BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Makashi is the best of the seven forms of lightsaber combat as recognised by the jedi order.

(Please excuse run-on sentences and other gramatic things it's very difficult to build a cohesive argument on a cell-phone) My opponent makes some great points when it comes to vaapad, it has amazing speed and strength and can use an enemies rage against them but what he ignores is the reason vaapad was banned by mace windu, its creator, for learning. Mace windu banned the practice of vaapad because it required a constant flow of force energy, an amount of energy that the light side cannot create, in order ti properly weild vaapad its user must access the dark side of the force to be used, as remarked by count dooku, unless it is weilded by a sith, vaapad is clunky and weak. Though it may seem that using the dark side of the force is only to empower the force, an unnecessary addition to the form, the form was actually designed with using the dark side in mind, mace windu created the form with the goal of utilizing the dark side within him. The only way a user can use the form without succumbing to the dark side is to hold back, to intentionally weaken your strikes and movements and even still vaapad is likely to pull jedi to the dark side one notable example of this would be mace windu himself. Though not expressly stated it is in my own opinion that during his battle against darth sidious mace windu fell to the dark side, as stated within my opponents 2nd source after cornering darth sidious anakin told windu to not kill sidious but to bring him before the council to answer for his crimes but mace windu blinded by his rage and the dark side tries to reason why sidious deserved to die saying that sidious was too powerful after reflecting sidious' lightning volley windu went to strike his killing blow but anakin stops windu before windu crossed a path he could not return from. Now then when he spoke of makashi I noted numerous flaws first he stated makashi held no momentum but makashi form surrounds constant movement in the blade weilders of makashi would immediately start performing a chain of orbitals, these orbitals would give them a notable amount of momentum and plenty of power into their strikes. Secondly, a more hands on power based form would not be notably affective against makashi, makashi's defense is based on nimble footwork parries and dodges and when a power based form, like djem so, would pull a massive strike makashi would just dodge out of the way and and quickly strike at the now remarkably open target. Finally, my opponent claimed that because of its natural focus lightsaber vs lightsaber makes its inevitably fall out of favor but makashi's focus on dodging and nimble footwork means its weilders can easily move out of the way of the blasts and remove whatever distance was between the weilder and the marksman.
Makashi is the best of the seven forms of lightsaber combat as recognised by the jedi order.

Thanks to Pro for the debate, and for his patience.VaapadI will be defending Vaapad, a subset of Juyo, as the "best of the seven forms of lightsaber combat." Vaapad is a form of lightsaber combat which seeks to harness the energy of the opponent in order to redirect that fury back at them. This characteristic of Vaapad produced a rather intriguing advantage to the form. The use of Vaapad allowed the practitioner to redirect force lightning back at its issuer. Mace Windu, the foremost Vaapad expert, demonstrated this technique in his battle with Sidious, redirecting Sidious's lightning back at him, deforming the Sith Lord. [1, 2]Vaapad movements occur at a high enough speed to be invisible to the naked eye and transition smoothly from one strike to another. [3] This combination of speed and fluidity allows lightsaber to become, in effect, it's own blinding lightshow that can disorient opponents.Vaapad, as a form of Juyo, also has several other benefits. For example, "Juyo users were proficient in a technique called 'Assured Strike,' wherein they traded sheer power for a near-certainty of landing a hit. Another technique they used was referred to as 'Vornskr's Ferocity,' which involved 'ferocious' attacking of an opponent...Those skilled in the Vaapad form were known for their use of the 'Swift Flank' technique, where they leaped or dashed around an opponent to make a quick strike. The speed of the maneuver was intended to catch opponents off guard." [3]Vaapad is also designed specifically for lightsaber vs. lightsaber combat: "it was designed for such a purpose in one-on-one lightsaber duels." [3] Though, ultimately, Vaapad proved more versatile than Makashi, enabling practitioners like Windu to fare well in head-to-head combat against a wide array of adversaries, fighting styles, and weapons.MakashiMakashi suffers from several fairly clear flaws. The first of these flaws is that, because of its overwhelming focus on lightsaber dueling, practitioners were unable to adequately defend against blasters and other kinds of weapons. This flaw drove the form into "eventual obsolescence." [4]Additionally, "the greatest flaw of the Makashi system of combat was its inability to generate kinetic energy in its application; the focus on precision and blade control hampered an adherent's ability to generate momentum in both offensive and defensive maneuvers. This meant that a duelist who possessed a sufficient level of physical strength could potentially overwhelm a Makashi practitioner, shunting aside strikes from the form's precision offense and simply bashing through it's evasive, footwork-oriented defense. This lack of physical force left Makashi practitioners vulnerable to duelists utilizing more contemporary forms, which emphasized power and brute strength." [4] Given that Vaapad and Juyo place enormous importance on power and strength, it seems that the Makashi form would be an ineffective response to these forms.Sources1 - http://starwars.wikia.com...2 - http://starwars.wikia.com...3 - http://starwars.wikia.com...4 - http://starwars.wikia.com...
Makashi is the best of the seven forms of lightsaber combat as recognised by the jedi order.

In this debate my opponent should argue that a specific form is better then makashi (shii sho, soresu, ataru, djem so, shein, niman or juyo/vapaad (please note that shein and djem so are both referred to as form 5)) Makashi is the best of the seven forms because it is designed specifically for lightsaber vs lightsaber combat and has no major weaknesses.
human impact on the rate of animal extentions

the world is evolving and in this race we have forget about the animals who live or lived with us we killed them all for our benefits, it seems to be alright but it has had a huge impact on our environment upto 150-200 species go extinct because of human created problems such as habitat destruction and over hunting, this is not right, what we are doing is wrong there are imbalance in the ecosystem. its time to stop and undo what we have done.......
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

So if social is all being survival of the fittest, there has to have a limit to that. Human beings are rational beings. That is why we are on top of the food chain, and have won survival of the fittest. It is what makes us different from all the other animals out in nature, along with opposable thumbs. Our voice on the inside of our hearts, the conscious, is what makes us stop and think and rationalize our action before we commit them. It"s the reason why you don"t see more people commit crime, and then they know the punishment that comes by committing the crime. As the old saying goes, "you do the crime, you do the time." Also with the homeless, I think they are already in a way paying for their crimes by being homeless as the worst possible thing that could happen. By being homeless, they are not being the norm, and have to live on the street. Living on the street is harsh enough for anyone, and it can change one"s mental stableness as what is going to hurt them by committing a crime. It reminds me of an old pink panther short cartoon that I saw about 15 years ago, where the pink panther is homeless during Christmas, and he saw a criminal being treated nicer than he was. The criminal had the comfort of a roof over his head, and a nice warm meal to eat. So he decided to be become a criminal by putting his photo on a wanted poster, but that did not work. That has always stuck with me all this time in my mind. But on the other hand, some people can know the different between what is ethically right and wrong, but they still chose to commit the crime, they don"t care about the result or who they hurt. With the end result, if society becomes open minded about the way criminals acts, as I have stated the before, society will fall into chaos and madness. For example, when everyone or many people are committing crimes at the same time like after hurricane Katrina back in 2005, others people will not understand them, and view them as insane. I think today society is too controlled and dominated by the Media that people needs to be told what is right or wrong in society. People don"t think for themselves anymore. They need should know if there is a right or wrong answers to ethics answers. What people thinking have been changed, especially when it comes to certain social issues like gay marriage or weed, which have been in the past been one viewed. Maybe the changing view is good, but there may have been a reason that for so long these issues had such a negative view. In conclusion wither someone who can"t or cannot understand and realize what there action is wrong or right, the society at large has already did for them. I"m not saying it is right for society to judge or put people into a corner just because of their past, present, or future actions, but that is how society functions, and in a way has been since the beginning of time. Wither or not anyone likes it or not, it is not going to go away anytime soon. But who knows, what will happen if the process changes in the future. If it does it might have a negative impact and effect on society as a whole that people are afraid will come.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

It does not matter if it is fair or not. People will do things to achieve their goal. They don't care about the big picture, it only matters if they get to eat another day or live discreetly. As for the 2008 financial crisis, that is an anomaly, we can't say EVERYONE got hurt. What if there's the possibility that there's a group of people that don't have anything to do with government and live in the U.S.? I'm not talking about rich people, they got taxed proportionate to how the middle and lower class were taxed and still had to pay a good price. The homeless are an example since they don't possess housing that would be taxed. Many Americans are homeless due to the crisis but the ones that were already homeless just lived their life as they usually do, may it not be a long life. And for the existence or criminals, if they are aware of what they do is not right, then why do they do it? Is it some sort of risk that they can overcome but in reality they know they can't? This goes to show that not everyone has the capacity to rationalize. It might be something they can't help and are thought to believe that this is the better way to execute for the goal that he or she has in mind. They should be held accountable, yes, but they shouldn't have to be told what they did was wrong. They 'know' what they did had consequences and they would suffer. They knew what they were getting themselves into. Society is too close minded and needs to open them to view each point with more care. The outcasts are automatically shoved off to the side as something that should not exist. How society is now doesn't make me feel comfortable if they begin treating us with numbers and letter rather than someone who is breathing and can talk. Media has become so important in our lives almost every college student has a Android or iPhone. Only because it is convenient and we become reliant on its usefulness. You could say that its wrong and right to a degree but society just drags it towards one side in the end. Concluding my argument, there cannot be right or wrong answers in ethics because somewhere out there there will be people who can't understand the difference between their ethics and another group's ethics. It may not harm each other to know but the two existences can't acknowledge each other. This is why war happens, over the stupid idea that the opposing side's belief is against the agitator and therefore they need to stop existing. The opposing side has one nothing wrong but has at the same time, which brings us back to why there isn't a wrong answer nor a right one. Is it right for humans to even claim lands because we have the ability to rationalize? We process many types of animals to our way of living yet they can not help but be told this way. Survival of the fittest is a very cruel way to be but that's how humans developed. Many animals have emotion, it has been proved, but we turn a cold shoulder for our own benefit. Who is the savage here? Who is right and who is wrong? It's a question that may never be solved.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

It's not a fact of being cooler, it's more of the fact that people want to be better off than others. Everyone has ethics. It's just not under the same name or mindset that people may have. If you're saying to those who do not care for their own well-being, that just means they are not sane. It's not that they throw out their ethical standards, it's just that they aren't ABLE to have them. Their mind doesn't function like regular people and end up being criticized for their unjust behavior. Those types of people end up being the geniuses and shunned by society because they aren't understood for their way of thinking. It doesn't make them better but why should they be disregarded as a result? I'm not saying criminals are masterminds, I'm talking about those that have a level of safe judgement but edge close to the line and become very controversial. Places where people don't dare to step because of the unknown risks they take but do it anyways. Our economy has taken quite the damage mostly for the reason government has taken part of it. They change a few things around thinking it will benefit people but ends up hurting some as well. Their main role is the military and to protect this country from other countries. They have necessarily made a 'bad' move rather than a wrong move because it did not further damage the system. College is for people who want to learn more about something they want to pursue a career in. College is the more preferred method of success since you can get various degrees that many jobs look for. There is the occasional exception who get passed all that through networking and being just good at what they do. There are many exceptions and of course those people work hard and yet the underlying and lazy people still get good jobs. A letter grade does not better show intelligence. A person with perfect photo-memory can easily take a test and ace it while a student who does not have great memory gets a fairly lower grade than the one who only have to look at their notes once or never even studied. They learn the rights and wrongs mostly through life choices, not through education. Education can only teach so much before one has to actually take life in it's hand and slowly grow it into success. It's very hard to make an objective decision since judgement is based off ethics. Every time a court makes their final judgement, it never benefits the loser in any way because they did something wrong in the eyes of the law. The intention is never really revealed when it is publicized and there is always cover up and twisted words put in media to make one side deserve the punishment. There will always be conflict with ethics. People make decisions and there are repercussions that make them right or wrong. Why do we wear clothes? The Greek used to walk around bare back then, why is it bad now? It may give a connotation that represents sex and adult content but it doesn't. The human form was praised and it is today. There is so much censorship because people believe it is bad. They have never tried it and yet they still conceal it. It's just not ethical to treat it that way.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Yes, there are always going to be certain individuals that are not going to follow the rules for whatever reason that might be. For some, it might seem a lot cooler to be against the law than to be law abiding citizens. Those are the outliers of society. For them, there is no ethics anymore as they have thrown out their ethical standards. They cannot be counted on to be a normal productive individual contributing to the overall well beings of society anymore. They have some part of their brain that is not right anymore for them to consider be a criminal is even a choice. That is why most people think criminal can be treated and turned around to become law abiding citizen, realizing the errors of their past ways. But for most of the citizens of society, they want to be law abiding citizens in order to be a productive member of society so there are wrong and right steps towards that. To be a productive member one has to follow society" norms and behaviors because society is structured in a fashion to be grounded by rules and laws one has to follow like getting more education means a better outcome in life. In order to be considered normal and successful, one has to follow those guides. It part of the reason why all of us go to college. That is just the rule society has led and set upon us. Does a person need to go to college or even have any education needed in order to become successful or at least survive in the world? Does sometimes the time and money invested into college worth the outcome when the average debut of a college student is $30,000? The answer is not always certain to yes, but it will be more likely and better of a chance if that an individual does that. That has been proven to be the fact and truth time and time again if that happens. Studies have shown that the higher the education there is a collation with higher amount of annual salary. It"s the reason why many go to college time and time again in part to gain more knowledge in order to learn and choice there are right and wrong decisions, especially in ethics. Many people in both politics and religion have a belief what their beliefs are is the correct method to survive and live in society, if there are no right or wrong in the world, what makes those people think their way is the right way. It reminds of the old saying that either you follow my way or the highway. If there are no right or wrong way in ethics, then how come there are so many followers to a certain belief like for example so many in Islam would become suicide bombers, and die in the name of their beliefs, religion, and their God. Why then would there be wars at all to begin with to die for their beliefs and rights, if one does not see the different beliefs and methods as being categorized as either being right or wrong. I think overall, many people don"t think of the smaller picture, but just look at different issues, wither its political, religious or not in a very two dimensional kind of way as either in white or black not shades of gray, which might not be the right way, but that is how the world functions.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Right or wrong still doesn't change the fact there are still many people in the world that disregard the right and do the wrong. They are known as criminals in the world. There are those who are aware of the consequences and yet initiate foolish acts which have a price of containment or prison to stop them. Then again, is it right to imprison them? Will it benefit society to do so after they spend their time and are released and commit the same offense to loop back into prison? Everything is done by a case-by-case basis but many criminals fall for their own core instincts and desires. There are some who do wrong but do not know that it is wrong. Laws still don't stop those who have no interest in moral values and abuse the ones that do respect the system. People will break the law to do the right thing for another set of people and then it becomes harder to distinguish in where to step in and take action. There is a cost to do something right by doing something wrong. That's why the U.S. government is split into three different powers, so there is power equally distributed among many people. Laws that are made and passed will often benefit one part of society and hurt another. Is it the right thing to do? It's not too far from being wrong though so there is an ambiguity that arises in certain cases. They measure whether there is more healing than there is hurting. Now that there's more equality set in with same sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, the United States is a country with mixed opinions. Being 100 percent righteous is rarely seen, everything is done with some kind of damage. Religion uses common ethical rules but even then, many followers seem to allow themselves to go against the rules they believe in. They contradict themselves by being in those groups, even if it's a mistake they should not repeat them yet they do. That may not be the goal of their religion but it's part of their religion and need to make it an important part of what they do around themselves. As a result, being right is the same as being wrong. What is majority ruled to be one way doesn't make it true or right. That isn't an ethical way to think and makes society close minded for the possibilities and new ways to think. People stop questioning and often buy into lies and lead to less happy lives. Rumors, gossip, and oral tradition are what causes it. False advertising and gimmicks companies try to pull by selling something that doesn't work as it should. They lose sight of what is right and get consumed by conformity. So what if there are different societies in the world? There will be a day when the world will unify into two sides. Nothing will be the same, certain countries may be absorbed by another or end up being being destroyed. In those two types, they will have completely different meanings of right and wrong. There will never be a right or wrong because someone out there will think very differently and may as well be a good person in our eyes. That's why there's a lot of conflict between religions, even if they believe similar ideals.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

In ethics, there are no right or wrong answers because as humans, everything we do is give label to things and consider them right or wrong. It is because of our desires as human beings, it is our natural instinct to dominate, lust and greed but what keeps us human is that we 'can' rationalize. We are grown up to believe what we think is right and wrong. It comes in various forms such as religion, family, environment, school education etc. It does not necessarily mean that we are correct since the world is a mix of different voices who channel other kinds of ethics and moral treatment towards others. For example, a religion that says to sacrifice and kill to please their god and keep the followers and their families prosperous would be wrong to those who believe in a religion that wishes health and beauty to everyone. The homicidal believers will believe it is right, but only right to who ever they are praising. Therefore, being right or wrong is completely subjective.