BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe of Mass Effect would defeat the universe of Halo in an all out war

Either my opponent has forgotten about the debate or wishes me to make the first move, I hope that you the voters do not take this forgetfulness into account when making the decision. Now, the simple difficulty in fighting the Halo Universe is that it is a Universe. Mass Effect takes place in one galaxy, but the Covenant army is massive. The only reason it was defeated was because of the flood parasite, which if aligned with the humans and Covenant, would never have hindered them. The flood are incredibly difficult to eradicate completely, and can take over electronics too, meaning the reapers are fair game. Destroying the host is the only way to kill a flood member, and renders the corpse incapable of being indoctrinated. But the real force behind the army is the Prometheans, humans digitized by the Composer. They cannot be resurrected, they can teleport and heal themselves, as well as atomize their victims so as no indoctrination can occur. They are not Forerunners themselves, and so remain for the battle. The reapers would be the brunt of the Mass Effect force, and rely on having corpses to inhabit. The prometheans lack corpses, and destroy them too, cancelling the two out. The flood will be able to destroy the alien races with ease, even taking over ships to attack their home planets. The Covenant and Humans will only have the Geth to deal with, an easy feat for the two combined. There you go. A full decimation of the Mass Effect Universe. See you next round, Duncan.
Margret Thatcher was a terrible and cruel Prime Minister and anyone who liked her is an idiot.

'One of the greatest nation in the world who usually doesn't have idiots'. Don't make me laugh. I live here and have lived here all my life. Believe me. We have idiots. The people who voted her in were to stupid to know that they are just doing the rich mans dirty work, they did not realise that her rule would in no way help them. Also I never called her an idiot. Your repeating yourself because of lack of information. And the reason I hav'nt been doing my sources is because i'm on my iPad and every time I go of this page it loses all my text.
Margret Thatcher was a terrible and cruel Prime Minister and anyone who liked her is an idiot.

Um, we're are you getting you sources? And stop using non intelligent words like idiot because it shows you have nothing else to say about those who actually admire her. If she was SUCH an IDIOT to Great Britain, one of the greatest nations in the world who usually doesn't have idiots, then why did they reelect he Three times? Not once, but 3 times. It's not those rich people that you assume to be the problem. It's the actual citizens of the country as a nation who all agreed that she should keep running in office.
Margret Thatcher was a terrible and cruel Prime Minister and anyone who liked her is an idiot.

You say that she tightened up the foreign policy but for what reason. She just wanted a scapegoat so she blamed the immigrants. As does every tory. The only people who elected her were selfish rich people who wanted more money. She dealt with the economy by firing the workers, the miners and the factory workers and everyone else in between. She failed to realise that the working class are the back bone of every country. She dealt with terrorism by angering the I.R.A. and making them attack Britain even more. She sent the soldiers to a farm island to die in a pointless war. The only people who enjoyed her rule were rich idiots who didn't care about anyone as long as they stayed rich. She hated the working class. There's no wonder why most people celebrated her death.
Margret Thatcher was a terrible and cruel Prime Minister and anyone who liked her is an idiot.

Margaret Thatcher was a successful Prime Minister. Sure she made a few mistakes along the way but who hasn't? She laid down a strong foundation for a much more vigorous and independent foreign policy in the 1980s. She was so well in her first term she was reelected for another and a third she helped the economy throughout the 80s dealing with terrorism, the Soviet Union who named her the Iron Lady, and war affairs. Almost everybody in Great Britain enjoyed her rule as prime minister. if they didn't, they wouldn't have bothered electing her 3 times in the first place. http://www.margaretthatcher.org...
Do Jews control America

Actually, I'm not so sure that Jews do control America. I think they do have one hell of a lot of control over America, but not a monopoly on it. I think America is Israels bitch to be honest and I think that the Jewish-Muslim unease is one of the main reasons that the US are lording it up in the MiddleEast but no, they don't have outright control over America. Hollywood. You know how influential it is. I concede the debate. I can't be bothered researching something I don't particularly believe anymore.
Do Jews control America

The heads of the federal reserve are Jewish, as are the heads of Goldman Sachs. Money makes the world go round. Money talks. Follow the money. Whoever controls the money, controls the country. And it just so happens that Jews occupy thee most important seats in thee most important financial institutions in America. Ben Bernanke - the Fed Lloyd Blankfein - Goldman Sachs Also, thee business of America - moviemaking - has historically been run by Jews. For only 5% of the population, they wield one hell of an amount of influence. The tiny relative population only serves to underline how powerful a culture they are in America. Is there a more powerful, more influential class of person in America than the Jew? I don't think so. The topmost levels of the financial section are crawling with them. If you agree that whoever controls the money, really calls all the other shots, then it stands on its own that Jews control America.
Public high school students ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

I apologize for my opponent's absense. Now, by LD rules, you would extend my arguments, and ignore any new arguments he makes in his next speech. If that's the case, you already secure your vote for me. EVEN THEN, we can just let my opponent post (if he does this time) his next speech, and allow me to refute his rebuttal in my last. Either way, I'm okay with. Good luck, and extend my arguments everyone.
Gun Control

I will reaffirm that good people should be allowed to keep their weapons. A person with no mental illness should be allowed to purchase weapons. http://www.thedailybeast.com... Does that not make sense? Because this is technically gun control. I suppose if you are okay with the criminally insane running around with fully automatic weapons, be my guest, but I will not sit here and subject America to that. "Ok in my previous argument i was implying that guns would be banned. you can not get a gun legally if you have any criminal record. but i also said "Many criminals do get guns illegally currently so its harder for it to be traced to them so banning the sale of guns still means criminals will find a way to get guns." " You may have said they would be banned, but like I clearly stated, gun control would not be taking guns away completely. Only the mentally ill, or people with criminal records would not be allowed to have firearms. "But what i meant is there are more ways to get guns than buying them. one is make your own. buy one in circulation. take one from the government. your argument docent make mine invalid." You may have meant that, but that is not what was written. If we hold dealers who find their guns "missing" accountable, less guns will go missing. Period. "I said speciffically that we were implying banning guns but brining up this point. if the person decided to use there gun in a crime it is registered and there in the database." You are the only person this debate who has talked about banning guns. I said several times I do not want to ban guns. Banning guns would be detrimental to a society. There is no "we were", because I am not talking about removing guns as a whole. "Yo did say less would go missing if the dealers were held responsible but you can't really prove it is there fault. it could have been stolen and you can't get people in trouble for being robbed." Can you prove that that wouldn't happen? it's common sense. If there is no punishment for something, it will go on. As soon as a punishment is instituted, the act with cease to go on. If speeding was legal, it would happen all the time, even more so then now. If there was no punishment, then it would carry on simply because there is no risk. Also, like I have stated several times, only bad people would lose guns. "I think we have similar opinions but I'm not really sure if we understand each each other." Our opinions are nothing similar. I believe that the only way to maintain a society is to punish the real criminals, the ones who give the weapons. I don't blame the weapons, because I know guns don't kill people. You seem to think that there should be no regulations at all, but that would lead to an anarchy situation. I will reaffirm that good people should be allowed to keep their weapons. A person with no mental illness should be allowed to purchase weapons. http://www.thedailybeast.com... Does that not make sense? Because this is technically gun control. I suppose if you are okay with the criminally insane running around with fully automatic weapons, be my guest, but I will not sit here and subject America to that. Thanks http://money.cnn.com...
Gun Control

Ok in my previous argument i was implying that guns would be banned. you can not get a gun legally if you have any criminal record. but i also said "Many criminals do get guns illegally currently so its harder for it to be traced to them so banning the sale of guns still means criminals will find a way to get guns." you said: Once again, like I stated earlier, if we hold dealers who are missing guns responsible, less will go missing. But what i meant is there are more ways to get guns than buying them. one is make your own. buy one in circulation. take one from the government. your argument docent make mine invalid. "If a person wants a gun, they go buy one legally. If they intend to do bad, they get it by illegitimate means. If we reduce the amount of people who have access to illegitimate firearms, less crime will happen, and the good folks get to keep their firearms." I said speciffically that we were implying banning guns but brining up this point. if the person decided to use there gun in a crime it is registered and there in the database. Yo did say less would go missing if the dealers were held responsible but you can't really prove it is there fault. it could have been stolen and you can't get people in trouble for being robbed. I think we have similar opinions but I'm not really sure if we understand each eachother.
Gun Control

"From what you are saying the feel I'm getting is your saying that right now a lot of guns go missing since there are widely sold and if we make it so guns can't be legally sold then it will be very hard for a bad guy to get a gun. I Kind of agree with you but that's not the issue. the issue is its still hard for a bad guy to get a gun but its not impossible. " Alright, you started off by agreeing to my side of the argument. "Now if a regular person wants to get a gun they could Illegally but usually they get it legally and since were currently implying banning it they would go with not getting a gun" If a person wants a gun, they go buy one legally. If they intend to do bad, they get it by illegitimate means. If we reduce the amount of people who have access to illegitimate firearms, less crime will happen, and the good folks get to keep their firearms. "Many criminals do get guns illegally currently so its harder for it to be traced to them so banning the sale of guns still means criminals will find a way to get guns." Once again, like I stated earlier, if we hold dealers who are missing guns responsible, less will go missing. "ow if a good guy had a gun they could respond faster then the police. so lets say your in your house watching T.V. and you have a gun on you or near you and a guy with an assault shotgun breaks the door down you have a way of defense and can defend yourself before you can handle before you even have the ability to call the police. " This is irrelevant, because in my argument I make it clear that the bad guys would not have a weapon, and the good guys do. "having a gun will be like having your phone. now if you didn't have your gun chances are you would be dead or close to dead. it probably won't save you 100% of the time but it will do better then waiting two minutes for police to show up while you have gun to your head." Alright, so like i've stated several times now, I don't want to take guns away from good folks who know how to handle weapons. I want to ensure that bad guys, who are not capable of doing good, lose these weapons. Thanks
Gun Control

From what you are saying the feel I'm getting is your saying that right now a lot of guns go missing since there are widely sold and if we make it so guns can't be legally sold then it will be very hard for a bad guy to get a gun. I Kind of agree with you but that's not the issue. the issue is its still hard for a bad guy to get a gun but its not impossible. Now if a regular person wants to get a gun they could Illegally but usually they get it legally and since were currently implying banning it they would go with not getting a gun. Many criminals do get guns illegally currently so its harder for it to be traced to them so banning the sale of guns still means criminals will find a way to get guns. Now if a good guy had a gun they could respond faster then the police. so lets say your in your house watching T.V. and you have a gun on you or near you and a guy with an assault shotgun breaks the door down you have a way of defense and can defend yourself before you can handle before you even have the ability to call the police. having a gun will be like having your phone. now if you didn't have your gun chances are you would be dead or close to dead. it probably won't save you 100% of the time but it will do better then waiting two minutes for police to show up while you have gun to your head.
Gun Control

Hello! To begin, I'll define gun control- "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now, gun control could be as simple as the government operating licenses, or as extreme as to get rid of them all together. You say that you wish to abolish gun control, and you find it unnecessary. You say that it's extremely simple to get a gun, and that is why gun control does not need to exist. However, the simplicity involved in acquiring a firearm will the base to my argument on why we need some form of gun control. https://www.americanprogress.org... As you can see, many guns go missing. Dealers who have guns that go "missing" have no reason to be responsible. Guns don't just go missing, and dealers who have missing firearms are a major part in crimes that occur with an illegal firearm. If we implement some form of gun control, it will be harder for the bad people to get firearms, then we will be safer as a society. Thanks
Gun Control

I believe gun control should not be a thing because there are numerous ways to get guns. 1. Make it yourself 2. Buy it Illegally 3. Become a police officer There's probably even more. So if a guy decided that he wanted to have a gun for recreational purposes he would go through the background check after he got a gun license. Like all licenses it needs to be renewed. Now on the off chance he became angry or started having criminal thoughts he might rely on his already registered and purchased firearm. so it would be easier to find out who's gun it actually is. now when he decided to do this since guns you can freely carry around a bystander who is closer than the police who figures this out can respond except for the fact you can't go inside anywhere with a gun just stand on public state property, a firing range and legally be able to shoot it or your own property. so if they were banned but someone illegally got their hands on a gun it would be like handing a stick of supreme power over any innocent bystander.
"There is Only One Race, The Human Race" Is an Incorrect Statement

Once again, my arguments are not normative. I am in no way trying to justify racial discrimination, just racial differentiation. Since that was the last round my opponent could make new arguments in, he has effectively dropped all my original arguments and failed to defend his own original arguments. To recap my arguments, the statements "There is Only One Race, The Human Race" is wrong because;1. A race is a sub-group of a species, and humans are a genus including 14 species. Since speciation requires greater genetic variance than race differentiation, this statement must be wrong.2. Even if we only look at the sapien genome, the total variance within the sapien genome is equal to the genetic distance between sapiens and Neanderthals, a distance used by some scientists to argue that Neanderthals are a distinct species. Therefore, given that a genetic dissimilarity of 0.3% is used to argue for speciation in humans, and since we know the sapien genome contains that much variance, we must conclude that there are at least two races of sapien as the sapien genome is arguably on the border line of speciation.3. Self identified race matches genotypical race almost perfectly, something you would only expect if there are legitimate objective grounds for racial distinction.
"There is Only One Race, The Human Race" Is an Incorrect Statement

I will be arguing that Humans are not all the same race. Since what constitutes a "race" will be a point of contention, it will be left undefined for the time being, but the general definition is that a race is a subgroup of a species. All other definitions will be the standard dictionary definitions that best fit the context of this debate.All standard DDO rules apply.First round is for acceptance.BOP will be shared. Topic = resolution Any questions or requests should be made in the comments section prior to accepting.
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

"ask yourself, "can these statements both be true?" 1. Bob had children 2. Bob never had children" But that's the beauty of the Multi-verse theory! In some reality both of these statements are true allowing for all versions of reality to simultaneously exist. It's not as though Bob would teleport to some alternative dimension, he would simply continue to live and exist in a divergent reality in which Bob had killed his grandfather. It doesn't prove backwards time travel to be impossible, it proves the conventional linear flow of time to be impossible. I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate, I believe I have won as I have created a plausible explanation for the grandfather's paradox through use of the multiverse theory. My opponent's sole rebuttal has been to fall back upon conventional linear timeline thinking and it is possible that this is reality, but the multiverse elastic flow of time is an equally plausible explanation and refutes the "grandfather's paradox" I believe that I have created a plausible explanation for this paradox, and would urge you to vote in the affirmation.
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

if Fry killed his grandfather, then he wouldnt have been born. if he transfers into a different reality/timeline, i dont see how that would solve that paradox any more than if he teleported to a different city.ask yourself, "can these statements both be true?"1. Bob had children2. Bob never had childrenobviously no, but according to your theory, both are true if Bob is the grandfather of Fry. the only logical conclusion is that one cannot kill ones grandfather before he has kids. this would easily be explained by a worldview that entails backwards time-travel being impossible.
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

In my scenario this time traveler did kill his own grandfather. He went back in time, killed his own grandfather, and as a result created a split in the space time continuum creating a new reality in the future. He did kill his own grandfather, but in doing so he moved himself into an alternate reality. You still are thinking of time linearly, this "Fry" kills his grandfather, and switches realities. Since it's a paradox this is the only logical conclusion. So yes, Fry has killed his own grandfather and not destroyed the universe and logic.
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

the following cannot both be true: 1. Fry kills his grandfather before said grandfather has any kids 2. Frys' grandfather has kids you can say that Frys grandfather has kids, and in an alternate universe, a nearly identical grandfather did not have kids, but these are different people. since both Frys and/or both grandfathers are different people, your argument doesnt solve the paradox. the question isnt "can Fry kill his alternate self's grandfather?", or "can Fry end up in a universe in which his alternate self had killed his own grandfather?", the question is "could Fry have killed his own grandfather?".
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

The "Grandfather Paradox" was created with the concept of a linear timeline in mind. This complies with our general perception of time since we experience it linearly as in, we experience birth, childhood, adulthood, and then death in a linear pattern, we can for example remember the past but not remember the future. The issue is though that in reality time does not move in this linear pattern. With the multi-verse theory it is supposed that we live in an infinite amount of realities that compose of every single theoretical possible reality. So for example today you woke up and chose to walk to work, there is a universe where you skip, where you kill your boss and every other possible outcome that could potentially occur. That is the general gist of the multiverse theory, at it's core it means that every possibility, in an alternate universe, is an actuality. So, moving that into the grandfather paradox, after this time traveler kills his grandfather he does not cease to exist like Marty Mcfly in back to the future, he simply moves himself into an alternate universe in which he had gone back in time and killed his grandfather. Would he then hop back into his time machine and return to his old present it would not be the one he left. He would not be alive, and any other effects as a result of his grandfather's death would have occurred in that person's future and that would become the new universe that exists as reality. This is a plausible solution to the grandfather paradox. Resolution affirmed. :D
there is a reasonable solution to the "grandfather paradox"

"a time traveler went back in time to the time when his grandfather had not had children yet. At that time, the time traveler kills his grandfather, and therefore, the time traveler is never born, and therefore could have never killed his grandfather, but since he didnt kill his grandfather, he would have ended up being born after-all and going on to kill his grandfather, and so on. .. "my position is that this is an unsolvable paradoxPROs purpose is to give possible solutions to this alleged paradox (other than backwards time-travel being impossible) and i will try to refute them.