BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Matt Smith better than David Tennant? (Doctor Who)

Yes, I like your point on how the 10th doctor went to see a lot of history like the Fire of Pompeii which also have the 12th doctor in it (13 if you count John Hurt). For the 11th doctor however, I like that Steven Moffat put some twist to the exploding tardis and how the Doctor's wife (River Song) end up being the daughter of Amy Pond and Rory Williams. I also like how the crack (aka. Time Field) add the suspense to the exploding tardis. For example in one of the episode the doctor pick up something from the crack and find out that it was a debris of his tardis (Series 5 Episode 9). http://2.bp.blogspot.com... , http://www.kasterborous.com... , http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...
Is Matt Smith better than David Tennant? (Doctor Who)

I agree with you about Matt Smith's giraffe dance is quite hilarious but I think it's cool that David Tennant had so many facial expressions even when he's thinking about solving the solutions for all of the disasters that happens on Earth or any out in space. Another thing I want to add that David Tennant went to see a lot of history that happened in the past like in the episode "Fires of Pompeii" that's the episode where The Doctor and Donna went to Pompeii. Also the 10th doctor got married to Queen Elizabeth the first in the episode "Day of the Doctor" and in the episode with Martha, the Doctor went to visit Shakespeare and when queen Elizabeth the first walked in the Theater she said "The doctor, my arch enemy "
Is Matt Smith better than David Tennant? (Doctor Who)

I understand your point, but if you put it in another perspective Matt Smith would be more funny and yes goofy. To me personally I believe viewers would want a more humor character. (The fish fingers with custard in episode 1) Not to mention Matt Smith seem to be more energetic and brilliant. In one of his episode he tried to fool the Dalek by saying that he have an explosive inside the Tardis that was inside the Dalek ship. Matt Smith also tried to create the 2nd Big Bang to restart the Universe by using the Pandorica. He then was wiped from history until Rory and Amy wedding when Amy suddenly have tears and remembered The Doctor. Oh and who would forget Matt Smith giraffe dance at the wedding, it was goofy but amazing.
God does exist

So you"re saying the universe can come from nothing, but the almighty God cant? Also I can"t really take a look at the book, I don"t own it, nor do I feel like buying it for this debate. But what I can say is that what he says is not proven. And you really have to think to yourself, is this all really an accident? How many accidents does it take for all of us to get here? You really think all this came from a particle? This would involve millions of coincidences and luck and chance and many accidents for all this to turn out how it is. I find the fact that just thinking of it like this is proof enough that there had to be some kind of higher being, one that at least loved enough to create us. I believe we came from an almighty God, not some dust particles. Ill explain more in the next round
God does exist

no I never said the universe can't exist, obviously it does, we see the world around us etc. There was nothing before the Universe, lawrence kraus proved this in his book "A Universe from Nothing" http://www.amazon.com... Yes the universe was an accident, lawrence krauss proved that a Unverse can come from quantum foam, nothingness. It was just a random particle that created the Universe. We already know that things from nothing when particles are created etc. like I said earlier in the debate, god can't exist, because god is supposed to not have a creator, but since he is sentient he must have a creator. And this is a contradiction in god so he can't exist.
God does exist

So your saying the universe can't exist because it didn't have a creator. What was before the big bang? What was before that? The universe had to have a beginning, because with out a beginning, that means there has been an unlimited amount of time, meaning that today would never have happened. Time can only go one way, and that is forward, so it must be going or moving from something. What is it moving from? It is moving forward from the beginning. Please tell me in the next round if you believe there was a beginning in time. And you can't say it is possible to go back in time, because it is not proven. When something is not proven, you can't say it is true because "man" is the highest mind set and understands the most. So what we don't know, no one knows. Therefore anything you say that is a theory is quite pointless. Now are you saying that the universe was an accident?
God does exist

no I don't believe the universe has a cause. the Universe having a cause was invented by theists. I believe in the big bang but I think the Universe never had a cause, it doesn't need one. i'm saying that if god exists, and god is supposed to be all powerful and not have a creator etc then this contradicts with god having sentience because having sentience means you have a cause like I said before. if you believe god has a cause then you're saying god needs something before he can exist which means he's not as all opwerful as christians make him out to be. so God needs a creator if god exists, but god cant exist because he cant have a creator
God does exist

I'm confused, are you saying the universe had to have a cause? And your right, God needs a cause, at least in our understanding. The universe had to of have had a beginning. This is because in our logic, it had to, if there was no God. With a higher being outside of our understanding, there doesn't have to be a cause because there is a greater understanding. If you say the universe has no cause, and it exist, that is a contradiction, therefore we don't exist.
God does exist

p1) everything which is sentience has a cause p2) the Judeo-Christian god is sentient p3) therefore the Judeo-Crhstian god has a cause Well we know p1 is true through everyday life. Sentience is obviously a complicated thing, and something that is complicated needs something else to give it that complexity. So sentience has a cause. p2 is true because multiple times in the Bible god talks to the Jews, etc, and is loving, etc. all which basically implies that he has a conscious mind, or sentience. Some Christians like on yahoo answers say that God is just god, and doesn't need a cause. http://answers.yahoo.com... http://answers.yahoo.com... http://answers.yahoo.com... This is just cherry-picking because they're saying the Universe needs a cause but not God. Some people on the religion forum here on debate.org have said that it doesn't really prove that god doesn't exist, just that he needs a cause. Well god is not supposed to have a cause, but clearly god needs a cause because he's sentient. So this is a contradiction. Anything with a contradiction can't exist http://www.spurgeon.org... So god can't exist if he doesn't need a cause but is also sentient
Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

LEMME PLAYRESOLVED: Communism can work*Definitions:Communism- Is "when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."Henceforth, the communism we will be talking about here is the anarchronistic communism advocated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.Can-Possibly, in some situationsWork-The quality of being sustained for a long time, and also prosperous at the same timehttp://www.debate.org...
Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

WILL SOMEONE DO THIS WITHOUT FORFEITS AND FOLLOWING THE RULES??! IT AIN'T HARD!!!RULES-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)-The debate cannot be a one-round debate-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating (with the exception of troll debates)-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater (in other words, debates named "my opponent will contradict himself")-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 2 votes on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable -My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence, or the legalization of gay marriage. I already did those two topics.Please read and follow the rules carefully, otherwise you'll get a full 7-point forfeit.Good luck and have fun!
Play Devil's Advocate! (4)

Final round. "...capital is not communism." Therefore my opponent has wasted time randomly talking about capital, since if it has a positive effect, and capital =/= communism, then communism does not have this positive effect that capital creates. Ineffective argument." ...factories tend to do better than labor intensive ones" Okay, but there's still the problem of paying people to do absolutely nothing, which is pretty darn hard. And what about keeping the machines intact, working? Changing the power supply when needed? You still need to hire maintanance people...The human rights: Means of production eh? Well people have the rights to pursuit happiness via producing goods to supply their family. Means of production=pursuit of happiness. Without private property people cannot pursuit their happiness with businesses or whatnot. In addition my opponent has failed to show how human rights to creativity are not violated. "communism has never been tried and successfully implemented once on this earth"Exactly. That just shows every politicial and ruler knows it will never ever work. --But again I'm confused. Is Russia not a communist country?"theory suggests that under communism, the people would be happy, creative and prosperous due to the fact that he no longer has to be alienated from his produced capital."What the heck. You just said that with machines coming, people won't have to work, therefore they will become alienated from the work force. Seriously Krit? Twisting the odds upon me by saying in communism lets people have free will: The problem here is too much free will. This only helps my argument about communism being ineffective, since people can do absolutely nothing and still get money.People don't work because they don't have to--> Less production for the government --> Destroying of environment and less hand-out--> Less people work because they have even less money than before--> More destroying of environment to balance hand-out--> People of eco-friendly protestors start complaining and stop working--> Communism starts to collapse and less money to people--> People start work strikes and rebel--> Communism fails DROPPED/IRREFUTED ARGUMENTS-Communism is very unfair because people have died under rule of communism government, and the class struggle continues on regardless of the rules and the lay-out of communism-Communism is still very ineffective (Because people can get stuff by doing absolutely nothing), and it damages the environment-Communism still limits people's creativity/incentive to work-People still have rebelled against communist societies (See round 2 arguments), showing that in fact they do think communism violates their human rights -Not everyone is equal... (see round two) "economic productivity in communist societies declined and new “status”-based inequalities emerged where well-connected party elites enjoyed riches and leisure and ordinary workers did not." [4]-US has an extremely effective coal production system, the best in the world, and it does not work under a system of communism-COMMUNISM FAILSYou lose, kc1999.VOTE ME.[4] v.gd/inequal
Batman v/s Spiderman

Firstly,Con states that "Batman can instil fear into enemy's mind. This statement is so false as Batman can never instil fear, only one he used a poison gas which creates fear while defending himself from Dr. Crane other than that neither in DC comics or in Batman movie trio there is no information regarding Batman using that gas in fights. So this statement is vague and thus Batman just cannot instil fear into anybody he wants. Secondly, Con states that Batman has abilities that are as powerful as Captain America. This statement can be easily proved false by anybody with a minimal knowledge as Batman and Captain America are totally different characters and Con is trying to add confusion in the debate by mentioning Captain America and Superman. Next, Con states "Batman has a Superhuman force of will and can keep on fighting even after edged to death" and is a master of weapons, martial arts and stealth plus he is a master detective and strategist. All of these qualities of Batman just cannot defeat Spiderman. Batman is good with weapons Spiderman just need to dodge his attack through Spider sense and pull all of his gadgets and techs through his webbing and destroy it. Batman's martial arts is only useful against common criminals and is useless against Spiderman as he can easily dodge through Spiderman. I like to say that Stealth, detecting and Strategy is not much of use in duel. Finally, Con States that Superman describes Batman as "the most dangerous man on Earth" which is totally irrelevant for the topic. Batman was able to defeat super-powered aliens all by himself. For this I would like to say that Even Spiderman has defeated a gang of Super-villains including Dr. Octavius, Venom,Goblin, Scorpion and many more which is much more than Super powered Aliens. Thus coming back to duel Batman can only use his techs against Spiderman as Martial Arts and other skills will be useless against Spiderman and Spiderman just need to dodge Batman's attack and go on full charge against Batman, destroy his suit and other techs which will be an easy job as Spiderman can bench press up-to 10 tons thus crushing Batman's armour. Batman has no above human abilities and just can't match Spidey's speed,stamina, agility and reflexes. Considering all the above factors Spiderman definitely wins against Batman. With being said this I'd like to conclude my argument.
Batman v/s Spiderman

First of all,Batman can instill fear into anybody he faces.Even those who aren't afraid of the likes of Superman fear Batman. So spiderman will be afraid of batman and secondly, he has abilities that are as powerful as captain america's to the point of are superhumanlike so that he can very easily match spiderman's strength,reflexes,speed,and agility. He has a superhuman force of will and can keep on fighting even after he has been to the edge of death. He is also a master of weapons,martial arts, and stealth.He is also a master detective and strategist.Superman describes Batman as "the most dangerous man on Earth," able to defeat a team of super-powered aliens all by himself in order to rescue his imprisoned teammates.Even without all that,he is able to defeat aliens that had superhuman powers that greatly exceeded his own. http://batman.wikia.com...
Batman v/s Spiderman

The main powers of Spiderman are web attack, wall crawling and Spider-sense with Super human strength and highly intelligent whereas Batman has no Super powers or above human abilities. Batman always need to wear his costume for protection and highly depends on his gadgets. Now, when in a duel between Batman and Spiderman, Spiderman just need to destroy his costume including his utility belt and gadgets and then dodge his initial attacks and finally knocking him off and making Batman totally irresistible through web attacks. Thus Spidey's faster, stronger and more capable of avoiding being hit, plus his pre-cog Spider-sense renders null any surprises Batman may have in store for him. He routinely pulls his punches on human opponents because if he were to exert even 1/10 of his full strength, a human opponent's head would explode upon impact and Batman wouldn't stand a chance. With this I pass on to Con.
Batman v/s Spiderman

First of all,you did not even look into the link I posted where it said right there that batman can instill fear into anybody. But anyway,his webs is also gadget spiderman made himself so batman can just destroy his gadget that make the webs and secondly,it is also said on the link I gave that batman can bench-press at least 1000 lb and can hold a ceiling that weigh more than 1000 lb and can use his strength so effectively that near-meta such as Deathstroke comments that Batman "hits harder than most beings with superhuman strength."And also, spiderman's strength is that of a spider and a spider can only lift 8 times it weight,so spiderman can only lift 300 pounds.And he can beat TOAA even when quadruple amputee, with facial paralysis, being burned alive, bleeding to death, blind, deaf, mute, and skinless because of his usperhuman force of will and knows all the pressure points of any person so that he can make them unconcious or in pain just by pressing those pressure points.And that does not include his batsuit,which is bullet-proof and resistant to most forms of attack (explosions, blunt trauma, falls, etc.) It is also flame-retardant and insulated. And the gloves and the boots are reinforced to nullify the impact of punches and kicks. Batman's gauntlets have metallic blades on their sides and the suit also has gadgets like aggravating gas and electric blasts, and has a belt that has plastic explosives, nerve toxins, batarangs, smoke bombs, and Freeze technology.He lastly has the power to channel chi.So you need to read all these links I posted and don't go all "Con is stupid and trying to confuse people because he is losing" WITH THAT,I conclude my case http://www.comicvine.com... http://www.comicvine.com... http://www.comicvine.com... http://marvelanimated.wikia.com... http://batman.wikia.com...
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus is not god according to the bible

Good debate bro. Wish there was ALOT less Ad Hominem involved as I felt it was more about attacking each other personally rather than actually having a debate over whether your statement in the subject was valid. Your wrong about my religious view by the way, I never claimed to be fundamental Christian like you dressed me up as. To be fair, you never asked either. I am a spiritual theologian who believes in God and the Gospel of Christ but also other the validity of other religions. Mostly for their historical and philosophical importance to humanity. This includes sharing many of views Atheists have although I completely disagree with how they present their arguments, see my example in round 3. My suggestion is you need to actually read the Bible instead of parroting arguments from Atheists Youtube videos if you want to argue against it. Example instead of using up the whole 10k character limit to argue God is the cause of evil. You could of made this point with Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Anyway Best of Wishes to you in your future endeavors. I hope you find the peace your looking for in life. God Bless.
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus is not god according to the bible

First to prove that Jesus is a god. The term "god" in Hebrew is known as Elohim, which means of divine nature or deity. Regardless of whether you believe or not, Jesus since his death has obtained the status of divine. He even prophesied many times on how this will come to be and historically it has. I think the billions of Christians and the power they have over the world is a display of their success, they have all but conquered the world. So Jesus a failure, well look around you. 2000 years and he is the most praised and talked about figure in history... Hardly a failure. So yeah I argue he has elevated to "god" status. Matthew 7:15-20 Read it again. This kind of insight can only come from a divine nature. False prophets? Yeah we have had plenty of them, just look at all the cults we have had in recent years and how many have produced disaster. Jesus spoke of this with incredible accuracy 2000 years ago. The Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, the Manson family. All their leaders pretended to be sheep but turned out to be wolves in disguise. As far as the bad fruit, this simply says to pay attention to the actions of people and not their words. Like a person who comes up to you trying to be your friend but then you notice them violently attack or curse someone for no reason. It's not about being infallible but to watch out for Fake people who pretend to be Good. Review the list above. Jesus did not say he would return, he said he was going to the Father. What he said was he would send a "Comforter". Some believe this to be Apostle Paul whom started preaching about Jesus in the mid first century AD, a generation within what was prophesied and only a decade or 2 after the crucifixion. John 15:26. Jesus broke the thou shall not covet commandment? Are you sure, you know what covet means? It means you shouldn't want what another person has, or Envy. Same with Thou shall not bare false witness against thy neighbor? Are you saying God was Jesus's neighbor?? As for breaking the Sabbath, you do know that priests were allowed to break the Sabbath in Judaic law. Joshua marched around the walls of Jericho for 7 days. By the way not the only Judaic ion to do this. Jesus made the point that if God's will needed to be done, such as save the life of another living being. God would not wish you to allow even a sheep die if the Sabbath kept you from saving it's life. As far as Jesus following Satan because Satan took him to the top of a temple and asked him to jump. Umm yeah? So if someone kidnaps you, are you following your kidnapper?? If you read that chapter, Jesus is refusing Satan's every temptation not following him... Instead he declares that one should follow the Lord God and him only. Again so your argument is that Jesus is not a God. My question is since Zeus is a Greek God, how is that any different than Jesus being a Christain God?