BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Salazzle for OU

I'm a competitive player on Pokemon Showdown, and I believe that Salazzle should be used in the OU tier on this website.Definitions:Salazzle; A Fire/Poison type pokemon introduced in Sun & Moon. Here's the bulbapedia page: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)Pokemon Showdown; A site for competetive pokemon fans to create a virtual pokemon team. All the pokemon are already accessable, so no catching, training, or rank ups needed.OU; Overused; This tier contains very good pokemon, but the better pokemon are in a tier known as Ubers.Again, we're arguing if Salazzle is a good Pokemon for OU. It's recommended (but not necessary) if you check out videos about Pokemon Showdown, or even try some battles there yourself.
Salazzle for OU

I've had a programming session in my Digital & Interactive Media class, and I can tell you programming is not gibberish. Script is basically another language, like Japanese, Spanish, French, and Italian. It takes a bit to understand it, but when you do, it becomes much easier than the first 3 weeks you started programming. Also, you're just 1 person. Pokemon Showdown is run by Smogon, which is a team. If they created forums, a working battle system, chat rooms, tournaments in said chat rooms, suspect testing (which is "Should this pokemon be this tier, or should we change it?"), you bet they could very well put this one pokemon under OU.And I noticed you never stated any flaws with Salazzle. I do agree that there's not many things wrong with Salazzle and, while she does have some flaws, those are easily taken care of with Substitute and Disable. Or just her Speed in general. And I think Rayquaza is Ubers, not OU. And of course Rayquaza could take out Salazzle, with Rayquaza being a Legendary and Salazzle not. The majority of Legendary Pokemon, specifically a lot of the version mascots, are Ubers, which is higher tier, with much stronger Pokemon than what OU entails.Again, the definition of OU in this debate is "A tier with really good pokemon". We're arguing if Salazzle if a good pokemon competitively. So far Con never contested this, dropping or even conceding my suggested move sets and other arguments. I'm glad I got you to see the light. Now let's give this lizard the attention she deserves! Salazzle is fit to be OU tier, with her ability to Toxic anything, and ability to outspeed many pokemon!I was looking forward to a bit more of a challenge, but I don't feel like Con put in a lot of effort, and isn't as interested in this topic as I am, seeing as how he did no research. Anyways, I do feel like I won this one.
Salazzle for OU

I like where you are going and i would have agreed completely with you if I hadn't known otherwise. To start off, programming is a nightmare and a horrible daydream all rolled into one. I did the three basic courses and they were hell. I kid you not there was actual gibberish I had to type out. I only made a hobby page and a picture of a spinning sun(Gawd!). I've tried making a game too. Not a pretty picture, either. Finally, yeah it is pretty overused. I freely admit some defeat there but in comparison to Rayquaza, Salazzle ain't $h*+ on the overused scale. I can see the light PowerPiachu21.
Salazzle for OU

Salazzle's usage in OU is exactly what we're debating. Salazzle's so good with Toxic, she should be used by more people on Pokemon Showdown. She can be a sweeper, and Flamethrower is effective against a variety of Pokemon, such as Pheromosa (who is Bug/Fighting), Ferrothorn (Grass/Steel, so x4 damage), Kartana (Grass/Steel also), Bisharp (Steel/Dark), and a few others you might see in OU. And those Steel types normally can't be poisoned. But Corrosion allows Salazzle to Toxic them, eventually KOing them, as most people don't use healers like Chansey or Blissey.Salazzle's resistances and weaknesses are as follows:Weaknesses: Ground, Psychic, Rock, WaterResistances: Bug, Fairy, Fighting, Fire, Grass, Ice, Poison, SteelImmunities: None It only is weak to 4 types, and resists 8 types, quad-resisting (1/4 damage taken) 3 types. This type match up is another great reason why Salazzle shoud be listed under the OU tier.And I haven't gotten deep into programming, but wouldn't all you'd have to do is list Salazzle as OU? You'll have to explain to me the process of how Smogon (the team that own Pokemon Showdown) changes tiers. Also, the readers would like to know the process so they know what you're talking about. Salazzle's currently listed as "New" in the tiers, meaning she isn't in any tier yet. Whatever process they do will have to be done, even if Salazzle gets listed under UnderUsed (UU) or even RarelyUsed (RU).In conclusion, Salazzle should be in the OU tier because of her viability of using Toxic, with Substitute + Disable to neutralize any Ground type attacks (which do x4 damage against Salazzle), or any other Super Effective moves. If not for Toxic, then her Special Attack allows her to deal heavy damage to Grass, Ice, Bug, Steel, and Fairy types, with Steel being a commonly used type like Katana and Celesteela (Steel/Flying).And thank you for admitting I know more about Pokemon than you might (no offense meant). But before you post your Round 3, try doing some research on commonly used Pokemon. (Yes, it's called "OverUsed", but usage is one thing. viability is a more important part. Remember that a team in Pokemon, as well as on Showdown, is a maximum of 6 Pokemon)
Salazzle for OU

Ok, so I'll admit that you are the pro (get it?) at this type of stuff. I still think that it doesn't need to be changed.The process is an ugly way and besides... is it overused? How often is it used in comparison to others? By the I fail to understand how it's abilities makes it a candidate. I believe the Pok(e)mons (please excuse that) are categorized in OU by how often they are used.
Being patriotic is not the same as being racist.

Vigorous support does not mean that you place what you are supporting as absolute. The definition of vigorous is: Vigorous [1] strong, healthy, full of energy. You see, vigorously supporting something is like cheering for your favorite team during a sports game.Nowhere is it implied that vigorously supporting something is placing it above everything else.Patriots just love their country, that is not at all racist. Shouldn't you love your country?________________________[1] https://www.google.com...;
Being patriotic is not the same as being racist.

lets review the phrase 'vigorous support'. A person who expresses such strong emotions towards a country is very likely to assume that the country, and therefore its citizens are superior to the rest of the world. back to the phrase- support cannot be vigorous if it doesn't entail entirety and absoluteness. Therefore in every aspect, a patriot is adamant on the SUPERIORITY of his country. so by the definitions of the different words, you can see how they are quite similar, and can very easily be taken to mean one and the same.
Being patriotic is not the same as being racist.

Let's first look at the definitions for each word:Patriotic [1]adjective 1. having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country. Racist [2] noun 1. a person who believes that a partcular race is superior to another.adjective 1. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.___________________________________________________________________Nowhere in the definition of "patriotic" does it say "believing that your race is superior to another", therefore patriots are not racist.______________________________________[1] https://www.google.com...;[2] https://www.google.com...;
gay marriage

Marriage is religious in origin. A sodomite(sounds better than gay) may claim to be religious but it amounts to what the Bible says, and God created a man and a woman to be married, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The term sodomite comes from a story in the Bible(Genesis19) where God kills "gay people" because they are homosexuals and wanted to rape angels. The United States used to have laws that made homosexuality illegal because sodomy was considered illegal. Consider this, if sodomites are allowed to be married, they will have to adopt children since they cant produce them. Wouldn't the tendency to sodomize the children go up if gay marriage was legalized? You say, "I know a nice, gay couple that wouldn't think of such a thing." EXCEPTIONS DONT OVERTHROW THE RULE. Hundreds of children would get sodomized if gay marriage is legalized. Further, why can't sodomites protest and advocate civil unions? Why does it have to be "marriage."
The crackdown on international tax havens is worthwhile

With regard George Soros, he avoids paying tax - which is legal, not evades paying tax - which is illegal. The aim of the international community is not to criminalize fabulously wealthy individuals such as Soros, but, instead, to minimise their opportunities to dodge their moral responsibility to society by avoiding paying their fair share in tax. Of course, nobody likes paying tax and if we were fortunate enough to have the opportunity not to, like Soros, most of us would shift the financial burden of running the country to our fellow citizens. However, most of us are taxed at source and so the opportunity to avoid paying tax is not open to us. The likes of Soros, on the other hand, have the opportunity to shift money below the authorities' radar so that the likes of you and me have to make up the shortfall in tax receipts. In other words, decent, ordinary families are paying shifty tycoons' tax bills - and that's not right. Now, to address my opponent's closing points in turn, he wrote: "1. It would kill profits that are eventually repatriated. " Given the opportunity to make $10 million over $7 million for the same amount of effort, obviously we would all choose the former. However, given the opportunity to make $7 million or nothing at all, we would all choose the former. That's just common sense. "2. It loses very little revenue, because only a few types of transactions are economic in tax havens. " We don't know that to be the case as tax havens are, by definition, secretive. Indeed, even people with relatively modest incomes utilise them. For example, I first took advantage of them when I became a company director 15 years ago. At that time I paid the same income tax as a waiter working on minimum wage, despite paying more than they earned per hour to park my brand new sports car outside their restaurant. Now that's not fair, is it? "3. It is a violation of sovereignty for one country to tax earnings made within another. " It is normal for the international community to put pressure on individual governments to change their domestic policies. Iran and North Korea are contemporary examples of where there is an international consensus opposed to their regimes' legislation. "4. It would remove an obstacle, by providing an escape, to high-taxes destroying the economies in high-tax countries. " In the global village, in which we all live, high tax economies will continue, as they do now, to discourage inward investment. It is for these countries' governments to weigh up the effects of this against the increased welfare of their population and strike an appropriate balance. Nothing changes there. I am a frequent visitor to France, the country my opponent cited, and I can confirm that there is little evidence of the mega-rich (except for Paris' 8eme and 16eme arrondisements and the Cote d'Azur). On the other hand, the vast majority of the population seem to be prosperous and there is relatively little poverty (outside the certain North African dominated suburbs of Paris and Marseille). This, it seems to me, is a very good thing. Thank you.
The crackdown on international tax havens is worthwhile

World leaders at the recent G20 meeting in London agreed that it is time to close the net on tax evaders by putting the squeeze on international tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar (1). Of course, if the established offshore banks are forced to close their doors, there will be plenty of other countries that will be only to happy to flout the will of the international community and welcome mega-rich tax dodgers with open arms. However, property tycoons, oil barons and inbred aristocrats would then need to entrust their fortunes to relatively unknown institutions such as: * The Merchant Bank of Mogadishu * Fraudstein, Fagin and Fiddelbaum's Sub-Ethical Investments * The Esteemed Bank of Lagos Ltd. * Honest Ali's Asset Management * Equity Bank of Eritrea * Sheikh Madman Inseihn's Payday Loans and Cheque Cashing Services * Baghdad Investment Banking * Chancer, Spiv and Wideboy Fund Management (Bandar Seri Begawan) Pty. * Kabul Capital Ltd. * Mrs. Madoff's Magic Money-Making Mercantile Bank "you invests your cash, you takes your chance, oi-vay!" As we know, even well-established American and European banks can go belly-up and leave their clients in the lurch. However, if the government doesn't bail the bank out, they will at least compensate their customers. Therefore, on balance, it would make sense for the tax evaders to declare their assets, pay the tax and move their money back into regulated banks. This would enable the banks to pay back government loans, thus reducing national debts. Furthermore, the huge extra tax revenues would allow governments to reduce taxes for decent, hard-working families. So we can see that the crackdown on tax dodgers will not only strengthen the Western banking system but also put money in the pockets of ordinary people, both of which will help bring a timely end to the global recession. Thank you. (1) http://www.thestar.com...
Resolved: CA-56 Ted Williams PKWY is more efficient than CA-52 from East SD to West SD

As Pro I will attempt to show the audience that California State Route 56 also known as SR-56, CA-56, or Ted Williams Parkway is far more superior to the California State Route 52 when it comes from driving from East San Diego to West San Diego Counties. I shall also take the liberty in defining the words, and the acronyms. To make this clear this debate will be about the roadway between I-15 and I-5 going Westbound or Eastbound Definitions CA- California SR- State Route SD- San Diego More- A greater degree . http://dictionary.reference.com... Efficient- Performing or functioning in the best possible manner . http://dictionary.reference.com... Structure of this Debate: Round 1-5 however you would like to do it, except we can’t provide any arguments in the last round—as it wouldn’t be fair to any of us. Arguments Congested Traffic I begin this debate with the fact that California State Route 56 also known as the Ted Williams Parkway is a less congested route rather than California State Route 52. As shown on CalTrans Traffic Data Branch Statistics for 2009—it shows that California State Route 52 from the California State Route 163—at the Kearny Villa Overcrossing shows to be over 100,000 at the most congested section between I-15 and I-5 AADT. AADT defined by CalTrans means Average Annual Daily Traffic. However, California State Route 56 has approximately 86,000 AADT-- a much lower amount than California State Route 52 by 14,000 cars. Also—during Peak Hours—CalTrans traffic data branch shows that it has approximately 9,000+ Cars, and California State Route 56 has approximately 7,000 cars. By logical reasoning I have shown to the audience that California State Route 56 is a much better route to take than California State Route 52 in the means of traffic. . http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov... Flaws of CA-52’s freeways/interchanges I commence this second argument with the fact that CA-52 is severely flawed in the designing of the interchanges on I-5 heading Eastbound on CA-52. CA-52 has no interchange which allows the freeway to head onto I-5 North—unless one takes some weird detour. I bring in the next flaw of CA-52, the interchange onto I-15 North. I believe in a way this interchange is sort of like a spaghetti interchange—as I and countless other people missed the exit onto i-15—as it’s not clear at all. The next flaw—is the freeway itself—at the I-805 interchange—where EB of CA-52 randomly pops out an extra lane. I found it weird because it isn’t a type of flow into the freeway—but rather it’s just a random lane. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Look on Google Maps Good luck and have fun mate!
Resolved: CA-56 Ted Williams PKWY is more efficient than CA-52 from East SD to West SD

Once again my opponent fails to address my arguments. "How did I copy-paste? " I never once said he copied and pasted. Now he's trying to say something random to get off topic. I don't care if he wrote it all himself, he hasn't proved the resolution. Also, my opponent used faulty grammar and spelling that hurt his meaning and made this debate impossible for me to debate.
Resolved: CA-56 Ted Williams PKWY is more efficient than CA-52 from East SD to West SD

"I mean't to say refute" 1. I don't care what you meant to say, it's what you said. 2. Mean't is not a word, nor a contraction. "Mean't" confuses me even more and I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say. YOU MUST VOTE ON THIS. He has the burden of proof and I have no idea what he's trying to say. "and seriously are you going to do anything? " Now he's saying my arguments aren't "anything". Rather than addressing them, he proceeds to insult them and disregard them. I feel insulted. Please mark him down in conduct and in spelling. Thank you.
Resolved: CA-56 Ted Williams PKWY is more efficient than CA-52 from East SD to West SD

" I'm sorry if you feel "hurt" in any way, but seriously-- can you actually rebuttal to my arguments? " My opponent continues to personally attack me by making my statements seem infantile. His apology was not sincere and I refuse to debate someone who is willing to belittle a debate into personal attacks. Also, he said "can you actually rebuttal to my arguments" which actually makes no sense. "Rebuttal" is not a verb. Since he cannot use correct parts of speech, his intent and arguments have become muddle and convoluted and I cannot proceed to rebut his arguments.
Resolved: CA-56 Ted Williams PKWY is more efficient than CA-52 from East SD to West SD

"I extend my arguments because Con didn't provide anything except a pathetic sentence that claims im lying. " Pathetic sentence? My opponent is attacking me with personal attacks rather than the arguments. I find this personally insulting and I hope my opponent reexamines that debate is a debate and not an argument. He didn't address my point but called it "pathetic. " I extend my rebuttal.
The Dark Knight Rises Was A Superior Movie To The Avengers (Assemble)

First off I would just like to say I actually do love both of these movies so very much as a comic book fan, no matter what dissing your may hear me give on indivdual aspects of the films in the rest of the rounds, but from this point on you will only hear me speaking good of the side I am defending, the Avengers film, as being better. I would also like to propose just one more catagory worth mentioning in a debate like this to judge these movies I did not see you mention. a catagory I call 'Comic Justice' in that the movies can be judged partially on there trueness to the spirit of the comics they are based on and contain plenty of cameos and inside nod's that comic fans get the significance of when they watch the film like for example the exact iconic way in wich Bane broke batmans spine the way he was drawn in the comics too have. I'll understand though I'm my opponent fascistly refuses to allow this catagory some consideration, and intend to argue by his set rules.
The Dark Knight Rises Was A Superior Movie To The Avengers (Assemble)

Now, before I begin, I'd like to first acknowledge that yes, The Avengers did in fact achieve superior box office numbers to the Dark Knight Rises, and that within certain reviewing circles including Rotten Tomatoes, AA did beat out DKR there as well. However, I believe a coherent argument can be made that, when subjected to real analysis of the elements of the respective movies, that The Dark Knight Rises was of higher quality than The Avengers. Now, in order to determine this quality, we will use various different factors to judge the quality of the movies: First, every movie needs a Lead Hero. Naturally, in my case this would be Bruce Wayne, and while I freely invite Con to choose any member of the Avenger Initiative, I would advise that he pick Tony Stark or Steve Rogers for this category, since a good bulk of the story does seem to revolve around them. But of course, since these are both superhero movies we also have to consider the Lead Hero In Costume, referring to all the cool stuff they do when they get into the role of their iconic alter-egos. As per the above, I will be vouching for Batman, while I would again recommend that Con choose either Iron Man or Captain America for this role and obviously note that he should pick the same costumed hero persona as the hero out of costume. Of course, every lead hero needs a damned good Lead Villain. For me, this of course will be Bane, while Con will be representing Loki. Naturally, these refer to the characters who play the lead bad guy for most of the movie, and doesn't refer to any villains revealed later in the movie. But of course, you need more cast members on this, which is why we'll also judge the strength of The Supporting Cast Of Characters. Con will be free to talk about the other members of the Avengers Initiative as well as SHIELD agents Phil Coulson and Maria Hill plus Erik Selvig, as well as any cameos he liked in the movie. For me, I can extol the virtues of Selina Kyle, Jim Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Miranda Tate, John Blake, Lucius Fox, plus any cameos I liked. Finally, we will compare the Quality Of The Plot in each movie, and judge which movie flows better and is overall more compelling for their similar time frames, as well as of course the events of the movie and the pluses and minuses of each movie. Whichever movie manages to win all or most of these five categories, at least in the minds of the voters, should win on argument. This will be fought out over 5 rounds. The first round will be for acceptance only. Round 2 will see us make our opening arguments and clash. Rounds 3 and 4 will be for Clash and further arguments in favour of our movies, and Round 5 will be for Clash and Conclusion. I very much look forward to doing this debate.
The string instrument instrument family is better than the other instrument families.

This round is rather awkward now because I have nothing to counter with. NitroDude, I hope that you can respond with something in R3.I have nothing to say now. If Nitrodude forfeits this round, I will probably restart this debate with anyone. Here are some jokes:Jacques Thibault, the violinist, was once handed an autograph book by a fan while in the greenroom after a concert. "There's not much room on this page," he said. "What shall I write?" Another violinist, standing by, offered the following helpful hint: "Write your repertoire."What is the definition of a half step? Two oboes playing in unison.How do you get a cellist to play fortissimo?Write "pp, expressivo" on the music.