BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is to be considered cheating to copy and paste your entire argument from another website.

Ofcourse it is cheating. The format of this website is to nurture original thought and intelligent debate. If you want to present and argument for or against something and use a source to back up your offerings it should merely be inserted as a foot note. Plagiarism should result in expulsion and the debate should be terminated with the offender placed in the losing collumn. For cases of repeated plagiarism, or for cases in which a student commits severe plagiarism (e.g., submitting a copied article as his or her own work), a student may be suspended or expelled. --Wiki-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Knight would win against a Samurai

I beg to differ about your point with the arrow deflecting off the plate armour. I am an archer myself, currently training with Totnes Archers in Devon, England. There I have used many different types of bows from slapable bows to compounds. But by far the most powerful, even more than the compound was the English Longbow. The Japanese bows used circa 0BC, weren't far off the English version of the longbow. They require extremely muscly men to fire. My instructor can barely hold a shot for 5 seconds before he has to release. These bows can often go through the targets and out the other side. So it would probably slip right through the armour, loose it's tip inside the knight and hit the inside of the back. This would make death pretty much inevitable due to the head inside him and the exit wound too. So it is extremely unlikely that an arrow would simply ricochet off. On the subject of being learned, the Japanese and Chinese were unbelievably more advanced than the English. The printing press was invented in circa 600 AD in China (which did have Samurais). Not to mention the firework being invented far before even that. Samurais existed before feudal Japan too, so they have spent many many years preparing theirselves for fighting. As for being experienced, Japan did experience civil wars during the 1400s, the most famous being the Odin war. Here they would fight against other Samurais and powerful opponents to give them good training. Knights however, when on Crusade, encountered few strong opponents. They fought mostly untrained men with little or no armour or weapons, desperately trying to protect their land. Knights only got real experience through duels, in which one dies and the other probably gets quite badly injured. Knights are no good injured or dead. Samurais however are well experienced and healthy, living on a richer starch diet than the bread and cheese of the knights,. With samurais training specifically to one weapon or weapon type, they spent their entire lives perfecting how to use only that sword. As a result, they became extremely well practised when it came to using those swords in real battle. The knights however, spoilt for choice of weapons, would find it hard to master just one weapon. And by no means did knights have bigger muscles! If anyone, samurais would have bigger muscles! Samurais before they become full samurais are subject to working the lands for the people (a bit like extreme community service) and training intensely. And samurais in the 1000s+ rarely used horse to move. They often had to walk-run to their battle and then fight. From extensive research, I can gather that Samurais were stronger, healthier, well focused in swords and bows with might, better experienced and trained and quicker people in combat. This is why I believe them to better the knight if it came to one on one combat.
Knight would win against a Samurai

Both warriors were definitely extremely fit. Training for knighthood also started around the age of five, fighting with wooden weapons until they were ready for real ones. They would become squires to experienced knights, so they learned a lot about what it takes before they were old enough to fight themselves. The personal lessons gained from being a squire to a knight trump any sort of fighting school, as it is almost like private tutoring for several years. Many also don't realize just how fitness-oriented knights were off the battlefield. Many of the most popular sports in medieval times were involving martial art-type skills. Mock-battles and duels were very common forms of entertainment, so knights were constantly training and fighting, on and off the battlefield. Also, considering the knights always trained with heavier weapons, they would have been used to it and would have had more developed muscles for fighting than the samurai. This in mind, the knight would hold an advantage if the fight went into the tenth round, as knights required great endurance to be effective. I would also like to go back and emphasize my point I made earlier about the warriors' experience. Feudal Japan was arguably much less war-torn than Europe, and samurai were not engaged in real combat nearly as much as knights were. Samurai really only fought other Japanese warriors, so the concept of fighting the knight would be completely alien. Knights fought all different types of warriors throughout Europe, and were much more educated about varying opponents. I would like to challenge your argument regarding the weapons of the samurai/knights. Samurai used the katana/wakisashi almost exclusively, with the exception of archers. Spear type weapons such as naginatas were employed, but they fail in comparison to the knight's halberds, billhooks, pikes, and glaives when it comes to anti-armor. Weapons such as the billhook was designed specifically for taking down armored opponents, so it would be perfect for use in this scenario. A samurai's bow would be rendered virtually useless when taking into account the knight's shield. Even if the samurai managed to get past this, the bow would simply deflect off the plate armor. Knights were also known to carry crossbows, which could punch through a centimeter of steel ,so much more powerful than they needed to be to stop the samurai in his tracks. The intellectualism of the knight is often glossed over. Knights were required to memorize different coats-of-arms belonging to their allies and opponents, as well as their fighting techniques. Almost all knights were literate, which was quite an achievement back then. Knights were the elite in categories of both intellect, fitness, and combat, and could easily overpower a samurai.
Knight would win against a Samurai

I am aware of the fact that knights were indeed heavily armoured. But first, I would like to focus on how war is really won. The art of warfare is a complicated one and ultimately comes down to the mental approach of the subject. Samurais were often trained from as young as 4. One of the first stages of training was to be hit by their master at random times throughout the day until the students learnt to never let their guard down, making them very aware at all times, a important factor in battle. Students of samurais were taught not only in the art of killing, but in other important areas such as literature and science which improved their overall intellectual capacity by connecting new neural pathways. These pathways will prove deadly in critical thinking and acting fast. Before the knight could respond to any attack, the samurai is already striking the deadly blow. Before the knight raises his sword, he has lost his head. Strict discipline of course is a key aspect, samurai so were taught to endure pain by sleeping on beds of nails or by performing gruelling hard labour throughout the day and the night. Too, samurai a weren't paid. They did however, have the right to demand food off civilians. Their lack of money thus drove away any thoughts of desires such as whores or drink. So without a doubt, samurais were quicker in thinking and vastly more intelligent. The first samurais were originally horse back archers. They would shoot live dogs as target practise. The lack of hefty gauntlets allowed them to use bows and manoeuvre weapons with greater accuracy and precision. So they have eh advantage of using a wider range of weapons than the knight. The knights weapons were generally big, heavy and long. This meant they were slower moving and found it harder to strike blows successively. The katana, a far smaller and sharper sword could strike the knight at lease 3-4 times before the knight strikes once. The knights armour, though strong, cannot withstand all. Swords can penetrate the armour, especially with the strength and power of the samurai. The samurai armour offered some protection but is designed to allow maximum movement so that the armour would never even be hit. And in an unarmoured duel, we both know that the samurai is superior in speed, intellect and agility and thus would easily defeat the knight. But on the whole, knights may have good protection but are no match for the discipline, agility, intellect and swiftness of the powerful samurai.
Knight would win against a Samurai

I think one thing we can agree on is the fact that both the knight and the samurai were the warrior elite of their lands. There is a common myth that samurai were light and quick, and knights were not. Samurai armor weighed around 50-60 pounds, so close to the same weight as knight's armor, though samurai tended to have exposed arms and legs, making it easier to land dismembering blows. Plate armor and chain mail were intricately designed to keep the knight fully flexible and mobile, and the weight would be evenly distributed across the body of the knight. The samurai may have been slightly more mobile, but would not have been nearly as protected as the knight, who would wear several layers of mail, plates, and doublets. The only way the samurai would have a chance would be if he got extremely lucky and hit a crevice, but this is almost certainly not going to happen as the samurai would have no knowledge of these weak spots. The knight would also have a vastly superior armory of weapons. Another common myth I would like to bust is the superiority of the katana. Many seem to think that the katana could cut through anything, as it is often portrayed that way in movies. However, the sharpness of a sword is really just a matter of effort put towards sharpening it, so a knight's long sword could easily go head to head with the katana. In all honesty, sharpness will not do much when put up against metal plates. A medieval long sword was heavier, thus carrying more momentum, so even if it didn't penetrate the opponent's armor the sheer mass of the weapon could break bones. The knight's armory was designed for fighting armored opponents, with weapons such as maces, poleaxes, and billhooks, so the samurai may have had awesome weapons, but they simply are not effective in this particular scenario. A knight also almost always carried a shield, whereas samurai never did, giving the knight yet another advantage. Samurai acted as more of a police force in Feudal Japan. Knights lived in war-torn Europe, and were constantly at war, giving them much greater experience. Knights often had their own sections of kingdoms to preside over, so they were always busy, fighting invaders and each other. Japan was very isolated in its location, so the samurai would not have been able to ever adapt to different opponents. The knight however, would have fought a very different array of enemies, so there is a good chance the knight would be prepared for this fight, whereas the samurai would have no idea what he's dealing with.
We let Culture and Religion affect our lives way more then it has to.

First off, thank you for this debate and this opportunity, I hope that it is enjoyable for both sides. If I read it correctly, your main argument is that religion makes us closed minded and unwilling to accept other versions one hundred percent. You also stated that, similarly, our culture gives us a centralized and biased view of the world which can construe relationships with others from different backgrounds. Please note, I am only trying to make a connection here, not offer an Amero-centric view, which would be ironic given the debate. First, let me go to the Charters of Freedom created by the Founding Fathers. When creating a new country, these men incorporated certain elements into its foundation. When writing these documents, they added Judeo-Christian values to be the basis of the laws and the moral system. They also added a separation of Church and state, but that separation would only go so far as to prevent powerful religious leaders from influencing a nursing democracy. They still had some religious ingredients because of one key fact: they recognized, as many other nations had and would recognize, that religion itself is the basis for societal morals. Whether you are religious or not, there must be some common ground that can be found morally, such as with murder. While issues like murder are black and white, not all issues are at first, and it was early religious institutions such as the Torah or the Ten Commandments that created the first "right and wrongs" in society. You also said that culture can have the same effect in creating such centralized views. Once again, I am going to refer back to the Founding Fathers and early American history. The first rights that were established had to do with freedom of religion. Instead of using this for my religion argument, however, I will portray it with how it relates to culture. Freedom of religion was a milestone, because it broke down the barriers that you mentioned religion and culture had created. "The Great Melting Pot" concept was what was so intriguing about a place like America. It was a place where culture was not a barrier, it was a bridge. Cultures integrated to create multiple subcultures, which exist today and have made up the social fabric of not just America, but the world. Generations passed down find integrating heritages, a factor which has always been able to bring people together. My point: Religion and culture successfully act as something to be celebrated and appreciated, not revoked and hidden, because it is what crafts us as individuals in a quickly globalizing world.
We let Culture and Religion affect our lives way more then it has to.

For something that is more or less given to us, we give Culture and Religion way too much importance then is required. We do not let ourselves be friends with others because of their religion, or love someone only because of the difference in cultures. We give up opportunities and are close minded, preventing us from learning new things, why? Because when we were born we were born to someone of a certain culture and religion that is different from someone else. No my point is not that we should embrace who we are, and our culture and religion, my only point is that we should not give up on experiences, people, skills, opportunities and dreams only because of something, that especially when we are young, is not neck early up to us. Round One: Opening statements, you will argue that we do not let culture and religion control us more that it should. Round Two: Argument One, plus rebuttals. Round Three: Argument Two, plus rebuttals. Round Four: Argument Three, plus rebuttals. Round Five: Conclusions, closing statements. :)
God Does NOT Exist

I contradict this idea using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You can find it here - http://en.wikipedia.org... There are three basic principles of this argument: 1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. Throughout history, we have seen that every effect has a cause. For example, how is an automobile created? It cannot just appear there. The automobile manufacturers build it. This, by example, tells us that everything has a cause to exist. 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. As stated before, throughout history, we have seen countless examples of this to happen, so if our planet has a beginning, wouldn't our galaxy, and furthermore, our universe? This eliminates the law of infinity and demonstrates to us that there has to be a cause that is outside of time, space, and matter. Both of these reasons lead us to the main point that... 3. The universe has a cause of its existence that is infinite, spaceless and timeless
God Does NOT Exist

God Does NOT ExistDefinition of Terms:Physical: material existence [1]Supernatural: outside the natural order [2]Reality: stateofbeingreal;existsindependentlyofideas [3]Terms Explained:Something that is supernatural, BY DEFINITION, is outside of the natural-physical world.Something that hasn't been discovered yet could be considered supernatural - but when it is discovered it becomes part of that natural world.The only things which exist are are the things which are real. The things which are real are the things which are natural and rooted in physical systems.Deductive:P1) Everything that exists is physicalP2) God is not physicalC) Therefore, God does not exist Examples & Analysis:Three common things that one might consider to be supernatural: God, ESP & ghosts.(let's just pick ESP for an example) If it doesn't exist, then one could call it supernatural as in, "doesn't exist in our universe." On the other hand, it's possible that ESP does exist (I don't think it very likely, but it could) and if it does, then supernatural isn't all that super; it just means something natural that we can't yet explain. In this context "supernatural" might mean "real, but unexplained." As soon as we have access or data for something supposed to be supernatural - it becomes firmly fixed in the physical.In short, it seems to me that supernatural either means "doesn't exist at all" or "exists but is not yet explained." Either way, it's not "other worldly." Source References:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.sciencechatforum.com...
food stamps are right for those who aren't lazy and are the poorest among us

As I have said previously, there are many ways in which people "work" outside of the formal economy. You're going to find very few people in society who don't have some desire to contribute. Poverty guidelines aren't generous; most of them are quite out of date. Few take into account multiple costs that face most families besides that of food. Using the cost of food, adjusted only for inflation since the 1960s, is not a good indicator of the costs facing ordinary Americans. There's plenty of difference in how we think, but I'm not going to hammer the point any further.
food stamps are right for those who aren't lazy and are the poorest among us

"by lazy all I meant was they are trying to find a job." So, job seeking is equivalent to laziness? I don't follow. "poverty is those who have no income...we might include those who have minimal income like a few hundred dollars a month." Even the government's definition of poverty (which is very outdated and conservative) places people who make below $24,450 per year for a family of four in the contiguous United States (Department of Health and Human Services in 2015) beneath the poverty line. That means that a family of four this making over $2,000 a month could still be living in poverty, with an income much more than "a few hundred dollars a month." "and as the bible even says, 'he that will not work, neither let him eat'" So? Just because these words are within the Bible, doesn't give logical credence to what you're saying.
food stamps are right for those who aren't lazy and are the poorest among us

by lazy all i meant was they are trying to find a job. maybe they have minimal employment etc. i think you are focusing too much on the trees and not seeing the bigger point involved. poverty is those who have no income. we might include those who have minimal income like a few hundred dollars a month. again i think u r missing the bigger point. (which is usually the case when people insist on defining things needlessly) i think you are trying to make an argument where there is none. i just distinguished lazy v not, cause some people will draw that point, and as the bible even says "he that will not work, neither let him eat". i agree it's too beurocratic to try to make the line bettween deserving and underserving... and at the end of the day, if you are living in poverty, you dont have much going for you either way. we are beyond quibbling about food. but yeah i dont think we have anything to argue about.
School should start later (Rematch)

(Yay no final round blitzkrieg) Not all children sneak out of the house. There's goody-goodies too, and they wouldn't sneak out of the house. You said there were multiple benefits for school days beginning after 8 AM. I agree with that. But with the "more time for after school jobs" where I live under-16 teens can't work before 7 AM so they wouldn't be able to earn any money before school either. "While studies show there are academic advantages to later start times for adolescents, schools that begin early in the day can still excel academically." Well, I bet there's at least one school that starts at 7:25 AM that doesn't excel academically. In the "More time for activities" paragraph, it mentions high schools. What about elementary schools (or primary schools as we call them in Britain)? And again, what I said earlier about the jobs. I'm not going to take up any more of this debate. I think you get my gist by now. All I can say is, good luck! You have argued well.