BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Deadpool is the best character in all the Marvel Universe

I am sorry i have not been able to post i've been busy. But even though some other characters are immortal such as Deadpool. Deadpool is shown to have a faster rate of healing than most "immortal characters". But some "immortal" character CAN die such as Wolverine who can die from getting beheaded. However Deadpool who is the boyfriend of Death; Death can bring Deadpool back from the dead.
The Deadpool is the best character in all the Marvel Universe

This is all subjective, because of such it is imposibble to have a specific best character in the franchise. Therefore it is impossible for deadpool to be the best by fact, since it is all opinion. You explained how he is the best in the franchise be cause he is immortal, but you will be surprised. There are plenty of immortal characters. Here are various examples, Deadpool (Wade Wilson) Wolverine (James "Logan" Howlett) Garbha-Hsien (Earth-616) One-Above-All (Multiverse) Loki Laufeyson (Earth-616) Thanos (Earth-616) Galactus (Earth-616) Ultron (Earth-616) Death (Cosmic Entity) Stephen Strange (Earth-616) En Sabah Nur (Earth-616) Odin Borson (Earth-616) Phoenix Force (Earth-616) Johann Shmidt (Earth-616) Vision (Earth-616) Cain Marko (Earth-616)http://marvel.wikia.com...All of these characters and much more all also immortal, making your statement incorrect. Anyways, in conclusion, since this is subjective, it is impossible for 1 to be the best by fact, rendering deadpool incapable of becoming the best.
The Deadpool is the best character in all the Marvel Universe

Yeah but there are pleanty of people in marvel who can't be killed. And you yourself just admitted deadpool can die, but death will revive him, makinghim not immortal. Anyway to sum this up, it is impossible for anoyone to be the best, because it is all subjective. I could think someone is the best super hero, but such is not true, because it is my opinion, not fact. Because of such, it is impossible fo deadpool to be the best by fact.
being tall is not necessary for any sport

The resolution is "being tall is not necessary for any sport" In order for me to win, all I need to do is demonstrate that being tall is necessary for at least one sport. I invented a sport called whateverball. To play whateverball, you need 2 people in a room, each with a dodgeball, and whoever hits the other person with a dodgeball first and then says "whatever" wins. And the most important rule of whateverball is both players must be at least 7 feet tall to play or else the sport they are playing is not whateverball. Whateverball is a sport in which it is necessary to be tall. The resolution is negated.
3pac

Definition: legend G2;lɛdA8;(ə)nd/ noun 1. a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated. "the legend of King Arthur" synonyms:myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More historical the story of a saint's life. "the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints" 2. an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field. "the man was a living legend" Neither of these definitons apply to 3pac. Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Animal Testing.

Without animal testing most medical drugs/cancer treatments wouldn't have been developed as fast/at all. The animals tested on have never seen the wild, they are bred and reared for one purpose, testing. I believe these are NOT right: 1) Make-up tests 2)When weapon manufacturers use their firearms to try out on live pigs/animals. 3) Shampoo and miscellaneous stuff that wouldn't even benefit society. That's it really. I believe that it is completely morally right when it could save a patient of a deadly disease, for eg: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals." http://www.mofed.org... reading that you must agree that it's mostly right, I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing.
Animal Testing.

I believe that animal testing should continue because if we don't have animals to test on, who can we test on to find new stuff that could be beneficial for the growth in society? Whether you like it or not, it's one of the only ways we can find new types of cures and we could even find cures to many diseases. I agree that sometimes there is a minority of the time where animal testing is used for stuff like makeup, that way I do agree that it shouldn't be used, but if it is used to find new cures and something new that can be beneficial it would be great for our society, and we wouldn't even notice.
The teleological argument for God's existence is unsound

===Resolution===The Pro will have the primary burden of proof in formulating and defending an argument against the teleological argument as defined. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. ===Definitions===The teleological argument is purposely defined rigidly. The resolution applies only to this specific formulation of the teleological argument. The reason for this note is that there are numerous formulations of the argument, with different refutations for them.The teleological argument is formulated as follows the analogical form: Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R. a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency. Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.) Therefore It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency.[1] ===Sources=== [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec. 2.1)
Time travel is possible

Good luck to you sir! Before we start we have to ask ourselves, what is time travel? Time travel is the action of traveling between past and future, according to http://dictionary.reference.com... Simple enough. I will attempt to prove that this action is possible, and in fact takes place on a daily basis. 1. Time dilation: Einstein's general theory of relativity showed that gravity and acceleration affect time. An object that's accelerating will experience time going slower, than an object at rest. Similarly, an object that's exposed to gravity will experience time going slower, then an object away from gravity. In fact, satellites in space have to account for this phenomenon. The clocks on satellites have to be adjusted, in order for the time to stay synchronized with the clocks on earth. (1)(2) Here, I will try and explain why time dilation occurs. Imagine two people shine a laser pointer at the same time, from the same place, and one of these people is in a moving car. Who's laser pointer would go faster? Neither. The lasers would travel at the same speed, because you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. To make up for this, the person in the speeding car (and his laser pointer) are experiencing time more slowly. Remember these are not my words, they are the words of Albert Einstein. If you drive a car, you have experienced this effect. Every time you accelerate, you experience this effect. If you go to the top of a building (less gravity), you experience time dilation. I have demonstrated that time travel is not only possible, but actually occurs to all of us every day. Admittedly, the effect of time dilation us humans experience is small, but it is by definition time travel. One could argue that in the future, when super fast speeds are possible, we could take advantage of this phenomenon, and use it to literally time travel. There are other more theoretical means of time travel. So far this is limited to sub atomic particles, worm holes, and spinning black holes. For the sake of simplicity however, I'll ignore these topics for now. references: 1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 2. http://www.popsci.com...
The Watchmaker Argument for God is Logically Sound

It rests on a subtlety. Argument Imagine you are walking across a field, take a nap, wake up, and see a watch lying upon the ground. You wouldn"t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer.
The Watchmaker Argument for God is Logically Sound

Resolution:THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT FOR GOD IS LOGICALLY SOUNDThis debate discusses the topic of the Watchmaker Argument. Con argues it is flawed, while pro argues the opposite.Argument Imagine you are walking across a field, and see a watch lying upon the ground. You wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer. Burden of ProofI will say BOP is shared, but changes can be made.StructureRound 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Opening ArgumentsRound 3- Rebutalls/ More ArgumentsRound 4- Rebutalls/ Closing Arguments Thank you to anyone who accepts, and good luck.
Should Football stop being a sport

Football is a popular and loved sport among America and it's citizens, but it's extremely dangerous. Football has led to certain problems in life including concussions, short-term memory, disorientation, stretching and compacting of the brain, and even death! I'm a fan of the Dolphins and football but its just that foot ball is causing harm to players and little kids that play it. I would appreciate your answer, thank you for reading.
Should Football stop being a sport

Hello! I've decided to be the con in this debate. ~My Opinion~ I'm personally not a fan of football and quite dislike it, but I also disagree with your opinion, so that's why I'm in this debate. So please be aware my responses are not the bias from a football fan. I hate it as much as you do. I just personally disagree with your reasoning. ~My Response~ You are correct in that it's a dangerous sport, but those that do play in the field are made aware of it as soon as they show any interest in the sport. While I do admit there is no way to truly make this sport safe (the more we cushion the blows of other football players in the field, the harder they hit, according to studies), that's a risk that they are well aware of. Thank you for reading~
Reigion

In a word, no. Assuming pragmatism as an underpinning, ignorance is truly bliss. For those who are truth-seekers, in a post-modern world, where what one feels is more important than cogent truth, you set yourself up only for frustration. If you peel back the incoherent nature of religion and find god truly is dead, you set yourself up for nihilism or if you will: realizing there are questions to which no answers can objectively be assigned, such as personal meaning. I like Jordan Peterson's stance on truth, in the first podcast that he had with Sam Harris(even though it was technically flawed) where in which he asserts and I am paraphrasing: truth is that which is useful to the survival of the species. The closest one can reach to an objective meaning of life is in the basest biological terms i.e asking: what is the utilitarian purpose of this flesh? If you follow truth too carefully, you realize that all the societal devices that underpin our existence, are pretty much fluid (if you exempt the mob from the equation). What counts in this day age is your willingness to submit yourself to the mob. You can try carve out existence on your terms but you will only end up being ostracized and unappreciated, sometimes to the point of an all-out-crucifixion. The examples of great men and women; completely dismissed in their own times; left to greatness and solitude, is voluminous. I believe that attending bible school (whatever flavor is convenient) and following the path of evolutionary biology, within the context of current popular norms and standards, is the best one can aspire to. Illusions are useful and I believe they should be maintained where ever they can. Nihilism and determinism will never make the best sellers list. Those of us who have peered behind the curtain would do well to shut up and get on with it and allow others the comfort of their beliefs, even if they do not conform to facts.
Reigion

Context: One may be susceptible to the ideological prongs of misfortune for he is unable to grasp the fire which bequeaths the mind. There is nothing so uncertain or certain than death itself. However, to feel ones glory is to know one"s past, present and future and to receive each machination of truth in an eye of the storm or in the glory of god. What then becomes of us, humans which are so indistinctly defined and untethered from our past glory and misfortunes. We are not just a product of our time but product of many ages of hardship and regrets. For what is born from within leads us to fight our victorious battle towards the kingdom which we call home. We are divided by loyalty, fear and anguish, but what keeps us all together is our belief in the truth. There is nothing which can stop the encroachment of the force of darkness. However if there is a greater truth that is beyond this, we are to find it willingly. The question is- Should humans pro-actively seek out the truth behind existence?
freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

first a clarification. i dont think we should outright ban that religion. we should limit it, from being fully practiced. but that was not even an issue for con. con merely agues we cannot accept the new testament teachings without the old testament teachings. that may be true from a religioius context, but it doesn't follow that we have to allow those practices to be be legal. how does it follow that christianity should be banned if we put limitations on judiasm? it is judiasm that should be limited.
freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

The new testament is about Jesus who was a Jew so if he was the son of god then that god was the one described in the old testament. The new testament would not exist without the old one. The bible is one book split into two parts and you cannot reject one part and even pick and choose what to believe out of the other. You cannot keep the 10 commandments if you ban the old testament yet today's Christians still use them despite from a book they claim not to believe in. So you either outlaw all Christianity or none of it at all.
freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws. examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist. to name a few. it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be practiced, says a lot about the religion.
Reduce homework, lengthen schooltime

This will be my first debate using this forum and I have only limited "formal" debate experience, but I will do my best to offer an entertaining debate. Debate is Accepted. I am comfortable with limiting the scope of this debate to High-School (roughly ages 15-18). I believe that the intent is clear, no need to muddy the waters and waste our time by incorporating younger age-groups that obviously won"t fit this model exactly. International is fine, I will admit to an incredibly limited knowledge of the differences in High School education abroad, but it seems that this is a more a debate of theory than exact practice, so that shouldn"t be a major issue. I accept your general designation of the 2 categories of Homework although I think we should clarify that we will need to debate the necessity of both Type 1 and Type 2. (Not just Type 2)I need for you to more clearly define the terms of a "Current School Day", Hours/General Breakdown/Start-Time/ETC. before we begin so that I may make the necessary adjustments in my logic/arguments. I want us to be discussing comparable school-days. For example, When I was in High School, School Hours were 8am-3pm. A comparable lengthening of the School Day if I understand you correctly would be an 8-4 school day with a reduction in homework? Please Clarify. Other than that I"m excited to begin my first debate. I will attempt to be as genuine and straight-forward as possible. I will attempt to offer arguments that I believe could be supported by rational persons acting rationally. -Bull_Diesel
Death Penalty

Since it is the last round I won't even try to research definitions or create rules. It won't get that complicated. The death penalty is something that is necessary in this society, though it should be restricted to talentedly malevolent criminals who have proven that prisons cannot hold them. For example, Charles Sobhraj, a murderer once wanted in 11 countries, managed to escape 7 jails with such jests as "starting a fire in the back of a police van". People tried to convince the government to make a special-case death sentence, but they refused. That was before he broke out of jail again, killing 11, wounding 38, and giving 14 severe diarrhea before getting shot during a chase. http://www.cracked.com... Rebuttals (1) An executioneer is not a murderer because he is solely carrying out the law and God's commands. (2) Death Sentences, while legalized, should be constrained. Besides, the lack of a death sentence brings more deaths, as shown in Sobhraj's case. (3) Not a point. But, just to clarify, soldiers are too only carrying out the will of the state, and, besides, the Christian Church declared any killing done during wartime as not sinful, as long as you didn't want to do it.
India vs Any SAARC nation

Here are the reasons I deserve a 7-point victory - Had better arguments: Rebuttal to Round 2: There are no Pakistani ships in the Bay of Bengal; they are only in the Arabian Sea. Missiles, though, CAN be launched via the Bay of Bengal to Pakistan if they have a long range. PMO (Pakistan Military Objectives): 1. Ensure disengagement of Indian naval-launched missiles and warship-positioning against Pakistan. 2. Heighten military technology and armed forces to equal that of India's. 3. Control all exchanges of fire in the Line of Control. 4. Halt all offensive moves to Islamabad and Karachi. Fulfillment of Objectives: 1. India's economic crisis has forced it to drop its military budget. Thus, the salary of soldiers is reduced, causing many soldiers to quit. 2. Sanctions allow India fewer resources that are depleted by war, provoking a revolt against the government. All offices in the LoC are under Pakistani control. Rebellion in India has forced government into turmoil, forcing stop of all gunfire exchanges. 3. Due to lack of motion and economic crisis, India has halted all offensive moves. Thus, all of Pakistan's objectives have been fulfilled. India's crisis has forced its armed forces to a point weaker than Pakistan's. Thus, I have had better arguments. Had better spelling and grammar: Grammatical errors made by my opponent are: 1. "please take in consideration of how much you do in a turn ..." - The correct word here is TAKE INTO, not TAKE IN. 2. "You may choose whether or not it is I whom makes the first move or if it is you whom makes the first move." - Here, both the mentions of "whom" must be replaced by "who". 3. "MUST specify type of detonation" and "MUST specify location of detonation" both lack an article before detonation, that is necessary. 4. "Any measurement under 30 feet is accepted." - The accurate sentence is "Any measurement OF under 30 feet is accepted." 5. The first paragraph of my opponent's second round argument was riddled with inaccuracies in placement of determiners and articles. 6. "10 Pinaka MBRL missile launcher and BM-21 missile launcher start to fire rockets at Pakistani capital, Islamabad and Pakistani army formations." Here, there should be a comma after Islamabad. 7. "I end my attack here for now" has no full stop. This is another punctuation error. Conduct: My opponent forfeited 3 out of 5 rounds, and thus, has not properly fulfilled the necessary conduct in a debate. More reliable sources: My sources for economic strategies and sanctions was the highly trustworthy United Nations charter itself, and that was the only source used in the debate. Thus, I have covered all 7 Points. Thanks to arj588 for setting up this wonderful debate, and for allowing me to participate in this debate, thus gaining a great opportunity. And I request voters to judge the debate accurately, and vote for whomever they think debated better.
India vs Any SAARC nation

Indian Army uses Tata LPTA 1615 TC Artillery Tractor Truck and fires on Lahore and Islamabad via Kashmir border. 5,000 Indian army, MARCOS and NSG troops carrying IMI Tavor TAR-21 Assault rifle, Barrett .50, M2 Browning, NSV, KPV, Glock 17, Dragunov SVD59, M2 HMG, Grenade 36mm, Multi Mode Grenade Shivalik, 160mm Tampella, RPO-A Shmel and AK-47 attack LoC via Kashmir and Punjab. Along with them for transportation etc are vehicles VFJ Jonga Mahindra 550 DXB Swaraj Mazda Maruti Gypsy Windy 505 Vahan VFJ LPTA 713 TC VFJ Matang Super Azad Ashok Leyland Sisu Nasu VFJ Shaktiman VFJ Rampar Tata Model 1210SD Army begins to shell Pakistan. DRDO 155 mm artillery gun is used in an effort to pin down Pakistani troops with heavy shell fire. 10 Pinaka MBRL missile launcher and BM-21 missile launcher start to fire rockets at Pakistani capital, Islamabad and Pakistani army formations. INS Vikramaditya (aircraft carrier) starts naval operations from the Bay of Bengal. 5 HAL Tejas and 3 Sukhoi Aircraft provide air support to the Indian Army via heavy machine gun fire on defensive Pakistani formations, and also use BrahMos supersonic air to land cruise missile and Nirbhay subsonic cruise missile. INS Shardul, INS Cheetah, INS Airavat and INS Kesari landing ship tankers carrying Indian Army and MARCOS troops surrounded by INS Talwar (F40), INS Rajput (D51) INS Rana (D52), INS Ranjit (D53), INS Ranvir (D54), INS Ranvijay (D55) guided missile destroyers approach Karachi via the Bay of Bengal. Guided missile destroyers start to shell Karachi. INS Viraat lets loose 20 Sea Harrier FRS51 to pin Pakistani naval ships in the Bay of Bengal. Russia supports India with monetary funds and military technology. I end my attack here for now
India vs Any SAARC nation

My country is Pakistan. GDP (nominal): $243.818 billion GDP (PPP): $565 billion Military budget: $6.98 billion External debt: $54.5 billion Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $13.8 billion Fit for military service: 75,326,989 people (37,945,440 males, 37,381,549 females) Active frontline personnel: 617,000 Active reserve personnel: 550,000 Tanks: 3,124 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 3,187 Self-Propelled Guns: 470 Towed Artillery: 3,263 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 200 Total aircraft strength: 847 Fighters/interceptors: 377 Fixed-Wing attack aircraft: 236 Transport aircraft: 231 Trainer aircraft: 152 Helicopters: 263 Attack helicopters: 48 Total naval strength: 74 Frigates: 11 Submarines: 8 Coastal defense craft: 12 Mine warfare: 3 Oil production: 60,000 barrels/day Oil consumption: 415,000 barrels/day Oil reserves: 247,500,000 barrels/day Labor force: 59,210,000 Merchant marine strength: 11 Major ports and terminals: 2 Roadway coverage: 260,760 Railway coverage: 7,791 Serviceable airports: 151 I choose to defend; you must make the first move and invade Pakistan.