BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

i apologize for not sticking to the rules and although slightly, i had a thought that they may be equal on a battle field. you say Thrawl has more experience and that may be true, but the point still remains that Ender's mental state and personality means that he will come at you with the full strength of whatever he has at his disposal. in one of my previous arguments, I mentioned that he "blitzed" one of the games at battle school. I will now explain what I meant by that. Ender walked into a room, watched a game once, played by one of the "experienced members of the game and then, with great courage, challenged the ring leader of the group to a game. He lost his first match, of course, who is great the first time they play a game. but the thing that gets to me is that on his second go, he turns around and says "of course you beat me on my first time, it's not a real win if you cant beat me a second go". it is this give all, take less attitude that made me accept this debate on Ender Wiggins behalf, needless to say he then thrashed the boy on his second go. my next point carries on from my previous paragraph. Only the best of the best get selected for battle school, and Ender was accepted into said school as a genius. The fact that among so much talent, seven year old Ender was singled out as a genius in a school filled with military excellence, is pretty amazing. i have thoroughly enjoyed this debate so please challenge me mentally again next round Matt Muray
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

This has been a good debate, and once again I think you have made good points. However, I do not think Jane should be used, as it would count as outside interference, and I describe the match as only allowing 5 Star destroyers, 500 star fighters, and 1 little doctor each at the beginning of the match, and if we start pulling out other advantages, then I could use Master C'baoth, who has the ability to perfectly control Thrawn's army, uniting them in something similar to a bugger hive mind, on top of other force abilities, which could theoritically be used to counter Jane. If I can introduce him, I think it would be fair for you to use Jane. and so Jane would count as outside interference, rendering her irrelevant. When I say Thrawn experienced it as a failure, I mean that he already beat several other species without genociding them. As well, I believe Ender's super human understanding of his opponents is countered by Grand Admiral Thrawn's Art Analysis, allowing him at one point in book 3, the last command, to defeat a entire planet using smoke and mirrors and their own psychology. This of course, is just a example of one his impressive feats. He does this without the psychological damage, as opposed to Ender, who is psychologically ruined by his abilities. As well, yes, Ender experienced it as a failure, and it gave him a guilt complex, which is another example of his deep psychological scarring, which I think may also hinder him.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

oh I am really looking forward to the rest of this debate... Ender's mental scars and mental issues are the reason he is able to understand his opponents, not just on a skin deep level but on a level that allows the hive queens and the buggers to pull an entity from outside of all known universes and link it with his mind. this entity is called Jane. May I point out that jane, one of Ender's best friends, has the ability to move objects inside of this second dimension she was made in, and move them back to any spot in the current universe. By the way, this happens instantaneously. Jane is created at the end of book one but we only learn what she is in the second book, speaker for the dead. with this ability, Ender could avoid your gunfire and little doctor by just leaving the universe and opening fire from any point in space he chooses. you say that thrawn experienced genocide as a failure, as if Ender didn't. His guilt was so large in his mind, that he carried the last remaining hive queen over several galaxies and as a result, the hive queens and buggers now have their own planet and have a new species, the pequinos, as allies. this race has the ability to create any instruments or tools necessary to help the bugger workers build as many ships and weapons as possible. the buggers also have the ability of a hive mind, so with one bugger on each ship and a hive queen in contact with ender there would be instantaneous transmission of information, with his allies, Ender would be far superior to Thrawn on that level well done for giving me a challenging first debate Matt murray
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

You may use all the books, I was just running out of room for the title. Good arguments, however I insist that Grand Admiral Thrawn is superior, because Ender has too many psychological scars and issues to command with his maxium potential. Thrawn also destroyed a entire race, but guess what? That was a failure for him, as he had a record of never needing to commit genocide to win. Normally he could fight and conquer entire planets without eradicating him. As well, Thrawn is older, and has more experience. He has had to struggle for his rank, as he was an alien in a speciest organization. Also, he has demonstrated the ability to formulate complex battle strategies simply from looking at their artwork, allowing him to completely understand their species psychology. "Thrawn believed that one could understand the psychological and tactical limitations of one's adversaries through the examination of their art, and thus exploit their weaknesses. This conviction was often proven correct since his vast knowledge and obsession with the analytical study of art resulted in almost infallible strategic victories over nearly every opponent Thrawn engaged." http://starwars.wikia.com...'raw'nuruodo
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

may I first start by saying thank you for posting such an interesting topic as I have just finished reading the Ender's game series. I would also like to ask if I could use every book in the series and not just the first book. I gladly accept your challenge I don't particularly know who Admiral yawn is but I'm sure that he is a great commander. but has he been, from birth, tested to see if he can join an extremely elite space training facility and program, did he, within his first few weeks absolutely blitz the games that trainees have been struggling with for years. Does he have an evil older brother that, again, from birth had been tormenting him to the point where his life motto is not to scare people off, but to hurt them so much that they would not even try to mess with him again. From the age of seven Ender was trained ruthlessly in a zero gravity space battle simulator where throughout the book he never drops below the top ten best players on the chart. he gets so good, that the chairmen give his own army several years before it is meant to happen. he then proceeded to graduate three or four years before it was due. I know that I have not actually put an argument forward that challenges Mitth'raw'nuruodo yet but this round was to put forward the sheer brilliance that is Ender Wiggin, and the battle strategies that allowed him to destroy an entire race before he even turned fifteen. I will eagerly await your challenge, and will have fun responding
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

This Debate is regarding who would win in a strategic fight, Grand Admiral Thrawn, or Ender Wiggin. Both have access to 5 star destroyers, 500 star fighters, and finally 1 Little Doctor. I will argue that Grand Admiral Thrawn would win, and my opponent argues the case for Ender Wiggin.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

he may have played into the battle schools hands but was the killing of the children before and during Battle school planned. he killed those children just because he saw danger, his state of mind is that if he sees danger he will come and hit you with everything he has until you can't stand up anymore. and finally my trump card. Ender went into the outside dimension and came back with a clone of himself. this clone was a form of ender as peter, he was created as Ender saw him as a child. since both forms are still technically Ender it would not count as outside interference. Ender saw peter as an evil child who staked squirrels to the ground and dissected them for fun. this sudden ruthlessness and Ender's sheer brilliance combined into one body is an unstoppable, efficient, killing machine who would have no choice but to destroy Thrawn before the threat got to to large of a scale. in conclusion I have no other choice but to insist that Ender would win on the fact that he is ruthless, commands loyalty and let's face it he is the demonstration of sheer brilliance. thank you for such a wonderful and challenging debate and i am really sad that it is over may the best 16 year old win
Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

Thank you for your points, Con. To respond:"Does pro think we shouldn't thank Veterans? I think its perfectly fine to thank a veteran for risking their life, leaving their home and family behind, to fight and some times die, for a noble cause. I'd say someone who has endured those things has done a great "service to their country"."I disagree. I don't believe that any cause is noble to fight and kill for. I am sure that veterans believed that they were doing the right thing at the time when they accepted the call to fight, but I still believe that the actions they took were wrong, and for that reason it wouldn't be morally or intellectually honest for me to thank them. "And are youth should be inspired by the sacrifice's are veteran's had to make, so that if one day if they are called to fight, they can answer the call."This is the crux of the issue for me. I think that instead of inspiring young people to take up the torch and fight, Remembrance Day should remind us all to reject war and see it for the evil that it is.Con also mentions that soldiers had no choice but to fight in WW1, as they would have been imprisoned had they not agreed to fight. Does Con believe that one soldier's freedom is worth another's life? The cost of waging war is always too high and by agreeing to fight, soldiers condemn other young people just like them to death just because they are on the wrong side of the war."Are you telling me that the allies declaring War on Germany wasn't honorable? Germany had invaded Poland and wanted to expand further, and was rounding up Jews, and gassing them by the tens of thousands and eventually millions. And the men who went off to fight and kill for their country ended up stopping a evil dictator from killing even more people, and liberated millions. How may i ask is that not honorable?"Yes, I am asserting that our allied soldiers fighting and killing German soldiers was not honourable.And not to put too fine a point on things, but Hitler wasn't directly responsible for rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews. The individual soldiers who carried out orders in what they may have believed to be the best interests of their country were. German soldiers who were young men just like our allies were roused into action and made to believe that the fight was an honourable one.Why should our Remembrance Day ceremonies and assemblies focus on thanking the men and women who fought and died for our country, while glossing over the deaths that they were responsible for? Remembrance Day should be about mourning all life taken by war, and warning today's youth not to fall prey to the warped idea that fighting in a war makes you a hero when in truth it just makes you a murderer, or a victim.Are you aware that Germany also has a day for remembrance? They call it Volkstrauertag, the National Day of Mourning. "It is an occasion not only to mourn the dead but also to illustrate the tragedy of war and speak out for peace." This is what I believe our Remembrance Day ceremonies should emulate.Source: http://www.timeanddate.com...
Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

I will be arguing that Remembrance Day, (which coincides with Veterans Day, and as its name suggests is about remembering those who have died in the line of duty [1]. ) Should be about remembering and honoring are veterans, rather then lamenting that war has happened, or simply trying to remind us that war is bad. " I support taking a little time out of our lives every year to remember the lives lost due to war. However, most Remembrance Day ceremonies go further by lauding the soldiers involved in the war for their "service to their country". The overall effect is usually inspiring and rousing to the young people who experience the display every year. " How are Veterans lauded on? I'd hardly call a school assembly, with a guest speaker "lauding". And yeah sure their are some processions but they are usually in capital city's, and not nation wide. Does pro think we shouldn't thank Veterans? I think its perfectly fine to thank a veteran for risking their life, leaving their home and family behind, to fight and some times die, for a noble cause. I'd say someone who has endured those things has done a great "service to their country". And are youth should be inspired by the sacrifice's are veteran's had to make, so that if one day if they are called to fight, they can answer the call. Like if they ever have to stop a man with a small mustache from taking over the world. .. "By continuing to perpetuate the idea that waging war to "defend your country" is an honorable sacrifice that youth should be proud of, we are just sending more young people to senseless deaths. " I agree that waging a senseless war of conquest is obviously wrong, and is nothing to be proud of. Like WWI for example where both side went to war for less then meaningful reasons. That being said you can't blame soldiers or veterans for those war's, they weren't the ones who started them. But they had to fight them or face imprisonment[2], so its not about taking away the glamor of war by not honoring veterans, so much as is it about telling governments to be more peaceful. And further more when a war is justified there is great honor in fighting for, and defending one's country. Take WW2 for example, are you telling me that the allies declaring War on Germany wasn't honorable? Germany had invaded Poland and wanted to expand further, and was rounding up Jews, and gassing them by the tens of thousands and eventually millions. And the men who went off to fight and kill for their country ended up stopping a evil dictator from killing even more people, and liberated millions. How may i ask is that not honorable? Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://uspolitics.about.com...
Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

Remembrance Day is coming up this Monday, so I would like to discuss my feelings on the holiday. I support taking a little time out of our lives every year to remember the lives lost due to war. However, most Remembrance Day ceremonies go further by lauding the soldiers involved in the war for their "service to their country". The overall effect is usually inspiring and rousing to the young people who experience the display every year. By continuing to perpetuate the idea that waging war to "defend your country" is an honorable sacrifice that youth should be proud of, we are just sending more young people to senseless deaths. I am a pacifist and abhor killing in any form. I believe that Remembrance Day celebration should focus on mourning the overall loss of life due to war, and serve as a reminder that peace cannot come from war. This year, I will be wearing a white poppy for peace, and I hope I will see more out there. I want to include a song written by Eric Bogle, which sums up my thoughts on this subject and finish with extending my thanks to whoever takes up this debate. Cheers! Well how do you do Private William McBride, Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside? And rest for awhile beneath the warm summer sun, I've been walking all day and now I'm nearly done I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen When you joined the glorious fallen in 1916; Well I hope you died quick and I hope you died clean, Or, young Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene? Did they beat the drum slowly, Did they play the fife lowly? Did they sound the Death March As they lowered you down? Did the band play "The Last Post And Chorus?" Did the pipes play "The Flowers Of The Forest?" Did you leave 'ere a wife or a sweetheart behind? In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined? And although you died back in 1916, In that faithful heart are you forever nineteen? Or are you a stranger without even a name, Enclosed forever behind a glass pane, In an old photograph, torn, and battered and stained, And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame? Ah the sun now it shines on these green fields of France, The warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance, And look how the sun shines from under the clouds; There's no gas, no barbed wire, there're no guns firing now. But here in this graveyard is still No Man's Land, The countless white crosses in mute witness stand To man's blind indifference to his fellow man, To a whole generation that was butchered and damned. Ah, young Willie McBride, I can't help wonder why, Did all those who lay here really know why they died? And did they believe when they answered the call, Did they really believe that this war would end war? For the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain, The killing and dying were all done in vain, For, young Willie McBride, it all happened again, And again and again and again and again.
God needs to stay in America.

Sure, I'll argue this one. First and foremost I need something to argue against but I guess I will make a couple of points on what you have said so far. "This Country was founded on God" >>How so, I would argue that it was founded on principle of breaking away from Britain? "By Religious people." >>By this I would suppose you to mean that our founding fathers were religious men. Well first off, prove this please. Secondly would you agree that most people at that time were religious and being so would be a precedent for being any type of accepted member in society? Thirdly, why must we be religious if our forefathers were? At one point our forefathers believed the earth was flat, at one point that the earth revolved around the sun. At one time our forefathers believed blacks should be slaves to whites. At one time they believed women lesser than men. To follow exactly in the footsteps of our forefathers would be to render society worthless. (Unless you consider that to be utopia....?) "God needs to stay in our Constitution" >>Why? What affect does god on our constitution have? Does it make us better people? Would we suddenly fall into anarchy without such? Are the laws of the United States obeyed because there is the word god in our constitution? Where is your argument based? "on our Money" >>Same as the last one. Would our money be worthless without the phrase "in god we trust". Furthermore on this one.... would god even want this? You are raising the most materialistic object in his name. What has caused more bank robberies, murders, and crimes in general than money itself. Should we have such associated with god? Is it his will to be on the currency? "in our schools" >>Hmmmm... Well... what god are you talking about? The phrase "in god we trust" infers we are trusting in the same god. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for multiple religions. How does this work under a multi-religion society. The U.S isn't just a small colony anymore, it has had massive immigration from literally everywhere. What happens to the buddhists, muslims, hindhus, universists, jews, athiests? I am assuming you are talking christian god, only about 33% of the population of the world hold that belief. What happens to the rest? Is it possible this will create strife in school? Gangs? Shootings? Is that what your god wants? "and in our lives" >>What if we don't believe in your god.....? This country was based on freedom wasn't it? It was created because of the injustities that were occurring from the british. Read the declaration of independence. Is forcing government control over a person's personal beliefs really just? Say in the future the majority of the population becomes buddhist. Would it be right for them to enforce their religion on you? Would you enjoy your children being taught buddhism in schools? Would you enjoy "in budda we believe" on our currency? In our constitution? Anyways give me advocacy here. And do you have a problem with the 2nd speech being a contention and the 3rd speech being strictly a rebuttal?