BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Afro Samurai would win a fight against Samurai Jack

1. Long ago, in a distant land, I, Duncan, the shark-using master of darkness, watched an unspeakable masterpiece of a tv series about a foolish samurai warrior, wielding a magic blade who stepped forth for to oppose Aku. Before the final episode could be watched, I was cast into a secondary school for most of every day, where my cartoons were gone. Now, a debater seeks to challenge this show, and undo the brilliance that is Samurai Jack. (Yes, this is my first point. See if you can counter with a rap, I dare you.) 2. Samurai Jack was perfectly capable of facing off against armies of robots, and his blade could hack through any metal. His agility was just as good as any other martial arts main character and defeated Aku several times. The ruler of the world consistently was forced to run away from a mortal who didn't even need the comfort of the #1 Headband to defeat a god. Jack's blade cuts through all others and could conceivably kill even a headband wielder due to its inherent power. Oh, and Afro had sex once, and it was so she could steal his biodata to make Metal Sonic. Samurai Jack was only a virgin because he was far too focused on saving his past to get distracted by women. Oh, and how can you use frames per second as a movement speed. Is a person walking in 60 fps "faster" than a person running in 30 fps? No. 3; Technique. Physical prowess is nothing without discipline, and this is another field in which Samurai Jack wins. The warrior who defeated a shape-shifter was one who observed, and planned before his sword was drawn. When he unsheathed his blade, it was in the same frame of it slashing someone. He was trained in the way of the samurai, and his swordsmanship is unmatched in a future where power is valued only by itself. Afro on the other hand, lacks training from his father, runs away early from his master's school in search of the #2 headband, and takes a great deal of time to figure out strategies against enemies, the Metal Sonic mimicking his moves was the pinnacle of slow thought process, and his schizophrenia in projecting half his mind onto an imaginary figure hints at an explanation for his psychopathy and lack of discipline in combat. See you next round, Duncan.
Afro Samurai would win a fight against Samurai Jack

Afro Samurai has super natural powers, he can see bullets moving in slow motion like the matrix, not only that but he can slice them in the air and somehow miraculously the shrapnel kills his foes without a single scrape on himself. He fought a robot with the equivalent dexterity and weapons of a Ironman/terminator; fought him in the air and fell from thousands of feet only to defeat the robot by having a sword somehow land right on the robots head. He backhanded a man that was mostlikely around 400 pounds and 6 foot 10 inches tall, 30 feet backwards into a concrete wall without even trying. (Afro samurai is about 150 pounds and 6 foot) When he finally decides to kill that bear guy it only takes one strike. When he fights justice he deflects numerous revolver bullets that are probably moving more than 1200 fps. Not too mention he gets all the hot babes. samurai Jack is a virgin.
Modern video games are a superior storytelling medium to books, cinema, and the spoken word.

Resolved: Modern commercial video games are a superior storytelling medium to traditional books, cinema, and the spoken word. My Position: Pro Definitions: 1. "video games": This term is used in its traditionally understood context and, for purposes of this debate, refers to the electronic games that operate on the Playstation 3, Xbox 360, and PC. 2. "superior storytelling medium": The goals of a storytelling medium are below. My assertion is that video games accomplish these goals more effectively than the other listed mediums. to engage the user to convey a narrative structure to teach the user a moral or lesson to impart information to the user Rules: 1. Please avoid professional debate terminology. 2. Please avoid semantic arguments. 3. Issues of accessibility, cost, and resource requirements are irrelevant. The argument assumes that potential users have equal choice as to which medium to select. 4. Please understand that this is my first debate on this site and be willing to provide me with guidance if I violate any community standards or procedures during this debate. 5. The final round is for summation and no new arguments should be proposed. 6. I will bear the burden of proof.
Animal Testing

Animal testing has become one of the most controversial topics of the modern world; however, there are many aspects of animal testing that people overlook. Without the use of Animal testing we would not have cures to many of the different diseases that we are able to cure. Many current diseases are cured and treated through the use of animal testing. For instance, Cancer and HIV are common illnesses that have been made treatable through the use of animal testing. Animal testing provides the safety for use of drugs on humans. We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals. Through the use of animal testing, we are able to help reduce the risks of negative effects that the drugs we use can cause to humans. Before drugs go for human trials, they are tested on animals to ensure that they are ready to be tried on humans. This helps to reduce catastrophic effects that these drugs might have on the people who are trying them. The alternatives to animal testing, are not reliable. Through the use of computer engineering and cell cultures, we are able to see the effects to some extent; however, these methods are not as reliable as animal testing. Cell cultures are not as detailed as animal testing. Cell cultures only show the effects to the few cells it is tested on. While if you test in an animal, it shows the effects to the body as a whole. Computer models are useful for a hypothetical sample, but the body consists of many variables and unknowns that computers cannot account for.
Animal Testing

I am Con for this debate because I am against animal testing and I believe it should be stopped. Rounds 1) Accepting and presenting our arguments to the case 2) Rebuttal 3) Rebuttal 4) Rebuttal 5) Concluding our arguments. Animal testing is a cruel way of trying to find results that aren't always trustworthy. Whether the testing is drug tests, cosmetic tests, or toxicology tests they are all unnecessary and cruel to the animals. I think I knew way of testing should be considered maybe using humans who volunteer their bodies for the experiments. Mainly people who are very sick and volunteer their bodies so they can help so hopefully they can find a cure for future people who will get that disease or sickness. Humans will also be a more reliable source to test on because animals very different than humans, so if a certain drug works on a mouse that doesn't mean it will work on a human because their bodies react differently to certain diseases and medications. If we test on a human and that drug works then we can be much more certain that it will work on other humans as well.
The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Resolved - The United States Should Adopt No Gay ZonesTermsUnited States = United States of AmericaAdopt = Implement No Gay Zones = Areas Where Gay People Are Not Allowed To EnterRules:1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics abuse6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.This is a Shared BOP My adversary starts round 1 and waives his final round.If you find a way to accept this without my permisson, you will suffer a automatic loss
It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.

P1. The MongolsWhat would experience have taught them? That they needed to be loved. Whether your a government or an individual, it is always better to be loved. It doesn't follow that citizens who love their government enough would rebel. If the colonists had loved Great Britain, they wouldn't have started the American Revolutionary War. Were they scared of Great Britain? Most definitely. But they rebelled because they didn't love their government. We see that, while fear makes for a good wartime tactic, it's detrimental to a government. P2. FluttershyYes, we discussed the effectiveness of fear in lawmaking in P4. Ultimately, it has lead to many deaths through unjust execution. Also, I would like to point out that we are no debating laws, so much as people and rulers/governments. As we've seen, it is far better for a government to be loved than feared. P3. Rap BattlesConceded in Round 3. P4. Draco's Laws. .. .. Well it would be awkward to have to friend-zone your citizens, I admit. But ultimately, it's not very likely that the citizens of a nation would mistake their ruler's love for them for romantic love. Plus. .. I'm a little confused because I believe we've been discussing this with the rulers receiving the love. .. not vice versa. But again, the true definition of love, be it romantic or general, is unconditional. Either way, it is more beneficial to have others' love than their fear. C1. Love is a reward^ that was the point of C1. As you can see, Pro tried to raise a new contention in his "reply" to my point. It's, sadly, a little late for that. Regardless, I will respond as best I can anwyays. It's hard to picture this, but love that is true would persist even when hurt. Have you ever forgiven someone? That's love. You decide to look past that person's offense to you because you care more about them than yourself. Likewise, if the people love their government, then they will understand it is not perfect. Also, the government benefits either way. We must remember that, according to Pro, the government is the one recieving the love. Even if the government mistreats its citizens, the citizens will still be loyal and helpful to the government. Is that wrong? Yes. But the government stands to gain no matter what. So, for the government, it is much better to be loved than feared. Correct? C2. True Love. .. .. .. I'm a bit confused. The point of this contention is that love is unconditional. If the citizens love a government, or a person loves his friends, it's unconditional. That is all. C3. Logic > ExamplesConceded by Pro. ConclusionWhile the most important contentions were my own, I believe that all contentions eventually flowed Con. There is no justifiable reason that one, be they an individual or government, would want to be feared rather than loved. Thus, I would strongly urge a vote for Con. Thanks for the debate, 9spaceking :) I hope you continue your career here on DDO.
It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.

FINAL REBUTTALS AND CONCLUSION1. The MongolsActually, the Mongols just didn't know how to rule because they had no expereince. Do you expect nomads to know how to take care of a country? [1] Of course not. All the Mongols knew was how to conquer and shut down rebellions. Nothing suggests that if the Mongols had been loved, no one would have rebelled. There's still the case of possible jealousy that can cause uprising.2. FluttershyYou do not have to be a ruthless killer. You could be very just and still have people scared that if they break a law, they go to jail for 10 years.3. Draco's LawsMy opponent states "Misunderstanding and a fear of the unknown have caused those of other races to mistreat one another for no justifiably reason repeatedly throughout history." However, nothing suggests that misunderstanding plus love can be beneficial either. Some people might take it wrongly (romantic love, instead of general loving of people) and question which kind of love the ruler applies to the citizens, causing complications.C1. But--what about the opposite, false love?? That would not really work out that well.... In this case, people could question the ruler's love, then find out that the ruler didn't love them....and be rebellious and bad-natured about it. As demonstrated in the particular example above, Anna truly loved Hans while the vice versa did not occur, and because of Hans' maliciousness, he used it against Anna and stabbed her in the back. Had Anna feared Hans, she never would have even interacted with him, and all of this is solved.C2. True LoveOpponent has conceded....a little bit. Love can be only one sided! It is not in all cases that two people both mutually love each other! In this case, it is really bad. If both feared each other, at least no heart-breaking would have occured!!And finally, to rebut your conclusion statements...C1. Love is a reward while fear is only a tool. Fear can turn into a reward if you execute villains good enough and everybody wants you to be ruler since all crime is gone in the country. Love can turn into a tool as shown in Hans' example.C2. Love preferrable. Uhhh....Fear is infinite and unconditional as well. XDC3. I used examples to prove my logic correct.Good debate.Vote me!
It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.

REBUTTALS1. The Mongols Indeed, the empire did collapse, but keep in mind that the Mongols were really bad rulers. Their goal was pretty much just gold and loyalty. They even let the rulers keep their states and rule them as long as they paid gold to the Mongols. [1]2. FluttershyNo one is satisfied with simply being feared? I never said the ruler was cruel and greedy. He or she could simply be very good at enforcing rules and ruthlessly executing rebellious tribes, like the Mongols.3. Rap BattlesSorry, I'll have to drop this point since I can't come up with anything.4. Draconian's LawsHow could we know Draco wasn't just jealous of Socrates' popularity? Nothing suggests Draco even remotely feared Socrates. C1. Even if you're truly loved, that in no ways mean it lasts forever. You still have to keep the taxes good. You have to practically follow your citizens because they love you and believe you will do what they think "is right". On the other hand, with fear, the ruler is in control--although popularity might sway his or her opinion, he will generally rule with an iron fist and cannot be overcome with a simple rebellion. In other words, if you're loved, your citizens treat you like family but expect you to be pretty much perfect. The love doesn't last forever. You're lazy? Your citizens start booing and throwing rotten tomatoes. Your amendment on the death-penalty recieves very negative opinions? You'd better change it before your citizens start a riot. In fact, the truth is the importance is that your citizens love whatever you do and don't care. But that's just infatuation and hypnosis. You don't want to be torturing your poor citizens and still have them say "WE LOVE YOU!! KEEP ON DOING THIS!!"C2.True love is very hard to do, especially with bad people. Bad people just want more and more money, more and more power, more and more property. [2] If they love you, they'd expect you to give them what they want. If you don't give them, then the citizens will be wondering "where did his second chance go?" and suspect your credibility. If you give him, then you have just let a bad guy won.Logic>examples.My rebuttals support this.[1] http://en.wikibooks.org...[2] http://villains.wikia.com...
It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.

The resolution: It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both. Feared: something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension, something a person is afraid of [1] Loved: held in deep affection; cherished [2] You may only use the first round as acceptance. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cain was justified in his murder of Abel

Wait what, closing arguments does not mean you drop every single one of my arguments. GG debate over, opponent ignored everything. Extend everything. In conclusion, extend "My sole contention is, murder is never justified because of deontological principles. Moral acts that we desire always resort to deontological calculations Citation: Gaus 1 What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. Gerald F. Gaus Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42 (2001) This evidence encompasses what it means to live under a deontological framework, instead of a, "means justifies the ends" consequentialist one. "what is right is that which we ought to aim at, or ought to desire.32 Although moral duty cannot be grounded on what we actually desire, it can be exemplified in terms of what we ought to desire. He replies: But by 'aiming at something X,' or 'having something X as our aim,' we mean having X as our purpose, and by 'having X as our purpose' we mean having the desire of X as our motive. A moral obligation is by its very nature a moral obligation to perform some activity." Citation: Gaus 1 What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. Gerald F. Gaus Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42 (2001) "The sense that we ought to do a certain thing arises in our unreflective consciousness, being an activity of moral thinking occasioned by the various situations in which we find ourselves. That an act is prima facie right, is self-evident; in the sense that when we have reached sufficient maturity and have given sufficient attention to the proposition it is evident without proof, or of evidence beyond itself. It is self-evident just as a mathematical axiom" Having established which moral framework we"re using, murder would clearly fall into one of the moral wrongs. We shouldn't use the results of an action to justify the means." Also all my arguments against my opponent's case. I copied and pasted everything because it was conceded. What my opponent did in his last speech is repeat everything, just with different words. It didn't talk about how the arguments interacted in the round, but instead just filled it with rhetoric.
Cain was justified in his murder of Abel

Arguing done, closing will now be unleashed! God has very rarely given specific instructions to mankind. Many signs, portents, visions but not a whole lot in the way of concrete rules and regulations lol. This is even after prophets such as Moses and Jesus tried to codify a structure of behavior for our benefit. To this day people around the world continue to search for the true meaning of religious texts. If you think the will of God is easy to decipher just look at the split in Christianity between Catholicism and Protestantism or the many Islamic sects. Even Jewish Rabbis to this day continually go over the words of God to derive new revelations that will strengthen the faith. Yet so much can be lost in translation from the divine to the mundane. That is the real lesson of the tragic death of innocent Abel and the demonization of simple Cain. God left no clear instructions on what constituted a worthy sacrifice a farmer could make that would equal the first of a healthy flock. God only demonstrated a lust of blood as Cain saw it and as history would show God does have a lust for blood. Many years after Cains death when large amounts of people inhabited the world, God would wipe almost all of them out with a great flood. Years after that many murders would be committed at Gods explicit command upon human beings. Cain, a simple farmer, being expected to interpret the words of a divine being perfectly and without error is something even our best scholars of today have trouble achieving, some would argue the majority of them never even get close. It is also to be noted after this incident Cain was never recorded as murdering anyone ever again despite the considerable power of his mark. He was never recorded as abusing his position as unable to be murdered without seven fold retribution coming down upon the perpetrator. Sounds like a man of considerable restraint to me. It almost seems as if he was pushed by forces outside of his control and if so those forces are to be blamed, not Cain. Thanks lol.
Cain was justified in his murder of Abel

My rebuttal begins now! Your recollection of the story leaves out a key part. God had spoken to Cain both before and after the murder of Abel, not just after. Who can really say weather Cain was furious at his brother or the unfairness of the situation he was placed in? Perhaps he was furious at himself for seeming to disappoint God. Perhaps he was furious he was not a shepherd. The text does not say why Cain was furious, even God asks Cain what the problem is. Jealousy being the sole attribute of Cains action is conjecture at best. What we do know for certain is that after God had spoken to Cain the murder of Abel happened. I see no proof in the text that God had ever told Cain not to harm Abel, only that sin crouch's at Cains tent. Because God was not clear of which sin, it was impossible for Cain to determine a proper moral course of action. When we look at what just took place, God favoring blood over crops in terms of sacrifice and then right after, God reprimanding Cain, it's only rational to assume that Cain thought the sin God spoke of was not offering blood. Seeing how remarkable Abel's offering of one of his flock was Cain decided he would follow Gods law and murder his brother to please God. Violence has already been condoned by God. I would also point out that in this time before Moses no formal laws exist for mankind. While Adam and Eve both know good and evil due to their eating of the fruit, the same cannot be said for their children who were born outside of Eden. With that being said lets look at murder itself. Actually lets look at what deontological is about first. From Wikipedia lol, "Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and one's rights." I assume you would argue that Cain's duty to make a pleasing sacrifice to God is of less importance then Abel's right to live a natural life. Yet we see time and time again in the bible that human life is always of less importance then duty to Gods will. Weather it is a father told to sacrifice his only son because God desires it or weather it's every first born of Egypt that has to die because their ruler would not obey God it is taught in the bible that duty trumps rights. Cain had a duty to rectify his mistake and he acted in good faith. He sacrificed his own brother, no higher sacrifice could be made given the evidence. It stands to reason that Cain had a poor understanding of how offerings are supposed to work yet did what he thought was required of him due to the vagueness of Gods commands.