BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Luke Skywalker would beat Jedi Master Yoda in a fight

i am going to use round five for two things. i am going to conclude my argument and thank me opponent for this wonderful debate. first i want to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. not many people can give me such a wonderful and enlightening debate about Star Wars, a topic i am very knowledgeable about. so thank you. in conclusion to my debate, it is in my opinion that Luke Skywalker would beat Jedi Master Yoda in a fight because he has much better skills, and he isn't bound to the rules as much as Yoda is. therefore, i think that he has the best chance to win. Also they both were in the prime of youth, so the battle would be epic. thanks again for the fantastic debate.
Luke Skywalker would beat Jedi Master Yoda in a fight

At this point, nothing further will be gained by repeating the same arguments. I argue that Yoda's experience, skill, and knowledge make him the odds-on favorite to win; he argues that Luke learned quickly without having a teacher, and that he has awesome skillz. I compared the two using their duels with Palpatine as a benchmark: Yoda duels him to a stalemate just a few years before Yoda DIES OF EXTREME OLD AGE; Luke loses to him twice (while Palpatine is old and tired, and the second time old, DEAD and tired) and only wins the last time because his sister was there to assist. I point out that all the Force abilities Luke is learning are things known to the Jedi before the purge; undoubtedly Yoda knows them, since he spent over 700 years teaching them to the new Jedi. My opponent refuses to concede this, as is his right; but the truth is Luke has nothing on Yoda. My opponent claims Luke is stronger in the Force than Yoda; I have already refuted this - you need look no father than the official Wiki, where Yoda is listed as one of the three greatest Jedi to ever live, and one of the most powerful Force users ever. http://starwars.wikia.com... First two sentences: "Yoda was one of the most renowned and powerful Jedi Masters in galactic history. He was known for his legendary wisdom, mastery of the Force and skills in lightsaber combat." Third paragraph: "...arguably the Order's greatest master of the Force and most skilled warrior..." Powers and Abilities, first two sentences: "Considered the greatest Jedi Master of the era by many, Yoda was one of the most skilled users of the Force in the history of the galaxy. Indeed the Grand Master was so strong in the Force that he demonstrated the ability to effortlessly disarm the powerful Dark Jedi Asajj Ventress, who was known to have defeated Jedi Council Masters, with a simple gesture." That is the debate in a nutshell. I make no new arguments this round. My opponent's points are only relevant if one disregards everything I wrote. Sure, Luke learns Shatterpoint. Sure, luke does, eventually, finally, defeat the old dead Emperor. Sure, Luke has a high midichlorian count. None of that matters if he cannot match up to Yoda in skill, attunement to the Force, or experience in dueling. I think that I have shown he cannot. I return this debate to my opponent for his summary. I will use my last round, as five rounds is really too long, merely to thank him for being a worthy opponent.
Luke Skywalker would beat Jedi Master Yoda in a fight

My opponent is consistent on the fact that Yoda's prime and Luke's prime is over 300 years apart. However, with technology the way it is in Star Wars universe, what is to say that he doesn't go back in time and face against Yoda. They could make a time machine or some other device. I also want to point out the fact that Yoda uses Ataru not Soresu. Therefore, my opponent is wrong on that point, thus making that argument wrong. And I don't remember any reference of Yoda knowing Shatterpoint or any other type of technique that Luke has learned, so I need proof that Yoda used that for that to stick.
The Universe is 50+ Billion Years old.

All arguments can be extended across the flow. To recap on my opponent's case:Pro fails to establish any evidence whatsoever for his claims. He makes numerous conclusions about how large the Earth is and how far things are. However there is a direct problem for he does not establish how this means that the universe is as old as he claims. If the age of the universe was determined by light years, the universe would be immensely old. The problem is, the age of the universe is not determined by light years. The age of the universe is determined by cosmological models that lead to the same conclusion that a cumulative scientific consensus comes to 14 billion years. In conclusion, Pro has no evidence and doesn't explain why size is equivalent to old age. Voting Guide (optional): Conduct: Pro forfeits three times. S&G: Spelling errors, Ex in the second round he spelled "diety" instead of deity. Arguments: Pro responds to none and doesn't justify any of his claims. Sources: Pro provides none, I provide five including Universe Today and Princeton Press.
The Universe is 50+ Billion Years old.

All of my arguments can be extended across the flow. There really is no need to refute my opponent's arguments due to lack of logic or scientific evidence. Pro is basically asserting that because the universe is spread far apart, it must be extremely long. In this circumstance, tall people must be older than short people or wide people must be older than thin people. Length and size does not directly determine the age. I have provided scientific warrant and justification that the universe is not greater than 50 billion years old and Pro just discusses light years which do not explain time.
The Universe is 50+ Billion Years old.

Due to lack of time from school work, I'll only be able to post a brief argument and will go in-depth in responses and further development in the next round. CASE:C1: Scientific evidence leads us to the conclusion that the universe is less than 50 billion years old.Now, numerous studies have different measurements of how old the universe is, but they all lead to the conclusion that the universe is less than 50 billion years old. NASA writes: "Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall."[1]Universe Today writes: "NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has taken the best measurement of the age of the Universe to date. According to highlyÂ precise observations of microwave radiation observed all over the cosmos, WMAP scientists now have the best estimate yet on the age of the Universe: 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years (that’s an error margin of only 0.87%… not bad really…)."[2]The age of the Universe can also be estimated from a cosmological model based on the Hubble constant and the densities of matter and dark energy. This model-based age is currently 13.7 +/- 0.2Gyr.[3] Countless sources lead us to around 14 billion years. Physics World writes "About 13.7 billion years is the best estimate for the age of the universe". [4] Vanderbilt Professor David A. Weintraub, author of How Old is the Universe? similarly came to the same conclusion. [5]I could go on and on listing sources and studies that lead to less than 50 billion years, but that would be pointless. Voters, it is obvious, the universe is not more than 50 billion years old. I will post my rebuttal in the next round. Enjoy a picture that displays the age of the universe and vote CON. Sources:1.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...2.http://www.universetoday.com...3. http://www.astro.ucla.edu...4. http://physicsworld.com...5. http://press.princeton.edu...
The Universe is 50+ Billion Years old.

Point 1: Understanding light yearsThe sun is approx. 93 million miles from the earth which is equal to 0.00001585 light years. The sunset we see every morning is the sun it was 8 minutes ago. Hence, the farthest stars in our galaxy (Milky Way) are 100,000 lightyears away from us. Feel free to guess how long that takes. Our Universe is so massive, in the eyes of a diety, you could not even see our galaxy. The farthest stars in our Universe are approx. 50 billion lightyears away. As we can see these stars and their light, you can either prove what I have said wrong or rest your case.
The Universe is 50+ Billion Years old.

Thanks, Ahcount for proposing the topic. I will be arguing that the Universe is less than 50 billion years old however I am not advocating that it is thousands of years old since the resolution does not directly lead us to that conclusion. Here is the resolution again just for clarity:Full Resolution: The Universe is more than 50 billion years old. I believe that there is no scientific justification that leads us to such a conclusion and the BoP is on Pro to prove it is more than 50 billion years old. I now open the floor for my opponent to post their case.
If God Preserved His Word It Must Be Perfect (Complete)

Resolved: The doctrine of the preservation of God's written word requires a perfect, extant text.DefinitionsExtant - In current existence; with us today.Perfect - Lacking nothing; wholly in-tact; complete.Require - To be demanded of necessity; to expect of consequencePreservation - The biblical doctrine that God has kept His written words from being lost via corruption or ommision throughout the ages, in a semantically unique and identifiable text, extending from its originally inspired authorship.Rules1. Please only accept this debate if you are a Christian whose final authority is the 66 canonical books of the Bible (Genesis-Revelation).2. Please understand and believe in the doctrine of preservation as defined.3. No logical fallacies or red herrings/slanders!StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)Round 3 - Rebuttals (No New Arguments)Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No New Rebuttals or Arguments)*Acceptance of this debate entails an understanding and acceptance of the definitions, rules, and structure of this debate. Any deviation from these should result in the loss of all points at the discretion of the prospective voters. Please message me concerning any questions or concerns you have about the debate setup in the comment section BEFORE accepting this debate. Thanks!
Welfare

What you are advocating is welfare reform not the abolisment of welfare overall, please stick to your original argument. When you speak about Germany, you are comparing apples to oranges because Germany was nearly obliterated in World War One. As I am aware the United States is not undergoing that kind of hardship at this moment. Therefore, your argument is invalid. You say we are devaluing our currency and that is making us poor? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The reason a lot of people are poor is because their whole family was poor before they were born. There can be many different reasons such as a family member having a mental disability then having kids, or people can immigrate from different countries and they have very little money to spend. You say that, " I don 't believe high crime rate is even a good reason in your argument. To me you are saying to appease the wrongdoers. You also make it sound like there is no alternative for a person to make a living other than stealing and you also underestimate the the ability of willing charity." How can a homeless man support himself? Can he go to McDonald's and get a job that easily? No he can't. In some cases, a person might HAVE a job, but they might need to get income another way and lack of quality education means he won't think about getting a second job, which would still be horrible, he would have to sell drugs. You say that "There has been cases of people becoming rich off of willing charity and what do the people who receive such generosity?" Really? Then put it in a source! If people get rich off charity I better really read the history behind what charities I give to because I don't want to make people rich I want to assist. Charities are private organizations that I do not trust to give to the correct people, and if a person gives to charity it can be for breast cancer awareness and not education for the poor. You say that, " They make it a living leeching off the backs of the people without shame and that's the attitude you create for those on welfare." That is one of the most hateful statements I've heard. Here's a statistic, if you make 1000 per month than you are not eligible for welfare. (1) That means welfare recipients are some of the poorest people around. Here is another statistic, the HWE or the hourly wage equivalent for welfare can range from $17.50 to $11.11. (1) That's not enough to support a family alone. Overall, I think con doesn't want to pay taxes. Like I said if we cut welfare we can be in a lot of trouble that way. It is possible to wean people off of welfare so it does not become a huge expense, but the government can't seem to do that. And if we can't wean people off of welfare, abolishing the whole system would be suicide for our country. (1) http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Welfare

Yes I do agree that there is a noticeable amount of poverty in our country but its mainly because our government is controlling more of our wealth spending more than they take which causes the value of our dollar to go down instead of advocating to decrease poverty by redistribution of wealth there should be efforts to reforming the way we spend money. Right now the United States has no money to spend and we are 16 trillion dollars in debt and still adding to it. This itself is a huge cause of the lack of wealth not only to the ones who depend on welfare but to us because the value of our dollar goes down while wages remain the same. It is even in our history that in Germany post world war 1 when Germany owed a lot of restitution they responded by printing a lot of money which made their currency worthless to where their life savings couldn't buy a single egg. I'm not trying to digress from the subject but merely educating you one of the real reasons of poverty and welfare is not the solution. In addition, I don 't believe high crime rate is even a good reason in your argument. To me you are saying to appease the wrongdoers. You also make it sound like there is no alternative for a person to make a living other than stealing and you also underestimate the the ability of willing charity. There has been cases of people becoming rich off of willing charity and what do the people who receive such generosity? They make it a living leeching off the backs of the people without shame and that's the attitude you create for those on welfare. Entitlement for money they did not earn becomes accepted and they become dependent when they should use it to make something of themselves but they do not. If this was not the case even though I don't agree with force charity I would look the other way and be happy. Unfortunately people on welfare that I have met and have heard of do not think of finding way to be independent. They think its ok to be a burden on the state which I have a hard time embracing in society. But blessings to those who don't take advantage of the state those are the people I gladly support.
Welfare

These days, the price of basic necessities is getting higher because of the economic recession. According to the National Poverty Center, "In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty."(1) The only food that the poor can afford to buy is McDonald's, and is that building a better society? We need to support the poor so they don't have to life such a hard life. You say that you think charity should be the sole giver, but there are so many charities for so many different things. How do you expect charities to give to the poor alone. They need government assistance. Say a mother had a child and the father left. How would she be able to support herself without welfare? If welfare was not in place there would be even further economic disparity in the United States. In my hometown, you could see some extremely rich suburbs but if you go to the "hood" you just see a bunch of old dilapidated houses and closed down stores. That is where most of the crime happens. Why? Because you have uneducated poor people who have no way of getting real income except breaking into houses and selling the items at pawn shops. That's how people turn into career criminals and make money. Uneducated people might even have to start selling drugs to make their money and as we all know, that can turn a whole society upside-down. The bottom line is if we don't have welfare, the poor won't have a way to support themselves. I do believe that we can wean people off of welfare using other methods, but if welfare is cut off, severe repercussions will happen. I do understand that people might not want to pay for other's expenses, but, if we did not pay, my house would get broken into in the next five minutes. Pay the taxes, give the welfare, steer clear of the consequences. (1) http://www.npc.umich.edu...
Welfare

I don't agree with giving free money by government means. Charity should be by choice not by force. Yes I do sympathize those who are in need and in my life I have put in the effort to help another in their trouble and I have notice I am not the only one so instead of system of good intention that is imperfect and deceptive in many ways, allow the people to show their goodness and to show that there is no need for the government welfare
Welfare

Like I said you underestimate the power of willing charity even if people aren't willing it's still immoral to "steal" from people. Just because someone lost their jobs doesn't make me responsible to help them. You make it sound like if people don't have welfare they are going to die of starvation but if you haven't notice it's really hard to starve in America unless you are too lazy to eat even without welfare. http://www.theatlantic.com... Well your third paragraph about debunking my statement is still confusing me because all I'm saying is you don't need welfare if you make a thousand dollars a month because I'm able to spend less than a thousand to support myself and even if they make less or not enough to support themselves, aid doesn't have to come from the government . You say you don't believe charity is enough? Well how about you use the money that the government didn't take from you and give it to the unfortunate if you really feel that way. Don't make others do the same if they don't want to. It's not an obligation. Also I had already mention people are not going to starve without welfare http://www.crown.org... Anyways your first paragraph makes me too upset to even respond rationally so I'm just going to finish my argument right here.
Welfare

You say that the purpose of the government is, "To maintain order without oppression not to be the owner of our lives." If a government allows so many people to go hungry, to be homeless, to not get enough money to support a stable family (which I believe everyone is entitled to). Now, you are arguing with states rights here, my view is that no state should get rid of welfare altogether. There is one problem with that. Every state has poor people, so, how do you expect poor people to just leave? They can't afford to leave, and if they do, they will be poorer in the next state because they've spent their money on moving! In your last argument you say, ". LOOK MAN READ THIS!!!! YOU DON'T NEED WELFARE TO PREVENT ONE FROM SUFFERING I KEEP ON TELLING YOU.HELPING SOCIETY COMES FROM YOU AND ME A "WILLING" HEART. DID THE GOVERNMENT TELL YOU TO WORK IN THAT SOUP KITCHEN? NO IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE WILLING!!!! YOU ARE WHAT MAKES PEOPLE LESS DEPENDENT ON FORCED CHARITY." First off lets call it welfare not forced charity. Second, I combined paying my taxes and doing charity so overall, the poor gets more. Do you think charity alone will pay enough? I doubt it. I did debunk your statement. You said that, "You say that a person can't live with 1000 dollars a month and that's balony because my monthly expenses reaches below that amount considering I had fed myself paid for my car insurance, gas and room for rent that most people can find now a days and this is in Southern California." That statement was all over the place so I used math. Second, a one thousand dollar a month income is not eligible for welfare! I have a problem with your two sources you listed. The first one is clearly an editorial and the second one is English. If you can find a good unbiased American article (that isn't from Fox News) that shows how that there is a large mindset of entitlement maybe that would help your case. You say, "If I had a disaster happen to my home like Hurricane Katrina..... well you got me there that would just suck and social assistance program might be useful but again it's at the expense of the tax payers but I admit there is benefit in that sense however I would not want to burden another with my misfortunes unless they are "willing" to help." You know what is almost like Hurricane Katrina for some families? Losing their jobs, their houses, and their children can be just as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. Yet, people don't know about these small disasters so we need welfare to rescue these families.
Read the Constitution

In the Bill of Rights (The first 10 amendments to the constitution for those that don't know), The second amendment to the constitution is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For any stupid people out there, this is basically saying that the right to carry a gun or a weapon is unable to be infringed. This will probably never change, since you need 75% of the house and senate vote to amend the constitution, and it must pass through the supreme court, and be approved by the president of the United states. Also, if there would come a time where the constitution gets amended, how many criminals do you people think would freely give up their guns? Criminals will not follow the law. That is why they are called criminals. Also, for you liberals out there who want guns banned, have you experienced the real world? The amount of murders are extremely small in the crime pool and less than 40% of crimes occur with a gun. If you are still foggy after this post, then please go to your room and rethink your life