BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donalt Trump delusional train will derail before 2020.

1. Scandal "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. ". . . More Staff resignations than a 501 (c) organization undergoing a IRS audit. . . Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, ( Sex Gate ). . . Chinese and European Tariffs disregarding Diplomatic conventions and Bilateral treaties, Russia Collusion, All that and more in only 2 years and 8 months of Trumps Presidency's. Tell me what President in the History can match that 2. Figure of speech. A word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect. " How much longer will that train keep rolling? " Will the constant disclosure of Boiler room wheeling and dealings derail his term in office? Only time will tell. So far the hard evidence has started to bring to light the fact that this is no Witch Hunt. 3. **Brainwashed. 1: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, Social, Or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas. 2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship. ** Trance. A temporary mental condition in which someone is not completely conscious of and/or not in control of himself or herself. . . Many by the millions are starting to open their eyes, Ears and mouths. When will you be next? 4. "the political turmoil of our nation currently faces is primed for advent of a 3rd political party". . . There is a general agreement that in American Politics there are 2 dominant political parties with a vast mass of Hardliner and file and rank members ( Minions ). Approximately some 10 years ago a political force arose from within this established system. Some call them the Tea baggers. In the scope of the new political ideologies springing up within our newer generations I foresee a third party within the next 2 decades. To this point the 2 major parties have managed to absorb a great mass of individuals with the promises of implementing changes. It happen with the Tea baggers many of their leaders were absorbed into the Republican Party. 5. 2020 Elections. Will be about Ethnicity, Free trade, American economic and military status in the Global market. In the current Donald Trump one man show come 2020 He'll be just another contestant being sent off like an Apprentice.
Donalt Trump delusional train will derail before 2020.

Donal Trump Presidency will go down in History as the most scandalous of any previous American President. How much longer will that train keep on rolling? Is only a matter of time before the few brainwashed supporters snap out of their trance. The political turmoil our nation currently faces is primed for the advent of a 3rd Political Party. Will Trump minions manage to 2020 for a rerun of Trump part II. I don't think so. Do you? Win Loose or draw accept this challenge and lets talk.
THIS IS A TROLL DEBATE, Do not accept is you can help me out

Here's the Jonbonbon Abridged Encyclopedia 2nd Edition explanation of a pinga. Pinga is a word used by a minority of people in the world. It was started in 1645 as a translingual word that all people could use as a starting base for conversation no matter what country they were in. It was originally determined to be a universal word that could mean just about anything you wanted it to. The syllables were able to be stressed in a manner that communicated to someone the idea you were attempting to portray. While it could portray an idea, it could not portray words. Its usage died out around 1734 due to a lack of intelligent people to figure out how to use it. On May 9, 1989, the UN reinstated the word with a more specific meaning. Its current definition is as follows: "n. Any given excretion that comes from the butthole of a snail or caterpillar." The UN, however, did not realize that this word would be used by a mere 0.005% of the world's population in standard conversation leading to its death as a word later that year circa September 11, 1989. Conspiracy theorists realized this death matched up with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and decided the UN knew the attack was going to happen. Its usage began again as a secret word for conspiracy theorists to say to others to see if they believed the conspiracy. The phrase may vary but centers around the idea of "eating pingas," symbolizing the intake of knowledge on the matter. When someone responds by saying, "Maybe I will, with a daffodil," the conspiracy theorist knows he has found a friend in his lonely world of skepticism. The phrase is used minimally in the status quo.
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

Even with these powers, Sonic is still cited in his own wiki as a hero, not a superhero. "Sonic became a well-known hero throughout the world." "during the first two encounters with the heroes" "while the hero was sleeping" "heroic duo" http://sonic.wikia.com... I've searched the entire page, but no sentence says "superhero" or "super hero." Heck, one of the games is called Sonic Heroes! Even then, Sonic requires the use of multiple items to reach his potential as a hero. As stated in your argument: Power Sneakers for speed: http://sonic.wikia.com... Chaos emeralds and 50 rings to become Super Sonic (note: chaos emeralds can be used by other people, such as Shadow): http://sonic.wikia.com... Shields, which are consumables (perhaps devices as their design implies, not Sonic's powers): http://sonic.wikia.com... Even his rings? Hammerspace: http://en.wikipedia.org... His main (and perhaps only) natural power is his speed, but it is proven slow here: http://www.youtube.com...
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

Sonic has at least one superpower. He has superhuman speed. He also has the power to place hundreds of rings at a time in a place that none of us know about. And of course, he has the power to turn into Super Sonic, which gives him super strength, enhanced speed, invincibility, chaos powers, and flight. -http://sonic.wikia.com... Almost every superhero has superpowers, while normal heroes usually do not. In certain games, he also has powers that he can use with certain types of shields. -http://sonic.wikia.com...
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

Battling a version of his evil self only implies that he is a hero. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: he"ro noun \G2;hir-(G6;)!3;: a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities : a person who is greatly admired : the chief male character in a story, play, movie, etc. By fighting a version of his evil self, Sonic, therefore, is a hero, but not a super hero. Ash, in the Pokemon episode of "Battling the Enemy Within!," also fights with a version of his evil self. In his case, an evil king possesses him, causing a fight between the possessed him and him with his friends. http://www.pokemon.com... Likewise, the super heroes in your argument fight their versions of their evil selves, but what does this prove? They are heroes. Even by the third definition, Sonic, Ash, and the like are given evil versions of themselves because they are important in their respective stories and because they commit acts of good, again proving they are heroes but not super heroes. Regardless, Ash is only known as a hero, not a super hero. 1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

Sonic has battled at least one evil version of himself. The first evil sonic was a robot that appeared as a boss in the eight-bit version of Sonic the Hedgehog 2. It has also been remodeled plenty of times. -http://sonic.wikia.com... Other superheroes have also fought evil versions of themselves. Examples: 1. Batman -http://dc.wikia.com...! 2. Superman -www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEHjYJ7X38 3. Spider-man 4. The Hulk www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnS6KoilaqU 5. Wonder Woman http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

I, too, apologize for not making it clear enough that Sonic is, to reiterate yet again, a hero, but not a superhero. With these reasons, I will repeat why Sonic is not a superhero: I. He is a hero because he fights villains. This is not a viable argument for proving one is a superhero, because all it proves the protagonist is, like stated in my first argument, given these villains for the sake of being a hero. II. His power is speed, but my previous evidence proves that his speed is a lie, and you have also said yourself, "sonic's speed comes solely from his power sneakers." Therefore, he is a hero because his power is not super. In other words, he isn't a "superhero" by his powers, which you claimed in your 2nd argument to be superpowers. III. From my 2nd argument, he is known merely as a hero in his own story. Evidence from my 2nd argument proves his feats don't make him a superhero in his own universe. Because your arguments don't fully prove Sonic is a superhero, let me show you what your entire argument truly is about. "I agree with you that none of my previous arguments prove Sonic to be a superhero" means you negate your other arguments. With your remaining and final argument, let's make a fictional "superhero," according to its standards, shall we! We'll name him Chris John for the sake of example. From your argument (above): I. "Exceptional skill" at pwning noobs in CoD. II. Weak against the "Internet Trolls" III. Saves his mother from "falling and can't get up!" IV. Nicknamed "CJ" V. Appearing in home video, "Fantastic CJ" VI. Drives his own Little Tikes Toy Coupe! What a big boy! With this example, I mean to convey that regular people fit into your last argument. Without powers (the only powerful reason you have in your last argument), it is hard to prove somebody is a superhero. Evidence? It is still debatable that Batman, regardless, is a superhero. Vote for me. All my arguments still stand strong against yours.
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

I agree with you that none of my previous arguments prove Sonic to be a superhero. I have no intention of offending you, but you still have not fully proven that he is not. In addition, I apologize for not clarifying my previous argument's relevance to the debate. There are still multiple marks of a superhero that we have not yet covered. I. Powers are not necessarily a staple of a superhero. "Generally speaking, exceptional-but-not-superhuman fictional characters like Batman, Doc Savage and Green Arrow may be classified as superheroes although they do not have any actual superpowers," -http://en.wikipedia.org...(ability)#defenition II. Sonic has at least one weakness that renders him vulnerable: 1. He cannot swim in water and is in fact afraid of it 2. Failure to get at least 8 hours of sleep per night will slow him down dangerously. -http://sonic.wikia.com... III. He has had to rescue a specific female at least once. -http://sonic.wikia.com... -http://sonic.wikia.com... IV. He has at least one nickname. 1. A few of Sonic's nicknames: -blue blur -speed demon -the legendary blue hedgehog 2. Some of Batman's nicknames -The Caped Crusader -The Dark Knight. 3. The Flash's nicknames -The Scarlet Speedster -The Crimson Comet -http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) V. He has appeared in a film. -http://sonic.wikia.com...(Movie) It is true that older superheroes such as Superman and the Hulk have appeared in at least four or five movies, but they both made their debuts much longer ago than Sonic made his, but sonic was created 22 years ago, so it is safe to say that Sonic has appeared in his proportionate number of movies. VI. He has driven at least one vehicle. -http://sonic.wikia.com...
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

Your argument, again, doesn't prove Sonic is a superhero. In your argument, you are primarily proving Dr. Robotnik/Eggman (they are used interchangeably in your argument) is a supervillain. That is not what we are debating about, and it, to reiterate, doesn't prove Sonic is a superhero. On top of this, in your argument, "sonic's speed comes solely from his power sneakers and do not make him as fast as everyone once thought," therefore means that Sonic is not a superhero, as, generally, his main (perhaps only) so called "superpower" is his speed which was already shown to be slow in the video. In terms of your argument being that Sonic is a so called "superhero" for fighting Eggman, my first argument still stands. To elaborate my first argument for further clarification, fighting a so called "supervillain," like fighting an evil-self, doesn't prove somebody is a superhero, but a hero.
Sonic the Hedgehog is a Superhero.

As was mentioned in the video you posted, sonic's speed comes solely from his power sneakers and do not make him as fast as everyone once thought. It also mentioned that Dr. Robotnik can outrun sonic, even at full speed. However, Robotnik's Wikipedia article mentions nothing about why Robotnik runs so fast, and neither does his sonic.wikia.com article. If this is the case, and Robotnik also possesses superhuman strength (http://sonic.wikia.com...), then he must be a supervillain, as these must be superpowers. If he is a supervillain, then he must have some plot. Frequently, he wants to collect all of the chaos emeralds for the purpose of world domination or such. "However, he became obsessed with the idea of an entire world under his rule," -http://sonic.wikia.com... His rivalry with Sonic began with Sonic doing everything he could to keep the world out of Eggman's hands. Since the first game, Sonic has defeated eggman countless times by besting him in combat, as have other superheroes and their enemies. Eggman has also had at least one henchman, although they were always robots, which would make them "henchbots." If close attention is paid, one can see that these robots are not a part of Robotnik. This is the case with most other supervillains. Robotnik has worn capes, boots, and gloves before. -http://sonic.wikia.com...(Archie)#appearance -http://sonic.wikia.com...(Sonic_Underground) -http://sonic.wikia.com...(Movie) If all of this is true about both Eggman and other villains, then Eggman must be a supervillain himself. Sonic the Hedgehog is his enemy, Therefore he must be a superhero.
Christianity

As a devout agnostic I despise both atheists and theists. However, I see the reasoning behind both and have, over time, come to realise that religion is just as good, in intention, as atheism. However, they both derive from entirely different beginnings. Theism, in this case specifically Christianity, derives for the need of defining good from bad so as to control people in a society effectively in order to maintain peace, atheism derives from the urge to use logic in order to solve everything.If you wish to go con against Christianity you must realise that it is a control mechanism. When you realise this, you will understand that going con is futile.
Christianity

UNRELIABLE Religion! The bible is so stupid. How does anyone believe this stuff!? Theres 0 proof. People saw jesus, and ghosts rising out of the dead? bull, if that stuff really happened how come it doesnt anymore? right cause it never did, people just believe it because it gives them security that theres something after life...maybe there is but not because the bible said so. just think about it and try to convince me Jesus is real, please try.
Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

I am going to pull out the "Freedom of Expression" card and say that art is a form of personal expression, and is subject to opinion, not fact, which is where the popular saying, "It is an art, not a science" is derived from, meaning that the object or idea/ideal that the saying is describing is not definite, it has no solid facts, there are no regulations set on it that makes it "art" or not. This is just like humor. You and your friend in school or the workplace may have an "inside joke" based on one of your past experiences that the both of you went through together. You may be in the middle of the room, with a large amount of other people in it. You tell the joke, and a random listening bystander comes up and tells you that he does not like your joke, and that it is "not real humor." That is exactly the same thing, art is subjective to opinions, and if you like a glove, that is your thing. Some may like paint splattered on a canvas, and some may like a nice, pastoral, neat country scene painting. The human brain is a diverse and beautiful thing.
Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

These days, people for some unexplained reason can't tell the difference between quality modern art and some trash, which is why when you drop a glove in a modern art museum, people walk around it because they don't know whether it's art or not.Guys like these are the worst, I mean, why do you need to enforce unrealistic standards of beauty in art? The pressure on paint-splattering beret-wearing philosophy degree-owning sixth formers to produce art that isn't rubbish is terrifying.Artist seems like the perfect name for this bigotry that's not fit for the 21st century. Not only does it have the same suffix as other fun words, like racist or sexist, but it was also used in the dark ages to mean someone who does art, but I think all of us Liberal Green Party-voting university students can agree that those sorts of people belong in the dark ages (not that there's anything wrong with being dark, another idea that belongs in the dark ages).Thank you.
Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

Dear Opponent, I am not confused in any way as to the meaning of "Freedom of Expression". I will, though, admit that I misunderstood and under-read your first argument, and believed that you, in fact, were placing unrealistic standards upon art, and I apologize for my mistake. Furthermore, I did not intend for it to be placed in an analogy with you deciding to "kick a guy in a wheelchair" and claim that it is "freedom of movement." (Which, in fact, does not exist in our current bill of rights, but I do not wish to debate about that, only the topic at hand.) Anyway, I simply, believing that you were imposing the "unrealistic standards" that you mentioned earlier, meant for it to be read into as follows; You may not like another person's painting, or sculpture, or any sort of art piece, and you most certainly could complain about it, and you are constitutionally given the unalienable right to do so. You may publish your grievances, you may protest, you may do anything you like. I just believe that in the end of it all, art is art, and there will be standards, but each person will have separate standards that they deem fit in their own minds, because you can think whatever you like to. I do not have standards. I think that art is not a material thing, such as a painting. A painting could be considered a work of art, but not art itself. Art is a way to express your thoughts in a way that you, and other people may understand. You may paint a skyline scene, or a stable scene, or you may paint an abstract of calming colors such as blue and purple, in order to display your mood. In the end, I agree, you are correct about there being several people imposing those standards, but I do not think that it is as prominent of a problem as you think. Thank you.
Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

My opponent seems to be extremely confused on what freedom of expression means. Freedom of expression means everyone has a fair say. You can't say art isn't people, because that is also very artist but in a completely different way. You wouldn't kick a guy in a wheelchair and then claim freedom of movement, it just wouldn't be fair. For the same reasons, you can't use freedom of expression to justify cruelly imposing unrealistic standards of what doesn't look rubbish on Modern Art.Thank you
god exist

My opponent is arguing that God must exist, because the universe exists. The Big Bang Theory suggests otherwise. [1]Now, it is argued that the universe existed as a hot, dense ball of energy prior to the Big Bang, and that this ball of energy is eternal.If this is true, then my opponent attempt to fulfill the BoP.Also, I would like to know who created God? If God is eternal, then his existence cannot be defended by the existence of the universe as my opponent has to argue against the eternal nature of the universe. If God is not eternal, my opponent must explain where God comes from. Either way, my opponent's argument does is not am argument for the existence of God, it simply says "The universe exists because God created it, therefore God exists."I look forward to a more powerful, and supported, argument from my opponent.[1] http://www.space.com...;
god exist

Full BoP is on PRO. PRO made a claim, and must now provide evidence to substantiate it. My job, as CON, is to poke as many holes in PRO's arguments as I can. In this instance, I must show that PRO's position is less likely than the opposite (In other words, that it is more likely that God does not exist). God shall be defined as the Creator of the Universe, who is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent.
Anti-Joke Battle

My opponent says he will save more for later rounds. Unfortunately for him that was his final round.Now for mine:Q1: What do you call a midget named Stan?Q2: If a turtle doesn't have a shell is he homeless or naked?Q3: How do you say carrots backwards?Q4: How do you kill a vamire?A1: Stan A2: He is dead A3: carrots backwards A4: You don't because they don't exist. That's all and this is the end.
Anti-Joke Battle

Sorry. When I started this debate I wasn't busy, but I've had a lot of things happening. But that's besides the point. On with the jokes! What is red and bad for your teeth? A brick Why did sally fall off the swing? She had no arms Why didn't sally get up? She had no legs Why didn't anyone help sally? She had no friends Knock knock, Who's there NOT SALLY Why did timmy drop his ice cream? He got hit by a bus What's big, white, and if it falls from a tree it will kill you? A fridge What's big, green, furry, and if it falls from a tree it will kill you? The grinch's dick What's green and has wheels? Grass I lied about the wheels. I have more but I will save them for the coming rounds
Anti-Joke Battle

As my opponent didn't specify how this will be done I will do it this way. If the anti-joke requires a response I will post that at the end so as not to ruin it for those who want to play along. Remember these are anti-jokes not jokes. If you don't know what that means look here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Q1: Why did the roadrunner cross the road Q2: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light-bulb? Q3: What do you get when you cross a rat with a vacuum cleaner? Q4: What is red and smells like blue paint? Q5: How do you make a mailman cry? A priest and a Rabbi walk into a bar, they strike up a conversation and have a drink. A1: Because that's what roadrunners do A2: One, just the same as anyone else. A3: A dead rat A4: Red paint A5: Kill his family I think that's good for now let's see if my opponent responds
The Theory of Evolution is Plausible

Hello all, this debate is on whether or not evolution is a plausible scientific theory. This is still a hotly contested topic in this day and age. Despite a virtual consensus within the scientific community to accept evolution as fact, there are many that deny evolution on faith-based grounds, or for other various reasons.I will be arguing for the plausibleness of evolution, and my opponent will argue the opposite. Here are some definitions:Definitionsevolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.*In this debate, the theory of evolution being considered is Darwinian evolutionary theory.plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.FormatR1: Acceptance ONLYR2: All Arguments PresentedR3: RebuttalR4: Final Rebuttal/ConclusionNote: No new arguments may be presented beyond R2.This debate will consist of well-formatted, extended arguments. Each debater is alloted 9,000 characters per round.----------------I await my opponent's acceptance!