BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Foxy from the Five Nights at Freddy's series a villain? (If against, provide truthful evidence.)

Given that Foxy is an animatronic, I don't think he necessarily has a morality of any sort. Whether or not the animatronics are possessed and not merely malfunctioning is up to speculation, but I believe it to be the latter because according to the first game, the animatronics attack you because they believe you to be a wire frame, and they're programmed to place wire frames into suits that have sharp wiring inside them. I don't think he's a villain as much as he is a robot that's at the fault of a programming error. Is he good, per se? ...No, but since Foxy isn't a living thing, and therefore isn't able to make conscious decisions, he can't really be classified as a villain.
Is Foxy from the Five Nights at Freddy's series a villain? (If against, provide truthful evidence.)

This is just my opinion. Firstly, there is no evidence that Foxy is a good guy, or that Mangle, or anyone for that matter, did the bite. Foxy makes the same sound as all the others when he attacks in all three games, debunking the "Malfunctioning voice box". Foxy is also the same as all the others in all three games: an animatronic animal possessed by the vengeful spirit of a brutally murdered child. Even more so in the second and third games. In 2, he's, like the other original animatronics, neglected,torn apart, and he attacks you a lot more viciously. There is no proof of him being "hacked" ingame. Stop making things up. There is also no evidence of him being "threatened" or "checking on you" ingame. Again, making things up.
George Bush is the worst President of the last 75 years.

Your arguments are one-sided and, ultimately, incorrect. When dealing with economic issues, the only body that can be blamed is Congress. The President can only influence Congress. And the economic situation is one of the littlest parts of Bush's administration when looking at what else we've been facing. As far as your argument goes, you're just trying to find the scapegoat, and, since it is during the Bush administration, you find it acceptable to blame it on him. One fact that analysts all agree on is that Bush doesn't waver on his political stances due to pressure. Some may try to find fault in that, but as far as Bush goes, there is no fault and in time, Bush will be recognized for his outstanding abilities as president. If we would have pulled out of Iraq awhile ago, like the Democrats wanted, all of the hard work and lives that we had put into that place would've been for nothing as the nation would once again fall under a dictatorship. Not to mention the War on Terror. If we just allow terrorist organizations to keep "bullying" us, then they would control our lives. All of the wars that have been waged have been vital for the success of the United States. And the possible wars with Iran and North Korea will be justified as well. And before I can continue, I want you, since you created this debate and this topic, to compare him with other presidents over the past 75 years to prove your point. Otherwise, you have lost your entire argument and the debate.
George Bush is the worst President of the last 75 years.

George Bush has dramaticly damaged this country internally and externally. The gap between rich and poor has widened, "The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression." and "the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928" (International Herald Tribune)He cut taxes while allowing congress to spend at out of control levels, not to mention two wars. The dollar is doing terrible in the world market, now behind the canadian dollar. This is just the economic side of this argument.
George Bush is the worst President of the last 75 years.

Since my opponent has not posted any arguments he forfeits the round. Also, since no refutations has been made I want all of the points in my last speech to follow through, but I do want to follow up one of my arguments one more time. Although Bush's ratings are among the lowest ever in presidential history, I do believe that his ability to stand strong, no matter the Democratic influence, in all of his convictions will prove of his strong leadership. This will be seen in time. During the Reagan Administration, President Reagan wasn't considered a great president himself, but now days, he is held as a top ten president next to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and even Franklin D. Roosevelt, their terms were just in different situations. Even though I doubt that Bush will be held as highly as Reagan, I do believe that he should move halfway up the list of good and bad presidents. Thank you
NIAMC's Musician Tournament, Round 1, tulle vs. philochristos

Tulle! Thank you so much for not forfeiting! That amazing, too! That was even better than the two songs you did in our last debate. I would pay money to listen to that. Thank you. I wish we could've seen your face, though. :-) Here is my song. I recorded this last night, and like you, there was frustration involved. This is my all time favorite song, though. Since Tulle is a tough opponent, I figured I needed to step up my game, and I added two new instruments--a carton of Carnation hot chocolate mix, and some steak seasoning. "Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkel. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com...
NIAMC's Musician Tournament, Round 1, tulle vs. philochristos

I decided to go with a song that's unlikely to get flagged by YouTube. The Byrds did a version of this song that I really liked, so I just sang the verses they sang. There are other verses that I didn't sing. I don't know how they do harmony, so I just came up with this myself today. Enjoy! "Father Along" ~by many people. . . I don't know who originally wrote it. http://www.youtube.com...
NIAMC's Musician Tournament, Round 1, tulle vs. philochristos

This is for a tournament set up by Niamc: http://www.debate.org... All the rules Niamc spelled out in the above link apply. I'll just copy them here for your convenience. Round layout: 1st round. -The 1st round debate shall consist of 3 rounds; 1st round being acceptance and reiteration of rules, rounds 2 & 3 being performance rounds - The "performances" shall be presented in the form of an audio file or video file. A single performance shall be presented in round 2 and then round 3. 2nd round. -The 1st round debate shall consist of 3 rounds; 1st round being acceptance and reiteration of rules, rounds 2 & 3 being performance rounds - The "performances" shall be presented in the form of an audio file or video file. A single performance shall be presented in round 2 and then round 3. 3rd round (finals) --The 1st round debate shall consist of 2 rounds; 1st round being acceptance and reiteration of rules, rounds 2 being performance. - There shall only be 1 performance piece presented by each side. This shall be in round 2. Rules for each round debate: -Any instrument can be played, Including singing and percussion. -Any genre of music can be performed. At the participants discretion. -No rude language or vulgarity -The performances can only be of you! (you being a participant) -The video/audio files can only be hosted via youtube or another easily accessical public site. -Any forfeits of a round means automatic loss for that person. Therefore meaning that the other person will be the winner of that pair round. - For each performance round, each side shall declare the title of the piece that they are playing in that round. - Each side can play the same instrument and by chance, are permitted to perform with the same piece against each other. -Throughout the rounds, You cannot submit the same piece. -You are allowed to change instruments, or genre or piece. -There will be no Elo requirement to vote. - Each piece can range from 1 min- 5 mins (playing time, not whole video) in time. - The performance can consist of an extract of a song. Voting criteria: - Vote based on whos piece was performed nicer - vote based on whos piece sounded nicer. -Vote based on Technicality used (speed, accents etc) - Vote based on quality of piece, not video or audio or quality. -Dont vote against someone because of the length of the piece, if the piece is longer; you should consider this as a quality of the sides playing skills i.e. durability. - Before voting, do not take the sides playing standard level into consideration. Good luck, Tulle!
Super Man Vs The Infamous Jesus

Hello again. This is Josh95 reporting for debating. Con, Your arguments are mostly invalid. Jesus is God in the flesh; he was never meant to be like Superman. For example, read Revelations. 1. Jesus doesn't use threats; he PROMISED to return and bring a "rein of peace" with him. 2. Sins>Doomsday 3. Jesus and Superman are both very busy; Jesus is probably prepping for the Second Coming; Superman, on the other hand, is doing his own thing. 4. Jesus, according to the entire New Testament, did nothing but be God in the flesh; that is, he was perfect. Superman is mostly human, and is imperfect. 5. The entire New Testament is "evidence" of Jesus's life and work. And remember, Jesus lived mostly in the present territory of Israel. 6. Jesus IS God. And God, as shown in both Old and New Testaments, is "a jealous God." God has shown that he is "just." "Just," in this case, means "to stand by one's values/beliefs/etc." God was bound by his beliefs to rid his "people" of "servants of the Devil." 7. Jesus would actually "save" you, just not in the same way that Superman would.
Super Man Vs The Infamous Jesus

1. Superman has saved the planet from destruction numerous times. Jesus has threatened to return and bring on the end of the earth with him. 2.Jesus may have died for your sins, but Superman died to protect us from an intergalactic killing machine called Doomsday. 3.When Jesus died, he was resurrected 3 days later and then abruptly left. Superman died, was in stasis for a while, and emerged with long glorious 90R42;s hair. Unlike Jesus, however, Superman stuck around and has been busy keeping the world safe from evil. 4.Although not a God, Superman still risks his life all the time trying to combat super villains. Jesus, on the other hand, is apparently all powerful, and yet refuses to do something as basic as healing amputees. 5.Superman is an expert in dozens of languages, and is an accomplished journalist. Jesus never left any writings, or evidence of any of his works. 6. Jesus said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Superman, on the other hand, has a strict code of conduct that forbids him to kill anyone. 7.If you fell out of your apartment window and cried for help, Superman would try and save you. Not only will Jesus not even bother to save you; he will send you to hell for all eternity if you don"t believe in him.
This is an example of how the mdern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing

1. The status of Science 2.0 doesn't matter anymore, I found original article on net. Here are links : - https://www.researchgate.net... - http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu... - http://news.harvard.edu... 2. Both stimuli presented visually, but also Esp stimuli presented telepathically, clairvoyancly, precognitionly. Hence you didn't present any reason against experiment, read the article, and present counter-argument. All test is shows that there's no evidence for Esp. The neuroimaging was used to see how brain would react to stimuli. 3. You did not answer the "The evidence for invalidity and incoherency of generalisation and statistical analysis used in experiment". I hope you know what evidence is. 4. "He got..., he had..., he was..." Who is this he you are talking about. Please be more clear. And what does "~the practical application of theory used here was actually used here" mean? If you wanted to make tautology, you succeeded. 5. There are people in every community who are gullible, and quickly rush to make any accusations. I can give you one example from your community. 7. You can not stipulate Moon doesn't have Gravitational pull, logically because claim itself is empirical. The reason we do not jump farther in the direction of the Moon is a=G*M/r^2 (F=ma=GMm/r^2). 8. Please, don't yeah Me. 9. Thanks to Quantum Theory, we had IT revolution, and thanks to Black Hole we will have FTL Drive. 10. You did not present any evidence for your claim. Still waiting....
This is an example of how the mdern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing

Since Pro makes the claim how the modern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing, then he/she should produce an evidence for claim. As one great wise person said, an example is not an evidence. But, let's treat it as evidence. Then Pro should have assessed it rationally and logically (free from fallacies). Here is what Pro needs to do in order to convince us for the truth of claim: 1. The Science20 is genuine, well established and commonly accepted scientific journal/blog. 2. The testimony of HU for conducting such experiment. The second hand testimony is not valid, unless it is verified by source. 3. The definitions of ESP stimuli and non-ESP stimuli. And how it is a contradiction. 4. The evidence for invalidity and incoherency of generalisation and statistical analysis used in experiment. 5. Strong and cogent argument for science being flawed just using given example. 6. What all of these have to do with atheists? (PS. I am not an atheist).
This is an example of how the mdern science industry is flawed in it's reaonsing

this article is stupid. If ESP was real, we would always be subject to ESP stimuli, so you cannot stipulate that there was no evidence of change when ESP stimuli was used, to suggests no ESP is present. this article should be used as critically acclaimed evidence that the academic society is flawed in their reasoning. http://www.science20.com... This is a prime example of how atheists, and sorry to bring it up again here, think.
Christmas has lost its meaning

I'm unable to comment on Hanukkah as I know very little about Judaism. Though I guess that it's transformation, along with Christmas, is part of a seeming general trend in society towards consuming/materialism, instead of creating by one's self. It is not something that makes much sense to me as I've always been creative and find value in what I do/know, not in what I have. I don't feel it is necessary to spend in order to show that you care about your family. Christmas is not something I take much of any notice of anymore, I see my family every day.
Christmas has lost its meaning

You can pose the same argument for Hanukkah. I don't know much about Judaism, but I know that it was a festival to celebrate the freedom of the Jews from the Romans. And it's turned into an eight day gift shower. But while you are spending money for other people's gift, other people are spending money on yours. It's nice to know that somebody cares about you, and for me, at least, it feels good knowing I love somebody enough to want to spend lots of money on them. You are celebrating your love of Christ through your love of other people. There is nothing better than that. Even though this debate part was brief, I'd like to ask you a simple question: Are you looking forward to Christmas this year? Because it sounds like you are questioning the nature of Christmas itself.
Christmas has lost its meaning

I agree with you with regard to viewing it as a social gathering, or a celebration of family. However in the mainstream there are many other threads running through it which defeat this. A family gathering of the kind you describe does not need to cost a great deal. What I see in the mainstream is people spending in excess, often putting themselves into debt because they feel obliged to due to peer pressure. In the UK, and I suspect elsewhere, there are a number of businesses, frequently advertising on TV, based entirely around the notion of 'helping people save for Christmas', and showing imagery of consumer goods to sway people. None of this is needed to have a happy family gathering. How much of what people get landed with do they actually want? How much of that ends op getting resold, given to charity, tossed out, or sitting around as clutter? I remember after last Christmas, ebay was running a front page saying 'resell unwanted presents' or something to that effect. Most adults get what they need for themselves. The festival has swayed from being a family and/or religious event in to a consumer spend-fest.
Christmas has lost its meaning

Christmas hasn't, and will never, lose it's meaning. Christmas is a time when you are all together as a family. Grandma's came over, and she brings cookies. Gramps is over, and he gives you "wise" advice that won't help you anytime soon. For kids, Christmas is a lesson of family time, and celebrating the birth of our savior. That cannot be better celebrated by a huge family "reunion". When they buy presents, they are showing a sign of love. This is where you feel a sense of belonging, you're part of a family, something bigger than yourself or your toys. For adults: Maybe your kids have came over. Maybe their kids have came over. It's a time to reflect on the beautiful family you made. Christmas has never lost it's meaning, it only adds something deeper. Instead of celebrating Jesus, you are celebrating Jesus and the blessings that God has blessed you with. It is a beautiful holiday.
Maximum Wage

I would first like to present my argument in order for us both to have our arguments posted, and afterward enter a rebuttal scenario in which we both attack each other's cases. With that being said, I now begin: The question we are faced with today is whether or not we should have a maximum wage or wage cap. I firmly negate that such a proposal should ever be implemented. Before I list my reasoning, I would like to address that my opponent brings up a figure of $500,000 USD. However, a such a proposal was already brought up in the U.S., I believe it only logical to point out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt once proposed such a cap, but it equated to a cap of $365,000. Since such a proposal had already been created, I believe that we should rely more on this figure since it was part of the original wage cap proposal. I now present my reasons for negating the proposal: 1. Increasing income tax and adjusting brackets is a more effective wealth management strategy 2. Such a proposal would drive away potential workers to other areas 3. Implementing such a proposal would serve not as an actual equalizer so much as it would a placebo Firstly, we see that increasing income tax and adjusting tax brackets would be a more effective manner of closing wage gaps. In addition, according to the NELP, "The over-representation of people of color at the lowest wage levels has contributed to the persistence of a large racial pay gap in the U.S. In 2015, the median hourly wage was $15 for African American men and $14 for Latino men. In contrast, white men earned a median hourly wage of $21 per hour." What we can learn from this data is that increasing the minimum wage would decrease racial inequality in the workplace. This proposal is far more effective than creating a maximum wage. Secondly, as evidenced by, economicshelp.org, "A maximum wage may encourage workers to leave and work in another country. Firms may find a shortage of skilled workers or top executives, this could harm economic prospects." This proposal would actually harm the American people and disincentivizes athletics and positions which pay large sums of money. Finally, according to The Guardian in 2017, "...a crude pay cap " no matter what level it"s set at " would be almost unworkable and would cause a huge amount of turmoil within the business world, which would strongly resist it. Ideas have been touted for workers on boards, public shaming, or increased shareholder rights, but they merely tinker around the edges." This sums up the entirety of the negative's third point; a pay gap would cause turmoil and not real reform. We may believe that this is a step towards progress, but in reality, it is just a placebo that restricts the real reform that is needed. For these reasons, I must stand in firm negation of the proposal.
Maximum Wage

Maximum wage prevents runaway capitalism while still maintaining the capitalist drive that success is measured by performance. Maximum tax bracket of about $500,000/annually would become the maximum wage. Contrary, minimum wage seems to only increase cost of living which causes more minimum wage and inflation. [PRO] *Prevents runaway capitalism and collusions *Maximum success is more obtainable *Promotes social adherence through equality [CON] *The current wealthy can't be stripped of their wealth including owned developments but they can be grandfathered out *Deflation can increase the wealth gap *No more billionaires
Falcon Punch is the greatest move ever.

Ahh, so we are no longer limited to just moves of Captain Falcon eh? Still, calling Falcon Punch "The Best Move Ever" is still way off. A good example of a MUCH better move, is one of my favorites, Link's Up + B move, which will henceforth be know as, The Sword Spin. There are many reasons why The Sword Spin is better than The Falcon Punch. First, I have never seen The Falcon Punch kill someone at less than 40% damage, however, I do this routinely with The Sword Spin. If is executed correctly, The Sword Spin is capable of KO-ing opponents with as little at 20% damage. And you may say, "Well no one know how to do that." OK fine, even without it's insane low damage kills, The Sword Spin is still a better move in general. Instead of only hitting the front of you, it hits all directions, making a rear counterattack impossible. It also has no "prep time" that The Falcon Punch does. One last thing about The Sword Spin, and bear in mind this is a very controversial topic so I'll keep it brief, is edge grabbing, or the act of purposely grabbing on to the edge to prevent the opponent from doing so. With Captain Falcon, while the opponent is on the edge, he cannot grab on. With Link however, his move causes the enemy to lose grip on theedge and give Link a fighting chance to get back. As for team battles, using a Kibry / Captain Falcon teams SOUND good, the results are actually quite the opposite. While both players have access to The Falcon Punch, it will be hard for either of them to resist the temptation of Falcon Punching their teammate off the stage and proclaiming themself "Team Leader". I'm not saying this will always happen, but it is fun to do. ^_^
Falcon Punch is the greatest move ever.

You say that it is good because Kirby CAN'T use it; however, the point of this debate isn't whether or not it's good for the player, but whether or not it is the greatest move ever. The Falcon Punch provides a very strong attack for both Captain Falcon AND Kirby when he steals his move. This provides Kirby also with 'the greatest move ever', which adds to its greatness simply because it can be shared among players. It is also especially useful for when friendly fire is enabled, allowing allied Kirby players to gain the Falcon Punch ability at any point in time without risking damage from getting too close to the enemy. Sure, and experienced Kirby player would know how to get it without taking damage, but why take any risk when you can have it immediately? The L and R triggers are indeed very useful to counter the Falcon Punch, but also keep in mind, it can also be used defend against Falcon Kick, assuming the player has a reaction speed greater than that of a rock. Also, many people can accidentally fail to enable their shields, or in certain cases may be in mid air (with their dodge already used), which results in a very powerful, and very successful blow. The ability to get back on the stage is no doubt impressive, but if you are a skilled enough player, you take little damage and rarely have a need to 'get BACK on the stage'. Any good player will know that you need a good defensive AND offensive, not just a way to get back whenever needed.