BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atriox vs Master Chief

While being pulled in by Atriox's gravity mace, he could easily grab ahold of his armor and get behind him to plant a frag or plasma grenade into Atriox's his back, possibly killing them both or just Atriox. Chief could also use the plasma grenade suicide tactic he used in the Halo 3 Believe trailer if he is caught by Atriox in close range. The grenade would likely kill both of them and would end in a tie. Since we don't know the exact range of Gravity mace's pull effect, Chief could make some distance between him and Atriox and take Atriox out from long range. All he would need to do is take down his shields and land a few headshots and the fight would be over. A well placed frag grenade followed by a few headshot bursts from a Battle Rifle from a longer range would also be enough to take Atriox down. It is important to note that the enraged Brutes that ran quickly in Halo 2 were very lightly armored. However, Atriox has a massive suit of armor that could almost double his weight. At medium range, it is quite likely that Chief would recognize the threat at close and medium ranges and he would quickly make some distance to fire at Atriox at a longer range. Chief has the advantages of speed and range in a fight, which are two very crucial advantages in a one on one fight. If Atriox cannot even get within the range of Chief for his weapons to do any real damage, his strength, intelligence and experience do not matter.
Atriox vs Master Chief

If Atriox is very intelligent, then why is it that he could not successfully use his CAS-class Assault Carrier to eliminate the outdated, outgunned AND unshielded UNSC Spirit of Fire? Why did he not order the Assault Carrier to engage the Spirit of Fire as soon as it entered the Ark system? He had multiple chances to wipe out the Spirit of Fire and its crew, but instead he chose not to and he lost the most powerful ship in his fleet. Perhaps the AI Isabelle's depiction of Atriox is not the most reliable. She may not be the most stable AI in the first place. As seen in Halo Wars 2, she displays the same kinds of emotions Cortana did during her rampancy. Yes, Master Chief could have died to a single flood infection form, but he has also killed many, many other flood infection forms throughout the Halo series without anything similar happening. It is important to note that Atriox did catch Red Team by surprise. I am certain that if they had gone against each other under different circumstances, Red Team would definitely put up a better fight against Atriox. Now let's say Master Chief and Atriox are going up against each other in a battlefield with no interference from allied forces. Chief would easily have the advantage of speed due to the fact that he is smaller and weighs less than Atriox, who is at least 9 feet tall and weighs at least 3,000 pounds in his armor. Assuming Chief is armed with his standard weapons like the Battle Rifle and Assault rifle, he would also have a range advantage because Atriox uses a melee weapon. https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org...
Atriox vs Master Chief

I apologize for this inconvenience, but I am having issues with using the PC version and signing in with that platform. I will sadly not be able to post my evidence of my claims until I can accurately resolve it. Seeing as how Spartan Jerome was still able to defeat dozens of elites and Brutes as he did after his encounter with atriox shows he is still lethal. Though master chief actually seemed to struggle against Spartan Locke in the cutscene fight of halo 5, Spartan Locke even broke master chiefs visor. And yet again, this is to the hands of an inferior Spartan IV. What makes Atriox different from brute warlords is that he is extremely intelligent, AND strong. Most brutes we have ever encountered have always been strong, but not very smart. If the brutes had the intelligence and tactical strategies of what even an elite had, they would be much more deadly. Atrioxs armor is consisted even of part mjolnir. Atriox too has even killed a Spartan according to the Phoenix logs of halo wars 2. Though master chief might be the most lethal Spartan II, he is still neither the strongest, smartest, or the fastest. This is according to the Halo Fall Of Reach book. Atrioxs intellectual capabilities has had him able to research an abundance of incredible advancements to his armor mixed with his strength. You have stated that master chief has taken on thousands of covenant and flood on his own. Though The covenant had two targets during the war with the humans. They almost got the humans. But Atriox, they didn't come close. The whole entire covenant could not stop him at the HEIGHT of their empire. To go even further, Master chief on multiple occasions has nearly died to things that are not exactly the most expectant to somebody like him. To give you an example, In the book of "The Flood" if it were not for Cortana, Master chief would have actually died to a single flood infection form. The form basically charged at chief and grabbed a hold of his neck, and punching a hole into his undersuit. He had only survived because of Cortana being able to short circuit the suit and electrocute and kill the form. We could talk about chief being superior to 3 veteran Spartan IIs, but you still have to keep in mind that Atriox demolished those 3 with no effort almost whatsoever. He could easily have killed them all. And if Atriox gave 100% effort Master Chief would be on the ground before he even realizes it. Yet Atriox would likely not even have to
Atriox vs Master Chief

I'd like to start off by explaining how Atriox's victory over Red Team is not an accurate comparison to how a battle with Chief would go. Red Team as of 2559 is composed of Jerome-092, Douglas-042, Alice-130. A thing all three of these Spartans have in common is that they were all washouts of the original program due to their bodies rejecting their augmentations. All three later had to be retrained and placed in Red Team. Red Team isn't exactly composed of the highest-grade Spartan-IIs. Since Red Team was in cryo-sleep since 2531, they have not received the same level of combat experience over the years as other Spartan-IIs, such as the Master Chief have. It is also important to note that Red Team in Halo Wars 2 still uses the Mark IV Spartan armor, which is outdated and not as good as Chief's more modern Mark VI Spartan armor. Chief had far more experience than all of Red Team combined. Since he wasn't stuck in cryo-sleep for nearly 30 years, Chief has been able to fight in many battles and has received much more tactical and combat experience than Red Team has. For example, while alone, he was able to fight through entire hundreds, perhaps even thousands of Covenant soldiers to kill the Prophet of Regret, who was guarded by the most elite Sangheili honor guards in the covenant, with only his fists. While alone with barely any communication with other humans, Chief was also able to fight through thousands of flood forms, Covenant soldiers and forerunner sentinels on Installation 04. This is something all 3 members of Red Team wouldn't be capable of, as seen in Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2 gameplay, since they do not yet have the same level of experience as the Chief. Chief also has the highest lethality ratings of all Spartan IIs. I believe that it is safe to say that Chief could mop the floor with Red Team, similar to how Atriox did in Halo Wars 2. Chief has successfully killed at least dozen Brute Chieftans in Halo 3. What makes Atriox any different than those chieftans? Sources: https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org... https://www.halopedia.org...
The U.S. should tax consumption, not income

Thank you for posting this debate, may the best arguments win. Before I begin here are some definitions: Tax :a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. Consumption: the using up of goods and services having an exchangeable value. Income: the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments. Argument 1: The movement away from taxing income will increase the incentive to work and subsequently increase GDP Argument 2: The movement towards taxing of consumption will create and incentive to move away from consumption and towards savings, the increase in saving will act as a cushion for people when times become rough. Since savings will usually be in a bank, the saving translates to loans and an increase in investments and capital Argument 3: This would be a more passive way of collection taxes which would allow the government to spend less on the IRS since they would only need to collect the taxes from business and not every individual. Evidence for Argument 1: When a tax is created an incentive to avoid the taxed activity is also created. If tax on income was a 100% than no one would work. Whenever marginal tax is cut than the amount of work done is increased. Between 1963 and 1965 their were marginal tax cuts across all tax bracket which increased revenue from the top 5% because as they worked more they were able to keep more of their earnings. in 1981 and 1986 the top 5% of the tax bracket got a major marginal cut from 70% to 33%. This caused the US economy from being sluggish in the 70's to energetic. Evidence for Argument 2: When the income tax is shifted to consumption it creates incentives to consume less. When people spend less they'll save more and invest more since they'll be taxed less in these areas. Most people will save in a bank in order to counter inflation. These saving would also double as a safety cushion if a persons job is lost making hard times more bearable. Since the supply of savings will increase the interest rates in the loadable funds market will fall making it easier for people to barrow for investments in machinery, Factories, Offices and for some people College as an investment in Human Capital. Evidence for Argument 3: When a tax is placed on income the IRS has to monitor the large amount of tax paying citizen which in 2004 amounted to 131,113,969 based on the tax returns which is much larger than the amount of companies selling to the US market even if you include Mom and Pop shops as well as online businesses which would make the taxed entities easier to monitor and collect from. I couldn't find statistics on the amount of businesses who sold to the US market but it seems logical to think that their are less businesses selling to people in the US than people supplying income taxes to the US Government. Thanks for posting this debate, I look forward to the response. http://www.taxfoundation.org... http://rhsweb.org... http://www.dictionary.com...
The U.S. should tax consumption, not income

Hello, I will give some background information about this debate and why I chose this topic. First I'm am a middle school debate student who is to lazy to write the other side of my case and I need to test my just written case. I know you don't need to tell me I'm not doing the work for you. I just need to test one case and while were debating I would like to construct another case. It would be nice if my opponent would post there opening argument in this format 1.argument # 1 2.argument # 2 3.argument # 3 1. evidence supporting argument 1 2. evidence supporting argument 2 3. evidence supporting argument 3
Creationism and Evolution: Is there really a difference

First off, you have only stated what Pope Francis has said, without really any explanation behind it except... "Well he said it, so therefore it must be true." We are here to discuss if Creationism and Evolution have a difference. Pope Francis hasn't proved that Creationism and Evolution are the same but only stating his opinion trying to combine them. Combining them is completely different. Because lets look back at what these too sides state. Evolution/The Big Bang suggests life began by chemical reactions and a rapid explosion which put life in existence millions and billions of years ago and life has evolved over time. (No source has a correct date or time.) While creationism believes that the earth was created by a divine creator that spent 6 days creating the heavens and the earth and that the earth has only been around a couple of thousands of years. Voter, consider the resolution here. Creationism and Evolution: Is there really a difference? Of course, they were created to be two significantly opposing reasons why the earth was created and that is what we are here to debate not a man who decides he is going to combine the two. Consider this for the rest of the debate: DIFFERENCE: "a point or way in which people or things are not the same." Are these the two concepts the same? No, by definition and by belief. I ask that my opponent leaves his own beliefs to himself and keep them especially out of this debate since we are only here to find a difference between these 2 different reasons why the universe as we know it is created. So saying things like "Portrayers of outdated religion." I shouldn't be seeing in this debate as it just leads to a whole other debate. Source(s): http://www.differencebetween.net... http://www.differencebetween.com...
Creationism and Evolution: Is there really a difference

! For my first counter argument I would like to quote Pope Francis as saying, "The idea of evolution does not contradict the creative intervention of God, it requires it. " In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius' statement. I got this information from USA Today, here's the link . http://www.usatoday.com... Those who interpret the bible, especially genesis, are portrayers of outdated religion. The Catholic church has taken major steps towards the scientific community. Also let's try to stay away from Wikipedia, since that is not a credible source.
Creationism and Evolution: Is there really a difference

I will be arguing that there is a clear difference between Creationism and Evolution. First lets get the definitions, since my opponent has not provided any. Creationism: "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. " Evolution: " a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time" Difference: "a point or way in which people or things are not the same. " Now, the difference between Creationism and Evolution is simple, I won't use my religious preferences in my debate but simply show to you and the voter that there is a difference. Creationism believes that there is a God/Divine creator that created the world which we live on. The merriam webster dictionary even defined it as "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect. " Even thou there is more then one type of creationism and one type of evolutionist. They still have their differences. Creationism says that the earth was created in 6 days by a Creator and the earth has been for thousands of years. While evolution suggests that the earth has been around for 4.54 Billion Years and that life began from random chemical reactions. Source(s) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

Ave.Point of ClarificationI'm sorry if I didn't articulate myself clearly in the latest round. I did agree that a maximally great being cannot do the logically impossible. However, I put forward the idea that while humans cannot think of a logical way of doing something, it does not mean that a logical way of doing that action does not exist. Using that idea, I tried to show that a maximally great being could add to his greatness in a logical way, even if we can't think of a way for that to be logical. Pro, in his last round, seemed to have the impression that I was arguing a maximally great being could do the logically impossible. That wasn't the position I attempted to defend in the latest round.Other than this correction, I have nothing left to say for the debate. This debate is too short to give a general summary on, and I don't want to bring up new arguments or rebuttals in the very last round, as it's rude.I want to congratulate Pro for a very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Personal communication between the two us supports the idea that this was a new and original take on the ontological argument. I hope that anyone who reads this shares the same feeling.With that, I leave everything in the hands of the voters.Vale.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

I got a little ahead of myself last round, forgetting that we still had another round. Anyway, off we go.Supporting premise two:The problem with the analogy regarding boxes and a Maximally-Great Being is that a box is a contingent entity, and God (as defined in the Ontological Argument) is a Maximally-Great Being, a Necessary Entity. The analogy was merely meant to show that it is not true that we can always add to a quantity. A box that can only hold 12 rubber balls can not have any added to it. And if God is a Maximally-Great Being (that is, a Being that has all great-making properties to their maximal extent), then no more of any "quantity" of the property can be added to God. That would be a logical impossibility.Con says he accepts that an Omnipotent Being can't be expected to do the logically impossible, but then in his very next paragraph he says that God (a Maximally-Great Being) should be able to logically think of a way to do the logically impossible. But this doesn't follow: if an act is logically impossible, then there is no logical way to do it, even from an Omnipotent Being (which Con even accepted is a Being that can't do the logically impossible). So if a square circle is logically incoherent (meaning that it is an impossible entity, or an entity that exists in no possible worlds), then there is no way for God to create one. This is not a limitation on his power, it is simply because they can't exist.Conclusion:I have supported the Ontological Argument against Con's counter-argument. The argument is logically valid, and sound as long as there is the metaphysical possibility of God's existence. Since God's existence is not impossible (in other words, God's existence is not logically incoherent), then it is possible for God to exist. If it is possible for God to exist, then since he is a Necessary Entity, he exists in all possible worlds, including this one (the actual world). Con's argument has not succeeded in showing God's existence logically impossible.Thank you for reading, and thank you to Con for his arguments.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

Ave.Premise TwoImagine the box that holds twelve balls. Now imagine a box that could hold thirteen balls. Clearly, the box that can hold thirteen balls is greater than the box that can hold twelve balls. We could keep thinking up boxes with larger capacities, and more greatness, ad infinitum. Why would this thought experiment change when we start dealing with beings rather than boxes?I don't expect the maximally great being to be capable of doing things that are not logically possible. As many advocates for the ontological argument have pointed out, omnipotence is not the ability to do anything. It is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. From this, Pro argues that a maximally great being that could not be greater is not limited, because it is simply a logically coherent limitation.I think that Pro makes an assumption here. The fact that we have no answers in principle does not mean we have no answers in practice. If a maximally great being cannot be greater, then logically, how could we add any more greatness to him? This is only a limitation on human understanding. If the maximally great being is maximally great, then surely it must know a logical way to become greater even though it is already maximally great. Humans may not know of any way for this to be possible, but this does not mean there is no logical way to do it.My point here is that while we cannot think of becoming greater when you are maximally great, it does not mean that such a thing is logically impossible. It only means that we lack the nessecary epistemic position to think of such a thing. Pro assumes that because humans cannot think of this as being logically possible, it must not be logically possible for a maximally great being. This assumption requires justification, or else his rebuttal cannot stand.Furthermore, my argument is not based on the idea that all limitations are lesser-making. For my argument to work, only the limitation of not being able to add to your greatness must be lesser-making. It's possible to think of limitations that are not lesser-making, and Pro shows that quite well. Despite Pro's skill in that area, he does not actually prove my argument wrong. I only need one case of limitation being equal to a lesser-making property. I don't need to prove that all limitations are lesser-making.Vale.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

I wish to thank Con for his rebuttal and for keeping me on my toes, as this is an objection I have not yet encountered.Since premise two is the crucial premise, that will be the premise I interact with here in my rebuttal.Premise 2 -- You can always add to a quantity.To reiterate, my analogy shows that you can't always add a quantity to something. If a box can only hold twelve rubber balls, once you fill the box to capacity you can't add any more boxes. In the same way, God has the maximal quantity of every great-making property, so that he can't have any more of that property added to him.Now, Con argues that it's a false analogy because as only being able to hold 12 rubber balls is a limitation on the box, so not being able to hold more of any quantity is a limitation on God. A limitation is a lesser-making property, God can't have any lesser-making properties, therefore God can't exist.However, I would argue that a limitation, in and of itself, is not a lesser-making property. For example, by virtue of the fact that God is a maximally-great being, he already has limitations. God is all-good, so he can't do anything that goes against his nature (e.g. God can't lie, be tempted by evil, etc.). He is also omnipotent, which means almighty in power. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible, so God can't create a square circle, a stone so heavy he can't lift it, etc.A limitation is not a lesser-making property in the way that I used it in my analogy. If God's power were limited (e.g. if God couldn't do absolutely anything that was logically coherent, such as create the universe), then God would not be God, because he would not be omnipotent. He would not have power to its maximal extent. But God, as defined in the Ontological Argument, is omnipotent.So in this respect, a limitation is simply stating another logically incoherent quality that God cannot have -- namely, since he has all great-making properties to their maximal extent, he can't have anything added to him. This is not a lesser-making limitation, this is simply a logically coherent limitation.ConclusionI have shown that the Ontological Argument is a logically valid and sound argument for God's existence. It follows necessarily by the rules of modal logic. The only way to disprove the Ontological Argument is to show that God's existence is not merely improbable, but impossible. Con has not succeeded in doing that, so the Ontological Argument succeeds as a sound argument for God's existence.I look forward to Con's final rebuttal.