BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda

I really did enjoy this debate. With the lack of anything to rebut this round, I will simply summarize the points that I've made and clarify my position. I am defending Yoda's famous quote, "Do or do not. There is no try." In essence, Yoda believes that when a person says "I'll try" that person is showing a bit of a negative attitude. Consequently, if you did not achieve whatever it was that you set out to do, you did not truly try. Because when it really comes down to it, trying results in doing. This does contain a consequence and a truth that most people don't wish to face. That truth is that every time you claimed to have tried, what you actually did was gave up. When you claimed to everyone else that you made an effort, you know in your heart that you stopped trying somewhere along the way. Because actual trying and actual effort leads to a desired outcome. This is something that we don't like to admit to ourselves. But if you really think about it, Yoda is right. Saying that you tried and failed means that you didn't ACTUALLY try. You gave up. Somewhere along the way, the wind was taken out of your sails, and you decided to end whatever task you had set for yourself. Whether it was cleaning a garage, acing a math test, or winning a debate such as this, a true and full-fledged effort should and will result in the desired outcome. My opponent tried to negate Yoda's quote with the concept of "process." Looking back on it now, it has some slight analogies to Xeno's paradox. Xeno's paradox states that the arrow I just shot at you will never hit you. For, in order for the arrow to hit you, it must first reach the point halfway between you and I. And then it must first travel halfway between the midpoint and you. And halfway again, ad infinitum. So Xeno's paradox plays on the fact that there are an infinite number of points in between the arrow and the target. Similarly, my opponent's argument of process plays on the fact that before setting out to achieve an outcome and achieving that outcome, there are many intermediate processes that take place. But just as the arrow that a person shoots does hit the target, despite the infinite number of points, the person that tries (in the true sense) does achieve the outcome, despite the numerous processes that take place. If you aren't giving it everything you've got, are you REALLY trying? Simply put, no. And that is why Yoda's quote remains true. "Do or do not. There is no try."
When Gaz'rok releases the bees, all unbelievers will be slain!

I will accept this challenge. My opponent makes the claim, "Lord Gaz'rok the Mighty incinerates the weak and craven with his mere gaze! Upon the twelfth of October, The Masked Sorcerer himself will unleash an army of bees upon the world, and yea, there will be great ruin. All unbelievers will perish!" Since no Burden of Proof requirements were established, we should default to the standard that I must cast reasonable doubt on the claim. Pro must prove the following. 1) "Lord Gaz'rok the Mighty" exists 2) "Upon the twelfth of October, [he] will unleash an army of bees upon the world." 3) That these "bees" will cause "great ruin" 4) "All unbelievers will perish." I will let my opponent start and so pass the round on to him.
Morality is subjective.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. I could merely say "extend arguments" or some such mantra, but I'm really in the mood to refute arguments. Seeing as though my opponent didn't provide any, I will instead refute common objections to objective morality.1. People disagree what is morally good and bad.One curiously common defense of subjective morality is simply that people disagree what is morally good and bad. Indeed, it would seem to be a valid argument at first glance. After all, people disagree which foods are tasty and disgusting and that is a subjective matter.No two people can ever seem to uniformly agree on a perfect list of good and bad actions. It would, therefore, seem fit to say that morality must then necessarily be subjective (dependent on individual preference). But this argument falls short under even minor scrutiny. The mere fact that people disagree over certain truths does not automatically make those truths subjective. Certainly, people argue over the truth of evolution, the big bang, and other scientific theories. What makes certain statements objective is whether or not they are true regardless of individual opinion. "Pizza is delicious" is a statement which is true for some and untrue for others; therefore, that statement is subjective. However, "The force of gravity is effected by both mass and distance" is a statement that holds true regardless of how many people disagree; therefore, that statement is objective. Similarly, "Teaching our children to read is beneficial to our species' overall well-being" is true no matter how many people believe our children should be illiterate.2. Context is important.Another objection to objective morality is that context is a crucial thing to consider when deciding if an act is morally good or bad. For instance killing a human for fun is morally wrong, but killing a human out of self-defense is morally acceptable. Therefore, it seems fit to say that "Killing a human is right/wrong" is subjective.Indeed, I must agree that context is very important. But this confuses "relative" with "subjective", which are not mutually exclusive. "Absolute" and "relative" are totally separate categories than "objective" and "subjective". To say that moral truths are "absolute" is to say that context is unimportant and killing a human, no matter the circumstances, is either morally good or bad. To say that moral truths are "relative" is to say that context is important, which I do believe it is.Therefore, morality is relative and objective.3. Evolution only favored certain morals over others by chance.Some claim that if we rewind history and allow our species to develop into modern man again, our unwritten list of morally good acts and morally bad acts could look much different. This is, by all scientific reasoning, most likely true. But again, this confuses "relative" and "subjective". If our species had been much different today, then while certain acts may effect our overall well-beings differently, they would still effect them in such a way regardless of individual opinion.Therefore, morality remains both relative and objective.
Morality is subjective.

I looked trough your profile and must say that I'm up against a hard challenge. To start things of let's just find a definition of the word "morality" that we both can settle on. Straight from wikipedia it says that morality "is the differentiation between intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).". I'm fine with that definition but feel free to come with another one if you desire. Opening argument: Now there are two words in the definition above that are very interesting to look at, it's "intentions" and "actions". Because the intention of an action don't always reflect the action itself. We can show this by an example; Let's say that I have no money at all so I steal bread from a baker to feed my starving family that haven't eaten in days. A classic example where the action of stealing by majority would be considered as bad, but the intention of feeding a starving family is correct. If we ignore the bakers perspective and just take a look at the action in general I would say that It's up to each person to decide if the intention outweighs the action and therefore I would say that: Morality is subjective.
Morality is subjective.

The PropositionThe full proposition is as follows: "Morality is subjective."As con, I will be arguing that morality is objective. As pro, my opponent will be arguing that morality is subjective. That means the burden of proof will be on both of us.DefinitionsObjective: independent of personal opinion. If something is objectively morally good, then it is morally good no matter how many people think otherwise.Subjective: dependent on personal opinion. If something is subjectively morally good, then it is only morally good by certain individuals' standards.Morality: the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad (right and wrong) behavior.Debate StructureRound 1: Introduction and AcceptanceRound 2: Opening Arguments onlyRound 3: RefutationsRound 4: RefutationsRound 5: Refutations/Closing statementsIn ConclusionI'm sure almost all of the viewers (if not all of them) have already formed an opinion on this matter. Whether you believe in subjective or objective morality, however, please keep an open mind and judge fairly based on who presents the strongest arguments for his/her case.I look forward to a fruitful debate.
.NET is Better Than J2EE

I Agree key point is J2EE is an open standard that runs on multiple platforms But Point to be noted is is J2EE is not a product, rather a standard to which products are written and is written in a single language, Java,while .NET supports multiple languages like Visual Basic.NET,C++ .NET, and C#. Other languages can be supported by .NET if they are rewritten to run in the .NET environment.Here's the interesting part: Big software houses are happy to build the solution using either .NET or J2EE--it's up to the customer. But if the customer chooses .NET, the price is 28% less than if the customer chooses to build the same solution on J2EE.Developing .NET Application mean just finish up with clicks,obviously saves huge time.
.NET is Better Than J2EE

I live in the old day? I hade to tell you about Groovy :)If you don't like Eclipse, you can use NetBeans or another IDE.Really, there both the same sh1t: Eclipse/VS, Hibernate/NHibernate, Ant/Nant.With J2EE you get better programmers. With .NET you get sheltered Windows programmes. Being familiar with Unix-like operating systems is a benefit to programmers. MS programmers tend to know little about basic concepts like symbolic links, delta encoding, minimalisim, scripting languages (compare Powershell with Bash) and powerful editors like Vim and Emacs. Java programmers live in an open source world where the best ideas win. .NET programmers live in an MS world where only MS technologies are premitted. The industry pays them more for a reason.
.NET is Better Than J2EE

May be you still live in old days if you have experienced both in terms of implementation then you will realize like Java: multiplatform (not always. Advantage?) .Net: Windows or Linux using mono. Java: hard to deploy .Net: easy to deploy Java: too much time to develop .Net: fast development Java: free license .Net: paid Java: expensive development .Net: cheap development Java: community can help to lease rather .Net: community can help you to extreme Java: headaches .Net: peaceful. if you have compared visual studio with ellipse then you will definitely find ellipse is damn slow. Auto complete /Intellsence would take multiple seconds to bring up the list of possible matches, for instance. Other elements of the UI were also poorly respons
.NET is Better Than J2EE

J2EE supports well over a dozen languages in addition to Java, the most popular, perhaps, being Groovy. The 28% statistic you cite is the price difference that one firm charges between building .NET and J2EE. That's not an empirical claim about .NET, but rather an anecdote that really doesn't prove much. The factors that go into the speed at which software is developed are multivariate, having a lot to do with programmers beliefs and attitudes about their work, as well as their competence, compensation and dedication. .NET developers are cheaper, but you get what you pay for. Quality developers can save an organization millions of dollars by making good design decisions.
Jews are aliens

Thank you for the chance to argue against such an extraordinary claim, as they say extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof, which you have failed to provide. While everything you say may be true, it is still an appeal to authority at best, and falls far short of providing extraordinary proof you need. Even if they were eye witnesses to some Jews shape-shifting into little green men, this still fails to prove that all Jews are shape-shifting little green men, I would bet that you have some Jewish blood in your background, as well as most the people on earth as there has been so much intermixing of races over the last 100 generations (and that is only since Jesus (+ or -) So take 2^100 and you have a very large number, and that is the number of ancestors you have and if any one is Jewish... then you have Jewish blood, and also an alien. So unless you can prove 95% of people are aliens then you can not win this debate, and I would suggest starting with yourself. also, you must disprove DNA evidence of evolution, as that would mean non of those tested were aliens as no alien DNA has been identified.
There are alot of problems with pokemon

Problems I have with it pokemon says catch em all. What am I catching? Pokemon right oh course but guess how many there are. 649!!! where the heck will I get 649 pokeballs also you need more then that to catch a pokemon. There is too many pokemon and it gets confusing. 2# Ash is part of the reason. He has not aged and his pikachu still hasnt evolved basically he makes very stupid moves like why put a grass vs fire very stupid also to say that since his pokemon did not evolve why not focus on getting does stronger instead of switching and picking random pokemon that you can't evolve. 3# Why bother to even give pokemon a game of its own when it doesnt make sense. I dont understand why they have you going around the world to fight gym leader s when the game is about black and white 4# Legendary pokemon shouldn't be even there it just really makes no sense to even put them because they are a waste of pokeballs how would you get your hands on a legendary There are more but they will be shared later Here comes the hate Before any of you pokemon fan boys complain " you suck" or " you dont needa catch em all" or " dont talk about ash like " say what you want no point anyway
There are alot of problems with pokemon

My opponent is a Jew, signifying a heated conversation between a farming growth and a mini-saved plan. A plan deciding which one is which would definitely be vital; and without a vital, it is nevertheless a win-win situation where one would, despite not having the risks, preferrably, miss a scene where hopefully, the other, again, despite not having the risks, would be signifying or implying a hugely successful evaluation and conclusion. Mainly because of the points, it is unclear to whether a plan would be successful.The following are vital for a success;a 0.79 manter hole;a 4.66 manter hole;a 4.50-60 enciting mat type B/C
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

The fact you can't win a war is not a reason to give up, accept defeat and allow things to get much worse. Ultimately there will always be somebody who wants to break the law. What can be done though is to decrease both the incentive to do this by applying the criminal justice system and attempting to intercept and stop drug dealers and smugglers, confiscate their drugs and send them to jail. Legalizing and regulating sales of drugs will drastically increase drug use. They would soon become available in a wide range of shops. The display of drugs in shops will tempt ordinary people, especially vulnerable people to try these drugs. The thought of heroin and crystal meth on supermarket shelves is a scary thought. The amount of new drug users, particularly of the most dangerous ones would be alarming. Drug use would quickly become mainstream. The effects on people's health would be very damaging. The effects of illegal drugs are very dangerous. It would help eliminate drug cartels and criminals, but this would be outweighed by a massive increase in drug users, more people becoming drug addicts, increases in use of the most dangerous drugs and an increase in drug overdoses. These negative factors will see an increase in child drug use, an increase in absence from work due to work, increased unemployment due to addicts being unfit to work, increased drug related health problems including mental health and suicides. This will result in big increases in healthcare costs for dealing with drug related health problems. The effects of drug use will also see more crime being committed. This can be either through a person acting irrationally due to effects of drugs or in desperation to find money to fund drug purchases. Currently drug use is much lower than alcohol and tobacco use. This is because it is illegal. The fact it is illegal helps people understand that drugs are dangerous. Legalizing and regulating drug production and sales will result in many people believing that drugs aren't that dangerous, making people more likely to try them. The fact drugs are illegal also deters people from using them. The fear of a prison sentence and/or a fine is an effective deterrant to many people. Placing drugs on shop shelves will increase accessibility to them. Currently having to go underground and buy drugs through criminal drug dealers scares many ordinary people and deters them from buying them. People could just pick up a bit of heroin off a shelf to see what it's like and subsequently become addicted to it due to its highly addictive nature. Drugs are very dangerous. They have no positive effects. They cause severe side effects, physical health problems, mental health problems and ultimately death. They are illegal for good reason.
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

Firstly I will wish pro good luck for his/ her first debate. This is my third so we are both beginners. I agree that eliminating drugs and drug use entirely is impossible. This does not mean though that society and government does not try its best to do so. In my opinion the legalization of all drugs would be effectively giving up the battle against drugs. This would result in legalized unlimited sales of all types of currently illegal drugs. This would allow drug dealers to operate freely, able to coerce more people into buying drugs and becoming drug addicts. They would be free to sell anything they like and would likely increase sales of the most dangerous types of drugs due to the larger profit margin and the absence of serious prosecution. The removal of restrictions on drug use would lead to many people to believe taking drugs is OK. Many people who would never have tried drugs either because they were scared of the danger posed by drugs or the fear of persecution for using drugs would take drugs. Many of these people would become drug addicts. The legalization of drugs would also make them much cheaper to buy. This would allow existing addicts to afford to buy bigger quantities of drugs and more powerful drugs. The increase in drug addicts, the increased availability of stronger, more dangerous drugs would be very dangerous to many addicts. The health risks to them are very high if drugs were legalized. The legalization of many dangerous unproven drugs is guaranteed to lead to more cases of overdoses, addictions, crimes caused by the effects of drugs, deaths from the effects of drugs and would lead to increases in drug use. These factors combined would lead to an increased burden for both the police force and the health service, and will allow gang and mafia culture to thrive. The amount of health service resources used on treating drug addictions, drug overdoses and health problems caused by long term drug use would either take away resources from other areas or lead to a need for significantly more funding for the health service. It is clear drugs are dangerous, addictive and cause premature death. They should not be legalized.
All drugs should be legalized and regulated

This is my first attempt at a debate on debate.org, so I will apologize in advance for my ignorance of the process. I think that it is safe to say that drugs and drug users can never be eliminated from society. Having said that, there are a few questions that immediately come to mind. Should the production and distribution of drugs be regulated by governments or by criminal cartels? (Admittedly, it is often difficult to tell one from the other). Should recreational drug users be treated as criminals? Should addiction be treated as a criminal issue or a health issue? This debate will focus on the first question. Should the production and distribution of potentially harmful substances be legalized and regulated? I argue that legalization and regulation are far better options for recreational drug users, drug addicts, and for society at large than is prohibition. Prohibition, in my opinion, ADDS to the problem of drug use and misuse. It does not mitigate it.
Competition is good for success.

I'll be arguing that Competition is not good for Sucess. infact competition ruins many buisnesses and the only benefactor from competition is whoever is the most successful at what they do. =================================================Businesses suffer when they competeI will provide some information from a very well written source that I have found on the internet(I'll be sure to cite it at the end of my argument)There is a huge economical drain on competing businesses which suffer directly from competition Coffee Chains: Tim Hortons a chain of coffee houses, lost $43.4 million trying to “Break in” to the US market" “It was just a highly saturated market of quick service restaurants," said Spokesman David Morelli. "It was not just one competitor. There were several. .. "(November 11th, cnbc. com)Airlines: Since 2001 airlines have lost $60 billion because of federal taxation and “market saturation”(January 8th, www. nytimes. comCar Manufactures: By confusing the essence of his business with numbers, Akio Toyoda has dug himself into a very large hole(Record-Breaking Recalls. .. ) . By turning Toyota's obsession from quality and reliability to sales and profitability, he may have unwittingly destroyed the reputation -- the brand -- that took four decades to create. (www. coolmarketingstuff. com Feb 27th 2010) market saturation Web definitions In economics, market saturation is a situation in which a product has become diffused within a market; the actual level of saturation can depend on consumer purchasing power; as well as competition, prices, and technology. . .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... ==================================Competition creates stress and pressure. The competition mindset creates nothing but stress and anxiety for the business owner, and ultimately forces them to think about what the competition is doing rather than what the customer really wants and would be willing to pay anything for. Let’s face it, if business owners listened to their customers and focused on the quality of the experience instead of the quantity of deliverables, they would have more fun creating more value for the customer. ======================================================Conclusion: I have begun my opening arguments. Arguing that Competition does not promote a successful enviroment, and alsocompetition is the source of failure for many businesses. Sources: I have heavily based my arguments off of the following site that is almost completely arguing against this topic. . http://www.perceptualpositioning.com...
Competition is good for success.

Success is about working hard to do your best. Competition helps people to learn about their abilities and to create a plan for improvement. These skills are very valuable in the world as well. People can't choose their career paths well without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. The same is true in the world beyond schools. When a company hires an employee, it wants to see that this new employee has the ambition and the drive to succeed. A company also wants new employees who can identify their weaknesses and create their own plans to overcome these weaknesses. All of these qualities can be learned in a place that uses competition in the that place. Thank you.