BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spiderman could beat Batman

Money does not become the outcome in battle. It is your skills and looking at the skills I listed. If these two do not know each other how will batman even be able to build a machine in the heat of battle. About the thing you said about out smarting spiderman no offence but it is not true. Spiderman is a genius also called a nerd. You cant tell me that Batman can out smart a genius. Ok my argument Why spiderman would win 1. Strength Spiderman has so much strength that he is able to lift heavy items compare d to batman. Also his web shooters are filled with strength. This is the reason when spiderman battles his opponents are not able to break free out of his web stun. This makes Spiderman"s power increase. The more power the more strength. Senses Batman"s main ability is stealth. If batman tried to launch a sneak attack Spiderman could easily sense the attack and batman would not be able to sneak up on him. Fighting technique Spiderman has battle against the advanced and other advanced fighters. Which shows that he has more experience in battle and more intelligence. He has also took down a dinosaur Speed Spiderman has super human speed and batman is only a mere human so this counts that spiderman will be able to dodge the batterang instantly and will be able to have the advantage Spiderman has no weakness The only reason batman took down superman because he cheated and he called green arrow to shoot kryptonite. I will refute your stuff next round
Spiderman could beat Batman

I feel that batman would outsmart spiderman. Of course batman does not have superpowers but he is a master inventor with enough money to create devices that could jam spider mans spider sense or web shooters and . Batman also seems to have more experience with crime fighting than the young peter parker. In the stories he is a master fighter than can adapt to any fighting type. Peter Parker seems that he would not be up for such a formidable challenge
Cruise control

Cruise control on highways or any long, open two or more lane roads should be used. Not an issue if people want to consistently speed. This is for people who start at 60 mph in a 60 mph limit zone, then go 52, 57, 63, 49, 67, 55, etc... PICK A SPEED AND STICK WITH IT. I shouldn't get passed by you, while using cruise control, then have to pass you in three miles.. Only to get passed again.
Money motivates people more than any other factor in the workplace.

Money has always been the aim of working people. Yes, some could argue that getting pleasure from work itself should satisfy a person; however, whether a person loves their work very much or whether a person has great relationships with every colleague and even boss, money goes on the first place, because it's a means of having all desirable things-- beginning from the necessities and ending on luxuries. The level of income determines the level of life: if a person gets a lot of money, he or she can afford anything useful for them-- high quality food, clothes, services-- and don't worry about the future. That is why money is the best motivator for workers, who always seek to better life.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

"When all else fails spew keywords and sound smart."- Pro's MottoIt's most hilarious that of the four definitions I provided, Pro states that only the fourth is correct. The first 3 were from real dictionary sites, the fourth was an amateur definition from a science enthusiast site. On top of this, the fourth specifically states that on top of seeking knowledge, science is also (and non in an unattached manner) linked to the understanding and application of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology (not two, just one methodology) based on evidence.Science is not the pursuit of knowledge alone. Philosophy and political journalism are two of many examples of non-scientific pursuits of knowledge. Science is very specifically the pursuit of knowledge applicable only to the 'social' or 'natural' world. When the word social is used it refers to sociology and/or psychology not to politics or anything that would involve non-scientific-method conclusions to be drawn.What is most hilarious is that Pro still has no provided even an inkling of evidence for the resolution. No statistics as to the majority of the world not understanding what science is or how it works is provided. I would also like to pick a hole in the resolution here as Pro is misapplying the word 'or' to mean 'and'. The wording of the resolution is such that if either one is understood by each member of the majority of the world, I win this debate, both needn't be simultaneously understood by most of the world for me to win.Truth and validity are not the only two aspects of science, this is utterly ridiculous and they are also not methods of science either. Reliability, accuracy and precision are three other vital aspects of science, truth itself is actually nothing to do with science specifically but science indeed is seeking to be true at all times.https://communitymedicine4asses.wordpress.com...If Pro really wanted to call all aspects of science a method of science, why did he/she ignore reliability, accuracy and precision? The reason is that they are not even talking about methods of science, there is only one science method which is the one I showed in Round 3 in a pictorial manner. Pro is simply throwing out the keyword 'validity' and then randomly mentioning 'truth' as if these are methods of science. Truth is not science specific and validity is merely one of four aspects of every scientific experiment. Neither is a method of science in itself.This black hole high priest nonsense is irrelevant to the debate, I'm not even sure what Pro meant by mentioning either of them so I'm not going to address either.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

Want me to copy and paste a definition of science? Okay, I'll do that, in fact let me paste 4 different definitions to show just how many different wordings one could use to define it and then you will see that there is no one definite answer but many ways to articulate what it is and most of the world does know it, they just wouldn't all word it the same way.1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. systematicknowledgeofthephysicalormaterialworldgainedthroughobservationandexperimentation.http://www.dictionary.com...3. knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observationhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...4. the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.http://sciencecouncil.org...Sure, there are some words that are fairly consistent like observation, experimentation and knowledge but those 3 words relating to science almost everyone would associate in their mind. The fourth definition interestingly only uses the word knowledge and instead articulates observation and experimentation differently to the other three. The point here is that I bet anyone who isn't linguistically challenged or mentally stunted in any manner and above the age of 14 could say something very close to those definitions but perhaps not quite as articulate. You, on the other hand, who has all the burden of proof in this debate has yet to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your case.As for the methods by which science operates and why I will now again do a Google search for the articulate wording of what many already know (the resolution doesn't state that this is about knowing why it operates that way but you mentioned in it in round 2 so I'll go into it).I am confused what 'two ways' science operates unless you mean theoretical and practical but there is a scientific method which is taught in many school curriculum if not all. I'll even supply images to help you understand since you seem to be struggling with coping with the idea that science has a way of operating that is widely taught and understood by most of the world.One of these images is even from the widely used Wikipedia, just to show how commonly known this is: Sources (In order of the photos):https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.sciencebuddies.org...http://www.bodybuilding.com...
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

"The reason why very few people can dictionary-define science and don't care for the two methods is that you don't need to do that to know what it is or how it operates." You don't need to know what something is and how it operates in order to know how it should operate? You are proving that this is not an articulation problem but one of understanding. You cannot articulate the very basic elementary definition of science nor explain its two methods of operation because you don't know otherwise you would simply articulate it and prove my thesis false. As for statistics, so far I'm batting 100%. If a simple Google search is all that it takes then take it. My argument is that you can search Google all day long and probably won't find a "simple" answer. Of course that is intentional - to control knowledge you must control what knowledge to which people have access. I'm not saying the knowledge isn't attainable online, it obviously is, but that requires knowing where and how to look. But you are correct about one thing - you could simply be a poor sample. Though you have to start somewhere.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

The reason why very few people can dictionary-define science and don't care for the two methods is that you don't need to do that to know what it is or how it operates. You are confusing the ability to articulate something and one's understanding of it. On top of that, you make a very foolish leap of faith that me, Con, being able to answer your questions has any implication on most of the world. For all you know I am the minority. A simple Google Search will find the answer you are looking for, I am not the errand boy here to do as you ask. You have yet to provide a single statistic to prove that what you say applies to most of the world in the first place.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

You are proving my point. You argue that "there is no nation where science isn't part of the curriculum" as if the word "science" has a universally agreed-upon meaning. But my whole argument is that very few actually understand what science is, and more importantly, how it operates. And if that is the case, then people are gullible into believing in anything or everything as long as they are told it is 'scientific'. Furthermore because so few understand what science is corporations or bodies of guilds, academe and industry have relegated 'scientists' to a special (superior) class of expert who are largely to be unquestioned by anyone not in their field or clique. They have become high priests. And it is these very people who benefit the most by having the masses remain ignorant about how science operates. Don't pull back the curtain on the great and powerful Oz. Either we have an objective understanding of what science is and, most importantly, how it operates or we have a subjective mindset. I am arguing that right now the powers that be have chosen to teach and propagate a subjective understanding, in order to protect their ruling status and elite racket. So, if I am outrageously wrong and you are correct you should easily be able to properly define what science is as well as the two methods by which it operates. And why two? If we lived in a society where EVERYONE universally understood the meaning and operations of science then this should be an extremely simply question. Yet in my experience very few, even credentialed professional scientists, can properly answer this elementary question. Why is that?
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

Excluding North Korea, there is no nation where science isn't part of the curriculum (there is no source that proves this but the lack of any suggesting otherwise is proof in itself).North Korea isn't the majority of people. Also,aside form a few religious cults, there are no children raised to ignore science even if they are not being taught a high quality of it. Science is involved in literally every single profession you can imagine. Artists need to know science to know what type of paint can be used on their canvas and what cannot. Computer science is indirectly applied to all professions that use anything computer-related to get their jobs done since the machine is itself being taken care of by them. Find me a modern workplace without a technician or engineer of any kind... You can't. Even remote family-run farms need to know a degree of science to run their machinery and mechanical tools of any kind.Pro has zero evidence so far of their outrageous claims.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

Science is dead. Kids aren't being taught what science is or how it operates because the teachers and professors and scientists themselves no longer know what science is or how it operates. We are now living in the new dark ages. Because the vast majority no longer understand how science operates, most are now gullible to believing whatever they are told to believe is true 'by science'. Very few know how to think for themselves - to reason - to use logic anymore so they have no choice but to believe what the so-called experts tell them they must believe. Thus, scientists have become nothing more than medieval priests peddling their dogma and blind faith upon the mindless masses. Once logic is abandoned people will easily believe the magical and fantastic without ever questioning the sanity of their position. I would be shocked if anyone responded by correctly explaining both what science is and the two methods by which it operates.
Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet.Validity and truth are not methods of science. They are not even 'forms' or 'methods' of knowledge. They are two entirely different things and only one is even an aspect of scientific experimentation (validity).Science has one method, the scientific method, which I showed images of to help portray.Science is not simply the seeking of knowledge, it's specifically the gathering of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world via experimentation and observation.Throughout this entire debate Pro has come up with a totally false idea of what science is and furthermore has absolutely no clue what the scientific method is and instead says there are two methods one of which is one of four aspects of experimentation (validity). If Validity is a method of science then why aren't reliability, accuracy and precision also methods of science? in reality none of them are methods of science, there is only one scientific method.Nothing in Pro's last round is worth rebutting, it's all gibberish to me. There are not two methods of science and science is more than the pursuit of knowledge alone. It's a specific kind of knowledge and specific method use dot find that knowledge that makes the pursuit a science. Most of the world knows what it is and Pro has yet again supplied zero stats to support the idea that most do not know either of the resolution's aspects.
Toilet Paper Orientation

While I do provide extensive analysis on the time consuption of tearing paper, this is not the lone focus of my argument, in fact a central point is the time taken to find and grasp the end of the paper in 0 formation. Pro contends that 0 formation is rare, but I would argue that his own citation supports the idea that it is not, and I am sure many users have often found it necessary to rotate a roll with no dangling end to find the end of it. Pro also contends that seek time is faster in 9 formation because the end is closer to the user. I would argue that the difference between moving one's hand to the front of the roll versus the back is negligible, far moreso than the differences in tear time I discuss which Pro himself disregards as insignificant. This is supported by Pro's own citation, "The average American spends half an hour per year looking for the end of the roll. .. " [1]. I wish to point out that the majority of this citation is in the form of a positional piece, not a scientific study, and hence adds no additional credence to the statements it makes beyond an appeal to an unverified authority. What may be taken as fact is the lone statistical figure, that the average american spends half an hour per year seeking the end of the roll. The proposed idea that this is primarily due to locating the ends of paper in a 9 formation is highly unlikely, in 9 formation the end is always easy to find as it is dangling from the roll. Far more likely is that this constitutes seek time in 0 formation rolls, as this is the only situation where it is actually time consuming to find the end of the paper. Thus the fact that self-reporting indicates noticeable time spent seeking the end of the roll indicates that the roll is often in 0 formation. I described above why in 0 formation the under configuration always leads to faster retrieval time on a case-by-case basis depending on how you roll the paper. I will summarize it more succintly here: regardless of how you rotate the roll, it is easier to visually locate and grasp the end when it appears on top. And it is physically easier to grasp it with fingers slipping under the edge, rather than thumb, a simple consequence of human anatomy. This is the position that occurs in under configuration; over configuration leads to the under-edge facing the user, making it awkward to use anything but the thumb to grasp it with the non-rolling hand. Furthermore, while not applicable to all users, the fact that over formation makes it easier for a toddler or pet to unravel the roll and result in spaghetti formation[1] is applicable to a large set of users. This must thus be factored into the total average, and is a penalty suffered primarily by those who advocate over configuration. In short, there have been no significant advantages demonstrated for over configuration in terms of retrieval time, and many significant advantages demonstrated for under. I urge you all to vote Con. [1] . http://images.engineeringdegree.net.s3.amazonaws.com...;
Toilet Paper Orientation

Pro has focused on the finding and grabbing of the paper as the most time consuming aspect of either system, while Con has focused on the tearing of the paper as the most time consuming aspect. I believe I have clearly demonstrated why the over system is faster in terms of finding and grabbing the paper, but I will attempt to shed more light on why the finding and grabbing is the most time consuming aspect of the whole endeavor and why the time it takes to tear is negligible and as Con pointed out, in many cases it's equal. "The average American spends half an hour per year looking for the end of the roll. National agreement would save Americans $300 million per year in productivity. .. " [1] As we've determined, and as [1] points out, one of the advantages of the over system is that the end is easier to find. So most of the time spent finding the end must be due to either someone expecting the over system and getting the under system (where the national agreement would come in), or someone expecting an under system and getting an under system but still having trouble finding the end. So you could save a considerable amount of time by employing a national agreement on which system to use. And as pointed out in my earlier argument the over system would still be quicker to locate and grab the end due to it's easier access and distance from the occupant. On the tearing of the paper. As pointed out by Con the 9 formation is the most desirable. Spaghetti formation is rare and easily avoidable unless you let your cat or child play with the roll, but this is a worst-case scenario. Con mentions the roll "resetting" itself to the 0 formation when left idle, and that the 0 formation is an undesirable state. While I can agree the 0 formation is an undesirable state, even in public restrooms I find this is an extremely rare state to come across and have never witnessed this "resetting," except maybe in the cheapest of cheap, one-ply, "John Wayne" toilet paper. And in such an event that you do come across a 0 formation it is easier to find the end and reset to the 9 position in an over system. But I would argue that the 9 formation is the average case scenario. And in such scenario, as with most of the scenarios really, the tearing of the toilet paper has little to no difference between the systems. And again I argue that the majority of the time is spent locating the end and reaching for and grabbing it. Again, I want to thank Con for a wonderful, well-spirited, debate, and I hope you will vote Pro. Thank you. [1] . http://images.engineeringdegree.net.s3.amazonaws.com...
Toilet Paper Orientation

I would like to add that I will be providing ice water and oranges at the conclusion of the debate. However, you must provide your own transportation to and from the refreshments. Thank you, and now on with the debate! Initial Setup Initial setup is only done once during the life of the toilet paper roll. It is defined as 1) placing the toilet paper roll onto the toilet paper holder, and 2) disconnecting (peel away) the first sheet of paper from the roll. The peeling can be done before or after the placing. In the initial setup there is no real difference between the two systems. Retrieving a New Piece of Toilet Paper Once the next sheet of toilet paper is in hand, tearing it from the roll is trivial in either system, so I will argue that locating and grabbing hold of the next piece is where all the time is spent. Consider the following equation [1]: T = D / S Where T is the time it takes to reach the next sheet on the roll, D is the distance between the occupant and the roll, and S is the speed at which the occupant reaches for the roll. Now assuming that S is constant between both systems (over and under), you will reach the sheet in the over system quicker simply because D will be smaller. Also, taking into account that in the over system the next sheet is easier to locate and can be quickly spotted at a glance without any guess work, fiddling around, or scraping your knuckles against the wall, and we can clearly see that grabbing the next piece on the roll is quicker in an over system. And this speed gain applies to the entire life of the roll. [1] . http://mathforum.org...
Toilet Paper Orientation

The argument will be over whether placing the toilet paper in the holder so that the toilet paper hangs over the roll when pulled toward the user (i.e. the position with which the hanging toilet paper is closest to the user, henceforth known as "over"), is superior to placing the toilet paper in the holder so that the toilet paper hangs under the roll when pulled toward the user (i.e. the position with which the hanging toilet paper is farthest away from the user, henceforth known as "under"). Pro (me) will be arguing that "over" is superior to "under." Con (you) will be arguing that "under" is superior to "over." Superior will be defined as quicker in initial setup and retrieval of the new piece of toilet paper while sitting on the toilet, with emphases being on retrieval. Since the goal of the individual should be to get into and get out of the bathroom as quick as possible. Round one is for acceptance. Round two is for opening arguments. Round three is for rebuttal. I feel three rounds should be more than enough for this topic.