BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Good Guy" vs The "Bad Guy"

I'd like to set a couple of things for now: Villain: A villain (also known in film and literature as the "antagonist," "baddie", "bad guy", or "black hat") is an "evil" character in a story, whether a historical narrative or, especially, a work of fiction. The villain usually is the antagonist (though can be the protagonist), the character who tends to have a negative effect on other characters. Hero/Good guy: A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) (Ancient Greek: O73;`1;`9;`2;, hM03;r!3;s) refers to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice"that is, heroism"for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First off thank you for accepting, now I haven't done a debate in sometime so please go easy on me, ha ha. Now first I'd like to bring up is, in most things the Hero or "Good guy" goes by limits or have Limitations such as not killing or, you have to do it in a certain way. When is comes to that of the "Bad guy" their limitations are less, in most cases its limited to what is at their disposal. Next I'd like to bring up what makes a good villain: 1. The Force of Nature - The villain who the heroes and all of their collective resources can't seem to make a dent in. Maybe it's through his own power, maybe it's through the infallibility of his schemes, but he always seems to win or at least have the last laugh. Joker would fit here. 2. The Tragic Villain - A tortured soul who is made a villain through no fault of his own. He's cool because he has depth, and whatever difficulty there is about stopping him is increased due to the hero's own moral qualms about doing so. 3. The Schemer - There's something really intensely satisfying about a good old fashioned Machiavellian plot maker. My personal favorite is Archibald Cunningham from the movie Rob Roy. Best villain ever. So put on your feathered hat, pet a large white cat, and make a few schemes. 4. The Fallen Hero - Betrayed by his ideals, the fallen hero turns his back on his life of nobility and begins pursuing his goals in a much more sinister way. Two Face is a good example of this, perhaps with a bit of tragic villain thrown in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: https://answers.yahoo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://villains.wikia.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The "Good Guy" vs The "Bad Guy"

In this debate we will be arguing Good vs Bad in the scene of, in any comic or movie or peace of lititure there is most always a Good and Bad person; for example take Joker and Batman, or any of the evil villains. For this debate we will be fighting weather it'd be funnier to be taking the role of the Bad guy or the Good guy; For instance I say it would be "funnier" or better to be the part of the villain in a movie or comic, etc. You being pro will defend that it is better to be the hero or "good guy" in such. Rounds: 1) Acceptance/First statement 2)Arguments 3)Rebuttals
This Debate Shouldn't Have Been Created

Unfortunately we have both forfeited and derived from the rules. How do you voters treat this? Well, my opponent has failed to provide any troll arguments within the second argument. Although I may have forfeited, my opponent was the first to derive from the format. My opponent may have asked "what about round 5? There is no round 5?" And I would have simply responded "ignore that" and we would continue on with our debating. It is unfortunate that this debate ended this way, and I hope to have a better debate in a potential rematch.Vote me. My opponent broke the rules first. He provided no troll arguments. None. All of his arguments make perfect, logical sense and thus aren't troll arguments.
This Debate Shouldn't Have Been Created

It would be simple for me to prove this useless topic , if you don't like it then why have you joined , this site is for the betterment of future . For ex . in schools or colleges mostly no one participates in debate because they are afraid of the result , they think from before that if we lose everyone will tease me and so on ... But on this site ... if we lose no shame but gainness of confident and if we win we can show off our skills in schools and colleges . That's it for my first round ... Hope you understand it . GOOD LUCK !!!
This Debate Shouldn't Have Been Created

1. Too less timeI gave very less time for both of us to post our arguments. However, I had waited too long to post mine since none of my indicators work, and I didn't know somebody accepted this debate. Because of the lack of time, I will more than likely lose this debate, and lose my elo. This is a negative effect, and shows that I shouldn't have created this debate.2. The Odd StructureThis debate has a really, really odd structure, with serious and troll arguments inter-switching between pro and con. My opponent could manipulate the words within the topic, or use crazy celebrities to prove his or her poitns, since he or she can use troll arguments in response to my serious arguments. While I can utilize my troll argument to rebut my opponent's troll arguments, if this is not successful, then my opponent gets a free round of serious arguments. Furthermore, even if within round 2,3, and 4 I manage to rebut my opponent's arguments, my opponent still gets the last round for conclusion and final words, or even rebuttals to my rebuttals! This shows I am very unlikely to win, and thus, I should not have created this debate.3. My opponent's debating skillsMy opponent has an elo of 2,114. In addition, he has only lost one debate. [1] In contrast, I have lost 46 debates, 46 times more than my opponent. [2] While he may not have as much experience as the proof shows, I am very easy to beat, as shown in this dumb debate within source [3]. The opponent I lost against only has an elo of 1,162 [4], yet he won, showing that if I don't try, I will lose. In order for this to be successfully rebutted, either my opponent has to show that I am trying hard on this debate, and/or he is worse than my opponent(s) that beat me in a debate which I tried hard in.4. I just told him what he had to doI pointed the way for my opponent within my third argument. Whoopsies! I even said what he had to do: "In order for this to be successfully rebutted, either my opponent has to show that I am trying hard on this debate, and/or he is worse than my opponent(s) that beat me in a debate which I tried hard in." This shows that I'm not really trying that hard on this debate--I'm even letting my opponent gain a slight advantage!! Therefore my chances of winning have decreased.In conclusion, I have shown that I will lose this debate, and thus, as a consequence, lose my elo, and that is why this debate shouldn't have been created. I realize that you may be asking "why is winning so important?" Well, that's the whole point of DDO--have a good elo so others will know you at least have some kind of good skill, and display your awesomeness to your friends.On to you, con.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org...
This Debate Shouldn't Have Been Created

I believe this debate shouldn't have been created. I will support this with further evidence in later rounds.R1- Acceptance from opponent R2- serious argument from Pro, troll argument from ConR3- troll argument from Pro, serious argument from ConR4- serious argument from Pro, troll argument from ConR5- troll argument from Pro, serious argument from Con Any going away from the rules will be treated as a 7-point forfeit. These "arguments" can also be rebuttal(s) and conclusion(s). Good luck to my opponent.
If god(s) existed, they would most likely prefer atheists over theists.

The resolution is a simple one, namely that if there is some manner of god which has produced the human race for some grand purpose, it is more likely that such a purpose is hostile to the intents and activities and beliefs of theists and approving of the intents or activities or beliefs of atheists.The debate itself is one to be accepted and argued in good faith; The definitions used, argued against, and spoken to are to be those definitions which best match context and intent as used; if an equivocation is made, however, such a thing would go directly against good faith. While there are other aspects to acting in good faith, however, I'll leave those up to good faith. I have left "god" quite open; there will never be agreement over what qualities a "god" might have, so in this case the only assumed thing is that "god" describes some entity that created human beings for some intent specific to that being; any additional traits that are either impossible or necessary for such a being are in fact a subject of the debate itself.It is my burden as PRO to make a logical argument to this effect, and it is CON's burden to establish the liklihood of a purpose hostile to atheists. This being a shared BOP, the resolution will not be negated by merely arguing neutrality of purpose to all parties; such a position would be grounds for a tie between the expected positions of PRO and CON and grounds for a tie regardless of other factors.Neither PRO nor CON shall assume the validity of any particular theology, though either side may argue from reason that some particular purpose for humanity is more likely than some other purpose for humanity, and either side may canvas across known theolgies to evaluate them as a group. Further, neither PRO nor CON will be allowed to argue that the purpose of humanity is unknowable and mysterious. This is not to be a debate over some specific purpose, but rather a debate of conjecture given the nature of humanity as to what is more LIKELY the purpose.Finally, arguments from ignorance or assertion fallacies are not to be acceptable forms of argument, nor is any other fallacious form. All that is necessary to establish a fallacy is to break down the basic form of the argument in question, and put it side-by-side to the form of the fallacy in question; Defense may be made by pointing out valid differences between the fallacious form and the actual form. It is to be noted that certain forms of fallacies are only sometimes fallacies, such as slippery slope (which is valid if it is demonstrable that ethics compromised in later steps are actually being compromised in part by the step proposed) and argument from tradition (which can be used to defend a practice in the presence of absolute ignorance otherwise, but not against evidence or reason that the tradition itself may be faulty).
If god(s) existed, they would most likely prefer atheists over theists.

Well, seeing as Brandon is time-out forfeiting, I see no reason to continue my offer of a polite tie. My position. On the resolution is simple, really. Assuming gods existed and the existence of a purpose for the existence of intelligent human life, any such gods are more likely to prefer atheists. First, if gods wished to have cheerleaders to praise him forever, why not just make autonomous robots? If free will was desired, Why not make us naturally aware of them and their purpose so that we could decide based on an informed decision? Instead we have to accept a form of operations where we are naturally susceptable to lies? Instead, we exist with senses which see the universe, and reason to ascertain the inputs of those senses. Those senses do not give men a clear knowledge of gods. For those who spend most of their effort on that observation and in the application of reason, it is the case that atheism is the overwhelming conclusion or at least agnosticism. It makes no sense that we would be intended to not be all that we are. Second, by examining the reasons for which WE would create intelligent life, we gain insight into why gods may do the same. Some people would make life to torture it, but why would we live and accept such a vile purpose? Some people might make life to toady over them, but if you select only those who toady, how is it any different from just making them to do so from the start? In any case you end up only with beings who could never not grovel. Some people may make intelligent life to serve them, but then why make something so belligerent as humans? Finally, people may make people to expand the population of rational yet creative minds, creative peers who would make them greater through community. But such is not possible from the position of theism, where answers are spoon fed and questions are discouraged. Finally, what person has more value? The one who does what he is told no matter what, even if it means hanging blacks or burning Jews, simply for fear of the stick or lust of the carrot? Or is it the person who uses his or her mind, discerns what is right from secular reasoning, and strives every day to do what is right, without guarantee of reward or knowledge of punishment? And who is to even know which story circulated among men is right? It only makes sense given the above that gods would most likely prefer an atheist, if they preferred any world view.
Republicans are Better at Helping the U.S then Democrats

Honestly neither are doing a good job at helping anyone. The democrats are too caught up in trying to help third world countries and stopping global warming to help the people of the U.S. populous. The republicans are trying to get things through, this is true, but both parties are being too stubborn to listen to one another. Now let's get down to the nitty-gritty debate. The statement that you have made, dare I say with a few elementary typos, says that Republicans are better at helping the U.S. then the democrats. Now this isn't entirely true, Trump, the unfortunately most likely candidate to take office on the republican side, wants to build a wall on the U.S. Mexico border, now don't get me wrong I know we have an illegal immigrant problem and infact that problem is arguably growing. But wasting time and money building a massive wall across the border isn't going to help, it could arguably be easier to make more jobs by increasing border patrols, not to mention significantly more cost effective. Now I know that Trump wants to make Mexico build the wall, but this probably won't work. If nothing else it will just hurt the U.S./Mexico relationship. Trump also states that what he is going to do is make a "better America" but he hasn't really given a very clear path to that better America. And with the Democrats hell bent on making sure the Republican don't get anything done, it's going to be pretty difficult to reach that "better America" Before I move on to my next argument I want to put out there that I know the statement I'm supposed to be arguing against is Republicans are better at helping the U.S. then the Democrats. I feel like the best way to represent this argument is to look at what each parties respective candidates for the presidency are going to do for the country. Rather than looking at past issues between the two parties I want to look at what the future holds and what the parties are going to attempt to do. Before I go any further I think I should state my view of this statement. Many would believe that I would side with the democrats because I'm the con in this debate, this is in fact not true. While I do believe that Republicans are not helping the U.S., neither are the Democrats.
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

I contend that the Bible - properly understood - does not contradict itself once. Now, the debate resolution does not impose on me the onus of proving the entire Bible accurate. This is unfeasible precisely because there is neither enough time nor space in this online debate format to fulfill such a responsibility. Furthermore, since much of the Bible relies on faith, I cannot prove what cannot yet be verified. Rather, PRO must satisfactorily show that there is one instance of contradiction in the Bible. I, as CON, will attempt to prove that PRO's instance(s) can be reconciled with the rest of the Bible. This is the burden of proof. I thank my opponent, PRO, for offering this debate. I hope that PRO will be a reliable adversary, unlike my previous ones. With my introduction concluded, I await PRO's first argument.
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

I understand your situation. Let me also add then the following points against your position. 1. This link also proves the "father" "grandfather" mix up that your position takes. [1] 2. If your position is right, why do the new bible translations of the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, etc., change what is blatantly "forty two" in Hebrew to "twenty-two?" If your position is correct, or even some variance of it, they would explain the numerical problem away in the commentary of study bibles (or in other ways). Instead, they change the translation. Thoughts? [1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

I must preface my argument by admitting that I am not a biblical scholar. In fact, theology tends to confuse me, which is why I seldom participate in religious debates. But one quality of an educated man is his willingness to debate the merits of new ideas. With that said, I now proceed to my one argument. 1. 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 are different perspectives of the same account. In lieu of submitting a lengthy explanation, I will offer instead an exhaustive study that I found on the internet: http://theoldtestamenttimeline.com... I found the author's argument to be very convincing of why there is no contradiction. Basically, the idea is that Ahaziah reigned as a prince at age twenty-two before becoming a full-fledged king at forty-two. Please read it for yourself, especially the last two pages about accuracy. Since there are more debate rounds, I will provide more evidence later if demanded by PRO. Thanks; sorry for my underwhelming participation. - Mr. Speaker
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

My argument is as follows: there is at least one contradiction in the bible and to prove this two scriptures will be observed. 2 Kings 8:26 says, "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother"s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel." (NKJV) 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mothers name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri. (NKJV) These scriptures are describing the same situation and thus the contradiction lies with the age of Ahaziah when he became king. Was he twenty-two or forty-two? When observing the Hebrew for the age in 2 Kings 8:26, the term esriym is used meaning "twenty," but in 2 Chronicles 22:2 the Hebrew is arbaiym meaning "forty" (the Hebrew for "two" is the same in both verses). In describing the same situation, he cannot be both ages. If we read 2 Kings 8:17 it tells us Ahaziah"s father was thirty-two years old when he became king and reigned eight years, making him forty. It is not possible for the father"s reign to end at age forty and then his son, Ahaziah, to take over being forty-two; this would make him older than his father. The number forty-two cannot be right. For the same situation two different ages are given, which could not be possible and thus this qualifies as a contradiction.
Should under 14 year olds be allowed to have phone

If you are under fourteen and you are hanging around a group of friends at least one of them will have a phone, if not then there should be an adult with the group. it is also possible to use your parents phone if you need to contact friends. Technology (mostly phones) have literally taken over this world. So many people are socially awkward and become addicted to their phones. It is a scientifically proved fact that phones/technology are addictions and people have gained withdrawal symptoms from it. Also the people who have phones usually get depressed easier and the majority of the suicides in the us are caused by social media and Cyber bullies.
Should under 14 year olds be allowed to have phone

Under 14 year olds should be allowed a phone often they go to school and can want to meet up with friends after school and have to warn their parents first and also if they are going to meet up with friends, one friend might be late or unable to come so they have to contact the other friends using their phone. Plus friends might need to tell other people they want to meet up and need a phone do this. And sometimes you might barely see a friend and would like to catch up then a phone can be the perfect way to do this.
Should under 14 year olds be allowed to have phone

No, I believe that those who are under 14 should not be able to have a phone. Most teens who get a phone before they are mature enough get negatively influenced by social media. Most teens have social issues and become awkward talking to people in person because they are so used to texting. Sexing also is a big problem. Lets be honest, its easier talking to the people we like/have crushes on over text. They can't see are physical reactions which makes others feel like its okay to do this kind of stuff. Sexting is becoming an issue for teens who are looking for acceptance. Another reason why I think that people under 14 should not have a phone is because of online predators. Many teens have been raped, molested, abused, and even killed due to misuse of a phone. I'm not saying its their fault for being raped, molested, abused, or killed. some predators use threats and bully young teens. low self esteem is also caused from this. the suicide rate has been increasing dramatically for the past 17 years. most teens believe that they are ugly, not worth anything, stupid, etc... This is caused mostly by social media. I believe that you need to be mature enough to have a phone. I believe that you should at least be the age of 16 or higher before you are given a phone.
it it wrong to have an abortion

first of all are you studying this at a degree or something. so now it's my turn. I did state morally not scientifically like you were. If I was stating the question in scientific form I main question would be when do you define a baby someone say it's as some as a sperm and egg meet others say a certain amount of weeks. you comment when I on the point of being born free.to be born free doesn't mean that the woman is aloud abortion since the born isn't born yet. I fact it means that no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose. The baby should be free of death in the womb and out outside the womb. adoption centre maybe full in some parts of the USA but they are barley full in the UK meaning the child can have a peaceful, health and most important happy life with either a new family or the care workers till the age of eighteen when they'll be able to live on their own.it is illegal to kill anyone disable or not so then why is it ok to kill a disable baby isn't decimation against disable person saying their live is worthless if they're unable to speak or they're missing few limbs. in all types of situation it's wrong to kill a baby even if they were an accident would you kill your know child if he/she is an accident????? if you wouldn't vote for me I think as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's a new live. let me give you a scenario about abortion;
it it wrong to have an abortion

morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life. Even if it's by accidence you should have abortion because you're validating one of the human rights;the right the be born free. if the mother doesn't want the child she can always give it up for adoption or give it to someone who can care for the baby but the mother can have easy access to see the baby.