BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

1. The Riddler is nothing like the Joker. Here are some differences: a. Joker is an insane clown, Riddler is just a sane criminal. b. When Joker kills, it is out of the blue, random and for fun. When Riddler kills (barely) it is planned and for a legit reason. c. Joker does jokes. Riddler does riddles. d. Riddler likes baffling himself and other people, thus he uses traps on regular citizens and not just Batman. Joker does similar to this, though they are only for Batman. e. The Riddler likes to make people think. Joker just messes with their heads. f. Riddler is neutral, often working for not only bad, but also good. Joker always, no matter what, works for bad. There are plenty more. I could go to Z if I had to. 2. The villains are not similar. Let's compare Joker to Zod. Joker likes chaos and wants to make Gotham his own. Zod thinks he is making peace by trying to turn Earth into a new Krypton. Now let's compare Ra's al Ghul to Lex Luthor. Ra's thinks he is doing the right thing by reducing the popularity in order to solve ecological problems. Lex, like Ra's, thinks he is doing the right thing. However, Lex's methods and ideas are way different then Ra's's (lol). Lex thinks Superman is a problem for humans, thus trying to kill him. As you can see, Batman's villains are not like Superman's. Because of this, it is even more so a good idea to bring Riddler to the screen in order to further explore him and pleasure the fans. 3. Who says that Riddler would HAVE to be like the Joker? Nolan can do more than THAT, you know. It is not possible for no one to compete with Ledger's Joker. Ledger's Joker can easily be competed with and already has been competed with with the likes of Bane and Zod, for example. 4. Why would it be a train wreck?
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Regardless of how bad past Riddlers might have been there is one matter that must be taken into account. How closely the Riddler is to the Joker; or at least how alike they would become if Nolan had to put them on the big screen. Take into account the works that Nolan has done-- Batman and Superman. In both movies the hero's psychology is almost identical. The villains are very alike as well; regardless of who they are-- Bane, Joker, Al Ghul, Zod whoever. I for one would hate to see the character of the Riddler boiled down to a caricature of the Joker. It would be impossible for any actor, writer or director to compete with Heath Ledger's Joker. And any remaking of the Riddler would inevitably lead to a comparison of the two. Given that the Warner Bros. executives were all looking toward Leonardo DiCaprio coming on board to play The Riddler in the final installment of the trilogy it would, in my opinion, have been a train wreck.
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

1. Let's look at the past Riddler's: First, we have the late Frank Gorshin. He was the one who played the Riddler in the classic 1960s television show. I say Frank was a good enough Riddler, at least for his time. But, he was not the kind of Riddler we still need on the big screen. Next, we have John Astin. I'm not saying "late" because he's still alive. Astin's Riddler was pretty bad. I mean, look at this picture. Tell me this isn't bad: My goodness! Finally, the most recent, Jim Carrey. Most agree that Jim's Riddler was horrible, I do. I mean, he was way crazier than the Riddler is supposed to act. And his hair was red. What the heck. As you can see, we are yet to have a great Riddler on screen. Yet the reason Nolan should have included the Clown Prince of Conundrums. This is obviously a feat Nolan could pull off. More next round.
Islam Vs Atheism

God does not exist. Logically, there is no reason to think God exists, just as there is no reason to believe unicorns exists. Since it is more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, the burden of proof is upon my opponent. Think of a bag containing thirty pens. The task of proving that none of the thirty pens is the color red is much more difficult and time consuming that proving that just one of the pens is red. Although science cannot disprove the existence of God at this time, science can show the probability of God existing. The chances that God exists is extremely low. Meaning it is extremely probable that God does not exist, including the God of the Islam religion. The correct term is temporary agnostic position. Meaning, in the future there will be more scientific evidence that will ultimately prove if God exists or not. Just as with the example of a bag with 30 pens, we can say we looked in a whole bunch of places for God and found no scientific evidence. We have found no evidence of heaven nor hell, no fossil evidence of nephilim, and no evidence of a great flood. No evidence of a flying winged horse flying to heaven with the Islam's greatest prophet on its back. There are no flying horses around today, no fossils of winged horses, no transitional fossil evidence of winged horse. The miracles of the Islam religion can not be repeated nor is there any evidence they occurred to begin with. Then, there is the entire virgin birth problem. How is a virgin birth even possible? We have DNA and anatomy evidence now to show that a virgin birth is impossible. How did God come into existence? The entire God argument is self defeating due to infinite regressions. Where did God come from, who created God? If another God or being created God, then this leads to infinite regressions. Due to a creator inherently being more complex than a creation. Each being that created God must be more and more complex with no end. The main problem with using God is how God came into existence is not explained well or at all. The more complex and powerful God is the more improbable God is. I'm running out of time. Here is a huffingtonpost article by Richard Dawkins which explain a lot better than I can why there almost certainly is no God. https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Mother is better than father.

My opponent wants more evidence as to why mothers are better than fathers. I shall list them, 1. " The second biological factor that makes fathers less committed parents is their higher fitness ceiling (the best they can do re-productively). Fetuses gestate for nine months within the female body, and infants are, at least in the past, nursed by the mother for several years after birth, during which the mother is usually infertile (lactational amenorrhea). " as said in www. psychologytoday. com 2: The government itself sends the message that children need their fathers. But sometimes the absence is an improvement. 3: the mother does most of the care-taking around the house. 4. Mothers care for their children more than fathers. Although fathers may care a lot the mother will care a little. 5. . http://www.babycenter.com... says that 32% of fathers care for their children meaning the other percentage is that they are cared for their mother or some one else which shows a mother or guardian feature. And so on. .. My opponent has said "As I have stated before, because of the mother giving birth she is able to hurt the child worse then anyone else. " this although may be true, there are some cases that have occurred that way, those are the cases in which those people should have never had children. Now i shall defend my case, with the bond the mother and child, the child is more likely to listen and respect the mother than the father. This may sound bad but in some cases it might help. If your partner and you are having marriage problems and he is leaving the house for the night and you know that he might do something stupid and use the child against you then the child refuses to go, the father has no right to take the child. If he did that would be kidnapping.
Mother is better than father.

First off, I am a guy not a girl. It even says so on my profile. My opponent has still failed to give more reason of why a mother better then a father. They are still holding to the reason of a mother giving birth as "better". I also have the link of why the census here " http://goodmenproject.com... " Now about a mother doing wrong it doesn't matter the age. If the mother consistency hurts, neglects, etc. the child then from a young age that child won't have a bond. Just because a mother gives birth does not make her "better" in anyway. As I have stated before, because of the mother giving birth she is able to hurt the child worse then anyone else. I am posting links now to stores of where children under ten are either killed by or testify against there mom to prove that the "bond" that happens can indeed be broken 1) http://fox6now.com...2) http://www.koat.com...3) http://www.sun-sentinel.com... 4) http://www.wmcactionnews5.com... After reading those do you that those children will ever have a bond with there mother? No, they wont. Forever in there mind will they remember being beaten and abused. Age does not matter in this case. Now there is no more evidence for me to prove of why a mother isn't "the best" because my point has been proved.
Mother is better than father.

My opponent has stated "I am not arguing that fathers are better, I am arguing that nether is better then the other. " If he thinks this then why are we debating this? In the three rules of debate 1. There must be a judge who judges the con and pro. 2. ; There must be a pro to argue for the resolution. 3. There must be a con who argues against the resolution. I have looked at the websites and the first one about the stay at home dads. That doesn't say anything about the fathers succeeding the wive or mother but only that of the men who stay at home. And the article says that those numbers of stay at home dads are wrong in the census. And also unless my opponent can give me the pacific place where she found that single dads are a arise then I would like to ignore this for now. Then if she does then i would like to say that even if there are single dads in big numbers or small they will never be as close as they would with their mother. Now my opponent didn't understand or i didn't explain it well that when I said when a child looks at there mother and they cant do "wrong" I meant it as in small children which is so. They look up at them as good role models. I would like to conclude by saying that mothers held a child in her womb for months and although she might not be the best person she is still a mother, or even if you have a mother figure. She took a child into her arms and there will always be a connection between them stronger than anyone else.
Mother is better than father.

My opponent has taken what I said out of context. I am not arguing that fathers are better, I am arguing that nether is better then the other. [1] If you look at the growth of stay-at-home dads in the last few years the number has jumped from 1.2 million in 2009 up to 1.45 million in 2014. There is also a link in the same article that shows how inaccurate the US census numbers are. [2] Not only are stay-at-home dads on the rise, but so are single dads. The number of single dads has gone up nine fold from 1960 to 2011.[3] Now my opponent has yet to prove any of his rebates so how does he know mothers can't do "wrong as he calls it? All you have to do is look up "mothers convicted of child abuse" and then you will get lists of mothers who have beaten, killed, or injured there children. The bond that a child can grow with there mom does not mean that they cannot harm their child.[1] http://athomedad.org...[2] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
Mother is better than father.

My opponent stated in the beginning of the argument it states that its true what i am saying which backs up of what I'm saying. The argument states that a father plays the same amount of roles in the child's life. But now here comes the clash of everything. The argument states that Fathers teach their sons or daughters, how to be a man or how men think, respectively, yet what about the single mothers we have today? Single mothers have to teach their sons how to be a man and their daughters how to be wary of men and they have to work harder yet the special bond between mother and child helps a lot. And they succeed most of the time. Also my opponent has said that the fathers teach the sons how treat their wives yet whose the better teacher of art if not the art teacher? The same applies here. Then mother can give better advice on guys too. This is because the mother will have more knowledge of why this and this happens. Then for my last refute, a mother is a role model so in a child who is attached to their mother, which has been proven more likely, the mother cant do "wrong". As my point has been protected, I strongly yet respectfully encourage a vote for the pro side. Where would one be with out a mother figure?
Mother is better than father.

I see where you are coming from when you state that we are close to our mothers because we came from their womb. In a lot of ways this is true. Childern tend to go to their mother when hurt, sad, angery, or really for anything. It's built into us as humans. Now I dont agree that mothers are better then fathers and vice-versa. Farthers play a large role in childerns life same as a mother would. For sons they look up to their dad to see what they should become as a man, how to treat their wife, etc. etc. For a daughter they go to there dad for advice on guys, they look to them to see an examplie of what their future husband should be like, etc. etc. Of course this is diffent for all childern, but this is the most commen I see with the people around me. A father can be mean and hurtful, but so can a mother. In fact, because of the bond you have with your mother from birth, she is able to hurt you more.
Mother is better than father.

As we are growing up we are either a mommy's girl or boy or a daddy's boy or girl. But most if us was a mommy's child. This is normal with toddlers according to: http://www.boston.com... they state; "Whatever smell, sound, movement is most familiar and predictable is what a baby will prefer,". When we are in the mothers womb we become close to our mothers and we bond with them even though we arent born yet
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

A summary of what my opponent has said is that, students should be put into classes based on their level of skill and interest in a certain subject so that they are not rushed and can work at their own pace, and should be taught by a group of teachers during a time both students and teachers can agree upon or even the whole day, working on hands on projects. Something that is similar to being tutored. It is a good system, however this could cause elitism among students as the current school system hides a students mark by giving it to them privately through a report card or giving a student a number then posting the marks assigned to the number rather than the students name. While my opponent's system clearly separates students based on skill level, thus while not showing the exact mark, it can give others a rough estimate of their skill level possibly bringing discrimination if someone is bad at the subject or if someone is exceedingly good at it. I bring this up because simply by being interested in something does not necessarily mean you will be good at it as there are those that, despite struggling, will take certain classes because of their interest in them. Also, as I mentioned above, there are hundreds if not thousands of students attending a single school and I find it implausible if not one of the students happens to be very discriminative and rude, which can will cause problems for students that struggle otherwise things such as bullying would not be a problem in the world and idioms such as "boys will be boys" would not exist. In other words, teens and children may learn more, but those who have not fully grasped the importance of morals or don't care about morals could cause problems for those who struggle.
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

My opponent has stated something I have overlooked. My original idea for a school system reformed would be that each student has a selected councilor assigned to them based on their field of interest, however it is a little bit off topic and I apologize. Existing schools within the current system should be more dependent on running things as a group setting rather than as a business formality. My opponent has stated the obvious that things should be more personalized when it comes to how schools ought to deal with students deprived of the norm, however if schools did this, the problem would be too much diversity and as previously discussed as an argument against my ideals, too many students and not enough help. The thing that I suggest in result to this would be to resolve this problem by doing exactly the opposite. Include the school in more group settings but base everyone in every class according to level of expertees and shown level of interest by marks and have small group sessions with more than one teacher in the room to identify the interest in various subjects, so you feel you are a part of something because you are selected because of what others see in you. For example, 50 science students out of 200 do extremely well in their areas of study. Get a couple of teachers to work with a select group of specifically interested students in experiments with science projects related to things they do good at in and help them set up their own schedule depending on what group they wish to spend the most time in. Let the student and the teachers together decide what time works best and make it so that every day of the week while school is in session, the student focuses on just one class for the whole day when they reach a grade level that matches for example, provincial exam level or something of the sort. This way each day is something new and people work at their own pace, a specific day will become the day of special teaching for groups who need it so everything balances out. It would be alternatively easier to cope with course wise, not to mention giving more freedom to everyone.
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

I can see the this debate has gone off topic as both debaters agree with the fact that the school is in need of reform in some way. Therefore the topic is no longer whether or not the school is in need of reform, but rather how should the school be reformed. Con starts off his argument by noting the immoralities of our school system, and suggests a system where school is not about facts, but rather personal growth. His described method of achieving this would be by abolishing the current grade system, and have students focus on their strengths rather than trying to be well-rounded as the current school system is doing, through learning from something similar to tutors, giving more one-on-one tutoring. In other words a complete reorganization on how individual teachers should teach. While my argument states that certain subjects should be reformed to better suit the student"s strengths and ideals, giving them more flexibility on what they learn in the classes, such as earlier branching of the sciences or introducing new classes such as philosophy. However, I did not state anything that would radically change how the teachers would teach their classes. A problem with this method would be the #1 thing that ruins a specific class for me and my peers despite any interest in said class, and that would be a bad teacher. How would you change how our schools hires staff, since a bad teacher may ruin a class but is infinitely worse when it is one-on-one as his focus is entirely on you rather than a large number of students and may discourage a teen from taking this course further because of the strictness of the class. Nonetheless I would like to ask con how this system would work more in-depth as students working with a group of trainers, focusing on a specific subject to promote self-growth can be interpreted in a number of ways. For instance, it could mean students being encouraged to further their knowledge on their interests by having set appointments with individual counselors or trainers, similar to tutoring, while also encouraged to learn more on their own time. However, this would lead to a lack of social development to the students. Another way this can be interpreted is through students attending class normally, while expert(s) observe their work and work habits through their assignments, and then write up a report, giving their suggestions on how a student could improve their work habits. Yet the problem with that would be that it is unmanageable as there are hundreds if not thousands of students attending a single school, I believe that not many have the patience to write up thorough reports for more than 4 students. As mentioned above I would like con to explain his idea on changing the school system more in-depth as what he mentioned can be interpreted in a number of ways and will cause confusion, also so that I may get a better understanding of how it works and will be able form a proper argument.
The school system is in need of reform. Big time.

the school system is not at fault, the people who run it are. Kids need new direction, they can't get it from anyone other than the system itself. Experience is the best teacher in life and all school does is use textbook answers to try to prep kids up for graduate school and marks. It's wrong, but the school itself suffers less attacks than the things that happen inside it. there is no direction when there should be, no care to what happens in the real world, when someone gets into trouble, guess whose the first to get sent to the office for trying to speak their mind against varying parameters someone else deems unacceptable. No wonder protest rates are so high. I agree to disagree, the bottom line is what are you really teaching people, something that happened or something that you need to use through out life at the prime time of being alive. Why call it a requirement?