BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the best 2 martial arts

i am sorry for not submitting links in my earlier argument so here they are . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://tienlung.com... . http://www.youtube.com... please note: that in all these sparring matches the practioners are required to hold back. now i will start stateing the reasons why i think that my martial arts are supirior i will list the 1,2,3 etc so it is easier to identify which statement my opponent is talking about 1) CON: "With its no-nonsense approach and straightforward practical moves" taekwondo is one of the best martial arts to intercept attacks as it is mainly a counter active martial art krav manga's straight forward move would most likley will not be useful useing that stratigy 2) for both of these martial arts grappling dim mak will not be effective beacuse no matter where or how you grapple them they always have a point to push that will either render their opponent useless or result a death for example according to the dim mak charts there is a point you can press in your foot that will stop your heart there is a point on both arms and legs which shuts down the entire nervous and nural system so there are points all over the body 3) although jeet kune do is very fast and a good martial art once again it is straight forward giveing the practioner of taekwondo the advantage also what i failed to mention earlier is that taekwondo and jeetkunedo are very similar the only difference between the two is that taekwondo still uses patterns and they use a little more of the feet also according to General Choi Hong Hi bruce lee trained in taekwondo for a while before going off to make his own martial art 4) quite like jeetkunedo taekwondo is broke up into distances too for example the shortest range to the longest is grapple, elbows and knees, punch/front leg kick, back leg kick/jumping kick, sliding kick/punch, and then safe. 5) according to reports from korea and other places of the world the korean army is the best at hand to hand in versitile places and the main martial art that they study is taekwondo. 6) as krav manga is very strong and a great martial art for killing you said that krav manga uses aggresion well the only problem with incorperateing agression with fighting is that it partially impaires your abiliety to think also it gives dim mak an advantage, beacuse agression triggers adrenelane into your blood stream as a defense mechnisim dim mak users can channel the adrenalne by causeing too much of your adenalene to go into your blood stream which causes over work of muscel and heart, it would be like over doseing 5 times on steroids so you would die a slow and painfull death and would not be able to do anything about it.
the best 2 martial arts

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. 1) Commando Krav Maga (CKM) is considered by many experts to be the most evolved and effective hand-to-hand combat system in the world. Founded by a former Elite Commando of the Israeli Special Forces, Commando Krav Maga is the ultimate reality-based system engineered for the most brutal and vicious street confrontations. With its no-nonsense approach and straightforward practical moves, CKM prepares you for the unexpected with techniques that can be utilized effectively under pressure. Krav Maga has a philosophy emphasizing threat neutralization, simultaneous defensive and offensive maneuvers, and aggression. 2) Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do is a hybrid system that borrows heavily from several arts, including Wing Chun, boxing, and fencing. Unlike most hybrid systems, it absorbs what is useful while casting off what is useless to arrive at the bare combat essentials. Movements are direct, straightforward, and non-classical. The system works on the use of different 'tools' for different situations. These situations are broken down into ranges (Kicking, Punching, Trapping and Grappling), with techniques flowing smoothly between them. It was named for the concept of interception, or attacking your opponent while he is about to attack. -- Descriptions from Sources -- - http://www.commandokravmaga.com... - http://www.nytimes.com...? - http://en.wikipedia.org... - http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
the best 2 martial arts

the first round will not count as part of the debate instead it will be for you to name your best martial art and explain the strengths of the martial art then in round 2 we will start debating my first pick is Dim Mak (nicknamed death touch) 1) The concept known as Dim Mak traces its history to Traditional Chinese Medicine Acupuncture that can kill using seemingly less than lethal force targeted at specific areas of the body. Dim mak is depicted as a secret body of knowledge with techniques that attack pressure points and meridians, said to incapacitate or sometimes cause immediate or even delayed death to an opponent. some people claim that bruce lee's death was a result from a Dim Mak strike he recived three days before (i dont belive this but that is what they claim). so to summerise this one hit one kill. the seacond martial art that i have chosen is taekwon-do (itf) Taekwondo training generally includes a system of blocks, kicks, punches, and open-handed strikes and may also include various take-downs or sweeps, throws, and joint locks. Some taekwondo instructors also incorporate the use of pressure points, known as jiapsul, as well as grabbing self-defense techniques borrowed from other martial arts, such as hapkido and judo. Taekwondo is considerd one of the most adaptive martial arts in the world making the user a tough opponent to beat. The main reason I picked Taekwondo is beacuse of the speed and reaction time according to the fight science records taekwondo has the fastest reaction timing out of any martial arts, according to research a person who as obtained a black belt in itf taekwondo should be able to do a techniques to block an attack before any of the other martial arts nural receptors recive that the attack is coming. i look forward to hearing what you have to say and what you have chossen as your best 2 martial arts.
An teleological and ontological question

Following the train of logic, does the summary below indicate that the universes' existence have a purpose and does it uncover intent? If so, what are some of its philosophical implications? "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."
An teleological and ontological question

Rather than summarizing everything, I will simply go over one thing. To say that the universe must have been caused is a bit like saying whatever caused the universe must have been caused. Without the universe, there was no time. Without time, we have no way of knowing whether or not causation exists. Any and all observations of causality we have rely on time. Something can only cause something, as far as we know, if it is BEFORE it. Since there would be nothing BEFORE the universe (since time wasn't around), it does not require a cause. One of the main points of my opponent's argument was that the universe needed a cause. However, for the same reason that a 'first cause' wouldn't need a cause, the universe does not need a cause. Only things that happen in the context of time require a cause, and the universe was created outside the context of time. Sorry for the long wait and the short conclusion, I've been busy with other stuff and not too motivated to respond to this debate. It was engaging though, so thanks for the debate.
An teleological and ontological question

You didn't really make it clear what you were arguing for and what you expected my position to be, so I will simply attack the argument you put forth. The logic is completely sound, but that does not mean it is a good argument. "1. All men are retarded. 2. I am a man. 3. Therefore, I must be retarded." This is logically true, but it is false in reality. This is because I use a false premise. Premise 1 is simply a lie. 3 is a conclusion drawn from a lie, and therefore it is not necessarily true (it could be, though, but I assure you it isn't). Now, I will attempt to show why the argument you provided is inherently flawed. First, premise 1 is somewhat ambiguous. It may be true that when moving through time, the next moment will always be based off something earlier, something that has caused it. Our observation of this is consistent. however, our observation of this is limited to viewing things on a timeline. What about before time existed? Our only concept of a cause is something that happens 'before' something else, and leads to that something else. However, this means absolutely nothing when we remove time as we know it from the equation. 2.11 says that an actual infinite cannot exist. This is speculation, there is no data from which this conclusion can be logically drawn. 2.13 relies on 2.11, and is therefore not necessarily true. 2.21 relies on 2.11 and 2.13, so it is invalid. (If either an actual infinite or an infinite regress of events could exist, than an actual infinite could come about through addition.) 2.23 relies on 2.21, so it it invalid. 2 relies on a bunch of invalid premises, therefore it is invalid. 3 relies on 2 and 1, both invalid premises, so it it invalid. Keep in mind that even removing one premise from the argument would invalidate the argument. I, however, have shown that most of these premises are without warrant. 2.12 and 2.22 were the only premises I did not disagree with. For the reason that it is an invalid argument, this argument has no implications whatsoever. It does not indicate a purpose to the universe, nor would it if it was valid. I suppose I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say. As I said, I'm unsure if this is what he was expecting, but the debate resolution is not very clear about what the sides are arguing, and my opponent's opening round did not have a real stance behind it that I could see. Hopefully he can clear that up for me.
Wikipedia

I'll accept this. Wikipedia is not "bad" because people can write false information on it. Sure, people CAN write false information. The website allows for that, as it considers itself an "encyclopedia of the people" if you will. People can change it and edit it with their knowledge of a subject, as they can with any "wiki" site. Some of this information could be false. However, before condemning Wikipedia as "bad" because it CAN contain false information, one must look at its purpose. Wikipedia is a site intended as a compendium of human knowledge. They recognize that it is not, at this time, a perfectly reliable academic resource [1]. So no, don't go writing a paper for high school or college and cite Wikipedia as a source. However, you cannot dismiss all of the site's merit simply because you cannot use DIRECTLY it to write a paper. Wikipedia can lead you to obscure details or sources concerning a subject you are researching that could not be found anywhere else, such as the founders of a park [1]. Wikipedia is meant to be the starting point for your academic research. It also has articles that are considered "good" or "featured" and have a higher possibility to be reliable. Another benefit to Wikipedia is its contribution to the general knowledge of the Internet-surfing populace. You cannot tell me you've never wondered about a particular subject and looked it up on Wikipedia, read about it, and felt enlightened. This is, in my opinion, the best thing about Wikipedia, the ability to access a shared compendium of knowledge with the touch of a keyboard. Sure, you have to be wary of falsified details (check the sources), but Wikipedia is a great and easy tool to assist in the pursuit of knowledge. The last point that makes Wikipedia not "bad" is a rather fun one: Wikipedia golf. Even if you argue that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for knowledge, you can still have fun with it. Pick a par number, a certain page you want to get to (I.e. Barack Obama) and click random page. You try to click the fewest hyperlinks on the page that you can to reach Obama's page. This engaging and fun game can teach critical thinking and help you pick up some basic knowledge on the way, all thanks to Wikipedia [2]. Therefore, Wikipedia has multiple benefits, and although it may not be a credible source for a research paper, it is not "bad". [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Wikipedia

Once again, thanks for the rebuttal. The opposition completely abandons their last point and my rebuttal in favor of a completely ungrounded argument. Wikipedia is not for "stupid people". Stupid people are, in fact, the ones who use Wikipedia as pure fact and cite it in research papers. If you can stray from this practice, a plethora of information awaits you. Again, like the last argument, I will rebut your argument by citing an example of a smart person who uses Wikipedia: Mr. Evgeny Morozov, a writer and researcher about the field of technology. Here is a quote from Mr. Morozov: "For all its shortcomings, Wikipedia does have strong governance and deliberative mechanisms; anyone who has ever followed discussions on Wikipedia's mailing lists will confirm that its moderators and administrators openly discuss controversial issues on a regular basis." http://www.brainyquote.com... Therefore, although Wikipedia has shortcomings, if used in an effective manner, it can be a valuable resource or provide for a fun game. It is not "bad". Thank you.
Wikipedia

Well, alright, thanks for that rebuttal. This is a fairly easy statement to rebut. My opponent claims "all the stuff" on Wikipedia is false. Therefore, I just have to find one thing on Wikipedia that is true to rebut this. Since I went with Obama as an example before, I'll do so again. Here's a sentence from WIkipedia: Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office. Ok, now here are some other sources that say the same thing: Barack Obama has been elected the 44th president of the United States--the first time an African-American has won the nation's highest office http://www.usnews.com... On this day in 2008, Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, decisively defeated his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, to become the nation's 44th president and the first African-American to be elected to the White House. http://www.politico.com...# Barack Obama, in full Barack Hussein Obama II"(born August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.), 44th president of the United States (2009-) and the first African American to hold the office. http://www.britannica.com... As you can see, either every site on the Internet is wrong, or Wikipedia has correct facts, which would invalidate your argument. As I said before, a couple of usually quickly fixed errors on a site does not make it bad. Wikipedia is in fact good in the hands of the right user. Back to you.
sports cars, lambergihni is better than the ferrarri

firegxx66, please deabate me, because you cant just come on to this website and think it's a blog (there could be one on here when they updated it) people are taking your statement as an argument. Here are some more facts- 1) Ferrari is owned by Fiat. That is a Eurpean car company. It isn't a great car but it still makes money. Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen, which is solded world wide. Do the math, Lambo's have more resources than Ferrari, and more money to spend so they moght be a few ticks slower. But if you are in the US why do you need to go 100 mph+? 2) In MAy of this year, Ferrari sold 168 units. Last year they sold 130ish. I couldn't find Lambo's. I will have the numbers for November later with both cars
sports cars, lambergihni is better than the ferrarri

Hello, firegxx66 I'm in love with cars. I read magizines watch shows and wtach races. ALso, my family owns a car dealership. I think your arguement is biasest and totaly wrong. I would like to see some facts to support your reasoning. So, you don't explain what models you are talking about. The Ferrari FXX gets more horsepower than the lambo Murcielago. The numbers are 800 to 633 according to wikipidia. What models are you talking about? That is like saying Chevy is faster than Ford. In what? Also, horsepower doesn't make a car good or not. It's like a marathon runner. It isn't aboout who can have the top speed, but it's about who can matain that speed for 26.2 miles. If you read car magizines (ex: Motor Trend or Automobile) they compare cars in every catagory. That ranges from preformence to the inteior. Horsepower is just 1 catagory.
A Non-Mental Reality Must Exist.

My opponent’s position can be summarized as follows:Concepts are subjectively-formed mental constructs which describe abstract relationships between concretes. Concretes are not concepts, and concepts are impossible without concretes. This argument has a number of problems. First, it places unnecessary restrictions on the descriptive scope of “concept” - restrictions which do not apply to the term as I intended to use it. For example, he asserts that “a concept does not describe a specific existent, but a classification or group in which all members have a specific set of qualities (their essence, if you will).” If this were true, one could not form a concept of the Empire State Building or of any particular person. What my opponent appears to be referring to is an abstraction, which is a subset of concept. Second, my opponent is attacking a strawman. When I say that everything is a concept, I don’t mean that everything is a concept of a concept, I mean that everything is conceptual. That is, “concept” is also a concept.A little reflection should reveal that no matter how “objective” (non-mental) one tries to get, one is ultimately dealing with cognition. When my opponent attempts to differentiate between conceptions of things and the things themselves, he is not addressing the fact that both would be identical to their own descriptions. Something independent of mind is not theoretically meaningful, for if it were truly independent of mind it would lack meaningful definition. Insofar as it is intelligible, the property “independent of mind” is itself mental by cognitive embedment. There is no escape.
A Non-Mental Reality Must Exist.

DEFINITIONS:Mental: Of or relating to consciousness (a "Mental reality" being one that is contained solely in consciousnessReality: That which is real - that which exists. In this debate, PRO will argue that there must be a non-mental reality, with "mental reality" used as defined above. I do not have to show that there are no mental aspects of reality, but that they must not be all there is in the makeup of reality.The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments.The BOP will be split - I will have to affirm that a non-mental reality MUST exist, while my opponent must hold that a non-mental reality DOES NOT exist.No abusive semantical arguments, etc - I doubt that this will be a problem so I don't think I need to go into detail about this. You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 9,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for ten days. I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
A Non-Mental Reality Must Exist.

I, for the sake of argument (the only meaningful differences are irrelevant to the topic at hand), accept my opponent's summation of my argument. My opponent's example of a concept of the Empire State Building does not show that my use of the term "concept" is wrong - it assumes that any concept of the Empire State Building does not follow the formula for conceptualization that I have given previously. This counterexample can be neutralized by considering that, even in such seemingly-narrow concepts, the concept of the Empire State Building can hold all those entities, potential or actual, which have the "essence" of the Empire State. If this is rejected, how, then, could the Empire State be conceptualized at all? After all, if such a concept is specific enough to detail every quality of an entity, then it follows that the concept would apply to the Empire State at one moment and not to the next. From these points of time, some change has occurred - since we do not make a new concept for every new moment, it can be seen that, when the word "concept" is used in any discussion, it refers to a non-specific category of things.As I have tried to explain before, my opponent is confusing the epistemological with the metaphysical. Even if I accept that all knowledge of things is conceptual, and even if I accept that concretes can only be experienced via concepts, there is no problem with my position. My opponent is taking a stance on how we know things, not what things, in themselves, are. If we cannot know what non-conceptual things are non-conceptually, this does not refute the necessity of conceptual referents (as I have shown in my previous rounds - my opponent has not addressed these points properly). If I cannot say what, exactly, a conceptual referent would be like, this does not dilute the fact that something non-conceptual, in any form, must exist. I do not have to be any more specific than that in order to fulfil my BOP. As such, any problems my opponent finds with the endeavour of defining or pinpointing the nature such referents is irrelevant. It is fine if I cannot think of the non-conceptual in non-conceptual terms - this does not refute the fact that the conceptual implies the non-conceptual by its very nature.Thanks for reading, reader - and thanks for debating, Dylan :)
The United States was primarily responsible for instigating the Cold War

1. The debate should be impossible to accept. Finding a way to accept without permission will result in an automatic loss for Con. If you would like to accept, please say so in the comments section, and I will challenge you in a week or so. 4. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to define the Cold War as "the period of political tension between the United States and the Soviet Union lasting from the end of World War II to the dissolution of the Societ Union in 1991; encompasses all related military conflicts. " Good luck, Con.
The government and fed have too much power.

I accept. Government- The Federal Government of the United States.Fed- The Federal Reserve of the United States.Power- The ability or official capacity to exercise control [1]. My Rules:Drops equal concessions.No new arguments last round.BoP:BoP is on Pro to prove that the government and the Fed have too much power. If either of these institutions are shown to not have too much power, I win.Good luck to my opponent!Source:[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...