BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
which pokemon gen has the better pokemon / strongest

You say that Mega Rayquaza has a lot of weaknesses, so he doesn't deserve to be at the top. However, what you are forgetting is that most, if not all, pokemon he battles will die before they have a chance to exploit said weaknesses. If you choose to set up though, instead of outright go for an attack, then the other pokemon will have a chance to try & kill Mega Rayquaza. Unfortunately, for them, he won't go down that easily. He will lose about 80% of his HP, but now he's at +1, and will wreck shop. Here are some calculations: 252 Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Palkia: 328-386 (101.8 - 119.8%) -- guaranteed OHKO - speed creeps palkia by 1 point and just out right kills it without any boosts 252+ Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Arceus: 308-363 (80.8 - 95.2%) -- 50% chance to OHKO after Stealth Rock - 50% chance to kill standard Jolly Ekiller after rocks unboosted +1 252+ Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Arceus: 460-542 (103.6 - 122%) -- guaranteed OHKO - set up a dragon dance which outspeeds arceus and support without any defense dies +2 252 Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Primal Groudon: 372-439 (92 - 108.6%) -- 50% chance to OHKO - groudon gets outsped at +2 and just dies 252 Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Mewtwo: 356-421 (100.5 - 118.9%) -- guaranteed OHKO & 252 SpA Mega Mewtwo Y Ice Beam vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Delta Stream Rayquaza: 266-314 (75.7 - 89.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO - lives an ice beam from this thing and sets up or kills +2 252 Atk Life Orb Mega Rayquaza Extreme Speed vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Mega Mewtwo Y: 389-458 (109.8 - 129.3%) -- guaranteed OHKO - ^ +2 252 Atk Life Orb Mega Rayquaza Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Lugia: 390-460 (93.9 - 110.8%) -- 62.5% chance to OHKO - people say Lugia is its 'best counter' and well look at this, consider on an well built hyper offense team the other team struggles to defog so rocks are up +1 252+ Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Dragon Ascent vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Lugia: 321-380 (77.3 - 91.5%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery - even at +1 the 'wall' dies shows you that Lugia is forced to whirlwind away whilst taking all this damage in the process as it cant really thunder-wave due to if rocks /are/ off then getting followed up +2 252+ Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Brave Bird vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Multiscale Lugia: 214-252 (51.5 - 60.7%) -- 94.1% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery - which leads to you following up the ko with espeed next turn: +2 252+ Atk Life Orb Rayquaza Extreme Speed vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Lugia: 191-225 (46 - 54.2%) -- 5.1% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery = dead lugia As you can see, he is capable of effortlessly wiping out the top pokemon and top tanks, whose job is to take little to no damage. Not to mention, he isn't as frail as you think he is. He is perfectly capable of surviving super effective attacks.Lastly, I hate to do this, but you just admitted that Mega Rayquaza by himself can do what the pokemon you listed can do together, thus negating your argument given in Round 1.
which pokemon gen has the better pokemon / strongest

In this debate, I will be supporting Generation 3. In competitive battling, there are 5 tiers:UbersOver UsedUnder UsedRarely Used& Never UsedThere actually only used to be 4 tiers. Until a few months ago, Ubers was considered a banlist. This is where pokemon, who are believed to be too strong to be used in any of the tiers, go. Now, what does this have to do with Generation 3? Well, in Gen 3, there's a little guy known as Rayquaza. Rayquaza in his normal form is already a monster and in Ubers. Then. .. there's his other form, Mega Rayquaza. Mega Rayquaza was originally in Ubers, but after being deemed as too powerful, was banned. This meant Ubers was now an official tier and no longer, the "banlist. " Mega Rayquaza is now the only legitimate pokemon that is in the banlist. In short, Rayquaza alone shows the sheer dominance of Generation 3.
Banning the letter Q from Debate.org

R1: "This is irrelevant. Just because one thinks we do not commonly use something doesn't mean that we should get rid of it. " I had mentioned already in my previous arguments as to how the obscurity of the letter Q was relevant to my resolution. The letter is a replaceable one and a rare one, therefore the English language would mostly benifet from the removal of the letter Q. R2: "This is also irrelevant. The fact that we could easily replace Q with KW has no bearing over whether we should or not." As mentioned in my previous rebuttal it is relevant to the overall resolution. Since the letter Q is a replaceable one it is therefore beneficial to replace the letter, I had mentioned in my argument that the removal of the letter would make the English language more phonetic. Phonetic writing systems are easier to read as they are more logical, hence easier to follow. The English language is filled with various grammar rules and exceptions that prevent the language from becoming more phonetic. Therefore the replacement of the letter would be beneficial to the English language. R3: "Again, my opponent fails to connect how this is related to the debate. Sure, languages have changed over the years." Once more I had mentioned the relevance of my argument to my previous claim. Many languages had gone through changes that made the writing system seem alien to native speakers, however over time the population began to become more familiar with the text and later on benefited in the long run. This could be seen in China during the 50"s when Chairman Mao replaced the traditional Chinese script with Romanized pinyin and the simplified text and as a result it slowly allowed an increase in the literacy rate in China. This comes as a result of the difficulty that learning traditional script posed to the Chinese population. Example of that is in the chart below: The changes in the Chinese script were abrupt but over time the population mostly benefited from an easier to read writing system. Therefore the same could be said with English, through the removal of the letter Q the Anglophone population would eventually benefit over time thanks to a more phonetic alphabet. Therefore, just like the changes in the Japanese and Chinese language, the English language can change in an abrupt manner to the eventual benefit of English speakers. I had only brought up the previous analogies with Japanese and Chinese to show that artificial changes to writing have happened before in other languages, Japanese and Chinese were the examples given to prove this. Therefore these analogies were relevant to my original resolution. I thank Con for this debate and await his closing argument, good luck Con.
Banning the letter Q from Debate.org

1. This is irrelevant. Just because one thinks we do not commonly use something doesn't mean that we should get rid of it. It leads to many other problems as mentioned earlier. The popularity of the letter itself is irrelevant to the debate, and my opponent does not even show why we would care about it's popularity. 2. This is also irrelevant. The fact that we could easily replace Q with KW has no bearing over whether we should or not. Just because Juggle could easily get rid of Airmax doesn't mean they should. In addition, it would still be grammatically incorrect to replace the letter Q with KW in almost all words. People would be repentant to change and it would be a silky rule to enforce, causing members to leave. Because it would cause an uproar among the community, we can conclude that it would not be easy to replace. 3. Again, my opponent fails to connect how this is related to the debate. Sure, languages have changed over the years. How does that prove that it is beneficial to ban Q? In addition, my opponent claims that it would be easier to read and memorize, but this is again wrong as most would struggle reading something once the spelling has been changed to something they are not familiar to, and DDO does not have any interest in teaching people their ABC's. My opponent makes assertions that removing Q would be beneficial but fails to explain how. Thanks for reading this far! Good luck Pro.
Banning the letter Q from Debate.org

I thank Con for his opening argument, I shall start shortly with my arguments. 1. The Letter is an necessary letter. The letter Q is amongst rarely used letters in the English alphabet. In a study by Samuel Morse (inventor Morse Code), Mr. Morse wanted know how he could get the simplest code out of using the most commonly used words in the English language. He made a chart afterwards documenting the most commonly used letters to the least commonly used. In the first column to the chart he put the letter itself, in the second column he put a percentage meant to represent the prevalence of the word in English, and in the last column he made a scale proportion with the least common letter of the English language (Q) representing 1. The chart is seen below: E11.1607%56.88M3.0129%15.36 A8.4966%43.31H3.0034%15.31 R7.5809%38.64G2.4705%12.59 I7.5448%38.45B2.0720%10.56 O7.1635%36.51F1.8121%9.24 T6.9509%35.43Y1.7779%9.06 N6.6544%33.92W1.2899%6.57 S5.7351%29.23K1.1016%5.61 L5.4893%27.98V1.0074%5.13 C4.5388%23.13X0.2902%1.48 U3.6308%18.51Z0.2722%1.39 D3.3844%17.25J0.1965%1.00 P3.1671%16.14Q0.1962%(1) The letter Q is rarely used, it can be replaced by more commonly used letters (this will be elaborated in the succeeding arguments) 2. The letter Q can be easily replaced. The letter Q can be replaced by the combination of the letters "k" and "w", for example it is spelt "Kwanza" and not "Quanza". The letter Q in many other cased is only there to mimic the letter "k" for example in the words "liquid" or "equator". While many other words would be more phonetic without the Q for example the word "Question" would sound more phonetic as "Kwestion". 3. Other languages have removed certain characters to make the reading more phonetic. The Japanese syllabary system "Hiragana" acts as the Japanese equivalent to an alphabet. Despite having two other scripts, all sound that could possibly be made in the Japanese language. Over time this script changed constantly before being standardized after WW2, but even then linguistic changes saw the removal and replacement of two characters of the hiragana script. Here is the original standard script: Two of the characters |32;(wi) and |33; (we) were replaced over time since these characters were rarely used in everyday prose, and were eventually replaced by the characters {56; (i but pronounced like ee) and {60; (e but pronounced like eh) For example: The Japanese Kanji 上 meaning "up" "above" or "upper" used to be read as we, but over time became read as ue. The Japanese language did not lose much when they removed the two characters. Therefore by removing the letter Q one does not only make the language more phonetic (hence easier to read) but also makes the language easier to memorise with less letters necessary to read. Sources: 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://www.wordfind.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://upload.wikimedia.org... 5. http://www.sljfaq.org...
Banning the letter Q from Debate.org

Q is currently a very valuable letter to our website. It is used in order to complete many words, such as: Question, Quest, Quilt, Quill, Que, Quiet, etc... The list goes on. Most words that use Q would be grammatically incorrect if replaced with a "KW" My opponent contends that KW would be an appropriate substitute). This means that members would be forced to use incorrect grammar, which is illogical to force them to do. In addition, new members would be confused by the incorrect use of "KW". Inappropriate use of these two letters in place of Q would make them think we're all incredibly odd and drive them away from the site. Conclusion: Replacing Q would lead to confusion among the members, and probably cause an uprise, leading to valuable contributors on this site simply leaving in protest to being forced to use improper grammar. Thanks for reading! Good luck Pro.
Banning the letter Q from Debate.org

This is a result of the treads and polls my opponent has made about this topic. Full resolution: The letter Q should be banned from debate. org Definition of Q: "The 17th letter of the English alphabet" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Debate. org: The website we are currently using to debate this Ban: "To forbid people from using (something)" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... It would be against DDO policy to write "Q" in a post and mods would enforce this policy. No semantics with the definitions can be made in this debate. Rules (Made by bsh1 and edited slightly): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9.
LeBron James would beat Michael Jordan in one on one

Firstly, let me apologize for missing round two, but I think it is fairly clear that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time. However, that does not mean he is the greatest one on one player of all time. Lebron is s quicker, bigger, and stronger and would defend MJ much better than MJ could defend Lebron. LBJ could simply back MJ down and have his way with him. Additionally, it is a common misconception that MJ is such a great shooter. Check the stats. He is below average from three point range (and is worse than LeBron from three). I agree that MJ has all the intangibles over LeBron, but I don't think that matters in a game of one on one. I think MJ would make it close, but final score: LeBron 21,MJ 17
LeBron James would beat Michael Jordan in one on one

Lebron's strengths are his post game, driving to the basket and his ability to finish at the rim. All things that Jordan was great at as well. The difference is shooting. MJ is a much better jump shooter. That is key in a game of one on one. Also Jordan had quicker hands and was a 3 time steal champion. All things to help him dominate Lebron in a friendly game of 1on1.
9spaceking is a master debater

My opponent's pretty fast. REBUTTALS-My opponent must prove Debatability a debate master"Do not fall under the spell." just....yeah. It's not relevant but it's funny especially because of the context. Wow nice...You used my own memes and pictures against me.I had no idea what you were going to do...how you were going to fill your BoP...But now that you use my own arguments against me, I am tempted to concede. It looks like things are down in the dumps and I cannot possibly win. Yet, a voice besides me speaks. He does not want to concede. He simply does not concede. It is then with great pride that I present my Alter-ego, Jack McGonnell. This will be the first debate in which I recognize him. Let us put our hands together for the true Master Debater, Jack.Jack here. As mentioned before 9spaceking would concede at this point if it were up to him to decide. However, I do not concede. Jack is not one to "simply concede". A master-debater would never concede. Yes, you see, I am the true master debater. I am the advisor who helps 9spaceking talks him out of doing everything. 9spaceking just loafs around, not even thinking about what's he does. He slips around on banana peels all day long and poops in his throne; no, this is no master debater, I am the master who convinces him to stop slipping on banana peels and stop pooping on his throne. In addition, he lies. He may not have an eye or a mouth as we see it, but he is obviously a relative of slender man. And what does slender man have that 9spaceking also have? Hands, my friends. Hands. Looks like the artist of that "portrait" wasn't entirely lying after all. Now, my opponent claims that 9spaceking is the king of space and definitely king of the world. This is fallicious. 9spaceking is the king of the 9 spaces noted below:If you can't see them, this would perhaps bring further clarification;Yeah, that's right. 9 spaces is like nothingness. It looks like nothing and is nothing. 9space is really the master of nothing in reality. Finally, as for the blind seeing better, blind hearing better, and silent ones writing more than they can speak, all of these cancel out. Besides, Slender Man breathes very loudly, definitely proving he's not silent at all.[source: youtube video http://www.youtube.com...]As you can see 9spaceking is not the master debater over here. He was tempted to concede this very round, was forced to give it to me, the true master debater, and has some flaws that don't make him quite fit those people's philosophies. I, Jack McGonnell, am the true master debater. You are a tad off on your hypothesis, my friend Adam.
9spaceking is a master debater

Obviously I am not a master debater, whatever my opponent thinks it is.Below are pictures of examplar master debaters. So here are the list of known true "master debaters":-Sarah Palin-Anyone who wins versus themeslves (but note the doubt within the photo, this is not confirmed)-George Bush?-Gingrich-The most interesting man in the worldLet's just put Bluesteel and Raisor up there too, since they're definitely the top two debaters on this site.Now what are the traits of the "master debater"? We can't be exactly too sure, but we know these pictures have something in common:-The try to distract you-They have unneccessarily complex backgrounds-They all have eyes, hands, and mouths needed to debate-The words "master debater" is somewhere near them in the picture -They're all handsome/pretty (the dinosaur, I am certain, is handsome for a dinosaur)However I cannot distract anybody. I'm a king. I recieve all the attention. (below: a painted mural of me and my subjects) In addition, my background is actually necessarily complex, since I'm a king. Furthermore, I have no eyes, mouth, or hands. My subjects type all of this up. Those hands, eyes, and mouths are just drawn in there from the artist's imagination to not offend me. This is what I actually look like: As you can see "Master Debater" is nowhere in that picture.I am obviously not handsome, because I am handNONE. I fulfill none of the requirements for a "master debater". There is no way I am a "master debater". No. Way. Onto you Adam.
9spaceking is a master debater

This is a troll debate. We will not define master debater because that's the fun part of the debate.You have four options, you can only chose one:1. Accept round one and have the last round for rebuttals and conclusion (but no new arguments)2. Start round one and just "Pass" the last round 3. Concede round one and give me the victory I deserve, because we both know that I'm not a master debater 4. Post a video of you Vomit all over the carpet for Round 1, then Round 2- videotape himself in the middle of an FBI raiding his house, then get beaten up madly by the FBI, Round 3- pro will stage his body so it looks like he was brutally murdered and film the reaction of an unsuspecting loved one happening upon the body. Round 4--Suicide in a vast explosion of nuclear bombs
Clerical Celibacy

Hi again,I hope that the personal reasons are not negative in nature and it is my sincere desire that everything goes well with you. We will have to debate this some other time when you are able to fully formulate your arguments with sources, etc.Rebuttal #1: Exclusive Clerical OrderEven if the Catholic Church acknowledges the priesthood of all believers, it then is warranted no basis bibillically for setting up it's own exclusive clerical order. The priesthood in the old testament remember was denoting who had access to God. All believers have access to God through the great mediator Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice once and for all is sufficient and intercedes on our behalf. There then is no need of some kind of middle order of priesthood, and calling elders, bishops and overseers as being a different hierarchy of priests, as they function as the leaders of congregations, not as the congregation's access to God as was formerly the case in the Old Testament.Rebuttal #2: Additional Remarks on Clerical Celibacy in the Western TraditionIf you remember, I stated that my argument in the first round with very specific wording:"My contention is that Clerical Cellibacy of the Western Catholic Tradition is an unbiblical practice, and has been very harmful to the Roman Catholic Church and therefore should be repealed from Canon Law."My contention is with the western Catholic Tradition, and therefore it is not relevant to appeal to eastern tradition numbers. The only instance in the western tradition for a Catholic Priest to be married is if he is a Protestant minister who converts and is already married, and this was not done until the 1980s.Canon Law expressley states:"Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity."[1]This Law makes Priests of the Catholic Western Tradition legally bound to be celibate, and until this is changed it is as binding as dogma.Paul and Jesus were also not elders or overseers of local congregations, Jesus has the office of high priest and Paul was an apostle and was not overseeing any church, but would appoint elders for specific congregations. While Paul's qualification does exclude the possibility of elders who practice polygamy, the command that they must be the "the husband of one wife," also denotes that the man must be a husband and therefore married. Not to mention the qualifications for how they treat their children and manage their homes as I previously pointed out. Appealing to men 300 years after these commands were given, who disregarded these qualifications does nothing but reveal that they disobeyed these clear qualifications.This is a classic example of how Catholic Traditions often contradict the teachings of Jesus and Apostles, which is why I reject tradition as on par with the original teachings of the faith.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://www.vatican.va...;