BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Doctor Who is better than Star Trek

I don't really know what to put here. This round was meant for a rebuttal, and since I have nothing to rebut against, I have nothing more to add. Final statements, I guess. To recap, I believe that Doctor Who is more diverse than Star Trek, jumping outside its genre from time to time and having story lines that are not simply about "boldly going where no man has gone before". Its representation of the future is much more believable, making the show easier to get into and, for me anyway, to feel like I can be a part of it. Doctor Who is constantly changing, always keeping its audience on their toes. Star Trek tends to be the same plot each episode, just with different lines... And, that's all, folks! It was hard hating on Star Trek, a show I actually do really like, but when it comes to which is better, I've got to go with Doctor Who. Anyway, good luck with the round, and thank you for joining the debate!
god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication

"He cant reach out to us anymore like how he reached out to us through the bible. People may ignore him as well,which is why I say trying." Then according to you, your god is simply not a god. Not by any means if he is a simpleton and cannot reach out in multiple ways. Now I am officially ending this. You like the typical christian refuses to examine evidence that is placed right in front of your lap. If you cannot examine evidence, then there is no debate. The videos (duh) are rock solid evidence as to why YOUR god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. And since you refuse to "do" and watch them, you have chosen to "die" and not watch them. And rather than watching the videos and seeking the answers out for yourself, you ask me for the answers that are within them. That is a terrible horrific way to run a debate from the opposing side and I'm not going to deal with it. You are the typical christian that is 100% unwilling to examine evidence especially when smacked in the face with it. The videos ARE evidence as to why YOUR god would never use text you total 100% teeny bopper loser. Goodbye.
god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication

Due to me running out of things to say for my opponents pea sized brain to understand,Ill just move on to rebuttals and questions: Rebuttals: 1.I say trying because think about it. He cant reach out to us anymore like how he reached out to us through the bible. People may ignore him as well,which is why I say trying. 2."You really don"t think that your god can reach man in ALL forms of communication..." Isnt text a form of communication in todays society? In todays world,we communicate through: -Text -Letters -Talking -Calling -Emailing(probrably in the same category as letters) -Video calling There are of course other ways we communicate in todays society but Ill leave it at that. When you say all forms of communication,you are using the list above as part of all the forms of communication in todays society. God used to reach out to us through the bible but because we "shut ourselves" away from him, he has to use a more modern way of communication to communicate with us. 4."YOUR god truly hates children" Read Matthew 19:14 you "bibical expert". Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."Matthew 19:14. 5.If the bible is nothing but pure evil,tell me: Why did god save the woman from being stoned to death although what she did was a sin? How is catching over a 100 fishes evil? How is the story of the good samaritan evil? Look I can make a whole list but I would take forever. 6."WHAT DID I TELL YOU TO DO IN RD 1 YOU F--KING TYPICAL CHRISTIAN THAT CAN"T READ? Strike 2." Why cant you just answer the question and enlighten me? 7."Had you watched the videos like I deliberately pointed out for you to do in RD1..." Those videos are athetists speaking all the time. Give me something like a debate or something to watch. Its like me saying I want to pray before this debate but it"ll be an unfair advantage for my opponents pea sized brain. Hence I did not bother. And the last I checked,those videos are about the existence of god,not why god is stupid to use text as a form of communication. 8."As stated "Its either a "do" that you pay attention to the videos and comprehend them. Or its a "die" and you will have nothing to bring to the table - in other words, worthless evidence, if you don't." Its either a "do" you give me a video which isnt biased on both sides or "die" you have nothing but videos which are: 1.biased to athetists 2.Debating about the wrong thing. 3.Not stating anything about why god is stupid to use text as a form of communication So basically your videos meant nothing in this debate. Questions for my opponent: -Name me a way god can talk to both believers and non believers if its not text? -We are all children in the eyes of god. If god hates children,you and I wont be alive today. If god truly hates us especially me a 13 year old,why am I not dead?
god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication

God is trying to reach out to us through a more modern way of communication. In today"s world,we are so obsessed with things like social media that we unknowingly shut ourselves away from god. Which is why he uses text. Also, in todays world,people are not reading the bible as much which was gods first way of communication. So I personally think that this is a way for him to reach out to todays society. Question(s) for my opponent: If god doesnt use text as a form of communication and people dont read the bible,how does he connect with anyone? I agree with the fact that people have seen him in dreams,visions,etc.,but that doesnt happen to everyone. People like you arent believers so when I say everyone I mean both believers and non believers. Hes reaching out to these 2 groups. So after all you said in our last debate on the existence of god,are you finally coming to a conclusion that god does exist and you are prooving yourself wrong because you set this debate up,you are affirming that god exists and affirming that he is stupid to use text as a form of communication? So in conclusion:you beieve there is a god up there after all the BS you gave ms in the last debate.
god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. Its either a "do" that you pay attention to the videos and comprehend them. Or its a "die" and you will have nothing to bring to the table - in other words, worthless evidence, if you don't. http://www.youtube.com... - Video 1. Christians don't understand the character of God http://www.youtube.com... -Video 2. The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!! http://www.youtube.com... - Video 3. Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris zand Don Baker Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 and really gets into it 1:03:30 - 1:11:30. Pay attention everybody to vidie #2 and how YOU as a christian can easily misinterpret YOUR bible which is one of the reasons why YOUR god would --- NEVER --- use text as a form of communication. Don Baker, one of the hosts here in the vidie also briefly mentions it. And he's 100% correct! http://www.youtube.com... - Video 4. The Bible is not Evidence of god "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim in which requires more evidence than simply pointing to an old book. That is simply not rational, not sufficient to the claim. Sorry its not just an opinion. There"s more to life than that." Matt Dillahunty , RULES: You MUST be a christian to accept this debate. For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
god according to the bible would ---not be stupid enough--- to use text as a form of communication

If not text, what other ways is there for god to communicate with us? I dont see how the title of the videos are related to the matter. Not to mention the fact that they are 100% biased to athetists. You see those as evidence,but in truth they are claims with no sufficient amount of evidence/no evidence at all. You want evidence about god? Explain how the pieces of flesh in the miracle of lanciano were the same weight when scientists weighed the pieces of flesh? The whole thing by itself was 15.85 grams. When it was cut;15.85 grams. Explain that genius. You say the videos are rock solid evidence god would not use text as a form of communication,there was no mention of that. They just denied the existence of god. How is that related? Quote some stuff for me from the video that connects the dots. And use a video which isnt bias to each side. And how is it that a 13 year old is more mature than you? I dont insult. Yet you my good friend,you"re cussing and swearing like you rule the world. Back to the topic: Ive mentioend my part why god uses text as a form of communication. Ive asked questions,Ive watched the videos, and my answers arent answered. And they certainly did not explain why the bible is pure evil
God Is Annoying

This is the last round, and it's unfair to now claim the entire universe is annoying. I thought we were talking about the Christian God. Nevertheless, your argument is still faulty. If we're talking about the whole universe, then are clouds annoying? Are stars in the sky annoying? Hopefully not. Only the people are annoying by our own free will. [And the message I was referring to was when I said God doesn't exist.] So if God's influencing me... does this prove free will: iaedoaiajfisdjfoauh8fueishiufeafyyheriu? [randomly spamming keyboard] I don't consider the universe as a God. A god is a deity that watches other the people, usually protecting them. The universe doesn't watch over us: We live in it. And life is annoying, yes. But God isn't. The universe as a whole is not annoying. I admit I can be annoying, but I'm human. But the resolutions talks about God specifically, and I've shown God isn't annoying. It's the people.
God Is Annoying

God does exist. Define Him as the universe if you have no better definition. God is controlling you, totally. God is omnipotent. "God," "Wikipedia," https://en.wikipedia.org..., visited Jul. 11, 2017. I don't know what message you are referring to, but it seems you or I posted that message, under the total control and influence of God. If you're an atheist as you say you are, then I don't think you would have a problem considering the universe to be God. The universe is annoying. Whatever the case, life is annoying.
God Is Annoying

God is annoying. For over ten years now, He continuously and constantly keeps me in an upset state of mind. He makes me want things and never gives me them. He makes me look bad publicly, to other people and to my acquaintances. He continuously and constantly makes me suffer. He makes me like people and doesn't make those people like me. Sometimes God even makes a person I am attracted to not be attracted to me, and makes that person and another person who is not I be attracted to each other and be in a physical, mental, and social relationship with each other. God makes some of the people around me do things that mentally provoke me and keeps them agitating, annoying, or bothering me. I know God can do a lot worse to me and I'm thankful to Him that He doesn't. But still, He should just let me be happy in my life. It seems that would be better than what he is doing to me now and has been doing to me for over ten years.
Microsoft is a better company than Apple

Why Microsoft is superiorSoftware for Personal ComputersWindow is a the vastly superior operating system, compared to just OS X. A big part of it has to do with OS X being largely a closed source operating system. The Windows world is a feast of free- and shareware, free downloads that do just about anything. On the Mac side you have to change the settings to install anything that isn't approved by Apple itself. It means the software all works well, but the choice is limited. Also, OS X can only be run on Apple products, whereas Windows is practically avaiable on every computer sold to consumers. You can run Windows on low end machines, as well as high end ones. For OS X, you have limited choices, and all laptops range from $800-$8000. If a consumer who was on a limited budget wanted to run OS X, he can't, because Apple doesn't give the option.ValueDo you really need a shiny and thin laptop to get work done? if you needed to type a word document you would need to buy a $1000 Mac to accomplish that, while you could buy a Microsoft Surface at $499. Or if that isn't an option, you can opt for a $200 cheaper laptop which runs Windows.http://store.hp.com......Xbox and PC gamingMicrosoft is seriously the company to go with if you plan on gaming. With Xbox, the newest titles come out, and you can experience them with 60 FPS and 1080 p resolution. If you want to take your game further, you can build your own PC, and play games in 4k. Also the price to build that, is around the same price as getting a Macbook Pro. For gaming on Mac, often you have to wait longer than the release date for PC, and it usually is just a ported version of the game, meaning the gaming experience will be different. I'll post my other arguments in the coming rounds.
Microsoft is a better company than Apple

I accept. Round structure wasn't specified so I'm assuming that the first round is for acceptance and clarification of my position. Per opening argument the burden of proof is split. I'm currently under the impression that Apple makes superior consumer products in comparison to Microsoft so that's what I'll be arguing for. Remember, superior consumer products is the crux of this debate. Anything else is irrelevant. Or at least that's what I thought based on pro's opening argument upon accepting. I hope to learn something interesting about this topic over the course of this short debate. I await pro's arguments.
Abortion

I am operating under the assumption that you agree with me that a woman can not kill her 2 year old son. So let us look at the differences between a fetus and a 2 year old. There are only four differences: 1. Location 2. Level of Dependency 3. Size 4. Level of Development Location The location of a person never determines his or her right to life. Level of Dependency Just because, the fetus depends on his or her mother for his or her life, does not make the fetus more or less human. Siamese twins depend on each other for life, but we do not deny them the right to life. A man who has diabetes and is dependant upon insulin to live does not have less right to life than someone without diabetes. Size A newborn who is 20 inches is no less of a person than a full grown adult. Which brings me to my final topic. Level of Development A fetus is not as developed as a newborn, just as a 6 year old boy is not as developed as a 30 year old man. Based on these arguments a fetus is no less human than any 2 year old.
Germany vs Japan

- Introduction- Alright, since you obviously either don't want to debate, or you gave up, I'll just get this over with. You wanted a debate, so we're having a debate. This round I will discuss armor like you wanted me to. -Armor- Since you only said armor, I am going to assume that you meant armored tanks. The Japanese had about 23 variants of tanks while Nazi Germany had only 7 tank variants. This shows us that the Japanese Empire was studying, and creating by far more types of tanks compared to Nazi Germany. If you still don't believe the fact that Japan had more tanks, Germany only had two Tank Artillery divisions, while Japan had three. Japan used Troops, Planes, and Ships, however more then Tanks, but the majority or Japan's land victories at least partially involved tanks. Japan didn't really get much use out of tanks because of the fact that they were mostly taking the Asian mainland, and islands in the Pacific Ocean. So basically Japan never really needed tanks unless they were attacking mainland areas, and they would've preferred not to use tanks if they had to ship them across oceans, or if they needed to use them in dense, jungle areas. -Conclusion- So, in summary, the Japanese Empire had more tank variants, and better one, but they never really needed to use them because of their location. The Nazi Germany would've had more of a use of tanks because of their location. Japan, however if attacking mainland, would've had stronger, more sturdier tanks compared to Germany. This is honestly a hard thing to determine, but I am very sure that Japan would have better tanks if they needed to use them. -Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Germany vs Japan

-Introduction- The Japanese Empire, and Nazi Germany have long been prolonged allies during World War ll. Since you think that they would face off eventually, I will be supporting my side which is the Japanese Empire. First of all, since you said, "Germany". I am going to specifically talk about ONLY Germany, and I am going to exclude Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria out of this debate since you are not talking about all of the Axis Powers. I am also only basing my information off the status's of each Empire before the end of war. Since you wanted me to only talk about infantry this round, that is what I will do. These are not speculations, they are facts based off common sense, and I will cite my sources. I hope that you cite your sources too. -Infantry- The Japanese had it easy compared to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany has 2,200,000 soldiers, which was not a very good thing. Yes, you can say that's a lot, but it's not enough to occupy all of the nations that Germany owned, and prevent attacks by the Allied Powers. Germany would have to send a lot of soldiers to head East making their western nations highly vulnerable to being taken back. France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway were all vulnerable to attack, giving the Allied Powers the chance to advance forward and reclaim what is rightfully is there's, and end Nazi Germany. To top this, Germany's infantry could not access Japan without charging across the Soviet Union. As you may already know, the Soviet Union had many soldiers. It is unknown how many there were, but it is known that they would've been enough to decrease Germany's soldiers by a good amount. So basically, Germany would be worrying about The United Kingdom, Russia, and The United States. Japan, meanwhile would've not needed to worry as much because Russia, and Japan were neutral with each other at the time, and the Allied Powers that had access to attacking Japan were too paranoid at the moment to attack Japan because of it's strong Air Force which is another story. The only real threat to Japan was China, and they would've waited for the US's support before attacking Japan considering Japan's strong air force/army. The majority of the allies (US, and Canada) were assisting the United Kingdom before Asia (only occasionally stopping Japanese invasions), and would've only focused on attacking Japan if they attacked the Australian mainland which wouldn't have happened until Japan was strong enough, or took all of China, and became too much of a threat to ignore. Germany's infantry although strong, would not have been good enough to handle protecting western Europe from the allies, and advancing across Russia to face Japan. -Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://simple.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mapsofworld.com... http://www.ushmm.org...
Germany vs Japan

This debate is based on the fact that if Germany won WW2 and started another war with Japan who would win. there are a few rules that must be agreed to. 1. there mustn't be speculation only facts 2. there should be no mention of the political allingment or politics behind the two countries. 3. first round is accepting. the following rounds follow this structure, second round is standard infantry, third round is armor, fourth round is weaponry and environment. fifth round is closing. 4. my side is pro Germany so you will have to defend Japan if you can agree to those rules you can argue against me.
Privatize Education

Let's make this quick and painless.1. Pro's entire aregument is plagarized [1]. 2. There is nothing of substance to the article Pro is stealing here. There are no facts or figures, just opinion, so even if pro's post was original, there wouldn't be anything to actually debate against. That's really all that needs to be said, but since I'm here, let's defend the state education system! =======The Case For Public Education=======-----Standardization-----Having centrally planned education allows for more uniformity in the education system than a completely private system. This allows for the grades acheived by public-school students to be more comparable to the grades acheived by students all across the country than the grades acheived in a private school as different private schools will have different cirriculums and standards. This is especially important for universities and employers who wish to only take on students/employees who meet a particular standard of acedemic acheivement.-----Money-----Many parents wouldn't have the money to send their children to a private school as the cost of a private education is comparable to the cost of a house, with some schools breaking $50,000 per year [2], which is greater than the annual income of most housholds in America [4]. By subsidising education via the public education system, we ensure that students don't suffer for thier parents' lack of income. -----Public School = Better Education-----A recent UBC study shows that students who went through the public education system actually out-performed their private-school counter-parts at universtiy;"The UBC study looked at 4,500 first year physics and calculus students between 2002 and 2006 at UBC and found that public school graduates scored an average of about two to three per cent higher than private school graduates.UBC mathematics professor George Bluman, who was one of the study's authors, said the lack of individual attention on students in public schools may actually give students an edge in the tougher university environment." [3]As we can see, public school students have a greater capacity for self-responsibility and individual effort, giving them the competitive advantage over their private-school classmates. =======Conclusion=======Pro plagarized his entire argument. As if that wasn't bad enough, he plagarized an opinion article that forwent anything of statistical relevance to make room for hyperbole and partisan rambling. Despite this, I have established the utility of the public education system in terms of standardization, affordability and academic performance in post-secondary education. Given this, paired with the fact that Pro has, effectively, not made any argument whatsoever, and it is clear that this is any easy vote for con.Thank you for your time.1. http://www.americanthinker.com...2. http://www.ourkids.net...3. http://www.cbc.ca...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...