BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ubercharge > Kritzkreig

Hello, you can all call me Pogosama, and this will be my first debate on Debate.org. I'm looking forward to matching wits with the lot of you in due time. For now, however, we shall delve into the world of the cult classic Team Fortress 2, to debate a little weapon vs weapon. First, some clarification. The topic, when fully fleshed out, is that the Ubercharge is a more useful tool both offensively and defensively then the Kritzkreig. Also, I would prefer if we did not discuss strategy within custom maps, but rather maps that Valve has accepted. Argument 1 The Ubercharge (or Uber) gives 8 seconds of invincibility to damage. Invincibility has proven time and time again to be a more useful tool then the 8 seconds of pure critical hits that the Kritzkreig (or Kritz) provides. If you need to move into a heavily fortified area on an offense/defense map (such as the payload and capture point game types), then the Uber gives you offensive flexibility. That is, it allows you a greater range of opportunities then the Kritz does, thanks to those ever so plentiful sentry guns. http://tf2wiki.net... For example, in the objective map Badwater (see link below for top down map) the attacking team must push the "cart" through to the final point. However, on the final point, not only does the defense have spawn advantage (they spawn closer to the point, teleporters notwithstanding), but there is only a single path from which you may approach. Because a Kritz charge does not make you invulnerable, you are much more likely to die while charged on the attack. But an Uber allows you passage into the base, and enough time for a decent Heavy, Pyro, or Demoman to take care of the sentry areas. http://www.tfportal.de... Argument 2 It is a well known fact in Team Fortress 2, that "buildings" (machines built by the Engineer class) ignore critical hit damage. That is, they take the same amount of damage from a regular hit as they do a critical. Therefore, it stands to reason that an Ubercharge is a better choice. Of course, a Kritz charge would help kill an Engineer faster, but many Engineers "camp" their buildings. A Kritz charge would fall victim to a turret's rebuttal before the building was destroyed, where as an Ubercharge would allow you to kill both the sentry and the Engineer, as you could absorb the sustained fire from both. http://tf2wiki.net... Argument 3 The Uber allows for a more solid defense in key moments. If an Uber is deployed against you, you can merely counter it with another Uber. But if a Kritz is deployed against you, an Uber would tip the odds in your favor, as Kritz charges cannot penetrate Ubercharges. Ubercharges can also allow you to push back a powerful offense, as they are helpless against an invulnerable opponent. This of course assumes that "the best defense is a good offense," but if it work effectively, then this is hardly an arguable catch. I'm looking forward to my first debate opponent. I wish you good luck. :D
The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

I have had many debates on abortion but very few from this particular angle. I would just like to clarify the pro-life position a bit. Most pro-lifers do not believe in the absolute prohibition of abortion (though some do). I believe that abortion is justified if the woman's life is in immediate jeopardy and the unborn child (or zygote/embryo/fetus, if you prefer) is not yet viable. Once the child has reached viability, a c-section should be done to save the lives of both mother and child. The pro-life position actually states that all life is equally valuable, including the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus, and the mother who carries him/her within. I agree to Tim's terms. I look forward to reading his opening arguments.
The non-aggression principle supports the pro-choice position

DefinitionsNon-aggression principle- states that aggression is inherently unjustified and that one may be justified in doing anything that does not initiate force, fraud, or threat of force against another person or their property.Aggression- the initiation of force, fraud, or thread of force against another person or their property.Pro choice- to support a woman's choice to choose to terminate her pregnancy.Pro life- to support the prohibition on a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy.Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.
The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: 1. "Explainable" vs "capable to be understood" My opponents argument for this point goes something like this. Something explainable has the capability to be understood therefore, explainable == capable to be understood. To explain means to make an idea clear to somebody by description. Explainable thus means the capability to make the said idea clearer. Understanding means to perceive the intent of this explanation. In context, this phrase thus means the ability to percieve the intent of the said explanation. By the obvious definitions of these, words explainable =/= capable to be understood. 2. Premise 3 a)"Everything which exists has a cause" As with all Fallacies, the Special Pleading Fallacy has an exception. If I can "provid[e] adequate justification for the exemption" that this deity must be exempt from the truth of one my premises I can do so without fallacy. (1) So now, because my opponent asked, I will do so. I will explain in two ways: a) Everything which exists has a cause b) Anything caused is caused by something else a. Something cannot cause itself as it would have to exist before itself which is impossible c) There cannot be an infinite series of causes a. This is because there would be no first cause to the Universe thus, no second or third therefore, nothing would exist which is evidently false. d) There must be a first cause which in itself is not caused by anything else (a deity) Now for the second: a) Everything that exists is either a dependant being or a self-existent being b) Not everything can be a dependant being c) Therefore, there is a self-existing being I have not violated the fallacy of Special-Pleading. b) Circular reasoning I justified premise 3 in Round 2 and further expanded upon it in Round 3. c) Argument from ignorance My opponent is quoting me out of context. I answer my own question in the next sentences, "Rationally, a person cannot accept there being no cause to the universe as without a cause there is no effect. Without an initial cause to the Universe, there is no universe. As we can see, there is a universe. " TELEOGICAL ARGUMENT a) Premise 2 "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose" I was also utilizing the definition my opponent provided: "the reason in which a thing was created". The reason Magma was created was to allow tectonic shifts, volcanoes etc. That is it's reason for existence to allow for these shifts and allow for volcanoes to exist. We can say this is certain because what other purpose does magma have? Earth was created to suit life, the position Earth holds in proximity to the sun allows for the creation of life. The atmosphere earth has allows for the creation of life. The stability of Earth's surface (at least compared with many other planets) allows for the creation of life. Earth was created with the ability to suit life. The Universe has a reason for its existence…to support other existence. A deity must exist. Source: 1. . http://www.nizkor.org...
The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

Definitions: Deity- for the purposes of this debate, a deity is the supernatural creator of the universe who oversees the entire universe. Rational- Consistent with or based on reason; logical (1) Logical- Of or according to the rules of logic (2) Logic- Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (3) Something logical is rational and something rational is logical. Arguments- Cosmological: 1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation. 2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things: a) unintelligible b) has an explanation 3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality. 4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation. 5. There are 3 types of explanations: a) Scientific: physical conditions + laws = an event b) Personal: Explanations citing desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent. c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition. 6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific as there are no independent laws and physical conditions independent of what is being explained. The Big Bang theory, for example, fails to explain the existence of the entire universe it fails to explain where the Big Bang singularity came from. The Universe as a total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be totally explained without an Archimidean reference point outside the system. 7. The Universes existence is not essential because the universe does not exist necessarily. This is because there is a possibility for the Universe to have not existed. (If the Big Bang, for example, had been slightly different large scale structure may not have existed). Therefore, the Universe is not essential. 8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation. 9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe. C. A rational person must believe a deity exists. Teleological: 1. Some things lack intelligence 2. Things that lack intelligence have a purpose 3. Something which lacks intelligence but, has a purpose must have something with intelligence guiding it C. There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe directing all unintelligent things to their purpose. Source: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

Since, unfortunately, I am always unable to find these types of debates before they are already taken, I will instigate one myself. The proposition is "The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid. " As Pro, it will be your duty to establish the truth of the proposition by providing evidences and/or logical arguments for the existence of a deity. As Con, it will be my duty to refute the evidences and/or arguments presented. I will not be providing any evidences or arguments myself (as such things would be impossible), but only responding to my opponent's. I also urge my opponent to define the deity in which he/she feels it is logically valid to believe in, in order to avoid any future confusion (since the term "deity" carries a very large spectrum of meanings). Structure of the debate: 1. CON: Instigation 1. PRO: Acceptance; providing his/her definition of "deity" (what properties does this deity have that are salient to this debate); providing first evidences and/or arguments 2. CON: Refutations of definition and/or evidences and/or arguments 2. PRO: Refutations of refutations 3. CON: Refutations of refutations' refutations 3. PRO: Refutations of refutations' refutations' refutations 4. CON: ". .. "'s refuations; 4. PRO: ". .. "'s refutations; closing statements Please provide ALL of the evidences and/or arguments you wish to use in the first round and save the next two for rebuttals only. Otherwise, we may not have adequate time to discuss everything.
The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

II. Special Pleading Once again I refer back to the source provided. "Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION" (1). I have provided this justification in Round 3. My opponent has not refuted it. If one source is not good enough I'll provide another. "Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE EXEMPTION." (2) I could not have made that more clear in Round 3. I have justified the exemption to the rule. The cosmological argument holds logically true. I have provided an exemption, I have justified the exemption, my opponent did not touch the justification. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I. Equivocation Some things lack intelligence. Magma serves no other purpose than tectonic activity. That is the reason for it's creation. Magma was created with these natural properties to allow for tectonic activity. Magma was created with these "natural properties" to fulfill its purpose. It could not have endowed in itself its own properties. II. Final Consequences My opponent is basically arguing here the creation of such objects are spontaneous and yet no scientific field agrees this creation is spontaneous and happened by complete chance. The chance of Earth being able to sustain life without outside assistance is so low, its magnitude of happening by complete chance is higher than the number of particles in the UNIVERSE. This leads to the conclusion there must have been an outside designer. 1. The Earth's orbit is not all that elliptical as you may believe. A circle is an ideal limit (Limit e --> 0) of an ellipse. There is no such thing as a perfect circle or orbit. And in Earth's case "e" is 0.017. A tiny number showing it is almost a perfect circle but, the gravitational pulls of outside objects in the Universe have pulled it slightly off. 2. Science has shown Earth's environment adjusted to suit life. Life sprang up on Earth when it's environment stabilized. (3) I thank my opponent for a good debate on this matter. Source: 1. http://www.nizkor.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should their be a death penalty

My opponent has forfeited the previous round and has still not got his logic correct yet. For this round I will just state facts why the death penalty should be used: 1.The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. 2.It creates another form of crime deterrent. 3.Justice is better served. 4.Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. 5.It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. 6.DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. 7.Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. 8.It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. 9.It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.
Should their be a death penalty

First of all, my opponent said: "My opponent only said what he think that I responsed wrong, he never defended his statement about the death penalty. Now to defend my statement, talking about the speeding ticket and parking ticket, that was just an example of why there should not be a death penalty. " REBUTTAL: I urge CON re-read my response in the first round again only this time more properly. The facts are all there, and it's impossible for someone to get a death penalty for getting a speeding ticket and parking ticket. So there is no point in even considering that as an example to argue against the common death penalty. ----------------------- ----------------------- My opponent then said: "Here is my best reason of why there should be no death penalty. Some people who have commited a deadly crime, they are usually masterminds and can escape the scene and disguise themselves to never be caughten. In this case, there are some other people who look just like them and maybe considered a possible suspect. " REBUTTAL: This may appear to be a valid point, but once again as I said in my first round NO ONE will be given a death penalty unless they are PROVEN guilty of a crime. So in reality if someone is accused of a crime but is actually innocent then it's impossible for them to be PROVEN guilty. Please read the following source it supports my argument: . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... ----------------------- ----------------------- Finally my opponent said: "If you watch "Law and Order" Episode 103, one guy was sentenced to a death penalty but he was not the victim, he was the twin of the victim, but later the twin who was the real murderer felt guilty and didnt want his brother to bear the pain so he pleaded guilty. Now if there was a death penalty in which my opponent agrees to have, that honest person and truthful person wouldve been sent to jail for just being a twin and then you have a murderer gone free. Therefore a death penalty should not be taking into consideration" REBUTTAL: "Law and Order" is a fictional TV series; in the real world it would not be that easy to do that. In the real world a whole background and family gets tracked down so if they were twins, the police would know right away. The Police could have used psychiatrists and lie detectors to correctly determine a case that would lead to a death penalty. Also DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence (even twins have different DNA). ----------------------- ----------------------- CONCLUSION: Yet again my opponent has failed to make his argument against the real modern day death penalty logical. Once again I will give my opponent another chance to make his argument truly logical.
Should their be a death penalty

My opponent only said what he think that I responsed wrong, he never defended his statement about the death penalty. Now to defend my statement, talking about the speeding ticket and parking ticket, that was just an example of why there should not be a death penalty. Here is my best reason of why there should be no death penalty. Some people who have commited a deadly crime, they are usually masterminds and can escape the scene and disguise themselves to never be caughten. In this case, there are some other people who look just like them and maybe considered a possible suspect. If you watch "Law and Order" Episode 103, one guy was sentenced to a death penalty but he was not the victim, he was the twin of the victim, but later the twin who was the real murderer felt guilty and didnt want his brother to bear the pain so he pleaded guilty. Now if there was a death penalty in which my opponent agrees to have, that honest person and truthful person wouldve been sent to jail for just being a twin and then you have a murderer gone free. Therefore a death penalty should not be taking into consideration
Should their be a death penalty

I thank CON for making this debate; it is nice to meet CON. Now on to the debate... seeing as my opponent is from America I have assumed that we are talking about the North American death penalty in general. If it was meant to be death penalties worldwide then my opponent should have mentioned that in his first round. Using the following reference about death penalty procedures as my information source for my whole first round: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... My opponent said in his first round in relation to the death penalty: "No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty." REBUTTAL: It appears CON does not properly understand how the Death penalty works. NO ONE will be given a death penalty unless they are proven guilty of a crime considered to be very evil like many murders. People who are "speeding or parked in a wrong spot" (as CON seemed to think) do not get Death penalties, the very most they will get is several years in prison. ----------------------- ----------------------- Also CON said: "Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty" REBUTTAL: It is true that this is worse than People who are "speeding or parked in a wrong spot" but even drug possession, gun possession, or attempted suicide are still not likely enough to have a criminal awarded a death penalty (at least in North America anyway). ----------------------- ----------------------- CONCLUSION: So far my opponent has been illogical and failed to get his facts right, seeing as we have four rounds in this debate I will give my opponent another chance to make his argument more logical.
Should their be a death penalty

No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty. They are still nice people, they should not be punished that harshily. Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty