BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

even if the federation has slightly more advanced technology which i don't think its to far ahead of the empire. there are still many issues with the federation one is manpower the federation cant match the empire on manpower the armies of the empire are unlimited because they use clones which creates an unlimited army at their disposal. another is weaponry the federation has good ships but the ships they have dont have nearly as much firepower as the empires ships because the star destroyers have hundreds of laser canons and hundreds of tie fighters the plus the empire has control of millions of planets while the federation has control of hundreds that gives the empire a resource advantage plenty to build their ships, fighters, etc but their is another advantage the empire has a superior ground army their ground army has not only numbers on their side but they also have better weapons for a ground invasion like here is a link showing the ground capabilities of the empire. http://starwars.wikia.com... the federation has very limited ground capabilities and they primarily use the space fleet.
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

Federation ships have warp capabilities, which would give them a significant advantage. They also have photon torpedoes. They could warp around ships and fire a photon torpedo attack. According to Wikipedia, the maximum theoretical yield for a photon torpedo would be 25 isotons, which could destroy an entire city in seconds. However, if the Federation used the photon torpedoes modified by Borg technology (gravimetric), its yield would be increased to 54 isotons, more than enough to destroy a small planet. The Federation also have phasers. It depends on if a Jedi could block a phaser beam with his lightsaber. You could really debate that forever. If the Federation used widebeam setting for their phasers, a Jedi would be less likely to deflect it, but widebeam setting is apparently inefficient and so would do less damage. The Federation also has transporters. If the Federation could use transporters in battle, it would be a significant advantage because they could beam from place to place while mounting a phaser attack. Hypothetically, the Federation could also use the transporter itself as a weapon and simply dematerialize members of the Empire atom by atom. They could transport entire ships to the other side of the galaxy or simply dematerialize them. Overall, the Federation would have a significant advantage with both speed and technology. With gravimetric torpedoes, who knows how high the yield could be. It could be modified to be millions of isotons, giving the Federation superior firepower. This is on top of the pulse cannons, plasma cannons, and all of the other weapons the Federation has at their disposal. With phasers, gravimetric torpedoes, warp maneuverability, and using transporters as weapons, the Federation would totally own the Galactic Empire.
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

when the characters in star trek explain their technology its just techno jargon its trying to sound very technical. but when again I said that they couldn't weaponize their transporters quick enough to win a war with the empire. but again your under estimating the star destroyers they actully have tons of fire power. . http://starwars.wikia.com... that and the empire has a superior ground invasion army than the federation does hands down with theur man power and weaponry and yes they do clone to make the storm troopers. . http://starwars.wikia.com...
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

I don't see any reason why the Federation couldn't turn transporters into weapons. Similarly, I don't see any reason why the Federation couldn't use Borg technology to modify photon torpedoes to drastically increase isoton yield. In fact, it occurred in an episode of Voyager. Sure, the Empire can use HyperDrive, but can it use HyperDrive in battle? Anyway, at least the concept of the Warp Drive is somewhat rooted in scientific reality. It is basically similar to an Alcubierre drive, which warps the space-time continuum around the ship to travel at faster-than-light speeds. The HyperDrive on the other hand, is entirely unrealistic, allowing the ship to enter another dimension to travel at ludicrous speeds that would be inconsistent with the laws of physics. This is another problem with the entire format of this debate is that Star Trek usually has to have some semblance of a plausible explanation. For example, the Heisenberg compensator, to compensate for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in the transporation of crew members. Star Wars doesn't even really try to have a plausible explanation for a lot of their concepts. Like the HyperDrive. How are you going to travel at the speed of light? You can't travel at the speed of light. It would require infinite energy. And the Force? How is that explained? How are you going to defy the laws of physics and use the force? How could the Empire understand the complexities of gene expression to clone human DNA? Anyway, vote for Federation because at least they try back their stuff up with semi-plausible scientific explanations. I've got a pair of Wookies that Darth Vader can kiss.
Does Canada "suck"

You say that Canada sucks with probably the most pathetic reasons possible. It's a country that is almost always top 10 best countries to live in, and even consistently rated by the UN as the best place to live. High in natural resources (Great timber industry, second to Saudi Arabia for oil), a great economy, multicultural, and a beautiful place to live. A functional government, candidates who are actually good people. Yes, the climate is quite cold, but with the increase in global temperature of climate change (man made or natural, it's still there), in about 20 years that will likely not be so much of a problem, considering the massive rise in global temperature. Large middle class, poverty isn't so much as a problem here as it is in other countries. Cheap real estate, great education (Arguably the best educational system in all English Speaking Countries), Publicly Funded Health Care. There are, of course, some small reason why it isn't so great, but the Pros vastly overpower the cons. Please don't say meaningless reason like "Canadian Women are ugly", "They are idiots" (proved that wrong)(Also one stupid waitress doesn't mean all Canadians are dumb) Or fake dumb laws from a comedy website.
Trump

"You think you democrats are smart by letting people that don't belong in this courty. You are going destory America by disarming are people and giving nukes to Iran. If this kepts up we well end up like the soviets under stalins rule. We have to stand with the GOP for the rights of the people" Who exactly "belongs" in this country? Please elaborate. Democrats try to keep the people in this country safe by putting restrictions on guns. Have you even heard about all these awful shootings? You can own a gun, but you have to be screened. And "If this keeps up we *will end up like the soviets under stalin*'s rule." Umm, do you know how to debate? That is obviously a slippery slope. Look it up. I don't think you have properly done your research. Donald Trump, (The point of this debate that you did not address once in your opening argument) is a bully and a racist. (Source: His speeches) I for one do not want somebody with either of those characteristics running my government. How can you?
School Uniforms

Sorry I couldn't get my round in I was busy with friends and family. -Dress code noun : a set of rules about what clothing may and may not be worn at a school, office, restaurant, etc. -Uniform not varying or changing : staying the same at all times, in all places, or for all parts or members. As you can see, the two words are different. You made a statement talking about dress code. Not uniforms. "Clothing should be respectful and conservative falling in the lines of the schools dress code." Conclusion: 1 lenient dress code would restrict students from wearing provocative or adult profanity on the clothes, but still would give the students freedom on what they want to wear to school. 2 People shouldn't be held against their will to wear a uniform. 3 School is for education, not whether or not your shirt is tucked in or you have the right crest on your collar 4 Uniforms aren't the answer to respectful clothing. They constrain the endless possibilities of what a person can express and it doesn't build the individuals personality. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
School Uniforms

Main Argument 2:School GarmentsSub Argument 2: At the end of the day school is primarily a place of learning. The garments worn should be reflective of that. Clothing should be respectful and conservative falling in the lines of the schools dress code. There are many constraints already placed on ones.Any sort of gang related identity or markings would not be an issue. In addition baggy clothing to used to hide weapons, drugs or pregnancy would make the lives of teens more transparent and less hidden from adults. School garmentDefinition: http://i.word.com...
School Uniforms

Agreements: Kids do think about what they want to wear in the morning. Now for my disagreements: -In your main argument you say that the uniforms will give the students better education. Which is definitely not true. Clothing cannot magically help someone have better education. -Clothing doesn't matter to bullies. They person will still get bullied even if they do wear the uniform. It's more of hygiene/physical/mental abilities that attract a bully. -Buying uniforms does not save money. It's actually a burden for poor families. If you think about it, they'll buy two versions of the uniform at the least. The parents will also have to buy out of school clothes too. Since kids wouldn't want to wear the school uniform outside of class I am assuming. -Schools are partly made for socialization, if it weren't then they wouldn't have other kids learn with each other. They wouldn't have lunch with each other. They wouldn't have clubs, extracurricular activities and sports for them to participate in. That's why homeschooled kids end up with social disabilities when they are thrown into the real world. My main argument: -Kids should have the right to be their own individual, by dressing the way they please to find and express their own personality.
School Uniforms

My other rules are:Source: You may NOT use Wikipedia as a sourceConduct: any type of forfeiture results in instant lose of points. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Main Argument 1:Parents are saving money and better education.Sub argument 1:It is a proven fact that kids try to think about what to wear in the morning to get the 'coolest' styles on their wardrobes. Clothing has been a distractionfor pre-teens and teens. Children who come from a less fortunate economic background would not appear to be "lacking" or made fun of because their parents could not afford to buy them the newest trendy garment. As children are very often harassed or embarrassed because of their clothes, uniforms won't be a problem. School uniforms would save time for both parents and their children. Children would not have to think about what to wear in the morning and parents save time taking children shopping and waiting for them to get ready. Schools are meant for education, not for a social calendar. Source: http://www.proconlists.com...;
Janet Jackson vs Taylor Swift

PACT Taylor Swift Named Most Charitable Celeb For Supporting Feminist Causes, Education, More Dec 30, 2014 ASSOCIATED PRESS No one pulls off selflessness quite like Taylor Swift. The 25-year-old pop star landed the top spot on DoSomething.org'sebs Gone Good list, which highlights public figures who've used their fame to support charitable causes. The advocacy group -- which "makes the world suck less" by supporting numerous grassroots efforts for social change -- noted a donation to New York City schools by Swift, as well as her outspokenness on feminist causes, as reasons for topping the list, which was released on Monday. As New York Daily News had reported, Swift announced that all proceeds from her single, "Welcome to New York" -- a track off of her new album that climbed to No. 1 on iTunes -- would be given to the public school system during an October appearance on "The View." It's the third year in a row Swift has taken the top spot, Us Weekly pointed out. Laverne Cox, Beyonce, Miley Cyrus and Emma Watson rounded out the top five. m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6391984
Janet Jackson vs Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift"s net worth falls just short of the $250 million minimum needed to claim a spot on our list of America"s 50 Richest"Self-Made Women, which"appeared in the June 15th, 2015 issue of FORBES magazine. But at just 25 years of age, she seems likely to join fellow musicians"Madonna"(No. 28) and Beyonc" (No. 49) on the list in the coming years. http://www.forbes.com... Self made vs. Michael Jackson made
Janet Jackson vs Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift rely on her sexuality in order to recieve praise and so forth. Janet has broken barriers and boundaries. Control is showing how YOU can be in control. Rhythm Nation 1812 breaks barriers about discrimination AND race. Velvet Rope, shows how anyone can love, be heart broken and be depressed at the same time. And did I mention the song What About on that album was all about domestic violence in relationships. Taylor Swift has done none of that.
Janet Jackson vs Taylor Swift

American singer-songwriter and actress Taylor Swift has received 301 awards from 567 nominations. She is the recipient of 7 Grammy Awards, 16 American Music Awards, 22 Billboard Music Awards, 11 Country Music Association Awards, 8 Academy of Country Music Awards, 8 People's Choice Awards, and 25 Teen Choice Awards. She is also a six-time winner of the Nashville Songwriters Association International Award for Songwriter/Artist of the Year. As a songwriter, she has been honored by the Songwriters Hall of Fame. Swift holds five records in the Guinness World Records book. Swift signed a record deal with Big Machine Records in 2005 and released her eponymous debut album the following year,[1] which was nominated for an Academy of Country Music Award. She then earned a Grammy Award for Best New Artist nomination. Her second album Fearless (2008) produced five singles, including "Love Story", "White Horse", and the MTV Video Music Award for Best Female Video-winning song "You Belong with Me". Swift was subsequently nominated for eight categories at the 52nd Grammy Awards, including three nominations for "You Belong With Me". Fearless became the most awarded country music album, and was named Album of the Year and Best Country Album with "White Horse" winning for Best Country Song and Best Female Country Vocal Performance.[2] Fearless won several other accolades, including the American Music Country Award, Country Music Association, and Academy of Country Music Award for Album of the Year.[3] Swift was awarded the American Music Award for Artist of the Year in 2009. The following year, she was listed in Time 100, an annual list of the 100 most influential people.[4] The same year saw the release of Speak Now (2010), an album which won Favorite Country Album at the American Music Awards of 2011. It also holds the record for Fastest Selling Digital Album by a Female Artist in Guinness World Records. One of Speak Now's singles "Mean" won two Grammy Awards. In late 2011, Swift contributed two original songs to The Hunger Games soundtrack album, including "Safe & Sound", which was awarded the Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media.[5] Her fourth album Red (2012), which spawned the successful singles "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" and "I Knew You Were Trouble",[6] was nominated for the Juno Award and Grammy Award for Album of the Year.[7] In 2014, Swift won the Billboard Music Award for Woman of the Year for the second time after being honored in 2011. Her 2014 album"the pop-focused 1989"released the single "Shake It Off", which was the nominee of three awards at the 57th Annual Grammy Awards.[8] Later in 2015, the IFPI Global Recording Artist Award presented her the Global Recording Artist award, and the Billboard Music Awards declared her the recipient of eight accolades. At the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards, Swift won four awards, including Video of the Year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Janet Jackson vs Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift is 5"11 in height. http://healthyceleb.com... Janet Jackson is 5"4 in height. http://healthyceleb.com... Taylor Swift is much taller than Janet Jackson. There is something hot about Taylor Swift and her confident body language. Her height makes her come off as strong and feisty, a wild animal in the sack. I am not the only one that feels that taller women are sexier. http://www.quora.com... Janet Jackson's birthday is May 16, 1966. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Taylor Swift's birthday is December 13, 1989 http://www.biography.com... Taylor Swift is young and in her prime. She still has a firm body and youth, within reasonable boundries, equals more attractive. Men love younger women. I personally enjoy the idea of dominating someone a bit younger than me, within reason again. https://en.m.wikibooks.org... Taylor Swift is tall, lean, and young, yet old enough to be considered a woman. We watched her grow up into a woman. Now she is 23 and is a lovely piece of...(Did I think that or type that? I meant to say she was a lovely lady. Yes, lady...
Roe v Wade should be repealed

I feel the right of a completely pure, Unborn human being to live is not comparable to the U. S. Draft. The draft was meant to be a way for citizens to "pay their way" to living in the free world, Where they are living completely voluntarily. An unborn child, On the other hand, Has no say in the state of their own existence. Without a functional definition for the distinction of a group of cells in a uterus from a sovereign human being, I find it irresponsible to just assume that the life is expendable. I suppose I'd like an explanation when abortion is acceptable, At least under your personal opinion. I would also like to expand on the data you provided. Although the CDC reports only 11. 8 abortions in 2015 among every 1000 women of 15-44 years, They also report the ratio of abortions to live births to be 188:1000. This amounts to just over 638, 000 abortions in that one year. Although I don't think this fulfills the definition of countless, I consider it a significant figure.
Roe v Wade should be repealed

Sooooo, Morally wrong automatically makes it bad? Sometimes, Something morally wrong should be done to better the people. For instance, Sometimes it can seem morally wrong to most people to allow executive orders to even exist, As it can seem to give too much power. But, We give these powers because they are made to better the country, And can be balanced. A better example, The draft. We need troops to protect the country and our relations with other countries as well, But don't have troops, So we draft people. This seems morally wrong, But we do it for the most good for the most people. Also, The rates from 2015 ARE countable. According to the CDC (Link below), There are 11. 8 abortions per 1, 000 women. AKA, Not countless, And an alltime low. https://www. Cdc. Gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1. Htm? S_cid=ss6713a1_w
I'm sexier than you are.

//My opponent says that being sexy is subjective. Does he know that people are going to judge this debate off of their own opinion. // Of course. That has nothing to do with you being objectively sexier than me, or anyone, for that matter, as your resolution implies. //I believe that my opponent is trying to avoid showing his face on his profile picture. For he is not sexier than me. // Prove it. Beliefs don't mean squat until you can back them up. //By my profile picture, one can tell that I intend to sexually arouse anyone that looks at. Me, in Cancun, Mexico, wearing shorts, and a black wife-beater top posing. // Okay. You are trying to be sexy. Whether you succeed in that matter is up to the viewer. //If my opponent cannot post a better picture, I have to say that he is avoiding my request to be judged by the voters. // You can't try to create rules that were not stated in the first round now. You never asked for the contender to post a picture, argument, etc. Trying to imply that you did say so when you in fact did not is a blatant attempt at misdirection. I call for the conduct point to be handed to me. //So take that picture of Ren and Stimpy off of your profile. .. and put your picture up there. // No. You never gave directions to do so in Round 1. You should've said so prior to anyone accepting the debate. Your loss. My opponent has thus far tried to lead the readers into believing that he posted rules that I ignored, which is an attempt to cost me the conduct point. However, he never made such rules, and is creating them as we go along, and pretending he had them there for the entirety of the debate thus far. Such dishonorable actions should urge the voters to give me the conduct point, at least. Furthermore, my opponent has still not offered one piece of evidence that he is sexier than I, thus failing to meet his burden of proof, and giving me the auto-win.
I'm sexier than you are.

My opponent says that being sexy is subjective. Does he know that people are going to judge this debate off of their own opinion. subjective: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence encarta dictionary I believe that my opponent is trying to avoid showing his face on his profile picture. For he is not sexier than me. sexy: arousing or intended to arouse sexual desire By my profile picture, one can tell that I intend to sexually arouse anyone that looks at. Me, in Cancun, Mexico, wearing shorts, and a black wife-beater top posing. If my opponent cannot post a better picture, I have to say that he is avoiding my request to be judged by the voters. So take that picture of Ren and Stimpy off of your profile... and put your picture up there.