BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess"...

. . . Since my opponent's argumets can be summed up by simply saying that the game developers should have put more stuff in the Ordona Province I will present a singular argument as to why these things shouldn't be located in said province. It should also be noted that this debate has a high probability of containing spoilers. Read at your own risk. Contention 1: Ordona is not a part of Hyrule [1] This is an important distinction to make because all of the Temples/Dungeons in Twilight Princess (TP) reward you with an item or other reward that involves doing something within the confines of Hyrule. These items include the three Fused Shadows and the three Twilight Mirror Shards. As a reader you may be thinking, "Those things have to do with the Twilight World, not Hyrule. Why is he mentioning them? " I mention them because Twilight never covers Ordon province. It covered the rest of the world, why wouodn't it cover Ordon? This suggests that Ordon is in fact not a part of Hyrule. There are also other in-game occurrences that suggest that Ordon is not part of Hyrule: * The NPC named Shad said the following: "Oh, no, I don't believe he's from Hyrule proper at all. No, my understanding is that he's from the small neighboring province of Ordona. " Why would he say this if Ordon was a part of Hyrule? * Another NPC named Coro refers to Link as an Ordonian instead of Hyrulian: "Whoa! An Ordonian! Hey, guy! " Further suggesting that they are separate. * And the most significant piece of evidence comes from an NPC in the Ordon Province itself, a man named Rusl: "I was supposed to deliver something to the royal family of Hyrule the day after tomorrow. .. Yes, it was a task set to me by the mayor, but. .. would you go in my stead? You have. .. never been to Hyrule, right? " If Ordon Province was in Hyrule then why would Rusl ask if Link had ever been to Hyrule before? All of this evidence suggests that Ordon is not a part of Hyrule. I can now move on to addressing my opponent's points. ///Contention 1+: The Temples/// Since Ordon is not a part of Hyrule then it does make sense that there are not any temples in Ordon Province. It sshouod bennoted that the many temples were created by the Sages, who play pivotal roles in the Hyrulian mythos. Why would there be one in an area outside of Hyrule? ///Contention 2+: The Swords/// This contention is a bit rediculous to me. My opponent is obviously a fan of the Zelda game franchise so he should know that the Master Sword is a magical Hyrulian artifact. It also has close toes to the Sages. The wooden and Ordon swords are just swords. There is nothing special about them. It does not make any sense at all that the game developers would make you accuire the Master Sword in an area that isn't Hyrule. I await my opponent't response and apologize for my late one. [1] . http://www.zeldawiki.org... [2] . http://www.zeldawiki.org...
In "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess"...

Full resolution: In "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess," the Sacred Grove, Temple of Time, and all other things necessary for both the Master Sword quest and the Temple of Time quest would be better located in the Ordona Province, instead of the Faron Province. Everything should be definable here: http://zelda.wikia.com... Contention 1+: The Temples If one looks at a map of Hyrule in Twilight Princess, every province has its own temple, with two exceptions: the Faron Province has two temples (Forest Temple, Temple of Time), while the Ordona Province has none. Things would seem much more balanced if every province had its own temple; the map would also seem more balanced and visually appealing. Contention 2+: The Swords The first sword that Link obtains, the Wooden Sword, comes from the Ordona Province. The second sword that Link obtains, the Ordon Sword, comes from the Ordona Province. Wouldn't it make sense, then, for the third sword that Link obtains, the Master Sword, to come from the Ordona Province, and not the Faron Province? With that, I'll leave my opponent to counter my contentions, and come up with his or her own.
Eternal Punishment in Hell for thought crimes is unjust

I do not mean to be rude, and I thank you for trying to debate with me here. However, in order to avoid being a person with double-standards, I will have to use the same harsh tone with you as I would with any other opponent who does not read my posts carefully. 1) I clearly stated that I am specifically talking about the Islamic Hell. I don't care if Muslims believe 'the first part of Christianity' (whatever that means), there are significant differences between the Islamic and Christian ideas of justice and salvation and I do not want to discuss Christianity here. 2) Your incoherent argument demonstrates that you did not watch the video because it just restates the ridiculous points that are refuted in the video. God gets mad because of something his weak and feeble creations 'think'? And this is supposed to be a Wise being? Get real! 3) You say that god is 'under control' and I think that you meant to say that God is 'in control', which further suggests to me that this is going to be less of a debate and more of me trying to understand what your verbal diarrhoea could possibly mean.
Eternal Punishment in Hell for thought crimes is unjust

Hello muslimnomore, this is my first time debating so I am not very good. I hope you will understand. I am not a Muslim, I am a christian, but the rule applies for both types of religion. Also, there is a hell for Christians too. So I will continue to go against your argument. I will be looking through the christian point of veiw (Muslim believes the first part of christian). God is the one who created us and he is the one who is under control. He wants us to love him as he loves us. This is one of the main reason he created us. Since god wants us to follow him, he gave us rules to follow and to keep him worthy of worship. He also told us not to worship other gods. Which human did break that rule which made our god mad. Even though god loves us, he still needs to punish us like our parents do when we do bad things. If we did something bad when we were young, we got punished from our parents. It is like the same thing. Even in the religious book, god tells us he is our father. Which makes perfect sense why god will do such things. God also told us not to believe that there are other gods. Our god have all the rights to be mad at us if we worship other gods because he is the real one. Since he created us he should be the one who is getting the praise. So if we don't follow our god and do bad things in our life, we should get punished. Of course god will get mad if we don't follow him, and if there is no such thing as hell, why would people not do bad things. We, as Christians don't want people to go to hell, so we try to prevent that by tell other people about it. Also, since there can't be any sin in heaven, they need to go to hell. Which is not a pleasant place to be.
Eternal Punishment in Hell for thought crimes is unjust

This debate is with regards to the Islamic version of hell. Jahannam is a place of unthinkable torment, which will be occupied forever by those who:1. simply do not believe that Allah exists or is worthy of worship 2. believe that Allah has equals/partners 3. believe that there are gods other than Allah.I will try to demonstrate that this idea that God will punish people simply for not believing in him is not just. My arguments are well-outlined in this video (which is not my work):http://www.youtube.com...I will leave it up to my opponent to explain why eternal torment in hell for simply not believing in god is just.
trinity is real.

Space- The existence of things that have three components doesn't prove the trinityMatter- Lol, matter can also exist as plasmas, supersolids, superliquids and Bose-Einstein condensates. Time- The existence of things that have three components doesn't prove the trinity.Human- Humans consist of more than three things; http://en.wikipedia.org......Atom- Atoms consist of more than three things; http://en.wikipedia.org......Music- Music actually consists of melody, harmony, rhythm, tempo, meter, articulation, dynamics, timbre and texture.Tree- Trees actually consist of roots, a trunk, buds and leaves.
trinity is real.

Genesis1- God is talking about time, space, and matter. In the beginning=(time) God created heaven=(space) andthe earth=(matter).Whatis Time-pass, present, future. Whatis Space-width,depth,height.Whatis Earth/Matter-solid,liquid,gas What are you a human- body,soul,spirit.Or mind,body,soul. See the understanding of trinity is allaroundus.ReadRoman1:20(inmyown word Romans 1:20 says that God say if you can't understand the trinity look at what I made. Atom-protons,neutrons,electrons.Tree-root,trunk,leaves.Music-melody,harmony,rhythm.The understandingis all around us
Would we be able to survive a zombie apocalypse

I see where you are coming from, but if you were right in that we would be able to surivive this, the TV show The Walking Dead would've been finished along time ago. What also makes a zombie apocolypse deadly is the anarchy it creates among humans across the world. No matter what you do, it's almost impossible to save every possible person and to stop this situation becuase there are always going to be those who either cannot keep up or just plainly may deny authority. It is just in human nature to do this at times. With these rebellions, there would be chaos among the healthy humans stil left in the world, creating a sort of "civil war" among them. This would only count as an advantage to the zombies, because it would distract a large part of military attempting to control the "civil war". To go into more detail, there would be battles for food, land, shelter, etc., among all suriviors trying to live by themselves (referring to The Walking Dead charactes). In conclusion, there would only be more battles among surivivors, making military forces focus more attention on to them, therefore making the military weaker and more susceptible to defeat from a zombie apocolypse. Thank you for debating with me too, you proved a very worthy opponent. Now I guess we wait for the votes...
Would we be able to survive a zombie apocalypse

Yes the zombie bite is an advantage but it is also a disadvantage if you think about it a zombie has to literally make physical contact with you for you to turn if there is one thing the human race has mastered its the art of long range killing we have snipers helicopters and planes if any place becomes way to unstable we drop a bomb and they're all gone we have the range advantage not only that but we have the ability to chose terrain to our advantage such as mountains rivers lakes areas zombies would struggle to tread we also have the ability to make our own defenses and weapons anything can be used as a weapon whether it is a bottle or a tv or taking a leisurely drive in the road while running over zombies our military already has zombie proof vehicles such as tanks if anything we have way more advantages like range brains terrain and technology
Would we be able to survive a zombie apocalypse

I do agree with your point, but I guess I just misinterpretted your argument. You state that there is a small chance of the virus even becoming a real thing threat. I'm arguing that the zombie apocalypse would doom us all. Normally, the case with any "zombie virus" is that if you are bit, you become a zombie. This is a MAJOR advantage for all of the zombies. This way, there can be additions to the opposing side. This creates a very tough war between the two sides, ultimately making the zombies a larger force therefore having them win the war.
Would we be able to survive a zombie apocalypse

the odds of a virus or bug evolving in nature to make zombies are small and with all the movies about the topic it gives us an idea of what'd it look like and what to do and not to do many people believe that a zombie apocalypse will happen and are preparing to survive even on a global scale there is always a possibility to survive such as secured checkpoint allowing only the healthy disease free to board ships to a outbreak free metropolis in the middle of the ocean third world countries are more than likely screwed but the military of china's armed personnel alone is 3 million untied states is 1.5 million excluding the reserves the us spends 600 billion dollars on its military more then the next 7 countries combined and if anything island countries such as Hawaii Greenland Iceland Madagascar Cuba Caribbeans UK japan Philippines Taiwan Indonesia Australia new Zealand we have a pretty good chance
Would we be able to survive a zombie apocalypse

You would think that we have come long enough to be able to survive a zombie apocalypse, but if you're talking on a global scale, there would be almost no hope. If you think about it, if almost 50% of the world population was somehow turned into zombies, we would be in big trouble. This 50% may include military soldiers that would have the job of protecting. On top of that, there would be too many zombies too. Even though it sounds like an even fight, zombies normally cluster into large groups. This has been shown on many zombie movie and TV shows, such as The Walking Dead. It is shown how deadly zombies can be through this "mob warfare".
Tattoos Before 18

Even if all these thing are true, it is your body you can do what you want with it. If you can cover your tattoo up and you are comfortable, what does it matter. If your parents give their consent for you to get the tattoo, no one is going to be affected by it but you. I think getting a tattoo would be a fun experience. If you have the money and the time to get a tattoo, and your parents are OK with it why not get one.
Tattoos Before 18

Tattoos, a staple in American culture since ancient times. Started by the ancient peoples of the southwest. Believing the inscriptions of animals and symbols on their body would provide good hunting, and blessing from the gods. Long gone are the days of tattoos having a valid meaning to people. Today they are nothing more than an accessory , such as earrings and lipstick. When asked if it should be okay for a person to get a tattoo before they are 18, I am strongly against. To me, if you are under 18 , chances are you still live at home. If you were to get a tattoo of something offensive or repulsive, that not only reflects on you, but on those who you live with. Though tattoos can be harmful to a reputation, they can also pose other risks. Tattoos have been known to infect the bloodstream, and can cause health issues. Some people can have allergic reactions to the ink, especially red and green. The site of a tattoo is also a wonderful opportunity for skin infections. But these are all small issues right? After all, 'swag ain't free'. This is my stance on the tattoo issue. I hope you can present a valid argument which counterbalances the 1253 characters which it took to write this marvelous piece of awesome.
Impromptu 11

I concur with choice 2, and will argue the pro side. SOR: The chicken came before the egg. C-1: In an improbable experiment that is clearly semantic in nature, the chicken came first. Conclusion It has now been empirically determined that the chicken came first, the egg second. However, seeing the history of previous questions that were taken up first by philosophers and only later by scientists, I am loath to predict that these results — clear as they are — will settle the question to everyone's satisfaction. http://improbable.com... C-2: Both the Biblical account in Genesis and the First Dispensation imply that the chicken was mediately created. After their creation chickens were able to reproduce, thus the egg. Further, evolution implies that creatures evolved from other creatures into higher ordered animals, NOT into eggs. Extended, arguments opposing Creation vs Evolution completely off-set as both are actually "models". Neither of the 2 are even theories because they cannot be repeated in a test. C-3: Logical Reasoning Logic and reasoning will be used to determine which came first. So sit back, relax, and let your mind truely wonder in these words. Everyone knows that a chicken comes from an egg, but the chicken has to come from an egg first. Or, the chicken ccame first to lay the egg? Both can seem to be logical, why either could come first. Lets look at it like this. How could either one come about first? Was the chicken or the egg created first? An egg would have to sit around awhile and kept at certain temprature before it could hatch. Some how it would of had to been created or came from something. Likewise, a chicken would have to be created to be wandering around before it could lay an egg. Possible explanations? How nice for you to keep reading this far. Well, some greater thing or being would have to of created the chicken. An egg would not of been created, because it needs a chicken to take care of it so it will hatch. The egg also did not come from anything, like say, evolving. Therefore, take it that the chicken came first. Now you make it possibles for the eggs to be laid and cared for so that they can hatch. Lets parallel this with another situation. Humans, how did they come about? Has to be that God created us, we did not evolve from anything. Where are the humans that still have plant parts? There are NONE, so we were created. Say, just for a ridiculous second, that we did evolve, now what will we soon be evolving into, since this can't be the last stage since there wasn't a creator with a plan in hand. Creation is for real, it is true, look at everything around you that God has created for his master plan that he has. http://rbelk.tripod.com... For the above reasons I respectfully request a PRO Ballot. Thank you!
Impromptu 11

In Round 1, my opponent will only leave me my 3 choices to be argued in Round 2. My opponent will choose 1 of the below and argue either side in Round 2. OPPONENT'S CHOICES: 1) Global warming should generate more hydro and solar power. 2) Adam & Eve did not have belly buttons 3) Pluto is still a planet dog-gone it! Judges will determine who presented the better case. Good luck and enjoy!
A man should be a god's best friend

I was raised as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly called Mormons. People of that faith believe that life is a test of faith and devotion. When a person takes a leap of faith, such as paying a tithe to church, they show their willingness to do as God wills. The validity of faith is something that non believers have tried and tested for years. The primary source for faith is feeling and the expression of these feelings through things like music, literature, and art. When I see a beautiful painting that has no intrinsic value and yet is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't see a medium of trade. I see in that painting someone trying to express a feeling that is not biological or scientific but spiritual in nature. What would the purpose of a God who simply gave away Mercedes. You might as well worship Oprah. Wealth is not synonymous with happiness and the gifts God grants us are rarely material. Those who dedicate themselves to attaining things both eternal and spiritual can gain satisfaction on earth and in the afterlife. We have no need to doubt the value of serving a higher purpose when the rewards are immediate even to those still living. A person can live full life believing that they are doing good by by God. I am happy with my beliefs whether they are true or not. Of course it is always a possibility that a devout Christian will pass away only to find himself in a place ruled by a God or by Gods who he has never even heard of. So what should he have done, believed nothing?
A man should be a god's best friend

A dog can see, smell and interact in real time with his master but man cannot do that with a god (assuming such things as deities exist). Furthermore, there are so many gods to choose from and which god you end up worshiping much depends on where and when (in terms of human chronology) you were born and raised. That's why there aren't many Jews in Afghanistan today and why there were no Muslims in ancient Rome. You would think, given the violence and persecution that exists between supporters of rival religions, that the real god would step forward and prove to mankind that He was the one and only genuine article and that all the others are false idols. Since He hasn't yet done so, one can only conclude that either He doesn't care enough about man to make the effort or, more plausibly, there is no such thing as "god". Whilst I agree with my opponent that science cannot explain everything, I don't agree that we should kow-tow to an unproven deity just on the off-chance that He may exist. You may donate a sizable sum to the an evangelical Christian church led by a pastor who drives a gold-plated Porsche and whose wife wears diamond-encrusted washing-up gloves and uses Louis Vitton tampons only to discover, when you die, that the afterlife is run by a bloke called Allah and He takes a very dim view of people that spent their time on Earth drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches! No, until a deity manifests itself clearly to us, we should not be subservient to it. In other words, when Janice Joplin gets her Merc, then - and only then - should we think about fetching God's slippers! Thank you. . http://www.youtube.com...
A man should be a god's best friend

Thank you for debating this topic. While we as mere mortals cannot know the intentions of an unseen or misunderstood master, we have little option but to put our trust in such a being if he or she exists. Your analogy of a dog and its master is quite correct, if I had a dog that did what I told it too, was loyal and reliable, I would subsequently reward the dog. If it was distrusting and suspicious of me, and lashed out when I approached it I would respond accordingly. I have only my own experience to go on and would rather have a positive relationship with a divine ruler than a negative one. As for the argument you made about us starting out as cavemen with no knowledge of science or the world around us. Isn't it true that we still don't know the origins of not only the world but the matter it is formed from. There is no explanation for our very existence or for the existence of anything else. Science still does not provide all the answers. God simply abides on a different plane, until we reach that level of understanding ourselves, we cannot understand all of the laws that are followed. We are the dogs, we take everything for granted and think God is just our pal. This relationship is clearly one sided and the enlightened individual, or dog in this case, would express gratitude rather than rebellion if they understood the situation.