BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

broken Index Knuckle, http://thesuiteworld.com... This isn't a reliable resource. I am not able to defend my case any beyond the theoretical. Which was conveniently my opponent's strategy also. This image was not certainly a wound from punching someone. IT is ONLY an image of a broke index knuckle. When compared to broken pinky and ring knuckles, it is quite evident exactly how much strong this knuckle is. However, If you punched someone ONLY with the index, having attempting to include the MIddle, then, You are hooking - likely the skull bone - with one knuckle, and can break it. I am quite sure I know street fighters that broke their whole hand. Lots of my friends were gang fighters in school. Either way. My theoretical claim that administering a full blunt force Blow with 1-2 knuckles is more dangerous and risky then using 3-4 knuckles. I like using my Pinky Knuckle. - U just need to warm it up
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Thank you GoOrDin, for staying in this debate. Now, how can you break your hand with your two strongest knuckles? If your unlucky and unskilled, yes you probably would like with any other punch. If your going to execute an 4 knuckle punch, you are equaling out the impact around your knuckles, it is still theoretically puting your hand in risk of breaking it. You would also cause more damage only by concertinaing on your two powerful knuckles and for some certain knuckles you can even tear flesh, you can see some in boxing, Boxers tear flesh some times (Especially bare knuckle fights), of course depending on the knuckles. For some knuckles your two strongest are further away from the palm than the ring and pinky knuckles you could naturally cause a 2 knuckle punch without even knowing , look at your knuckles now, see the shape? Of course different people have different knuckles but the majority has that type of structure. So when you try to do an 4 knuckle punch you could just end up doing a 2 knuckle one and whats the difference? Well, you would know if you actually did a 4 knuckle punch, you would feel it, it would hurt a lot.
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

well. I can't argue with a military man regarding a fist fight. So he earned a valid credit here. But my opponent's reference to a Professional was redundant. I suppose the thing is, that BY administering enough force to break your pinky or Ring fingers in a 4 knuckle blow, would actually indicate that you never used your Index finger at all. Therefor it is an invalid example of the flaw of a 4 knuckle punch. But he did address it as being a risk. Likewise though, in a 2 knuckle punch, You can collide with bone with only your middle or index finger, and a full blow with one knuckle on bone can lead to you breaking your main digits. I would suggest that not throwing a full force blow is logical - to maintain swiftness, dexterity and accuracy. Thus making even a PINKY Punch effective and risk free.
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Now, lets say your average street fight, no professional MMA fighters, just your average citizen (Of course it depends on the person if he or she does self defense or any type of Martial arts) I bet that depending how bad or good the fighter is, it will end up either with a broken hand (Or other body parts) Or just slight pain. Now The two strongest knuckles will cause damage and not risk your hand being broken or in pain in any way, than using your 4 knuckles and here's why: Naturally you will aim for the head/face and depending on your knuckles can cause pain if you hit the head/face with all 4 just because the other two (Ring and Pinky) are the weakest bones in your hand so there is no point in risking breaking your hand during a fight because you used all 4 is it not better when you have a near 100% chance that you won't break your hand using only two of your knuckles. But of course you don't know what could happen in the streets. Now lets talk military wise, I have a friend that served in the Irish military for 6 years and he personally told me that using 2 of your knuckles is better than all 4. Now I asked him "Why? " he just said that in war effected countries you just cannot simply risk your hand being broken, just because you really need it and if you do have a broken hand in one of those war effected countries, your basically screwed. Ok, now for professional fighters, they are trained well and also they have gloves (Depending on the Martial arts) they would take less impact while wearing gloves than bear handed. In some situations they can risk breaking a hand in boxing for example. But its better not risk it at all. Your basically giving the same damage with out the risk.
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

Now, I must admit, I don't punch too many people, or things. BUT, theoretically. The amount of Force emitted form a Punch is so much greater then the strength of your Knuckles, that the Force distribution on impact is more effectively administered if you use the greater number of knuckles. using less increases the amount of stress per knuckle. In addition, I am presenting the claim that we are discussing a competent fighter; and wrist strength, and technique (to ensure that you have accuracy*** a huge thing when landing 4 or 2 knuckles) to make sure that you do not twist your wrist or break a knuckle by only landing 1-3. So. I hope to hear what you have to say.
Punching with your two strongest knuckles is better than punching with all four.

According to some of my friends, they think punching with all 4 knuckles is better than your 2 strongest knuckles, I just want to say that if you punch with all 4 it is more likely to break or hurt your hand in a fight or just breaking items with a punch in martial arts. I also stop by a website ( http://lifehacker.com... ) and here is a quote from the website. "[It's] known as a Front Punch, or a Front Two Knuckle Punch. It is extremely important that you align the first two knuckles in your hand with the bones in your forearm for maximum structure so you don't hurt yourself. Commonly people will hit with their ring/pinky knuckles and break their hand (known as a boxer's break) and that obviously impedes your ability to fight." This is open to everyone so please comment on your idea on how a punch should be performed in either a fight or just to basic items, like wood for example.
Should Girls be allowed to play on Boys sports team

Being that there is no other argument apart from the athleticism of men to women, I will dispute that. Though a push for equality is important in American and other western societies, this does not ignore biological differences in men and women. Men physically have a higher capability of forming muscle through testosterone. Testosterone also creates a different bone structure to that of women. This gives men the ability to grow more muscle, and overall have a larger body appearance. Some examples of why men and women are in separate sports are prominent through swimming, running, basketball, and soccer. The first example is in swimming where Katie Ledecky, who has the record by 9 seconds of all women to ever compete in the 400m freestyle, is still 16 seconds behind the men's world record. In running, women's world records closely resemble a division 3 men's division champion team, which is far less than men Olympic runners. Third we have basketball where NCAA Division 1 men's teams average 67 points per game, and women's teams average only 60 points. Lastly in soccer the no. 5 women's soccer team in the world lost 7-0 to a 15u men's soccer team. These show the disparity in men's and women's sports ability, as well as the biological reason as to why these disparities occur. Because of these, women would not be able to prosper on men's teams, and it could result in the belittling of women compared to men. Sources: -http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... -https://www.nih.gov... -https://en.wikipedia.org... -http://www.livestrong.com... -http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

1. Paul disagrees. - Ephesians 1:4-5: (KJV) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, That we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, According to the good pleasure of his will. Predetermined pretty much means the same thing as predestined. This verse is saying that God chose us (before the foundation of the world) to be holy and without blame. We could only be without blame if we are saved. He determined our destinies for adoption of children to Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will. This is basically a summary of unconditional election. I fail to see how this could mean anything but what I've explained above. 2. John 6: 36-37 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, And believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. - In this context, Jesus is talking about how He is the bread of life. He says above to the pharisees (and the non-believers) that they had seen the miracles that he had performed and yet did not believe in Him. He then says that all the people that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him. Does God give everyone to Jesus? No. Therefore, He only gives some. 3. Acts 13:4848 And when the Gentiles heard this, They were glad, And glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This verse blatantly shows that God ordains some to eternal life. The Gentiles who weren't ordained didn't believe. 4. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, Brethren beloved of the Lord, Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think this puts the nail in the coffin. God chose (predestined) the believers that Paul was talking to unto salvation! I await your arguments, -Juke
Islam misunderstood

First off let me say thank you for a speedy reply. I say we should debate this way: you should provide evidence or arguments for Islam and I will provide evidence and arguments against Islam. Since I am taking the atheist stance you must prove that Islam is correct as suggested in your opening statement. I also say that round two should be for stating our claims (and I will refute a few of yours). First off you claim that animals follow god's will because they have had that "programmed" into them. This is false. You are using to god to explain a natural phenomena, evolution. Evolution via natural selection has caused animals to exhibit the characteristics that they do, it has nothing to do with god. The instinct that god "programmed" into them is merely the result natural selection where by the animals that did not have X instinct died out thus the animals with it survived and passed it on. God is not needed. Also, I agree that Islam is massively shown to be an "evil" religion when it really isn't (any more so than any other). But regarding the claim that it was not spread by the sword. This is false. Around the years 622-632, almost all of the Arabian Peninsula was taken over via conquests. Then by 632-661 much of Northern Africa and Southern Europe was taken in the same manner. It is true that these conquests were not as violent as the Christian Crusades but they were still violent thus proving that the Islamic Empire was spread by the sword. One more thing, you claim that "faith isn't evidence but the logic behind the faith is". First off, what is the logic you are referring to and how is logic evidence? If anything it would be the contrary. (allow me to pull in some science) The logical conclusion about elementary particles would be that they are just 0 dimensional points, point particles but there is minimal evidence to back that up. In fact, there is more evidence to back up the illogical deduction that they are actually vibrating strings. In some camps logic may cut it for evidence but in the god debate it sure doesn't. In conclusion: You must prove god is real and the Islamic god is the true one. (During the next round I will post arguments against god) ~~Peter
Islam misunderstood

To start things off I'll begin with the meaning of Islam, which is "Acquiring peace through submission". Now many people as soon as they hear the word submission assume the worst of it, but we are taught that this is the best thing you can do in this life is to submit your will to the will of God, meaning that we do that which God has asked us to do because we believe that God, the one who created us, also knows what is best for us. A man that works all day to buy the things that he thinks will bring him peace and happiness has also submitted his will, he has submitted his will to his own desires. However, we believe that that peace and happiness will never come from chasing your desires but the opposite, it comes from sustaining from them. It makes sense to me that we were put on this earth as a trial because when you look around you can notice that everything has already submitted to the will of God, animals function off instinct because that's the way God "programmed" them, so in that sense they have submitted their will to god because they have no other choice other than the way God made them. We also have instinct, but we can choose to ignore our instinct and make logical choices, that's why this a test for us because if we have the ability to make a choice we have the responsibility to make the right one. In this sense do I believe that Islam is the truth because although faith isn't evidence the logic behind the faith is. PS. There's plenty of scientific evidence in the quran let me know if you want to dabble into that. Also another thing which I want to get out of the way right now and we'll hopefully not have to come back to is that I know that there are some muslims (muslims by name) who you hear of on the news burning down churches and yelling "War with the West", this is not the muslim way, the only time violence is excepted in Islam is when it's used to protect your home. These people that you see doing these things and chanting these phrases are people born into the faith and inspired by the mob, that is all. Islam does NOT promote violence, there are Christians that have lived in Arabic countries for generations and generations who can testify to that. If Islam was spread by sword these people would've long been Muslims by now, but this is not the way of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who is the best example of a good Muslim.
Avengers vs X-Men

Opponent makes the claim that the rest of the Avengers would be helping Susan out. However, from the arguments from before against the Avengers, we can effectively eliminate four members from the Avengers: Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow; and Hawkeye. Which leaves for the Avengers opponent mentioned: Hulk Thor Invisible Woman However, he has not tried to figure out HOW to defeat the X-Men, rather, he simply copies and pastes powers from the wiki page of his Avenger. So that leaves all 5 I mentioned: Professor X Storm Wolverine Cyclops Magneto All very strong and adept at fighting. X and Storm would defeat Invisible Woman for the reasons used in R3, leaving the Hulk and Thor, who are also both remarkably powerful. However, with the worlds most powerful telepath, a manipulator of magnetic fields, manipulator of weather, extremely potent fighter, and one with a high concentration laser, it seems near obvious who would win. While the Hulk and Thor are both highly durable, they are NOT invincible. They are both able to be killed after multiple extremely powerful attacks. While they may be able to withstand it at first, with powers of that nature, they won't be able to attack, as they would need to focus on defending themselves from the onslaught of forces. Not to mention, both Thor and the Hulk are remarkably Melee-based. With only one melee-based member on the X-Men that I listed, the X-Men would simply need to attack at a range and keep clear of the enemy attacks. In conclusion: Out of the seven avengers opponent mentioned and the five X-Men I listed, the X-Men are easily able to take care of the Avengers. Opponent provides no way in which the Avengers could win, simply stating that they could and listing the hero's powers. Overall, with the evidence stacked against the Avengers, it seems clear the X-Men would reign supreme. Not to mention this claim: "The Avengers are "Earth's mightiest heroes," doesn't X-Men live on earth too? " . .. which is plain absurd. It's meant to be a quote, not a deciding factor of the strengths. Overall, I thank opponent for this debate, but I feel I should win for the following reasons: 1. Opponent's main arguments are copying and pasting powers with little to no reasoning behind them. 2. Opponent, on many cases, fails to provide evidence of how the Avengers could win in a fight 3. :)
Avengers vs X-Men

You said that "These five that I have mentioned: Professor X, Storm, Wolverine, Magneto, and Cyclops are all easily able to take down the six Avengers opponent started off the argument with." Let's imagine that cyclops went after the hulk. Considering that the Hulk has probably the quickest healing factor than anyone in the Marvel Universe, including Wolverine. Wounds that would be deadly to most other heroes takes just a short time for the Hulk to recover. "He can withstand concussive blasts, impacts from super-powered villians, and extreme high and low temperatures."[1] You also said how it is unseen in the Avengers, Hulk covers all your credentials of these listed. "Take Thor opposed to Storm, who can create any type of weather and control it at will. Storm obviously wins here." Well, Thor can Teleport, has large scale weather manipulation,ability to control lightning. You said that Thor is not immortal. Well, Storm isn't either. Meaning, with enough hits from Thor's Mjollnir, Storm would easily go down. You gave the scenario of Storm and X taking care of Susan, but it wouldn't just be susan going against the 2, the other Avengers would be helping. Basically, the Avengers would definitely defeat X-men because of their high-tech and physical powers. X-Men may have the supernatural part, but that may not be always a good thing. The Avengers are "Earth's mightiest heroes," doesn't X-Men live on earth too? Cites: [1]http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com... this just for interest: http://www.comicvine.com...
Avengers vs X-Men

Thank you for your response! What are the Avengers known as? Well they are known as "Earth's mightiest heroes." Wait, doesn't the X-Men liven Earth as well? Rebuttals: "Even if opponent argued that there are more Avengers than what he listed (which is true), the list is still significantly smaller than that of the X-Men's." Yes, there are more X-Men then there are Avengers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are better. Not all on the list are considered actual X-Men. After going through the list, on the bottom it said, "The following are teams who have used the name of X-Men without express permission of the official X-Men, sometimes opposed to the X-Men altogether, to announce and/or promote themselves to the public." Arguments: You said that, "Storm's the "clean up crew" for this team. Having one of the strongest powers on the team as well, she uses manipulation of weather to her advantage." You may be forgetting that who on the Avengers also has power of weather? Your answer, Thor. In other words, Thor could easily use his manipulation of weather and his mjolnir against them. "Very vulnerable to invisible natural attacks from Storm." Now, who else from the Avenger could survive Storm.Her name is Susan Storm. to only can she go invisible, but she can also "projected invisibility,invisible force field projection (which bestows the ability to generate protective invisible shields and invisible energy constructs as well as the power to control and manipulate objects")[1] Anyways, the Human Torch can just go in and defeat X-Men with his powers of fire. Cites: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Avengers vs X-Men

Thanks for accepting! Who are The Avenger? Are they just a team thrown together at random? No, they are the ultimate fighting team. They consist of Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, Thor, and Hawkeye. At this time, I will talk about each individual and their powers. Iron Man: Iron Man can create magnetic fields and manipulate them to create magnetic waves/magnetic pulses and make him magnetic proof. He can also make 3D holograms, which he uses as decoys or generate them on the different armors. Iron Man can also use his nanotechnology to create anything including more armors and even unlimited energy so he never runs out of strength. Other than that, his powers :" Attractive Male,Blast Power,Electricity Control,Electronic interaction,Energy Absorption,Flight,Force Field,Gadgets,Healing,Implants,Insanely Rich,Intellect,Invulnerability,Leadership,Magnetism,Power Suit,Psionic,Radar Sense,Stamina,Sub-Mariner,Super Speed,Super Strength,Technopathy,Unarmed Combat,Weapon Master"[1] Captain America: Captain America, not only being the symbol of freedom during World War 1 and such, but he was a true hero. He has human physiological conditioning, master martial art agility, vibranium steel alloy shield, and excellent field commander. Hulk: Hands down Hulk is the best. He has unlimited strength, the "thunderclap," leaping/jumping ability, accelerated healing, durability, and high resistance. Black Widow: "Agility,Attractive Female,Escape Artist,Intellect,Leadership,Longevity,Marksmanship,Stamina,Stealth,Unarmed Combat,Weapon Master." [2] Thor: He has an extended lifespan,immunity to conventional diseases, enhanced endurance,superhuman strength,Thor can also invoke the berserker rage to increase his strength. Hawkeye: "He is at the very peak of human conditioning; he is an exceptional fencer, acrobat and marksman, having been trained from childhood in the circus and by the criminals Trick Shot and Swordsman." As you can see, in the movie The Avengers, each superhero consists of superhuman strength and ability (except Hawkeye,) in X-Men they only get their powers from being mutants. Avengers actually work hard for their powers. Cites: [1] http://www.comicvine.com... [2] http://www.comicvine.com... [3[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_(comics)