BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Fornite Better than Roblox

First, I'm going to ignore all of your grammar errors. You say graphics, But you are actually referring to art style, Which is entirely subjective. I could say PUBG has a better art style than Fortnites cartoony art style, And that would be an equally valid statement. As for the challenges and achievements, They are still meaningless if they are as simple as "drop at Loot Lake" or "find a specific house. " Yes they are challenges, But they lack any depth. Furthermore, They only give you cosmetics in the end, Which don't have any bearing on game play and thus lack depth. If you then say that Roblox lacks depth, I reply that it does. But it's variety and simple nature allow it to be a more pure and fun experience. You don't have to worry about getting a *#1 Victory Royal*, You simply can just have fun playing some mini games. It's more relaxing, And with less pressure, Which is what me and many other people want in a video game. Also, Citing streamers as a reason for Fortnite's superiority is a flawed argument. That's like saying soccer must be awful because Lebron James doesn't play it.
Is Fornite Better than Roblox

Well, That's not a lot of reasons, But whatever For your first point, Fortnite makes a sound when you die as well. It's less obvious but it's there. It has a little beep or ring or something, So that's a moot point, And I don't think it contributes to the overall quality anyway. For your second point, I don't think Roblox does either most of the time. Maybe a few select games, But not the entire thing. As for my point, Roblox has many games inside it, Including Fortnite, Meaning that it has more variety, Giving it a better chance of having a higher quality.
With equal circumstances and prep time Batman could not beat Superman

Given the same time, I believe that Batman could come up with a suit, at the essence of which would be kryptonite, also able to break through lead. Using a version of the acetylene torch he has (more powerful) he could destroy Superman's suit and thus, leave him vulnerable to kryptonite. Yes, this fight will focus on kryptonite as there is no other way to beat Superman (who, in my opinion, is the most pointless superhero ever created). That's how Batman would get around the lead suit part. I also have to believe that, with a lead suit, Superman's abilities would be greatly slowed down, as it would weight a lot. A gallon of lead is 95.08 lbs. When you have it molten, ready to cast your mold, the amount of lead you would use would be enormous if you hoped to stop kryptonite. Thus, I believe that even though Superman is strong, he would have to focus on something more than just fighting, putting him at a disadvantage, letting Batman get that suit off of him. Batman would not be so stupid as to approach Superman in a place where he did not have the advantage. He would do it in a closed in space where Superman would seen/heard the second an appearance was made. If Superman didn't have the lead suit, Batman would easily set up kryptonite traps. If he did, Batman would set up a furnace. Batman could also evade the x-ray detection by blending in. Making it so that even when seen, he looks like part of the environment. That is one of the skills that Batman is most well known for. When you talked about how outside help like Batman using the sonar vision given would be cheating, I disagree. Batman would have that set up way in advance and, as it already is set up, all he has to do is turn it on. That isn't outside help. Batman relies on his own technology to win. If he started out knowing where Superman was, he could easily keep track of him. I agree that Superman is fast, but kryptonite would weaken him significantly without a suit and with a suit, Superman would be slowed down.
With equal circumstances and prep time Batman could not beat Superman

This will be difficult. Thank you for taking this seriously. Too many people make these and then don't do anything at all but say "Superman is better" (or whatever the superhero is). *I understand that Superman may not be immediately succeptable to SOME kryptonite, "Another form of kryptonite is blue kryptonite. In my opinion, blue kryptonite is the nicest kryptonite. It doesn't do much to Superman. All it does is eliminate his powers as long as he's around it." That quote is directly from the site you provided. I would like to point at that assuming Batman had this blue kryptonite, all he would have to do would be to force Superman into a more enclosed area and then Superman would be defenseless. So, while Superman starts out stronger, Batman does have ways to counter act that. *You state that Superman can do better with the same about of prep time, without the aid of mechanisms, meteor, devices, and outside aid. However, you stated that he has suits that counter-act kryptonite. I believe a suit would be considered a mechanism. Outside help would include "access to the Fortress of Solitude that has the combined knowledge of the 28 known galaxies." If Batman used help (Fox) than Batman could easily be able to know exactly where Superman is, all the time using Fox's resources and technology. That's all I have for now as I believe that I have shown some ways that Batman can win. I await your counter-argument. Thank you.
With equal circumstances and prep time Batman could not beat Superman

This debate will consist of four rounds. I started this because I have seen alot of arguments on how batman could win, However almost always there has to be a scenario, or a disadvantage to Superman, I am a Superman fan, I would like to have it settled that on an equal playing field (Albeit, as equal as it can get for these two. .. ) Superman would win. This is not a question of whether Batman COULD win, but an argument that Batman would win, granted equal prep time. *Also I would like to point out that simply saying Bruce Wayne would buy the finite amount of Kryptonite in the world and throw it all at Superman, does not count. As far as the bat suit, I will concede that this is the typical bat suit he has and that any one of these objects he would have on him at any given time. . http://everythingcapedcrusader.weebly.com... The setting is as follows: Earth. Yellow Sun.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the Government has failed to Enforce Laws.

After being tied up with a funeral, I apologize to my opponent and my judges. I have no reason to finish this debate because I have not been able to keep up since I had to go to a funeral. I will now give my voters: 1. I had a very good case. 2. I had to go to a funeral. 3. I apologized to everyone. Vote Pro!!!!
waffles vs panckas

>>>I am pro for waffles..... its got little pockets for sryup and butter. Panckase just flop there and let the sryup run off.<<<My opponent argues that a panckase's lack of syrup pockets makes it inferior to waffles, which have syrup pockets. Well, what if I preferred that syrup pockets are absent because I like having syrup run off? ;) My opponent must show that waffles are objectively superior than panckase or panckas, whichever term floats your boat.
Next Gen is very boring!

In his previous argument opponent made a correction in the definition of boring. In any debate it is important to define all subjective words in the resolution in order to avoid any confusion. However, there is still a problem with his definition. Disappointing is subjective, not objective. Since it is impossible to prove/falsify a subjective claim, my opponent has already failed to fulfill his burden of proof. Were I to cross examine Pro's statement, I would only have the option to site reasons why the Next Generation of gaming consoles is boring, but Pro could simply say he disagrees with me since there was no objective evidence to support my argument. So I am in a position right now where Pro has left me unable to counter his fiirst argument. Therefore, Pro has set me up to lose in the middle of this debate. That is a conduct violation at best.
The Sith are better than The DeathEaters!

[sigh] I was really enjoing this debate and I was hoping that my opponant would place his response before the deadline. Too bad. Well my argument stays the same. I listed many credible reasons as to why the sith are overall better then the deatheaters in my second round of debate and I stand by them. Anyone with half a mind could see why the sith are better, even a deatheater wouldnt dare defy a sith lord with all their nearly limitless power. The average sith were stronger, smarter, more resourceful, more cunning, more deceptive, and overall just greater then our average deatheater. The deatheaters couldnt even kill Harry Potter; who was in most cases just a pathetic, scarred, schoolboy who could barely defend himself. [though he became more powerful in the later books] I mean come on! Harry managed to escape Voldermort alive SEVEN TIMES! !! Thats five times too many for any good book series. The deathearers couldnt kill Potter, couldnt take Hogwarts, and couldnt even take the muggle realm. They didnt even get that far! But the sith controlled entire planets, galaxies, starsystems, and destroyed many more. Whats more the sith can never truly be destroyed. For nomatter how many sith lords you kill there will always be at least one more; ready, willing, and capable of following in the footsteaps of those before him. How about the detheaters? Hmmmm, let me think. . . . . . . . . NOT! !! As far as the Harry Potter world goes, the deatheaters have been destroyed and disbanned. The sith on the other hand have not, and never will be. The sith are more powerful, more numerous, more intellegant, more fearinstilling, and will exist long after the deatheaters. Point blank, this is why the sith order is greater then the deatheater organization. Anyone weather they were a Harry Potter fanboy or not should be able to see this clearly.
The Sith are better than The DeathEaters!

As requested, I am informed of the Star Wars and Harry Potter universe. One observation I'd like to make is that the topic specifically is talking about the Sith and the Death Eaters. So the claim that Star Wars rocks Harry Potter (while possibly true) has not relevance in this round. I'm just going to go down and refute the line by line and then give a few points of my own. His first (and only) claim is basically that Sidious is better than Voldemort. He gives you no evidence for this at all, but then dares an oppoent to "defy his divine logic. " What logic? His only argument is that a SINGLE Sith Lord is better than the leader of the Death Eaters. He gives you no reason to believe this is true. Now for my arguments. Ever since Darth Bane began the Rule of Two, well, there's only been two Sith. Pretty simple concept. However, the Death Eaters are always looking to recruit more to their numbers. They have a MUCH larger force than the Sith are allowed to have. Second, the Death Eaters actually kill some people. Let's just take a moment for a fatality count on both sides, starting with the Sith. (I am writing these off the top of my head so I'm sorry if I forger anyone major. ) Darth Maul: Qui-gon Jinn, maybe some other low lifes. Then he gets killed by a Jedi APPRENTICE. Count Dooku:I can't think of anyone major that he kills. Then he gets killed by Anakin. (Clarification: Anakin is NOT Darth Vader. Any arguments made about Anakin Skywalker refer to him as the Jedi, not the Sith Lord, Darth Vader. ) Darth Vader: He kills the Trade Federation board, but seriously. That wasn't even a fight. (If you've played the video game you understand this even better. One touch and they die. ) He kills Sidious. Yes, he kills his own master, and dies in the process. Darth Sidious: I really don't think Sidious killed anoyone. You could argue that he killed Vader, but again that would killing another Sith. Now let's go to the Death Eaters. One point I'd like to make is that in the wizarding world, basically everyone is capable of defending themselves to some extent. (Not muggles of course) But everyone I will name was a skilled witch or wizard that would have put up a fight. The Death Deaters have killed the following: Mad-eye, Tonks, Lupin, Sirious, Dumbledore, Snape, Lily and James (technically Voldemort), Hedwig [I know not technically relevant but it made me sad. :( ], Fred, and countless other witches and wizards. Because the Death Eaters are more powerful in number and have done more damage to the world they live in, I will ALWAYS outweigh the PRO. Thank you for this opportunity, and I await the next rebuttal. :)
The Sith are better than The DeathEaters!

STARWARS ROCKS HARRY POTTER! Don't get me wrong cause I love Harry Potter too. It's a good story, with a good plot, and an oaky antagonist, but Star Wars is better, and the sith are way better then the deathearers in almost [note the word almost] every way shape and form. Sidious [I dunno about Vader] owns Voldermort! I DARE ANY OF YOU TO DEFY MY DIVINE LOGIC! FOR THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE SHALL ALWAYS BE THE SUPERIOR TO DARK SORCERY! I wanna set down some brief ground rules. -First off, I would like my opponant to be at least somewhat informed about the Star Wars Universe. -Secondly, try not to take this debate too seriously. Its fun to mess around every once in a while, and it tends not to piss off the starwars/harry potter fanboys too much when your just joking, but that doesnt mean that every statement should be a joke. -Lastly, try to have fun and keep entertained. Don't just take up this debate because your bored, take it because your interested. To the voters I would like to ask that when it comes time to debate, that you briefly explain why you voted for the person you did, and try not to be biased. Vote for the person who makes the most sense and has the most strongly backed arguments. Well thats all I gotta say, and to my opponant; May the force by with you. Or your girly magic. Whichever you'd prefer.
High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

While teachers cannot shut down their emotions the difference is that multiple teachers will be deciding. One teacher may be biased but it is not one person who will make the final decision. Whereas one person would be reading the essays and deciding on an appropriate score, there are usually more than three teachers of one student for different subjects. A team can work with a student who is struggling and a consensus can be made whether the skills are satisfactory or not. The fact that the scoring is not completely objective also is an added bonus. If the student has the necessary skills to graduate, but simply goes through a period of extenuating circumstances where they are distracted, the teachers can take this into consideration. A trauma in someone's life can cause them to do poorly on a test. They may have ample time to write a paper but a time constriction as short as 45 minutes can be stressful. It is true in real life certain professions may require this short term writing, but the reality is the majority will provide more time. Contrary to what you are saying I do believe there are shades of grey in the education system. You are further restating my point that there is simple answers for math and some of the sciences. However you have failed to provide an example of the black and white answers for reading and writing. I feel this lack of inclusion of your own example in reading and writing is due to the fact you could not come up with an answer. I am also surprised that you did not attempt to counter argue many of my points. Your final argument is difficult to debate as you make minimal points. Also your idea that there is always a correct answer for every question is automatically false. You have failed to use a qualifier to show this is not always true. Your statement that there is no other option shows a closed-minded approach, false for the fact that it cannot always be the case. You have brought up many interesting ideas in your arguments however you fail to provide backing. Your points stand alone and I feel in order to make valid arguments further research should be provided.
High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

You state, "Rather than have one test determine the future of a student, let the teachers of that student decide" .That could possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You suggest that a teacher decides..what could be more subjective than that? Teachers are not g-ds. They can not shut down their emotions/opinions. Standardized tests are tests that are given to every student and consist of the same questions. They are then tested and scored in exactly the same manner. A test has standards for everyone.........no shades of grey.........your score is your score. A teacher is helpless to be unaffected by personal choice. It is impossible fora teacher to shut down his emotions and not reward with better grades (and passing) those they like better I do feel that essays on "standardized tests" should be abolished, because grading them would be subjective. But two plus two always equals four........which proves that standardized testing is based on comprehension. There is a correct answer for every question. No debate.
High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

My particular claim is that students should not have to pass a standardized test before graduating high school. A standardized test is not always the most accurate way to check a child's skills. Students from across the United States are all taught different subject matters and skills. It is more important that a child is doing acceptable in the subjects they are being taught. This is not to say students do not need capabilities in reading, writing and arithmetic. My grounds are in the two examples to follow. One particular example of how standardized testing is not the best method for checking competency is with college admissions. While the standardized test of the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test also known as Scholastic Assessment Test) is required it is no longer seen as the most important factor. A student's grade point average and class rank are held in higher regard. Students still must pass tests and assignments given by their teachers to pass a class, and ultimately to graduate. Another reason why a standardized test would be a detriment is seen in the results of elementary school standardized testing. Students are now required to pass standardized testing in order to matriculate according to the No Child Left Behind program. As a result teachers have begun teaching according to the tests. They are teaching students what will be on the test, rather than what they actually should be learning to become proficient in the areas of reading writing and arithmetic. The results show students are passing the tests but not competent in the subjects. My warrant links these grounds to my claim and shows that as demonstrated a standardized exit exam ought not to be required to graduate. I would also like to take the time to point out some flaws in your argument. You say that you believe students need to pass a standardized exit exam to graduate. However, I wonder if you are an authority on this matter in the education field. If not, your opinion is the only evidence you provide. You provide no actual facts to back up your claim. Also, you are forcing a dilemma by creating the dichotomy of saying there is two options, pass or fail, when in reality there are many ways to measure a student's capabilities. You also participate in many fallacies that render your argument invalid. You speak of these standardized exit exams but there is much ambiguity in this phrase I am confused over. When would these students take these exams? Would they only test reading, writing, and arithmetic or would other subjects be included? How long would these tests be and what types of problems would be included? I believe you are making a hasty generalization (which is a fallacy) as you do not use enough samples to back up your argument. You also take part in the transfer fallacy (composition form) by believing that since a student can one time pass an exam they are completely competent in these skills.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

I know D-Day was in France but it also took part in Italy as well. So Fascist strongholds in France would still exsist so thus meaning that German Conscripts would still be alive so reinforcements would be more abundant. Yes defeats in the Eastern Front helped greatly in the Fascist defeat but D-Day opens Europe to foreign forces to invade. With out UK & American soldiers the Rhine and the low countries would still be held by Fascists and give Soviet forces a harder time by pushing through the east when the Fascists have backed up & reinforced west to bring more supplies and strongholds so the soviets would still take Berlin but they would than have to fight in the west too. The soviet military had the largest causalites so the battle of Berlin was one of the bloodiest battles of the war the soviets would be exhausted and moral would than with low moral and soldiers would have to fight more in the west and the Fascist armies would be well rested have better defences for being in the home land and building on it for several years and the soviets would have to fight this. It wouldn't be a good strategic or tactical descion for a military attack. They would be outnumbered and have low moral and ammunition and defences.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

I really would have appreciated if my opponent just said "I accept" instead of stating arguments. Nevertheless, I will write my arguments.Battle of StalingradThe Battle of Stalingrad lasted from 1942-1943 and was Hitler's worst defeat. 850,000 German, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, and Italian soldiers were killed, captured, or taken prisoner. After Stalingrad, it was all downhill for Germany. This was the most important turning point of WWII.http://en.wikipedia.org...Battle of KurskThe Battle of Kursk was the main German offensive of 1943. In the summer, Hitler attempted to pinch off the Kursk Salient. Eventually Germany was forced to retreat. During the 1943 summer offensive, Germany suffered around 250,000 casualties. In addition to this, the German Wehrmacht lost so many tanks that the German armored forces were no longer a real threat to anybody. After the Battle of Kursk, Germany lost all chances of winning WWII.http://en.wikipedia.org...Operation BagrationAt the same time that the Western Allies were invading France, the Red Army launched Operation Bagration which finally crushed the German army. Germany lost hundreds of thousands of men. Operation Bagration eventually brought the Red Army to the gates of Berlin.http://en.wikipedia.org...My ArgumentsThe information that I just presented may seem pointless but what I am trying to show is that by the time the Western Allies invaded France, Germany was all but defeated. By the time the Western Allies had invaded France, the Soviet army outnumbered Germany by a ratio of at least 6:1. I really can't see how Germany would have won. The Lufftwaffe (Germany air force) no longer existed. Germany had no tanks left. The Soviet Union was producing more than 3 times as much as Germany. There was no longer any chance for Germany to win the war.In the previous round, my opponent presented an argument stating that D-Day prevented Hitler from escaping into France and continue the war from there. This argument is laughable. Where would Hitler recieve his troops from if the German forces were defeated and all major German cities captured? From France? No, the French hated the Germans and would most likely start uprisings after seeing that the Red Army had captured Germany. There was no longer any chances of a German victory.Con also says that if D-Day had never happened then Mussolini would have been able to support Hitler. This is new to me because last time I checked, D-Day took place on the coast of France, not in Italy. Also, by 1944 most of Italy had been conquered by the British and Americans.I await arguments and rebuttals from Con in the next round.