BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Darth Revan the most powerful force user

Darth Revan was easily the most powerful. Think on this, he came extremely close to beating, all at once, the Jedi knight who killed the Sith Emperor, The Sith Emperor's personal Sith executioner, the strongest Wookie in the galaxy, the most important Sith Leader, one of the strongest Sith Warriors, the Jedi Grandmaster and the republics number 1 spy. His offensive power was easily stronger than any other force-sensitive, both in saber-skill and offensive force power. He could use the dark side and the light side of the force combined to wield immense power, and trained thousands of disciples, both Jedi and Sith. Although his power in battle was supreme, he was never a practitioner of Sith Alchemy. Even so, he could use it, without any training in the matter, to prolong his life at LEAST 3 centuries (an amazing feat that barely any Sith ever achieved) and, not only that, could perfectly preserve his useful features. He was also a legendary strategist. He even redeemed the spirit of the Sith founder "Ajunta Pall". Not only that he could teleport (presumably an ability he picked up from an alien force cult whos name i forget) and, because he most likely picked up the ability from the said force cult, could probably time-travel as well. (They could)
DDO Presidential Campaign

1. Okay, but I think my way is much better.2. You conceded to me a bit, showing that I am a convincing debater. Hey, most presidents are good debaters, and good debaters are more likely to become good presidents! 3. Again, back to number one--spreading it far and wide, not only to DDO members far increases the efficiency.4. " I want the DDO community to be more than just a site. I want it to be personal as well. " Good job MLP:FiM'ing! :) Every pony cheers you for learning a lesson today and wishing the DDO to be much more than "just a site".5. Don't want distractions? What do you mean? Think about it: if a guy named, 7spacequeen, say, and she left for, 1 year and a half, how is this a distraction? Would not she tell everyone before she left? Rarely do people NOT get informed about somebody else leaving, especially someone who can "cause a distraction"6. Your policy is similar to mine...In fact it's almost exactly the same.Okay, so we're more than half-way through the debate, time for a new rule!7. If I were president I could be a mod. myself. Hey! Everyone elected me! They obviously trust me enough to be president. So why not contribute to DDO yourself? What a great idea! The other moderators have less pressure, and they are relieved, trusting the prez. even more, as they all have the same job, similar to in Julius Caesar, when Mark Antony makes his funeral speech, he lowers his own status down to the people, saying that he doesn't want to wrong the high postition, the "honorable men", and the common people trust Mark Antony, as Antony is just like them. This presidential election is similar. If presidents were lowered down to the moderators' powers (plus their own, of course), the moderators would like them better. A leader AND worker is much more efficient than just a leader, don't you think?
DDO Presidential Campaign

I will now go into more detail about each aspect of the platform and will refute some of my opponent's statements. 1. Instituting more moderators so that the site can remain safe and enjoyableI highly suggest you read the FAQs. It says that, "One may become a moderator if recommended for this responsibility by an existing moderator." I will contact existing moderators and provide examples of qualified users. We need to ensure that certain debates, polls, or opinions are removed so that there is no excess of immaturity. 2. A new vision for debate.org: an enjoyable site completely without trolling and immaturityPerhaps I exagerated a little. I will tolerate some trolling and immaturity in the forums. However, the debates, opinion, polls, and comment sections on user profiles will remain mature, serious, and rational. Also, you can message other users and talk immaturely and troll in those messages. That, of course, is acceptable. 3. Increasing reporting/blocking powersI do not intend to be a dictator in any sense. I intend on increasing reporting and blocking powers by making sure that the reports are responded to quickly. This will be done by instituting more moderators. 4. Improve relations between usersI intend on promoting true friendships and relationships, not just DDO friends. I want the DDO community to be more than just a site. I want it to be personal as well. 5. Removing accounts that have not been used for over a yearIndeed, we should contact them before we fully remove them. However, I believe that we should remove users that have not been online for quite some time because I do not want to have distractions on the site. 6. Removing biased and unjust votes immediately so that debates are fairI will not tolerate vote bombs or trolling. If I were President, I would enforce the policy for voting, which is that you should explain each vote thoroughly and not be biased. If voters provide only a sentence or two, wirte "vote bomb", "troll", or something similar in their vote comments, I will make the moderators aware of these votes and they will handle the situation. I am curious, is my platform appealing?
DDO Presidential Campaign

Hmmmm....I accept the challenge.1. Institute more mods-- institute is defined as "to set up; establish; organize " by http://dictionary.reference.com..., so that would make sense. How would you do this? I would personally email all my friends on DDO for "employment" and tell them to email all their friends, whom email to their friends, and etc. etc. You failed to state how you would do such thing as instituting more moderators.2a. A new vision....completely without trolling an immaturity...then the site would be no fun! Everybody loved the biggest troll of them all, imabench, and he even won some debates purely by his popularity! Even those whom are not trolls are willing to quit DDO because of imabench's banning, as shown in http://www.debate.org.... If you destroy trollers and people who are immature altogether, this list will grow to--at least 50 people, to say on the safe side! Ironically, since imabench was banned, the site was less enjoyable, as his "weekly stupid" was gone and his funny humor as well.2b. Also, immaturity grows to maturity. As immature debaters continue on debating, losing debates because of their stupidity, they learn to obtain a professional tone when debating so as to draw the voters to their side. One great example is myself--I started out not really trying, losing all my debates, seeing how when people forfeited, they lost to me no matter how flimsy my argument was, and when I forfeited, I lost no matter how strong my previous arguments were. This taught me to be careful and spend time on an debate so as to actually win it, instead of barely trying, not planning my time wisely so I can debate in time to at least tie in conduct-wise.3. Increasing report/blocking powers--how will you do this? Being an "absolute dictator" and being able to remove dumb comments at will? 4. Imporve relations between users--well, since the new policy about "no personal attacks", there are no open disagreements between users. Congrats, you already did it before you even became president!5. removing accounts--are you sure about this? Could we not email them before we make sure they're not on the site anymore?6. remove bias and unjust votes immediately--this would require lots of attention and is pain-stakingly difficult. Many many debates are finished within a day, and especially in popular debates with more than 20 votes, this has been raised to a new difficulty level. However, if I was president, I would leave the voters unable to post "vote bomb", or "no reason", or "troll" within their reason for voting.
DDO Presidential Campaign

I am currently starting my campaign for DDO President. My campaign forum is the following:http://www.debate.org...; I would like to debate only - I repeat, only - a person that also intends to run for DDO President. To start the debate, I will introduce my platform to you: Platform- Instituting more moderators so that the site can remain safe and enjoyable- A new vision for debate.org: an enjoyable site completely without trolling and immaturity- Increasing reporting/blocking powers- Improve relations between users- Removing accounts that have not been used for over a year- Removing biased and unjust votes immediately so that debates are fairThis is my platform so far. In time, I will develop further ideas.
I believe in God - I do not need religion

Hi Anthony, The point is that you take an idea from religion and you change this concept, you can't do that. I would say that it's the same thing as believe that Harambe died for your sins. You have the decision to listen to the devil or not and so there's still free will. Lawrence Krauss who is an atheist wrote a book on this "nothing" and it's called: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" Salam.
I believe in God - I do not need religion

Hello Anthony,Our perceptions are not trustworthy sources. Our senses are limited and induction is limited. A Christian could say that he personally spoke to Jesus PBUH and a pantheist would say that he is able to speak with his own dead ancestors.We both know that's nonsense. You can think deeply about this topic your entire life any way you like, but if you don't look at the evidence and facts you will never get to the reality. When I'm making an exam I haven't studied for I can stare at the question as long as I like, but I'm not getting anywhere.I agree that the theory of evolution makes sense and it is a valid thing to believe in if you're not religious and I myself believe it, excluding human evolution. The story of Adam and Eve is a shared belief among Jews, Christians and Muslims. The story of Noah's Ark is a shared belief among Jews, Christians and Muslims (whether this flood was global or local is not known in Islam). The Qur'an and the Bible mention that the universe was created in 6 days, but this is not talking about our typical 24-hour day.@TheThinker01 made a point that I wanted to make myself.If you do believe in God and you don't worship Him, you are practically telling God "I know you exist, but I'm going to do what I want".It's like you are asking for eternal torture. Now you also said that you wouldn't attribute "He" to God because he would have gender. In Arabic all words have gender, but this doesn't mean that Allah has a gender. The Creator is not like his creation. We use the male pronoun out of respect for Allah, not because Allah has gender. In the Qur'an, Allah uses the royal "we" as well. Satan is not the opposite of God, Allah is not like his creation and thus cannot be compared with his creation. Satan in the Qur'an: http://submission.org...Allah knows exactly what motivates people. The things that motivate us are reward and punishment and so God gives us the choice between the most severe punishment (hellfire) and the best reward (paradise). Now I want to be completely honest with you from an Islamic perspective. If someone has heard of Islam and what it stands for and that person rejects the religion then this person will go to the hellfire. If someone hasn't, they'll be tested on the day of Judgement. Now hellfire is a place of the most extreme suffering torment and the Qur'an and the hadith emphasize this in various gruesome ways. I can lie to you to make you all fuzzy and warm inside, but this is what I accept as the truth.You're saying that if the devil exist, you'll believe XY and Z that is not presented in scripture. This is delusion. I can't believe that Gadaffi died for my sins, can I? I can't believe that God is a horse, can I? I can't believe that angels are naked caucasian women and men as presented in movies, can I?I also got the attention that you believe that this creator doesn't have a relationship with his creation or at least not with humans. You're pretty much playing with words and if that's the case, Lawrence Krauss believe the same thing. He just calls this "creator" nothing.
I believe in God - I do not need religion

Hello, peace be upon you, and thank you for accepting this challenge/discussion. Ok great, that's a good angle. You seem confident, respectful and intelligent. I couldn't ask for more.Just to be clear, I'm aware that there are alot of "semantics" involved here, but you may approach and argue in any way/angle you see fit and I will attempt to only justify my beliefs (and their accuracy) according to my title and original statement. Perhaps this will be a simple task for you, I will not assume to know, though I look forward to it. So since I've already done my opening statement, I will (with great anticipation) forego this round and allow you to state your argument.
I believe in God - I do not need religion

Hello and peace be upon you. I'm a Muslim and I've been practicing Islam for 7 months now. I've studied theology in my free time for almost 2 years now and I'm sure of my faith. We believe in one Allah and we believe that he sent messengers throughout time, such as Jesus and Moses may peace be upon them. Allah is the One who created me, hence I put my head on the ground 5 times a day, multiple times time during those 5 time for the One who created me. There is no such thing as a trinity or the existence of multiple gods, there is one. I will be arguing that if you believe in a god you'll need to follow a religion.
There are more benefits to raising taxes on the top 1 percent than costs

Burden of proof is shared Structure Round 1: Pro: Rules Con: Opening Arguments Round 2: Pro: Opening Arguments Con: Rebuttal Round 3: Pro: Rebuttal Con: "No round, as agreed upon" Note: Con cannot post an argument in Round 3 because doing so will allow him or her an extra argument. If Con does not comply with this rule, he or she will forfeit all 7 points to me. Forfeitting will be an automatic 7-point loss.
English Riding is not Bad for a Horse

Typically yes, Western saddles do tend to be heavier, because they are generally intended to be more durable, so that they can last longer in the rugged line of duty that accompanies ranching and other Western riding activity. However, theoretically, is there no opportunity for customization? In some cases, the rider could have a modern, custom saddle, made from lighter materials. Granted, if that is the case, then would English style riding also benefit from a wider saddle, or would this sacrifice too much direct control over the animal? Regarding the issue of catastrophic injury, such as a broken leg, you have proven my point. I was not attempting to suggest that horses are retired because of some inability to excel at competition. Horses are retired for their health, but I would like to point out that, in most cases, the need for a horse to be retired is arguably the result of riding. This is true for Racing, Western, and English styles alike.
English Riding is not Bad for a Horse

Western saddles are easily twice as heavy as an English saddle for your information. And in case I have not previously made this clear, I see racing not so much as English or western riding as its own entity. I refuse to debate over the horrible practices that put horses in so much danger for money. As to the legs of horses breaking or becoming injured, there is little to do for a broken leg on a horse. In my career I have seen only one horse go on after breaking his front right. He was retired. Horses are retired for their health, not because we can't compete effectively.
English Riding is not Bad for a Horse

Regardless of the sport or the breeding, the issue that you have set to debate is the issue of whether or not the English riding style can be detrimental to the health of a horse. While there are no immediate concerns that result from proper tack and riding style, generally speaking, horses that are continually ridden will face accelerated health problems later in life. This is arguably why so many race horses are retired after a time, and why a broken leg or similar injury has often been considered the "end of the career" for a riding horse. Even if we choose to argue the difference between English and Western style riding, the key difference exists in the saddle design. The Western saddle is larger and more comfortable for both horse and rider; it is designed to spread the weight of the rider over a larger surface area, because it was intended to make it easier on the animal in order to ease the burden of a longer riding period, as well as accommodate the extra equipment that came with the Western rancher lifestyle. If we compare the Western saddle and the English saddle exclusively, the English saddle is built for performance and direct control over the animal, while focusing all the weight of the rider on a very small area. In essence, the English saddle forces the horse to bear the brunt of the weight on a small portion of it's back, wearing down this specific area of the body at a rapid rate. Alternatively, the Western saddle spreads this area out a bit more, relieving some of the focused pressure by increasing the surface area of the load. The only reason why a Western style riding would be equally or more detrimental to the health of a horse is if we intend to debate the prolonged riding time of ranch horses, as compared to the relatively short riding time of competition horses. If we are debating riding according to a set length of time, then English riding is clearly developed for performance rather than comfort. Horses are extremely resilient animals, and have been bred for optimal riding, but the unfortunate reality is that English riding can and does eventually cause harm to the animal. If you wish to debate the issue outright, then I suggest that English riding leads to more health issues on average than a non-ridden horse. If you intend to debate English vs Western riding, then please explain how English riding is of less or equal detriment to the animal when compared to Western riding.
English Riding is not Bad for a Horse

Fair enough, some riding and stabling may lead to poor health. As to the reasons for shoes and tack, it is as much for comfort of the rider and control of the horse. Though originally not meant to be ridden, they are more than capable of holding the average person's weight. The unnatural surfaces such as cement are no more hard than stone, though I would not go as far as to say that cement is good footing for stabling or riding. I have not heard of any competition horses being alone, as by that point they are normally in heavy-to-moderate training and stay with or around other horses. But let us take it back to the shoes and tack. Horses have been bred a specific way over the decades, so this may make certain breeds more likely to have health issues under saddle than others. Shoes are fit to each horse personally and are designed to help the horse's hoof become stable and resist breaking. This is done even to some horses who aren't ridden simply because they might need it due to their own conditions. I wouldn't blame the sport, I would blame the breeding, and that's not what we are arguing here.
English Riding is not Bad for a Horse

All types of riding lead to eventual health problems with horses. Horses by nature are wild pack animals, and are not intended to be ridden. The reason that humans have been forced to develop more effective shoes and tack is because this was necessary to elongate the functioning life of the animal. Wild horses have no need for shoes, and the only reason that shoes have been fitted for domesticated horses is because of the added wear on hooves that results from the added weight of the rider and tack, combined with the unforgiving nature of cement and other unnatural surfaces. In addition, the majority of work horses, whether for farming, pleasure riding, or any other assignment, will inevitably face added wear to joints, which puts the animal at risk for leg and back problems in later life. Ill-fitting tack can accelerate these problems and lead to rapidly deteriorating health. In addition, because horses are social creatures, domesticating horses can lead to mental health issues with horses as well. Horseback riding, whether Western or English style, is ultimately bad for a horse when compared to the average life of wild horses.
Islam is the Religion of God and not Christianity

What is the true religion God intended for us? Islam or Christianity. Christianity is currently the worlds largest religion, and Islam is the 2nd largest religion, and also the fastest growing religion. First round is acceptance round. 2nd round is opening argument. 3rd and 4th round is rebuttal and new argument. 5th round is closing argument. I will be arguing for Islam and my opponent shall be arguing for Christianity. The attention for this argument is not to attack Christianity but to lead people to the truth which is Islam.
Public highschool students inthe US oughtnot be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

(Sorry about the resolution's sloppiness. There wasn't enough room) I would ask that all debating begin in R2. This debate will be in the LD format and will abide by the following rules: 1) Don't talk about fight club 2) R2 is for the case only. 3) Rs3-5 are intended for rebuttal, refutation, and extension or defense of points. 4) Instead of "My opponent" each debater will have to refer to their opponent as a nickname of their choosing (ie, I choose Thug Life... Which I do) to be established in the R1. Thank you in advance for accepting.
Existence of Human Freewill

Determinism My opponent misconstrues Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle saying that because the effect of a quantum particle cannot be calculated, this quantum particle cannot affect something. This statement is obviously erroneous. Furthermore, modern quantum mechanics simply acknowledge the possibility of random behavior of particles that are so small they don’t necessarily have mass in all instances. If pro intends to debunk the idea thought is caused by previous reactions by arguing that some reactions are random then he is arguing that human thought is merely random. Since this point actually weakens Pro’s argument for the existence of freewill, it is rendered irrelevant. To elaborate on my previous argument regarding the absence of freewill, I would like to emphasize my point that for freewill to exist “a substance must be unbound by physics, yet have the ability to influence physical reactions”. Since my opponent has yet to claim that there indeed is something that is unbound by the laws of physics yet still can factor into physical reactions my argument still stands. Illusion of Independence Pro makes the concession that being influenced by Nazi Propaganda limits the freewill of a person. “While a person may have grown up in a 1930's Germany, and been influenced by Nazi propaganda, that only reduces their free will.” The fact that a person is exposed to Nazi Propaganda is one variable that influences a person’s decisions. The fact that one variable can reduce a person’s freewill can be applied to the fact that there are an infinitive number of variables that can influence someone. Since each variable reduces a person’s freewill and there are infinitive variables, a person is therefore left with no freewill. Reminder I would like to remind Pro that since the burden of proof is shared, and Pro has currently yet to claim anything in support of freewill, there is no reason to assume an existence of freewill. _____________________________________________________________________________ Randomness in Quantum Physics http://www.britannica.com...