BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Total War series of games are better than the Age of Empires series

1. Strategy I never said that AoE was not strategic, I simply said that it was less strategic. In the TW series, there is much more manuevering and positioning of one's troops to create the perfect senario of attack. In AoE, there is not much movemet other than military movement, and this means it has less options to prepare attacks from. In TW, you can create ambushes that are even better than in AoE. You can have an army hide in the mountains or the woods, and when you place them there they will lie down and hide. They will remain undetected until an army, quite literally, stumbles upon them, causing a battle to ensue. In AoE, if the enemy sends a cavalry scout out and they see your ambush, the enemy can take measures to prevent themslves from being ambushed. You cannot hide an ambush in AoE. When I meant low level cheap units, I was referring to mass riflemen/musketeers. In multiplayer battles, many players choose to do this because it is economical and (most of the time) efficint. In TW multiplayer, nobody settles on one unit. And you bring up a good point with the cannon vs infantry. In TW, there is no rock/paper/sissors format like there is in AoE. In AoE games, infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats artillery artillery beats infantry. In TW games, attack damage on a unit is the same, depending on armor and oter defense stats. A flaming catapult shot will take the same amount of health from cavalry as it will infantry. 2. Economics Yes, one does have direct control over ones economy, but the economies in AoE are much less realistic than the ones in TW. In AoE, your opponent can take out your settlers/peasents and destroy your economy. In TW, the only way to destroy an economy is to seige and take many cities. No only does this make it more challenging and fun, but its much more realistic in history. 3. Storylines Yes yes, the natives dd frequently fight Gen. Custer. Everybody knows that. I was referring to the having to find pirate gold in the Western United States at the time of Custer. Really, there are no cases in history where Custer and pirate gold had any correlation to each other. 4. Factions The details, number, and diversity of factions on Total War Games is unmatched by any other. Below is a link to faction information in Medieval 2 Total War (click on the link below each faction to see the unit details) http://medieval2.heavengames.com... 5. Units Same reason as stated above, click link below each faction on the link above to view the diversity and detail of each unit. 6 Additional Storylines Ok, when can incude all of the aditional storylines that you listed, but the fact remains that TW has better storylins (as you can create your own) than AoE games. With TW, one doesnt need to conform to a set wayof thinking to win the game. There are all kinds of ways to win a campaign, while on AoE one must achieve certain goals and levels to get passed the campaign. I look forward to your original arguments, though I believe that I hve proven why TW is better the AoE
Hate Crime Enhancement

Due to there being no CROSS EX, I'll ask you a few questions before I go on and answer your arguments. 1) Provide me with a definition of crime (just regular crime) """I believe that Hate Crime Enhancement is justified because of the extremely serious nature of crimes of this kind, the limited potential for rehabilitating these kinds of offenders and the repercussions these crimes can have on communities""" 2) First off, Can you prove that these crimes are more serios or any different than normal crimes? Secondly,Then is it the fact that the person is prejudice, or the fact that the crime was violent that we are punishing? """Likewise murders that are 'crimes of passion' would generally receive a lighter sentence than murder for monetary gain.""" 3) Does motive matter if the murder was committed with a malicious intent? For example, if I kill someone because I hate his skin color, or if I kill someone because he is in my way while I'm walking [...] does it matter? Isn't the fact that I killed with malicious intent what we should be punishing opposed to why I did it with the malicious intent? (leave out self-defense and man slaughter because it's not what i'm talking about). """If an individual is motivated to commit their offense out of hatred for a specific group then they obviously pose an ongoing risk to people of this group and should be sentenced accordingly.""" 4) So basically, they are a threat to the entire race of people, opposed to the other criminal just against that victim? I'm just looking for soem clarity. If this is your point then I can see your stance on this. Thank you for providing these answers (if you decide to do so lol) Looking forward to refuting your points.
Hate Crime Enhancement

I believe that Hate Crime Enhancement is justified because of the extremely serious nature of crimes of this kind, the limited potential for rehabilitating these kinds of offenders and the repercussions these crimes can have on communities. Motive is an issue that is and should always be considered when passing sentence on a convicted criminal. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the case of self-defence where man-slaughter would typically be met with a greatly reduced sentence if the killer was defending themselves. Likewise murders that are 'crimes of passion' would generally receive a lighter sentence than murder for monetary gain. Within this framework, hate crimes especially those that are totally unprovoked should be treated more harshly than if similar crimes were committed with less malice. If an individual is motivated to commit their offense out of hatred for a specific group then they obviously pose an ongoing risk to people of this group and should be sentenced accordingly. If someone is motivated by a hate-filled ideology then the chances are that rehabilitation will not be easy and there is the possibility that resentment at being caught and punished will fuel their hatred of the targeted group and actually increase the likelihood of them re-offending. Hate crimes can drastically destabilize a community, if a group feels that they are being persecuted then retaliation is likely and as groups become more isolated, the potential for more hate crime increases. Those who perpetrate these crimes should therefore be punished more severely as the effects of their actions can be so serious and people must be deterred from them. Thanks again to my opponent, I await round 2.
Hate Crime Enhancement

The term "hate crime enhancement" is fairly new (I believe the first hate crime enhancement was passed in the 1980's). 1) A hate crime is a crime committed due to malice towards a class of people, which includes, but is not limited to, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and/or sexual orientation. 2) Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or it is political ... 3) Enhanced - increased or intensified/placed higher than its usual position The enhancement comes in when a sentence is stiffened/hardened/elongated due to evidence of it being a hate crime. I stand against 'Hate Crime Enhancements' and as CON I'll await my opponents arguments[...]
Master Chief would defeat Predator

You've insulted Predators? oh it is ON! Nerd-mode engage, powering up primary virginity drives. Aside from the fact that, unlike the Covenant, the Predator species isn't pants-on-head retarded, you really have to consider how different Predators are versus MC. For one thing, Predators rely primarily on stealth, they view the use of any weapon as follows: If your oppnent is using weaponry, use weaponry of the same time, if your opponent is using no weaponry then do not use weaponry. In other words, if MC so much as sneezes in the direction of a gun then he's going to have shoulder mounted cannons to worry about. and MC isn't so tough when he doesn't have a gun. His skill with that energy sword thing or any other close combat weapon is at best limited. and whereas MC's helmet restricts his view quite a bit, a Predator's mask allows it to see thermal imaging, ultraviolet imaging and other spectrums. Combine this with their stealth technology and a Predator could see MC from a mile away, and then ride shotgun with him in a Warthog without him even realising. Assuming that MC doesn't have access to Covenant weaponry (which he wouldn't do because that's not standard equipment) then the best weapon he can hope to use is probably the rocket launcher. In which case he has to hit an inhumanly agile invisible alien that's firing laz0rs at him. He could try and use the flamethrower to blind the Predator's thermal vision, but there's no way for him to know the Predators are using thermal vision, nor anything to stop the Predators just switching to another spectrum. This is all ignoring the fact that even if, by some miracle, MC happens to come across a particularly stupid Predator. Even if he somehow manages to actually cripple the poor thing, MC's armour can't stand up to more than a few dozen bullets. How precisely would it stand up to a nuclear explosion?
Master Chief would defeat Predator

In regards to Hariigan's dishonorable tatics, I simply deem them as irrelevant in a deciding factor of whether or not MC would defeat the Predator or not. Furthermore What Con is saying about the Yautja is simply speculation. There is not a cold blooded animal on the planet that cannot be seen in infrared. Furthermore the heat netting would only enable MC to see the Predator to a greater extent. The novelization of Halo depicts the Covenant to be a vastly superior technological race than the Space Marines. The Glass planets. The Elites are big fast strong angile creatures MC faces.
Is Islam a Religion

Listen as a member of the debate.org team said, " It is a religion but it's a false one. It has been hijacked by a minority of extremists but the majority does nothing about it. What happened when the Danish cartoonist drew Mohammed with a bomb on his head? What reaction did we see from the majority of "moderate" Muslims? Look at Moses...look at Jesus...now look at Mohammed. See any difference? Which one is the murderous thief, pedophile, rapist, and a liar" Islam is a false religion.
Is Islam a Religion

Evolved in what way? I do not agree with everything that you have said, but I will assume that the points you made about Islam are true for the sake of the debate. Here is why the affirmative has won: Followers of Islam cut people's heads off. Followers of Islam did this hundreds of years ago as well. Followers of Judaism want to be with God. Followers of Judaism wanted to be with God hundreds of years ago as well. My opponent has consented that Judaism is still a religion. Why will he not consent to Islam being a religion? What he does not realize is that change does not affect a religion's status as a religion. Just because many religions change their beliefs over time does not mean that the ones that do not are no longer religions. Some things change, some things stay the same. Looking to the actual definition of "religion" we see that Islam clearly falls into that category. Do Muslims have beliefs? They certainly do. The resolution remains affirmed.
Is Islam a Religion

My apology's to my opponent for the mistake, as for what i meant, was his beliefs, Second there is no need to mark down whether something is an alliteration or not as i am sure, everyone here knows that you have great English skills. I would like to go back on topic with saying that, every religion has its spreads of hatred, believe me, this delegate knows, but what i have not seen in the Islamic religion was the evolution from the medieval era to modern times. Throw history Christianity have done many horrible things, such as the Crusade, and so on so forth and so have the Jews. But Islam has i9n the past been cutting peoples heads off (like the Christians) but is still doing so today according to the Shariah Law, not only heads are been cut off, just to make my opponent aware. There for i state my opinion that Islam is not right to be called a religion but a Agressive 1.2 billion group spreading words of hatred
Is Islam a Religion

My opponent fails to see the definition of "religion." My opponent claims that by my definition, Adolf Hitler could be a religion. This is not so. Is Hitler a belief? No, he was a person. Is Hitlerism a religion? Yes, it is a set of beliefs that Hitler held himself. (alliteration) The same goes for Christianity. Are Christ, Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit religions? No, they are beings. Is Christianity a religion? Absolutely, as Christianity is a set of beliefs. My opponent says that because Muslims "act like we are in the middle ages" Islam cannot be a religion. This is simply not the case. I will explain why in the following rounds. Before I do, I need an answers from my opponent. Opponent, please answer with a "yes" or a "no," followed with an explanation for your choice of answer. Question 1 - Would you concede that Judaism (Orthodox Jews being the followers) is a religion?
Is Islam a Religion

What this delegation doesn't realize is that, we could go on forever comparing definitions, but the fact is, Islam above all religions remains to act as if they were in the middle ages. In Islamic countries there are Rules called the Shariah Law, stating that according to the Koran you have the right to behead people when doing something wrong all in the name of Allah. second of all, you state, and this delegation Quotes ... Therefore, one can conclude that the beliefs of the Muslim religion are to cause death and destruction. Since Islam has beliefs....., these are not beliefs they messages of hatred being spread around the world, but according to the definition you gave us, when could say that Adolf Hitler *i do not support what he has done* could be considered a religion as your definition states * a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.* Does the opposing Delegation realize that all the Genocides and all the Herosities, caused by tyrants, and so on so forth, according to the definition * a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.* they could have been following there own religion. One could ask, why has this any relevance to the debate, well it does as i am trying to prove that the definition is not good enough FOR THIS CASE.. and also to prove that this is just a brutal group aiming to kill all Americans, Israelis, and British people in the world
Is Islam a Religion

I hate to argue semantics, but this is just begging for it. Religion- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. My opponent makes it obvious that Islam "spreads death and destruction..." Therefore, one can conclude that the beliefs of the Muslim religion are to cause death and destruction. Since Islam has beliefs, albeit destructive ones, it is a religion. Affirmed. ==Sources== American Heritage Dictionary
Is Islam a Religion

My fellow delegates, "The English word "religion" is derived from the Middle English "religioun" which came from the Old French "religion." It may have been originally derived from the Latin word "religo" which means "good faith," "ritual," and other similar meanings. Or it may have come from the Latin "religï¿½re" which means "to tie fast." let me emphasize the words good faith. The Islamic religion, does not act as a religion, and does not act in good faith, a religion is belief that spreads the idea of life and creation, my friends the Koran, (the holy book for Islam) spreads death and destruction, how can this be considered a religion. Here are some verses from the Koran i would like you to observe: 2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them. 4:84, Then fight in Allah's cause. 4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers. 5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. 8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. 8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah. 8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. 8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers. 9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem. 9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers, 9:23, O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong. 9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them could one challenge me to believe other wise....
It is probable that God exists

I have given reasons to believe God's existence is probable. The basis of my argument is that it's simpler to believe in an omnipotent being than to formulate a complex scientific hypothesis that requires many assumptions. The existence of life and a purposeful universe contributes to my argument, serving as evidence of conscience involved in the creation of the universe.I know my arguments were not strong, specially in the third and fourth rounds, but I was prepared for a back-and-forth debate, in which I would focus on replying to arguments rather than posting new ones. Since my opponent forfeited the debate, he left me in a position where I wasn't able to give proper rebuttals, so I had to somehow strengthen my argument without the existence of counter-arguments. Having said this, I hope you voters have found my points compelling enough, and I look forward to an actual debate in the future.
It is probable that God exists

Since my opponent forfeited the round and I'm not sure about the common protocol for the case, I will proceed to extend my argument. I will expose several common arguments that could have been used by my opponent to discredit my argument: "The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an,Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormonor the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. " This argument cannot be used as evidence against my case because I am not defending the possible existence of the Christian, Muslim or Hindu god specifically, but the existence of an omnipotent deity, as previously described. "The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. " Again, this argument is not valid against mine, for I do not define the given concept of God as benevolent. Even if I was defending the case of a benevolent and omnipotent God, the problem of evil is flawed from its very ground; for a superior being's motivations and reasoning cannot be forced into a paradigm of human logic. The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates. The "God" I describe in my case is not necessarily linked to any religious dogma, including pre-destination and an afterlife, so the argument is invalid. The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that life forms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design. It is, in my opinion, a poor argument. I already stated on the previous round that the universe and the life it holds is finely tuned and purposefully designed to be possible. While it is true that the design is not perfect, it's nowhere near poor. Moreover, we cannot assume an omnipotent God would create a perfect universe, even if he could, because, once again, we would fall in the mistake of forcing a unknown reasoning into the frame human reasoning. The argument from non belief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. Nowhere do I mention "a God who wants humans to believe in him", so the argument falls out of place. Source: Wikipedia, Existence of God(s) I have exposed several common arguments, and most of them are against the god of a religion. I, maintaining a metaphysical rather than religious concept of God in my argument, find them unsuited.
It is probable that God exists

I am new to this site, so I am not really familiar with the customs and formats used for presenting arguments and rebuttals, but I'll try to put it straight forward. My argument is that the existence of a supreme being is possible and probable. I will use the term "God" to refer to an intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient entity, not necessarily the god of Christianity or any other pre-established deity. This is an argument of plausibility rather than certainty; I defend the idea of the possibility that God exists, against the possibility that God does not exist, posing the later as less probable.
Is God Real

Miracles do not happenUnlikely events happen. This is not proof of God. Even very unlikely events will happen eventually, by the law of large numbers.One, girl surviving a crash is unlikely but not impossible. If on average, a plane has 100 passengers, and the number of survivorsis somewhere between 0 and 100, then the probability that 1 person survives a crash is 1%. (This is assuming equal probabilities, but in reality "0" and "1" are more probable than the other numbers). So on average, every 100 plane crashes will have 1 survivor.In 2012 there were 13 commercial airplane crashes, but if we include private airplains it will be in the hundreds I bet.In 5 years, that would be 65 commercial airplane crashes, and the probability of having a 1-survivor airplane crash in 5 yearsis 65%. The probability that this surviver is also a theist, whould be 32.5%. That is hardly a miracle at all.You give only one example of a "miracle" in 5 years, and you conclude that miracles happen every day. This conclusion is unfounded.For God to be real we would have to be able to observe him, directly or indirectly. Since there are no miracles,I see no other way of confirming God's existence. Even if unlikely events would happen more than expected,we cannot simply conclude that it is because of the hand of God.
Is God Real

God is real, as simple as that. It is the things we can't see are the most believe-able. You do not need proof to say he is real, and even if you wanted, there is in every day miracles, For instance, about 4-5 Years ago, a plane was falling from the sky, everyone on the plane died when is crashed, except for this 11 year old Christian girl. See? Miracles of God happen everyday.