BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gavrilo Princip is the most important man who lived during the 20th century

Before I get to rebutting the points brought by my opponent in defense of his case in R3, I would like to bring to readers attention that my opponent has failed to even mention or try to refute my own rival case for Vladimir Lenin being the most important man of the last century. I will simply extend that argument I suppose. But now on to my opponent's response. Refutation. Princip as a red herring. In response to my point about Princip merely being a red herring as a cause for a war which was inevitable, my opponent has this to say: "It has been long speculated that had Princip not assassinated the Archduke it would have been Slavs in Austria wanting to become part of Serbia. Princip was infact a Slav, and his assassination which he committed was to stop Austrian influence over Serbia. " As I mentioned in the last round, Serbian nationalism did play a crucial role in the sparking of WW1, this is not a controversial point. However, my opponent misses my point on the matter. I argued that Serbian nationalism was a growing trend at the time and Princip was merely one person expressing the growing tendencies. If it weren't him expressing them, it would have been someone else and so he can't truly be cited as important. As my opponent himself admits: "if it wasn't for him, we would be just using a different persons name of someone who did something similar to him. " That is exactly my point. There was nothing unique about the actions of Princip or his actions. If he had failed to assassinate Ferdinand, any number of reasons would have been conjured up as reason to go to war. My opponent even admits that militarism, nationalism, and faulty alliances were long term causes. How then does he defend the point that Princip was somehow not a mere red herring? He doesn't and since he does not he has failed to uphold his burden of proof in the debate. ===Conclusion===My opponent has failed to attempt to deconstruct or refute my own rival case for the most important man who lived in the twentieth century, Lenin (through his contribution to Marxism i. e. Vanguardism and analysis of imperialism which had profound impacts on later Marxist governments). Not only this, but my opponent has essentially admitted that if it weren't Princip who assassinated Ferdinand, it would have just been someone else or something else would have happened to set off the war. As I have shown, a world war was inevitable when we analyze the geopolitical forces of the time. Therefore Princip did not act in a manner important to history. If he had never existed, a World War would have still erupted. The same cannot be said of Lenin. Without his original extension of Marxist theory, the world would look very different then it does today.
Gavrilo Princip is the most important man who lived during the 20th century

Gavrilo Princip represented what would have started the war had he not assassinated the Archduke. It has been long speculated that had Princip not assasinated the Archduke it would have been Slavs in Austria wanting to become part of Serbia. Princip was infact a Slav, and his assassination which he commited was to stop Austrian influence over Serbia. It was always suspected the war would start from "something from the powderkeg of the Balkans" and it did. Of course, long term indirect causes of WW1 are Militarism, Nationalism, the Alliance System, Imperialism, etc, Princip should be more recognized as the main direct catalyst of WW1. Because if it wasn't for him, we would be just using a different persons name of someone who did something similar to him.
Gavrilo Princip is the most important man who lived during the 20th century

Gavrilo Princip is the spark that caused WW1, his action on June 28, 1914, which resulted in the deaths of both Franz Ferdinand, and Sophie von Chotek, caused the July Ultimatum which resulted in Germany declaring war on Russia.[July Crisis]World War One stands out as probably the most important occurence during the 20th century as it would be the roots for all other conflicts and most of the politics of the 20th century, including the Russian Revolution. World War One caused the Russian Revolution as a result of the Russian Army's poor quality, which was low on all supplies. Having suffered major strategic losses at both Tannenberg and the Kerensky Offensive, led to the February Revolution which inturn led to the October Revolution. What I am trying to say here is Princip's action which was the direct cause to World War 1, which started less than two months after the assassination. [World War 1] World War 1 caused the Russian Revolution. It wouldn't have happened without the assassination on June 28.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Gavrilo Princip is the most important man who lived during the 20th century

As Con to the resolution I will argue against the idea that Gavrilo Princip was the most important man to have lived in the last century. For readers not familiar with the name, Gavrilo Princip was the young man who assassinated the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand in 1914. [1] As I would feel the debate incomplete to just refute my opponent's points, I will take on the burden not only to refute my opponent's arguments but to also provide arguments of my own in support of my own conception of the most important man to have lived in the twentieth century. The man who I will argue for is Vladimir Lenin[2], who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia to establish the Soviet government and expanded on Karl Marx's theory to take into account imperialism and to introduce vanguard politics. ===Sources=== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Creationism (pro) v. Evolution (con)

Hey Dsavage1998 Nice to meet you and discuss this interesting topic. I'm an Atheist but don't walk around with it as a label, I just don't believe in creationism because is seems highly flawed and a man made construct You mentioned that there is no proof for Evolution but I would beg to differ, there is thousands of observations that all point to evolution being not only true, but how all animals, plants and you and I came to be. There is a short video that can shed light on it here : This video talks of : Links between Anatomy Embryology & Development Fossils DNA Compassions Species Distribution Observed Evolution Predictive Power of Evolution Nested Hierarchies of traits ".. Now you talk of the bible, a scripture that has also evolved over time, what version are you reading? And what makes you sure that your version is the correct version ? What about the Quran? This is also a scripture that hasn't been proved wrong, couldn't this be the correct text? My point here is that even though you may choose not to believe the facts about evolution, I feel it's quite an assumption to believe something (the bible) that has less proof than what you claim Darwins theory has. Especially when there are plenty of other scripture to read and follow. Looking forward to your reply IAMCOFFEE
Creationism (pro) v. Evolution (con)

I have been a Christian for about 13 years, and I would like to test my knowledge against an atheist, no hard feelings ;). I'd like my debate opponent to be an atheist , thank you. So Here goes I think that creationism is true, and Darwinian evolution is false, evolutionists might have an excuse for lack of evidence, but that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence. There is no document that has never been proven to have false information in regards to evolution, but creationism has the Bible, which has never been disproven in the 2016+ years that the Bible has been in existence.
Should Animals be kept in a zoo.

So most animals aren't necessarily taken from their environment. Most of them are born there and get used to being fed and would never survive in the wild. It is good that the zoo keepers are keeping them then to help them live. The parents most of the time are the ones that are released. The children are then fed and taken care of until they grow up so it just looks like they took them from the wild but really they've been there their whole life. So really its helping, not hurting.
Should Animals be kept in a zoo.

True but the animal will get to happy around a human and when its time to let them go they wont want to. What animal wants to be put on display for humans to see. A cage is no where near as big as the wild. There is still food out there and animals can find it. Keeping an animal in a cage is cruel and animals should be set free. A CAPS study found that at least 7,500 animals " and possibly as many as 200,000 " in European zoos are "surplus" at any one time. Not to mention that animals are TAKEN from their own environment to be put in a zoo.
Should Animals be kept in a zoo.

Yes, I agree that some zoos don't let animals back into the wild yet most do. After an animal is nursed back to health most of the time they let it go. Also it may seem bad that animals are trapped in these cages, I get that, but you have to remember that these animals are getting protection from predators, free food that they don't have to hunt for, and also most importantly, the animals get tended to their every need. For example, this summer me and some friends went to a zoo. There was a cage with a tiger in it. That seems bad but first off, the cage was huge. Second, there was lots of exercise equipment (such as ramps to run up and down) and also fun things to do (such as tire swings, slides, etc.). Also we noticed around the top of every hour a worker would come in, give the tiger food, refill its water bowl, and clean up its waste. So really it seems like it would be bad for the animals to be in cages, but if you look on the upside, it is actually a good thing to do for the animals.
Should Animals be kept in a zoo.

I understand what you mean when you say we are taking animals from their natural habitat and I totally understand that. But sometimes animals have to be taken from the wild. It is sometimes because the animal is injured and needs to be taken care of for awhile until they are back at full health. And also, most of the time, the animals are kept and nursed to health and then they are released back. So I feel that taking them for awhile is the right thing to do.
Video game Death Battle

Fused shadows wears off. When it would in their battle Minda would be defenseless. All Bayonetta has to do is dodge until it does. You have presented no cutscenes. Why do i have to? And while all of my magical powers backed up with a source you only have a single one. I don't need any stinkin' cutscenes. Minda just doesn't stand a chance to land a good hit unless she is using Fused Shadows which wears off. Minda can't stand up to Bayonetta's speed. Bayonetta wins.
Video game Death Battle

This round, we will be making our closing arguments; summarizing our characters' strengths, and how they might fare against their opponent. My character is Midna, whose capable of grabbing opponents with her hair, teleporting, and able to summon wolf copies. According to my opponent, these things don't really affect Bayonetta, as she can react immediately, and dodge, resulting in Witch Time. But here's the thing; my opponent should back this up. I haven't played Bayonetta, and I think her reaction timing could very well be average. My opponent needs to present a cutscene from a Bayonetta game where she dodges a very fast projectile like The Matrix. Midna also has access to the fierce Fused Shadows. Bayonetta probably couldn't break Zant's force field. The Fused Shadows have no problem taking it down. It comes down to whether Bayonetta is more powerful than the unholy power of the Fused Shadows. It would probably take thousands of bullets to defeat Midna's Fused Shadow beast form, all the while making it rain Twilight. Other than this, I'm not too sure what to say. Let's see what my opponent decides to leave off with.
Video game Death Battle

I seem to be in over my head. And apparently Bayonetta's magic comes from her hair, so we have 2 characters with magical hair! Anyways, I think it would be best if I examined Bayonetta's strengths. (Also, I realized that I weakened Midna a lot in the 2nd round. If Con will let me, I would like to also say Midna can teleport, and hide in shadows.) "Bayonetta wields swords along with four guns, one for each limb." How powerful are these guns? I think (yes, think) Midna could survive a few weak bullets. "She can also slow time" Yes, I've seen Witch Time in Smash Bros. And surely there's a catch to slowing down time? I mean, this seems like an overpowered ability... "Witch Time is activated for a set amount of time each time it is triggered, regardless of the particular attack or enemy. " (wiki page for Witch Time) So it is only for a limited time. I don't think she can just use it immediately after it runs out. According to the wiki, Bayonetta has to dodge to be able to activate Witch Time. But she'd have to have pretty good reaction timing when Midna goes in for a grab. I'm honestly a little low on rebuttal material here. I can't really think of how Midna could possibly counter what my opponent stated. But what would Bayonetta think about Midna's Fused Shadows? Remember, Zant created a very powerful force field around Hyrule Castle, and I doubt Bayonetta could've destroyed it. With the Fused Shadows, Midna very easily destroyed the force field. This means one hit from this power would fatally injure Bayonetta.
Video game Death Battle

Bayonetta weilds swords along with four guns, one for each limb. She can also slow time and has multiple other magical spells like summoning a giant demon than will punch or kick you from a small portal. She attacks by defending herself all while counter attacking. She can defend and constantly counter attack. Where she shines are her evasion ablities. She can slow time, teleport, and dodge bullets in less than .0005 of a second. Even if she is hit by a bullet she will shrug it off. She can also be crushed and take little damage by flattening herself. Other than this she is actually human. But she is magical. Making her superhuman. She doesn't do well against blades. Or if she is impaled by something larger she wouldn't do too well. Being human she has all the weaknesses of a human. Except for mentioned. Besides that she is pretty much like you and I. http://bayonetta.wikia.com...(character)
Video game Death Battle

Thank you Dragon_of_Christ for the introduction to Bayonetta. Now, I shall introduce my own character. My character is Midna, from Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Midna is the princess of the Twilight Realm, a realm where evil ones, such as Ganondorf, are banished eternally, never to see the light of day again. She later attempts to rebel against a new king; Zant. Zant easily defeated Midna, cursing her into her imp form. With the help of the Hero of Light, Link, she was able to regain the Twilight Realm from Zant, and later took down Ganondorf himself. Midna is a formidable fighter, able to summon wolf copies in Hyrule Warriors (To make this fair, she can only summon one copy for 20 seconds). She is also able to use the power of Twilight to create a dark energy field, which can result in Midna's wolf copies charging into her opponents, doing a lot of damage (about 2 jump attacks worth of damage), she is able to fire blasts of energy, as well as grabbing opponents with her hair (which takes the form of a hand), squeezing them, and throwing them. In Hyrule Warriors, this adds the darkness element to her attacks. If Bayonetta outlasts Midna, she's got one last trick up her sleeve; the Fused Shadows. [http://www.zeldadungeon.net...] When Midna uses the fuses shadows, she transforms into a 6 armed beast, capable of destroying the barrier that Zant had put on Hyrule Castle. The wiki also states that this unholy power is almost the strength of the Triforce! (Well, 2nd best, anyways, Still crazy powerful, though!) I can't really show Bayonetta's weaknesses from the top of my head, as I know nothing, other than what she can do in Smash Bros. Let's see what exactly our Twilight Princess is going up against.
Video game Death Battle

Bayonetta Bayonetta is a child of dark and light. A Lumen Sage fell in love with an Umbra Witch. Looks like someone likes naughty women over rightous and good. So a christian priest fell in love with a wiccan priest pretty much. Anyways the result was Cereza. Her memories were eventually stolen during a war that was triggered by the forbidden act. This also put her in a 500 year coma. She woke up and gained the name Bayonetta. Ta-da! Backstory. On to you Pro. //////////// Sorry for a 1 1/3 hour left response. I haven't had as much free time lately. But lets get ready for a DEATH BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATLE!!!!!!!!
Video game Death Battle

This is a debate where you choose a video game character, and see if it defeats the one I chose. Rules: 1. You can choose any one character from a video game franchise. 2. You can only choose 1 character. (You can't have Ratchet and Clank, or Jak and Daxter. Only Ratchet, only Clank, only Jak, or only Daxter.) 3. Your character can't have only 1 weakness (Like Superman and kryptonite.). Make this a fair fight. 4. A forfeiture counts as an instant loss. If you're going to accept this debate, make sure you're ready, and nothing will keep you from posting an argument. Round structure: Round 1: Contender presents his/her character. Round 2: I present my character, and talk about my character's strengths, and my opponent's weaknesses. Contender will do the same. Round 3: Debate continues. Round 4: Closing arguments. I have already chosen my character. May my opponent choose a nice fighter.
capital punishment should not be abolished

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Death penalty has been a way of punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Death penalty is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections. People have different opinions on the issue of death penalty given to a convict. While some think that death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity. Advantages: 1.A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a death penalty, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes. They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society. 2.If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him death penalty would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment. 3.Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death. 4.Death penalty is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice. 5.It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of death penalty for the safety and betterment of human society.
capital punishment should not be abolished

It should be abolished. just because a person is hanged to death doesn't mean that the victim is justified. lets take an example of Delhi gang rape, hanging up the rapist doesn't make any sense there. he should be given a punishment that would actually make him feel the pain of the girl. and moreover punishment doesn't mean just punishing the criminal but make his realize, how that crime effects the other. you cannot hang to death all the people who go beyond the limits and make a murder. A change has to come. The accused must be punished in such a way that others after seeing the punishment should not dare to commit crimes. An example punishment for the rapist of the Delhi case could be leaving him alone with a few gays who do the same with him but not to that extent. and this will make him realize the pain felt by the poor girl and can change him. crime's could be controlled not by killing the criminals but by changing them.
The Judeo-Christian god exists

We were debating the existence of God but you gave an automatic forfeit by breaking the rules presented. You did technically cite sources and give credit to the authors but you also copied and pasted other people's work. You have to quote the copied and pasted arguments. Even though you gave credit to the websites, you did not quote the arguments which meant that the arguments were supposed to be yours rather than someone else's. You copied and pasted the exact arguments from your last source which is ultimately the reason why the debate ended. I said "Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct. " Plagarism is a form of misconduct in debate. Therefore, you were breaking the rules. Therefore, it was an automatic forfeit in your part.
The Judeo-Christian god exists

Hmm. .. I was under the impression we were debating the existence of God, not if I plagiarized. And, for the record, I didn't. I cited my sources and gave credit to the author. So, I used some of the same things and wording, but at least I cited where I got it from. Also, I don't remember you saying anything about plagiarizing in the rules. "First of all, both sides have the burden of proof. My opponent must prove that the Judeo-Christian god exists while I must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist. This debate will follow the given setup. If the setup is not followed, it will be an automatic forfeit on the person's part. The first round is simply acceptance, definitions, and the rules. The second round will be simply the opening arguments for the position given. There will be no rebuttals in this round. The third round will be cross-examination only No arguments or rebuttals will be given this round. The fourth round will comprise of simply rebuttals to the former argument and the arguments from cross-examination. The fifth round will be the conclusion and the ending of all arguments. No new arguments will be given. Now, the rules must be followed or it is an automatic forfeit for the person. Sources must be given for each round. There will be no semantics, trolling, or any sort of other misconduct. Second of all, I will be giving the definitions. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is that he is the supreme being with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and divine simplicity. With that said, we shall begin this debate in round two"Did I give sources, yes. Did I troll, no. I followed the rules, so how the heck can you say I didn't follow the rules? It says nothing about "plagiarizing". You can't call off the debate when you clearly didn't address the rules specifically. So excuse me. I didn't do anything against the rules. Calm your crap, bud. I just wanted a friendly debate, but obviously, i'm not getting that.