BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harry Potter would beat Voldemort in a battle

he doesn't need help from people he can win all on his own. BEsides, you agree with me that harry beat Voldemort in the deathly Hallows. Harry potter can defend himself, he protected himself against Avada Kedavra in the last book and movie. Harry does have guts! he would neverpe e in his pants. He's cool and if you don't believe that you suck! Harry Potter can beat voldemort, and taht's that!
Harry Potter would beat Voldemort in a battle

Hello HarryPotter, I will be on the Con/Negation part of this debate Harry Potter would beat Voldemort in a battle. Harry Potter vs. Voldemort > Harry Potter (sorry to say for all fans) will not beat Voldemort in a battle. True he beat him in the Deathly Hallows, but he would never have won without beating all the Horcruxes (is that how you spell it) in the book. Besides, he needed the help of Hermione and Ronald just to defeat the Horcuxes. He died against Voldemort once. > Harry Potter needed his mother just to save him. If Voldemort had the chance, he could have killed that boy there. Even though he hurt himself badly, (stupid him) he had billions of chances to kill Harry. Besides, wasn't it in the fourth book that he nearly killed Harry? Well, you can tell that Harry can't defend himself that well. > Harry Potter does not have the guts to kill Voldemort with the Avada Kedavra spell. He can't even do Crucio right... > Voldemort could make Harry Potter pee in his pants from looking at Voldemort's face. Just joking around. > Voldemort would have killed Harry in the second book. But, like always, Harry needed help to survive. Therefore, he can't defend himself. I suppose this is enough for Round 1. I wish a happy holidays to HarryPotter (Pro) and all readers! Sources: www.harrypotter.wikia.com
Christianity/Catholicism is at least somewhat good for today's society

My apologies for the forfeit, I have been quite busy with not only school but with personal issues as well. I hope that you can forgive me for that. Anyways, I would also like to clarify one more thing. BOP is on me. And I fully accept this challenge. I personally don't believe it as a whole would be good for society, but I will attempt to do so. Also, I agree with the definitions. The only reason why I said Christianity/Catholicism was because of their common belief in a God. Also, I will not be arguing for the existence of a higher deity, but if the religion of Christianity/Catholicism is beneficial to today's society.Argument 1: Christianity/Catholicism helps the psychological well being of a man/woman. -Confessing to a supposed "God" can relieve much stress and can offer as a counseling alternative. Being able to believe in a higher power who loves you no matter what you do is a very comforting prescence. After my mother went through a divorce with my biological father, she was in a deep state of depresision and lonliness. Due to her devoted Christianity, she assumed that by going to church, she would be able to ask "God" to help her get past this difficult stage. And because of this mindset, she did get through it. This was obviously not the work of some higher deity, but because of her mindset which was percieved because of her belief that a higher power would help her, she helped herself. Not only through consolaton in a loving God, but through her own hard work which was, as she believed, the work of God.Argument 2: (I'm getting tired of saying Christianity/Catholicism o I will just refer to it as C/C) C/C sets a basis for moral rules with the 10 Commandments. -The 10 Commandments basically provides a basis for moral rules. Certain ones such as Do Not Kill, or Do Not Steal, or even Do Not commit adultery are good moral standpoints on living life to the best of what Society can give us. Do Not lie is a good basis since lieing is frowned upon in today's society, however humans are naturally liars and we will contine to lie to what is beneficial to us. Anyways, the 10 Commandments are, at the least, beneficial to our society today. Of course there are pretty bizarre Commandments, Most of them will help an individual grow in society.I look forward to your rebuttals and as I said before, I wish you Good will and Good luck! And if I may, (since I am debating on this side), May God be with you :D
Christianity/Catholicism is at least somewhat good for today's society

I accept the challenge and look forward to a lively and enlightening discussion. As part of my acceptance, I would like to ask that the question be narrowed to specify that "Christianity/Catholicism is ON THE WHOLE a net positive force in today's society." This will allow us a clear, attainable resolution to affirm or deny. I hope this clarification of the question is amenable to the PRO side. I will leave us with Merriam-Webster's definition of both Christianity and Catholicism (as nouns). If the PRO side wishes to narrow the field of debate to the effects of one or the other of these two separate terms within his opening argument, I shall not attempt to use claims or evidence against the remaining term and will consider this to be outside the terms of the debate. Christianity noun 1.the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Catholicism noun 1.the faith, practice, and church order of the Roman Catholic Church. If the PRO side wishes to narrow the field of debate to the effects of one or the other of these two separate terms within his opening argument, I shall not attempt to use claims or evidence against the remaining term and will consider this to be outside the terms of the debate.
Christianity/Catholicism is at least somewhat good for today's society

In this debate I will be taking the side which I personally do not believe in. Devil's Advocate if some might say. I will be arguing that Christianity can be good for our society. Rules: The only rule I have for this debate is that my opponent should be respectful to not only me, but commenters with different views. Round 1 should be used for acceptanceRound 2 Should be arguments cont. And finally, I would like it if round 3 would be for the opposite sides defense. This debate will mainly be used for enlightening minds and opening different viewpoints in people.
This House Believes that a Welfare System is a force for good

Hello Stephen_Hawkins! Thank you for the debate challenge. First off I Think that the argument should be different then it is. You have made it about what politicians believe and i think it should be about what we believe. But either way the house republicans do not believe that the welfare state is a good way to run the government at least not the way it is working. The house republicans don't think that we should redistribute the wealth the way that Obama does. They believe that people should try to go out and get jobs instead of welfare. The republicans view welfare as a program which should help those who cannot help themselves or as a short term program that helps people while they are in between jobs. The Democrats view it as a way to equalize wealth, and use government to help people. While there motives are well intention-ed we should not judge a program based on its motives but rather its results. I personally believe that we should replace welfare with a negative income tax like that advocated by Milton Friedman. I believe that government does nothing well and that the programs they create fail. The private sector works far better. I await your response
This House Believes that a Welfare System is a force for good

Simple debate, simple rules. Welfare System is defined by the Encyclopedia Dramatica, as "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization". A force for good is a generic term meaning that it should be supported, or is better than its counterpart (in this case, it is better to have a welfare state than not).
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I disagree because to be romantically love a person you must love them as a whole. It is not love if you do not love the entire person. if you love something about the person, then that is all it is, the love for the person is not romantic. 4. That is not true because it would be very difficult, almost impossible to distribute your time equally. 5. I agree because people can be tricked into thinking you are in love, and then ending up falling in love, however, once you start doing that with one person, you lose your feelings for another. 6. you may be able to have interest in people but this interest does not necessarily have to be considered romantic love. You can be interested in more than one person while not romantically loving those people. 7. i disagree. in order for there to be a possibility, the actual feelings do not need to be there. For example I can see that there is a possibility of getting my drivers license even though I completely hate driving and I have no desire to drive. 8. I disagree. As mentioned before it seems almost impossible to split time evenly between two individuals, and more than just just equal time, but also give each person the equal amount of attention during that time. ________________________________________________ 10. Therefore, It is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. i agree but you're drifting away from the topic and that is, if you romantically love more than one person and that is possible whether its from different aspects or not you still romantically love them both. 4. if there is a chance of that one of them receives more than there must be a chance that you can distribute your time equally. 5. it may be true feelings because you can be tricked into romantically loving someone for example placebo it does nothing to you but it makes you think you're getting better so you feel better. and in this you might feel in love and the more you think that you'll end up being in love. 6. you can have interest in both people because its easy to have interest in more than one thing because of the different characteristics. 7. to have that possibility in your mind you must be inlove because you are thinking about the future of your life with them. that would not be possible if you had no feelings. 8. whether its a day a week or something you can always split the days you spend with them and then that would even out the time spent with eachother and in that time you can grow feelings for each equally. 9. Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. just because you romantically love aspects of different people does not mean you romantically love the people as a whole. 4. your feelings can not grow to romatic love because that would require you to love both people entirely and also give both people romantic efoort and time which is not possible to give equally. there must be one person who receives more than another. 5. I do not understand what you mean. if you are tricked it is not real regardless of what you are led to believe. 6. your former lover does not become more shallow. you are the one losing interest because you have gained interest in a new person. Therefore, your former lover is no longer as interesting as they once seemed, even though they might not have changed. 7. Simply putting in effort to think about how important someone is to you or thinking they have the potential to be with you for the rest of your life dodes not mean you have love them romantically. It simply means there is the possibility that you could some time in the future. 8. You could divide your time wisely but it is almost impossible to do equally. Especially when you consider your other responsibilities, possibly work, school, family, and then also those of your lovers. it would be very difficult to make that work. 9. therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. You can make yourself believe that you are romantically in love with both aspects in the different people. 4. i disagree because you can be in between and make yourself believe you are in love with both especially if you spend time with them a lot and your feelings can grow to romantic love. 5. what if you are "tricked' to the point that you convince yourself you are in love with them both. 6. i disagree just because you are feeling romantically in love with the other person you once just had lust for does not mean your lover before is going to become shallow. 7. just because you are questioning how you feel for someone does not mean the feelings do not exist, but it means that you care and are putting the effort in to think about how you truly feel because you could end up spending the rest of your life with these people. 8. you can divide your time wisely to grow such feelings for those people and then you can be romantically in love with both. 9. therefore it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. If you are loving people for seperate qualitites, then you are not romantly in love with each individual. Romatincally loving someone requires all aspects of the individual to be loved. 4. If you are not giving your complete potential love. Then it is not romatic love. You either do or do not love someone romatically. There is not in between, that would be not loving someone romatically. It is possible you like both people a lot. or you are physically attracted to both people. 5. I agree that it is possible for your mind to trick you into believing something. Therefore, if you are tricked into believing you have romantic feelings for someone, those may not be real or meaningful. 6. If your feelings of lust turn into feelings of romantic love, then it is also possible to say that while those feelings of lust were turning into something deeper, that any romantic feeling you had for someone else was becoming less. 7. A confused feeling is not guarantee or true romantic love. if your feelings have to be questioned or doubted it is probable that they do not exist. 8. to be in romantic love with more than one indiducal requires more than just feelings. it requires commitment of your time to that person and most of your energy to fulfill their romatic needs. 9. Therefore it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I agree with your definition of love. 2. i agree with your exclusions. 3. i disagree, someone can have all the looks and you can be attracted to them physically but if their personality is trash you would just want them for their looks and you can find someone that has the personality but not the looks and you can love them both because they fill each others hole on what they're missing. 4. i disagree, thats not the point, whether you give them the full romantic love or not, the point is to you feel romantic love for two different people at the same time. 5. i disagree, your mind makes you feel things that might not be true because you guys bond a lot and you might feel that you guys are perfect for each other which will lead you to believe you do love that person as well as the other person. 6. i agree if there is confusion no one can truly tell or understand the feelings the person feels. 7. i agree but lust can end up being romantically love if you engage and grow with that person and bond. then you will feel romantically in love. 8. i agree with your definition. 9. it is possible that you can be blinded by lust and confuse it with romantic love but if you are confused and believe it is romantic love then how do you know you're not truly feeling romantically attached to that person. 10. therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I agree with your definition of love. 2. I agree with your exclusions. 3, I disagree because if you truly romantically love one person for their physical appearance, then you must love the person as a whole and therefore everything about them specifically. therefore you are unable to give your true romantic love to a different person. 4. This is not true because the people may come at different times, but it is not possible to give one person your full romantic love while being in love with another person. 5. I agree but then it is not necessary to be romantically in love with both. Just because you can connect with a person on an emotional or personal level, does not mean you are aromatically in love with them. 6. If there is confusion, the how can it be proved that romantic love is felt for both individuals. It is possible that there are only partial feelings for each of the people. 7. It is possible to feel lust for one person and feel romantic love for another. 8. Lust is defined as a very strong sexual desire. 9. It is possible to be blinded by feelings of lust and confuse them for feelings of romantic love. 10. therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non controvesial I agree with 1 and 2 8. A definition of lust controversial: I agree with yor controversial premises
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. Love is defined as a deep feeling of romantic and sexual attraction to someone. 2. Familial love, friendships and poly amorous relationships will be excluded from this argument. 3. you can love someone for their physical appearances, and the other person for their personality. 4. people love each other at different times in their lives so what are the chances those different people came at the same time period in your life. 5. a person can be emotionally connected to one person and mentally connected to another. 6. some people are indecisive, they could be confused on what they want and what they need. So they try to choose in between and end up falling in love with them both. 7. Therefore, you can romantically love more than one person at once. Non controversial: 1 and 2 because these are definition of love and what we are excluding from the argument as we agreed. Controversial: 3. because some people may believe it is not possible to romantically love someone for only their appearance or only their personality. some people may argue that you must love both. 4. This is difficult to prove that the same feelings were occurring at the same time but for two different people. 5. similar to 3, people may not even see a connection as romantic love. 6. this is unable to be proved, confusion exists and it can lead to mixed feelings or even shared feelings.
Argument for god

I will accept that you have forfieted this debate based on the fact that you have not followed the rules set forth when the debate began. You put forward more then one argument. You did not define god. I gave you a chance to follow the second one when I stated that If you give me a definition of god I can attempt to disprove it, you strawmaned this by saying that I said I can disprove any personal god then preposing a definition that is illogical and irrefutable. Since you broke two rules I laid out for this debate you have forfieted.
Argument for god

I will break your argument down into peace's and I am certain that I can make it look a joke. Part one I did not state that an intelligent being created humanity or any creature on the planet, evolution did that but I will still defend against your arguments as if I did. what intelligent life form would create.... Black holes? we do not fully understand them yet and I do not fully understand this as an argument I mean why wouldn't an intelligent being create them? maybe they are a mistake in the code but I doubt it I think we will find out that they are the most simple structures in the universe. all your other questions have a simple answer. well why would evolution let these things happen? you are almost defending the existence of a god with your questions an intelligent being may have set human beings up not to be perfect but to amuse himself for all we know. you can disprove any personal idea of a creator. ok disprove a monster from another dimension made from energy only found in the other dimension, he exists in a form and dimension we could not explain using words nor mathematics. he alters our dimension using black holes because as they bend space time they rip the wall of our dimension allowing him to force energy into our dimension. the first time he did this was the big bang, thus all matter in our dimension and universe was put here buy an intelligent being. disprove that. next you used a theory the zero-energy universe hypothesis which is simply a theory its not fact and nobody would claim it to be so I cancel that from the debate. unless im allowed to use my theory that god exists as fact :) last but most importantly you stated that the simple beauty of physics and mathematics and how they collide so well could only show the existence of an artist with a lower intelligence than most of humanity, that is a strange view to take and makes the assumption that simplicity is worse than complexity. ask any Mathematician or physicist if he agrees with you on that one or maybe more importantly if an artist would.
Argument for god

I'd like to start this by thanking my opponent for giving me this chance to debate him. I'd also like to ask my opponent where he stands on this subject, are you atheist or theist? Now onto the debate. I would completely agree with you if you had said it is impossible to put forward evidence that something created the universe, but you decided to use the word intelligent so I will have to disagree. For instance, what intelligent being would make such things as black holes? What kind of intelligence would think that using the same pipe for food and oxygen is a good idea? Why do all beings not have a similar ability to sponges or algae in attaining food, then we could eat very easily and it would almost remove starvation from the world. Why is it that alot of attributes we show are inferior to many animals? But I digress, I can agree it is impossible to disprove a creator. What I cannot agree is that it is impossible to disprove a definition or personal idea of a creator, and if your willing to give me one I can work at that. You said I would probably ask who created this being, but I would not. I would ask you how this Being came into existence, but the usual reply is that it has always been. All I ask of you is that you posit a logical argument for the existence of a god. You ask where all the energy from the big bang came from, I ask you what energy? In our universe the total energy equals 0. Ill allow wikipedia to give you a summary of this since I don't fully understand the concept. "The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations. The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." What I do understand about this is that it would allow the universe to come into existence the same way that virtual particles do. Virtual particles only stay in existence for an inversely proportional amount of time based on the amount of positive energy in them. Since the universe's energy is 0 it could always exist. Thus allowing for an Ex nihilo existence. I believe the "simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics" could only show an artist of a lower intelligence level then most of humanity. If you disagree please show me why. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...