BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

"Con claims I have not prove that there is anything capable of destroying it which is FALSE. I have said twice now that a ship could launch a transphasic torpedo at the death star and it would go straight through all of its defenses into the core and blow the death star up. Con is denying that I have given a very efficient method of destroying the death star when I have. A transphasic torpedo as I have said before can go through ANY defense system and can go through any material as if it's not there. There's also another good side to the torpedo plan; they can be launched 300000 km away; well outside the range of any of the death stars weapons. So yes; I have given a very efficient and safe method of blowing up the death star."This may be true, but it is far from impossible to block the torpedo."Con claims the "ninja fighters" could simply swarm over the star ship and destroy it; however right before the conclusion con admits they wouldn't be able to penetrate shields. This claim is a contradiction then, and can be dismissed."I stated that ninja fighters could destroy weaker enemy ships and leave the stronger ones for the stronger ships/Death Star(s)."In my first point I explained that the range of torpedoes exceeds that of the death stars defenses; even phaser have a longer range."Yes but all the Death Star would need to do it go boom boom and there you go, the enemy is dead. I don't think my opponent realizes exactly how powerful the Death Star really is. He keeps going on about its lack of range and vulnerability to torpedoes. My opponent doesn't realize that getting close enough to launch those torpedoes will be almost impossible considering the size of the Star Wars Empire fleet. The Death Star can whipe out an entire planet while being heavily defended by other ships. Therefore, my opponent has not proved that you can destroy the Death Star."The commanders have nothing to do with the shielding of star destroyers; on the part about rebel commanders being clever, so are the crews in star trek."The Empire would have won if the rebels had not cheated. The rebels had weak technology and ships. This argument does not support my opponent."Con needs to explain how the Empire is defending against Transphasic Torpedoes and Chroniton Torpedoes."The Empire also has all sorts of shields. The Star Destroyers have shields and so does the Death Star. Conclusion My opponent did not respond to my arguments about the Empire fleet being much larger. I await further arguments from my opponents.Sourceshttp://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.com...
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

1. Con claims I have not prove that there is anything capable of destroying it which is FALSE. I have said twice now that a ship could launch a transphasic torpedo at the death star and it would go straight through all of its defenses into the core and blow the death star up. Con is denying that I have given a very efficient method of destroying the death star when I have. A transphasic torpedo as I have said before can go through ANY defense system and can go through any material as if it's not there. There's also another good side to the torpedo plan; they can be launched 300000 km away; well outside the range of any of the death stars weapons. So yes; I have given a very efficient and safe method of blowing up the death star.2. Con claims the "ninja fighters" could simply swarm over the star ship and destroy it; however right before the conclusion con admits they wouldn't be able to penetrate shields. This claim is a contradiction then, and can be dismissed. 3. "And the Death Star could destroy all other defenses. One blast, and even the strongest enemy ship would go down. In addition to the big laser gun, the Death Star has smaller artillery all over it that would be capable of destroying enemy ships." In my first point I explained that the range of torpedoes exceeds that of the death stars defenses; even phaser have a longer range."However it seemed that Star Destroyers weren't quite as invulnerable as con says in the Battle of Endor as the Millennium Falcon was able to destroy the 19 kilometer behemoths."This was largely due to the fact that the Empire had bad commanders while the rebels had good commanders who were rather clever.The commanders have nothing to do with the shielding of star destroyers; on the part about rebel commanders being clever, so are the crews in star trek.And considering the fact that the Empire built 2 such battle stations in the Star Wars movies, they could build more. According to movies it takes YEARS to build them; plenty of time to get to the location and blow it up.Con needs to explain how the Empire is defending against Transphasic Torpedoes and Chroniton Torpedoes.Sources:same sources as before
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

"Also it doesn't matter how powerful a weapon is if it doesn't have a chance to fire."And if it does, it would destroy a planet(s)."Those super ninja fighters con talks about for one won't be able to get through the USS Enterprise J's shielding."I agree, but they would be good for other stuff. The Death Star can own the USS Enterprise though."However it seemed that Star Destroyers weren't quite as invulnerable as con says in the Battle of Endor as the Millennium Falcon was able to destroy the 19 kilometer behemoths."This was largely due to the fact that the Empire had bad commanders while the rebels had good commanders who were rather clever.Conclusion: Whatever the Star Wars Empire might lack in technology, they would more than make up in numbers and firepower. Star Wars ninja fighters could simply swarm the enemy from all sides and destroy them quickly. They would be backed up with heavy cruisers that could destroy any of the heavy ships that the enemy might have. And the Death Star could destroy all other defenses. One blast, and even the strongest enemy ship would go down. In addition to the big laser gun, the Death Star has smaller artillery all over it that would be capable of destroying enemy ships. The Death Star is an entire battle station and the equivalent to thousands of enemy ships. My opponent did not prove that there was anything capable of effectively destroying it. And considering the fact that the Empire built 2 such battle stations in the Star Wars movies, they could build more. This means that if the enemy destroyed one Death Star, the Empire would have another ready to go. I have proved that the Empire could use Blitzkrieg strategies to crush any opposing forces. I await further arguments from my opponent.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

First of all my source is from a previous argument I made on a debate and the things from there come from Memory Alpha the Official star trek wiki, and from Star Trek Online Information.Second of all Con states the death star is almost impossible to destroy. While this is true as I explained above a transphasic torpedo would bypass all defense measure of the Empire and would be able to travel straight into the core and detonate, destroying the death star. Also it doesn't matter how powerful a weapon is if it doesn't have a chance to fire.Those super ninja fighters con talks about for one won't be able to get through the USS Enterprise J's shielding. According to Wookiepedia Tie-fighters use lasers as there weapon. There's a reason why lasers were abandoned by the 22nd century in star trek; they were way to weak. The 23rd century phaser was already more powerful than ship based lasers. 400 years later there shielding probably hasn't devolved to something weak enough for a laser to cause any harm.In Cons third claim con shows a picture of Star Destroyers and says nothing could beat them. However it seemed that Star Destroyers weren't quite as invulnerable as con says in the Battle of Endor as the Millennium Falcon was able to destroy the 19 kilometer behemoths. Also the USS Enterprise J has a much larger range of attack. Photon torpedoes by the 23rd century could already accurately hit 300000 kilometers away and again that was long before the 26th century; so there is sure to have been improvements in range and I said torpedoes are likely Star Fleets best weapon against the Empire.Finally the USS Voyage defeated Species 8472 and they had a planet destroying device too; keep in mind this is one ship and ten Borg drones defeating a species that is incredibly difficult to hurt.Sources:Memory AlphaWookiepediaStar Wars MoviesStar Trek Online InformationStar Trek: Voyager episodes
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

It seems that he just copied and pasted. However Pro did not provide the source. Anyway, I shall state my arguments. The Star Wars Empire would win because they have the Death Star. The Death Star is so strong that it can destroy an entire planet. It is almost impossible to destroy. The Star Wars Empire has super ninja fighters capable of destroying any enemy ships. They can sneak up on enemies and destroy them before they can as much as look that way. The Star Wars Empire has these ships that are capable of owning all other ships. They have guns on all sides and are capable of just destroying and destroying enemy fighters. Nothing could beat them. Sources:. http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...
Sexism against women is still a problem in the USA

Things change over time and social reform changes slowly over time. Particularly in Western Democratic Societies. Nonetheless, in my lifetime (58 years) there have been huge changes. For some people though, change never happens quickly enough. Is sexism an issue?......Obviously, or we wouldn't be discussing it here. But are issues problems?......I would suggest that this depends on how quickly one expects social reform to happen. Why should the most qualified candidate for a leadership position be a woman and not a man? To me, Pro's argument is more indicative of feminine bias, rather than a real concern about getting the right person for the job. A somewhat inverse notion maybe. Western Democratic Societies, use the will of the populace to determine their leaders. All men and all women of a prescribed voting age. In the U.S.A there are more adult women than men, yet Donald Trump, who is quite clearly overtly sexist, was Elected President in preference to an equally qualified female candidate. This would suggest that the majority of U.S adult female and male voters (not all men are sexist) did not necessarily consider sexism to be such a problematic issue. I would therefore suggest that sexism is a greater problem for a minority of women and consequently not a problem or issue of great concern to most U.S. citizens. In my previous argument I was trying to point out that there is a greater reality that underlies human society, no matter how advanced and luxurious we might perceive our lives to be. Instinct is sub-conscious and cannot be measured in terms of mental capacity or physicality or how much money we have to buy food with. Instinct is predetermined information that governs individuals and individual roles within society As things stand at this moment in time Men are instinctively dominant and male dominance is inevitably and unavoidable going to be reflected in all aspects of present day society. Finally I would like to point out that in Western Society, sexual misconduct is no longer normal, sexual misconduct is nowadays heavily legislated against and this legislation can clearly seen to be working. However for the foreseeable future there are always going to be incidences of sexual misconduct, this is the instinctive and unavoidable nature of the human condition. It will take physiological change on an evolutionary scale in order to fully address this issue. Sometimes expectations are far to high.
Sexism against women is still a problem in the USA

I would like to point out that whether or not men are dominant is not what's up for debate. The statement in question is whether women are still discriminated against. I would also like to argue that, no, men are not inherently dominant. Physically, they are definitely superior on average. This is because during hunter/gatherer eras men were the hunters and women looked after their children. But since then, not only have human evolved, so has society. We now have the luxury of commerce and no longer have to focus our time on survival for the most part. And since mentally, men and women are on average, equal, they should naturally be given equal opportunity. By that, I mean: the most qualified candidate for a leadership position should be the one chosen, regardless of gender. That's the ideal. While we are progressing fast, women are still not quite given equal opportunity in leadership positions. While men and women have integrated nicely in many high-paying and quality careers, women still aren't given as much of a platform in powerful positions, even though men and women apply at similar rates and with similar qualification. This makes it difficult for women to have as big a voice in society at the highest level, a place where we need all different voices and perspectives the most. The UN has stated that "globally, there are 38 countries in which women account for less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians in single or lower houses, as of June 2016, including 4 chambers with no women at all." Many of these countries were societally western. In the UK and US, women make roughly 20% of all political positions. This is insane. I would like to also point out that my opponent never refuted my point about our the normalization of sexual misconduct in our culture.
Sexism against women is still a problem in the USA

Your obviously someone very caught up in the conceptuality of modern society and as such you probably never give much consideration to the reality of the human condition. Like it or not, men and women are fundamentally and physiologically different and therefore unequal. Men are not equal to women and women are not equal to men and the differences are obvious. Though in a modern social context some people try to ignore these obvious differences. Realistically and instinctively men are the dominant sex. Ultimately it is the need and desire to reproduce that is of primary importance, once again a fact that we attempt to ignore in a modern social context. No matter what sexual dalliances we subscribe to these days, there is usually a dominant and submissive differential. Which in real terms equates to the natural male/female roles. The reality of the natural male/female roles will therefore inevitably lead to a male dominated society, which in a some modern social groups will be regarded as sexism. Ultimately the desire to reproduce is far more important than being a Hollywood Director.
Sexism against women is still a problem in the USA

There has been incredible progress in the last century towards the liberation of women, and for many that signifies that the fight is over, that sexism is over, but that simply isn't true. It is still prevalent, if not more subtle. According to Statista, three of every five is a victim of harassment on the daily. Online, on the street, in their own workplace-for many women, it rarely ceases. That begins at age 13 on average, and not only disrupts their self-image but threatens their security. The objectification of women and the normalization of sexual violation is systematic in western culture. It leads to the final alarming statistic: one of every four women experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Aside from that, women aren't given the platform to make social change. Women make up half the population, but less than 20% of congress, 12% of the billionaire class, and according to Variety Mag, a meager 7% of Hollywood directors. While the competence of women breaking into these industries is equal to male counterparts, they simply aren't given a chance. While we've made extraordinary progress, we can't say it's truly over until our mothers and sisters are given equal opportunities in leadership positions, and their chances of falling victim to sexual misconduct is severely decreased.
The Death Penalty

Welcome to the Debate, This Debate will consist of the topic of "Death Penalty" In which both sides will argue their stances, Which will lead to a final vote on who won. The Rules are Simple, Stay on the topic only and only provide Evidence to said topic. Do not use Profanity of any kind, Simply put be Professional. Here is my Debate. The Concept of Death Penalty has been shown to receive Negative Feedback, With the claim "We do not hold the right to take another life" However when such Individual takes the life of another with no remorse? Was that ok? Surely in a moral point, It would be wrong to treat said Individual better than their victim, They did nothing but torture with Emotional, Physical pain and Trauma. I do not argue we should Execute someone for a crime such as Failure to have Insurance or Speeding. However I do argue that Justice can't be given to the Suspect and Closure cannot be given to the Family until Justice is surely meet.
The Death Penalty

Plain and simply, The death penalty is not OK and should be outlawed. First of all, Bad people do good things too. Take the common murderer, For instance, He probably has a family that he loves and wants to protect. That man's family will probably be just as devastated as the victim's family when they hear that their husband/father has been sentenced to death. Also, You may not hear about it a lot but there are cases of people being sentenced to death and come to find out years latter they were innocent. Also, If you truly wish someone to die than you are no better than the murderer himself. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that murderers should just roam about, In fact, I believe we should have a special kind of jail for murderers, Rapists, Molesters, Etc. But if you kill the murderer, He doesn't have to learn his lesson or pay the price for his crime. To that kind of criminal, Death is an escape route. Also, With all do respect, I find the comment "Surely in a moral point, It would be wrong to treat said Individual better than their victim", Morally degrading. If you torture someone just because they tortured someone else, You have stooped down to their level and are no better than them, Which makes you a criminal.
Who would win ultron(pro and in physical form) or iron man(HULKBUSTER con)

Since Ultron is not one physical thing he could potentially take over millions of robots and all of them would still be him. Assuming he couldn't do this he would still defeat Hulkbuster Iron man. Due to the fact that Ultron has artificial intelligence in him he can think, plot and scheme as well as being incredibly strong. Since he was in the internet temporarily it is unknown just how much information he obtained. It is very likely that he looked up secretes about Stark that he is unaware of. Con's statement claiming that Hulkbuster can heal himself is technically not true. He has a limited amount of body parts so eventually he would run out. Due to his huge size Hulk buster would be unable to move at the speed of Ultron therefore Ultron has a speed advantage. Ultron can keep evolving as it has stated in the Avengers: Age of Ultron whereas Hulk buster stays the same. Ultron does not have any relative or loved ones. Tony does. This allows Ultron to target vulnerable relatives and friends of Stark - including Pepper Potts (Tony's girlfriend). Tony relies on Jarvis and others. Ultron relies on his own brain which was created by Stark himself using artificial intelligence. Tony also has many disadvantages himself - as a person. He's a never recovering alcoholic. he supported the registration act, arrested captain america, cloned Thor that led to the death of bill foster, and was too weak to prevent Norman Osborn from gaining control... and despite all of this he still argues with Steve now that Steve has his old job. Keep in mind that the majority of Iron Man's adventures, especially during his first few decades, have been about have been about protecting his company's assets, a company whose main business for several years was selling arms. He wasn't going on patrol and protecting regular guys, he was more worried about his ability to sell weapons to the government. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.quora.com... http://www.comicvine.com...
Who would win ultron(pro and in physical form) or iron man(HULKBUSTER con)

First if all we are talking ultrons physical form the internet can't help him here let's pretend vision wiped him out of the web now anyways I think help buster would win because it is as strong as the hulk and now has a 'healing factor' (auto repair) to fix himself up In seconds and he is so amored ultron has nothing on him he would break his puny metal fingers on that armor and he fixed that bug with the whole tearing out of the suit thing
Capitalism (Reboot)

To summarize my arguments, Capitalism has immoral practices, though through your arguments I have, at the least, considered how far government intervention can go to stop these immoral behaviors; laissez-faire Capitalism is not modern Capitalism, Capitalism is a highly contradictory system, and a very long list of other things that, to be perfectly honest, I'm too tired to list currently.I would like to point out that, while Communism has not been practiced before, many other leftist ideologies have. For example, the Spanish Revolution, the EZLN, and New Harmony, Indiana are all examples of leftist ideologies in practice.I thoroughly enjoyed debating this topic with you. May the people decide the winner :)