BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harry Potter Vs Luke Skywalker

Since That1guy2 forgot to post his argument this round, I'll post an argument that I would've used for round 1, but it contains spoilers. As you can tell if you anagram my name, I am lord Voldemort. As lord Voldemort, I can tell you first hand that I killed Harry Potter. There's only one problem, though. He came back. I honestly believed that I was immortal, but somehow this 17-year-old boy found a way around that, killing me with my own curse. I am ashamed to say that I am the strongest wizard ever, and the boy still beat me. I don't even have enough of a soul for an afterlife, as he and his friends destroyed almost every piece. It's also worth mentioning that Harry Potter might just be immortal: http://imgur.com...
Harry Potter Vs Luke Skywalker

First of all, let's eliminate Luke's ability to use force choke/lightning, as well as Harry's ability to use the unforgivable curses: Imperio, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra. I think we can agree that neither person would use them on another good person. Even if Luke Skywalker knows the force, Harry Potter knows tons and tons of actual magic. Luke Skywalker could lift me up and throw me, but Harry Potter could stun me for as long as he wants (Petrificus Totalus) and burn me (Imperio). He could dangle me by my foot in midair (levicorpus) and slice me in half with a magic invisible sword (Sectrum Sempra) And towards your link, ScrewAttack was never known to be very accurate.
Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

The issue which I was attempting to address in my previous round was that the debate clearly requires that in this theoretical dilemma, there is objective progress that is only attainable by dis-valuing human life in the favor of that progress. When my opponent claims that humans have natural rights that is all well and good, but it is because he couples that premise with the premise that all progress benefits humanity that the argument becomes invalid. This is an argument that cannot be countered within the framework of this debate, as it fails to accept the main criterion that both parties must believe as prerequisites before even considering such a topic as this. Should there be objective progress outside of humanity, the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not carry an impact on its own- because to favor these "rights" is (by the situation) counter-progressive. The burden of proof lies on Con to show that accepting a forfeiture of progress in the interest of preserving the human race is justifiable. To say that humans have rights does not show that these rights are more valuable than progress. Which takes me back to my original question- what about human life is so intrinsically valuable that it warrants a rejecting of progress?
Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

I'm not sure why Pro needs “A Change In Focus.”In Round 1 Pro made it clear “This is a theoretical debate.” Pro went on to say, “I [Pro] advocate that should a system become available that allows for progress at the cost of human emotion/free will (perhaps a computer resembling that in the movie Transcendence) that it would be desirable over preserving the species as it is at the price of progress.”In Round 2, it seems Pro will base his burden of proof on “the full concept of the survival of the fittest...”In Round 3, Pro's premise, “...in the event that the preservation of human life and progress conflict, what receives precedence?” Con simply “theoretically” demonstrates the human transcendence of the natural selection process via life's primitives. Such transcendence uses those primitives to reprogram natural selection by morality and the human emotion of “Happiness,” defines the engine for human progress desirable in preserving the species on the road to utopia. Such human transcendence elevates the natural selection process beyond Herbert Spencer's simplified analogy of “survival of the fittest.” Pro is incorrect about, “progress at the cost of human emotion/free-will.” It is human emotion and free-will through life's primitives of “Life, Liberty (free-will), and the pursuit of positive-feedback” (the human emotion of “Happiness”) are the key to human progress preserving the species. Preserving the species in technology, food production, and medicine; hence, human evolution.Con's position on the natural selection process, modified by the human transcendence, via Jefferson's life primitives, is the engine to human evolution. This path of evolution includes technology, and within technology, a field called cybernetics. Pro see cybernetics being a threat to humanity, where Con's position being cybernetics is a tool to improve the human condition. There may come a time in human progess where the human cerebral relationship, through nanotechnology and genetic engineering, may merge with cybernetics, creating a new step in human evolution. Perhaps, adding thousands of years and mental capacity to the human existence where “Progress” enhances “Human Preservation.” My recommendation is not “A Change In Focus,” but, Pro needs to focus on his burden of proof, where “Progress Supersedes Human Preservation.”
Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

An Appeal To A Change In Focus: My opponent's arguments are logical to a certain extent. The fatal flaw is that he states technology and progress are things that ultimately support human life (and, to be fair, currently they do). However, by accepting this debate my opponent has also accepted to debate my stated premise: in the event that the preservation of human life and progress conflict, what receives precedence? My opponent suggests that this is not the case because it is not currently the case and continues on to present the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This dangerously resembles a straw man, as it does in fact place intrinsic value on human life but does not address the main contention of the theoretical conflict between human interest and ultimate progress (the evolved machine). I cannot further contend my opponent's arguments for this reason, and so I offer an appeal to my opponent that this debate be reconsidered under the stipulations that I have explained. To continue in the same line of reason is more than permissible, but a causal link between these "natural rights" of man and the conflict with progress must be shown.
Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

Thanks for accepting, Mike. I am sure that an enjoyable and educational experience will be mutual. In this debate, I will be defending the ideal that progress supersedes the preservation of human life. This mentality entails the full concept of the survival of the fittest, but to a conclusion that we often fail to make. Indeed, it is often a difficult and seemingly self-deprecating conclusion. The conclusion is this: that in the name of progress, human life ought not to be preserved as intrinsically valuable or "sacred". We are sentient beings and as such have a certain degree of choice in the matter. That choice sets us apart from the animals, but is also the choice that allows us to progress. I.Human Life Is Not Intrinsically Valuable This premise bears the most import to this debate. Until we have reached this conclusion, the later premise and conclusion bear no real impact. Human life feels valuable to us, as it is what we understand from experience. We cannot (in a real way) perceive a universe free of human life. However, if we dis-value our personal bias towards human life, we see that it is not intrinsically valuable. In fact, it more closely resembles a destructive force in its more recent "advancements". It is interesting to notice that humans behave quite a bit like cancer cells. The ultimate fact is that human life is not of ultimate consequence. If true progress could be made at the price of human life, then it would still be justified. II.The Concept of Choice vs. Adequate Programming What separates human beings from computers/animals? Typically, most advocates of human life point to emotion and choice. A.Emotion As A Weakness, Not A Strength Emotion is not rational. Emotion is based upon subjective feelings, rather than rational thought which considers concepts and ideals outside of the self. Although we often attempt to preserve and defend our emotions, this too is coming from an emotional argument- not a rational one. Emotion is not worth dis-valuing progress. Should the two conflict, then progress should be esteemed as the worthy choice. B.Dysfunctional Complexity vs. Functional Simplicity Now we examine the concept of human "free will". For the sake of argumentation I will contrast it against a system like a computers seemingly simplistic programming. As humans, we often feel a sense of worth over something like a computer because "we can make choices, the computer cannot". To an extent, this is correct. We can make choices based on factors which a functioning program would not consider. One of such factors is emotion (addressed in point A). Yet, we see humans constantly making flawed or undesirable choices, while a functioning program fulfills its duty and does nothing more. If humans were able to compartmentalize and function in such a way, the progress we could make would be exponentially greater than what the common man achieves now. This being said, I end this section with an open question to my opponent: Is progress worth forsaking/dis-valuing in order to preserve our ability to be incorrect? Necessary Conclusion: Progress ultimately supersedes the preservation of human life.
Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

This is a theoretical debate. The voting style only allows for a winner to be selected as I wanted this debate to remain philosophical and rely solely on the participant's reasoning abilities and ideals, rather than sources or simply grammatical correctness. I advocate that should a system become available that allows for progress at the cost of human emotion/free will (perhaps a computer resembling that in the movie Transcendence) that it would be desirable over preserving the species as it is at the price of progress. That being clarified as my position and intent, the first round is for acceptance only. Any further questions regarding my position on this debate prior to acceptance will be addressed in the comments.
There Should Be a Fat Tax Introduced

"If a fat tax was ever introduced then the end result is likely to be that people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods which could lead to an increase in obesity!' You hit the nail on the head here. Poor people will sacrifice tooth and nail to make sure they have cable TV, whether they should be spending the money on more important things or not. Increasing the amount for fatty foods will not curb anything ... it'll just grow this wallet for some gov't assoc. to use wrongfully. Actually I pretty much agree with everything you stated in your round 3 argument. You sorta pulled a U-turn on me there. I know I was labeled 'pro' above, but your introductory argument led me to believe you supported this tax. You sound now like you do not.
There Should Be a Fat Tax Introduced

This concept sounds to me like an artificial balancing of something that is not able to stand on its own. If health food needs to be subsidized to make it feasible then theres something obviously wrong with it. You could argue by your same cost analysis that a "slim tax" could be instituted against farmers who grow whole foods and organic foods for taking up the same space and resources that a genetically enhanced food type could have yielded and fed more people, even out of a particular crops season. A "fat tax" should not be introduced because it promotes one type of lifestyle over another. Its's a form of government control. Your lifestyle is not inherently better than those people's who eat the "fat" foods youre trying to regulate on. And the thought that you and your health peers should be able to walk on the backs of the people (by using their money to fund your life choices) who don't eat what you like is infuriating. The only logical stance I can see for this would be if you argued that these unhealthy eaters were a drain to you and your types in some manner. This may actually be the truth there in Australia though since your healthcare is publicly funded and required by all. That was more counter freedom legislation that actually helped lead to this issue we are talking about now. Simply put, that society leaned too far from personal freedom and are now falling hard towards total socialism. Keep your lifestyle to yourself and let people live their lives. Quit trying to control them. If health food is the right way to go ... these fat unhealthy people will kill themselves off on their own. They don't need the lives of everyone else in the country to be affected while you try to artificially reverse something that could just as easily work itself out.
The atomics mission were necessary in ending the war against Japan

Japan was only willing to accept the Potsdam Declaration on terms acceptable to them, which would've seen many government officials and Japan's emperor remain in power. When these terms were not present in the treaty, Japan chose to stall on accepting it, believing that the more American blood they spilled, the more likely the U.S. would be in renegotiating the treaty. This was never going to happen, therefore, the war was going to continue. Yes, Japan was weak and low on resources, but its will to keep on fighting was NOT broken. Furthermore, Russia invaded Manchuria so possibilities of a treaty were gone. I would like to state that Eisenhower later recanted his statements about the atomic missions, explaining that his response was in the moment, and he didn't know the full context of the situation. Furthermore, Eisenhower also believed that Germany was close to "surrendering" in 1944, but this miscalculation led to a massive German counter offensive( Battle of the Bulge). I have negated the notion that an invasion of the Japanese mainland or increased firebombings of Japanese cities would have ended the war in the last round. Firebombings conducted by hundreds of B-29s in the months preceding the atomic missions with the sole goal of forcing Japan to surrender did not work. They were large air campaigns but they did not break the will of Japan. Likewise, if Japan was so close to surrendering, I ask why the population of Kyushu was called upon to fight any invading force? Why did kamikazee attacks only increase as the U.S. reached closer to the Japanese mainland? Why did Japan threatened to execute American POWs? Why did General Tojo still want to fight even though Hiroshima was leveled? These are actions conducted by someone who is not looking to surrender, but rather to fight to the very end. I feel as though my opponent has avoided these points, choosing to quote emotionally charged comments from U.S. generals like Eisenhower. I have showed why an invasion would not have ended the war but only lead to more lives lost on both sides, and how firebombings and diplomatic efforts failed to make surrender before the atomic missions. Therefore, the atomic missions were necessary in ending the war. Thank you for a nice debate, and hopefully we can debate sometime again in the future!
The atomics mission were necessary in ending the war against Japan

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." ~ Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." ~ Admiral William D. LeahyLike I said before, the Japanese had been blockaded. Therefore they did not have the supplies to continue the war. The Japanese were pretty much defenceless and the end was inevitable.The Japanese actually reached out to Russia to make a peace agreement. America knew this because they had long ago broken the codes that the Japanese used to communicate. The US Strategic Bombing Survey said with certainty that Japan would have surrendered in the year 1945 no matter what. It is clear that many of the top people who commanded the Allied forces thought that the bombs were unnecessary. It was clear that Japan had indeed tried to broker peace which negated my opponents claim to Japan never wanting to surrender. By statistics, it is proven that the bombs were uneccassary. Proof of this in [1].My opponents whole argument is basically, "the Japanese all have Samurai mentality and would never have surrendered." This is wrong on many accounts. Firstly, claiming that the majority of the Japanese people have a no-surrender mentality is negated by the fact that we know Japan tried to surrender. Secondly, the firebombing, blockade and invasion would have made Japan surrender. It is statistically proven by the article I provided. In fact, the need for an invasion was improbable based upon the survey.[1] https://www.commondreams.org...
The atomics mission were necessary in ending the war against Japan

Now, before I begin my arguments, I would like it to be known that my source will be "War's end", a book written by the only person to be present on both atomic missions, Major General Chuck W. Sweeney. In your opening argument, you have stated that Japan was close to surrendering, and as a result, making the atomic missions unnecessary. However, in reality, in 1945, Japanese ministers in Emperor's Hirohito's cabinet had no intentions of surrendering to the U. S. Many Japanese people at the time had a samurai-like mindset, viewing surrendering as dishonorable to one's family and self. As a result, surrendering to the U. S. was unthinkable for many Japanese people, especially its generals and government officials. For example, even after Hiroshima was hit, General Tojo believed that the U. S. possessed only one atomic bomb and that Japan could continue fighting. There were no plans to end the war unless the U. S. changed the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, which wasn't going to happen. You stated firebombings or an invasion would have been sufficient enough in making Japan surrender. However, firebombings conducted by the USAF in the months preceding the atomic missions did not weaken the will of the Japanese. Now let's make one thing clear, these bombing missions were flown by hundreds of B-29s that dropped countless incendiary on Japan's cities in one of the largest air campaigns in history. And let's not ignore that fact that japan's leaders failed to evacuate cities full civilians even though U. S. planes dropped pamphlets, prompting civilians to do so. Given these facts, it is very unlikely that more firebombings were going to make japan surrender if they were willing to allow their own civilians to die. As for an invasion, it would've led the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American lives. For example, Operation Olympic, code-name for the invasion of Kyushu, would have been a blood-bath for American troops. The island was heavily fortified by the Japanese, who at that point were expecting an invasion. Furthermore, the entire civilian population of Kyushu was called upon to fight any invading force, totaling a defense force in the millions. I am sure that you have heard about Okinawa and Iwo Jima, so imagine similar battles on a larger scale. A blockade wouldn't have made Japan surrender. Yes, it wouldn't contained Japan and deprive it of its ability to attack but the will of Japan to keep fighting would have still been strong. Given the points that I have made, it is unlikely that a blockade, invasion, or more firebombings would have ended the war. I await my opponent's response!
The atomics mission were necessary in ending the war against Japan

The definition of nessessary is, "Needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential." [1] Therefore, for me to win this debate I would need to find an alternative option that hypothetically could have happened that would have ended the war. Considering that Japan was on the verge of collapse, surrender was imminent regardless of whether the bombs were dropped or not. The war could have ended by the blockade, invasion, more firebombing, etc. The atomic bombs were not needed to end the war. Therefore I won this debate unless my opponent can prove that these alternate scenarios could not have ended the war. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
this house would ban video games

Well, this debate effectively ground to nowhere...For the people viewing this debate, here is a good one! http://store.steampowered.com...Basically it is a RPG game, that teaches you Japanese! Utilising the fact that entertainment is the best format to transfer knowledge (I.e. Music/song, video's, etc.) - Entertainment can be soaked with knowledge, making it better than sitting in class!Have a great one! :)
this house would ban video games

Quick question for future rounds - Do you wish for this to be sources (With links to sites, to show our side of the argument) - or would you prefer this to be a mind vs mind debate here, where we each use our knowledge and wits to sway the others' opinions? ^ this will let me know how you want to approach this debate, so we can do it your way from there. For my first round, I will assert that Video games should not be banned, due to a myriad of reason I will clarrify in subsequent rounds. I just wish to find the format my opponent wishes to go with, and we can get started at full steam! :) As a quick list, so you are aware of where I intend to go with my debate : * Influcing study period (plan to debunk this) * Assistance is learning * Retention of information learnt * Assimilation of languages * Spatial accuracy * Life/Social Skills * Builds Social defenses These are just the few subjects I can see that will help build my case - Pro I hope you have some good ones :) Good luck, and may we both be excellent to each other!
theism=atheism

"Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints."https://www.atheists.org...While Muslims don't believe in Judaism, they are not atheists for they follow faith and vice versa would be true if you said an atheist was Muslim.
Should we be aloud too wear hats in school as in appropriate hats no GANG HATS OKKK

Hats are not worn in schools for a similar reason that you wear pants. It is societal norm to not wear hats indoors, it is a societal norm to wear pants in public. It’s a part of basic etiquette. [1] Why should we care about etiquette? It sounds Victorian. Regardless of the potential unhip nature of some rule of etiquette, etiquette is essential to any civilization. The basic behavior that is accepted in social situations can mean the difference between success and failure in almost every aspect of life. Pushing norms of society, being avant garde, can be described as a positive attempt to express yourself. Wearing a hat may express some facet of your personality, or some artistic expression. What separates Andy Warhol’s sometimes anti-social behavior and a student wearing baseball cap other than arrogance? Even Andy Warhol knew when to wear pants.