BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort.

Very well then. Argument 1: Voldemort has a much bigger and better skill set. Both men are masters of magic, that is true. HOWEVER we have to ask ourselves what defines what is a master of magic. The word master means the ability to control, use or manipulate magic. This is a flaw as by that definition the something is magic and any wizard or witch can control, use AND manipulate magic, whether it's for the good or bad. This means someone as useless as Nevile Longbottom is still a master of magic. But does that mean he could stand up to Lord Voldemort? NO! Saying that Dumbledore is a master of magic is irrelevant because every magical person is a master of magic and there is no official scale of mastery. To further my argument here is some skills Dumbledore never did accomplish: - Inferi creation and control (Use these to swarm Dumbledore in a fight) -Wand versatility (If wand breaks during battle simply take another) -Parsletounge (Create and use snakes to attack Albus) -Flying (Taking the high ground, or in this case air) -Possession (Possess bystanders to attack Dumbledore) And other Dark spells. Get my point? Great, lets move on. Argument #2 Does not care about innocent bystanders Like any good dictator Voldemort does not care if others get hurt in the quest of power. In fact here is a point from the very man himself Albus Dumbledore: "His knowledge remained woefully incomplete, Harry! That which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend. Of house-elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any magic, is a truth that he has never grasped." How true Dumbledore, how true. You win. Morally. In the face of battle this can be an advantage. If these two dueled in a public area with lots of people and some gut hurt and/or died, would Voldemort stop the fight to check on the hurt? NO! Even in an area with a couple bystanders Voldemort could use these people has minions with his possession abilities to attack Dumbledore or create Inferi with them or turn them into snakes or whatever. Voldemort will use anything as a weapon , even people. I await your response Thank you.
Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort.

Hello. As this is KJCharmed03's and my first debate, we went with a light topic, based off of the Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. Today the resolution we are debating is Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort. KJCharmed03 will take the Affirmative side, supporting the statement that Dumbledore is superior to the dark lord. I however disagree with the statement. I believe that Voldemort is actually better in almost all aspects. The rules of this debate are simple: -This round is ONLY for acceptance and introduction. No arguments shall be made this round. -The last speaker cannot make any new points. Only Rebuttals. -Playing Nice is mandatory. I await your acceptance Good Luck.
Mellon Lord Would Beat Toph in a Battle

Incorrect, Defro. Toph is not at humans' best, she is only at Toph's best. Toph can only be as strong, fast, and smart as she demonstrates in the show. Therefore she cannot be as smart as Batman. But she can still be as strong and fast as Batman, since she has proved to be able to earthbend insanely fast and lift up humongous humongous rocks, therefore I concede those points. But in no way is she a genius. Toph is not a genius even at her best. She is only very smart. I already have shown evidence that she is far from being as even remotely as smart as Batman. I estimate she only as 125 IQ even at her best, not Batman's freaking 192 IQ. (Source: http://batman.wikia.com...)I have not conceded Toph is the best Earth Bender in the world. She is one of the best, however THE BEST is very arguable. King Boomi could be equal, or even better, than Toph, especially with his insane mad genius of a mind. In fact, within a battle, while Aang easily knocked Toph out of the ring, he failed to do the same to King Boomi and was forced to create a giant tornado, and even then, could only battle to an agreed draw against King Boomi.I didn't mention the source of fire. It is assumed to be there, because Melon Lord is at her best with those fires, therefore the fires remain there. "There is no proof that Melon Lord can summon more than 7 soldiers..." Indeed, but there is true proof that she can summon Metal Soldiers. Look at the above picture. This metal soldier is obviously summoned by none other than Melon Lord herself. Note that "Melon Lord" learned this ability already before she was born. Seeing the wikia, you can tell this picture comes before Melon Lord's picture. Thus, Melon Lord inherents this ability, and if metal was availible around, or summoned by Toph, Melon Lord could use it against Toph and both would struggle over control over the metal soldier, while Melon Lord sends a bunch of fiery boulders towards Toph, making her job very hard. Not only so, Melon Lord just chose not to summon the gigantic barrier or the rest of her abilities because the rest of the team was too fast. If Melon Lord had a bit more time she could do this.... And block Toph's boulder shots or gigantic walls while staying safe.And the big problem is that Toph, even when super smart, probably would be pretty reluctant to do situation three and try jumping over the soldiers. From the wikia page mentioned before, "She also displayed a remarkable amount of agility for one who preferred to have her feet planted on the ground at all times." This means that Toph will most likely be in situation one or two. My opponent hasn't exactly shown the flaws and the implausibility in my situations, just bare assertions that they are biased and won't happen. He needs to point out what exactly in my situations are impossible and won't happen, and give evidence. Otherwise it's just bluffing nonsense.Back to you, Defro.
Mellon Lord Would Beat Toph in a Battle

I accept, under certain clarifications.Clarifications:1. I am not arguing that Toph would defeat Melon Lord. Rather, I am arguing that Melon Lord would not defeat Toph. Pro has the positive assertion, therefore BOP is mostly on Pro. 2. Pro claimed that Toph will be at her best. This wasn't clear enough, therefore I am open to interpretation. Therefore I interpret that this would imply Toph is at the peak of physical fitness and able to physically fight at a human's very limits. This would imply she is as strong as fast as Batman, who is considered by many to be at the peak of the human physical limit. It also implies that she will be at her best mentally, so she'll also be as smart as Batman. Also, she will be perfectly healthy, meaning she will not have disease or genetic disorders, meaning she will not be blind. This also implies her Earth-Bending is at its maximum potential, so along with earth Bending, she can Lava Bend, Metal Bend, and since almost all masses in space except stars are made of earth, she can bend planets, asteroids/meteors, moons, etc. 3. I am able to have Toph be physically and mentally at her best because Pro claimed that Toph would be at her best. And since she is human, and we know that a human at his/her physical and mental best would be as strong and fast as an Olympic player, and not blind, it can be concluded that Toph at her best is as strong and fast as Batman, and not blind. The bending upgrades I gave her are theoretical, but it is theory supported by evidence and logic. She is able to bend everything made of some kind of earth and she herself invented metal blending. In the new Avatar series, certain earth benders can also bend lava because it is basically melted earth, so Toph at her best should be able to do so as well. Since planets, asteroids/meteors, moons, are made of earth, she can control those too if she was at her best.4. However, Pro cannot make such wild upgrades to Melon Lord because we don't know what Melon Lord is, therefore we cannot know what Melon Lord's "best" is. Unless Pro provides reasonable evidence and logic, Pro cannot make any potential upgrades to Melon Lord like I did, because BOP is mostly on Pro.
Mellon Lord Would Beat Toph in a Battle

We will assume Mellon Lord and Toph are at their best, and they both can coexist at the same time, and that Mellon Lord is controlled by an invisible magical force that is intangible and undefeatable until she is defeated.The situation goes as follows:Toph is walking up a big hill when she senses a disturbance. An evil voice cackles from above and a fiery stone is sent hurtling toward her, barely missing her. Toph is angry, ready to fight, and senses that her opponent is approximately 100 meters away from her. Unbeknowst to her, it is the infamous MELLON LORD. She has killed many poor innocent (imaginary) creatures and she is skilled in firing her fiery boulders, as well as being able to resurrect many (stone) soldiers out of the ground to rush at her enemies. Toph is unaware that, she has to crush the mellon lord's skull and later will be savoring a bite of "her" head, and that the Mellon Lord was actually an animated magical being. Mellon Lord, on the other hand, is unaware too. She does not know that this is the best earth bender possibly in the world, and laughs arrogantly, thinking she will win. As the two get ready, and Toph rushes forward, only to be met with the Mellon Lord's soldiers....the battle begins... Round one acceptance only.
Atheism is the cause of histories greatest atrocities.

"Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being." Atheism does not necessarily mean "promotes individual action without regard for other people. ". There are many different belief systems. Some are atheistic and others are not. Religions span the deistic count from zero to several, such as: Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu etc. These are organized religions. State based belief systems include Monarchies, Faith based nations, Marxism, Radical Secularism as practiced by Europeans and to a lesser extent the US in the form of representational democracies. Someone who is an atheist can be a Buddhist, moral relativist(found in radical secularlits states), utilitarian, etc. Not believing in a god does not mean one is 'against' other people nor 'out only for oneself' nor 'abstain from collective action'. One can be either an atheist or not. Either way one can commit atrocities or one may not. The atrocities were a function of Marxism, not a function of being Buddhist or Utilitarian; meaning the atrocities had no connection to whether or not the people were atheist.
Atheism is the cause of histories greatest atrocities.

I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend my own. "If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of separation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god." My Response: This is true and not true. Take the US for example. We have separation of church and state, yet our basic principles are from Judeo-Christian roots. I'm not talking about the state literally, I'm talking about the basic principles in that form of government. "Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence." My Response: Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to attack, my 3 attack points plus my supporting syllogism. So you can extend this. I urge you to affirm.
Atheism is the cause of histories greatest atrocities.

My previous post undermines your first post because it puts into question your basic premise that the cause for atrocities was Atheism when it could be more accurately be Marxism. Your inclusion of Fascist states only continue to undermine the initial error. If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of seperation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god. Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence.
Atheism is the cause of histories greatest atrocities.

Thank you for accepting. Rebuttal and Case: ok, my opponent has already claimed that warrants for my case, he has agreed with the following: 1)Soviet Union: 140 million deaths 2)China: 100 million deaths 3)Sub-Communist Nations: 50 million deaths 4)Nazi Germany: 15 million deaths 5)Sub-atheist totalitarian regimes: 5 million deaths Total: 310 million deaths For these reasons I affirm. =============================================================================== My opponent has not undermined the burden, so thats the burden for the round. I have proved the burden, therefore you can affirm right here. =============================================================================== However, he makes his own case, away from the burden, so for the sake of a 3 round debate, I'll refute his case. This is the premise of his case: "It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause." I will respond in numerically. 1) Atheism is the belief in no god, therefore higher judgment on a nation is null and void. Any action can be done because morality does not exist. There is no greater responsibility for ones actions. Therefore, atheism is a root cause. 2) He claims that Marxism is the cause. First off, this can only be applied to Communist Nations, this excludes totalitarian regimes. However, according to Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism. Linking with #1, you can infer that atheism is a cause of the deaths. 3)By claiming that Marxism is the root, then he is automatically saying that atheism is the cause as well. Syllogism: 1) Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism; the government doesn't have a moral authoritative being on top of them 2) Marxism has caused more then 200 million deaths (There is no moral law against killing, because of assertion of #1) 3) Therefore Atheism is the root a cause of the deaths =============================================================================== Thank you ladies and gentleman.
Atheism is the cause of histories greatest atrocities.

Premise 1: According to History, the greatest evils have resulted in the most loss of life. 2: Atheism has caused the greatest amount of death in history. 3: Therefore, Atheism has caused the greatest evils/atrocities in history. Affirmative and Negative Burden: Prove or disprove this syllogism in the following rounds. I thank whoever decides to debate this.
9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

I didn't mean to suggest that someone DID plant thermite on the upper floors. It has been suggested by conspiracy theorists that the apparent molten metal pouring from an upper floor during the collapses is because of thermite planted up there. I don't see any way someone could have done that without anybody realizing. I realize the Zeitgeist film has sources listed, but without any way to examine the sources for myself, I don't know how they're being used, as we saw with the misquote regarding the London bombings. And if you could just post something to get rid of your 5th round response, we could get this to the voting page 3 days sooner and without the mar of a forfeit. Thanks for a great debate!
9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

i only have two objections to your claims. you first claimed that i only had one link to a picture, when i actually had two. one of them was to the movie, and i later clearly stated that all the sources were listed at the very end of the film. everyone i quoted came directly from that video, word for word or as close as i could make out pronunciation. my second objection is to your claim that "...including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building." i know you were only speculating, but are you suggesting that someone might have planted thermite in the towers before the planes hit? if so, how? but, besides that im glad to have debated with you on this subject. you have completely refuted the zeitgeist film, and have eliminated my suspicions. thanks, kyle
9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

i apologize for not elaborating in my first argument. part 1 really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. what we are talking about starts at roughly 37 minutes into the film and continues to the end. here, i will outline the main arguments supporting the 9/11 conspiracy for both the readers and my opponent. however, you will get a lot more out of this debate if you simply watch the movie from minute 37 on.[just as a note, if i capitalize anything, i am only showing stress on those words. im not yelling at anybody.] the engineers that designed the wtc[interviewed in the movie] stated that the building would not have collapsed like in demolitions when a plane crashed into it. in fact, the engineers stated that both towers could have sustained MULTIPLE hits from jetliners and NOT COLLAPSE. also, the columns supporting the buildings were cut just as a demolitions expert would destroy a building without affecting the other buildings around it. there were in fact explosions and NOT from gas lines, etc. but from explosives. "Through electron microscope analysis of the melted wtc steel and the iron-rich microspheres in the dust, Dr. Jones found exact traces of not only the 'Thermite' explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "thermate" - a patented brand of thermite used in the demolition industry." there are actually 19 hijackers and several of them are still alive. the passport from one of the hijackers that hit the towers magically came out of the explosion "UNSCATHED" to prove that it in fact was him that hijacked the plane. "no evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead 'hijackers' to Osama Bin Laden.'" the pilot that flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour "...was known as a terrible pilot and could not even safely fly a small plane." it also allegedly completed a "270 degree downward spiral" which is considered impossible among experts. as for the plane that crashlanded in pennsylvania and the plane that crashed into the pentagon, they both "vaporized", leaving little if any evidence besides a huge crater behind, which is never the case in any crashlanding scenario. various people IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER were interviewed and one of them stated that an explosion came from the basement and "...pushed us upwards..." BEFORE THE PLANE HIT. everything i have just said is summarized/quoted from zeitgeist and most of my information if not all will be coming from there. i look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

First - introducing a two-hour long movie is completely unacceptable. If you can't take the time to withdraw objections from it, why should I? The burden of proof is on you here - Provide me something to argue about, not links to movies. Go here (http://www.debate.org...) and read the arguments and comments - that should refute 99% of whatever your movie contains. I believe I've seen that movie, and if it's the same one I've seen, then it has several instances of doctored photos, as well as some simple factual errors. Second - the "explosions" are easy to explain. As you can see in the picture, the building happens to be falling down. The interior of the building contains many elevator shafts, which are enclosed areas. When the building begins to collapse, the elevator shafts will compress and then blow out, creating the horizontal bursts out the side of the building, even tens of stories below the wavefront of collapse. It's relatively simple physics. Also, the interior of the building would act as a mostly-enclosed area and create the many more horizontal puffs we see much closer to the wavefront. Lets see some actual propositions from Con in the next round, please.
9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

There were dozens of replies in the other thread about this that I am arguing in. However, my opponent there is hardly worthy, and has forfeited his last round. If it pleases, I'd like to open this debate to everyone, but especially those who commented in the other debate (http://www.debate.org...). I have set the debate for 5 rounds so that we may have 4 rounds of actual debate after my opponent posts reasons why he/she believes it was a hoax/conspiracy. Since I am in effect using one of my rounds to start the debate, I would ask the Con side to please post a minimum-character response in the 5th round, thus making it so the Con side effectively leads, since I will not have a chance to respond to any new arguments made, even though they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. So - our premise: 9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy. Four flights were hijacked, two of which were crashed into WTC 1 and 2, one of which was crashed into the Pentagon, and another which crash-landed in Pennsylvania. There was no government involvement in the perpetration of 9/11. **** If you wanted this debate, but it's already taken, just challenge me with your objections in a different debate. Thanks! ****
Religion caused most wars

chrisjohnson has forfeited the second round, for opening statements. I am unsure of what to do, exactly, so I will simply give my opening statement. My opponent can then specifiy how to modify the format accordingly. If they wish to scratch this second round altogether, and only begin debate in the third round, I will consent to that, and request that the below be ignored. I encourage chrisjohnson not to continue the debate if they do not have time to do so; I will not be upset, Ihave found myself i that situation many times, and am currently struggling with exams as well. Without further ado, here are my arguments:I propose hat the statement "Religion caused most wars" is simply not true because it is incorrect. It does not hold up to the scrutiny of history, and is factually incorrect.I indicate a study by the Department of Peace Studes of the University of Bradford, "God and War: An Audit & an Exploration (2003)." They examined 73 major wars, 32 of which were from the 20th century. The results indicated that only 7 of all he wars examiend (10%), had clear religious motivation. Most had no religious motivation, or religion as a secondary factor, with causes such as nationalism taking precedence. Totalitarian regimes such as those of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have been primarily atheistic, and caused tens to hundreds of millions of deaths. The study also found that religion has been a factor and undercurrent of multiple peaceful movements and protests (American civil rights movement, Indian independence movement, etc.)According to the study's conclusions: "very few if any wars in the past 100 years have been purely religious wars. ..... Despite the negativity around the role of religion in violent conflict, this study has demonstrated that the picture is much more complicated."This demonstrates that your assertion that most wars are caused by religion is false.Source: University of Bradford, Department of Peace StudiesGod and War: An Audit & an Exploration – LinkDirect LinkAlternate Link