BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Iron Man is objectively better than Batman

while Batman is revered and beloved because of his dark antics and the fact that he is much like an anti hero in the way that he acts on his own rules and stands for justice by his definition. However Iron Man is also very representative of this because they are both rich people who indulge themselves however Iron man as Tony stark has much more power with his secret identity then Bruce Wayne because of his weapons company. Therefore lets look at the most important facts. 1. Actual Combat: It is no argument that in actual combat Iron Man would defeat Batman. He is nearly indestructible and can withstand all mï¿½lï¿½e attacks. So in a fair fight Iron man wins 9 times out of 10. 2. Method of operation: Batman is renowned for killing his biggest criminals, however this is against the law and restricts these people from their right to a fair trial. While Iron Man has done the same exact thing this is not his method of operation he works closer with the government however and while batman is an outlaw Iron Man works closely with the army. 3. Practicality if the giant machines that fought Iron Man and constantly shoot him would kill batman. However Iron Man would absolutely destroy most of Batman opponents. 4. Secret identity. Bruce Wayne is a rich single millionaire. Sounds great until you realize that Tony Stark is a playboy philanthropist billionaire entrepreneur. 5. I will however give this last item to batman. Fighting without weapons. Without the suit of armor or the bat weapons Bruce Wayne would however be able to defeat Tony Stark. But the whole point of Iron Man is after all his suit of armor.
Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex

Pro (as the instigator making a positive claim) has the burden of proof. He must prove that homosexual sex is more harmful (not equally harmful) than heterosexual sex. Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex; a.k.a. gay or lesbian [1] Heterosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex; a.k.a. straight person [2] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex

Thank you for accepting. Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex due to the fact that Homosexual men are more prone to stds due to the fact that they have anal sex MUCH more than the average heterosexual couples. Yes I know. Heterosexuals have analysis sex too, but Homosexuals due MUCH more. Std statistics prove it. http://www.cdc.gov... Also gay men are 17 times more likely to have anal cancer due to anal sex they have. http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cancer-network.org... This must also mean that homosexuals have MUCH more anal sex than the average heterosexual. http://www.cdc.gov... I'm not saying that all homosexuals participate in anal, but you can't deny the fact MOST do. I also find it incredibly inaccurate and dishonest when liberals or Huffington post/buzzfeed articles make the false claim that homosexuals rarely have anal sex or that heterosexuals do it more, just to make gays look good for political reasons only. If gays rarely had anal sex then explain the incredibly high std rate. Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Haseltine did a study indicating that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,"gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year. This makes MUCH more sense as to why their std rates are so incredibly high. Now for lesbians. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals."However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion"s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,"and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians. studies "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports." Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners. http://womenshealth.gov... http://factsaboutyouth.com...
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(1.)I still agree on the definition of love being an intense feeling of deep affection. (2.)I also still agree that love in this case refers to the sensual form and not a plutonic love. (3.)Sensual love includes intimacy, sexuality, and caring about another individual. (4.)You can choose who you want to involve yourself with and if you want to continue to take your relationship to the next level. (5.)Most polygamy relationships are forced and is based on assets and not love. (6.)One gets married when they find their one true love whom they want to be with for the rest of their life. (7.)Lust is a sexual desire and it is possible to have that for many people and not fall in love with either one. (8.)Trying to love more than one person can cause you to push the other away making it so you can only really love one person. (9.)Therefore, you cannot be in love with more than one person at the same time. I have restated my premises and made any necessary changes and I still agree on the definitions that have been stated but my argument still remains that you can only be in love with one person at a time.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(1.) Love is an intense feeling of deep affection. (2.) Love in this case refers to the sensual form and not a plutonic love. (3.) Sensual love includes feelings of intimacy, sexuality, and care towards another individual. (4.) There is no controlling whom a person falls in love with (5.) Cultures whom practice polygamy have people in marriages with more than one person whom they are in love with (6). Infidelity is common and a person is in love with not only their spouse but also their mistress. (7.) Having interest in someone can cause you to fall in love with them. (8.) Therefore, a person can be in love with more than one person at the same time I have restated my premises and edited where necessary. My argument still stands: It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(4.) People who have got out of a recent relationship and found someone else may not want to take it further because they are still in love with the other person. Making it hard to have serious feelings for this new person, they may have love for them but not being in love with them will cause the relationship to move no further. (5.) Many males in certain cultures that allow polygamy are in love with their first wife. Any wife added after that is only for a good asset. They may come from wealthy families, be a good working or have very good offspring, in a way they are being used. After time the male may begin to have love for the others but he will only truly be in love with his first wife. (6.) When infidelity occurs its usually because they have fallen out of love with their partner and have taken interest in someone else whom they may feel they are starting to fall in love with. But some are in love with their partners and just cheat for the fun of it not having any emotion for the people they"re cheating with because they cant see themselves with anyone else but their husband/ wife. (7.) If a person is only seeking one type of love and other people that they have interest in are all providing different kinds of love they will only be in love with the one person that is providing the love that they are seeking. (8.) People take brakes from one another because they lose feelings or have found someone else. They wont be in love with the person they left and the new person they have taken interest in.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(4.) One not wanting to take it to the next level does not mean they are not in love, in fact the could just be scared of the new title and not want to ruin what they have with their other partners they may have. Being in love with others they may not want to put one before the other causing them to lose one. (5.) People who love more than one person may want to marry all of them and in some cultures there is nothing wrong with that. Wanting to marry all of them will show the equal love they have for each and every one of them that they are in love with. (6.) A lot of infidelity cases occur because people recognize their love for another person and because society has made it so that we feel immoral for feeling so, people go behind their spouses back. It's cheating but if society confronted itself and admitted that people can love more than one person, than infidelity would go down because it wouldn't be infidelity. (7.) One love doesn't negate the other. Loving someone for what they offer you can lead to loving multiple people because, as I stated previously, people offer different kinds of love. It's all about the kind of love one seeks and how much is required. (8.) Taking a brake from someone doesn"t mean you don"t still think about them or the good times you"ve had with them and feelings wont just disappear. People whom have gotten a divorce have rekindled and even remarried in most cases. Falling in love with another person while on that brake doesn"t mean you"ll fall out love with whom you are still in love with.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(4.) A person not taking it to the next level means they"re unsure of their feelings. By not wanting to go further with someone it can prevent you from allowing yourself to love them and you will begin to question your feelings towards them. (5.) A person who gets married by choice or force will end up having deep emotions for the person they"re marrying. Adding another person to the equation wont change that but in fact be a disadvantage for the new person because they may fall in love with the main person who is marrying them but the main person wont be in love with them only have love for them. (6.) People who cheat on their husband/wife usually just do it for the feelings not because they are in love with the person. After their spouse finds out they are cheating it either results in a divorce or they make them stop seeing that other person not allowing for feelings to get any deeper than they already are. (7.) Having lust for many people your feelings don"t get involved because you know it"s just a sexual desire. People who are already in love with one person but still have sexual desires for others don"t let emotions get involved with others that they tend to have lust towards. (8.) If one falls in love with another person it is because they have fell out of love with the other. Taking a brake from a person you love can easily cause you to fall out of love with them and if you have taken interest in someone else it can also cause you to fall out of love with the other person.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(4.) One can choose how deep they want to take a relationship but one cannot help any emotions they begin to feel towards another. Not taking a relationship to the next level has nothing to do with the emotions one may feel towards the other. For example many people who are in love with each other don"t get married, but it does not change the fact that they love one another. (5.) To say that it is impossible to love multiple at one time would be insulting polygamists and calling their happiness a fallacy. (6.) There are plenty of cases where people cheat on their spouses with another person and are in love with both their spouse and their lover. A person falls in love with qualities in another person. Everybody brings a different set of qualities to the table, so one is able to love multiple people because one is able to love multiple sets of qualities. (7.) Being interested in someone and being involved with someone is two different things. One may have lust towards many but it can easily turn into love when emotions come into play. (8.) Falling in love with another person doesn"t mean you"ll fall out of love with the person you were already in love with. Even someone leaving you doesn"t mean one still wont be in love with them, there are plenty of times where people just need brakes from on another but they are still in love.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(1.)I agree on the definition of love being that of an intense feeling of deep affection. (2.)Both parties have agreed on using the form of sensual and not plutonic love. (3.)We have both agreed on sensual love being that of which includes intimacy, sexuality, and caring about another individual. (4.)You can choose whom you get involved with, and how deep you take your relationship. (5.)Most polygamy relationships are forced and the person that is marrying all of these people usually is only in love with one out of the many. (6.)Marriage is for those who have found their one true love and are ready to be faithful and committed to that one person. (7.)Lust can cause a person to have interest in many people but not love any of them. (8.)Trying to love more than one person can cause you to fall out of love with whom you loved first and can cause one of your partners to leave you causing you to only be able to love whom you were left with. (9.)Therefore, you cannot be in love with more than one person at the same time. Non-controversial Premises 1,2,3 are definitions and both parties agreed on them so they are non controversial. Controversial Premises 4,5,6,7 and 8 are all controversial because people may have different views then I do. Premises (4, 7 &8) are true because you do chose who you want to get involved with and if you don"t chose anyone then you wont fall in love with anyone. Choosing more than one person you may in fact fall in love with one and push the other away or if any of your partners find out they may force you to choose between them and the others; once again forcing you to fall in love with only one. Premise (5) is true because in other countries many males marry more than one woman to prove their wealth and to have extra housewives to do all the cooking, cleaning and raising of the children. The male usually favors one out of the many females and it is the woman whom he is truly in love with. Premise (6) is also true and when not following these rules it leads to divorce causing one if not both partners to fall out of love with one another, especially if any one has found someone else.
Can a person be romantically in love with more than one person at the same time

(1.) Love is an intense feeling of deep affection. (2.) Love in this case refers to the sensual form and not a plutonic love. (3.) Sensual love includes feelings of intimacy, sexuality, and care towards another individual. (4.) There is no controlling whom one loves, how many people one loves and when those times of love occur. (5.) Many cultures actively practice polygamy and have many partners that they are in love with. (6). Infidelity is not a new concept by any means; in fact it is very common. (7.) One cannot help whom they love and when dealing with someone whom one has interest in it is very likely to occur. (8.) Therefore, a person can be in love with more than one person at the same time Non-controversial Premises 1,2,3 are non controversial because they are simply definitions. Controversial Premises 4,5,6 and 7 are controversial because my opponent may have different views on the subject. Premises (4 &7) are true because you can"t help any kind of emotions you have, such as anger, sadness or even happiness, you can only hide these emotions. Premise (5) occurs in many countries and the people involved in those relationships end up falling in love with one another. Premise (6) is true because there are many cases of infidelity that occur and the person ends up falling in love with the person that is not their partner.
Social networking sites cause more harm than good

In response to my opponent's points- 1. I am not ignoring peoples emotional state. But physical taunts hurt both your self confidence AND your physical health. Emotional pain is just as painful as physical pain, if not more so. But physical attacks are simultaneously bad for your physical health and emotional state, which makes it worse than a simple text, which can only inflict one of the two. 2. As to your point that only 2% are physically bullied, that's how many are physically bullied today. Given how many bullies simply switched to the safer realm of computers to do their taunting, the amount before social media would have been significantly higher. So in your own accidental way, you are actually complimenting social media for lowering the rates of physical bullying so drastically. 3. I am very sorry to hear that you have felt first hand the wrath of bullies. That bit about suicide is incredibly depressing- however, NZ is noted for having an extremely high suicide rate compared to other countries, which suggests that social media is not in fact influencing this (as social media is all over the world) and instead another reason is responsible, one more localized to New Zealand.) And I too know something of how being bullied feels. Yr 5 in particular I was very depressed, and actually started logically going through suicide techniques. All the writing I have spotted from this time is saddening to me now- but in all this, I had not one form of social media. I didn't even have e-mail. So your claim about suicide and social media being related is flimsy, to me at least. For these reasons, I believe that the links between social media and sad events in real life are flimsy at best, and a complete lie at worst.
Social networking sites cause more harm than good

In response to the oppositions points, I am disgraced at my opponents lack of thought for peoples emotions. Firstly I would like to point out that less than 2% of students have been assaulted or physically hurt. This pales in comparison to the amount of students that have been cyber bullied. I think that my opponent has also ranked physical pain above the pain that words can cause. The truth is that words DO hurt just as much, if not more than being "beaten up". The invisible scars left by cyber abuse causes young adults do become depressed and sometimes even worse. The point is that being hurt physically does not even compare to what happens if one if hurt mentally. To add to my early point, bullying is one of the major world problems, and is influenced greatly by social media. As a bully victim I have first person knowledge that bullying can make someone feel like they are trapped with no escape. But there is one escape. Suicide. Suicide happens across the world regularly. In New Zealand nearly 500 suicides took place, and studies show that cyber bullying is to blame. Suicide is the second highest cause of death in 15-24 year olds and there is a reason for this. Because of this I can make a clear judgement that social networking sites cause more harm than good.
Social networking sites cause more harm than good

In response to your point as to how social media can be used for bullying- yes, it's true that bullying online does occur. But I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't bully people anyway, and having the bullying transfer from physical attacks that can actually cause very serious damage to a mere text message is in fact a good thing for society. As well as this, you have to consider the fact that social media does more than just stop bullying being physically damaging- it also is used for good. Friendships can tarnish if you don't see them for extended periods of time, but social media allows people to keep their friendships growing strong. Are you suggesting that ridding society of bullying in a way that can cause permanent damage is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that keeping friendships strong is not worth doing?
Religion Short Debate

A very common error that many make when it comes to what it says in the bible is that all of what is written is taken literally, which should certainly not be so, at least with the English and Spanish translations (those are the ones that I have read from). Though, the creation of the universe does appear to have been the work of a "big bang", this on its own does not necessarily disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God, as that can be correlated with the universe's creation according bible.
There are only 2 genders!

Okay so I see that you never brought that up and I was going on a misconception that I was just straight up assuming. Bad on my part. I'll go with what you said straight up. It goes against human nature is what you say. Now i'm not saying we should just embrace change because change but, I think how people, especially the LGBTQ community like to express themselves is just their business. I think the main thing is that gender in these terms is social and matters just as much as how we deal with it legally. Sure legally we will still use Male and Female to determine crimes and such but, I feel as if how a person wants to sexually identify is their business. https://www.ranker.com... There have been trans people for a long time in history so it's not like it's anything new. Most likely if you live in a highly populated area, you might have walked right past a trans person without knowing at least once. So what I'm trying to say is the trans issue is just preference and if it makes people feel comfortable and make them feel better socially then what's the harm in that? Really there isn't a lot of negative things that come out of trans people just wanting to identify besides A or B (male or female.) If not any at all. And I know you may be thinking. But it's just a fact, you can't change fact. Sure there are 2 sexes determined biologically but what's the harm in subcategorizing gender identity like sexuality? If you want to "identify" differently that should be fine. But, it's not like we're saying that these are going to be the new genders or anything for official factual reasons.
There are only 2 genders!

Well I believe it comes down to whether it really matters and whether or not this is really that harmful. Some folk just want to express themselves in a way they feel comfortable so they do it. And the people that do it best usually don't get found out. (lol i.e traps) I believe that this whole controversy is spawned from a make believe fear that a population that only takes up .3 to 1.2 percent of the population is somehow a predator in every bathroom. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... Actually come to think of it, when was the last sexual harassment crime that's been committed since places like Target created these bathrooms? Really it's not anyones business and it's not like you want to check. XD
The book is better than the movie

Thank you, Con, for your gracious introduction. I in turn will argue that the book is indeed better than the movie - far better, in fact. Surely visions of imagination spun into minds are much better than just screens of color? I will reveal information and opinions on why the book is better than the movie, and views and points on different angles of public thought. In the following rounds I will introduce these following topics: imagination and technology, educational reasons and simply the theory of fantasy and mere actors. Thank you, Con, for your patience.