BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight

ok so now we have the basic strengths of our fighters. Like you said The Predator is very hard to kill and has taken on different creatures. Not just Humans, but the Likes of Aliens and other Predators. On the Movie Alien vs Predator The Scar Predator goes one on one with the Alien queen, a fearsome and powerful foe indeed. The predator However has been beaten by humans. The Creeper did got killed and all but it wasn't because of humans, he had to go back to rest for his next killing spree in 23 years. The Predator has a lot of weapons (like so freaking much) Which in my opinion would give him an advantage of weaponry over the Creeper. You did mention however that Predator, will fight hand to hand against a worthy opponent. The Creeper is more than worthy to fight The Predator. Here's how I see the fight going and I chose Two scenarios Hand to Hand: I think the creeper will demolish the Predator. Predators are amazing fighters for sure, and have strong Armour, but The Creeper is a very smart creature, he will see where the Armour connects on the bending areas like the elbows and knees etc. or wherever there is no Armour. The creeper is almost unkillable and has taken on armies, while the predator has lost hand to hand combats against humans. Weapons vs Weapons: The predator has a ton of weapons, very true and will rip off a lot of Creeper flesh, but The creeper is a quick flier and will attack Predator from the top. He is very strong and has been able to lift a truck from the ground, like in Jeepers Creepers 2. I think this fight might end in a draw, if not The Creeper wins due to speed, now the predator might turn invisible, witch means he ill be afraid to die, witch is where the Creepers scent will come in handy and find the Predator and Kill him.
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight

In the movies,the Predator had - A plasma gun,which vaporizes anything in it's path. - He has sharp disks than can easily cut through flesh and easily decapitate human flesh. - Tough body armor that can be cut through,but is hard and bulletproof. - Any weapons that can be crafted out of nearby resources. - A plasma spear - Multiple knives on hand - A cloaking device - Thermal imaging - They can call on multiple hunters for help if they must -And a self destruct device on his forearm that can cause a very big explosion and vaporizes everything in it's path. Skill- The Predator has various skills. It is literally like a predator,but it is still a intelligent creature. It is very smart and lays traps often luring it's prey into it. The Predators also use psychology to trick it's prey. They are very good at tracking it's prey and they kill for sport,which should explain how good of fighters and hunters they are. They also hunt dangerous animals for fun. But the Predator's are also a species of honor,and if they deem a intelligent life form worthy,they will fight hand to hand. But the Predator is very strong and it takes 1-2 tons of force to kill it,as it did in the first movie. I vary the weight because the Predator sizes vary. So lets say it's a big medium sized Predator and it'll take 1.7 tons of force to kill it. But they will reward the life form with a sort of prize if they can kill a Predator. However,the Predators only attack aggressive life forms,but since The Creeper is aggressive,forget I mentioned it. They can also craft weapons from their surroundings and they are very resourceful.
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight

awesome, here's why I think the Creeper will kill a Predator. 1. (fighting experience) The Creeper has been alive for centuries, he has gone against knights, Native Americans, vikings, you name it. He has the fighting experience of a hundred life times.(1) 2. (weapons) The Creeper has shown that he has a variety of weapons, I will only name the ones shown in the movie, even though I bet he has more. In this battle the creeper will use the following weapons. (2) -Two Shurikens made of teeth and stomach skin: These are sharp and dangerous. Even more so to the fact that when the creeper throws them they explode a bus tire. - A demonic carved Throwing knife, now in the movie he did not use it, but he dropped it in the beginning. This sharp object is about a foot Long or so. -An Ax that he uses on the first movie to cut off a cop's head. This is the only time this weapon is used. -His truck. 3. (Abilities) The creeper eats human body parts to replace his own. He eats hearts to live longer, eyes so he can see better etc. The Creeper has Super Human Scent. He smells the fear of his victims and once he clinches into the "fear" he will stop at nothing to take on his victims, and devour them. The creeper can also Fly at high speeds capable of catching up to a speeding car. He is also very Pain resistant. in Jeepers Creepers he was run over by a car multiple times, and was able to drive his truck into a police station and eat an inmate to cure his wounds. He can climb on walls and he's very acrobatic. His skin is known to be bullet proof. (2) (1) jeeperscreepers.wikia.com/wiki/Creeper (2)
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight

As I have pointed out before,The Creeper smells his opponents through fear. And The Predators don't get afraid and and scared. And as for you pointing out that the Predator see's using thermal imaging,well this isn't true all the time. As in Alien v Predator,it's seen that Predators see using a variety of spectrum. So even If the Creeper is a dead body and doesn't give off heat,then The Predator can simply see him using different spectrum's,even some that we may not know. And might I remind you,one Predator killed the Alien queen. When you say that the Creeper is faster,I should remind you that a lot of them are agile. The jungle one was agile for obvious reasons,but even the city one was agile. This is kinda surprising since it has no reason to be,but he kept darting around the city. Then there's experience. You say that the Creeper has more experience,but we don't know how long since the Creeper doesn't really talk. But the wiki said that some Predators have been around for 1000 years or longer. We see evidence of this at the end of the second film when they give the hero a flintlock. Which may seem that The Predator has taken on large masses of people.
Gun Control

It is my belief that we should not have gun control in the United States. There are many legitimate facts and reasons to back me up. The biggest thing is that gun control is not effective and if enforced at a larger level, it will continue to be ineffective. It has been proven that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns no matter what. Here is a scenario proving this: The five US cities with the strictest gun control laws are New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington D.C. These are also the five cities in the US with the most murders by shooting. All that gun control does here is take guns away from law abiding citizens. If people in these cities had guns to defend themselves, there would not be as many murders. Also, gun control would not be good for businesses or the economy. Obviously, stores that sold guns would experience a level of drought for their business. The level of that drought would depend on the level of gun control. For example, if background checks were put in place, it would take longer for people to purchase firearms. This would slow down sales for the business owner and they might have trouble paying bills. In addition, if gun control was put in place, guns would be sold on the black market. Scenario: magazine size is limited, so assault rifles are now being sold on the black market. And who buys off the black market? Criminals do. I believe that the less items that are sold on the black market, the better. And now for the second amendment. It reads, " A well regulated militia, the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I know what your argument will be. You'll probably say, " it's only for a well regulated militia, not the average citizen." Well, the whole idea of the second amendment is protection from the federal, state, and even local government. Let me ask you this, what if I wanted to start a local militia? I am 100% protected by the second amendment to do this. My rights to guns cannot be restricted in this case. If gun control actually passes, I will start a local militia to protect my rights to guns. Obviously the reason some people want gun control is to slow down crime. Like I pointed out earlier, gun control wouldn't solve crime. We should focus less on who gets guns and more on the large number of criminals that we need to hunt down. http://standupspeakoutnow.com... http://www.politifact.com...
Gun Control

I gladly accept texans14's debate. I will be on the Pro side. I will argue that background checks, limited ammunition, and more security - in schools, malls, movie theatres, etc. - is effective gun control. I will argue that the second amendment has been abused and misinterpreted as well. As my opponent has not listed the rules, I feel obligated to do so: 1. Forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points, unless there is a legitimate reason to forfeit. 2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. Occasional errors are tolerable. 3. Sources will be cited. All formats - APA, MLA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable. I look forward to this debate.
Morality is Necessarily Subjective, but Non-Arbitrary

Con seems to believe that I’m intentionally engineering an unclear argument to “win”. He charges me with semantic trickery. He assumes bad faith of me in doing so. Not so. In another thread, I suggested a tactic for dealing with bad faith of that sort. And I linked to here, where I demonstrate that technique. So it's understandable that Pro should assume I think him guilty of bad faith. But I don't. I think he suffers from an obscurantist writing style, but not from bad faith. I apologize for giving Pro the impression that I thought him guilty of bad faith. I addressed his counter that rocks are morally eligible beings because they comply with “ought implies can”. I addressed this counter in saying, “So far as the external world itself is concerned, smashinga rock is no different from smashing a face”, meaning that in order todistinguish between these two cases, subjectivity must be invoked. Torturing babies for fun is wrong regardless of how you feel about it. That rule is objective. You don't have to believe it's wrong for it to be wrong. You can "invoke subjectivity" all day long, by saying that the babies' suffering is subjective---but that doesn't make the rule subjective. It doesn't make morality subjective. Con points out that rocks are in compliance with “oughtimplies can”, but my point is that rocks don’t qualify to be treated as morally eligible thingsbecause they can’t suffer or be harmed. Once again, I don't see his point. Morality has to do with the choices of free moral agents. It is morally acceptable to smash rocks, because rocks don't suffer. And you don't get to smash babies, because babies do suffer. The baby's suffering may be, in a sense, subjective, but that doesn't make the rule subjective. This calls into question how closely Con is really paying attention. Perhaps the reader should take care, then, in heeding Con’s charge that I am peddling sheer obscurantism. I think we'll have darned few readers. How many will wade thru Pro's fog of words. However, I did have to weaken my position on the point that morality is necessarily subjective. I conceded to Con that I couldn’t prove morality to be subjective in all possible worlds. So out of the three things contained in the resolution: 1. Moralityis non-arbitrary, 2. Morality is subjective, and 3. The subjectiveness of morality is necessary, as opposed to just possible. I’ve successfully defended the first two of these, and conceded the third. This is not a globalfailure to uphold the resolution; I've successfully defended it in fargreater proportion than I've had to weaken it. I can still say with good consciencethat readers should vote Pro. The resolution is, "Morality is Necessarily Subjective, but Non-Arbitrary." Pro now concedes that that isn't true. At best, morality is possibly subective, not necessarily subjective. Since Pro concedes that the resolution is false, the votes should go to Con.
Morality is Necessarily Subjective, but Non-Arbitrary

I gotta ask: Is that writing style a joke? Pseudo-schollarly obscurantist verbiage as entertainment? I love this sentence in particular: "This is because properties arising from objective modalities of interaction and detection do not essentially and necessarily discriminate between participating parties; the same properties are functionally available to all." I propose a contest---after the voting closes---to see who can best translate that into plain English. Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that Morality is Necessarily Subjective but Non-Arbitrary. That's all one claim. That is, he must prove each of three things: 1. Morality is non-arbitrary, 2. Morality is subjective, and 3. the subjectiveness of morality is necessary, as opposed to just possible. Burden of Proof: Pro has the burden of proof. I don't have to prove any of those to be false. Pro has to prove that all three are true. Apology: Pro doesn't identify as male or female. Puts me to the guess. I'll use the male pronoun, with apologies if I guessed wrong. A Weakness: "Subjectivity"I didn't accept this debate out of a belief that Pro was wrong. I accepted it because I wanted to find out what he was talking about. There was a risk, then, that I would have to concede after reading Pro's argument. But, luckily for me, his argument turns out to be flawed. Pro wrote, "to say that morality is objective would be to say that ... inanimate objects would be under the jurisdiction of moral prescriptions." In other words, morality is subjective because it doesn't apply to rocks. Since morality applies only to people (Pro is saying) then morality must be subjective. There are two Problems with that. First, according to Kant, "ought implies can." [1] This means that every moral rule that says "ought" implicitly includes an "if you can." "Honor your father and mother," can therefore be read as, "Honor your father and mother if you can." Thus, since rocks cannot honor their parents, they are in compliance. Considered this way, moral rules apply to rocks every bit as well as to people. This alone is fatal to Pro's argument. Second, and to my mind more important: Pro invents an eccentric and nonstandard test of subjectivity. By Pro's logic, the law of gravity would be subjective if it affected only people. That's not the real test. In normal usage, opinions and emotions are subjective, but facts are objective. Thus, the law of gravity is objective not because of what it affects, but because it is true regardless of how you feel about it. Let's apply this to a moral rule. Let us stipulate that there is a moral rule against TBFF (torturing babies for fun). Is this subjective because the object of the rule (babies) are people? No, it is objective if TBFF is wrong even if you like doing it.Pro has undertaken to prove that moral rules are necessarily subjective. This means he must prove that no moral rule can be objective. That's a tall order. ---[1] Wikipedia. "Ought implies can."
It is impossible to change the past.

Firstly, in the future, refrain from, oh, "screwing the acceptance rule." It makes me grumpy. Moving on to the case, you did not appear to define the difference between actual circumstance and perceived circumstance. While you did do a very nice job of both defining simple pronouns and helping verbs and redefining the already-definitions (you may wish to refrain from doing this as well, sir.), these two terms are of key importance. See, perceived circumstance is how humanity chooses to view the past. For example, I had the displeasure of debating someone over whether or not the Holocaust actually occurred. Now, whether it did or it did not, the Holocaust obviously could not have both existed and not existed, so it is clear that one of us was perceiving history incorrectly. (For your information, it was him.) Actual circumstance is a bit more tricky. Basically, it is whatever occurred, whether or not people believe it. This true example of the past is what this debate is focusing upon, not the easy manipulation of society, but the real genuine changing of events in time and space by means of technological or magical advancements. The how is irrelevant. Only the possibility. And now for my case, thank you very much. (You're somewhat right, though. I am coming off as a wee bit rude. Huh. Rude and not ginger.) This could get complicated, so hold on tight. Also, I apologize for verb tense confusion. Time is confusing. Here is how I think of this resolution / hypothesis / guess. Basically, what I intend to prove is that, if one goes back in time, no matter how much meddling he does in the past, the present and future will not be influenced. The past cannot be changed simply because if someone had, has, or will have gone into the past and changed something, then it has already occurred. Say I go back in time to kill Hitler before WWII(a clich" example, I know). I right from the bat know that I have, or will fail, on account that we know that Hitler was not killed before WWII. If he was, all of the present would know it already. It is impossible to change the past because no matter what, the given time-traveler will have already done whatever time-traveling that he was going to do. Do yourself a favor: if you have not yet read "When You Reach Me" by Rebecca Stead, then you should. In this book, the theories of relativities (yes, there are many.) by Albert Einstein are explained something like this, using the example of "A Wrinkle in Time." In the beginning of the the wrinkly book, one of the old ladies (Who, maybe?) promises to bring the children back to the garden five minutes before they leave. The nerdy science character in the Reach Me book says this is impossible, as if the children had truly arrived five minutes before they had departed, they would have seen themselves. I know this is complicated. I have spent years mulling over this very subject, but I believe that my hypothesis is correct. Thank you all for dealing with the rambling. VFD
It is impossible to change the past.

First I would like to say that i do not enjoy the attitude of his writing very cocky and overarching with little regard to personal and human dignity. It is impossible to change the past. Definitions It - used to provide a meaning full agent of action, a grammatical vehicle of being Is - state of being, present tense Change - to alter from original being or presence Past - not in present, not in future, but already occurred Screw the acceptance rule It is very possible to change the past in fact civilization have been doing it for decades with little regard from society. In so far as the past is relative and our knowledge of the past is relative it can be changed. Think of it like this, if i have a box and i have no idea what is in the box then, it is simple for another actor (my dad) to change what is in the box without me knowing because i have no original conception of what was in the box before it was switched. The same principle can be applied here. Because the past is not the present and society has no clear conception of what the past is then it can easily be changed. Now what the PRO is going to say is a 2 things 1. This is about science 2. Well society does know what the past is because of history and recordings or the past I will respond to them in order One This is about science but in order to fully understand the nature of physics and electromagnetic longitudinal pulls across space-time we mus understand the logic behind the science. But on a different note, the PRO never tells you if the technology to change the past has to be in effect or if it even has to be discovered. This means that the PRO must show that their is 0% chance of us ever changing the past. But in so far the logic behind changing the past stand and so does the science then you MUST NEGATE. But then again the focus of science has allows been philosophy. Think about it people like Albert Einstein though about scientific concepts even before they could be proven or even discovered. It only makes logic sense and a common mind to determine that we can change the past. Two This logic has one crucial mistake in it that destroys any notion of correctness. If we are relying on writings for what we think we know happened in the past, it is easy to then change the past. Think of it like this, if i rely on one maginize for all my news and gossip and that magizne writes something incorrect, they have effectively changing the past because they are the only source i get my news from. Their word is law. Much like in our history, for much of our history we rely on one individual or institution for knowledge of that event. It is then conceivable that they would change a fact or statistic in order to benefit themselves. Though this may not be time travel it highlights society intellectual capability to change the past.
The media should portray Adele's body image more responsibly

Little did they know that, in reality, George Michael was both a screaming homosexual and hopeless drug addict. Of course, this was all hushed up and his fans may never have realised that they he had jewed out of their pocket money if he had never been arrested for performing unspeakable gay acts in a gentlemen's public lavatory and also been exposed queering up some bloke in a public park (1) and, subsequently, been jailed for a series of drug offences. (2) Similarly, during the nineties teenage girls swooned over the members of the boy band, Boyzone, blissfully unaware that one of its members, Stephen Gately, was a roaring poof. (3) During the 2000's many teenage boys emulated the style and mannerisms of ‘gangsta rappers' who drove fast cars, dripped in ‘bling' and were surrounded by ‘bitches' and who glorified gun crime, even though most of these artists were law-abiding citizens. I could go on, almost ad infinitum, but the point is fans of pop stars do not, as my opponent suggests, admire their ability to sing or play a musical instrument alone, they are fans of the celebrity as an individual: the plethora of fan clubs, tabloid newspaper gossip columns and celebrity chit-chat magazines is evidence of that fact. My opponent's second point was that female role models who are slender and attractive (or "skinny" as he termed them) can lead to teenage girls developing anorexia. This may be a problem, but it is a very minor one compared to the problem of obesity in young girls. Statistics show that around 1% of girls suffers from anorexia whereas over 15% of girls are classified as obese. (4). That's why the media should be taking more responsibility in the way they portray female role models, especially pop stars, praising the healthy body images of the nice fit ones by condemning the unhealthy body images of porcine performers like Adele. Thank you. (1) . http://www.canada.com... (2) . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (3) . http://abcnews.go.com... (4) . http://www.ic.nhs.uk... (5) . http://www.disordered-eating.co.uk...