BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That maywhether should fight pacquiao again.

Yes. Why? Truthfully? I couldn't give a damn. But I would still pay to watch the rematch. I think my view here is shared by the majority of people. Even though we were ho hum about what we saw, and it was a crap fight, they should fight again if pacman had a torn rotator cuff. And the money. Pacman is a philanthropist; he could easily get at least half of what he got for the first fight ($80m) and help out poor folks in the Philippines.
Best Batman Villain

Well everything is Ra's Talia is his daughterIt was his training that made BatmanIt is his Lazarus PitIt was his plan that got Robin killedI was his plan to bring Robin back to lifeAnd finally it is his fault for Robin to go bad.Everything about what my opponent says about the evidence about Under the Red Hood with Ra's al Ghul involvement is that he maybe lied or it was all a bad dream if I was to use my opponents logic maybe Battle for the Cowl is all wrong and maybe Jason Todd wasn't brought back, the evidence at hand shows that Ra's al Ghul had his plan go bad and he tried to correct his wrong.When is comes to Gotham my opponent is wrong again. Ra's al Ghul tried to destroy Gotham while Jason Todd is protecting it. The only crime that Jason Todd has committed is that he pushes the limit in protecting Gotham while Ra's doesn't care about Gotham only to destroy it.Vote for Ra'sRa's has done evil for hundreds of years and has killed whole civilizations while Jason killed some Mob members. Ra's is the greatest villain because he is the evil that walks the Earth.
Best Batman Villain

Now refute my opponents argumentsp1) Ra's Ghul created Red Hoodp2) Ra's al Ghul created Batmanp3) He is immortalp4) Red Hood is the greatest Batman villain p1) In the movie Under the Red Hood Ra's al Ghul does gives a flashback about him submerging Jason Todd in the Lazarus Pit. My opponent brought to question whether for some reason Ra's al Ghul would make up this story. In the movie Under the Red Hood when the Red Hood reviles his face to Batman he tells him that he was dipped in the Lazarus Pit by Ra's. For my prove look at the video and start it at 1:48 and that will be the end of it. My opponent is picking and choosing different facts from his sources that contracted itself I have simply used one of his sources to prove my case.p2) when I said that he created Batman he gave him the skills that was necessary for him to become Batman which in turn made him create Batman.p3) In the comics and the animated series it shows that he has used the same Lazarus Pit. He will always use the Lazarus Pit even if he gets killed his followers of the League of Shadows would most likely dip him back into it making him immortal. p4) My opponent brings up that the reason that Jason Todd is such a great villain is that he is an out of control vigilante for Gotham that he has the potential to win that is why he is such a great villain. Well Ra's is an out of control vigilante for the world and for past generations he wants to end all evil by killing. Ra's has one he has destroyed the greatest civilizations in the world and Batman has to defend the corrupt world from Ra's while he has to protect Gotham from Jason. Now which one is greater one city or the world. Ra's is the greatest villain. Sourceshttp://www.youtube.com...
Best Batman Villain

I will now refute my opponents arguments p1) Ra's al Ghul created Red Hood. p2) Ra's al Ghul created Batman p3) He dies in Batman Begins p4) Red Hood is the greatest Batman villain. p1) My opponent stated in the first round that he would be using the move Under the Red Hood for a source in his argument. In the movie it is fact that Ra's al Ghul does make the Red Hood. It was Ra's that teamed up with the Joker who killed Jason Todd(Robin). It was Ra's that felt remorse for what he had done and decided to plan on stealing his dead body switching it with a fake. It was Ra's who took Jason Todd to the Lazarus pit. Without Ra's al Ghul Jason Todd would still be Robin. p2) My opponent stated that Ra's al Ghul can't be the greatest Batman villain because he made Batman. Well actually he doesn't created Batman he teaches Bruce Wayne everything he knows. Ra's doesn't mean to create Batman his intention was to make Bruce into one of his greatest minion in the League of Shadows. If Bruce didn't refuse and become Batman the world might have seen one of the greatest villains thanks to Ra's al Ghul. p3) While in the comics Ra's al Ghul is immortal in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins he does die in the end. Nolan was trying to make a more realistic Batman so he made Ra's al Ghul immortal in another way. Because like Ra's al Ghul said a legend never dies. p4) Like my opponent stated, " He is not, by any means, the Best Villain, but to Batman.... he is paramount." He isn't a villain more like an out of control vigilante he kills the villain instead of locking them up. If Red Hood does kills Joker, Killer Croc, Mr. Freeze, etc. he would be a hero in the eyes of the civilians. He is not Batman's greatest villain, but instead his lost side kick. http://www.youtube.com...
Best Batman Villain

I accept the regulations that my opponent has offered, and he can use the Jason Todd Red Hood. I will not be using the cliche choice of the Joker instead I choose Ra's al Ghul. I will be using the Ra's al Ghul in the comics and in the movies Under the Red Hood and Batman Begins. The three reasons I choose him was because he created the Red Hood and Batman, he is the leader of the League of Shadows and he is immortal. In the movie Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne (Batman) is trying to find himself and Ra's al Ghul happens to find him. Ra's al Ghul then takes him under his wing training him and teaching him everything Bruce Wayne needs to know to become Batman. How to fight and how to be in a way a ninja without Ra's al Ghul there is no Batman as we know it today. In the movie Under the Red Hood Ra's al Ghul partners with the Joker to keep Robin and Batman busy while he goes on his mission. Unfortunately the Joker gets the upper hand of the duo and kills Robin. Feeling guilty Ra's al Ghul puts Robin in the Lazarus Pit which brings him back to live, but drives him into an insane like state that creates the villain the Red Hood. He is also the leader of the terrorist group the League of Shadows. Which is a group that tries to bring balance to the world and its goal of world perfection. They do succeed by bringing down such empires like the Romans and England. This is also a very mysterious group that is like the title suggest a group that live in teh Shadows. No other Batman villain is immortal like Ra's al Ghul. This is very unique thing about him he has lived for generation after generation thanks to the Lazarus Pit that keeps him alive. He has been able to live through every major period in human exists. Ra's al Ghul is the immortal man. Ra's al Ghul created the Red Hood and Batman, Leader of the League of Shadows, and is immortal Red Hood is only a sore thumb while Ra's is the knife at the neck. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://batman.wikia.com... http://batman.wikia.com... http://dc.wikia.com...
Best Batman Villain

I accept! and will Argue that The Red Hood (Jason Todd) is the BEST BATMAN VILLAIN. (I will be excluding everything from the New 52's Red Hood and the Outlaws because that's been totally gay.... so I'm basing this off Under the Red Hood (comic and movie) and Battle for the Cowl mostly) HOWEVER, I would like to exclude the argument that Joker created Red Hood. That is a valid argument that wins it for Joker, and for that reason, I'd like to exclude it. I think it's a good debate if we exclude that argument. If you cannot or will not exclude that argument, I then propose several and you get to choose which I argue for (because I really can't decide myself). Harley Quinn (with the "Joker created Her" argument excluded as well) Two-Face (Harvey Dent with the "Joker created him in the Dark Knight excluded as well) Hush (Tommy Elliot) Bane (with the movie versions excluded) or my favorite Owlman heck, I'll even try to make an argument for the Riddler or Penguin if you want me to I think they all have compelling arguments for why they are Batman's Best Villain. Your move, hotshot
The Seventh Day Adventist Church do not hold the correct doctrine

I guess I could make a quick concluding statement. The reason why I joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church is simply because of it's adherence to scripture. I felt that it was one of the only Churches that properly interpreted the Bible - especially concerning the sabbath and alcohol consumption. Although there are some doctrines that may seem questionable to other denominations (like the adherence of the writings of Ellen G. White), our emphasis is most certainly on the Bible and as a Seventh Day Adventist, I certainly see that in our practice. God Bless
The Seventh Day Adventist Church do not hold the correct doctrine

Albeit being atheist, I was born into an extremely religious community which has led me to become knowledgable of biblical scripture and it's history. Furthermore, the community adhered to very similar biblical doctrines to that of your church, in that we also observed and worshipped on the sabbath day. Nonetheless, the community has founded certain doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist to be of biblical inerrancy which I was taught in several classes while attending religious education seminars by this christian community, and i'd like to share them with you and invite you to debate with me why you adhere to such doctrines and whether or not they are accurate biblically. I figured I did not succeed in our last debate as I find it that you're still debating on the existence of God, so i'd like to try this from a different angle. If you truly believe that the doctrines you hold are true then there is no need to be afraid as expressing the rationality behind it will be of ease and coherency.
Allow Lesbian Marriage But Ban Gay Male Marriage

I believe that it's just best to let everyone marry, regardless of their sex. At the end of the day, is it better to have a possibility of a few women being more respected, or the definite fact that people who love eachother can celebrate that in marriage? It only makes sense, and although you have some loosely explained, poorly cited sources, the advantages of letting people of the same sex marry clearly outweigh the disadvantages. It is all very well to consider this disadvantages of gay men marrying, but the advantages are massive! A whole group of people who have been so thoroughly mocked and discriminated against in the past will finally become more respected.
Allow Lesbian Marriage But Ban Gay Male Marriage

Con is ignoring the factor of bisexuals. Yes some people will prefer gay or lesbian relationship whether they can get married or not, but a sizeable number of people are bisexual. Wanting the benefits of marriage bisexual people can swayed into making a choice one way or the other about which sex to get married to.By banning two men from getting married a good portion of men who are attracted to both men and women may choose in the end to settle down with a woman, because that way he will be able to get married.Similarly, if two women are allowed to get married then that option means more bisexual women choosing to eventually settle down and get married to a woman.And social approval of lesbian relationships but not of gay male relationships through the institution of marriage will have a trickle down effect on sexual relationships. Because it will be more socially acceptable bisexual men through their lives will be more likely to side towards women, eventually perhaps excluding men from sexual relations entirely and settling on a woman. Whereas promoting lesbian relationships means more bisexual women will feel comfortable more often having sexual relations with women being more likely to eventually marry one.With people, both male and female more likely to pursue women it will be harder for a man to get a woman, and as a result men will treat women with more respect.
Allow Lesbian Marriage But Ban Gay Male Marriage

Rebuttal of first point: Your first point expresses how having two men in a relationship amplifies the chances of the spread of HIV? This does not make sense. Lets say, for the sake of this argument, that Man 1 has HIV . Man 1 is in a relationship with Man 2. Say, he gives HIV to Man 2. How would disallowing these men to get married change this in any way? If anything, it could drive the men apart and encourage them to find new sexual partners, therefore spreading HIV. At least with marriage, people have a sanctuary that they can contain themselves in rather than finding new partners. On this point, I would just like to express how sex between women is almost as likely to spread STDs. You stated, " lesbians both being women tend to be more faithful together in a relationship and have less risk of passing HIV/AIDS" this again does not make sense. If they are faithful, they are less likely to find other sexual partners, which is ture, but wouldn't it just be a lot more sensible to promote testing for HIV, as done with straight couples, than ban a large amount of people to marry? If this is the case then we should prevent straight couples from marrying too! (see how this makes no sense?) Another point you raised is, "Allowing and approving of lesbian marriages will mean less HIV/AIDS and less girls getting pregnant before marriage" This is also fundamentally wrong. I beleive you are suggesting that if lesbian women can marry, there is less chance of them going off and having sex with men and getting pregnant. This is illogical. If lesbian women arent allowed to marry, they will still be lesbian! It's not like "Oh, we cant get married. Now suddenly I'm attracted to men again!" Like if a straight man was denied marriage to women, he wouldn't seek out a gay lifestyle. It makes no sense. Your final point, "allowing two women to marry each other means men will have to work harder to get a woman. This would lead to more respect for women and their position in our society." is also wrong, for a similar point to your last one. You suggest that without lesbian marriage, men wouldn't have to work as hard to get a women, because... more women will be available!? They won't. They'll still be lesbians, whether they are allowed to marry or not. I look forward to your future arguments.
Allow Lesbian Marriage But Ban Gay Male Marriage

Men are on average more promiscuous than women, more ready to cheat, and more open to pursuing open marriages. This also results in a higher risk of disease such as HIV/AIDS in males. This risk naturally amplifies when you have two men together. This should not be a relationship-style that the government should give recognition to in terms of marriage. However, lesbians both being women tend to be more faithful together in a relationship and have less risk of passing HIV/AIDS. Allowing and approving of lesbian marriages will mean less HIV/AIDS and less girls getting pregnant before marriage. Furthermore not allowing two men to marry each other but allowing two women to marry each other means men will have to work harder to get a woman. This would lead to more respect for women and their position in our society.
Ron Paul is the best candidate for President in 2008

More so than any other candidate in either party, Ron Paul has diagnosed and formulated the policy changes that can save America from the decline we seem destined for. No other candidate has come to the realization that our foreign policy, not religion, is at the heart of the motives of Islamic terrorists, and that we are going bankrupt trying to finance our overseas empire, with the dollar rapidly depreciating in value. Dr. Paul is a true conservative, unlike the others running in the Republican party, who understands and promotes the concepts of small government, sound money, a humble foreign policy, and freedom. With regards to foreign policy, only Ron Paul seems to understand that decades of self serving, arrogant actions in the Middle East and elsewhere are the primary causes of Islamic terrorism against America. To assume that American foreign policy is blameless in this situation is utterly ignorant and bullheaded. In physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the interactions between humans are hardly any different. Terrorists attack America not because we are rich, prosperous, enjoy a higher level of individual freedom than they, or for the simple fact that we are predominantly Christian, but for the simple fact that America has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East since the 1950's. Examples of this are numerable and undeniable, and I will gladly list them if my opponent asks it of me. Terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 are what the CIA terms blowback, or unintended consequences of foreign involvement. If we, as Americans, desire to be free of the threat of Islamic terrorism, staying in Iraq and continuing to attempt to 'hunt down' the terrorists, or stay on offense, is entirely counterproductive to the goal. They despise us because we have been on offense, in a sense, for six decades, and their numbers will only mulitply as we step up our efforts in the region. Alone out of all the candidates, only Paul seems to understand this. On Economic issues, Dr.Paul's knowledge is far more advanced and insightful than that of any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Paul realizes that we are going bankrupt trying to finance our interventionist foreign policy, and that the incessant printing of money by the government to attempt to pay the bills is driving costs out the roof (a good example of this being healthcare). To prevent this sort of irresponsible printing of money, the only real solution is a return to the gold standard, as Paul emphasizes. Our current national debt is over 8 trillion dollars, made so by the ignorance of neo conservative leaders, who slash taxes yet do not curtail spending. As president, Paul would drastically cut the spending of the federal government as well as slash taxes for ALL Americans, not just a particular class of people, and only Paul truly respects the facets of our Constitution.
George Juergens ("Secret Life of an American Teenager") was a douchebag

As you can see the guy is a douchebag. In my opinion he is worse than Hitler or the Fascists. To simply put in a parable, he's no different from Michael Glazer. This guy is rude, he's arrogant. The opposite family in the show is a much better family for that reason. They're very welcoming. I guarantee you, if you were homeless or on the road, the family of the other character would welcome you before the racist Juergens do.
George Juergens ("Secret Life of an American Teenager") was a douchebag

I will start by saying this... on the show, he has a very arrogant personality, in the way he treats others, even within his family. He has a very holier-than-thou attitude, which contrasts greatly with the warm-hearted and welcoming other family on the show. He talks very rudely. It's almost as if this guy is the modern-day Jack Cates.Now according to wikipedia, this guy is a womanizer, who has destroyed other marriages he was in.http://secretlife.wikia.com...He is Archie Bunker and Jack Cates combined, tamed down for the sake of family audience.
George Juergens ("Secret Life of an American Teenager") was a douchebag

1. You claim that "he's the same as the Klan", however you provide no factual proof as to the similarities between them. Nevertheless, I stand by my original claim that comparing a fictional character to a Klan member is absolutely preposterous. 2. The fact that you are claiming that George Juergens, a fictional character in a TV show, is worse than the Nazis and Fascists is disgusting. I am sure that the people on this website, who will be voting, are smart enough to understand that this is insane. Therefore, I am not even going to dignify this with an actual response.3. Yes, I saw the link that you posted; however you cannot expect me, or anyone else, to click on a link and go investigate. If you have something that you would like to prove, then write it out. However, just for the sake of proving my case, I did check the link and there is nothing there that says George cheated first. It says, "Prior to his marriage to Anne, George was first married to Kathleen Bowman, Grace's mother. This was George and Kathleen's first marriage, but it ended badly when Kathleen cheated on George." [1]As for the quote I gave, the link to it is posted below. [2]Again, claiming that a fictional character is "equal to the Klan, and worse than the Nazis or Fascists", is absurd. If the people voting have any common sense, and truly understand history, I should win this debate. You posted one link, when you should have written out your arguments. [1] http://secretlife.wikia.com...[2] http://www.imdb.com...
George Juergens ("Secret Life of an American Teenager") was a douchebag

I had an entire argument planned out, however due to the various groups/people that Pro has compared the fictional character, George Juergens to, I thought I would focus on that.1. "Klan member"s personality"To even compare a fictional character to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is absolutely absurd. The KKK is classified as a hate group who has done unspeakable things in the history of the United States. I find it appalling to even try and compare a character in a show, to having a Klan like personality.Oh he's the same as the Klan.2. HitlerAdolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Part, and played a pivotal part in the Holocaust, when approximately 11 million people were killed. I could go on about the horrible actions that Hitler carried out, but I am sure you are all aware Again; I find it appalling and absurd to compare a fictional character to a person who brought so much terror into the world.I actually meant that in favor of the Nazis and Fascists. Juergens is WORSE, MUCH WORSE than the Nazis. That's what I meant. This isn't a comparison. I'm saying the Nazis and Fascists were better than him.Kathleen Bowman cheated on George in their marriage, which also happened to be George"s first marriage. He was truly in love with Kathleen, so it is understandable that this was a very traumatic experience for him.His next marriage to Annette Scott, previously Anne Juergens also failed. Why? Because she eventually admits that she is gay.So to say that George has "destroyed every marriage he was in" is not actually factual.Didn't you see what the link I gave you? Yeah, they cheated, but hey, he cheated first. It was like that always. I don't have any sympathy for this Klansman. He acts like an arrogant douche and a bully.Though he has a hard time showing it, he truly cares about his family.I would like to end my argument with a quote from George that truly captures his tolerance for others."People want to believe that gays are born gay, but to me that implies there"s a reason people are gay and to me that implies that there needs to be a reason I don't like people blaming being gay on genetics or anything else because no blame needs to be assigned. People are gay or they're not and it doesn't matter where that comes from... No one has found a gay gene and I question why we're even looking for one."Proof?I think that everyone can agree that neither a member of the Klan or Hitler would ever say such a thing.I don't think you get it: I was making him equal to the Klan, and WORSE than the Nazis or the Fascists. Last time I checked the latter of the 3 did not go around lychning blacks and steal native's land.I would like to add that Pro posted a link to a website, when instead he should have written out his arguments.I gave links