BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transformers OC showdown

Well then... My character: Crushbane This badass transforms into... a f*cking Bulldozer! His weapon of choice, a chainsaw similar to Metal Gear's Raiden's sword(metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/High-frequency_blade) in both power and durability. His chasis is made of a combination of Adamantium (strongest metal in Marvel universe, what Wolverine's claws are made of, https://en.wikipedia.org...), and Coltan( can surviver extreme temperatures.) As to how he got them, crossovers happen all the time. He also has a horsepower of 1 million, giving him the ability to carry a 100 ton ocean liner without even breaking a sweat. He also has a lock-on Rocket Launcher when things get a little less explosivey then he like it. His rockets are basically shoulder shot warheads, so... Crushbane has many feats under his belt, including: -Beating Megatron to a standstill(he would have won, if Starscream wasn't a coward shooting people in the back) -Falling into a volcano(where lava's temperatures reach hotter than the surface of the SUN) and climbed out, more pissed off then anything. Carrying Cybertron's weakened core to Ratchet and Omega Supreme for examination on why it was dying AND SO MUCH MORE! As you can see, Crushbane can easily kick the chassis of any Transformer thrown in his way.
The internet does more harm than good.

Internet could help you study when there are some emergences we could stay at home and study using websites like 'acelearning' ,'mconline' and many others. People said that nowadays youths only kept scrolling on their phone and talk lesser to the their parents. Maybe it is true, but the parents are the ones who gave them the money to buy their phones. And do not know how to talk to their children on how much time they should spend online and family times. And some of the youths do part time jobs. So that they have the money to buy the newest phone or computer. They could, but it was all but their autonomous. Over all Internet does more good than harm.
The internet does more harm than good.

Although using social media make time pass faster,but what is the point of making it pass faster? For example , when a family go to a restaurant to have their dinner , when they have done ordering ,every family members will take out their phone while waiting for the dishes to be cooked . Isn't that a good time for the family members to summary up their day and sharing happy moments with each other ? Despite of having such a lovely time with family , we never intend to . But scrolling online and chat with friends ,which is a very serious problem to the society nowadays . People will be less communicate with people , and due to stammer. This is why i think internet does more harm than good .
The internet does more harm than good.

Maybe in Internet do make people hook on to it, but sometimes people could had a conversation better with others after he or she had used the Internet. Example some youtuber was shy, and not very social active. But after they stared to make videos, they started to have more friends, they are not shy anymore and had great conversation to people face to face. Scrolling on the phone could also be good, when people had nothing to talk about, people could took out their phone and started scrolling some newsfeed so that they could laugh about it and star a new conversation. While waiting for someone playing games on phone was better than staring at other people and day dream, it makes people that the time pass faster.
The internet does more harm than good.

Further more, people nowadays are just addicted to the internet. They can't stop browsing. They are hooked on gaming and they spend too much time indoors. Instead of going out for a walk or playing outside, a sad consequence that they'd rather sit in front of their computer for hours, or even a whole day. Due to the addiction, they are used to high speed of information by just clicking on the next link. They can no longer appreciate a good book , or a nice conservation with a friend. For instance , even they hang out with friends for a gathering , they may not know how to start a conversation and started to scrolling on phones. This is making the world pathetic as people are just too addicted to internet. Their family life suffers and their only relationships are online-they can't cope in the real world.
The internet does more harm than good.

In my view, Internet does more good than harm. As students often had group works, which need to discus, other then finding a day where everyone go out and meet. We could just chat online, using 'Facebook', 'Whatsapp' and even more. It was a more faster way to get work done. Internet were more plant saving, we could read ebooks and audio books online without the need of paper, and it was more easier to be carried around. Internet also could help people to communicate more easier just in one click we could 'talk' to someone, which need few hours of flight on plain. But everything comes with a good and harm.
The internet does more harm than good.

The internet does more harm than good .Do you agree? The internet has done more harm than good. In today"s modern society, using internet to access to our social media is a very common thing. As in our daily life, once we wake up what we do is looking for our phone. After we go on to the bed, the last thing we do is also scrolling on our phone. Despite having a bed time story, we intend to immerse in the social media world. A group of experts have proven that 90% of people have a smart phone to access to social media. Using phone will release radiation which will affect our health, it also occupies most of our time to spend with our family members.
The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY

You still haven't defined what you mean by "the scientific community." You also haven't provided any data for me to consider. The external links I provided you with are full of data, and references to the research, including this statement written by a scientist. " There is no longer any doubt in the scientific community that global warming is happening and that human beings are responsible for the majority of it. The reason doubt persists in communities around the world is because a few energy companies have been spending millions of dollars funding think tanks that publish skewed information and disinformation about global warming. They have been intentionally and deliberately confusing the public in order to stall action. They use terms such as "junk science" to disparage rigorous, peer-reviewed, university-funded climate science. The term "junk science" was originally coined by corporate attorneys, according to Sheldon Rampton, director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has been monitoring public relations and corporate law for almost two decades. At the same time, they call "sound science" any research or findings that suggest that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the environment. It doesn't matter if this "sound science" is criticized by every major academic science organization or goes against consensus, as long as it gives the industries that funded it a blank check to do whatever they want. And in all honesty, theirs is a story than many of us would like to believe – the amount of personal sacrifice and lifestyle change that is being called for to halt global warming seems immense and daunting. But not all energy companies have been so reticent to change. When the public gathers to discuss global warming, some energy companies bring their lawyers and spin doctors. Others bring their research and development teams. British Petroleum, which changed its name last year to Beyond Petroleum, has so far spent $8 billion on research and development of renewable energy. There is no future in fossil fuels – and it is incumbent upon energy companies, if they want to be industry leaders, to participate in building the world's energy future. For more information on how ExxonMobil has been fueling global warming controversy and confusing the public, click here for a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in January 2007. This comprehensive paper details their investigation of the company's funding of industry front groups, support of non-peer-reviewed science, and powerful influence on public policy. " In a debate, usually it's good to address a person's statements. Though I'm starting to get the impression that you actually need to believe that Global Climate Change isn't happening. That's why I asked you to refrain from "belief." in the first place. Though it might have been more constructive for me to ask you to spell it correctly rather than refrain from it's use.
The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY

I guess the debate is over and I win. In your opinion the question of global warming being caused by man is closed done deal no more debte and you don't want here or discuss any other data other than what supports your "BELIFE" that global warming is caused by man. Why else would you suggest there are things that I can do to reduce my impact on global warming.
The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY

I find it literly imposible to belive anything that comes out of the scientific community on any subject anymore, let alone the gloabal warming THEORY. That's right it's a theory not fact. Yet I am innudated on daily bases from every news media outlet that it is a proven fact. The scientific method is very clear when it comes to making a theory fact. Any scientist with any credibility would not be searching or conducting any experiments to find out if gloabal warming was being caused by man. to do that you would have to eliminate every possible effect that mother nature might have in the equation, I.E the effect that the sun has when it goes thruogh its 11 year cycle of sun spots, volcanic eruptions that spue more polution into the air in one day than all the polution during the entire industrial revolution, etc. I could go on and on. A real scientist tries to diprove a theory with every possible sinario that might chage the the results of the person putting forth the theory. If the results stay the same then and only then when every single scientist in the world comes up with the same results will it be considered as fact. Oh by the way the phrase "A consensous among scientist" has no place in the vocabulary of scientist who follow the scientific method, they would laugh you right out of the room. The leaders of all the scientific communities better step up and explain thier complete silence on the absolute destruction of their credibility by politicians and news media.
Best place to hide out in a zombie apocalypse

I believe the best place to hide in a zombie apocolypse would be bass pro, the top floor. You could put C4 on all of the stairs and blow them sky hight. Disable the elevaters accept for one. The you have all the weapons needed and you can get in and out farelly easy. Then my good friend Jon would have all the "STUFF" we need, LMFAO. This argument is gonna end terrible. LOL. :P
The United States Government Ought to Pay Reparations to African Americans

I would like to begin by pointing out something. The legal definition of "african american" is a person of african descent who is currently an american citizen. Because my opponent failed to provide their own definition, they automatically accept my definition. To defend my first point, while theatlantic may be biased in some cases, it is correct in the statement that there are no former slaves alive today. Also, to reiterate another point. Most us citizens do not go back more than three or four generations in citizenship. That means that a large number of black americans are not even related to former slaves. My opponent attempted to discredit my point regarding the legalization of the killing of mormons, but failed to refute it. So the argument stands. The fact of the matter is that mormons were slaughtered for their beliefs and the us government sanctiond it. So I ask this, why are black americans more entitled to reparations than mormons? The pro stated that these reparations would come from the federal government. What the pro appears to have forgotten is the fact that the federal government's funds come from the people through taxes. So the black americans will essentially be paying themselves. To quote my opponent, "Bullet point B) states "there are white African-Americans." Just as we can safely assume that the Dutch and any other "white person" that lives in South African are indigenous to South Africa, we can assume that white Americans whether they are Irish, Dutch, German or otherwise are not indigenous to the Americas. With that being said, any South African who is white that happens to come to the United States wouldn't be socially considered African-American, given the historical socialization of the population being "color conscious." Besides, if we are discussing the reparation of the African-American people we have to rule out any foreigner who appears white, and/or is originally from South Africa who migrates to the states. Their migration automatically rules them out of any monetary benefit. If we are referring to people of mixed genes, we only need to go back to the aforementioned reference based on the two economists (regarding individuals proving they have claimed to be African-American for the last 10 years)." What the pro failed to realise is that according to my definition of african american, (which my opponent agrees to) it is possible to be white and 100% african. Another thing I would like to mention is that there were also white slaves in the United States. So why are these reparations only going to black americans and not all who were affected by slavery? Also, nowhere in the resolution foes it say that these reparations will be monetary. So my points of affirmative action and black only scholarships still stand seeing as how according to my definition of reparations, (which the pro agrees to by default) affirmative action and black only scholarships are given in order to make up for a wrong done.
The United States Government Ought to Pay Reparations to African Americans

I negate the resolved. I have three contentions supporting this. First, I will define key terms. Legal-Dictionary.com defines reparations as "compensation for injury" and uslegal.com defines African American as "citizens of the United States who have origins in Africa". 1. My first contention is that it will be very hard to determine who will receive these reparations. a. according to theatlantic.com, "there are no living former slaves and their descendants are so mixed with others that it is nearly impossible to determine who qualifies." b. There are many white African Americans c. according to capitalismmagazine.com, "Many Americans today do not go back more than three or four generations in citizenship." Because of this, it will be even harder to determine who is a descendant of a slave. 2. My second contention is that it will be difficult to determine who will pay these reparations. a. the governments funds come mainly from taxes and taxes come from the people. b. according to theatlantic.com, townhall.com, capitalismmagazine.com, and countless history websites, there were many black slave owners. c. according to townhall.com, "between 80-90% of white Americans never owned slaves. There were also several thousand black Americans who owned slaves." 3. Black Americans are not the only people to have been wronged by the government. a. Native Americans lost their land and have received little to no reparations. b. the US government once legalized the killing of Mormons and have never paid reparations. 4. the government has already paid reparations. a. black only scholarships b. affirmative action In conclusion, you must negate this resolution on paying African Americans reparations for these three reasons. First, it will be very hard to determine who will receive these reparations. Second, it will be difficult to determine who will pay these reparations. And third, the government has already paid reparations.
Alcohol age in America should remain at 21

I have to rebuttal your most recent claims because they are highly irrational. Once again alcohol is a privilege because it's a drug. A drug can be dangerous if it is not prescribed by a doctor or taken in more than moderation. Finally I think it's safe to say that the older we become the more mature we get. This is because of experience. We gain wisdom through all our experiences. There is no evidence showing that if the age was lowered t would directly correlate to less deaths. The age we should drink alcohol should remain at 21 for all these reasons. The bill of rights is not at all outdated this isn't even a matter of opinion. The bill of rights offers us protection for our lives, liberties, and property. The whole issue you bring up on gay marriage is how lawyers interrupt how it is written. Unfortunately we have a lot of ignorant lawyers who ended up interrupting the law differently. For example how white male property owners used to be the only ones allowed to vote. Lawyers created this dilemma because they interrupted this in this way. Think of the lawyers as people trying to beat the system. Alcohol clearly plays a huge effect on the brain when it is developing. We both found information that shows how alcohol effects are brain when it is developing. I think it's also safe to drinking alcohol is in fact a privilege as well. Also as I said numerous times our FDA cares about our overall well being. This is why alcohol can only be legally consumed at the age of 21. Although people who are younger continue to consume alcohol at the age of 21 this gives no reason for the alcohol drinking age to be lowered. Thank you for debating me.
Alcohol age in America should remain at 21

It is not a privilege to drink in this country. A privilege is something that is given to someone who deserves it. Alcohol is not by any means something deserved but a drink like any other that all should be allowed at the age of 18 to consume. Why you may say... Well, at 18 years old if I am allowed to drive on my own, kill someone and go to jail for life, then why wouldn't I be able to sip a glass of wine? Compared to all of these other things, it really isn't that serious of a thing to allow people to drink. Something to point out would be that by prohibiting those who are 18 to drink, you are creating more of an issue in this country. People who are between 18 and 21 consume more alcohol then people who are 21 and above. This nature that they are forbidden to do so causes them to retaliate and drink more just in secret. In foreign countries like France, England, Spain, etc. the legal age of drinking is 18 and compared to America, they have less problems with drinking then America does. If we lowered the drinking age it would gradually decrease the amount of consumption by these 18-21 year olds because instead of going out on a thursday night and getting "wasted," they can just simply have a glass or two every now and then. Regarding the bill of rights, it is an outdated document altogether and should be revamped to include alcohol and other important rights like gay marriage. If they would go over and edit the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution every 8 years as it was proposed, then it would better fit today's modern issues in society. Currently, as it stands, the Constitution itself sets the basis for our laws. It too discusses alcohol as being a right because the Constitution as a whole defines our rights. It may not be a natural right that we have at birth, however, it is a right that we do have. By changing it to 18 also, it will help reduce the number of deaths in this country each year that we have in drunk driving amongst teens because if they are allowed to drink then they won't be as reckless about it and they don't have to over indulge alcohol whenever they come into contact with it at parties and clubs since they don't know when they will get the chance to get some more.
Alcohol age in America should remain at 21

The Definition of privilege can be defined as the following: 1, a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. http://dictionary.reference.com...... I think its safe to say that drinking alcohol satisfies this definition of privilege. So therefore drinking alcohol is in fact a privilege and not a right. To further argue my claim you stated: "I understand driving is not a right, but a privilege". Doesn't the government pass a law by state regulating what age we can drive? Therefor it seems you are contradicting yourself saying "However, it is not a privilege because the government has created a law stripping anyone under 21 of that privilege. So in reality, drinking would be a right if government had not interfered". I assume this is what you are trying to say here. Speaking in rights vs privilege terms in law terminology there is a huge difference. Every American has rights from the day they are born thanks to our bill or rights. A privilege however is a process of requiring something because it is beyond the advantages of most. If there is a requirement for any law in most cases this satisfies a privilege rather then a right. Unless listed in the bill of rights. For an example the right to bear arms. Keep in mind the bill of rights make up our natural rights. When you stated that our Mind continues to develop until we are 25. You gave me even more evidence to support my claim that the drinking age should remain at 21. Thank you for pulling up credible source for the percentage of college students who say they have had an illegal drink before. I still think this data is very skewed however because surveying a specific population makes the variable to fixated which results in insufficient data. Thank you for Debating with me to this point. I will end my rebutting here and end the final found with a closing argument.
Alcohol age in America should remain at 21

1. You may presume that I think driving is a right. Since I never stated that, you are wrong. I understand driving is not a right, but a privilege. I define a privilege as proving you are capable of responsibility. I agree with you that drinking should be a privilege. However, it is not a privilege because the government has created a law stripping anyone under 21 of that privilege. So in reality, drinking would be a right if government had not interfered. 2. "Our bodies become fully developed when we turn 21. Studies show during this time drinking causes Neuorapoptosis which is essentially our brain killing its neurons. Also at this time in our development the liver hasn't been fully developed which plays a key role in the absorption of alcohol. Drinking can also cause cognitive impairment which is defiantly not worth the risk of drinking alcohol at a age before 21." This information is wrong because with more recent studies, they show that the brain is not actually fully developed til the age of 25. http://www.academic.marist.edu...... so what would differ between the brain development of a 21 year old and an 18 year old? 3. You are right. 90% of college students do not drink. It was wrong of me to throw random numbers out there. After some research, "college students under the age of 21, 82 percent report using alcohol within the past year and 69 percent report using alcohol within the last 30 days." http://www.alcohol101plus.org......