BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hawkeye can kill Flash

Hawkeye can hit any target moving at any speed (since he can shoot ahead of where they are with his innate pinpoint accuracy) and can use any kind of arrows, even ones with time bombs strapped to them. His ability to predict movement is just as supernatural as flash's ability to move fast. Flash is often always moving at a maximum speed and very rarely decelerates once in motion. Hawkeye would simply shoot many arrows in a scattered manner an the probability of his innate accuracy predicting where and when Flash would move is almost 99.9999% sure to hit flash at some point. Hawkeye has basically never missed a target in his professional life and his hand-to-hand combat skills are far superior to Flash's (if it came to that).
On balance, a ban on civilian firearm ownership would be beneficial to the United States

DK and I have been planning to do this debate for a couple weeks now. Standard debate rules apply; first round for acceptance, no new arguments in the final round, no semantics, no trolling, etc. I doubt any of that will be a problem, here. A quick note on the resolution-- the debate will NOT be revolving around the implementation of a gun ban; it will be about whether or not the effects of a gun ban which has already been implemented are positive.
Online Piracy

Online piracy is wrong in every way. If people think its not okay to steal a movie from a shop, then they should not think its right to pirate a movie. Sometimes, if its a really old game with an unpopular company, people think its okay to pirate, or even worse,to upload a torrent. Just because its harder to track people down, it doesn't mean its not a crime. People who are with piracy and put up new proxy's for it, should be blamed and punished for such a crime. People who pirate little cheap indie games from poor companies or people trying to make money from it are both stealing and wasting their time and money. In fact, I think people should go to every length they have and just go for it to stop piracy. People hate to see games or movies being shut down, or good companies going bankrupt, and most importantly, us as humans like to at least have a little money in our pockets to even live on. I am against piracy and will go to all odds to stop it.
Online Piracy

As my opponent has forfeited another round, there isn't much to say. In conclusion, I believe Con has failed to provide any argument on why would Online Piracy be wrong. I have shown that Piracy is not harmful, and as a mean of disseminating knowledge it is actually socially desirable. Copyright laws must be reformed all over the world, as soon as possible, in order to better account for the Internet Era reality. Finally, I believe sharing files should be encouraged, not fought against.
Online Piracy

Well, it is a shame that my opponent has forfeited the second round, I was really looking forward to a nice debate. Anyway, I will continue to present arguments in favor of piracy. In this round I will argue that copyright laws are outdated, and do not contribute to society. First of all, I would like to cite Scherer: "The evolution of copyright from an occasional grant of royal privilege to a formal and eventually widespread system of law should in principle have enhanced composers' income from publication. The evidence from our quantitative comparison of honoraria received by Beethoven, with no copyright law in his territory, and Robert Schumann, benefiting from nearly universal European copyright, provides at best questionable support for the hypothesis that copyright fundamentally changed composers' fortunes. From the qualitative evidence on Giuseppe Verdi, who was the first important composer to experience the new Italian copyright regime and devise strategies to derive maximum advantage, it is clear that copyright could make a substantial difference. In the case of Verdi, greater remuneration through full exploitation of the copyright system led perceptibly to a lessening of composing effort."[1] That is, copyright does not protect neither incentives creativity, on the contrary, it incentives sloth and accommodation, by excluding other, perhaps better, artists, to build on what has been made. Also, as I have already said, copying does not deprive the victim of the original item, as intellectual property is not scarce[2]. Another point is that copyright laws around the world are almost the same as they were before the advent of the internet, and are not ready to cope with the transformations that the knowledge era has brought upon us. Today we live in a world where knowledge sharing and the right to education are universal values. Every country legal system must be reformed to reflect that, by changing or abolishing copyright laws. My opponent has yet to provide some proof or argument that piracy is "wrong in every way", as so far he has not proven that it is wrong in any way. References [1] Scherer, F.M. (2004), Quarter Notes and Bank Notes. The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Princeton University Press [2] http://mises.org...
Online Piracy

Hello, I will defend that Online Piracy is not "wrong in every way". First of all, I would like to make a distinction: I will argue in favor of collaborative sharing of information, not in favor of selling what you did not create. So I will not defend those who make money out of piracy, instead I will defend those who download or upload files with the sole purpose of sharing. In this first round, I will rebut the argument that "piracy is stealing". Nina Paley's didactic video "Copying is not Theft"[1] is a great way to explain it in a simple way, but I would like to provide a few more sound arguments. It is important to point out that downloading a song does not take away any money from the artist, as would stealing. At most, it prevents the artist to make a profit, as the person does not buys the album, but that is not necessarily true. Downloading a song does not mean you would pay for it if you could not download it, most times you would just ignore the song altogether, so downloading is actually benefiting the artist, as it is making him more known, and probably causing more people to look forward to a live performance. In fact, most artists profit from piracy. 75% of the artists benefit from file sharing[2]. That's because non-popular artists, who are not played in mainstream radios, would otherwise be completely unknown if it wasn't for file sharing. People have the opportunity to experiment new music for free, and then, if they like it, reward the artist. That is beneficial for the artists and for the music as a whole, as it democratizes the industry and allow for more music variety. References: [1] http://www.youtube.com... Copying is not Theft - Nina Paley [2] http://torrentfreak.com...
westernization degrades todays youth

"There are great values in the Western world: Freedom, democracy, equality (not always though), respect for the environment, less corruption." Democracy and equality are not values. The environment is not an entity, and therefore cannot be "Respected" :D. "But since the last three years, it seems the Indian political and intellectual mind is pushing that 'we are as democratic, as liberal, as free as you are" I'd rather they were freer :D. "ast three years, it seems the Indian political and intellectual mind is pushing that 'we are as democratic, as liberal, as free as you are.' This process of copying the West to the point of aping it has, of course, already happened many times in the developing world. And it killed the soul of many countries, making them just another replica of the West -- with a youth that wears the latest Calvin Klein jeans, knows the No 1 bestseller on the Time list, can quote a few lines from Dante but knows nothing about pranayama, has never read a verse from Kalidasa and does not know who Sri Aurobindo is." How does NOT KNOWING about the cultural influences that have led to millenia of barbarism "kill someone's soul?" And who cares what jeans people wear? These "Kalidasas," "Sri Aurobindo's," and this "Pranayama," if they ever had any influence on India, can't have had much value, because India was locked in the Dark Ages until the influences you have claimed "killed it's soul" came around. If a soul is that which causes barbarism, then if this be soulless, make the most of it! "The Westernisation of India must not be at the cost of her culture and spirituality." The Indian "Culture" and "Spirituality" is precisely the problem. It has caused, among other things, the caste system. Losing spirituality is not a cost, it is a very great benefit, and so is losing the culture of barbarism that grew from it.
westernization degrades todays youth

There are great values in the Western world: Freedom, democracy, equality (not always though), respect for the environment, less corruption. India must, and has already borrowed from these qualities. But since the last three years, it seems the Indian political and intellectual mind is pushing that 'we are as democratic, as liberal, as free as you are.' This process of copying the West to the point of aping it has, of course, already happened many times in the developing world. And it killed the soul of many countries, making them just another replica of the West -- with a youth that wears the latest Calvin Klein jeans, knows the No 1 bestseller on the Time list, can quote a few lines from Dante but knows nothing about pranayama, has never read a verse from Kalidasa and does not know who Sri Aurobindo is. The Westernisation of India must not be at the cost of her culture and spirituality.
westernization degrades todays youth

Westernization, the process of being inculcated with the fundamental values that, so far as they are present, distinguish Western civilization from Eastern civilization (Reason, self-interest, individualism, freedom, in short, NOT being completely a bunch of mystic savages who contemplate the insects that bite them in a mood of surrender, and contemplate their primitivist governments the same way) does not degrade youth. It removes degradation. For one thing, it has created better technologies, which among other things, mean they can get a shower once in a while that is heated on demand. For another, it removes from youth the traditional Eastern burden of having to obey every command from their elders, like cattle. Also, you are Pro, so you've got burden of proof.
Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever.

To respond to your first point that being the best pop singer of all time does not necessarily mean he has the widest vocal range or most powerful voice. Being the best singer implies that his voice appeals to the most and widest range of people. Obivously we can see this through his album Thriller which has sold the most copies of all time around the world. Obivously I meant that Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever as I did not disinguish between male and female and as you provided no evidence to why Madonna is a better singer than MJ I will not respond to it. And to your third point, suck it.
Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever.

I'd like to start off this debate by acknowledging that I am a huge Michael Jackson fan (music-wise). With that said, although Michael Jackson is one of the most talented and well-known/well-loved performers of our time, there are a few flaws with a) the topic of debate and b) the way you chose to argue this debate thus far. First, the subject of this debate is completely subjective. By saying that MJ is the "best pop SINGER" ever, you are implying that he has the best vocal ability. Surely there are other pop artists who have a wider vocal range, a more powerful voice, etc. I'm not sure that a majority of voters would agree that he has the best singing VOICE per se even if they agree that he is/was extremely talented, influential, unique, a great dancer, etc. Second, the debate topic claims that MJ is the best pop singer ever -- it doesn't differentiate between male and female. So in terms of musical influence and prowess, MJ has some serious competition with Madonna (others as well, but Madonna being the most prevalent in this case). Third, repeating "He just is." over and over might not be the best way to win votes on this site. Most participants are actually articulate, intelligent people who may not appreciate that style of debating. Good luck!
Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever.

He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. He just is. yeah
Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever.

To reply to your first point that I can't prove that people bought the album because of Michael's voice. Why would you buy an album if you didn't enjoy listening to the songs on it. Even if an album is popular you don't buy an album just if you don't like listening to Micahel's voice. The same applies to peer pressure and even if these situations happened then they would have been only a minor portion of the people that bought the album. Also, for people who bought the album outside of the United States woudln't buy an album because it is popular in another country as in I doubt you've ever bought a an album from a singer in Japan because they are popular over there. To your last point that people would buy it as a present still means that they are buying the album for someone who likes Michael Jackson, still making him an amazing singer. I think you misunderstood me when I said "Obivously we can see this through his album Thriller which has sold the most copies of all time around the world. " I meant that Thriller was the best selling album and it has sold copies around the world, instead of being the world's best selling album. Also there is this also coming from your own source. "Thriller is the best selling album of all time, though sales figures for the album vary between different sources who have cited the album as selling between 45 million copies worldwide to 104 million copies" - Wikipedia Just stating that there are other good pop singers like Madonna or The Beatles isn't actually proving that they are better pop singers (or in The Beatles case a group) than MJ. And of course if you added up Elvis's albums with The Beatles they'd have more than MJ. Even if you did prove that Elvis actually sold more albums or actually stated a reason why he was a better singer than Michael, he is not of the pop genre, he is Rock n' roll, as his title is the King of Rock n' Roll. "He recorded songs in the rock and roll genre, with tracks like "Hound Dog" and "Jailhouse Rock" later embodying the style" - Wikipedia Since you haven't given any reason why Michael Jackson isn't the best pop singer of all time other than suggesting that not all of his records were sold because people liked his voice or stating that there were some other good pop artists, then this ballot of this debate should obviously be Pro.
Michael Jackson is the best pop singer ever.

You said it's "obvious" that MJ's voice appeals to the most and widest range of people based on the recod number of sales of the Thriller album. However, you cannot prove that people bought the album because they loved MJs voice. There are other reasons why people buy albums, for instance: the album's popularity, peer pressure, a present for others, etc. Plus, "The world's best-selling album cannot be listed officially, since there is no international body to count global record sales ... Historical data before the 1980s and from developing countries are also incomplete. Information is also lacking for non-English language albums" (Source: Wikipedia). I never said that Madonna was a better pop singer than MJ. I'm saying that she'd be a good challenger. Other prominent challengers would include John Lennon and/or Paul McCartney and Elvis Presley (The Beatles and Elvis were considered to be part of both the rock and pop genre) amongst others. Because Elvis and The Beatles have collectively sold more albums than MJ did with Thriller (assuming that Thriller really is the best selling album of all time), then... do you even have another argument? Ps. You're really cool for saying "Suck it" at the end of a debate. That was a good one. Very original. Very intelligent.
Libertarianism and Foreign wars are Incompatible

Your premise remains faulty. The new government formed would be a model of an older one. The victor governs the rules of the conquered. The new government would be small for an insignificant time period. Do you sincerely believe a strong defense over a strong offense should've been the strategy engaged by the U.S. in WWII? That would have gone well wouldn't it? While our allies surrender; we could wait to face the Axis powers by our lonesome. You're stroking with too broad a brush. Our interventionist foreign policy was not responsible in the rise of Adolf Hitler. The causation was the unfair treaty in itself that would've passed without our presence. The Entente Powers sought revenge and revenge is what the alliance got. If Joseph Stalin was solely concerned with his own affairs would you clarify the artificial Ukrainian famine for us? My basic point is this: you would let the world be inhabited by renegade dictatorships and feel that somehow we would win out of false financial efficiency. Isolationist " efficiency" is absurd because stomping a troll is more financially sound than waiting to slay it as a monster. Adolf Hitler broke the treaty agreements and was appeased long before the invasion of Poland. Imagine what would've happened if Hitler was stopped then and there. This would be before he could get his war machine to the level capable of conquering Europe. Isolationism was tried and failed. Let me get this straight. You do not feel governments should be efficient enough to defend themselves? How is it conceivable a government committed to the rights of its citizens would survive? It wouldn't. You would rather see free governments overthrown than risk a wasted dollar. Interventionist foreign policy is expensive but it ended Hitler's conquest and curtailed communism. We've saved our allies from tyrannical oppression. Enlargement is efficient if its purpose is to maintain survival. Besides that exception it is abnormally rare to declare government efficient by increasing its bulk in an area. Thomas Paine was a remarkable guy. I hate to inform you I'm not him. Nor would you know his reaction to circumstances outside of his own life. Foreign wars replace a government incapable of defending itself to a government that can protect itself against imminent foreign threats. A small percentage of GDP to cover survival and those of allies is a lot less of a deal than you make it out to be. Freedom is far more important than a few bucks. I wish for the same freedom that gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be preserved here and abroad. You're so overly concerned about a big government you're willing to sacrifice everyone to oppression by foreign entities.
Libertarianism and Foreign wars are Incompatible

I speak as a fellow libertarian. Your argument is overly simplistic. You must come to terms that wars internally or exterritoriality require an expansion of government. Why is it then you feel the former is justifiable and somehow the latter is inconsistent? Don't you realize war is war? Don't you understand a threatened government in either case has to go beyond police duty? All wars give government an uncomfortable amount of power. This isn't something avoidable nor is foreign wars. Foreign wars are escapable when choosing higher threats over small ones. It is impossible to sweep out foreign wars altogether. Do you think war ends with the death of enemy soldiers on our soil? Or that we can win each time doing that? Wars conclude when a side can no longer wield a war machine. Foreign wars to stop run-a-muck fanatical dictators are a necessity. Staying isolationist around a Hitler or Stalin is certain doom. History repeats itself. Would you leave your allies to fend for themselves? What makes you think their enemies will stop at the ruins of your former allies? Who'll support you in defending your nation when there's no one left to do so? Without France in the revolutionary war we would be under the British monarchy. Without us in World War II the continent of Europe would have surely belonged to Adolf Hitler. Do you see how this works? Wouldn't you say a government that can maintain its own survival is a trait of an efficient government? This efficiency is brought about by government enlargement. Is this contradictory? You do not comprehend the concept of a necessary evil. Government in itself is a necessary evil because in order to operate it has to steal from others via taxes. Without a government there is no powerful entity to safeguard the rights of citizens. For a government to sustain itself it must eliminate threats that will be its undoing. There cannot be a small government if it does not exist. Foreign wars are a necessary evil to preserve a small government.
Libertarianism and Foreign wars are Incompatible

I read through quite a few of the "libertarian" profiles on here and i kept seeing a disturbing trend of libertarians being in favor of war. War anywhere outside of your own country is inconsistent with a belief in small government. All foreign wars, without exception have expanded the size and power of government. Wars are also one of the most expensive endeavors. Now plenty of people think that the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the possibility of one in Iran are not huge expansions of government power. But it is an irrefutable reality. (libertarianism for this debate's purposes will be defined as a belief in the efficacy of small government...please no semantic arguments, or "people can call themselves what they want" type things. Id also prefer a libertarian who has these positions to answer.)