BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Eragon Movie Butchered the Book

Full Resolution: The movie Eragon should have followed the book more closely, been longer, and been rated PG-13 instead of PG. Contention 1: Too much of the book was cut/edited from the movie to make it appeal to a younger audience. The book Eragon was a fairly violent piece of literature. A few examples of the violence not depicted in the movie are: *Eragon and Brom visit the town of Yazuac only to find all of its people slaughtered by Urgals. This is also the first instance in the book where Eragon uses magic [1]. *The filmmakers cut out the portion of the book where Eragon and Murtagh travel through the desert. On this trip they encounter slavers and proceed to trounce them in a fight. The lead slaver is defeated by Eragon and is then given the option of running away when Murtagh chops his head off rather than keep him as a hostage as Eragon would have. This part of the book illustrates Eragon's innocent character and introduces Murtagh's pragmatic one *While this is not specifically violence in the book there are races of creatures called Urgals and Kull. In the movie these are just depicted as large men whereas in the book they are described as bipedal pig-like creatures [3]. This was most likely done to tone down the scariness factor. Contention 2 The elves didn't even have pointed ears [4] This may not be that big of a deal story-wise, but how can you make a movie with elves in it and not give them pointed ears. It even says in the book that their ears are pointed [5]. Contention 3 Eragon does not suffer a terrible injury at the end of the movie like he did in the book [6] At the conclusion of the book Eragon receives a very bad wound from the character Durza. This would became a very important part of the second book and in fact encompasses about half of the book. It was because of this would that Eragon traveled to the land of the elves to be magically healed [7]. It is because of this healing that Eragon not only fully recovered from his wound, but he is partially transformed into an elf which gives him enhanced physical attributes. He would then proceed to use these attributes to better fight his enemies. As a final point I will say that the movie only had a runtime of 104 minutes. The book was 497 pages long. This book was longer than The Lord of the Rings but had a runtime of almost half of what those movies had. It is for these reasons that the resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.shurtugal.com... [2] Eragon by Christopher Paolini, hardcover version page 351 [3] http://www.shurtugal.com... [4] http://movies.mainetoday.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(character)#Appearance_and_Characteristics [6] http://www.shurtugal.com...(Movie)#Eragon [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zero is an even, not odd, number.

Here is the long awaited rebuttal."The burden I accept in this debate is to show that Zero is not an even number." Agreed.To make it easier to read my rebuttal, I will put quotes in Italics as well as in quotations, and my refutations in bold.Rebuttal1. "seems that zero has its own special rule: "Anything plus zero is itself." This holds true no matter what is added to zero, indicating we may be dealing with a special case."While this is very unusual, we must examine 1. The properties of the numbers being put together, 2. The properties of the number that comes out. 3. The properties of zero. Take this example: 2+0=2. The number 2 is even. Zero is unknown.The sum of the two is even.Even though the sum of the two numbers is the first number, 2 and 2 share the same properties of eveness and therefore, according the the properties of even number addition, zero is even.2. "notice that zero is the only number that is between integers of positive and negative value. No other even number (if zero were an even number) has this characteristic."Every number has unique charictaristics. Please explain what importance the negative and positive values of its neighbors have. That's like saying that "thirteen is the only number that is sandwiched between 12 and 14, no other number has that charictaristic".3. "Anything times an even number IS a larger even number; but anything times zero is zero, not some larger even number. Again, zero breaks the rules for even numbers."Again, while zero is an anomaly, that does not negate that it is even.4. "because anything(odd or even) times zero = zero."If 2x0=0 and 3x0=0, then the products are the same. If even times even is even, and odd times odd is odd, then zero is definitely both even, and odd. But since zero is applicable to the properties stated above, it can be deduced that zero is even."Two cannot be divided by zero, of course; and neither can any other even number. No even number has zero as a factor. For that matter, no odd number does, either."Exactly, zero is simply null for many properties of real, even numbers, though with the properties stated in my points 1 and 2, zero should be considered even. Conclusion: Every number, positive or negative, even or odd, real or imaginary, shares unique properties. Zero is an anomaly in many terms of numbers, but it shares many more charictaristics with even numbers than it does with odd numbers, and for these contentions, zero should be considered even. Back to you Chryssipus.
Zero is an even, not odd, number.

Let's get started! I will go about arguing by first reviewing what defines an even number, then comparing these attributes to the attributes of zero. WHAT IS AN EVEN NUMBER? Good Question! An even number is most obviously divisible by two, but it shares many other unique properties. Let's prove what an even number is using the three smallest even numbers: 2,4, and 6. Let's start with the simplest and easiset to understand way of defining an even number.1. An even number plus an even number equals an even number.2+4=8An Even number plus an odd number equals an odd number.2+3=5An odd number plus an odd number equals an even number.3+3=62. An even number is between two odd numbers on a number line.2 is surrounded by 1, and 3. 1,2,3.3. An even or odd integer multiplied by by an even number equals an even number.2x4=810x3=304. An odd number multiplied by an odd number, equals an odd number.3x3=913x1=139x5=45Now let's examine zero's properties. Le'ts plug zero into these various equations. *Refer to the numbers put up above*1. 0+4=4. 4 is even, ergo zero is even.0+3=3. 3 is odd, ergo zero is even.0+5=5. Five is odd, odd numbers added to eachother are even, ergo zero is even.2. 0 is surrounded by 1, and -1. Both are odd, and only even numbers are surrounded by odd numbers, ergo zero is even.3. 2x0=0. Nothing can be concluded however by this, because for this to be true, we must postulate that zero is even, though with the evidence above, zero is even. 4. 0x3=0. Again, postulating that zero is even, an odd number times an even number equals an even number. I think that's enough for now. I can't wait to see what Chrysippus comes up with.
Other gods are meaningless to Christianity.

As a Catholic,13 year old and someone who studied well the atheist point of view,dear sir please cite whoever said that. More than we are concerned about people who believe in God and people who don't,that's a basic atheist. They stand for why it's more rational to be atheist. We don't only talk about Christianity but many other religions there's even Jediism. The way you used Christianity in the debate topic is wide generalization. First of all do you know every Christian on this earth. Second do you even know why some Christians would convert to Islam. Since you used Christianity I'm guess your referring to the religion itself and this religion implements no other god matters. Isn't that what some other religions implement too? Hell we don't even know the whole truth. We don't know whose religion is right. Which religion will bring all its believers to paradise. If other gods are meaningless to Christianity then Christianity just lost its respect for other religions. This is exactly why atheists are rational,they don't destroy lives just to believe in something. Hell there's one Christian school who discriminated only one atheist. This atheist was kicked out by his own Christian family. Dumped by his own Christian friends. How much war would wage if every Christian shouts out loud"Hey other gods are meaningless!!!"As much as we have the right to criticize any religion,to stand up for own religion it's just much better to have peace to accept the system of this world and wait for judgement day. "The whole truth is a mystery but our beliefs strengthen information" how are you even claiming this when Buddhism was the first religion and not Christianity?
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This debate comes down to whether or not intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible. According to the Bible, it is. You make a good point on timeframe, but I think it all comes down to whether or not it is plausible within the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have argued that it does. God was intelligent, God created and formed him from dust, therefore intelligent design occurred. from your website: ""The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause. )"" I admit, creationism is different from Intelligent design, but Intelligent design by it's definition could exist within the realm of creationism since God could have created the "apparent design" that exists within the heirachy of nature.
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That's a fair point. "Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. " . http://www.intelligentdesign.org... According to this quote from intelligentdesign. org, ID accepts that the Earth is more than 530 million years old. According to the Bible, the Earth was created approximately 6000 years ago. . http://creation.com... Due to this glaringly massive contrast between the beliefs of Intelligent Design and the literal interpretation of the Bible, ID does not coincide with the literal Bible.
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible.

intelligent design - the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence. http://www.merriam-webster.com... creationism - the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect. http://www.merriam-webster.com... God is intellegent, he created us from Dust into man, therefore there is room for intelligent design. intelligent- ability to understand and learn. your definition is not the definition defined by merriam webster. You have sited no sources of your definition but rather provided one of your own interpretation
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Your argument has one serious flaw. I think you've mistaken "Intelligent Design" for "Creationism". Intelligent Design is the belief that the observable sciences and the complexity of our world (such as the complex workings of cells, evolution, and the law of conservation of mass) were set in place by an undefined creator. Creationism is the belief that God or many Gods (depending on the religion) created life exactly as described in holy scripture. Intelligent Design is not a concept from the Bible at all. So no, the Bible stating that God created man from dust in no way allows room for Intelligent Design to be true.
Intelligent design is plausible under a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I like your enthusiasm. To support my claim that Intelligent design is impossible under a literal interpretation of the bible, I will pull a quote from the bible. Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7 If God literally created man from "dust on the ground", how can Intelligent design hold water?
The universe must have had a definite starting point in time.

My opponent's first unique contention is that because time is relative, there can be no definite starting point in time. However, this is not the case. Let's imagine that I have, instead of a timeline, a number line that stretches from Houston (definite starting point) to the moon (present) (let's assume that the moon is stationary, for this example) and beyond (future). (Let's also assume that there is no escape velocity necessary, for example's sake. ) Now, one guy has a jet-pack, and is going to be flying upwards at a speed of 1 mile per second. Another guy has a rocket ship, and is going at a speed of 100 miles per second. Now, just because these two guys are travelling at different speeds, doesn't mean that there isn't a definite starting point. They both started in Houston. Likewise, we can apply this to time. If time suddenly started with the Big Bang, it wouldn't matter if it felt like one year to reach the present or if it felt like ten years. Time had a definite starting point with the Big Bang. Now that I have refuted my opponent's contention, I will start my own contention. Let's say you had a time machine, and would be going back in time. For every second of your own time, you would go one million years into the past. The question is, will you ever reach the universe's definite starting point in time? If the answer is yes, then the resolution is affirmed. If the answer is no, then this brings about a problem: if you could not get to a certain of period of time by going backwards for a potentially infinite amount of time, how would time progress from that period of time to the present? The answer is, it can't. There's no way an infinite in time can be crossed in one direction but can't be crossed in the other. Therefore, you can't not run into the universe's definite starting point in time, so we go back to affirming the resolution. In either case, the resolution is affirmed. I look forward to your response.
The universe must have had a definite starting point in time.

I'll mirror my opponent in keeping my response to round 1 short since he's given me very little to contest. I will start by stating that you can make a timeline of the universe but that timeline will not provide a definite starting point in time because time is dependent on the speed at which a person or object is traveling through space. Thus, a timeline for humans may show that the universe is 15 billion years old based on our motion through space. Conversely, if we were to create a timeline while traveling at the speed of light, time would be much slower and as a result, the universe wouldn't be as old to us. Thus, since the speed at which we travel through space dictates time, it is not possible to have a definite starting point in time.
The universe must have had a definite starting point in time.

The universe - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Definite starting point in time - Basically, this comes from the idea that if we had a timeline of the universe, time would start at the front of the timeline (definite starting point), with no events in the universe before it, and ending at the present day, with the future yet to come. If you have any questions about the definitions, or want to get anything at all about this debate clarified, please ask me in the comments. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck.
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

Pro, I believe you misunderstood my point. Countries like Canada going to war with far off nations and choosing their amount of involvement is fine, but a poor country close to a defective country would be all but defenseless if they were forcibly dragged into war. If it were not the case, they could possibly stay neutral and avoid their land being used as battlegrounds. Another place to consider would be switzerland, which stayed largely neutral in world war two, this was due to the fact that they were surrounded by nazi occupied territory, so an invasion would achieve nothing. Another factor was that there was a military deterrence, their entire army was mobilized in three days. Consider if they were forced to take a side in this war, If they were forced to side with the allies they'd be surrounded on all sides by enemies and the conflict would be bloody and extensive. If the united government forced them to side with the nazis, They would have a larger military at their disposal, possibly allowing them to further their conquest and persecute more minorities and occupy more territory. Furthermore, Pro assumes that a united government would eliminate any sense of national pride, people would still want the best for their community and nation. It's human nature. Another issue is the cultural differences between various nations, Which laws would pass and which would be discontinued? Would sharia law become enforced or would it be widely controversial in countries where it is abided?
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

con, 'countries would be forcibly dragged into war, wether it suits their economy or not.' this has been done in the past with canada and other countries in the british commonwealth, where countries are forced into war but theychoose how involved they are, therefore they can declare war as an act of dissaproval and to show their support for the united government. This government would not be driven by greed to better a single country but the whole world and would benifit the entire human race with policies and laws voted on by each country, allowing for the world to finally agree on something.
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

I agree with the fact that it would retain peace but it's simply unrealistic. Pro says 'they should keep most power in their own country but major decisions would be overseen by the international government' This defeats the point of the entire argument, the countries would still exist and still have wars an agendas, but other countries would be forcibly dragged into war, wether it suits their economy or not. Pro, it is the UN. What you're describing is exactly the UN, and it doesn't bring world peace or make countries surrender their armies, which would never be accepted by any country.
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

all valid points, but it would help retain peace if 194 nations fought one rather than a few nations with personal agendas. unity worked for canada and the united states, so why not everyone. You're absouloutly right, people hold grudges, but if they work past that by free will or force it would mean world peace. i think they should keep most power in their own country but major descisions would be overseen by the international goverment, it would be like the UN but more democratic and assertive.
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

First of all, thank you for this debate, I hope we can both have an engaging discussion, I would like to start with one simple fact: People don't get along. It's simply unrealistic for a world government to exist, you'd have to get 195 countries to all agree to have no conflict with the other 194, forget current tensions and ask their government to be removed from a position of power. I would elaborate and bring other points to my argument, but I believe that point is sufficient enough to support my belief.
all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

I think that all the countries of the world should band together to create one goverment. 195 countries should turn into 195 provinces allowing for easier trade under one curency and simple international fair trade policies:;possibly allowing for 3rd world countries to trade freely so the human race can grow as one. Equal rights for every person along with one army to stop petty wars over wich country gets this or that and allowing every nation to get an equal say in what happens so large countries like america dont swallow all other nations alive.
France would beat the United States (1812)

sorry i have been sick, along with other personal issues unforeseen at the acceptance of this debate. i forfeit and ask people to vote pro. 1Historyebius, i am sorry for wasting your time, and i am sorry i did not get back to you sooner. the argument post feature was down and this is why you will find thisposty in the comments as well again sorry for wasting your time.
War has been more of a positive factor for Human development than a negative

A shame my opponent has forfeited. Anyways, I will conclude this debate, and show the key points that were adressed. War leads to many inventions, but many of them inventions of war. The different examples pro gave either were not invented during or as a result of war, not useful in peacetime, or did not have a positive impact on humans. War has not had a positive impact throughout human history, and the absence of it would make human life better.
War has been more of a positive factor for Human development than a negative

I will give definitions for keywords in the resolution, as pro has not done so. War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or statePositive:Showing pleasing progress, gain, or improvementImpactDevelopment: A specified state of growth or advancement . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;A. New Technologies"During most wars the rate of discovery for major technologies and the like have boosted"Yes, war has produced new technologies, but would these be needed if the world was in peace? The atomic bomb was invented in World War II, but in peacetime, atomic bombs are not necessary. Many technologies have been developed as a result of war, but that does not mean they positively impact human development, as they lead to more destruction and death, something negative. Yes war helps lead to new inventions, but many of these inventions being negative instead of positive, just leading to more death and destructionB. Empires"A good example for this would simply be how war has allowed Empires to be built"But, these empires were not a positive development. Let's take the largest empire in the world, the British Empire (1). "become so powerful that living standards were improved"The living standards might have been improved for the citizens, of that country, but not for the majority of the people being affected, the people of the land being colonized/taken over. The British empire owned lots of land in Eastern North America. They gave their citizens new land, but at the cost of killing many Native Americans, and forcing them to leave their land (2). "it also allowed medicines from varying cultures to be collected together in order to discover the most effective medicines. "Examples and sources please. C. Scientific Spending"It has resulted in countries boosting in scientific spending in races for superior technology between nations. Because of this, I have concluded that, at least from what I see, War and battle has allowed Humanity to progress more than peacetime. "Examples please? If you are referring to the Cold War, this does not meat the definition of war in this debate, as there was no "armed conflict". (see definitions) Sources(1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...;(2) . https://en.wikipedia.org...;