BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

While I do agree that we need less corrupt politicians, you do need actual politicians to be able to have a successful country. Not only that, but populists tend to act as if the views they hold are the only "legitimate" views. After all, they do see themselves as the Voice of the People. This also lead to difficulties with working with the other politicians in your government. If you wave them off as Society's Corrupt Elite, nothing will get done as both sides might just obstruct each other. I do see your point, but in practice, populism rarely works. http://archive.jsonline.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.theguardian.com...
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

I agree that the average person would not succeed in politics, but this is because the average person is hardly aware of how to resolve his or her own problems, let alone the problems humanity faces as a whole. However, we all have the potential to turn our thoughts into actions, so anyone who is willing to educate themselves to attain an awareness above the average person (i.e. philosophers, economists) could pursue and succeed in politics; but it depends on the specific individual and what virtues and vices constitute his being and becoming. What are the "finer points" you speak of? If we were to replace all the greedy, money hoarding individuals in government with beings with ethical knowledge of how to distribute finances and treat people like people, then we would no doubt be living in better times. Unless, however, the money worshipping psychopaths started a civil war against having more competition that threatened their personal hierarchal positions; which would be plausible since we are already at war with ourselves, as individuals and as a country, and with much of the world. So I ask you, is the type of experience you want running a country the experience that deceives and destroys, or would you rather have more people who want to help everyone build and prosper?
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

You bring up some interesting points. Having people without experience in important political positions can be very disastrous as they will not know the finer points of politics. Anyone can win an election, but it takes a special kind of person to do a good job when they get the position. This is why the average person doesn't run for political roles. Just because you could beat someone in an election doesn't mean you would be a better politician then them.
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

So you would rather be led by people who have experience in taking away our freedom? What exactly do you mean when you say that they know what they are doing? Assuming most politicians are completely aware of what they are doing, then they are aware that they are perpetuating war for oil and personal profit instead of investing in what really matters, like education or health. All doctors, or any other professional type, at some point in their lives did not have the medical knowledge and experience to be a doctor; this is why education is so important. Obviously you wouldn't put someone in a position that was not able to perform that position well or at all. Politics is universal; if you can give good arguments and back them up with facts, while also demonstrating ethical rhetoric to get people to support you, then you can run for government. Politicians are trained to lie and do whatever supports their ego and personal finances. Wouldn't you rather have people in charge that were not solely motivated by cash and would actually do everything in their power to solve the many sufferings of the human population?
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

No, non-politicians should not be running for political positions. The reason politicians run is because they have experience and know what they are doing. If too many people without political experience run, there will be an influx of people who simply do not know what to do! Imagine if people without medical experience tried to become doctors. At least if a doctor makes a big mistake, they will harm just one person and get sued and therefore lose their license. Politicians have global power to incite wars. I am a Canadian, so here is an interesting source for a different point of view: http://www.macleans.ca...
DarthBane from the extended Star wars universe was the strongest sith lord

Sorry for the late response: My opponent's only points were that Bane could kill Jedi with the force. He also notes that Bane was very well-read, and experienced. This could also be a debate in where it turns into a nature vs nurture debate. I think that Darth Sidious is naturally in tune with the Dark Side, and Bane is more well-read. But, that does not matter. Force Abilities. Note that Sidious was never betrayed by his former apprentices. Vader did betray him, but he died in the process. The Sith Code makes it clear that when the apprentice is ready, he should betray his master. Dooku, Maul, and Vader never dared to do this. Count Dooku has noted that Sidious was basically a dark side incarnate. He was a living incarnation of the dark side. Darth Vader never tried to kill Sidious in canon sources, because Sidious would overwhelm him. Sidious was very experienced in force lightning. In fact, he forgot about his lightsaber just because he was confident in his force abilities. Sidious was able to force choke 2 mandolorians at a time. In Revenge of the Sith, he is seen throwing pods at Yoda. His force abilities were that strong in a duel. He was experienced at electrocuting people when they had not lightsaber. Now, in order for Sidious to get Bane without a lightsaber, he would need to find a way to outmaneuver him. Lightsaber Skills: Sidious was an extremely fast duelist. He was able to top Darth Maul and Savage Opress in a duel. Darth Sidious defeated both extremely skilled duelists in a matter of minutes. He even beat Darth Maul in a matter of seconds. Darth Maul was also at the peak of his rage in this duel. Sidious was still able to defeat him, and then electrocute him till he was unconscious. Sidious was also able to top Yoda. The Master of the Jedi Order. SIdious and him engaged in a duel though eventually led into a force battle. Sidious also was confronted by 3-4 Jedi Masters. One of the Jedi masters had defeated General Grievious. That master was stabbed slowly by Sidious. Sidious killed the other two masters in seconds, and engaged in a long duel with Windu. Bane would eventually be over-powered by Sidious's fast and unpredictable swings. Bane's killing of Jedi: Those Jedi that Bane killed with the force were probably horrible Jedi. They must have not had a good force shield. We are talking about sith lords. Darth Sidious can not force choke Bane, and Bane can not force choke Darth Sidious. With all of that evidence, I can safely say that it is fact that Darth Sidious was the stronger Sith Lord. Darth Sidious's IQ was probably 50 points higher than Bane's.
DarthBane from the extended Star wars universe was the strongest sith lord

In the book Darth Plague's forgive me if I spelled it wrong. Darth Sideous is trained by his master and they believed in the rule of two which bane revived and follow n the legendary banes footsteps. Bane himself killed a hole army of Jedi and sith with the force. That alone was more than sideous could have done sure sideous did raise one of the most impressive siths Darth Vader but you forget what sideous did to even become a master. Darth Sideous killed his master plagueis but he did this only by drugging the man. if plagueis was at his full strength sideous would have been slain where he stood. Further more Darth Bane was able to withstand orbalisks the same thing that had killed thousands of previous force users before because of the extreme pain they cause his force was strong enough to withstand there pain. with Bane being a mediate in the force at the time this occurred not to mention his intelligence. this man read alot of holocrons of ancient sith destroyed the sith. that had him outnumbered thousands to 1. He also trained a padawan hat was able to kill him. He was trained by one of the best swordsmen ever.
DarthBane from the extended Star wars universe was the strongest sith lord

For my debate I will argue that Darth Bane of the Darth Bane trilogy as part of the extended Star Wars universe. He himself alone revived the Rule of two where two people are involved rather than a hole community. One the master will have the power and the student to crave it in order for the student to take on a true apprentice they must slay their master. This is where i will leave my opponent to argue.
is failure more important then success

Failure is more important than success, Failing at something in life doesn't make you a loser or a failure, it helps you get back on your feet and into the game with more experience... No one likes to admit they have failed. In life people are rewarded and praised for success, that ends up creating a culture where no one can admit their failure and accept the consequences. A culture where people don't learn from their mistakes and end up repeating the same ones over and over. Failure is not a thing to be ashamed of...
is failure more important then success

Failure is not more important then success. Failure is not an option, success is the key of our future. If you were to live a life with no education and had no type of goals where will you be in life besides a fast food restaurant and all? If you had kids will you have them in your foot steps with no education and without goals? Will you make it in life? But, failure might have its times where it works there are people in life that have succeeded in life without any goals or education. The places they have landed made there lifes easy in some way. My family had an education up to high school and dropped out and some have not had an education at all. For example, my own father didnt have goals or an education, now he has four kids an works well as a constuction worker and works pretty good. My mom is a assistant in lake orion at a assistant living. They are making it through there life and pushing us forward to a better life but my family still had some type of goal to be successful with us. Other then that, success is way more important then failure only because without a goal you will not make it. Failure will not get you anywhere higher then a part time job or get anywhere near a job like top lawyers. Success is the key to having a wonderful life where you can be a good person in life and have such a greatful goal. It is not a good thing to fail yourself because in the end you regrate doing the things you did to get you near that spot to drop yourself. Success is the only way to keep yourself up and held high and to be someone in your life. Success is more important than anything in this world.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

I'm sorry for missing a round because of some other stuff I needed to do, but my opponent has misconcieved me as forfeiting this round which I simply will not do.Since my opponent has not written any final statemants I will rebuttal him as well as write my final statement.RebuttalAs secret societies go, the Illumanati is probably the most famous one their is andas myths of the illumanati have come and gone, the obvious apparent goal of the Ilumanatiis to stay secret and handpick their members. The misconception that you have is thatthe Illumanati want to be clearly noticed,which they don't. If the Illumanati's goal is to create a new world order or such as the BavarianIllumanati who wanted to institute their rules into goverment. They would need to be secretive since when the Bavarian rulers discovered that the Illumanati existedthey were banned by Karl Theodor in 1777. http://en.wikipedia.org... So why would the modern illumanati want to get clearly noticed?This is why all these symbols have been popping up,because they're trying to be subtle in their recruitment.Final statementIn all honesty their is little concrete evidence that the illumanati does exist and little concrete evidence that it does not, except for all the markings and symbols. However I ask,isn't that simplypart of the Illumanati's goal to be secretive and subtle?Just like in the Bavarian Illumanati, the public would call for their impeachment if they knew of thewhereabouts of such a group.I will finish my statement there so you can decide whether their is the slightest possiblity thatthe illumanati may exist.And to respond to your outrageous claim about Urban dictionary, I will claim that on every site you will findclose to the same definition with plenty of similarities .What I find rather funny though is that you have no sources to speak of, however you can still comment on my sources.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

My opponent asserts that the definition for "Illuminati" on Urban Dictionary is more or less the same as on Dictionary.com, but this is false. On Dictionary.com, there are 2 definitions (dictionary.reference.com/browse/Illuminati?s=t): 1. persons possessing, or claiming to possess, superior enlightenment. NOTE: This is a vague definition, so the 2nd definition is more likely to refer to the group my opponent and I are discussing in this debate. 2. (initial capital letter) a name given to different religious societies or sects because of their claim to superior enlightenment. Contrast this with the first definition on Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Illuminati): "the Illuminati is a secret orginazation [sic] of the most powerful and influential elite in the world.They go back for centuries and maintain the same bloodlines.They set up the council on forign [sic] relations,the bilderberg group and the tri-laterial [sic] commission.those 3 groups all meet to plan the fate of the world." You can read the rest of said definition at the link I have used. There is little similarity between the definitions on Dictionary.com (the 2nd definition, more precisely), and the first definition on Urban Dictionary. (This also goes for the other Urban Dictionary definitions.) I have nothing else to say currently, so I welcome my opponent's rebuttals.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

Sorry for the late response. I will respond to your criticism of my use of Urban dictionary in two ways. 1. This definition is generally and most commonly the same in all definition sites like Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. 2. Unlike you I have used 4 different links while you have none is my response criticism. http://dictionary.reference.com... Now I shall respond to my competitors other claim: Why ^would^ the Illuminati would make its use of the symbol subtle rather than obvious. If they made it obvious, then it would attract more potential members, so that would seem like the logical thing to do. The group know as the Illuminati's goal is not to get as many members as possible but to instead find as many willing members with the same opinions. Many of the Illuminati symbols like the eye are often even copied onto TV shows just as a jokes not knowing that it may attract members. The fact of the matter is that the Illuminati is a lot more secret than this and it is simply unlikely that all of these supposed Illuminati symbols are actually meant to recruit members. Now that TV's and radio's are very popular it's a lot harder for the Illuminati to exist now, except for in poorer countries. Fundamentally the Illuminati may have made symbols like the eye to attract members but now it has become a joke and it is possible that because of this, other less obvious symbols are being ignored. In conclusion it is getting much harder to be in the Illuminati but it's also likely become more exclusive and well, hidden. Oh and here's a bunch of coincidences. http://www.buzzfeed.com...
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

I respect my opponent for acknowledging that the Illuminati is not necessarily evil. Since my opponent acknowledges this, I will no longer discuss it in the debate unless necessary. My opponent has still not responded to my criticism of them using Urban Dictionary as a source. I will look more into the issue of the Illuminati having existed early than 1776 later, and discuss it in later rounds. Finally, my opponent claims that the Illuminati is broadcasting its symbol (the All-Seeing Eye) so that people who notice it will be curious, research it, and eventually join the Illuminati. However, I dispute this. I ask why the Illuminati would make its use of the symbol subtle rather than obvious. If they made it obvious, then it would attract more potential members, so that would seem like the logical thing to do. Sorry for the short arguments, it's just that there's not much to discuss right now. I welcome my opponent's refutations and counter-arguments.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

I do not indeed claim that the Illuminati is evil since I find it irrelevant whether they are or are not. The word Illuminati means enlightened in Latin.Even though there are claims that the Illuminati has been banned their is no physical way of knowing that their is no secret society trying to create one allied government. Here is where your wrong my opponent, the Illuminati movement was indeed founded in 1776 by Weishpeit but the Illuminati dates back many centuries before that when secret societies were made to head large political positions. While you are correct in the assumption that not every person is in the Illuminati, however my claim is not that everyone is actually in the Illuminati but instead that the Illuminati are a group of people everywhere in the same mindset. In most generations their have been political representatives that have tried to estate distrust in the people over the government and centralize government. Is it possible that the Illuminati exists? Yes. And now i'm gonna smack down the opponents new point. http://www.tattoostime.com... The seeing eye is a metaphor of there bring a group of people watching for the wrongdoings of the citizens. The Illuminati could have many different symbols and for all we know the seeing eye is just a fake symbol made up to disguise the real symbol. By showing off the Illuminati symbol they are providing people with incentive in the government to learn about the eye therefore it is influencing them. Symbols like these are only minor ways of recruiting,anyoway. The modern Illuminati could possibly even be incited by anarchy for all I know, oh and the Illuminati is a secret society ,that's why they'd do it, to answer that question. Thank you competitor.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

I would like to point out that my opponent didn't respond to my argument that the Illuminati was not evil, and therefore would not be evil if it existed today. My opponent starts out their argument with a link to the definitions of Illuminati posted on Urban Dictionary. Urban Dictionary is not a scholarly dictionary, so it is not a credible source to be used in debates. My opponent then states that "the Illuminati was formed early in human's evolution from apes", which is a blatant falsehood. The Illuminati was formed in 1776, and humans first appeared long before that. My opponent also asserts that the only way of knowing if the Illuminati exists is if certain people of certain groups have the same opinions. But just because some associated people have similar opinions does not mean they are part of the Illuminati. Even with society, including everyday people who aren't famous, you could find many people who share opinions. That doesn't mean that they're part of the Illuminati. It's special pleading to use that logic for certain people but not others. My opponent finally argues that, by making the assertion that there is no Illuminati, I am only clearing suspicion of me, therefore, it's possible that the Illuminati exists. I am not trying to clear suspicion of me. The conspiracy theorists are the ones who made the claim that the Illuminati still exists, so i am merely responding to that claim. My opponent also argues that I may be a part of the Illuminati, because I am trying to make it seem like they don't exist. However, I can use the same refutation that I used just before: conspiracy theorists made the claim about the Illuminati, so I am making a response. And now, I am going to make a point that I did not get to in Round 1. A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the Illuminati is trying to hide their symbol(s) in pop culture today. This symbol is usually said to be the All-Seeing Eye, which is a symbol that is often varied, but usually a triangle with an eye in it. However, I argue that it would be absurd to suggest that, because seeing an All-Seeing Eye in the background of some TV show can not be effective. Even if the symbol did somehow influence society, the people who saw the symbol would need to know about the Illuminati, be influenced by it, connect it to the Illuminati, and then join the Illuminati. That would be extremely difficult to pull off, so why would the Illuminati do it?
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

http://www.urbandictionary.com... The Illuminati was formed early in human's evolution from apes, as a way for the highest members of certain groups to be combined under a certain principle with others. If an Illuminati still exists therefore,the only way of knowing would be that the members of certain groups would all support the same opinions. An Illuminati could be completely widespread and we would barely know it. http://www.ipeg.com... By saying the Illuminati doesn't exist you are only vindicating of how they could potentially exist,therefore they may exist. Whether the Illuminati exists or does not exist claiming that they do not and that the rumors about there whereabouts are false, you are displaying very characteristic signs of being in the Illuminati. By being in the Illuminati you must therefore be trying to conceal the truth which could mean that the Illuminati does exist. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

Conspiracy theorists often assert that the Illuminati is evil, anti-Christian, trying to hide their symbol(s) in pop culture today, controls everyone in pop culture and media, or any combination of the above. As the Instigator, I am going to attempt to debunk these ideas. I believe the proposition that the rumours about the Illuminati are false, and the Illuminati no longer even exists. The Illuminati was formed in 1776, by Adam Weishaupt. Historians refer to the Illuminati that existed at the time as the Bavarian Illuminati. However, they permanently disbanded in 1785. A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that they actually survived, and continue as a group today. However, there is no evidence to support this claim, so we can safely assume that the Illuminati no longer exists. In addition, the Bavarian Illuminati was a group of freethinkers, who were against superstition and prejudice. They supported the separation of church and state, and gender equality. If the modern Illuminati is a continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati, then presumably, they would hold the same ideas. Using this logic, we can conclude that the modern Illuminati would also support equality, oppose prejudice, etc. This debunks claims that the Illuminati is evil. I will use my other arguments in later rounds. I welcome you to challenge my proposition and debate me.