BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no one true religion...yet

I must say I am lost in what i should post this round, I don't see anything thus far presented that would give me something to contend with. Reviewing the debate so far: R1A: Says that he is looking for an opponent representing a major religion. R1B: I Argue that this does not agree with the resolution, nor does it give me something to argue. R2A: He says he meant the resolution in context, and then says his argument is that God is all powerful, omnipotent, and perfect. Even though in R1 he says he is looking for an opponent that is a Christian or other major religion, so me (being a Christian) accepted this debate, I didn't realize you were a Christian as well since you asked for a Christian opponent. So I am here confused and caught in a hard place about what we are arguing. I suggest that you explain your position thoroughly and build a powerful case in the last round since this is all the more time we have together, and thus far nothing has been presented. I await the final round.
There is no one true religion...yet

Wow, I realised I read some of your other debates only after I sent the invite. Anyway, the one true religion thing was supposed to be taken in the context I gave in the description. Like how the Bible is the Word of God (or something). My argument is based on this theory...God is all powerful, omnipoent, perfect. His way would be THE way. Undeniable, irrefutable. Surely a single phrase from the holiest of holy texts would be able to convert us puny humans. BTW: Would you disagree with the theory that, if Heaven is outside the Universe, Time doesn't exist and thus, God never had a beginning or will end. It takes a while to get your head really wrapped around it... Vote for whoever you want to not lose!
There is no one true religion...yet

Greetings, let's begin. ================ Observing the resolution: ================ Paying close attention to the resolution, it reads "There is no one true religion...yet" Now, what we must focus on is the "yet" in the resolution, this is suggesting that because we don't know which religion is true, that there isn't a true one. This is false, regardless of what we have discovered there is still a "true" religion, despite what we know, whether this is belief in no deity, belief in the Christian God, belief in Buddhism, the possibilities are limitless, but there is still a "true" one, we just may not know about it. It seems my opponent has provided a resolution in which comes with an impossible burden; however, i eagerly await his next round in which he must prove that there really is no true religion yet. Good luck and i'll see you in the next round.
Soccer is better then American Football

I will state my reasons for soccer being better below: Physically demanding - The average Pro soccer player runs 6 miles a game constantly, since they don't stop the clock. Versus the Pro Footballer who just has short bursts of energy, then relaxes for about 10 seconds. Amount of Practice - Soccer takes hundreds of hours of hard practice to get good at. It takes dozens of hours of practicing dribbling the ball to get good at it, versus where you can learn how to throw a football in 10 minutes. And, the final thing, the amount of stuff you have to pay attention too. For example, the quarterback of a football team, only has to worry about throwing the ball to the person he's assigned too. While whoever has the ball in Soccer has to keep the ball away from his opponent who's right in front of him, and decided whether to pass it or keep it and try to penetrate the defense. I await my opponents reply!
Soccer is better then American Football

Prior to the start of this round, let it be said of me that really couldn't care less abut sports. What I mean by this is that I don't like football better than soccer, and throughout the course of this debate it will not be my intention to prove that football is better than soccer but that soccer is not better than football. All of that said, I again thank my opponent for initiating such fun a debate! Now my opponent has not yet offered any constructive arguments for this debate. So in order to be as fair and to provide as much reciprocal ground as possible, I will provide no arguments either. That said I will take this moment to provide a few observations and clarifications about the round at hand. = Observations = These observations are things that I personally see true about this debate. They are not absolute truths, and may be questioned or attacked if my opponent sees it necessary to do so. + The burden of proof is on the Pro in this debate. At the start of this debate it will be understood that both football and soccer are two different types of the same thing; a sport. accordingly they are on equal standing, and neither is better than the other. The Pro must however warrant that there is an aspect, or multiple aspects of soccer that make it a better sport than football. + As the Con in this debate I have several options that I can pursue to fulfill in order to win this debate. If at the end of this round you as the voters believe any of them to be true, then I have won this round. They include, but are not limited to- 1. Maintaining the status quo that both of these sports are equal. 2. Proving that Football is better than soccer. 3. Proving that neither is important. Whereas the Pro must contend that soccer is absolutely better than football. Essentially what I'm getting at is if at the end of this debate my opponent has not proven that soccer is better than football then I will win the round. It really doesn't matter whether I prove football is better than soccer or not. + Popularity doesn't make something better. My opponent must prove that soccer is better than football, or that football is worse than soccer based on the merits of the sport itself. So an argument saying that "X many people more like Soccer than Football" will not be considerable as a viable argument. = Conclusion = All of this said here's to an amazing round! And again, I would like to point out that my observations are meant for clarity of the round as a whole. If there is any part of them that my opponent disagrees with, they are more than welcome to challenge them. They are not arguments, not absolutes but are my own observations to clarify the round. Good luck to my opponent, and here's to a fantastic round!
C++ is a better programming language than C#

They are different tools for different tasks. Just because C# took the best from a number of different languages doesn't make it bad. To make that argument you really need to show *how* it is bad. You need to point out the strengths that C++ possesses and what C# lacks. Rather than making up a silly argument as such. In your C++ code I notice that you reference the standard template library directly with your cout but waste space on a using command for the C# code. Tisk-tisk. #include namespace std; int main(){ cout << "text\n"; return 0; } is far easier than typing class a{ static void Main(){ System.Console.Writeline("TEXT"); } } Look at that! Now C# is better on the print out the word TEXT test. Let's not overlook that fact that this "example" is a crock. The readability and running of code is far more important than a couple of characters. If short source-code is your goal then we should all be using LISP. Honestly elegant programs in three lines and only takes about three hours to write them. In really big programs it really adds up? Better not add in comments to the source code! In reality the paradigm you are using is going to make a much more substantial role in how tight and understandable your code is. This is one of the reasons why Java and C# are so nice in that they make everything into classes. Properly done that makes for exceedingly good code. Is C++ a better programming language than C#? I honestly can't say that it is from any of the comments you've made here. Wasting some characters on a using command in C# and referencing the namespace directly in C++ doesn't compel me towards an answer. I'm sorry you haven't established any points or come remotely close to meeting your burden of proof. C# is a fantastic language. C++ is pretty good. They are different tools for different tasks. To say, universally, that one is "better" is getting down to saying that red is better than blue. You'd need a good argument to show that and you don't have a good argument here.
C++ is a better programming language than C#

"You argue that C# is worse than C++ because C# is similar to a number of other programing languages" Actually, if we want to get into specifics, I am arguing that C# is worse because of its similarities to very different languages. "quality of a programming language has little to do with how similar it is to other languages" Wrong. The similarities to other languages can drastically effect the learning curve, which can make or break a language. "[Similarity and Complexitiy] do not, by any stretch, make a language better or worse than another one" Actually, it does. If language A is similar to a bad language, A is probably bad also. If a language is overly complicated and complex, it has a steep learning curve which total beginners hate. "So you believe that typing, #include using namespace std; int main () { cout << "text" << endl; return 0; } Is far easier than System.Console.WriteLine ("Text");?" Wrong. I beleive that typing #include int main(){ std::cout << "text\n"; return 0; } is far easier than typing using System; class a{ static void Main(){ Console.Writeline("TEXT"); } } , see my point. Upon closer inspection, the C++ method uses only seventy-two characters while the C# method uses seventy-eight. That may only be six more characters, but in really big programs, it really adds up. Also, you keep stating that C++ and C# are different tools. This is incorrect. They are both programming languages, just different ones, and as such, you may need to do more steps with one to achieve the same effect as you would get with less steps in another. One programming language can do everything. This means that it really is the learning curve and the complexity of the language that ultimatly determines if a language is good or not. Prove me wrong.
C++ is a better programming language than C#

C# is a worse language than C++ because C# is similar to more than one programming language, which may or may not make it more powerful. However, C# includes more complicated syntax, C# programmers must type more in order to achieve the same effect as a C++ programmer would while typing less(one example of this is displaying text, a C++ programmer would type "std::cout << "TEXT"; " with the include file of iostream, while a C# programmer would type "System.Console.WriteLine( "TEXT" );"), and because of all this, C# obviously has a steeper learning curve, mainly due to the similarity to multiple languages such as C++, C, and Java.
C++ is a better programming language than C#

C++ is not a better programming language than C#. That's a lot like saying a hammer is better than a pair of pliers. They are both tools. If you are doing aspect oriented programing then C++ is a terrible language, if your doing systems programing then C++ is a fantastic language. They do different things. They are tools for a specific job and the "better" one depends entirely on the job. Just as you could hammer a nail with pliers or try to use the hammer to tighten a bolt you can us C++ for some jobs it does quite well and C# for jobs it does well.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

In the sense of safety for teenagers, the cellphone actually causes more problems for them they are consistently looking at there phones all day because at any moment something could be said about them causing problems and being mean, which is where cyber bullying comes in. In connection with education if a student is in class and has a choice between learning about anything or what people are saying about them, they are going to choose the one about what people are saying because they are at the age that connection to each other is so important. I feel teenagers focus way to much on each other rather than on themselves. Teenagers use their phones to ridicule one another and that is not in the best interest of the victims of bullying.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

Since teens are growing up in this era of technology, having a cell phone can be convenient to student in many ways. For instance, with all these cell phone applications, they can be use as a dictionary which actually helps teens' education. Phone also make students easier to contact one another in case when some one is absences and wants to know what is the HW for the day. In addition, if there is an emergence, teens can call 911 for help. So, there are a lot of ways that phone does serve a good purpose in teenagers life.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

I feel that teens should not be permitted to have cell phones. They only cause problems, the cell phone is a distraction from education, whether it be in school that teachers take them away or at home homework is not being done due to chatting on the phone and in some cases the phone is used to cheat during exams texting answers or sending pictures of scan trons to one another. The phone does not serve any good purpose in a teenagers life.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

Think about cell phones in the way that it can teach teens responsibility. I do understand what you said about the risk of being the victim of cyber bullying. However, we should teach teens to learn to have responsibility over everything they do with their cell phone, instead taking away cell phone from teens. If we education teens properly about the responsible way of using cell phone, the chance of being cyber bullying might be reduce. Just taking a way phone do not solve the problem. In addition, as I said earlier, cell phones are now capable of monitoring the location of teens. And with all those App on the phone, parents and police can easily find out the location of lost child or kidnapped child. So, we should teens to have phones.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

According to modern mom some parents do not provide their child with cellphones for the same reason other parents give their child a phone to be a quick phone call away, but if that is the case how could the child figure out their own problems? Of they are old enough to think they could carry around a phone and be like everyone else they should be able to handle the minuscule problems that come with everyday life not call mom or dad every five seconds for something. In the case of an actual emergency the child could have an alternative phone that only calls numbers like 911 or calls for a fire. Giving the child problem solving opportunities could be a good way to keep a teen or child to grow.
Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones

In cases of cyber bullying, online social networks are the major factors. Banning phones won't do much to help stop that because there are computers, ipads, or other devices that have internet. One reason that banning cell phones to teens is not a great idea is that, (according to Pew Research Internet Project) "98% of parents of cell-owning teens say a major reason their child has the phone is that they can be in touch no matter where the teen is". Also, there is way for parents to limit the amount of internet usage(there are phones designed with parental control). In addition, for school ,instead of banning phones, many schools have regulations that forbid students using phone during school and make phones less disruptive.
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

I will gladly challenge you on this, as I strongly believe that the greatest director of that time is Steven Speilberg. Speilberg did more than just make movies. He made experiences. Speilberg set standards for movies and genres for years to follow. I'm talking about E.T., Jurassic Park. Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Indiana Jones, and the list goes on and on. Almost every movie he made in the 20th century was pure gold and a trend setter. Try to tell me Indiana Jones didn't set the standard for adventure movies. I dare you to argue against the sheer awe people felt when they witnessed Jurassic Park's special effects. Poltergeist was one of the first 'supernatural' horror movies, and it also set the standard for years to come. Steven Speilberg is hands-down the greatest director of the 20th century. Kubrick does have his share of great movies, I'm not denying that, but Speilberg's list is so much larger, and he is a household name along with almost all of his movies.
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

Stanley Kubrick is easily the best director of the second half of the 1900s, and possibly of all-time. I specified the second half, because Hitchcock owns the first half. Whomever argues against me can take the side of another director who you think is superior to Kubrick. Stick to arguing about the director's quality, style, lasting effect, and how they revolutionized certain genres, styles, etc. Go!
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

I will agree that Kubrick had a very iconic way of handling movie-making. I still believe that Steven Spielberg made such a huge name for himself with his revolutionary films. Almost every one of his movies was a trend-setter, whether it be E.T., Indiana Jones, or Jaws, the first blockbuster. He also expanded beyond directing and produced several amazing films such as Back to the Future and Flags of our Fathers. The movie he made, The Color Purple, was a very emotionally influential drama, so here we see more of him expanding beyond the 'adventure romp'. And I do believe that Spielberg has his own stamp to his movie, though maybe not as unique as that of Kubrick. Spielberg's effects and cinematography were iconic. In conclusion, I believe that Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of the last half of the 20th century, for reasons such as his revolutions in cinematography, special effects, and story telling. He made so many iconic family movies, but also broke this mold with films like Schindler's List, The Color Purple, and Saving Private Ryan. Even movies like the Minority Report were incredibly creative and original, and I believe that Spielberg set the standard for movies to come.
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

You are right. Kubrick's films probably aren't as well known compared to Spielberg. And he does have the incredible John Williams to back him up. Everyone can recognize those themes immediately. True once again that numerous sequels have been produced from him movies. Out of all Kubrick's movies, the only sequel created was 2010, though I'd wager most have never even heard of this movie. But just because his films are 'more famous', it doesn't necessarily make him the better director. Kubrick had a certain way of handling a film. It seems most of his films have a foreboding feeling, as though the viewer could tell some outcomes are not going to be pretty. Like clockwork (no pun intended), Kubrick's films tick and tock and come together like a puzzle. He's one of those directors where if you showed me a film of his that I never heard of, I would be able to tell it is one of his. Spielberg doesn't really have this trait. A sort of stamp if you will. Kubrick's films make you think and ponder. Every single one. Whether it's about the ending of 2001, the realness of Full Metal Jacket, or the twisted nature of The Shining, the viewer will no doubt be thinking and thinking after their first watch. Spielberg doesn't really have any of these thinkers. Maybe Close Encounters and Schindler's List, but not in the same way as Kubrick's films. Kubrick painted pictures he knew not every one would see the same. Spielberg has mostly stuck to simpler films that more could enjoy with less thought. They are still great movies, but they don't amount to the art that Kubrick created.
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

I definitely agree with you on how Kubrick made daring leaps in the film industry, but I still think Speilberg has many more famous movies under his belt. You mentioned Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, which both are deep and moving films. The special effects in Jurassic Park are arguably what caused CGI to be what it is today, as they truly were stunning in that time. I would also like to bring up the aspect of music/scores. Although Speilberg didn't compose songs, they were featured in his films. Themes like Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, and E.T. are extraordinarily iconic, and can easily be recognized, even by people who haven't seen the movies they came from. Speilberg also created several movies that developed into iconic franchises, such as Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park. Although not all of the movies have been 'great', it goes to show that his originals were inspiring to other directors and were successful enough to spawn sequels.
Stanley Kubrick is the best director of the second half of the 20th century.

I can't deny Spielberg's contribution to cinema. The man knew how to make a real blockbuster. But Kubrick revolutionized film. 2001: A Space Odyssey was the film that changed Sci-Fi forever. Without that movie, Sci-Fi probably wouldn't have accelerated as quickly. The special effects still stand up pretty dang well. Kubrick was also very daring as a director. Adapting Lolita was crazy to most at the time, but Kubrick dared to do it. A Clockwork Orange pushed the limits on violence and sexual content previously viewed in cinema. It was controversial, but highly important as it allowed for films to be produced that previously would've been seen as too inappropriate. The Shining remains to be one of the creepiest and most suspenseful movies there is. They just don't make horror movies like they used to. Full Metal Jacket was a very natural war movie. Looking into the training was new to most viewers, and very harsh in reality. It was an amazing experience. Spielberg is a great director, but many of his films are just entertaining good, and don't leave much in terms of theme and style. Once he got into the likes of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, some themes started to emerge, but with Jaws, Raiders, and E.T., they seem to be entertaining, family movies, but not movies with a deeper meaning. (Of course these movies are still great.) That's not to discount how he directed, it's just to say Kubrick was far more daring, creative, innovative, and even philosophical with his films. Every single one of his films makes you think about it long after viewing.