BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mixed Women should not present the face of Black women. They are not the same

Some precision is required. To proceed, I"d have to understand why you think this particular face represents the majority of black women. For all I know she was featured on the cover of Ebony because she was just appointed head of the NAACP. Or maybe she represented the Red Cross in a Vanity Fair article. And what does a black woman look like? I have no idea what you mean by the 99%. Do you mean the darkest 99%? You seem to be making the case that it would be better for a 99 % black woman to be representing, regardless of why she was on the cover, than a 1 percenter (whatever that means) that might have been on that cover for more socially constructive means. Your move.
Mixed Women should not present the face of Black women. They are not the same

I noticed as I'm walking through the library in the magazine aisle. A face representing Black Women. That face was Mulatto. I asked myself, why is it that this is the face that represents the majority of Black women in the united states when they look nothing like her. Why? It's not because they want to include all "black" women. It's judgement. Discrimination against the real deal. The real deal is if I'm telling someone she's black. They instantly imagine a kinky headed girl with brown skin. Not someone who almost resembles a Latina. That's a fact. Now of course there are all shades of Black women. Light to Dark, Curly to Kinky, But I am talking about the 99%. Simple. Not the minority but the majority. The shades of Mulatto looks completely different from the shades of Black. In fact I'd have to say Its more similar to Hispanics than Blacks. To pretend it's not is silly.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

When I say I'm pro-life, it means that I HIGHLY VALUE HUMAN LIFE. It is a beautiful gift. I have personally seen the loss of life in my family. It is very sad and heartbreaking but I've come to understand that that is reality. There is going to be loss of life today, tomorrow, and for the rest of our lives. I don't think you understand that life isn't fair. Once you grasp that concept, you might be able to better understand where I'm coming from. Referring to capital punishment, you're just completely wrong and misguided. You have to take justice into consideration in any circumstance, which you are not doing. Referring to war, you said: "However, if you support a war where there are thousands of casualties and think they are justified for the end result, you are not pro life." You're making it seem like I support the killing of thousands of innocent lives, which I obviously do not. I support the mission. I don't know how else I can further explain this. Personally, if I knew that 100 people would die in a war, but the result of those 100 people dying was the liberation and freedom of 10,000 people, then I would always support that cause. I don't understand how you can say that's not pro-life. You have to get over the fact that lives will be lost in war. It's horrible, I repeat HORRIBLE, but when millions of people are freed and are given the opportunity to live the lives the way they want in freedom, I consider that the pro-life position. In Iraq, there have been relatively low civilian deaths compared to other wars of the time. These oppressed people have a FUTURE because our soldier's sacrificed their lives for these people. In general I dont believe the ends justify the means, but war is a special case, where the taking of lives is going to happen regardless. I support the war because of the benefits that have and will come from it. These civilians, who had been dehumanized under Saddam and his regime, now live a life that they couldve never lived before if we didn't enter Iraq. I value the fact that these people have a brighter future, AND THAT IS THE PRO LIFE POSITION.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

You are twisting my words around. Supporting a war does not make you anti-life and I never said it did; that's taking a black and white approach to the issue. I realize, as I said, that war is sometimes necessary. However, if you support a war where there are thousands of casualties and think they are justified for the end result, you are not pro life. I already addressed "justice" in capital punishment. Whether or not you think capital punishment is justified, it is taking the life of a person and therefore not prolife. Which is why I am proposing that Prolife be changed to anti-abortion. I am not saying that by supporting either of these you are anti-life, but that pro-life is not the appropriate term.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

Supporting the death penalty doesn't have anything to do with being pro-life. Some people in the world and in history have committed such atrocious acts against humanity and people that they do not deserve to live. That is called justice. I would be very content seeing Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam all put on death row and executed. Same goes for serial killers and any other criminal who commits/ed disgusting acts against humanity. These "humans" deserve the ultimate punishment which is death. This is simply of a case of justice being served. Supporting war against does not make me anti-life. Look how much good came out of WWII. We ended the extermination of tens of millions of Jews, Poles, and Slavs. The Civil War ended slavery. I'm not saying that the ends justify the means, but war has generally solved a lot of issues pertinent to the existence of life. Look, people are going to die in war. It's a terrible and tragic thing, but you have to realize that it's going to happen. Let me play devil's advocate for a second and question what you're saying. So if we went to war in Iran, ousted that insane president and his tyrannical regime, DIDNT KILL ONE PERSON, and gave millions of Iranians a hope at a brighter future, you would support war? Thats pretty much what you're saying. I wish that was how it went. I never want innocent lives to be taken but it's the reality of the world we live in. I think supporting the current war in Iraq strengthens and solidifies my pro-life belief.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

As far as war goes, I am not saying supporting a war is wrong. I don't disagree that sometimes war is necessary and I'm not arguing about the justifications of war. I am saying that to support a war and also the death penalty yet say you are "extremely prolife" is a contradiction; while you are supporting the 'liberation' of a country, you are still also supporting an event that results in the loss of thousands of lives. What you support is Machiavellian. You may think the loss of the lives are worth if the ends will be good, however you are still supporting the loss of civilian lives as long as it is justified. Though you didn't address it, I see that you are for capital punishment yet you say you are "extremely prolife"--you don't see the contradiction? You are not extremely pro-life. What you are is anti-abortion. Capital punishment is taking a life away. Whether or not you think it is justified is irrelevent-- you are still taking a life away, which makes you not pro-life.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

I am extremely pro-life and I support the war in Iraq. I am not pro-war at all- I would hope that no one is- but I do think that the war in Iraq was justified. The war has given millions of oppressed people a chance and hope of a future. By ousting Saddam, we have saved the lives of millions. General Sherman during the Civil War said "War is Hell" and it is. It is a terrible thing that no one should have to experience. But when you liberate a country and save thousands of lives, I do not see how that is contradictory to my pro-life belief. Look at Hitler's execution of the six million jews. We entered the war for several reason, but a large part of that was to stop the killing of millions of people. Loss of life is going to happen. That's just the tragic truth of the world. But when our country goes to war to liberate and save thousands of people, I again do not see how that is contradictory to a pro-life belief.
You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

As a short introduction... In profiles here, in candidates, on message boards, etc people seem to get some kind of satisfaction in saying "I'm Pro-life :)". They say it as though they are the better person, yet then often continue to support the death penalty and war, and care very little about gang violence and other crimes like that. This is a contradiction. You can't say you are pro life but only care about the life of an unborn child; instead, you should call yourself anti-abortion.
Assassin's creed could have had a better story if they did not have Desmond and the animus.

!!!!****SPOILER ALERT****!!!! I understand my opponents argument, and i understand why you would think that without him, the assassins would not be connected, but if you played all the games you would see (excluding the Desmond scenes) that previous assassin's are mentioned at least once in each game. I do not count the prologue before AC3. The only reason Desmond is still around is because Desmond was introduced in the first game. Ubisoft probably did not expect the AC creed series to become as popular as it has, and did not see Desmond as being something that would inhibit the progression of the past stories. As i agree with my opponent about the storyline aspect of the games, because i am the same way, i believe that AC2 - ACrevelations did this amazingly without the true need of Desmond, and by ACrevelations Ezio was pretty self sufficient and was not really doing anything to help Desmond's quest other then leaving the Animus induced coma. ACrevelations is proof that Desmond is not needed for the story to progress. Despite your opinions on the fourth main installment of the game, you cannot deny how well the story was told, without any real need of direct Desmond interaction, and the only reason you are ever Desmond is to learn the background of Desmond which is not needed by the time of ACrevelations. If the only thing linking the past assassins is Desmond, then why is it that at the end of AC3 they kill of Desmond, and have announced AC Black Flag? This only means that Ubisoft knew they did not need Desmond, and killed him off for a new main character or they are not going to have anything to do with the present day assassins (which is unlikely do to what happened at the end of AC3). If Desmond was the only thing connecting Altair, Ezio, and Connor together, then why kill him off for Connor's grandfather? Wouldn't Connor's grandfather be one of Desmond's ancestors too sence he is of European decent?
Assassin's creed could have had a better story if they did not have Desmond and the animus.

I can agree with my opponent that Desmond's purpose is to bring consistency. What I believe my opponent fails to understand is without Desmond, there would be no connection between all Altair, Ezio, Connor and now Edward in their new game in development. Without Desmond, we would be left with playing with Altair in the time period he is set around or we would be playing each game with new characters without any kind of fluidity. This would make each game seem like their own game, instead of how I feel the current system is where it is all leading up to something larger with each game. As a gamer, this makes me want to continue playing the game because I am invested in a storyline in where each is a chapter to be unveiled. I do not see how this would be possible if there wasn't a more established link between their characters as Desmond is.
Assassin's creed could have had a better story if they did not have Desmond and the animus.

I believe that the only reason people in the gaming industry think that Assassin's Creed sequels are becoming less captivating, is because Ubisoft set up the story about Desmond at the beginning of the first game and had to stick with it for consistency. If ubisoft did not establish Desmond's story then they would be able to travel through history with different assassin's and not have to worry about lineage and connection between the assassins other then them existing.
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

Interesting. First, although there are some fast cars, those engines are much more expensive then a gas engine of similar power. And there is no way these engines can power a tank. As for the extra batteries, remember, that is even more cash, and those die out over time. Now for the environment. Those gases emitted, although they are harmful, will be nothing compared to the huge, smelly, and big polluting power plants that we will need to build to power several hundred million cars and trucks. Plus, the trillions spent on infrastructure will be better spent on non-polluting power plants. We already are several trillion in debt, why add even more too it? That will kill the rest of our car companies too. Not to mention, poor countries will be unable to power their cars, as they can't even give power to themselves already.
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

First of all, I don't really agree electric cars are not powerful as gas cars. Electric car models such as Tesla Model S takes 3.0 seconds to reach to 100 km/h. It's faster than any car you see on the street. I also don't agree with electric vehicles are short driving. People can prepare a few charged batteries to repair when run out of electricity. Now for the disagreements of the debate you've said about the environment. Have you ever seen cars or vans emit black smoke? The black smoke is actually from diesel engines. It smells bad and will harm our health. Same thing in every buses we ride. Buses' waste gas are smelly and no one could stand there over a minute.
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

I disagree. First off, gas and electric powered cars don't really have that much of a noise difference. Their downsides far outweigh their benefits. Electric cars are not as powerful as gas cars, so they can't be used in trucks, racing vehicles, or big military vechicles. Plus, they have a much shorter range then gas cars. Even worse, they take several hours to charge, which is completely impractical for longer distance driving. Even relatively short 2 hour drives are impractical as that will drain their battery completely. Now for the environment. The environment will not be helped by gas cars. True, they don't emit gases right out of the actual vechicle, but where does the power come from to do that? That won't work in poor countries too, as they don't have enough power anyway. The trillions we would spend on new infrastructure would be better spent on cleaner gas cars or hydrogen cars or power plants. So electric cars won't help the environment, nor are they practical. Your move
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

I think that electric cars should replace traditional gas vehicles. Here are my reasons: 1. Electric cars are entirely charged by the electricity you provide, meaning you don't need to buy any gas ever again. Gas is expensive and if we over mine the natural sources like gas, in someday they will be used up. So, driving electric vehicles is saving your money and protecting the environment. 2. Electric cars can reduce noise pollution because they are much quieter. Electric motors are capable of providing smooth drive with higher acceleration over longer distance. 3. Electric cars are 100 percent Eco-friendly as they run on electrically powered engines. It does not emit toxic gases or smoke in the environment as it runs on clean energy source. They are even better than hybrid cars as hybrids running on gas produce emissions. You will be contributing to a healthy and green climate. Thank you
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

Well, thanks for the debate! First off, yes, while the fee for charging is cheap, it takes 6 hours plus to recharge. That is simply impractical. Plus, any big trucks can not use electric engines as they are not powerful enough, as you said. As for the enviroment, while it is true that electric cars have zero emissions, but they need to get power somehow. You know the way that will happen? By burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. So we will just be switching out emissions from one polluter to the other at the cost of trillions of dollars. As I've said before, this makes it impossible for poor countries to use electric cars as they have no power. So I have shown that electric cars are simply impractical for today's society.
Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

I agree that electric engines cannot be used in military use but the electric engines are commonly used in private cars on the street. And although electric engines are more expensive than gas engines, the recharge fee is much cheaper. A research in 2013 said that transportation contributed more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted into our air. This air pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment. Through clean vehicle and fuel technologies, we can significantly reduce air pollution from our cars and trucks by using electric engines, while cutting projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years. This is the end of my debate. Hope you like this debate as I am.
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is Overrated

Iit was the first Marvel movie that took itself seriously enough to have a serious story with an over competent villain who also managed to be appealing. I mean it wasn't all just jokes and the like. Secondly, Winter Soldier kicked Cap's butt throughout the movie.- not just in it for 5 minutes. The ending had a large impact on the Marvel Universe , as I have previously stated, and it wasn't just another prequel to Avengers 2. The idea that struck me as awesome, was Rodgers, a noble and loyal soldier, having to fight his best friend. Someone he couldn't have imagined fighting in 1942, never mind 2014. This had to cause so much internal conflict in him and so much pain. Country or Bucky. I have honestly never heard anyone call it a "masterpiece". It is praised for what it is- an action/spy thriller movie mixed with poignant moments. How can that be overrated? Finally, to rebutt the Black Widow point: Captain America was pitted against her, which makes for some incredible dialogue and great scenes. Therefore, not reduced to a " bland sidekick who is just there for sex appeal". Thank you and in my honest opinion, CA TWS is not overrated and hope you oppose the motion!
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is Overrated

Comic Book fanboys constantly claim that TWS is a unique comic book movie. And I agree, TWS is the first time weve seen a spy thriller comic book movie. But that's exactly what im talking about. People are judging TWS as a comic book movie, when they should be judging it as a movie. As a movie, the winter soldier is bland and offers nothing new. It is a by the numbers mission impossible movie. The plot is exactly the same. Just swap the villains names, swap the city it takes place in, swap the climax terrorist plot, swap s.y.n.d.i.c.a.t.e with h.y.d.r.a, and swap Ethan Hunt with Steve Rodgers for our indestructible hero. As for the film itself, its not even a good movie. The action is good, but it doesn't save the terrible story. The only thing in this movie that isn't a bland mission impossible retread is the story between cap and the winter soldier. Its just too bad that the winter soldier is only in the movie for like 5 minutes despite the entire movie being named after. Despite the misleading title hes nothing moree than a glorified henchman that shows up a couple times. It is terribly handled and comes across as annoying. Revealing the winter soldiers identity in the 3rd act was a joke. It had no emotional weight because the movie basically tells the audience who the winter soldier is so when its finally revealed nobody cares. Cap and Bucky only have like 2 scenes together and both of them involved them just punching eachother. How the heck are we supposed to be invested in there relationship when that's all that's going on. Other than that the films pretty meh. Black widow has been reduced from a strong stoic woman to bland sidekick who is just there for sex appeal and makes out with cap for no reason. Its a overrated movie. Cheers.
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is Overrated

Bucky Barnes is Steve Rodgers best friend. Barnes dies in front of him, haunting Rodgers. Captain America is chased about a mysterious assasian - the Winter Soldier. When Captain America finds out this Russian killer is Bucky, he is torn as to what to do. Where do his loyalties lie- America or his best friend. Yet my honourable opponent claims that this is uninspired and generic. It also based on the comics - clearly it cannot be "uninspired". Secondly, Shield, an inherently good organisation, has Hydra, sworn enemy, infiltrating them. This is a brilliant component of the plot-where is the genericness? I fail to see it. This sets up later films and a major plot device in the 1st season of Marvels Agents of shield. Clearly doing this means that TWS deserves the credit that it gets. The villain point is invalid as the majority of comic book films and political thrillers contain these-a tried and trusted format. Clearly TWS deserves credit and is not overrated!
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is Overrated

Before I get started I would like to reinforce the fact that I am not saying Captain America: WS is a bad movie. I'm just saying its insanely overrated. Anyways, onto the argument. The biggest problem with CA: the winter soldier is that its incredibly uninspired. There is nothing going on here other than an average 2000s action movie. There's a Super Spy Hero who works for a corrupt agency, the agency hunts down the good guys, the super spy hero is on the run and has to work with a small team to beat the bad guys, the movie ends with the hero pulling the plug on a terrorist attack. Sound familiar? It should, its all 5 mission impossible movies. The movie also retreads villain archetypes from the other MCU movies. Basically all of them involve a power hungry villain in a suit teaming up with an evil mercenary. Iron Man 1: Obadiah (suit) Raza (mercenary). Iron Man 2: Justin Hammer (suit) Ivan (mercenary). Iron Man 3: Aldrich Killian (suit) Mandarin (mercenary). Incredible Hulk: General Ross (suit) Emil (mercenary). Which leads into Alexander Pierce (suit) and the winter soldier (mercenary). The plot retreads and reused villain archetypes are inexcusable. The movie even does the whole fake-out death with nick fury. Overall the movie lacks ambition, and refuses to take risks.
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is Overrated

I wish good luck to my honourable opponent and look forward to engaging in this debate. I will argue that "Captain America:The Winter Soldier", which I shall refer to as "TWS" for the remainder of the debate, is not overated. To do this I will prove that it deserves its praise as it is a brilliant movie and it actually sets up the rest of the MCU and some episodes of AOS. Good luck