BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death

Pros Case"Sorry it was my fault to be so undescriptive. By regonal I didn't mean could not affect vast areas I mean the were more based on fight other cretures or entities within Middle-earth (like a spot light that scares Nazgul) while Dumbledore spells are bassed off of mostly phisical thing, like disarming, stuning. And I under stand Gandalf does have some spells that aren't like that(fire or lighting). "My opponent cedes that Gandalf does indeed posses powers that allow him to make himself a formidable foe. Gandalf has powers of telekinetics (he can throw you around, or send out blasts of kinetic energy), he has cast pyromancy spells, he has pyrokinesis, electrokinesis, and he can command the weather to change at his will. He also has the power of the voice, which is a bit slower than the other forms of magic, but not so slow that it isn't usable in a duel. In his battle with the Balrog (when he was still the grey) he used his power of the voice to keep the creature at bay, a very powerful feat. "The Phineixs Phoenix can be reborn can the eagles? "There are lots of eagles and only one phoenix. Furthermore, the phoenix is the size of a regular bird of prey. The eagles are massive. Also, because they are much larger, the eagles can fly faster than the phoenix by far. Also, they are obviously much stronger. It would only take one eagle to capture the phoenix and carry it off far away. "You can't deny the fact that gandalf does seem to smoke alot pipe-weed and this clearly has some sort of effect on him. Gandalf If not addicted is atleast high during non war times from what we can tell from the canon. If gandalf was high it would give Dumbledore and advantage. "Only Gandalf the Grey is seen smoking pipe weed. Gandalf the white is never seen smoking pipe weed. "Dumble has been know go invisable with a cloak, summon a massive fire storm, fly(broom stick) and Since your get Gandalf in his most powerful form I can assum the Dumbledore would pocces all his magical iteams that were later given to harry as his magical skills were perfected when he was a child. "Gandalf could easily cast off the enchantment on the invisibility cloak (at least temporarily) as he has done many times before to other enchantments. If Dumbledore tried to fly, Gandalf could easily knock him off his broom stick with lightning. Summary-Gandalf would not be easily disarmed of glamdring, and could easily fell Dumbledore with it up close and personal (and magic in harry potter typically requires you to be somewhat close to your target)-Gandalfs powers are much grander than Dumbledores. His spells have much more powerful destructive effect. -My opponent has only argued that Dumbledore could possibly disarm Gandalf, not kill him. -Gandalf has many deadly spells he can cast. -Giant eagles could easily take on Fawkes-My opponent leaves the fact that Gandalf is an immortal spirit unaddressed. Dumbledore could never actually kill Gandalf. -My opponents spelling has been very poor this debate.
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death

"Disarm wands. Furthermore, Gandalf can protect himself from the magic of others (such as saruman) and could easily prevent himself from being disarmed."Frist that spell is never said to be bound to wands and also your assuming that magic(like that of saruman) is the same as magic of the HP universe, Gandalf has never encountered this type of magic befor. Sorry it was my fault to be so undescriptive. By regonal I didn't mean could not affect vast areas I mean the were more based on fight other cretures or entities within Middle-earth (like a spot light that scares Nazgul) while Dumbledore spells are bassed off of mostly phisical thing, like disarming, stuning. And I under stand Gandalf does have some spells that aren't like that(fire or lighting).The Phineixs can be reborn can the eagles?You can't deny the fact that gandalf does seem to smoke alot pipe-weed and this clearly has some sort of effect on him. Gandalf If not addicted is atleast high during non war times from what we can tell from the canon. If gandalf was high it would give Dumbledore and advantage.Dumble has been know go invisable with a cloak, summon a massive fire storm, fly(broom stick) and Since your get Gandalf in his most powerful form I can assum the Dumbledore would pocces all his magical iteams that were later given to harry as his magical skills were perfected when he was a child.
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death

Pros Case"In the Harry Potter Universe it is clear that a, quick, easy (so easy they learn it in like the first year of learning magic) spell that can disarm and Dumbledore is more than likely a master of that simple spell."Disarm wands. Furthermore, Gandalf can protect himself from the magic of others (such as saruman) and could easily prevent himself from being disarmed."Taking into account all contains considered canon both wizards seem to be more powerful with wands or staffs but not useless without them. Dumbledore uses the elder wand, conjured by Death himself and could easy match Gandalf's Staff as both have been seen doing incredible feats, I will talk more of Dumbledore's feats later in my argument."Yes dumbledore has stored his memory and dueled other lesser wizards in non-lethal combat. Gandalf however has defeated massive fire demons, and his staff has summoned thunder and lightning, and cloudbreaks of burning light."We have seen that the power of voice takes long strings of complex tong similar to old computer programming languages and Harry potter spells are short and sweet (more like command prompts) consisting of two to three syllable shouts or saying easier to quickly use more ideal for dueling and would quick end Gandalf's long drawn out spells before he can finish."There are plenty of instances where gandalf casts many spells on command. I don't know what you think makes your point tenable. "Dumbledore can and has summoned a bolt of energy from his wand without even using s spell and clearly countered an apposing bolt rendering bolt style attack useless."One puny bolt? Gandalf summons blasts of lightning and fireballs."Also within the LOTR and hobbit universe you see very little magic used for fighting and other than throwing around other wizards and his powers seem regional based more suited for fighting nazgul or goblins."Have you read the books? Regional based? He changes the very weather and has summoned very powerful allies from afar. "Dumbledore also has a phoenix meaning the eagles are a null argument as they can be countered by his phoenix."Seriously? One puny phoenix vs. an entire flock of collosal eagles?"Plus Gandalf is a pot head...Plus Dumbledore gots mad style..."I don't see how this is relevant.SummaryThe opposition fails to present compelling evidence that dumbledore could defeat gandalf in a fight.VOTE GANDALF!
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death

Counter to Glamdring: In the Harry Potter Universe it is clear that a, quick, easy (so easy they learn it in like the first year of learning magic) spell that can disarm and Dumbledore is more than likely a master of that simple spell. Counter to the Staff Taking into account all contains considered canon both wizards seem to be more powerful with wands or staffs but not useless without them. Dumbledore uses the elder wand, conjured by Death himself and could easy match Gandalf's Staff as both have been seen doing incredible feats, I will talk more of Dumbledore's feats later in my argument. Counter to Supernatural Abilities We have seen that the power of voice takes long strings of complex tong similar to old computer programming languages and Harry potter spells are short and sweet (more like command prompts) consisting of two to three syllable shouts or saying easier to quickly use more ideal for dueling and would quick end Gandalf's long drawn out spells before he can finish. New argument: Dumbledore can and has summoned a bolt of energy from his wand without even using s spell and clearly countered an apposing bolt rendering bolt style attack useless. Also within the LOTR and hobbit universe you see very little magic used for fighting and other than throwing around other wizards and his powers seem regional based more suited for fighting nazgul or goblins. Dumbledore also has a phoenix meaning the eagles are a null argument as they can be countered by his phoenix. Plus Gandalf is a pot head... Plus Dumbledore gots mad style... Recap: Dumbledore can disarm easy and quick Magic style faster better for dueling More information of magic in HP vs LOTR Eagles can be countered by phoenix PS the wizards in HP don't seem to mind rain or giants if I remember correctly.
Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a duel to the death

In a 1 on 1 fight to the death, Gandalf would be able to take Dumbledore. I will support this statement with a series of contentions and evidence based on observable evidence from the movies and books of both series. For the sake of argument, I will assume that combatants will not be able to call upon allies such as the fellowship of the ring or shadowfax.Gandalfs ArsenalGlamdringThe first major advantage gandalf has over dumbledore is his sword, glamdring. Gandalf the white is an expert swordsman, and kills quite efficiently with glamdring. He even killed the goblin king with glamdring, while he was still grey. Gandalf even took on a fell beast with glamdring. Most impressive of all, is of course his duel with the demon of moria, the horrible visage of morgul, the Balrog. Gandalf even summoned lightning with glamdring atop a mountain to kill the Balrog. Glamdring is a very deadly sword. It is elven crafted and imbued with powerful magic. He can cut through many foes with it, and can summon powerful magical attacks with it. If Gandalf closed the gap in a fight and was up close and personal with dumbledore, then dumbledore would have no defense against Gandalfs melee attacks.The Staff of a White WizardAs a white wizard, Gandalf is armed with an incredibly powerful conduit of magical power. The staff of a white wizard. Gandalf uses this powerful tool not only as an effective bludgeoning weapon, but also as a conduit for many of his spells. I will talk more in depth about his supernatural abilities in the next portion of my argument. Supernatural abilitiesGandalf is an Ainur, an immortal spirit, so technically he can't die. Even if by some miracle dumbledore was able to somehow vanquish him in a fight, gandalf would simply return with a vengeance. As an Ainur or, more commonly, a Wizard, gandalf also has access to a collection of incredibly powerful spells. Gandalf the White is the most powerful of the Wizards. He has the power of the voice, similar to sarumans, and can summon very powerful magic to assist him. The wizards of harry potter have somewhat insignificant powers compared to the ainur. Their spells are totally localized. They can disarm opponents, stun them, and if they are a dark wizard (which dumbledore is not) they can maybe torture, control, and kill their enemy. Gandalf can bring down storms, summon giants, and control the weather. He can also summons massive blasts of power to throw around his opponents.Vote Gandalf! Sources1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (books) by J.R.R. Tolkein2. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (movies) directed by Peter Jackson3. The Hobbit (book) by J.R.R. Tolkein4. The Silmilarrion (Book) by J.R.R. Tolkein 5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Movie) directed by Peter Jackson
To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

REPLIES //The confusion that later follows is because existence is used in an ambiguous way. Pro implies that existence only applies to things that have a cause.// >> Please point out where and how I made an implication of existence depending on causation. I assure you, there is no ambiguity, I actually posted my definition of existence in the first round, it is a very simple and specific one. //Now if this is true, this is why Pro says God is beyond existence. Cause if God does not have a cause, and ONLY things that exist that do have a cause make up existence then God can't be part of that existence.// >> Whether or not God has a cause is irrelevant to my argument. //But what about if existence doesn't just apply to things that have a cause/are created ? What about things that exist that don't have a cause ?// >> Yes; what about them? //With this distinction made, we can look at two types of existences, existence which is caused and existence that is without a cause.// >> Besides the irrelevancy, no such distinction has been established. //In this case it would be correct to say God is beyond existence that is caused but not beyond existence in totality, as there would still be the existence of things that don't have a cause.// >>If it is granted to your argument that uncaused things exist, it still does nothing for your case since God would not have caused whatever existence he is in. Any amount of existence he has is sacrificed for any amount of creation he makes. They are mutually excluding. Remember, the definition of existence is "all that exists", not "some things which exist". If God did not create all things which exist then he did not create existence. If some things are uncaused then obviously God didn't cause them. Therefore, if uncaused things exist then God must not have created existence. Your argument is negated. //Reality/Existence = Things that exist that have a cause + things that exist that don't have a cause.// >> In order to make such a statement you would have to demonstrate that there are things which exist that have causes and things which exist that do not have causes. Without that, you could only say that existence WOULD contain those things, if they exist--which is simply redundant. //With this confusion cleared up, affirming Gods existence does not deny him as creator.// >> If there is confusion in my argument, it has not been revealed.
To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

Pro says "If we are to theoretically assume that God may and/or has created existence then we must assume that he is beyond existence. " The confusion that later follows is because existence is used in an ambiguous way. Pro implies that existence only applies to things that have a cause. Now if this is true, this is why Pro says God is beyond existence. Cause if God does not have a cause, and ONLY things that exist that do have a cause make up existence then God can't be part of that existence. But what about if existence doesn't just apply to things that have a cause/are created ? What about things that exist that don't have a cause ? With this distinction made, we can look at two types of existences, existence which is caused and existence that is without a cause. In this case it would be correct to say God is beyond existence that is caused but not beyond existence in totality, as there would still be the existence of things that don't have a cause. Pro says "To create reality is to be outside of it. " Once again, this is mistaking that all reality is caused, instead of dividing reality into things that exist with a cause and without a cause. Reality/Existence = Things that exist that have a cause + things that exist that don't have a cause. With this confusion cleared up, affirming Gods existence does not deny him as creator. I look forward to Pros reply.
To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

ARGUMENTS: This is simple enough that there is diffuclty in making the argument long enough. If we are to theoretically assume that God may and/or has created existence then we must assume that he is beyond existence. To paraphrase what Paul Tillich said, claiming God exists is puting him into a box, imposing our finite limitiations upon him. To be real is to be in reality. To create reality is to be outside of it. To be outside of reality is to not be in reality. To create reality is to not be in reality. To not be in reality is to not be real. To create reality is to not be real. To not be real is to be unreal. To create reality is to be unreal. To be Charlie Sheen is to be winning. Are there any other ways I can clearify it? No? I'll just ramble off into something else then. This revalation brings up an interesting and perplexing idea I conjured recently and discovered many others have had as well. The idea of seperate realities. Is it possible that things which only exist in our imaginations, in relative to us, exist in actuality to themselves in seperate reality? Perhaps we are, in-fact, figments of THEIR imaginations! Perhaps this is just Absurdist masturbation. Probably the latter. Con's turn.
To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

Now Pro says that they will later on present argument that supports the claim that "To affirm that 'God' exists is to deny that he/it created existence. " So rather than try and argue against a non existent argument I will await what Pro has to say. Looks like I get to define God so. .. .. .. .God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover I look forward to Pros argument.
To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

INTRODUCTION: Feels good to debate again. I instigate this resolution: "To affirm that 'God' exists is to deny that he/it created existence." Theists have been getting it wrong for ages. I agree with Paul Tillich, Christian Existentionalist and influential 20th century theologian, when he said "Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him." What could he possibly mean by that? Accept the debate and I will explain in my arguments. The person to accept this debate must be a theist; no devil's advocate. DEFINITIONS: God: The definition of God is vague and not relevant to my arguments in this debate as long as it is an entity. My opponent's definition of God may be used, so long as it isn't some semantical trickery. Create: To cause to exist; bring into being. [1] Affirm: To declare positively or firmly. To support or uphold the validity of. [2] Exist: To have actual being; be real. [3] Existence: All that exists. [4] SOURCES: 1. http://education.yahoo.com... 2. http://education.yahoo.com... 3. http://education.yahoo.com... 4. http://education.yahoo.com...
VIDEO DEBATE: Mercy and Justice

Please do not yet give Kasmic a loss for this forfeit. We can simply adjust the debate to compensate: R3. Kasmic posts his 5 minute case and his 4 minute rebuttal R4. I post my 4 minutes rebuttal and my 3 minute defense; Kasmic posts his 3 minute defense R5. We each do our 2 minute rebuttals and crystallizations
VIDEO DEBATE: Mercy and Justice

Thanks, Kasmic, for the opportunity to do this debate! Thanks again to anyone who listens to our arguments and/or votes! Video Link Sources Canadian Government: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca... Huff Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... James Bonta: http://law.jrank.org... Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org... http://www.youtube.com...
VIDEO DEBATE: Mercy and Justice

PrefaceKasmic and Lee's recent persuasive video debate caught my attention. Too often, we as debaters can place emphasis on regurgitation, highly technical argumentation, and volume of assertions. This model forces debaters to be communicative and sensible above all else, and to present a cogent line of reasoning that the average person can follow. I think this kind of oratorical style is interesting and deserving of recognition, so I am happy to have the chance to participate in it with Kasmic. To vote, you must have an ELO ranking of 3,000 or greater.Full TopicMercy bears richer fruit than strict Justice.Topic OverviewThe full topic is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I think it's abstract nature makes it well suited to a debate of this nature. But, because it is abstract, it requires some explanation. Simply put, this topic is asking the question of whether justice should be restorative, rehabilitative, etc., or whether it should be punitive, retributive, etc. Debaters should therefore focus on the difference between "soft" justice and "strict" justice, and which ends up producing the "richest fruit" or the most justice.TermsMercy - kindness, clemency, or forgiveness of someone who could be treated harshlyBear richer fruit - to produce more benefits or better outcomesStrict Justice - an approach to justice that emphasizes the need and appropriateness of punishment in response to wrongdoingRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate, but running citations (e.g names of authors) should be given in the videos3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is Shared: Pro argues for Mercy, Con for Strict Justice10. Debaters may be allowed a 15 second grace period per video11. Only audio is required; since only audio is required, judges are prohibited from considering visual cues, presentation, and the like in their decisions.12. Nothing but sources and pleasentries should be posted in the text of the debate13. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance Only - No VideoR2. Pro's Case, Con's Case - 5 minutes VideosR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case - 4 minute VideosR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case - 3 minute VideosR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Crystallize - 2 minute videosThanks......to Kasmic; I am looking forward to an excellent debate in an intriguing format!
There is a higher law than any a government can impose

The idea that there is a set of laws, such as these, that are higher than any government's, is not something that is so much as something that should be. These laws could govern the entire world, if the world would let them. Many people in almost every religion would be willing to follow these laws, and indeed, many religions preach this in different terms. Take The Bible, for example. Of the ten commandments, two of them fall directly under the "Do not encroach" category. "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal." Another, "Do not bear false witness against thy neighbor," falls more so under the "Do all you have agreed to do." category. Breaking these laws are not impossible, no. But should you, say, decide to punch me in the face, the moment you raise your fist in a way that I can reasonably feel threatened, you forfeit all rights to personal protection and open yourself up to whatever retribution I may bring on you for the duration of the time I feel threatened. As of right now, we have very few laws governing two individuals in physical confrontation. There should be a punishment for harming another, but methods of dealing with people who harm others would be carried out by the person or the family of the person harmed. There should be no "debt to society" for committing a crime that was not taken against society. If you punch me in the face, your debt is to me. Now, let's examine the whole idea. "There is a higher law..." This one should be pretty self-explanatory. Whatever law exists, there is a higher one, stated or not. "...than any..." Than any. Any. "...a government can impose." This one is a little more difficult. To most people, federal law appears to be the highest law of the land. They believe that anything the government decides should be law, the government is right and it should be law. This is not the case, whether people know it or not, whether it is stated or not. What if the government decided to make it legal to kill anybody who is not your religion, so long as you did it with a blunt weapons? Does that make it right? No. It only makes it legal.