against GMO's, because of the title "Genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption by the FDA." By "cleared" the definition: "Adverb. So as not to be in contact with or near; away (often followed by of ): Stand clear of the closing doors." By this, I thought she meant that the FDA should not let people get in contact with GMO's. My argument is that Pro took the wrong side, thus arguments should go to me. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption by the FDA.

I think the FDA should allow GM salmon to be legal for human consumption. The debate will be structured like this. First round, acceptance. Second round, constructive arguments. Third and fourth rounds, cross examination or questions to the other side. I was thinking it would work like this, round 3A Pro questions, round 3B Con answers and questions, 4A Pro answers 4B No debate (Con writes something to the effect of "as agreed on, this round serves no purpose.) Round 5 is affirmative and negative rebuttals respectively. I would like someone who will take this debate seriously but still have fun with it.
Gay Marriage

Yes you did you descriptively explained how sex between gays is made possible that vulgar, even Alex_hanson911 was offended. Definition of vulgar: lacking refinement or cultivation or taste Source of Definition: http://www.google.ca... 2) Argument is really irrelevant its flagrantly obvious that the commentator in this video was explaining how a gay man would be attracted to a man and how a gay woman would be attracted to another woman, all you succeeded in doing is pointing out a venial technicality. 3) In nature animals and humans are parented by a family structure of one masculine member and a feminine member, this is not found within a same sex marriage. It would be better for a child to be born into poverty with a proper family structure than to have responsible gay parents. It is true what you pointed out about how a majority of those who are in prison grew up in poverty but a huge portion of those born in poverty ALSO lacked proper family structure. 4) It is true that sometimes straight people do raise gay children but it is also true that traditional marriage does encourage children to be straight, it is an often occurrence that children who are gay will go through enormous lengths to hide that they are gay, some of them even marrying a woman and having kids. Why would this different with a same sex couple? 6) Of course a Pro-Choicer like you would agree that the rights of babies are less important than everyone else. It is our job as a society is to look after those who are defenseless.
Gay Marriage

I did not use any foul language in my previous round. The only thing that could possibly be considered foul might be Penis (which is the legitimate, proper term for the body part) and Butt which is a PG rated version of a word that rhymes with grass... but let me re-phrase for my sensitive opponent: I do not know any heterosexual man who would be willing to insert a penis up his anus/rectum for simply associating with gay people. Now, back to the debate. 1) If the person in the video wasn't using his belief that gay marriage is immoral and a sin against God as a reason to oppose gay marriage, then it's completely irrelevant to the debate. Moving on. 2) No, gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex refers to male/female identities, and gender refers to masculine and feminine identities. Typically males identify as masculine and females identify as feminine, but not always. Proof of this fact are people who are transgendered, or those who cross dress, accept nontraditional gender roles, etc. Additionally, this argument seems pretty irrelevant to the debate since my opponent did not discuss it at all except to say that sex and gender are synonymous, which they are clearly not. Here are a plethora of examples detailing how and why: http://www.google.com... 3) I agree that children should be raised in good homes with good families. However what is "proper" can be considered subjective. Plus, I don't see why gay people wouldn't make "proper" parents. Many already do. Regarding criminal activity, most prison inmates also come from low income families. Would it be better for a loving gay couple with a good home and who live in a good neighborhood to be parents, or a heterosexual couple who lives in poverty and has no scruples? 4) I jokingly stated that straight people always raise straight children, so gay people must always raise gay children. Con responded with, "Traditional marriages encourage children to be straight and gay marriage encourages them to be gay." He completely played into my mockery of an argument. The point here is that people are going to marry whom they love and want to spend their life (and legal rights) with, regardless of their gender. Even if a straight child is born into a gay family, they still have plenty of straight role model couples around both in the media, society, etc. Plus, I don't think they would alter their sexual orientation for the sake of imitating their parents. 5) Okay, so it's his opinion that gay people go to Hell. So what. Again, this is irrelevant to the debate. 6) I agree. Life isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we should not make changes wherever possible to rectify that sad reality. In conclusion, I cited those arguments from the video because my opponent was apparently incapable of coming up with his own. Instead, he cited a shallow cartoon to depict how he feels about gay marriage. In reality, he hasn't put forth any (worthwhile) arguments, or anything of merit for me to respond to.
Gay Marriage

I would first like to ask my opponent to abstain from using such vulgar language young children use this site. 1) He did state that he believed that gay marriage was "Immoral and a sin against God" how every he only stated this as a personal belief of his and not as a reason to ban gay marriage. 2) Gay people to like people of there own Gender, Gender and sex refer to the same thing. 3) It is important for children to have proper family structure, when we look at inmates in Americans prisons a majority of them come from broken or single family homes. 4) When a gay child is born into a traditional family they often feel alienated and dirty and repress these feelings for years, who is to say that if a straight child is born into a same sex family, Traditional marriages encourage children to be straight and gay marriage encourages them to be gay. 5) He did not site this as fact but a personal opinion of his. 6) Life is not fair to anyone really
Gay Marriage

... I'm not amused. It's not even a funny video. So, let's move on to the arguments. 1) Gay marriage is immoral and a sin against God. Irrelevant. Whatever god you might believe in should have no bearing on my legal rights. 2) Gay people like people of their own gender. Wrong. Gay people like people of their own sex. And so what? 3) Gay people can't have children, so they adopt. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Children need good parents regardless of their sexual orientation. 4) Gay people only raise gay children, who in turn teach/promote gay sex, and everyone will turn gay. Right. Gay people only raise gay children, the same way that straight people only raise straight children. Uh huh. Anyway, it intrigues me that my opponent seems to agree that people can be converted or coerced into homosexuality. I don't know about you, but I know plenty of straight men who regardless of their environment or company (lots of gay people) would never in a million years dream of sticking another man's penis up their butt. 5) Gay people go to Hell. Even if Hell were real, I fail to see why that should matter. This is an earthly contract; not a fictional... er, religious one. Plus, it should be my right to take this chance; personal accountability means that my marriage won't affect yours in this life or the next. 6) Gay marriage is unfair to children. Opposing gay marriage is unfair to adults.
Dogs don't have tails.

Pro's first point is fallacious. He has simply questioned the foundation of my arguments and evidence, which is not sufficient to refute me. We are in a debate, and in a debate, the contending parties should each argue by presenting logical arguments and evidence. I feel I have provided more evidence that is factual and scientific in nature, while Pro made up several very specific theories, without any supportive evidence. I have even refuted his theories by presenting evidence (in the form of scientific knowledge) that severely contradicts his theories.I would like to elaborate on my point about Occam's razor. According to Wikipedia:"Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.""Fewest assumptions" is the key part, here. An "assumption" is a belief formed without proof.Pro has also misunderstood my "theory." Actually, I don't really have a theory. My position in this debate it that it is a self-evident fact that dogs have tails, based on the standard definition of "tail" and the fact that I have seen a dog's tail with my own eyes (Pro said himself, experiences are the most trustable proofs). Reasonably speaking, I actually make NO assumptions. ZERO.Pro, on the other hand, as I have already stated, provided several arguments, each heavily based on assumptions, without any proofs. Let's go over them again:Pro has claimed that dogs do not have tails. He has attempted to support this claim with the following arguments: "The thing coming out above the dog's butt" is not a tail, it is a number of malignant tumors growing on top of each other. This is because a mutation occurred that caused the tumor to form. After reproduction, the tumors, which may or may not be inheritable, may have been passed on to the following generations. These tumors may have stopped growing because the dogs ate unclassified herbs which caused antibodies to generate within the body. The antibodies then stopped the tumors from growing. It should be strikingly obvious at this point who has made more assumptions. This is clearly Pro. Therefore, according to Occam's razor, my position is better. Finally, I would like to thank Pro for the debate. I also enjoyed myself and it helped me improve my debating skills, being a topic that is more creative and not overly complicated. Thanks again, OpponentDestroyer
Dogs don't have tails.

I just knew when read his arguments. I would like to get to the main point where the Con had stated that my theories are just theories with no weight. First of all, I would like to say that the only "trustable" and "heavy" proofs are your experiences. Do we even know what cancer really is? Are scientists lying about all these advancements just to get funds from us? We have no idea. They may be just making up theories while living in mansions disguised as laboratories. Therefore, it is on use saying that my theories are weightless because theories are theories. When one has not experienced it first-hand, it is impossible to tell whether it's true or not. I could be making up things with evidences that sound true and post it on the internet; it is very likely thousands of people will believe it whatsoever. Secondly, according to Occam's razor:"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. " My theory: It is not a tail but tumors stacked up on top of each other. These tumors could be inherited and herbs that increases and produces new kinds of antibodies were eaten. The tumors were there for so long that the dogs gained control over them. Con's theory: A dog's tail is connected to its spine. It contains several vertebrae (bones) and muscles. Ask any doctor, and they will tell you that a tumor doesn't contain bones or muscles. And they are, of course, correct. A tumor might develop aroundbones and muscles, but it doesn't contain bones or muscles of its own. So a dog's tail cannot be a tumor. Also, a dog has the ability to control the movement of its tail. It is not possible to control the movement of a tumor. Using my sense of judgement, my theory is shorter and is easier to understand. Therefore it is simpler. According to Occam's razor, my theory is better. I would like to end my round here and would like to thank the Con again for accepting this debate. It was fun and enjoyable, especially when the topic isn't so serious. I wish him luck in the final round and in the voting period. Thank you.
Dogs don't have tails.

Pro has suggested that dogs' "tails" have developed from malignant (cancerous) tumors growing on top of each other. Oddly, this implies that all dogs today have cancer. Is that what Pro is proposing? Because I took my dog to the vet last week and the vet did not tell me my dog had cancer. Pro then admits that such a malignant tumor, or cancer, may not be inheritable. In fact, I have already shown that it is proven that an acquired malignant tumor is NEVER inheritable. Let me elaborate:In one sense, tumors can be inheritable. In another sense, they cannot be. One can inherit the predisposition to develop a tumor, but one cannot inherit an acquired tumor itself that has developed in one's parent. And let's remember that dogs have their tails from birth, so they cannot be "predisposed" tumors. This leaves only one possibility: dogs' tails are NOT tumors. In response to my argument that tumors do not stop growing, Pro has argued that dogs consumed herbs that stopped their growth. But there's a major hole in this argument. Namely, the effects of the herbs would not carry over to the succeeding generations. For example, dogs today do not have access to any such herbs, and yet their tails grow normally. I feel I have adequately addressed my opponent's rebuttals. I will now put forth a few new arguments that dogs' tails are not tumors, in support of my position that they are, in fact, tails. A dog's tail is connected to its spine. It contains several vertebrae (bones) and muscles. [1] Ask any doctor, and they will tell you that a tumor doesn't contain bones or muscles. And they are, of course, correct. A tumor might develop around bones and muscles, but it doesn't contain bones or muscles of its own. So a dog's tail cannot be a tumor. Also, a dog has the ability to control the movement of its tail. It is not possible to control the movement of a tumor. Furthermore, Pro said in his first arguments in Round 2 that dogs originally did not have tails, and then a mutation occurred and a tumor developed and became the "tail. " Not only does he not provide any proof of this, but there is a problem with this theory. Dogs were domesticated from wolves. That means that dogs came after wolves. And wolves had tails! In conclusion, acquired malignant tumors cannot be inherited, and dogs' tails are connected to their spines, which means that they cannot be tumors. Therefore, dogs have tails. Sources:[1] . http://www.petplace.com...
Dogs don't have tails.

I thanks the con for his arguments. Now onto my rebuttals: In order to identify whether the so-called tail is a part of the body or a tumor, tumors must be specifically defined. There are three kinds of tumors: benign tumors, pre-malignant tumors, and malignant tumors. Ignore the benign tumors and the pre-malignant tumors and digging deeply into the malignant tumors, it is proven that malignant tumors are considered as a kind of cancer and is cancerous. Malignant tumors are caused when uncontrolled cells grow into chunks out of places of the body. The tail may have been made from malignant tumors growing on top of each other. Next, let's look in cancer. Going straight to the familial cancer, it is unpredictable whether it is inheritable or not. Even though it is not confirmed that it is inheritable, it is also not confirmed that it is inheritable. There may be a question on how did the tail stop growing. Well, the ansewr is simple. The ancestors of dogs may have eaten herbs that help stop cancer. Thereafter, dogs have tails. (controlled tumors grown on each other) Herbs are very secretive. Even nowadays, not all the herbs on earth are classified, let alone the fact that there were even more herbs in the olden days compared to nowadays. Examples of herbs that could cure cancers (only ones that were classified) could be found here. http://www.canceractive.com...In conclusion, a tail is tumors stacked on top of each other. http://cancer.stanford.edu...;http://www.differencebetween.info...;
Dogs don't have tails.

My opponent has put forth an argument that dogs' tails are not in fact tails, but are actually tumors. I will attempt to show that this notion is illogical, and scientifically misinformed.First of all, what is a tumor?The English medical definition of "tumor" is as follows:"An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function; a neoplasm."[1]A dog's tail cannot be defined as a "tumor," because a tumor is inherently abnormal, while tails are a normal part of the body that almost all dogs possess. Furthermore, there is an important physiological distinction between tumorous tissue and normal, healthy tissue. A tumor is characterized by having uncontrolled and progressive cell growth. This means that a tumor grows abnormally and doesn't stop growing. The tissue in dogs' tails do not display these abnormal characteristics and usually grow normally and then eventually stop growing.Tumors also cannot be inherited, and therefore dogs' tails could not have evolved in the way that Pro has suggested. While Pro is correct that tumors are caused by genetic mutations, the type of mutation that Pro is talking about (known as a somatic mutation) is not inheritable.[2] A tumor is something that develops in an individual, not something that evolves across an entire species.According to Pro's logic, our arms and legs are not normal limbs, but are in fact tumors. This is obviously ridiculous.In conclusion, dogs' tails are made up of normal tissue and therefore cannot be considered tumors. Also, tumors are not inheritable, which puts a major hole in Pro's thesis.Thank you. I turn the debate back to Pro.Sources:[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Dogs don't have tails.

Obviously, the thing sticking out above the dog's butt is not a tail. It's a tumor. According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection could cause animals to adapt by changing their physical properties like color or size, being called "microevolution", or cause them to evolve into new species through mutations, like the ancient whales living on the ground evolving into a whale living in the water.In case of dogs, they had no tails in the past. However, mutation (could occur randomly that could be either interference, neutral, or beneficial) had occurred and caused the tumor to come out above the butt. After the dog reproduced, further generations also have tumors. As time pass, the tumors get longer and larger, become what is now known as the "tail". Scientists say that it is used to help the animal balance. It is true. However, scientists didn't know how or where the tail comes from. In conclusion, it's not a tail. It's a tumor. http://cogweb.ucla.edu...http://www.livescience.com...
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

There is absolutely no way that it is ok for children to become suicide bombers. They are innocent and harmless and cause no harm to society. I believe they should not be involved, especially being lied too and committing suicide. In the school systems, multiple students are also being told that committing suicide is allowed which is totally wrong. It would be ok if they are fighting in the war, but they are just being killed by their own people and are being taken advantaged of. When you said this may be the only thing to do for the families because some may have a lot of kids to feed I kind of agree but then I do not. This happens often when there is too many children for parents to handle so they have to make decisions. But there is many more decisions to be made then what you said. They could of gave their child to a family who can support them, that is a much better reason. Also I do not think that the parents were threatened to put their kid into school. I think they sent their children to school and without knowing what the teachers teach them, like suicide is allowed, and they will go to paradise. Also one of the kids said gods name was written on toilet paper which is very disturbing and wrong. Overall, kids should not be suicide bombers because they are innocent and harmless and people are just taking advantage of them which is wrong.