BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best race in Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

I will first prove how Khajits are awesome then how Dark Elves are terrible: Why Khajits are awesome: 1-Khajits have superior powers: When I say powers, I mean like Night Eye, not like skills. Skill boosts are a separate concept. Night Eye is pretty much the best power ever. When you cast it (with no Magicka cost) it brightens your sight of the game so that you can see in the dark. This can somewhat be replaced by Candlelight or another light-casting spell, but not really. Candlelight costs Magicka, disappears in 60 seconds, and stays in one place. Night Eye is like see in the dark goggles. Torches could almost be a viable alternative, but they take up one hand. This means that you can't use two-handed weapons at all, and can only use one hand. Second, there's claws. Khajits have claws that cause a significant amount of damage at the beginning of the game and in brawls. In fact, they are preferable to iron and some steel weapons. 2-Khajits have superior culture: The culture of Elsewyr is extremely developed for a country that hasn't had a game in it yet. It may have the skooma trade, but the rest of the trade system is fantastic. This is why there are the Khajit caravaners. Their religion is very interesting. The names are unique and introduce the first part of the Khajiti language. For example: J'zargo, Kharjo, M'aiq, Zaynabi, etc. Why Dark Elves are terrible: 1-They are angry: Have you ever, in any add-on or even any game, seen a happy Dark Elf? No, their always frowning. Even when they're given good news! The expression is the same no matter what: angry. Nothing has wronged them. Why are you so angry, Dark Elves? 2- They have inferior powers: Ancestor's Wrath is ridiculous. It's a power, except flame cloak. Its only advantages over flame cloak are that it has no Magicka cost and is available at the beginning of the game. However, it has the stupidest damage dealt. 8 points per second for 60 seconds? Even if you had an enemy next to you for 60 seconds, it's not a very significant amount of damage. Plus, it's only effective once a day. 60 seconds a day of not very much damage in melee combat. Doesn't really seem like a great thing to have. Resist fire isn't bad, I guess, but unless you fight a bunch of warlocks all the time, it isn't really useful. 3-They have inferior culture: The Dark Elves show up twice in Tamrielic history: the mass exodus of Dunmer, and the Gray Quarter of segregation. I know there really isn't much in this argument, but that's because they don't have anything to talk about. I've proved Khajits are awesome functionally and culturally, and how Dark Elves are terrible in those said fields.
The number of adherents or opponents of a contentious belief is not evidence of its truth.

So Catholicism is the largest religion on earth; this is because it is consistent in its doctrines from the Old Testament forward. What we have today though is an imposter church that is not even remotely Catholic (yet still has the largest body of believers). NOSTRA AETATE - Vatican II Council3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God,So here we see that the Modern Catholic Church esteems false-religions and false-gods. This has created quite a drift as the majority of believers do not even realize that this has occured! It is literally that end-times apostasy that no one notices. You ask any Catholic, "Do you esteem false-religions?"Catholic: No.So what we have left is God's People that have left the Vatican II Cult yet remained Catholic:Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;Wikipedia estimates this number between 10,000 and 200,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...But the vast majority of them have fallen into heresy regarding Baptism of Desire and complicated Jurisdictional issues. So really the True Catholic Church today has probably less than 1,000 members. Fulfilling that "remnant church" situation prophesied of the end of the world. So there we see that the true church is identified for having the bulk of membership and the minute of it at the same time!=)
The number of adherents or opponents of a contentious belief is not evidence of its truth.

I will demonstrate that only Christianity is true among all religions, by nature of its consistency with history and preservation of the human race, specifically Catholicism; that, by their own materials; Protestant Sects are utterly invalid and built on lies, as well as Islam. I can also demonstrate that Hinduism, Bhuddism, etc. leads to the inevitable destruction of it's general adherent populace (on earth, and afterlife) - and the same applies for whatever other religion you can throw at me. I will use the Bible, Ante-Nicene Writings, knowledge of the false-religions traditions and common-sense.
The number of adherents or opponents of a contentious belief is not evidence of its truth.

It can sometimes be beneficial to assume a belief to be true simply on the basis that many others believe it. For instance, if several other people tell one that he will die if he eats a mushroom, he would be very foolish to eat the mushroom without compelling reason. For another example, there is no need for someone who is not interested in philosophy to examine the arguments for and refutations of solipsism before following the consensus that other minds do, in fact, exist and should therefore be respected. However, in intellectual discussion, he who discusses the popularity or growth of his viewpoint in an attempt to provide evidence of this viewpoint is guilty of grave error. I believe that this stance is obvious and scarcely worthy of debate. However, many on this site have committed the fallacy I discuss, particularly in the context of the theism-atheism debates. Should anyone care to dispute my argument, I propose they respond with one non-argumentative round to clarify any terms or rules and to indicate the grounds on which they oppose my claim. This response will be followed by three rounds of debate.
Vaccines are needed and do not cause Autism

Let's Start with how Jenny McCarthy is not a source for science. She's not a scientist, does not study these things, and continues to perpetuate this debunked myth. I would love to see a source where a Dr. said, and other doctors have backed them up, that vaccines caused her sons autism. You admit that all of these medical scientific institutions agree that there is no correlation between autism and vaccines. All medical procedures and medicines have side effects. There will always be a tiny percentage that the vaccine or medicine or whatever may not work on everyone and may have adverse side effects. You are warned of the side effects before you are given whatever it is. That is the trade-off for not having smallpox anymore, almost getting rid of polio, and many other diseases. Autism is not one of those side effects (and autism-like symptoms is not autism...). Not to mention that vaccines are very important to keep diseases under control and not go backward to widespread disease and death. "Myth #1: Vaccines cause autism. The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children. The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet. Nonetheless, the hypothesis was taken seriously, and several other major studies were conducted. None of them found a link between any vaccine and the likelihood of developing autism. Today, the true causes of autism remain a mystery, but to the discredit of the autism-vaccination link theory, several studies have now identified symptoms of autism in children well before they receive the MMR vaccine. And even more recent research provides evidence that autism develops in utero, well before a baby is born or receives vaccinations." http://www.publichealth.org... To ask why people still believe it may be true, to me is a silly question. Many people believe in many things that aren't true. There are people who think the world is flat. People remaining unconvinced does not equal something is true.
Vaccines are needed and do not cause Autism

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine all agree that there's probably no relationship between autism and vaccines. But if the case is that solid, why do so many people remain unconvinced, from actress Jenny McCarthy, who went on Oprah to say she believes that a vaccination caused her son's autism and wrote a book about it, to Sen. John McCain, who, at a campaign event earlier this year, said he thought there was "pretty strong evidence" that some vaccines cause autism. Their beliefs may have been validated in March when federal officials said that a Georgia girl was entitled to compensation because vaccines may have aggravated an underlying condition, causing autism-like symptoms. And researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) said in March that they are still taking a careful look into parent concerns that vaccines are tied to the disorder. related content SLIDESHOW Top 10 Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Start "I think there's a lot of emotion around the issue of autism now. It engenders a lot of fear in parents and clinicians alike," Lee Sanders, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, tells WebMD. Sanders knows that emotion firsthand, as the father of two young girls. "Until they turned 2 or 3, that was probably the thing I feared most," Sanders says, referring to autism. Sanders strongly supports vaccines, saying their benefits far outweigh their risks. But he understands where the concern about vaccines and autism comes from. That concern is difficult to suppress for a number of reasons. Parents are bombarded with information that can take a life of its own online. The concepts around scientific testing are difficult to understand, making it tough to separate good science from bad. Until scientists can prove exactly what causes autism, it's difficult to definitively disprove anything. "In the absence of any answers from the scientific community, any scintilla of suggestion is going to get magnified by the social process of talking it out," Sanders says. "All you need is one individual's story and it will expand." And when something bad happens to a child, people demand to know what or whom is to blame. "Parents are clamoring for a cause," says David Tayloe, MD, a pediatrician in Greensboro, N.C., and president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). "It's a terrible condition. It upsets families, and it upsets me." But all the fear and anger about vaccines is misplaced, he says. "There's just nothing there." http://www.webmd.com...
Vaccines are needed and do not cause Autism

I would like someone to debate with and attempt to defend vaccinations against those who believe they are bad despite overwhelming evidence contrary to this. The continued spread of misinformation surrounding vaccines and them causing Autism or not being needed because some think they are harmful is actually harmful to our population. The argument that since the disease is not prevalent anymore should mean we don't need the vaccine is not correct and we have seen breakouts of diseases we had very much under control due to this new trend of anti-vaxxing. State your full position first, then argument, and then your closing statement.
Creation vs evolution

There is a vast amount of evidence that evolution exists on earth, And is the reason and cause of different biological existence such as animals and humans. Evidence in animals can be seen in the development of fossils over time. For example when examining whale fossils over millions of years, An incremental development in structure can be seen. Charles Darwin studied this with great detail. In humans this same development can be seen as well. However more fascinating is the fact that we can find social evolutions such as when we started using certain tools, When we started farming, And so on. In addition to this incremental development, We share many genetics with animals and plants, Meaning we very likely all date back to quite possibly original organisms of life.
Thanos could beat The Hulk

-The Hulk of World War Hulk is a cunning and more powerful version than the previous incarnations, for he is the insanely enraged version of the "Gravage Hulk". -His rage is at its most focused, due to meditation training by his ally Hiroim. -This incarnation has extremely high durability (as if the hulk doesn't already). -is a capable leader and strategist. -Another source of the Green Scar's strength in comparison to other versions was his lack of inner conflict, if not alliance, with Bruce Banner. -There were several instances where the Hulk and Banner worked together strategically, such as acting to disable Dr Strange. -Green Scar's base level of strength was dramatically increased. He can lift well over 100 tons in a functionally calm emotional state. -During a burst of unexplained anger from the Hulk in New York City, Professor X attempted to slow down the angered Hulk with intense power; however, the Hulk proved to be resistant to the Professor's psionic effects. -The Hulk recently lived up to his "Worldbreaker" title by destroying a world from the huge amounts of gamma energy he was releasing (by accident) in the Dark Dimension in Incredible Hulk Part 4. -Which shows the intensity of his power destroying a world just by the shear rage that caused gamma emissions from his body. -The incarnation referred to as the "Green Scar" is the physically strongest of all the primary Hulk's incarnations. -After being exposed to the energies from the exploding core of the ship that originally brought him to Sakaar, Green Scar's base strength level was dramatically increased. While in a calm state, this incarnation was able of lifting well over 100 tons. However, while in an enraged state, adrenaline surges through Hulk's body, magnifying his strength significantly above his base limits. Hulk's immeasurable strength is directly proportional to his level of rage, excitement, stress. -The Hulk also grows stronger the more radiation and more dark magic he catalyzes. -Among his most amazing feats are supporting a falling 150 billion ton mountain using leverage, ripping through a bunker designed to withstand the explosion of thousands of megatons in magnitude. closing the doors to a nuclear core that Thor and the Thing together could not budge.
Thanos could beat The Hulk

I will be choosing Thanos the original with the Infinite Gauntlets and you will be using the "Green Scar" Hulk you will not be able to change your Hulk's form into any other future past or present other than the one I stated and I will not be able to do the same with Thanos. And no other person can intervene the fight. The battlefield is: A vast wasteland with no radiations to affect Thanos or Hulk They start 200 feet apart You may start May the best debater win
Thanos could beat The Hulk

Again a lot of what you saying happend with different versions of the Hulk and not the one that we are talking about today so most of those points don't come into effect in this debate. All of what I am saying is true about Thanos, Thanos has a way better intelligence level than the hulk and his strength is crazy with the Infinity Gaunlet it is amazing Hulk can't compare to Thanos pure power.3rd: IntelligenceSuperhuman Intelligence: Possibly Thanos' most dangerous ability is his mind. Thanos' intellect is dedicated to enhancing his own powers and to the annihilation of all life. Thanos is a genius in virtually all known fields of advanced science and has created technology far exceeding contemporary Earth science. His intellect surpasses Earth's greatest minds, Reed Richards and Doctor Doom.Energy Manipulation/Control: Thanos has displayed great versatility in the use of his energy projection abilities. He has demonstrated the ability to project pure energy as a concussive force, gamma radiation bursts, infrared heat-beams from his eyes, and disruptor beams, as well as form vastly strong shields, barriers, force-fields. The exact extent of Thanos' energy projection abilities are unknown, but a single eye-blast has been capable of rendering the Thing unconscious and knocking down the likes of Thor. His blasts are so strong and powerful he has been able to easily destroy planets and release In-Betweener from his prison created by Master Order and Lord Chaos. It has been speculated that the nature of Thanos' cosmic energy reserve may be quasi-mystical in nature.Telepathy: Thanos possesses vast psionic abilities. His mind is invulnerable to most forms of psychic attack. So far Thanos has demonstrated the ability to project blasts of psionic energy, as well as being able to shut down another being's mind and can communicate telepathically with most if not all beings.Matter Manipulation & Control: Thanos has demonstrated the ability to manipulate matter on the atomic level similar to other Earthborn Eternals. On one occasion, he turned the Skrull, Skragg into stone. Teleportation: Thanos can teleport himself across unknown distances under his own power in the same manner that most Earthborn Eternals can. It is likely that Thanos, like most Earthborn Eternals find the process unpleasant and instead, prefers to use teleportation technology.Thanos over powers Hulk in almost every situation his power is crazy. This is how you would treat your Lord Almighty? You would challenge the heavens so brazenly?! So be it then! Let there be war!-Thanos I hold the Galaxy in my Palm - ready to crush it like an Eggshell! All who oppose me must die - and the first of these are the Earthian Heroes! Destroy them - with all dispatch! -Thanos
I'm a Utopian idealist - prove me wrong!

My argument here will be brief and I will restate something that I might have misunderstood. If your thesis is : CAN we, according to nowadays technologies, achieve a leisure society in the next decades? Then the answer is yes on all fronts, except for the specific case that requires moral and creativity. Those, as for example, judges, advocates, policeman, musician, film makers/producers, etc, will still be in need of several years of practice and education. Therein lies the problems: Why would you bother if you are offered the possibility to achieve your life without as much as the tough of work crossing your mind? Why would you work for beings that passes their whole days achieving nothing? Why would you even be tempted to receive the education as you can afford a whole life of leisure? Another fact is that we might trust A.I. for basic security (and even more complex) functions. Personally, I do think they could achieve the whole security functions. Now, could you tell me one instance of where we had a nuclear power facility working without any personal to watch over? What would happen with a system breakdown, or a lack of power at a moment where it needs to be watched? This is a considerable roadblock, as a society without moral jurisdiction or entertainment will quickly fall into chaos. However, if your debate is based on: WILL we achieve it in the next few decades, then I'm afraid it won't happen, as too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society. First of all, China and India were mere examples of WHY it cannot happen. The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect. Energy creation and water filtering requires facilities that cannot be created and maintained, at first, by open-source project. As for a quick example, even if you consider heating carbon in an helium chamber to be easy, it cannot be done at home, as the prerequisite are not what we could call affordable for many that lives in in-development countries. As for food production, many of the enhancing soils capabilities do require GMO, which we do not know long-term effect on living organism, or technology that are, for the most part, still in the experimental phase. As for the medical AI, it does still require a doctor to enter the answers to the specific questions this one will need to establish a diagnostic, but this may indeed change in the next years.
I'm a Utopian idealist - prove me wrong!

I believe that over the course of the next decade or two, makind can create a massive leisure society in which everyone has plentiful supplies of anything they could possibly want, without having to work for it. This will be made possible by automation, improving fabrication technologies, the Internet and the Open-source movement. It is possible because there exists an abundance of all necessary resources. The proposal is detailed at adciv.org Automation (in the form of automated harvesting, processing and transporting of materials) will free create free resources. It is now techlogically feasible to have fully automated productive infrastructure, including self-repairing and self-maintaining machines. Automated infrastructure means effortless plenty. Better fabrication technologies will allow for anyone to make anything they need: farming equipment, medical devices, housing, etc. Production of technology can become radically decentralized so that everyone makes for themselves the technology they need. This will reduce people's dependence on the corporate-economic infrastructure. The Internet will allow people free access to education, medical advice and the designs needed to make the technologies mentioned in the previous paragraph. People can collaborate openly (as with Wikipedia and open-source software) to provide information of all kinds for free. Gradually, as more and more things become free, there will be no need to use money at all. Just like many people now have all the music they want without paying for it (by downloading) so all products and goods will become free and abundant. Because of advanced digital fabrication, we will be able to download hardware as well as software; people will download the design for a car, and fabrication devices will turn raw materials (scrap metal, plastic, carbon) into a car. There are huge amounts of these raw materials (our entire planet is made of them!) so that is not a limiting factor. I propose that the world has more than enough of every resource we need: food, water, land, minerals, energy etc. The apparent scarcity of water, oil, food etc. can easily be overcome by applying the know-how we have to increase production or decrease consumption. To take one example, the apparent 'water crisis' can be neutralized by desalinating seawater with nanofilters. Our planet's surface ifs 69% water, so as long as we apply our know-how in utilising that water, there is no way we can run out. Similar logic applies to all essential resources. There is no reason to ration our resources any more, because they are so abundant at everyone can take their fill and there'll be plenty for everyone. It no longer has to be you-or-me. This is the SparkNotes version. The plan is put forth in great detail at adciv.org. Please offer some criticisms – tell me why this can't work, won't work, or shouldn't work, because I have been thinking about it for several months and can see no flaws in these arguments.