BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pokemon is not better then yugioh

As shown as how my opponent did show up with any argument I will go and state my claims and evidence to back up and support and even if this was an opinion I am still debating on a topic lets begin the second round Yugioh has a more qualified artwork Yugioh has more better storyline and there are many plots to go along Yugioh contains more stradegy and allows you to choose your own deck to battle and is a way to battle with your friends and others now with DN you are able to battle with all around I will state more reasons later
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

Let me make it clear that I never claimed that the WBC's actions of protesting at funerals were good. I have made my position clear that protesting the WBC's offices, their protests, and their houses was an ethical means of protesting the WBC. My point is that protesting the WBC's official's funerals was pure revenge, unproductive, and unethical. In reality, I have a lot in common with my debate opponent. We both despise the WBC and wish to protest them. It is just the means we disagree on. I believe we should protest their actions, but not their funerals, which would constitute pure revenge. Thank you for debating with me.
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

"I am not arguing that we should not protest the WBC.""we are just doing to them what they did to us. What does that achieve?"Your points are in conflict here. You think it is ok to protest against the WBC, yet at the same time you don't think that doing the same protests that the WBC are doing is a good thing? I seriously don't understand your point. They treat hundreds of families with no respect at their funerals, yet of course you think its ok to have protests at the same funerals the WBC is protesting? If protesting at a funeral is not right, then obviously protesting against the WBC at a funeral isn't right.I have made clear and concise arguments throughout my message. Zkolodny has tied my thought process up in knots by claiming its good to protest at soldiers and gay people's funerals, but its not ok to protest at WBC funerals. How is that logical?No, its not logical. I say it is imperative that we demonstrate to the WBC that we support gay people and military personel. In fact its our duty as human beings to tell these misguided people that they are completely and utterly wrong in their beliefs. Thanks for debating with me Zkolodny
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

I am not arguing that we should not protest the WBC. In fact, I believe that there should be counter protests to their protests to their protests (if the families of the deceased wish so). I also believe we should protest their offices and their homes. However, to protest their funerals is a clear sign of vengeance, as we are just doing to them what they did to us. What does that achieve?
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

The question zkolodny asks to me is basically, would protesting at the funerals of the WBC just be sinking to their level?I would say not necessarily, and in this case no. Protesting has been the main point of mass expression in American culture since the United States began. Whenever people want to make a point about something, they protest. Take for instance the Anti-Vietnam protests, or the Civil Rights protests, or even the recent Tea Party and Occupy protests. People protest because they want to make a point. In the case of the WBC that point is, it is ok to be gay. You are not going to Hell. The point is also that we support the soldiers (even though we don't necessarily support the war).But what if we act indifferent? What if we do nothing? Is this even possible? Is it possible to be emotionless when a person says that your dead brother or sister is in Hell because of their service? Is it possible to be cold as stone in the face of a sign that says, "All Gays Go To Hell" when you in fact are gay? I say no. We are all humans who have emotions, and being indifferent to such hateful people is unhealthy and unnatural. I say we can stand by our fellow people who are being emotionally harassed by lunatics who hijack Christianity. I say we can tell the WBC and the world what we really think and we don't have to feel ashamed. Now I want to add a small addendum. I understand that there are some members of the WBC who are not necessarily as active or have the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to identify with their family's beliefs. I'm talking about the children and young people. I don't think we should protest their funerals if they were to die tragically. However I think it is right and just to protest the funeral of their leader, Fred Phelps, because of all the hate he has spewed and cult he has garnered from his enthusiasm.
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

First, let me make it very clear that I absolutely despise the West Boro Baptist Church. For me, this is not a referendum on the actions of the West Boro Baptist Church. I would completely agree that they deserve to be picketed at their funerals for all of the pain they have cause. But the question is, are we to sink to their level? In addition, would it not just bring more attention to their cause if we are to picket their funeral? Should we not show restraint even to the most horrid of people to show that we are above them, and that we are fighting hate with love on this Earth?
It is morally permissible for people to protest at the funeral of any member of the WBC.

Great. Thanks for joining. Here is my argument.The Westboro Baptist Church is one of the most inconsiderate, fundamentalist, close-minded groups of people that currently operate in the entire world. They show up on the world stage and wave signs around that say incredibly vulgar things like, "God Hates Gays" "Thank God For AIDS" "Thank God For IEDS" "God Killed Your Sons" "Pray For More Dead Soldiers" etc. I'm sure you get the point. Whats even more disturbing about their protests is that they do them at the funerals of soldiers and publicly known homosexuals. How inconsiderate and horrible of a person must you be to shove your fundamentalist dogma into the lives of people when they are going through such emotionally difficult times?Homosexuals take the brunt of these villian's abuse. They exploit specific passages from the Bible and use them to justify their misguided crusades. I wonder how many young people have cut themselves or even committed suicide under the tyranny of fundamentalism spearheaded by the ignorant fools of the WBC. It is heartbreaking to say the least.Soldiers also take a large swath of the WBC's attention as well. What a horrible and difficult time it must be for the families and friends of our brave soldiers as they do the bidding of the leaders we the people elect. This is no argument about whether or not it is just for our soldiers to be fighting and building infrastructure in other countries. This argument is about the insanity that surrounds the reasoning the WBC uses in order to protest these soldier's funerals.Even though the WBC gets a lot of attention because of the context of their demonstrations, they will not win. We will not let them disempower people who might be scared of identifying as homosexual, and we will not let them disgrace and abuse our brave young people and their families who sacrifice their time, energy, and even sometimes their lives for our greater good here at home. At every WBC demonstration there have been people who have made their own signs saying admirable things like "Support LGBT" "Support our troops" "God loves sinners" "God forgive WBC" "He that has no sin cast the first stone." It is messages like these that show the world how we whole heartedly disagree with the WBC and find their short sighted, close minded, and heartless messages about Christianity and Jesus to be abhorrent.
Theism

Alright I'm going to start of by contesting your statement of their being evidence of a God or lack there of. The simplest of questions" how did life begin" has yet to be answered by scietists. Of course we do know that the big bang occurred and evolution followed after, however what initiated the event? Did nothing somehow ram up against nothing and make life? Of course not the first law of thermodynamics states you cannot get something from nothing. So as a scientific community this law goes against their being no higher power involved in the creation of life. Second point, odds of life. Each cell of the human body is perfectly designed for us. In our DNA, the number of proteins and protons must be at an exact number in order for life to be possible. The odds of this happening are 10^37. I like to think of it in this way. Take some dimes and spread them one right next to the other, all across north america. The dimes are as close as possible, tightly packed over this entire area. Now continue stacking dimes on top of those already in place. Repeat this step until the height of the dimes reaches the moon, 238,900 miles away. Now multiply that number of dimes by 1 BILLION. Next take one single red dime and throw it into this massive pile of coin, and mix it all up. (The analogy is theoretical of course) but the idea is, the odds of you finding that red dime are the same odds that the number of proteins matches the protons within the human cell, making life possible. Without a Devine creator these odd are beyond belief of their possiblility. Now since the human body is so complex, this is just one of many examples of how precice our creation was. If you say to your self that "yes the odds are not in the favor of creation life but obviously it happened" then I ask you, what are the odds of the rest of the human body and so many other complex organisms being created as well.( the dimes analogy can be found in evidence unseen, an apologetic book by James Rochford Conclusion My main points here are this, nothing didn't somehow slam into nothing to produce a big bang, the first law of thermodynamics contradicts that statement. There was a outside source, a God, who enabled life among humans. The fine tuning of not only our bodies, but our world come out of a great plethora of odds that are not in the favor of life. Odds amounting up to this are certainly only obtainable through a Devine higher power
Theism

There has never been any evidence for a god, or anything supernatural. Lets stop and think about this. Can't we all agree that, outside of a god and anything claimed to be supernatural, everything we believe in has evidence: we can see it, feel it, observe it in some way. No god can be observed using the ways we know how to observe. We are told that god cannot be observed, so how can we know he is real? If we apply everything we use to gain knowledge about something, why wouldn't we rely on that to prove a god? How can rely on the current method that supposedly proves this god? We have no reason to believe that this a good method, as it has never proved anything else. No god has been shown to be a part of this universe. There has been no sign inside the universe, and the universe is everything that we can know of. People say that god is not of this universe, so we cannot observe him. But everything we know of is of this universe and observable. If god is outside the universe, in the eyes of human beings, what's the difference between being not of this universe and not existing? If I were to come up with something other than a god and said it was not of this universe, I'm sure you would dismiss it. People us a god as an answer to many of questions, mostly why are we here? Well, we have scientific answers with evidence to back it all up and demonstrations. However, if all of these scientific explanations were proved wrong, that does not prove a god. Lack of evidence for one claim is not evidence in favor of another claim. If there is a god, he has failed to make himself observable, and consequently, I cannot accept this being as existing.
Bronies are Homosexual

It is an honor to debate someone of such a high ELO ranking and of such prestige. :D Now then, I'm going to make this short and sweet. (lol) Not all Bronies (or even the majority) are homosexual according to the following study on Bronies. "Not surprising to us, 70% of the Bronies described themselves as being heterosexual. Twelve percent identified themselves as bisexual, and only 2% as homosexual."(1) You must counter this by arguing that at least the majority of Bronies are homosexual. I have fulfilled my BOP. And just so you don't go playing games with me; Brony - "A name typically given to the male viewers/fans (whether they are straight, gay, bisexual, etc.) of the My Little Pony show or franchise."(2) Since this is the last round I might as well respond to this. You state, "I will argue that all men who like my little pony also like penis to some degree." I cannot tell if this is a joke or if you literally plan on debating that. I would like to note that just because a male may like penis to some degree does not necessarily mean they are homosexual. You must argue that at least the majority of Bronies are homosexual in order to refute my argument. (1)http://www.bronystudy.com... (2)http://www.urbandictionary.com... Good luck!
Karl Popper's philosophy of science requires us to be overly critical of scientific theories.

I apologize for my forfeit. As this is the final round and presenting new arguments would constitute abuse against my opponent, I will only summarize my base argument which I presented in R2 and which Con did not offer a meaningful counter to. Refuting a standard such as Popper's philosophy of science may be done in two ways. Either one can refute the theory's foundational premises (Popper mostly drew on the need for an answer to the induction problem a la Hume) or counter with a more founded or superior theory of one's own. Pro did neither. The entire function of his argument was to argue that Popper's philosophy of science didn't fit into what ever conceptual framework he happened to follow without theoretical justification of that framework or substantial criticism of Popper's. Con didn't argue on the right scale, instead arguing on a first-order, practical basis (Popper's theory doesn't allow for X presuppsed scientific theories) as opposed to a second-order, philosophical one (the standard by which one actually jusges what makes a scientific theory) which is what would have been warranted given the subject matter of the resolution. Con has therefore failed to meet his BoP.
Karl Popper's philosophy of science requires us to be overly critical of scientific theories.

The source I listed in R3 is not working so I reposted it earlier in the comments section and it can also be found here on page 190: http://www.strongwindpress.com...It’s unfortunate that my opponent did not post his arguments for R3, since I’m confident that I thoroughly refuted those he presented in R2 and he will not have the opportunity to respond to my refutations in this round since there can be no new arguments. I will,therefore, simply conclude. I have shown that the foundation of Popper’s theory meets with absurd conclusions that were unacceptable even to him. Popper himself attempted to mediate these problems, however, he was only able to appear to do so to the extent to which he was willing to retract his own theory and the foundation that he attempted to provide for science. Although he makes a limited attempt, as Lakatos demonstrated, it remained insufficient. If we analyze the content of Popper’s theory closely we can see that he is contradicting himself. I thank my opponent for his participation and the readers for their interest. Cheers.
Karl Popper's philosophy of science requires us to be overly critical of scientific theories.

(A)- History.Not only has Pro failed to show specifics corroborating his Galileo anecdote (and thus inhibited any chance of me actually responding to/refuting it) but he is attempting to extrapolate philosophical standards from mere historical instances which is untenable in itself. This is because, in making this argument, Pro is presupposing some standard (X) on which to criticize Popper's standard (Y). But Pro has here offered zero support of his critical standard (which I surmise to be simply that which historically supports the best theories?). In attempting to refute Popper's standard, Pro is presented with two options. He may either attack the reasoning itself upon which Popper builds his model (anti-justificationism, problem of induction, etc.) or he may juxtapose it with a "superior" standard. Pro here has done neither here and has only implicitly supported a rivalrous and ambiguous standard which he has not attempted to justify.(B)- Probability.Probabilities need not be ignored under critical rationalism. Pro seems to be ignoring the falsificationist model as applied to multiple theories. For instance, a theory that "O is likely to occur" would be superior to a theory that "O is not likely to occur" if under repeated experiments, "O" occurs more than 50% of the time. Or if we take multiple competing theories, one entailing probabilities and one entailing concrete statements of fact, the former may be more supported if (a) the latter theory is falsified and (b) the reasoning upon which the probabilistic theory is based upon goes unrefuted. Pro is engaging probabilistic theories in a vacuum here while ignoring both theories in conjunction with competing explanations and matter-of-fact evidence (which is vulnerable to falsification) as support of them.(C)- Confidence.Pro here has simply misrepresented Popper's falsificationist model. Nowhere did he suggest that a single negative experiment would warrant the complete refutation of a scientific theory. But of course this criticism has to do with means to ends, not standard in themselves. So I could support a falsificationist methodology while simultaneously either supporting an indiscriminatory take on scientific theories (irrespective of repeated positive experiments as Pro describes) or I could take that into account. The falsificationist model seems to be in line with both approaches. However, Popper's own account would appear to side with the latter means[1].===Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec. 5)"For Popper, all scientific criticism must be piecemeal, i.e., he holds that it is not possible to question every aspect of a theory at once."
Karl Popper's philosophy of science requires us to be overly critical of scientific theories.

David Hume demonstrated the problem of induction (PoI), which cast serious doubt on the field of science itself. Karl Popper accepted the PoI but argued that science was not effected by this as it was based solely on deductive, rather than inductive reasoning. Thus, Popper argued that science was only capable of falsifying theories and hypotheses, and was incapable of confirming or supporting them. I argue that accepting this last falsificationist account of Popper requires us to be overly critical of scientific theories.R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening arguments/Con may rebutR3: RebuttalsR4: Closing statement. No new arguments should be made, especially if the opposition will not have the opportunity to challenge them.- Pro has the BOP- No reliance on semantic arguments- Dropped arguments may be addressed in later rounds.- No plagiarism. If it's a direct quote, cite it as such.- Since this is a philosophical debate, points for sources should not be necessary.- I prefer a serious debate with someone capable of making a strong rebuttal.
rap vz. screamo

can u prove to me that screamo is about depressing stuff and want to kill ur self wen u listen to it? some rap is dirty yes but, i dnt let it go through my ears becuz its bad for my beliefs and plus it is inpropiate, as for other rap it is very good even christian rap its better than secular rap music, christain rap musc is better than secular! oh srri did u think we were only talking about secular rap? no we arent we are talking about all rap in the world! christain rap talks about god and how we shouldnt do the stuff tennagers do like sex, drugs, smoke weed and all the others crap they do anyways back to screamo, it is realy bad some someone i knew very close listen to screamo and becuz he did he started cutting himself and then eventually he jumped off a building and died becuz of screamo it made me never listen to it again but i do becuz it makes me remined me of my bestest friend in the world!
rap vz. screamo

Rap is far more worse than Screamo anyday for it has soooooo much vulgarity and inapropriate themes and language.....if you were to put a rating on RAP ....it would be "Xhttp://www.youtube.com...; rated...where as SCREAMO would be rated "R" ....!!!!! Can you prove to me that Screamo is only about depression and cutiing yourself....if no proof is given , then that argument is invalid......Back to rap now....rap music displays far more dirtier things than just simply about quote, " how pretty a girl is or how hot and sexxi a guy is".......
rap vz. screamo

okkay screamo for one is for anybody is wat u said i disagree most people i know people that are depressed or just not happy wat so ever and will never be inless they go to the holy spirit to be delivered, and they listen sreamo and they dont care about anything but depressing music like screamo! rap doesnt always talk about sex or drugs and all that crap! just they talk about anything like girls who are pretty or guys that are hot and sexy or something! screamo also sometimes talks about cutting urself or killing urself i have heard it before!
BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

In conclusion, ISIS has gained incredible notoriety in the media and for good reasons such as robbing, killing and pillaging. They are a growing terrorist cell, and are causing widespread terror. Isis is the greatest threat to world security since the beginning of the 21st century, and needs to be confronted. Humanitarian aid is not possible against ISIS because of their widespread reach both in the United States and Canada, and also Iraq ans Syria. We cannot send supplies to our allies because of the reasons that I have stated above. We cannot leave it to the united Nations because of the reasons I have stated above. The United Nations does not have exactly the best track record on fighting ISIS attacks. Considering the recent attacks on the Canadian parliament, and multiple attacks on Paris soil, and the United Nations have not forcefully interceded, it is rightful that the United States and other countries intercede to protect their interests and their citizens. There are many reasons as to why America should be participating in the fight against IS. Firstly, we are already backed by overwhelming support by the public. A recent poll done by "The Hill" on November 20th, stated that 73% of those polled supported the use of American fighter jets in airstrikes. This is more than the 2001 Afghanistan role at 61%, as well as the potential Iraq mission (44%). It is for these reasons and the reasons that I have listed above that I believe that this resolution must and shall stand. I look forward to my opponents final round, and would like to debate him again on the topic to make up for the missed round.