BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom [your choice of character]

This'll be an interesting match. Let's get into how powerful Wesker is.Argument:Strength;Wesker has incredible strength, able to lift steel girders, missles, and he even dent a steel wall inside an airplane.Agility;Wesker is incredibly fast. He dodges bullets at point blank range, and he moves so fast, it appears he's teleporting.Durability;Wesker is also very durable. His hardened skin can bend a metal pipe if you tried to hit him with it. He can also survive RPG launchers, and even survived a fall into a volcano!Abilities;Master Martial Artist; Wesker has experience in hand-to-hand combat, and after being injected with the prototype virus, he created his own fighting style.Expert Marksman; Wesker is very good at aiming, where he shot a crane hook off from far away with a handgun. No doubt he can hit a man 10 feet in front of him.Equipment;Wesker uses his Beretta 92F Custom "Samurai Edge" handgun if he doesn't feel like punching you. It's a pretty good gun that's used by members of S.T.A.R.S. It can hold 15 bullets at one time, making it good against smaller enemies.So let's see what Wolverine's able to do.Sources:VS Battles wiki: http://vsbattles.wikia.com...Resident Evil wiki: http://residentevil.wikia.com...Samurai Edge page: http://residentevil.wikia.com...;
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom [your choice of character]

With Marvel vs Capcom Infinite being released in late 2017, I'd like to try this Death Battle idea. You can choose a character from Marvel or Capcom. If they have a helper, that is allowed. Here's a list of characters with helpers:Ace Attorneys with their respective assistants (like Phoenix Wright with Maya, Apollo Justice with Trucy, Edgeworth with Kay Faraday, etc.)Rocket Raccoon with Baby GrootHawkeye with Ant Man[If I'm missing a duo, let me know in the comments.]Rules:1) Like I said before, you can choose any character from Marvel or Capcom. But there is one exception: If they have the power to destroy whole planets easily, they aren't allowed. So you can't choose Galactus.2) Other than their signature assistant, no assistance from any other characters. So even if you choose an Avenger, you can't have the entire Avengers group fighting.3) We'll be mainly using information from our characters' respective media. They'll be at their latest showing of the characters. If they're currently dead, then use their showing before their death. In simpler terms, how the character would probably appear in a Marvel vs Capcom game.4) If you choose a set of 2 characters that I haven't listed, I'll force you to argue for one of the two. (Like you choose Iron Man with Captain America. Those aren't a real duo that was listed, so I'd force you to choose Captain America.) Refusal to abide by this rule (using your two anyways) results in an auto loss.My character will be Wesker from Capcom's Resident Evil. Comment your character in the comments section. I'll choose who I think poses a fair challenge against Wesker.
You Pick (Write it in in your first text box)

I would like to start by saying that never in my argument did I say that it should only be available for medical use, That would just cause more corruption in the system of doctors getting privately paid to write prescriptions of large quantities of marijuana for private buyers. Also, We wouldn't need to take it back. It is not our duty to dictate what people do with the weed that they would purchase, We would just need to make a country wide age limit for purchasing it. Anti-theft methods would be easy to imply to stores that sell weed. The strength of the substance wouldn't be a big problem either. We trust people with their own lives no matter what the condition is, Guns, Alcohol, Knives, It is not any persons job to tell people what to do with their lives. Also, I am a bit confused about your argument, You make the statement, " I have been to the east coast, And stores that sell weed have a green x on a sign outside of them. " and then you just skip into, " Also, It is much more dangerous of a thing for children to steal than chewing gum or tobacco. " You are jumping around and stating information without saying why you put it there or why it is relevant. Also, I would like to say that it is incredibly obvious that you are in such a grade as middle school, For your debate is poorly written, And defended even worse. Your welcome for engaging this debate.
You Pick (Write it in in your first text box)

I agree that for medical purposes, Weed should be legal. I assumed that when you said legalized, You meant available for the general public. The prohibition never worked. Even police would go to the speakeasies to drink. If we were to legalize weed, We could never take it back. Also, People would buy weed from their friendly local pharmacy, Roll it, And add other compounds. Weed today is 3 times stronger than it was when our parents were kids, And that makes it 3 times deadlier. I have been to the east coast, And stores that sell weed have a green x on a sign outside of them. Also, It is much more dangerous of a thing for children to steal than chewing gum or tobacco. Thank you for an engaging debate that distracts me from the endless monotony of middle school.
You Pick (Write it in in your first text box)

Yes, We is the U. S government. As you can learn from our fellow states (e. G. California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Etc, Etc. ) It is actually not the worst thing to do. Especially for medical purposes. Also, Weed is not just dispensed by just anybody. It would be sold over off the shelves of pharmacies. The number of accidents in states like California due to being under the influence of recreational marijuana, Is less than. 5%. Also, You will find that the long/short term damage that doing marijuana is incredibly small. And you're welcome.
You Pick (Write it in in your first text box)

First of al, Who is "we"? If it is the U. S. Government, I think that is a difficult case to make. I believe that it shouldn't be legal because it negatively affects people, And using weed is comparable to drunk driving. You are not supposed to do it, But people still do. Plus, Even if weed were legalized, A large number of the additives in the weed that is dispensed by private citizens is often more harmful than the weed itself. Thank you.
The United States government would possibly be responsible for disaster or catastrophy

The United States government is the the ultimate possibility for chaos, disaster, and destruction upon the United States, and possibly the world. I will paste out the conspiracy theories in which it is POSSIBLE (which the con does not understand yet) to happen; and does make sense, in which what my overall argument is. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... There is the answer. Because this is again, as the topic states, a possibility, and cannot be proven(but instead have examples provided, in which I've done many times), and shows why I win the debate. Also, the argument that Wikipedia is an unreliable source for this particular subject is invalid because of . Thus, because it labels why things such as predictive programming in Family Guy is relevant and important,( ) and in which the con was not sure how to respond and therefore inadequately. Point proven. Although the sources are from Wikipedia and YouTube, those videos and articles have credible sources provided. "^ Surprisingly the forfeited round has been Pro's best performance yet." Due to the equal amount of effort made by both sides of round 4, it is to be dropped from debate. Additionally, the most sense the con made at all was in round four, but does not have any relevance towards debate and instead tries to make a debate into a battle of insults. I have proven what I had to; while I was showing how it may be possible for the U.S. government to cause any sort of destruction, and the con takes my arguments into a statistical debate and shows how it is not happening at the current time, which is another reason why I win the debate. Sorry con, you tried.
Riddle

The rules are I give you a riddle and you solve it. If you get it right, the voters vote 7 points to you. If you get it wrong or do not know the answer, I win. There are three clay containers. One of them only pennies from the year 2005 in it, one has only pennies from 1975 in it, and the third has an equal number of each. They are labeled "2005" "1975" and "mixed", however you know that the labels have been switched, so that each container is marked incorrectly. Can you properly label each container by only pulling one coin out from each container?
Immigration as a Human Right

PrefaceAjisthetruth PM'd me asking for a debate, and as I've been interested in this topic for awhile, I suggested it to him. I think this should be an interesting exchange, and I look forward to the debate. You must have at least 2,500 ELO in order to vote. Full TopicImmigration ought to be recognized as a human rightTerms The definitions below are influenced by or excerpted from Oxford Dictionary and the OHCHR:Immigration - 'The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country'Ought - indicates moral desirabilityHuman Right - "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. .. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law general principles and other sources of international law. "Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. moral skepticism, moral nihilism, (inherent) rights don't exist, etc. )7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is Shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks.
Human cloning should not be banned

As stated in your opening, the clones would not grow up to be psychological copies of their forerunners; they would be genetically identical individuals with their own personal experiences and capacities for emotional development. As such, the problem with human cloning lies not in the act of creating a genetically identical organism, but in the manner this person would be treated and if their own rights as individual humans would be respected. You say that cloning offers a means for "improving the quality of life for all of humanity"; are clones included under the umbrella of humanity which is going to be benefited? You speak of clones as a potential solution not only to the "shortage of organ donations but also medical advances that could be made by researching through the clone", suggesting that the clones would be treated simply as organisms from which research can be conducted and organs harvested. For human beings (and I would say that clones, seeing as they are like "identical twins raised apart", should be considered as human beings) to be raised as organisms comparable to lab rats used for medical research and grown for the purpose of organ donation would be unethical. Cloning used among livestock to produce higher quality genetic lines deals with the ethics of how livestock are treated; the issue of cloning among humans in the efforts to yield medical advances and provide organ donations should be set in the field of what is considered ethical in the treatment of people. Using people as the subject of medical research regardless of their own personal preferences and treating people not as human individuals but as organisms carrying vital organs to be donated defies the standards with which people should be treated and is, in this light, unethical. The means through which cloning has the potential to benefit a selected part of humanity are inhumane if it is assumed they would not be given choice. Going along with this choice, if clones were ethically raised as individual humans with rights, there is no guarantee that they would want and be willing to donate organs or be the subjects of medical research. Cloning does not offer a guaranteed way to help save lives or make medical advances; if clones are given choice, cloning instead presents the possibility of creating an individual genetically identical to an older individual; it presents the costly opportunity to attempt cloning an individual with a high chance of failure and the possibility of rendering a human being with genetic defects who must be taken care of and treated in an ethical way and is not to be seen as a research subject or a source for organs to be removed from. Is it ethical to create individuals from which we will strip the rights that go along with being human? To continue research which leads us to begin raising people like cattle would be wrong. This is why cloning, when the clones are seen not as people but as test subjects, as livestock, should be banned.
Human cloning should not be banned

The creation of genetically identical copies of human, given the term Human Cloning, is generally used to refer to the reproduction of human cells and tissues artificially. It is a possibility that seems more viable now than it had been a few years ago. It has the potential to save lives and make a better quality of living for our future generations. Practiced on livestock for a while now, the process of human cloning has seen incredible results. The techniques have been proven to work and with the growth of technology, one day, human cloning can be very beneficial to our society. Many people, like few of my fellow friends, who oppose the topic of human cloning are mostly misinformed and therefore have given it a bad stereotype. It is, usually, that they think the clones won't have a different or a unique personality and would grow up to become like their donors. However, this is not the case. The process, similar to what nature has been providing to us as identical twins, involves identical DNA with separate people, separate experiences and not altogether overlapping personalities. The relationship between an 'original' and a clone is like that between identical twins raised apart; with the same DNA but little of the same environment. Human cloning could not only provide our society the answer to shortage of organ donations but also medical advances that could be made by researching through the the clone, the diagnosis of certain diseases. It is evident that human cloning has immense potential to better humanity. Only research will lead to its improvement and perfection. To ban this research will result in the loss of a technology that will someday cure diseases, prevent deaths, and give infertile couples a chance to have a child of their own. Which action, banning or not banning, is really the less ethical choice? To let this technology slip through our fingers would prevent us from improving the quality of life for all of humanity. This is why human cloning should not be banned. (Bibliography: humancloning.org , sciencedaily.com , human cloning- Wikipedia)
Stop and Frisk is Not Racist

The reason why they are selecting blacks and Hispanics disproportionately is because blacks and Hispanics commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes. As I provided in my previous argument it has in fact reduced crime. It is not racist to put criminals in jail. The disparities mean that the police can't deploy their resources where people most need protection from violence, In minority neighborhoods, Without producing racially disproportionate stops. The NYPD focuses its efforts where people most need protection, And the effort inevitably produces racially disproportionate enforcement data. Police departments target areas that are "high crime" or "high risk" using carefully collected data. This data shows that the high crime in New York City have a disproportionate number of minorities. When police stop and frisk in areas occupied by minorities, It is no surprise that they come in contact with mostly minorities. It is unfair to claim "racial profiling" based on these criteria. Oh and by the way the vast majority of police on the NYPD are minorities. I would agree that there should be some guidance in the discretion to prevent harassment that come from exceptional power practiced by police. But there should be analysis that indicate if an officer is stopping people without cause.
Stop and Frisk is Not Racist

According to Heather MacDonald, Murders decreased by 80%! And major felonies by about 75% from early 1990's to 2013 due to stop and frisk. In 2011, Stop and frisk found 800 guns and over 5, 000 other weapons. Critics like to focus on the race of the suspects that are stop and frisked. It is true that more blacks & Hispanics are stop and frisked by the police than whites but it is widely misunderstood because vast majority of citizens. According to Heather MacDonald's 2011 data, Blacks were 53% of stop suspects, Represent 23% of the city's population. Whites were 9% of stop suspects, Represent 35% of the city's population. Racism right? No here's why: Blacks were 66% of all violent crime suspects, 70% of all robberies, And around 80% of all shootings in New York City. Blacks & hispanics combined accounted for 98% of all shootings in the city (2011). Whites were only 5% of all violent crimes, Over 1% of all shootings and less than 5% of all robberies the same year. You see similar stats in 2012, Blacks accounted for 78% of shooting perpetrators, 74% of all shooting victims. Even though they represent less than 23% of NYC population. In 2012, Police actually UNDERstopped stop and frisk blacks because blacks were 55% of all police stop subjects even though blacks represent 66% of violent criminals. If you take away the stop and frisk technique then crimes will increase a LOT! According to Heather MacDonald, By the first half of 2015 (NYC prohibits police from stopping and frisking because of "Biased" or "Racial biased") as a result homicides increase 20%. Thank you for taking the time to read my argument.
Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

Con makes a distinction between foresight and hindsight. While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations. With an increase of people carrying guns, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in crime rates, as Con would have us expect. Instead, we have seen drastic reductions in murder rates. This serves to show that it is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime. People are individuals, not probabilities, and a peaceful person won't become violent simply because they have a handgun.Con's position is that we should limit the accessibility of handguns, but we have already established a baseline of regulations to keep handguns out of the hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Not allowing citizens to carry handguns in this instance will only reduce the number of responsible citizens with handguns. Criminals will still be able to get handguns from illegal sources.It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens. Indeed, with the drastic increases in carry permits available to the public, we haven't seen crime rates soar. Instead, we have seen murder rates fall 42% since 1987. This fits in place well with the study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.In conclusion, we can see that citizens carrying handguns can reduce crimes in many ways. Firstly, it allows citizens to defend themselves when attacked. Secondly, it allows citizens to help defend others who are in peril. Thirdly, the more guns responsible citizens carry, the more hesitant a criminal will be in trying to rob somebody. I have not only provided hypothetical explanations, but statistical analysis of murder rates, and reports of defensive gun uses. Con's position is based mainly off of probabilities, but a framework of probabilities that is at odds with actual occurrences must inherently be erroneous.
Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.
Thr s no need t wrte crrectly (Spelling)

Following my proposal at http://www.debate.org... (Debates pushing the boundaries of normal debates) U knw, spelin is ncie nd all but u know ther's no need bcoz u can laredy nderstand. http://en.wikipedia.org... nglis has a rdndncy of 75% so u cn remv some lettrs hier and dere or chagne hte ordr. tis fster to write. nd u cn stil teach teh god spelin so we dnt live in chaos fr hte rest of our lifes.
Thr s no need t wrte crrectly (Spelling)

In appreciation of the experiment Pro has conducted, I misspelled the websites of 4 locations I regularly visit. Speaking generally, this should mean at least ONE incorrect site spelling would yield positive results. Not surprisingly, none of my misspellings connected with their target. This is a universal application, not specific to debate.org., but easily serving there. Pro requires probability to enable understanding, Pro wants to guarantee with 100% accuracy that the "th" probably has a character after it, but of course if the "t" or "h" is part of the misspell, (which there is no warranty from), the weighted matrix invented falls apart. Pro requires you to do Pro's thinking for him/er. "English can still be compressed. Making it even more compressed would be considered incorrect". --- this statement leads me to 2 possible conclusions. 1) Pro has conceded, further compression is not correct, and correct spelling is needed. Vote Con. 2) Pro has misspelled his/her intention, and meant to confer that further compression is correct, and confusion, as suggested by Con has set in, as mentioned in a previous round. Vote Con. Thank you for the debate.
Thr s no need t wrte crrectly (Spelling)

The point of the debate was going against one of the requirements in debates. Redundancy of english is at 75%, so we can remove that 75% and yet still make sense. Does every letter in a sentence have the same amount of meaning? Mmm, no. After a "th" we most probably have an "e" After a "q" we most probably will get an "u" Of course, URLs need accuracy, or do they? We can write this on our URL bar: dbate rog And still find this webpage. It works. It doesn't get us directly to debate.org, but it gets us to a search engine that leads us to debate.org English can still be compressed. Making it even more compressed would be considered incorrect. That's my point.