BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

' I simply asked why you extend rights to something virtually indistinguishable from a placenta but not to the placenta.' What do you mean it is undistinguishable? a fetus has a heart beat a nervous system and much more before birth . It is a life it is a human . 'Rape severely damages a person's mental state, I hope we can both accept that. ' I can only agree that Rape CAN cause damage to a person's mentality , 'The law should be in place to prevent damage to the populace be that either mental or physical. ' And that is my opponents opinion which is totally irrelevant to the issue of abortion. 'While the psychological impact has no impact on the physical process the physical process has psychological impact.' we can agree on that sure . 'The rape victim should have as much protection from psychological harm as they can be given including abortion if that is necessary.' That is like saying because this person is psychologically harmed by anothers person existance he has to die . ' They will probably recover after some time and then the chances are they can raise a family.' They could also recover from potentiol damage by giving the baby to adoption..... I don't see a big difference on how that would affect the mother any worse than if she aborted it in fact she probably will regret aborting a child and will be reminded of it in the future . At least when you are giving it to adoption the child is going to have a chance to live . It is not the babies fault her mother prefers to kill it than give it to adoption. 'I did not refer to you as inhuman in regards to the law but in regards to your statement "you got a dick when you didn't want to but you are not a survivor unless he raped you with a sharp fuckinh knife.".' Something being offensive doesn't make my point any less creditable .
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

My opponent claims it's okay to kill a fetus just because it's young , It is in a state of development just like an older fetus." This is a straw man fallacy. I simply asked why you extend rights to something virtually indistinguishable from a placenta but not to the placenta. "My opponent has claimed that he has shown why rape is so psychologically damaging , Than he claims that my argument is inhuman which is a moral claim that shouldn't be used when making laws, I'm not saying rape is okay i'm saying that even if rape did have some sort of a psychological impact on the victim It doesnt interfere in the physical process of giving birth ." Rape severely damages a person's mental state, I hope we can both accept that. The law should be in place to prevent damage to the populace be that either mental or physical. While the psychological impact has no impact on the physical process the physical process has psychological impact. The rape victim should have as much protection from psychological harm as they can be given including abortion if that is necessary. They will probably recover after some time and then the chances are they can raise a family. I did not refer to you as inhuman in regards to the law but in regards to your statement "you got a dick when you didn't want to but you are not a survivor unless he raped you with a sharp fuckinh knife.".
Doom Trooper VS. Master Chief

BACKGROUND INFO U.S Space Marine Captain Defeated Hell 5 times Unafraid of brutality ABILITIES Can dodge plasma shots Can run approximately 57 mph Able to hold multiple weapons simultaneously Can see invisible enemies. WEARS MEGA-ARMOR 2x stronger than security armor Non-regenerating energy-shields Max armour and shield charge is 200% WEAPONS Doesn’t have to reload guns Pistol Capacity: 200 bullets Chaingun: 525 APM (rate of fire), Full-Auto disperses accuracy Shotgun: 7 pellet spread range Super Shotgun: 20 pellet spread range Rocket Launcher: Rapid fire, 50 rocket capacity, and 40 mph rocket speed BFG 9000:Huge blast radius, can be charged, and it obliterates everything. (Can kill cyber demons in 2-3 shots!) Unmaker: 3 stimulus lasers, causes paralyzation, and feeds on demonic auras. Chainsaw: Easy gas powered weapon that deals heavy damage. POWER UPS Berserk Megasphere Radiation Shield Light amplification visor Partial invisibility InvulnerabilityGOOD LUCK :)
The original Street Fighter is the best Street Fighter game!

I don't know how you want to structure this debate so I will now refute the points that you presented in your argument. 1. Mechanics/Game speed The difficulty of pulling off the special moves you can perform in the game add to the charm of the newer games in the series. The first game is good for its time in the regard of mechanics but to say that it is the best in the series is the same as simply ignoring the things that have improved since the reinvention of the series in street fighter 2. The speed of the matches being faster and less strategic in the first game make for an overall less rewarding experience than the games that have come out since. 2. Graphics/Soundtrack: While the overall experience is good for its time it is the sequel whose graphics and soundtrack remain known by a majority of gamers to this day. The character select screen is considered the most recognizable in gaming for its sleek design and background music that still stands the test of time even being made with old software. The game was a good game for it's time and I personally do not hate it however the games that came after it are what made the series the king of the fighting game genre. The mechanics and standard layout for a fighting game was implemented on the second game in the series and has stuck with it since the release.
The original Street Fighter is the best Street Fighter game!

That was a very good argument, I had to do lots of research before I post my argument. Now, difficulty is a great part of fighting games, I would hate to play a fighting game and the final boss is very easy, Street Fighter 1 is more than hard to complete which is very fun, the very quick fights make it feel like a battle for survival not a big strategic match, I will however admit that the non-Arcade versions are rather slow, at least in my experience because I do not own all versions, if you compare the Killer Instinct fights to the Arcade Version of SF1, you will see that SF1 is faster and less strategic, which is more challenging so its good. I can perform the special moves very easily, and if you cant perform them easy it is actually more fun just having punches and kicks which is what I did all the time, it even made me beat Sagat! But if the moves are harder to perform for you, I find that good as it makes it an achievement to perform a special move or win a fight. I think SF1 is way better than all of the Street Fighter games. Now, on eSports if you meant tournaments, I will admit you are mostly right. With the tournaments just Ryu fighting Ken over and over and over would be very boring, I will admit. But they could've done tournaments about who gets the highest score! I disagree that the original Street Fighter does not stand strong, it has amazing soundtrack, great graphics especially for its time, challenging, and the start of an amazing fighting game series! SF1 stands as the top one, and that's a lot considering I'm a massive Street Fighter 2 & 3 fan. But, its an old game, its good for its time at least, so why hate it? Plus it looks the most realistic out of all of them, and that is BIG considering its an old game. Now... I wish you good luck!
The original Street Fighter is the best Street Fighter game!

Street fighter is one of my favorite fighting game series so I would like to see what you have to say. 1st. Game speed: The newer games are more structured toward strategic and skill based fighting which is why the longer timer is a great addition to the games that the first game was lacking. The speed at which the fights take place now is still quite quick when you look at some other games in the genre such as Killer instinct which also has a long timer but is more focused on poking your opponent down and starting combos late into the round to pull ahead. 2nd. Moves and Mechanics: The moves are more varied then they were in the original so they are going to get harder to perform. This also leads to the need to practice the move inputs to become a high tier player instead of just hitting one button for kick and one for punch. The larger variety of moves allows for more interesting and exciting combos making spectator the newer titles extremely entertaining. Some new mechanics include the ability to parry, without this mechanic moments like this() would have never happened. The mechanics improved on the foundation set not by the first game in the series but instead the second game in the series. The second game was much better than the first and sold 6.3 million copies making it the 5th highest selling fighting game of all time. [1] 3rd. Esports scene: The esports scene for street fighter 2-5 is flourishing more than it ever has and the scene for the original is non existent because the game has no competitive motion behind it that is willing to step up and say something. As a whole the street fighter games in the series are much stronger members of the series than the original game. [1]. http://vgsales.wikia.com...
Sonic.exe vs. Tails Doll

I accept your challenge with glee, yomama12. I thank you for allowing me to choose which character I back. Now, spoiler alert, only one of these characters magically manages to brutally murder its victims, as opposed to JUST scaring them. And the one who kills is Tails Doll. So, when it comes to effectively killing its targets, Tails Doll automatically wins. Because it is the only one that does. Now, which character are you more likely to meet? Despite possessing one of the worst sonic games ever, according to popular opinion, Tails Doll is more likely to be encountered because its game exists officially. Making it easier to sell to collectors, without telling them a horror story first. Also, having to explain why a disc labeled Sonic.exe is legitimate is much harder to do, horror story or not. You'd be better off selling it to parents. Though, I suppose for the victims that's an advantage. If there is anything more to say, feel free to let me know. It has been a pleasure, and will continue to be one, if this continues.
Sonic.exe vs. Tails Doll

Sorry, I got distracted. Argument: While Sonic from Sonic.exe (we'll call him Sonny, like the godfather character) is powerful within the realms dictated by binary code, except for when and where the supernatural is applied, the most we see him do in the real world is manifest in the form of a sonic plushie that bears the eyes of Sonny. Tails Doll, (we'll call him Terry) also manifests as a stuffed animal bearing remarkable resemblances to the character model, except that Terry's teddy can levitate, and somehow blocks a baseball bat when it is swung at him. He then grabs the bat, and kills his victims in the real world. So, in the real world, they'd both be stuffed animals, but Terry would be setting Sonny on fire with a lighter. So, while I doubt I can argue for a victory in a game, Terry is more to be found by unfortunate collectors, and thus he will have more victims. Not to mention that, when he becomes a physical object, as in a stuffed animal, he can magically levitate and bludgeon people to death, somehow. So, I would argue that if their jobs are to kill their real world victims, then Terry, or Tails Doll, wins.
Sonic.exe vs. Tails Doll

Sonic.exe is a creepypasta involving a horrendous version of Sonic, with black eyes with blood red pupils. He has blood running down from his eyes too. If you know the creepypasta(most Sonic fans do), then you know that Sonic.exe is also a murderer. In the stage "Hill" on his game, when you run through a variant of the Green Hill Zone, you can find as such: Ducks with their eyes gouged out, Squirrels hanging by their intestines on trees, and a whole body of dead sprites that represent the animals Sonic frees in the original games. During the game, you learn that Sonic.exe can teleport your character to anywhere he wants, can FLY towards you, and teleports whenever you try to hit him, all can be effective at combatting the Tails Doll. In the end, you find him, next to three heads on spikes, which the heads are obviously, in order: Tails, Knuckles and Dr. Ivo Robotnik. If he can kill an Echdna that can break through solid rock, he can kill anything, including the Tails Doll, a doll whose only ability is to hover in the air. No contest.
god or nut

Actually, it is a logical fallacy. The way you have set up the analogy is biased. It's a nutshell, and the purpose of the the shell is to hold a nut, therefore anyone who says the nut is empty is likely to be wrong. All evidence would support the fact that there is a nut in the shell. All evidence supports that there is not a god. And yet you cannot disprove the nut, you cannot disprove a god. Refer again to the Russell's Teapot analogy. Atheism is believing what can be observed and measured. You can examine a nutshell and determine there to be a nut inside. Theism is the belief that just because something cannot be disproved, it must exist. For example, if I said "I can fly, but only when no one is watching me." It is both impossible and illogical, but it cannot be disproved. This is why the analogy does not work. I advise you, in the future, completely read someone's argument before responding. Repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it more valid, it is wasting time.
god or nut

what you dont get is that, its not true, believing either side means nothing.. you cant actually know it.. you are saying, its resonable to believe that god is inside the nutshell, while saying it makes more sense not to believe in god, notice atheism is theism to the contrary, to believe that there is not a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell if you believe there is a nut inside the nutshell, you have the positive position on the imaginary assertion, and you are a theist, believing in god, yes, the nut is your god belief is theism whatever you believe, is inside the nutshell, or nut, is as true as any other claim about what is inside it, as long as its true that no one knows you can not believe in the nut, without flawed logic, you understand? there is no logic in fantasy
god or nut

You're actually the one that flipped the argument. It makes more logical sense to believe there is a nut in the shell, and it makes more logical sense for there NOT to be a god. Also, atheism is not theism. That is not an argument, it is a logical fallacy. The two terms are opposite. You cannot be both. Perhaps you didn't read my first argument. The analogy of the nut and the shell is severely flawed. In my last argument, I showed you HOW it was flawed. I am an atheist, and I believe the shell has a nut inside. For example; Atheist: "There is a nut inside that nutshell" Theist: "There is a magical being inside that nutshell that created all things and is both omniscient and omnipotent" One is far more believable than the other. You cannot build a good argument on flawed logic. Do you understand?
god or nut

i accept i dont know that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and neither does anyone else, how could they, therfore it would be illogical and therfore unresonable to believe there is a nut inside it, and to believe that its an empty unbrekable nutshell a theist is the guy who believes there is a nut, inside the unbrekable nutshell the atheist would believe there is not a nut inside it you are actually highlighting why atheism is theism with your example of a theist, a believer to the contrary, that there is no nut inside the nutshell and again you have flipped the script with atheism to the atheist, believes the nutshell is empty
god or nut

You keep repeating the same statement over and over, which is not how a debate works. I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, because it seems like you're being very unclear. Are you saying that you believe in god or are you an atheist? Because this is how I see it. A theist could look at the shell, and say "there is no nut in that shell, and many people agree with me. This book says that there is no nut inside. And because no one can open the shell, I can never be proved wrong, therefor I am right. An atheist could say, "I cannot open the shell and see the nut inside, but I can shake the shell and hear rattling inside, I can X-ray the shell and see what looks like a nut, I can weigh and measure it. I can reasonably say that there is indeed a nut inside the shell."
god or nut

That's not an argument. Although there is no way to 100% prove or disprove a god, there is significant evidence to support there not being one. The idea that god is real being as unquestionable as a nut being within a nutshell that is only grown around a nut to protect said nut is irrational. Not to mention that the idea of religion emerged during a time that we understood very little about the universe and decided that we needed an explanation. We live now in an age of science, where more and more things can be explained, yet some still choose to remain ignorant. Christians in particular are very fond of quoting the bible, but always seem to forget that it was written by men, and justifies horrible things like rape, slavery, and treating women like cattle, which Christians always 'conveniently' forget. We know significantly more about the universe than we did 2000 years ago. Enough to say that the chances of there being a god are just slightly above impossible. All the evidence points away from god, and you cannot logically justify the existence a divine creator.
god or nut

I don't believe that your nut analogy is a good one. If I understood you correctly, by 'shell' you are referring to the universe, and by 'unbreakable', you mean to say that we will never understand the nature of everything, or 'crack the shell' so to speak. For this analogy to work, you would have to assume that both sides have equally good reasons to believe whether the shell has a nut inside, or that they both have good reasons for believing what they believe, but in reality, there is only evidence supporting one side (atheism) while the other side has only 'faith' (theism). The biggest problem I have with this analogy is that it's biased. Nutshells are made to have nuts in them. Even though we can't see it, we can claim that there is a nut within the shell, and most of the time, we will be correct. A better analogy of Theism would be the Russell's Teapot analogy; "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." The basis for theism is not that it can be proved, it is that it cannot be reasonably disproved.
Plethora V6 engine, only $2000 (Bad joke, sorry)

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places. 1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights. 2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism. 3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be. 4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged. 5. Agriculture was a mistake. 6. Anarchy could feasibly work. 7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind. 8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate. 9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. 10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world. 11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot). 12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed. 13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate). 14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

I thank anyone who accepts this debate. Good luck. RESOLUTION: Theism is more reasonable than Atheism Burden of Proof In this debate Pro will assume the burden of showing that theism is more reasonable than atheism. Con will assume the burden of showing atheism more reasonable than theism. Definitions Atheism - disbelief in the existence of deity. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Theism - belief in the existence of a deity. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Reasonable - being in accordance with reason; sound judgment. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Rules 1) No forfeited round is allowed. If any round are forfeited by either debater then that debater shall forfeit the Conduct and Argument points. 2) All sources and links shall be viewable for both debaters and readers. If either debater needs extra space for sources or links then they may post them in the comments section or an alternate source. If either debater does not follow this rule then that debater shall lose the source points. 3) No semantics or trolling allowed. If either debater chooses to act as a troll or argues with semantics then that debater shall lose conduct and argument points. 4) Any dropped points by either debater shall be viewed as a concession. Rounds 1) Round one is for acceptance only. 2) The second round is for Pro to present his argument. Con shall also present a argument in round 2 or Con can choose to just rebuttal Pro. 3) The third round is for adding more arguments and to rebuttal previous arguments. 4) The last round is for closing rebuttals and a summation. No new arguments may be introduced. If arguments are introduced in the final round, that debater shall lose conduct and source points.
Privatization of Government Policies

Privatization resulting in profit is a good think because it reduces federal spending and raises GDP. Privatization of Government Policies will save this country trillions in just a few years. Everyone from the poorest to the richest employee will get these "privatized" policies because it would be profitable for them to do so. Profit being the motivation has some great qualities that benefit everyone. First of all, I covered neither national defense or street lighting. National Defense is one of the few things that should be somewhat kept in the hands of the Government. And street lighting would be more efficient privatized because people don't pay for it. When in the hands of the Government, you pay for it through taxes. The privatization would weed out the people that can not pay. That is another thing wrong with Government Policies. They hand them out to people who don't pay the Government back because they don't pay any taxes. All should pay their fair share when getting materials, and if they don't have the resources to buy the products, they should get a job. Again, having these privatized policies would help individual companies because there would be more willing and productive jobs. And again, the Government is taking a massive blow in it's federal debt due to it's policies because the people do not pay them back. The Government is the one who passed the monpoly for resources like cable and electricity. If multiple companies were allowed to compete, prices would go down, quality would go way up, and costumers would be a lot more satisfied. So by privatizing industries, prices would go down, and the poor especially would live a lot better lives. FOR THE NEXT ROUND: Now can you attack my arguments from the previous round because that was the groundwork and rules for the debate I established. When you post your next round, please include your attack on my previous round argument and please include your attack on my arguments from this round. Thank you.