BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wandenreich (Bleach-Pro) vs Akatsuki (Naruto-Pro)

[R1] Regarding your statement on the hierarchy. This is better for war due to that fact they is no need for consensus. An akatsuki member breaking away is pointless and hardly a good thing for their army pointential. [R2] Aizen's ability is well beyond that of anyone from naruto and it's obvious Yhwach would have been tricked. However most of Kabuto's reincarnations were all chosen because of their ninjutsu and not their genjutsu. There were little proficient genjutsu users. They were mainly chosen on their destructive and physical abilities. I would also like to point out that even if genjutsu users did begin to cause a problem, the vandenreich would quickly stop the problem quickly. Via "daten" which would give out the information quickly to other members of Vandenreich. [R2] I already went through how and why reincarnations wouldn't be a problem. This is post-war akatsuki so most of them are already dead. Those reincarnations will be killed with no problem. However if you're implying that even after they're destroyed they would can still be resurrected, they you weren't paying attention. Quincy destroy the soul not purify it, so there is no soul left , meaning that individual is gone forever. You also said and I quote: "due to the fact that the reincarnated individual is already dead they have immortality (unless sealed in some way). This means that even if a member of the Akatsuki was killed it would still be possible for the individual to be resurrected by this Jutsu, Something that the quinces have no equivalent to." This is almost incorrect. However the Vandenreich have under their ranks: Stern Ritter 'Z' Giselle Gewelle "The Zombie" [http://i21.mangapanda.com...] [http://i21.mangapanda.com...] [http://i5.mangapanda.com...] [http://i38.mangapanda.com...] [http://i29.mangapanda.com...] [http://i4.mangapanda.com...] [ http://i7.mangapanda.com...] As displayed Gigi has the ability to turn anyone she wants into a zombie simply allowing them to come in contact with her blood. This is not limited to enemies, after a quincy dies Gigi is also able to turn them into a zombie. Toshiro was also turned into a zombie and is now fighting for the Vandenreich. Not only will the Vandenreich have some fallen ones still fighting but they could even have their own turn against them. Gigi's abilities would not work a reincarnations they seem to have no blood but the white zetsu army and tailed beasts are still organic and would still circum to the the effects. [http://bleach.wikia.com...] [http://naruto.wikia.com...]
unknown=false, as only know is true

Intro: The resolution is: "unknown=false, as only know is true" Let's define a few words: "Unknown" - : not known, not well-known : not famous [1]. "False" - not real or genuine : not true or accurate; especially : deliberately untrue : done or said to fool or deceive someone: based on mistaken ideas. [2]. We can rephrase the resolution, to be: What isn't known, must not be real, or genuine, or true. BoP will be on Pro, although I will provide arguments as well. Constructive Arguments: 1.) I invite everyone to partake on a journey with me into our solar system. Let's start at a resent time period. In fact, we will start only a couple months ago, January 2015. Almost feels like yesterday. Astronomers discovered eight new planets in outer space. Take a look at this excerpt from this article. [3]. "Astronomers on Tuesday announced the discovery of eight new potentially habitable planets beyond our solar system, including two that are the most similar to Earth of any discovered so far. First identified by NASA's Kepler mission, all eight of the planets are located in their distant suns' "habitable zone," or the region where liquid water might exist on the surface of an orbiting planet. Only two of them, however, are likely made of rock, like Earth." In those two paragraphs we see that astronomers "discovered" these new planets. Shall I define "discover?" "Discover" - ": to see, find, or become aware of (something) for the first time. [4]. Until Jan. 2015, these planets were unknown, nobody knew of their existence. That is the unknown aspect of the resolution. Then come Jan 2015, these planets were discovered (found, to become aware of). These plates are known, fact, and real, true and genuine: "known." At a point in time these planets were unknown, which means they would be false, but they were discovered, which means they are true, and were true, even when they were unknown to us. Conclusion: We have seen that unknown doesn't equal false, so the resolution is negated. I have adequately falsified the resolution. Pro must disprove this argument that stands, and provide his own arguments. Also please consider when voting the numerous and constant lack of punctuation and grammar in Pro's entries. Thank you. Citations: [1]. http://i.word.com... [2]. http://i.word.com... [3]. http://www.technewsworld.com... [4]. http://i.word.com...
unknown=false, as only know is true

"belief is false by default, as I don't know is true, at the point of anything being true it's because I know. belief is false, as everything has 2 sides" Belief is not false by default. If it's a belief, it is unknown. Unknown is uncertain of, or unaware of. You can be unaware of something, but that something can still exists, and exists is true and true is fact. So belief has the ability to be true and fact, which means it is not be default false. "as to the dog thing. .. I don't have a dog, so it is not a fact, but am I lying about not having a dog? " It's irrelivant whether you had the dog or not, it was just an examply. I'll use your second example as well. Do you have a dog? I, personally, don't know. I am uncertain, it is an unknown. There are two possibilities, you have a dog, or you don't. It is possible for the unknown (do you have a dog? ) to be a fact ( yes you have a dog). Unknown is a belief, or uncertainty, but it could still be true despite uncertainty. "facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, imagination goes to future, belief" Pro says that anything beyond his own memory is false. Pro hasn't been to Jupiter, does Jupiter exist? Yes, Pro's assertion is false. Conclusion: All three of previous arguments still stand and are extended. Yet again, take note of lack of spelling, punctuation, and grammar by Pro, as well as false definitions and lack of sourcing.
unknown=false, as only know is true

i have memory of gravity, but gravity is continiously true, gravity is not subjective........ not of the mind fact=knowledge=truth=past now is true, now is matter belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, at the point of anything being true its becasue i know. belief is false, as everything has 2 sides only know is true, unless i dont know, i dont know is a position i know probable=pro babble if i meet an alien, it is not an unknown, it was unknown when i had to imagine it as to the dog thing... i dont have a dog, so it is not fact, but am i lying about not having a dog? facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, imagination goes to future, belief
unknown=false, as only know is true

"fact=past observation, subjective not objective(memory)" Fact can certianly be a past observation, but facts are not exclusive to past observation. Facts are not subjective. Gravity is a fact. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are fact. Fact is what is true and genuine, and doesn't require physical, personal experience for it to still be a fact. "belief=false=future" We know that belief doesn't have evidence or proof yet, or not enough evidence or proof for it to a fact, but is possible for it to become fact. Belief=unknown, but unknown doesn't equal false. Thus by deductive reasoning: belief isn't automitically false just. "I don't know=I have to imagine it. i don't know is a true position, therefore belief is automatically false, atheism and theism" I don't know=unknown. That is correct, but unknown still has the probability of being fact, because truth isn't relative to our knowledge of it. Something being fact is separate from someone having knowledge of it being a fact. Each time something is discovered, it mean that it was unknown before discovery, but it was still a fact before discovery. Therefore the resolution has been negated for a fourth time. "just answer me this, did I just look my dog? is that a fact" I do not know if you looked at your dog. So that means it is unknown. Could you have looked at your dog? Yes you could've. So looking at the dog is (unknown) for me, but it could very well be possible for you to have looked at your dog (fact). Unknown has the possability of being false, or fact. Therefore resolution negated for a fitfth time. Conclusion: All three arguments still stand, and are extended. Again, Pro fails to source anything and lacks spelling, punctuation, and proper grammar. Thank you.
unknown=false, as only know is true

fact=past observation, subjective not objective(memory) kNow=objective facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter truth can only be in the past, now is true, you do not have knowledge of the future belief=false=future know=true=now knowledge=truth=past know is the opposite of belief and knowledge, and future is the opposite of past i dont know=i have to imagine it. i dont know is a true position, therfore belief is automaticly false, atheism and theism just answer me this, did i just look at my dog? is that a fact
unknown=false, as only know is true

fact=memory of physical experience(knowledge)" "belief=be lie, as I have to imagine it" Pro has given false definitions for these words, so let's use a dictionary: "Fact" - something that actually exists; reality; truth. [1]. Fact is something that exists in reality. Fact does not rely on personal experience, nor knowledge of being true. "Belief" - something believed; an opinion or conviction. [2]. Pro says that beliefs are a lie, since one has to imagine a belief. This isn't true because we have discovered that facts are not reliant on knowledge of themselves being a fact. Facts don't require personal experience to be true, which falsifies Pro's definitions of Fact, Belief and the whole resolution of this debate. Conclusion: I needn't examine Pro's entry any further as I have already disproven the resolution for a third time. My first argument of Kepler planets still stands, Pro hadn't refuted. The second argument of Antarctica existing despite personal knowledge still stands. Now the third argument has been displayed by defining fact, and showing it doesn't need personal or physical experience to be true. All arguments stand and are extended. Please, yet again take note of the lack of citations and spelling and grammar of Pro. Thank you, please vote Con. Citations: [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
unknown=false, as only know is true

fact=memory of physical experience(knowledge) belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now lies exist, to me a star is a light in the night sky, and nothing beyond that.. i dont know bop, he might be a nice guy. unknown, being unknown, is not known.. and know is true, aliens are unknown, are aliens true and exist? aliens are lies, and lies exist, aliens are whatever i imagine them to be aliens are unknown
unknown=false, as only know is true

"unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true? " Pro's point is that unless you physically, and personally experience something, it isn't true or real. Scientists have discovered and proven the existence of space and planets, it is fact, even though the majority of all humans have never experienced it, it is till a fact. For this point by pro, he has to actually prove the universes non-existence, otherwise it is a ludicrous assertion. This little point by Pro can be disprove again for a second time with another example. I, personally, have never been to Antarctica. Does this mean that Antarctica doesn't exists, or isn't true? No. It is a fact that Antarctica exists, and people have been there and given accounts of it, even though I personally have never physically experienced it, it is true. "only know is true, and I know I don't know unknown" BoP is on Pro, this is still only a resolution with no evidence or example for why this assertion is true. "you would have to argue aliens are true to say unknown is true" Aliens are irrelevant to the debate. Conclusion: I have disproven the resolution a second time by showing Antarctica exists, despite lack of physical, personal experience of it. This argument stands. My original argument still stands as well. Pro hasn't fulfilled BoP. All arguments extended, please also consider the continuous lack of grammar and punctuation by Pro.
It is Likely that Bigfoot Exists

My evidence is based on a genetic analysis of Sasquatch samples by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum of Nacogdoches, TX. Dr. Ketchum did an analysis of the genomes of three Sasquatch individuals and discovered that Sasquatch is a homo sapiens-hominin hybrid species. She writes, "“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens." (Source: http://news.yahoo.com...). Ketchum is a veterinarian whose professional experience includes 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics. Early in her career she also practiced veterinary medicine, and she has previously been published as a participant in mapping the equine genome. She began testing the DNA of purported Sasquatch hair samples 5 years ago.
It is Likely that Bigfoot Exists

Bigfoot, also known as sasquatch, is the name given to an ape-like creature that some people believe inhabits forests, mainly in the Pacific Northwest region of North America. Bigfoot is usually described as a large, hairy, bipedal humanoid. The term sasquatch is an anglicized derivative of the Halkomelem word s"sq"ets.[2][3] My burden in this debate will be to demonstrate that it is likely that sasquatch exists. My opponent must discount my claims.
The advancement of Technology is Good

debate: technolog I gave an example of one animal, great for scientists who are figuring out ways to return animals. But we're not losing just one animal, we're losing tons of animals at a fast rate. This contention alone should win me the entire debate. Same thing with the forest argument. I feel like if you pull across all of my previous arguments from the previous two speeches you should be able to see my point that while things may or may not be preserved. . we are still losing things at a greater rate than we are keeping them. I agree that education has changed for the better, that isn't my argument. My argument is that kids are more ineffective not only in classrooms, but in everyday life. Communication has been hindered greatly. Yes it is a new frontier in jobs, a new frontier does not mean we benefit from it more than before. We still had jobs and careers before technological expansion. clean cars are a great thing, they impact the environment a lot less. . I'm aware, but right now in an economy that's not at it's best in the United States. . we can't afford these cars. Almost everyone I know (living in the Midwestern part of the states) can't really afford clean cars. . green cars for example are extremely expensive and there is almost no one who can afford it. There is still little being about the issue of extinction. . steps take place, but just looking from a real-world perspective we see that so much of the earth is in demise whether it be: Animals who are important to our survival, forests, depletion of the ozone. I've really stressed this in the debate. I think I should win on those arguments if nothing else. Not to mention we're at risk of our own extinction because of these things. And I don't even want to really discuss terrorism, I think it's implied that carelessness and lack of cooperation has continued (otherwise we wouldn't be so heavily targeted) ANYONE VOTING ON THIS. . VOTE ON THIS FINAL POINT I WANT TO BRING ACROSS: -Your arguments look like this throughout the entire debate; "Yes technology does some bad, but it also does good. " I'm saying, "we were fine before technology because we didn't create bad things. . and the good things are not a necessity for living. " A lot of his arguments (and I pointed this out in the last speech) go around the premise that we need to better learn to manage the way we use technology. Empirically speaking, we aren't willing to learn to manage it in an effective and safe way.
The advancement of Technology is Good

The Pro's opening argument consists of two basic ideas; that technology is advancing fast and that that it is beneficial to us. Now, I won't deny my usage of technology. I think everyone in industrialized countries in fact takes technology for granted at time. But I can't say I agree that technology advancement is necessarily for the better. In a world that has made so many technological developments in the past century alone, we can see that it's probably been more of a detriment to us than beneficial. I have 5 primary contentions to the Pro. I will label all of the arguments so you can address them easier. 1. Terrorism Harms Increase in weapons such as bombs, guns, and even using vehicles to kill people (whether it's cars or planes). I think this is a common argument and doesn't need much elaboration. In the next century we're bound to blow up the planet. Technology has shown to hurt our collaboration between countries, and terrorism is (sadly) a growing danger to people of the 'superpower' countries on our planet. 2. Social Media Impact Harms We become self-reliant on technology; things like social media have absolutely consumed young peoples' lives. I can't deny that when I don't have Internet for an extended period of time I feel beyond deprived. But after awhile, I realize I don't need it. I think technology hurts face-to-face communicative ability of our youth. I'll admit I like things like Facebook, but I don't let it affect my schooling. When I can seriously see people in an 8-hour day of school use their phone so much I can't believe it. They text, IM, they use social media, they take pictures, they don't focus on the material being taught at that moment in class, they act inappropriately if they get their phones taken away. Technology hurts our youth far too much. 3. Social Media Harms - Extension (thought this little portion needed it's own section) There is further concern when people can go as far as to RUINING someone's life on the Internet. People are much more hurtful in modern times. . 4. Human Extinction Harm Population increase is shown to be a big problem, we're expected to surpass our carrying capacity within the next century, and quite frankly we don't have a good solution for that. When technology has helped with the developments of medicine by preventing death and increasing life spans its made for a big problem on Earth. The increase in technology can go as far as put us through extinction! If that doesn't shoot down your belief that technological growth (especially at this rate) is good. .. I'm not sure what will! 5. Animal Extinction/Habitat Destruction My final argument is going to simply be showing the effects on other life on Earth. Many species have faced extinction because of man, we do things like deforestation that destroys their habitat, polluting oceans. I don't want to extend on this too much to be quite honest. By reflecting on what has been said by both sides so far; I agree that progress can help out in life. . I don't think technological growth is beneficial to our planet, to other species on this planet, and furthermore. . to us.
Richard Dawkins makes an excellent case for spreading religion.

Assuming no God exists. I've been mulling over Richard Dawkins words and reading about psychology. Perhaps Richard Dawkins is on to something, but has come to the exact wrong conclusion on what to do with his findings. Quite simply, evolutionary psychology gave an advantage to survival and reproduction for having occult knowledge. Think about that for a second and let it seep in. We are at an advantage with having occult knowledge, AKA religion, then without. In other words, natural selection dictates that we are better off with religion then without. So why in the world would be want to get rid of something that is to our advantage? To me, religion is a stress response. When we are exposed to stressful stimuli, we respond with religion. Think about it there is plenty of events in the world we can't understand and amble cruelty. Let's say a bully at school bullies us. The stimuli being the bully. The response to the stimuli is religion. Religion is a security blanket. [0] Are we really that cruel to deprive people of their security blanket? No, that would be immoral. If for some reason we really want to get rid of religion, the best way is to remove the stressful stimuli, poverty, lack of food, etc. I find Dawkins' approach cruel and immoral. 0. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
WriterDave Will Melt Down

Innomen predicted, when I returned to DDO, that "It's just a matter of time until the next melt down." Such open-ended predictions are win-win for those who make them; if not proven, they are forgotten, and if proven, the predictor is hailed as a prophet. So this is a way of holding Innomen accountable for his prediction in a manner consistent with the primary dispute mechanism on this website -- as well as holding me accountable for my behavior.Full Resolution: WriterDave will melt down before there are less than 3 days left in the voting period of this debate. "Melt down," in this context, means to explicitly convey the immanent presence of a life-threatening psychological distress on my part.If before the time when this debate has 3 days left in the voting period I have melted down, by the definition above, all 7 points should go to Pro. If not, all 7 points should go to Con. There should be no voting prior to the last 3 days of the voting period.
Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

I just Finished debating this topic as Pro and I want to try it as con. Because this is the LD topic I wish to structure it as such... Because in LD Aff gets the first speech I will allow Affirmative to start. The structure of this will be as follows... Aff starts Neg Case and rebuttal Aff rebuttal Neg rebuttal and conclusion Aff Conclusion Judging: As this is to be a Values debate I ask that it be judged objectivly based on who presented better arguments. Also who's criterion came out to be superior and best fulfilled the Core Value that came out superior.(sorry this is a bad explanation) Opponent: I ask only one thing and that is some experience with LD style debate(essentially how it works and the structure) Alright Thanks