BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The iPad mini is better than the kindle fire HD.

Also, the iPad mini has two cameras. One in front and one in back. Kidle Fire HD has only one, low quality camera. The Kindle is almost twice as heavy as the iPad mini! The iPad mini a bigger, better app store with apps that are designed for the iPad mini's exact aspect ratio. The iPad mini is built of glass and high quality metal. The Kindle Fire HD? Plastic. The iPad mini doesn't break as easily when dropped. The iPad mini is ay thinner than the kindle fire HD. The iPad mini can go underwater for up to 8-15 seconds without having any side effects. The Kindle Fire HD dies immediately when submersed.
The iPad mini is better than the kindle fire HD.

I am the con/against that iPad Mini is better than the Kindle Fire. First off I would like to tell you that iPad Mini is more expensive than the Kindle Fire. I think that the Kindle Fire is better for your eyes than the iPad Mini. I have tried this and it worked for my eyes. I think Kindle Fire is better based on reading for that exact reason stated in the last sentence. Sure, iPad Mini is so much faster than the Kindle Fire in loading the next page, but, it ain't good for your eyes. Lets see about that. Thanks and Good Luck --Check your spelling!
The iPad mini is better than the kindle fire HD.

This - http://www.apple.com... versus this - http://www.amazon.com... Although $130 more, the iPad mini is better in the long run. It has more pixels AND a higher pixel per inch ratio. It has stereo audio.It's app store is WAY better and has many many more apps. Apple makes money on the iPad mii wheras Amazon makes money on the media. Ths makes for a forced feeling of the kindles pushing media on you. The iPad mini was designed for it's OS. The kndle fire HD has another OS that Amazon did not make. The iPad mini is claimedby Apple to have 10 hour battery life - it has been reported by ALL of the major reviews to get 11-12 hrs. The Kindle Fire HD is claimed to get 11 and gets just that.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

"Copy: A thing made to be similar or identical to another. Plagiarism: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." So if one where to copy another man's work, that would be called, wait for it, plagiarism. "I have never made the claim that DC OWNS the idea. I'm simply saying that Marvel is using the idea." If D.C doesn't own the idea or hasn't copyrighted the idea, then you can't claim that Marvel copies them. That's how the press works. I can write a bestselling book called "The life of an apple" and publish it. But if I don't copyright it, then you can write a book called "The life of an orange" which pretty much talks about the exact same thing minus one little detail, and from a legal perspective, you didn't copy me because I didn't copyright it. Notice I'm talking about a finished work here. So if D.C doesn't copyright the idea of a "billionaire, playboy philanthropist" (A phrase coined by Marvel FYI) then technically speaking, Marvel's not copying them by publishing their own version of a "billionaire, playboy, philanthropist". "But maybe you don't want/have the time to walk him/her, so you hire somebody to walk the dog for you. This is gonna sound kind of funny, but let's say Deathstroke is DC's dog. Marvel walks DC's dog, and on the way calls him Deadpool. Confusing, I know, but you understand, don't you?" This makes no sense as it implies that D.C is giving the rights of Deathstroke to Marvel.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

Oh my, here I go with definitions again. Copy: A thing made to be similar or identical to another. Plagiarism: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. With the definition of copy said, it is shown that Marvel has done this same process. You argue that I argue that Marvel only copies some characters. However, if you copy some characters, you are copying the company, because those characters belong to that company. Get what I'm sayin'? I'll provide an example: MARVEL: Deadpool DC: Deathstroke With these similarities previously provided, you can see that Deadpool belongs to Marvel, and Deathstroke to DC. Since these characters are very similar with Deathstroke coming first, it can be seen that Marvel copied DC in this case, if not all. I have never made the claim that DC OWNS the idea. I'm simply saying that Marvel is using the idea. Think about this. When (if) you have a dog, you have that dog. But maybe you don't want/have the time to walk him/her, so you hire somebody to walk the dog for you. This is gonna sound kind of funny, but let's say Deathstroke is DC's dog. Marvel walks DC's dog, and on the way calls him Deadpool. Confusing, I know, but you understand, don't you? DC is never going to sue Marvel for anything. It's a thing called kindness. The men and women at DC want both companies to coexist peacefully, and I'm sure Marvel wants the same, even though they are business rivals. I'm sure the DC workers have noted the idea of Marvel copying them, but they don't wanna cause a fuss or problem about anything. Because they know that if they do, their reputation will drastically decrease and there's a chance they won't win the sue in court.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

Let me ask you this. You claim that Marvel copies ideas from DC, but you're just providing examples of how Marvel copied SOME characters. DC may have come up with the idea of those characters, but by that alone, does that mean DC owns the idea? Can you prove DC owns the idea? If you can't, is Marvel really copying them? I'd hazard a guess to say no because if Marvel really were copying DC's ideas that they own, they would sue Marvel for plagiarism or something of the sort.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

1. The idea is not based on what the hero acts like/sidekicks, or whatever. It's about their origin, name, job, and stuff like that. Did I mention that both Batman and Iron Man are genius, billionaire, playboy, philantropists? Marvel takes the ideas and characters of DC and changes their name, some of their origin, their costume, and maybe their powers. That's not a fair game, now is it, Marvel? 2. You argue that Green Lantern and Nova don't have the same powers at all. Let's look at Green Lantern's powers, as said by Wikipedia: . http://en.wikipedia.org... -Flight -Superhuman Strength -Energy Projection (Constructs) Now let's look at some of Nova's powers: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Richard_Rider) -Flight -Superhuman Strength -Energy Projection As you can see, their powers are very similar. On to the next one. 3. It doesn't matter about the creators knowing each other and trying to be humorous. What matters is Marvel copying DC, and in this case, even you admitted they did. 4. Again as I have stated before, their super-abilities comparing to the other not having any does not prove anything. I am not stating the exact same thing again, so if you want to know, refer to the first sentence of my first paragraph of this round. 5. Amazo does not "impersonate" abilities. He actually has them. And the definition of impersonate doesn't even go with what you are saying. . https://www.google.com... You see, impersonations are when one pretends to be another person. And all those abilities you stated that Super-Skrull has are ones that are powers of the Fantastic Four (Such as how Amazo has the powers of the Justice League). I will show you how: Superhuman Strength: The Thing Stamina: Mister Fantastic (I presume) Durability: The Thing Body Elasticity: Mister Fantastic Pyrokinesis: Human Torch Flight: Human Torch Invisibility: Invisible Woman Shapeshifting: Mister Fantastic Hypnosis: Maybe that's just part of being a Skrull. Combat Master: Anyone can be a combat master. If anything, Amazo, too, is a combat master. It just takes training. Superb Impersonator: Hey! You got the definition right! Any way, this is just an ability that most can do with enough intelligence. Perhaps he gets this intellinge from Mister Fantastic or Invisible Woman. Tactician: Probably from Mister Fantastic or Human Torch, maybe even Invisible Woman. Pilot: Mister Fantastic. Physical resemblance is a tricky thing. You see, Marvel's strategy is to copy the character, then change things such as their physical appearance. 6. I already stated how these two are similar. There's the whole archer aspect, the death thing, and the relationships. My sources have already been stated within this rebutal, therefore they will not be posted down here.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

First off, Batman and Iron man, origins aside, are absolutely nothing at all alike. Iron man's identity is publicly known, not so with Batman (to the best of my knowledge). Iron man is very up front and in your face when he fights his enemies. Batman is more stealthy and tends to be more nocturnal per se. Batman has taken on NUMEROUS sidekicks whereas Iron man has really only had one (War Machine). Batman's woman dies and Pepper lives to this day. Actually, GL and Nova don't have any of the same powers. Nova is described as having gravimetric abilities whereas the GL is described as having a Power ring which allows flight, superhuman strength, and hard-light constructs with use of said power ring. So I don't see how the 2 are related at all (1 & 2). The comparison between Deadpool and Deathstroke was actually real humorous for me because the creator of Deadpool knew the creator of Deathstroke. They gave them similar characteristics and names as an inside joke to make it seem like they were related (3). Cat-ladies. The black cat is actually very different from catwoman once you look at the fact that the black cat has a superhuman sense of smell and sight (night vision). The black cat can also manipulate probability. Did I mention that Catwoman has retractable claws and has none of the abilities of black cat (4 & 5)? Amazo/Super Skrull: Actually, Amazo is the only one who impersonates abilities. Super Skrull on the other hand is described as having Superhuman strength, stamina, and durability, Body elasticity, Pyrokinesis, Flight, Invisibility, Shapeshifting, Hypnosis, Hand to hand combat master, Superb impersonator, Excellent tactician, Expert pilot. So, not the same. They don't even bear any physical resemblance. (6 & 7) Arrow/Hawkeye: The green arrow is a billionaire business man. Hawkeye was a carnival preformed who started out preforming stunts with a bow and arrow. Hawkeye takes on a number of other aliases including the Goliath and Ronin and is trained with more weapons than the Green Arrow. So on the outside they look similar but really aren't once you look deeper. (8 & 9) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Sam_Alexander) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) 5.http://en.wikipedia.org... 6.http://en.wikipedia.org... 7.http://en.wikipedia.org... 8.http://en.wikipedia.org... 9.http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) Sorry about my forfeited round, I went out of town unexpectedly and my wifi access wasn't constant.
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

Bah! My opponent has forfeited. But, nevertheless, I will still provide ways Marvel has copied DC: 1. DC: Catwoman Marvel: Black Cat First Appearances. Catwoman: Batman #1 (Spring 1940). Black Cat: The Amazing Spider-Man #194 (July 1979). As you can see, Catwoman came nearly 40 years before Black Cat. The Similarites: Both are cat-burglars who have on-and-off-again relationships with the main hero (Batman and Spider-Man, respectively). They both use seduction to weaken their male opponents and are (obviously) based off of cats. 2. DC: Amazo Marvel: Super-Skrull First Appearances. Amazo: The Brave and the Bold #30 (June 1960). Super-Skrull: Fantastic Four #18 (Sep. 1963). As you can see, the two debuted three years apart. The Similarities: Both are villains who can copy the powers of superheroes in a certain team (Justice League and Fantastic Four, respectively). 3. DC: Green Arrow Marvel: Hawkeye First Appearances. Green Arrow: More Fun Comics #73 (Nov. 1941). Hawkeye: Tales of Suspense #57 (Sept. 1964). As you can see, Green Arrow came first. The Similarities: Both men are professional archers who are somehow connected to crime (GA poses as a Robin Hood-like figure, Hawkeye used to be a super-villain). Death: Both heroes died at some point in the comics, and it was big. Then, both came back from the dead somehow. That too, was big. Finally, they have relationships with............................................................................WILL BE FIRST COMPARISON NEXT ROUND! And yes! There WILL be more next round! And here's my message to Con: DON'T FORFEIT AGAIN!
Marvel copies ideas from DC.

Let me first bring up similarities between Batman and Iron Man's origins. Before I start, I will give proof that Bats came before Iron Man. Bats first appeared in Detective Comics #27, which was released in 1939. Iron man first appeared in Tales of Suspense #39, which was released in 1963. Now let's compare their shortened origins. Both are boys (Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark) whose parents (Thomas & Martha, Howard & Maria) are killed tragically (Murder, Car Wreck). The parents owned companies (Wayne Industries, etc., Stark Industries, etc.) that the son is forced to own through the family line. Both avenge their parents in a way (Fighting crime, fighting for a better future), by using fancy suits and gadgets (Batsuit, Utility Belt, etc., Iron Man Suit, Repulsors, etc.) that they made with their skills and money. Eventually, the hero (Batman, Iron Man) saves the girl (Rachel Dawes or whoever, Pepper Potts) from the villain (Scarecrow, Iron Monger). These origins are the ones based on the movies Batman Begins and Iron Man. Now the copies I state will be shorter. This one contains DC's Green Lantern and Marvel's Nova. GL first appeared in All-American Comics #16, which was released July 1940. Nova first appeared in Nova #1, which was released September 1976. As obvious, GL came 36 years before Nova. Nova and GL have practically the same abilities; and you know how there is the Green Lantern Corps? Well, did you know about the NOVA CORPS? Really, Marvel? There will be more instances of Marvel copying DC, but for the end I will share a really sad one: Deathstroke and Deadpool. Both mercenaries. Deathstroke first appeared: New Teen Titans Vol. 1 #2, which was released December 1980. Deadpool first appeared: New Mutants #98, which was released February 1991. Also as obvious, they were released eleven years apart, with Deathstroke coming first. NOW HERE'S THE KICKER: What is Deathstroke's real name? That's right: Slade Wilson. Oh what's that I hear? Deadpool's real name is WADE Wilson? SERIOUSLY, MARVEL???
Macro-evolution occurs in nature

"Before appealing to the bible as the final authority on the subject you must prove that the bible was divinely inspired and that the judeo-christian god actually exists." How do tou thik we got here? fif we just appear out of notihng? and what oter god would exist? the muslim god is clearly complete crap. the only god out there is jesus christ. and most people believe in him so actuallu you have to prove he doesnt exist! "and how can day and night be made before the sun and moon? or day and night before the sky?" the bible says it so it happened. what is so hard to get your head around. we have light we have a moon. where do you think all that came from? "you also seem to differentiate between animals and man even though the only difference between us is our evolutionary history and cognitive ability." what about the soul? monkeys and cats dont have souls. how do you explain tat? "the bible is clearly wrong as it goes against all available objective evidence." if the bible goes against the evidence then the evidence id wrong. do you think god was just lying when he wrote the bible?
Macro-evolution occurs in nature

"this is the word of God as written in the bible. the bible goes on to say that God created on the first day, night and day. on the second, the sky. on the third, land and sea. on the fourth, the sun, moon, and stars. on the fifth, the birds and the fish. and on the sixth, animals and man." Before appealing to the bible as the final authority on the subject you must prove that the bible was divinely inspired and that the judeo-christian god actually exists. and how can day and night be made before the sun and moon? or day and night before the sky? and which animals? you also seem to differentiate between animals and man even though the only difference between us is our evolutionary history and cognitive ability. "how could everything have been created out of nothing over millions of years when the bible clearly says it was all made by god in six days? your "evidence" runs completely contrary to everything god has said. therefore, it is false. god said things happened this way, so it could not have happened any other." the bible is clearly wrong as it goes against all available objective evidence. and you have not proven that god said anything in the bible or that he even exists.
Macro-evolution occurs in nature

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 this is the word of God as written in the bible. the bible goes on to say that God created on the first day, night and day. on the second, the sky. on the third, land and sea. on the fourth, the sun, moon, and stars. on the fifth, the birds and the fish. and on the sixth, animals and man. how could everything have been created out of nothing over millions of years when the bible clearly says it was all made by god in six days? your "evidence" runs completely contrary to everything god has said. therefore, it is false. god said things happened this way, so it could not have happened any other. http://christianity.about.com... The Bible
Macro-evolution occurs in nature

I will argue the pro position that macro-evolution occurs in nature with plenty of evidence to back it up. Round 1 is for acceptance and definitions. Rounds 2 and 3 will be for arguments and rebuttals. Definitions: Macro-evolution: Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. [1] Occurs: To take place; come about. [2] [1] http://www.biology-online.org... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
United States slavery was never racial

All due respect to my opponent....no it doesn't.First, the case in question is suspect. No one knows if she actually was German or not. The German immigrants believed her to be, bu appeal to masses does not make something true. Further in that article you cited from ANB, which is possibly the only qualified source used (Wikipedia is sometimes suspect, and historical novels are not good sources) it states that Salome Muller, the girl who the Germans were thinking of, was discovered elsewhere. Sally Miller, who was arguing the case, was born to a slave and an unknown white man. That would have classified her as a mulatto, half-breed, and mulattoes were considered a race that was slave-worthy . Sally Miller was not German, she looked like a girl who was, and used that to argue for freedom. Why would this work for her? Because that would mean she wasn't black or mulatto, and thus could not be treated as a slave. The fact that if she could prove she was not a specific race could free her is in support of my claim.Thank you, con for your argument: Here's mine:https://books.google.com...This book is important because according to many this woman in question looked familiar to many of the German citizens. The circumstances surrounding this event seem to point that Muller wasn't trying to hide anything. It also gives sources that her real mother was indeed from Germany and she didn't survive the voyage.However, even if this case was true, and she was German (She wasn't), that does not provide absolute claim on the idea that slavery in the Americas was never racial. That would require you to show that race was NEVER, in any circumstance, a consideration for slavery. You have yet to do so. Saying that it wasn't just Africans who were enslaved isn't enough, you have to show that they never considered race for slaves, which, is admittedly a tough claim to prove.I turn it back to my opponent, and eagerly await his/her replyI already refuted itThis is a hard case, admittedly, but it's not impossible to refute. This the only source people who claim that slavery and racism intertwinned used. It's a misleading source.https://en.wikipedia.org...;But this is a red herring. What this guy is talking about is not slavery but rather menial labor (which is not slavery). The only form of actual slavery legalized in America at the time was plantation and chattel slavery. This seems to be more an argument for having a subservient class rather than outright slavery. This is the only time any of these folks talked about race, and even then slavery is not mentioned in it.
United States slavery was never racial

All due respect to my opponent....no it doesn't. First, the case in question is suspect. No one knows if she actually was German or not. The German immigrants believed her to be, bu appeal to masses does not make something true. Further in that article you cited from ANB, which is possibly the only qualified source used (Wikipedia is sometimes suspect, and historical novels are not good sources) it states that Salome Muller, the girl who the Germans were thinking of, was discovered elsewhere. Sally Miller, who was arguing the case, was born to a slave and an unknown white man. That would have classified her as a mulatto, half-breed, and mulattoes were considered a race that was slave-worthy . Sally Miller was not German, she looked like a girl who was, and used that to argue for freedom. Why would this work for her? Because that would mean she wasn't black or mulatto, and thus could not be treated as a slave. The fact that if she could prove she was not a specific race could free her is in support of my claim. To quote the wikipedia page you cited:"That on the law of slavery in the case of a person visibly appearing to be a white man, or an Indian, the presumption is he is free, and it is necessary for his adversity to show that he is a slave." That, right there, which is from one of the supreme court justices who ruled in her favor, says that since she appears to be of a certain race, the burden of proof is on the person claiming she is a slave. Again, the single fact that is throwing this case into question is about what race she is. It doesn't matter which side it comes from, if a determinant for a person's candidacy for slavery is race, then it's racial in some manner. However, even if this case was true, and she was German (She wasn't), that does not provide absolute claim on the idea that slavery in the Americas was never racial. That would require you to show that race was NEVER, in any circumstance, a consideration for slavery. You have yet to do so. Saying that it wasn't just Africans who were enslaved isn't enough, you have to show that they never considered race for slaves, which, is admittedly a tough claim to prove. I turn it back to my opponent, and eagerly await his/her reply
United States slavery was never racial

http://www.washingtonpost.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...This was perfects one of the biggest claims for freedom from in US history. It resulted in a court case in 1845, this was not too long before slavery ended either.Sally Miller v. Louis Belmonti (1845 La)http://www.anb.org...This slave wasn't black, but of German ancestry. Which proves once and for all that slavery in America, or elsewhere in America for that matter was never a racial thing whatsoever.