BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists and Creationism Vs. Evolution

That is a good run down of evolution I do not deny the least bit. I do hold that there are species of humans planted on Earth via Alien Seed Theory and species of non-humans who are the next evolution of neanderthal, and there is both a religious and scientific basis for this. Point 1: (Bible says) Genesis 4:15 the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Note: Cain was one of the very few on earth, logically he was surrounded by brutish neanderthals Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Bans Hebrews from inter-racial marriage Note: Likely to keep the True Human Genepool intact Point 2: (Rh- Bloodtypes) An Rh- bloodtype has no monkey genes. Scientists have observed that the highest population densities of Rh- types is Western Europe with a decreasing gradient to the Far East. It is interesting to note that several Western European Races trace their lineage to the Israelite; British, Scottish, Danish off the top of my head. Scottish: http://www.britam.org... Point 3: (Neanderthals Among Us) I conjecture that Neanderthals today are just as innately savage as they were thousands of years ago; but somewhat suppressed by the suit & tie. We will Identify modern neanderthals by the following traits and let their names speak for savagery: (1) short, slanted forehead, often with a massive brow-ridge (2) head doesn't sit vertically over their body; short necks at an angle. (3) Large gap between 2 front teeth (won't be covered here) (4) Proportionately over-sized ears (won't be covered here) Adolf Hitler Profile: http://www.erichufschmid.net... Joesph Stalin Profile: http://www.erichufschmid.net... Mao Zedong Profile: http://www.erichufschmid.net... Larry King: http://cdn.timesofisrael.com... This guy definitely ain't human: http://www.erichufschmid.net... Point 4: (Alien Seed Theory) Famous Dutch Painter Aert De Gelder was granted access to the Vatican Secret Archives http://en.wikipedia.org... He came out of there painting Flying Saucers: http://i699.photobucket.com... Domenico Ghirlandaio (15th.c.) had his encounter: http://www.crystalinks.com... World's Largest And Most Uniform Religion is a UFO Cult, what can I say? From here on out it's just verified miracles and prophesy.
turtle is the best bot in gunbound

Turtle defense is the only thing going for turtle. Everything else tanks. Take for example the Turtle SS. Let's face it, the Turtle SS is garbage. Its ridiculously difficult to use and in most circumstances it's pretty useless. Unlike with other weapons, not only do you have to angle and adjust power to make sure it hits, you then have to make sure it hits at the precise moment or else it does no damage because it hit too early or it hit too late. That makes the Turtle SS one of the worst in the game. Yes other mobiles also have SS that are impacted by time, but with them its a threshold. After the threshold, their SS does increased damage, but that is drastically different from the narrow interval window for the Turtle SS. It makes the Turtle SS useless to most players, which makes the Turtle therefore a horrible mobile. Secondly, saying the dragon levitation does not matter just shows how little you understand about the various weapons systems. The Bigfoot or the Nak for example rely on hitting the Ground. Thus against the dragon, even a well aimed attack would do little damage since the explosion of their weapons on the ground beneath the dragon does little damage. And more eloquent than my words is your silence about dragon damage. Dragon damage is Gosu. Third, do you know why people double and triple team Dragons and Knights and not turtles? Because the first 2 are awesome mobiles. Ever heard anyone say "Oh, holy sh-t, its a Turtle. Let's gank it cause the Turtle's going to pwn us"? No and you know why? Because the Turtle is not the best mobile. In fact it's not even a good mobile, but that doesn't really matter. I just have to show it's not the best mobile. And you did that yourself when you said enemy teams double and triple team dragons and knights. And Forth, you didn't say the best mobile for Pros. You said the best mobile. I don't think it's the best mobile for pros either, but let's face it, it's definitely not the best mobile for noobs. Noobs can't aim, so the Grub is the best mobile for noobs. And on some maps, JD is pure pwnage because of it's ability to bunge. And for me, Lightening is the best mobile. If lightening is the best mobile for me, how can an ugly slow turtle that shoots little streams of water possibly be the best mobile? (2 rounds done, 3 rounds to go. Oh btw, why did you make this a 5 round debate?)
turtle is the best bot in gunbound

Lightning does not do a tremendous amount of damage. It does a normal amount of damage. Also, turtle's defense is way better than lightning. Turtle's SS is way better than lightning's SS. I don't think anyone has gotten over 2000 damage with a turtle SS. Getting double kills is just luck. The only way to get double kill with lightning is either they are stacked on top of each other, or they are directly diagonal from them. I've gotten plenty of doulbe kills with turtle, and some cases where they were not stacked upon each other. Dragon's defense is so low. I killed one in 1 hit with turtle. If you would stop playing with noobs, maybe you would see that it doesn't matter if dragon levitates. Whenever somebody gets knight, they always get double or triple teamed, except when people find out that they suck. Every time some other enemy gets dragon, all my teammates say to doulbe, triple, or quadruple team the knight. Also, when people are in holes, such as nak, then it is very hard for knight to kill them. If you ever play with many of the pros (like me, lol), you would see that us pros get 1 hit k.o. all the time, especially when somebody gets a bot with such low defense, like dragon. Kal also has the most natural enemies, many bots get a 5 percent increase on their attack on kalsiddon. Kalsiddon does require a high level of skill, but it also requires angle and a good wind. If there is a strong wind going the opposite way you need, or there is no way to get angle, then kalsiddon is doomed. Turtle is better than all of those bots.
turtle is the best bot in gunbound

hm, this one's pretty easy. Turtle is not the best bot in gunbound. Knight and Dragon are both better (though I prefer knight), especially in terms of damage although the Dragon also has an enormous defensive bonus since it levitates. My favorite, personally, is the Lightening mobile since it not only does tremendous damage but also a skilled player (such as myself) can easily score double and even triple kills with it. Which is cool, thus making it a better bot than the turtle. Ever tried getting a double kill with a turtle? You'd need your opponents to be standing on top of each other, and how likely is that? And finally, not my favorite, but nevertheless frightening is the Kalsiddon. This is perhaps the most dangerous mobile in the game, even more dangerous than knights and dragons. Although it requires a high level of play, a skilled player can one hit KO another player pretty easily. Thus Turtle is not the best bot in gunbound.
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

The weather is indeed beautiful – I was outside for most the day. I will start with something that I do not think was adequately addressed: ===================== The Act is STILL Wrong: ===================== Since we agree that the act of building nuclear weapons is wrong, especially for a nation bent on the destruction of non-Islamic states, how can the act no longer be wrong when it is requested to stop? If the act of building nuclear weapons remains wrong during the time that is requested to stop, no matter by whom, then it is wrong not to heed the request (by virtue of the act itself being wrong). ===================== The Child Analogy: ===================== My opponent says that a relevant difference in the analogies is that the child KNOWS he is a child. This difference is not a relevant one, insofar as it does not matter whether the child knows he is a child or not. The responsible thing to do would be to disarm a gun wielding child, no matter if he thought he was Clint Eastwood. Moreover, there are plenty of cases in which a child thinks he/she is something that he/she is not. Take the indestructible boy for instance (1). The fact of the matter is that there is a relevant difference between the United States and Iran. Iran has hostile proclivities, insofar as it would go to any genocidal lengths to completely annihilate any and all threats. Since nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States poses no REAL threat to other nations, insofar as we are fundamentally aware of the horrible consequences of their misuse, why is it wrong that they request that no hostile and unstable nation possess them? Now there was a particular church function I was at once. A man known as the "Reptile Man" came. He possessed all sorts of reptilian creatures. At one point he pulled out a King Cobra. He held something so powerfully dangerous in his hands, and he wouldn't dare trust it in the hands of somebody untrained – and it would be understandable if he did not let me hold the snake, even if I really wanted to. Just as the Reptile Man can rightly request that I not attempt to manage a King Cobra – though he does it often – the US can rightly request that Iran stop their nuclear weapons program. Why? Because it's dangerous. If the request to stop building nuclear weapons IS a right request, how can it be right NOT to listen to it? It simply does not follow. ===================== The US a Constabulary Force? ===================== This point is not all that relevant. However, it is important to know that the United States has the right to look after its interests, and one of its primary and most important interests is at risk: self-preservation. Any nation that has anti-American sentiments and a very verbal hatred for our allies should definitely concern the United States, especially when they plan on acquiring weapons capable of total annihilation. The United States is completely right in requesting that Iran cease with their nuclear weapons program, and Iran is completely wrong for disregarding it. Thanks, InquireTruth Sources: http://www.suite101.com...
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

I should be outside; the weather is beautiful. .. But, I suppose I'm here instead. That works too. Your first argument, that I contradict myself, is mostly based on my lack of clarity. When I said, "My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter," what I meant was that I was not arguing whether it was bad, because I assumed it as a given. Sorry about that. One point that I mentioned in a previous round that you may have overlooked is that the child in your analogy knows that he is a child, and that he shouldn't play with guns, and accepts that truth. Nobody in their right mind would go up to Mahmoud and compare his country to a child. Mahmoud Ahmedinijad believes that his country is the greatest country on earth, and is willing to destroy anyone in his way. You and I both know that Iran can't be trusted with Nukes, and I definitely hear what you are saying, but the simple truth is that most countries, especially those with megalomaniac leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran or Kim Jong il from the DPRK, or even former co-president Cheney of the United States, they all think that they are the strongest and most important and powerful country in the world. That old adage, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," that is exactly what is happening here. To us, We are extremely stable and benevolent, and Iran, Cuba, DPRK, Pakistan, even Russia, to some extent (but don't worry, Sarah Palin can see what they're up to), are dangerous, corrupt, shifty, and unstable. In Iran (and I certainly do not agree), Mr. Ahmedinijad thinks that any non-Islamic nation is unholy. He is a Muslim extremist (there are extremists from every religion, by the way), so he wants a nuclear Jihad, pretty much. Obviously, we view that as wrong, but he views it as right, and we can't convince him otherwise. Perhaps, if the was a UN resolution that no country could have any nukes, perhaps we could get somewhere, but America can't keep our nukes and then tell other countries not to, no matter how "immature" we might see them as. As you might have already noticed, I disagree with most neoconservative values. Neocons believe in using the U. S. as a constabulary force and becoming the "Main Nation," so to speak. I see that as a great way to make enemies and be a bad influence on countries. Obviously, some people disagree with me, otherwise, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in, but the important thing to remember in this debate is that we are working with two of the most neoconservative countries in the world, and they want to be told what to do, even less than we do. So, an international AND FAIR resolution is the only way to keep Iran from making (or buying) nukes.
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

"Your analogy about the murderers, while technically correct, does not effectively analogize my argument. My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter." Compare this to: "And, as I said, all nukes are bad." Perhaps my opponent just seemingly contradicts himself – I will let him explain further in his following round. If my opponent does not think that Nuclear weapons programs are bad or wrong, why then is he against all of them? How can my opponent justify that putting weapons that have the capability of mass destruction in the hands of those who have shown an ardent proclivity to violence and hostility is not, bad, per se…? "Here's what murderer 2 would be most likely (and rightful) to say is something along the lines of, "But you can?" And that's pretty much Mr. Ahmedinijad's response, and rightfully so." A response can only be "rightful" if it is indeed right… Is it right for Iran NOT to stop their nuclear weapons program? I would say that it is clear that it is not. Therefore, Iran's response to the United States request is wrong. Let me give yet another analogy. If a parent, an ardent clay-pigeon shooter, says to her child, "don't play with guns." Would the child's response be a "right" one if he said, "O, what, but you can…?" The disanolgoy of comparing the US and Iran can be shown by comparing a parent and her child. Since the gun is more dangerous in the hands of the child by orders of magnitude, it stands to reason that the parent can rightfully request that the child not play with guns (even though she is in the practice of doing so herself). "However, I did say Iran has no reason to listen to us" Reasons can be easily furnished. Just like a child can be punished for disobedience, the US has the capability to enact punishment against Iran if they insist on endangering the lives all people near and far. "but we simply cannot do the job." O, and why is that? The large question is whether Iran is right in ignoring the US request to stop their nuclear weapons programs. Since the request is a right one, and nukes in the hands of an angry and dangerous nation is both wrong and bad, it stands to reason that ignoring a right request is wrong.
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

Thank you for responding., and for fighting for what is right and good, and peace and truth. I apologize for my resolution being awkwardly stated. I had to futz for a while with it so it made some semblance of sense. Your analogy about the murderers, while technically correct, does not effectively analogize my argument. My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter. Murderer 2 won't cite Murderer 1's request as his reason for quitting, if he does. Here's what murderer 2 would be most likely (and rightful) to say is something along the lines of, "But you can?" And that's pretty much Mr. Ahmedinijad's response, and rightfully so. "My opponent is essentially saying that Iran's nuclear weapons program is justified because 'other people do it too.'" That is not what I meant at all. Iran is plotting horrible things with their nukes. And, as I said, all nukes are bad. However, I did say Iran has no reason to listen to us, just as murderer 2 has no reason to listen to murderer 1. Your second contention is also true. No denying that. However, remember that, to Mahmoud, Iran is the greatest, strongest, most stable nation on earth. We are being the little kid when we try to cite the "immatureness" of his nation as the reason they can't have nukes, and we can. I recognize that they do have anger issues, and they should not have nukes, but Iran simply has absolutely no reason to listen to America. We could hire Canada or something, but we simply cannot do the job. I'm looking forward to your next argument.
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

Since we have not debated in the past, I would like to formerly introduce myself. I am InquireTruth, champion for all that is right and good, and a paladin of peace and truth. Though the resolution is awkwardly stated, I think it is clear as to what you are arguing. The following contentions are derived from an internal contradiction in your argument and by the introduction of political and social context. ============================== Contention 1: Can that which is wrong not be wrong? ============================== "I am against every nuclear weapons program in the world. " This statement by my opponent clearly illustrates that he thinks nuclear weapons of any sort are wrong. Let us consider the following analogy: There are two murders. Murderer #1 says to murderer #2, "I think you ought to stop killing people. " Now is it true that murderer #2 ought to stop killing people? I think we can safely say yes. If the request is a sound request, does it really matter who it is coming from? If the request to stop killing people is a proper request made by a fellow murderer, it does not nullify the request, it merely makes murderer #1 a hypocrite. Can murderer #2 really say that continuing to kill people (ignoring murder 1's request) is not wrong because murderer #1 does it too? My opponent is essentially saying that Iran's nuclear weapons program is justified because "other people do it too. " It stands to reason that since nuclear weapons programs are wrong, that disregarding requests to stop that which is wrong is wrong as well. ============================== Contention 2: Comparing the US and Iran ============================== What is the difference between man #1 wanting to own a gun, and man number #2? All things being equal, there really is no difference. But what is the difference between a grown man going trap shooting with a 12 guage, and a 5 year-old boy doing the same? Well, firstly, the toddler is not fully developed and prepared to handle such a powerful weapon. The toddler is also not yet cognitively able to understand the complex and fatal ramifications of the gun's misuse. When it comes to comparing the US and Iran, which analogy better suits are situation? I would have to say it is the latter. 1. The US does not want any particular country wiped off the map. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is notoriously recognized as saying that Israel is a fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map (1). " 2. The US does not want to burn any nation with its fury. Mahmoud is noted for saying "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury (2). " Would you say that if a grown man saw a toddler wielding a 12 gauge shotgun that he had, at the very least, some responsibility to try and prevent the boy's misuse of the gun (even if he himself owned the very same gun)? If that is justified, how is trying to prevent a nation with destructive proclivities from acquiring nuclear weapons not? 1. . http://www.adl.org... 2. . http://edition.cnn.com...
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is not wrong to not listen to the U.S.'s request that they stop making nukes

I am in no way endorsing Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. He is a horrible extremist, and he is a very hateful person. However, I have no problem with his nuclear weapons program. Let me clarify. I am against every nuclear weapons program in the world. I hate nukes, however, I don't hate Ahmedinijad's program any more or less than the rest, which brings me to my first point. If you and your friend were both smokers, and neither of you were trying to quit, what would you think if your friend told you to quit cold turkey, and he made no effort whatsoever to quit. Well, if a country that is LOADED with nukes (A.K.A. the U.S.) tries to tell another country not to make nukes (Iran), we must be pretty darn arrogant and ethnocentric to say that they should stop making them, but we should keep ours. I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that he's Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, one of the most dangerous men alive in the world. How can we let him have Nukes? Actually, look at the numbers. Who led their army to kill the most people in the past eight years? It's not Ahmedinijad. It's not even Saddam Hussein. Nope, It's George Bush. Now, I can't pin this all on the Bush administration, because that would just be untrue. I can, and will, however, point this towards the American persona, more specifically, the ethnocentric, neoconservative viewpoint that we all have, some more than others. I'm guilty of this, you are, and the king of Neoconservatism, Former Co-president, Dick Cheney, is the one who really let us down in any respect of foreign policy.
the Percy Jackson movie sucks

My round shall be short and simple with two points, one of which counters his point of how the book and the movie were nothing alike. Without further wait I shall begin. To begin with I'd like to point out a few key components of the context in the resolution so that we can have a proper debate. Since the resolution is specific to "The percy jackson movie" we need only evaluate the competence of the movie, and not the book. Thusly, relations between the two of them isn't relevant to the debate because, obviously, the book is not the movie and the resolution asks us to only evaluate the movie. Now onto my main points. My first point is that even if the movie did not follow the plot of the book, that doesn't automatically mean the movie itself is a bad movie. Just saying that "the movie didn't follow the book, ergo bad movie" isn't exactly true because it's perfectly possible to completely pitch out the plot of the book and re-write it how you see fit in order to make a good movie (for example, the pale orc in The Hobbit didn't exist, yet it was added into the first part of the movie to have some sort of antagonist for the group to fight against. And, of course, an antagonist is important for a movie to have otherwise there is no actual conflict in the plot, thus making it pointless). In order to affirm the resolution, my opponent needs to provide some other calculus from us to decide that the movie itself is a bad movie. My second and final point is that no movie can be objectively bad. This is because things like tastes, likes, dislikes, good, and bad are all subjective concepts. What is really really amazing to me might be absolutely awful to you. As such, it's impossible to say that a movie objectively sucked since no metric exists that we can declare a movie objectively good and bad. Since we cannot declare a movie objectively awful, it cannot "suck", but nor can it be objectively good either. Too bad I don't have to prove it was good. I just have to prove it wasn't bad :PYour move. Respond if you dare.