BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
superheroes

I would like to take this opportunity to rebut some of Pro's arguments. First, during Iron Man and Thor's battle, it is clear that there is no winner. When Thor uses his greatest weapon, the lightning, it only serves to superpower Iron Man's suit. When Iron Man uses his greatest weapon (the chest blast), Thor is only knocked over. Neither of the two superheroes are physically superior to one another. Considering that Iron Man is going up against a demi-god in a suit he made himself, that is quite impressive. While Thor did work with the Hulk in the later times of the film, this was only after Tony Stark had helped Bruce gain control over the Hulk. Tony fought alongside the Hulk as well. Before this, Thor fought the Hulk instead of trying to help. Pro's assertion that Iron Man constantly angers the team is inaccurate. Iron Man's actions served to bring the team closer together in a more effective dynamic by taking advantage of each team member's strengths. Similarly, Iron Man does not constantly criticize everyone. Yes, he verbally spars with Captain America at first, but when it comes to a time when military-minded leadership is needed (against the Chitauri), Iron Man hands the leadership over to Captain America. This shows that he is capable of putting aside his ego when the need to do so is there. Conversely, Thor is adamant about bringing Loki to justice his own way, and refuses to acknowledge any other ideas. Every hero's priority was Earth's safety. Just because Thor is from another planet doesn't make his concern for Earth's safety and more or less noble. Pro's assertions that Iron Man's first priority was Pepper Potts is absolutely incorrect. Iron Man was always available to help without hesitation. He provided his resources and expertise with no expectation of reward. And when he was about to sacrifice himself, he didn't let the fact that Pepper wasn't responding act as a deterrent in any way. Pro's assertion that Thor is a greater assistance to the team is also incorrect. While his body count is higher, he provided no strategical advantage to the team, while Iron Man's analysis of what was happening helped the team coordinate their defenses where they were needed most. Also, Iron Man interacts with Loki as well, although this fact i irrelevant as to which hero is a better Avenger. Thanks, pro! Looking forward to your response.
superheroes

First I would like to apologize to my opponent for not really clarifying anything due to this being my first debate and so I will go off of what you have stated because it is a fair ruling. 1) I would like to clarify that in the movie when Iron man and Thor battle Thor easily crumples iron mans suit with his fingers and is able to do a good amount of damage to iron man in a short amount of time. During this fight not only does Thor never show any signs of physical exhaustion, he never even gets injured by iron man 2) when working as a team Thor is able to work with the hulk for an extended duration of time and was the only avenger able to throughout the movie, he is also the one to stop hulk from killing black widow and destroying the helicarrier from the inside, however through ought the movie iron man shows to constantly anger the entire team and drive them apart and stir up contention. 3) when Thor first shows up he is the only one to not judge his team and is the only one to never really disagree with anyone on petty subjects, iron man however never really refers to captain America unless he is mocking him and constantly criticizes everyone. 4) Thors very first priority he had when coming to earth was its safety, this is clearly demonstrated when instead of first going to see Jane foster he goes to try and track down the cube and continues to help even when he could just as easily go and visit Jane, however iron man only cares about pepper pots and tries to completely ignore the people trying to get his help when they come to him and he seems to only help because pepper wants him to and when he does help he tends to mock everything as he goes. On Iron mans missile help he was the only one with radio communication and he was right next to the missile (away from all possible danger might I add) so one could not judge whether or not other members of the avengers would have done similar actions or not. 1) Thor is more willing to sacrifice because not only he risking his life to save earth from the invasion, but he does so on a planet that is not even his own. He could easily say why not just stay safe on Asgard, this shows his commitment to help everyone regardless of their planet or if he knows them. 2) Thor is a greater assistance to the team. He is a greater assistance in the battle as he is able to combat loki by himself (unlike iron man) and is able to kill around 5 of the big floating whale things (whatever they are called) with ease while iron man is barely able to kill 1 and he nearly ends up getting destroyed because of the effort.
IVF debate

Around 24% of Ivf pregnancies are multiple, however in natural births it"s less around 2% as of right now, HEFA has decided that there"s a lower number needed for each woman around 2 or three, some clinics are practicing single embryo transfers, which significantly decreases chances of multiple births, according to one at a time . org. In my opinion, IVF is a good way to have kid if you are unable to do so naturally, it is safe, efficient, and ethical and legal.
IVF debate

Like mentioned above though its seems quite awful to dispose of unborn babies, because once they are fertilized that is exactly ha they are is unborn babies. If the IVF does work after the mother has had the fertilized embryos put back into her body, there is the chance of multiple birth if more the one egg survives when placed back into the uterus. Multiple births is something that doesn't need to occur, since it adds to the overpopulation the world already faces. Just in the past 40 years the population has nearly doubled, without the assistance of IVF (https://www.census.gov...).
IVF debate

If a couple has a failed IVF treatment, that means that the embryos , were wasted, not only the ones put inside the mother but also the ones fertilized and not used. Many different things can happen to IVF embryos after the process has happened, It is however most times left up to the patient to decide what she would like done to her embryos. http://www.ivf.com... is a website with a IVF patient form where it lists the different things that can happen to the embryos and the one that stuck out the most was the "disposal of frozen embryos in a manner deemed appropriate". Disposing of embryos that didn't get a chance to live seems extremely unfair, especially if the couple goes through a second or third treatment because that's just more and more embryos "being disposed" of.
IVF debate

Some of the basic benefits is that of course, a successful pregnancy happens and a healthy baby is born. Also this helps women with fallopian tube problems have children of their own, this was one of the reasons that IVF was pioneered. Another benefit according to fertilitysolutions.com is that confirmation of fertilisation is an option, and men who have had a vasectomy or have low sperm count can have children that are biologically theirs.
The God of the Bible Is Not A Good Role Model

Apologies for my forfeiture of the previous round. I have had a severe lack of free time in the last few days. I proceed with an opening case and rebuttal. Role Model: A person who is looked to by others as an example to imitate. I'll begin by rebutting my opponents argument, and conclude by presenting a few counterpoints of my own. Rebuttal: Work Is Not An Attribute Of God As far as Biblical work ethic goes, God says "Do as I say, not as I do." If we were to follow God's actions and not his commands, we would merely order things to happen and rest. We would enslave less powerful beings to do our work, while we lead. God is not a hard worker- in fact the only evidence of any work completed by God is when He spoke the world into existence. This hardly qualifies as a role model for work ethic. P1: Intrinsic Inequality To act like God intrinsically requires enforced inequality. God does not accept differences. God is totalitarian. If one does not follow the commands of God (No other gods before me, honor the Sabbath, don't abuse his name) then one is damned to eternal torture. For man to duplicate God's totalitarian attributes would be catastrophic. For society to function, man must tolerate difference. P2: Absolute Hedonism God's prerogative in existence is to receive worship. God does not exist to serve a high purpose and objective ethics do not apply to God. God exists to be praised for being (self named) perfect. Surely even the proudest of men would not make such absolutist claims under the pretense of being ideally duplicated. While Christians may believe that God is perfect, He is not imitable. C: Although God has some desirable characteristics (as did Adolf Hitler), He is not a desirable role model.
The God of the Bible Is Not A Good Role Model

On the contrary, God is a terrific role model. He requires hard work from His followers. Plenty of Bible verses talk about the importance of hard work"He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’"Exodus 18:18-23 "Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world"Philippians 2:14-15"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it"Genesis 2:15The Bible certainly does not promote laziness at all. It rewards work.
Christianity vs atheism

I meant that of course it's not a religion. And I am staying within the debate because first you said it was about definitions so I answered that, then you replied with points about Christianity and how it makes you feel, so I answered that, now you are saying its about who's view is better? 1. "Atheist are the kind of people who have to be the smartest and more rational then every one else." 2. "They constantly complain how Christians are always forcing there beliefs when there ones starting the never ending debates." 3. "I know there's a god I have hade experiences were he has spoken to me. There is a god and let everyone know about it." 1. That is a gross (and incorrect) generalization. What is wrong with wanting to be smart and rational anyway? And are you implying that you are neither of those things? Since (like we said) Atheism is not a religion, it does not have any central agenda or goal. There are some atheists who have agendas but it has nothing to do with some kind of central dogma. That would be your way of thinking. 2. Again, gross (and incorrect) generalization. The feeling that many Christians force their beliefs on other is shared by many (including other Christians) and is not limited to us. We are not always starting debates and even if we were that would be irrelevant to this discussion. 3. That is not something you can use in an argument. There is no way to prove you spoke to a god, only your word. Please make up your mind on what you wanted this to be about because all I am doing is replying to your arguments.
Christianity vs atheism

Again what does: In regards to atheism, I don't see who in their right mind would argue with you that atheism is not a religion. I agree with you? You still haven't answered my question. This whole time you have not really been following the criteria here. You are also trying to prove atheists point of view is correct not just how mine is incorrect. What I'm saying is that Christians point of view is better then an atheist. Atheist are the kind of people who have to be the smartest and more rational then every one else. They constantly complain how Christians are always forcing there beliefs when there ones starting the never ending debates. I know there's a god I have hade experiences were he has spoken to me. There is a god and let everyone know about it.
Christianity vs atheism

"this almost as much proof as one person can prove in the modern world." No it's not. This is not actually proof of anything. It's like saying "my mom says I'm special so it must be true." Just because someone or a group of people say something does not make it fact or proof or anything substantial. Things we know about the world are found through scientific exploration into the things we can see, feel, hear, etc. Because God cannot be observed or experimented, he/she/it remains in the realm of groundless speculation. "I have always felt better when I pray to god or go to church because I feel like someone is with me. Even if emphasis on if god is not real, I still feel like this a good for me and other people working as a community. I think god speaks to me through visions and dreams." While this is nice and all, it does not prove anything. The good feeling you get from something does not necessarily mean there is a God. Praying probably makes you feel better because you go into it already believing someone is listening. Also, how does prayer help "people working in a community?" You didn't explain that and I highly doubt you have any reasonable grounds for a conclusion like that.
Christianity vs atheism

I was not dishonest try it without the http://, I see what you are saying but this almost as much proof as one person can prove in the modern world. Now Im going to follow my own rules here and go about why I am a christian. I have always felt better when i pray to god or go to church because I feel like someone is with me. Even if emphasis on if god is not real, I still feel like this a good for me and other people working as a community. I think god speaks to me through visions and dreams. Now for your other response: In regards to atheism, I don't see who in their right mind would argue with you that atheism is not a religion. I agree with you? What is that supposed to mean?
Christianity vs atheism

There are a few flaws with your argument. 1) the definitions you gave are not what that site gave me when I looked at the exact same word. I got this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Christians as a group; Christendom. 3. The state or fact of being a Christian. 4. pl. Chris"ti"an"i"ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity. so.. either you were dishonest about the definitions or the site in which you got them from, maybe in hopes I would not check. 2) You stated "So a dictionary website (not religious site ) has stated christans are the love and concearn for the world. So this is proof that Christians are righteous people." This is not proof. Not only because the information you gave was inaccurate in regards to its source, but because the statement of something in a dictionary (assuming you were correct in the first place) does not mean that what you draw from it is fact. Showing a loving concern for others does not make you righteous, in fact...what does it really mean to be righteous anyway? By what standards are we measuring it? Being concerned for others, even in Christian doctrine is not sufficient for salvation so why even bring that up? In regards to your view on Atheism, I don't see who in their right mind would argue with you that Atheism is not a religion. I agree with you. What I disagree with is your false conclusions from a definition you seem to have made up yourself and mislabeled.
Christianity vs atheism

Well thank you for accepting, I would like to begin with some definitions: According to www.thefreedictonary.com/christanity: there are 5 definitions of Christanity. 1. Proffesing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on Jesus's life. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's techniques. 3. Manafesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ. 4. Relating to or characteristics of christanity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loveing concern for others. Now effence on number 5, gods people Christian's are according to this and many other sites, the loving concern. So a dictionary website (not religious site ) has stated christans are the love and concearn for the world. So this is proof that Christians are righteous people. As stated in the bible Christians are the welfare and love of the world. Next is the definition of atheism: According to www.refrence.com/browse/atheist A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme beings. Now another definition of atheism from www.thefreedictonary.com/atheist: A person who disbelieves or denies the exsistance of god or gods. So my point here is that atheism is not really a religion at all. Kind of like how anarchy might not be considered a form of government. There are many ways to defend yourself here but I wonder in awe which one you will pick. Also please inform me wether or not you are agnostic, scientific or regular kind of atheism, thanks
Christianity vs atheism

This debate is gonna be a informational panel and the audience picks which side makes more sense. We will both try to prove our religion is true. The first is only acceptance The second round will be opening statements and definitions. The third round will be about why you personally are that religion The fourth round will be counter arguments only The final round will be closing statements Also please state what type of atheist you are. I am a Protestant by the way I will be the Christian representative and con will be the atheist representative. Thank you
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

The latter part of John Rawls' second principle of justice states that "social and economic inequalities are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society." Under this principle, it is easy to conceive how public health concerns could warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents because the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society would be found in a public health care system. A standard dictionary thesaurus search of public health will render the following definition: "Public health: The science and practice of protecting and improving the health of a community, as by preventative medicine, health education, control of communicable diseases, application of sanitary measures, and monitoring of environmental hazards." This definition clearly illustrates the possible positive effects that a public health care system can bring to a nation. The example of the 1918 Influenza epidemic in the United States also serves to illustrate how well public health can serve our nation. In this epidemic, the government used a system of public health care to garner the money to research and develop new influenza prevention methods and vaccines that not only brought the country out of the epidemic it was then in, but have prevented any other major outbreaks of influenza like symptoms. According to Rawls' second principle of justice, equality may be undermined if it has the capability to aid everyone, including the lowest person on a nation's social agenda. The undermining of pharmaceutical patents ought to be warranted in order to repair and preserve the health of all of the individuals of our nation. A social theory even older than Rawls' principle of justice, such as Aristotle's concept of Holism yields the same type of idea. For example, according to the theory of Holism, the entire population of our country is more important than the individual. Thus, the rights of the individual may be undermined by the government in order to protect our country.
All people should become vegetarian

Hello and thanks to whoever accepts my debate. Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes. Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts. A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes. A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water.
Pluto is a planet

http://www.universetoday.com... I'm sorry, but this is the definition of a planet. Call it whatever you like, but it isn't a planet if it doesn't fit the definition. Debris surrounding earths orbit is not massive enough to fit into section 3 of the definition. To clarify, I said the are around its orbit. Moons are considered in the orbit and are not included in the third definition.
Pluto is a planet

1. Cite your sources. 2. As you said, Earth has other drebis in its orbit, and is slowly accumulating more. Does this mean is not a planet, Or that eventually all the planets will not be considered planets because too much drebis accumulated in its orbit. Or because its orbit moved into the asteroid belt or kuiper belt (or any other area that is more populated with drebis than allowed). 3. So no moons are allowed? Then the only planets are Mercury and Venus!
Pluto is a planet

Your argument is extremely vague. You didn't define large and a lot of things orbit the Sun. Is an asteroid a planet? Is a satellite a planet? Is the ISS a planet? Am I a planet? These all fit your definition. They all are orbiting the sun and they all could, in the right context, be considered large. Here's why Pluto isn't a planet: There were so many objects orbiting the sun that people thought were planets, such as Ceres, Eris, Makemake and others that in the twenty-sixth general assembly of the International Astronomical Union, a working definition of planet was established. A planet must satisfy these three criteria: 1. It must be in orbit around the sun. Pluto clearly satisfies this criteria. 2. It must have enough mass to pull itself into a spherical shape. Pluto is not perfectly spherical, but it's close enough. Pluto satisfies this criteria as well. 3. It needs to have cleared the area around its orbit. Here's where Pluto's problem arises. When the planets formed, they became the dominate force in their orbit. Any other objects were either pushed out or became part of the planet. For example, Earth is 1.7 billion times the mass of any object in its orbit. Pluto only accounts for less than 1% of the debris in its orbit. Thus, it fails this criteria, and is considered a dwarf planet.