BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IRON MAN vs CAPTAIN AMERICA

Captain America has many advantages to Iron man. He has near superhuman strength, agility, endurance, speed, and reaction time. He is at the peak for human abilities. With these extremely enhanced abilities he is far more capable against his enemies in the "Civil War." He can dodge their attacks, use his strength to overpower them, and with a gun he had perfect reaction time and will have a near perfect aim. Captain America also has a "shield" on his side as well. I'm speaking of his Vibranium-Adamantium alloy shield of course. His shield was made to be indestructible and in the first Avengers movie we get a great idea of just how powerful the shield is when not even Thor's hammer can destroy it. With the shield he can literally block any of Iron Man's attacks. His shield also poses as a weapon. Being virtually indestructible with his near superhuman strength he could throw his shield at such a high velocity as to where it could cut straight through a suit of metal armor (Iron Man's armor). Iron Man, using tech to do all of his work is at risk of technological failures as well. Although very unlikely as he is a super genius, he is always at the risk of failure that could be the determining factor between life and death. Iron man also is very arrogant which also could always prove to be a problem. For your #2, With them being so close it could also be an emotional setback for Black Widow. She could also hesitate in a scenario which could change the outcome of the war. Also, with enough force or stealth it always possible for Cap or someone on his team to get their hands one of Iron Man's suits making them an equal match for him and just as powerful as him. Iron Man COULD catch the shield but if it's thrown hard enough it would be near impossible, even with his armor, to get a full grip of the shield especially with a backspin on the shield with an intense spin twisting whatever attempts to grip it. If Cap does enough damage to one of Iron Man's suits he could render the suit useless and that leaves Iron Man with literally nothing in a one v one battle as he has no powers, no enhanced abilities, or any other advantages besides his armor.
IRON MAN vs CAPTAIN AMERICA

The number 1 reason being is that the SHIELD itself which has connections with CIA and other foreign agencies are all on iron man's side. This gives iron man morale support AND does the thinking for him while tony can focus on improving his suit in the spare time. The number 2 reason is the black widow. According to the trailer, Black widow who was close to captain america is now on Iron man's side which is a major emotional setback for captain america and which is why he MIGHT hesitate in a one on one situation. Now moving on to abilities, Iron man has the ability to possesses powered armor that gives him superhuman strength and durability, flight, and an array of weapons. The weapons systems of the suit have changed over the years, but Iron Man's standard offensive weapons have always been the repulsor rays that are fired from the palms of his gauntlets. Other weapons built into various incarnations of the armor include: the uni-beam projector in its chest; pulse bolts (that pick up kinetic energy along the way; so the farther they travel, the harder they hit); an electromagnetic pulse generator; and a defensive energy shield that can be extended up to 360 degrees. Other capabilities include: generating ultra-freon (i. e. , a freeze-beam); creating and manipulating magnetic fields; emitting sonic blasts; and projecting 3-dimensional holograms (to create decoys). Stark has developed several specialized suits for space travel,deep-sea diving, stealth and other special purposes. Stark has modified suits, like the Hulkbuster heavy armor. The Hulkbuster armor is composed of add-ons to his so-called modular armor, designed to enhance its strength and durability enough to engage the Incredible Hulk in a fight. A later model, designed for use against Thor, is modeled on the Destroyer and uses a mystical power source. Stark develops an electronics pack during the Armor Wars that, when attached to armors that use Stark technologies, will burn out those components, rendering the suit useless. This pack is ineffective on later models. While it is typically associated with James Rhodes, the War Machine armor began as one of Stark's specialty armors. Secret Wars, Stark uses a more streamlined suit of armor that can practically 'morph' into other armors or weapons. Not to forget, Iron man can also deflect or catch Captain America's shield which makes Captain America vulnerable.
Global Warming is Good

Global warming, the act of putting unnatural heat into the atmosphere, is harmful to the world. According to McClure and Stiffler in 2007, Warming is in fact real and the leading climate scientists are agreeing that warming needs to be stopped. "The world's leading climate scientists are reporting that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries." They add that, "Warming is likely to mean intensified droughts and heat waves, along with unusually strong storms. The scientists also highlighted an increasingly worrisome global trend; acidification of the oceans, which could unravel the marine web of life." Added, according to Deibel in 2007, "there is one major existential threat, which demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the blimate upon which all earthly life depends. It is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. we are experiencing the effect of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and inundation of low-lying countries. [It] is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth's climate and humanity's life support system. We're going to burn everything up and then everything will collapse. It is the equivalent of nuclear winter. It is a threat to the continued existence of life on this planet." Unless you would argue that extinction is good, I believe I have won this debate.
Global Warming is Good

My dear audience, I am sorry for the dis-appointment this debate may have brought. I did in fact, attempt to debate someone hoping intellectual arguments would be made concerning global warming. I have indeed answered all of my opponents points, while he, infact, has touched none of mine. My opponent is arguing that I am not debating the subject he intended. I would like to argue that neither has my opponent. He is trying to prove that global warming is bad based on false pretenses, so my goal in this debate was to prove that global warming cannot be "bad" if it doesn't exist. I also spent the majority of the first round arguing that global warming wasn't something created by mankind, which was heavily argued by the con. If the con expected someone to take this debate trying to argue that "The sun burning up the world is a good thing", he has another thing coming for him. My goal was to accept this debate and argue the resolution the best I could, my falsifying the pro's case (which wasn't really a case, just copy pasta from a website), and I believe I have done so. I have carried my BOP and done my job as pro to the best of my knowledge and hope that you, the voters, see that as well. In that regaurd, I wish my opponent luck during the voting period, and strongly urge you vote pro. Thankyou.
Rise of BRIC nations

As a guide to my opponent and all those judging, first I will attack my opponent's contentions and then I will ask my CX questions. CON 1: Russia is a military threat to U. S. and our allies. My opponent stated that Russia is on a confrontational course and has the ability to stand it's ground. Please look to the resolution. >Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States< These statements do not show that Russia HAS negatively impacted the U. S. , therefore they hold no ground in this debate. Considering the war in Georgia, look to the resolution again. We are discussing the impact on the U. S. , not our allies, so this must be thrown out of our debate as well. My opponent also stated that Russia's power may keep growing. We are discussing the impact the rise of BRIC HAS HAD on the U. S. , and as this statement does not prove that Russia HAS negatively impacted the U. S. , it must also be thrown out. 2: Indian workers endanger U. S. security. I do not completely understand how this has anything to do with our topic. India is making progress in it's nuclear sector. That has not had a negative impact on the U. S. in any way. Con also stated that it endangers U. S. security, but has not shown how this has had a negative impact on the U. S. , because suspicion is not a significant negative impact, if it is a negative impact at all. 3: Outsourcing My opponent states that India outsourcing has created anxiety in some workers, which is not a major issue. My opponent also states that a significant number of jobs have been lost to India, which I can disprove. According to Finance and Development magazine, 0.3% of total employment in the United States has been lost to outsourcing. That is a minuscule number of jobs, and not significant in this debate, so it should be thrown out. Even if my opponent is correct, and 16,197 jobs have been lost in 2004, that is not a significant negative impact, considering there is 300,000,000 Americans in the United States, which is a small, negligible number, if not recoverable. Note that this is an 'on balance' resolution, which means that a very small percentage of jobs lost (less than 1%) is not a major issue and should be completely thrown out of this debate. I would like to point out that this resolution concerns Brazil, Russia, India, and China. My opponent has not provided any contentions considering Brazil or China, so we must assume that he concedes that Brazil and China has a positive impact on the United States. Since my opponent has not had an opportunity to attack my contentions, I will not extend them. CX questions: I do not feel the need for me to ask CX questions in this round.
Death penalty

There are people killers in this nation that have the sheer muscle power and wisdom of their surroundings that could break out of anything constricting them to get out to the world again and commit another homicide. the only way to keep these people away from us is to kill them while we have them if we want to save human lives. The people that these killers murder could be someone who can find an alternative to the death penalty. So if anybody wants to get rid of it (a lot of people do) then we have to keep these murderers away and for a select few who can breakout that means subjecting them to the death penalty. I'm not an activist who enjoys seeing the death penalty in action but someone who sees the wisdom in keeping it around until we find a safe alternative that will keep these people away from completely innocent bystanders. I don't like the death penalty but keeping it until there are ways to restrict the crazies just seems so logical when you get right down to it
Improved Mental Health Leads to Better Grades

The opposition states that students with mental health issues are regarded as lazy, This is not just the case. School grades that are being affected can be a variety of reasons, Home life, Social life or as simple as knowing that a school assignment is due and not completing it. Good grades is determined by someone's level of intelligence. However, Students rather spend their time on computers, Phones or playing video games. Technology has and will continue to be a large influence on students as it is used in schools and learning. A lot of time is spent on electronic devices by browsing the Internet or posting on social media. The Internet is an influence as to why students comprehend things less and their level of IQ deteriorates. According to source, "Psychology today" states that by taking away the Internet leaves everyone who uses it as smart as a 7 year old child. This exposes us to intellectual vulnerability. By today's standard IQ tests, Students would be classified as gifted compared to those from the 1950s. This is in terms of having fluid intelligence or the ability to process complex information quickly and effectively. Thus links that having good mental health doesn't result in good grades but by occupying a students spare time with technology and the students choice to focus their attention on it, Is letting them learn to rely on it over studying and earning high marks.
Improved Mental Health Leads to Better Grades

The contender does mention a valid point in mentioning the stresses a disability can have, But forgets that disabilities are neurological, And are commonly assisted in their learning, Whereas people with depression or other mental illnesses are dismissed as being 'lazy'. Despite the oppositions efforts to claim otherwise, The facts are clear. "Boston University of Health Sciences" states that students with poor mental health will most likely experience inabilities to do tasks such as: screen out environmental stimuli, Concentrate & may have a lack of stamina, Even though they may have anxiety which causes them to stress about the work, Whilst feeling that they aren"t capable of doing it. They may also have difficulty handling time pressures and multiple tasks, Interacting with others and handling negative feedback. An excerpt from the colleges" website says "Children who are mentally healthy learn better and achieve more, Are motivated, Committed, Have positive relationships and are better able to meet life"s challenges". It cannot be dismissed any more. Mental disorders are brain disorders & students must receive support as the stress of school continually increases, To ensure not just better results, But mental and emotional stability as well.
Improved Mental Health Leads to Better Grades

The previous argument mentioned pressure. Good grades is determined by the work ethic of a student and how determined they choose to be. What is keeping students from getting good grades is that some also participate in external activities such as sports (soccer, Basketball, Football) or performing and visual arts (music, Dancing, Drawing, Painting etc. ) Those who obtain bad grades don't or can't put the effort into their studies. They may have a learning disability, For example, Dyslexia (which is neurologically-based). Their lives outside of school is busy so they may not make time to schedule in homework or study for exams. Young students may also have a part time job along with their schooling and daily activities. They may have to work for family businesses or work to save up money. Students who are from a low socioeconomic areas may not have the financial stability to be able to buy school books or have the access to the internet which enables them to have the materials that can assist in their learning to increase chances of better grades.
Improved Mental Health Leads to Better Grades

It can be made apparent in almost any situation (especially school), Better mental health leads to better results. In a school environment students must manifest their own motivation to study and get good grades, Develop good study habits, Receive constructive criticism and more, Which can only be developed and maintained if students are looking after their mental health. It"s no secret that students have felt an increase in pressure in school, As "Kognito"s annual report on student"s mental health states that the suicide rate among people 15"24 years of age has tripled since the 1950"s, And 95% of school administrators agree that mental health is a significant issue at their institutions. Students surveyed in this report said that students who experience depression, Anxiety and other psychological disorders perform more poorly in class, And those who are depressed and anxious are also more likely to be absent, Take semesters off, And/or drop out of school.
Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes"

"I only really did this argument because I lost a bet. Everything I said in the first thing about trying the clothes on was a lie. I was told what to say from the person I lost the bet against. I'm just saying this now because this is pretty weird." Why you made this debate is irrelevant. Defend your argument. I don't care if you did this because you lost a bet but at least defend your argument. You saying it was a total lie means do you concede?
Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes"

Again the it's the thought of the person's head. If I see a man wearing "Girl clothes" of course I will think he's gay. "But my point is you see a girl walking down the hall in basketball shorts and a KD jersey. You probably think "She's just a sporty girl" but you see a guy wearing short shorts and think "Damn that's gay" but no, he just likes shorter shorts. The keyword is basketball shorts. Yes if they are wearing basketball shirts of course it will be logical to assume they do sports. But say a guy wearing short shorts and you think that's gay. Again the word is short shorts meaning they are very thin shorts. Most guy's don't wear short shorts. Most guy's wear shorts or just jeans but shorts shorts is just too much. That's why to most guys a guy wearing short shorts we will think their gay. It's the thought of the mind and the persons thoughts on their clothing choice and cultural reasoning why their shorts are shorts.
Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes"

But my point is you see a girl walking down the hall in basketball shorts and a KD jersey. You probably think "She's just a sporty girl" but you see a guy wearing short shorts and think "Damn that's gay" but no, he just likes shorter shorts. I get the limits and all like undergarments like bra and underwear, but like short short and leggings are different. It's just clothes that a girl might wear and are classified as girl clothes.
Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes"

Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes". I am still waiting for you to answer my debate Con. If he is happy wearing "girls clothes" than let him. Now for the other term of gay. We call each other girls because girls are unlike boys. Thus we call each other gay. Because gay is like girls weird,and unlike how a regular boy should be for the norm. To be honest it depends on the persons thoughts. If I caught a boy wearing girls clothing I will call them gay. Therefore I prove the proposition correct it is gay for a boy to wear girls clothing.
Is it gay for a guy to wear "girls clothes"

I honestly feel that girls clothes and guys clothes is just a tag put on clothes. "Girls clothes" are usually shorter or tighter. "Guys clothes" are usually longer, looser and more basketball player looking. It was just a week or two ago when I asked my girlfriend and her other friend why some girls are obsessed with their clothes. They said that they feel really comfy and they look really good. I decided to try a pair of leggings on to see if they were right. Let me tell you they are probably the most comfortable thing I have ever worn. I really like them and if I could I would wear them to school. The thing is, my school is very stereotypical and while all the girls would think I'm confident and all, I'd probably be called gay by the guys. I want to see if you guys think it's gay or not.
A Christian (One who has been saved from sin) Can Lose Their Salvation and Become Unsaved

I'm sorry I didn't respond to the last round it was my weekend with my dad. I defined Christian for a reason your definition was vague at best. Now for my closing statement: My opponent says my argument is wrong because I say salvation is a promise when reality it was a promise God promised he would send salvation. It was a promises and we both agree God doesn't go back on his promises. That is all there is to say about that.
A Christian (One who has been saved from sin) Can Lose Their Salvation and Become Unsaved

I apologize for that Counsellor example I'm Pentecostal and i believe they the two are entertained. I stand by my previous arguments normally I'd give my rebuttal, but I think you may be right when you said I was going in the wrong direction. So here goes can a Christian loose his salvation? First let's define Christian A Christian is a person who has, by faith, received and fully trusted in Jesus Christ as the only Savior. With that definition in mind let's look at what the Bible says happens when one becomes a Christian: he or she is a new creation(2 Corinthians 5:17),he or she is redeemed (1 Peter 1:18-19),A Christian is justified(Romans 5:1). A Christian is promised eternal life(John 3:16), A Christian is guaranteed glorification(Romans 8:30) Many more illustrations of what occurs at salvation could be shared. Even these few make it abundantly clear that a Christian cannot lose salvation. Most, if not all, of what the Bible says happens to us when we receive Jesus Christ as Savior would be invalidated if salvation could be lost. Salvation cannot be reversed. A Christian cannot be un-newly created. Redemption cannot be undone. Eternal life cannot be lost and still be considered eternal. If a Christian can lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and change His mind"two things that Scripture tells us God never does. I hope that's better.
A Christian (One who has been saved from sin) Can Lose Their Salvation and Become Unsaved

I accept your challenge and will pry we both represent Godly character as we debate this issue. First is cite John 14:16 which says: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. How can the Counselor be with the saved forever if a Christian can loose his salvation and the counselor? I will approach this like a geometry proof and say: definition of forever. Now I look to1 Peter 1:3-5 - Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade-kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God"s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. If I loose my salvation my inheritance therefore perishes, and spoils. Also it says that we are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation. Why would God take away the salvation and forgiveness but still shield us? Lastly God even kindly states in Romans 11:29 - ...for God"s gifts and his call are irrevocable. God wouldn't take away a Christian's salvation because if he did he would be contradicting Himself when He says God is not a man that He should lie.... therefore he doesn't contradict Himself. I eagerly aware your reply.