BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i need a frend:(

Actually my opponent statates that they are 143 years old which is immediately false because by looking at their profile (which is the only evidence that we have), we can conclude that Pro is 20 years old and also claims to make $1.5 million per year [1]. My opponent then states that they aren't lonely they are lonly. Lonly is not a word and therefore, I classify this as a typo and I am allowed to change that to what I think is suitable in its place. Given that the resolution states that you want a friend / frend, this means that the most suitable word replacement for lonly would be lonely since if you have no friends/frends, this makes you a person with nobody to talk to and thus you are lonely [2]. In fact, the definition of lonely, according to Oxford dictionaries, is somebody that is sad because they have no friends or company [3]. My word replacement is justified as a result of this. Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...;[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
i need a frend:(

Con's first contention is invalid. I'm pretty sure he just wasted 20 minutes reading that study, and I have a simple yet irrefutable counter statement. Brace yourself Con, you might cry after this. I wouldn't me with my frend during every second of my existence. This means that I would be alone for the rest of the time. I will now further analyze Con's argument. "Loneliness 'relieves depression'. A 1997 study found that although teens didn't describe solitude as a positive experience, many reported increased feelings of well-being afterwards [1]." Well that's interesting, but I'm not a teen. I'm a 143 year old pastry chef who currently lives in Swaziland. "My opponent's argument sole argument is that they are lonely. I have refuted this and shown that loneliness actually has the opposite effect." Nuh uh. I said I was lonly. Note to self: Lol epix pwnage. Balacafa doesn't stand a chance.
i need a frend:(

IntroductionThank you datxdude for initiating this debate. I hope that it will be an intriguing one. I am negating the resolution and therefore it is my role in the debate to prove that my opponent does not need a friend/frend.Contention 1: Loneliness is goodLoneliness is scientifically proven to boost your creativity. This can be good in the long term for job oppurtunities [1]. Loneliness 'relieves depression'. A 1997 study found that although teens didn't describe solitude as a positive experience, many reported increased feelings of well-being afterwards [1]. Being alone allow you to also reflect upon your actions and this allows you to develop physically and mentally as a person [1]. Furthermore, it also, on balance, produces a positive effect in terms of characteristics and your personality [1]. Conclusion My opponent's argument sole argument is that they are lonely. I have refuted this and shown that loneliness actually has the opposite effect. The resolution is negated! Vote Con!Sources [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
Euthanasia should be Illegal

Okay, addressing your definition of Euthanasia. Firstly, as discussed before, Murder is the killing of another by unlawful means. Hence Euthanasia would NOT be Murder. Secondly, Active Euthanasia is indeed Suicide, however, as this may be morally incorrect, it is still each and every person's choice to make. Our lives are owned by us! Also, for the Christian perspective, when things such as killing, lying, ect... Would you say, that if you jumped infront of a bullet to save another, would you be sinning? But it is suicide, is it not? You see, sin is for the self, but when you do an act, normally seen as evil but for another, it can be innocent. So Euthanasia to save someone from a constant suffering, that they might already be late in the years, no hope for cure, nor want for it, because they are tired and lived a good enough life. If they ask for peace, should we not give it to them? Thirdly, we come to the topic of Passive Euthanasia. Here is where it becomes RIGHT to use this method. As you stated, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ESV "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." Did you know many drugs used today inorder to keep the body alive, harms it greatly? Remember all those side effects on commercials? Many drugs that we use to temporally keep someone alive, even if they are in pain damages their body greatly. While Passive Euthanasia is the refusal to take such drugs, but die when you die. This is the most ethical thing, from the Christian Perspective or Not. So Conclusion: Passive Euthanasia is a very ethical route that agrees with both Christianity and the Secular World. While Active Euthanasia under certain circumstances can be seen as ethical and is also agreeable with the Secular World. Remember to make something illegal its something that the Secular World would also have to disagree on. As for God saying Euthanasia is wrong, that would most likely appeal to Active Euthanasia, however just because God says so, doesnt mean the World will follow. So whether it should be Legal or Illegal, the Secular World currently controls. I myself believe in God. However I do believe that Passive Euthanasia is truly the best middle ground that violates no one laws or rights. Euthanasia is truly something that should NOT be illegal.
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

Spider-man can only get his momentum and force when he is web slinging while batman can last in a 1 on 1 fight. First Mr. Parker would need to find his webs lingers and Batman would be stalking him the whole time. They both do have Super Natural powers of enhanced senses like spidey sense our bat sense. So, Batman has most of his stuff on GPS location so he could find it and just jump spider-man while he is running around helpless.
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

What I never said that their equipment was scatted everywhere. When I said stranded I meant standard equipment, the spell check changed it. Again Spider-man's spider sense, Spider-man would know he would be coming before he could land on him. Plus Spider-man has reflects 15x faster then a normal human, so Batman's drop technique really wouldn't work. To add on Spider-man can use his hands and feet to stick to buildings which could help him out if falling down a building.He also has the ability's of Superhuman Equilibrium, Superhuman Stamina, Superhuman Durability, Superhuman Agility, the way of the spider which is a technique that he made with madam web that perfect's his abilities and he can run faster then any human could ever . Finally a show named Death battle known for it's superhero/villain fight pronounced that Spider-man would win the fight.http://www.screwattack.com... Other websites:http://spiderman.wikia.com...
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

First of all, you said that there equipment is scatter everywhere and part of spider-man's equipment is his web-slinger so he has to find them first. Hah. So, quiet your mouth and go back to the original rules you laid down on the table. Also, that means when Batman could go on the top of a building and leap down on him, Spider-man would not be able to counter the attack from Batman's momentum of falling. A classic take down that he preforms on all.
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

Number one Batman has no super natural he is just a very fit human. Number two a GPS dos-int track people, it tells you how to get around also he has no car in this fight so really no GPS. Number three they are ready to fight so Spider-man has his web-SLINGERS. Number four Spider-man can lift ten plus ton's which in a punch could probably knock Batman out cold. Number five this fight takes place in the dark which you think would be good for Batman, but Spider-mans spider sense destroyer's Batman use of stealth and render's his knock out gas, smock bomb's and really a of his projectiles useless.This will be all for this round but I will be making I am saving lot's for round three. Website : https://answers.yahoo.com...
America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

I am sorry for forfeiting the 3rd round of this debate. Because of my tight schedule, I didn't have time to post my argument, but that is no excuse. And because my opponent did not give much thoughts in this round argument because of my forfeit , I will only wrap up my past ideas and won't put any new points into the debate. In conclusion, there are lots reason why we(the US) should continuing sending troops to our Allies nations. But most of them are benefiting for the US relationship with others nations. If we stop sending troops right now, we will obviously have problems with the rest of the world( or at least to our Allies nations whom are currently supported by our troops overseas ). Over the years, our troops around the world did liberated lots of countries (ie. South Korea, Afghanistan, Israel) . With this "domino effect", one day, every countries could be free like the US. Then why shouldn't we let the world be free by continuing sending troops to other countries. My last but not least important points, is that when the US sending troops to a country, allied or not, permanent or not, the US need to signs a legal document with the other nation including agreements from both sides' governments called Status of Force Agreement. In this document, it will included terms that the other nation wants the US troops to uphold during their deployment in the foreign nation(ie. if a US soldier ever did a crime in the foreign country out of the US military facility area, he/she will be judge by that foreign nation's law, not the US). And the Agreement of course has prove that both countries have agree to let US troops station in the other nation's land, and the US of course did not invade the country illegally without the acceptance from the other nation's government. In the end, the act of sending US troops around the world not only help the US, but also help other countries. It is an act of kindness, and obviously not the US forcing nor making false reason just to station their troops into other nation's land. In fact, in the past history, the US never invade or station troops into a country without an Agreement first (you name it, I'll prove it!). And that is why I sincerely think the US should continuing sending troops around the world to help other nations in need.
America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

Yes, I see my opponents point, but Often times America deliberately creates false reasons to go into other countries, and "save them." In reality they do everything to "save others," or to "Stop war," but if the other countries don't want our help then they don't want it, so let them live without it. It's like if My sister wants help with her homework, I will not force her to get help. If she needs it she will ask someone.
America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

I agree that sometime, America does has her bad reputation around the world, but we can't stop sending our troops just because of a group of people 's opinion. If reveal your true nationality would endanger your life, then you absolutely has the right to lie about it, but that is just an extreme group you met. Before saying any further, I believe that even the US can't send their army to a country without the government permission first. It goes both way, first the President need to ask the Congress to declare war or sending troops to any country in a long term situation. If the Congress agree( which mean the representatives and senates that we vote for have say yes, so technically most of Americans agree to send our troops away. After that, we must ask the other country's ambassador, if they have one in the US, or send a representative( not a congressman, more like a person whom represent the US internationally, like United State Ambassador to the United Nation to ask the other country government can we send our troop or not. Now if we already ask the government of the other country and they accepted, then that mean the majority of their people accepted too. In fact, if you go to defense.gov and search for US Marine in Japan, they will tell you about how the Us military aid Japan back to their feet after the earthquake. You see after the incident, even the Japan government is "injure". Without the help of the us military, Japan could collapse entirely. Base on defense.gov, the us navy bring in 2millions gallon of fresh water, 189 tons of food and 100 tons of relief supplies. And all of these goods are voluntary come from the US military budget it own, not from the UN, not from the Red Cross. With these actions, we can all see that the US just try her best to help other countries in need, and without a small force on their land. We can't aid them in time. All of these years, the US sacrifice some of it's budget so that other countries may live. If we compare all of this helping action from the US to a threatening action from an extremes group of people that you meet , I think that helping Japan sound more reasonable to care about more than an opinion of that group. And that is why I don't think we should stop sending troops to other allied nations.
America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

I see that our troops are doing some good, but most countries absolutely hate the U.S. We see it as helping, but other countries see it as invasion, and do not like or appreciate it. I am not guessing. I have been out of the country many times, and every time I go somewhere else, if anyone even suspects that I am American, the treatment I am given is horrible, and I am required to explain that I am not all American but that I am also Russian. This is not some information that I received off of the Internet. This is a real life scenario, and it is not one that should be look over and then forgotten. I will agree that certain countries do need help, but in my opinion if they do not ask us for help, then we need to keep to ourselves. This is not like at school where a person sees someone else fall in the hall, and goes to help them pick up their books. That unasked for help is ok. The so called "help" that we are providing is not ok. It is a reason to go to another country and do absolutely nothing, then come back here, and claim that we are the greatest, and that we are protecting the world.
America needs to stop spending money by sending troops into other countries.

Yes, even though sending our troop away is using quite an amount of taxes, but we can't stop sending troops to other countries. Why? Simple, we sending troops away not only to fight terrorism, which already help some Middle East countries( in example, Irasel, Afghanistan, etc.) we also sending troop to our allies countries to help and create a better relationship between the US and the rest of the world. Our troops are not only protect security for our friendly nations, they also are the "bridge" for our countries economics around the world. Suddenly stop sending our troops to other countries will destroy our Politic and economic international relationship. Also, with our reputation right now as the "big boss" of the world, if we stop helping smaller countries that is in need, then it will drag our reputation down and with the current economic rates( decreases, national debt increase) we shouldn't destroy the reputation that our fathers have already created, that is why I say yes, we should continue spending money on oversea troops.
Resolved: If Goku and Superman were to fight without holding back, Goku would be the winner.

SPEED For speed, we are comparing two things, fight speed and travel speed. With fight speed, we have both provided sources for Goku and Superman achieving a state of intangibility. It seems this fight speed is no longer a factor. When we look at travel speed, both can move very fast. Goku can use "instant transmission" and go to some random planet. Superman would not be able to find him, unless he can read minds and/or is psychic. Same for Superman. He can fly away and Goku would not be able to find him. So speed would not be an advantage in a fight between them. STAMINA "Here, Superman withstands a nuclear blast while standing on an island composed of kryptonite." You claimed earlier that"[bullet] was a kryptonite bullet used against Superman." You made the argument that the only reason Superman was harmed was because the bullet was kryptonite, then you claim kryptonite has no effect on him. It appears some of your evidence is faulty. Superman can be harmed, as shown by the kryptonite bullet. Goku has no natural substance that harms him. In fact, he could just carry into battle some of those bean things that he used in early DBZ to regain health instantly. Superman has a huge weakness, and Goku can heal. STRENGTH I will concede that Superman is very strong...physically. You ignored the fact that Goku has immensely high energy strength. Superman has very little of this. But the appliance of strength is nothing without strategy STRATEGY This is where Goku wins. First, to defend against what you incorrectly claimed. You stated that Goku would not use kryptonite against Superman because he would want to win a fair fight "Resolved: If Goku and Superman were to fight without holding back" Without holding back, Goku would not help Superman You further stated that Goku would not have the ability to charge up a Spirit Bomb. Refer to my speed arguments. Goku could go to a planet and Superman not know where he is. Goku would have ample time to charge a Spirit Bomb or find kryptonite or anuthing else. And your last argument that the Spirit Bomb would not hurt Superman because he can kill, yet still be pure of heart is wrong. In Justice League, Superman is many times portrayed as a tormented hero with a dark side. In Superman III, his evil side becomes alive. Superman is not pure of heart. Goku with the ability to draw energy from other things, is a source of limitless energy. If we know that Superman is harmed by kryptonite, there is no reason to believe that Goku would not know of this. With the Dragon Balls, strength is measured by spiritual, not physical, power. Superman lacks in this severally. Goku could instant transmission, find the dragon balls, and wish Superman dead or something. Goku could easily, as proved above, charge up a Spirit Bomb, and defeat Superman with it. Superman has no advantages that would make him win over Goku. Goku has teh energy beams, stamina, and strategy.
Resolved: If Goku and Superman were to fight without holding back, Goku would be the winner.

So it appears we are debating speed. Your second link does not even work. So, your first "source" shows Superman's ability to move faster than the speed of light. This site gives a quote from the real DBZ saga http://www.slipups.com... claiming that Goku travels the speed of light. When I argue speed, I am not arguing the speed of travling, for that is not much help during a fight. We must compare the reflexices and speeds of punches, etc during a fight http://img138.imageshack.us... Superman not fast enough to dodge a bullet http://youtube.com... Obvioulsy Goku is very fast in battle and would be able to dodge a bullet Here none of the videos work on my computer. Maybe it is incompatible with Firefox…whatever. Anyway, Goku is shown over and over to be the strongest in the universe. But I hardly thing Goku or Superman would sit there are punch each other. More likely they would attack each other with their other powers. Goku has never had the problem of containing a black-hole in his hands…so this is kinda hard to prove that Goku could do. Why do you think Superman is stronger than Goku? http://img66.imageshack.us... http://img66.imageshack.us... http://img138.imageshack.us... Yah Superman does SUCH a good job of avoiding cool laser beam things. IF you watch the previous videos I posted, you will see that Goku does this with no problem. Superman can not endure these, as shown, and never displays similar force to: http://www.neghvar.de... http://www.myfavoritegames.com... Goku is obviously superior in this aspect Um….all the sneezing shows is that Superman has no control over his powers… What do you mean kyrptonite is hardly effective? I thought that was like the big weakness to superman http://www.foxnews.com... Now, im sure Goku, being able to travel around the UNIVERSE would be able to find kryptonite, and everyone knows superman's weakness. Goku, as you mistakingly claim, does have an infinite amount of energy. Like I said, he could use the I guess "Spirit" Bomb and gain limitless energy. Superman could not follow Goku to random places if he does not know where Goku is. Furthermore, Superman is NOT pure of heart. He killed that one dude in that one shows of like Justice League or something. Superman can travel back in time? Well Goku can collect the dragon balls and wish that Superman dies, or loses, or whatever. While Superman is going back in time, Goku could be wishing that Superman will lose.
Resolved: If Goku and Superman were to fight without holding back, Goku would be the winner.

Ok, I won't try to twist the resolution too much because it's not really that necessary. All I will say is that any attack can be used by either person because you claim a fight "without holding back". Goku and Superman both 1. Fly 2. Super Strong 3. Can shoot crazy energy beam thingies 4. Faster than light Super man has many varities of powers in many different versions, so we need to limit what it he can really do. IT is generally accepted, besides what I stated above, Superman can 1. X-Ray vision 2. Can withstand a bullet Agreed? Just post other powers Superman has, and always has. Goku, from start to ened of Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT can 1. Teleport 2. Blow stuff up So Goku versus superman... Goku is faster. While both can travel at the same speed, Goku can teleport. Superman can not. Goku could easily out maneuver Superman this way. Goku can blind superman. Goku could attack Superman with his cool looking beams of energy or what ever they are. Superman is not protected against these. If worst comes to worse, Goku could always use a SolarBomb (c), i think thats what it's called, and drain Superman's energy. He could then blow up a planet that Superman is on and teleport away. Or, he could teleport to wherever some kryptonite is can defeat superman with that. Goku has no physical weaknesses.
Resolved: If Goku and Superman were to fight without holding back, Goku would be the winner.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge for this debate. I intend to advocate Superman's superiority to the Saiayan from planet Vegeta. Disagree? Feel free to take up this 5 round debate. I'll post arguments in round 2. Feel free to attempt to define the resolution to your advantage. Chances are, I'll show how your definitions are false.