BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

Seems that you almost win, Congratulations. :) Though, let's see the results. By the way, I had prepared this another debate for you so that, I want to have another tackle about Catholicism, the topic is all about, "Salvation in the Catholic Church". I take as Con, for sure, you'll take as Pro. I am waiting, and you can drop the first argument. We have 5 rounds, you can start. This is actually the continuation of our first debate, however, it deals with, where can we get salvation, In the Catholic Church? Please point out the following: -Prove that salvation is in the Catholic Church (You can re-post your argument from the last debate) -Can non Catholics be saved? -Should a person be Catholic for us to attain salvation? I will be glad if you will accept this challenge. God bless you :)
The Pharoah of the Exodus

There is indeed evidence that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt if one had the initiative to look for it- Ancient Egypt: Slavery, It's causes and practices Www. Reshafim. Org A very interesting read. Also, The Exodus Is Not Fiction is from ReformJudaism. Org In the article of the last link the author tells how an automobile that had been missing since the Yom Kipper war of Oct. 1973. . . . . Was found in 2013 under 16 meters of sand. That is 52 feet. So just how far would one have to dig out in the Sinai desert to find much smaller articles from 3500 years earlier is anyone's guess. Still, There is enough evidence in existence today to show that the Exodus did occur.
The Pharoah of the Exodus

This entire argument can be summed up with what Phenenas said: "The Book of Exodus is a work of fiction. No serious historian believes that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt anymore. " Therefore, None of what you said matters and not only that, You did this examination all for nothing. Sucks to be you, Huh? If you actually believe that this does matter, Then you may try to convince me. In fact, PROVE to me that the Book of Exodus isn't a work of fiction. Good luck in the next round.
Resolved: Pikachu is a superior pokemon to Pachirisu

Fake and odd? This program was made by the people at SMOGON. It's a battle simulator. You said it CAN be edited (which it clearly cannot, if you actually bothered to know about it.), so since when is it a guaranteed fake? http://play.pokemonshowdown.com... Check it out. 1: Since when did the Pokedex matter? Simple. It doesn't do much. 2. Pikachu has been everywhere and constantly overplayed. Yes, Pikachu has been shown a lot, but that does not make him important. In the games, he's a forgettable Pokemon because of it's rarity. I went through LeafGreen twice before finding out this thing is in Viridian. Had Ash chosen Charmander, the franchise wouldn't be any different. Pikachu has little effect on the games. It's the mascot position which matters, not Pikachu. 3. Pachirisu's stats are higher. We are talking about Pikachu, so don't bring Raichu into this. Raichu is irrelevant. Don't assume everything you don't know is wrong. And of course you'd be winning then, because you had last say.
Resolved: Pikachu is a superior pokemon to Pachirisu

After watching your video, I have realised how fake it is. You used a fake odd program which could of been edited to do anything. Arceus didn't even have a level. Because of such, your video, and your entire argument is invalid, and irrelevant. Please keep this in mind voters.CONTENTION 1: FILLING THE POXEDEX In both the anime and the game, the proffresor gives the protagnist a pokedex, in exchange that the trainer fills it up. So one of the main points is to fill it up. If you have a Pikachu, you can kill the pokedex more than if you have a pachirisu. With a pachirisu, you can only fill 1 slot. With a Pikachu, you can fill the pokedex with 3 entries. You can breed to get a pichu, or evolve into a raichu. This way, you can easier complete your task now that you can fill 3 sltos with a pikachu, whearas with a pichirisu, you can only fill one. Thus, rendering Pikachu a superior pokemon in order to fulfill the professors commands. Is more entries than, CONTENTION 2: POPULARITY/ IMPORTANCE Now we all know how popular Pikachu is. He is Ash's first pokemon, which travels with him the entire journey. He is the first pokemon red caught. He is the main face of the entire franchise. You can see this in various areas, such as the pokemon tv app, it is a picture of pikachu. As you can see, Pikachu is very important, and one of the most known pokemon. If you go up to a little girl who isn't interested in the franchise, and ask her to name a pokemon, she is most likely going to say "Pikachu!". What are the odds of her saying pachirisu? Very slim. Pikachu is very important, and therefore a superior pokemon to the franchise. CONTENTION 3: STATS Now we obviously know that pachirisu has higher stats, because he is a pokemon that doesn't evolve. His base stats are 405, [1] whereas pikachu's is 300. [2]However since Pikachu can evolve, something pachirisu can't, he obviously can get much higher stats. Raichu's base stats are 485, which is much higher than pachirisu. [3]Since pikachu is capable of evolving, he will be thus be capable of having higher stats.\==================================================================================== These are my few contentions thus far, in order to save me room for future arguments. Since I have already proved my opponent's previous arguments false, irellevant and fake, I believe I am currently winning. I have proved that in various areas, Pikachu is superior to pachirisu, whereas he mentioned 1 false situation. Please keep such in mind voters.SOURCES 1.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)2.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)3.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)
Resolved: Pikachu is a superior pokemon to Pachirisu

Pikachu vs. Arceus Pachirisu vs. Arceus Pachirisu with Focus Sash gets hit by Arceus. 1 HP left. Pachirisu uses Super Fang. Arceus loses half it's health. Pikachu with Light Ball gets hit by Arceus. OHKO. Pikachu with Focus Sash gets hit by Arceus. 1 HP left. Pikachu uses any move it can use. Barely a sliver down. Source:
Resolved: Pikachu is a superior pokemon to Pachirisu

Welcome to this debate. This debate will be concerning which pokemon is better, Pikachu or pachirisu. The franchise and the game are both allowed to be used for this debate. You (con) must argue that pachirisu is a better pokemon than pikachu. This debate will be concerning the pokemon in general, not specific ones (ash's pikachu and dawn's pachirisu)Rules:1. 1st round you must start with your opening statements. in the last round, you only write "thanks for the debate."*2. No forfeits3. no plagiarism4. bulbapedia and wikipedia are both reliable sources for this debate.5. no semantics.6. Follow all the rules above, especially rule number 1Accepting this debate, you are accepting the rules. Failure to follow the rules will result in a 7 point loss.
If the Universe is conscious and intentionally created mankind, then evolution is actually I.D.

TopicIf the universe is sentient and intelligent, and intentionally constructed biological life (which includes mankind), then what is perceived to be evolution should in fact be intelligent design upon closer inspection.ParametersI will be aruging this debate in support of the above claim from the perspective of a pantheist (someone who takes the position that the universe is conscious, intelligent, and is analogous to God). I want this to be a learning experience for both debaters, and for the audience, so I expect both debaters to concede points when no alternative way of reconciling a specific argument seems apparent; however, I do expect my opponent to be creative but logical - and to have a fairly firm understanding of the science involved.In this debate I will be defining the universe as possessed of a natural rudimentary cosnciousness that arises from the mechanical fabric it consist of (generally regarded as "space-time" and the "quantum field"). God, therefore, will be limited by the mechanical laws of the underlying Field, much in the same way that conscious man, who is matter and fields of force, is still bounded to the laws of physics and chemistry. God is therefore omnipotent only in the sense that he can do what the universe is capable of doing and constructing. (I understand that if I treat God as the universe, then I am ultimately making God subject to an eventual heat death, where he will no longer be capable of constructing complex macromolecules. But this is several billions of years away . . . .)First round is for acceptance only.(Please, serious debaters only.)
Hitler was a Fascist

I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate. I have had migraines on and off this week for some strange reason starting Tuesday. I struggled to post the last rounds. I struggled with my other debates as well. I started typing a few hours ago and just deleted it all because I could not concentrate. When I started the debate I wasn't sick but I have started getting more sick, my headache is too bothersome, and I definitely won't be able to finish. Again my apologies.We should re-do this debate when I feel better.
U.S.A. should consider military action, if a nation attacks Isreal.

Firstly, I would like to remind my opponent he cannot change the subject from the fictitious land of Isreal to the nation Israel. There is a great difference, such as that of the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China(PROC). The difference, Like Isreal and Israel is just one letter, yet it is astronomical. If my opponent were to contend that PROC was a democracy, the suddenly change the place to ROC, then it is is unjustifiable, because: - PROC and ROC are completely different, like Isreal and Israel. Because my opponent has not challenged my argument in regards to the true resolution, my argument still stands, thus I urge a CON vote.
U.S.A. should consider military action, if a nation attacks Isreal.

So far I'm not going to get any medals for the spelling and grammar portion. I did in fact mean the nation Israel and again I apologize. Getting back to topic, this would be my argument: 1. If Israel (the only nation who we are currently chummy with in the middle east) is not backed up by a larger country, odds are it won't be able to support itself. 2. Even more nations will see an opportunity to attack Israel as they have done in the past, if we let them get away with such an attack. 3. If sometime in the near future, a middle eastern country, which odds are it will be hostile to Israel, obtains a nuclear device, it will only take one bomb with about 15 kilotons of force (about the amount that exploded above Hiroshima), to do irreparable harm to Israel. Also, if we let the country go Scot free with such an attack, than we are inviting disaster in the form of global reputation loss and attacks on our soil.
U.S.A. should consider military action, if a nation attacks Isreal.

Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent to tell of the place or nation known as "Isreal". A search of Google Earth revealed no such place, I did however uncover a place known as Israel. However, I fail to see how such a place relates to the current debate topic. It's like the difference between P. R. O. C (Peoples republic of China) and R. O. C. (Republic of China). I conclude from this Israel does not exist, ergo, it is fictitious. In spite of this, I will put forward my argument: ==CON ARGUMENT #1: THE U. S. CANNOT GIVE MILITARY AID TO A FICTITIOUS PLACE== The U. S. military, which live in the real, non fiction world. Isreal is a fictitious world. It would be impossible for the United States to give aid to a place which exists in a realm we do not live in. If Spiderman were set to die in the next issue of Spiderman, the u. S. army could not do anything about it. This will be my case for now. I reserve the right to make new arguments. I would liek to thank the readers, voters and my opponent.
U.S.A. should consider military action, if a nation attacks Isreal.

PRO claims: >>I do believe the United States could aid the nation known as Isreal by simply renaming the nation known today as Israel.<< However, the name Israel is historic and important for the Israelites. The name Israel descends form Israelites, the 12 tribes that descended from Jacob. The name is important for them in terms of identity. They would not willingly change their name from Israel to Isreal because someone misspelt their resolution. I urge a CON vote. Thank you!
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

For any budget anywhere, the budgeter asks for the overall amount of money they need. What I am informing you of is that the money the US requests for training does not all go to basic training; as I stated, a pilot costs MILLIONS of dollars to train, which vastly skews how much money is left for the basic recruit.How does a single trainee max $4,000 a month (minimum)? I do not understand that statistic. As you stated, when asking for a budget, all factors are considered, including lodging and food. The $4,000 includes both food and lodging. If the US could find a way to standardize the basic training procedures for massive amounts of people, then the cost of basic training would not significantly rise. Building basic training camps (some concertina wire, a few barracks, bathrooms, a kitchen and an armory) really does not cost millions of dollars. They're relatively primitive facilities. I believe that you are the one that is confused. Each year, approximately 6 million Americans turn 18. If a policy was put into affect to train all eligible Americans, then why would we have to train every American between 18 and 24? The idea here is to train every American that turned 18 the year the policy was legislated, and next year, every American that turned 18 that year...it's a rolling effect. For no reason would we need to build facilities to train 25 million Americans at one point, when the only expected yearly incoming group of Americans is 6 million. I hope that clears things up.If by 'resection', you mean recession, then it is a common economic policy to invest money into long term plans to make money. This investment into training Americans would be a policy meant to pay off in the long term. As previously stated, boosting the population's physical and mental fitness, allowing them to mature, and then paying for their college education would produce economical benefits that would greatly offset the incurred costs.
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

First off, when the United States military requests for a budget they ask for the over all amount they need. 0.5 billion dollars is the amount The military needs for all training. If we were to increase the amount of people going in to basic training that number would only go up. Basic training is around six months long . A single trainee maxes $4,000 a month ( minimum). Add lodging and food, and the cost to keep up basic training will even be higher. On top of wanting to pay them, house them and feed them, the military would have to build new training sites to compensate the amount of people coming into be trained. To build these sites wold cost millions. I think you might be confusing yourself. The chart that I attached was not the amount of people living in America that are 18, but in fact, the population of Americans ranging from 18-24. You were the one that stated in the first round "1 year of military training before the age of 24." So i was right to say, that there would be 25 million. Over all, America would be fighting an uphill battle trying to pay for civilians to go through training. At a time where we are just getting out of a resection, starting mandatory training would not be the smartest move.
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

The allocation of 500 million USD to force development includes all forms of training, including the millions of dollars it costs to train a few pilots. The training that we are debating would not involve any advanced training. It would not cost nearly as much as you posited. As for your second point, you've again used incorrect statistics. Only 6 million Americans turn 18 every year, and many of those would not be eligible for service, much less than the 25 million you cited. You are providing much false information. American universities are much more expensive than comparable universities worldwide. If citizens were to attend a year of mandatory military training, and then have part of their University tuition paid for, I they would not be losing anything in the process. As I previously argued, military training would improve our citizens physically and mentally, and allow them to mature, allowing them to appreciate a good education more than if they were to simply move from high school to college. Overall, I argue that boosting a populations physical and mental fitness, allowing them to mature, and then paying for their college education would be such an economical benefit that it would offset the costs incurred by sending them to training in the first place.
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

P1) Having mandatory military training for all US citizens would be expensive. As of 2013 the United States Department of Defense requested 0.5 billion dollars for force development and training. Yes, there could be over 50 million trained men and women, but If US started mandatory military training for people ranging 18-24 years old, there would well over 25 million trained men and woman at any given year. America is already 17 trillion dollars, and counting, in debt. Mandatory military training would only put fuel on the already huge fire that America set under themselves. If we ever want to shorten the national deficit mandatory training would not be the step in the right direction. http://www.defense.gov... http://www.newgeography.com... P2) Forcing citizens to go into military training would take away from allowing them choose the education they want to go into. US universities are world renowned for their flexibility. Students are encouraged to take broad assortment of classes, allowing them to paint a better picture for what they want in life. By placing citizens in mandatory military training you take away from allowing them to find what they want in university. C) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

P1) There are many benefits to a year of mandatory military training and service. First, US citizens would gain a mental and physical health boost from the motivation and rigors of military training. Second, US citizens would gain a healthy respect for discipline, and an understanding of group work, which could help boost our economy due to a motivated population. https://www.cypanthers.org... P2) Having your population well-trained for combat is certainly a benefit within itself. If ever threatened, the US would have well over 50 million trained, battle-ready soldiers at any given moment, ready to respond to any threats. This would give the US political leverage during international deliberations. http://www.studymode.com... W56;) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
The Jews in Israel today are NOT the REAL JEWS, according to Biblical Prophecy

He/she failed to give an arguemnt to support their case. He/she says Alahym loves everyone, yet the Bible says otherwise. Though, that is besides the talking point of this debate. My challeneger did not provide any Scripture as outline in R1. He/she faild to refute my claims. He/she also did not stay on topic. In brief, I clearly presented my argument with Bible Scripture that proves the so-called "African Americans/Latinos/Native Americans" are the real Jews today. I thank my challenger for accepting and attempting to debate this subject matter. Good luck to you in all your debates.
God exists

I don't agree. We all have sins, nobody is perfect. God gives us liberty, we can either choose to be good or to be bad. He will not stop us, but he uses different ways to punish us. Japan is located along the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, which is the most active earthquake belt in the world. This "ring" is actually an imaginary horseshoe-shaped zone that follows the rim of the Pacific Ocean, where many of the world's earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur. - See more at: . http://www.livescience.com... Another reason why Japan has so many earthquakes is in the world wars, Japan keep killing people from China and god hates that. So god uses the earthquakes to punish the Japanese.
God exists

God is fair. No he isn't. Natural disasters take lives of many people and cause suffering to others, does that mean they all were sinners? Also, while global warming is debatable, I would provide some sources that say it is real, here they are- . http://climate.nasa.gov... . https://www.skepticalscience.com... Also, we have endangered many other species of animal and plant, what about that? Not to mention polluting the planet, covering his ground with concrete and tar (roads, footpaths, houses) and using up all his resources. Why doesn't he stop that? Moreover, some parts of the world are safe from most natural disasters (mainly in land areas with no volcanoes and tectonic plates), that doesn't mean they do not do bad stuff. Japan had many earthquakes, doesn't mean that all those Japanese have done something to anger God. We celebrate Christmas as it was the birthday of a mortal with extreme persuasive powers known as Jesus. The shroud is just a piece of cloth (. http://www.livescience.com...) that is 2016 or more or less old, that doesn't justify existence of a God. Jesus Christ is often called the Son of God, but he is not evidence for God himself. Humans can propagate anything for their own benefits, and Jesus was a mortal, he could have been deceived. As for his revival, I believe Jesus had an imposter crucified while he stayed under hiding until the re-emergence. My knowledge of Christianity fails me today. Anyways, why didn't Christ make another reappearance? Sceptics like me need to convinced, no? I don't think there is a higher being governing the universe, it is just us and everything around us. There is a site that has worshippers of satan(. http://www.churchofsatan.com...) wouldn't have God intervened then? If you say he wanted to give us free will, then why did we need to "create" the concepts of equality, freedom and liberty? Why did he allow us to be oppressed by kings and the like in the past century? There is no evidence to how did God create the Big Bang, nor any evidence of who he is or where he is? Why do we have so many different religions and different interpretations of God? It is because it is our own idea. It reassures us to know there is an overseer to this chaotic Earth. There is no more evidence for God than for Cybertron itself. The creator of transformers comics was emissary from Cybertron, he won't admit it as nobody would believe him. But in 1 AD, it was much easier to manipulate minds, especially in the name of religion, and therefore Jesus is a holy figure.
God exists

I don't agree. God is fair. There is natural disasters or whatever kind of bad things happen because his people (us) did something extremely wrong that god not appreciate, and he was not happy, so he do something like disasters to punish people. And by the way, there is no "global warming", its just a deception. In the bible, Jesus Christ was born 2016 years ago, he was the sod of god, and now the Shroud of Jesus is still in Italy, this is obvious that it has a god in this world. 25th December is Christmas, that means "the birthday of Jesus", so we celebrate Jesus's birthday ever year but people don't know. SO, GOD EXISTS.