BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Digimon has a better storyline than Pokemon

The reasons I prefer Digimon to Pokemon:1. Plot The plot in Digimon has exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. I will take Digimon Tamers as the example. The first episodes of Tamers were focusing on introducing the character and how they met with their digimon. Then they made a rising action, which was the appearance of Deva digimons in their world. This rising action continued until the fighting between the Tamers with D-Reaper, which was the climax. The falling action was when the kids gathered together with their digimon, celebrated their victory. The resolution was when the digimon must return to their original world. And after finishing a season, they always introduce a new concept in the next season. For example, in Digimon adventure 1 there's only basic digivolution. Next, in Digimon Adventure 2, there is armor digivolution, which come from an egg. In Digimon Tamers, they introduce mega digivolution by bio-merging the kids and their digimon. Digimon Frontiers brought a whole new idea, the kids become a digimon by doing spirit evolution.2. Characters- In Digimon, the kids can only have one digimon. - The digimons also have the ability to talk like a human. These two are the reason why the character development of digimon is better than Pokemon, especially between the kids with their digimon/Pokemon. Rather than dividing his attention to 11 Pokemon like Ash, Takato can focusing his attention to Guilmon. He finds a place for Guilmon to live, he gives Guilmon the bread from his house, he plays with Guilmon, etc.3. Evolution Pokemon: 3 stages of evolution, can't devolve. Digimon: 6 stages of evolution, can devolve and rebirth (by becoming a digi-egg) Additional reasons:1. Lavender Town Syndrome2. Electric Soldier PorygonSelfish reasons:1. Digimon has the best songs! Especially Butterfly and Biggest Dreamer!2. Cool fire-breathing dinosaur protagonist or cute pika-pika rat protagonist? Really?3. Digimon is cleverer than Pok"mon. They can speak not only their name like Pokemon.4. Ash has been 10 years for about 17 years! Taichi (protagonist from digimon adventure 1) has grown up and become the ambassador of digimon, he even have a child!
polygamy better than monogamy

1] in order to satisfy sexual desire men should not do polygamy. he would do sexual intercoursewhat would happen to those kids who are born as a result of those intercourse. not all couple prefer birth control or single parent hood.2] adoptionnot all couple prefer adoption. 3] living in a large house with whole family.but that won't satisfy every people. some people may be happy. all may not.4] competition among wivesbut now there is competition among wife and mistress. it is worse than competition among wives.5] shortage of women in the communitythen there would be cross community/culture marriage.but there will be a relation.polygamy is better than monogamy.
polygamy better than monogamy

Refutation: 1] it satisfies men's sexual appetite if the sexual appetite is more in men/women. First, not all men have sexual appetites. And second, men do not have to get married in order for their sexual appetite to be satisfied. In fact, this is the entire reason why men should not practice polygamy. If men feel the need to have their sexual appetite filled, then they would not be in a commited relationship. This way they could have sex with as many women as they want. You do not neccessarily have to be in a polygamatic relationship in order to have your sexual appetite savored. Therefore, this point in invalid.2] if one wife cannot conceive, the man can marry another and have an issue. at the same time the infertile wife will not face divorce and the man has his offspring. the same thing can be said for women if the man is infertile. There is a thing called adoption, is there not? If the couple cannot conceive, they can simply adopt. The man does not need multiple wives in order to have offspring. Therefore, this point is invalid.3] it will help those father who have more than one daughter. all of their daughter could marry the same man and may live together. Once again, there does not have to be a need for polygamy in order for families to live together. You can just buy a big house and all live in the same house. You do not need a polygamtic relationship in order to live together. Therefore this point is invalid. ArgumentsC.1 CompetitionWith more than one spouse to the same person, it creates competition among those spouses. This can easily lead to violence. Ever had a jealous girlfriend? Now multiply that by however many wives you have. The family is going to suffer alot of stress and violence as a result. With children, it is not good for children to see their parents fighting. It causes a lot of stress and mental issues, and can in fact lead children to have a violent lifestyle in the future as well. Children may also have increased competition. They feel like they have to prove, "Oh, my mom is so much better than your mom. " This again, is not good for the child's well being. All these consequences can effectively be solved just from not having a polygamtic relationship. Therefore, monogamitc relationships are better than polygamic ones. C.2: It's raining menWith so much wives to one man, this creates a shortage of women in the community. There are other men that needs wives as well. It is not fair to those men that they cannot have wives and conceive children just because some guy feels like he needs multiple wives, for example. These men would not be able to get married and have families of their own. That is why polygamic relationships are not good. Therefore monogamic relationships are better than polygamic relationships.
polygamy better than monogamy

ok i agree with con.now the benefit of polygamy from viewpoint of men and women:1] it satisfies men's sexual appetite if the sexual appetite is more in men/women.2] if one wife cannot conceive, the man can marry another and have an issue. at the same time the infertile wife will not face divorce and the man has his offspring.the same thing can be said for women if the man is infertile.3] it will help those father who have more than one daughter. all of their daughter could marry the same man and may live together.
polygamy better than monogamy

I accept.However, I would like to change the definition of polygamy and monogamy, to this:Polygamy - having more than one wife or husbandMonogamy - having only one wife or husbandIt is rare, but women practice polygamy sometimes as well. Furthermore, better should be defined as: more profitable or beneficial to society, not just that one person.Otherwise, I look forward to this debate.Please PM or comment if you disagree with these definitions.I will allow Pro to post his opening arguments.
people who believe in god should move to alaska

Well, my opponent's account has been closed, apparently. Lame. Anyway...my opponent hasn't offered much of a rationale for his position, so this isn't going to be a long debate in terms of reading at all. Really, there isn't even much to say...so I'll just support my position with a short argument and be done with it. My opponent's suggestion is nothing more than religious apartheid. Separating people based on religion, ethnicity, etc., is a giant step towards inequality, and an even bigger step towards a totalitarian society. A government big enough to enforce such distorted ideals is also big enough to take away essentially anything they want from those who they supposedly serve. Anyway, I guess that's all I need. Not like my opponent can actually offer a rebuttal...I was actually hoping for a frivolous little debate, but meh.
Increase taxes for the Wealthy

Is it morally acceptable for unemployed citizens to receive state and federal assistance to help them live their lives while they sit on their behinds all day. Although the wealthy does not pay as much taxes as other citizens would like them to, they do make up for it. There are many wealthy individuals who fund hospitals, scholarships for schools and charitable organizations and etc. It is not like they are accumulating higher income and being stingy with their money. Where do you think funding for most institutions come from? Many of the wealthy citizens have worked hard to get to the positions they are in today. They have made sacrifices and you can not punish someone for their ingenuity and God given talents.
Increase taxes for the Wealthy

The wealthy may not be at fault for such policies, however that does not mean it is morally acceptable to let such behavior continue to occur within this country. They are taking advantage of the system and it has to be stopped, if not, at least an attempt must be made to regulate and balance the inequalities that occur from such an unjust income gap. The individuals that belong to such a group must be aware of the decisions they make and how others are effected by such choices. If such groups actively participate in this economy, to the extent that other socio-economics groups do, they will not only continue to generate wealth for themselves, but make it so that others benefit, in a positive way, from their active participation.
Increase taxes for the Wealthy

Unfair is the fact that individuals who make a fraction of what the wealthy make, have to pay a larger proportion of taxes from their hard earned income than the wealthy do. Meanwhile the wealthy have loopholes and tax breaks that allow them to legally avoid paying taxes. Everyone else experiences a sort of punishment for an identical endeavor, the accumulation of income, yet the super-rich get rewarded for the same behavior with even more capital. People do have the choice to enjoy the "fruits of their labor"; the super-rich compared to other socio-economic groups just have the freedom to make different sacrifices when it comes to such leisure. That is the problem, the amount of taxes paid by everyone in this country is not equal.
Increase taxes for the Wealthy

P1: Increasing taxes on the wealthy can increase the federal spending budget. With a larger spending budget the government can allocate more funds towards projects such as; low-income housing development, academically focused after-school programs, activity-focused centers for the elderly, employment programs for youth, the homeless, and college graduates, health care, financial aid, improvements on public spaces (e.g. parks, roads, highways), and natural disaster preparedness/prevention. P2: By raising how much the wealthy get taxed it may lower the inequalities that exist between the super-rich, the upper and lower middle classes, and the people living in extreme poverty. C: The United States should increase taxes for the wealthy.
Dueling

Leaning, I appreciate debating with you, and I hope we can have a bit of fun as well. My opponent states in his previous argument that in order to uphold one's honor when one is insulted/attacked/offended etc., they have to retaliate. But I challenge that idea and ask, would not the contrary be more "honorable"? Think about it: A man with a dirty appearance and sloppy posture swaggers up to you in the town saloon, sits down in the squeaky chair across from you, leans over the table and spits in your cider. What to do in this situation? Do you quickly reach for your pistol and give him what he deserves, two shots to the chest? Do you flip over the table and demand he pay for your drink? Or, do you rip the mustache from his face, stuff it down his shirt, then kick him in the nostrils? See, upon inspection, none of these retaliatory responses are honorable in the slightest. True honor (according to Wikipedia) is "...a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that effects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual..." In other words, honor isn't snobbishly slapping back whenever you are wronged, it is treating your enemy as your friend, and being publicly held as one who does so. Wouldn't the honorable, title-bearing response be to kindly remove yourself from the table, and buy that same man a drink twice as tasty as your own? The reason why I object to Leaning's argument is that he states that dueling would increase honor! When in reality, dueling, by definition, isn't honorable!
Dueling

My opponents states in his argument that legalizing dueling would cause "the death rates would dramatically increase". I believe he considers this "devastation worldwide". .. Is humanity not near everywhere across this globe? And Are we not struggling in places with overcrowding? There being less people in the world would not necessarily be a bad thing. This does not mean to say I favor some Samuel Jackson Kingsman culling of the world. I merely note fewer people would not lead to devastation. After all dueling existed for centuries, and I do not recall hearing of it being some cause of civilizations downfalls. My opponent also speaks on how "honor" "seems to be a thing of the past". .. Is this not one of our problems in modern society? That peoples words overflow and dribble down their chins due to any accountability? True you could not murder a man for cursing at you and a deceased loved one of yours at a funeral. But if modern society had a sense of honor and a shame at lack of it. You could defend your families honor and your love for them. Challenge the scurvy cur who dares befoul your loved one's funeral. Challenge them to a duel! Throw you glove in their face and demand a public apology. Should they refuse, all would know them to be even more of a base coward than their earlier actions implied. To legalize dueling does not mean a person can randomly walk about and stab people, tis consensual. Rules and regulations are built around any activity, dueling has been the same. Pros of dueling would be that it could increase a societies sense of honor Be awesome Be a persons right to do as they wish Allow a decrease in pigheaded people who despise others and wish them harm, for surely everyone they offend would seek revenge. If a person were to misuse dueling. Would not vast members of a public be outraged and many duels be offered to the offender? Would criminals not be of a lesser degree? Violence and short term thinking being a trademark of them, well as short tempers.
Dueling

If dueling were legal, especially in the hyper-technological society we live in now, the death rates would dramatically increase. Because we are instantly able to message now through social media, we are also able to meet and communicate with people outside of our immediate social spheres. This has pro's, and con's. Pro's: - Ability to form friendships with those we would not otherwise converse with - Ability to spread ideas at a rapid pace Con's: - Ability to bash those online we don't agree with - Ability to form rivalries with those we would not otherwise converse with We are all able to converse with (close to) whomever we want. Obviously, not everyone likes each other. Making it legal for us to kill each other, who have almost unlimited social reaches, would allow for devastation worldwide. "Honor" seems to be a thing of the past, at least in mainstream culture, so making it legal to duel would give someone the right to challenge someone to the death over a small and insignificant matter.
Dueling

By dueling I am talking about the right for at the minimum two people agree to meet in some formal way sanctioned by law and fight each other in mortal combat, possibly to the death, though this is not to say it could end with a first blood or no blood with both opponents honor satisfied. If you accept this debate you accept debating with the "spirit" of what I intend by this argument. Voters are free to vote however they like, although I would appreciate it if they are good sports and honest about it.
Dueling

Well, we have come to the end. In conclusion I would like to say I do not feel my opponent has provided significant evidence for his claims in the first round that legalizing dueling would lead to "devastation worldwide" nor did my opponent address my counterargument that even if more people were killed off, humanity is already growing at a dangerously exponential rate. And man being the greatest predator, what keeps us in check but ourselves? He also addresses "honor" as a tradition of the past. Only to change his stance later on to specific examples he considers honorable such as "turning the other cheek". As I addressed in round three, there are flaws to such a viewpoint. Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa did in my opinion behave in an honorable fashion in many ways. Though I would like to point out that Mahatma Gandhi during his movement on peace was willing to risk his life and livelihood many times during his life. "To bet ones own existence, this is a sign of true seriousness " (From a Kaiji manga I think). Dueling was a time when honor was more apparent, more challengeable. This does not mean that it is an honorable action for a father who's family depends on him to risk his life. Nor is it honorable to kill such a man. Society I think would have an understanding of this. I would like to point out again though. Dueling is NOT grounds for murder. Nor would it be some sport that we would expect teenagers to partake in. Privileges and rights come with age, be it drinking, smoking, or as it seems nowadays gun rights. Dueling itself would of course have an age limit, and as I've said before in some affect REGULATION. My opponent does not think much of my offer as dueling to aid in the sooner end of criminals prone to violence. He points to my admittance that there are many paths to change a persons behavior. But offers nothing but the current system which he admits is flawed. Legalizing dueling would not mean a singular path of seeking out and challenging criminals to duels in an attempt to legally kill them. Prison would still exist. Public programs to help them. But our current system is still flawed, allowing a valve for people of violent nature and low thinking would allow them to self destruct in a fashion sooner rather than later. Is it not better that those who live by the sword die on it sooner in their lives rather than using it upon the general public for years and years. Or wait 80 years before they fall of old age having sucked our tax dollars? Honor is not an antiquated notion. Though many peoples appearances in this modern society where it's value is held as less than it once was belies that. Peoples individual lives are their own. Dueling could prove beneficial to honor and society.
Dueling

"Let the local body, or the national government decide the fate of a wrongdoer. NOT the average citizen armed with a weapon." As he did in round one with "Making it legal for us to kill each other, who have almost unlimited social reaches, would allow for devastation worldwide." My opponent depicts dueling as some sort of public lynching, as if individuals are going about as individual Punishers or Boondock Saints... But that is not what I suggest by dueling.... All I suggest is that people be held to a type of responsibility. Specifically one in which they actually feel a NEED to consider their words and actions. My opponent also mentions on how I admitted that dueling is not our only option. I stand by that, dueling is of course not our ONLY option. Doubtless there are options undiscovered, options we are using now, options we have discarded in the past. A state having strong enviormental control such as Oregon had under Tom McCall is one option. Another is for people not to care as much about how factories or individuals might pollute rivers to a point where all the fish are killed or the streets at litterd with cans and trash. And the justice system? Our prison system? It is a common subject I hear on this site or elsewhere on how people are unsatisfied with our corrections system. What might one say are the three points of the prison system? I would say Detterance Education and Exile. The prisons in America overflow I would say. Detterance so often fails, Education is twisted by their fellow imates to a further knoweledge of crime, Exile in prison is so rarely permenant. Do you not believe that thoese of violent and crimminal temperment would meet their ends sooner if their swords had a well designed place to meet? Do you think they would be so brash if they were held accountable by others for their pasts. Honor being held up as a virtue would inspire more to follow it and our social standards. And in the final two arguements I'll give before a conclusion Should we not expect our leaders to be honorable? If we held honor as a higher virtue. As something one risked his life for, would our leaders not have to follow? Be it Democrat Emails or Republican Russian connections, would they not be more ashamed if honor mattered more? Did the leaders of old who would at times risk their own lives in battle or honor not have a quality desireable? Robert the Bruce of Braveheart fame met Sir Henry De Bohun in single combat upon the battlefield once. Though chastied by his men, is it not honorable he would risk as much as them. http://www.mainlesson.com... If a religous tilt you seek, look to a part of the Bible taken out of context (Because I've never read the whole thing) English Standard Version for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord"s sight but also in the sight of man. http://biblehub.com...
Dueling

I do admit that my opponent has a way with words, but nonetheless, is faulty. He states "...dueling be one of the options and means of protecting ones social standing as well as their individual view of their own worth." Does this suggest that our worth as intelligent beings be reduced to how well we are to duel? This seems a petty view to me. And he even admits that dueling isn't necessary! "Let it be one of the options" he says. For the low life's he's mentioned, would not years in the slammer be enough to slap them into reality? Is there no TRUE honor in the courtroom? Where criminals against society are fairly judged, where every man is repaid for the evil he has committed? Let the local body, or the national government decide the fate of a wrongdoer. NOT the average citizen armed with a weapon.
Dueling

"a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that effects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual" could also be interpreted as depending upon the societies values. A christian society who places high regard upon turning the other cheek would not view dueling as a honorable action. That does of course require the society to all have that opinion. Would other people not prefer a society where people are held accountable for their actions? And true certain duels may seem dishonorable, but that does not apply to all duels. A man of high control and integrity might be lauded for ignoring his enemies behavior and actions toward himself, even seen as a type of genius should he persuade his enemy the error of their cider spitting ways. But if this stranger with a dirty appearance should become emboldened by the lack of punishment for his actions, would not the other scoundrels about become the same? No consequence for spitting in drinks? We even get tasty drinks! And even worse were the stranger to cause harm to a loved one of yours, what if they were to slap your sister? Or insinuate in the locale newspaper that your mother was a w****? Is it so easy or even wise to let such behavior continue unabated? Truth be there are other ways to curb their behavior than dueling, but dueling be one of the options and means of protecting ones social standing as well as their individual view of their own worth. I do admit this can be dependent on the society one lives in. But No I Say! Let these other people be known as base and cowardly rogues for their actions! Unworthy to share civilized society. Let all people know that insult and harm be not accepted as acceptable! And that men of honor defend the honor of their society and life.