BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are more important things in life than education

No doubt we need education. However we do not need to be the next Einstein or a doctor to be considered successful. Not all of us are destined to be doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. I believe these are much more important than education: Wisdom/Common Sense/Critical Thinking Love Honesty Selflessness Courage You can be an average student and be really levelheaded and/or wise. You can be a valedictorian and be a dumbass when it comes to common sense. We have all met these people.
Gun Control.

What you are saying is pretty idiotic. "Guns in arms of untrained civilians are useless against a properly trained and equiped army, Useless, And military weapons in the hands of civilians produce only mass murder and chaos. " Do you know of the country of Russia? Where there is no free speech? There is LITERRALY 3 times less people than America and MORE gun crimes in Russia than in the entirety of the US. And guess what. No one can even protest against the government since of how rocks don't get far as guns do. The second ammendment is useless? So you are saying that having civilians hold guns for self defense is bad? What about people that get attacked? They could defend themselves. Guns no matter what will always come. Just like legalized weed, Putting it as a legal thing is better as it creates a state in which normal people use it correctly. Of course there are still bad uses with weed, But guns save more lives than they kill. Guns to civilians are proven to work. That is why not stabilized Brazil is planning for the second ammendment.
A guaranteed win.

I will list all of your mistakes below: "who've never even began the debate yet" Instead of using the word "began", "begun" would be proper grammar. "even if I loose everytime." You mispelled "lose". "I've learned out of an old college text book; and" A semicolon is used to combine two independent clauses, and you never start an independent clause with"and". "I'm very ignorant in my writing skills... if you'd be willing to debate me on spelling," Using three periods back to back is only used when quoting a person or text. Since you used it to end a sentence that was not a direct quote, it was used improperly.
A guaranteed win.

When I discovered that people on here offer their votes to friends who've never even began the debate yet, I lost interest in this site right after joining 6 months ago. Last night I think I figured out how I can get something out of this site, even if I loose everytime. Almost everthing I learned about writing, I've learned out of an old college text book; and since punctuation etc. count for points; and I'm very ignorant in my writing skills... if you'd be willing to debate me on spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, and anywhere else I've made a mistake in writing this challenge... you'll win: and I'll learn something. If nobody challenges this argument, I'll assume I passed my first writing class. Well, there ya' go. If I made a mistake and you take this debate, you win. If nobody takes the debate, that's enough of a win for me. If God permit, I'll try again, until I've developed some better writting skills. Aloha nui loa, and thank you for your time.
A guaranteed win.

Cool! Thanks Bob. I really appreciate your time and wisdom. I spent my high school years on the streets. Since I was 16, people have been telling me to write a book.about my life. I figure it should read like Hunter Thompson and John Steinbeck. Since I learned how to talk on the streets, maybe I can teach you something... try to avoid using the words, never, always and only when you debate me next time, unless you're quoting somebody: you can bet, that's gonna' get my attenion: and you might lose. Ellipsis points (...) are used to show where you've omitted words from a quote. Strong ellipsis points indicate a pause in thought, to make the reader consider more deeply. For example: My ignorance... but, I've spared you the details. "You never..." that's even worse than saying, "Never." You don't know what I never do. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. Psalm 119:128 3,000 are up. C U next time. Aloha. Mahalo nui
A guaranteed win.

Thanks Bob; I really appreciate your time. I can't believe I spelled lose wrong; it's what I came here to do. Oh well, at least you know I didn't use spellcheck. I'm an 8th grade dropout, with one semester of college English, and no GED. I appreciate the comments too, especially the "cute" one. It gives me an oppourtunity to expound on my philosophy of life. There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity: it's stupid to pretend we aren't ignorant. My ignorance happens to be in formal education, but because I am willing to admit it, I'm a little less ignorant tonight than I was this morning. I've just begun to take advatage of my new found grammar skills. I was wondering Bob, could I have used a colon on the end of my second to the last sentence? You've already won, but I'd still be thankful for some further grammar lessons. How many mistakes did I make this time? ;)
Best War movie

Saving Private Ryan, I will admit, is a good movie. The first act is relentless and doesn't hold back in terms of violence and gore; I like that. This is not to say that war films only have to be violent and nothing else, but war is an ugly and relentless thing. The rest of the film is a bit more conventional, more about heroism and sacrifice. While it's really inspiring, it works better as a story than as a portrayal of war. The best war movie ever made has to be Apocalypse Now. It's dark, almost surreal, and never holds back. Its characters are flawed but human; the main lead finds himself being overcome by the evil around him and slipping into insanity. To me, that's a lot more fascinating than brotherhood and valor, uplifting as they may be. Apocalypse Now has interesting characters, isn't afraid to provoke its audience, and is totally honest about what war is really about.
Best War movie

Awards and nominations cannot always correspond with a film's quality. Having Steven Spielberg's name attached to a film does a lot for its popularity. However, Apocalypse Now appears on many critical lists as one of the greatest films ever made. A lot of veterans cite it as one of the most realistic depictions of war ever on the big screen. However, Saving Private Ryan did make millions of dollars and was selected to be preserved in the National Film Industry along with Apocalypse Now, so they clearly both had an impact on culture. Though, in the end, this is the difference between a great film and a masterpiece. Private Ryan is more popular, but Apocalypse Now is more unique, more influential, and more lifelike.
Fate is more likely than Fortune.

However, fortune in definition is "prosperity attained partly through luck" from Merriam-Webster. I agree that indeed luck is a part but fate stretches beyond that. People may say you have a lucky fate, in other words, a lucky future. If your going to have a relationship with someone it is set before you. You state: "But the events that cause fate involve luck it self for that event to happen". To make a few points about this statement: 1. Basically you are saying every outcome in this world involves some sort of luck or chance. I am here to disprove that. If I had chosen not to make this debate, would that be luck? Would you be thinking the exact same thing you are thinking right now as you are reading this? Say if this debate was never created then what do you think you would be doing right now? Maybe reading and debating another topic. There are infinite amounts of outcomes and each outcome is the pre-determined part of fate.
Fate is more likely than Fortune.

So you're basically saying that Fate is the out come or result of an action or event. But for that resolution to happen there has to be some events that have to happen at the certain moment for the outcome to happen. This is basically your definition of fate. Since the resolution was: "Fate is more likely than Fortune" in simplicity it means that fate occurs more than luck. But the events that cause fate involve luck it self for that event to happen. For example: something a common couple would say is "it was fate that we met." well for that fate to happen they would've needed the luck for them to meet or the luck to even get a yes for the relationship to start. It was no problem accepting this debate. I enjoy this challenge. :)
Fate is more likely than Fortune.

My apologies opponent for not clearly stating what I meant by "fortune". Clearly fortune has many different meanings though the one that is used here is quite self explanatory. Fortune as being "luck" are the odds in favor of an event happening. Fate is different in which everything is set ahead. Fortune are the odds. Obviously the odds of a meteor hitting the Pentagon 5 minutes from now is extremely slim but Fortune states that the odds are still there. It is not pre-determined. My opponent states in their last argument: "But you are the person that ultimately decides if you're just going to take it as fate or you're going to do something to change the fate you supposedly have. " It is my opinion against this. It is impossible to change fate. Fate is simply a way of saying that events that happen are meant to happen. You might ask for extra credit. That's an example of fate. You might just be lazy and pass it off as a bad mark. That's also fate. There are many variables involved in fate and fate is the pre-determined outcome of those variables.
Fate is more likely than Fortune.

My opponent's opinion states that my opponent thinks that everything is planned before we do something. For example it was already determined that I would take part in this debate. But in the resolution it's stated that Fate is more likely than fortune. Since fortune was not defined it could be defined as a valuable item/person or having enough money to sustain a healthy lifestyle. If this was the definition of the term fortune I would have to disagree with the resolution for the following: 1. My opponent states in their last argument: You can't predict nor stop your next action or the next thing that will happen to you. I agree that you can't predict everything you do nor can you predict every action and reaction to the things you do. But you are the person that ultimately decides if you're just going to take it as fate or you're going to do something to change the fate you supposedly have. For example it was fate that you will fail a fail your class because instead of studying for your exam you are out socializing or playing video games (etc.). The following day you fail your exam and you know you're not going to pass the class because of your low mark. But would you just sit there and blame fate for your mistakes and failure? No. You take matters into your own hands and ask your teacher if there is any other possibilities of doing extra work to raise your make so that you can pass. Thank You
Fate is more likely than Fortune.

Thanks to all who are reading or following this debate. It is difficult to express such a wide and unknown topic in a sentence. Often times fate and fortune are believed to be the exact same thing and that is no true. Fate is known to be set before you like a book you are reading. The words are all set in before you read them yet you don't know what will happen. The exact definition (I don't trust Wikipedia) from Merriam-Webster is "the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do." Supporting my argument in which I believe that everyday events are set before you everyday. You can't predict nor stop your next action or the next thing that will happen to you.
Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I negate resolved that teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.I will now evaluate the Pro's terms:1. I agree.2. I agree. Pro can also set up a plan for HOW teaching evolution will be evalued above teaching creationism in schools.3. I agree. Con can also set up a counter-plan for HOW teaching evolution will NOT be valued above teaching creationism in schools.4. I mostly agree, but definitions and standards are a BIG part of any debate. They will be heavy in my Round 2 speech, but I will try to keep them from being excessive.5. Each of us can define the terms for ourselves and dispute one another's definitions.6. See my response to term #5.7. Yes - evidence is critical for any form of argumentation.8. I agree, with a few small exceptions that I have listed above.This is modeled after a Parliamentary round, so plans, counterplans, definitions, burdens, standards, refutations, and evidence are all welcome.Without further ado, I would like to invite the Pro side to make a case explaining why teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools. As Con, I may interpret the resolution differently and state why the resolution is not true.Cheers.
Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

I feel that Evolution, should be valued above creationism in school curriculums. Terms 1. The First round is for acceptance and clarification only 2. Pro will argue for Evolution to be emphasized in school curriculums, above creationism 3. Con will argue for creationism to be empasized in school curriculums, above evolution 4. No Semantics-No Excessive debate over the meaning of terms 5. Evolution will be defined as:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. 6. Creationism will be defined as:Creationismis the beliefthat life on earth all comes from a supernatural being 7. Burden of proof is shared:Both sides have to prove the validity of their respective beliefs. 8. Contesting Terms 1-8 is an automatic forfeit
Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort.

Both wizards are extremely powerful, each in their own right. In this friendly debate, we've had to nitpick somewhat. Hope you have enjoyed reading both sides. Onto my last part in this debate. #1 Voldemort may end up winning his battles on a tactical ground. However, Albus Dumbledore would win on a strategic ground. In the long run, which type of win would prove more useful? Examples of a tactical win: the loss of lives of Cedric Diggory (Goblet of Fire), and a year later Sirius Black (Order of the Phoenix). Examples of a strategic win: a quick re-group of the Order of the Phoenix (Goblet of Fire), capture of several death eaters (Order of the Phoenix), and exposing Voldemort's return to the community at large (Order of the Phoenix). #2 Voldemort may not care about others, but his tactics aren't full-proof. There is always the chance of his careless actions back-firing. Examples: Voldemort's attempt to put Harry under the imperius curse (Goblet of Fire). Voldemort possession attempt of Harry. (Order of the Phoenix). #3 Ambition. Knowledge is power. Voldemort: "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore? Above such brutality, are you?" Dumbledore: "We both know there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom. Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit." Voldemort: "There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" Dumbledore: "You are quite wrong. Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness." Albus: "His knowledge remained woefully incomplete, Harry! That which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend. Of house-elves and children's tales, of love, loyalty and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any magic, is a truth that he has never grasped." #4 The Elder wand. Albus Dumbledore: "I was fit only to possess the meanest of them, the least extraordinary. I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it." As we crossed each other on this point, I see no further reason to re-hash. #5 Dumbledore admits he cannot win - Voldemort has more extensive knowledge of magic than any other wizard alive. Please see my quote above, regarding to Voldemort's knowledge remaining woefully incomplete! Also, do you think his knowledge, powers, etc. would prove useful outside his very own personal gain, or agenda? Dumbledore: "You call it 'greatness,' what you have been doing, do you?" Riddle: "Certainly. I have experimented; I have pushed the boundaries of magic further, perhaps, than they have ever been pushed -" Dumbledore: "Of some kinds of magic. Of some. Of others, you remain...forgive me...woefully ignorant." Riddle: "The old argument. But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore." Looking forward to your comments, and votes :o)
Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort.

Hmm... Interesting. Argument #3: Ambition Voldemort's only goal was to gain more power. No matter the cost. If Voldemort had lived for 10 more years he would have gotten more powerful. So would have Dumbledore, but because power is the goal of Voldemort he would have gotten more then Dumbledore. Dumbledore did not care about being the best. He cared for what is right. Voldemort was sick for power and this is not a good trait in many people, but when warriors like Alexander and Napoleon wanted power they got it. Politically and Mentally. I argue this could be said the same in Wizardry. Voldemort would have had more time to gather knowledge of ancient dark magic and as I always say: Knowledge is Power. Argument #4: The Elder Wand This is a difficult argument, but I still think Voldemort wins on this one. Both have owned the Elder Wand. One may argue that Dumbledore has the advantage because he actually owned the wand, but do remember Voldemort does not suffer from this problem unless he is dueling it's master. Because Harry was the final master it would be fair to say that neither in a duel would be considered master of the elder wand. Besides, if a weak wizard who was the master of the elder wand beat an amazing wizard with a regular wand it would not be the power of the weaker wizard who beat the better wizard, it would be the power of the wand that beat the better wizard. See what I'm saying? The Elder Wand does not mean that Dumbledore is the better wizard but perhaps he has the better wand. Wands and power are two different things. If Dumbledore had not possessed the Elder Wand I think Voldemort would have killed him. ITS ABOUT THE WIZARD, NOT THE WAND! Argument #5 Dumbledore admits he cannot win! If one does not believe he can't win, then he won't be able to. In the fifth book Dumbledore says that Voldemort has a more extensive knowledge of magic then any other wizard alive and that even his own most powerful defensive spells and charms (with the elder wand) would be insufficient if he came back to full power. If these two giants of magic were at top power and in a duel Voldemort would at least beat his best defensive charms. If Dumbledore could win wouldn't he, a man with genius-level intellect at least say that he's got a good shot of winning? He just does not seem confident. Furthermore, this proves my statement of Knowledge is Power. Dumbledore confirms that the more you know about magic, the more powerful you become, again saying that Voldemort is more powerful. He also confirms my first argument which was that Voldemort is more skilled. He confirms this by saying that his very best defensive spells would do squat to save him. I will wait for however long it takes Once more, Thanks.
Albus Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard then Voldemort.

Thank you for the initial food for thought. There is no doubt in my mind that both characters are extremely powerful wizards. Both have their undeniable strengths, as well as flaws, and weaknesses, but neither of the latter take away from their greatness. I believe Albus Dumbledore to be more powerful of a wizard than Voldemort. To begin my side of this debate, here are my first two points: 1) Albus Dumbledore was the only one Voldemort has ever feared. This is mentioned throughout the series. Example from Philosopher's Stone. "My dear Professor, surely a sensible person like yourself can call him by his name? All this 'You-Know-Who' nonsense - for eleven years I have been trying to persuade people to call him by his proper name: Voldemort." Professor McGonagall flinched, but Dumbledore, who was unsticking two lemon drops, seemed not to notice. "It all gets so confusing if we keep saying 'You-Know-Who.' I have never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort's name." "I know you haven't," said Professor McGonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring. "But you're different. Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort, was frightened of." Albus never feared Voldemort. I find it speaks volumes that a most powerful wizard such as Voldemort would fear anyone. The significance in this is that Voldemort must highly regard Albus' powers, otherwise, I doubt he'd be bothered, just as he would towards all others. 2) Voldemort couldn't, then wouldn't attempt to kill Albus, himself. In Order of the Phoenix, during their duel, Voldemort tried to kill Albus. He was unsuccessful. In Half Blood Prince, Voldemort sent others (Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape) to kill Albus. Malfoy was unsuccessful. While Snape was indeed successful in ending Albus' life, little did Voldemort know at the time, that it wasn't carried through under his orders, at all. I see no other reason why Voldemort wouldn't want to keep trying to kill Albus himself, unless their duel made it clear to him, that he, himself couldn't. If Voldemort were to be more powerful, that wouldn't have stopped him. Looking forward to your next few points :)