BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In this scenario, Darth Vader would defeat Batman

Since this is a non serious debate, it will remain a tie. Please accept and add any relevant issues into the story in round one SCENARIO:As part of his Jedi extermination victory tour, Lord Vader traveled the galaxy, and made a scheduled landing on Earth where he visited Gotham city. Lacking Jedi to kill, Vader was very thirsty for a fight.On the subway, he saw a man in a really stupid outfit trying to court a pretty girl, and he brushed the man aside saying to the girl:"Hey baby, how would you like to play with my pair of death stars in my spaceship?" Before the girl could reply, the man pushed aside yelled"hey, you don't talk to women like that you son of a biscuit!" (he was too pious to swear)"HAHAHAHA" yelled vader in his booming laugh "Who are YOU to mess with ME?" "I'm robin, and I keep this city safe from monsters like you" said the man, and Vader again laughed"Oh yeah? You and what army bittch?" The man angerly took a swing at the lord of the galaxy, who ducked and elbowed him in the gut, picked him up, and threw him across the subway. As Robin attempted to get back up, Vader gave him a force push, knocking him against the wall and making him unconcious. "Now, come with me..." Vader said to the girl, when a confident voice yelled "NOT SO FAST." A man in black approached Vader, and said "Leave her alone Pal, before I get involved"Little did Vader know he was getting into it with a superhero, so he laughed again and said"Suck my robot balls!" "No" the man replied "I am the Batman, and no one mistreats women in my city." Vader laughed and took a swing at the man, who surprisingly dodged quickly and managed to hit back at Vader, knocking him in the helmet. "well well well...That will cost you!" Vader snarled, and jumped unto the man, the two of them exhanging a flurry of punches and kicks until 5 seconds later they broke up. "Back off before I really get mad" Vader said, drawing his lightsaber just as batman withdrew one of his many firearms. At an impasse, the two decided to settle the matter in a good old fashioned fist fight, and as they faced off, a by-stander managed to snap a picture...
In this scenario, Darth Vader would defeat Batman

Well, heres a collection of interesting tunes: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
School sports are taking up too much time

I am glad we are still debating and also, I knew what the topic was supposed to mean, but I was just waiting for you to expand and explain what YOU would like to debate to be like. I was just trying to help you understand that some viewers might not understand completely what this topic is supposed to be about. I am glad you figured it out and caught on to what I was trying to explain. I also think both our points are good and I hope there are no more problems. ^_^ Anyway, I will refute your points and state my own contentions in this final round (in a non-rude way). So the opposition said that sports in school are an excellent way to gain friends. I completely agree. There is just one problem, however. When kids gain friends, you can also lose many. I am 13 years-old and I am in a middle school. I have too many friends from sports, elementary schools, and new friends I met at this middle school. Of course, not everyone is going to get along with everyone. Some of my friends hate my other friends and I will have to unfortunately pick a side. This can split people apart and cause you to lose even more friends than you probably got from sports. The friends you split up with might hate you forever and try to bully you (refuting your other point). This can actually cause MORE bullying considering the large amount of people who play sports. So basically, you will LOSE friends by gaining friends. Hopefully that statement makes sense to the opposition side and the viewers. My first point is no fun. Sports as I have repeatedly stated, take up far too much time. In the first round, I talk about parents having to take their kids away from sports early. This isn't fun for the child. What is the point in even playing if you aren't even going to have fun doing it? Sports are here for two reasons: Entertainment and exercise. That is it. If you are only going to play half of a soccer or baseball game, you are getting half the exercise and half the fun. It just wouldn't make sense. Sports are only fun if you play the whole thing, and if kids play the whole thing, you don't have enough time to do homework and other things needed for school. Again, school is the most important thing in life. With sports, kids don't really think about school as much as they should. This will be bad for their future and their life. I hope my opponent and I will be friends in the future. I will have sent a request by now and I hope he/she accepts it. I hope the viewers will forgive my accidental and unintended rudeness in the last couple of rounds. Please don't be offended and please accept my apology and vote for me! Anyway, I have refuted all of the opponents points in my second paragraph. This means that the opponent's points no longer stand. My points , however, still stand and I hope my opponent and the viewers see this and vote for PROPOSITION!!! This was a good debate and I had a mature and very good opponent. Even though my opponent was good, you should still vote for ME!!!!!! GO PROPOSITION!!!! ^_^ Thank you opponent for debating me and thank you voters for voting! I hope you all vote for me! Thanks for this debate!! ^_^
School sports are taking up too much time

I am not trying to be rude and I apologize sincerely, but I am trying to say the wording of this topic is awful. You can not just shorten sports. According to the wording of this topic, I am supposed to be arguing on why sports are taking too much time. The opposition is supposed to be arguing why sports don't take too much time. The problem is, you can't change how long a sport is! You can't! There is literally no point in debating this topic! You also said that my points were "bad and atrocious" but so were yours! All you said in round two was,"Kids should be able to handle the time consumption. It is their choice to quit. Sports are a good way to use time- they can help a child stay healthy" Those aren't even arguments! You didn't even provide statistics or anything! Anyway, I will keep on giving points. My second point for this debate, is that kids won't do their homework. If there were sports that take too long, kids would try and have an excuse for not doing their homework. This would be a bad habit and kids shouldn't get away with this. Kids wouldn't do homework because they are "tired" or they were too busy with sports. Please, don't take offense to my arguments or refutations. In debates, you are SUPPOSED to attack the other side's arguments. That is why you are debating! To prove you are right and the other side is wrong! You didn't have any rules or any regulations or anything! That is why you should vote for the proposition side. Hopefully my opponent will keep debating after I have already apologized. If he doesn't, I have clearly won. Vote for the PROPOSITION!!! ^_^
School sports are taking up too much time

I thought we were supposed to be mature about this? When I said the "handle it themselves" I meant "it's their problem," glitches happen. "Feeble attempt?" That's not very mature, and is rather rude. I will NOT continue this argument, because the opponent is acting cocky, rude, immature, and mean. My argument is a good argument: but you will see I will not continue for long due to the fact that I do not want to argue with someone like you. My arguments are just as good- your arguments WOULD be the useless, incorrect topics that WOULD give up because they are bad arguments, however, we will not continue because I will report you for your behavior. I suppose it doesn't matter if I tell you that now, and that you have bad arguments that are weak and deficient. Here are some short arguments: Time consumption: Kids should be able to handle the time consumption. It is their choice to quit. Sports are a good way to use time- they can help a child stay healthy. Not all kids aren't able to handle the time consumption. I find your last paragraph rude and immature. If you would like to act out, I would like to report your argument, due to the fact that you are somewhat attacking my arguments and I, especially when none of the things about them are true- your arguments are rather bad and atrocious. I was trying to have a mature debate, but I got someone immature giving me ignorant, dense arguments and mistreating me. This debate shall not continue, so you can leave the debate and debate someone else's argument.
School sports are taking up too much time

"If a student cannot handle the responsibility, they must handle that themselves." This is what the opposition just said quote for quote. If a student can't handle the responsibility, how are they supposed to "handle" it? That argument doesn't make any sense and it is contradicting itself. Also, the opposition stated that school sports do not take up much time, but you can't change how long a sport is. You just can't. You could take your kid early from a game, but then it wouldn't be all that fun and then there would be no point in even playing. Basically, the other side is going to try and convince me during this whole debate that sports are short and don't take that much time. It is an impossible argument for the opposition's sake and I therefore advise you to give up on this debate if you can. Anyway I will go on to my own points. My first argument: Time consumption A soccer game for kids is around two hours: One hour before the game to practice with your team and the other hour playing the actual sport. Football can take even longer. It is the same for baseball and softball. All of these sports I have listed take too much time and kids will not be able to have enough time to focus and work on homework. Even if they do have enough time, they will probably stay up from 9:00 P.M. to 12:00 P.M. (I know from experience. I play soccer). This isn't even that bad unless you play multiple sports. In that case, you literally might not even be able to sleep. If you don't get enough sleep, you do worse in school. You do worse in school, you go to a bad college. You go to a bad college, you get a bad job. You get a bad job, you hardly get any money. You don't get enough money, and your life is ruined. This all started with sports. Also, if you have little time for homework, your work will be amazingly sloppy and your grades will plummet. Your grades are the most important thing in life and sports will take that away from you. This was only the first round. It will be impossible on the opposition's part to continue and win. Please just give up on your feeble attempt at arguing with me on this topic. You can just say "I give up" for the rest of the rounds. If you would like to try and argue for your case and against mine, go ahead. I won't stop you. I rest my case.
Misa amane is a slut

The term "slut" refers to someone who holds as the purpose of their actions the pursuit of sex as such (rather than sex with a particular person, based on a particular trait of that person). A definition which renders the term relevant to the nature of the person rather than the nature of their circumstances is necessary given the moral connotation the term has irreversibly picked up. Nothing is "Skanky" about her modeling gigs to my memory, no mud wrestling for example, and such modeling is not "slutty," as, even if one is to define it as a sex act, it is done for the purpose of money, rather than indiscriminately for the purpose of sex as such. Kissing L was done out of gratitude for what she perceived as a compliment, and it was clear from the context that it was not intended as sexual, though L mistook it for such for a moment, she corrected him "Let's just be friends."
Misa amane is a slut

The questions of whether a relationship is open, and whether Misa's clothing is revealing, are irrelevant to whether Misa is a slut. It is entirely possible for a dedicated virgin to wear revealing clothing, and for one who is bride to the whole darn regiment to wear a burka. It is also possible for a relationship to be open without Misa taking advantage of that openness, or to take advantage of it in a discriminate (i.e. non-slutty) manner. It is also posisble to not be a normal girl (Misa is definitely not a normal girl) without being a slut. My arguments stand unrebutted.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Pro, you don't understand how the concave mirror works. From the site that provided the animation: "All of the lines of sight, regardless of their direction, will pass through the image location...different people are sighting in different directions; yet each person is sighting at the same image location." http://www.physicsclassroom.com... Unlike in a plane mirror, where different observers see images in different locations that appear to be behind the mirror, with a concave mirror, the reflected image is sighted at the same location in front of the mirror. Pro tries one more time: "The only image we see in a reflection is a virtual image and that appears behind the mirror." My response: How is the reflected image location, in the animation provided, behind the mirror? The intersection of light is clearly in front of the mirror; this is called a real, not virtual image. The resolution has definitively been rejected, because reflections from concave mirrors are simply the intersection of photons, which pro agrees "exist outside of the mind." P1 - Reflections are photons. P2 - Photons exist outside of the mind (Pro agrees). C1 - Reflections exist outside of the mind. C2 - The resolution is rejected.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

I repeat. You are mistaken. When you look in a mirror its impossible to see the image in front of the mirror. This includes concave, convex, straight and funny mirrors. I have loaded some photos of images in convex mirrors and surfaces. The virtual image appears upside down in some of them, but none show an image in front of the mirror. I even went and looked into a covex mirror in person and I can assure you there is no image in front of the mirror. If you read the link you posted it clearly says that the location of the image will vary depending on where the object is and where the viewer is. The spot marked image location is where all the light rays come together. I know the term image location is very deceptive, but nowhere in the article does it say an image is created on that spot. The only image we see in a reflection is a virtual image and that appears behind the mirror.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Pro stubbornly ignores concave mirror reflections:"When we look in a mirror its impossible to see an object in front of the mirror."My response:Check the animation, the image location is an intersection of photons IN FRONT OF THE MIRROR; Pro keeps referring to plane mirrors, which are not concave mirrors.Pro misinterprets the provided animation:"depending on the persons location they would see the reflection in a different location."My response:Nope. Look at the animation, REGARDLESS of the observer (Eye), the image location stays the same; all light from the original object to the concave mirror is reflected off the mirror meeting at an intersection, at a specific location, irrespective of the observer.Pro continues:"They all see the object in a different part of the mirror."My response:No!They all see the object in front of the mirror at the intersection of all of the reflected light. Notice the image location does not change for each observer...this speaks to an observer's irrelevance to the existing intersection of photons, which is an image of the original object.Pro, you have falsely interpreted the animation, and this animation shows that the intersection of photons does not require an observer, rather a focused point for all light reflecting off of the concave mirror.If you were to stand in between the image location and the mirror, you would be blocking the light from intersecting, thus distorting the reflection across your body.Otherwise, from any observable angle, the object's reflection location does not change with a different observer.Pro, does the intersection of light, a reflection from a concave mirror, exist outside of the mind, yes or no?If yes, we're done here.If no, I really don't know what else you need to see; light reflected from a concave mirror, a reflection, exists at a specific location, and this location is outside of our mind and the mirror.Pro said:"Unfortunately I can't load images when posing an argument, but if you view the image in my album it explains how a mirror allows us to see an object in one location when it is actually in another location."My response:I looked at Pro's images, from his album, and again Pro is confusing a flat, or plane mirror, with a concave mirror, which is the mirror in my provided animation.Pro's image below, you'll notice, is a reflection from a flat mirror...this is not a concave mirror Pro, so the image would not be in front of the mirror. Here's the link if it doesn't work.http://www.debate.org...
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Thanks Con I'm afraid you are mistaken. When we look in a mirror its impossible to see an object in front of the mirror. Unfortunately I can't load images when posing an argument, but if you view the image in my album it explains how a mirror allows us to see an object in one location when it is actually in another location. In Cons picture it clearly shows that depending on the persons location they would see the reflection in a different location. The spot marked image location is the direction the image would be in from the persons perspective. If you stood on the spot marked image location, the image would fill the entire mirror. This is why concave surfaces are used to amplify waves. They focus the waves striking the surface in one location. That do not create an image in that location. If you study Con's animation from each eyes perspective, image location is the direction they see the object. They all see the object in a different part of the mirror. This of course only applies if you are standing behind the spot marked image location. If you were standing between that spot and the mirror you would still see the reflection in the mirror.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Thanks Pro.Pro points out:"Photons from an object, reflect off a mirror and strike our retina."My response:Yeah, with a regular plane mirror.With a concave mirror however, photons from and object reflect off a mirror and strike an intersection of photons that then reflect to our retina; this intersection is a real location, in real space, and itself is a real reflection, IRRESPECTIVE of any observers.In a plane mirror, the observer has to be positioned properly to see certain images in the mirror.For example, if you have a shower located off to the side of the plane mirror in your bathroom, like not directly in front of the mirror, when you look into the mirror, you have to position yourself to see the inside of the shower.The shower's reflection is only observable to you from certain positions.In a concave mirror, like the one below, the reflection can be objectively viewed from anywhere, because this particular reflection is in fact an intersection, in real space, of photons that have all traveled from the mirror.Since Pro has already agreed "that photons exist outside of the mind," the reflection from a concave mirror is outside of the mind; reflections don't only exist in our minds, which negates the resolution. Note: the "Eye" markings are observers; their position is irrelevant.Click on the link if the animation's not working.http://www.physicsclassroom.com...Pro continues:"If the image existed outside our mind, where would it exist?"My response:At the intersection of reflected photons like the provided animation exemplifies. Pro avoids concave mirrors again and states:"Two people looking at the same mirror from different angles would see two different reflections."My response:Not with a concave mirror.With a concave mirror's reflection, the intersection of photons is the same reflection from all observable angles.Pro keeps on a dodgin' concavity:"The fact is that from any possible angle a different image is possible"My response:With a concave mirror's reflection, the only possible reflected image is the same from every observable angle.Pro continues:"There is a big difference between an object and an image."My response:Ok, follow me here.The reflection from a concave mirror is an object that objectively exists in a location in space. It objectively exists there, even though it has no rest mass, because light never "rests;" intersected photons are objects in actual space.Pro, what say you about a concave mirror's reflection?
Reflections only exist in our minds.

While pro is correct in stating that there would be no reflection if there were no protons I clearly stated that the image we see exists in our mind. Seeing an image is a process that starts in the real world, but finishes in our mind. Photons from an object, reflect off a mirror and strike our retina. The retina sends a signal to our mind which creates the image. If any part of the process is missing, no image will be created. We need an object, a mirror, photons, a retina, linked to a conscious mind. If the image existed outside our mind, where would it exist? On the mirror? That is impossible and I'll explain why. If you look at yourself in a mirror its easy to believe the image remains there when you close your eyes, but it doesn't. Two people looking at the same mirror from different angles would see two different reflections. They might even see each others reflection. So which image remains in the mirror if both close their eyes? The fact is that from any possible angle a different image is possible. Photons reflect off the mirror in every direction, but only photons which strike a retina cause a image to be created. This proves that a image is subjective. There is a big difference between an object and an image. An apple is a object. It exists without the involvement of any conscious being. But photons can bounce off that apple in every direction and it will not become an image. It needs an eye to capture the photons and to send electrical impulses to a conscious mind. The mind has to convert this information and only then will an image exist. Everything we see is a creation of the mind. Yes it's based off physical data received from our eyes and without photons this wouldn't be possible, but images exist only in our minds.