BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Arjuna was the greatest archer in Mahabharat

I shall start of with my rebutallsEducationPro fails to mention key points here. Since Karnan's mom abandoned him at birth. He no longer had the privileges a prince would have. Instead he was adopted by a lower caste family who cared for him. Once he became a bit older, he approached Drona and asked him if he could become his student.(same time Arjuna was learning) Drona however dejected him, because he was part of a lower caste family. Karnan then went on the Parshuram who had a strict condition that he wouldn' train princes, and only Brahmins (high caste). Karnan then lied and told him he was a Brahmin. He learned many things, and his master gifted his bow for his acheivements. However, one day Parshram found out the truth, and cursed him by saying he would forget all his skills when he needed them most. Technically Karnan didn't break his masters vow, because he believed he was just some lower caste boy, even though in reality he was a prince. So you can't critizise Karnan for lying, because he should have received his education with Drona instead.WeaponsPro himself admits Karnan had the better weapons. Karnan originally meant for the weapon to be used against Arjunan, but due to Krishna cunningly using his Arjunan's nephew as a pawn, Karnan ended up having to use it. Also, with the Brahammastra, Karnan wasn't able to use it in the first place, because he was cursed. Let me start of with my argumentsUnfair OppurtunitiesKarnan never had the same oppurtunities has Arjunan. One was when they both were kids, and Drona dejected Karna of his low birth. The other one was when Karnan was at Drapadi's competition. Karnan was about to sucessfully win, but before he released the arrow, Draupadi told him he couldn't participate. Arjunan then came later, and won it. Bheesma himself said he didn't want Karnan in the war, because Arjunan wouldn't be able to handle the 2 of them. HeartbrokenKarnan simply didn't have the heart to kill Arjunan. He was told he was their brother the day before the battle started. There were incidents were he simply choose not to kill Arjunan. on the 16th day of the war, he disarmed Arjunan and was ready to kill him, but he waited a few moments for the sun to set, so he would have a valid reason not to kill him. More experienceKarnan was the more experinenced warrior. During his tenure as the king of Anga, he won many battles, and made them pledge allegiance to the Kauravas. Sourceshttp://www.britannica.com...
Arjuna was the greatest archer in Mahabharat

Hello humble friend. I thank you for accepting this debate.I shall assume you will be defending Karna, the eldest of the Pandavas.First of all I will start off with whom they are.ArjunanArjunan is the 3rd son of Kunti. He considered by many to be the greatest archer. He along with his other 4 brothers waged war again his cousins, the Kauravas, and defeated them Kurukshetra.KarnanKarnan is the oldest son of Kunti. Unlike his other brothers, ithe origin of his birth was only revealed to the Pandavas after his death. For most of his life, he lived with his foster parents. He fought for Kauravas and was slain on the 17th day of the battle.Now to why I think Arjunan was better.EducationArjunan received training by on of the wisest guru's of their time, Drona. He perfected his skill in Archery, and his master favored him over his other students (even his own brothers). Karnan on the other hand, received his training from Drona's master Parshuram. He lied, however to his master to receive training.WeaponsArjuna weilded powerful weapons like the Brahammastra. He also possessed weapons like Brahmadhanda, which was even more powerful. Throughout the battle, he was invincible and even his own guru Drona was unable to kill him. Karnan posssessed the most powerful weapon called the Sakthi, but could only use once, and he too had the Brahammastra. There is a catch however, he forgot how to use the weapon, because he was cursed by his teacher Parashuram.So from that one can easily say Arjunan is the greatest archer, because he no one was able to defeat him, and it was he who slew Karna on the 17th day of the war.
God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved (Calvinistic Soteriology).

I would like to debate another Christian on the subject predestination, or as some people understand it, election. Calvinist soteriology is usually broken down into five points: total Depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. While all of those points will be tempting to argue against for my opponent, that is not my desire to debate. My desire in this debate is to focus in on unconditional election. However, I understand that each of these points work together and it will be almost impossible to talk about unconditional election without talking about the other four as well. I am just asking the meat of the conversation be centered around unconditional election. I believe in the Calvinist approach to salvation for two important reasons: 1. The Bible says it 2. Unconditional Election is foundational to the message of grace. First, the Bible is intrinsically filled with statements about predestination and election. It is not whether a Christian believes in predestination of election, it is what is their view of predestination and election. I will begin by siting two passage of scriptures that Calvinist begin with most. Ephesians 1:3-5 says this, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." Secondly Romans 9:10-13, "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because him who calls, she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved but Esau I hated.'" These verse are explicitly clear that God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved. Secondly, the Calvinistic approach to soteriology is foundational to the message of grace. If we are not saved at all by what we do, I believe that Calvinism is the only game in town. If we take an Armenianist approach to salvation, they have to qualify everything. Why are we saved but so many people aren't saved? Because we believed? Well why did we believe and so many people didn't believe? Because we are more humble? Well why were we as Christians more humble that so many other people who weren't humble? As you can see it is just a never ending game. Armenians, or no-calvinist, approach salvation in such a way that they even turn belief into a work. Not so with Calvinism. In Calvinism, God chose us before we had done anything good or bad.
This house believes that the wire tapping of journalists is justified.

I would like someone to help me debate this issue, and practice. As per standard rules, you get 7 minutes roughly per each stage, so the argument maximum is six thousand characters. Also, the debate shall be initiated by the pro, and he who changes the status quo is he who holds the burden of proof. There is no defined definitions, except that judges (in this case voters) must use their own intelligence in the definitions set forth. Also, blatant disregard of debate's intention/inference regarding meaning of debate or "tin ear" or committing a "squirrel"[1]. Also, use of sources are only necessary if called upon by the other side. The first round is acceptance and beginning the debate for the pro of the motion (he who accepts is pro). 1 - A squirrel is a term in debating jargon, particularly in parliamentary debate, that indicates a definition from the side of the opening speaker that makes it too easy for his or her side. The first speaker in a debate, who is defending the motion or proposition, generally has to define the terms used in the motion. When this definition is done in an unexpected way, it can favour the opening side, because that side had been able to prepare for the particular interpretation in the preparation time. For example, if the motion read "This House Would dissolve the police", it would be a squirrel to refer to the band The Police instead of the police. Another squirrel in this case, that helps the opening side by making the debate generally easier for them, is to add unreasonable exceptions to the motion. For example, defending "dissolving the police" except in cases where it has to "uphold the law" is rather easy.
Will the Rockets win the playoffs this year? They have one of the best offensive team this year.

You say the Rockets are bad, but you are wrong. T-Mac and Rafer Alston keeps the team together. The Rockets are good, but these two players help the Rockets spiral to new heights. Just like in any sports, you need every player to keep the game going. Without one or the other, any team will surely decrease in perfection to a degree. Even doctors and lawyers rely on eachother to work as a team. If it was just one person, there wouldn't be a team and the individuals wouldn't be as good.
Will the Rockets win the playoffs this year? They have one of the best offensive team this year.

"The Rockets are really good and don't need keeping together" Very contradictory to your round 2 arument which said that "You say the Rockets are bad, but you are wrong. T-Mac and Rafer Alston keeps the team together." Interesting. You of course are correct that some players are better than others, but why the sudden change of heart. You played it off rather well, but I am always ready to pounce on actions like these. Good debate, but never submit two sentences which say the opposite of each other.
Will the Rockets win the playoffs this year? They have one of the best offensive team this year.

The Rockets are really good and don't need keeping together, but every team always have some players that are better. Rockets have some of the best players, but T-Mac and Skip-to-my-Lou (Rafer Alston) are some of the best players. They don't need to be kept together, but no matter how good you are, you always need help. The Rockets could do fine without the help of Mcgrady and Alston, but they help increase the offense of the team.
Hulk vs Thor

NOW THE 3RD 4th and 5th battle http://youtu.be...(Hulk again survives a god blast and beats thor up) http://youtu.be...(mindless hulk beats thor here hulk was pushed to far to turn into this) http://youtu.be...(Hulk was covered with dark energy though banner still had control he needed to be stopped) this other video proves that even if not mindless Hulk he will and he ahs beaten thor http://youtu.be...
Hulk vs Thor

I would like to again thank you for accepting this debate as you have seen in my video if you have watched it Thor has faced Hulk 18 times and Hulk has won 8 while Thor has only won 2 Fight 1: Savage Hulk vs Avengers Fight 2: Defenders Vs Avengers Fight 3: Defenders Vs Avengers Fight 4: Savage Hulk vs Fantastic Four and Avengers Fight 5: Defenders vs Avengers FIght 6: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 7: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 8: Hulk vs Marvel universe Fight 9: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 10: Professor Vs Thor (Professor is the hulk that gets weaker with anger, and when he gets angry he turns into banner) Fight 11: Maestro Vs Warrior Madness Thor Fight 12: Heroes Reborn Hulk vs Heroes Reborn Thor and Thing Fight 13: Heroes Reborn Hulk vs real Thor Fight 14: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 15: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 16: Savage Hulk vs Thor Fight 17: Red Hulk vs Odinforce Thor Fight 18: Red Hulk vs Odinforce Thor Savage Hulk has won 5 fights, Thor has won 1. Red Hulk has won 2 fights, Odin force Thor has won 0. Professor has won 0 fights, Thor has won 1. Maestro has won 1 fight, Warrior Madness Thor has won 0. - Savage Hulk is normal Hulk unless my opponent wants to use OdinForce I will have to use WorldBreaker Hulk.I will remove Red Hulk and Maestro here and I will also remove the fight with professor Hulk Against Thor for it is not normal Hulk after that the total will now be 5Hulk-1Thor meaning Hulk will win 90 percent of the time to prove further on why Hulk is stronger than Thor I will post links in the next round.I will also post TV encounters of there battles by showing fight 1 and 2 1st battle (Shows that Loki was controling Hulk in the start but once Hulk withstood a God Blast freed Hulk which is Savage Hulk)http://youtu.be... 2nd battle (Shows Thor fighting Savage Hulk in the streets) http://youtu.be... SOURCES http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...
THBT There can be miracles when we believe

1) Myths and legends and fantasy tales are usually liberally sprinkled with magic and the supernatural. So why should the bible be any different. And most myths and legends and fantasy tales have gods also. And Pro's Christian premise is unsubstantiated. 2) Most modern miracles have a logical explanation. But miracles tend to be more profitable than logic. As for Luke Burgie: There's nothing particularly miraculous about recovering from a stomach upset and nothing particularly odd about a 4 year old with a bad stomach. There are also also many causes of such conditions, Some more sinister than others. 3) Things happen as things do and if people want to call something a miracle then they're free to do so. And a fatal injury is either a fatal injury or it is not. And turning water into wine is the stuff of legends and so is trickery and deceit. And trickery and deceit are also the stuff of day to day existence. And as I've already implied there's money to be made out of miracles. And people will use all manner of trickery and deceit to obtain money. And principles rarely come into it. 4) I'm not sure about wishful thinking, But there's a lot to be said for positive thinking. And people love to imagine all sorts of fanciful things, As a distraction from the hum drum of their daily existence. But imagination is what it is and fanciful things are what they are. And daily existence is often hum drum. And if I woke up tomorrow and found a million pounds in my bank account. I would instantly assume that it was due to a banking error rather than a miracle. And given that the World population is 7. 7 billion and counting, The odds of something seemingly miraculous occurring to one or two people must be quite high. Unfortunately the majority of people are not quite so lucky. And Pro knows that magic is impossible, Because they are fully aware of the reasons why magic is impossible. But conditioning is what conditioning does and therefore Pro also thinks that they believe in miracles. And 72% of U. S. Citizens and 59% of U. K. Citizens are similarly affected. Such is the human condition.
THBT There can be miracles when we believe

The Bible is full of miracles. Jesus healed the sick and the blind and even raised Lazarus from the dead. The walls of Jericho fell with just a shout and a trumpet blast. When disciples praised God in prison, Their chains fell off and the doors swung open. Christians wonder if that kind of thing still happens today or if God only moved so dramatically in the past. Here are some examples of miracles that show God is as active today as He was at creation. Doctors tried everything to treat 4-year-old Luke Burgie"s gastrointestinal problems, But the boy was wasting away. After nuns kept a nine-day vigil, Praying a novena, Luke was completely healed. Luke"s recovery was even declared a miracle by the Vatican in 2016. Belief in miracles, Such as the ones mentioned above, Is widespread. According to recent surveys 72% of people in the USA and 59% of people in the UK believe that miracles take place. Why do so many people believe in miracles in the present age of advanced science and technology? Let us briefly consider three possible answers to this question. The first possible answer is simply that miracles actually do take place all the time. If they take place all the time it is not a surprise that many people witness them and believe in them. However, Philosophers widely agree that miracles always involve a violation of the laws of nature. Such acts as healing a fatal injury instantly or turning water into wine are considered miracles primarily because they violate the laws of nature"they cannot be performed without defying the laws of physics, Chemistry, Biology and so on. Yet nature is a uniform and stable system. If the laws of nature were regularly violated, We would not be able to speak, Walk, Or even breathe. Hence, Even if miracles can occur in principle, They simply cannot occur regularly. The second possible answer is that belief in miracles is a projection of wishful thinking. According to this answer, Many people believe in miracles because they want to think that they take place. There is some truth in this answer. One can argue that belief in miraculous healing is particularly common because people want to remain hopeful even when they suffer a serious illness or injury. However, It is not clear why so many people would believe something merely because they want it to be the case. For example, Many people want to become millionaires but few believe that they are millionaires, Unless they really are.
THBT There can be miracles when we believe

A very ambiguous proposition from the outset. Just as ambiguous as David Hume's philosophy. Of course, Theoretical philosophy is what it is and so all credit to Hume for admitting his own uncertainty. What is a miracle anyway? Even the definition of the word is not clear cut. Is Pro differentiating between magic and miracle? Not that the definition of magic is by any means clear cut. Perhaps we should differentiate between magic, Miracle and impossibility? And belief is also a hard one to pin down if you think about it. I would suggest that we tend to overuse or even misuse the word belief and wrongly use it to imply certainty in the absence of evidence.
THBT There can be miracles when we believe

My focus is primarily on one of the many arguments philosophers have debated over for years. Does David Hume"s idea of "induction" support his argument against his appeal to the laws of nature in his account of a miracle? Presently, The answer to that question varies. Some say it does, Some say it does not. And as we will find out later, The answer can be either, Depending on individual perspective. Personally, I believe Hume"s discussion on miracles can be said to be at times inconsistent with his earlier discussion of induction and causality, But overall, In a broader sense, His theories of induction can be related to his account on miracles.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

Pro. I am sorry for forfeiting our previous round. I was unable to reach a computer for a long length of time. You stated in your point one in your first argument, that 'the player who is more capable of forcing his opponents moves is in control of the game.' I believe this statement to be completely true. I am completely agreeing with you. Is the point of chess not to control the other player? You the state that white is granted this control because of the first move. There are many, many, many ways to control the white after its first move. I actually prefer to play black, as I can decide which strategy will work when they place the first piece. A first move is hesitant. They do not yet know what they want to do, so can make a fatal mistake when placing their piece. We are not arguing about professionals here. We are arguing that having the white pieces will give and advantage to ANYONE. This is not true. In your second argument, you state that it is more advantageous to be white at the start, as you can make the first move. But who is saying this is a good thing? Many people do not WANT to make the first move, as I have stated before, because it sets the whole game, as you stated before. Not small enough? Of course they are. How do we know that the ones in white weren't infinitively more experienced the ones in black? Sorry to keep you waiting. Sources: My brain.
The world is doomed

I am new to DDO, but I have been reading many of the debates and I have observed how many of them are won on semantics. That's why I decided to make the "facts only" rule. It seems to me that mostly teenagers resort to semantics and other tricks, rather than facts, to win a debate, that's why I set the debate to 21 and over, so don't be insulted. I defiantly won't resort to unproved theories or religion, because those aren't facts. The comment section isn't the debate section, but I'll address the issues in the debate: First of all, the debate is: "The world is doomed". If there is no Earth for humans to live on, then humans are also doomed. So if the World is doomed, so is humanity. Even if humans found a way to live on Mars, that would only prolong the inevitable. So, let me say why the following can't be crossed out: 1. Nuclear Warfare. Although the Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War didn't result in nuclear Warfare, the times we live in now are much different. There are, in fact, up to 50 nuclear warheads that are missing. http://www.spiegel.de... All it would take is one to get into the wrong hands, or even go off by accident, to start a chain of nuclear strikes as a "defense" to the first one. 2. Meteors and Asteroids Although the chances of getting hit by a big sized Meteor or Asteroid are slim, eventually one will, indeed hit the Earth. With out current technology, it would be impossible to stop it from happening. Even if we used nukes to try to blow the thing up, it would only result in breaking it apart and still having huge chunks hit Earth with major destruction. http://www.howstuffworks.com... 3. Disease Even if it's "somewhat possible", it's not "impossible". Now, lets look at other scenarios: 1. Our Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy in 4 Billion years. This will no doubt cause a catastrophe to the world. http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com... 2. The End of the Sun Even before the galaxy collision, in 3.5 Billion years, the Sun will cause all life on Earth to no longer exist. http://io9.com... In any case, the world is doomed. I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I just hope the voters are fair and don't try to use technicalities.
The world is doomed

The relatively low BoP is on pro. I wish pro had answered any of the questions in the comment section, and hope that he will not try for semantics [1]. I assume The World means either the earth, or humanity, or our modern world we live in (in which case us not living to see its end, would mean it is not doomed in any practical way to be measured as a fact). Without a clarified definition of The World, I cannot build an opening case and can only refute his claim. If The World turns out to be a definition without relevance, I encourage a strong vote against pro.As "only facts count as arguments," I hope for a clean fact for why the world is doomed, that does not fall back on mere theories or religion.Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...
The winner of this debate is an idiot

Rebuttals: "If you win this debate, you're an idiot. If I win this debate, I'm an idiot. If neither of us win this debate, we're both idiots. The loser of this debate is also an idiot. The world is full of idiots. You're an idiot, I'm an idiot. We're all idiots. But if you participate in this debate, you are a very huge idiot. Your idiocy rivals that of the cast of Honey BooBoo, Jersey Shore, and Keeping up with the Kardashians. So, do yourself a favour, and do not participate" Actually, that is completely incorrect. The winner of this debate is most likely not one. You are making guesses, however say it as if it is fact. How could you possibly know that? "Definitions: Idiot n Anyone who participates in this debate. " Also, I completely disagree with your definition of the word "idiot". As I have looked through the official dictionary, meriam webster, etc. that is not the definition of this word.