BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

Copycat tactic, really Con? Uh huh, okay, do whatever you want, I couldn't care less. You obviously don't wanna to debate the actual topic and instead decide to do more trolling. Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm also saddened. Afterall, I thought you would enact upon your potential and decide to debate the actual topic, but it looks like my hopes were in vain. Looks like I can't reason with the troll, so I'll simply not feed it. Still, it's quite disappointing.
The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

I am not a troll, as con has stated, but was looking forward to a bit of an alternative debate. No definitions were provided by pro, so I gave my own. However, pro has decided that as he can not refute my argument he has decided to become uncivil and rude. I beleive he has ruined the debate by doing so, as it is poor conduct on his behalf. I was hoping he could think of an intelligent response but gas ended up slandering me. I did use the term literally, as you gave no defenition I saw no reason not to.By changing the definitions, which apparently he has decided he can, he has completely changed the argument. As my opponent has stated no new points there is nothing to rebut. My original argument still stands. Voters have pity on me. I wanted an interesting and intellectual debate but got trolled. Many assume I am the troll because of my username, but that is certainly not the case.
The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

A troll, huh? Well too bad I'm a troll assassain and will have no difficulty or annoyance in ripping your so-called "argument" apart. You seem desparete to get an easy win, and have probably not realized just how flawed your argument is. By being a smarta** and deciding that he doesn't have to prove "everyone" doesn't hate the Star Wars prequels, that must mean he must prove nothing and that he wins. Really, Con? You couldn't take this debate seriously? No, you just HAD to be a smarta** and use the term literally(or just give your own term) instead of taking the debate seriously and in good faith by mearly arguing a point against the Star Wars prequels. I honestly thought that you could be civil and at least trustworthy enough to debate the topic seriously, but it seems my hopes were in vain due to Con's decison to be a smarta**. How pathetic, I am sorely disappointed in you. Regardless, if Con wishes to debate like this, I will give clear cut definitions. And Con, before you think you can argue that you were allowed to use the definitions that you did, I will say this: It's my debate, I can change the rules, so there, a taste of your own medicine. How does it taste going down? Bitter I suppose, but you forced my hand, so it's your fault. But I digress, onto the clear cut definitions: By "everyone", I mean anyone who is of the opinion that the Star Wars prequels are bad. By "bad", I mean of poor quality in any aspect of the films. By "Star Wars prequels"(because obviously I can't trust Con any more than I can throw him/her), I mean Star Wars episode 1-3. It's over to you Con, I hope you can be civil about this and debate seriously, if you decide not to, I will be forced to cancel the debate. So please, for the sake of arguing this topic, please debate the actual topic.
The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

According to the topic, I must argue that the Star Wars prequels ARE as bad as everyone says they are. I define the Star Wars prequels as the set of movies that contain the storyline before the main story. I define bad as negative, and in this case, something that no one would want to watch. However, it is when it comes to everyone that my main arguement comes into place. Everyone can be defined, in this case, as all the people I have received opinions from. As my oppent has given no definition, I am allowed to use this one. Everyone who has shared their opinion with me says that the Star Wars prequels are not bad at all. That is to say that there are no negatives. In this way, as star wars is not bad according to everyone, I must prove nothing. Therefore I win!!!
The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

The Star Wars prequels aren't as bad as everyone says they are. If anyone would like to challenge me on this, go right ahead! I'm hoping to change a few people's minds on the subject, or at least give them a new angle to see the films. Without further ado, here are the rules: The first round is for the opponent's arguments against the Star Wars prequels(be sure to follow this rule). The rest of the rounds are for our counter-arguments. That's all there is to it!
Destiny is the Best Video game ever

Being old has nothing to do with why it has good reviews . The reason they don't update it anymore is because they moved on to newer games. Also just because Destiny had an update, doesn't mean its suddenly the greatest game in the world.Also,Far Cry 4 GameRankings (XONE) 85.92%[24](PS4) 83.76%[25](PC) 81.00%[26] Metacritic (PS4) 85/100[27](XONE) 82/100[28](PC) 80/100[29] Far Cry 4 had better ratings than Destiny, and it is a newer game, and it still receives updates to improve the game.
Destiny is the Best Video game ever

First all, I never said Destiny is a bad game, Your debate is about Destiny being the "greatest" video game. One example I shall provide of a better game isCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2Here are the critical receptions for both games.Destiny GameRankings (XONE) 78.55%[73](PS4) 76.83%[74] Metacritic (PS4) 76/100[75](XONE) 75/100[7 MW2 Score GameRankings (X360) 93.57%[94](PS3) 93.42%[95](PC) 87.84%[96] Metacritic (X360) 94/100[97](PS3) 94/100[98](PC) 86/100[99 I have proved MW2 is better, because it received better reviews.
Racial profiling is justified

"I don't think racial profiling is ever justified because race is not an indicator of behavior."Yes, Race is an indicator of behavior. People of same races come from the same background, practice the same religion, eat the same food, talk the same sense and have a similar behavioral pattern. "I assume you are referring to Middle Easterners (correct me if I am wrong) but that fact is not true." Yes, it is true. Where is that place in the world where maximum unrest is prevailing?Where is the ISIS operating from?Go check on google if you do not believe me When you see a person, notwithstanding the fact to which race he belongs, that person represents his race and community.Take the example of Indians. Their citizens do not get involved in terrorist activities abroad and at home much.However even when the case of a person who is made to join a terror group by brainwashing comes up, we take responsibility and investigate the matter and try to prevent them from happening in the future.Now some countries, on the other hand, do not care or rather you would say in a way promote such activities.They are responsible for their deeds. A society which values Human rights and peace cannot produce terrorists. That is a fact.Thus racial profiling is justified.
Racial profiling is justified

"Yes Racial profiling is justified. When you take a look at the race of the people who are committing the largest number of terrorist activities, the answer is very obvious. In spite of the fact that not all people of a particular race are evil, they still pose a threat to humanity. That is a fact you cannot deny it. So yes racial profiling is justified, that's all I have to say for this round." I don't think racial profiling is ever justified because race is not an indicator of behavior. You mentioned how the race of the people committing the largest terrorist activities is obvious and I assume you are referring to Middle Easterners (correct me if I am wrong) but that fact is not true. The threat of Middle Eastern terrorists is a threat but so is the threat of black terrorists (Boko Haram). So is the threat of white terrorists (KKK). Terrorists come from all races, it is just that in America, we only ever talk about Middle Eastern terrorists because the media wants a good news story that people will pay attention to. This is unfortunate because there are many terrorist groups in places other than the Middle East that we should also be watching for. It is also sad because it overblows the threat of terrorism from that area. I do not understand how people think profiling is acceptable because there are tons of American citizens with Middle Eastern heritage who are discriminated or insulted simply for their skin color. I don't see how that is justified. I also do not think racial profiling is acceptable within our own soil. Often times, black people and latinos/hispanics are targeted by police because they seem to be dodgy. This is also connected to "reasonable suspicion". Reasonable suspicion is defined as: "...reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer." This is highly problematic because an officer with preconceived notions of minorities and inherent biases might see a minority walking around in a grey hoodie as "reasonably suspicious". It"s too vague and can be applied however an officer deems necessary. It also just worsens the racial profiling in America as it allows officers to do so with little backlash or consequences. Racial profiling is racism. And you cannot justify racism.
Racial profiling is justified

I have seen on so many people's profiles that they agree with racial profiling. I was so shocked that I researched it again to make sure everyone was talking about the same thing. We are, which led me to start this debate. I firmly disagree that racial profiling is ever justified. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY OKAY? Please abide by that one simple rule. Character count is low on purpose. Let's try and keep our arguments concise. Also for reference, this is the definition: ra"cial pro"fil"ing noun US the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense.
Feminism is relevant in the 21st Century

All in all, I believe that women have their rights, same as men. They should be able to express their opinions openly and be able to fight for their rights. Yes, women are getting stronger but that does not mean that they can stop. They have to continue until both genders are equal. Some men still regard women lowly even now in the 21st century. When the gender discrimination really stops, the women shall stop. But that time is. Not. Now.
Feminism is relevant in the 21st Century

Yes, but what exactly is their position at work? If you were to go to many work places, the boss or the one in charge is still usually a man. And women are still considered the weaker gender. Yes, the number of working women has increased but their position is still quite low. The laws have made a difference but how much of a difference? It's like how it is against the law to discriminate people for their race. People still do it but in a more discreet manner or in a way that they cannot be faulted. Just because laws have been passed about women being treated fairly does not mean that everyone will abide by the the rules And when you say feminism is not relevant in western countries, you are talking about the modern people in these countries. There are still families who are very religious or, in a way, "old-fashioned" and still follow the gender discrimination where the men are the head of the families and that their decisions matter most. These cases are not looked at because the women themselves are too afraid to speak up on their behalf or they don't even know its wrong. Sometimes, religious beliefs and the laws clash and the women are just caught up in the middle or fear doing anything because it has been going on for generations in their family. They believe that there is no other way; that they are merely following in the other's footsteps. This does still happen in western countries. Maybe not in very modernised places like New York or Washington but in other less modern parts where everything is very traditional. Another example is the percentage of women in politics. Only about 20% of women are in the political field when half the population is of women. The percentage has increased and yes there is a number of powerful women in politics but the ratio of men to women in politics is still not equal. The reason that it is even increasing is because feminists are trying to push for their rights. This is the time when it is important for women to continue to argue for their rights so that they will be equal. If these women are to stop at this point just when they are about to get what they want, all their hard work would go to waste. The time they stop should be the time when both genders are equal, not during this critcial point in time when women are just starting to get what they have been fighting for for so long.
Feminism is relevant in the 21st Century

Thanks for the response. Firstly, I understand what you're saying about Pakistan and India but as we are talking about Western culture they aren't really relevant in this discussion. Secondly, your point about women not being allowed to work, this kind of discrimination is against the law in pretty much all western nations (Europe, USA, Canada and Australia just to name a few) In fact, some companies have specific guidelines meaning they have to employ a certain number of females to their workforce. Also, the majority of men do not believe it's a woman's duty to be a housewife, that idea has been thrown out since the nineties - female and male unemployment is relatively similar.
Feminism is relevant in the 21st Century

I think that it is actually relevant even in the 21st century because it is still a problem in western countries. Yes, there are many women who go out to work but there are still women out there who aren't allowed to do this. Some men still believe that the woman's duty is to fulfill their needs and to stay at home and be the obedient wife who takes care of the house, waiting for them until they get back. In fact, in countries like Pakistan and India, women are still regarded very lowly. The men's needs are to be attended to before the wife can attend to hers.
YODA IS WORSe THAN MACE WINDO.

Yoda was in many ways the most important Star Wars character. Without his knowledge the heritage of the Jedi Knights would have been lost forever. http://www.squidoo.com... According to Wookieepedia lol Yoda served as a member of the Jedi Order for centuries, eventually gaining a seat on the Jedi High Council, before reigning as the Grand Master of the Jedi. Though arguably the Order's greatest master of the Force and most skilled warrior, Yoda believed most firmly in the importance of instructing younger generations and never missed an opportunity to ensure his students learn from their experiences. http://starwars.wikia.com... Darth Sidious vs Mace Windu http://youtu.be... Same guy Fights yoda Darth Sidous vs Yoda http://youtu.be... Neither one killed him but Mac Windu died! Foolish you have been, the force you have lost!
Gun Control - Less Regulation

I am glad we both agree that there are some firearms that shouldn't be available to the public. It seems our disagreement is where to draw the line. As long as we are using common sense to determine where that line is drawn I would argue that according to most polls the majority of Americans common sense lead them to agree that assault rifles should not be available to the public. I would also ask you to explain the logic in which a 50 caliber machine gun shouldn't be available to the public but an AR15 should be. It seems you believe background checks are a good thing in certain situations. I agree. However I believe one of the situations where it is a good is for keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Including those with PTSD. Including veterans. I'm sorry I just don't think mentally unstable people should have access to firearms that would enable them to harm innocent people or themselves regardless of their admirable service to this great country. By "deemed by society" I mean we as Americans coming together to form a society including elected representatives making laws to prevent firearms from falling in the hands of those proven to be dangerous or mentally unstable. And yes people spreading "hate speech" on the Internet is dangerous just look at all the violence ISIS has inspired over the Internet. And if we don't trust society with that characterization then who do we trust? Yes "people are weapons of mass death" but guns enable people to reach a more extreme level of mass death. I don't think we should ban all guns only those deemed by common sense to be too dangerous in the hands of the public.
Gun Control - Less Regulation

Let me start this rebuttal with this obvious liberal tactic of miscommunication and characterization. I never said that "50 caliber machine gun" (please use real examples please), should be legal. It should be very obvious that actual weapons of ware, Fully automatic rifles, to group a bunch, should not be available to the public. That's just common sense. And as we move to your next statement, the predator drones. No those should not be allowed for public use. Once again. common sense. Background checks should be a good thing but they are not. I will submit, there should be an easy way, such as a background check, to get your gun. By the way, to get a gun anywhere, you need a background check. But the reason why they don't work as they should is that in numerous cases, veterans who have PTSD have been denied the right to buy a gun because of the mental condition and that's not right. We trust them with fully automatic rifles in the military but not with semi automatics at home..? And what do you mean "deemed by society?" "Society" thinks that people spreading"hate speech" on the internet are dangerous. We should trust society with that characterization..? Also, Gun crime is at an all time low in the United States with the highest gun ownership ever. They aren't weapons of mass death, people are weapons of mass death. Finally, you cannot bring up the fire in the movie theater. It is a call to action. It serves no purpose to use as an argument. I agree firearms should be regulated, but there needs to be a new way to do so.
Gun Control - Less Regulation

So you believe every gun should be available to the public? So like a 50 caliber machine gun is ok to sell to an average civilian? Really? Where does it end? Should we let them buy Predator drones as well? What about background checks? Surely you believe that when certain people have been deemed by society to be dangerous then they shouldn't be aloud to obtain weapons that enable mass death. Yes we have rights but a responsible society knows the limits of those rights. Just like you can't yell fire in a packed movie theatre you have to regulate the distribution of firearms.
Gun Control - Less Regulation

I believe that Gun Control is an infringement on your rights as an American citizen. I believe that the liberal argument that, "since they are newer the rules don't apply" is false. I believe that most of the Anti-Gun Control people are uneducated and try to use as little facts as possible. I believe that Concealed Carriers do stop crimes and although that may not be stated outright as a right of the people, it is a good law and it should not be taken. Finally, I believe that there IS is such a thing as a "safe gun."
God is able to do anything

Free Choice: You said there is no free choice in the bible because if you don"t believe in God you go to hell. Let me ask you this question: Do you believe in God? Law of Relativity: Now in a Christian world this is pretty easy to explain because when God created the world he set it in place the law of relativity and in fact all proven scientific laws that we know about today were set in place by him at the beginning of time. Rationality: Some thing Illogical is something that contradicts its self God can"t contradict himself. You said the Bible says he can do anything but it makes it very clear in the bible that God can"t be evil that is something that would contradict himself in the matter of being perfectly good.
God is able to do anything

Well, first of all, God gave us all freedom of choice, but if we don't do as He says, we will end up in Hell. It doesn't seem like a choice to me. Also, in the Bible it says God made everything from nothing. It contradicts the laws of relativity (thou shall not create matter or energy) and also you can only move relative to something (eg: 50 km/h relative to the road) so you can't move if there isn't anything ANYWHERE. Also, in the Bible, it is said that God can do anything, not anything rational.
God is able to do anything

Sentence Analysis First let us understand our definitions. By God we mean something so powerful that cannot be resisted by anything. Or for short we"ll just call it "something that can"t be resisted." By "stone so big" we mean something so big and heavy that it can resist everything. We"ll call it "something that can resist everything". Now when we replace those definitions in our sentence we get this: "Can something that can"t be resisted, create something that can resist everything?" OK but we seem to be forgetting something. If something is created it will have to exist and for this to work both of these have to co-exist. So the real statement becomes: "Can something that can"t be resisted co-exist with something that can resist everything?" Well immediately, we see the sentence is pure nonsense. If something can"t be resisted how can something exist that can resist it? Either it can or it can"t. It is or it isn"t. It can"t be both. In fact our original statement can be further logically contracted to: Can something that can"t be resisted be resisted? This violates the law of non-contradiction. i.e. A cannot be both A and NOT A at the same time. If you disagree with the law of non-contradiction then an ancient Muslim scholar named Abu =Ali al- Husayn ibn Abd Allah ibn Sina or Avicenna for short has the cure as follows: Any one who rejects the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned. He should be beaten until he accepts the fact that to be beaten is NOT the same as to not be beaten and he should be burned until he accepts the fact that to be burned is not the same as to not be burned. So in essence the idea of God being able to do "anything" is illogical unless taken with his being. He cannot do anything which is not actually possible, for example he cannot make 1+1=3, He cannot make black actually white, He cannot paint a door black with red paint bought from Home Depot and no added chemicals (at least not without some sort of other activity), He cannot give someone freedom of choice and then and then not let them choose (note some of these are obviously irrational but it would seem fallacious to try to argue that the source of all rationality could be irrational itself). So if you ask me, "Can God can do anything?" I would say No. Why is this? Because I believe God is Omnipotent (all powerful) but he is not omni-able (i.e. able to do anything). There"s a clear distinction between the two. We believe that God is all powerful, not all capable when it comes to irrationality. And if you think about this, this is really tied into His character, His personality, His being.