BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Norwegian Whaling

My opponent stated that many other fish can be hunted in the winter and fall, which is true, but cod is the more dominant industry in this season. There are many fishing boats, and they can't all harvest the same product or the price would go down and the stocks would be stressed. Some boats hunt angler and some will hunt whales. There is money to be made in all of them and it is a choice by the fishermen what they will take. Rationally, all animals should have the same right to life, and whales should not be arbitrarily protected while other animals are seen as more acceptable to take. My opponent's source for information on whale meat sales seems not to include the most recent data. The past two years have been a great success for the industry, with even the first acquisition of a new boat in many years. [1] My opponent states that the small size of minke whales makes them more difficult to hit, but the boats are quite small and usually approach the whale quite close before firing the gun.[2] This is to make the chances of a quick death very high. Of course, my opponent is correct that not all deaths can be instant, but this is also the case for big game hunting, and even slaughterhouses. It is unfair to hold the whale hunt to a higher standard than other forms of meat production. My opponent is correct in that a high speed chase would be stressful to the whale, but this is not the case in the Norwegian hunt. The boats will approach whales by radar and sighting, usually slowly to avoid scaring it away, and fire at it when it surfaces. [2]The Norwegian fishing boats used are usually incapable of high speed! My opponent brings up a valid point in that calves should stay with their mothers, but the boats try to only fire at a whale if it does not appear to be with a calf. Of course, such an unfortunate incident cannot be completely avoided, but the treatment of baby animals in slaughterhouses and factory farms is truly appalling and is much worse than the occasional death of a nursing mother whale. Whale meat is not necessary in Norway, but this can be said of almost any food in the developed world. Any food has a suitable substitute. It is up to the market to decide what meat will be sold and in what amount. My opponent made this point, but I encourage anyone to consider the fact that to replace a whale's meat, other animals will have to die. And many more of them. To obtain 2 or 2.5 metric tons of meat, is it more ethical to kill one whale or 30 pigs? 500 cod? And lastly, while there are small illegal whaling operations, they mainly take place in Korea and the Philippines. There is currently no evidence of illegal whaling anywhere near Norway, I assume due to the existent supply of legal meat. [1] http://mobil.lofotposten.no... [2]http://www.nammco.no...
DC is less interesting than Marvel

Strength in combat is not the most important factor, and my competitor is required to use examples of comics when necessary. No ad hominem moves, movies and other sources can also be used. Marvel is, in my opinion, more interesting, because it has a greater selection of characters, including characters such as Dr. Strange (who has his own comic and animated series), the X-men, arguably have a much greater variety of characters, including Nightcrawler, Wolverine and other favourites. Also, though DC characters have a greater amount of power, Marvel has a greater variety of characters. My prime example is the Justice League: Superman: Flight, Speed, Strength and Endurance (also incredible vision and a weakness to kryptonite) Flash: Speed (Also time-travel) Wonder Woman: Speed (only reflexes) Endurance, Strength and Flight Cyborg: Strength (also access to every computer in the world and teleportation) Green Lantern: Strength, Flight, Speed (Also making nearly anything with his mind) Martian Manhunter: Strength (Also walking through walls, telepathy and shapeshifting) Hawkgirl: Flight, Strength (Also negating magic) As you will see there are a lot of common powers amongst them. And their unique powers are much greater than Marvel characters, making their opponents repetitive and equally overpowered. Therefore, Marvel, which has huge stories about persecution (Superhero Registration etc.) and removing powers (X-men 3: Last Stand) whereas DC's are about omnipotent people battling other omnipotent people (Anti-monitor, Lex Luthor, Darkseid and others) which quickly gets boring.
DC is less interesting than Marvel

I respectfully disagree with my opponent. As stated before, though Marvel has been more successful in film, it hasn't really branched out a lot from the superhero genre. DC Comics, on the other hand, offers us wider spectrum of genres when it comes to theatrical films based off of their characters and properties. The acception to this is, of course, is the X-Men, and that's about it as far as film is concerned. Most Marvel films, however, amount to nothing more than fun roller coaster rides with very little substance. In other words, The Avengers was a fun roller coaster ride of a movie, but it wasn't as interesting or wall-breaking as A History of Violence or V for Vendetta was. So, as far as variety in film goes, DC is much more interesting, just not as financially successful. While Marvel has made a few good animations, and yes, some of them are good, none of them are as iconic or well remembered as DC's. The villains of the Batman cartoon alone probably make up some of the most colorful, interesting cast of villainry in cartoon history. From the murderous phychopath known as the Joker and his dangerous girlfriend, to Mr. Freeze's retro-styled armor and questionably morality. The most iconic Marvel animation is without a doubt the crudely animated 1967 Spider-Man cartoon, which can owe a large amount of it's fame to it's theme song and the Spider-Man internet meme. Other than that though, it's not really something that's all that interesting to a modern viewership. Another medium outside of sequential artwork where I think DC proves more interesting than Marvel would have to be video games. Besides a few decent crossovers with Capcom and that one good Spider-Man game from 2002, Marvel hasn't really presented anything good (or interesting) in recent memory. DC, on the other hand, has offered us two critically praised Batman games[1][2], a fairly successful and well recieved MMO[3], and two fun Lego: Batman games[4][5]. On underdogs on Rorschach, I'd like to make a clarification. I never said that any of DC's underdogs were based off of DC characters. I specifically said that the character Rorschach, who was hardly an underdog dispite a some-what sad origin story, was partially based off of the the Question, a DC character. Most of DC's "underdog" characters that come to my mind, like Matty Roth, Spider Jerusalem, and Yorick Brown, are original characters in their own right. While Marvel may have a few interesting underdogs, like the X-Men or Ant-Man, the narratives they present aren't usually as good as DC narratives. Specifically, those stories from the DC imprint, Vertigo. SOURCES:[1]http://www.gamerankings.com...[2]http://community.batmanarkhamcity.com...[3]http://www.gamespot.com...[4]http://www.gamespot.com...[5]http://www.digitalspy.com...
DC is less interesting than Marvel

I must agree with my opponent's view that DC has been successful across multiple genres, but this does not prove that it is more interesting. This also applies for the DCAU, which is aimed at introduce people to the DC universe's comics, and is the cause of many characters' 'rise in popularity,' just as much as appeal to existing fans. Also the 'iconic characters' are the templates, and therefore more interesting for their reflection on comic history, and for their (actually quite interesting) villans. Marvel has also had numerous animated series, which are also reasonably interesting. Also, my opponent admitted that some of his 'underdogs' are in fact based on other DC characters. I would like to point out that this reinforces my view that some of the DC characters are stereotypical (even if they created the stereotype). On another level, Marvel also has underdog characters, like the X-Men, who are almost totally rejected by society. On the level of interesting non-physical struggles, I would like to commend Ant-Man, who struggles with mental issues and leaves the Avengers, and Ronin, who has gone through numerous identities. They also have characters like the Eternals, which have fascinating journeys in self discovery, or Elektra who is constantly resurrected.
DC is less interesting than Marvel

As I said earlier on, movies and other sources are also very significant. In this footing Marvel has been far more successful, with the Avengers movie grossing hundreds of millions, a clear sign that people are interested by the story (in another format). I will concede that certain comics from DC have had interesting characters, but I believe that Booster Gold's most significant recent comic was the new 52 JLI series, in which he co-starred with Batman, a Green Lantern and a woman with magic hair. And in total the plot was essentially that a new team was needed, that some people with explosives didn't want a new team and that they saved the world from aliens. This doesn't seem particularly inventive. Also, simply because Marvel has been producing less interesting plot lines recently does not mean that they have not produced interesting plot lines in the past, such as Secret Invasion and Siege. Simply because currently Spiderman is uninteresting, that doesn't mena he has not been involved in fascinating plot lines recently Also, I went for 'iconic characters' because those are the ones that represent DC the most, in my opinion. Also the creator of Rorschach claimed that he had made the character to mimic Steve Ditko, who (despite working on numerous DC comics) worked originally on famous Marvel characters such as Spiderman and Dr Strange. Also, I agree that DC has characters 'at the whim of forces beyond their control' but I do not see why that makes them interesting. If anything I feel it makes them seem boring. Who follows the adventure of a supervillan's chew-toy? Marvel also looks at the nature of human rights and what counts as human in the X-men, and looks at a dystopian world frequently in the Age of Apocalypse.
All religions should be able to worship publicly

This is all about the reality of matters. Should we be allowe to worship freely? Within reason, theoretically yes. But in reality, the Christian society has been dominating all the other churches and even the government to the point that anyone non-Christian feels threatened. What repercussions did you expect? Everyone else to just keep things the same? So now, the people are rejecting Christianity from its well suited mould. A governmental meeting is not a meal. A governmental meeting is government sanctioned and represents a government affair. As noticed througout history, as soon as a government becomes part of the church, the government fails. Take Henry VIII, for instance. He started his own religion where he, the king, was also the pope. He is considered one of the worst men in history. Take his daughter, "Bloody" Mary, who butchered all of the followers of her fathers religion. When government and church collide, the result usually creates some serious collateral damage. So no, prayers should not be allowed in government meetings. We have also missed an obvious point. Some religions do not adhere to the ideas of most religions. Since nearly everything can be considered a religion, some people may conduct meetings of which the average person would find disgusting. They could find the fine line and act on the threshold, and no one could do anything about it without being a hypocrite. This could cause some serious repercussions. In closing, creating complete equality between religious freedoms would be a mistake because it would be nigh impossible to enforce or regulate. And I'd like to thank my opponent for this stimulating debate. It is always interesting to argue a point contrary to my own.
All religions should be able to worship publicly

"Government at all levels must represent all of its constituents. It must treat everyone equally, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or religion.That's the ideal, anyway. The reality is that government sometimes plays favorites and sends the message that some citizens are more favored than others.While the reality is that the government plays favorites, they shouldn't. Because that directly violates our first ammendment. However, we are not perfect; we will always play favorites, conciously or sub-conciously. But we are not talking about the reality of matters. We are talking about the freedom of religion, which is granted to us in the Constitution. "The Supreme Court is due to consider the question of government prayers during its upcoming fall term. The case, which centers on a town named Greece in New York, was brought by Americans United on behalf of community residents who felt excluded by municipal leaders' practice of relying on almost exclusively Christian prayers to open meetings.And, might I ask, what is wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with opening a meeting up with a prayer? That is how many people start a meal. That is how many people start their day! I understand that some of the people at the table may not be Christians, but couldn't they pray their own way before starting? What is prohibiting them from doing so?
All religions should be able to worship publicly

Good Luck indeed! Okay, so after some serious studying, I could find extremely little that I could counter your argument with. Bear with me, because this may be a little rough. I've found a rather nice article on SIRS that may be what you are looking for. It is posted at the bottom of the page, but I am not sure if you can access it, so I will copy and paste the parts I found important. "Government at all levels must represent all of its constituents. It must treat everyone equally, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or religion. That's the ideal, anyway. The reality is that government sometimes plays favorites and sends the message that some citizens are more favored than others. This often happens in matters of religion. In a perfect world, the government would be indifferent as to where its citizens worshipped or even if they worshipped at all. In our less-than-perfect real world, government too often sends the message that it has a preference on religion and that those who pray or worship in a certain way are insiders while others are on the outs." "No one should make the mistake of thinking this is only an issue of Christians vs. non-Christians or believers vs. non-believers." "The Supreme Court is due to consider the question of government prayers during its upcoming fall term. The case, which centers on a town named Greece in New York, was brought by Americans United on behalf of community residents who felt excluded by municipal leaders' practice of relying on almost exclusively Christian prayers to open meetings. The last time the high court considered this issue was 1983. In that ruling, the court said it was permissible for the state of Nebraska to pay a chaplain to open meetings of its legislature with prayers. The court noted in Marsh v. Chambers that the prayers didn't proselytize and were non-sectarian in character. Religious Right legal groups will undoubtedly bombard the Supreme Court with briefs beseeching the justices to expand the Marsh ruling and make it clear that government bodies may also employ prayers pegged to specific faiths. That would be a mistake. It would violate the rights of millions of Americans and give local governments the green light to align themselves with whatever faith they happen to like best." Collectively these sections tell me that overall, Christianity tends to be the big power. It seems to be allowed rights that normally should not be allowed. Like any big decision, this one had some serious ripples. The minorities are speaking out against the domination of Christianity through both church and state by making those combinations taboo. Eventually the ripples will probably fade away, but currently both the government and the minority religions are trying to push Christianity out of state. "Pushing Public Prayer: Government Must Respect the Rights of Everyone." Church & State. Jul/Aug 2013: 14. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 09 Dec 2013.
All religions should be able to worship publicly

In Michigan, it's illigal for Christians to pray in public schools. However, Muslims have been given special prayer priviliges. This goes against our first ammendment! Police in Michigan refuse to let Christians announce daily calls to prayer. Muslims are allowed to use the citys own LOUDSPEAKER to announce prayer calls. http://stevedeace.com...The first ammendment gives us the right to the freedom of religion. So why is it being infringed upon? We came from London to America for many reasons. One was to worship who we want. So why are we being restricted from the government? Why can people no longer pray to their god, wear clothing that expresses their religion, without offending anyone? I believe that this is outrageous, and something should be done about it. Because the United States of America was founded on a religious principle. In Memphis Tennessee, a 10 year old girl named Erin wrote in a school assignment that God was the person she admired most. The teacher, upon seeing Erin's work, told her that she was not allowed to mention God on school property. Well why not? No answer was given to that question. A poor, shocked Erin had to redo the assignment, all because of a teachers' beliefs. Now, I understand that we don't all believe in the same religion. However, I also believe that people should have open minds to what is being said. We all know that there is more than one religion, and we don't have to set rules about which ones may be discussed. I look forward to what my opponent has to say. Good luck!
Evolution isn't a Scientific Theory

Evolution isn't a Scientific Theory Round 1: Opening Statements Round2: Present Augments for the following that The Universal Genetic Code, The Fossil Record,Genetic commonalities, Common Traits in Embryos, and Bacterial" resistance to Antibiotics proves Evolution as a scientific theory* Note: I will disprove each one of these" Round3: Closing Augments Only* " Note: No Rebuttals !!! "I am a YEC aka( Young Earth Creationist) and I believe that an Intelligent Designer aka(God) created everything in Six,literal 24hrs days around 6,000 years ago and around 4,400 years ago there was a Great Flood "that" ""covered the world and that's why you have lots of fossils graveyards, petrified trees and clams, " formations of coal, etc. Also I believe that Scoffers aka( evolutionists and atheists) will be ignorant of the Creation,the Flood, and the Coming Judgement!* Note: 2Peter3:3-7 Now I love science. In fact" all major branches of science was started by creationists" until it was later hijacked by evolution. Don't get me wrong and I am not against science! I am only against lies in the textbooks and I think if you truly believe that you came from a rock 4.6" Billion Years ago, that's fine . Don't call that science and it's only a belief . Don't "use tax-payers'-money to fund your religion and lies in the textbooks . Don't go teach those lies to the students aka(kids). Let's define a few terms like... Science: something you can observed,test, and demonstrate . "The term "Evolution" since it has several" meanings to it like... " (1)Cosmic evolution:the origin of time,space, and matter coming from "nothing". (2)Stellar evolution: the origin of planets,stars,and galaxies formed from gas clouds. (3)Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter. (4)Chemical evolution:all the elements on the periodic table "evolved" "from hydrogen. (5)Macro-evolution:animals and plants change from one type into another. (6)Microevolution: variations within the" kind" like different kinds of dogs." Note: (1)-(5) are purely religious and (6) we can agree "that we can observed,test,and demonstrate variations within the "kind" and that's what science all about! Stupid:lacking intelligence,foolish,dumb,etc* Note: Evolution fits in this category and it is a religion , not a theory and it's stupid. This is my unbiased opinion and I will await your response :)"
Deism

My position will be in support of Deism. That is that there is a creator who has ceased to be actively involved in the universe. My opponent's position is to show that the creator is still actively involved in the universe. The first round is for acceptance and clarification only. The first round is for opening statements, the third for rebuttals, and the last for conclusion. No arguments are to be posted in the first round. I look forward to this debate and will enjoy debating with you.
Deism

I wil only address the arguments my opponent made in round 2 due to the agreed upon structure from round 1.Biblical Irrelevance:My opponent argues that because there are so many different religious traditions, and even within Christianity there are numerous ways to interpret the Bible, why is it that a God would not guide so many to the truth? Why would He not make the truth simple, and understood in every context.The Bible was not meant to be a code written for a guide to the truth. The Bible is a set of historical books, written at various times and was meant for specific cultures.What God does require is all humans to follow truth, to be righteous people. Studying religious history can be useful, so we can see how God did interact with people in past times, but having a relationship with God is not diminished to just studying useful texts.So I would argue that the Bible, while useful in understanding the religious past, is indeed irrelevant to have a relationship with the existent Creator, so this argument does not defeat my position.Lack of modern acts of God:I addressed this issue in my opening arguments, so I will address this issue in the next round, when I can respond to my opponents rebuttal to my position.God regretted mankind:God did regret making man, but instead of wiping them all out, He allowed one family to survive into the next world, and rebuild the human population. He has since guided this new system of humanity to towards Him.Struggle and Decay:My opponent raises an interesting question- as each generation builds up more mutations and becomes weaker as a species, headed for decay, and since the resources of the earth are continually dimished over time, how is it fair for the later generations that they did not have as much to offer them? While earlier generations may have had less mutations and corruptions in the world, the later generations have accumulated more knowledge. This knowledge allows us to compensate. Modern medicine helps to prevent or heal existing issues. Societies do what they can to make the earth a healthier place. There is a balance, and knowledge is what helps that.Human Creation and Modification of life:Humans haven't really created anything, they've only altered pre-existing materials. They have only changed to already existing structures, but have not come up with a completely new and complex system made from nothing. There is nothing wrong with humans learning about and taking over creation, however, humans can never create the way that God creates.
Deism

I accept the challenge to prove that there is a Creator to the universe that has been actively involved since the beginning of time. If this is the case, those interactions would likely have been recorded, so I ought to argue for one particular religion. I will argue that the Christian understanding of history is the correct one. I will argue that the interventions by God that have been recorded were events that probably did happen. I will also use the argument for miracles, and give evidence that this God is still interacting with humanity at present. I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking discussion with my opponent. Cheers!