BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will Ferrell is a better Alex Trebek than Alex Trebek

My opponent's assertion that Will Ferrell is a better Alex Trebek can by no means be logically upheld. This holds true, as I will show, even in light of Trebek being Canadian by birth. I will attempt to make my positive case here for Alex Trebek's superiority as himself, and rebut in the next round. 1. If Alex Trebek didn't exist, there would be no part for Ferrell to play. Trebek is the standard by which Ferrell must be measured if we are grading on a Trebek scale. Now if we were grading for who has better emotions, who is a better actor, or whatever else, that would be different. But grading for Trebekianism, our standard is therefore Trebek himself. One cannot be more pure Trebek than Trebek himself. As an analogy, imagine a perfect circle. Now, whenever I see someone else draw a circle, it is in no way possible for that circle to be any more of a circle than the perfect circle by which I judge all circles. It is possible that any subsequent circle can be as circular, but never more. The same holds true with Trebekianism. While one could argue that Ferrell is as Trebekian as Trebek himself, it is logically impossible for him to be more Trebek. 2. Assuming one is not given to solipsism or disembodied minds in jars, we can assume that "being" is not merely mental or spiritual, but physical as well. Given all that goes into making an individual, it is demonstrably false that Ferrell has had the same experiences as Trebek, has the same DNA and nosehairs, etc. 3. While I would adhere more to a platonistic notion of essences, I will concede to fictionalism of sorts for this argument. Let's say that the definition of Trebek couldn't be found in Trebek himself, but was a created idea of values. So just as the idea of nationalism has changed in meaning and implication for action across centuries and landscapes, so we could argue the same for Trebek. The problem here is that on a relativistic notion of definitions, there really isn't such a thing as "is." While we may have temporary definitions, ideas and truths are not static (they don't have essences), and therefore aren't objectively and eternally true. So even if my opponent did argue from a non-platonist viewpoint, he would still be overstating his case in arguing that Ferrell is a better Trebek than Trebek himself. I appreciate my opponent's reverence of Ferrell, but I think we need to uphold Ferrell as Ferrell, a man who can play a better bizarro-Trebek than Trebek could. Ferrell is a great actor, but he is not Trebek, thank goodness.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

Ezekiel 18 mentions murder, adultery, stealing, lying etc., but it does not mention violating the Sabbath. The purpose of Ezekiel 18 was not to mention all sins in the Bible, but to show how the Wicked can be reconciled to go by turning from his Sins. "But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right..." The Sabbath, being one of the decree. "The tribe of Benjamin was almost eliminated for violence/rape/stealing/murder" The 11 other tribes should have consulted G-d. They only consulted G-d on which tribe should go first but not if they should attack Benjamin. And the law does not ask other to die for one's sins. "Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for rape/violence/murder/homosexuality" Sabbath was only mandate to the Jewish People so this is irrelevant.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

The laws are not evil, or god would never had given them to the Jews. Anyway, Pikuach nefesh proposes hat human life is above the Sabbath. Besides, Ezekiel 18 mentions murder, adultery, stealing, lying etc, but it does not mention violating the Sabbath. In addition, the tribe of Benjamen was almost eliminated for violence/rape/stealing/murder, and Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for rape/violence/murder/homosexuality, but no place was ever destroyed for not abiding by the Sabbath.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

"I did, that is the whole point of the link!". We are not debating the fact that I accepted the debate. Now that it is done, we should go back to the reason of the debate. "Christianity is only "Judaism with Christ"" This is irrelevant to the debate, we are not debating who is a Jew. "trees are more important than wives." I answered your first argument stating that murder is mentioned 15 times and Sabbath was only mentioned 4 times. I agree with you that the quantity of times a word is repeated cannot be use to prove or disprove that Sabbath is worst than murder. I only corrected that fact. As I said in Round 3 "The number of times a word appears does not necessary mean that it has more importance" to counter your argument of Round 1. Again, you did not refute my argument, which were: Breaking the Sabbath was a sin against G-d, murder was a sin against man. Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love G-d and the second is to love man. The Bible order death penalty for both. Nevertheless, some times a murderer can avoid the death penalty by going to the city of refuge. Only Sabbath violation was shown as a public example in front of all the assembly of Israel. You have not given any argument more than "Pikuach nefesh states that human life is above the Sabbath" As a Christian, you do not believe in Jewish Law. Jewish laws are binding, but cannot contradict the Tanakh. In any case the tanakh prevails and my arguments are from the Tanakh.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

Nevertheless, I will use the Bible as authoritative in this case to answer your argument. As Orthodox Jews believe the Bible to be always authoritative and to Talmud not as authoritative . http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org...; I did, that is the whole point of the link! "Thus even if I am not a Jew, I can answer your questions without to much problem. " Yeah well I'm a Jew, by lineage, religion, well, yes too, Christianity is only "Judaism with Christ" that's why we still have the Old Testament! "The word Sabbath appears 108 times . https://www.blueletterbible.org...... and the word murder (the one in the 10 commandments) appears only 47 times . https://www.blueletterbible.org...; There is a perfect analogy f this; "The word tree is mentioned 328 times in the bible (. https://www.blueletterbible.org...), whereas the word wife is used 1 time (. https://www.blueletterbible.org...), hence, trees are more important than wives. " There is a big difference between mentioning something, and ordering someone to abide by it, and a difference between the number of times something is condemned, and the extent to which it is condemned. For example, Ezekiel 18 mentions murder as a obvious sin, but it never mentions the Sabbath. "The number of times a word appears does not necessary mean that it has more importance, and even if it would be, the original Hebrew word would prevail. Thus Sabbath appearing more often would be more important. As I said in my previous round, both murder and breaking Sabbath require death penalty. Some murders have exception, but not the Sabbath. Furthermore, a public example was shown only for the Sabbath breaking. " Why did it order death penalty, I don't know, I will do research. "I looked at the linked, but you did not specify that this debate was supposed to be between you and a Jew. No all Jews believe that halakhah is binding either. You should have specified Orthodox Jew. " I did.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

"Pikuach nefesh states that human life is above the Sabbath" You should have clearly stated that the debate was supposed to be with a Jew in the first round. Nevertheless, I will use the Bible as authoritative in this case to answer your argument. As Orthodox Jews believe the Bible to be always authoritative and to Talmud not as authoritative http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org... Thus even if I am not a Jew, I can answer your questions without to much problem. "the bible also refers to murder more than the Sabbath" The word Sabbath appears 108 times https://www.blueletterbible.org... and the word murder (the one in the 10 commandments) appears only 47 times https://www.blueletterbible.org... The number of times a word appears does not necessary mean that it has more importance, and even if it would be, the original Hebrew word would prevail. Thus Sabbath appearing more often would be more important. As I said in my previous round, both murder and breaking Sabbath require death penalty. Some murders have exception, but not the Sabbath. Furthermore, a public example was shown only for the Sabbath breaking. "This debate was meant for between me and Talmud, the Jew, in case you had not looked at the link I gave you." I looked at the linked, but you did not specify that this debate was supposed to be between you and a Jew. No all Jews believe that halakhah is binding either. You should have specified Orthodox Jew. Please counter my argument in the next round. Thank you
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

Pikuach nefesh states that human life is above the Sabbath, hence violating human life (murder) is worse than violating the Sabbath, the bible also refers to murder more than the Sabbath, New Testament aside, but far more with the new testament. This debate was meant for between me and Talmud, the Jew, in case you had not looked at the link I gave you.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

Please note that all references are from the Bible, I will not use human understanding to justify any of my argument and will only see what G-d (as per his words) said is worst. First let us look at the ten commandment. The first 5 are directly related sins against G-d and the last five are sins against your neighbour. First, Jesus said himself that the most important commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Thus if you break the first 5 commandments, it is worst than the last 5 commandments. (Which would be breaking the second commandant in importance as per Jesus "Loving your neighbour as yourself") Furthermore, if you break the Sabbath, G-d mandates that you should be killed. Ye shall keep the sabbath H7676 therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Even if murder is also punishable of death, in some cases, the murderer may flee to a city of refuge. The word for murder here is the same used in the ten commandment רָצַח "Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer H7523 may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares" But there is no exception made for the Sabbath. And only the Sabbath, G-d ask to have a punishment as a public example. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. Thus, with all those Bible verse, there is no reason to think that G-d is less displeased to break the Sabbath than to Murder. Note. Sabbath was only meant for the Jewish people and for those leaving in the land of Israel.
Violating the Sabbath is NOT worse than murder

Thank you Mr harrytruman for the opportunity to debate you. Please note that you have not put any conditions. I will thus set the conditions: Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals Only Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements I will thus wait for your first argument and will put my arguments on round 2. Thank you very much.
Girls should be able to wear leggings to school

Due to the fact that there is merely one round, I will proceed to list all of my arguments and refutations (to some point) in this initial/final round. My opponent lists some extremely valid points, the main (and pretty much only one) is that the girls have no fault in the fact that boys get distracted, as well as being able to express themselves. First, I will address the statement "it is not the fault of the girls. .. " Of course it is not. In theory, of course. Nobody in a school setting would set out on a mission to distract all others from their education. But in today's society, and in schools around the country (both junior high, high school, and college), things do tend to get out of hand. There comes a point where clothing simply doesn't work for an individual, and instead of singling out an individual and declaring that they are not allowed to wear certain clothing, it becomes a school rule. One must also look at the standards being set here. What my opponent has neglected to mention is the fact that boys are also subject to dress coding when wearing leggings. This is not a single-gender rule; it applies to everyone. Furthermore, "that boys get distracted" is quite the general statement. Not every male is being distracted, and more often than not I would venture to say that most males' education is not affected much by the clothing decisions of fellow classmates. Second, addressing the fact that girls should be able to express themselves. In my opinion (and this being somewhat of an opinion based site), there are plenty of other ways to express oneself than leggings. In fact, expressing through wearing leggings may send the message that school is not important, or that one falls into all the other stereotypes of wearing leggings. School is, while one is a student, their job. Dressing up and looking presentable should be something on their minds, and wearing leggings may not present this. Finally comes the belief in dress codes. These rules are not set to ruin a students day, or to cause them misery. For many schools, this is for safety and simply to avoid problems in the future. All in all, I believe I have presented my arguments in a fashion that demonstrates my side.
The united federation of planets (star trek) would destroy the empire (star wars)

"In "Star Wars" Darth Vader is hardcore. He makes the crew of "Star Trek" look like wimps in comparison."We are debating who would win in a war between the Federation and the Empire not whose crew is less wimpy."He rules and gets sh-t done. He has good fighting skills."First sentence doesn't matter, he could be a king and it wouldn't make a difference. Second sentence is irrelevent; the fighting skills of a single pilot don't matter. Not even Darth Vader can defeat every starship in starfleet, he's not a one man army. "He had a massive empire."I already explained why the Federation would win despite superior numbers."Bigger than any Star Trek ship. "In star trek an X-Wing destroyed the death star which is 160 km wide and the Millenium falcon destroyed the 2nd death star which was 900km wide proving size doesn't matter. Also star trek ships being smallr are much more maneuverable than a Star Destroyer or Death star."He will destroy a tiny little Trek ship if you screw around with the empire."How can he destroy something he can't find or hit. According to most sources themaximum range of the main weapons; the turbolasers, are 24 to 95 kilometers. Above I said that the Federation's top weapon would be torpedoes. The 23rd century version had a range of 300000 km; 3157 times he range of a turbo laser. Thats 300 years before the 26th century and 100 years before the 24th century; it would be crazy to suggest that the range hasn't improved in all of that time. Then there's the Picard maneuver where the ship goes to warp and then stops a short distance away creating a sensor ghost that makes it incredibly difficult to figure out which is the real one. The only way to figure it out is to detect the minute changes in the scarce gases floating around; a task star destroyers and their smaller fighters aren't made for."Darth Vader is a real gangster." We're not debating characters hence this is irrelevent.
The united federation of planets (star trek) would destroy the empire (star wars)

I beg to differ. In "Star Wars" Darth Vader is hardcore. He makes the crew of "Star Trek" look like wimps in comparison. He rules and gets sh-t done. He has good fighting skills. He's got balls of steel if you ask me. He had a massive empire. Bigger than any Star Trek ship. He will destroy a tiny little Trek ship if you screw around with the empire. Darth Vader is a real gangster.
The united federation of planets (star trek) would destroy the empire (star wars)

The United Federation of planets would defeat the Empire mainly because of torpedoes. In Voyager endgame it shows a new torpedo that the Federation will eventually use: transphasic torpedoes. There are two main things about transphasic torpedoes. First off they are easily created by modifying a photon torpedo; even Voyager could do it in a few hours with their limited resources. Second of all the way they work; 1. a transphasic torpedo is launched. 2. the torpedo phases out of sync with space time so nothing can stop it except for a beam of energy at the phase variance of the torpedo. 3. It reaches its target and detonates. In the 26th century the Federation has Chroniton torpedoes which can only be stopped with shields at a certain frequency and Quantum Singularity torpedoes which from context suggest when detonated they create a quantum singularity better known as a black hole. I have repeatedly read that star wars shields aren't frequency based nor are their turbolasers, which means the Empire cannot defend against them. It has also been shown that for pretty much every Empire vessel hitting it's reactor core will blow it up so the Torpedoes don't even have to be as powerful. Also in the 26th century the Federation has gone far beyond the travel capabilities of the Empire; they can now fold space allowing them to travel anywhere instantaneously, at this point they are exploring other galaxies something the Empire can't do. I contend that since the Empire has no way of defending against torpedoes and no speed advantage they will lose despite superior numbers and greater energy discharges.
Battle Royal I: Teemo (pro) vs Pikachu (con

Hello. Today, I have decided to make a new debate series: Battle royal. In this series, there will be a variety of match ups is battle to the death. This debate shall be about Teemo vs Pikachu. There are a variety of rules associated with this debate however. The pikachu in this battle is the on that belongs to Ash Ketchum. He is under full control of Ash, and unable to execute attacks under his own will. Teemo is level 18 with Ap runes and masteries, furthermore he has the following items: Rabadon's death cap Zhonya's hourglass Runaan's hurricane Liandry's torment Boots of mobility, Homeguard Nashor's tooth Warding trinket In addition, he has flash and ghost. He is not however permitted to recall. Pikachu is not using any items (since ash never uses them) and is unable to use any potions or revives. This battle will take place in summoner's rift.No other aid may come to either characters (example: more pokemon)All neutral monsters are disabled in this battle.All turrets are destroyed.Anyone on the field may be injured.This is a battle to the death. Both characters are capable of dying easily. You may not use the argument "Pokemon don't die".You must follow these guildlines for the battle.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------First round is acceptance onlyNo swearingNo plagiarismNo going against the battle guidelinesNo insultingThe first person to break any of the rules will experiance a 7 point forfeiture.This debate is impossible to accept. Comment if you would like to take part.
Battle Royal I: Teemo (pro) vs Pikachu (con

REFUTATIONS"Superior speed but Pikachuknows quick attack, if you are familiar to the game quick attack ALWAYS goes first. "You said Teemo's blind dart could deal impressive damage and blind Pikachu but i find Pikachu could use iron tail as a defensive move to. " Not neccesarily. As you may know, if 2 pokemon use quick attack, the faster pokemon attacks first. Teemo's "w" is just like quick attack, so upon activation, due to mobility boots Teemo is faster, and thus capable of shooting various darts before pikachu approaches. Furthermore, pikachu cannot block it with iron tail if he is using quick attack because pokemon are incapable of using 2 moves at once. So, a blinding dart will make pikachu miss, and furthermore plenty of poison darts shall instantly paralyze Pikachu. "Any regard to poison- If Pikachu managed an iron tail and poison projectile would be ineffective. " Exactly, if he manages to. The issue is however that with runaan's hurricane, Teemo shoots plenty of darts, and Pikachu is incapable of blocking all of them, since he has a limit of how long he can hold his iron tail. "Teemo's Shroom mines? Pikachu and ash are not blind. " With blinding darts they are. And regardless, when Teemo plants his shrooms, they are invisible. " Being invincible for 2.5 seconds is not that long. "It is long enough to block out a thunderbolt, and right after shoot plenty of poison darts before Pikachu shoots again"Ash the nice guy? If Teemo was trying to kill Pikachu he would not hesitate. " Oh really now? In the pokemon movie, Mewtwo turns Ash into stone, and essentially kills him. However, with Pikachu's tears he is revived. But, afterwards did he go on a hunt to kill Mewtwo? No! Ash is only 10 years old, he doesn't intend on killing anyone or anything. In fact, in some episodes he is dissapointed when he hurts another pokemon too much. Ash is extremely nice, and would never kill! -----All my opponent did was counter my arguments, and his refutation are already deamed invalid. He presented no argument whatsoever on why Pikachu would win in this fight.
Battle Royal I: Teemo (pro) vs Pikachu (con

I would like to start by countering your arguments. You said that Teemo would go first according to Superior speed but Pikachu knows quick attack, if you are familiar to the game quick attack ALWAYS goes first. You said Teemo's blind dart could deal impressive damage and blind Pikachu but i find Pikachu could use iron tail as a defensive move to. Any regard to poison- If Pikachu managed an iron tail and poison projectile would be ineffective. Teemo's Shroom mines? Pikachu and ash are not blind. Being invincible for 2.5 seconds is not that long. In theory Teemo can only be invisible while standing still and Pikachu would only have to attack were he has seen Teemo last. Ash the nice guy? If Teemo was trying to kill Pikachu he would not hesitate.