BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ninja would beat the spartan in deadlist warrior

Thank you for the quick response. I agree with your format so you can start it in the third round (range of weapons) 1) The facts is that Spartans train and fight every day (usually to the death). The ninja does not have this kind of battle experience. The main role of a ninja was espionage. They would dress up as normal people and gather intelligence for long periods of time, they cannot train during this time because that would break their cover. While hey were also trained from birth, ninjas spent a great deal of training on non-battle related activities such as espionage and sabotage. The secondary role of a ninja was to sabotage. The ninja would usually set things on fire and then run away. Assassination was the third role of a ninja and they did this rarely. The Spartan is trained only in combat and does not have worry about things like intelligence gathering. The Spartan was physically stronger than the ninja so the shield and armor which he has been using for years would feel like an extension of his body so he would be used to running with it. You are right that the ninja might be able to run away but the Spartan can easily throw down his shield and catch up to the ninja before he can get out his bow and arrow. The caltrops can be easily jumped over if the Spartan sees them. The ninja has no defense so a Spartan would rip him apart in a head to head fight. 2.) I agree that the ninja wouldn't miss a big opening but the Spartan only had small opening because of his armor and the ninja could very easily miss those because they are human so they make mistakes especially when the target is moving and aiming to kill the ninja. The ninja does not have more gut or endurance than the Spartan. My opponent does not make any sense when he says that through killing a "brother" the ninja will somehow gain endurance. Endurance is built through training and the Spartans train a lot harder than the ninjas. Any running the ninjas would do, a Spartan could do with armor and a shield. The shock that the ninja would feel would most likely make him unstable so he cannot use his head properly. The Spartans eliminated the weak by killing all of the babies that were not perfect so they obviously weren't exactly full of compassion either. You may change the format of the debate to whatever you want in the third round :) Again I wish you good luck even though you feel you do not need it.
ninja would beat the spartan in deadlist warrior

I was happy with the outcome of the fight. My arguments: 1. ) Head to head: The Spartans, from birth, were trained to be warriors. The honed their skills in combat and were put through harsh training to make them superior physical specimens. The ninja would lose in a head to head match. The Spartan would just need to close the distance which is easy because all ranged attacks can easily be deflected by his massive shield. The Spartan can also throw his spear if it came down to a ranged battle and then close the distance. The Spartan is fast and strong so a mid-range fight would be a loss for the ninja because the Spartan has his sword and his giant shield (which can be used for defense AND offense as you have seen from the episode). The ninja has no defense and relies purely on his agility but against this warrior who has been fighting all his life, the ninja would not be able to dodge enough to keep him alive. The ninjas weaponry is mainly based on attacking and then running away (I smoke bombs, sharking, and caldron's). THe ninja is an assassin, NOT a soldier. 2. ) Sneak attack: This is the ninjas only realistic way of winning the fight. He has to go for the kill right away and make sure to fatally wound him in his initial attack. This is how ninjas are used to fighting so it gives a clear advantage to the ninja. If the ninja cannot kill the Spartan with the initial blow, the ninja is now stuck within the range of the Spartan so he is as good as dead. A fatal attack from the back is also hard to accomplish because the Spartan wears his shield on his back so an attack from a hidden spot would be the best chance for a ninja. Or he could wait until the Spartan falls asleep which he would probably do. I think that the show explained this battle pretty well considering they used 1000 different scenarios. They could not possibly provide every single scenario so I think that you are disappointed for nothing. :)
The PS3 is a better system than the X-Box 360.

1) The Xbox 360 has a current reliability rating of 9/10. It is widely believed that the current Xbox 360's are some of the most reliable systems on the market today. Aside from the "Red Rings of Death" that Microsoft went through with the system failures, the overall experience has not been greatly affected. This can not be said for the PS3 which recently released the 2.40 upgrade that caused hundreds of Playstation 3's to fail. The owners of those gaming systems were never refunded for their crashed systems. 2) It is believed by many gaming experts that the Xbox 360 has superior graphics than the Playstation 3. They also agree that in the next 6 months the PlayStation will have all the bugs worked out and the two systems will either have equal graphics, or the PS3 would have a slight advantage. 3) When the Xbox 360 first came out it offered many great games and currently maintains a library of 133 exclusive games. Not only has Xbox proved it can create a large amount of exclusive games, it can also create hits. This is the case in the Halo, Project Gotham, and Viva Piï¿½ata gaming series. On the other hand, the PS3 has struggled to come out with exclusive games and currently has a selection of 65 released exclusives. Most of those games happen to be third party, low selling games. The PlayStation 3 does however, have some good exclusive series such as Resistance, but in the end they pale in comparison to the Halo's of Xbox. 4) I believe that this part of the debate should not be valid due to the fact that the Xbox 360 has a completely new interface coming out in the upcoming months. This will dramatically change the layout of the current Xbox and thus a accurate comparison of the two systems features and home pages can not be made. 5) Though most of the consumers of video games believe that the entire market is over priced, the Xbox has proved to be the "better buy." Unlike the PlayStation's recent $40 price drop on the 40 GB model, the Xbox dropped the price on all of its models $50-60 dollars. With the current price provided with the PlayStation 3 one would expect many more, less bugged features. All in all, the PlayStation three has yet to deliver on the price of the system and the price of the games. The Xbox 360 is the older yet still dominant of the two consoles, a trend that could continue until the next "era" of systems.
The PS3 is a better system than the X-Box 360.

Hello to all potential voters and my potential opponent. I find that I have a great advantage compared to some in this debate, due to the fact that I have both a PS3 and an X-Box 360. I will use this round to give debate topics and to set up an easy to read form. In this debate I will point out the five main things, these five being: 1) Reliability 2) Graphics 3) Games 4) Misc. Features (Messenger Programs, Browser, Video, Pic, Music... etc) 5) Price I would like for my opponents rebuttal to be in order of the presented topics above. EX: 1) The PS3 has a reliability rating of ___. It is beleaved that the PS3 may be the most reliable console ever created for the gaming purpose. 2) etc... 3) etc... 4) etc... I wish good luck to my opponent and I would like to remind readers to vote fair and balanced, based upon the best debater.
The PS3 is a better system than the X-Box 360.

1) My opponent seeks an unfair ruling, he says "how reliable can information be coming from a man who founded the company", before that he said "I would like to point out that the 10%, formerly 30%; failure rate of the Xbox 360 is a consensus of various retailers, not Microsoft itself." So in one instance he feels that a statement from the company is the correct way to go, but in the other he feels that its the corrupt way to go. I again refute his V2.4 argument with the fact that their are over 2,902,800 bugged Xbox's floating around, when my opponent says their are only hundreds of PS3's with a failure. Millions compared to hundreds, seems simple to me. 2) How does the Xbox come through cleaner? "do to its higher processing speeds." This statement is false, the PS3 has double the processing speed as shown in my last argument. "I feel that the graphics need to be set to the average TV, not a HD TV" Which explains why you are an Xbox fan, lower graphics. 3) Half of a games point is the multilayer capabilities, my opponent disregarded this fact and even insulted me. To receive higher multiplayer capability you must be online. In your previous argument you said that the console needs to be built for the "average American". The average American would rather pay nothing for online capability than $50. My opponent then said that Xbox live is unique, this is also false, having both an Xbox and a PS3 (neither of which have failed), I know what Live looks like and what PSN looks like. They look and feel the same, the only difference is $50. PSN also allows "ranked matches", I'm very confused about why you think Live is unique. 5) I will defend my additional prices. You will need a BR player just as you used to need a DVD player. Bluray has shown is capability and all the major retailers are joining in on this pursuit of better quality. "Toshiba Corporation announced they are planning to stop production of equipment compatible with the HD DVD format, allowing the competing Blu-ray by Sony to take over the market. Toshiba was hit hard when Wal-mart stores decided Friday to abandon the HD DVD format by June joining both Net-flix and Best Buy." "February 18, 2008 -- The only indie multi-format high definition disc pressing plant, Blue Ray Technologies, will drop its HD-DVD lines without waiting for the widely-reported and anticipated announcement of Toshiba's retreat from HD-DVD." Its happening rather we like it or not, you will have to buy a BR player. 2,902,800+ defective consoles, its more than likely that you must be prepared to fix this problem. Due to the fact that the "cure" turned out to not be a "cure" they are still selling defects. I never said that it was needed, read what I say my friend, I said "to meet PS3 standards."
The PS3 is a better system than the X-Box 360.

Thank you pickpocket094 for following provided format. I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponent's views. 1) While the reliably rating may be 9/10, the fialure rate is still 10%. 10% is very much better than 30% as it was a couple months ago, but it is still no comparison to "around .02 percent" according to Sony regarding the PS3. My opponent stated this to belittle the "Red Ring Of Death" he said, "Aside from the "Red Rings of Death" that Microsoft went through with the system failures, the overall experience has not been greatly affected." I would like to emphasis that based on Microsoft's console numbers of 17.7 million consoles sold (Microsoft's official sold into retail numbers through December 2007), that would mean that there are 2,902,800 defective consoles sold since the Xbox 360 released. That is 2,902,800 people who are in deep trouble. I would also like to point out that the problem has not been solved. Reports are coming in for the "updated" version of the Xbox 360 that say the "Red Ring of Death" is still a problem. Compare 2,902,800 XBox failures to "hundreds of Playstation 3's" and see the difference. 2) It is not possible for the Xbox to have better graphics due to the hardware in the Xbox compared to the hardware in the PS3. Lets examine the hardware in detail. The XBox Has 3 Cores that run 3.2Ghz The PS3 has 6 Cells that run 3.2Ghz More processing speed equals better graphics. The 360 features a 512mb RAM - 700MHz all of this RAM can be accessed by the CPU and GPU The PS3 has two RAM sets, One for CPU and one for GPU, they both add up to 512mb, the GPU's alone RAM is clocked at 1.3GHz... THAT'S NEARLY TWICE AS FAST! 3) I agree that the XBox has great games and that the PS3 will have a hard time catching the Xbox. However, the PS3 uses a blueray disk that has 50Gb, While the Xbox DVDs have a Capacity of 9Gb. More free space obviously means more potential for gaming. Xbox live cost $50.00 for a year. Playstation network cost nothing. Free online play for every playstation. 4) My opponent feels this section shouldn't be debated, I will agree to this. 5) The PS3's price is well worth it, considering it cost: $200 for a bluray player (that you will soon have to buy) $140 to fix the "Red Ring of Death" for your XBox. $100 Wireless Network Adapter for WiFi That's a staggering $440 that you will have to pay extra on top of your Xbox to meet PS3 standards.
The Welfare State

You did not explain thoroughly, and you did not back your argument up.Let's define Capitalism. "Capitalism is an economic system and ideology based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the means of production in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets. Economists, political economists, sociologists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free marketcapitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning. Market economies have existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places and cultures. However, the development of capitalist societies marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages and a capitalist class which dominates control of wealth and political power developed in Western Europe in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Capitalist systems with varying degrees of direct government intervention have since become dominant in the Western world and continue to spread. Capitalism has been criticized for establishing power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of a working class majority; for prioritizing profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and for being an engine of inequality and economic instabilities.Supporters argue that it provides better products through competition, creates strong economic growth, yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefits society, as well as being the most efficient system known for allocation of resources." [1]Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
God Exists

Thank you for your response! ""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [1] John 1:1." I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but the Bible is in no way an accurate resource. I see it as a work of fiction. "The question is, what is this force that is necessarily aware and yet unaware simultaneously that is yet perfect in being and so revered?" No, the question is whether such a force exists. Don't get ahead of yourself. "How did it do so? It did so through the formation of life." While you do make a valid point, from an atheist's point of view, you are absolutely on the wrong track. I feel like life started when just the right chemicals came together and there came the first strand of DNA. Eventually, that DNA became part of some ancient eubacteria which evolved into what we now know. So I think you got off on the wrong track and you are now explaining what God did, not whether it exists. "The godhead would likely better be defined as the necessary first exchange of information for things to be." So you are saying that "God" is a metaphor? Well, I would agree. Unfortunately for you, the definition that we agreed upon upon was that God is a being. Therefore, you are arguing for me that there is no existing being that we call God. Even if you mean to be setting down a deist point of view, the definition that we agreed upon states that it is the ruler of the universe, which implies that it is not just what happens, but what makes things happen. "I believe that, as of now, I have provided a definition and description of God suitable to be upheld against adversity." Perhaps you have, but you have not suitably described the god which I am arguing against, as I provided the definition in round one. Because you accepted this debate, you agreed to my definitions, and therefore your argument doesn't hold much water. Thank you for your thoughtful response, and I am looking forward to your next argument!
God Exists

I am an atheist Jew. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but we are not debating my belief system. We are debating the first half though. Now, I have debated this before, and with all due respect to SlamminSam, I wasn't entirely satisfied with the debate, so I would like to have a second debate on it to see the other side. Now, I know that most people are theists, and as such, I am not expecting to have much backing here, but if you have ever debated me or seen my debates, you would know that I am a strong believer that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. So in other words, I am conceding that whoever debates me is much more likely to win, but also a caution that I am aware of that, and you shouldn't expect me to go easy because of that. Because I am arguing Con, I will allow my opponent to argue first. Before that, though, I would just like to throw in the definitions we will be using for this debate. God-The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (1) Exist-to continue to be (1) Thanks to anyone willing to take this debate, and good luck to whoever accepts! I am looking forward to your argument. 1-Merriam Webster online dictionary
BIRT THW Abolish Marriage.

Great, not again. I have nothing new, except to say that doubting with good reason that my opponent will come back, there is little question that readers should vote Con. Furthermore, I must say I am disappointed with this site's capacity for enhancing my debating skills, because there is little competition in most of the debates I have had, most of the opponents having forfeited all the rounds. I was interested in this "tournament" idea, but they were sure to tell me I can't join one should it come up again because I can't confirm my identity from my country. Hardly a good system. I do miss my old debating site, but it has unfortunately crashed and perhaps died forever, so this is really all I have until I can hopefully join a real debating team.
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

Ah, but you misunderstand my approach here; Christianity may have reformed itself, but a time existed when the hierarchy of the church cheated the people out of their money, not very altruistic at all. And they have changed, but you cannot deny its past. Rand's philosophy is still in the young state, so you may as well be arguing that an acorn is not compatible to an oak. Now, I have a new argument, sorry for not using it earlier, but I only heard of it recently. Nothing done can ever be selfless. Basic things like eating, obvious, working overtime, still for personal gain; but when you help someone... You help someone because you see them in a bad position, and that distresses you; you wouldn't help them if you didn't care. Next, when you help them, you are given a surge of happiness and pride for having done a good thing. In this way, altruism is in fact self interested. True, a good action is a good action regardless of the reason, but if helping other people makes you happy, then helping people is integral to the pursuit of self happiness. It just so happens that you help others along the way. It's been fun, and perhaps we'll debate again, Duncan.
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

To begin with, Christianity no longer practices sacrifice because Jesus became the last sacrifice. That being said, Ayn Rand says specifically that objectivism goes against Altruism. This isn't a debate on whether or not a religion could go against altruism, which it could, but whether or not it would be compatible in mindset with popular religions of today, which it doesn't. It's also important to note that in their earliest days the religions mentioned were never violent, and neither does Objectivism. That came with moral corruption, not the basic theologies surrounding and defining these religions. Purely in the mindset, objectivism and the popular religions contradict each other. Each condones the others ideals for what man should stand for: objectivism standing for a man whom focuses on his own happiness and altruism standing for helping others. Therefore, they are not compatible with each other.
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

Ayn Rand's philosophy is a selfish one, yes. But selfishness does not determine a religion. You have said that true members of a faith practice altruism, but a true Christian would follow the bible word for word, and would prepare a calf for slaughter each week. Over the years, the tone and interpretation has changed to be kinder and more appealing, but the roots are undeniable. The same goes for Objectivism. Perhaps if it was practiced over time, it would preach altruism or generosity, but as few practice it, we could never know. Objectivism carries the traits of a young religion; selfish, aggressive, and not yet dynamic enough to expand fully. But it carries those traits regardless. Awaiting your response, Duncan.