BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The destruction of Alderaan was justified

PrefaceIn honor the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, this a debate on one of the pivotal moments in the series history: the destruction of Alderaan. In order to accept this debate, you must have completed 25 debates.Resolution and BOPThe resolution for the debate is "The destruction of Alderaan was justified". The burden of proof in this debate is split - that means that Pro (myself) must establish that the destruction of Alderaan was justified, and Con must establish that it was not justified.Series canonFor the purposes of this debate, only the original trilogy (Episodes IV, V, and VI) and prequel trilogy (Episodes I, II, and II) are considered as canon. Other Star Wars sources (like the Clone Wars mvie, Episode VII, the Expanded Universe, or the Legends series) are not acceptable sources.VotingVoting will use the 'select winner' system. A minimum of 2,500 ELO is required to vote. Voting standards for this debate are the new 'opt-in' standards (https://docs.google.com...). By accepting this debate, Con agrees to the use of this standard, and that these standards are in place for all votes. Rules1. No forfeiture. 2. No plaragism.3. All citations must be presented in the text of the debate.4. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.Structure R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals/Closing statements
Quote debate

Im sorry for my late response. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. " Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003 US author & screenwriter (1942 - 2008) "George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall coming down is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise." Al Gore - during 1992 Vice Presidential debate "Get this economic plan passed. Later on, we can all debate it." President George Bush, to New Hampshire legislators Thank you for this debate
Quote debate

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." Charles De Gaulle French general & politician (1890 - 1970) "Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book." Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004) "The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites' ". Larry Hardiman
Quote debate

I thank you for accepting "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. " Albert Einstein US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955) "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. " Elbert Hubbard US author (1856 - 1915) "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." Bertrand Russell
Quote debate

hello sounds fun... good luck At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote. -emo philips The test for whether or not you can hold a job should not be the arrangement of your chromosomes. -Bella Abzug There's always somebody who is paid too much, and taxed too little - and it's always somebody else. - Cullen Hightower
Quote debate

Well Here's how this will work. Each round you may post up to 3 quotes and the person with the better quotes win. "Good writers borrow from other writers, great writers steal outright" The West Wing "These are, as I began, cumbersome ways To kill a man. Simpler, direct, and much more neat Is to see that he lives somewhere in the middle Of the twentieth century, and leave him there." Edward Brock, 5 ways to kill a man "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace." Thomas Mann German writer (1875 - 1955)
Mermaids

What is this evidence you claim to have? Why didn't you link it in your first argument? Your main reference is a documentary produced by Animal Planet for entertainment purposes. Animal Planet aired a disclaimer saying the "documentary" was a work of science fiction. As in the whole government cover-up, the supposed "found" footage, the news broadcasts and the "expert" interviews were all staged for entertainment purposes. The truth isn't an opinion, the "documentary" is simply not true, and was created for entertainment purposes. I don't know how much I can stress that. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to prove mermaids are real or even bring up any specific evidence apart from a staged TV show meant to entertain, not prove that mermaids are real. As this was his main source apart from vague references to "evidence" which he did not specifically point out, it is safe to assume that for the purposes of this debate and the world in general, we have yet to come across any solid, indisputable evidence that mermaids exist, so for now they are presumed not to.
Mermaids

if you watched the Animal planet mermaids are real segment you would have discovered multiple videos and pictures of proof. They also revealed specific facts the goverment was hiding about are new discoveries. They were even giving a million dollar reward to someone who had the most convincing evidence of mermaids in isareal, because many people have spotted mermaids but didnt have evidence .....heres some videos that were caught on camera http://animal.discovery.com... ....
School should prepare you for life, not tests.

"The real world, where you won't get second chances to correctly learn and show proficiency in these skills." The skills my opponent mentioned (laundry, for example), are very basic and I don't think you need to be "proficient" in them to be successful in the real world. Of course you get second chances! Messed up, try again! You tried cooking food, but it tasted bad? You can try again, I don't see the problem. "After these life skills are taught, then the student(s) can progress to "higher-order" skills, such as science, math, english, and other such things." As mentioned, the skills my opponent speaks of are generally learned at home, when the child is in elementary school. Schools do not need to spend time teaching kids how to clean when this is already taught at home. Even if the parents do NOT teach the child these things at home, they can be learned in 10 mins and practiced every time something needs to be cleaned. "I would also suggest that these life skills be reviewed from time to time, in tests that reflect the conditions of the real world." As I said above, these things would already be reviewed every time it comes up (for example, every time you need to do the laundry) and school does not need to spend time reviewing these skills. Also, why would there need to be test? Why would school test kids on how well they do laundry, clean the kitchen and cook? In conclusion, school is teaching what it should. A child's parents can easily teach the pupil how to clean and do laundry, but may not be able to teach a child biology, french, or calculus. An educational institution would be wasting its time if it taught these basic life skills. In fact, who would most likely be more successful? Someone who is good in biology but is clueless when it comes to doing his laundry? Or someone who is a pro at laundry but does not know the structure of a cell? This is a simplified exaggeration, but it is obvious that the person more educated in "higher-order" things would be more successful. This further supports my point that school should not be wasting its time teaching kids these basic things.
School should prepare you for life, not tests.

Thank you, Con. Granted, your points are extremely valid, but what I am trying to say is that school should at least begin with a foundation in these skills because when you "exit" the "sheltered" world of school, what will have to be confronted? The real world, where you won't get second chances to correctly learn and show proficiency in these skills. After these life skills are taught, then the student(s) can progress to "higher-order" skills, such as science, math, english, and other such things. I would also suggest that these life skills be reviewed from time to time, in tests that reflect the conditions of the real world. I await your response. Thank you.
School should prepare you for life, not tests.

"School should emphasize life skills, such as how to find a house, pay off mortgages, make payments on loans, and other such skills" These things can be taught/learned in under a week. You do not need years of schooling to learn this. "These skills also include cooking your own meals, doing your own laundry, and house cleaning skills, such as how to clean bathrooms, kitchens, and other such stuff. This is what school should emphasize, not tests." The skills my opponent mentions above are things that you learn through out your life through parents and experience. School should not need to teach you how to clean a toilet. There are, in fact, classes that teach these things, but in my opinion are a waste of time because the things that I learned in that class in a year, I could have learned by myself at home in a week. Tests are a way of showing a person's knowledge on a subject and their work ethic. Tests provide of a level of knowledge that must be achieved by the end of a school year, pushing people to work hard and train their time management. If there were no tests and the things that my opponent mentions would be taught instead, we would still be in the Stone Age because no one would be educated enough or interested in learning about more important things such as science. Personally, I find my opponent's points a bit silly because as I have said, all of the things my opponent mentioned can be learned in a very short period of time. There is no need to spend years in school learning them.
Cats are not evil.

In this debate, IAO of L did not conclusively prove that cats are not evil. She only showed that she does like cats. Her definition of evil is not adequate, since something can be evil without having thought of its own. I will agree about the morally objectionable part, as I find the actions and collective generalized behavior to of cats to be morally objectionable. House cats are not social animals, as they do not require a social group for survival. They show no responsibility to a greater group, much the same way packs of dogs or elephants would. In summary, the pro in this debate did not beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that cats are not evil, by the fact that she did not provide for the fact that some cats do display morally objectionable traits.
Cats are not evil.

Okay, my name has nothing to do with cats being evil. Kizmet and Perra Amega, form a group, with another cat, they are social together, I thought you saw they were togther, but apparently you were to busy kicking them to tell, none of them has killed anyone, or to my knowlage, scratched a person. Karma, did fetch, smaller animals cats would normally hunt. She as a cat did not know, people did not know people don't eat those things, such as small birds or gophers. She did it as a sign that she was gratefull, knew we were the "alpha", and love. My opponent cannot argue this. Here is a link of the reasons cats would do this: http://searchwarp.com... Definition of evil: http://en.wikipedia.org... Meaning that in order to be evil, one must first know what is good and make a conscience decision to act in a way that is NOT good. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thank you ladies and gentlemen
Cats are not evil.

Ok, to start off, prove God created everything. Prove it wasn't the aliens that did it. Prove there is a God. Secondly, if you believe in God as Christians know him, you must also believe in Satan. Satan was an angel in heaven at one point in time; God created him and allows for his existence. In other words, God created evil. God also created the fruit which banished Adam and Eve. Was that not also evil? Secondly, God as Christians know him does not believe in killing people or things merely for the sake of killing them. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill", mainly referring to humans. Additionally, God has killed many things he did not approve of, such as all first born Egyptians. Additionally, God allows evil to exist because he wants us to choose him over evil. Hence, evil is necessary to establish what is good and righteous. Next, Cats spread disease. Their poor hygiene and cleaning methods make it impossible for them not to spread disease. They use their tongue to wipe everything all over their body. And then people have the audacity to pet them. EEEWWWWWWW!!!! Cats cause billions of people around the world misery by having sharp claws and people with allergies. Cat scratches are extremely painful. Allergies to cats cause people undue suffering that other pets do not cause, nor to the same extremities. Finally, cats are self and self centered and cannot care for humans beyond their own needs and wants. Cats will only be nice to humans when they want petted or food. Nor will they ever do tricks or anything else unless it's what they want to do. This does not make them smart, just selfish. Does that not sound like something with evil intentions? Also, just because your username is Im_always_right, does not equal "I am always correct". In fact, I will contend that it means one of two things, possibly both. Since there is no apostrophe in your spelling of Im, I am forced to assume that this means that someone by the name of "Im" is always right, not "I am". The other possibility is that you are always right, as in opposite of left. What it could be suggesting is that "Im" is always opposite of left.
MInecraft is better then roblox

Sorry about that, when I posted that comment on the uo long chi shui" debate, i meant I would be on minecrafts side. Therefore, I can not argue this. And thusfore, this shall become a troll debate. Androids are better than apples because A. They have use in toilets 2. They can sleep in cold toaster Fish: They will not use your soul is satanic rituals to please planet Gaben!! As you can see, apples are better than potatoes, thus creating a paradox where Obama never created androids. Vote me!
MInecraft is better then roblox

Minecraft is better Because the games/servers are user hosted so they are less likely to have the kind of problems rob lox will have because the server owner can solve the issues quickly additionally mine craft servers are customizable because they are privately owned so they won't always crash when you join a game because the host computer can be upgraded for more members as rob lox being a game that users can't host there own games you can't customize the server computer for more ram,cpu usage etc and its more likely to crash. it can be customized with 3rd party programs to expand the world
Water Vs Fire

Fire is essential for survival as well. We need it to heat our homes and our bodies. Water can be found anywhere that is true. But so can fire, within the heart of volcanoes. We can access heat anywhere if we know where to look for it. We can also use heat to cook things a lot more than water can. Not only that with fire and heat we need them to stay warm, water freezes, and chills us, fire does not. I rest my case for this round. Thanks for the debate my friend.
Water Vs Fire

Although water can be hard to create, it is all around us. Water can be harvested from rivers, creeks, lakes, lagoons, seas, and even the sky above. Water doesn't need to be "created" as such, rather gathered. Fire must be created by people with the knowledge to do so, but anyone can find water, and is therefore more apparent in the world in which we inhabit. Another point I would like to bring up is how water is essential for survival in humans.
Water Vs Fire

Fire is much better than water. It is hot, and can heat the homes in which we live. It is also a gas, and a agent that can be a blessing and a curse. Water only puts out fires, fire fuels things. It heats our homes as I said, it helps us when we are trying to survive, cooks our food, and warms our hearts and souls. The curse is fire is destructive and can destroy things. However fire also renews things like wildlife and vegetation with its destruction. Fire is better. Thanks for the debate
I will not contradict myself

Round 4. I shall show where my opponent has contradicted himself. He said his Christian name is not vardas0antras. But then he said that he believes in 89,000 Gods. A Christian name is the name given to a child upon baptism. Therefore, he is monotheist. He is 89 years old. As such, he did not mention anything about child marriages. How could the parents of an 89 year old born in Lithuania (before 1920, to illustrate) are still alive? Blind belief is more important than science. However, science is always correct. The Earth is not flat, that was a fallacy of the time's thinking, so then how can it always be correct? He then says that he celebrates Christmas, yet thinks that Christianity shouldn't even exist! This has become a secular tradition over time, yet if you don't even think that the notion of Christianity is real or should even be around, why celebrate Christmas? How can he have a sex change operation if he isn't even sure which sex he belongs to? For all he knows, he may even be inter-sexual!
I will not contradict myself

1. Yes, will you marry me ? 2. No, I'm a bisexual. 3. Yes, I lied about my drug addiction. 4. Yes, but it can't overpower blind belief. 5. Yes, I don't want to stick out. 6. Yes, it would create very funny and disturbing moments. 6 (part 2). No I don't believe in Christianity nor do I think it should exist. 7. I'm not sure, I suppose when I stop feeling like stalking someone. So the best answer I can think of is : Next two year 8. Yes, it would be an interesting change.
I will not contradict myself

1) Do you believe in gay marriages? 2) Are you heterosexual? 3) Have you ever lied? 4) Can science prove things right/wrong? 5) Do you celebrate Christmas? 6) Should adults be allowed to marry minors? 6) Do you believe in Christianity? (Note: you must not be Christian to believe in it, you may be agnostic, for example) 7) Do you want to get married with Justin Bieber immediately, or within the next two years? 8) Have you ever considered a sex change operation?
I will not contradict myself

1. No, Christians aren't polytheists or at least most of them 2. Yes, V0A is a good example. 3. No, Lithuanian would be my first language. 4. Yes, however my parents and most of my friends are from Lithuania. 5. I think it depends on the artists so ultimately I have to say yes. 6. Absolutely, I want to marry him. 7. I believe that science is always correct for example there was a time when the earth was flat. However, I think blind belief is more important. 8. No, though its a guess I am rather certain.
I will not contradict myself

1) Are you a Christian? 2) Does anybody on the Internet, or this site, address you in any other way than vardas0antras? 3) Is English your first language? 4) Do you live in Russia? 5) Do you like Pop music? 6) Justin Bieber is very handsome. Do you agree? 7) Do you believe that science can be correct? 8) Have you ever thought that the guess you mentioned in Round 1 is wrong? That will be all.
I will not contradict myself

1. No, my Christian name is very different. 2. Assuming that what you mean by "real world" is anywhere outside the internet, then no. 3. Yes, I prefer blind belief over science. 4. I believe in many Gods, 89 thousand to be exact. 5. No, I am 89 years old. 6. Yes, in fact he's my favorite. I love his hair. 7. I asked my friends, they didn't know but my guess is yes.
I will not contradict myself

1) Is your name vardas0antras? 2) Does anyone in the real world address you as vardas0antras? 3) Do you believe in God? 4) Do you believe in one God by this I mean that there is ONLY one God) or many Gods? (No need to answer if you answer no to 3) 5) Are you a teenager? 6) Justin Bieber is a very good singer. Do you agree? 7) Are you male? That will be all for now.
I will not contradict myself

Resolution: I, Vardas0antras, will not contradict myself Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no. 2.When Pro answers Yes or No, he should give an explanation for his answer. 3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or no, he must give us his reasons for this decision. 4. Con may ask only ten questions per round. 5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction. 6. In round 5 Pro will defend his opponents accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. Votes: The only vote in this debate shall be "who made the more convincing arguments". If a person gives votes for other things too, for example, "who had better sources" then he is considered a vote bomber. Furthermore, there shouldn't be any sources. ::Important:: Con can only use the information from this debate. So if I say that I like color blue but in my profile or another debate I said otherwise, my opponent will not be able to use this information.
Chuck Norris VS. Bruce Lee

Chuck Norris doesn't need scare tactics. His face is enough to send people running. His pets are more powerful than anyone that wants to eat them. Chuck Norris can cut a knife with butter. Once a cobra bit Chuck Norris' leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died. Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter". There is no point in trying to defend Bruce Lee. There is no way to imagine Bruce Lee killing Chuck Norris. He would kill you from your own mind.
Videogames are bad for children.

A study conducted by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh -- "adolescent girls played video games for an average of 5 hours a week, whereas boys averaged 13 hours a week." The authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: Tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers, may engage in fights with their peers, and there is a visible decline in school achievements.
Videogames are bad for children.

I'm not sure if you noticed this, but not every gamer has the same search for knowledge. There will always be people who simply take pleasure in killing things and spending time on mindless things. Not every game is educational, some games are just strategy. Is strategy going to help a student pass their English exam or Algebra final? Video games are a simple pass time that could also prove negatively on younger children. Even though children shouldn't be playing M rated games there are many. There was once a six-year old child who played Assassin's Creed and Resident Evil, this child was suspended from his elementary school for threatening to kill one of his classmates. Children are young and impressionable, simulations will give them false ideas of what reality is really like. There will be situations in real life that will not match a video game story and what will people do then? There's no "pause" and "quit" and "restart" in real life. Children need to obtain a steady idea of reality and prepare for what matters, instead of having dreams of living in an RPG world. And people will not always have the same learning methods, video games may also not impact at all and the user will just be wasting time playing games.
Videogames are bad for children.

You said in your first statement that videogames are simulators. Wich means you agree with me on that. Now that we got that out of the way, I will proceed to argue this: How children learn from videogames is pretty much like how a gamer is obssesed with looking for easter eggs within the game. Whst happens is the gamer sees something (a happening, a person etc.) wich the game claims to be in real life. The gamer then looks that up in a book or something then finds out the truth. Then the gamer is now inspired to search for knowledge.