BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bobba Fett Is NOT a Badass

I accept that we can not throw out the inference of it. And am sorry for not realizing this before, now let us continue.P1: Bounty HunterWhile we can infer he caught a few, but we can not infer that he caught a lot, only a few enough to be called on by Darth Vader, and we cant even be sure he called upon them. What if he just posted up a flyer at a bar, and while Bobba was drinking his sorrows away he saw it and drunkinly drove there.We were TOLD Yoda lived his previous 900 years, and did train other Jedi. We were never told about how Bobba caught bounty's.P2: Last ResortsThere are two sides of a bounty, Life/Death you can bring them in alive and get MORE money or you Can kill them, take a photo and get LESS money. If Bobba Fett was a GOOD bounty hunter, he would capture them alive to get more money, instead of getting less since he cant do anything but fire a laser at someone.P3: Cloud CityFirst off I want to hear about this other contract that he was there for. Secondly if Han saw him as the biggest threat in the room, he'd have shot him first, not Vader. P4: Jabba's PalaceI'm sorry to sound like a dou*he but if you don't have the clip I cant take your word for it, And neither can the spectators of this debate. I would like to infer that when he fell in the Pitt, his horribly taken cared of armour/equipment would be crushed by the sarlac's teeth. For when Han Solo hit him just by turning around with a pole he flew off, hit the sand vehicle and fell in. That says that he doesn't take too much care in his equipment.C1: Bobba Fett is a walking arsenal.If your equipment is horribly taken cared of, why would this even matter?! If you're about to shoot a missile and it jams? That doesn't scream Bad-ss, that screams L0ser.Two, don't EVEN bring up a site for this, I am JUST going by this from the movies, if you have a clip from the movie that says he has a flamethrower on him, go ahead. Post it. C2: The Mandalorian armor is the definition of Bad-ss.As I said do not bring up any other sites. Only movies clips.C3: Slave IThat is, his "FATHER'S" that he got after he died. I agree JENGO Fett is a bad-ss but not Bobba. Bobba Fett is also just another CLONE he is an unaltered exact replica of his father, raised as a son. The same clones that also died by the hands of EWOKS ( I like the ewoks FWI I have nothing against them ) So all the clones are technically his brothers. And apparently all these apples fell TOO far from the tree.
Bobba Fett Is NOT a Badass

"Bounty Hunter"In all that we have seen in the movies Bobba Fett caught NO bounties. Like, if he is a bounty hunter, who did he catch? Last resorts.When Darth Vader set up some bounties hunters to catch Han, Leia, the Droids, and Luke He SPECIFICALLY pointed out Bobba and said "no disentegrations" ( http://www.youtube.com... ) This means that Bobba Fett is SO bad he has to go t the last resort every time he tries to hunt someone. Cloud CityWhen Bobba Fett found them HE called up Darth Vader and Darth Vader caught Han Solo ( http://www.youtube.com... sorry for horid quality only video I could find ) When Han entered the room he shot at Vader, the threat, not Bobba. Bobba just merely stood by him.Jabbas PalaceAll Bobba did was hang around and party, when it was time to defend Han and kill Luke all he did was to try to fight a horrible Jedi and get killed by a blind guy! His equipment is horribly defective, and a staff made him jet pack away and fall into the only sandpit hundreds of miles way from any other pit with a deadly monster in it. Then he dies. (I am aware that in the EXTENDED universe he gets out, but in the movie he dies and doesn't get out.)
Bobba Fett Is NOT a Badass

I am talking About the Bounty hunter, Bobba Fett from Starwars Movies only. No alternate universes. Round one: AcceptanceRound two: ArgumentRound three: RebuttalRound four: Closing StatementsCon will be arguing that Bobba Fett IS a Badass. Definition of Badass: a highly offensive term meaning tough, intimidating, or powerful.
Bobba Fett Is NOT a Badass

If I am correct, you stated we would be debating Boba Fett according to the movies. However, you didn't specify we couldn't use EU information. Then, you conceded that we must accept the EU in our debate, we just can't debate the Boba Fett of the EU (which we weren't. We were debating the Boba Fett of the movies). I accepted that. However, I see nothing wrong with using outside sources to show greater detail about the Boba Fett of the movies, and most of my points stood (if not all of them) without the support of the EU.As for the clone argument, it isn't really required for a Con victory. However, it does warrant one. You admitted someone was a bad-ss, and then stated that the very person you're trying to prove ISN'T a bad-ss is an exact clone of that person. Logically, your argument just doesn't make sense. Sorry.In ConclusionBoba Fett is a bad-ss because:He's a successful bounty hunter (P1)He's got a reputation (P2)He's street smart AND he's threatening (P3)He prevented a grenade from going off in Jabba's Palace! (P4)He owns practically every cool weapon imaginable. (C1)His armor is scary as all get out! (C2)His ship, as Pro conceded, is bad-ss. (C3)So yep. Boba Fett is a bad-ss, even just from the movies. I would like to point out that my opponent didn't argue at all in the final round, leaving my points from round 3 untouched.Vote Con, or else bad-ss Boba Fett gon' cut you.-------------------------------------------------------------------Not to opponent:Hey, I'm sorry if I frustrated you. I didn't mean to. I just argued the debate as it went, and how I saw it. I believed in my position, and I believe I showed it to be justified according to the confines of the round. I enjoyed this debate, not cause I felt I didn't totally fail, but because it was Star Wars and fun! I would like to do more of these. Maybe we can work something out sometime?For a fairly new debater, you're catching on very quick. Impressive work. :)Thanks for debating!
Prescriptive Grammar does more harm than good

To start, I shall attempt to make it clear what I mean by prescriptive grammar as opposed to other types. A prescriptive grammar is a set of rules detailing how someone (whoever made those rules) thinks a language should be used, whereas a descriptive grammar is simply a codification of how a language is actually used by its speakers. [1] In the context of this debate, descriptive grammar is an acceptable and less harmful alternative to prescriptive grammar; however, I should not be construed to be arguing expressly for it. My argument is comprised of two stages: First, that prescriptive grammar is largely unnecessary in modern times, and second, that it is harmful to children, and especially to minorities. These conditions (assuming I fulfill my burden in demonstrating them) should be sufficient to make the case that prescriptive grammar does more harm than good. R1 for definitions and such. Arguments in Round Two please. I await PoeJoe's acceptance! 1. . http://grammar.about.com...
the Earth is not 6000 years old (or similar estimates)

Thank you for accepting. I will start my listing some of the evidence that shows the age of the earth is older than the 6000 years(or so) that is claimed by those who argue for the young earth. I will separate it into points to make them easier to single out. 1. Ice cores: Ice cores drilled in places like Antarctica and Greenland show layers of Ice and snow going back at points between 100,000 to 750,000 years. This is 125 times longer than the 6000 year model that is supported by many prominent young earth supporters. 2: Distant Light: Modern astronomers are able to see light from objects, such as distant galaxies, up to 13 billion light years away( galaxy MACS0647-JD). In a model with a creation time of ~6000 years, this light cannot exist, as the universe would not of had time for the light to travel even a fraction of the distance.) 3: Nuclides: Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a set rate. Scientists have found that Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth, while all Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. This also points to an Earth that formed over 6000 years ago. See (3) for a list of Nuclides) 4: coral reefs: Coral reefs grow incredibly slowly, at a rate of a few centimeters every century. Some coral reefs are estimated at ages of over 50 million years. most are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old. Again, these ages defy the timelines of Young-Earth supporters. I hope that I have given my points in a decent manner. I have never been the best at articulating my thoughts. I hope that this first debate, and those following it, can be a learning experience. Again, thank you for joining in this debate with me. 1: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... 2: http://www.space.com... 3: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 4: http://coralreef.noaa.gov...
the Earth is not 6000 years old (or similar estimates)

So This is my first time debating on this website, and I though that this would be a fun topic. The main idea of this debate will be about the age of the earth. This will have nothing to do with religion, just scientific Evidence. I wanted to engage in this debate because of my fundamentalist christian background. I am no longer of the christian faith, but I do still love to entertain all theories on a purely subjective basis. This debate will not take into account any religious text, only scientific evidence. I would love to have a friendly debate with anyone who believes in the "young earth theory". We will go about the debate as follows. Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or Rebuttals Round 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALS Round 3) First Rebuttals - Further Arguments Round 4) Second Rebuttals - Final Arguments Round 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New Arguments (this is from the following debate, though it is very popular: http://goo.gl...) I hope to enjoy a friendly debate with anyone else that is interested. If I have made any errors please excuse them, as I am not familiar with debate(though I do enjoy watching them). Here are some definitions for the debate: Young Earth Creationism: The belief, arising from a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation, that the universe and living organisms were divinely created relatively recently and within a comparatively short period of time: old-earth creationism: A form of creationist belief that does not conflict with scientific evidence about the age of the earth: those who affirm old-earth creationism do not see an inherent conflict between scripture and evolutionary theory. citation for the definitions: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...
You are a male

Male: A person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.Female: A person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman. (For the purpose of other readers, these definitions have been modified so that they follow rule number 7) I shall post the rules since and what to do in each round since my opponent forgot to do so. Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - Rebuttals and ArgumentsRound 4 - Ending (Just say vote for con or vote for pro)No arguments shall be presented in this round because of an unfair advantage for me.Rules1. No trolling2. No profanity3. If someone forfeits a round, the opponent must say, “Arguments extended” 4. Any unnecessary videos at the end of this debate will be counted as a loss of conduct points 5. Arguments are not allowed in another language6. If any part of an argument is copied word for word or very close to it from another debate or Forum, that round will be counted as a forfeit7. Private body parts pertaining to the Male and Female will not be spoken about in his debate. No using Semantics to get around this rule. My opponent (Pro) must prove that I am a male. I (Con) must prove that I am a female.http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com... Although I have stated that this round was for acceptance only, my opponent forgot to post the rules, definitions, etc... so I did so in order to preserve a proper and clean debate.I thank my intelligent opponent for creating this debate and I hope that he will produce very well rounded arguments which I have no doubt he will do. I also thank the readers for taking their time to read this debate.
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

666. You're back-talking god by putting your sinful dick in his mouth. You just vomit out assertions with no proof to your claims. That's the only thing you have in common with god - you **** it up, instead of fixing it because you cannot accept that you're a **** up. Why do you think god is "up", it's because he's a **** up. Why do you think the devil is down? Because 1. The devil is actually god's wife, hence the "burning bush" and "going down" on god. Also females are down with just about anything, so that's why the devil is "down". God's world is backwards, it's supposed to be "lived", not "devil". Heaven is actually Nevaeh, an ancient term that has been modernized since called "nivious", which means blinded by the snow; snow means your emotions are frozen and death - god is emotionless and full of death. Wow, I know more about your god than you do! And I still do not read a book and assume my interpretation of it is at all correct! I feel sorry for you, cherry-picker. You have not learned the ways of saying your grace before playing with your food!
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

"It's your interpretation of his supposed word, therefore you are talking for this supposed god - stop back talking your god, sir! It's a very inadequate way of proving your holy endeavor! Do you want to treat your god like a cloud, sir? Do you want your cloud to be a puffy patch of fluffiness? I thought your god was violent and serious about life and holiness? Why do you treat god like a little girl treats poor ken! That poor ken doll! He doesn't want to wear a skirt damn it! That girl is so evil! Why are you so evil to this god when they supposedly make your life worth living to live by a book that is based on the death of trees and plants? Those poor trees! Why does god not like trees? First you have paper, then you have the forbidden trees and em' forbidden fruits, what's next!? Broccoli is no longer holy!? Is that why kids don't eat their broccoli? This god already spoke to them and said "if it's green, it's not pristine!" You commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem and nothing you said refuted my argument. I will refute yours now: 1. I'm not backing talking God, i'm only back-talking you 2. He is serious about life and holiness. Nothing you say makes sense "There is like this passage in the bible that says you should not wear silk, fur, something like that, but then later on it says the opposite - there's going to be contradictions because the book was written by regular men who believed to have connections with a god, like I believe to have connections with the Universe. Eye witness accounts probably were hyped up on mushrooms anyways, so it would be best to ignore them. The red eyes people saw weren't demons, it was random people on mushies entering their home thinking it's god's palace! Mushies are so powerful, even Mario shows what they can do! Why does your god prefer mushrooms over trees! I don't understand! Wait, I think I get it... Trees don't glow, but mushrooms do! Does god live in mushrooms? Does he make faeries pregnant? Please tell me more about your cherry-picking adventures, Adam! I'm calling you Adam because you always talk for him, so I suspect that you're actually Adam from another past life, right?" You did not prove verses or sources to support your claims.
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

It's your interpretation of his supposed word, therefore you are talking for this supposed god - stop back talking your god, sir! It's a very inadequate way of proving your holy endeavor! Do you want to treat your god like a cloud, sir? Do you want your cloud to be a puffy patch of fluffiness? I thought your god was violent and serious about life and holiness? Why do you treat god like a little girl treats poor ken! That poor ken doll! He doesn't want to wear a skirt damn it! That girl is so evil! Why are you so evil to this god when they supposedly make your life worth living to live by a book that is based on the death of trees and plants? Those poor trees! Why does god not like trees? First you have paper, then you have the forbidden trees and em' forbidden fruits, what's next!? Broccoli is no longer holy!? Is that why kids don't eat their broccoli? This god already spoke to them and said "if it's green, it's not pristine!". There is like this passage in the bible that says you should not wear silk, fur, something like that, but then later on it says the opposite - there's going to be contradictions because the book was written by regular men who believed to have connections with a god, like I believe to have connections with the Universe. Eye witness accounts probably were hyped up on mushrooms anyways, so it would be best to ignore them. The red eyes people saw weren't demons, it was random people on mushies entering their home thinking it's god's palace! Mushies are so powerful, even Mario shows what they can do! Why does your god prefer mushrooms over trees! I don't understand! Wait, I think I get it... Trees don't glow, but mushrooms do! Does god live in mushrooms? Does he make faeries pregnant? Please tell me more about your cherry-picking adventures, Adam! I'm calling you Adam because you always talk for him, so I suspect that you're actually Adam from another past life, right?
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

you failed to respond to these verses, nevertheless i will refute your claims: "For people that believe in this so called god, you don't seem to care how much you butcher his supposed writing with your premature interpretation that you purposely butcher to support your own butchered idea of reality." I simply pointed out observations in Scripture on historical and theological context. You did not prove that i butchered his Word. "What part of you does not comprehend "the bible is not a straight answer; it's a body of wisdom that changes like water throughout its passages, like water; IT'S THE ARTIFACT OF CHERRY-PICKING - HAVING FACT IN ARTIFACT DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT, BUT IT IS INDEED AN ART." You have not shown how it changes. In fact, biblical hermeuntics helps us figure out what the authors originally said (1). If i am cherry-picking then please point out a Scripture to prove your claim. You presented no evidence for your claims, therefore they are baseless. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

For people that believe in this so called god, you don't seem to care how much you butcher his supposed writing with your premature interpretation that you purposely butcher to support your own butchered idea of reality. What part of you does not comprehend "the bible is not a straight answer; it's a body of wisdom that changes like water throughout its passages, like water; IT'S THE ARTIFACT OF CHERRY-PICKING - HAVING FACT IN ARTIFACT DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT, BUT IT IS INDEED AN ART." Thus I say you cannot argue a multi-faceted tool! This is called turning the bible into monkey poo! Do you want to turn the bible into monkey poo? Then I highly suggest you to stop trying to pick pieces out of the bible like monkeys pick poo out of their butt holes!
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

The bible strictly wants you to follow god, only god - if it isn't god, you're a sod. Considering that the zealots that follow the bible word by word would murder you and your heretic mate, I'd say with certainty that there's a reason why this book lead them to believe what they believed. You can pick and choose parts of the book that argue your position, but keep in mind that the entire bible is designed for cherry-picking, hence why the ideas it said before are contradicted by later ideas. It's just an allegorical phantasmagoria of wisdom that supersedes itself at times. Hence why if you look at the 10 commandments, you can tell that they were running out of commandments, so they just said something they already said slightly differently.
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

I have already proven it in another way. There are extremists. These extremists follow the book word for word. The extremists will burn non-faithful people based on the OT. There in lies the contrast you fail to understand. If the book did not contain as you say, the extremists would be on your side, no? I have managed to argue your book without using the book by using a more powerful system of analysis: process elimination. Understand the extremist - understand the book. I'm not a bible reader, but even I can see how unhealthy it is to keep making pointless arguments based off of it by cherry-picking passages in the book. If you have nothing worthy of arguing, then stay stupid. There's no reason for you to ruin a perfectly allegorical literature by forcing people to skip pages just to appease your blood vessels. Nobody cares about your fruitless speculations - the extremists will tell anyone who wants to know the bible word by word as is - you are destroying a work of art by turning it into a toy for your own inner monkey's amusement. It's sad that someone who does not take the bible seriously as you do can preserve the artistic value far more than you could ever hope for.
Being in a relationship with a non-Christian is not a sin

aha, i almost want to laugh at your emotional remarks. anyways what you just said made no sense and failed to support your position that being in a relationship with a non-Christian is a sin. None of what you said is supported by Scripture or by any evidence in history. "Wow, I know more about your god than you do! And I still do not read a book and assume my interpretation of it is at all correct! I feel sorry for you, cherry-picker. You have not learned the ways of saying your grace before playing with your food!" Well by the way your responding, it doesn't look like it. Like i said, you have not proven it by quoting one Scripture that goes against what i said.
Situational ethics is superior to absolute ethics

Introduction When I refer to absolute ethics as opposed to situational ethics, I'm referring to the code of ethics given to us by nature. The only way to judge if situational or absolute ethics were superior would be to apply the absolute ethics that is inherent in all of us. My opponent even justifies situational ethics with the use of the unconscious code of ethics he isn't even aware he is using. What is Absolute Ethics This is ethics based on some sort of absolute rule or rules. My opponent without even realizing it is promoting absolute ethics. He is using absolute rules to show that certain situations in regards to ethics are different. It seems the absolute rules he is using is; Do the action that results in the least amount of harm. Summary My opponent has the burden of proof to show situational ethics are superior to absolute ethics. In order for my opponent to do this he needs to first show that situational ethics is even possible. Him using moral and ethical absolutes to prove situational ethics is useless and contradictory in nature.