BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 11th Doctor is Better Than The 10th Doctor.

I was sure that somebody would be interested in this debate. For clarification, Con and I both agree that Moffat is the better writer and offers better stories for the Doctor to partake. I also agree that the actor is what ultimately makes the character. Over 3 series the Tenth Doctor has definitely shown very deep character development. However, I believe we must look toward what the Doctor, as a character should be - this will tie in to most of my other points as well. The very first doctor, played by William Hartnell, was an enigmatic figure. We didn't know much about the character, and he had that sort of dual personality as many other Doctors. While he was knowledgeable and caring by the end of his run, he could also be ruthless and even abrasive towards his companions; a trait a few other Doctors would sport. Even if we know the Doctor's past, it should not stop the Doctor from retaining that "alien" feel. The Tenth is indeed very dynamic, there's no denying that. Yes, it may make him more likable and more relatable, which is why I would possibly agree that he'd be the best "character", but that's another discussion. What I see is Tenth's "problem" is that this dynamic and all the human traits he possesses doesn't work toward his character. The best Doctor should be the one who achieves what, in my opinion, is the original purpose of the Doctor. While the human traits and his love for Rose and such make him a very, very interesting Doctor, it also removes that mysterious motif of him. He loses what I believe is one of the core characteristics a Doctor should have. Moving on to Smith and his 11th Doctor, you think he doesn't have much depth in character development and versatility. Firstly, while 10 as had 4 series and more specials than you can count with one hand, 11 has only gone through one series and a (amazing) christmas special. It's unfair to say that he'd have more development than Tennant. However, he does possess his own unique style of the Doctor. He's the youngest of the bunch, yet they way Smith plays it he always feels like he had a long history beyond his expression. CHRISTMAS CAROL plays on a lot of his sides. For most of it you see a very quirky, fast thinking Doctor, yet in many instances as his plan attempts to come together he seems much more in control than he lets on. PANDORICA and VICTORY OF THE DALEKS also depict a much more serious Eleven. Tennant is great and he's a blast to watch, for sure. But in my opinion I look toward Matt Smith if I want the feel of something back before the musical score was really loud and the CGI was dominant. Where the enigma of the Doctor really drove people to like his character.
The 11th Doctor is Better Than The 10th Doctor.

I love Doctor Who and am a huge fan of David Tennant as the Doctor. Well Pro obviously has the upper hand in that Steven Moffat is the head writer for his favorite doctor and Steven Moffat is undoubtably a better writer than Russel T. Davies. Still, I think that it is the actor who creates the character most of all. First off, I think that the tenth doctor shows much more depth in character. He is funny, witty, and smart on the outside but obviously very lonely and sad on the inside. He shows many sides. While in most episodes he strives to save anyone and always chooses mercy over hatred, when pushed too far he can do terrible things. Such as in episodes like THE RUNAWAY BRIDE and THE WATERS OF MARS. He is also able to show vulnerability in always being sad and angry when anyone or anything dies or has something terrible happen to them like in THE GIRL IN THE FIREPLACE when he cries for a girl he met that day. He also shows that is biggest vulnerability is the people of Earth, seeing as the genius Master is always wise enough to attack them because they are his weakness. The tenth Doctor also shows humility when even after he has saved worlds hundred of times still admires people who might look small compared to what he's accomplished. There are too many episodes where this happens to cite. Perhaps the best example of how the tenth doctor is not only a deep character but a versatile one is in how he reacts with his companions. With Rose he subtly shows his love for her and his pain in never being able to show it while still outwardly putting on a brave face and being his usual quirky funny self. With Martha he shows his obliviousness to her love for him, while showing how hurt and guarded he is after losing Rose but still manages to in the end appreciate and love Martha even though he is not in love with her. With Donna he is finally able to relax because she feels equally not attracted to him as he is to her and is finally able to have a best friend type companion. The tenth doctor also shows the greater humanity. This is shown in THE FAMILY OF BLOOD when he reveals that part of him does not want to be the Doctor because it is so lonely and because he bears such great burdens. He also shows humanity even though he is an alien by being able to break down sometimes. Such as in the last episode of THE END OF TIME. His humanity is greatly shown by the display of his faults. He has abandoned his friends more than once. Such as Sarah Jane and Jack Harkness. Also, in the episode MIDNIGHT he loses to his foe and has to get help from someone else showing he is not invincible. Although I enjoy watching Matt Smith, I do not think he has shown as much depth in character, versatility, and humanity as David Tennant as the doctor. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals and hopefully his own arguments.
The 11th Doctor is Better Than The 10th Doctor.

Here's how things will go down: The CON of this debate will seek to prove that the Tenth Incarnation of the Doctor from the British television series "Doctor Who", played by David Tennant, is superior to the 11th incarnation, played by Matt Smith, whom I will be defending. Superior is defined as "of higher performance". Performance pertains to writing, acting, characterization and the overall themes and motifs of the certain incarnation. It does NOT pertain to associate characters or even plot elements of the respective series'; for example, you may not argue in favor of 10 because you enjoy the Master, no matter how awesome he is. Other characters and plot points MAY be used ONLY as examples of how the Doctor acts, if your argument lies within that standard. We may not say that neither are the best Doctor and choose any of the other 9. The only quality either of us can use of the head writers, Russel T. Davies or Steven Moffat, as reasons for liking an incarnation is his writing skill. This goes for the rest of the crew. This will be non-formal. Sources are not necessarily needed as long as nothing is actually made up. Good luck to whoever accepts this.
gay marriage rights

Children need role models of both sexes. If children are raised by gay parents they are more likely to be gay, since they are offered only one partnership model. Same sex parents will raise confused children especially when they also start their own family. They will not be aware on how opposite sexes are living with each other. Referring to the Christian teaching and the 5th commandment, which is "Honor thy father and mother". There is no commandment that states, Honor your mom and mom, or dad and dad. It clearly states mother and father.
gay marriage rights

Marriage is not a creation of the law. When we speak of the "sanctity of marriage," we mean to say that marriage is a holy and sacred institution created not by man, but by God. That means that no matter what legislators or justices say, the definition of marriage is not ours to tamper with. "And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." "Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV) God create Adam and Eva not two men or two women. God would of created another men if he wanted MEN to reproduce but instead he created a women.
gay marriage rights

Homosexual activist argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil right issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960. This is false ! First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a women wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white: one rich, the other poor. None of these difference are impossible obstacles to marriage. the two individuals are still mean and women regardless!
Gay Marrage

In this conclusion, I will just go over the main reasons why I should win today's round. 1)My opponent has not addressed all of my points, therefore leaving them all true. All of my points refer back to the criteria he established of gay marriage being a "must". In his second round he even agreed that gay marriage is not a must. 2)Freedom is a basic human right, however, freedom is restricted by law. According to the very definition of not only straight, but same sex marriages, it is an act of the LAW, and can restrict SOME form of freedom. The freedom it does restrict, however, is not a guaranteed human right. 3) Divorce is a non-unique argument since it can happen in same sex marriages as well. 4) Vote con because he doesn't respond to my case and only makes the argument of Human equality, which i have refuted multiple times. SOURCES http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Gay Marrage

First there doesnt need to be a offspring in marrage they can adopt one if they want one and if a man and women can get married then so should a man and man or vise versa. Also if you look at the role moddels of the past they say that it is fine EX: "Freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." Former Vice-President Dick Cheney An unjust law is (one that a) majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. ... "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up there privileges voluntarily." Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter from a Birmingham jail. "Marriage between one man and one woman is critical to maintaining social stability. Society as a whole pays a high price when marriage is devalued. You see divorce; you see single-parenting; you see a rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies." Shari Rendall, director of legislation and policy for Concerned Women for America Most of these people that i just said have said that they are fine with Gays getting married.
Gay Marrage

Sice my opponent has not addressed my account in any way whatsoever, I will just attack his case and state the reasons why my case holds strong. 1) My opponent agreed that gay marriage is not a MUST, which is what this entire debate is framed off of. 2)Men and women, by definition in LAW, do not marry because of love. Marriage is a legal and religous operation, and although love plays a part in marriage it is not the entire basis of marriage. 3)Marriage is not necessary to be in love. My opponent says that the reason gays should be able to marry is because of love, however he also states that these people were in love BEFORE they have gotten married. " you had a partner whom you loved and respected enough to exchange vows with " This THEORETICAL couple is in love before they are married, and do not need marriage to acheive love. Now for the reasons my arguments hold true: 1)The established burden of proof is that gay marriage is a must. Throughout my case I have established this, and furthermore, my opponent agreed that it is not necessary. 2)My opponent only adressed love, and did not mention that the religous, and legal, implications marriage embodies ARE NOT A MUST. 3)He did not address the fact that no offspring is produced.
Gay Marrage

Although my opponent is right that it is not a must nor a neccesity it should still be allowed in my opinion, because men and women can be married because of love right? So why can't the same sex love eachother and be married the way men and women can? I know that not everybody is into the same sex, and I understand that my opponent is against "Gay Marriage". I also undertand that not everybody is for it too, but I have to ask a question to everyone who veiws this, how would you feel if you were into the same sex and you had a partner whom you loved and respected enough to exchange vows with and the government refused to let you? Even imagine if you couldn't get married to the man or woman you loved because of your sexual intrest? I find it absurd that the law would be for this. It may be my opinion and my opinion may not be that important, but I'm willing to speak for the people who are being treated like objects because of their sexual interests. I'ts not fair, then again life isn't fair.
Gay Marrage

I will start by refuting my opponents point and then stating my own. I'm also doing this from in class on an iPod touch, so please forgive any spelling errors that may or may not occur. -My opponent states that it is a MUST, in an absolute sense of the word, for gays to marry simply because they should be able to if a man and a woman can, and therefore establishes my side to simply be have to prove that gay marriage is not a "must". Gay marriage is not a must, nor is it a necessity for today's society, for 3 simple reasons. 1)it serves no purpose since procreation cannot occur. 2)It is not a religious must. 3)Marriage, either gay or straight, is not a necessity, nor is it a human right. Before I elaborate I would like to define a few words. Must: a necessary or essential thing; "seat belts are an absolute must" wordnetweb. princeton. edu/. ./webwn - Definition and context. Legal definition of marriage: A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. 1) Marriage serves not only as a social contract in which two beings are acknowledged as being together, but a harbor to birth and raise a child. My opponent states that gay marriage is a must. Now, gay marriage is neither a must nor is it a necessity because it cannot result in offspring. If every marriage in the world was a gay marriage, since it is a "must" or a necessity that applies to all people, the world population would eventually die off. Procreation, and raising offspring is a MUST, but the necessity of gay marriage goes directly against a far greater must. 2)The foundations for many marriages are based on religious implications. -Religious implications. Marriage, is many times based upon what religion you consider yourself a part of. Now, no religions imply that you HAVE to get married, or else you willing to he'll, move down in the caste, etc. .. In fact, many religions even negate gay marriage specifically. Especially Christianity, the worlds most widely used religion. Religions do not demand that you be married, and sometimes demand that IF married it be to a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no religious foundation nor religious necessity in gay marriage. 3)Marriage is not a necessity to either the gay or straight community. Marriage is not a necessity. People who are never married do Not die because of it. My burden is to simply prove that gay marriage is not a must, which I can simply do by stating that marriage is not necessary to survive, procreate, or flourish as a human being When looking at these points you must realize that gay marriage is not a necessity.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

"Ah, but if my God contains all knowledgeable beings, doesn't that make Him all knowing?" These beings being? Proof be needed. You have already asserted IGNORANCE IS NECESSARY. Ignorance being the lack of knowledge -therefore omniscient beings cannot exist. "No, to have knowledge is to have knowledge. I didn't define God as INTELLEGENT, I just said He was all 'knowing'. Sentience is not necessary to have knowledge. It's like you being unconscious; does that mean your brain doesn't have any knowledge? It's just like machinery; though it processes loads of information, that doesn't mean it's self aware." To have knowledge one must have the capability to posess knowledge. Without perception of an concepts, concrete or abstract, the capacity for knowledge is null. Knowledge is the awareness of a fact of reality. You are trying to assert knowledge as an entity of itself removed from those that possess it. Sentience is not in and of itself intelligence - intelligence is a possibility from the basic forms of sentience of which perception of concepts is one. Contradiction remains. "What did I just tell you. knowledge = knowledge. consciousness = consciousness." Knowledge is awareness of a fact of reality. One can not have awareness without the capability of awareness. Asserting knowledge is something which is unrelated to a knower is a contradiction. Awareness without awareness is a contradiction. "You say unconsciousness /= knowledge. I showed you that's untrue." I said unconsciousness can not have knowledge. That is somewhat different. Asserting blindly that having the knowledge of any one thing is not knowing the knowledge of any thing is a rather obvious contradiction. "I can't believe I'm hearing this from an Atheist. First of all, how does that imply design? Does your whole theory of evolution or the big bang involve any intellegent design? Do all of our interdependent, purposeful organs require design? No? Wha... I thought you said..." It is design because you asserted ignorance was necessary. Those capable of ignorance and its opposite, knowledge therefore are limited by this stricture. As you asserted its necessity, it follows then that the capabaility of ignorance must be designed in those capable for the opposing to not occur. Asserting bold contradictions does not a god make. Asserting A is non A is not the way to go about proving existence. Please be providing asked for definitions.
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

First, to refute your arguments. "2. Omniscient: - All knowing. Being the universe (matter/dimensions) does not equate to knowing the universe, or given as one part knowledgeable by default of all others, as being, therefore your god is not omniscient, therefore non existent. " Ah, but if my God contains all knowledgeable beings, doesn't that make Him all knowing? :) "3. Omniscient + non sentience. All/any knowledge without perception of contructs (non sentience) is a contradiction in terms. To have knowledge is to be aware of the nature of any given facet of reality. Clearly this is not possible without perception of those components that make up any given fact; therefore non existent. " No, to have knowledge is to have knowledge. I didn't define God as INTELLEGENT, I just said He was all 'knowing'. Sentience is not necessary to have knowledge. It's like you being unconscious; does that mean your brain doesn't have any knowledge? It's just like machinery; though it processes loads of information, that doesn't mean it's self aware. "4. Omniscient + non consciousness. Consciousness is awareness, to have knowledge one would need to be aware of said knowledge. Contradiction; therefore non existent. " What did I just tell you. knowledge = knowledge. consciousness = consciousness. You say unconsciousness /= knowledge. I showed you that's untrue. "5. Neccesary ignorance. Your god requires essential lack of knowledge, which either implies design - contradiction of sole matter/dimension; or purpose - contradiction of non personal (a) i. e. design for those capable of having knowledge. " I can't believe I'm hearing this from an Atheist. First of all, how does that imply design? Does your whole theory of evolution or the big bang involve any intellegent design? Do all of our interdependent, purposeful organs require design? No? Wha. .. I thought you said. .. This is why I'm winning this debate. My opponent has made some very clever attempts to discredit my God. .. but he didn't. I defended my arguments, and that's all I really need to do to win. Thank you. As Puck would say: That will do for now. :)
Nobody can discredit Pantheism

"Definition of God - God is all, all is God. God is the universe. Though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God is not sentient, conscious, or personal. Though PARTS may SEEM imperfect, (ie: ignorance, destruction), such is necessary to create a whole, and God remains holy and beautiful as a whole." Your pantheism is not a standard pantheism argument, but no matter. A is A, A cannot be non A. 1. Required definitions i. Omnipotent: Provide a definition of what you mean in your pantheist context next round. That includes the limits if any of ablility. ii. Non personal: (a) Non intervention or (b) non entity - i.e. the 'seat ofpower' of said god? iii. Holy. 2. Omniscient: - All knowing. Being the universe (matter/dimensions) does not equate to knowing the universe, or given as one part knowledgeable by default of all others, as being, therefore your god is not omniscient, therefore non existent. 3. Omniscient + non sentience. All/any knowledge without perception of contructs (non sentience) is a contradiction in terms. To have knowledge is to be aware of the nature of any given facet of reality. Clearly this is not possible without perception of those components that make up any given fact; therefore non existent. 4. Omniscient + non consciousness. Consciousness is awareness, to have knowledge one would need to be aware of said knowledge. Contradiction; therefore non existent. 5. Neccesary ignorance. Your god requires essential lack of knowledge, which either implies design - contradiction of sole matter/dimension; or purpose - contradiction of non personal (a) i.e. design for those capable of having knowledge. That will do for now. :)
WORLD WAR TWO Trivia

Answers to Con... What mainland state of america was bombed during WWII? Answer: Hawaii Why did Hitler kill himself? Answer: Because he was losing the war. Berlin was about to fall into Soviet hands. Why did he (Hitler) hate Jews? Answer: Because he considered them to be the cause of his problems. My questions: 1. What was the codename for the German invasion of England? 2. How many casualties (killed, wounded, or captured) did Germany suffer at the Battle of Stalingrad? 3. How many divisions did Spain send to fight on the eastern front?
WORLD WAR TWO Trivia

Codename for German invasion of Greece was Operation Marita. German general in charge of Kursk offensive was Manstein. Note: *WWII in Europe ended on June 8, 1945. Con failed to answer all three questions. Anyway, I will try and answer his. 1. Extermination. 2. Don't know. 3. Invasion of Southern France... Good questions, I didn't really know the answers. Ok now here are my questions... 1. What was the name of the Soviet offensive that drove the Germans from the gates of Moscow? 2. Who was the German general in charge of the offensive in the Caucuses in 1942? 3. What was the codename of the German invasion of Poland?