BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord

Your third paragraph/spacing is exactly my point, Jedi don't kill, Sith do. The light side is fueled for defense and wisdom, which the Jedi use in combat to incapacitate. Yoda using it to kill like that sounds more like a dark Jedi or the Sith themselves. Sith use the dark side to finish their opponents with death, not disarming or incapacitating. The reason I reference Anakin is because he was so young and immature as a Sith Lord and look at what he was able to do, pretty much end the Jedi. You point out a Sith's downfall and asset is their anger, that's true, but I notice the Jedi have a similar trait that is also their asset and donwfall. The Jedi are predominantly wise scholars and people of nature, not warriors. How does a Sith kill Jedi? He/She takes advantage of that laid backness. A Jedi master can defeat greater Sith Lords when they start fighting well, history proves it, a Sith Lord beats greater Jedi Masters when they tear through that peace and serenity they put around themselves. Once again, a dual edged sword exists here so to speak. Once again, one needs to look at the numbers and realize that more Jedi die at the hands of the Sith because they don't kill like the Sith do. Yoda could beat those random four yes, throw in a Marka Ragnos and have Yoda nearly beaten you have a Darth Sideous arrest attempt Jedi style. The problem? Yoda isn't like that, the Jedi as a whole aren't like that. They could become lethal, but they don't, they might have survived had they put down the book and tapped into fighting, but they didn't, they should have done as you imagined Yoda doing and become greater, but what does that make them as such lethal fighting machines? Sith. I rest my case.
The average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord

Once again impressive and thorough points Pro, yes you're right, the way Jedi almost always triumph over Sith is the Sith's lack of cool. A Sith smart enough to cover up that weakness usually ends up getting his/her goals if he/she is strong enough. Sideous did this; the problem he had was he wasn't the best at fighting; when we get both a fighter and a wise person in a Sith, we get people like Exar Kun. Jedi however, have a key weakness as well. They don't have the raw power of the Sith. In essence, the Sith are more powerful, and the Jedi are more disciplined. If one looks at the overall timeline of Star Wars, the Jedi and Sith are in a constant struggle and one never has an immortal rule over the galaxy. One always finds a way to use the other's weakness to beat him/her and overthrow the order of the galaxy. After looking at both our debates up until now, here's what I see, this Sith beat that Jedi, and that Jedi beat that Sith. I could go on a whole different paragraph on different Sith who overcame different Jedi. Rather, I'm going to come at this from a larger angle. Let's look at the averages here instead, the essential core of this debate. My belief is that the average Sith Lord can beat the average Jedi Master. All Jedi and Sith fall at some point, so who has the better average? How many Jedi Masters does a Sith Lord kill before he falls to a different Jedi? Quite a bit, in almost all cases. Sideous was confronted by four masters, three of which are often forgotten because he killed them that quickly. That was a poorly scripted fight though, so what about Operation Knightfall? Anakin Skywalker killed God knows how many Jedi in that, yes with clones, but he had the majority of deaths on his hands. He was weaker among Sith too. Nihilus absorbed planets of force sensitive beings, many of which were Jedi. Marka Ragnos killed plenty of Jedi in his time, slaying them all in combat, the list goes on and on. These are all single Sith, killing off multitudes of Jedi Masters and other lower ranking Jedi before being pulled to a halt by a really powerful Jedi. That really powerful Jedi will then more than likely join a host of casualties when the next really powerful Sith Lord comes around and the struggle between the two factions continues. So to conclude my shorter than previous argument here, there's always a bigger fish, that much is true. That cycle will probably continue forever in the Star Wars universe, but one thing remains a constant fact, more Jedi Masters fall at the hands of a Sith Lord than Sith Lords fall at the hands of Jedi Masters.
The average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord

Thank you Con. From what I read you are rating overall ability by: (1.) Causes of Downfall (2.) Fighting Ability (2.) Success in Life Now, as I said earlier in my debate "I believe the average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord". You referenced Exar Kun several times throughout your argument (Well thought out, I might add). However, Exar Kun was no average Sith Lord. He was easily one of the greatest of all time. (Among Darth Plagieus, Malgus, and Sideous). A more comparable match up with Exar Kun would be someone along the power levels of Yoda or Luke. Remember, I said average. Not above average. I will reference two battles that solidify my claim. (1.) Anakin vs Obi-Wan: Both were beyond evenly matched. Having trained and fought alongside each other for years each knew each other's strengths and weaknesses. Now remember, Anakin's mid chlorian count was through the roof, vastly more so than Kenobi's. Yet, who one? Kenobi did. In the end, the Sith's recklessness and anger got the best of Him, and the Jedi's cooler and calmer head prevailed. This mind set would be the deciding factor in a fight. (2.) Obi-Wan and Darth Maul: This one is a bit different and may be more reflective of Kenobi's skill level. At the time Kenobi was still a padawan or jedi knight. I can't remember. Either way, he managed to defeat Darth Maul one on one after He slayed Qui-Gon. (3.) Mace Windu vs Darth Sideous: Clearly Mace took this fight. Without a doubt. If it hadn't been for Anakin's betrayal the Sith Empire would've been destroyed then and there. Lightsaber styles also come into play here. Windu practiced a style known as "Vaapad" which made him use his anger and dance the line between light and dark when in combat. The style was effective enough to beat Sideous and almost end him. These are clear evidences of Jedi Master's beating average Sith Lords. Not god-caliber Sith Lords like Exar Kun. I would also use Starkiller, who as a Jedi Knight beat both Darth Vader and Sideous. One after the other.
The average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord

I believe the average Jedi Master can beat the average Sith Lord. The average Jedi Master would be somewhere around the power levels of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Mace Windu. The average Sith Lord would be around the power levels of Darth Vader and or Darth Revan. BOP will be on both Pro and Con.
Pro is requesting Con to be Pro friend on this site.

I will negate all of his points in order. For one, he admits he cannot disprove my statements, nor does he disagree with my definitions, so they all stand. Pro says it is very plausible that he could have one of four mental disorders, but because he is affirming the statement, he had the burden of proof and he has not upheld it. Also, the chance is even less likely, as amnesia is temporary, and not a mental disorder. as I live around people with severe ADD, from firsthand experience I know that ADD and ADHD do not cause memory loss[1]. Also, if he had any of the other mental disorders, chances are he would not be on this site. Again, Pro states that "I may have hoped" but that does not uphold his burden of proof. And hope is in no way, shape, of form real evidence or a real point. For the statement about the resolution, Pro says maybe, which shows that is not the actual meaning of the resolution, and again fails to uphold his burden of proof. Also you can deduce from all his spelling and grammar errors, such as the one involving "point" in that same sentence, that the resolution simply had a spelling error and that was not the actual resolution. [1]http://www.helpguide.org...
Pro is requesting Con to be Pro friend on this site.

Firstly, I wasn't his friend when I made this resolution but I can't prove that... Anyway, he makes the points that if I am his friend on this site that I cannot be requesting to be his friend on this site. This is simply not true because it is very plausible that I am insane or lacking in rationality. There is a huge variety of mental disorder that I could have that would lead me to either forget that we were friends, not realize that my other personality had already done this out of the paranoia that my memory was being falsely constructed by brain-washers and the only way to cure it was by asking him to be a friend even thought the brainwashing had left me thinking he was my friend already. The disorders, respectively, are Alzheimer's, amnesia (as well as ADD and ADHD that would lead to being too distracted to remember that we were friends while I wanted to make this debate), the others are dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia respectively. Another point to consider is that I may have strategically hoped that Con would delete me as a friend due to my stupidity for making this debate and accept it at a later time, meaning this entire thing was a double bluff to eventually get him to be my friend. Another points is that the resolution says "Pro friend" not "Pro's friend" so maybe I am just pro-friends as opposed to pro-enemies in general, within the premises of Debate.Org and want Con to be pro-friend too. I support this resolution! http://alzheimers.org.uk... http://www.mayoclinic.org... http://www.helpguide.org... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.mind.org.uk...
Pro is requesting Con to be Pro friend on this site.

I accept. Because not mentioned, I will go first. Because no definitions were posted, I will clarify resolution. The time the resolution applies is when I post my first round. Pro claims that he is attempting to be my friend on this site, however, at the time this resolution applies this is simply not true. If you go to www.debate.org/derking/ you will see that I am already his friend. It is simple logic, if you are friends with them, then you cannot attempt to be friends with them. Because I am a good sport, I will continue to debate even though I blew his argument out of the water ;).
Pro is requesting Con to be Pro friend on this site.

I am requesting Con to be my friend on this site as I have no other way to contact him. I have comments but this is the only direct way to address him and only him. If he accepts this debate, he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resolution is false. Also, I like Con's voting style and would appreciate his vote on this debate. http://www.debate.org... Voting maximum Elo is 1000. There is no minimum Elo.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

ohh there is no reasoning with you is there ? discredit your god ?? well i dont know what the hell you want me to do more. you say i have no idea what i am talking about ?? you are talkign in circles damn it , you are makign zero sense what so ever and whenever i say something perfectly logical you go off your rocking horse and say i havent dicredited it ? im going to leave you with a simple message , pretty straight forward and blunt because you say you arent ignorant but you are you think you are right when you talk complete and utter nonsense heres my message. make some f**cking sense next time you start a debate and dont give people the same crappy arguements you gave me.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

I have obviously won this debate because my opponent has failed to discredit my God. This is my opponent's argument: 1))) Apparently, my God is supposed to be the Christian God defined in the Bible. However, I CLEARLY stated that my God wasn't supported nor affiliated with any holy book, only how I DEFINED. Therefore, any arguments that don't counter the God I defined is irrelevant. Look at these arguments as I will summarize how I have torn them down: 1a) "anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim. " 1b) "i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact. " 1c) "maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did. " 1d) "so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world" - I did? My response to 1))) Now, first of all, I never said God was responsible for the creation of anything. READ MY DEFINITION. All of those arguments are nullified. 2))) What's worse is my opponent is putting words in my mouth saying I hold the ignorant mentallity: "I'm right just because. " No, I'm right because your not rebutting MY arguments, but arguments you ASSUME I am advancing. He asks questions and I continue to answer. 2a) "why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why" I replied: "Hmmm. Well, I did clearly state that He was not sentient, conscious, or personal. Can something that lacks such attempt to do any of those? " 2b) " (i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased. " Response to 2))) Now, did I say I was basing my arguments off any holy book? Hmm? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. How many times do I have to tell you NO IM NOT. IT'S SOLELY BASED OFF MY DEFINITION AND YOU CAN'T REFUTE ANY HOLY BOOK AND SAY YOU WON BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IM USING AS EVIDENCE. I CONTINUE TO STATE AND RESTATE THAT I AM NOT ARGUING WITH ANY AFFILIATION TO ANY HOLY BOOK! !! Think about it, if I defined God as not sentient, conscious, or personal, so how can I be supporting any other religion when they think the exact opposite. Let me answer some FAQ for the audience of Debate. org. Q) Why doesn't He answer prayers? A) Why isn't He personal? Q) Why does He let bad things happen? A) Why is He unconscious? Goodness, grief, you haven't discredited anything. You didn't say how my claims were untrue, you just put words in my mouth and then said I was being ignorant and biased. As for my LOGICAL REASONING AND EVIDENCE: "All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe. " If a = b and b = c, then a = c Right. Well: If God = universe and universe = existent, then God = existent My opponent doesn't refute any of MY arguments, just arguments he pressumed were mine. Did he discredit my God with any logical reasoning?
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

i am finding you rather annoying oppent if i may say , i have defined what i belive god is , i have discredited god , i have asked questions about gods existance. Yet none of these seem to work , i promised myself i wouldnt aruge like this but you leave me really no choice. Personally i dont care if i cause offence or not anymore as you jsut keep slapping a wet fish on my face by saying things like " he exists because I've PROVED it with evidence, and you have yet to disprove it with EVIDENCE" were the hell is your evidence answer me that ??? how has god been proven to exist answer me ?? i mean no offence to christians when i say this but there are a small amount of christians who are just completley ignonrant and think off some stupid answer almost like saying " because i said so " you refuse to listen to what i am saying , i am not saying god is not real , as i am in no postion to make that claim. I dont know what this debate is really about anymore , but i am going to leave you with a question and i want an answer ( unless this is of course the final round im not sure i forgot to check ). proof to me god is real give me some evidence that he exists , this god you talk about that you say you have soild evidnce to back your claim up . you know there is more evidnce of the loch ness monster or bigfoot than there is of him.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

My opponent continues to misunderstand my argument. He forgets that I'm not arguing for any specific faith, I'm just arguing for God as I defined. To refute his arguments: "anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim . i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact. maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did." First of all, I'm not arguing off a biased, ignorant claim. "All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe." He doesn't exist because I said so, he exists because I've PROVED it with evidence, and you have yet to disprove it with EVIDENCE. "now lets just say god is the almighty and god did create this world . Ok back to the old question , why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why .... there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true." Ok. Lets see what this has to do with the GOD I DEFINED. "why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why" Hmmm. Well, I did clearly state that He was not sentient, conscious, or personal. Can something that lacks such attempt to do any of those? "there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true." Ok, ask me more. May I remind you that you are questioning God as I defined Him. "so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world i would say i win as there is no proof of this and no argument can prove that god does not exisit but no argument has proven he does and as for the bibal or any other religous book etc ( i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased." Yes, I am a Christian. But, I'm not basing my arguments off the bible or any holy book. I'm arguing off MY DEFINITION. Vote Pro. Thank you.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

i think you could have made it a bit more clearer to be honest but ok ... anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else because simiply this is a bit off a biased claim . i accept you believe this and i have no problem with that everybody is entitled to their own believs but what you are saying is that , God created this world and everything , Fact . maybe he didnt me he did not but for that claim you cannot win just because you said he did . now lets just say god is the almighty and god did create this world . Ok back to the old question , why does he let bad things happen ? why doesnt he prove he is real ? why, why why .... there are possibly hundreds of questions about the existnace of god and not a single one you can give a an answer to that is definatly true. so on the grounds that you claim God is definitly real and did make this world i would say i win as there is no proof of this and no argument can prove that god does not exisit but no argument has proven he does and as for the bibal or any other religous book etc ( i am sorry i do not know what religion you are i am presumming you are christian ) these books are completley unreliable as they were written by sevral people and are utterly biased.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

Perhaps my opponent misunderstood the purpose of this debate. He has to attempt to discredit my God. Don't worry, we have like 3 more rounds. Now for my counter-argument: Well, I have no counter-argument because you haven't really countered mine. All I can say is that I'm winning because the universe is existent and I defined God as the universe. That's kind of hard to beat.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

personally I don't believe in god or anything like that , I believe life is what you make it unless you are very lucky , what you yourself does defines how you will live , I believe that god doesn't exist and has no input in peoples life's however I accept fully people believe in this and I may be wrong and so might they . but if I had to define what I thought god meant , I would say god isn't a creator of the universe nor is he the almighty etc , I believe god is what people want him to be . I think god is more of a word that people use as inspiration and in desperation. Its is something to reassure people its like a pick me up if you will , when most people are having a bad time they think about "god " in whatever form that person thinks god is , I don't mean in a religious way , I mean each person in their own way creates a " god" in their head if they are religious or non religious , there are billions of people on this planet and I believe there are billions of "gods" . god is something that brings people together in a non-religious way most of the time I think in conclusion everybody has an individual god based around how they think and acts as a kind of mentor . But like I have repeated several times just to emphasise the point I think god isn't a religious thing .
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

Hello, and I thank whoever for excepting this debate. This debate is open for any person of any belief or culture. Now, in taking this debate, I will defend, and you will attempt to discredit, the god I define, and advance what YOU believe as an alternative. Definition of God - God is all, all is God. God is the universe. Though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God is not sentient, conscious, or personal. Though PARTS may SEEM imperfect, (ie: ignorance, destruction), such is necessary to create a whole, and God remains holy and beautiful as a whole.
Gay marriage

Please explain how the rest of my argument is bull crap ( P.S. check your spelling. it's not a bull fish) when I have provided quotes from the Bible. So with the Bible being oral history for so long how do we know that any of it is even true? The answer... We don't so you can't really use it as a valid source for factual evidence. I would still like a response on whether or not you follow the bible to the core or not. I feel as though you posed no actual challenge and was dissipated hoping this would have been more enjoyable. You used almost no evidence to attempt to prove anything I said wrong or to rebuttal. All you have done is be a total jackass to me.
Gay marriage

"Please do give me some evidence that a man you have no physical evidence of wrote a book you worship." You have no idea what you are talking about do you, ignorance I tolerate, straw man I do not. I explained this to you, the bible was oral history until the Hebrews wrote it down, and even then, it was not in any central book until 200 A.D., no one man wrote it. "Also we follow the constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence yes, but that is different due to the fact that these documents were thought out by a group of people who came to a consensus about it. The bible is presumed to have been written down by someone who may not even have existed." The bible is recorder oral history, it was not written down by any one man. The rest of your stuff is blasphemous bull carp, the bible was oral history floating around until it was writed down, great opportunity for someone to slip something in, or misinterpreted it, or for someone memory to malfunction.