BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Percy Jackson series is better than the Kane chronicles

Rebutals: First, here is a rebutal to your rebutal. Just because you don't read the content after doesn't mean that others don't. I didn't mean that everyone has to read it. I just meant that for the people who read it have a more deeper contrast to the story. They don't just read the word Ma'at and wonder what that means. It is all written at the end of the story. Now for my rebutals. The Kane Chronicles do have humor in their own way too. A self aware baboon and crocodile? That's humorous to me. Look at these four quotes in the series too: 1) My expression must've been priceless, because Zia actually cracked a smile. "You look like a cow hit with a shovel. 2) Eat muffins? What kind of battle cry was that? 3) What goddess would want her except the goddess of chewing gum? 4) She swatted a large metal warrior, a shabti no doubt, and he transformed into a rainbow bellied pig. If we lived through the day, I had a bad feeling Little Shelby would want to keep it. See? Humor. The Kane Chronicles are just as hilarious as Percy Jackson which, is quite funny too. Excitement? To answer your questions, yes they did go to the underworld, yes an army of bad magicians march to the First Nome (counts as the palace) and little ids with half the power of the gods save it. (Found in the Throne of Fire and the Serpent's Shadow) but what? It's like what you are stating with your questions that the story-line needs to be the same. Not every god of the dead is evil and Osiris is their dad. He can't kill them. There is also plenty of exciting battles in the three books. Each. For example, The Battle Of The Red Pyramid, The Battle With Vlad Menshikov (Michel Desjardins appear too which made it more exciting.) and The Final Battle/The Battle Of The House Of Life. Besides, it only took three books to kill the main villain of the Kane Chronicles which proves that the Kane siblings are much stronger than that of Percy. Overall, I have proved to you an equalizer of humor between the two series, an equalizer of excitement and a bonus point proving the Kanes are stronger than Percy and Annabeth. Thanks for issuing this debate. You really made my week. Good luck!!! PS: You didn't rebut on my point of the whole stories being interlinked thing so I'm just going to think you agree. :P GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Percy Jackson series is better than the Kane chronicles

Thanks Dr.Maniac for your arguments. Here are a few of mine: While we both can agree that Percy Jackson is a fan favorite, there is something you can't help but notice that the Percy Jackson series only taught us two Greek words as in: Erete es Korakas and Vlacas in the 5 books that were unleashed. However, all the Kane Chronicles' books have different Egyptian spells like Ma'at, Sa'per and A'max. While it doesn't have much educational purposes, it puts us into a deeper dimension of the story in which we want to learn more and continue reading the entire series. (It was based on my personal experience.) They use it in the Magnus Chase series where you learn the runes (and yes they do have glossaries. All of them so that is not a proper rebutal.) so it seems like Percy Jackson is an odd-one-out which, frankly makes me uncomfortable. There is also a catch that when the Percy Jackson series becomes interlinked with the other series, (the stories of the Son of Sobek, The staff of Serapis and the Crown of Ptolemy) the main villains in them are not Greek. In my previous examples, Setne was the villain and Greek involved or not, Crazy Elvis used an EGYPTIAN book to conjure the spells so it seems like Percy was just in the sidelines of the whole story. Glad for your points. Good luck. :)
Percy Jackson series is better than the Kane chronicles

Also, Percy Jackson is better because the book has some awesome humor in it. For example : "Grover listened while mournfully chewing on his aluminum can". (This is pretty funny to me if not you. ) Also, there is a gigantic quest in the first book, where they kill Medusa, find the lightning bolt, Ares was the one who caught Luke, all of that flashbacks and etc. However, in the Kane Chronicles (They are awesome too! !) there is not as much excitement, if you know what I mean. Yes, there is a House of Life, they find out about magicians, and than there is a lot of excitement there, but do they enter the underworld? Does the king of the gods dad (Kronos. but do not say it out loud as names have power), try to kill everyone, and march on the palace of the gods with a gigantic army of titans (or bad magicians) and a bunch of little ids with half of the power of the gods having to save the gods? NO. They attack Set, (where there is a huge battle, but that is everywhere in Percy Jackson, for example, Artemis tie down by Atlas. ) where there is a huge battle, which is everywhere in Percy Jackson. Good Luck.
Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 5 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 8k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond, third and fourth rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Be prepared...
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

Sorry I didn't make how if God is omniscient and omnipotent I am merely going by the story's in the bible. "Noah wasn't chosen on his race rather his good deeds and devotion to the Lord. This is strikingly different from Hitler, who killed based on race and actions such as homosexuality and being a gypsy. Also, God wanted the people to be spared from their fate. This is why He instructed that Noah build it in front of everyone, so they could see it and ask for forgiveness. However, none of them did this. Again, the flood was based on actions and not race. " My argument is that god killed people because they were evil and corrupted. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's problems and even called them the symbol of evil. ". .. the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. "-Hitler As I explained Hitler's Nazi ideology was not based on individuality but peoples racial collectivist. God flooded the earth based on collective reasons and not on individual reasons. This is similar reasons on why Hitler killed the Jews for collective reasons and not on individual reasons. Sources and sites: . http://www.simpletoremember.com... . https://www.ushmm.org...
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

However, I would like to clarify something. Since you are bringing God into this debate and you recognize that he did in fact cause the flood, I am assuming that you believe God is omniscient and omnipotent, correct? I will begin my debate by refuting what my opponent has said and in the next round I will post my main arguments. The flooding of the earth killed at least 10 million people. God justified his actions saying that humans corrupted. He even stated "'The wickedness of man was great in the earth" as stated in the bible. They were corrupting the earth and therefore ruining god's plan for a "perfect world". 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (Genesis 6: 5-7). God already had a perfect world with the Garden of Eden. If He had truly wanted to keep that perfect world, He wouldn't have let humans have free will. "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 6:8). Noah wasn't chosen on his race rather his good deeds and devotion to the Lord. This is strikingly different from Hitler, who killed based on race and actions such as homosexuality and being a gypsy. Also, God wanted the people to be spared from their fate. This is why He instructed that Noah build it in front of everyone, so they could see it and ask for forgiveness. However, none of them did this. Again, the flood was based on actions and not race. Now how is this relevant? Over 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. That is pretty close to 10 million people. Hitler blame the Jews for the problems of Germany. His political message by banishing the Jews or killing the Jews. With this plan Germany will become large,and economically powerful country. This is dangerously close for God's plan for a perfect world and Hitlers plan for a perfect Germany. God didn't just limit the flood to a single race. He sent it across the whole world. God chose Noah because of his actions and not because of his skin color. Again, if God wanted to keep the world perfect, He wouldn't have let Adam and Eve come in and ruin things. Remember: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Sources:The Holy Bible, King James Version.
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

A short debate whether God's action is similar to Adolf Hitler You may start debating round 1. No ad hominem keep this debate civil guys. The flooding of the earth killed at least 10 million people. God justified his actions saying that humans corrupted. He even stated "'The wickedness of man was great in the earth" as stated in the bible. They were corrupting the earth and therefore ruining god's plan for a "perfect world". Now how is this relevant? Over 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. That is pretty close to 10 million people. Hitler blame the Jews for the problems of Germany. His political message by banishing the Jews or killing the Jews. With this plan Germany will become large,and economically powerful country. This is dangerously close for God's plan for a perfect world and Hitlers plan for a perfect Germany. In conclusion the flooding of the Earth was dangerously close to Hitlers holocaust. Sources and cites: http://creation.com... http://www.annefrank.org... http://www.projetaladin.org...
Should Children Be Indoctrinated

Round 2 was forfeited by CON. Since there are 5 rounds, I think that it is probably acceptable to proceed without a total forfeit (unless the voter decides CON's plagiarism in round 1 warrants a total forfeit). I'm ok with proceeding to ROUND 3 but would argue that a CON forfeit of ROUND 3 should be looked at as a total forfeit). Thanks.
Should Children Be Indoctrinated

In the world today, the relevance of religion to our modern society is a highly debated subject, and one of the most common topics of the subject is that "Should children be indoctrinated". My opinion? In laymen"s terms, no. I think that it is abhorrently wrong that people brainwash children. The reason that children believe in religious views, is that they will believe most things they are told. They don"t make the rather obvious connections between mass killing and being a bad-tempered and indiscriminate ". that any adult would when told the story for the first time. But then we tell children all sorts of preposterous things and they lap them up. There are two very good reasons for this: firstly children don"t have enough experience of life to see how crazy some of the things we tell them are and secondly a capacity to accept to see the other side of the argument.
Corporations Cause all the Problems

OK now I believe corporations do not cause all the problems of the world. I will not to my opponent that in fact we are talking about things as simple as for example falling off a cliff or forgetting to turn off the oven because we are generally talking about all the problems of the world. Forgetfulness is generally a problem in the world is it not? Or what about illness? That is a problem in the world and a corporation cannot caused the troubles of all illnesses. You see illness is caused by someone getting infected by a disease or virus or whatever you wish to call it. So what if you get a fever or pink eye? That is not a corporation's fault. What about if you are addicted to alcohol or drugs? That is not a corporation's fault either. That is an individual's choice and not based on a corporation's. Or what about a disaster at sea? The Costa Concordia is perfect example. It was the a corporation's fault that the boat sank. It was whoever gave the order to drive it in close to colliding causing its sinking. What if you decided to get obese? Obesity is a problem in the world is it not? If it is a problem in the world and it is not caused by a corporation it is not the corporation's fault it is instead your choice to eat what you wish. What about the choice of going to war? The person making the choice to go to war is usually the leader of a country, if it were owned by a corporation and people of that corporation wanted to go to war that would be their choice, but there is no evidence of corporations starting the wars currently taking place. What about murder? I will admit that a corporation may have people working behind the scenes and a bad corporation may kill people, but we are talking about all the problems of the world and thus a corporation had to be at fault of all the murders of the world. So I do not believe that a corporation causes the death of let's say a person who wanted to rob a person so he shot him. So corporations do not cause all the problems and by all the problems I do mean all the problems of the world. Anything minor is a problem.
Corporations Cause all the Problems

It's good to be doing a topic most people consider to be one-sided again. As I have several other challenges on at the same time I may be a bit sluggish in my responses - I apologise deeply for this, but as per my usual rule I promise I won't forfeit. Let me begin by defining a corporation as being any entity with legally seperate liability from the people who form a part of that corporation. My opponent wisely limited the debate to "the problems of the world", implying the problems we identify in this debate are global. We're not talking about falling off a bicycle or forgetting your purse at home - not least because not everyone in the world has purses or bicycles. We're talking about the problems that affect the whole planet. My contention is that all of these causes are linked to corporations. Global warming, overpopulation, obesity, famine, enviornmental disasters, wars and so forth affect us all in some way. For instance, Joseph Kony affected not only the people he directly terrorised, but the whole world when he became a Youtube phenomenon and became widely publicised recently. And yes, Joseph Kony was the result of corporations as well. I recognise, however, that what exactly constitutes a problem is subjective. To avoid using semantics, I will ask my opponent to explain what he believes the problems of the world are, and then I will explain how a (or several) corporation(s) created those problems. If he would limit this number to a number of problems I can reasonably explain in 8000 characters I would be particulary grateful. My intention, in this debate, is to prove all of the things that con thinks are problems are caused by corporations. I recognise that con may not advance every real problem in the world, but who is any one individual to decide what is and is not a problem anyway? I think it only fair that the instigator of the debate makes the final call, and I await that decision. One final note. During the course of this discussion I will advance several notions that may appear, to put it lightly, conspiratorial. Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is lacking - corporations aren't exactly going to be honest about causing all the world's problems, and most probably don't recognise the problems they are causing. This is important to bear in mind - just because something seems conspiratorial doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. I encourage every voter to look at the arguments objectively and openly. I yield back to my opponent for his opening statement and (hopefully not too long) list of problems for me to explain.
God is Not Real

My Opponent's CaseMy opponent's argument against the existence of God consists of several statements. Let's take a look."A superhuman that created us with his breath cannot be real in this universe."My opponent fails to recognise that there are a great number of individuals believing in God that denies that 'a superhuman [that] created us with his breath.' Antony Flew for instance, before he died, was a deist, and did not affirm at all that 'A superhuman [that] created us with his breath.'"The bible has been wrong many times (stars and planets revolve around sun, Earth was roughly created 2000 years ago, etc."My opponent fails to realize that the question over the existence of God is not solely determined by the Bible. What about the Koran? The Bhagavad Vita? What about people like Flew's belief of a deistic God? Also, the claim that the Bible claims the 'Earth was roughly created 2000 years ago' is false. It actually is closer to 5700-10000 years ago. [1][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God is Not Real

I am disappointed that Pro has forfeited. Hence, what is below is a very brief summary of what I intended to write. The Kalām Cosmological ArgumentThe purpose of the cosmological argument is to demonstrate the existence of an uncaused First Cause, which is God. The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a variant of the traditional cosmological argument, put forward by various Islamic Medieval scholars, but popularised in the late 20th century by the philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the argument as thus: Everything begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist Therefore, the universe had a cause [1] Premise 1 is obvious, intuitively. Surely, it is impossible for something to come into existence without a cause! Even the atheist philosopher David Hume concedes this point. He wrote: “….allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything may arise without a cause.” [2] William Lane Craig himself writes: “it is a kind of first principle of metaphysics and something can come out of nothing; out of nothing comes. And I think that this a metaphysical truth that we do intuit rationally when we think about it.” [3] Premise 2 is supported by modern science, in many ways. First, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that: “In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (entropy) increases” can be used to infer a beginning of a universe, because, if the universe existed forever, it would have suffered a heat death! [4] The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, published in a paper in 2003, demonstrates through mathematics, that the universe cannot be infinitely old. [5] Vilenkin writes: “It is said that an argument is what convinces a reasonable man and a proof is what it take to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof not in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is not escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” [6] Premise 3 follows logically. But, what can cause the universe into existence? There is, according to Craig, only one possibility. God. He writes: “the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time.” [7] Therefore, God exists. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Craig, William Lane &Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 2004. God? A Debate Between An Atheist and A Christian. 1st ed pp.5: Oxford University Press. [3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] http://www.personal.psu.edu... [5] http://sententias.org... [6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [7] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
God is Not Real

DISCLAIMER Please note that my views are not necessarily represented accurately here. I actually would consider myself as an atheist.Preliminary RemarksI thank Pro for instigating what I hope to be an enlightening debate. Before I begin my arguments, in the next round, I would like to provide some preliminary remarks.The resolution of this debate is ‘God is Not Real.’ Pro, therefore, is arguing that God is real, or does not exist, whilst I am arguing that God is real, or does exist. However, before one could have a serious discussion or debate about God, it is necessary that ‘God’ is defined. I do not believe that overcomplicating definitions in this debate is necessary, so consequently, I will define God, the way Anselm of Canterbury defined it as: “a being than which no greater being can be conceived of.” [1] The Burden of Proof in this debate shall be shared, even though I believe that the theist have a bigger burden of proof than the atheist. Having gone through various preliminary remarks, I turn this debate back to my opponent. I hope to have an intriguing debate! [1] http://www.uky.edu...
Trump Next President

Although you did not get a chance to respond. I have decided to post a few quotes DIRECTLY from Donald Trump. Trump stated, during his 2016 presidential announcement speech, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best, they're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting....It"s about safety. Some of the people coming here are very violent people, not all." (FoxNews) although this source is pro-rightwing, this is a direct quote from Trump. I hope that this shows how Trump is really looking out for our safety. It is plausible that Trump stated such harsh remarks to open the eyes os Americans, and show them the possibilities that come with letting illegal immigrants in to our country. This is why i believe that he should be our next president.
Trump Next President

Thank you for responding to my post. I see where you are coming from and I respect you opinion. I do have a few questions though. You seem to be saying a lot of broad things about Donald Trump, and I was wondering if you would be able to directly confirm these things with some sources. I am not saying that you are wrong, but in order for me to be able to possibly come to your side, I would have to see undeniable proof that he is how you say he is. I just can not take some of these statements that are from what "you recalled" as undeniable.... I do not believe that he called all Mexicans rapists, it quite possible that your information came from a source that fed that information to the public through propaganda. Would you be able to see that he was talking about a select few (rapists and terrorist(Muslims)) that enter along side of the good immigrants if I provided evidence that proved so? if I showed you this, would you be able to see that trump is just trying to protect us citizens?