BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

No, I'm not talking about one paneled cartoons, I'm talking about the ANIMATED CARTOONS MADE BY MAX FLEISCHER AFTER THE DEATH OF E.C. SEGAR IN 1938. THEY WERE UTTER GARBAGE. THEY ARE NOTHING LIKE THE COMIC STRIP. THEY ARE 10 MINUTE LITTLE CARTOON SHORTS WITH BAD PLOTS AND ALL THE CHARACTERS ARE UNLIKABLE. POPEYE SOUNDS LIKE HE HAS A THROAT CONDITION AND OLIVE OYL'S VOICE IS 10 OCTAVES TOO HIGH. THERE'S NO SOCIAL CHARISMA BETWEEN THE CHARACTERS, IT'S THE SAME THING, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EVERY CARTOON CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING FORMULA: 1. POPEYE AND OLIVE OYL TOGETHER 2. BLUTO COMES IN, TAKES OLIVE 3. POPEYE BEATS BLUTO UP, TAKES OLIVE BACK 4. POPEYE AND OLIVE TOGETHER AGAIN OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING FLEISCHER DID TO A BELOVED COMIC STRIP CHARACTER. THERE ARE A FEW EPISODES OF POPEYE WHERE HE DRIVES JAPANESE PEOPLE TO SUICIDE. THESE HORRIBLE CARTOONS WERE PUT OUT AS PROPAGANDA DURING WORLD WAR TWO AND THEY'RE SHOCKINGLY EXPLICIT. THEY TURN A LOVABLE OLD SALT INTO A DEPRAVED MURDERER. THEY REFLECT JUST WHAT KIND OF A MAN FLETCHER WAS, A RACIST FIEND WHO USED OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK TO HIS OWN END. The Popeye comic strips, in comparison, are lighthearted jovial, and have many more diverse plots. Over the course of the dailies, Popeye becomes a cowboy multiple times, meets a millionaire, founds his own country twice, finds his dad-the list just goes on and on. Also, the cartoons don't have Wimpy. Wimpy is the best character. I await your next argument.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

Yes. Let's do this. I think that Popeye Cartoons are better than Popeye Comic Strips because the cartoons are one-paneled, which are usually automatically much easier for people to read. You probably read both cartoons and comic strips before. Don't you realize how long cartoons are, and they often make no sense. On the other hand, cartoons are usually humorous. To be honest, I find that comic strips and cartoons are good to use, especially for humor purposes. However, cartoons appeal more to the general population than comic strips. And before we move on to the 3rd round, I want you to find a picture of me on the Internet.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

E.C. Segar's comic strip is better. It contains actual humor and pathos. It's complex, it has more diverse characters, and it's imaginative. Through it all, you can see Segar's brilliance shining through, his genius is tremendous. He created an entire world for the newspaper comic section, and it's better than any other comic strip of its time. Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons, on the other hand, are a cheap knockoff with no humor. I'm talking about those animated little shorts that end up on DVD every now and then, and, for most people, it's the only Popeye they know. But it's not the real Popeye. The REAL Popeye was unparalleled. And I hate Max Fleischer's guts for ruining him. Let's go.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

I think that Max Flischer's Popeye Cartoons are better than E.C. Segar's Popeye Comic Strips. Cartoons are usually just one-panelled, and are much easier to read compared to a comic strip. Before we debate, here is the difference b/w a comic strip and a cartoon: https://www.quora.com... Let's go! But after this, can we debate something I want to debate? This is only my 3rd debate. Let's do it this way: I choose a debate, you choose a debate, etc.
Child birth should be considered immoral

5 rounds, 48 hours to argue, 8k characters and a 2 week voting period. Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. Discomfort: 1. Mental or bodily distress. 2. Something that disturbs one's comfort; an annoyance. First round is for acceptance. Second, third and fourth for arguments and counter-arguments as you see fit. Last is for summary and counter-arguments (no new arguments). Burden of proof in on me.
Inherited Sin as taught by the Christian Church is False

In my opponents intial argument he said that I did not understand the definition of Original Sin and he used wikipedia as his source. He then agreed with me that the Bible does not teach Original Sin as I explained it. I responded with the Church Fathers and Catholic Churches definition of Original Sin and repeated my first argument that infants being punished for a crime they did not commit is unjust. My opponent has not provided any compelling argument that my statements are false. I here provide another quote from the Catholic teaching about Original Sin;Council of Trent 1545-1563: "Adam's first sin has been transmitted to all his descendants". Questions of Catholics Answered by W. Hebst: "Yes, every child born into this world has the guilt of original sin upon his soul. Original sin is the sin that we inherit from our first parents. Original sin excludes us from heaven unless forgiven. It is forgiven only by baptism, hence when an unbaptized baby dies, it can not enter the kingdom of God. " (. http://www.bible.ca...)Notice that my honorable opponent does not provide any Catholic source that is contrary to the definition of Original Sin that I have put forth, he merely quotes scripture that advances my argument, further proving my contentions to be factual. In conclusion I say again that the concept that all mankind is punished because of the actions of two people is unjust and is unbiblical. There is no need for a so called perfect man to die for the sins of the world because all men are responsible for their own sins. Original Sin is a false teaching.
Inherited Sin as taught by the Christian Church is False

I accept your challenge. I would just like to expand on rule two. The bible is the focal point of this argument , as this is the case the bible should be seen as authoritative and credible or else this debate would be futile. I just wanted to establish that and have you confirm it. Do you confirm my position as fair? ( all other credible sources, as you stated, may be used too) Thanks and I look forward to another great and exciting debate. Good luck ☺
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

For the sake of organization I will answer question 3 last. 1. My value criterion is the same as yours, the social contract theory. 2. The government cannot morally use the death penalty. 4. Let society deal with them under provisions given to the government by the social contract. 3. The Social Contract theory, at it's core, is nothing more than a political theory trying to explain the relationship between individuals and the government. This theory asserts that individuals unite into political societies, by mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules. Political philosophers use this definition and the starting point of political order, in other words, before society formed every person acted as judge, jury and executioner, called the "state of nature". Using this starting point political philosophers then go on to attempt to explain why man would give up natural freedoms in order to form a ordered society aka set up a government. Thoughts about the social contract are only theories explaining why people come together to create a government. A government is legitimate since the people delegate to the government their right of self-preservation, thus, allowing the government to act as an impartial agent of self-preservation rather then all persons acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The government preserves people through laws. The two parties involved in the contract are the people and the government.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

1. Wife beaters are people, however they lose their protection of their right to life when they violate the social contract. 2. The social contract protects rights until it is violated, as I explain in my case. The rights are not taken away, but they are no longer protected by the social contract, and thus, the victim is no longer obligated to respect that right, which makes it morally permissible. 3. The world itself is not just, but as a general rule, most people are just. Your qualifications do not apply to the resolution anyways. 4. They are only constantly waiting for the attack by the attacker, not every single person. 5. I'm only required to discuss if it is moral, not the implications of that moral decision. 6. If the victim attacks the attacker but does not kill him/her, then the violence will increase. The point is that death is the moral decision because it is the only way to stop the violence. 7. Rights cannot be taken away, but they can be no longer protected once the social contract is violated. 8. It would be great if it could work that way, but the disparity between the victim and the attacker is too great. The victim is psychologically and physically less than the attacker, which means that they cannot ever fight fairly. Therefore, for the victim to stop the violence, they must make the morally permissible choice to kill the attacker. 9. When referring to repeated domestic violence, yes. 10. That is irrelevant to the resolution. 11. I cited him to explain the social contract. 12. They do not because once the social contract is violated, it is between individuals. This is also not about moral OBLIGATIONS, it is about morally permissible choices. CROSSEX 1. What is your value criterion? 2. If everyone has the basic right to live, no matter their actions, then how can the government legally and morally use the death penalty? 3. Is the social contract not also between individuals and not just the government and the people? If yes, then when it is violated, what holds the other person to the contract? 4. What do you propose victims do instead of fight back?
COD vs Titanfall

Since I will be on the side of CoD is better than Titanfall. It is one of the largest selling shooting games. Which kind of gives it an advantage when going against Titanfall. Call of Duty has a bigger fan base so it can get more ideas and have the ability to expand its franchise which also gives it an advantage. As for Titanfall you have to wait for the game to do a 2 hour update. WHile CoD probably takes about twenty minutes to update. In Titanfall they have really lowered the selections of what weapons there are to use against the enemy. While in CoD as they get bigger they add new weapons and other things that you can use later on in there new games that come out. These are reasons why I think CoD is better than Titanfall. I hope my opponent is ready to come right back at me.
Internet use in school

"I do agree with you. But my main point is that internet should be used for homework and research but i mean for games anf stuff the students can do that at home. Plus they can also do their homework and research at home too. "It seems as though con concedes to all of my points. To finish up, he states people can do games and stuff at home. This ignores the purpose of breaks in school, which is to have a break between classes. If people want to use the internet during a break, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. He states homework and research could be done at home too. This is true, but students should also be able to use the internet to do these things in school if they want to. There are plenty of times when this could benefit the student, without any drawbacks. There is no reason to inhibit a student's ability to do homework and research in school. With all the drawbacks of an internet ban in schools outlined, it is evident that this idea should not be implemented in schools.
Internet use in school

I will break my argument in favor of internet use in school into 3 categories. Homework/SchoolworkThere is plenty of reasons why a student would like to use the internet in school, and many of these reasons aren't necessarily a bad thing. For instance, a student may want to look up some information about homework or schoolwork on their phone. Another might want to use the internet to look up homework assignments on a class website. Of course, there is no clear way to distinguish this use of the internet with other uses such as going on youtube videos. As a result, a full on ban on internet use in school would have major drawbacks and only help a few people that waste time in class. I doubt many of these students would pay attention in class either way. They could just find something else to distract them. Recreational Use Students should certainly be able to use the internet at school during their breaks. Breaks, such as brunch and lunch at my school, are meant for the students to have some fun and relaxation time during the school day. There is no good reason why students should not be able to use the internet on their own breaks to do as they please. Some students may want to hang out with friends, some want to play sports, some want to play videogames, and others may want to use the internet for their amusement. There is nothing wrong with any of these activities during a time designated for student leisure. Class EnforcementAn effective method of preventing students from doing undesirable things on the internet during class time is to have the teacher deal with it. If the teacher notices that a student is being distracted significantly from his work, then he could ask him to put away the phone. It could be as simple as that, and that's what my teachers have done to ensure work gets done. The benefit of this method of stopping bad use of the internet during class also doesn't have the drawback of hurting students that would otherwise benefit from using the internet. This one-size-fits-all ban of the internet is an insult to the individuality of students in schools. All students are different and must be treated as a unique individuals in order for them to most effectively learn in school.
Non competitive school sports days

Non competitive sports days are wrong. Why would you try and hide something like competitiveness from children when it is so important. Its like not letting them use books, or the internet. Its such a hugely powerful tool. I really wouldn't be surprised if in a few years our (British) Olympic athletes are just going to let the others win. However that's not the worst of it in the school that I'm in at the moment they have so called sports such as 'Olympic drama' and even let us use wii sports which I think is ridiculous. In secondary school you should not be hiding teens from competitiveness, people that are competitive get places in life. It's an absolute disgrace that is allowed, let alone encouraged!
absolutes=existence

I accept this challenge against absolutes proving existence. Observation of worldly examples are not certain evidence of existence. A disoriented man, intoxicated with poison, alcohol, or drugs can create non-existent objects and events in such realistic fashion, he could see it as real. The theory of "I think therefore I am." Is flawed, because the very essence of thinking can be interpreted as an exterior influence upon a non individual. I could be a tiny strand of another being's mind, only being portrayed through stimulated thought. How can I be sure that I exist? I simply can't, because I have no direct evidence of the laws of existence. As far as I know, my very being could be of a non existent being, only transpired in the midst of a stimulated course of events in a wide spread simulation.
Should genetic discovery companies (23 & Me) be able to sell your genetic profile to 3rd parties

Genetic discrimination occurs when people are treated differently by their employer or insurance company because they have a gene mutation that causes or increases the risk of an inherited disorder. When you allow third parties to access this information, this is a risk that is taken. Information like this could cause people to lose insurance, work opportunities and more. HIPAA, (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) should be in play here to protect an individuals genetic information. If an individual chooses to disclose such information that is different. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Should genetic discovery companies (23 & Me) be able to sell your genetic profile to 3rd parties

I personally believe that companies such as 23 and me should be able to make your genetic info available due to the fact that the aforementioned company can determine if one will have early onset of Alzheimer and dementia. With this it could allow a new discovery of a new prevention drug it would introduce those who have tested positive for it to be able to test new drugs.
Americans Should Only be Allowed to Own Guns if They are Properly Trained

FYI)I must admit, I was laughing when you said the word karate. There are variety of martial art. So I guess the counter that... Rebuttal 1) "Gun owners own weapons for personal protection in many cases" Thieve...rape......etc.... There is a reason why there's CCTV (The security camera), police, and law. I'll keep this short since it's a weak rebuttal. 2)"One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse" The Pros mention the school. Ok. The teacher is not allowed to carry guns to schools, nor the student. So they're basically defenceless. So what do you want them to do? Surrender and get shot? Or get a lucky hit by throwing a scissor at the shooter? 3) "The state security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms." Security has nothing to do with the people's right. 4) ".....Not very comforting in a world...." I thought we're talking about America? 5) "I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives......around does not seem like a satisfying alternative" Better than nothing. Nothing else to say. GD
Americans Should Only be Allowed to Own Guns if They are Properly Trained

I think the right to own guns should be abolished. Let me cite the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The security of a free state, not the security of a person. Back in the day when USA was a young country, they were constantly under threat of other European superpowers, such as Spain and Great Britain. So owning a gun was a great idea during that time. Why? When a foreign country invade America, they could gather the militia, form an army, and defend their land. Now we have US army, USAF, US marine, US Navy, etc. So what's the point of owning a gun when we have the armies protect us? Now to the security of a person. There's many evil people out there who like to do evil stuff, such as rape, stealing, killing, etc. You can defend yourself without a gun. Ever heard of knife? You can get those at Walmart. Even if you don't have a knife, why not just go to the martial art class?
Americans Should Only be Allowed to Own Guns if They are Properly Trained

The intent of my position is to demonstrate that it would be a good idea for the government to ensure people are properly trained and certified before being allowed to purchase a firearm. First, the constitution labels gun owners as a "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment. The term "well regulated" implies that the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to maintain a high level of training. Second, rights are no longer protected if they infringe on other peoples' rights or endangers their safety. Gun owners (myself included) own weapons for personal protection in many cases. Many who support a limitless Second Amendment often exclaim that more "good guys" with guns will help reduce crime. I tend to agree. However, such weapons in untrained and unfamiliar hands only compounds the potential danger to innocent bystanders in any situation where they would be used. Consider any of the mass shootings in schools or malls over the past 20 years. One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse, let alone several untrained people. Such do gooders would have a high chance of missing the shooter and hitting an innocent person, especially in a crowded area. It takes a lot of practice to suppress panic instincts and shoot accurately while under stress. For this reason, i propose it would be a good idea if the government ensured people received proper training before buying a gun
Abortion

Definitions: Abortion is defined as the removing and/or expelling of a fetus/embryo. 1. This debate will be done Lincoln-Douglas Style. Round 1: Definitions/Rules Affirmative Constructive/Negative Constructive for Round 2. Round 3: Cross-Examination. Round 4: Affirmative Rebuttal 1/Negative Rebuttal 1. Round 5: Affirmative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion/Negative Rebuttal 2 and Conclusion.
Abortion

I will start my cross-examination. 1. A. Are you saying that you're the same entity you were when in the womb? 1. B. Google defines entity as "A thing with distinct and independent existence. " You obviously have personality and rationality. When you were in the womb, did you have a personality and rationality and were you independent as in relying on yourself to survive? 1. C. If no, then how are you the same entity as in the womb? If yes, how so? 2. A. Where do rights derive from? 2. B. What right does the fetus have? 2. C. Which federal law protects that right? 3. A. Does a woman have the right to her own body? 3. B. Does a woman have the right to reproduce? 3. C. Since the fetus is part of the woman's body and part of her choice to reproduce, doesn't the woman have the power to revoke its presence inside her body? 4. A. Is the fetus a human or a human being? 4. B. Can the fetus live without the mother? 4. C. If yes, how so? If no, doesn't that mean that the fetus is human but not a human being due to it not being independent? That's it for my cross-examination! To the Con for answering these cross-examination questions and to give me them! After that, the rebuttal starts with me. Thanks everyone!
Abortion

I'm assuming the resolution is along the lines of "abortion should generally remain legal" or "abortion is generally moral. " It would help if Pro could clarify this in the comments or in the next round so I know, precisely, what he wants to debate. I also believe that abortions to save the life of the mother are morally justifiable, as long as the child is not viable (in that case, a caesarian section should be done to save both mother and child). So I will be arguing that all other abortions are immoral/should be illegal (depending on which direction Pro wishes to take the debate). I have decided to take the debate with this style, as I'm planning on having my first in-person Lincoln-Douglas style debate in a few months, so this will be good practice. Just a quick addendum to the definition of abortion. Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a woman's pregnancy that results in the death of the embryo/fetus. It's not enough to say it's simply the expulsion of it because in most cases, you are actually killing the embryo/fetus in order to remove it (the only exceptions being taking a pill that prevents the embryo from implanting into the womb). I look forward to our next round, and to Pro's opening argument.
The days in Genesis are 24-hour days

Good afternoon,I will be taking the position that the days described in Genesis' creation account are not all 24-hour periods of time but are rather unknown amounts of time. I will specifically argue that the first three days of creation are probably longer periods of time then 24 hours. Naturally, my opponent will argue that the said days are 24 hour days as we presently experience.I trust that my opponent is educated on the issue and takes the Bible as God's word. I will let my opponent present the first arguments and we will go from there. I think by time this debate ends we will have a better understanding of the first chapter of the Bible.