BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is a false Religion

Thank you, Brian, for your opening arguments. I am sorry to say that I am on vacation (should have planned my debates better, but no excuse) so this is a quick rebuttal of what I feel are my strongest points. Prophecy: Ezekiel and Tyre It seems rather significant that in the beginning of Chapter 26 of Ezekiel, you find the pronouns 'I' (God) and 'they' (many nations – see verse 3). However, when Nebuchadnezzar is introduced, it switches to 'he'. In verse 12, the pronoun switches back to 'they'. It seems that the larger context is God bringing many nations against Tyre, Babylon being one of those nations – a specific one being described. It doesn't seem to be a problem for it to have been destroyed by Alexander. (4) =======REBUTTAL=======Ezekiel 26:7-14For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare rock...you shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God. I wish to disagree with my opponent that Alexander was no problem because it clearly state sthat it would be Nebuchadnezzar.I wish to remind my opponent that the prophecy also states that Tyre will "[N]ever be rebuilt" However, we see that to be false."Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon." Matthew 15:21How could Jesus had gone to Tyre if it was already destroyed "never to be rebuilt"?I wish to direct your attention to the 19th verse of the same chapter:"For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD."| CONCLUSION |Although it may not have been a problem as to who destroyed Tyre, it is still a dire problem as to the fact that Tyre was rebuilt, contarary to the propohecy. My opponent has not yet responded to that.This is my strongest point in the debate and am sorry I could not get around to the rest. I am NOT droping any of my previous arguments but don't have time to respond. Again, I am sorry and wish to keep my strongest point in play.
Self Defense/Martial Arts Classes Should be Required in School

You dismissed my topic on how much time would be available for these classes most likely because there just simply is no answer as there is no time for this. Also self defense and martial arts teaches people how to fight so bullies wouldn't "defend their lunch money" they would just become even more vicious as they take it. To be honest with you being in a building with 10 people who know martial arts or 10 who didn't wouldn't make a big difference to me against people who are carrying firearms as they could easily kill both. Even though I agree having security guards with firearms still isn't completely dependable it is MUCH better in terms of defense against the shooter as well as much less time consuming
Self Defense/Martial Arts Classes Should be Required in School

First off self defense would teach people how to defend themselves, not to go aggressive. Therefore a bully would not get anything advantage from a self defense class unless they are going to defend someone's lunch money away from them. However, I did mention martial arts class should be mandatory too. If everyone learns basic martial arts yes, bullies would learn to fight. In today's world if people see someone getting bullied they are probably going to look the other way because they don't want to get involved. However, if everyone knew martial arts and they saw someone getting bullied they would be more likely to help the victim out because they would know how to take a bully down. Ten weak nerds who know martial arts would be able to stop two bullies who know martial arts. Yes guns are stronger than feet and fists, but think, if there was an active shooter in the building would you rather be with ten people who know how to fight and could at least attempt to defend themselves if cornered, or rather twenty people who would run away screaming from the gun man any not even try to fight back. Yes even with self defense classes people will still die, but they would have a better chance. These self defense classes would also include lessons on how to disarm people. If a school or workplace where to have security guards with guns it could help the situation, but what happens when there is only one officer and he/she is on the complete other side of the building? What if the gun man targets the officer and takes him/her out before they start their rampage? If self defense classes where mandatory then the shooter would have a whole group of people attacking him instead of just one other guy with a gun. At least these classes would give the victims a fighting chance.
Self Defense/Martial Arts Classes Should be Required in School

Self defense classes are only needed for weak nerds who get mauled during school. If you give these bullies self defense classes that will make their attacks even more vicious. Self defense classes will have little to no effect if a school shooting were to occur because being able to defend yourself with your fists won't get you anywhere against a firearm. Instead of these classes my idea is that security guards at schools should carry pistols as many were former police officers and if not they can have classes for them on the range Time for these self defense martial arts classes would never come up as the kids schedule is already busy as it is so these classes wouldn't fit
Self Defense/Martial Arts Classes Should be Required in School

This Debate will be over whether Self Defense classes should be a requirement in the Education System. I will be arguing that Self Defense class should be a requirement and my opponent will be arguing why they should not. Self Defense Classes should be required because we continue to hear more and more about school/workplace shooting or stabbings and it seems that nothing is being done. It will take Washington forever to decide what to do and if guns should be legal, however one way to better prepare the public for such attacks is to ensure everyone knows how to defend themselves in case they are ever in a situation where self defense is needed.
If you accept this debate, you lose.

He also agrees that will abide by the following rules,. The rules: 1. No semantics 2. In round 1, the contender may only say " I forfeit this debate. Vote for Pro" 3 Forfeiting results in all points going to pro. 4. If any of the previous rules are broken, the contender automatically forfeits the debate Voting Criteria: If Con does not say "I forfeit this debate. Vote for Pro" or he includes other words with this phrase, all points must be awarded to Pro. If Con accepts this debate, he forfeits and all points must go to pro. Only accept if you wish to let me win.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

I don't see any conflict. I'm arguing that the addition of sprint was the right move by the developers, I then said the contender should argue that it was the wrong move by the developers. By right/wrong I mean what the developer should/shouldn't do. I want the contender to give reasons for why the developer shouldn't have added sprint, and then I will explain why those reasons are faulty, and why the reasons for the addition of sprint trump your reasons.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

In spite of a rather non-progressive opinion, I believe I made some rather noteworthy statements. Overall, my opponent only made one decent point regarding the 11% statistic. I offered my rebuttal to that point and made several other points of my own. It appears that we met in the middle on the point of adding a toggle setting for sprint and the idea that 343 should have acted sooner in adding sprint as to not allow core users to became set in their ways. After all, perhaps this argument isn't best as a whiny "no your wrong" . . . "no I'm right", but instead a criticism or a defense for the addition. I believe I offered a thoughtful criticism and analysis, while my opponent skipped a round and merely wanted to be right.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

Sorry, I totally forgot to post last round. I'm going to set an alarm on my phone so that won't happen again in future debates. Fortunately though, for this debate my opponent hasn't really made a case against my argument. The only statement he made that was actually arguing against my proposition was when he said:"The sprint feature should not have been added to maintain the classical integrity of the game."I then refuted that by pointing to data which shows that most players clearly want sprint.Since Con is supposed to argue that adding sprint was the wrong move, a counter-argument to that data would need to either dispute that data and/or explain why the developers shouldn't have added sprint despite most of their players wanting it.Instead, Con did neither of those. He continued about a toggle option for sprint, which I already explained is a different argument that I can agree with. Con was supposed to argue that adding sprint was the wrong move, not that they should add a toggle. He then hypothesized about why some players don't like sprint, but that is mostly irrelevant. I know the reasons that some players don't like sprint. He needs to explain why those players should be catered to over the vast majority of players. He then backtracks and says, "maybe sprint isn't all that bad, but waiting till the 4th installment may have been the real mistake." So instead of arguing that sprint should have never been added, he concedes that maybe they should have added sprint sooner in the series. That's a far cry from the original argument.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

Well, I'm afraid I may have let you down if you where hoping to argue with a hardcore anti-sprinter. Most arguments against tend to be either simple and anti-progressive to the series. Personally, I accept that one may need to adapt and revise game-play styles as a series progresses. But I do love a good challenge. Obviously statistics don't lie, but 11% is actually fairly significant. The number I found was 11% of 19,000, which ends up being 2,090 people in the test group. Here's a mod video with download: http://www.artofclutch.com... And reinforcing my argument for a toggle setting: http://www.eurogamer.net... Also I would argue that some of the dislike toward sprint may depend on the game-play style of the operator. Perhaps a player that camps a bit more would dislike the fact that someone may run up quickly and take them out. Or the opposite may be true, that a player may be a bit too "gung ho" and might rush into an engagement before the shield regenerated. Either way the dynamic has changed significantly and that's what I mean by "classical integrity". Anytime a major change is made to a series, people are gonna be upset because it's different that the original. Also I think most of the reason sprint/no sprint is argued so much is cause it wasn't added till Halo 4. Take for example, Battlefield 1942 did not have a run or sprint button, Battlefield 2 Bad Company added a sprint or run. What I'm saying is that maybe sprint isn't all that bad, but waiting till the 4th installment may have been the real mistake.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

Great, thanks. My argument is that most players want sprint, so that's why the developers should've added it. Whatever your definition of "integrity" is, most players do not value that over sprint. The main proof of this is the Halo Community Feedback Program, which is run by a Microsoft research team of psychologists. Only 11% of the 10,000 HCFP participants felt that Halo 5 should not have sprint: https://www.halowaypoint.com... And 77% of players voted in favor or strongly in favor of sprint: https://twitter.com... Additional evidence to show that players do indeed value sprint over the classical "integrity" comes from the comment section on this Halo Follower video: A quick scroll through the comments and you'll see much more support for sprint than against it. Here's just one example comment: "There are more people that like sprint than don't. Smart to keep it." That comment currently has 86 upvotes (which means there were much more upvotes than that since a downvote lowers that number, i.e. that comment has an 86/0 upvote/downvote ratio). And note that this is the most popular fan-made Halo channel. Generally viewers of this channel's videos are going to be more hardcore, long-time Halo fans who've been playing since the older classic Halo games, yet they still value sprint over that classic integrity. As for whether or not the developers should add an option to toggle off sprint, that is a different argument , one that I can agree with. They're doing that with Halo 5, but it should not and will not be the default way to play. I want to argue against one of the many anti-sprinters who think sprint should have never been added or that sprint-off should be the default way to play.
Adding sprint to the Halo series was the right move by the developers

My apologies. I had already assumed based on the title that I would be arguing the opposite and seemed to have skipped the first 3 words of the opening statement leaving me confused. Once again, my apologies. I general it is very common for new features to be added as a game series progresses. The sprint feature in Halo is especially controversial since the ability to sprint becomes such a primary game-play maneuver. The sprint feature should not have been added to maintain the classical integrity of the game. Otherwise developers should have accounted for the possibility of conflicting opinions by adding a toggle mode for sprint/no sprint. It is obvious this mode should have been incorporated, considering several mods have been created by alternative developers specifically for this toggle.
The T-34 was the greatest tank of World War II

I respectfully concede defeat under the immense knowledge of Dr. JGross, professor emeritus of tankology at CCNY. This is the extent of my knowledge of tanks:............. .......This is the extent of my opponent's knowledge of tanks:1) He is the Stephen Hawking of tankology2) He built this over the weekend with some spare parts3) He helps state law enforcement by graciously dedicating his time to drills........1) He is the Stephen Hawking of tankology ...............2) He built this over the weekend with some spare parts ................. 3) He helps state law enforcement by graciously dedicating his time to drills ......................... Thanks for the debate, and vote for me, if you're drunk. .........
The T-34 was the greatest tank of World War II

The T-34 was the most produced tank of WWII. Why? Because it was a superbly simple, robust, and powerful design. The T-34 was one of the first tanks to introduce the use of sloped Armour. Russian engineers realized that by using sloped Armour they could increase the protection provided to the crewman, without increasing the weight. This allowed them to keep the overall weight of the tank down to minimal levels, thereby increasing the top speed. Which goes to my next point the engine. The engine was a simple design which required very little maintenance, yet was able to propel the T-34 at up to 34 mph. In addition the T-34's robust engine allowed the tank to remain in combat for much longer periods of time than most other equivalent designs. Next up the speed of the T-34, this was one of the keys to the T-34's success. Rather than being a slow lumbering brute the agility of the T-34 allowed it to quickly blitz into the enemy lines, or easily flank around the enemy. This flanking maneuver was also crucial to the T-34, and was the most significant tactic in allowing it to become the greatest tank of World War II. Thanks to the combination of overwhelming numbers and extreme speed, the T-34 was able to flank more well armored enemy tanks, such as the Tiger I, and Panther, in order to attack their vulnerable side or rear Armour. The T-34/76's main gun, was a superb piece when it was first fielded in 1940. The 76mm was powerful enough to take on pretty much all German early war tanks, and by the time it had become outdated the Russians had upgraded it to the 85mm. The 85mm gun, could easily penetrate the side or rear Armour of just about every German tank, from a considerable distance. Again this powerful gun combined with a fast and well armored tank resulted in a deadly combination. While all these things, the Armour, speed, gun, tactics,etc, make the T-34 an excellent tank design, it is the pure production numbers, the manufacturing, which truly makes the T-34 the greatest tank of World War II. While Germany made 1,347 Tiger I tanks, approximately 6,000 Panthers, and another 8,800 Panzer IV's, a total of around 16,000 main battle tanks throughout the war, Russia produced over 84,000 T-34's. During even the height of the German invasion when tank production was at it's lowest, Russia was manufacturing over 1,300 T-34's a month. But not only was Russia making many more tanks than Germany, they were doing it for much cheaper. It is this combination of numbers and cost, of course combined with excellent individual characteristics, which truly make the T-34 the greatest tank of World War II, and perhaps the greatest tank ever made.
Farm animals deserve the same voting rights as humans

We aren't basing our policies on fantasy worlds. But maybe we have things to learn from fantasy worlds. Maybe we should learn that animals deserve rights, A say. The only reason they don't complain is that they don't even realize they have that option. They have been so heavily oppressed that they think their life can't change. But it can. We just need to take the step. They don't think us to be a higher purpose. They think us to be their eternal tormenters. They hate us for taking their lives. But they don't know that it can stop. Giving them the right to issue change through voting could reshape America and turn it into a positive country for animals, Not a hateful mangler of their lives. They do not find it joyous that they are losing their lives. They find it dark, And permanent. We need to show them that there is more to the world, And they deserve rights for everything they do for this country. They deserve the right to vote. Thanks for playing.
Farm animals deserve the same voting rights as humans

Sorry, Caesar the Ape is not real. We humans should not be basing our policies on made up fantasy worlds that have talking animals (Planet of the Apes, Charlotte's Web, Etc). Actually, Animals already have a say. But they don't complain at all. Most animals pretty much go along when humans usher them into the slaughterhouses. I don't think any of them have ever uttered a word in protest. In fact, You'd think there'd be an animal uprising by now, Given we've been doing this for thousands of years. You'd think by now the animals would have communicated with each other and devised a plan to thwart our efforts to make them into Extra Value Meals. But alas, They don't protest. They may bleat, And whine, But those I believe actually bleats and whines of Joy, As they understand they are giving their lives for a higher purpose. Thanks for playin'.
Farm animals deserve the same voting rights as humans

What about Caesar from Planet of the Apes? He was able to communicate his ideas thoroughly and thoughtfully. I honestly think scientists need to pour more research money into teaching things such as sheep and chicken sign language. They provide a lot of the food for the country and should get a say in their rights for doing that. (duh) I'm sure the animals could manage operating a voting booth as well as humans, For it isn't that hard. I think they should get this right, Just like how everyone else in the country has the right.
Utilitarianism is inherently unjust

Be for one can argue against utilitarianism you would have to imagine a world with out this basic concept. The result is a life with out law, order, unity and or civilized society. In order to make laws for a civilized society one has to think in terms of utility, in that what is the greatest good for the greatest number. While utilitarianism may not reflect absolute and imperfect justice for all it is necessary to write general laws that are not open-ended to maintain a since of security and basic justice for a society. 1. People are due worth. Yes they are and that is good reason for writing basic laws. 2. Utilitarianism does not disregard human worth if a law is 'greatest good for the greatest number'. basic example: Thal Shall not Kill. Is a general law that values human worth and is good for a society of people. While one may have a good reason to kill it is very hard to write laws that cover "ALL" circumstances. Utilitarian rule can have morality. 3. Utilitarianism can be unjust by circumstance, and it can also create and uphold justice more often than not. Everything is not black and white my friend. your move.