BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
plastic surgery make girls beautiful

Self esteem is the main problem. Their are many people born with deformities in the world, that make their lives almost impossible to live without the help of plastic surgery, aside from those cases in where people go to get a nose job or silicon implants because of the pressures of society to be perfect. Children who are born with deformed faces, or people who have lost parts of their bodies and faces because of accidents. Lot's of these people may not even be able to live without the help of plastic surgery. Think, for example, someone who has been burnt. how can that person live without the help of skin grafting and reparation? He'd die of infection without it. The examples are endless, just search the net for numerous cases of miraculous surgeries that changed the life of patients
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

In his final round, my opponent dropped all of my arguments. Therefore, you can extend my entire case. Concerning Superman being noble enough to win, the resolution states that superman could kill Darth Vader if he wanted to. Given that Superman believes killing to be "un-noble", my opponents point is hence a contradiction to his defense of the resolution. Closing statements: With my entire case extended, my opponent essentially concedes to my arguments, thus being the main reason the con wins today's debate. I like Superman and believe him to be very powerful, but even if he wanted to kill Darth Vader, he wouldn't be able to considering how Darth Vader would always have time to prepare for Superman due to precognition. Not to mention that Vader could kill Superman while being in a different quadrant of the universe or he could simply mind control him if the two confronted each other. Vader wins against the man of steel hands down. With that said, I thank my opponent for having this debate and look forward to debates with him in the future. I also would like to thank the audience for reading. Good night.
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

My opponent is still suggesting that Vader cannot live without the emperor giving him 24/7 life support. This is not the case as we've seen too many instances where Vader and the Emperor have been light years apart. Plus, the life support system comes from the machines, not Darth Sidious. My opponent repeats the idea that Jedi cannot block a laser without knowing the trajectory, but as I've already stated, they are not only able increase their senses to the point to where time appears in slow motion to them, but can also gain super human speed at the same time. As far as force of the laser goes, we've never seen a Jedi get his/her armed snapped off through reflecting a laser, so my opponent is incorrect concerning that theory. As far as tracking down goes, Superman does not have precognition. Vader has precognition, thus being the reason as to where preparation is automatically built into this match for him. I've already explained the mind trick argument. Here is a better illustration. Both Superman and Darth Vader walk into their arena. Superman thinks: "If I move at my fastest, I can easily kill him." Darth Vader thinks: "By merely thinking about it, I can mind control this weak minded fool." Superman says: "I will now do your bidding, Lord Vader." It's as simple as that. By the time Superman is done thinking about killing Vader in the manner my opponent suggested, Vader will already have the man of steel under his control. As for keeping up with Superman, again, with force speed, Vader could see everything in slow motion and will have super human speed of his own to counter with, so this wouldn't be a problem. As for breathing, the current Superman needs to breathe. It's only because of his bio electric field as well as holding his breath for long amounts of time is he able to fly through nearly any environment. As I've suggested, Vader could just bypass this bio electric field with use of the force and kill the kryptonian in the comforts of his favorite chair. And that's all for now.
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

wow im cutting this close so here goes nothing first of all for the last time vadar can not live without the emporer giving him 24/7 life support ok next even with jedi's andvanced speed and all they cannot block a laser with out knowing the trajectory first because simpley if they went fast enough to block it from the time it exited the barrel to the time it would hit the lightsaber the amount of force would snap there arm or they would lose control of there lightsaber really nothing beats a lightspeed attack ok know if we are playing the whole tracking down and killing game well superman has an incredably deep well of alias (and Nemiesis) that span Not only space but time also. If we were to do the whole calling apon forces thing (i take this from your refrence to bobba fett) Darth vader is in deep trouble cause very quickly there would be the entire jlu on his door steep. ok next i understand mind trick is going to be my nemises for the rest of this debate but no matter what you say i dont one belivie it would work on him second lightspeed nothing beets that at that speed vadars optic sensors would probably go a blur and he would have a hard time following him let alone getting a force lock on him second what does it matter if he chokes him he dosnt need to breath he can breath in outerspace. (golden age comics are called that for a reason) well i think i have raised my blood prassure enough for one night your turn
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

ok i know this should go in a comment but sweet picture one a jedi is not blocking each individual laser but is blocking the laser as an extention of the persons hand its impossible to think that they could actually block the laser the time from when it actually leaves the gun to the time it would hit the jedi is less time than he could move his light saber to hit him. ok now super speed ok he travels at near light speed which is so fast you cant even get enough of a thought put together to create a force push strong enough(if there is such a thing) to stop a projectile at near lightspeeds. ok this part is semi rough but bare with me ok well estimate super man weighs 220-300 pounds ok and im using the speed of light as 186000 miles a second. Which would be 669,600,000 miles a hour. Using those two points super man would have roughly 108,754,261,521,499,448,732 (that's using 220 as his weight) joules of energy I don't care who you are that is going to hurt when it rams into you. Ok light saber will do nothing at that speed and he will ram straight through Vader if he moves all superman has to do is either pull a u turn or just make a path adjustment. Ok the force may be great but nothing that powerful. "In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter." In this statement you forget with any distance superman would have more than a easy time tracking vaders evasions and could tag him sooner or later. "Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to." This paragraph only strengthens my debate because as I said Vader would be fighting with the emperors help and there for would not be able to do anything. Ok your turn
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

My opponent states that my argument for super speed doesn't work as superman could more than quickly disarm vader of his light saber with a thunderous clap. Keep in mind that a thunder clap is a burst of air moving at the speed of sound (slower than light which jedi can already counter). Not only that, but if Superman were to perform a thunder clap, Vader could simply counter with a force wave. This would cancel out Superman's thunder clap In response about my opponent's point concerning heat vision, I remind the audience that a laser (by definition) moves at the speed of light. Suggesting that Superman's beam does not have the same attribute only weakens my opponent's argument. Of course, I never mentioned anything about Vader needing to use his lightsaber to counter Superman's heat vision as merely dodging it would be a suitable counter. My opponent concedes that the force would effect Superman, but that Supes would have an advantage if he kept moving. This argument is easy to counter as Darth Vader simply has to use a mind trick if Superman is able to outmaneuver his physical force abilities (not that he'd be able to, but this is just for the sake of the argument). Superman would not know when a mind trick was coming and has no means of dodging one. I never argued that Vader would attempt to throw objects at the man of steel as I've only advocated that he could use his force push abilities as a shield to negate Superman's assaults. Also, Vader would be fighting alone as the resolution states: Superman could kill Vader if he really wanted to. If does not state Superman (and friends) could kill Vader (and friends) if he really wanted to. Finally, my opponent does not respond to my points concerning invulnerability, precognition, and ice breath. He also doesn't answer my question concerning the lightsaber. And with that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

ok your argument for super speed dosnt work super man more than quickly could disarm vader of his light saber with a thundereous clap then well take care of business second you cant deflect heat vision its not laser vision its heat vision which lightsaber would do no good against. the force would drive supes crazy. but it would really be not much good if supes keept moving the force would not be as good and since super man can punch holes through ships throwing stuff at him would do no real good. second vader technically would not be fighting alone since he has the emporer's help all the time. that poses a question does super man get help.
superman could kill darth vader if he wanted

Alright, I'm kinda tired, so if it's okay with you, I'm going to essentially reiterate my constructive I made in my argument with solo. I will perform this debate by stating how the dark lord of the sith would counter Superman's powers (all except strength). Speed: We must remember that all Jedi have shown themselves able to deflect a barrage of lasers with their uncanny light sabers. Also, during the second and third prequel, Yoda had shown himself able to deflect Lord Sidious' lightning spell with his hands alone. Scientist have estimated that a lightning bolt moves at half the speed of light or more. My point: Superman likely won't use his speed, but even if he did, Vader would easily counter it no harder than he had countered Han solo's laser blast in second film of the original trilogy. Heat Vision: Basically the same as the criteria covered in speed. Ice Breath: Vader should be able to dispel it with a simple force push. Invulnerability: In the comics, it is noted that Superman's invulnerability can be bypassed by any magical force. The force in the SW universe could be defined as magic, thus it could be used effectively against Superman. Expansion on the invulnerability argument: By the 1970s, Superman was given a bio electric aura. This aura serves to be his source of invulnerability and it is the reason his suit is never damaged. It is acknowledged that SW characters can bypass fields "barriers" and use the force to their heart's content. For instance, the force choke is performed by directly bypassing one's flesh and squeezing one's larynx. If it is indeed possible that the force doesn't serve as the equivalent to magic, Vader could just bypass this aura use the force to dispose of the kryptonian. Finally, in Return of the Jedi, Darth Sidious tells Vader that he had foreseen Luke Skywalker's arrival on Endor. This justice that force wielders can see into the future. If that is the case, Vader could simply prepare for this fight days in advance. Concerning my opponent's constructive, I question whether or not he is claiming that Superman would not be damaged by a light saber. Any way you look at it, Vader would be the champion in a brawl with Kal-el of krpton. I have made an edit concerning how Vader would counter Superman's strength (if all will notice, it has been removed). I believe that the above analysis alone is sufficient concerning how he can counter Superman's super strength. I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

You said that nuclear weapons have not been used in the last 67 years, but that is not neccessary. The countries that keep the nuclear weapons have lost some of them. USA has already lost a nuclear bomb. Russia and USA both have a missing submarine with the nuclear weapons. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Another one is in 1989, Swiden tested the fire missle. If these happened, the world is destroyed. The nuclear weapons needed to be destroy, and verify the destruction of them. " To unilaterally disarm. .. .. .. ." I never said unilaterally. You want to trust and verify. . http://library.thinkquest.org... The more nuclear weapons, the less safe the people have. :)
Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

You say that "Even they keep the nuclear weapons and don't use it now, they will still use it someday in the future". Nuclear weapons have not been used in the last 67 years, and the safe-guards preventing accidental use are only getting stronger, meaning that with every year it becomes less likely that they will be accidentally detonated. "if none of the countries keep that, although there's a war between them, they still don't have a big destructiveness". The trouble is that countries like North Korea and Iran aren't prepared to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, so in the event of a war they might still use nuclear weapons, even if we don't. You said that Russia's defense budget is $38 billion/y, when actually it is about $72 billion. While I agree that the US does spend too much on defense, nuclear weapons account for less then 10% of military expenditure. "To use them against a similarly equipped opponent invites catastrophe". This is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent, countries realize that to use nuclear weapons against us would mean mutually assured destruction. "Their only purpose now is to deter a similarly equipped opponent from using his: their elimination would remove that justification". The point here is that we are discussing unilateral disarmament. So long as other countries are not prepared to disarm, nuclear weapons are still required as a deterrent. "the possession of the weapons by some states stimulates others to acquire them, reducing the security of all". Once again, the problem is that there are already states with nuclear weapons who are not prepared to disarm them. To unilaterally disarm would give states like North Korea and Iran hegemony over us, since they would then pocess far more powerful weapons then us. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.globalzero.org...
Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

I don't agree with you. Weapons are made for defending and attacking, no mater what kind of weapon. Even they keep the nuclear weapons and don't use it now, they will still use it someday in the future. But if none of the countries keep that, although there's a war between them, they still don't have a big destructiveness. And maintaining US nuclear weapons already costs some $52 billion annually. Nuclear weapons, like people, deteriorate over time, so require regular maintenance and refurbishment. This is a huge cost at when the nation is running on borrowed money from China and Japan. Russia's total military budget, including nuclear forces, is estimated at around $38 billion -- less than what the US spends on its nuclear arsenal. "We have listed many reasons for supporting the goal of total elimination of nuclear arms. First, they are such horrible weapons. To use them against a similarly equipped opponent invites catastrophe: to use them against a non-nuclear opponent is politically and morally indefensible. Their only purpose now is to deter a similarly equipped opponent from using his: their elimination would remove that justification. They have no utility as a military weapon. Second, the indefinite deployment of the weapons carries a high risk of their ultimate use intentionally, by accident or inadvertence. Third, the possession of the weapons by some states stimulates others to acquire them, reducing the security of all. Nuclear weapons are a source of instability in the relations between Russia and the West, within and between the former members of the Soviet Union, between the states of North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, and between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states." http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.independent.co.uk...
Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

Since the end of the Cold War many have argued that we no longer need nuclear weapons. This holds particular sway in Britain where right now the Government is considering a non-nuclear replacement for Trident. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union new threats have emerged. Among others, Pakistan and North Korea have developed nuclear weapons, with Iran currently doing so. Out of these countries North Korea seems to pose the most direct threat. Within the last few months it has carried out nuclear tests against the US. It has also released propaganda hinting at an attack on America. While I certainly don't think North Korea is considering a real nuclear strike, if the US and its allys were to remove their nuclear deterrents then it might well, as might other countries. What is clear is that nuclear weapons are still very much part of the future of those countries defense plans. We also face an uncertain future where fossil fuels and other resources are running out. Given this, I believe that we need to maintain our nuclear deterrents. http://www.reuters.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

Like you said, nuclear will make this world safer, but nuclaer weapons have already ruined people's life when the militaries are usig them. And you know nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons in the whole world, and while they exploding the radiation will last for a really long time and affect people's body, they will have radiation disease and when they get a baby, the baby will be abnormal. And also when the workers and the governmet making the nuclear weapons, or testing them. the nuclear will reveal just like what happened in Japan and other countries before. If no one is making the nuclear weapon, then the world will be safer.
Firearms should be heavily regulated by the government.

I believe firearms should be always under regulation by the government. I welcome you to debate me on this, and maybe even change my mind. Rounds: 1. Acceptance. Don't present arguments in the first round. 2. Arguments. Con can't rebuttal Pro. 3. Rebuttal and more arguments. The motion does not apply exclusively to the USA. The motion does not apply to impotent/inactive firearms, such as ones kept for souvenirs (e.g. ones that are incapable of shooting). Definitions: From Merriam-Webster: Firearm- "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder "usually used of small arms". Regulate- "a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning".
Gay People Should Have Equal Rights As Straight People Regarding Marriage and Adoption

I"m not really expecting a debate on this subject, As I feel the majority of people support gay rights. However, The more I use the internet the more I"m surprised or even shocked at how some people view the world (this applies to extremists on both sides of the political spectrum). If anyone believes that gay people should not have the same rights as heterosexual people, Specifically in regards to marriage and adoption, I"m interested in hearing your opinions and (hopefully) engaging in a respectful debate on the subject matter.
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality

In order to win this debate my opponent will need to successfully defend every part of his argument. In order for me to win I will need to prove that at least one of my opponent's points is faulty so as to make his conclusion unlikely. 1) It is possible to create a simulated reality My opponent merely claims that this is possible however brings no evidence to support this contentions. My opponent will need to bring up more facts to support this claim before it may be accepted. 2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will This is also unsubstantiated by evidence. Just because something may be logically or physically possible. My opponent also has not proven contention 1 so the contention 2 is not backed up. 3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one While it is possible that if someone were to make something they would attempt to make more this is unsubstantiated speculation. My opponent's premises have all been shown to be faulty and thus his conclusions form these faulty premises are more than likely faulty. As it stands my opponent's premises and therefore conclusions have been shown to be faulty and therefore it has not been shown that it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated reality. I look forward to Pro's response.
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality

PROBLEMS ? If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPECTATIONS It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions Simulated Reality = Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. [1] Reality = Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. [2] We = Anybody or anything reading this debate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument that we most likely live in an simulated reality than an actual reality. 1) It is possible to create a simulated reality 2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will 3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one 4) Therefore its probable that simulated realities outnumber actual realities 5) Therefore its more likely that something exists in a simulated reality than actual reality 6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality I look forward to Cons response. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...