BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Detective Comics(DC)are better than Marvel Comics.

1. Some superheroes share similar backstories, but that doesn't mean one copied the other. There are a finite number of possible story ideas, so there will always be similarities. Plagiarism must be proved. 2. And this is relevant because...? Here's why I prefer Marvel. 1. It's more realistic (believable characters, powers and plots). 2. It's more consistent (it doesn't need to reboot continuity every 5 years). 3. It's got Stan Lee (who is a badass when it comes to inventing new characters).
Detective Comics(DC)are better than Marvel Comics.

Dc is better than Marvel based on COMICS. I'll tell you why DC is better than Marvel 1. Marvel has copied ideas from DC Eg. Let me first bring up similarities between Batman and Iron man. But first,Bats came before Iron man ( Batman came in 1939 and Iron man in 1963) Both are boys (Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark) whose parents (Thomas & Martha, Howard & Maria) are killed tragically (Murder, Car Wreck). The parents owned companies (Wayne Industries, etc., Stark Industries, etc.) that the son is forced to own through the family line. Both avenge their parents in a way (Fighting crime, fighting for a better future), by using fancy suits and gadgets (Batsuit, Utility Belt, etc., Iron Man Suit, Repulsors, etc.) that they made with their skills and money. Source- Patriot Person's debate 2. In the debate that happened between Stan lee and Grant Morrison. Grant Morrison won!The comics that DC have produced are better than that of Marvel was the result of the debate I will say more in the next round
Abortion is wrong.

There is no God and forcing women into situations which are both dangerous and unnecessary is clearly and obviously immoral. Abortion is neither murder nor simply a matter of dealing with a baby. In many cases it can lead to serious issues and death, such as the cases of ectopic pregnancy where rather than attach in the uterus the embryo attaches in the fallopian tube or elsewhere. Without aborting the pregnancy the woman would surely die. --- Further, your religion holds that aborted pregnancies make the souls go straight to heaven. Why would anybody want to force existence on an innocent being if a quick death prior to sin could allow one to take the fast track to heaven? I ask that you first prove your religion is true and that God exists, then prove that it's not absurd, then prove that it doesn't actually result in better outcomes via abortion than not. Seriously, wouldn't you rather have been aborted and go straight to heaven rather than live in this fallen world and risk sin and potentially hell?
Abortion is wrong.

I am here, not only to state my opinion that abortion is wrong, but to also see the other side of the situation. God creates us all, with a unique personality and mind, and with a role to play in this world. Taking that chance from an individual is wrong. Abortion is murder, if you do not want your baby, or are scared, there are plenty of alternatives to killing it. One of the best, there are couples out there that cannot have a baby of their own and then there are people who are killing their own, not only is that wrong, but it is selfish.
Abortion is wrong.

My opponent says "There is no God". Pay close attention to the noun "God" Definition of "God" with a capital G states: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." -Dictionary.com My opponent uses that term in his first argument, therefore showing that he does in fact believe there is a God. He then says "Murder is wrong and abortion is murder, but if your father was a rapist then murdering you is perfectly acceptable?" Right there, he openly admitted that murder is wrong and abortion is murder. When he used that phrase, he did not quote nor reference the phrase from my argument, therefore showing his opinion on the matter, which right there taking away the whole base of his argument. He then questions my constancy to my argument by saying that my "conditions are fickle" That is incorrect, saying that my beliefs can have no acceptations is balderdash and ignorant. "Aborting a pregnancy causes an small clump of cells to not become a larger clump of cells. This has nothing to do with babies." Now, abortions have some requirements, that you cannot have one after the third month, but; those cells have already become a fetus by the second month. If you look at the definition of a fetus it states this: " The young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.: -Dictionary.com That states that, again by the end of the second month the fetus is in "recognizable form of its kind" So how can what you say about "This has nothing to do with babies" be true? Those "clumps of cells" are rapidly growing and developing the baby, so how can it have nothing to do with them? If you'd like, i can bring up a point from a non christian standpoint. Ask a biologist when life first starts. And they will tell you that, life starts as soon as the sperm meets the egg. Because the definition of life is, anything that can grow. Laws in the united states, because of how our government is set up, the laws of the unites states are made in favor of the majority of the people, and studies show that over half of our population is against abortion. I seemed to notice, that my opponent has more than once, asked my opinion. Not only is this not arguing his point but asking my opinion is irrelevant. I have not yet heard why abortion is wrong, except for that it "converts woman with a choice about their bodies into woman without a choice about their bodies and forced into birth" Which actually kind of made me chuckle. Woman are not forced to get pregnant either, except in the special rape cases which i have stated a solution to in the second round.
Abortion is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com... This debate is not about God, and it is certainly your prerogative to argue whatever you want. However, because your entire argument rested on that premise and I've pointed out that that premise is baseless or at the very least unproven, you need to be better to widen your range of arguments rather than relying upon mythology which you don't care to prove. As is, you're entire argument is baseless. To outlaw abortion is to force women into birthing. It converts women with a choice about their body into women without a choice about their bodies and forced birth. Outlawing abortion should not be done or condemned on the grounds that women are evil and need to be punished. This is sexist and rather absurd. For some women who are too young to go through the emotional and physical turmoil and commitment needed to carry a pregnancy to term it may very well be that it is the responsible thing to do. My opponent then somehow accepts conditions. How fickle are his commitments? Murder is wrong and abortion is murder, but if your father was a rapist then murdering you is perfectly acceptable? And there are matters of degree when it comes to risk woman, however, in every case it is much more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term than to not. Aborting a pregnancy causes an small clump of cells to not become a larger clump of cells. This has nothing to do with babies. My opponent supposes that he would prefer to be born, however what if he's wrong, or sins or loses his faith earlier on and according to his theology goes to hell. What if the mother is an atheist and raises her child to be an atheist? Wouldn't it be better to let the ensouled little clump of cells go to heaven rather than hell? --- Your position on abortion comes from a sexist and fairly odd position. You wish to violate medical sovereignty and deny woman a choice about their bodies. Forcing them to endure a significantly large medical risk and emotional and physical stress because they are irresponsible and got knocked up and brought it on themselves. "Those sluts! They need comeuppance and forcing them to have a kid is exactly what they should be forced into." -- Your entire argument is childish and naive, and it's a good thing that men have nothing to do with pregnancy. Pregnancy is a very personal thing and termination should not be taken lightly, but asking to take away that choice because of some misogynistic nonsense is beyond the pale. We are discussing embryos and early stage fetuses which lack every aspect of facet of why we value human life. The reason you argue for souls and must make this argument is because under no unbiased understanding of why we care should we place that clump of cells above the women we are forcing to endure a massive undertaking.
Abortion is wrong.

My opponent argues "There is no God" and asks that i "prove my religion" Well, this is not what the debate is about so i will not use one of my rounds to prove there is a God as that would take much of my argument space. if you'd like, you can prove that there is no god but it is irrelevant to the subject. My opponent states "There is no God and forcing women into situations which are both dangerous and unnecessary is clearly and obviously immoral." No one is forcing them to do anything, they need to realize that with their actions come consequences, and having an abortion is just a quick and wrong way of "dealing with a baby" and it is irresponsible. There are cases where woman who are raped, or have a condition where they are in danger, where it is acceptable, but which should be prescribed by a doctor in those scenarios. But we are talking about the subject as a whole, not just about those special circumstances. I believe that it shouldn't be used as an alternative to birth control for those who do not want to take the proper precautions when having sex. Woman who just decide not to take those precautions should not have an easy way out, they need to take responsibility for their actions. My opponent also states that "Abortion is neither murder nor simply a matter of dealing with a baby" Both which are Balderdash. Aborting a baby is ending a human life, or not giving it a chance for that matter, which is murder. Also, woman who get pregnant because they don't take precautions, and end up getting an abortion is in fact "dealing with a baby" therefore that argument is ineffective. One of my opponents other points was "Further, your religion holds that aborted pregnancies make the souls go straight to heaven. Why would anybody want to force existence on an innocent being if a quick death prior to sin could allow one to take the fast track to heaven?" That is indeed an interesting point, but who are we to make that decision for them? People should be able to make that decision for themselves after a lifetime of influences, teachings, and opinions. Not just cut them off before they are born. And for your point "Seriously, wouldn't you rather have been aborted and go straight to heaven rather than live in this fallen world and risk sin and potentially hell?" I would rather have been born, live my life and believe what i choose to believe as my access to heaven. My opponent hardly proves his point, aside from his small point on those special occasions, which i have stated an answer for above. I look forward to actually hearing an argument.
This Third Wave of Feminism is Unnecessary

What the fucc did you just fuccing say about me, You little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, And I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, And I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fucc out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, Mark my fuccing words. You think you can get away with saying that chit to me over the Internet? Think again, Fuccer. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, Maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fuccing dead, Kid. I can be anywhere, Anytime, And I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, And that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, But I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable azz off the face of the continent, You little chit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, Maybe you would have held your fuccing tongue. But you couldn't, You didn't, And now you're paying the price, You goddamn idiot. I will chit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fuccing dead, Kiddo.
from an official capacity, the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

i specifically forbid using the bible as a standard for contradiction given it's so open to interpretation, so that pretty much negates your whole debate and con must be forced to lose. as i said, we are examining its consistency on its own and should be able to find somehting within two thousand years. i will give brief response but most of your arguments are canned responses. given you broke the rules i wont do extended debate or cite all sources, just give you some food for thought. Did Joe have sex with Mary? 'brothers' and 'until' http://www.catholic.com... catholics do not worship mary, they just give her respect. they ask for prayers the same way one asks a friend for prayers, and prays for lost ones the same one you pray for your lost loved ones when they die or hope they can hear you. the whole first part of the Hail Mary is taken from the bible peice by piece.... "hail mary full of grace, the lord is with thee.... blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus".... most of this is from the gospel of Luke. the rest of the prayer is just asking to be prayed for. i can tell you that St paul was referred to and asked t be referred to as 'father'. so it is not without biblical basis that one might be called father. JEsus was referring to father in God terms, not just as a sign of respect. it is not specifically a ban on repetititve use of words that Jesus gave, he was just warning not to engage in pointless prayers. when catholics pray the rosary they are reflecting on Jesus's life.... that is not pointless. and it is possibe to say a lot of prayers and mean them. sure, if it's lip service as it admittedly seems to be with the rosary, then it is pointless.
from an official capacity, the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". (to be sure, there are plausible arguments about how those do not involve contradictions in teachings, but that's better left for another debate) you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
Playstation 3 is better then xbox 360

I accept this challenge.1. The Xbox 360 sold more than the Playstation 3. 2. The Xbox 360 has more games than the PS3.The PS3 has currently 795 games (multi-platform: 635; exclusive: 150; console exclusive: 10) and 15 canceled games, while the Xbox 360 has 1,119 games (multiplatform: 919; exclusive: 187; console exclusive: 72)[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...Bacon is life, bacon is love,Bacon makes me feel like I am a glourious dove.Bacon is salty, bacon is tasty, Baconis lovely in a pastry.Bacon is nice, bacon is good,If you don't eat bacon you really should.(Unlesss you're a Muslim or veggie, than you probably shouldn't. Just sayin' ):)
Playstation 3 is better then xbox 360

The playstation is way better that the xbox 360 because t he playstation dosent require you to play online like the xbox 360 were you have to pay xbox gold membership. The playstaion 3 got better games than the xbox 360 and i dont know what to say at the end so heres a poem i wrote I didn"t eat my breakfast I feel weak Need to eat I didn"t eat my breakfast I can"t think I can"t scream I didn"t eat my breakfast I feel sick Just like shrimp I didn"t eat my breakfast I feel hungry I could just shriek I didn"t eat my breakfast Until my mom came in the room with food The End :D
Chicken Tenders are better than the inferior "Nugget" form

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Nuggets, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense of chicken, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our chicken nuggets and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Chicken nuggets are more American than the Nazi Chicken Tenders.
Chicken Tenders are better than the inferior "Nugget" form

I disagree with your statements. To begin with, Chicken "Nuggets" are more bulky, have you ever looked at a picture of an amazing tender? I think you have not, let me show you the perfect piece of meat we call our tenders, and maybe you will change your mind. "Tender" Picture": http://paleoaholic.com... There, now that you can finally say you have seen the thing your actually arguing about maybe you can make a valid argument next time? Continuing, I would like to talk about your use of the phrase "chicken nuggets have a superior form compared to the peasant chicken tender". This is just not true, and in this round hopefully I can convey my feelings and thoughts on this, and maybe you will change your mind also. To begin, your argument about the movement of Chicken "Tenders" has 0 backing. The size is all dependent on the chicken and way it is cooked, I may remind you, no 2 chickens are the same. Also, most Chicken "Tenders" are smaller, as in thinner and longer, ideal for you pocket. You could easily fit 5 in a pair of Nike Sweatpants, trust me as a growing High school Student, I can speak from experience. Next, to counter your argument of Chicken "Nuggets" having a "more of the crunchy exterior that is the best part of the chicken", I will have to say it is dependent on who, is making it and how. Here is an article that shows your point is absolutely not true. This article states in one portion, "however, the breast and rib meat, as well as the chicken tenderloin, are used to make McNuggets. Before McNuggets are made, the entire chicken skin is removed initially, and a small portion is added back 'for flavor.'". This article shows that your statement of "have more of the crunchy exterior that is the best part of the chicken" is absolutely false and depends on the makers/cooks or the Chicken "Nugget". Article about meat used in "Nugget(s)": http://www.cnet.com... Finally, I would like to show you the difference in the Nutritional Facts between Chicken "Tenders" and Chicken "Nuggets" now for this comparison I will be looking at 2 products, both from the same company, one "Nugget", one "Tender". The products are from the "MorningStar" company, the two products are "MorningStar Farms Original Chik'n Tenders" and "MorningStar Farms Chik'n Nuggets". Now that you know the products the amounts are 100 grams each, to keep a controlled comparison. Although, their "Nuggets" have less calories (as I may point out only by 12), the "Nuggets" are HIGHER in Total fat, Saturated fat, Polyunsaturated fat and Monounsaturated fat. Also, the "Tenders" are higher in Protein, however there are more Nutritional Facts that I have not pointed out, the links to the Nutritional Facts will be below. Nutritional facts: https://gyazo.com... Nutritional facts (cont.): https://gyazo.com... Thank you, for reading thus far, I am interested in seeing your points to combat my arguments. :)
Chicken Tenders are better than the inferior "Nugget" form

I think that chicken nuggets have a superior form compared to the peasant chicken tender. My argument starts at the movement of chicken nuggets. Can you put more than three chicken tenders in your pocket and have ketchup in the other, no because the chicken tender is too bulky and causes too many problems. Second chicken nuggets allow you to have more of the crunchy exterior that is the best part of the chicken. Finally chicken nuggets allow the ability to be dipped in the tinniest spots needed to dip.
Students should have to wear school uniforms

There's seriously no proof that that school even exists. What type of school has 500 students in one class!!! No wonder why half of them are failing. How can one teacher teach 500 kids at once. Don't blame it on the uniform, it has nothing to do about it. If your new school had a uniform policy it would be number one, but they decide they don't need it and all those intelligent kids aren't being used for they're full potential. If those school have a uniform policy they wouldn't be putting the make up on and combing they're hair, because they would of did it at home because they would spent less time trying to choose what they should wear to school. No, the kids at your new school care about they're cloths. You just don't see it because your all caught up in your clothes not on other people and your school work. Why would tensions escalate if everybody is wearing the same thing, no one is above or below anyone in their fashion. Fights don't start when kids are all wearing the same thing. They only start when one person knows the other kid is wearing something better than them and take the first blow. Think about it would you start a fight with someone who is wearing the same clothing or someone who keeps bragging about how much richer they're families and how stupid you're cloths look. In my school there's a uniform policy and a lot of rich kids. All the kids are wearing the same thing so you can't tell who's rich and who's not. Students at the school I go to there are no rich cliques to bully the poor kids or poor tough kids that get angry real easy and start fights. Also uniforms are good for the children's parents. Why, uniform cost a lot and schools require you to get them. In a school without uniform policy parents have to buy more cloths which cost more money and time to get them. Wearing one thing for the whole entire year is much cheaper for the parents and helps the child go to school faster.