BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The worst type in pokemon

Bug type pokemon, are officially the worst type of pokemon in the game (excluding heracross, he's bug/fighting, sooo...). http://www.thetoptens.com... As you can see, other people also agree with me. Bug type pokemon are only good if you catch a shiny one, as that makes you feel as though you have acomplished something in your video game life. Overall, people just straight up hate them, including me. They have horrible HP, bad attack(except for megahorn), horrible defense, bad sp attack, horrible sp defense, and bad speed. Bug type pokemon, to a pokemon gamer, are just a challenge to try to train them to be their best, but end up getting creamed by the fire elite four member. I once fought somebody with all of his pokemon being bug type, and creamed them all with a lvl 32 charmander. Good enough for u?
The worst type in pokemon

I will explain why the argument that one type is better is an impossibility due to the nature of Pokemon itself. By worse, i assume, he means "of poorer quality or a lower standard; less good or desirable. " The game of pokemon is based around a complex game of advantages over disadvantages of the opponent. This can be shown with the leveling system, the different moves you use, and the "type" system. The last of these is the most crucial. The system of "types" is a rock-paper-scissors match between different pokemon. The simplest explanation is of Grass, Fire, and Water. In this, Fire is beaten by water, which is beaten by grass, which is beaten by fire. This is present with every type, and believe it or not, bug pokemon have resistances to more types of pokemon than almost everyone else. (1) This also means that the idea that one type can be the "worst" is very unlikely. Each type has advantages over one another. This is why one type cannot be better than another. Sure, one type can have higher base stats and a better set of moves, but a type advantage is seen to cause the greatest advantage in a match of equal levels. The question my opponent is asking me to is next to impossible. I cannot very well show that one type is better than another in proof. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources (1):. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
SC vs. AOE

One thing I like about Age of empires is that it is based on real world events. So I like the historical accuracy, which isn't a good reason to like this game more. But if your that type of person this is the game for you. While playing the game you get a chance to learn to say "yes" in different languages. And things like I will do it, attack now, food hunting, wood cutting, and so on. I know how to say a few things in English(duh), French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, Russian, and the whatever the Ottomans speak. And in Star craft, I think the only thing you gather is blue crystals, how is that spouse to help raise an army? That's stupid Haha The fights in SC. last like 5 sec,so if u like long epic battles, too bad.
SC vs. AOE

Ahhh well SC is about strategy. The storyline's pretty kickas$ too. But yea it costs 60, compared to 30 with aoe... It's worth it though, considering it's a never-ending game. Really though I can accept it if you don't like it, but not until you've played it :) And actually i think aoe is pretty awesome too, to be honest. The only problems is that certain matchups are certainly not balanced, i.e. Brit v. Russia. And almost any civ. vs. ports stands no chance. 2 tcs?! wtf? and the other problem is that not enough people play it. The most people i've seen online at one time is ~2800, and the least is ~340, and these numbers include all of the expansions and original disks, so it's really divided up between 3 games, making the most ever on on
SC vs. AOE

Do you accept the challenge pussycat? I argue in favor of the Starcraft series being a better overall game than the sultry, dank, and violently hopeless series of Age of Empires. 1. Better Graphics. No question. 2. People actually play it. 'Nuff said. 3. The Micro is more intricate, and the Macro is more expansive. 4. The units are 50% cooler looking + Death animations are off the chain. 5. Age of Empires? More like Age of Gayness. Just so we don't get banned or w/e, the full and entire purpose of this is to entertain, as we are just joking. I do think SC is better though :p. YOUR MOVE!!!! < reminds me of yu-gi-oh :D
The fastest solution to our oil crisis is drill Alaska

Hello I'm am arguing that the fastest way to end our dependence on foreign oil is to drill alaska. The oil there just has to be drilled and refined. In Alaska, there is belied to be enough gas to fuel 25 million cars and heat 46 million houses for 30 years. We then could end foreign oil. For the alternative fuels, it is taking a whole lot of time. The car companies just can't have the cars on the road in 1 day. It is going to take another 5-7 years before some of our cars don't use oil. Lets just take hydrogen for example. There are cars coming out that run on hydrogen, but there little hydrogen repumping stations (unless you live in tree hugging California). NOw that we have these cars, we have to find people to build a station, run it, and pay for it. I bet not a lot of people will want to run something like that. It is going to take time. By drilling Alaska, the gas could be sold directly from the refinery to the station, cutting the cost of our middle man. We have all our stations ready to go, and gas station owners, would love to sell the gas even if it's $0.20 less, because there are going to get a ton of business.
The fastest solution to our oil crisis is drill Alaska

Hello This isn't what I was looking for, I'm arguing that drilling Alaska is the fastest way to solve our dependence on foreign oil. I see my mistake. I will try to make an argument. What your saying that it would only last 385 days, that's i just a guess. Who knows, maybe it will last a ton longer, maybe it won't. Lets say that we can put the gas in the pumps by January 1st 2009. Now The government will say to the car companies to start producing hydrogen etc. cars. Also, they can tell the gas stations to be ready to be hydrogen compatible. In the mean time, if we were to make more E85 stations, it would lower your numbers and our dependence on foreign oil. Also, the graph you show is technically wrong. The other countries need oil to sell to keep their economy going, we don't. Also, we have Al Gore and tree hugging liberals who are afraid to produce oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Rockies, etc. Our numbers will be a lot higher if we drilled more. SOrry for the confusion.
The fastest solution to our oil crisis is drill Alaska

http://en.wikipedia.org... -- "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 kmï¿½) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 kmï¿½)." -- "The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily." 20 million / 7.7 billion = 385 days. * That's without growth. I contend that my opponent is wrong not because he suggests drilling Alaska will solve all our problems with magical numbers which make it appear that Alaska is floating on a sea of oil, rather I contend that he is wrong because drilling Alaska isn't a solution at all! If you could instantly have access to that 7.7 billion barrels today and use as much as you want. It would only temporarily make supply manage to meet demand again. It wouldn't solve the problem at all. Solutions, real solutions, make the problem go away... not make the problem take a little while longer to screw us up. There's perhaps three months of world oil consumption (82.6 million bbl) in the pristine gem of a wildlife preserve (which you should think long and hard before destroying) we have up there. Giving realistic drill times, adding that on oil on top of current world oil production statistics, doesn't even push the peak back any. World oil *still* peaked in 2006 and it would makes the drop off we're suffering go a little more slowly. http://www.infoplease.com... 7.7 billion isn't really that much. A drop in the pan so to speak. 1. Saudi Arabia 264.3 2. Canada 178.8 3. Iran 132.5 4. Iraq 115.0 5. Kuwait 101.5 6. United Arab Emirates 97.8 7. Venezuela 79.7 8. Russia 60.0 9. Libya 39.1 10. Nigeria 35.9 11. United States 21.4 --- The solution to the oil crisis isn't more oil!
is there a jesus christ

Pro dropped all seven of his arguments for Jesus from the previous round and brought up a new argument in this round. In this round, he says there's a movie about "Colton the kid" who went to heaven and "a girl" who made a picture of Jesus, and this is supposedly evidence that Jesus really existed. I don't see how it is, though. I recently saw a movie about Thor, Captain America, and Tony Stark, but those people don't even exist. So I don't see how a movie proves Jesus existed. I saw a movie last night called _Bedazzled_ about the devil (played by Elizabeth Hurley) and Eliot Richards (played by Brendon Fraser), but I don't see any reason to think it was based on real people.Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.
is there a jesus christ

I'm going to play devil's advocate. I really don't take Jesus mythicism seriously at all, but I thought it might be a challenge to try to defend it. Well, actually, since the burden of proof isn't on me, I'm not going to try to prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm just going to try to debunk whatever arguments Pro gives to show that Jesus did exist. I think there are pretty good arguments to that affect, so this could be interesting. Good luck!
Things that Donald Trump and god (both are He Men rubber baby baggy doggie flunkers) have in common

I'll bite. "It is easily understood by anyone who is intelligent that Donald Trump is the worst president of of all time." Ad hominem argument; unsubstantiated. It is invalid to claim that Donald Trump is the worst president and implicitly assert that those who disagree are not intelligent without any evidence to support the initial premise. All of the asterisk points are uncited, and if I know basic religion, false. "It is obvious that nobody can prove that god even exists or that he isn"t even Trump even though Trump thinks so." This contradicts your initial premise. For Trump and God to have things in common, both must exist. By you asserting that the latter does not exist, your argument falls apart. Try to refrain from making these mistakes in future arguments.
Kids have too much homework we should change it

To start with, I believe that no amount of homework is too much. No matter how much it is or how long it takes, I believe that if it is found to be beneficial for the education of children, then it is justified. Technology and the need for skilled workers continue to rise while the need for unskilled labor falls in comparison. This means that children - i. e. future adults - need a better education than older generations. You say that it has "been found that little is learned from homework". Well, the basics of homework is to allow students a chance to learn via repetition the skills they need, so they will remember them later when they need them. Also, even if the gain from homework is minimal as you claim, I believe that it is still important to allow these children to get this gain. In the worst case scenario, they are spending their time doing homework that still help them a little. In the best case scenario, they are memorizing valuable skills that they will use later.
Kids have too much homework we should change it

I think we should change the amount of homework kids have. I think that kids do have too much homework today. Kids have a lot more then adults today ever have. If you are a parent time how long it takes your child to do it you will be surprised. It has been found that kids do more homework then kids ever had. It has also been found that little is learned from homework that the lessons you need to be taught can not be taught inside of a classroom they mus be experienced.
"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

The US Declaration of Independence famously states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". So it seems to me that they just put it in because it sounds more sweeping and noble than "Life and Liberty" would on its own.Yet it does seem to be present in American culture. A writer for Time magazine described it as "a central mandate of the national character" (2)This has puzzled me for a while, actually, so I'm hoping someone will explain it all in the debate.(1) http://www.archives.gov...(2) http://content.time.com...
America was never a democracy.

If you are born within the lines of America does that make you its citizen? The African-Americans fought for their rights to vote, meaning they're citizens who did not have the legal authority to vote. A democracy IS governed by its people as I have said, so once the governments acknowledges its citizens as citizens, it is then that the people gain their legal right to use there respective powers . Although on 1873 African-Americans were allowed to vote as citizens, it would not be fully realized for almost a century. And that is why The Voting Rights act took place of 1965, even though the government saw them as its people they did not treat them as such. I used the Civil Rights Movement as an example to proof that it is not true that America is a democracy. And once you rebut or agree to my statement I will you tell how it applies today as well.
America was never a democracy.

I'm not sure that the Civil Rights Movement has anything to do with America being a democracy. As you stated, a democracy is "a form of government which the people rule". America has always been a democracy since the Constitution's radification in 1788, whether or not this "democracy" included people of all races, genders, and economic status. During the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans fought for their basic rights including the right to vote. Even though black people and women did not have the basic fundamental rights of the Constitution, the power of the government was still given to "the people". Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that the power is distributed equally among the people, just that the power is distrubited to the people. I look forward to this debate.
America was never a democracy.

I guess what this really comes down to is your definition of "democracy". Even Ancient Greece, the origin of all democracy, only allowed for free adult men to participate in government. No women, no foreigners, etc. However, these women and foreigners were still citizens of Athens. They just didn't have the right to vote as opposed to the free adult white males. But was the power of government still given to the people? Yes. And you're entire argument about the Civil Rights Era is still false. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed thus giving all blacks citizenship. In 1870, the 15th Amendment was passed giving African American males the right to vote. So there was only a span of 2 years when America wasn't a full "democracy", at least according to your definition that a democracy gives power to EVERY SINGLE person. Now yes, you can argue that because of the Jim Crow laws and "grandfather clauses" passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s African Americans were denied voting privileges. However, America as a whole was not responsible for such actions. These things were mostly originated in individual states, especially the southern states as they were incredibly racist and bitter. The Civil Rights Movement was mainly due to these practices of putting up barriers to prevent blacks from voting, rather than because of the government itself stopping them from voting. If that were true, if the government did not provide blacks with the right to vote, then the southern states would not have had 3 to 4 percent of the black population voting (yes, that is a small number but it still shows that blacks had the right to vote). A democracy is when the power of government is given to it's citizens, and America has done that since its start, even if it has been racist and ignorant in the process. Sources: https://www.aclu.org... http://www.ushistory.org...
Which water is the best water

According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities—such as distillation or coronation—are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama’s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.
Which water is the best water

Bottled water is big business. Estimates in variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent. The global bottled water sales have increased dramatically over the past several decades, reaching a valuation of around $60 billion and a volume of more than 115,000,000 cubic metres (3.0⁠×⁠1010 US gal) in 2006. U.S. sales reached around 34 billion liters in 2008, a slight drop from 2007 levels. The global rate of consumption more than quadrupled between 1990 and 2005. Spring water and purified tap water are currently the leading global sellers. By one estimate, approximately 50 billion bottles of water are consumed per annum in the U.S. and around 200 billion bottles globally.
Which water is the best water

My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.
Which water is the best water

You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.
Which water is the best water

My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.
The Brotherhood vs Any Group Of DDO

Case Number 1: The Brotherhood has been shown to be doing charity work. The Brotherhood donated "145 to a poor boy named Reuben. This shows The Brotherhood more charitable work, as for I can see we provide DDO with a better platform and community. My question to my opponent is what can the Leben provide that the Brotherhood can not or do better? . http://www.debate.org... Case Number 2: The Leben has no manifesto. How are we suppose to know Leben's rules and intentions if we have no idea what they are doing. The Brotherhood has a manifesto that can be seen by everyone so we know the Brotherhood's rules, and intentions. If they are found breaking one of their rules, you can see it in their Manifesto and use it has evidence to breaking their code. . http://www.debate.org... Case Number 3: The Leben has no true freedom of speech. The groups are required to hold 3/4 of these beliefs, to uphold the right to life, prolife, anti euthanasia, and be anti death penalty. In contrast The Brotherhood accepts all form of ideas as long as it fits the term of service. As such we believe you can hold a steady, civilized, controversial debate that can be defended in the terms and services. As such The Brotherhood accepts all ideas, that doesn't go against the terms and services, which allows more people to share their ideas than the 3/4 core beliefs. Though they say if their is room for diagreement you have to challenge the Leban leader to a debate, this shows that the core beliefs of the Leban can be easily changed. . http://www.debate.org... Case Number 4: Lets talk about benefits of joining the Leban. "Benefits to the Leben include I will accept any debate I am challenged to by members even if I disagree with the position, and I am willing to judge debates as I have voting privileges. " This can cause vote bombing which is against the terms and services of the site, I feel uncomfortable that their is a group in which can be able to vote bomb in debates. The Leban only has 1 member that is willing to view debates and debate against members. Though the Brotherhood offers it's services to not only it's members but also new members of DDO. Another thing that the Brotherhood won't vote bomb debates since all the members are doing is giving construction criticism to arguments which allows more substance to debates. As such you can contact anyone in The Brotherhood for help, instead of 1 member voting and debating. "Once we have at least four members we will start hosting tournaments and will hold elections to determine the leader. " As such any group can host tournaments, would it be better to have multiple groups hold DDO debating competitions as such to improve the sites equality and be better to hold more togetherness. As such Con profile holds alot of weakness so we don't know how they can respond to critics on their disability. . http://www.debate.org... In conclusion: The Brotherhood holds more broad, and steady terms that allows members to express their ideas more than The Leban, offer charity work and hold different events that The Leban can do but better. A more reliable leader and as such less risk of vote bombing.