BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate me on one of these topics

But if you want to talk Anselm's, that's fine, it was going to be my original choice. Objection 1 rebuttal: I have heard this rejection countless times, and I have given a sound response to it every time. There is one problem with it: an island than which none greater can be imagined is inconceivable. Nothing can be infinitely great or the greater than God. Infinite greatness entitles perfectness, and nothing can be truly perfect but God. Now, if the island actually was THE greatest, then, being the greatest means that the island is actually God himself. Part of being the greatest island is that this island is so great that it can and is God. My point is, picturing something besides God as immeasurably great is impossible, as nothing is "the greatest" without being God. Objection 2: I will offer responses to each of Kant's premises and conclusions. P1: I agree with this. P2: I disagree with this. Thinking of a beautiful flower and actually experiencing one is different. Similarly, a non-existing, tasty apple is not as tasty as an existing apple, because one can actually be tasted. C1: Because of this, C1 is wrong. Existence adds essence, because without existence, essence cannot be felt. P3: So, I disagree with P3. Existence, because it is a predicate that adds essence to something, can be considered a perfection. C2: I agree with this. C3: I disagree, because existing is necessary to be great. Kant's argument falls flat on P2, making the whole argument defective. Existence is needed to experience something to its fullest extent, and thus P2 is incorrect. Existence thus adds essence. I'd also like you to note that existence is defined as a verb (synonymous to predicate) in almost every dictionary. Thus, you are contradicting the widely used definition of a word and using semantics as a combatant for your argument. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate me on one of these topics

Since my opponent did not choose an ontological argument, I will: Anselm’s ontological argument: 1: It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).2. God exists as an idea in the mind.3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is acontradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)C1. Therefore, God exists. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Objection 1 (reductio ad absurdum [1]): If the premises of Anselm’s ontological argument are taken as true then it necessarily will lead to absurd conclusions: 1. It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can beimagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).2. A piland exists as an idea in the mind.3. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a pilandthat exists only as an idea in the mind.4. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine anisland that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that doesexist).5. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.6. Therefore, a piland exists. Thus the argument becomes invalid. Objection 2 Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) objection to Premise 3: [Premise 3: A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind] P1: A predicate is something that adds to the essence of a thing. P2: A non-existing flower is just as beautiful as an existing flower. C1: Existence is not a predicate. P3: If existence is not a predicate, it can’t be a perfection. C2: God can be defined as perfect whether he exists or not. C3: A being that exists is not greater than a being that does not exist. So, Anselm’s P3 can be rejected and P4 also has to be rejected and since the conclusion does not follow from the premises anymore the argument becomes a Non-sequitur [2] and thus invalid. [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: https://www.vocabulary.com...
Kings of Leon needs to disband.

Wow...disbanded? I'm actually listening to some is I write this. Is it my cup of tea? Hell no. Would I buy it, have it it in the car, be caught by anybody listening to it. Hell no. But disband, because of what, your little tiny weenie opinion. And as far as the comment about having chicks dig the music because of the way the guys look? News flash, sex sells, and if its increasing there record sales, well more power to them. Talk about gender biased. Think of how many women have capitalized financially because of sex and there body. Now a group of guys is doing it, and your going to be a whistle blower? I have a sneaky suspicion this is your girls favorite band. She got a tat on her lower back that you got look at very time you hit doggy dontcha? Give the guys there props, they've been grinding and putting more work than you can possibly even fathom. Do you have a clue what goes into getting to the point these guys have gotten too? Its a life. A whole life. I can't really wrap my head around what makes you think you have the authority to take a life work and deem it anything: good, bad, or ugly. And whats even more endearing about them is they haven't by any-means made it yet, although they have a Grammy, they are still grinding , searching for the next ladder rung. And I don't know how much you know about music, other than not alot, but this is a self contained band. They write and play all off there own music. If you were to want to throw anybodies career off the bridge, why not start with guys like Bruno Mars, and Justin Beiber. They fall in your hater category of guys that look good (lol). Or are you sweet a little sweet on them? If so, I'll make a previous comparison concerning the term "self contained band" Neither of the teeny heart throbs that your FINE with taking precedent over a real band write or play there own music. Justin is the less talented of the two, bruno can play several instruments but not at the level of the songs that are written for him...(thats one key indicator hey didnt write them) So how about this, why don't you take your insecure little whiny self, and go tell an Grammy award winning band that they should disband because all there music "sucks"....(not that I LOVE there music, but as an aside, if you think this sucks, id like to see your play lists)...and you tell them to disband. And like smirk and keep walking past you, and everything will keep going as its going. I wish me and you could have a meaningful debate abut music...not one that's so obvious. After hearing some of this I just know you have no music knowledge...and have the nerve to start a music thread. Funny. Promise me if I post one you'll accept. Here...its like they wrote one for you. Sing along. I'm sure it'll make it a much better experience. lmao http://www.youtube.com...
Kings of Leon needs to disband.

This is a one-round debate. There will be only one round during which to present an argument. After that, the community will vote.---The alternative rock band Kings of Leon needs to disband. Reasons are presented below.Reason 1: The band's music sounds horrible. It is not possible to finish an album without asking oneself, "What is this crap?"Reason 2: The band is more popular among women than men. This gender discrepancy promotes sexism, gender segregation, and possibly homophobia among music enthusiasts.Reason 3: The music industry is saturated with boy bands. It needs fewer, not more.
The 10th doctor (Doctor Who) is the best doctor in the reboot.

I'm also addicted to Doctor Who. Isn't it great? Anyway, on your 1st point, David Tennant has cool hair too. Matt Smith just has major bedhead. 2nd, Rose is my personal favorite companion, and yes Rory is cool, but Mickey is so similar! Next, Matt Smith has a few good episodes, but " The Family Of Blood"? That's a David Tennant episode. In that case, I agree. David Tennant has great episodes, including one of YOUR favorites. Next, Matt Smith doesn't get any serious work done, and he can't fight at all or take anything seriously! Plus, the votes are in. David Tennant is the greatest. (See Link Below) http://www.ign.com...
The 10th doctor (Doctor Who) is the best doctor in the reboot.

So, I actually do love the tenth doctor and he is my favorite, but I then watched the eleventh season and saw the eleventh doctor. So I thought about it, and I decided that they are both just really good. So, I will argue that the eleventh doctor is cool. First of all, he has a cool haircut! He also has nice partners like Rory! Second of all, he has most of the good episodes. My favorite two episodes are " The Family Of Blood" ( from tenth season ) and " The Impossible Astronaut". MY 3rd reason, is that he has a really nice voice. David Tennant also does, but I like his funny and humorous jokes and his humorous friends! BTW: I am a doctor who addict.
Zoos are inhumane and should not be allowed.

Ha ha, much of the sarcasm there, Sargent Sarcasm. Name five bad zoos that you have actually BEEN TO, instead of just telling me to look up pictures of them. Ever herd of Photoshop? It's real, and is wayyy overused. How, exactly do you expect people to help rescue and take care of animals if they are not brought to a zoo?? And where do you presume we release the animals at? Not everyone has the money to send animals back to their natural habitats. We can't just release a lion in the middle of New York City. Think of the children. I rest my case. P.S.;);););););) Is a crime to overly happy and want to show it???
Zoos are inhumane and should not be allowed.

I would like to first state that I am saying I don't want any zoos. But that doesn't mean that we can't have other places that save animals and don't keep them in a cage for money. Rebuttals: "Actually, I wouldn't mind being put in a cage if it meant that I would get food and lots of love and attention. ;)" Me neither, unless I was put in a really bad zoo. With no attention, not a lot of food, and being in a tight space. For instance go to Google and search up "bad zoos" and then go to images. I bet living in that would be a blast. "The keepers helped her, and are still helping her now." Yes that is a good zoo. Like the San Diego Zoo. But there are so much more bad zoos then there are good zoos. "Website 1: http/www.theguardian.com" I can't find your article. It makes me go to a news page. May you please link it in your next argument? "Just think of where we'd be without them. ;);)" First I would like to state that this is a debate. So please don't use winky faces. They are really annoying. And also were would we be without them. Well I would like to reword that to Just think of where the animals would be without them. Because they are supposed to be about helping animals. And the animals would be much happier. Because us humans would find another way to save them so we would save them and then release them back into the wild were they would be more happy. Yes I agree that some animals can't be let out of the zoo because they would die in the wild so yes we should keep them in that situation. But most of the animals in zoos can be released. So we should release them.
Zoos are inhumane and should not be allowed.

Actually, I wouldn't mind being put in a cage if it meant that I would get food and lots of love and attention. ;) Zookeepers don't give the animals to much love and pampering. So, that when it's time they can release them back to the wild without to many problems. I couldn't agree more that animals should be out free in the ocean, but some animals are unable to do that. Things happen to them that are to severe, ad they can't be free. Have you ever seen the movie, Dolphin Tale? Well, the dolphin, Winter's tale, something happened and she doesn't have it anymore. They made a tale for her, and she lived, but is unable to survive alone in the wild now. The keepers helped her, and are still helping her now. I can't believe that some people do that to animals, but people are making sure that zoos are having better conditions and are safe and pleasing to the animals they inhabit. Website 1:http/www.theguardian.com Zoos breed animals to save their species. I've been to the San Diego Zoo, and it is a good place, while they get lots of money, they take good care of their animals, they stay with them until they die. I would rather stay in a zoo all my life and be fed and admired, then have a long death of being hunted. Zoos are just trying to help the animals survive. Just think of where we'd be without them.;):)
Zoos are inhumane and should not be allowed.

I would like to first say in my argument a link to the worst zoos in the world. Put yourself in there place. Link: http://www.takepart.com... "I believe that zoos protect the endangered animals in the world." Yes they do save the animals, but after they save them what they do is keep them in captivity for people's amusement. I am sure you wouldn't like it if you were in there place. What happens if you got put in a cage. I don't think you would like it. Website 1: http://www.takepart.com... This article states that most zoos are only prisons in there eyes although in our eyes it is educational. Ever at really good zoos where there may be a giant cage with plenty of toys but nothing will be the same as in the wild for them. Once they are in a zoo for about a year they start thinking that everything will be handed to them. Although in the wild they will have to earn it. Also they wouldn't be scared of really anything. So they can't be released into the wild without being killed. So they have to stay the rest of their life in a cage. And as the creator of this article stated that for a water animal its "Life In A Bowl" That doesn't seem so fun does it. How would you like a little tank compared to the giant ocean. For instance in Sea World Shamu. He is in a little cage compared to the giant of the ocean. Also orcas live up to 80 years but in this fish tank they don't live tell even have of their lifespan in the ocean. Ric O"Barry, someone who spent 10 years training dolphins to perform is now trying to tear down the very organization he created. He stated that "You"re talking about a creature that"s primary sense is sonar. You have a sonic creature in a concrete box. There are generations of dolphins born in a concrete tank who have never seen the ocean, have never seen a live fish, and have never experienced the tides or the current. They have lived in a concrete box. They were born there. These are freaks that we have inbred for our amusement." Although petting zoos seem fun they are a safety hazard for kids and animals. In fact most animals in there are babies. They should be with their mother. Website 2: http://www.peta.org... This article states these animals are usually sold, bought, and traded. Especially when the animal loses its cuteness. This states that zoos don"t care really about the animals. But mostly about the money. Also some animals even when they aren"t hurt can be tooken from the zoo. In fact some of the zoos that people say a good dump unwanted animals because they aren"t cute, for instance San Diego Zoo which 11 African elephants from Swaziland. Many zoos only want to save animals that are popular and will draw huge crowds. Also they like to breed animals to get more babies because when theres a new baby everybody wants to see. So this leads for crowded cages and spaces. Why do zoos need to put animals in cages to save them. Why not save them and then let them go when they are ready. Instead of keeping them there. I dont know about you but i would rather die than be kept in a cage for that long.
Alisa Boskonovitch is Over Powered (round 2?)

"What my opponent might be trying to explain is that there are two ways to play Alisa. One in which to focus solely on punches and another solely on kicks." "However, there are flaws in each of these fighting styles. The punching focused style can be countered by a method called turtling. (1) This involves staying still to block her onslaught of punches and grabs and wait for a counter attack which would then deal extra damage to her." If they are on the floor you may back up and wait the next attack. Some players are smart to dodge when you dash attack her. But, if I have my correct calculations, Alisa has many punish attacks. This helps her stop the running character and leaving them airborne or on the floor to punish or juggle. "The kicking focused styles flaws have thankfully been described by my opponent as 'attacks that are powerful, but slow' this means that characters specializing in close quarter combat such as Steve and Bob easily keep close and punish her with jab combos." Yes, I have said her attacks are slow and powerful. But, if I recall my studies, she has very many punish attacks that make her hover. This is one of her very many rare quick punishes. She pushes the character to the floor. Also she has a kick that lets her kick her feet in the air where the enemy flies very high. This also can dodge slides. I have seen it before. I could never do it because I'm too slow. But I'm still new to Tekken Tag Tournament 2. "This may work 1 time on the opponent, but after that many decent players will realize that it can be countered like any other grab move." As listed in her command list, this move is called, "Spam Bomb". In Tekken Tag Tournament 2, she can do Spam Bomb and then grab. This is not listed in the command list. In fact it is known as a hidden move. Simply, while the character is holding her head, she quickly drags them down into any grab. When she finishes attacking, the head explodes.
Alisa Boskonovitch is Over Powered (round 2?)

"This also means there are attacks that are powerful, but slow. If your opponent is on the ground you may juggle and also punish harshly. Lately, I have been studying her fighting style and which move is the trickiest, which combo is the longest and the fastest, etc... I see very many attacks with kicks that are easy to cheat with. " What my opponent might be trying to explain is that there are two ways to play Alisa. One in which to focus solely on punches and another solely on kicks. However, there are flaws in each of these fighting styles. The punching focused style can be countered by a method called turtling. (1) This involves staying still to block her onslaught of punches and grabs and wait for a counter attack which would then deal extra damage to her. The kicking focused styles flaws have thankfully been described by my opponent as "attacks that are powerful, but slow" this means that characters specializing in close quarter combat such as Steve and Bob easily keep close and punish her with jab combos. "But, physically speaking, her face is very beautiful if she gives you her head you will be scared of course" My opponent is suggesting that the absurdity of her taking of her head may confuse players and will make them hesitate about making any moves to counter the grab. This may work 1 time on the opponent, but after that many decent players will realize that it can be countered like any other grab move. Thanks to my opponent for continuing on my debate from last time (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(gameplay)
Alisa Boskonovitch is Over Powered (round 2?)

"Pro has conceded by say Alisa is not overpowered." I hear this as if I have lost the argument. I meant that your argument was correct and that I was wrong. It does not mean I have given up. "Like I said in my previous arguments this would likely make the opponent stay close into Alisa into a dash kick." True, she is easy to juggle against.But, as I have read her Tekkenpidia description she has a unique cyborg fighting style, meaning she uses moves that are not human-like. This also means there are attacks that are powerful, but slow. If your opponent is on the ground you may juggle and also punish harshly. Lately, I have been studying her fighting style and which move is the trickiest, which combo is the longest and the fastest, etc... I see very many attacks with kicks that are easy to cheat with. When I searched a Ranked match of Alisa, this character barely used any kicking moves. Alisa mostly punched and remove her head. My point is Alisa needs practice to master. But, honestly who would have only Alisa as their best character? As you may have noticed, Lili is my second favorite character. Lili and Alisa make a very good pair together,mostly because they fight very similar. "I'll admit she's pretty but please remember that this is a debate about her whether she is an unbalanced character" I do have to say this is a very smart rebuttal mostly because it's true. But, physically speaking, her face is very beautiful if she gives you her head you will be scared of course then you will realize some things you haven't probably noticed in combat and then it will soon blow up and she will be able to juggle and punish painfully. Continue...
Alisa Boskonovitch is Over Powered (round 2?)

"If you are being punished on the ground you can use one of her moves "Reboot". This allows Alisa to fly away and also gives her a chance by countering when they make their next move." Like i said in my previous arguments this would likely make the opponent stay close to alisa into a dash kick. "Also, she is very beautiful. This also makes new players who have never seen her very happy thinking that her fighting style is weak. Her beauty is a weapon" I'll admit she's pretty but please remember that this is a debate about her whether she is an unbalanced character "Also, I may have said she is overpowered. I was wrong it wouldn't be fair only thinking the fact that I am still a little new to Tekken would make me think this way." Pro has conceded by saying that she Alisa is not overpowered