BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best horse that you would use in the Wild West.

Opponent’s CaseIs it a horse? My opponent has chosen the Hippogriff as his horse of choice for riding out in the Wild West, but is it really a horse? Wikipedia calls it a “legendary creature;” Harry Potter defines it as a “magical creature;” mythical creatures guide define it as “a legendary creature, supposedly the offspring of a griffin and a mare. A griffin is a ½ lion, ½ eagle creature and a mare is a female horse, so does that qualify as a horse? Take for example a man who is ¼ Korean, ¼ Peruvian, and ½ Greek; let’s say he parades around Greek festivals claiming he is full Greek; can anyone take such a man seriously? Now, that is an example of a human with different ethnicities, with the hippogriff, we are dealing with separate species. Assuming the crossing over and dominant/recessive genes lead to no weird mixing, the creature would only be ½ horse. What good would a ½ horse creature with two horse legs be in a horse competition against the best horse of all time with 8 horse legs? It would likely be irrelevant. As we do not consider the man wholly Greek, we do not consider the hippogriff wholly horse. [1, 2, 3]KnowledgeMy opponent does not seem to have a firm grasp upon his chosen “horse” when he describes the most basic aspects of his creature as “half eagle and half horse” when the Greek etymology means horse (hippo) + griffin (griff). This is consonant with the established mythology.Description“They have sharp long steel beaks, and the talons on their front legs appear deadly.” Ahh, yes, talons, those body parts that horses do not possess. Also, ostensibly deadly front legs does not mean they are so. “Their wings glitter in the atmosphere even with a glimmer of light.”While this would be impressive at a drag show, we are looking for a quality, fast horse that would make a great companion. I guess the glittering wings might have been a criterion for Liberachi when searching for a horse, but how does that correspond to anything we need to prove in this debate?Personality“They are intensely proud of themselves an can be dangerous if they sense threat. Humans must approach with cautioness letting the animal to make the first move, never turning your eyes off his.”This sounds like a an incredibly difficult horse to work with. Dogmatic pride mixed with dangerous violence toward humans is not the kind of horse that would make a good companion. What if the hippogriff became startled when the rider accidentally knocked over something heavy, and became dangerous? Sounds like a terrible quality in such a horse.Taming“In Greek mythology its said that the Hippogriff is easier to tame than the Griffin and once your able to mount it, you can reach (as said by homer's) the speed of light.”Well, in that case: my horse is faster than all horses ever, so naturally my horse would go faster than the speed of light. My opponent’s horse is a dangerous, arrogant ½ horse that is inferior to my horse in speed, mortality, and dexterity.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...[3] http://www.mythicalcreaturesguide.com...
Best horse that you would use in the Wild West.

Very well. Since my opponents has chosen a mythical creature it leaves my last horse breed obsolete. So I have chosen one of the same consistency. The Hippogriff is a mythological Greek horse He is half eagle and half horse. His Head, front legs(Lion Claws), tail(Lion tail), are eagle forms. His back legs, haunches, and waist are horse forms. Descendants: Its father is a gryphon meaning he is half a lion and half an eagle, making the hippogriff have the claws of a lion instead of and eagle. He has a Lion tail as well. His mother is a horse which makes this horse extremely rare, because griffins regard horses customarily as prey. Represents: Its the symbol of love who steeds the muses. Pegasus had originally been that syml and the Hipogriff its prototype. He is o of the representations of Apollo (The God Of Sun) Description: They have sharp long steel beaks, and the talons on their front legs appear deadly. Their plumage is mostly white in their torso and head. Their wings glitter in the atmosphere even with a glimmer of light. They are 3 meters long making them appear as sharp razor blades. Their back legs are sinewy usually gray-white color. Personality: They are intensely proud of themselves an can be dangerous if they sense threat. Humans must approach with cautioness letting the animal to make the first move, never turning your eyes off his. Once they learn to trust you they are extremely protective and wary around you at all times. They shall always love you as well. Taming: In Greek mythology its said that the Hippogriff is easier to tame than the Griffin and once your able to mount it, you can reach (as said by homer's) the speed of light. I would choose this horse because in the west there are always threats in the desert or in the forest. If my horse got hungry we could fly throught the land in search of prey, making it easier to track. His great eagle-eye perception would also allow to see far upcoming threats and safe passages. If an attempt to murder came, it would not be possible, also because he is immortal and extremely strong and wary at all times. But if I want to stay safe, we could just fly to a high peak or to an unpassable location and sleep with ease. (He could also save me even if the attempt came). We would not only be safe but both of us would enjoy the beauty of the imagery as well. I also chose him because its one of the most admirable looking horses. if in an attempt to catch him came,even if he were sleeping, he would have sensed the threat miles away and would not be there; it would be flying at great speeds that would make no bullet catch him nor eye see him. References . http://www.lizaphoenix.com... . http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
Best horse that you would use in the Wild West.

Hello, today I post this new debate on choosing your most preferable horse you would ride in the wild west. The most fitting companion in long rides, fast escapes and the horse strength that would guarantee you survival and a well fitting companion in anything. Full and good arguments with detail on examples. 1 Round- Choose your horse and explain why did you chose it. Explain with detail 2 Round- Tell the disadvantages the opponents horse has and why yours is better. 3 Round- Add a conclusion to your argument. Lets makes this a rich and fun argument.
Santa claus was real!!

Clarifications. Notice I never said I believe Santa Claus was a man who wore a red suite and gave presents to kids on Christmas. I said that is what is widely believed. I did however say say he gave present to kids. Santa Claus was not always known as Santa Claus. He used to be just Nicholas, then he became I saint, so was called saint Nicholas. By the Dutch he was known as Sinterklaas. That is where the name Santa Claus came from. He used to give out presets to kids, which is why the jolly fat man version of him gives presents to kids for Christmas day. Thomas Nast (a caricaturist and political cartoonist) was the man who made the image of him as a jolly fat man who rode on a sleigh that flew through the air driven by rein deers delivering presents to kids for Christmas day, famous. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.the-north-pole.com... Now just because who he was has been greatly distorted by cartoonists, radio programs, and the TV doesn't mean he never existed. Santa Claus did exist he just wasn't called Santa Claus, thus I have proven that Santa Claus did indeed exist. I await and look forward to my opponents response! !
Santa claus was real!!

Since my opponent has the burden of proof I do not need to provide an argument to prove the resolution false. I will consider creating a constructive argument if Pro decides to post the details of the version of Santa Claus he believes exists (but is now dead). I would prefer Pro to limit his arguments to up to three fundamentally different Santa Clauses. I will begin my argument by attacking my opponents only contention so far: "I say was real because he is now dead. That is why he does not give presents to kids anymore. " I will now break down this argument: Premise 1: Santa Claus no longer gives presents to kids Premise 2: Santa Claus is now dead, derived from premise 1 Conclusion: Therefore Santa Claus is real There are two problems with the first premise. One, it assumes Santa Clauses existence, this is a form of circular thinking. Two, who says he no longer gives presents to kids, where's the proof he give kids presents in the first place. If the assumption of Santa Claus existence is pulled out from the premise it no longer makes sense. What would no longer give presents to children? and if it is not Santa Claus what is the relevance to the argument? The second premise, follows one of the same problems as the first, assumption of Santa once being alive so therefore existing. This is again circular thinking. The second premise is derived from the first premise but does not have substantial reasoning behind the derivation. Just because Santa Claus does not give presents to children anymore does not necessarily mean that he has died. Unless Pro provides a definition of Santa Claus that, by concept, makes him have to give presents to children he has made a logical fallacy. Just because the death of Santa is a possible cause for him not giving kids presents does not mean it's the only cause and there is no reason to believe it is the correct cause. I would also like to point out that the second premise is derived from another premise (Premise 1) which was found earlier to be flawed. Even if Premise 2 was sound, it's evidence is not. The conclusion is based off the circular reasoning of two questionable, if not completely flawed, premises. Therefore my opponents argument does not stand. Santa is not necessarily once real because one states "Santa is now dead" or "Santa does not give presents to kids anymore" because if one questions either of the premises he finds that both are constructed on the assumption the conclusion is true. This is circular reasoning or Petitio Principii, begging the question. This type of reasoning is fallacious because it's evidence is the assumption the statement is already true. I will now demonstrate this in the following example: Premise: Unicorns have died Conclusion: Unicorns exist (because something that has died must have been alive at one point and therefore are real--therefore they exist) This blatantly false statement (unicorns are real) is not proven by begging the question and neither is the resolution; my opponent reasoning in a circle does not prove the resolution correct. I would like to thank Pro again for the debate. I look forward to your response.
Potential dangers of a hypersensitive culture bred by social media and political correctness.

It's not a culture that's being bred it is institutionalized children that don't know how to take things lightly(cough cough, Andy) and the other side of it is the kids that feed into their "roasts, Toasts, and rants" that they don't even comprehend there is a real world around them so when they step into the real world they believe they can say anything to anyone and not get caught up. The children that take things lightly feel they have the right to some defense from a higher power then their selves because they don't know when to stick up for theirs seves
Nico Di Angelo vs Jason grace

Your main argument is Jason being able to counter Nico's abilities and defeat him in hand to hand combat. You fail to look at the aftermath. Dispersing all of the undead soldiers, flying to avoid the earthquakes and then defeating Nico before the army recooprates, and on top of all of that Jason would have to defeat Nico flawlessly.I know i'm making another assumption here but that has got to be impossible. Your only real defense is that Jason has better skills with swords and other weapons. I'll admit that Jason has better weapons skills although it only takes Nico ONE slash, or cut to defeat Jason. ( So there basically tied in that asset) You state that Jason can just disperse the army, this does not get rid of them. So while Jason is in 1v1 combat, he still hasn't defeated the undead army that Nico has summoned. You deny Nico's fighting abilities. On wikipedia it says exactly this " In The Last Olympian, Nico fights in the Battle of Manhattan, and emerges unscathed, implying excellent fighting skills. In The Son of Neptune, Hazel mentions being impressed the first time she saw him fight, suggesting that he honed his skills between the two series, possibly during his stays at either Camp Half-Blood or Camp Jupiter. Nico was even able to fight Gaea's army in Tartarus itself, though he was overwhelmed by their sheer.Later, he even fought the Titan Iapetus alongside Percy and Thalia. You say that Jason is able to summon nearby storm spirits, who says they won't harm him as well as he had to tame tempest for him to be loyal to Jason, but in my eyes any storm spirit would be useless against Nico himself because he radiates fear as well as his sword. The storm spirits would be way to scared to engage combat and Jason himself would probably start to develop fear even though he has trained otherwise. Also is clearly states this on half blood wiki "Nico is an extremely powerful demigod. He is considerably more trained in using his powers than most children of the Big Three, such as Thalia and Percy, due to his time spent in the Underworld and he states that he trains with the dead. In The Son of Neptune, Hazel stated Nico was the most powerful demigod she'd ever seen, an impressive admiration given that she knew Jason Grace and dozens of other demigods." You then stated in round 2 of the argument that shadow travel would be basically useless. I looked on half blood wiki and it says exactly this." He can use shadows as a way of transportation, however, GREAT DISTANCES tend to wear him out." So shadow travel can be quite useful. I have no other arguments and am excited for the end of this debate, for a first debate con has given me a run for my money. Thank you for this exciting debate.
Nico Di Angelo vs Jason grace

First i would like to state that i'm a Boy not a girl and that im am the pro not the con. You say that Jason doesn't need to defeat the army just disperse them so he can get to Nico, but if he does that,it will not by him enough time to defeat Nico. You then state that You said that Jason doesn't have to fly the whole fight, but what will he do once on the ground? Lets say he disperses the army enough just to get to Nico, he then has to go to hand to hand combat and flawlessly defeat Nico.( Not to mention that Nico is quite skilled with a sword as it mentions in the titans curse.)Jason has to do all of this before the army recooporates. You then said that i have misinterpreted Nico's abilities. He can only control monsters. This is false, if he is able to summon it from the underworld then he'll be able to control it. May i ask when it said that Jason can summon storm spirits? You then state that storm spirits are far more destructive and are very hard to hit if not impossible to hit. This is false because in the lost hero Jason defeated the storm spirits, also the storm spirits would be useless against Nico because his sword would scare away the storm spirits. Just like you said in round 2 of the argument Tempest would be useless against Nico because Nico's blade would scare Tempest. Once again you state that Nico's swordmanship doesn't need to be good because his sword is so lethal, just because he doesn,t need to be good with a sword doesn,t mean he isn't good with one. You then state that Nico being a lone his whole life doesn't have to deal with is skill in battle, but it does. Heres how, When Nico is alone he has to fight monsters all of the time ( considering he one of the big 3), this adds to his combat skills because he has to fight 24/7. You also stated that Jason is well at 1v1 combat and i have to say this is also false. Once again you bring up him defeating Krios, he didn't defeat Krios by himself, he had the help of camp to defeat him. Also it states him wearing out extremely fast from using his powers witch is proof that Jason isn't good for 1v1 combat. Also stated in you debate is Jason's experience with a sword. Although Jason is good with a sword, he was trained to work in a group, without a group Jason's training can only take him so far in solo abilities. Lastly you state that i have not yet answered how would Nico deal with Tempest and how would he deal with the electrical shock. You said in round 2 of the debate that tempest would be useless against Nico because of his stygion blade. Jason using electricity can harm himself, and also Nico can simply dodge the electrical shock as well as the javelin. Also using lightning drains Jason extremely quick. So this would be practically useless. I,m very anxious to see con's next argument.
Nico Di Angelo vs Jason grace

Thank you Con, for your response. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any conclusive evidence that Nico would be able to win, and instead I am given assumptions as to what would happen. However, I am still going to refute the assumptions presented. First of all, as I said in my previous post, Jason does not have to fly for the entire battle. I also never mentioned saying that Jason would be forced to manipulating a storm while airborne; I merely mentioned that he would be able to fly to escape any earthquakes caused by Nico through flying. Once again, I have to repeat myself. Jason does not have to defeat Nico's army. All he simply needs to do is disperse them enough to be able to get to Nico. Con also misrepresents Nico's abilities. While Nico can summon the undead, he can only control monsters. To assume that he can summon monsters is very presumptuous. Even if we were to include the belief that Nico could summon monsters, this power is negated by Jason's (also presumed) ability to summon other storm spirits and beings of the air that would be far more destructive, as they are incorporeal and thus would be very difficult, if not impossible, to actually be hit. While Jason is trained to fight an army, he is also a formidable fighter on his own. This is clearly seen in his battle with Lityerses in The Lost Hero, as well as his battle with Krios, which was a one on one fight as mentioned in The Son of Neptune, which Con seems to disbelieve. Nico did not hold off the army by himself: He had the use of his undead army. On top of that, as I made mention earlier, due to his sword being extremely lethal, Nico does not even need much skill in sword fighting. Con also makes mention that "Nico has been alone his whole life." That has absolutely nothing to do with his skill with a sword, or any other weapon. Con also has yet to address how Tempest (and other beings of air) can be negated by any attack by Nico, nor has she properly explained how Nico would be able to handle the electrical shocks created by Jason. Con also has not fully addressed the issue that Jason could simply disperse Nico's army, instead of simply defeating it, to kill Nico. Con also has not addressed Jason's use of other long range weapons, such as a javelin, which can be thrown with high accuracy by Jason towards Nico. With that, I pass the floor back to you, Con. Sources: http://camphalfblood.wikia.com... (See: Son of Neptune paragraph)
Nico Di Angelo vs Jason grace

Jason can only fly to a certain extent. While he is flying there is no way that he will be able to manipulate a storm and manage to defeat undead army well as Nico himself, and if he if able to defeat the army using this method then he will be extremely tired when he has to fight Nico, and at that point Nico could just throw another undead army and if Jason manages to defeat that one then he'll be extremely tired and at that point Nico will be regenerated .Jason will more than likely be injured and tired.While injured and tired Nico can engage combat and at this point will need one slash of cut to defeat Jason. Also he doesn't have to summon undead soldiers, he can also summon monsters to defeat Jason, they won't attack Nico because of his blade and also if he summons dead monsters he will have control of them as he has control of anything in the underworld. So while Jason is fighting monsters Nico can sneak behind him and land that one strike to defeat Jason grace. Also Jason grace is trained to fight with an army. Nico has been alone his whole life. you mention he beat the titan krios but he didn't do it by himself. He had camp to back him up. Jason will not be used to fighting a army and Nico by himself. Also Nico held of a hold army full of monsters in order to by time for Percy to contact Olympus by himself. Also while Jason will have to land eventually, Nico can summon a dark fissure from the underworld that can drag Jason strait to tartarus. I'm interested to read cons next argument.
Nico Di Angelo vs Jason grace

Nico Di Angelo is the son of Hades. Nico has access to ANYTHING in the underworld. This includes necromancy, earthquakes( large), and he can shadow travel. You mention in your debate that Nico tires faster than Jason. This is incorrect, as it says in the book he can only summon 1 lightning bolt. If Jason Grace is only able to summon one lightning bolt, he isn't going to be able to summon a large storm if he isn't even able to summon more than one lightning bolt. You also say that Jason Grace is a well swordsman, Nico is to and it even says in the last Olympian that he was able to fight and keep up with Thaila Grace and Percy Jackson. This proves that Nico is a good swordsman as well. Also, Nico's Stygian Blade only takes one slash, cut or even a mark to take a soul. You say that Jason can fly and defeat Nico while using attacks from the air, it says in the lost hero that he tires quite easy while in the air, he will not be able to do air attacks while flying. Within this time Nico could have summoned an undead army to attack Jason. ( This army is made up of 20 undead soldier as it says in the last Olympian.) While Jason is occupied with the undead. Nico can just engage combat with a tired Jason grace, and by this point he will only need one cut and he can steel Jason Graces soul. I'm very interested to read cons next argument.
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

The Qur'an isn't correct: Manuscripts show that the Old Testament has been the same for over 2,000 years, and the earliest New Testament manuscripts are from the second century (All the errors, if any, could be fixed by looking back at the original text.). Since Christians believe the Old and New Testament's, they can't possibly be Polytheist like the Qur'an heavily implies (Which like I said, since it is heavily implied, and tons of Muslims interpret it the way, It's right, since the Qur'an is a very clear book according to Surah 3:7). The Bible teaches Monotheism, and there are no records of it ever teaching otherwise in the past, making Islam's claim that Bible-believing people are Polytheist false, because Polytheism is not Biblical.
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

Now, this is quite unfair since my opponent did not describe the definition. Now, I accepted this debate into thinking that my opponent was using the term correctly. Anyway, I will have to continue. Now, my opponent has to objectively prove that the Qur'an is misrepresenting Christianity as per his BOP. He has to do this without using implications. Now, it could also be that the Qur'an is correct. Christians may actually be polytheists, even though the Bible says otherwise. It does not mean that what the Bible says is true, since the Qur'an has pretty much proven otherwise.