BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

Con has obviusly not read any of my arguemnts as i have destroyed every arguemnt he has brought for even though some of it wasnt even legitmate arguemnt. Also if con feels i need to prove the existence of vampires and werewolves then that means voting for his arguemtn isnt taking a stand on this topic but a stand on technicalites. At the beggining i stated that this arguemtn would be based on mythology but he has wasted every round on technicalities without meeting me on the actual battlefield, he hasnt at all followed the rules of this debate and he is supplying you the voters with vague and unimportant facts from less than trust worthy sites instead of providing an actual arguemtn. While war can mean a competition of some kind it is when a person just says war it is refers to violent armed and bloody combat but if they specify with dance war or comedy war then thats competition. The CON baselessly accuses me of changing the gold post when infact i provided the rules and facts in the beggining and have been shooting at cons goals ever since, my only goal was mythology and i have twice asked that con meet me on those glorious grounds but he refuses to actually argue on any topic. I am Damien Mulkrin and if anyone comments on Vampires vs Werewolfs on gods and monsters. com i will within a week reply with the same thing i have been saying for a long long while, also it is not plagerizing when it is my own words.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

PRO begins with a falsehood. The resolution does not say, "If they fought vampies would win," but that vampires DO win. Therefore, my burden analysis once again remains completely uncontested, while everything PRO provides is a wall of text. He cannot issue a new rebuttal or a new argument in the next round, so because he fails to refute any of my burden analysis, you have to prefer it, and thus vote CON. He repeats that vampires are "in general smarter or stronger. " These are objective statements without warrants--this is because they lack truth value, because neither vampires nor werewolves, as PRO himself even admits, exist. Therefore, these statements cannot be proven to be true, so PRO can't fulfill his burden. He then misrepresents the definition of war, which has several definitions, one in which is "a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other" [. http://tinyurl.com...]. My point on this, therefore, stands. How can PRO suggest that you ought to vote for him, when he hasn't cited a dictionary--and, as I've just shown, is flat wrong? He then commits a BOP fallacy: I'm negating a positive claim, with my main argument being that there is *no* evidence for this position. The burden never falls on the person negating the claim, but always on the person making it. PRO did not contest the *content* of my burden analysis, and continues to commit this fallacy with baseless assertions, all while changing the goalposts and refusing to evidence his position. Everything I have said is directly related to PRO's burdens and the content of this debate, and PRO has dropped the bulk of it. It was *never* stated in the rules of this debate that we would be arguing based on mythology. Further, the mentuon of mythology in Round 1 was based on a plagiarized argument--note that PRO still hasn't contested this! I even went onto the website from which the claim was plagiarized, and found that I could comment as any person.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

First of all I am not here to prove the existence of Vampires or werewOlfs, I am here to prove that if The two groups fought vampires bEat werewolfs mentally and physically and so they beat werewolfs in war. Also i never said vampires beat werewolfs in everything but they are in general smarter and stronger, also the deffintion of war is armed combat which is what i have said vampires beat werewolfs in. Everyone should vote For prO simply because CON doesnt a dictionarRy. also while i need to bring in evidense to prove my oPinion it is then his Role to bring in evidense that iether contradicts Or overrules my opinion and the evidense behind it, which apparantly he refuses to do so you should vote for pro as con hasnt provided any real reasoning or evidense to attack mine. There for everything i have said stands and nothing he has said is even related to the debate so you vote pro. ALso as i have stated in my first arguement we are fighting on the grounds of mythology and so everything i haved can be varified and wether werewolves or vampires exist is a moot pointm so i have smashed everything CON has said even though he really hasnt said anything other than baseless accusations and a demonstrated his lack of understanding when it comes to debate rules and his lack of a dictionary.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

First, PRO concedes the debate by admitting that he cannot *prove* that vampires and werewolves eixst. He doesn't even challenge my burden analysis, which you must now extend, which leads us to a clear CON victory. His point on vampires "beating werewolves in everything" is also untrue, because "war" can refer to any sort of altercation at all--it does not have to refer to an armed conflict. He is saying that vampires, in principle, can win a war against werewolves--meaning that they are, in principle, superior to werewolves. I agree that this encompasses not all, but a majority. His insistence that I make an "actual argument" is nonsense; he's trying to change the goalposts, when only HE possesses the burden of proof in this debate. If I prevent him from upholding his burden, as I have done with my burden analysis that he hasn't contested, you vote CON. He says vampires are "always strong and fast," while shapeshifters need rest, that vampires are better in combat and that vampires are more resilsient to attacks. He then goes on to provide some numbers which neither of us can veirfy because he provides no evidence. Hr provides no evidence because vampires and werewolves *do not exist*, meaning that every single argument he has made cannot be verified, and is nothing more than him making things up.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

First of all the opponent stated that I needed to prove that vampires and werewolves exist, ladies and gentlemen we all know this is impossible and we all know the opponent cannot fight my arguement so he instead uses technicalities. Next the opponent stated that that I need to prove that vampires always beat werewolves, that is not true because I believe vampires beat werewolves in war not everything. All vampires that have lived over 116 years old already have an advantage over werewolves in life time and a bit more wisdom, but there are some prodigical werewolves but still if majority of vampirs is stronger than werewolves then a few smart werewolves cant turn a war. Vampires are always strong and fast and dont need any rest while shapeshifters need the average amount of rest and while they gain sharper teeth are still not as good in combat as evena regular human (wolves are dangerous to humans because of ferocity, a human mind in a wolf body is less dangerous than a human) and lycans at an estimate are as weak as regualr humans atleast 9 hours aday and in wolf form for atleast the same (6 is the minimum sleep hours for an adult) so thats 15 hours a day werewolves are vulnerable to attack while vampires are always ready, and so vampire beat werewolves in inteligence, phycal ability and vigilance all essential to winning a war and thats what this is about not everything just winning a way. Also i did state that vampires beat werewolves in war, and oonce more request that the opponent makes an actualy arguemnt, i also dont need to cite myself. And jsut to remind my opponent, if you dont have an arguemtn just give up and dont waste all our time on technicalities.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

First, PRO needs to provide proof that he is actually these commentators. Even if he can prove that he is, you should vote for me on sources, because copy and pasting arguments from other websites, without any citations, is improper sourcing. Even reading through his "argument," though, he doesn't at all advance hs burden. He defines shapeshifters and lycanns and talks about the abilities that the "ultimate hunter" would have. All of these remarks are completely non-topical, and he doesn't advance his burden.Here is what he needs to do in order to win: (1) He said that vampires *beat*, not *would beat*, werewolves, so he needs to prove that both vampires and werewolves exist (2) He needs to prove, after that, that vampires would always beat werewolves(3) He doesn't state what vampires would beat werewolvs in, so you must assume that vampires would beat werewolves in *everything*, which is impossible, since everything includes "ability to get beat."In other words, PRO's burden--even if he can prove he hasn't plagiarize--is impossible to fulfill, so you negate.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

I accept. Normally I would say that, because the burden of proof is on PRO, and the resolution states that vampires "beat" werewolves instead of "would" beat werewolves, PRO must not only prove this, but that both exist. However, you can vote CON right now because PRO has plagiarized his entire opening round. His entire round comes from the comment section from what appears to be a blog post: (http://www.gods-and-monsters.com...). Plagiarism is never permitted, and should merit a loss of this debate.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

Using the myths not the modern fan fiction.a vampire is the ultimate hunter, so what abilities would the ultimate hunter have logically based of mythology.O Much stronger and faster than average humanO Sight,smell, taste, hearing and touch would be greatly improvedO Not exactly smarter but they would be better anticipating movement and thought patterns the kind of thing a hunter would need to be better at observation, analysis you knowO If you stab one, the wound would heal atleast under half an hourO ImmortalityO And im sure there are more weapons in arsenal of the ultimate hunter second only to Artemis herselfweaknessesO Sunlight- Major inconvenience. But with glasses, umbrella, scarf, hat and long coat they could still get around they just have to cover themselves up, hard but not impossible, i disagree with people saying uv radiation hurts them thats just sc fi rubbish. Vampires are magic, you cant put science into it if you dont answer all the magical concepts like how are they immortal.O silver- Not really that worrying, i mean silver isn't something that common i mean if a vampire is hunting you, you wont notice that its there until its too late even if you do have silver in your back pocket. you would die before even thinking "oh no its a vampire i need to take out my silver"there are two werewolf myths one shapeshifters and the other lycans.shapeshifters are humans who can turn into wolves and as wolves they are wolfs with humans minds. a vampire could easily take a shapeshifter down with one well shot arrow (ultimate hunters always hit their mark), hunting wolfs,bears, tigers would be nothing special.lycans were mythologically humans bitten by lycoan a king who got zeus mad when he chopped up his own son and fed him to zeus at a dinner party (he wanted to check if it was the real zeus) zeus felt that lycoan was an animals so he cursed him to become a monstrous half wolf half man monster in the night, so a vamp can kill a werewolf in the day
It is NOT sexist to hit or fight a woman if you are a man

The proposition stated that "Most women have conflicting opinions when it comes to this". I am a MAN and i strongly disagree with your statement. This is so due to the fact that we (men) believe that women are the weaker sex, as a matter of fact, we KNOW women are the weaker sex. Due to this fact of our knowledge about women we tend to make their lives a living hell. Because I myself, if my GF talks too long with another guy, its gonna cause a huge argument between us. With this point i strongly disagree that men should not be called sexist and that the propositions first point was invalid as it relates to the argument and that even though society claims equality men should be called sexist for their actions and expressions towards the feminine gender.
It is NOT sexist to hit or fight a woman if you are a man

Most women have conflicting opinions when it comes to this. They believe they are equal to a man but men can not hit them or they are sexist. It is one of the things that really annoys me when it comes to that. If a police officer is called to a domestic dispute and see a man hitting a woman they will most likely immediately arrest him. Although if it is the other way around they would probably not arrest the woman. The way a lot of people see it is that since women are generally not as physically strong compared to an average male, so a man should just deal with it if a woman is attacking him. It is a double standard in a society that claims equality. Most girls are brought told that if a man ever hits them is it wrong and most males are brought up told that hitting a female is always a bad thing. It is completely unfair and sexist on the other side if women expect complete equality in all cases but if a man hits a woman then he is a sexist pig and "lady basher" this is only generalized in terms of gender rather than physicality nowadays. For example if a woman was hurting a man by beating him and whatnot the man would be expected to deal with it and not defend himself. Believe it or not some women are actually stronger than some men.
Water is wet

I'm not giving up that easily haha nice try though. :) When water is on your shirt, sweater, or hand, the water itself isn't wet. Rather, the sweater, shirt, or hand becomes wet. When the water itself is alone, it is not wet. It is what causes wetness, however, that doesn't explicitly make it wet. This debate really isn't an issue of human perception or experience; it's a dispute over what wetness really is. By definition, water just isn't wet. That's what I consider to be a fact and I've used several sources to support it.
Water is wet

okay so now is like the time where you give up and let me win. When water is on your shirt or sweater, or hand, it is perceived as being wet. So when water is just there by itself, it is wet, even if you aren't touching it. Water is wet because we perceive it to be, it cannot be just due to learning and experience or else it would be different for everyone. so basically water is just wet. a fact. just accept it.
Water is wet

Haha, I thought this debate was too interesting and out there to turn down. Anyway, to respond to your new statement, I agree with your first claim. The table would be considered wet because it has been moistened, covered, and soaked by water, which is a fluid. So yes, the water did make the surface itself wet. What I don't agree with is your claim that water by itself is inherently wet. Like I said before, water - by definition - isn't wet. It acts as one substance and is therefore not moistened, covered, or soaked by itself. -- Once again, for anyone who wants to verify the information in this argument, the links are included in my argument in round one.
Water is wet

Thanks for starting this debate. This should be fun. Good luck! :) Anyway, water - by definition - isn't wet. Since my opponent did not provide a definition for the word 'wet', I will be relying on the one provided by Dictionary.com. Wet is an adjective that refers to anything "moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid." Water, therefore, is not wet because it is water itself. It is not moistened because water is already moist. It is not covered or soaked because it acts as one substance. Moreover, according to The Guardian, "Water isn't wet. Wetness is a description of our experience of water; what happens to us when we come into contact with water in such a way that it impinges on our state of being. We, our possessions, 'get wet'." -- Here are the links to my sources for anyone who wants to verify. http://www.dictionary.com... https://www.theguardian.com...
Black Lives Matter

I say no because it's not all about Black lives. It's about everyone's lives but also no one's. It is important to protect and give equal rights to people but in the end, when you or I die, will our lives really matter compared to the millions of others that were before us? Did their lives matter? No. Because humans, animals, plants, etc...it all doesn't matter. In this world, we have morals, yes, but everything else doesn't care about us or other things alive. It's important to remember that us, humans, were once without morals. All that's changed is how we view the world and each other. Yes, everybody's lives matter to us, humans. But that's only because we want to believe we have morals, that we are above the "lowlife" animals. We live. We die. So why would lives matter if we are all just going to die one day anyhow?
Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

I would start by saying, sources were to be made at the end of arguments, not at the end of points as stated in the rules. My sources have been linked in order of their use in my arguments if there is any confusion, which when relating to most debates, there should not be. Con has repeated putting sources after points, not arguments. There is not mutual blame, as I have not based my argument off con's position solely, rather off the prevailing views of feminism, and have included his points in the broader stance. I withheld points for the rebuttal rounds, con could have as well. Wage Gap: I included con's position when stating "Most arguments in the 90%-96% range still do not account for many factors that go into yearly earnings, such as the fact that women work on average 42 minutes less each day." I stated this in the first round, and Con proceed to use 2 sources which did not include hours worked. There are no new arguments needed as my previous point of gaps portraying a 92%-96% deficit disregard hours worked remains undisputed. Equal Opportunity: As stated previously I was not directly referring to a specific wage gap, but rather the wage gap as a whole. Though con did provide evidence that women in the same job title get paid less, it is not a complete dispute as equal opportunity does not always merit equal outcome. Further, just because they are paid less in the same job, they on average do not work as long, which went unaddressed. As con stated as well, there are no laws that are in direct conflict with the opportunity women have. Rape Culture: Take 2.1/1000 and it results in .0021, computers have a calculator function if there is not a calculator readily available. Further women are treated equally in law when regarding rape, and that when including prison rape, women and men are near equal annually. Lastly, as I stated earlier, I was making my first argument in response to prominent feminist beliefs, and the position that con holds is portrayed in the argument. Female Representation: As stated in my equal opportunity argument, less representation is not indicative of less opportunity, and as a result less female writers is not a reflection of inequality, rather it is reflective of choices. This also holds true for all professions, many in the same field such as book writers and TV shows. Lastly I included Steam as a source as it is the biggest PC platform. Sources: -http://time.com...# -https://www.inc.com...
Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

I would like to point out that you have already broken your own rules by using my name (well a misspelling of my name, but that was your intent) so I don’t expect this to be a very objective debate, but I enjoy debating so I accept. I would like to also clarify that I argued that women are raped and sexually assaulted more than men, and rape and sexual assualt is not equal between the sexes. Please do not create a strawman and say that my position is that this country has a rape culture than trivializes sexual assault and abuse. That is not by position.
Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

I wanted to specifically debate Conevy on the topic of feminism. My position is that feminism is no longer necessary in the west. The topics of the debate are the wage gap, equal opportunity against equal outcome, rape culture, and female representation as these are all points that he has argued. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Response to Rebuttals (No new arguments) Rules: -No Personal Attacks -All Sources Made After Arguments -No Using the Name of the Opponent Definitions: Wage Gap- A difference in pay between men and women which is based on sexism. Rape Culture- A society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse. Equal Opportunity- The policy of treating employees and others without discrimination, especially on the basis of their sex, race, or age. Equal Outcome- Circumstances which have the same results without discrimination. Female Representation- The way which females are represented in media.
Fat Shaming Women is Okay

I'll make a start. If no-one shamed fat women then more women would, because of feminists and their "fat is beautiful" (fat acceptance) movements, believe that men actually find fat bodies attractive.This would lead to much more women having health problems. Most men are attracted to women who look healthy. Expressing disgust is also natural. Why should a man say nothing i.e. agree with the harmful lies feminists make about what he finds attractive. He might not want to be thought of as one of those sick guys who experience erotic pleasure from feeding a partner, making her so fat she can't wear clothes or go anywhere. Most women who are fat are this way due to being lazy, overeating and hating men. They cost Britain nearly £47bn a year (that's more than the war on terrorism). A third of hospitals or more in NHS could go bust as a result which unfairly affects those who chose a healthy lifestyle. Yet feminists continue to want everyone to believe that fat shamers are selfish cowards who like to bully others, even though bullies are never cruel to be kind.Home cooking was turned into a symbol of drudgery by second-wave feminists. Feminists are no doubt responsible for the obesity epedemic. Fat shamers are not to blame. Women are still generally in favour of feminism which is why this problem persists. If fat women are not shamed we will have fat manniquins etc, and the next generation will not bother to lose weight in order to fit into a smaller dress. Therefore it is okay to shame fat women.Thanks for reading
Fat Shaming Women is Okay

I am not a fat shamer. I have created this debate because I seek someone to challenge my view, that it is acceptable to fat shame women. I am aware that most people do not approve of fat shaming, however my opponent must show why it is not okay to fat shame womenStructure:R1 = Acceptance/position only! R2 - R4 = Arguments and counter argumentsR5 = Conclusion RulesNo forfeitingAlso Burden of proof is sharedGood Luck Con!
Should Marijuana be legalized

Con has forfeited, but I'll put my points up anyway. Marijuana should be legalized for three reasons. 1. Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and therefore applying the law to one and not the other presents a double standard that just isn't reasonable. 2. The criminalization of pot has contributed greatly to the upsurge in the already bloated American justice/prison system. 3. Keeping draconian laws on a nearly harmless substance that just recently passed a majority (over 50%) support for legalization isn't even democratic. As a nation, if we decide in majority that we want something legalized the argument is over. People might support it and they might not, but in a democratic society majority always wins, period. It's a matter of time. Give it a generation and it'll be made legal - I guarantee it.