BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lyoto Machida has an advantage over Mauricio "Shogun" Rua

"first you don't have an argument so you don't know what you are talking about " IF you actually READ what i wrote, you would've know that i specifically said to comment before accepting so i could post up my argument. Unfortunately that didn't click for you. "lyoto is weak he lost to many fight" Obviously you know nothing about UFC. Lyota machida is un-deafeted in his career. He has not lost one fight in his MMA record. Unlike shogun who has multiple losses. "no power or nothing so give it up he has no strategy no nothing" Everything he does is strategy! I have not seen one of his fights that have lacked this. Lack of power? You clearly don't know what your talking about. Dear readers, i am sorry, but the way i see it this debate is pointless. My opponent has no idea of what either of these fighters records are. On another note, he has is no way said anything about shoguns advantage. Please dis-regard this debate. I will be starting the same debate with comoncents, hopefully someone who knows what he is talking about, (which i am under the impression that he is) Thankyou -Philosophical
Venom vs Wolverine

Again though, by nature your particular symbiote is flawed in that he is driven towards survival. He stopped the symbiote takeover because they were even more survival centered than he. Letting them run rampant actually decreases his pool to choose from. Some symbiotes even became stronger than him because their instinct went unchecked. He displays a drive towards survival at all costs and this is what makes him easy overall to identify as a villain, and easy to predict as a foe. Also, to expand on the tuning fork idea because I thought it was interesting, a far fall in that initial struggle to takeover his mind could be enough to dislodge him anyways. He can't manipulate the skeleton either ... whatever form he'd try to take, this metal skeleton would be present in his makeup somewhere as foreign material that he couldn't destroy. I don't see a stab working if the majority of the biomass is still Intact ... it'll likely regenerate. Drowning maybe ... but again ... to do it fully he would already have to have full control (which has always been a historically difficult process with heroes since their intentions do not align. They aren't as easy to mind control and identify signs of hostile takeover earlier). With full possession though, wolverine would be able to breathe in water, and venom inclined to preserve him, because he'd want to feed and survive off of him. That's assuming of course venom is even able to get that far with possession. His success sheet isn't very long. Wolverine's kill sheet would extend many pages. He's a beast. My final argument comes from this universe and not the Marvel one. Fact is Wolverine as a character has brought in more money, has more fans, more love as a hero, and more vested interest by the writers to survive than venom ever will have. If there were ever an obscure comic released where this fight happened, and venom won, it would be labeled as illegitimate by the community and wolverine would show up again elsewhere. Wolverine as an idea and as a comic book character will live on long after venom. He's a damn poster child of Marvel comics! That image you posted above was made to have venom look like wolverine for that very reason ... to draw wolverine fans over and get the attention of otherwise disinterested readers. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but venom is a B-Comic Book character. He's like a Psylocke or Adam Warlock (wont even get into how much of a joke venom looks against him ).
Venom vs Wolverine

"I seem to recall Wolverine surviving massive brain injuries before with only some memory loss as an effect." That was an adimantium bullet to the head bro. Venom has super strength, he is actually stronger than spider-man. Spider-Man was able to hold up the whole Daily Bugle, allowing people to escape. Now think about that strength multiplied by 2 coming directly into your face. Plus Venom could raise an army of Symbiotes. As I said before, his kind took over the whole world and he was the one who stopped it. He could still manipulate Wolverine to do his biddings. Plus, if you think about it there are a ton of what ifs, Eddie can make Wolverine put his fists up to his head make him shoot out his claws, make Wolverine stab himself in the heart making his healing powers limited then make him shoot his claws in his brain. Plus, Wolverine you can drown. He won't come back becuase he regenrates cell and tissue.I should have added that the area of this debate is Washington Bridge
Venom vs Wolverine

I seem to recall Wolverine surviving massive brain injuries before with only some memory loss as an effect. (2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine) In that same movie they do note how regenerative mutants can be ended by severing the head, yes. Bu you'd have to take into account how something like that would be possible by the person doing it ... While possessed even, he would have to have enough momentum behind his hand to ensure the blade fully passed through his neck (containing an adamantium spine). I can only imagine this act would take multiple hacks to accomplish ... and wolverine could not pass out from his own blood loss before finishing the deed. I recall at no time that venom was able to control a dead specimen ... as they actually feed off the living host. 2 other points that come to mind: 1) Being that symbiotes are sensitive to sound waves and reverberations, it seems like posessing essentially a walking tuning fork would be a bad idea. 2) Symbiotes have been portrayed as very one-track-minded and animalistic. The thought that Venom would even ever have the inclination to kill such a powerful host when it would be far better to just continue to possess it is beyond me. They seem too intent on survival to ever want to lose an opportunity like that.
Venom vs Wolverine

I do not agree with my fellow debator. Wolverines adamantium claws can cut through almost anything right? So my question is, when Venom gets inside of Wolverine, and then makes wolverine stab hismself in the skull, he could decapitate him self, scatter his body parts around. Or he could make a spear and show it through his eye making it go into his brain, there are countless ways for Venom to kill him.
Venom vs Wolverine

So lets start then by defining what you think a "Win" is. From a death perspective a symbiote by definition can never truly win because its life is directly tied to the life of its host. It only ever gains in power by assimilating the memories and traits of the previous hosts. By himself he isn't much to contend with. Wolverines regenerative ability makes a hard case for the fact that whatever Venom might try to do, Wolverine would still live on. Also Venom's various tendrils and formations of blades are all made from the same material. Wolverine is a symbiote of his own kind ... one of inanimate/indestructible material and a completely destructible/regenerative outside control system. Even mocking him as symbiotes do, I dont believe Venom could make of himself a material that could compare to adamantium out of the biological material from which he's made. If by "Win" you mean "masquerade around in his body for a bit" or "give him an beatdown" then sure. But essentially he wont truly defeat Wolverine.
Venom vs Wolverine

My question to you is. How is wolverine going to stop the symbiote taking over his mind.Venoms daughter carnage, was able to take over all of the avengers at once.(Carnage USA Part 2)His own kind took over a whole planet. The Amazing Spider-Man Super Special #1 (April 1995)So my question is, why can't he take over wolverine, in past comics he has taken out wolverine (Wolverine and the X-Men Vol 14) On the cover it shows the symbioted wolverine.Plus, Venom has close to unlimited webbing. He could easily web him up and beat the poop out of him.Venom also has a higher strength than wolverine. He also has a higher speed than wolverine. With his strength and power he could easily make a symbiote weapon, and beat the poop out of wolverine. I am not talking about a flimsy plastic bat. I mean he would literally grab a piece of debris, and smash the pretty out of his face.I would also like to add that wolverine would not be able to attack Venom. He has a enhanced spidersense. Therefore even if wolverine used stealth he would be able to attack him.
The US government should end welfare

I would like to thank my opponennt for this chance to debate this topic however I feel that the resolution would be better renamed The US government should end TANF since TANF does not cover all welfare but my three arguments in favor of ending welfare are as follows C1:The Proper Role of Government My entire first contention is basically espoused in this document by Ezra Taft Benson USDA secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com... It can be summarized as follows Governments are created by the people All governmental authority must be delegated to it by the people People cannot delegate authority they do not posses Welfare takes money from people who do not have it and gives it to someone else If a private citizen did this he would be imprisoned for robbery, so it follows that an individual does not have the power to take from one person. If a citizen does not have this power he cannot delegate it to the government Therefore my first contention is that government is unjust and basically baldfaced robbery that forces people to be charitable whether they want to or not C2:Economics a)Macroeconomics The Federal government alone spent 360 Billion dollars on welfare as we have defined it[1] This is not including Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security just for starters. This is no small amount and will continue to grow the Federal Deficit and debt to an unsustainable point, if you want to see what happens when a government has a debt that is to large or spends way more than they make just take a look at what is happening in Greece or Spain right now. b)Microeconomics The other problem with welfare has previously been alluded to it is the simple fact that people are getting paid for nothing. They do nothing and yet get paid, how do they get paid by the taxes of hardworking Americans eventually we are going to get realize that we can get a free ride and we will quit our jobs and stop paying taxes eventually there will come a permanent welfare class that subsists primarily on government support These being the primary reasons I believe the United States should end welfare [1]http://www.gpoaccess.gov...
The US government should end welfare

The question is whether welfare should be ended. I will argue against getting rid of it. Defintions: Welfare: TANF End: Repeal the law and stop making payments to beneficiaries How the debate will work: Round 1 - Opponent accepts definitions and rules of debate. Round 2 - We explain our positions. Why it should be ended, and why it should not be. Round 3 - We try to refute the others arguments. Round 4 - Same as Round 3
Collidal Silver- science based debate on its effectiveness and the lying propaganda aginst it

You're kidding right? You think that silver nitrate counts as evidence for colloidal silver? I have an argument for you. H2O kills all viruses, molds, bacteria, and parasites. I submit that this is true because I have study "X" here which shows that when H2SO4 (note that's H2O + SO2) has these staggering powers! That's right, water is amazing and should keep you healthy because Sulphuric acid is effective against something. I don't need to cut and paste large tracts of text from non-sense websites, I actually know such things. The Wikipedia and Quackwatch cites were DreamingBearCat's as was the opening argument. In fact, if you note, DreamingBearCat actually originally cited that asm.org paper as grounds for believing silver nitrate could be effective for somethings. If you honestly believe that citing an unrelated paper involving a silver compound means that little bits of colloidal silver do things which studies demonstrate they do not do... then I'm sorry. The tribe has spoken. You aren't even vaguely scientifically minded. From your rants, there was little by which one could come to the conclusion that you had bad reasoning as you never stayed on topic long enough to present any reasoning (though this might have been a rather large indicator in itself). Here, you have given horrific reasons why we should believe such a thing and as such you have shown yourself to be a complete failure when it comes to scientific understanding. You have the audacity to accuse other people of not being scientific and you try to pretend that "silver nitrate" is "silver"? AgNO3 = Ag. I would suggest that you should be ashamed, but I don't think you'd understand why.
Collidal Silver- science based debate on its effectiveness and the lying propaganda aginst it

Ok since you provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER I will simply point out your FALSE STATEMENTS and make you PROVE them with PERR REVIEWED PUBLISHED LITERATURE FROM A REPUTABLE JOURNAL, as I have done YOUR FALSE UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS I suppose one might also offer cancers and certain toxic exposures, for example arygria caused ingesting silver. They apparently manage to do amazing helpful things and aren't effective at all in lab studies. Silver has been known for centuries, and has very few side effects... in fact, it has very few effects period Also, oddly enough, silver dollars don't dissolve. Believe it or not you actually need to electrolyze the silver to get it off something silver. Compare recovery between the half that got the test substance and that half that didn't. Lo and behold... Colloidal Silver produced no difference in recovery or mortality. This is the kind of test done and failed ergo the reason the FDA doesn't allow you to make claims that this stuff cures anything. They use to also prescribe you mercury to drink, it was a fantastic laxative (mostly because it was heavy and pushed). Most of the rest of this crap is cut and pasted. Though the asm.org study you posted is a real study. But it isn't about Colloidal Silver, rather it's silver nitrate. This causes one massive difference, rather than just causing you to turn blue, the AgNO3 is toxic to bacteria AND humans. If you honestly feel that that study is evidence for your claim, I honestly feel bad for you. I hope you are just being deceitful, dishonest and lying because the alternative is that you are so scientifically ignorant as to warrant pity. MY RETORT 100% of your statements are lies, or just false due to your ignorance of Chemisty and Epidemiology The only source you use is wikipedia, which I also use (ref 8) which is the ONLY peer reviewed paper of real science in the references again that real science shows a 0.9ppm soluton of Ag ions kills 100% of E Coli in a period of 13 hours taratarize, I know that you just want to try and be a foil to me , but you are not even near in the league here to try and debate me CONCLUSION My sincere hope is that debate.org members learn the incredible nature and value of CS and that it benefits them and their health I laid out plenty of facts, science and references in the last argument, and they are now part of the permament record here for anyone to view SOLARMAN cheers SOLARMAN
Collidal Silver- science based debate on its effectiveness and the lying propaganda aginst it

You previously debated this subject and were defeated by a four to one margin by a teenager. As I believe his (DreamingBearCat) argument to be sound as well as well researched I submit it as my opening statement. I will happily defend his claims (now my claims) if you can manage to refute theim. ---------------- The FDA bans the promotion of colloidal silver as a drug (it's available as a supplement) for one simple reason: they're required to by law. Not some specific law aimed at colloidal silver, not even one targeted at "alternative medicine." Just the normal, everyday requirement that a drug be proven in clinical studies to be effective. In fact, not one study has ever shown it to be effective in treating, preventing, or otherwise benefiting people suffering from, any disease. In fact, colloidal silver has been shown to be largely ineffective against bacteria. In 1995, an advocate of colloidal silver tested various brands available. Only half of them showed any ability to halt bacterial growth on a petri dish, and none of them showed any strength beyond that of hand soap. Secondly, aside from there being no evidence that silver can attack viruses, there is no possible mechanism for it to do so. Viruses are not living organisms; they are fragments of DNA that hijack other cells' processes to reproduce themselves, and each one uses very specific chemical pathways to achieve this. Because of this, antivirals are extremely specific to the diseases they can treat—Tamiflu, for instance, is useless against AIDS but very effective against influenza. If somehow silver did screw with the pathway that one virus uses, there are literally millions of others that don't use that pathway. Third, silver is dangerous. There is a condition called argyria caused by too much exposure to silver. It is generally not life threatening. It simply causes you to irreversibly turn blue as silver accumulates in your skin, and can affect your vision as silver becomes deposited in the fluid inside of your eye. (There may actually be more serious effects. Since argyria is rare, few human studies have been done, but experiments on guinea pigs suggest that they may interfere with normal growth if used before maturity.) And, as a note specifically toward Solarman, making it on your own increases the chance of getting argyria compared to buying "professionally" made concoctions. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.quackwatch.org... ------ Colloidal (spelled with two 'o's) silver it's doesn't cure anything and it turns you bluish-silver. ------ I would also like to point out, though not related to the topic exactly that, that I am appalled you give that crap to your baby.
Collidal Silver- science based debate on its effectiveness and the lying propaganda aginst it

Hello out there debate.org members Do you have ANY background in hard science, logic and Chemistry? Do you want to have a real debate on the subject of colloidal silver and its effectiveness as a patheogen destructor and health aid? I didnt mean to be a snob before, I was hoping for a minimum BS candidate to debate, but none came - so if you want to take it up, I will be happy to debate you there obviously isnt any scientists here on debate.org yet , so I will be happy to take up the subject with you ,a layperson, if you like THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT and MY GOAL IS TO HELP YOUR HEALTH sincerely SOLARMAN
Pac-man is to hyperactive for his own health

Thank you for responding PRO. Sir your argument is "He is constantly on the move from console to console recreating the same game over and over.. its becoming useless...' And I refuted. I made opposition, however confusing and poor comedic attempts they may be, to your claim. I stated that in other games[3], since you mention "console to console" referring to video games, that he has the ability to not move and therefore not hyperactive. And also it is not the same "console to console". And to refute your claim that there is no son. Due to show a show that Hannah-Barbara[2] (famous cartoonists) created, there is in fact a son[1]. And to add on, he 'not moves' in the show too. Sir you can not call my claims irrelevant when in fact they cover your argument. So please, I insist you acknowledge the fact that I have refuted successfully or you elaborate so I may reasonably refute to your claims, otherwise we both do not make sense. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(TV_series) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... - (3-d rendered, big change in Pac-Man games)
Pac-man is to hyperactive for his own health

-"I deny the claim saying he is constantly on the move. There are a multitude of games"- First off I would like to thank my opponent for supporting my argument. -"games that Pac Man has been on that he has been able to stop and just stand there"- Lolwut? IIIIIRELEVANT!- -"I'm sure the Pac Man you are referring to is the great great grandfather of whom I'm referring to."- I'm confused.. there has been 1 pac-man (besides ms. pac-man).. No son of pac-man.. and he has been on almost eleventiesix games for many consoles. -"Or in other words, people back then didn't really given it thought to have a feature as to why Pac Man should stop. But I digress. Pac Man can stop."- I am happy you noticed this.. but its just IIIIIRELEVENT!-
Pac-man is to hyperactive for his own health

I deny the claim saying he is constantly on the move. There are a multitude of games that Pac Man has been on that he has been able to stop and just stand there. So I believe that your statement is false. I'm sure the Pac Man you are refering to is the great great grandfather of whom I'm refering to. Or in other words, people back then didn't really given it thought to have a feature as to why Pac Man should stop. But I digress. Pac Man can stop.
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Hello, and happy thanksgiving to you all! You said: "you continue to say that immigrants are a important part of our society but I keep showing you its not true" Allright, we are obiously not on the same page. Definitions of society: "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession" - Merriam-websters.com They have PROFESSIONS that serve the needs of other Americans, so they are part of society. "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another" -Merriam-websters.com They INTERACT with Americans, so they are part of society. "a natural group of plants usually of a single species or habit within an association" -merriam-websters.com They are plants, so they are a society. Wait…never mind. That one doesn't work. 8?) Putting that aside, you continuously complain that 13% of "our" citizens are impoverished. Would you like to know the figures for Mexico? Here they are: In the year 2002, half the population of Mexico was in poverty, and 1/5 of the population was in extreme poverty. In 2002, access to sanitation was recorded as 80%, only 4/5 of the population. As of 2002, 4% to 9% of people in Mexico lived on less than one dollar a day. Mexico is just one example. Countries such as Guatemala, are probably even worse. "The illegals trying to escape there povery but in doing so they put another person in it" You need to treat illegal immigrants as your equals. What would REALLY be putting someone in poverty is if you deported 13 million people into countries SURROUNDED by "povery". There are plenty of jobs in America. I feel bad for those people that are impoverished and live in America. The reason they are impoverished has almost nothing to do with illegal immigration. 40% of those in poverty are children. These children are obviously not looking for jobs. The reasons for being in poverty are often linked primarily to lack of affordable housing, or addictions to drugs or alcohol. Your solution would not cut the poverty rate in half. We are here to debate: "Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S." Let's please not get off track, republican view. I was only proposing that we try to reduce this time. We could use better systems for doing it. Specifics of another solution are not important, when we are discussing your solution. My solution is that we put effort into making the illegal immigrants into citizens. That is basically what I am arguing towards.