BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Is Blue Eyes Better Than Red Eyes

Before I get to the topic in how much better Blue-Eyes is Stat-Wise, I will first trump you in artistic aspect. If you have ever seen the card artwork for Blue-Eyes you would understand the majestic beauty in how it's colors compliment each other. Red-Eyes' artwork is god-awful and no matter how many times they change the artwork they can never fix it's ugly face. Now onto the topic in hand, and I can basically finish this with this fact, "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" - ATK-3000 DEF-2500 _____ "Red-Eyes B. Dragon" ATK-2400 DEF-2000 PS- Red-Eyes is also a failure because because of even saying "Black" it instead says "B." which is stupid.
Why Is Blue Eyes Better Than Red Eyes

Since you have no argument against me, I would simply skip this turn as an act of generosity. However, this debate strikes very to my heart, therefore I will pull no punches here, Mr. Comradfish. While the Blue-Eyes White Dragon is more powerful than Red-Eyes B. Dragon has much more potential and variations along with the capacity to go into much more Synchro Summons, and around a decent amount of XYZ potential. While a straight confrontation would be fatal with Red-Eyes, the appeal of Red-Eyes is its ability to go into so many forms.
Genetically modified foods should be banned

Seriously? Okay, well as I have clearly stated in most of my past arguments, banning all GM foods is (1) not going to teach the people anything, (2) not really efficient and, most importantly, (3) a short term solution to an ongoing problem. I have also stated multiple times that not all GM foods are harmful. Yes, some of them do contain pesticides, but they are improving these crops and finding a way to rid pests without using pesticides. GM foods are meant to be an upgrade of the materials farmers are using right now (like pesticide spray to kill and prevent pests) but if you ban them, the scientists won't get a chance to improve upon them. Also, in regard to your third argument, people will always have allergies. There is no way, whatsoever, to prevent this but we can create a system allowing any being to look up what chemicals or ingredients have been used in their food. From the information given in this system, people can then avoid allergy attacks. In conclusion, I believe that harmful GM foods that are not vital to our existence on Earth, should be either banned or we (the population) should get educated about the possible fatalities that we face by consuming them.
Genetically modified foods should be banned

I don't think they'll be ALL people eat. Although most GM foods are harmful, some are actually very useful to us humans. For instance, every time you eat a banana, you are consuming a GM product. They modify the bananas so that they no longer have seeds in them. There are many other instances where this happens, just look it up and voila! GM foods and crops are also useful for purposes such as: 1) Helping the plants to resist diseases 2) Forging the crops to tolerate the herbicides in the weed killer of which the farmers use without using herbicides 3) Making the plants able to maintain a healthy condition through harsh weather conditions such as droughts and cold climates 4) Helping the plants to repel pests (as I have said in a previous argument). Okay, now say we ban GM foods completely. We'd have to get rid of all of the other uses too. You'd get home from, let's say, school and bite into a banana full of seeds. Not very appetising, right? Okay, now pretend you're living in a third world country. You are suffering from malnutrition because they took away the genetically modified rice fields, which kept you alive as they were packed with extra vitamins and minerals, and replaced them with ordinary rice fields which wouldn't keep you alive for much longer. There are a lot more cases, these two were just ones that came to mind. The FSANZ (food standards Australia & New Zealand) (link 1) take care of this kind of thing here. They regulate the amount of genetically modified foods allowed in our supermarkets and make sure that it is not harmful to us humans. You can read more about it on their website, this is just a brief overview of what they do. As I have now said multiple times, educate the people and they can decide whether they'd like to consume these products or not. 1) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au... ***Sorry about this being so late and I'm also sorry if it doesn't make sense.***
Genetically modified foods should be banned

The second you step foot in your supermarket (generally speaking), you are stepping into a 'world' of artificial foods. If people were bothered by the side effects of various potentially harmful chemicals that have been placed into our everyday foods, they'd check the labels and start watching out for their health. If they were VERY concerned about the effects of digesting these foods, they only buy fresh and organic produce, even if it meant spending more money and time. So that's artificial foods, what about the branch of genetically modified foods? Let's say we actually banned these foods. There would be people who'd protest against these actions and people who'd be grateful. It'd be a short term solution to an ongoing problem. If we went along and banned the modified foods, people would not know the full reason of why. They'd be curious, protest against the actions that they did not ask for, they might even bring these harmful foods back into our supermarkets. I am not at all saying that these foods are not harmful, I am simply saying that banning them straight away is not the way to go. Educate the population about the dangerous properties, get rid of this problem once and for all. If the people know about the deadly side effects, they'd either protest or stop buying the products, eventually stopping the flowing income these companies rely on to continue making the foods. Warn the people that by in-taking these foods they are shortening their life span, give them something that they need, show them that these foods will eventually take it away. Scare the people, but give them a solution. It's not the most efficient way, but it is the most effective. ***I'm sorry if this does not make sense to you, it's late and I am tired.***
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! I am here to debate vi_spex on one of the hardest debates to find a conclusion to (Because the opponent did not learn math during the days he attended school): Is 6 x 0 = 6? Hopefully, this debate will be mighty funny entertaining.I definitely wish that I am not debating a baby.Rules1. In this debate, there is no singing the ABC alphabet, or counting however many numbers you can count so far. It is a straight-forward debate, with nothing completely off-topic in between.2. Minor trolling is allowed, but that's it. You do not want to make the baby cry.Failure to follow these rules will result in an automatic loss. Actually, nevermind, I don't want to make the baby cry.Argument(s)Let us make a scenario. We have 6 bottle. Multiplying 6 by 2, in this scenario, is basically taking 2 sets of 6 bottles and combining them. Multiplying 6 by 1 is basically 1 set of 6. There is nothing to combine that one set of bottles with, thus nothing happens.Multiplying 6 by 0 is basically.. no set. You have nothing.That is it. Please do not take this the wrong way, little baby. It is not my intent to make you cry. It is only to teach you. Sucks you had to start all the way back to pre-school. This is probably the lesson you missed that made you suck at math so badly before you re-started.I await the baby's cute easy-to-refute arguments.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

Rebuttal(s)"if we divide a cake togeather, the knife is 1 time of cutting the cake(it must take at least 1 cut to cut the cake in half), so now its half, if that was no times, the cake is still full"Again, you are taking math literally. In mathematical terms, 0 is a number; 0 is not nothing. So, here is how it works for division:Let us say that we wanted to divide 6 by 2. Basically, we want to find how many chunks of 2 there are in 6. In 6, 3 chunks of 2 are needed to make 6 when put together. If we wanted to divide 6 by 1, we want to find how many chunks of 1 there are in 6, which is 6, obviously. However, if we wanted to divide 6 by 0, we want to find how many chunks of 0 there are in 6[1]. It does not even make sense. "the same with 1, if you divide a tree 1 time, you have 1 tree, because it cant happen, so its like saying, don't divide a tree, and what do you have, 1 tree"Again, if we divide 1 by 1, we ask ourselves: How many chunks of 1 are there in 1, which is 1; There is only 1 chunk of 1 needed to make 1. If we divide 1 by 0, we ask ourselves: How many chunks of 0 are there in 1? Again, it does not make sense.Again, you can not overcome the fact that math does not have to be literal. This is what is holding you back from understanding that 6 x 0 = 0."I don't understand your set thing, and it completely irrelevant.."Alright.I will bisect it into such little parts that it will blow your tiny baby mind.Multiplication is the operation where you take sets of however many and putting them together.In the following equation:6 x 2 The second number, which would be 2 in this case, is how many sets you are putting together. The first number, being 6 in this case, is how many there are in each set.So, here, you are taking 2 sets of 6 and putting them together, which makes 12, right? Right. If you do not think so, you might as well forfeit.Here is another example:4 x 4The second number, which would be 4 in this case, is how many sets you are putting together. The first number, being also 4 in this case, is how many there is per set. So, you are taking 4 sets of 4 and putting them together, which would be 16.If you want more examples, refer to the second source provided below[2].So, in this following equation:6 x 0The second number, which would be 0 in this case, is how many sets you are putting together. The first number, being 6 in this case, is how many there is per set. You have no set, thus making 0.I wish you'd understand. But, I understand; you are only a baby.Source(s)[1] http://www.coolmath4kids.com...[2] http://www.coolmath4kids.com...
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

if we divide a cake togeather, the knife is 1 time of cutting the cake(it must take at least 1 cut to cut the cake in half), so now its half, if that was no times, the cake is still full the same with 1, if you divide a tree 1 time, you have 1 tree, because it cant happen, so its like saying, don't divide a tree, and what do you have, 1 tree I don't understand your set thing, and it completely irrelevant..
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

Rebuttal(s)"you can not multiply with 0, your examples are insufficient as you can multiply 6 with 2" Just because you can multiply with two, does not mean you can not multiply with 0. Please elaborate that."if i have 6 sodas, im not having them 0 times, i have 6 sodas is 1 time in itself"Whenever you multiply 6 sodas by 0, you do not word it as you did. You are supposed to say that you have no set. Again, refer to my example[1]. "nothing is no time" Maybe this is what I have not made clear, but you do not word multiplication operations verbally like how the following is:6 times 2 equals 10.You word it like so:2 sets of 6 put together make 12.It does not make sense because of the way you word and because of the fact that you take math too literally. Indeed, you can not multiply 6 sodas by 0 in reality, but in mathematical terms, you can; You have no set, as the second number is a 0. Don't understand? Again, back to my example[1].I await my opponent's arguments.Sources[1] My round 3 argument
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

you can not multiply with 0, your examples are insufficient as you can multiply 6 with 2 if i have 6 sodas, im not having them 0 times, i have 6 sodas is 1 time in itself nothing is no time what it equates to is you are saying multiply 6 sodas no times and you have 0
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

Before I get to my rebuttals, I will provide a link below that will explain to you how multiplication works[1].Rebuttal(s)"there is no difference to a multiplication and adding equation when you cant do them with nothing, its the same result, and any equation that ends on 0 is false"I recently found out: You are taking math too literally. Indeed, multiplication of certain things by 0 is a weird concept. But you can find the answers to those by understandng the concept of multiplication. As I stated[2]:In the following equation:6 x 2The first number, 6, is how many per set. The second number, 2, is how many sets. So, basically, you are taking 2 sets of 6 and putting them together, which will make 12. If the second number was 1, you have 1 set. You do not have anything to combine it with. If it was 0, you do not have a set. that is 0.So, back to the bottles, you would typically say, "I removed the set of sodas." But the awkward way of saying it, and it still makes sense, would be, "I multiplied this set of sodas by zero.""you can have 6, 1 time, you can not have 6, 0 times, that would be 0, so what you are equating is 0*0=0 which you can actually do, in your imagination, but imagination is false"You said it in a way it does not make sense; Saying 0 time is an awkward way of saying it. You should say it this way: No set. It makes sense, and is no imagination. You have no set. Nothing to combine with something, and nothing to combine with.I await my opponent's arguments.Sources[1] http://www.coolmath4kids.com...[2] My argument in round 2
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

there is no difference to a multiplication and adding equation when you cant do them with nothing, its the same result, and any equation that ends on 0 is false you can have 6, 1 time, you can not have 6, 0 times, that would be 0, so what you are equating is 0*0=0 which you can actually do, in your imagination, but imagination is false, an evil looking dragon+a strawberry suit=fun you are proving there must be a false answer to an equation, and the true answer is 6
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

Do not worry, there are a few minor trolls in between, but I mostly plan on taking this debate seriously. Rebuttal(s)"multiplying with 0 and 1 is a false equation, it dosnt equal, nothing happens, like adding 0 to 1 as many times you like, like imagining superman punching your teachers face as many times you like, your teacher will not be mad at you as it dosnt matter"Multiplication and addition are two completely different operations. I will use the same example from the first round. Imagine these two visually. You add 1 bottle to 2 bottles and it will become three. In this following equation, 6 x 2, you are taking 2 sets of 6 to put together. In this following equation, 6 x 1, you are taking one set. There are no other sets to put it together with, so that would be 6. In this following equation though, 6 x 0, you are taking. . no set? No set. You have no set, so that would be 0. "by multiplying 6 by 0, 6 become 0, nothing? "In multiplication, 6 does not become 0. This is how it works:The first number, like 6 in the following equation, 6 x 2, is how many per set. The 2 is how many sets. Then put together. If you wish, reread my example. So, no, it is not that 6 people do not do anything. It is that there is no set. I await my opponent's arguments.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, because the equation doesn't happen

multiplying with 0 and 1 is a false equation, it dosnt equal, nothing happens, like adding 0 to 1 as many times you like, like imagining superman punching your teachers face as many times you like, your teacher will not be mad at you as it dosnt matter 0=nothing=information=false and truth 1=something=matter=true(now) by multiplying 6 by 0, 6 become 0, nothing? to simplify adding is the same, so 6 people not doing anything becomes nothing is what you are saying
The United States of America is a secular nation not founded upon the Christian religion

My opponent gave several rebuttals in Round 5. Unfortunately, no final rebuttals are allowed. The rules clearly state, and I quote, "R5 closing arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round." As such, I ask that Pro be penalized for conduct. I will simply end with closing arguments. 1. I don't need to show that America was founded exclusively or even mainly on Christianity. I wrote earlier that I was going to show Christianity was more influential than any other worldview in early America, and I believe I did. But that's just a bonus - it was not my actual burden for this debate. Nowhere is it specified that I must prove Christianity was the dominant founding principle. All I need to do is prove that it was one. 2. I have always conceded that the Constitution uses secular language. Unfortunately for Pro, this fact is irrelevant. All it means is that Christianity was not recognized in any official way, and I have no burden to demonstrate otherwise. Besides, the Constitution is not the only thing the nation was founded on. One must consider all of early American history, from Jamestown on. 3. Early America is filled with obvious evidence that Christianity heavily, even dominantly, influenced the nation's founding. Entire colonies were founded on Christianity. State Constitutions blatantly favored, and even enforced, public support of the Christian church. The first official days of the national government involved swearing in on Christian scripture and attending mandatory Christian church services. When we consider all this, is it really accurate to say that America was founded as a totally secular state? This is pretty undeniable evidence that my opponent has failed to counter. 4. The evidence my opponent presented was largely flawed. Pro relies heavily on the Constitution which is only a small portion of America's founding and, as previously stated, largely irrelevant to the debate. Pro also relies on a relatively obscure document - the Treaty of Tripoli. It's well known that the cited clause was not even in the original treaty. Even if it was, all it means is that America does not officially recognize Christianity, which once again I don't have to dispute. Finally, Pro used an unreliable source to cite incorrect authors of the Constitution. This must cause us to question the credibility of their entire argument. In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence - both conceptually and in official documentation - that Christianity greatly influenced early America. When examining a list of America's founding principles, Christianity is undoubtedly included. I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate. This is a fascinating historical period to study. I had fun and I hope my opponent did too.
The United States of America is a secular nation not founded upon the Christian religion

Same to you. I'll start things off simply, with a few quotes and examples, and go from there. First off, the establishment clause of the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". (1) Now what this means is that the government cannot make any law that favors one religion over another or over no religion. I would think that if they were basing the new government on Christianity, they would allow Christianity to be favored in their laws. The next example is from article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796 by Joel Barlow and signed by John Adams. "As the government of the United States is in no way based on the Christian religion...". (2) Pretty self explanatory. There is also the fact that there is no mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution. I would offer quotes from the founders on this subject, but it would technically fall under the appeal to authority fallacy. I therefore ask my opponent if founders' opinions can be accepted in this debate, seeing as how they created the system of government based on what they thought best. Obviously, if Con accepts these terms they would also be allowed to use founders' opinions as well. I will leave it there for now, to see what Con has to offer. I will have more arguments in the next round. 1. Article 1 of the United States Constitution. 2. http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
The United States of America is a secular nation not founded upon the Christian religion

This is an open debate that anyone may accept. i will attempt to prove that the United States was not founded upon any religion, Christian or otherwise. Con will bear the burden of showing that the country was founded upon Christianity. Definitions Christianity- the Judeo-Christian religion centered around Jesus and His divinity. Founded upon: that the founding fathers set the country up based on Christian values and ethics. Note: Con only has to prove that the country was based on the ideals of Christianity, not that they set it up as the official religion of the country. United States of America: What the country consists of in this sense is the government and laws the founders set up originally. Not laws or changes implemented since then. Since nations take a few years to get set up, anything occurring or written up to the year 1800 will be accepted. Rules are as follows: R1 acceptance R2 opening arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round R3 rebuttals and continuing arguments R4 same as above R5 closing arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round I look forward to a fair and respectful debate
Christians oppressed in the US

My opponent pointed out that I have addressed personal reasons why I feel the way I do about my stance on the matter. I am taking a course at my college in which my professor has stated, in order to have a well balanced argument you must incorporate examples of having a strong ethos, logos and pathos. Pathos includes having personal examples and reasoning's as well as stories. Therefore I wish voters to discredit my opponents demand for votes. My opponent also fails to see the other points I have made. Christians in the United States have a privilege above all other. No other religion in America is as glorified as Christianity. If you take a look at the checklist I have provided you can see exactly what benefits you will receive from being a Christian. I will have to state however, I disagree with number 19. "You can travel to any part of the country and know your religion will be accepted, safe, and you will have access to religious spaces to practice your faith." Now it is true that most countries will accept Christianity but specifically I am referring to the Middle East where Christians are not looked favorably. But I am also arguing for the fact there are a lot more advantages of being a Christian in the US. Not globally. Here is the link: https://humanities.asu.edu...