BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Faith is Universal

Let me first start by negating this resolution on a few grounds. Firstly, An observation within the grounds and definition of today's debate. My opponent defined Faith as "having confidence or trust in someone or something. " However, Defines within the context of this topic it is "Immaterial. " This is very contrary to the rather materialist view of the definition used. Let's now focus on the more philosophical realm of this debate. The important point of this is this universal reality within morality. Because Faith in this (remember contrary) definition is closely tied to Religion. It is true, That one raised may be able to feel a relation to it's morality, But it is more of a psychological phenomena. As if Faith were universal, It would be tied to either a single school of thought, Or a single religion. But, There are many religions forged in different time periods, On a great deal of cultural and historical context. What was wrong once, Is right later. Or in another culture. Now you might say Faith the concept is universal, I agree in a material sense. But my opponent designs it as a completely separate plane of reality. Now, This plane hasn't been defined, And under what context. And is classified under a general worldview as stated within the challenge. It will be impossible to define what reality it resides in if it is separate from us, And the mental gymnastics and grunt work will have to go into defining the relation of many to this reality. And how does it have a relation to us? I however, Define Faith as my opponent's Comment definition is. Having confidence or trust in someone or something. But, It is material and it is definable. It exists in this same reality, And in the context of religion if you want to say a deity would have made it on the same plane as to have it easy to reach and use. Rather than to transfigure oneself. Faith in religion is very different, There are varying degrees of it. It seems to follow similar patterns to ideals and thoughts that this reality abides by. It can wane, Change and it can be passed on through apathy. People can be converted. It is no different from Fear, Honesty, Anger and many other "Sins and Virtues. " So, To define it as a universal exception is almost unfair to it's very composition, History and context. Thank you for the challenge, Can't wait to receive your arguments. May the best debater win!
Comics Are a Form of Literature

You think I'm only taking about super hero comics aren't you? I have read many comics that are not based on superheroes and are deep, meaningful and springing. But that doesn't mean superheroes can't be inspiring too. Watchmen is considered one of the greatest comics ever and it also has been considered a great piece of literature as well. ((http://justinjordan.hubpages.com...)) Just because a book has pictures in it doesn't take away it's value as something good. Not only that, but there are many comics that focus on big issues like sexual abuse (The Tale Of One Bad Rat by Bryan Talbot) or the impact of WWII (Maus by Art Spiegelman) You also sound a bit sexist and ageist with your statement ' their primary focus is on fueling preteen boys' fantasies.' I'm a woman in her twenties and I read comics. Comics are no longer just for boys and people should stop looking at them like they are just for kids. There are many comic I own that I would not let my nephews read because they are too mature. Not only that but there are some comics more suited towards girls. As for the whole movie and porn thing, that really isn't important. People take things all the time and make their own adaptations. Why are you singling out comics? Comic books are a mix of both art and writing. Therefore, they can be great pieces of literature and art.
Comics Are a Form of Literature

comic books are neither deep nor meaningful, their primary focus is on fueling preteen boys' fantasies and getting them hooked on a series onf images that have rather ridiculous speech bubbles which usually end up inspiring either a perverted cartoon porn video to be made or to make a blockbuster movie that never follows the storyline correctly becaus ethe comic book isn't a form of literature it's a form of non-literate art with subtitles to follow it.
Comics Are a Form of Literature

While it's true that a writing in comics is sometimes little, that is always true. And yes, there are some comics that have no dialogue and just as good. However, a good comic will have strong art and strong writing. I have ready many comics that are awful because of the writing. The art was good but I couldn't stand the story. You have to put effort into the story as well as the art. If you don't, people won't care. Literature is defined as is the art of written work. A comic book is art on two fronts; with writing and images. While a comic can lack words, that doesn't mean a comic cannot be considered a piece of literary work. It's also important to note that there are many criticisms on comics as well and it's not based solely on the art. Linkara, a famous comic book reviewer, focuses both on the art and writing. Sometimes, he focuses more on the writing. The writing can make or break a comic. It's the same with a book. Words can be extremely important when it comes to comic book.
Comics Are a Form of Literature

The video is a perfect example of a fantastic piece of art, just as a comic book is.There are some amazing stories behind comics and the perversion is in deed against the comic creator's intentions.On the other hand, it isn't a piece of literature.The writing is minimalistic, never descriptive and always a random exclamation or onomatopoeia.You could potentially make a comic without any writing at all, just still images and it could still be relatively understood.
I have no clue

LOL! Pro says, "Ok lets debate that. " without even saying what he believes about tobacco rights. It would be unfair for me to post new arguments or in this case any arguments in the last round due to the fact that Pro can't refute them, so I guess this is really all I can say. I would just like to point out Pro's error that he made in round 1 saying, "Joe you have never been in a debate I would like to change that lets debate". I was in a debate before this, so this being the only argument, I suppose it can be the only resolution as well. This.
The Velvet Underground Are Simultaneously The Most Underrated and Overrated Band of All Time.

The Velvet Underground Are absolutely one of my favorite bands. I think they are unbelievably brilliant. Yet many don't think so. And many others think they are so great that all others pale in comparison. They are amazing but there are many other amazing bands as well. I do feel that their first album is overall the best album i've heard. (i've heard alot of albums) To be clear my resolution is that they are the band who is simultaneously most overrated and underrated. Not that they are both the most overrated band and most underrated band. I could could easliy provide a band that is more overrated than TVU and a band that is more underrated than TVU without even leaving their decade. The beatles are more overrated than TVU The kinks are more underrated than TVU Heres something to chew on: The Top Albums of 1967 according to users: http://rateyourmusic.com... Top ablums of all time, according to users: #4 http://rateyourmusic.com...
Modern Israel is Not the Fulfillment of Prophecy

From her remarks it seems clear that she is not a New Testament Christian. I will not be arguing against her claims of Judaism being honored by God in this debate as this is not the main issue at hand. Obviously if Jesus be the Messiah of God, and Jews in modern day Israel reject Jesus, then their religion is not honored by God; Judaism is blind to the wisdom of God concerning the Messiah and His New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:14). In conclusion, it seems that the extent of Con's argument is that Israel was promised a return to their land, Jews have returned to the land, therefore this prophecy is fulfilled. This is a very naive understanding of prophecy. Clearly there is more to the fulfillment of this prophecy than their physical return as I have clearly demonstrated from scripture. I leave it to the prospective reader to determine who's case is more biblically sound.
Modern Israel is Not the Fulfillment of Prophecy

Resolution: modern day Israel does not fulfill any prophecies concerning the return of the people to the land. Definitions Israel: the Hebrew nation who's land was given to them by God. Fulfilled prophecy: the coming to pass of a previously foretold event or series of events in scripture. The King James Bible (66 books, Genesis-Revelation) will be my final authority in this debate. You may use another version but I will always be siding with the KJB rendering. To be clear, my position is that the events prophesized in scripture concerning the return of Israel to their land has not yet been fulfilled but shall be after the second coming of Christ.
On balance, it is better for businesses learn to WordPress than other aspects of web development.

For this debate, I will be arguing devils advocate. I will be arguing pro on the resolution: On balance, it is better for businesses learn to WordPress than other aspects of web development. This debate will be centered around the theory of a new business wanting to get a website up and running for their company. I will be arguing that it is better overall, in several aspects for them to learn WordPress as opposed to looking at lines of code and attempting to learn them to build their website.This will be a short debate, with 2 rounds of debate, the first being a challenge round as requested by my opponent. May the debating fun begin!
On balance, it is better for businesses learn to WordPress than other aspects of web development.

Thank you for your arguments, Pro.Contention #1 - WordPress limits creativityMy opponent is certainly correct in his assertion that learning to use WordPress is simpler than learning to build a website from scratch. Unfortunately, what is simple is not always the best business option.I remember launching my first website (an anime review site) with WordPress and waiting excitedly for the traffic to begin pouring in. It never came. While my site had quite a bit of good and even unique content, its functionality and design were not unique enough to set it apart from other sites in the same niche. Even the addition of BuddyPress forums and other plug-ins didn't drive visitors to my site.It was then that I realized that I needed to do something to make my website unique. I scrapped WordPress and built my own CMS and proceeded to create a website that allowed users to rate anime and manga and get recommendations for other titles based on their ratings. The website became relatively popular and had about five-hundred members at one point.My point in relating that little anecdote is that good content is not always enough to attract users to a site. Sometimes a unique feature is needed, just as a unique design is needed to establish brand identity. This is one area where WordPress falls short. Without programming knowledge, WordPress users are confined to themes and plug-ins made by others that are most likely used on other blogs. This can be fatal for a business.Contention #2 - The WordPress experience is improved by web design skillsTo quote Internet entrepreneur Lisa Irby, "Someone on YouTube once told me my advice about CSS was 'old school' because so many people now use WordPress. I completely disagree. As long as tools like WordPress, Joomla, etc. are driven by CSS for the design, it will always be relevant. Most people eventually discover that if they want full control over their site's design and theme, they have to learn some of the fundamentals."[1] In other words, WordPress users (and CMS users in general) will usually discover that there is something that they want to do with their site that the WYSIWIG interface of WordPress can't achieve. Want to modify a theme's header? Change the functionality of a plug-in? Tweak the padding on an element? All of these operations require programming skills.This makes my opponent's second contention invalid. Yes, there are free plug-ins and themes available, but usually a user will want to modify them.Contention #3 - WordPress plug-ins do not fill every needAs in the case of my personal site, sometimes there are specific function needs that cannot be filled by a plug-in. A good example would be a resale shop or an online education site. Also, many plug-ins are out of date and thus incompatible with modern versions of WordPress.It is, therefore, necessary for many businesses to either learn web design skills or hire a designer to achieve the functionality that they need.Sources1. http://www.2createawebsite.com...
Humans would defeat the infected in an outbreak

Do not accept if you do not plan on posting every round. Any forfeited round is an automatic forfeit of any voting points as established RIGHT NOW and accepted as a condition of the debate upon acceptance of the debate itself. Thank you, and let's have fun! :)My opponent has forfeited a round, given, per rules of debate, he shall not be awarded any points. As the BOP has not been fulfilled, he can choose to give his case in later rounds, although this would be pointless because no points would be rewarded to him.Thank you.
Humans would defeat the infected in an outbreak

As a resulting of reading/debating a great number of political, religious, and moral based debates, I propose a mental health moment whereas my opponent, the readers/voters and I can escape to the land of sci-fi to debate the fun topic of the undead (If you can consider the threat of being eaten alive a mental health moment..). You can argue zombification by a death plague, you can argue that they wouldn't be undead but infact infected with some form of a brain parasite, bacteria, or virus. Your version of zombies cannot possess super powers, then can run if you so choose them to, and they can have very primitive instincts but cannot be genius mass murdering intelligent beings (It would defeat the traditional sense of a zombie).The above is a bit ambiguous so here's my attempt at clarification: The zombies/infected can hunt in packs as wild animals, they can formulate instinctual predator ideas such as attacking more viciously at night and things along those lines. They don't have to sleep, they don't have to die of starvation, and they don't have to experience fatigue or pain.They are not to do things such as jam power grids/plan to cut off electricity, or have any other military strategic plans. They cannot fly, shoot powers (though they can throw up blood at a targeted meal such as in 28 days later), or any other monster power. No semantics or unnecessary trolling.Do not accept if you do not plan on posting every round. Any forfeited round is an automatic forfeit of any voting points as established RIGHT NOW and accepted as a condition of the debate upon acceptance of the debate itself. Thank you, and let's have fun! :)
Gummy Bears are Superior to Gummy Worms.

First, i would like to refute your points, -1) Kids prefer gummy worms for the same reason you think they are bad, the appearance. Kids like to eat disgusting-looking things more so than cute ones, which is why kids prefer gummy worms -2)there is little to no chance of a kid chocking on a gummy worm, especially if they bite it, and kids would rather have gummy worms BECAUSE THEY ARE BIGGER, kids want more gummy at once than gummy bears can provide. -3) gummy bears don't have mixed flavors, they have mixed dye colors, which make it look as if they have different flavors, which attracts the eye of the eager child customer I also have some of my own points -1) there is more variety to gummy-worms, unlike gummy bears (unless you count sour patch kids which are sour swedish fish and not gummy), gummy worms can come in both sour and non-sour varieties. -2) there is more gummy in gummy worms than there is in gummy bears, so you get more sugar per dollar -3) Gummy worms are more easily found now-a-days than gummy bears, which shows that the average consumer likes gummy worms more For these reasons, i believe gummy worms are much better than the alternative
Gummy Bears are Superior to Gummy Worms.

There are many different types of candies in the world: chocolate, peanut butter, fruit, nugget, caramel, and tons of others. By far the best candy in the world is a gummy -- but unfortunately there are two prominent types of gummy, the bear and the worm. With one type of gummy being the superior of the two, and that is the gummy bear. The gummy bear has many advantages over the gummy worm, also it does not exhibit the same harms that a worm does. First and foremost, we must look at their representations. The gummy bear is typically associated with a teddy bear, a cuddly stuffed animal from the time of your youth, and the worm, while another representation of your youth, it also represents a dirty, slimy, and all-together nasty insect. In a representative battle, the bear comes out on top. Secondly, the size of the candy is crucial to which is superior. A gummy bear is small and unlikely to get lodged in a throat, making them safe for children of most ages. Whereas the inherently larger gummy worm poses a threat to children of different ages who do not have full control over their throat muscles OR typically stuff food in their mouths. I can recall choking on a gummy worm in my youth, where half of the worm had slide down my throat where the other half was still in my mouth, leaving an unpleasant experience and memory associated with that type of gummy. Therefore, the dangers of a gummy worm are best corrected by switching to the smaller bear. Thirdly, the taste of the candy is vitally important. The gummy bear comes in an assortment of different flavors, and these are flavors that are not mixed or muddled, as is the case with a gummy worm that mixes the flavor and colors into one piece. Should you take issue with one or more flavors in the bag, you could easily remove the pieces in question without much of a mess. On the other hand, attempting that same task with a gummy worm would end up with sticky hands and an all-together mess. Variety is important in any candy, and it is such that the gummy bear, not worm, has been engineered into a daily vitamin for kids. A smaller proportioned gummy allows for more control among parents, who can better count or portion the amount of gummy being consumed by their kids. Clearly the gummy bear is superior in this manner. In all three cases it is clearly shown that the gummy bear is superior to the gummy worm and does not exhibit the same or more harms than the worm. In that, I have won the debate.
fragment of peace

why talk about assumptions.. is there a need to assume things? yes the place is a bit weird, because if one goes of they all go of.. havnt thought about that one yet i dont understand why you minds are so blank.. second brainless take on this... it is for war to beg for peace.. maybe the nuclear bombs should stay where they are but build in some lock things that cant be touched having without all the keys your brain is exceedingly dangerous.. it infects people through words and lack of humanity inside.. how is that idiot
fragment of peace

I fail to see any benefit of such a strategy. It would be a dubious assumption to believe that those countries in possession of nuclear armaments would freely give them up in exchange for this key fragment.This agreement would give a distinct advantage to dishonest countries who withhold some of their arms from this locked place. I don't believe we would want the dishonest countries to be the only ones with a nuclear weapons when the place is locked.Eight soverign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapon technology [1]. Even if all the countries with nuclear capabilities gave them up freely, then they could just reassemble their arsenal.Conclusion:Fragment of peace has no likely benefit, and can potentially be exceedingly dangerous.[1] http://fas.org...
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

Responses: >> "There is no emotional component in my saying" [shooting someone in the head is wrong] If the statement is purely descriptive, pray tell what the truth value of the moral proposition is... your subjective consideration of the matter as true or false is not sufficient to make it objectively so - only true "FOR you." And of course, truth by its very nature cannot have such subjectivity built into it. Furthermore, whether or not something is emotive is completely independent of the CONTENT of the emotions expressed. >> "Oh? Do you have, hehehe, a statement that proves it "false?"" Equating that which is good with that which fulfills the actors subjective ends begs the question of what is good. If you state that what is good is what advances the subjective ends of an actor, "good" becomes a tautology - what I want is good and what is good is what I want. Circular. >> "The morality (the code of action for achieving a given end) exists in the interaction between the agent and that external-- e.g., it is neither subjective, nor intrinsic, but objective." If the actor sets the goals, then the goals are subjective, and if the means to those goals are evaluated by the actor in terms of what the goals are, then the means are subjective as well. If the code is external to the agent, then the criteria for determining what is good must also be external to the agent and be able to be expressed without egocentric terms that refer to the agent... So "conducive to having one's life to live" cannot be among these principles because it incorporates the self-interest of the actor and is expressed in egoistic terms (one's). So I suppose we're back at the beginning -waiting for a definition of good. >> "Goals are what is relevant. The goals prior to morality may be subjective, but the morality itself is not." WHAT morality? My opponent has yet to espouse this objective moral system you insist exists to evaluate the means to these goals. But then he states that discussion of morality is impossible because two actors can both be right. This is obviously false, because no two conflicting opinions about an objective state can both be correct. >> "If one person looks at a car from above, and another looks at a car from below..." Disanalogy - we're talking about two people with the same perspective disagreeing about the moral import of a situation. ****************************************************************** Of course it's a little late for my opponent to begin outlining his moral system... but my main criticism is that the criteria for what is good in this system isn't really removed from the goals and desires of the actor. With no acceptable definition of good, theoretically, at least, rational persons should recognize that non-cognitivism is the appropriate method of engaging moral propositions. AFFIRMED.