BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dumbledore with Harry's wand(before it was broken) vs Voldermort with the unbeatable wand!

I am sorry my opponent could not post his refutations to my arguments within the given timeline. I will now proceed with my own points. 3. Dumbledore and Voldemort will be in their original, physical conditions when they come back to life. The only possible way these two legendary wizards could have a battle with one another is if they are revived from the dead. Let us evaluate what physical condition the two wizards were in before they died. Voldemort was still extremely powerful and there was no physical damage done to him before he died; thus, he will be in good shape. Dumbledore will come back extremely weakened, an old fart, and with a blackened hand that contains his curse. His blackened hand (which is, coincidentally, his wand hand) will be a certain disadvantage. Not to mention that, after drinking some cursed and/or enchanted water, he was in extremely bad shape. He was so weak he could barely stand on his own two legs. Dumbledore will be in no physical condition to fight Voldemort. Combine this with my other arguments, and it is clear that Voldemort will be triumphant in this duel. 4. Voldemort is more experienced than Dumbledore in magic. Voldemort has undergone many horrifying transformation and has gone where no other wizard has dared to venture before. His vast knowledge of magic is greater than that of Dumbledore’s, because he has explored and put magic to its limits. Of course, Dumbledore has his love, but love will not do much when you get a face full of Avada Kedavra. With such a variety of spells at Voldemort’s disposal, (some we may have never seen in the Harry Potter series), then it is likely he would win this duel. 5. This duel could result in a stalemate. While I have mentioned this before, I wish to remind everyone this could result in a stalemate. Death may have taught Voldemort a valuable lesson, and both he and Dumbledore may wish to embrace death yet again. If this is the case, then Dumbledore would not win the duel and the resolution would be negated. -- I find it unfortunate that my opponent was not able to post his arguments; however, we have one more round, and I hope my opponent has time to share his points and refutations. That being said, I hand over the next round to my opponent.
Dumbledore with Harry's wand(before it was broken) vs Voldermort with the unbeatable wand!

So, I will assume you know the books well. First, the elder wand is unbeatable, but just because the wand itself is unbeatable does not mean the one using the wand is unbeatable or else Dumbledore would have never been able to win the elder wand from Grindelwald. Now, not only has Dumbledore been able to defeat the elder wand, but he has also sparred against Voldermort in book 5 during the ministries chapter, I believe their where many times Dumbledore could have destroyed Voldermort, but that wasn't going to finish him because it wasn't part of his plan. Now, in this fight Voldermort is mortal and Dumbledore has said that Voldermort is afraid of death as he does not understand it. This would make Voldermort vunerable. Also, I would like to point out that Dumbledore was the only one Voldermort ever feared. I believe this because he was not able to win Dumbledore over with his charm like he did others and knew he would not have an influence over Dumbledore, his methods of violence and control merely disappoint Dumbledore who feels that he could have done so much more with his powers. For example, in the cave scene in Half-Blood Prince when Dumbledore discovers the arched entrance he is severely disappointed with Voldemort's enchantment that requires anyone wanting entrance to the cave to shed their own blood and Dumbledore seemed rather excited to see what Voldermort had come with. I would like to point out that Dumbledore was able to duel with Voldermort while protecting Harry in book 5. This tells you how confident Dumbledore was in his abilities to fight against Voldermort =)
Dumbledore with Harry's wand(before it was broken) vs Voldermort with the unbeatable wand!

I apologize for my late response: I have been very busy. I will be assuming the first round is for acceptance, so my opponent and I have an equal amount of rounds to debate. However, I would like to ask several things. Questions: 1. Will this be a fight to the death? 1a. If so, will Voldemort have access to his horcruxes? 2. Where will this fight take place? 3. In what mental/physical condition will the two characters be in? 4. Will Voldemort be the master and owner of the elder wand (what you call the unbeatable wand)? 4a. If not, then it should only be fair that Dumbledore is not the master and owner of Harry’s wand. 5. Will allies be allowed in this battle?
The Most Reliable Basis For Determining Morality Is Via Secular Means

I would like to start my time here at DDO with a subject that is very close to my heart, the nature of where we derive our morality from. In my view, it is via secularist means. I am issuing this as an open challenge to anyone with interest in arguing from a different position. Before we begin, I would like to clarify the terms, namely that: Morality - What we consider to be right or wrong Secularism - actions and thinking that are derived from a non-religious standpoint. Whoever decides to take up the role of "Con" in this debate, Pro requests of Con that that the debate follow this format: Round 1 - Acceptance, as well as Con briefly clarifying their position, as well as, if they deem it necessary, adding any further definitions to other terms Con may wish to include within the debate as part of their arguments. Round 2 - Opening arguments with no clash Rounds 3 and 4 - Clash Round 5 - Clash and Conclusion The Burden of Proof is shared, and Pro also requesting of Con that we both ensure that whatever arguments we present follow are coherent and abide by good spelling and grammar. Incidentally, if Con is not British, I hope they'll forgive me for the fact that some of my spelling will be markedly different from American English. Pro also requests that we steer clear of trolling and ad hominem attacks. Finally, Con must demonstrate that there is in fact a more reliable basis for determining morality than the secular method, and Pro expects that just as Pro intends to use very much reliable sources to support their position, that Con will do likewise. I look forward to the debate, whoever decides to take it on.
The Most Reliable Basis For Determining Morality Is Via Secular Means

I accept. My opponent is pretty new here, so welcome to the site!BOPI'm not going to do my usual speel about how shared BOP is impossible - it gets quite boring. Since we're both making constructive cases anyway, I suggested to my opponent that I assume the full BOP, to which they accepted. If you're one of those purists who thinks BOP should always be on Pro, then that's fine too, it's up to you. In general this debate should be judged on which of us made a more convincing argument for our position."Reliable"I'm going to very loosely define this word as "a good idea to rely upon", and take this topic to mean that pro is affirming secularism to have a better system of morality than religion, where better is measured by whether the outcomes that morality generates are beneficial or not.In the comments pro defined reliable - after I accepted - as "how dependable such a thing is". Dependable is usually defined as "trustworthy" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) meaning "worthy of trust" meaning "a good idea to rely upon", so it seems like we're on the same page.Other definitionsPro offered the following additional definitions, so I'll add in those. I think they're ok, and I don't expect too much of this to focus on semantics.Most Reliable - the aspect that we have the highest ability to depend on.Basis - How much support and foundation there is for this argumentDetermining - Making a decisionMeans - The methods we use.My positionJust so that my opponent can avoid making an argument at cross purposes to mine, I will not be arguing religious morality is any better than secular morality, but rather that religious and secular morality are not any more reliable than each other. I will demonstrate that randomly guessing morality by flipping a coin (ie not derived from anything) is empirically more reliable than both the secular and the religious method.ClashMy opponent has a very strange stipulation that there is to be no clash in round two. I will abide by this insofar as it does not conflict with my substantive arguments (and it is quite possible that a portion of my substantive will be in direct contradiction to a portion of my opponent's substantive). I just thought I'd put this under a heading so that everybody can see it right off the bat and nobody complains that I was slow on rebuttal.SourcesWhere I use sources, those sources will be reliable, but those who know my debating style will know I tend to use more logic than evidence. I hope that this will not count against me.ConclusionI look forward to the opening round!
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

•"That picture is photoshopped." •"the image provided is quite poorly fabricated and of subpar grade-school material." •"I never implicated respondant poster in falsifying an image" I'd like to 'implicate respondant poster' in contradicting himself. No subpar grade-schooler could use MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop remotely effectively, let alone create such a masterful replication of a 1940s photgraph. •"source: http://www.britannica.com... http://www.javno.com... http://www.axishistory.com...; His first source, Encyclopedia BRITANnica is incredibly unreliable because: 1) European appliances don't work in America. This includes encyclopedias. 2) Britain obviously held a grudge with Germany after WWII. They can't supply unbiased German history. His other sources are incredibly reliable, but pretty dam*ing for his own case. Upon close examination, one will clearly see Evan Braun dressed as a woman in Hitler's close company. My opponent is showing pictures of Adolf Hitler in close proximity (in private) with a gay cross-dresser. This is hardly beneficial to his case. Next, he also hasn't addressed the other sources I provided that clearly weren't photoshopped. http://files.sharenator.com... http://files.sharenator.com... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu... http://temple.fpsbanana.com... •"How does the respondant poster explain the Hitler sillouette being in color, while the rest of the photograph is greyscale?" It wasn't in greyscale. The entire concentration camp, including the molested and malnourished Jewish boys, was painted grey. This was just another of Hitler's weird sexual fantasies, most likely. •"illustrated recreations of Adolf Hilter do not meet the respondants criterion for 'Burden of Proof'" I don't have the burden of proof. PRO does. •"The respondents issuance of such poorly fabricated, ill-found and semi-pornographic misrepresentation should easily discredit his argument My opponent's issuance of no evidence whatsoever should easily discredit his argument. •"I hereby close the debate on my end and let the facts I've revealed stand." By all means, PRO can 'close the debate on his end' (whatever that means) but he can't let the facts that he has somehow 'revealed' stand, seeing as he has given no valid rebuttal to the majority of my arguments. ======== =Summary= ======== First, my opponent has completely ignored the argument that he has the burden of proof, and yet still provided no real evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hitler did not sleep with malnourished Jewish boys, or that he was not Jewish himself. Second, my opponent has completely ignored the argument that 'Jewish' is an ethnic group that Hitler quite easily could have been a part of. He can't just ignore the arguments against the resolution that he doesn't like, and that includes this one. Third, PRO continues to attack my clear and condemning pictures of Hitler being a flaming homosexual, while providing sources that support the point that he is trying to reject. Vote CON. Hitler enslaved and assaulted poor, malnourished Jewish boys.
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

1) I'd like to let the record clearly stand that I never implicated respondant poster in falsifying an image modifying media. It is however painfully obvious that the image provided is quite poorly fabricated and of subpar grade-school material. 2) Secondly, It is very clear in every scholarly source available that Adolf Hitler was married to one Eva Braun circa 1945 after years of an intimate relationship. source: http://www.britannica.com... http://www.javno.com... http://www.axishistory.com... 3) Returning to the issue of the photograph in question. How does the respondant poster explain the Hitler sillouette being in color, while the rest of the photograph is greyscale? 4) And finally, more obviously photoshopped or illustrated recreations of Adolf Hilter do not meet the respondants criterion for 'Burden of Proof'. The respondents issuance of such poorly fabricated, ill-found and semi-pornographic misrepresentation should easily discredit his argument Due to the use of falsified imagery, fabricated facts and blatant combativeness of the responder, I hereby close the debate on my end and let the facts I've revealed stand.
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

•"That picture is photoshopped. He has never been to the concreted camp as far as people know." My opponent provides absolutely no source for his outlandish statement. I've at least provided some sort of evidence, and PRO criticizes it on the unwarranted assertion that is Photoshopped. I don't even have Adobe Photoshop on my computer! •"He had a wife, Eva Bruan, not a boyfriend or husband." He had a husband, Evan Bruan. Over the years, homophobic Germans have tried to hide this with their clever propoganda. He never once had a wife named Eva; that is just an intentional misspelling used to hide the truth of the matter. Here is a picture of Evan Bruan as proof: http://temple.fpsbanana.com... Here's quite a few pictures of hitler expressing his true feelings as well: http://files.sharenator.com... http://files.sharenator.com... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu... What proof does PRO have? Nothing. •"Being Jewish is not a race" I didn't say it was. •"Being Jewish is not a nationality" I didn't say it was. ---- I'd also like to point out quickly that PRO dropped the argument that he has the burden of proof, yet has failed to give proof to support the claim that Hitler was not a Homosexual Jew.
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

There is no prove or evidence saying that Hitler is gay or gay as in happy. If you can read what the title of the debate says "homosexual" which clearly point out on which type of "gay" I'm talking about. That picture is photoshopped. He has never been to the concreted camp as far as people know. He had a wife, Eva Bruan, not a boyfriend or husband. Being Jewish is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry or biological distinction. People of many different races have become Jewish people over the years. Being Jewish is not a nationality because Jews have been dispersed throughout the world for almost two thousand years. People of many different nationalities are Jewish. http://judaism.about.com...
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

============== =The Dude was Gay= ============== Hitler set up entire camps full of sex slaves to which he could visit so satisfy his perverted sexual desires. He clearly had a fetish for underfed Jewish males, as seen here: http://www.debate.org... ============= =Hitler was Jewish= ============= "Jewish is a religion, not a race." Jewish might not be a race, but it is an ethnic group. Hitler could have been part of that ethnic group without believing in the Jewish religion. ============ =Burden of Proof= ============ My opponent has instigated this debate as well as proposed this resolution. It is thus upon him to prove the resolution true. I'm not sure how PRO could ever conclusively testify to what Hitlers feeling towards God or little Jewish boys were. ===================== =Hitler was a Merry Old Fellow= ===================== Gay 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season. 4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies. 5. homosexual. One need not meet every definition of a word to be considered such word. For example, America is in a depression. This doesn't necessarily mean America is a slight hole in the ground, or that its economy is sad. It means our economy is doing poorly, or in a recession. PRO, after realizing his imminent lost, might be in depression. This doesn't mean that his economy is doing poorly, or that he is a hole in the ground, either. One need not meet every potential definition of 'depression' to consider something a depression, simply one of them. In the same way, Hitler must only meet one definition of gay. I would imagine that Hitler was quite merry for a long period of time, having taken over Germany and much of Europe. He was quite showy, constantly appearing in public despite numerous assassination attempts. He most likely indulged in many social pleasures, being a gregarious leader amongst his people. Finally, he also very well might have had an eye for the ladies (or little Jew boys for that matter.)
Adolf Hitler is not a Jewish nor Homosexual.

Adolf's grandmother worked for Jewish family as a cook. Hitler is Austrian-born, but became German politician. Hitler was not Jewish or gay. A Lot of people dislike gay people because they are grossed out by it, that doesnt make them a gay person trying to keep it a secret. Hitler was probably sickened by it . But there is no evidence about him being gay or not, even though he married a woman. There is no evidence of him being Jewish. The reason why he wanted to hide his past was because insanity was very dominant in his family... As you can tell he was also crazy! He killed the jews because he thought they were inferior and imperfect. If he was one of them the genecide would not have happened. He also blamed them for the cause of losing the world war one, and rejected his painting, and the mother's death, and the doctor was Jewish. Also, Jewish is a religion, not a race. His parents were Roman Catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old

Thank you for this debate. Before I start, I would like to request of you this: do not use majority opinion as an argument in this debate, only scientific facts that are from the laboratory and measured using scientific devices. Do not dismiss scientific data because the person behind the data does not believe as you do. If you can agree to this, then I would be very happy and you would show that you encourage a scientific debate without invoking persons and their public importance into the debate -- it's irrelevant. Let's begin. Your first argument is radiometric dating, specifically U|Pb. In my defense, I will point to one of the necessary assumptions of this method, and then prove that the assumption is wrong -- positively proving that your argument does not stand. The assumption I am talking about is the assumption of constant and steady decay rate. I will point to the study of helium retention in zircon crystals. I'm aware of the fact that there are rebuttals out there, and I would be more than happy to deal with them, if you would point them out. Helium retention in zircon crystals -- decay rate was different in the past. The research began two decades ago, when a team of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported high amounts of helium in zircon crystals.[1] Then, when the year 2000 was nearing, scientists at ICR began the RATE project: the goal was to collect information on the age of the earth and make groundbreaking discoveries in the field. The scientists marked the research of the ORNL team as very significant and performed further research on the topic of helium retention in zircon crystals. They positively concluded through various calculations and measurements that the helium generated in zircon crystals through decay requires the speed of the decay rate to accelerate greatly, more details in their research paper.[2] Then you mention radiocarbon dating. The ages of radiocarbon dating are interesting though, they have given dates of 20-30k years to dinosaur bones: http://newgeology.us... and there is one more interesting thing about this dating method, it also assumes constant decay rate, which was questioned earlier by studies like helium retention in zircon crystals. Then, another interesting thing about this method is that it assumes the percentage in the atmosphere of the present every time it dates ancient objects. However, the magnetic field of the earth is decaying and therefore, more C-14 is being produced by the cosmic rays hitting N-14 atoms in the atmosphere, this would mean that earlier, there was less C-14 in the atmosphere -- which would lead our instruments today to show dates higher than correct.[3] however, they attribute this decay to reversing magnetic fields, of which there is no evidence -- not that it would help alot either. In other words, the C-14 amount is not a constant and therefore the argument from radiocarbon dating is good. [1] http://www.halos.com... [2] http://static.icr.org... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
French Revolution Nessisary

1. The reign of terror. 150,000 people were beheaded by the guillotine. For some they could have been accused for saying something bad about the bread prices, saying madam, or not liking the way the revolution was going http://www.sparknotes.com... 2. John Paul Maral. He was the publisher of the newspaper "The People's Friend", he printed lies to enrage the revolutionaries to take out the monarchies and such. 3. Destruction of the Catholic Church. Rosspire destroyed the Catholic church in order to destroy the Clergy. Rosspire later announced an occult worshipping the goddess of reason.
Fast food questions on this site are becoming a public nuissance

My opponents resolution: Fast food questions on this site are becoming a public nuissanceMy opponents argument I think there should be a limit to these questions on Debate.org. There are lots of people who find those pictures especially ugly and bothersome. It's becoming too much.First round is for acceptance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof, and also failed to uphold his resolution. The topic clearly states that this is a public nuissance. And by the definition of public it states that it's the concernment of the people as a whole. I have disagreed with his resolution, which means that it is no longer valid unless proven otherwise. Since I am a member of the site, I am part of the public. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to provide proof of his claims that lots of people find it disgusting.
Fast food questions on this site are becoming a public nuissance

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for accepting a round too early. I will be negating my 5th Round so the debate is even. Rebuttals - My opponent still holds his argument that everyone agrees with him, however by the logic of my argument I have shown how I am part of the DDO community and do not consider fast food questions a nuissance. Therefor my argument is still valid and I await my opponents response to this. over to Pro