BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether the new Arkham game is going to be better than Asylum and City.

I really believe that it will be better than the city game because when you start at the beginning, it helps you build an incredible backstory for the characters you have grown attached to in the past two games. Joker is just starting to be joker, thomas elliot has not turned into hush yet, and batman has not encountered joker yet! This adds up to what looks like a really fun game!
Whether the new Arkham game is going to be better than Asylum and City.

My first example is the origin of batman. Shortly after Bruce Wayne becomes batman, he meets the Joker. Rocksteady could make the game about how bruce wayne becomes batman and gets introduced to his various villains. They could explain exactly where and who bruce trained with in preparation to become the batman. They could also explore Harley and the joker's relationship instead of the standard crazy guy and crazy girl get together and plan to kill a guy who looks like a bat. After we've been playing as the batman, it might be interesting to play as bruce wayne in the process of becoming batman.
abortion

You said that the world is overpopulated, but then stated that death is a natural thing, therefore If people are dying everyday then we would need to continue populating the World. And You also stated that if a women cannot afford a child then she should be able to abort it. I disagree, because if a women cannot "afford" a child then she should not participate in such activities that can result in becoming pregnant. Also Abortion is murder. The definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. A women should be able to commit a crime, because she was irresponsible and wants to kill an innocent human. Do you condone murder?
abortion

The world is overpopulated and there is far too much emphasis on safety and saving lives, it is a beautiful thing to be able to abort a baby that the mother cannot afford or care for. Stop being such a soft, weak, censored individual and accept death as not only a natural part of life but a necessity in this day and age! Here is an excellent rule of thumb, if you cannot afford an entire other human being in addition to yourself, DON'T HAVE ONE AT ANY AND ALL COST!
abortion

Your opinion of life, and my opinion of life are very different, And have you ever thought that if your birth mother decided that you were too much of a burden, then you sir would not be alive. And if people only did what felt good then this planet would be corrupt, and i do not support corruption nor do i support the reckless decision of murdering a baby that someone was irresponsible to make and not take care ( or even put up for adoption) And Yes i am serious about not having sex, if you do not want to run the risk of getting pregnant. And sex is NOT a basic human need, food, water, and shelter are basic human needs. Also just because a child is put up for adoption does NOT mean that they are doomed, they can still grow up and accomplish great things is life, That is, if you give them a chance and do not murder them. So by disagreeing with me means that you condone murder, and you stated "Each person should at least have the right to choose what is best for them." And a innocent baby cannot do that if you murder it. Thank you.
abortion

I rest my case? Friends and sources are telling me you can't be murdered until you receive a birth certificate, have been born into this world and declared a human being. Either way it doesn't matter to me what you want to call it I call it making a decision. Life is a series of decisions, choices we make all the time every minute of everyday this is only one small decision. Each person should at least have the right to choose what is best for them. Peace and love I'm just trolling.
abortion

First of all yes I condone murder when it is justified, I agree with the death penalty and abortion and suicide. I condone anything that gets future generations a chance at having a job and keeps the freeway moving faster. If you do a little research you will see that far more people are being born into this world then leaving it especially since the life expectancy of humans has doubles in the past few hundred years people are living way too long hence the resulting overpopulation. Your argument is so close minded and cushioned by the views and pussification of society. Life is not that sacred, people believe life is sacred because they are bias; they're alive! We are nothing but animals on a planet, specks in this vast universe. Logical thinking and realistic planning like allowing more people to die might just prolong the death of this planet for a little while longer, if not then at least it'll save me from getting robbed in ten years by those starving broke kids you thought had a right to live even though their mom's welfare check can't feed them enough after her new wardrobe and hairstyle! And are you kidding me with this not participate in sexual acts if you're not ready to give birth nonsense? Sex feels great and if you're doing it right it feels even better. It relieves stress and is a basic human need, to simply not participate (especially if you are perceived attractive by the opposite sex) is absolutely an incredibly hopeless and ridiculous notion!
Abortion

Cell : An autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as functional independent unit of life (as in the case ofunicellularorganism), or as sub-unit in a multicellularorganism (such as in plants and animals) that is specialized into carrying out particular functions towards the cause of the organism as a whole.Case 1: It is alive!When the egg is fertilized, the egg is now considered alive. The cell starts with a mouth and an anus. Literally. We classify cells as alive, and is human. So, if you really think about it, you are commuting murder. Once fertilized, the cells start rapidly replicating. This make the fetus alive. Don't use the fetus is not alive argument.Case 2: AdoptionIf you really don't want the baby, why not just adopt it out even if it is the baby of a rapist. why not give the baby a shot at life and adopt it out? Case 3: The parents take a riskExcept for the rare circumstance of rape, a baby has a chance of happening with or without protection. the parents knew of the risks and decided to take the risk anyways. This means they would be willing to take the chance of the mother getting pregnant. If you don't want a baby, adopt it out or just don't have sex.Case 4: Risks of abortionsAbortion isn't always as black and white as it seems. There are many physical and mental damages that come with abortions. (1) Abortion leads to more deaths for mothers in total, suicide, and natural causes. It also causes mental complication and risk for conditions and side-effects.Good luck!1. http://afterabortion.org...
single sex schools are more effective than co-ed schools

first I would like to point out what is the schools actual job is. They basically have to give you all of the necessary knowledge along with helping you get prepared for the life ahead of you. Now single sex schools are proved to not differ from co-ed schools in student performance, but in single sex schools you take a part of 'preparing for the life ahead' away. Students do not achieve a 'normal' childhood, since they are not in enough contact with the opposite sex. And this has a massive side effect. Students are not able to communicate properly with the opposite sex, making it harder for them to find partners or keeping one in the first place. Also sex education becomes difficult, since students didn't have much contact with the opposite sex. Being in a co-ed school also makes people more subjective. They think more creatively than students in single sex schools since in co-ed schools both boys and girls experience different emotions, which students in single sex schools can't achieve in the same level. This also means that differentiating emotions themselves, so basically knowing what you are feeling in the moment, is later on difficult for single sex students, since they didn't have enough experience in all of the emotions. http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.ncgs.org... http://www.apa.org...
single sex schools are more effective than co-ed schools

ROUND STRUCTURE 1. Acceptance 2. Opening Arguments 3. Rebuttals to opening arguments 4. Defence from rebuttals to opening arguments 5. final arguments Rules: 1. No forfeits. 3. No critics. 4. Objective thoughts ONLY 5. All sources added at the end of each round. 7. Violation of these rules results in a LOSS. good luck and have fun
Evolution, Atheism

Many people have talked about this, saying what they think and how the Universe/world was created. Atheist's and evolutionists say that the Earth created itself, they have stated why and how it was created. Of course, if you have heard of God, and Jesus, and have heard both stories, why deny the existence of God? A family member that was really close died? You don't want to believe in God? First tell me why you don't want to know God and why you don't believe that God created the world. The number one question is: "How was God "created?"" To answer this, God wasn't created, He was just there. I still ask myself, how was God created? Was their someone before Him? No, He was just there. If you have never heard of God, or heard of Jesus' story, read the Bible. If you still don't believe this, that's the only truth. No one can prove the existence of God. But you also can't deny it. Some things happen for a reason, and some don't. The second thing that the atheist and evolutionists say is: "We don't go to hell and we don't go to heaven, we rot." First of all, we don't rot, we either go to hell or heaven. People who are Christians go to Heaven, and the ones who are not, go to hell. If you still don't believe in any of this, read Genesis, still don't? There's nothing that can. It all comes down to you either believe or you don't. It's that simple.
The debate. Org website is pandering to internet users and NOT debaters.

"draw in people, Not debaters. "Are debaters not people? "debate category for CARS, But not literature"Is cars as a debate irrelavant or is literature more important. What is it? "not enough avid readers use the Internet to merit a category on this BIASED site. "You called a site biased for a reason that they do not have control over nor can they improve the situation. If avid readers are reading books how are they supposed to find debate. Org? Basically Internet users are debaters because debate. Org is a site on the Internet. To be a debater on this site you would require to be an Internet user. Your reasoning behind biases are wrong if you are trying to say it is debate. Org's fault.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

The mother who says her deformed child is beautiful is only lying........ Its hard to fathom your statement because there is a very very good chance that the mother does see her own child as beautiful. You base your opinion that she is lying on the fact that you think her child is not beautiful, BECAUSE THATS HOW YOU DEFINE BEAUTY. Just because society sometimes creates standards for what beauty is people do not follow them. I think the winner of Miss Universe is rather plain, I think that Bieber looks like a troll and needs to drop dead as soon as possible, and I still see nothing attractive about Megan Fox even though others do. Society sets standards on beauty but there will always be people who retain their own standards of what beauty is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder regardless of what society sees as beauty... Thanks for reading :D
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

There are standards for what is beauty and what is ugly. These standards vary greatly, but in the most general terms, beauty, is defined. Not to be insensitive, but deformity, and such are not considered as something beautiful. People with those are still loved because of something beyond our scope of understanding. We choose the word beautiful to replace the specific, personal uniqueness a relationship might have. When looking at this, beauty cannot be defined, but it has to be defined by what it is not. Your definition of what beauty is, may vary from mine, but your views of what beauty is not, may be quite similar to majority of the people. The whole event of Miss Universe or any beauty pageant, is to put a standard on beauty; and they have successfully done so. When the winner is chosen, she is now the new standard for beauty for many people. Even if you do not agree with the result of the contest, you immediately get the idea that she is beautiful. Right there, when they tell you this is prettiest woman in the world, they have placed a standard of beauty. People will follow that standard, which makes the idea that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Before Justin Bieber became famous, people would have looked at him like any other teenager. After all that hype about his breakthrough, people imitate his hair style, his cloths and his looks. Again, a standard was set for what beauty looks like. The example of a mother and a deformed child is to prove the point that beauty is merely a word used to replace another to mean the strong connection between them. The mother does not really think her baby is beautiful, she is merely using that to demonstrate love. Bluntly, she is lying. The idea that you can lie about something like beauty, means it must, to a degree, have a definite answer. People cannot lie unless there is a truth to be hidden from. Many contests place a set value on beauty. From expensive masterpieces, to neighborhood garden contests, people will judge and with that, they will define something that is good. Irregardless of what some of the skeptics believe, if the piece of art of garden won a contest, then by default, that object is beautiful.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder can be justified if one person sees someone as beautiful and someone else doesnt, there is no set definition of what is beautiful and everyone else has their own standards. There may be a generalization of what is considered beautiful but that does not mean everybody adheres to those standards. When you say that no one falls in love with someone who is ugly, you are basing that on your idea of what ugly is, and just like how everyone has a different concept of what it is to be beautiful, everyone also has their own idea of what being ugly is. Telling someone a lie that they are pretty is not doing so because they are complying with utilitarianism views, they are telling them that because they are being nice to them and want to be respectful to them. Yes there are events that judge who is the most beautiful, like Miss Universe, but that does not mean everybody agrees with the ruling. I personally thought Miss Philippines should have won, others may think someone else should have won, and that happens because beauty is in the eyes of the beholder/judge A mother may not believe their deformed child is the most beautiful, they will however love that child regardless of the condition of the child. That relates to mother-child ties not the perception of beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder because each and every person has their own idea of what beauty is. There is no universally accepted standard of what a beautiful person looks like, so people can set their own standards and thus be their own judge of what beauty is.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Beauty, although is a relative term, has became a word that cannot be separated from society's impact on its definition. People have, for as long as love existed, placed a view on beauty. From the medieval days, when the king sought out the prettiest lady of the land, to the present, when people get to choose their partners. Barbie has been a figure, a role model of what beauty is; tall, blonde, and thin. Beauty is ultimately tied in with fashion, and fashion changes over time. Since the fashion industry is both shaped by the preference of the consumers and the creative talents of the designers, it can be said that it is people who choose the latest fashion. Going back to my previous point, beauty is chosen by people, and there is a generalization of what is beautiful and what is not. True love endures through the good and the bad. When one person becomes disfigured, the other still show love. The beauty described is not the physical beauty but rather the idea that what they once were. No one falls in love with someone who is ugly, there has to be an alternative reason for love. When people, despite asked for their honesty, tell a lie to make someone feel better, it proves the point that there are guidelines for beauty. The liar is merely fitting into utilitarianism views. If beauty was truly in the eyes of the beholder, then celebrities will have much less relationship problems and scandals. There are whole events trying to put a "number" or value on beauty such as Miss Universe. If a baby comes out deformed, the mother will still think he or she is the most beautiful babe in the world. The mother is not saying that the baby is beautiful, but the relationship between the baby and the mother is something greater than that which meets the eye.
Water Pokemon are the best choice for your starter Pokemon.

Please put the type you will be arguing for.I belive water pokemon are the best starters because of these points:1: it has been proved by science that squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) is the best starter.2: The Creators of the starters choose Squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) over the other two.3: Water pokemon are the best type (in my opinion)4: In this top ten list Water is ranked Number 2 (only dragon type is beating it by 4%)5: Water pokemon are normally the cutest 1: it has been proved by science that squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) is the best starter.Water pokemon have been proven to be better here is the link for you to look at:source: http://kotaku.com......2: The Creators of the starters choose Squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) over the other two. Here is an excerpt from this site: (I take no credit for what is writen. this not my own work) Shigeru Ohmori, on the other hand, states a quite contrary opinion. Ever since the early beginnings of the Pokémon games, he has been the water-type guy. Back inPokémon Red and Blue, he picked Squirtle, while in Ruby and Sapphire Mudkip was the starter he chose. After hearing Ohmori speak about generation 3, Masuda also mentioned his favourite. Coincidentally, it is the only one that got a mega evolution inPokémon X and Y, Torchic. “I’m a huge fan of Torchic. I don’t know if you saw the intro movie of Pokémon X & Y, but I really pushed to get Torchic in there because its one of my favorite Pokémon. And even back with the Game Boy Advance SP, when Nintendo was making that, I actually made a request to them to make a Torchic-colored Game Boy Advanced SP.”Source: http://shinigaming.com......3: Water pokemon are the best type (in my opinion)Water pokemon are the best because look at the way this works: Fire = strong attack/weak defence. Grass = Strong Defence/weak attack. Water = Both attack and defence are good4: In this top ten list Water is ranked Number 2 (only dragon type is beating it by 4%)Link: http://www.thetoptens.com......5: Water pokemon are normally the cutest Water pokemon are always so cute look at piplup, squirtle, totodile, and frookie. They are all so cute!Sources:http://www.thetoptens.com......http://shinigaming.com......;http://kotaku.com......;
Water Pokemon are the best choice for your starter Pokemon.

A few things to consider before accepting:1. I have never played the DS game before (My info will come from online and the card game)2. This is not a debate where you pick grass because grass has an advantage over water. (do not match them up in battle)3.You will have to choose a starter type to argue for (grass or Fire)4. Please be fair no trolling5. When voting don't be biased.6. Do not base your arguments off of your own pokemon in your games (i.e. "My level 55 charizard could beat a fraigater easily")7.Please do some research before accepting.8.Please choose the type you favor to argue for. Not one that is statistically better R1:accept R2: Lay out your argumentR3: Attack other person argumentR4: Defend your argumentR5: Final wordsHave fun!
The ultimate success. Islam

00 days 00 hour 42 minutes 31 seconds The ultimate success. What do you mean by "ultimate" success? The final success or simply the best success there is. I'll define it as the latter choice. Well, it's not. I won't go into the reasons too deeply due to time and a very, very unexpected mock exam. Here's the basic gist of it. 1. Islam as divined by the Quran in native Arabic, is contrary to the concept of ultimate success. Success is a very subjective concept different to ones means and interests. The best way of achieving INDIVIDUAL ultimate success is absolute freedom, the right to do whatever the hell you want when ever the hell you want. Islam has restrictions? Correct? And there for it's against my freedoms and ergo, my success. 2. You can't achieve success if you follow statement with are out right logically impossible . Inheritance law. A man dies leaving behind three daughters, two parents and a wife, they will receive: 2/3 for the 3 daughters together [4:11] 1/6 for the parents together [4:11] 1/8 for the wife [4:12] 15/24 9/8 is impossible. [Sutra 4:11-12] -http://www.muslimaccess.com... - The words translate to fractions. eg wahidinminhuma (one in/of the third) in the Romanised texts it would translate to wa-hida-????, or wain?????. So the inconsistency is verified in it's own language. 3. Even when given that Islam is the true faith and I summit to Ali-Allah(God most high) and become one of his followers wouldn't be better to be his equal or to even surpass him? =========================================================================== "It is a fact that in the world, there is no law which completely address all aspects of life i.e. Criminal, family, spiritual, international, war-fare, environment etc... With all their respective penalties. And claims divinity. No other. So it sweeps the prize by default." There are many, I'll give you one: The mitzvot all 613 of them. [http://www.jewfaq.org...] Thank you. 00 days 00 hour 8 minutes 07 seconds
The ultimate success. Islam

By defination, Islam is "Total submission" in this case to the creator of all things "GOD". It is the most successful way of life mankind will ever know. It is the only way proposed by the architect of our existance. It is a fact that in the world, there is no law which completely address all aspects of life i.e. Criminal, family, spiritual, international, war-fare, environment etc... With all their respective penalties. And claims divinity. No other. So it sweeps the prize by default.
holloween or valintines day

And one final anti valentines day argument. Valentines day is basically a beauty contest: I will refer back to the elitist and sadistic group known as the "popular kids" who, every valentines day are swamped with cards while some poor acne ridden child goes without any, so basically valentines day is nothing more than a beauty contest in which the attractive kids strut about like dominant chickens whilst they get tons of cards from others. Halloween however is the opposite, you are dressed in a horrific costume and still get gifts. And everyone is equal when it comes to Halloween (except that kid who went as a mattress covered in tape)
holloween or valintines day

I'm starting to get the idea of this debate. but here are some more anti valentines day arguments. It entices rejection and false hope: Valentines day is basically another excuse for the elitist group called the "popular kids" to laugh at those inferior to themselves. It causes people to get false hopes into their heads by believing that they can get into a relationship with someone just by sending them a card, which mostly ends in rejection. Halloween is the opposite of this because everyone is entitled to candy and no one gets left out.