BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That Kylo Ren is the weaker between Kylo Ren and Darth Vader.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I believe that Kylo Ren is weaker than Darth Vader. First of all, Kylo Ren's appearance is only in one episode: 7, and he died very quickly because of a lightsaber duel with Rey, a girl who is not a Jedi or have even used a lightsaber! Then, Darth Vader is the Lord of the Empire for three whole episodes.
Free Will

For your argument you state that are minds are predetermined and can be affected involuntarily. So would this also apply to the bodies reflexes. In the first part of the round, you use the example of the atheists trying to turn the non-atheist. This could be viewed as human nature, but a person can choose to reject that nature if they choose to. The human mind is capable of many things, which also includes becoming aware of patterns which are used to define human nature. Becoming aware of the pattern, a person can act out of their nature if they choose to or simply just make surprising choices.
Free Will

No problem moviemaster. Here is three examples of why free will does not exist. 1. Free will doesn't exist being God created us the way we are, gave everyone the mind that they have, that really wouldn't be free will. He has already predetermined everyone's mind. For example if you put a non-atheist person in a group of people that are atheist, the atheist group will try an make that non-atheist become atheist, so that would make his or her have a skeptic mind. The second statement below will back up my evidence for the first statement. 2. Indeed, historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. Their ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism (the notion that everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will impossible), indeterminism (the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random, also making free will impossible), and cosmological libertarianism/compatibilism (the suggestion that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe). Now, while these lines of inquiry are clearly important, one cannot help but feel that they're also terribly unhelpful and inadequate. What the debate needs is some actual science " something a bit more...testable. And indeed, this is starting to happen. As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we're actually aware of them " and at times by a significant degree. It's a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we're less in control of our choices than we think " at least as far as some basic movements and tasks are concerned. At the same time, however, not everyone is convinced. It may be a while before we can truly prove that free will is an illusion. These two examples all fall into the same realm, the first one that non-atheist person becomes atheist because he/she was put into a group of people that believe in atheism, making that non-atheist person believe in their views over time. which in the other "our minds appear to be making decisions before we're actually aware of them." That is a sign that our minds are predetermined. So going back to my first statement saying God has predetermined out actions that was a prime example of predetermination. I had used my own example for the first one but used second example from the source below. http://io9.com...
Religions should be criticized!

>>I think you missed MY point! I was merely trying to say that IF a person criticizes another person's religion, they are not very nice, but you don't have to say it out loud!!<< If _anything_ is doing things like scamming people for hundreds or thousands of dollars, spreading racial hatred, spreading war, etc, it deserves to be criticized. Openly. That's not the kind of thing we just sit back and watch, and the fact that it's religion gives it no more right to not be criticized. If so, you haven't clarified what gives religion the inability to be criticized. >>Also, about OTHER religions. If I was criticizing it, we wouldn't be having this debate, now would we? If scientology does those things to people, and if the people STILL follow that religion, then so be it! All I'm trying to say is that religions SHOULDN'T BE CRITICIZED!!!!!!<< You still haven't said why. ANYTHING that rips people off for thousands of dollars should be openly criticized in order to expose it. ANYTHING that causes wars, ANYTHING that promotes intolerance, ANYTHING that hinders helpful scientific advances for no good reason, etc. _should be openly criticized_. By not criticizing radical Islam, we are saying that it's OK to believe that crashing a plane into a building is a righteous act. If anyone has a problem with the effects of _any_ belief or institution, they _should_ openly criticize it to show their discontent. There's nothing special about religion that grants it a license to commit atrocities, rip people off, slow the advancement of science, etc. with no criticism. >>About your belief; that is your belief as a person, not as a member of your religion, I assume? Correct me if I'm wrong)!!<< It's my belief as a person, but you've failed to show why a belief that I came up with is any less important than a belief that a church came up with. The fact that a belief makes supernatural assertions does not grant it any special privileges, nor should it. If a belief tends towards truth, it will stand up against criticism.
Religions should be criticized!

I think you missed MY point! I was merely trying to say that IF a person criticizes another person's religion, they are not very nice, but you don't have to say it out loud!! Also, about OTHER religions. If I was criticizing it, we wouldn't be having this debate, now would we? If scientology does those things to people, and if the people STILL follow that religion, then so be it! All I'm trying to say is that religions SHOULDN'T BE CRITICIZED!!!!!! ( About your belief; that is your belief as a person, not as a member of your religion, I assume? Correct me if I'm wrong)!!
Religions should be criticized!

I think you missed my point. I was pointing out the hypocritical nature of your statement. Consider: You believe that religions should not be criticized You believe that those who criticize religion should be criticized (I assume, because you are currently doing it). What makes a religion any worse to criticize than my own sincerely held belief that religion should be criticized? And even though some might consider it rude, I believe that the necessity would far outweigh this. Consider: Since you brought up Scientology earlier, I'll use it as an example. The church of Scientology psychologically ruins the lives of its followers - making them think that they _need_ expensive church-provided services to get through life. Scientology often rips its members off for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars; it is truly a vile scam, and should be criticized as such. If any other non-religious organization was doing the same thing, I'm sure you'd be right with me in criticizing it. If not, please explain why. If so, please explain why the fact that it's a religion should grant it automatic safety from all criticisms.
Religions should be criticized!

Many people, like beem0r, are being criticized these days because they criticize religion! If someone wants to criticize religion, let them!! If they want to believe that what you believe should be criticized, spreads hate, is dangerous to society, etc., let them! Other people can't stop them from being who they are! As an Atheist, I believe that their upbringing and genetics made them who they are for a reason, and that settles it! Anyone who can't see the basic truth to this, start a debate that is hypocritical! I slightly modified your opening statement, I thought it could use some adjustments. ;) If that wasn't enough for round 1, I'll add something: If I said I saw a ten-eyed jellyfish floating above my monitor, people would criticize me. Of course, I realize that this doesn't mean they SHOULD criticize me for it. Perhaps they shouldn't, but.... If the jellyfish started telling me things that led me to start wars, oppress people, etc., people would criticize me, and they would have _great_ reasons to. It's not necessarily the jellyfish that's the problem here, it's the things the jellyfish is making me do. Anyone who can't see the basic truth in this, rebut me! ;)
Religions should be criticized!

Many religions, like scientology, are being criticized these days because many people say it is a crazy religion! If people want to have a different religion than other people, let them!! If they want to believe in gay marriage, science, etc., let them! Other people can't stop them from being who they are! As a Catholic, I believe that God made them who they are for a reason, and that settles it! Anyone who can't see the basic truth in this, challenge me!
Adoption is a very good thing

It is well worth the cost I can assure you . Most families who adopted are not able to have child themselves like my mom. They realize the price, as shocking as it may be, if they really wants children but can't, this is the only option. The cost does bring up issues for a lot of families but you can get financial help from an agency. I am not suggesting is easy, just hand in some money and bam you got yourself a baby, it does not work like that at all and I know that. Adoption can take months, and even years and then suddenly the whole thing could be up rooted. Adoption agencies prepare the families to make sure they are ready for what ever happens.
Adoption is a very good thing

Another negative aspect to the adoption agencies is all about the cost. The prices just to adopt a child is outrageous. It can cost a person up to 30 thousand dollars to adopt a child. And some of the best homes may not have that number to purchase and adoption because they would rather spend it on the child not have to give that money over to the agencies. This really throws off a lot of families that want to handle an adopted child and it will make some of the best homes avoid it.
Adoption is a very good thing

In some cases the parent adopting child do know the reason or reasons. Each of my siblings received a letter telling about the reason we were each adopted. My letter which I have read, said that I was given up for adoption because my mom had no husband and could not afford me. Others my not be as lucky as me to really know the reason but it still doesn't matter. I know a lot of kids who are adopted and they have no letter and are fine with there adoption. It's true what you say though, some families go into turmoil because the child feels empty. I went through a stage where I could not process why my mom didn't want me, I felt unwanted. But I got over it and realized how lucky I am to have such a wonderful life because I am adopted.
Adoption is a very good thing

The parents adopting the child never understands the full aspect of why the child is being put up for adoption. They never know if it is for abuses or they just can not afford to keep the baby. The Child may have some serious issues with being abused and also may be mentally hurt. This is a really big issue because the parents have no idea what they may face in the future. Also parents have a wait time for the child. Within this waiting period the parents meet the child and most people get emotionally attached to the child. But then some times within the waiting period the adoption could fall through and this could be heart wrenching to the parents.
Adoption is a very good thing

Almost every adopted children, will grow up and wonder about their "real" parents. 34 percent of adopted children, try to find out more about who they came from and may even want to meet them. I am not in that 34 percent. I have openly asked about my birth parents to my parents. There are always a reason behind why a child was adopted; maybe it's abandonment, poverty, or some other issue. What ever reason a child still wonders, we wonder and some my feel pain and others accept and move on. It basically all depends on how the parents handle the situation. Some parents do not tell the child early enough or even don't tell them at all, if its not obvious. People who wait to tell the child, will cause family turmoil and upheaval.
Adoption is a very good thing

Adoption is a very beneficial. Being adopted myself, I am all for adoption. International adoption is very important, because it can take a child born into a harmful and dangerous environment to a life filled with more opportunities. I know that I would not have the same opportunities in South Korea, than I do here in America. People who oppose adoption do not know how beneficial it can be. It is true the wonder is always there, the wonder why you were adopted or who are you parents.
you need to be careful with what you say on this website

----------- Opponent's Case So we're good on the whole grammar thing, one mistake isn't that big of a deal on either of our parts. << >> As ive proven you can say derogative terms on this site and still be allowed to have an account. Numerous debates focus on this issue, as I have shown above. Its all well and good to help people, but the regular scope of people are not openly, and blatantly racist, or threatening. <<< for farther expounding, the link for mine and voodoochild's scuffle is http://www.debate.org...... it was in the comment sections, a few days ago. he told my friend, knick-knack to go to hell, and to burn in hell. that made me mad. I had never used any profanity prior to that, and the only word I used was hell. >>> Yet many of us have used Hell on this website, including VoodooChild and I, yet we have not been deleted. In addition to this the only consequence you faced was having your account deleted, and you can still debate on this site. You don't need to be careful with what you say since in the end you are still allowed to debate, even if it is on a separate account. The main point is that normal behavior doesn't require administration intervention. Many people break the User's Agreement, yet only people who break it multiple times, or lethally break it have their accounts deleted. You don't need to watch what you say unless you are outside the scope of 'normal', and we can't look at this debate at any scope besides normal. My opponent also gains no offense on the CoronerParry argument. The first voting issue is that the whole Pro case extend no offense. ----------- My Case You can extend my whole case. 1) It isn't a necessity to life, thus the users do not need to do anything. You can vote con because no one needs to be careful about what they say since its not a necessity. 2) The only way to receive a deletion on this site is through breaking the rules multiple times, or having an infraction upon a serious rule. Those who are in the normal range of people will not be openly racist, openly threaten people, and are usually of a certain maturity level. Those who are not in this normal range will eventually get deleted anyway, regardless of whether they are careful with what they say. 3) By watching what we are saying we are devaluing the educational aspect of debate, and in essence 'killing' debate since it wouldn't be about education, but about two mild people being very politically correct without any argumentation. 4) The owners of this site are passionate about debate, and would prefer a good educational debate rather than a debate filled with insults. We do not have to be careful if we are not loose cannons, which are a majority of the users on this site. Vote con: 1) Pro extends no viable offense 2) Con extends all offense. 3) Education is paramount to debate, and without that aspect debate will die. Being careful about what we say may lead to the downfall of debate, which is all about expression and education. Thanks for the debate!
you need to be careful with what you say on this website

you're right, it wasn't worth writing a paragraph, but was it worth writing a paragraph in reply? not really. I only pointed it out because it bugs me extensively. And I realize that I leave out capitals, I get so into typing, that sometimes I fail to stroke the shift key. though it may be true that it does not state to be careful, it is still true that you cannot say racist or derogitave terms. I know many people who use profanity constantly, and also racial slurs. the reason it is not said AS MUCH on thhis site is because they are being careful. because you have to be careful with what you say. I did not just make this debate to say I'm right, I made it to help people. the reason I made the comment about CoronerPerry is because that WAS my account. after getting deleted, I realized how careful you had to be. I know anybody could say that they were coronerperry, but I created this account they day after I found out my account was deleted for proof of that statement, how else would I know about the debate about voodoo child. and for further proof, you made a comment that hell is a city, and voodoo child could become governer or whatever. the debate is deleted, so I cannot see that anymore, but you said it. for farther expounding, the link for mine and voodoochild's scuffle is http://www.debate.org... it was in the comment sections, a few days ago. he told my friend, knick-knack to go to hell, and to burn in hell. that made me mad. I had never used any profanity prior to that, and the only word I used was hell. sadly, and I know I will be penalized for this, I have very little time left, so I will let you expound on your arguments.
Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. Are the deaths worth it>

Your argument was very nice, but please note that this is for non-medical reasons "2. Humans and animals catch diseases much in the same way. Marijuana developed its psychoactive qualities to poison insects from eating the plant. Marijuana affects insects almost exactly how it affects us. Our nervous systems are even more similar in animals. Computer simulators sometimes fall short and there aren't adequate labs often where outbreaks occur. We can quickly test animals albeit inefficiently w/o labs. Sometimes the cost/benefit favors a lab, sometimes it doesn't. " This statement is based on medical things. Yes i do consider marijuana's effects a medical issue. Your #3 argument is is based on money, and technology, yes i do agree that money is important but is it worth a life? Think about it you wouldn't test a human would you, if someone even suggested it people would be all "Oh my God, are you crazy! " and all "Back away slowly. .. " So why is it different when someone suggests killing an animal? Because it's "less important than a human" also i really disagree with your #1 argument, yes the death of the animal sometimes does help, but it is only, in my opinion important in medical reasons that will help millions of humans and animals alike just for the death of a very few animals. But for cosmetics? So beauty really is that important to people now isn't it? And please note again that the title is "Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. " Not for medical reasons. Also with your #4 argument has nothing to do with morality in my opinion, the animals not having rights shows their helplessness not that it is morally right to kill animals, does it? Also answering your question "Is a cow worth a human life? " is very hard it is a bit like those "who do you like better? your mom or dad? " Questions. But you make a point, i guess not. .. But why is it that the death of a million animals is taken as nothing compared to the death of 1 human? Also you are right that "animal testing can be good for humans, bad for animals, good for animals, bad for humans, or any combination of the three" but it is usually used to help humans, and if the animal lives without side effects then the animal testing is only 5 on the level of badness (from 1 to 10) of animal testing. But if it lives after being put through so much or it lives but its living conditions are bad then it is 11 on the 1 to 10 scale. I am hoping to convince you than animal testing for non-medical reasons is cruel and wrong.
Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. Are the deaths worth it>

I believe that animal testing is a cruel horrible thing. But this isn't about opinions, so on with the facts (and some opinions also)! 1. Over 3 million animals have been tormented all in the name of research. It has been found that only 5-25% of side effects caused by medicines are accurately predicted. 2. It can argued that animal experimentation can be beneficial and has helped find cures for some diseases. However the number of successes are very small. This could be due to differences between species, or due to the fact that these illnesses have been placed in the animals deliberatly. Humans don't catch diseases in this way! Therefore would it not be more logical to use alternatives such as laboratory tests or computer simulators? These will do the job without any slaughter of innocent animals and it will stop inaccuracies caused by differences between species. 3. So why are animals used when the more logical solution would be to use alternative methods? the answer is simple - money. Animal experimantation is much cheaper - and what is the cruel destruction of animals compared to a pile of cash? 4. What would happen if I were to deliberatley give another human a fatal disease, if i were to electrocute, shoot or poison them? This would be considered immorally wrong and I would be labeled as a psycho, and I would most certainly be jailed for it. Yet scientists can do this on a daily basis and no one thinks twice. Are these scientist labeled in this way? No - if they do manage to get lucky and create something beneficial from the torture, then they are seen as heroes. http://www.fazed.com...
western democracy should recognize the establishment of religious based court

If religion is important enough for them to live by, and people think that using that as a form of punishment or as a form of justice, then they should go find a group of people that agree with them and live by that lifestyle somewhere else. America, or any western civilization should never give someone any more or less rights depending on their beliefs. Also, this debate can turn in to one that is self contradicting because what if establishing a religious court goes against someone else's religion? Then you have done something against a religion, and you are not being fair. Being secular is the most just way to handle situations in the United States. Voters please take in to consideration that my opponent has never said any thing convincing, and that my opponent skipped a round during this debate. Thank you
western democracy should recognize the establishment of religious based court

the reality, there's still big amount of people who believe in their own religion. They breath, eat, drink and doing everything with religious guidelines, so religion is important for them, and of course because it is important, they want to follow the guidelines as good as possible, which in this case law. In Islam there's law named qisas, many of moslem want to adopt this kind of law because of their faith and law, they believe god wont be wrong. These group will be disrespected if the goverment doesnt recognize it. I belive we are the same as human but in religion we arent the same
western democracy should recognize the establishment of religious based court

There ought to be no laws in favor or against any religious establishments. If people are treated in the court system as their religion sees fit, then they may not get what they properly deserve. For starters, what is a religion? It is belief system, which involves a dogma, rules, and holy texts. Whose to say one can not make up a religion, and have any sort of punishment work in your favor? No one should have the right to deny you to your religious views, no matter how 'silly' they may seem. Everything in the court (besides swearing on the bible) is done absent of religion, because one should not be treated differently due to their religious beliefs.