BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Convince me that God is pr isn't real.

god is false, imaginary, not matter, not real, because anything that is created or constructed is a machine, so nature is not created, nature is random, Chaos, not order, not intended anything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, nature is the opposite of machine, anything that physically exist is either natural or mechancial, and nature is false by default imagination is false, facts are truth and truth can only be in the past, facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now
Convince me that God is pr isn't real.

Okay so this will be a different kind of debate. Con will try to ether convince me that God is or isn't real and if I see a flaw in the argument I point it out but if I see no logical flaws in con's whole argument or if he\she convinces me then he\she wins. And yes I am a Christian bit I promise I will not be bias because I am currently lacking faith and if you really think that I'm bias then give con the win.
Convince me that God is pr isn't real.

Okay so asides from your grammar and the fact that most of your points aren't connected I see two major flaws here 1. You assume that there are only nature and machines in this world but God is what you call supernatural thus is nit created and he did some supernatural things such as turn water into wine and resurrect people. 2. Nature is by definition a machine cause as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary"Machines are a constructed thing whether material or immaterial and God made\constructed the world and nature.
Splitting of the USA into two countries

1. You do not know that their would be a second war. You would probably not even say this if not for the fact that the first split led to civil war. In addition, I specifically said that I did not want this to be about another war, some because of this fact, some because it takes the views off of whether or not Dixie would be successful. 2. Many states in Dixie have powerful military capabilities as well. Florida has multiple Air Force and Naval Bases. Georgia has the home of the Army, fort Benning, and multiple Air Force bases. Alabama, Texas, and Florida have NASA. Texas has multiple Air Force bases and plenty of military manufacturers. This is just a sample of the military capabilities. Furthermore, most of the volunteers for the military are from the southern states. 3. This is about the success of the south, not Canada or the North. 4. This point marks my further discussions as I have given my refutation of your topics. The South would benefit through my social ideas. Establishing a national religion would not induce a theocracy nor prohibit the practice of another religion. It would instead allow the state to recognize Christmas as when Jesus was born and teach some of the Christian Philosophies at school. This would not include creationism as that is an expected refutal of this point, but instead would teach things like the sanctity of marriage and not having divorces. This is one example. Establishing a national language would institute a more effecient way of trade and will make speaking English a requirement for immigration. This would eliminate a barrier for citizen owned companies. 5. My political practices would be expected to increase general employment(cutting welfare and fair tax), increasing revenue(fairtax, increased employment, self dependency), decreasing expenses(budget cuts, no IRS, simplified tax code). I will leave it at this. I specifically said no war but I figured that would be a common refutal. Remember, there is no evidence behind whether or not a split would lead to war except for what happened 1.5 centuries ago. I doubt this can even be considered hard evidence. I would like to see your debate continue on my points 4 and 5. If you desire to also refute 1, 2, and 3, I will not have a problem with that as long as you debate 4 and 5.
Splitting of the USA into two countries

I believe that everything from GA to Texas should break away including Oklahoma and everything up to Kentucky. This would be called Dixie. I believe that I should be the Commander of Dixie. We will assume that a peace treaty between Dixie and the Yankees is in effect. (War betweeen the nations is not an issue that I would like to be included.) These are my plans: I, commander of Dixie, would be beneficial to the current southern states of America. We will assume that there is a peace treaty between the rest of America and Dixie as I have previously stated. The items that I would support/change/adopt are the following: 1. 30%-40% military spending. A strong military is necessary to keep the nation. 2. Cutting all welfare except for disability. I would only have six weeks of unemployment benefits provided. Wounded warriors and people born with disability would get full benefits. No food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, or anything of the sort. 3. Overall simplification of education-Teach students what the vast majority will need for life and make education more about logic, reasoning, and creating classes that would teach students for a future occupation(like trade school). 4. Adoption of FairTax-23% sales tax, no other taxes. A check would be sent to each family at the beginning of each month to cancel out taxes paid on life's necessities like food. 5. Very little to no gun control-Most people should have a gun on their hip to protect themselves. This is not a requirement but I would push for more lax gun control. Guns restriction would lie only with minors and violent criminals. 6. Law enforcement funding would be cut, primarily because of the lack of gun control making it easier for people to defend themselves. 7. Immigration-strong border control, similar to that of North Korea. No one comes in illegally and lives. Social Issues 8. No gays allowed-no marriage, or PDA between gays. This will be punishable by deportation. 9. No abortion-baby killing is bad. 10. National religion would be protestant Christianity. Religious officials would not be politicians if you are scared of that. Mostly this would just be to ensure that things like Christmas Carols can be sung and the government can use the Bible for defense against certain bills that would be immoral. 11. National Language-English Foreign Policy 12. Free Trade but benefits will be instituted to push for self dependency. 13. No economic trade agreements 14. No UN for us. Other: 15. Our flag will be the Rebel flag with an "In God We Trust" written on it. 16. No segregation or slavery just to be clear. These are the issues. Tell me which you disagree with. Defend your opinions. Any additional things you want to know bring that up in your turn and I will get to it when I respond.
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

Ah, I now understand that you did mean superiority in terms of ratings. While I am now confused as to why 5 rounds were required for the statistics, but still I argue that it is the quality of the developers' work that determines the rating. I have greatly enjoyed Arkham City for its free roaming, gadgets (ratchet and clank fan, you see) and melee combat with fluid motion. In contrast, the Iron Man games have been failures for poor flight controls, graphical errors, and lack of contrasts between Tony and Rhody's stories. Marvel had no part in this error, and for Deadpool; 1; Deadpool's game was a low effort hack n' slash partially redeemed for the ridiculous story and jokes. 2; Deadpool is a parody of all other super heroes. Nothing he does can be taken seriously because he is the comic relief of the entire brand. Of course he is made of references to other comics and games. Now, Stark and Bruce have similarities, but Stark is not fueled by the deaths of his parents, rather by his discovery of the horror of war. Stark cannot avenge his parents' deaths unless he plans to destroy all cars anyway. Also, Stark never had a fear of iron. True, there are similarities, but then you could say they all copy each other by living in Manhattan. Nova leads a team true, but then so does Hannibal, in the A-Team. The characteristics you call copying is just a plot recipe that is commonly used, such as boy-meets-girl, or revenge-story. These are not direct plaguarism, and rather are just story nets that audiences will always approve of. His powers are not based on imagination using a ring, instead focusing on superhuman attributes such as strength, speed and flight. Do not try and tell me that Superman has copyright on flight, strength and speed. Finally, onto grittiness. True, DC can always ditch grittiness if they want, but then again, they haven't. Arkham Asylum did have some mutants and odd powers in it, but it still went for the almost purely grey colour scheme, only changing for specific villian lairs. (penguin and poison ivy dlc) And to avoid my own hole, yes, I know that is the choice of rocksteady, but the comics have been just as dark. Certain Marvel characters do have a gritty style, because Blade is a freaking vampire who would lose his powers in sunlight. The same goes for Ghost Rider; his powers activate at night, and by day he gets Nick Cage powers. Also, I will be the first to say the Punisher films were terrible, (But so were superman 1-4) The pattern was followed in the Man of Steel, and this suggests the following films will have the same grittiness, which will be odd for regulars like Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman. This is why grittiness will only work for the caped crusader and no one else. I wait your response.
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

Not the Riddler anymore? Regardless, my point is that the commercial ratings received for a film or game do not determine its true popularity. The quality of a film or game boils down to the developers making it, not the brand behind it. Your statistics prove that Rocksteady studios is better than high moon studios but does not prove Batman or Deadpool's cases. This is why the characters must be the deciding factor, and so I will bring up the overpowered nature of the heroes again. True, L. L. (Lex, not Lana, Lois or Lightning lad, seriously?) may find the occasional shard, and wonder woman's whip may harm him, but Batman states in Injustice that they only can stop Superman because he goes easy on them; if he wanted to kill Wonder Woman, he would zip over faster than the Flash and just break her neck instantly. On the topic of Wonder Woman, she still upholds stereotypes of women from the 1960s today. Think I'm wrong? What about the time fans complained when she put on a jacket in one series? How about that she loses her powers if a man ties her up (ie; not a woman)? The flash seems to move at speeds that would set him on fire and so forth. Batman and his rivals are the strong point of DC because they are so much more believable. Marvel may be rather unrealistic, but their characters are not overpowered, and the lack of grittiness allows this supernaturality. DC is now on the gritty path (one could say Dark Knight started it), and you can argue that grittiness is not a fault. However, the Justice League is 9/10ths supernatural, something that realistic grittiness cannot allow. This is why the gritty reboot will not work for the Justice League, they're just too ridiculous to handle as cold, dark anti-heroes. Marvel offers brighter tones in variations or darkness, and dynamically changes throughout the story. For this reason, I still support Marvel in this debate.
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

Nice to hear from you again, Duncan. I was not arguing that DC was commercially well-known. I was arguing that DC was more well-liked in certain franchises, and in a way, did better with their franchises than Marvel has. What does Star Trek have to do with this? Star Trek is neither Marvel nor DC. It is based off an old TV program. The ratings are not trying to prove actual quality, but they are proving quality in the eyes of the players, viewers, etc. Thus, making a legtimate reason as to part of why DC is better, for there are some aspects in which DC is enjoyed more of the media followers. DC was established in 1934 as National Allied Publications. Marvel was established in 1939 as Timely Comics. The distance between these two is only a matter of five years, so that should not differ with either of their qualities. Believe me, I agree with you on the Nintendo and Sega thing. Nintendo was formed in 1889 (Believe it or not), and Sega in 1940. This leaves a 51 year gap, and it is commonly agreed that Nintendo is the better of the two. Superman is in no way what you state him as. Superman only has his powers when the sun is on him (at least I think). Besides Kryptonite, Superman's weaknesses are also as follows: Magical and Psionic effects, 30+ different kinds of Kryptonite, each with different negative effects, Wonder Woman's lasso of truth and tiarra, and some other kind of stone. As you can see, Superman has a variety of weaknesses, while many of Marvel's characters are way overpowered (Galactus, Hulk, Sentry, Silver Surfer, Thor, etc.). Batman's no-killing policy is more deeply expressed in the movies, because Batman has killed some people in the comics. Such as in the original, old comics, when for example, he hanged a criminal from the batplane and regularly carried and used guns. Batman has also locked a villain underground to let them starve to death, and he also let theives burn to death. And there was also one case (in Batman: TDKR) in which Batman snapped the Joker's neck. With DC's villains, you can get a better sense of horror and sometimes, a better sense of reality. Some of DC's horror villains are mainly Batman adversaries such as The Joker, Professor Pyg, Mr.Zsasz, and Ted Krosby. Ted especially. That guy gives me the chills. In what way do Marvel's characters have more depth? DC publishes Secret Origin books, and whole comic series that reflect on the selected character's origins (such as The Killing Joke). And what's so bad about becoming grittier? A lot of people enjoy that. Plus, Marvel is full of that with characters such as Blade, Punisher, Venom, Ghost Rider, and many more.
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

I apologize for missing the previous round, as I was at ArcadeCon in Dublin and forgot. The instigator has used admirable statistics in the 2 previous rounds to prove that DC is commercially well known. However, ratings alone cannot guarantee the popularity or a franchise. In fact, Star Trek Into Darkness received averages of 8, 9 and 10, although these were made using false accounts, due to the staff who made the game hoping to buff its score. This is a problem that spans every game review, so these ratings alone cannot prove quality. Now that I'm done defending, I will now attack. Characters are an integral part of both Marvel and DC. Superman is well known and dates back to the 1940s which means that many will recognize him, outright. The same situation goes with Nintendo and Sega, in the way that the older company is more successful. I hardly think you'd want to use the age of DC as reason for superiority unless you want to bring up the slap a Jap slogan Superman made or the time the Justice League wouldn't let Wonder Woman go on missions and made her Secretary. But I digress. The Justice League is less interesting characterwise due to the flaws in the characters present. Superman is an overpowered figure in DC, as his only weakness is fragments of a destroyed planet, and he gains new powers such as time travel and laser eyes when it suits him. Batman is suitably a contrast- underpowered but quick witted, but his moral system or thou shalt not kill is often inconsistent with many fatal moves on henchmen overlooked. I could go on with the dullness of the remaining characters, but the only characters of interest in the DC series are Joker and Riddler, as they offer a more psychological story than plotless action. Marvel characters have a little more depth, specifically with the changing background and relation of each character now that Asgarde has become industrialised under a capricious Odin, facing off against the Iron Patriot, Norman Osbourne (get it right Hollywood!) In this regard, the story is much more colourful in Marvel than in DC, due to the new gritty version of DC appearing (which will lead inevitably to a dominatrix Wonder Woman). For the reason of appealing rather than nostalgiac characters, I put forward my argument and await response. (I will try to reply faster next time as well.)
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

My opponent has forfeited. I find this saddening, because I fear he will do the same for the next rounds. Come on Duncan, you can do it. Don't enter a debate prepared to argue and then chicken out. However, Duncan has allowed me to state more on this issue without contradicting or restating his ideas, for he did not have any. For this rebuttal, I will first mention TV shows. On Marvel's side, I will give them: Mutant X, Iron Man (90s), Wolverine & the X-Men, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and The Spectacular Spider-Man. On DC's side, I will give them: Smallville, Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, Green Lantern: TAS, and the Justice League.(With these shows, I'm trying to be as fair as possible) Let's see the reviews of Marvel's shows (taken from IMDB): Mutant X: 5.7/10 Iron Man: 6.7/10 Wolverine & The X-Men: 7.8/10 The Avengers: EMH: 7.9/10 The Spectacular Spider-Man: 7.6/10 DC's shows (also taken from IMDB): Smallville: 7.3/10 Batman TAS: 8.8/10 Superman TAS: 7.9/10 Green Lantern TAS: 7.7/10 Justice League: 8.4/10 Now, let's do what I call the Patriot method (Eh, get it?) I add together the review points that were out of ten from each company, and then which ever company has the larger total wins the round. So, for Marvel we shall add: 5.7+6.7+7.8+7.9+7.6=35.7 And for DC, we shall add: 7.3+8.8+7.9+7.7+8.4=40.1 40.1 is obviously more than 35.7, therefore DC has won for TV shows. Now, we do animated movies, and here's the Marvel nominees with their IMDB reviews: Ultimate Avengers: 6.8/10 Ultimate Avengers II: 6.7/10 The Invincible Iron Man: 5.9/10 Doctor Strange: 6.7/10 Hulk Vs.: 7.0/10 DC nominees with IMDB reviews: Superman: Unbound: 6.4/10 TDKR Part I: 7.8/10 TDKR Part II: 8.0/10 Superman Vs. the Elite: 6.9/10 Justice League: Doom: 7.2/10 The Patriot method for Marvel: 6.8+6.7+5.9+6.7+7.0=33.1 The Patriot method for DC: 6.4+7.8+8.0+6.9+7.2=36.3 Obviously again, DC wins that category. Please Duncan. SPEAK NEXT ROUND!
DC (Pro) vs. Marvel (Con)

I understand that there are some themes in the Marvel Universe that can be taken as better than those in the DC Universe. However, I have recently made the decision on which I believe is better: DC. And I will be debating with you on why DC is the better comic book company. First of all, DC is more classic and has the most recognizable heroes. For example, if you asked a random person on the street to name a superhero, they're probably gonna name, "Superman" or "Batman". But, being classic does not automaticalluy assume you as the better of two great companies. You have to look at different things, such as movies, games, comics, tv shows, and other things released in their franchise. Let's first look at DC's two recent movie's reviews (Taken from www.rottentomatoes.com) Man of Steel: 56% positive ratings from critics, and 79% positive ratings from normal people. TDKR: 87% positive ratings from critics, 92% positive ratings from normal people. And here are Marvel's two recent movie's reviews: Iron Man 3: 78% positive ratings from critics, 83% positive ratings from normal people. TASM: 73% positive ratings from cristics, 81% positive ratings from normal people. So, according to the reviews, TDKR alone did better than Iron Man 3 and TASM. Though Iron Man 3 and TASM both did better than Man of Steel. However, MOS's normal people rating is higher than both Iron Man 3 and TASM's critic ratings. Alright: Now onto games. DC's most recent game is Injustice: Gods Among Us. Marvel's most recent game is Deadpool. These reviews are taken from www.GameSpot.com: Injustice: Gods Among Us: 7.0/10 Deadpool: 5.5/10 Second most recent games: Lego Batman 2: 6.5/10 Avengers: BFE: 7.3/10 (from a dif. website) Finally, third most recent: Gotham City Impostors: 7.5/10 TASM: 7.3/10 (user rating, there is no official) As you can see, DC won in round 1 of video games, Marvel won in round 2, and DC won in round 3. Leaving a total of DC's win margin of 2:1, DC has won the video game category, at least for now. Next round, there will be more on movies, games, tv shows, heroes, villains, comics, whatever. The Patriot awaits your rebuttal, and have a happy fourth!
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Money shouldn"t even be an issue when discussing the safety of children, and society. According to an article by the NY Times titled City"s Annual Cost Per Inmate Is $168,000, Study Finds, "The city paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year." It is already incredibly expensive to house an inmate as is. They need food, shelter, security, health care, and direction. Treatment would mean that they are given the proper medicine that they need in order to live a normal life. Some people say that pedophilia is a condition that you are born with. They need support. Also I mean that they need a mandatory stay in a treatment facility. You can"t just put people away for life. We have to come to an understanding. Money will always be a problem, and I"m sure that they families and friends of the victims will feel better if they knew that people were trying to fix the problem. This would be a good investment as we could take better steps at trying to prevent the problem before it happens. Jail just seems to be a waste of money for some people. Also some pedophiliac acts are nonviolent, yet they are still deemed just as dangerous as the more serious offenders. And some are pedophiles because of weird laws. Like a 17 year old guy could go to jail for having sex with a 15 year old girl. A nonviolent, consensual act has now just been deemed wrong. This guy shouldn't be deemed a pedophile for this. Some laws are so transparent that sometimes innocent people can suffer.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

(1) Pedophilia is a condition in which adults, or older teenagers are sexually attracted to preteen children. (2) I agree with this point but we cannot afford to treat all pedophiles. (3) I disagree with the "Mandatory" aspect of this statement as some pedophiles will be put away for life thus there being no reason for rehabilitation. (4) I disagree as a pedophile can play sane. (5) I agree as there will be less victims (6) I agree with this point as the cost of incarceration is already pretty steep for taxpayers. (7) Therefore not all pedophile should be treated for their condition.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

(1) Pedophilia is a condition in which adults, or older teenagers are sexually attracted to preteen children. (2) If pedophiles where treated for their crimes, it could lead to a reduction in pedophilic based crimes. (3)Treatment means that the convicted pedophiles would receive a mandatory psych evaluation, and their needs to be attempts to rehabilitate them. (4) There may not be a cure for their condition, but treatment can help them control their urges. (5) A reduction in pedophilia would be good for the community. (6) Treating them would cost the state a lot of money because they would need certified therapists, and constant surveillance. (7)Therefore pedophiles should be treated for their condition.