BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World War 2 Code Debate

"Point out the Japanese had taken Nanking and Peking (now Beijing) before the war." But Japan failed to win a quick victory in China. They suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and never defeated the Chinese. "By a week in February/March 1941, Britain had enough supplies to survive them only a week more. Had convoys in that week failed to reach Britain's shores, Britain could've been starved into making peace and surrendered. But the Enigma was cracked around that time, so Britain knew where Doenitz, Kriegsmarine admiral, would've struck." But this does not prove that Britain would definitely have lost had the code not been cracked. "Not only did the cracking of the Enigma help Britain, but it also helped the Soviet Union. The Germans also used the Enigma for the plan to invade Soviet Russia, so the Secret Soviet Services in Britain just had to pass the decoded operation plans in Russia. Admittedly, the British noticed this only too late to save every town up to Moscow, but the defeat at Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk were all won by the knowing of enemy forces." Yes but those three battles had nothing to do with code. The Soviets managed to defeat Germany not because they cracked any code and knew where Germany would attack. Therefore this argument is not relevant. "Admiral Chester Nimitz would not have sent all his aircraft carriers to Midway had they not known the Japanese fleet was coming, and so they would've been forced to defend wth fewer and weaker battleships. The planes on the aircraft carriers were also part of the bomber squadrons that sank the 4 aircraft carriers at Midway, so not only did the Americans successfully defend Midway, they also dealt the Imperial Navy a fatal blow from which Japan did not recover. Had the Japanese saved those carriers, it could've helped them with their conquest, leading to more raw materials, leading to more human power and of course more carriers." This does not prove that without America cracking the code, Japan would have won the war. I would finally like to point out that my opponent never really proved that Japan would conquer North America had the Americans not cracked the code. He said he would in round 1. Anyway, good debate.
Beard-growing

My good sir although you say you are against beard growing you state a benefit of beard growing so you yourself are on my side and therefore there is no con-side, just one pro. Arguments:Beard growing helps in many ways: 1. Furthermore beards block up to 95% of the Sun's UV rays.2. A beard not only hides, but also prevents blemishes(Ex. acne, mole, etc. )3. You become more manly and tough-looking. 4. Helps your body naturally moisturize your skin.5. Traps bad pollutants on the way to your nose. 6. Prevents skin cancer. (1-5: . http://www.foxnews.com... 6:. http://www.mensxp.com...)Conclusion: So far I have no opposition because con has voiced his side to be on my side.
The Light Side of the Force is superior to the Dark Side

Resolution: The Light side of the Force is superior than the Dark side. ARGUMENTS 1: The easiest path to power is not necessarily the best: Luke: “Is the Dark Side more powerful?” Yoda: “No. Quicker, easier, more seductive it is.” Case-in-point: Anakin Skywalker, newly dubbed Darth Vader in his battle against Obi-Won Kenobi. It seems clear that Anakin was superior to Obi-Won prior to his immersion into the Dark Side: They joke about how many times Anakin had saved his life. He clearly out-matched Count Dooku, who had just obliterated Obi-Won moments before. Obi-Won makes it clear how powerful he thinks Anakin is several times. However when they battle on Mustafar, Obi-Won defeats him. This can be put down to over-confidence, a definite trait of the Dark Side. 2: Dude, what’s wrong with your face?! Darth Sidius is one ugly dude [1]. Who wants to look like that? 3: The Dark side is not all corrupting: Case-in-point: Darth Vader turns back to the Light side and killed the Emperor. This is possibly my strongest argument. Despite killing hundreds of people, single-handedly destroying the Jedi order and leading the Empire for two decades, at the moment of importance, he turned back to the Light and killed the Emperor, much to his surprise. This is a major turning point for the whole Galaxy. 4: The abilities of the Dark Side are not restricted to Dark Side wielders: Case-in-point: Luke Skywalker -Uses the Force Choke during Episode VI. -Uses Force Lightning in the Expanded Universe [2] 5: The associated emotions are as much a weakness as a strength. Throughout the entire saga, we see all of the various Sith Lords defeated due to their over –confidence in the Dark Side. This can be put down to a lack of focus, stemming from their reliance on pride, anger and fear. Case-in-point: Obi-Won versus Darth Maul Darth Maul clearly beat Obi-Won, but his over-confidence leads to his death. 6: Inescapable Strife This is an obvious one. The Jedi don’t have to fear each other; this trust in each other is a great strength. The Sith and other Dark Side wielders are the complete opposite. Anyone around the Dark Side wielders are unsafe, this is particularly the case in The Rule of Two: the only way to advance is to kill your master. SOURCES [1] http://sithsigma.files.wordpress.com... [2] http://starwars.wikia.com...
Liberals tend to place emotion over logic more than other political identities

My opponent forefits in light of objective evidence showing that she is indeed wrong. As such this should count as a concession to my arguments. Therefore, I ask to have a 7 point win:arguments to me for her forefit, S&G due to her neumerous mistakes, conduct due to her forefits and ad homs, and finally, sources to me because she failed to use any. Thank you folks!
Liberals tend to place emotion over logic more than other political identities

In almost all social and political issues ever debated between conservatives and liberals, Liberals (IE Democrats), have almost always been known to take too much emotion into their arguments. So much that it clouds their judgement, and often makes them mis-lead. This debate is about proving how this is true. Let's take a look at Gay Rights, primarily. Liberals are so primarily against discrimination, that they often fail to understand the being against gay rights, doesn't actually mean are discriminating anyone. There is more that goes into it, considering morals, theism, and other things that liberals don't take into account. Because of this, liberals are often mis-lead into thinking gay rights should be socially accepted, when logically, they shouldn't. Almost every other issue concerning freedom of choice in abortion debates, gun right debates, and death penalty debates, etc, commonly dis-reguard choice for both sides, and only focus on the side that suites them. This is the most common proof that liberals are blinded by their emotion in many debates. I will wait for my opponent to continue the arguments.
Liberals tend to place emotion over logic more than other political identities

This is a typical stereotype the right-wing political machine tries to dress up anyone and everyone who identifies as a democrat. I accept your challenge as per agreement both in the comments and in the forums. For those unfamiliar, this is a grudge match between me and Lynch due to some seriously mis-lead accusations she posted in the forums found here: http://www.debate.org...standard DDO rules apply (due to you not specifying in the first round) emotion shall be defined as: a subjective, conscious experience characterized primarily by psychophysiological expressions, biological reactions, and mental states. logic shall be defined as: the use of valid reasoning in some activity. Seeing as this is (to me at least) an outlandish claim, my opponent thus has BOP, and she shall go first. Let's go!
Sauron vs Voldermort (Tom Marvolo Riddle)

He was an extremely powerful Maia, even among his own kin. Later in his years, he became a servant for Melkor, the orignal dark lord. Sauron was trained my Melkor, as he proved to be his most powerful servant. This is evident in Sauron's conquest of Middle Earth in the 2nd Age. Sauron has had experience fighting for almost 3 ages, against powerful foes such as Elendi, Isildur, Gil-Galad, and Gandalf. His experience will definitely give him an edge over Voldermort, who only lived for 71 years. Weapons DeceptionSauron was the master of deception. His will to dominate anybody will certainly give him the edge. In the first age, Sauron often took fair forms to convince his enemies to pardon him. Perhaps his greatest feat was convincing the Elves into creating the Rings of Power. Sauron controlled the Elves to do his bidding, and only till the very end, did the Elves realize he had tricked them. Later on, he corrupted many men and wizards, who would later become servants for him (referring to the Nazgul, and Saruman). Sauron would easily be able to corrupt Voldermort, as one of Voldermorts greatest weaknesses were the desire for power. One RingThe One Ring was perhaps Saurons most powerful weapon, as it enhanced his powers, and also allowed him to control the weak minded. In a way, the One Ring was also a horcrux, as you would need to destroy it to destroy the host. However, unlike Voldermort's horcruxes, the One Ring had more ablilites. It was able to corrupt and drive the bearer insane (not including Sauron). Say hypothetically, Voldermort managed to take the Ring of Sauron's hand, the ring would definitely corrupt Voldermort and render him useless. Much like how the Nazgul were affected. MaceSauron possessed a powerful mace that he used in his battles. One strike with the mace, would send dozens of men to their doom. This was evident in the battle of Dagorlad. Deep knowledge of Sorcery and MagicLet me list a few things that Sauron had acomplished with magic. Building his fortress in Barad-DurBreeding his own army of Orcs, Black Orcs, Olog-Hai and many dark creaturesCorrupting the men who had possession of the 9 rings, and turning them into the NazgulCorrupting SarumanTricking the Elves into creating the rings. ConclusionWith all of these skills, Sauron would definitely dominate Voldermort in a one on one battle. He clearly has more experience that Voldermort, and he has a deeper knowledge of magic. This is evident through the feats he had accomplished, compared to what Voldermort had accomplished. Sources:. http://lotr.wikia.com...http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
Howitzers > Samurai

Howitzers will have trouble being accurate enough to hit one samurai from 600m away. Pro should be shot by a howitzer and killed by a samurai for using the metric system and saying, "I digress." Yes, Howitzers may not be able to be killed, but can be destroyed. They also take forever to load and fire. Once they miss the samurai the first time, the samurai will have had ample time to reach the howitzer, kill the crew, and just walk away because howitzers cannot load and shoot things by themselves. Howitzers are illiterate, cannot have conversations, and are weaker than samurai. Samurai are better than howitzer. Yes, the samurai can withstand the not so great. Might of the howitzer.
Howitzers > Samurai

Apparenly, my opponent doesn't have ample reading abilities beacuse I did clearly specifify that howitzers cannot be killed, so how can samurai kill them 10/10 times? Anyway, another advantage the howitzers have over the samurai is that they are able to reach the samurai from a signifigantly farther distance away. A howitzer and trained crew can easily exterminate an entire group of samurai from over 600m away. That is the REALISTIC meeting of the two, because they would never be put in a room together alone for no reason, that's rediculous. But I digress, this range advantage is very signifigant one and is also a major factor as to why the howitzers are better.
Howitzers > Samurai

First, I don't need yo damn invitation. Now that that is settled. It is true, howitzers did outlast samurai in Japan. However, Gatling guns and newer rifles helped howitzers. We also do not use howitzers in modern battle. Making howitzers obsolete in similar fashion to the samurai. Next, howitzers did not defeat samurai alone. Also, howitzers need people to properly function. Try putting a samurai and a howitzer alone in a room, each with orders to kill each other. I guarantee the samurai will win 10 out of 10 times. Howitzers need about 3 people to operate. A samurai needs only himself to operate. Samurai are more efficient and can hold longer conversations. Have you ever tried talking to a howitzer? They have little to no personality, while samurai entertain with stories of battle and other things. Samurai can also touch, taste, smell, hear, and see, also unlike the howitzer. Therefore samurai are better.
Howitzers > Samurai

Now let us begin, with fact. Today, we know from history that, in actuality, howitzer are better than samurai. It has been proven, on the field of battle, that they are superior. Samurai marched in the thousands against howitzers, only to be mowed down in the thousands and never to return. The age of the samurai came to an end at the hands of the howitzers because they couldn't keep up with the rapidly moderizing Japan. The old clashed with the new, and the new won. In my opinion, this is reason enough to say that they are better, but I invite my opponent to actually try to put a different spin on this debate.
Howitzers > Samurai

It is commonly known that howitzers are better than samurai in almost every way. They are more deadly, have a broader range of possibilities, both literally and strategically, and most importantly they can't die. No matter how well-trained a samurai is, he can try to hack at the cannon but it won't get him anywhere. The howitzer will still work, and in sixty years or so the samurai will die of "natural causes". For these reasons, howitzers will always be superior to samurai, and that's why the howitzers won the war for Japan.
If one claims to be Christian, he should be part of the Catholic Church

"But the difference is that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is unique since the Catholic Church is historically the original Church and is therefore the Church founded by Christ. "It doesn't matter it was the original. Your interpretation is that because it was the first it follows the teachings of Jesus, but that's not true. It is still an interpretation. And that's the point, the rest of believers disagree that that's true. "The reason for this example wasn't to show how one interprets something, what the example proves is that there can only be one correct solution. 2 +2 = 4"This is fallacious. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe Jesus wanted something else. Maybe what he wanted got lost in the translation and the versions. Or maybe the Catholic Church is the one with more mistakes related to the teachings even if it is the first. It is a bad example or analogy. This is not about who is right. And you accept this, you say, because we can't know about the interpretation we should just follow the first Church. You may try this with another resolution, but this would be half the debate. "Its like saying all Americans should be Democrat. By saying that, does that mean All Republicans are not American? No I am not. "This is another bad analogy. Remember that "claim" is the key word of the resolution. In debates you can't just use ambiguous sentences and expect everyone understand what you think is obvious. You can try a resolution like "Catholic church follows the correct teachings of Jesus" or "Catholicism is the correct interpretation of Christianism", but this claims have their own problems. Thanks for the debate. Please think multiple times before writing your titles and resolutions. Avoid semantic debates and ambiguous resolutions. Or explain everything with your arguments or set of rules.
If one claims to be Christian, he should be part of the Catholic Church

Thanks for the debate.I have to clarify first that the burden of proof is on Pro because he is claiming the topic of the debate. That means that I only have to disprove his arguments to win.1. "If one claims to be a Christian, he should be a part of the Catholic Church for it is the Catholic Church that is the Church of Christ"There are no sources for this, not even biblical ones in Pro's argument, but still, I'm going to show why this is false.The definition of Christian is:Christian: of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. [1]Now, these definitions mention Jesus, but Christ is not his name, but a title.Christ comes from the Greek Kristo and it means Messiah or anointed. [2]So when did the modern Christians or the followers of the Christian religion get that name or title?In the bible the word "Christian" appears few times:Acts 11:26 "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."Acts 26:28 "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."So basically this means that the word Christian was a despicable one. The followers accepted and embraced that name.In any part it says that the meaning of the word was about the Church, not in the original meaning , nor the modern meaning.2. "The claim of the Catholic Church is that the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ and His Apostles."This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what are the claims of the Catholic Church. It doesn't prove that you should follow the Catholic church to be called, considered a Christian.3. "ALL of the infallible and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are correct and without err for they are the direct teachings of the Early Church."Again, we can't do much without sources.Still, that would not prove the principal claim either. The meaning of "Christian", at least the modern meaning is clear.It is about following the religion, not the institution.The last thing I want to note that my last source is the bible. I didn't specify what version because those verses are pretty similar and are not ambiguous.Vote CON.Sources1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. The bible.
If one claims to be Christian, he should be part of the Catholic Church

If one claims to be a Christian, he should be a part of the Catholic Church for it is the Catholic Church that is the Church of Christ. If one wishes to follow Christ in all things, one should join His Church which He has founded which is the Catholic Church alone. The claim of the Catholic Church is that the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. ALL of the infallible and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are correct and without err for they are the direct teachings of the Early Church. To be a Catholic is to be truly Christian. To oppose this my opponent must either: -show at least one teaching that is not the teaching of Christ and His Apostles -show how the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church or doesn't teach the truth I hope this criteria is better. Thank You.
Groups/Cults applying BITE mind control techniques should be Banned!

Sorry to read that Opiumfiend!Though I admit that even I find it a difficult subject to debate against such evidence, so I admire you for having a go.Not the sort of subject I would have chosen to be Con on, so I hope you can grab a debate that it is easier to cut your debating teeth on.I was thinking this debate would go unchallenged.Anyway, Thanks again for your input and best of luck on future debates!! Hope to debate a more worthwhile subject with you some day.I suppose I should have put this in the Opinions section instead of trying to make it a debate!Thanks M8!Cheers!BTW: Since con announced the need to forfeit, I should not get any conduct points awarded against Con's forfeit.Conduct points should only go against debaters who just don't forfeit without announcement or asking to be excused.
Groups/Cults applying BITE mind control techniques should be Banned!

I have to forfeit this debate. the only arguments i can offer relate to the fact that the banning would be to difficult to apply or that the banning would drive the cults under ground. however in the cases of Ken Ham this would be a good thing as it would remove their ability to operate in the midst of our society legally. sorry for the lack of interesting debate. this is my first debate on this website. And it's not a topic i feel strongly about so it's difficult to argue. you win :)
Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

My basic argument is in fact homosexuality must be good for society because it exists. But if you insist to much on providing possible justifications then sure, here are a few: 1. Gay men form stronger unity in the armed forces allowing for greater discipline and thus cause the society in which they are born to triumph in wars and thus procreate. 2. Because of their unique perspective in life, they more effectively help bridge arguments and conflicts in their families, allowing for less turmoil and more success and proliferation. 3. Gay people, because of their orientation, encourages parents with the means to have more children then they might otherwise have and thus introduce more educated people into society. (Aka, we want rich people to have more children since their children will be more likely to be educated and a positive element in society. the presence of homosexual children will encourage rich people to have more children to compensate)
Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

That's basically saying nothing. You propose that homosexuality is evolutionarily beneficial merely on the premise that it exists. Yes, I understand your point, but your argument is basically "I don't know why carriers can reproduce better than others, but they do". If you don't propose a mechanism, how is that any more substantial than my saying that it is a psychological issue, or a biological fluke? All you can really say, at the very most, is that the homosexuality gene has some ability to spread. It does not mean at all that homosexuality in and of itself is good for our society. It neither enhances the species as a whole nor aids in making the population bigger. The only visible trait for homosexuality, is homosexuality. Please offer an argument as to WHY homosexuality is good for our species, not simply describe what you believe is occurring, since it can easily be explained in other, more believable ways.
Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

"In order for a gene to be passed on to the next generation, a person WITH THE GENE must successfully reproduce." Precisely the point I made. Homosexuality is probably a recessive trait and thus does not always manifest itself. However when manifested, the individuals who are homosexual do not spawn children. Therefore over time, homosexuality would have wiped itself out UNLESS the manifestation of homosexuality promotes the carriers of the recessive gene to create offspring. If homosexuals enhance the survival probability of the society in which they live, then they enhance the probability of carriers to create offspring. Its the simple explanation that fits the facts.