BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A flying tiger would defeat a flying shark

A flying tiger vs a flying shark would totally result in the tiger winning. ( The shark can survive out of water, BTW.). . Round 1 for acceptance and rules. They do not have wings, they just fly. There is no interference, meaning the tiger can not summon his family to come help, just them flying in empty space. Neither of them are genetically altered, and its a Bengal Tiger vs a Great White Shark. Profanity allowed.
Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)

Maybe you and the majority of people can cope with violent video games and are sensible enough to not recreate any of these acts in real life. However, there are people (people who do it for fun and mentally incapable people) who will simply get ideas from this violence and feel the need to do it in real life, to find out other people's reactions. Petty crime has increased after these violent video games, as these now provide new ways of doing crimes without getting caught - you can say almost like a "tutorial" as the levels can be replayed and as it gives advice.
Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)

I feel that just because a video game have the ability to glamorize illegal things (such as using and selling drugs, speeding cars, and murder) does not mean that people who play these games will actually do illegal things. If people are influenced by taking drugs, running red lights, or being violent in anyway because they did it on a video game then there is something else driving that person to do it. No moral and mentally healthy person would go kill people for fun due to a video game. No one wants to sell drugs due to it "looking fun". No one wants to get into a fist fight because "why not". No one wants to get police to chase them in a speeding car for the hell of it. There are definable other aspects in said persons life that would lead them to that. I think it is quite clear that people get desensitized to violence in general due to video games and movies, however that does not mean people are going to be violent. Desensitization of violence doesn't necessary mean you will be a violent person, but will not be mentally affected by it if you see it. On a personal note, I have been playing video games ever since I could remember with games like Pokemon, and Runescape. To this day, I am still a big gamer and have played most mainstream games. When I saw the Deadpool movie this weekend (extremely graphic), I did not freak out at the crazy amount of violence. I would say I'm desensitized to most violence, but I'm also basically a pacifist and never really hit anyone or got into a fight. I acknowledge this is my situation, but I wasn't raised around violence. I never really saw a real fist fight. Real violence wasn't around me, so that's probably why I'm a pacifist. But that is kind of my point, it's individual experiences that might make people violent, not from a role-playing game on a television. From my perspective anyone who plays violent games with a relatively healthy mind knows that these games are fake. Someone who is violent probably did not get it from watching fake scenarios of violence, like in movies or video games because it is clear it is fake. There is no urge (from a mentally healthy person at least) to go and try this in real life. I just don't feel that anyone who is a normal human being would take something from "Grand Theft Auto" and go steal cars, kill police, and punch hookers. I just don't see it happening. Again I do see the desensitization of violence, but I don't see it causing extra violence in stable teenagers (or anyone for that matter). I keep saying "stable" and "mentally healthy" because if someone has a mental problem they might do something crazy from an idea a video game gave them, but that's not exclusive to video games. (I hope this all makes sense)
Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)

I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published "found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found "that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, ""Correlation does not imply causation". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)
Evolution and Big Bang are lies straight from the pit of Hell.

I'm going to go the entire God, Satan, Hell, Heaven, Souls, Angels, and Demons don't exist route. Therefore, because Hell doesn't exist these ideas cannot have originated from Hell. In lieu of Hell the Big bang theory originated from a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre. "Origins of the TheoryA Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. " [0]Evolution was developed by Charles Darwin. This is common knowledge. Scientifically God doesn't exist. We have found no scientific evidence of God, Satan, Hell, Heaven, Souls, Angels, nor Demons. Therefore, it safe to assume the probability of God existing is extremely low due to how many fields of science exist. Thanks for debating. 0. http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
Global Warming is a greater threat to life than Nuclear War

Well, this is a bit disappointing. He clearly disagrees, but has no argument - unless you consider referring to something as "retarded" as being an argument. Another reason why nuclear war is becoming increasingly unlikely, is that the World's businesses are becoming increasingly integrated into the global community. If Coke, Nike and Ford had production in Bagdad, I don't think we would have quite a different war than we did. You could well be bombing your own people! Big business could lose money! Nuclear weapons are much the same as conventional armaments, only they're typically bigger. The depleted-uranium shells they used are radioactive too!
Global Warming is a greater threat to life than Nuclear War

Nuclear war seems ever less likely, with weapon stocks decreasing. http://en.wikipedia.org... Global warming looks ever more likely with the 11 warmest years ever, happening in the last 13 years. For the northern hemisphere alone, 2007 was the second warmest ever recorded. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Nuclear war is only going be directed at very threatening military targets. Global warming on the other hand is indiscriminate and will affect us all. Try arguing, it might help.
Global Warming is a greater threat to life than Nuclear War

Let's suppose there was a nuclear war. There's lots of nasty radiation about, and bizarrely, people rather than military targets were hit. So a lot of people die. What is the effect on life in general? It _increases_. This has been shown quite clearly around Chernobyl. Wildlife e.g. mice, rabbits, foxes, deer, wild boars and wolves now live in large numbers near the world's only lethal nuclear power accident. http://www.washingtonpost.com... It appears that while the radiation (10-100 times that of background radiation) is bad for wildlife, it is nowhere near as bad as mankind is for it. Dense forests have grown over the farms, and now apparently, even very rare species like lynx and moose have been sighted there. Let's suppose we experience global warming of 5 degrees C. The Sahara seems likely to expand - past Africa, past Spain, and well into France The USA, like Australia today, will essentially be desert (in fact this will begin with warming of just 2 degrees C.) Even the Amazon will be a desert. Central Asia will suffer the same fate. With the loss of nearly all our current agricultural (and fisheries) capacity, what proportion of life on Earth will perish? It's anybody's guess really, but we know from the fossil record that 251M years ago Earth has suffered the extinction of 85–90% of all marine and land vertebrate species, 95% of marine all species, including all trilobites. Getting it into perspective, the world's worst nuclear war would hurt life on the planet far less than a few more degrees of warming globally.
Global Warming is a greater threat to life than Nuclear War

Nuclear War may never happen. Global Warming is already happening. Nuclear missiles would primarily impact very specific military targets and concentrated industrial centres. Global warming affects the entire planet. Nagasaki and Hiroshima recovered quickly, vegetation blossoming - even around the epicentres - within months.(1) It took us over 100 years to add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and oceans to cause the change we are now seeing. It will a long time to reduce our emissions, and far longer yet to return the world to a cooler, and overall more productive temperature. Nuclear weapons radioactively decay over time; warheads which decay below a critical point fail. Even if we were to be insane enough to have an all-out nuclear war, many would fail to go off, many would be intercepted by anti-missile systems or disrupted by other explosions. The effect of global warming on the whole, is to produce yet more global warming. e.g. the Arctic in summer used to reflect 85% of the solar radiation it received. It appears we may lose all summer floating ice. This will mean 95% absorption of solar radiation instead; further warming the globe. The Russians and the Americans have had nuclear weapons for over half a century. The Pakistanis and Indians have had them for far less. However, nuclear weapons have not been used in anger since WWII. Why not? Because nobody wants to die - or live with the result. Of course this means they are for the most part useless, and indeed both US and Russian stockpiles have decreased markedly since 1990 and are both less than half what they once were.(2) Meanwhile, the largest and best-informed climate-based organisation ever assembled, the IPCC has recently revised their predictions, increasing the maximum expected 2100 temperatures from 5.8C in 2001 to 6.4C last year.(3) What could six degrees of warming do? Complete disaster. Not millions dead, but billions. Perhaps a few million will survive. (4) (1) http://archive.tri-cityherald.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.marklynas.org...
An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

First off, the terrain of El Alamein is explained in a season 5 episode of Battlefield named the Battle Of El Alamein. I apologise for not stating this. Second of all, what other principles apply to Nazism? Are you serious? 1. The dispatching of any people that aren't 100% devoted to the state. 2. The reliance on military strength to build the economy; even communism doesn't stoop to that level! I don't care about Hitler's "military finesse" because you know what? He beat countries like Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France. Weak and vulnerable countries. In truth, Hitler never had the ability to cope with the British Empire and Soviet Union. Fighting to the death isn't mass murder: it's for loyalty. Tokyo surrendered before being invaded, while Berlin was pounded into submission, so don't talk about Bushido. Back to the tanks, you seem to be forgetting that the Germans producers focused on armour at the front of the tank. So shooting the tank on the side or back will heavily damage it. I will not be arguing supplies being low, as you have admitted the little battle of supplies above. Even if the German's had anything, it was nothing compared to Britain's supplies. The German tanks couldn't take any such hits either, as they were focused on the main turret and front armour. So a strike in the back would've destroyed a German tank. So I have countered Pro's arguments and provided points of my own.
An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

The British pilots were better and more experienced than the Nazi's, so it would be irrelevant to argue for a BF-109. German tanks were not quicker, you stated that only one was quicker, and that specific one wasn't used much, as proven by your own arguments in round 3. Also, you seemed to have forgotten that prior to the battle, Rommel created perfect terrain at El Alamein by firing artillery which battered the sand in such a way. There is nothing wrong wth Bushido. In fact, it is honourable. The Germans didn't exactly surrender straight away either, so you can't argue about innocent Japanese lies when your own totalitarian leader refused to surrender, leading to the battle of Berlin. Back to North Africa, how are superiority and quality different? The more quality in terms of men and tanks, the more superiority you have. Simple. Going to Jewish Nazi officials, Hitler and Heydrich were part of a group for the Final Solution. This would lead to over 6 million Jews being killed. So what if Hitler and Heydrich were Jewish? If I'm a murderer and I kill a murderer, am I free of my sins? Hell naw! So why should Hitler and Heydrich be forgiven for killing their own kind?
An WW2 debate that is sure to become off topic and irrelevant!

The Zero was aerodynamically and structurally better then the Hellcat, and its firepower also exceed that of the Hellcat. You don't determine an aircraft effectiveness on quantity. Strategically, Zero's would be adjacent to the sun, so the enemy could not see them, and surprise attack. This is, if they had already detected them, Otherwise a naval battle would consist of aerial dogfights. You cannot determine model superiority between the spitfire and the 109 because each variant was different. You would have to argue model variants, not the aircraft in general. I was not arguing for german tank STRENGTH superiority, I was arguing for german tank superiority with quality and ability. All around, the german tanks had higher calibre guns, and were faster. The germans may not have been deprived of vital resources had they not attacked the Russia, my last argument still stands. And I don't think Sherman' were setting tank kill records in North Africa with that 5 mph advantage. First of all, I thought I would be arguing for Japan, but I suppose one must make due. I will rebut your points separately. Japan's government may not have been full dictator, but It instilled an ideology obsolete by hundreds of years : Bushido. Basically it is an ideology forcing one to completely serve his daimyo, or superior. People would be executed for being "Enemies of the emperor", or "traitors to the daimyo'. This is the same as the fascist countries way of dealing with the public, though not as subtly. Overall this specific platform depends on the demographics you'r trying to appeal to. I believe that during the 30's, a young hitler in jail would write a book titled "Mein Kampf", which translated means "My Struggle". He would use jews as a scapegoat to fuel a national hatred calling for vengeance against the allied countries that left the fatherland poor and financially desolate. You see, Hitler in fact was partially jewish, on his fathers side. He would eventually make Emil Maurice, the butcher of Nazi Germany, a supreme SA leader, the highest rank for the SA. Reinhard heydrich, head of the german secret police and one of the main architects responsible for the holocaust, was rumoured Jewish. I say rumoured, because this one I can't confirm. You make state that the German high command made some terrible decisions, so did the Japanese. Stalling a surrender that resulted in the horrendous loss of human life, mostly civilian. I rest my case and look forward to a response.
Russia is a larger security threat to the U.S and allies than China

byron2032, you have proved yourself an excellent debater in the first two rounds, something I credit you for. Then you forfeited the final round. I believe the reason why you forfeited is due to the turn of recent events. It is now strongly evident that Putin and his new strategic "friend", North Korea, is preparing to focus their crosshairs on the United States of America and its allies. A good example is the test launch of a new missile developed by the DPRK (CNN). The missile design is very similar to an already existing Russian model. This means that the Russians had already shared a missile design and the North Koreans simply modified it a bit to work for their own purposes. There are also rumors that the North Koreans are developing a new ballistic missile, which means that the they have possibly obtained a design from the Russians. Another reason why Russia is the real threat is because Putin is reverting back to USSR rule. He has revived FSB, a secret police whose job is to weed out those who oppose Putin's rule. He is also using USSR governing tactics to put the people under his sway and have full control over them. Thus, this means that whatever he does, the people will agree to his decisions. For example. if Putin wanted everybody in Russia and in the Crimean peninsula to do fifty jumping jacks at the same time, the people would comply without hesitation. If he wanted them to all pick up an AK-47 and blindly attack America, they would comply without hesitation. Therefore, this means Putin will have enough force to make any ordinary Russian to follow his will to the letter. He can easily convince the nation of Russia to attack the U.S.A. and its allies, despite the heavy cost. Is China a threat? NO! The Chinese people are living out their lives with little or no respect for their national patriotism or pride. They are in no position to attack America. Finally, my friend, you have realized the cold, real, truth. Russia is THE THREAT. China is simply no threat at all. I only see victory for the pro. Thank you for debating with me, byron2032.
Russia is a larger security threat to the U.S and allies than China

Simply put you assume that rational leadership is behind all of China's actions. The fact that the Chinese politburo is a quiet and private government only goes to show how much we don't know about their mindset. Should their leadership decide to advance on oil rich islands in the south china sea then America would be inadvertently dragged into a pacific war. To imply that the oppressive government of China would care about the opinions of its people is further proof that you are ignoring reality for this argument. You mistook one of my arguments before and I would like to clarify, I said that China was not scared of the U.S because the claims it is making are directly against U.S allies, while Russia is only claiming areas unassociated with the U.S. For example, If I didn't want to fight you, I wouldn't attack your best friend or family I would attack some stranger you barely know. Russia is attacking strangers, China is pick-pocketing your family and friends. Further while Russia has increased military flights around U.S and NATO airspace that posts little to no threat to the U.S vastly superior air power and air defense capabilities. Your argument is very near-sighted; Russia is doing relatively minor military exercises and creating weak alliances with failing economies RIGHT NOW and thus is more dangerous than a China who has superior military and technological capabilities, a superior economy, a need and want for oil, and increased powerful alliances around the world because China isn't using all of its power RIGHT NOW. I am not denying that Russia is a threat, I am simply saying that China is a far greater threat.
Public Broadcasting in the United States

By looking to my opponent’s first sentence, we see an elaboration on the somewhat vague title. Con writes, “that public broadcasting is not a necessity, there are priorities above it, and it should be done away with or privatized. ” Thus, it seems evident that the topic is a question of whether or not public broadcasting (hereby referred to as PB) should be done away with. Given 2000 characters, I will respond briefly to my opponent’s arguments first, and then present one simple argument in my favor. ~~~Refutation of the Con Case~~~ 1. PB is unsustainable a) My opponent offers no source to prove his claim. b) PB is a relatively insignificant amount of capital (logically) when compared to the amount of money we squander at war. [. http://costofwar.com...] c) PB is not even a governmental issue; individual purchase TV licenses and broadcast using their own money. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The same applies to radio. 2. PB is not a priority a) This is non-responsive to the resolution; just because there are more important things to me as a human than pushing my bench press from 165 to 210, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t. b) Large percentages of people own televisions [. http://www.nationmaster.com...]. Over 97% in the US; there is clearly reliance on PB. 3. There are other forms of access a) There is no reason to prefer the Internet over PB, or vice versa b) There are people with access to PB and internet, people with access to only PB, and people with only access to the internet. Having both covers the most people ~~~PRO CASE~~~ PB causes no harm. There is no problem with PB being available. If I have an antique clock that works sitting on a shelf, why would I do away with it? At least it can tell me the time when I walk past it. I urge a Pro vote.
Public Broadcasting in the United States

I argue that public broadcasting is not a necessity, there are priorities above it, and it should be done away with or privatized. 1. The U.S. government is borrowing over a trillion dollars per year. It is unsustainable and cuts are going to have to be made. 2. The U.S. government has more important priorities than public broadcasting such as defending the country, feeding the hungry, environmental protection, etc. 3. Unlike in the 1960's when public broadcasting began, our society now has quick and free access to information on almost everything via internet, making public broadcasting in some ways obsolete.
Abortion is generally immoral

I would like to challenge WriterDave to a debate on abortion. As I am always looking to refine my arguments in the matter, I am curious how he would respond to my arguments. I believe that abortions are justified if the mother's life is in immediate danger and both mother and child cannot be saved (this is more a case of triage than abortion). I will argue that all other abortions are unjustified and immoral.
homework should be banned

It probably take much time to do finish homework, but as the reward, teachers usually contain how well did you do for homework to give grades. By doing homework, we could train the skill of spending time properly because you should divide time well to do both homework and what you really want such as playing soccer. Then, the skill would help you to adjust your schedule. Also your getting many things by doing homework; according to previous debate with the same topic on 'www. debate.org', homework help student to make flexible schedule.
Friends are fun to be with than our own parents.

But, Friends makes you happy. While if you bring your parents on your friend's party, they just keeping you embarrass in front of others. I love to admit that parents help us grow better but what happens if you lose your friends because of your parents. Parents put us in jail like being grounded for like about 3 weeks and that is suck. Friends makes you feel better, friends help you forget all the bad things and teaches and let you remember good things.