BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Empire(Star Wars, Pro) vs Covenant(Halo,Con)

Land battle: I was hoping you'd bring up numbers, however with the diverse technology and the diverse races of the covenant, numbers would mean little. In terms of numbers grunts are extremely numerous and the drone always plant a nest on any planet which means their numbers are infinte unless their nesf is destroyed. The AT-ATs are indeed very durable but they just never had any real firepower hit against them, the scarabs are a lot more mobile and their main cannon are nearly warship grade laser cannons. They are considered weapons of mass destruction. And the Protus variant can only be destroyed from the inside, if they leave the shield from the cockpit on it will be very difficult to get in. Then we have the wraiths, their long range and ability to shoot over objects is what will whaf help them win. As they can literally fire over and behind barriers. Jackals and grunts are actually smart the game doesn't give them justice especially if you are not playing on legendary, that's like me playing an OT game on easy mode and saying storm troopers are stupid. Besides we all know Stormtroopers can't hit anything they aim at :p. Space: Its pretty close but the covenant can pull it off, the reason why everyone says the executor comes out on top is because of some extended universe stuff which doesn't apply to the OT, the guy writing doesn't even realize the sheer power 200gigaton is, he wrote it would take 24 days to to wreck an entire planet when in reality with 200gigaton it would only take 5 seconds. Therefore since it is inconsitent as well as being extended universe it does not apply here. So the covenant will actually fair a better chance in space battles than you put it. Again diversity plays a big part in what purs them on top. They just have a more variety than the tie fighters as well as their fighters being shielded. Banshees also have a a variant made for space battles that are shielded. The covenant class cruisers shielding is a lot more advanced as well, it is not directly on the hull and they take less system loss when their shield gets damaged. I'd say whst gives it to the covenant is their speciality at boarding and planting bombs. Arbiter vs Darth Vader: No force it would go to arbiter, with force hmmm I'll try to argue this the best I can I don't know if this argument is legal though. Usually the elites chosen as arbiter excel in all fields, elites are also pretty one with nature for being a warrior races. So although the arbiter may not be able to use the force, after it being used on him a couple of times or knowing about it, the arbiter may be able to resist it at least. Making it a fair fight. However if people say I'm cheating by having the arbiter able to recognize the force than the arbiter will straight up loose.
The Empire(Star Wars, Pro) vs Covenant(Halo,Con)

I am impressed by your research. How Empire would beat Covenant. Land Battle: Size: The sheer size of the Imperial army could devastate even the mot skillful of soldiers. With the many different types of troopers, they can overcome almost anything thrown at them. Also, some of the Empire's vehicles are f*cking HUGE! All AT-ATs have to do is step on Wraiths to blow them up. Plus, the only weakness they seem to have is giant string (which X-Wings seem to have for some reason), and I doubt the Covenant would be smart enough to utilize this. Smarts: While the Elites seem to be pretty intelligent, all of the aliens they enslave don't seem to be as much. I've watched Jackals and Grunts, when they try to dodge a plasma grenade, jump RIGHT INTO IT! The Empire has thousands of intelligent officers commanding them from the Death Star, or in the giant AT-ATs. Space: CSO-class Super carrier vs Executor-class Star Destroyer: I've dug deep into this, and in all of the sites I've seen, Executor comes out on top. All the Executor has to do is fire all of it's heavy turbo lasers at once(which would equal to more than a Nova Bomb, and aim it right for the carrier. In the only two ways I've seen where the carrier has a chance to, it could use the glassing beam(Executor is faster, and could dodge it), or a slip space jump right into it(would destroy both ships). Size: Again, the amount of ships the Empire has is ridiculous. TIE-Defenders have warhead missiles, which would ultimately wipe out any ship of the same size (Banshees, etc. ), while bigger ships would be more of the problem, don't forget the Empire has 25,000 Imperial Star Destroyers. The Death Star could also just blow up Halo with it's giant laser. Darth Vader vs Arbiter: Abilities: While Arbiter is armed usually with two energy swords and invisibility, Vader can sense his surroundings with the force. He could also force choke Arbiter, like he usually does with his officers. Of course, he has to break the shield first, but a couple of lightsaber stabs/Forcing into rocks and such should take care of that. As you can see, the Empire could easily wipe the Covenant off the face of the Galaxy.
The Empire(Star Wars, Pro) vs Covenant(Halo,Con)

I thank my opponent, and will clarify these things: I do mean to before the First Death Star was destroyed, and so, to be even, it would also be the Pre human war times of the Covenant. As far as forerunner, i don't know if you mean the planetoid building things or not, so we'll see about it. And yes, no outside help, so Empire won't be able to use Bounty Hunters like Boba Fett. You can choose if commander or 1v1. Ground troops: Storm troopers: Empire's main ground troops. Very numerous, and numbe in the quintillion range :(https://m.reddit.com...), the person that says it is PM Me Your Smile). Their armor allows them to survive in near inhabitable places. They can be in specialized units, such as Snowtroopers(can survive in frigid temperatures), and flametroopers( have flamethrowers). AT-ST: (All Terrain Scout Transporters) Two legged Vehicles used to traverse any terrain, mounted with two laser boasters at front. AT-AT:(All Terrain Armored Transport: The most useful ground vehicle of all. A giant, four legged vehicle that stands 22.5 meters tall. Armed with two medium sized laser blisters and twin giant laser cannons, capable of blowing up tanks with one shot. Space Vehicles: Tie Fighters: The main space vehicles, number in the millions. Armed with twin laser blasters Tie Defender: Advanced TIE fighters, can be mounted with tractor beams and warhead launchers Imperial Star Destroyers: Huge, dagger shaped spaceships that were 1,600 meters long. The Empire owned 25,000 of these. The Death Star: The Empire's prized possession. A planetoids, sized spherical space station that could destroy planets with a single blast. Armed with thousands of lazer cannons along the surface, and a tractor beam. Commander: Darth Vader: a cruel, merciless leader trained in the ways of the Force. Able to lift giant objects with the wave of a hand, choke his enemies by raising his arm, and has a red shaded light saber that is able to slice through rock and steel like butter. Only drawback is his armor, which is also his life support system. But, using the force, he is able to survive for hours if it is damaged. Those are my troops. I only used the main ones for each category. All info comes from http://starwars.wikia.com...
The Empire(Star Wars, Pro) vs Covenant(Halo,Con)

First which time line for each faction are we talking about? For starwars OT time line before the Death Star was destroyed or after. Same with the covenant. Pre-human war, or post? As far as forerunner technology, do you mean only unaltered discovered as well as undiscovered technology? Covenant tech is sorta based upon forerunner tech. The empire is not allowed to use outside help as well correct? As far as darth Vader vs arbiter do you mean them acting as commander or 1 vs 1?
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

Push my arguments again: This is fallacious again... ignorato elenchi This doesn't relate, I can imagine truths, I show that because I can imagine food before i buy and eat it. If i gave you a list of giberish like this: 1)asngansn 2)sagsaa 3)asgnja and said they were food, and asked you to draw them, you would have no idea, and thus not immagine anything, instead you would take attributes from other food and assign them to my menu. But if i said: 1)Pizza 2)Sandwich 3)Soda Pop You could imagine everyone and choose what you want. imagination is based off of memory. You can imagine youre death and it will occur, but the type of death you imagine is based off of thought.
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

possibilities are imaginary, not real can reality happen? is your neighbour home right now? so, stop eating real food........................................... and just imagine eating food for the next week, shouldnt be a problem there so if you imagine the lamp didnt break, which is the truth? imagination is the opposite of memory.. illogical and logical, future and past i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

See at this point your committing a fallacy: proof by assertion You cant show that EVERY POSSIBLE THING that someone imagines is false, its literally impossible to do so, im imagining lunch, and i know its real because ive seen it, i imagine its taste and i know it is true. thus I am imagining something true. also, this : i can imagine whatever i want.. it isnt contingent upon memory or else i would no be able to lie simply is a lie, you can lie and know something 100%, If i break a lamp, i know its broken, but i can still lie about it, and imagine it still exists. imagination is based in memory[1] [1]https://ibpublishing.ibo.org...
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

no thats the thing.. i can imagine whatever i want.. it isnt contingent upon memory or else i would no be able to lie lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one anything i imagine is false, you can imagine whatever you like, you can imagine opra is involved in this debate and you cant get her screaming voice out of your head until you stop believing in god thats right i have memory.. and imagination would be the opposite of that. fantasy is illogical, memory is logical
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

I push everything because its refuted for the most part... Responses: I can imagine water, does water exist? yes, thus imagination can be true. no imagining a mountain will not make my head explode, however mountains are real thus your imagining something true. a lie doesnt mean it is believed, if I lie and tell you im 9ft tall, Ive lied and you dont believe it. Your imagination is based off physical experience thus they are one in the same.
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

do you think you can enter other peoples bodies and feel what they feel? thoughts are not real, lies exist thou i cant grab a tree i imagine its simply true that imagination is false.. it like saying reality is false.. its you having to prove your case that imagination is false if you imagine a mountain does your head explode? memory is what i have experienced, truth, and imagination is false, like santa belief is emotional attachment to information, or to put it more simply, guessing while not knowing it is true i cant be a lie without having a belief possibility+emotion=belief in an endless amount of possibilities , i still dont know the looks of one unseen physical experience is true, you cant phyically experience your imagination
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

Vi_Spex always thought provoking but always a little flawed. If you haven't befriended me yet you should. Ok so your resolution has 2 points that you must prove are correct: 1)imagination is always false 2)belief is imaginary So I will mainly attack the first because this is an extremely strong and incorrect claim. 1 - - Imagination is not always false, we imagine ourselves in others positions, this doesn't make them false, it doesn't make the thought false. We imagine tomorrow, but tomorrow isn't false. You can even imagine a location and the location isnt false. This is where your logic is flawed, the act or concept of imagination is based off of prior experiences, we know that trees are made of wood because we have learned or experienced this. Thus nothing in your immagination is false, it is simply based off of things you have experienced. Children imagine monsters, you may think this is false, however the components that form these monsters are inherited from real world things, thus they are not false but misplaced. 2 - - Belief is Imaginary To imagine is to compose a thought within yourself, to believe is to have faith in someone elses statement. These are different and thus this is an incorrect statement. Responses: you cannot break belief up in English, you must go back to its origin. gelyfan or belief does not contain liogan, or lie. Thus the origin of belief does not contain lie, meaning its definition-ally different. i dont know - I you have absolutely no knowledge of it then you wouldnt be able to imagine it, nor would you realise you dont know it. my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing: Quite the quote but this means that no history, or science you have physically experienced is true.
Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

Your definition of zombies is incorrect. You have only taken into account the traditional slow moving zombies and forgotten a whole load of zombie films that do not involve undead. Undead are a wholly supernatural occurrence. To say that corpses brought back from the dead by magic is more realistic than a rabies strand infecting humans is a ridiculous conception. Even if you refuse to accept infected as true zombies, I call upon the necromorph, who move quickly and burn up unneeded flesh as bio fuel. They work under "ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human." and they move while destroying themselves because they work on a hive mind similar to the horde mind of regular zombies. Zombies decay anyway, they may as well use their last strength to throw themselves or run at living things, then hibernate when no target is in site. http://deadspace.wikia.com... .This is a science fiction style of zombie, which is a tad more realistic than your magic undead. But whether or not you accept infected, the necromorphs will defy your undead magic any day of the week, and they have a proper explanation of their creation and behaviour, which can involve moving very quickly. This has been a fun debate and I'm glad you returned to it. I hope to debate with you again in the future. Duncan.
Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

I would like to lend a sincere apology to my opponent for my tardiness. During the weekend I failed to properly update my debate due to unexpected events. I extend the most profuse apology to my opponent for my own delay. Perhaps I put too many rounds of debate indeed! I will finish this debate by refuting my opponents argument and defending my previous contentions. I will start by addressing my opponents own personal method of classifying Zombies. Although this may be an interesting Zombie classification method, my opponent has no grounds on which to call himself an expert on Zombies and Zombification. Although I do appreciate the bringing up of the Left for Dead green flu as I do appreciate the Left for Dead series, I do not believe that this disease truly fits the established definition of Zombie. The Zombie definition as established by this debate clearly states that Zombies spread their infection by way of infectious bite. I would also like to address that 28 days later is an example that I am proving to be unrealistic. If my opponent wishes to contend that these so called "Infected" are not Zombies as is being debated, he is simply agreeing with me. This is apparent because I am debating Slow Moving Zombies (the undead) as being more realistic than Fast Moving Zombies (yet again the undead). Furthermore I would contend that my opponents metaphor with aged people and young people does not apply in the sense that Zombies are deteriorating bodies not unlike the elderly. Would a man near death be likely to run as fast as a healthy young adult? I think not. Thus my decaying illness argument still holds true. Furthermore my opponent has completely failed to address my argument regarding chemical energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. Due to my opponents lack of ability to directly refute my argument, clearly the obvious vote is the affirmative vote. I would like to thank my opponent for a wildly entertaining debate! This has been a very very fun and interesting debate to be introduced to the website with and I have nothing but appreciation for my opponent. I would also like to again deeply apologize for my own tardiness and missed arguments!
Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

You misunderstand a crucial aspect of the fast moving zombies, or any zombies for that matter. You seem to treat zombies as their own species, a reasonable idea, but zombies in fact have their own hive mind of sorts. If zombies were all about self preservation, they would eat something other that the only food capable of using weapons; they're human bodies, still capable of digestion after all. However, I will use a different virus as my horde species; the Green Flu from Left 4 Dead. Apart from the special zombies who have developed mutations, the zombies are like people infected with a form of rabies, in fact, I could use the disease from the acclaimed spanish horror [Rec], which had people simply becoming violent and determined to spread the virus at all costs. Zombies have no self preservation, instead working for the good of the horde at large. A rabies like virus would fufill the cannibal nature of the zombie, while allowing them to run at high speeds, shortening their lifespans, You assume all zombies must be a reanimated corpse, but then use 28 days later as an example of a fast moving zombie. I class zombies into two types, with sub types of their own. Undead and Infected. You suggest that Undead are more realistic, whereas i believe that an infectious virus has more scientific possibility. You cannot claim that the 28 Days Later zombies fall into your definition, as in 28 Days. the virus is portrayed as a rabies of sorts. The most powerful virus is the aforementioned Green Flu though, as it is not spread through bite, rather through air, the cannibal tendencies being a symptom that also assists the infected disarm the mask using military. To try and disprove the idea of infected being zombies, you will have to show more than one film or game where reanimated corpses run quickly, else your argument is as flawed as saying that because elderly people move slowly, young people running violates the laws of physics. Undead and Infected are separate. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

Zombies are defined for the sake of this debate as ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human. Examples of slow moving zombies are "Max Brooks" Zombies. The zombies in Shaun of the Dead. Examples of fast moving zombies include Zombies from 28 days later and The World War Z movie. The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether or not "Slow moving" zombies are more realistic than "fast moving" zombies. Realistic is defined as: having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. or representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life. I look forward to a challenger.
Should school trade tablets for textbooks

Greetings. Looking forward to debating with you today. I shall list my points after each letter. A. The world is constantly changing as time progresses. This equals more technology developing and becoming more prevalent. B. First there were textbooks, Now there are iPads, Tablets, Laptops etc things of that nature. As time changes, Us humans must become accustomed to things. C. It is now the time for tablets generally speaking. This means certain things will become easier, Such as -- students don't have to worry about carrying a lot of heavy textbooks. Tablets will be easier to handle and it would be much easier for teachers/instructors to distribute as learning tools for the students. D. There may be some old textbooks meaning torn out pages, Students scribbling all over the pages with inappropriate things on them perhaps and things of that nature. E. Reading online is just the same as reading from a text book. Nowadays students are tech savvy. We are always on our phones -- I say we since I am a college student. So with that being said, Tablets would work in their favor as opposed to modern textbooks. In closing: Tablets are easier to use, Easier to distribute, More convenient and lighter than a textbook so it will be easier carrying it around. It's better than to flip through tons of pages just to get where you need to be. Plus as I said in point A, More and more technology is playing a big part in society and we must adapt to them. I am now done with my response. Thank you.
Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Are you actually trying to be serious in the last round of this kind of debate that you made? Of which you had even disclosed as a joke? Well then, in any case, I will simply refer back to my 1st argument in relation to my 2nd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will refer back to my preliminary arguments. To determine who and who is not an intellectual is an abstract range of possibilities and impossibilities. For instance, one person might determine a child with down syndrome who paints art as beautifully as Van Gogh as an intellectual. I will now provide a counter to all of your rebuttals relative to my previous arguments. 1. Do I have no proof that the average intellectual would find this joke amusing? If I consider myself an intellectual, and I find the joke arguably amusing, then I do in fact have proof. "Dirty" humor is open for debate, it is irrelevant whether you consider it as such or not. My argument earlier was that they perceive the "id" as sexual motivations similar to a perverted dog. 2. "...they still can't snipe n00bs on Call of Duty like I can", well that leaves an open debate of whether or not you are good at sniping at all depending on how many kills you receive. I have not seen you snipe, so I have no idea of how you do so, but I can still refute it. Again, if I refer back to my definition of an intellectual, and say that a certain COD player, who snipes "like"(as in they receive a similar kdr average while using this method) how you snipe is an intellectual, then there actually are intellectuals who can, contrary to your notion. 3. It is irrelevant to consider if most "intellectuals" deemed the joke offensive or not as you cannot discern whether that is actually true or false. 4. Even if you rely on anecdotes that can be deemed as evidence, I tend to rely on hypothetical evidence, of which is arguably more accurate since I am using logic to refute your claims rather than relying on experiences that may be true or false because "we", as in the online community, does not know if those claims are actually true. Voters, I will not tell you who to vote for because it is up to you to decide who is the most "convincing" among other criteria on the voting panel. Really though, I would deem most of his arguments as buffoonery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had wished that you would have continued to amuse me in terms of how you were arguing, but this debate had easily become boring with the direction you took in round 3.