BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jiraiya will defeat Kisame in a fight

I'll be defending Jiraiya. Location: Where kisame fought killer B. Intel: 1. Kisame knows about Sage Mode. He doesnt know anything else about jiraiya. 2. Jiraiya knows about Samehada's ability to absorb chakra. He knows nothing else about Kisame. Prep time: None Mindset: IC with killing intent Starting Distance: 20 metre. Condition: Kisame has Samehada and Samehada will not betray Kisame. Restriction: None Feats: Only known feats of the characters are to be used, no assumptions are allowed no matter how obvious it is. If it was never shown in the manga then you can"t consider it. Only Canon feats are allowed. Filler Feats are banned. My case: Intelligence While he would normally come off as goofy, Jiraiya had repeatedly shown himself to be a shrewd man. His intelligence enabled him to track Orochimaru and Akatsuki through the years, and he headed his own spy network all over the Five Great Shinobi Countries for this purpose. He was very knowledgeable in various techniques, able to quickly recognise them and know how to counter them. Reasons why Jiraiya will win : 1. Jiraiya's feats on land are faster than that of Kisame's(When he went to the Rain Village to battle Pain) 2. He can summon Gamabunta and the other toads to battle Kisame to buy him time to strategise and activate Senin-mode which will severely enhance all his fighting elements. 3. He can counter Kisame if he tries to turn the battle field into a sort of pool or water filled body by countering with his fire style jutsus. 4. Samehada can eat chakra, yes. However, after going to Sage mode, if Samehada does try it then it will turn to stone due to Natural Energy overload. 5. Not to mention even his Sage mode power enhances massively when he summons Ma and Pa
Taxation is theft

I'm glad that we both can agree on the importance of taxes in paying for certain services the government provides to citizens like you and I. Right off the bat I want to begin by saying paying taxes is simply a law, just like any other. As a citizen, you are required to pay taxes and obey laws in exchange for the governments protection as well as various services we have discussed. That should be logical. You say the argument is to "recognize the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to fund these essential services is immoral", which I disagree with. Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. The use of violence to enforce the law (depending on the circumstances obviously) is simply illegal. Just like any other law, the government has the right to enforce their laws accordingly, but they must do it constitutionally. To further your view I would like to ask you to provide an example of this "violence" or "threat of violence" there is when you break the law and illegally evade taxes. You define theft as "taking of the property or services of another without consent". The consent to you paying taxes is being a citizen of the country in which you live. It is your duty as a citizen to pay taxes. "Taxation is performed by force, you must pay taxes whether you agree with them or not. If you refuse the government will use violence to force you to pay." First of all, where is this violence? You make it sound as the the government is quick to physically assault you in the event you commit tax evasion. Using violence to enforce tax laws is simply unconstitutional. Of course the government is going to enforce their laws, but they will not do it unconstitutionally. Let me ask you, if the government didn't force you to pay taxes, would you? Would millions of other citizens willingly pay taxes without the government "forcing" them to? I will definitely agree that "the use of violence must always be always immoral", but I need you to give an example of violence being used to enforce laws regarding taxation. To say that it's happening without any evidence does not solve any problems. Give me some examples and we can discuss them together. Now onto your example of me forcing you to pay me $1000. First of all, I will agree with you that is theft, but I'm not the government for which you are a citizen. Using that example is simply a false equivalent. You added that I "might then claim that the government has some standing that gives it the power to make the immoral moral", which ridiculous. The government has the right to make laws in which its citizens agree to follow and enforce them.
Taxation is theft

I do very much enjoy things such as roads and emergency services. And of course, the people who are building those roads and rendering those services must be compensated. In the same way, the people growing our food and building our homes must be compensated. Why such violent tactics are seen as necessary to fund some essential services, but not others, is beyond me. "Where does the government get the money to provide these things to you? " The argument is NOT that the government needs to provide these things without collecting money. The argument is that we should recognise that the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to fund these essential services is immoral. Then we can have the discussion as to whether it is justifiable or necessary. "Where is the theft and immorality you speak of when the government provides you with services such as these?" Your argument here seems to be that "If the government is giving you things you need/want in exchange for your tax dollars then it is not theft" So let us define theft as "taking of the property or services of another without consent" Taxation is performed by force, you must pay taxes whether you agree with them or not. If you refuse the government will use violence to force you to pay. It is this distinction that makes taxation theft. Outside of the defence of one's own rights, or the defence of the rights of others, the use of violence must always be always immoral. If I were to break into your home and force you to pay me $1000 but then used $300 to fix your door and $400 to repaint your garage does that mean that the stealing of your money is now justified? Of course not as you did not consent to the exchange. You would rightfully demand I return the stolen money. You might then claim that the government has some standing that gives it the power to make the immoral moral. As dangerous an idea as it is wrong.
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

"I don't believe in atoms, to me its an imaginary concept like a universe, not real" that is your argument? Well I'm sad to tell you that, but the truth isn't a voting thing. Atoms exist. And 1+0=1 is actually not a false equation. Since you can add nothing to something. Just don't do anything and you have successfully added nothing to something. "Information exist beyond space and time" this is actually not true, because Information is "facts provided or learned about something or someone." And since you learn something through connecting brain cells through synapses, which do consist of matter, information is matter.
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

information is the opposite of matter, information exist beyond space and time, and matter is space and time, 0 and 1 something is true, and nothing is information matter can only transform, make the matter that is an apple nothing, I dare you I don't believe in atoms, to me its an imaginary concept like a universe, not real I agree 1+1=2 1+0=1 is a false equation thou, even thou the answer is true, the explanation for this as there can be no equal when you can not add something to nothing is, 1+0(1), which is just 1
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

"information is anti matter, 0, and everything is something, and something is 1" just because something exist does it not mean that it's value is -1. Anti-Matter is the complete opposite of Matter (that's why it's called ANTI-Matter), which is 1 * -1 = -1. I think you didn't get the point with equations. An equation points out which values do equal, IN THAT EQUATION. So if you have an apple and add another, you have 2 apples. Period. What happens outside of the equation is that another one loses an apple. That, however, does not change the first equation. So 1+1 is still 2, no matter what happens outside of that equation. The same goes with subtraction. If you have an apple and completely destroy it, it is no longer an apple. so you have -1 apples. And since you had an apple before, the equation is 1-1 which is 0 apples. "matter can only transform, creation and destruction are impossible in reality" that is actually not true. matter and anti-matter do not transform into another form of matter, they just pop out of existence. The same goes for radioactive decay. A radioactive atom does decay, and when it does, it is no longer an atom and therefore 1 atom before and no atom afterwards, which is 0 atoms.
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

the robber adds one dollar to his stack while minusing from mine, the opposite would be going back in time information is anti matter, 0, and everything is something, and something is 1 matter is the opposite of information, like positive is anti negative you do equations to find what is true, its not like we do 1+1 equals 3 suddenly, so 0*1213432(0) is not an equation, it can not equal, its like trying to put an imaginary sticker on a soda(1+0). and the thing is, 0 is false, so you start with a false answer which is what you still have at the end matter can only transform, creation and destruction are impossible in reality
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

"1-1=0 is a false equation, as minus is impossible in reality, where do we see this example in reality?" yeah? Lets say you have 1 dollar. A guy comes and robs you 1 dollar. Now you have 1-1 dollars which is 0 dollars. also the comparison can be made with matter and antimatter. matter=1 antimatter=-1 when you combine the two it's 1-1 and they turn into nothing, 0. "0x1241241=0 is false from the get go, you can not multiply nothing by anything" lets say you have nothing. and you have 1241241 times nothing, which is still nothing. so 0x1241241=0. "if I take an apple from your stack, I added an apple to my own stack while minusing from yours, I can never minus first, only plus." what if I just destroy an apple of yours. there is none added to me and you lost an apple. -1
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

1-1=0 is a false equation, as minus is impossible in reality, where do we see this example in reality? 1+1=2 is easy to find, i have a pen in my hand, and now i add 1 more pen, so i have 2 pens in my hand is true plus is possible, and minus is impossible if i take an apple from your stack, i added an apple to my own stack while minusing from yours, i can never minus first, only plus 0x1241241=0 is false from the get go, you can not multiply nothing by anything
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

"atoms exist, superman exist, god exist, lies exist" well... atoms can be proved to exist. lying can be tested, superman exists in comic books and there is no evidence for god. What argument are you trying to make with this statement? Whether superman, god or lies exists have nothing to do with an equation ending on 0. "unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true?" One definition of the universe is "all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc." You can see space, and stars and planets and galaxies, etc. You can measure them too, isn't that enough evidence that at least the things in the universe exist? "so put an imaginary sticker on a real soda, and you have added nothing to something" exactly. 1+0, which is 1. If you take the soda away from your imaginary sticker, you have just your imaginary sticker, which is 0 in that equation.
Unitomic's May Tournament: Progressive Tax is superior to Flat Tax for a nation to utilize.

Definitions: Progressive tax: A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. (. http://www.investopedia.com...) Flat tax: A system that applies the same tax rate to every taxpayer regardless of income bracket (. http://www.investopedia.com...) (Due to time constraints tomorrow I request that my opponent posts between 6 PM PDT to 10 PM PDT)
Should Sugary Drinks be Taxed

Did you know that 48 percent of U.S. adults say that they drink at least one glass of soda per day? However, among the average soda drinkers, drink about three glasses of soda per day. Should these enjoyable fizzy drinks be taxed to the American people? Some agree that it would benefit health by preventing obesity between both children and adults. Others say that without taxes, it would benefit the taxpayers by making these tasty beverages more accessible to them and that the government gets the upper hand, in this deal. But which is more important, U.S. citizen"s health or the satisfaction of them? Many U.S. citizens believe that health would be more important, but there are still those soda drinkers that can"t get enough of those sweet and sugary drinks, and those who uncover the mysterious works of our county. The soda tax solution would be a negative resolution to this issue. "The tax imposed will be at the rate of $0.01 per ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened beverages in Cook County." According to records found on a Cook County government website. Cook County claims that a percentage of the tax would go to hospital in research about, preventing obesity, but there are no records/data that prove this statement. If there are no records or proof, defending this statement, how can it be true or followed through with? On the other hand, others say that Cook County is taxing needlessly, for example, diet soda is taxed but contains no sugar at all! Cook County citizens also say that they should be able to decide on what they consume, the city should not decide for them. Even though many citizens know what our government is doing, they still think it is a good idea, because it would prevent people from buying a lot of unhealthy soda (resulting in healthier citizens). But, knowing these facts, why would the citizens of Cook County allow our government to use us like this? Don"t fall into the government"s control! Many U.S. representatives and American people drink coffee, which contains sugar! If coffee contains sugar, then why isn"t it taxed, the government is only doing things that affect them positively. Other places in America don"t even use added taxes, only Cook County. We can"t let our own government take advantage of us like this, say NO to the Cook County beverage tax!
God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

Pro’s resolution is: “God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence. ” I argue that not only is it unreasonable to conclude that a supernatural cause is the reason for “existence”, but it is more reasonable to conclude that existence was from natural causes. That is irrelevant though, because the Burden of Proof is on Pro. She admits that we don’t know what caused our existence as she states “as far as we know, before the big bang was true nothingness. ” I affirm that it is not reasonable to conclude anything if we have no knowledge. My opponent said,” i'm not saying it is a necesssary conclusion, that our cause was supernatural, but it is not illogical, and makes sense, and we have reasons for saying so, "reasonable" by con's definition. ” She’s not saying it’s a necessary conclusion? Where does she think the word ‘conclude’ came from? She also argues that we have reasons to believe that our existence is cause by something supernatural. If we do, she didn’t give any evidence for it. I rebutted every assertion she had, and she is arguing from ignorance. Just because we don’t have an answer for something, it is not okay to just insert a made up one. She claims it is reasonable based on my definition. Just to clarify, it’s not my definition The definition came from . http://www.macmillandictionary.com.... Pro did not recognize that her resolution stated that it’s reasonable to CONCLUDE a supernatural cause of existence. Based on The definition given: Conclude: to decide that something is true after looking at all the evidence you have. I do not think the evidence shows that Pro’s resolution can be decided as true. My opponent didn’t show any evidence at all. She had a lack of sources, and based her arguments solely on speculation. I do think it’s reasonable to conclude that I have provided more evidence, more sources, and a better argument for this debate. I also want to reiterate that the Burden of Proof is on Pro. I would like to thank Pro again for posting this debate. It has been fun.
God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

even if quantum created matter, it only exists where quanta are to begin with. as far as we know, before the big bang was true nothingness, beyond space time. quanta then don't give a true indication of where existence came from. existence is fundamentally something which nothing can be outside of it, unless it is supernatural itself, that is, beyond existence. given it looks like there was true nothingness and then something, that something must be beyond natural existence, super natural. i reiterate my last posts. i'm not saying it is a necesssary conclusion, that our cause was supernatural, but it is not illogical, and makes sense, and we have reasons for saying so, "reasonable" by con's defintion
God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

Pro's round 2 argument was this."it looks like there was nothing then there as something. it makes more sense to say there was something first. but the regression of the big bang and thermodynamics state that there was a definite beginning, not the other theories that say there wasn't a definite beginning. whatever it was, looks like it was outside of natural existence. that is, supernatural." My opponent didn’t rebut any of my arguments. Instead she continued to speculate, while providing a host of logical fallacies within that one paragraph rebuttal. Supernatural If something truly did come from nothing, it doesn’t imply a supernatural force at all. Quantum fluctuations have proved that something can come from nothing. Quantum fluctuations showed us that energy in space can briefly violate the law of conservation energy and create subatomic particles. We know this from empirical evidence. [1] As defined in my opening statement, supernatural is when something does not have a natural or scientific explanation. I provided scientific and natural explanations. Logical Fallacy A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making [2]. This is a List of the fallacies committed by Pro [2]. Affirming the consequent — Believing that an effect proves a cause, i.e. A -> B, B, therefore A. Argument from ignorance — Basing the truth of a premise only on whether it has been proved to your satisfaction. One single proof — Dismissing all circumstantial evidence in favor of a single "smoking gun" that may not (and may not need to) exist. Begging the question — Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning). Denying the antecedent — If A implies B, and not-A, therefore not-B. False cause — Presuming that a real, or perceived, relationship between things, means that one is the cause of the other. Non sequitur — Arguably the most fundamental logical fallacy, this is claiming A implies B when it doesn't. Presupposition — Making an implicit assumption as part of an argument. Summery I have nothing else to add. Pro did nothing this round to support her claim. So I would like to Extend All Arguments from round 1. Sources [1] http://www.space.com... [2] http://rationalwiki.org...
Homosexuals have a right to marriage.

Resolved: Homosexuals have a right to marriage. Value: equal rights Criterion: upholding of the American constitution Definitions: Equal rights- allowing everyone the same opportunities Uphold- to support or defend My criterion supports my value because our constitution allows every citizen that has not broken the law the same opportunities. C1: Homosexuals are citizens. As stated in my introduction law following citizens are provided with equal rights. One of these rights is the right to marry whoever & how ever many times they want. Homosexual citizens should be allowed this same right because,as stated, they're still citizens of this country. C2: Homosexuals are people. As obvious as that is it needs to said. We are given by our creators the unalienable rights: life, liberty, & happiness. Not allowing Homosexuals to marry violates all three of theses unalienable rights in one way or another. The most obvious is that you're taking away their right to enjoy the HAPPINESS of marrying their significant other. Also not allowing them to marry takes away LIBERTY because your interfering with their right to marry. The saddest violation of unalienable rights is that shaming them for being homosexual has caused some to take their own lives removing LIFE.
Communism

//Greed is not the cause for a capitalistic/monetary system, it is the other way around. No one is born with greed/prejudice etc, they are the byproducts of the environment in which they grew up in. If a system glorifies competition and greed, then people will thrive to be competitive and greedy. If a system requires the cooperation of people, then people will thrive to be cooperative. In a sense, there is no such thing as 'human nature,' as it would be impossible from everyone to be the same.// If you know anything about toddlers, you should have come to a different conclusion. Many toddlers are very selfish, and they are often raised by people who encourage their children to share. Yet, though, there are still those who won't share their toys, because they are greedy. It's not the system that shapes them (safe to say most toddlers don't understand economics)This, in my opinion, is a significant argument against your Tabula Rasa ideas. I'm sure you can think of other examples, like warring tribes in Africa. Tribes are basically collectives, but at the same time, have conflict, which often occurs because of territorial disputes -- someone wants more. //Capitalism is collapsing and becoming too outdated for our time. Once more and more companies start automating jobs because of their efficiency from lack of human error, lack of the need for breaks, and cost efficiency, then we will need to get a new economic system, such as a resource-based economy.// From the sounds of this, it seems like Capitalism is the predecessor to a resource-based economy. Why, then, do you not support it? Can Communism reach the same end?
Communism

I'm not a true Stalinist or Marxist, the only reason I put that as my Party/Ideology is because I support a resource-based economy, which is the closest thing to it. I suggest debating with a true communist instead of me, but unless you still want to debate, I will say this: Greed is not the cause for a capitalistic/monetary system, it is the other way around. No one is born with greed/prejudice etc, they are the byproducts of the environment in which they grew up in. If a system glorifies competition and greed, then people will thrive to be competitive and greedy. If a system requires the cooperation of people, then people will thrive to be cooperative. In a sense, there is no such thing as 'human nature,' as it would be impossible from everyone to be the same. I advocate for a system in which labor is automated, and the products from automated labor are equally available to everyone. Car factories are mostly automated, and currently about 90% of jobs have the potential to be automated. Capitalism is collapsing and becoming too outdated for our time. Once more and more companies start automating jobs because of their efficiency from lack of human error, lack of the need for breaks, and cost efficiency, then we will need to get a new economic system, such as a resource-based economy.