BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Avengers are better than X-Men

3? Boy, you must be from the future or something because the second Captain America just came out last year. So there is no way of a third for at least another year or more. And the incredible hulk 2 is still in planned production. Let us stick to the present. First of all there is not anything wrong with x-men's emphasis on teamwork. Look at their powers too. Magneto alone could take on both Iron Man and Thor due to his ability to control metal. Captain Americas agility could easily be matched by that of Nightcrawler's not to mention his teleporting power. That leaves beast and Colossus to handle Hulk. As for Black Widow and Hawkeye, Wolverine and Mystique make a perfect threat. With mystique's disguises, they would probably end up shooting at each other anyway. Besides, all the bullets and arrows in the world would not keep wolverine from healing faster then they were shot.
Avengers are better than X-Men

Yes, there may be seven movies about the x-men however the avengers have produced more. As an actual group they have produced two, Iron Man has made three, Thor has two, the hulk has two and captain America has three. The x-men (with Logan being the exception) however has only produced as a group thus proving that the avengers is made up of charterers that are interesting enough by themselves let alone in a group.
should "under God" be taken out of the pledge

Since the beginning of the constitution, America has been a Christian nation as I said before. Capital punishment exists, do you not believe that it violates the constition and the 8th ammendment? It in not our job to judge whether people live or die, and even if noone wants to admit it, there really is only ONE God and when it comes down to it, I think that taking the "under God" out of it, is disrespectful to a majority of the nation and to God himself. Tell me how often you hear people complaing about how it says God on the U.S money? It's because people benefit from it. If you want to take "under God" out of the pledge, then we would also have to change the lyrics to many songs that have been song since the civil war such as "america the beautiful" and "God bless America". When tragic events happen in America history, what do many (even most) people turn to? I higher power, the one person they know can bring hope and change more than any human, God. Thanks for your respons
should "under God" be taken out of the pledge

Thank you navygirlfriend_x3 for starting this debate. There has never been and never will be a connection between the church and state within the United States. the dilemma my opponent speaks of does not exist. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from supporting one religion over another. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.; so, any act that opposes the Constitution is unconstitutional, it cannot exist. The phrase "under God" subordinates polytheistic minority beliefs to the monotheistic majority beliefs. This is unconstitutional. Therefore, it cannot exist in the U.S. Also, the majority means nothing. I await my opponent's response. Good luck!
should "under God" be taken out of the pledge

While I think that there's a logic in the seperation between church and state, I don't understand how taking "under God" out of the pledge allegiance would solve this delimma? Our nation was founded upon Christian beliefs, Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I believe that if people really have such a problem with it, that they need to get over it. It's all about majority over minority and the majority of America is of a monotheistic religion. Congress says that it's unconstitutional to leave it in there because we are so diverse as a nation, but I believe that it's MORE unconstitutional to take it out. I await my opponents response.
should "under God" be taken out of the pledge

Thank you for the response. Just because the majority of the U.S. was Christian does not define the U.S. as a Christian nation. Capital punishment is not cruel or unusual punishment. It does not violate the Constitution. My opponent claims that there is only one God. And as she cannot prove the existence of a God or many Gods, her argument is not valid. Furthermore, it is not disrespectful to take out "under God" as the phrase would only be applicable to the citizens of the U.S. that believe in a monotheistic religion. This does not apply to the remaining citizens. But if the phrase was taken out of the pledge of allegiance, it applies to every citizen of the U.S. People do not complain as they have grown used to it or because it could not matter less to them. Actually saying they believe in a monotheistic religion is against their beliefs. People could believe in a polytheistic religion, in which case the higher power is many Gods. I await my opponent's response.
Jury Nullification (full resolution in R1)

Resolution: Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. Definitions: Jury Nullification: occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral, wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding, or unconstitutional. Perceived Justice: What an individual interprets as justice. Rules: 1. No forfeits.2. No semantics.3. No kritiks.4. BOP is shared.5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter. Structure: R1: Pro Opens. R2: Con Opens, Pro rebuts. R3: Con Rebuts, Pro DefendsR4: Con Defends, Pro waives.
Amoranemix' view on morality is unreasonable.

I will identify my indented opponent as IP. I was counting on no one else accepting this debate, because they would realize they don't stand a chance. IP carries a large burden of proof and yet keeps portraying me as unreasonable, among other things because I declined two of his debate challenges (on which I carried no burden of proof, but the debates required me to take half of it). If it is unreasonable to decline debate challenges, IP is unreasonable for declining. It is you who have the burden to prove my view on morality is unreasonable. That burden originates from the fact that IP made the claim : "My view is not unreasonable. Yours is." By accepting this debate, you have accepted that burden.It is indeed likely that IP does not know my view on morality. Christians do not understand morality. They have identified problems, apparent inconsistencies that IP is eager to share, e.g. in the thread 'Objective morality argument' : www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/57072/ Essentially, although there is more to it than that, consider the example behaviour : raping children for funThat cannot be just an opinion, yet Christians cannot see how it can be anything else. Hence it is a mystery well suited for a god-of-the gaps argument. Over the years, as I have argued with Christians around morality, I have acquired great insight in it. However, God plays no part in those insights. Hence IP sees all these problems with morality and since IP wants to believe in God, (s)he refuses to accept that these problems are real (i.e. that life sucks) or solutions without God. No mystery, no god. Unacceptable ! So (s)he ignores my insights. In stead (s)he assumes that I refuse to recognize the problems : Some things are truly wrong, while at the same time being merely an opinion. ← My view according to IP. Hence my view must be unreasonable. About two years ago I shared some of my insights on morality in the thread 'The subjectivity of objective morality' : http://www.debate.org... May the truth prevail.
Amoranemix' view on morality is unreasonable.

Context : in the comment section of www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-is-Reliable-regarding-Israels-Covenant-and-Prophecy keeps complaining of me having declined two of his debate challenges as if that was somehow inappropriate of me. I challenged him to the reasonableness of the declination of the second challenge (the first no longer being accessible) in www.debate.org/debates/It-was-reasonable-of-me-to-decline-PGAs-debate-challenge-about-prophecy, but PGA declined (!)In that comment section I also invited PGA to many formal debates on topics he took a stand in, which he all declined (except maybe a few about which he was ambiguous/unclear, like about morality), but since I didn't actually issue the challenges, that must be OK. Thus here I provide PGA with the opportunity to behave inappropriately (which I am confident he will be eager to grab) : he claimed that my view on morality is unreasonable. So he must demonstrate that is indeed the case. Since the burden of proof lies with the person making the point-making claim, it lies with my opponent. Since PGA has amassed a large burden of proof that he is unable/unwilling to honour, I can provide him with many more opportunities to behave inappropriately. My opponent may have the last word, but may not present any new arguments in the last round. May the truth prevail.
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

Why I think Star Wars is better. Cultural Impact The Star Wars franchaise had such huge impact on Hollywood and the general public, that it changed the way directors directed movies. Before Star-Wars, Movies generally didn't have many special effects, and relied mainly on thick and engaging story lines to impress the crowd. When George Lucas revealed Star Wars to the world, everything about it was praised with positive acclaim. The acting, storyline, effects, music score, etc.... This was quite remarkable, considering that Sci-Fi movies weren't really popular back then. Even George Lucas thought his own movie would flop. Many lines from the movie are quoted and are used in daily talk. For example, when somebody wishes you good luck, they might says “May the Force be with you” The fact that kids from the 80’s still watch and adore Star Wars proves that really it made a huge impact in American culture. These impacts are much are greater than what the Star Trek series provided. This mainly is because Star Trek gained much of its popularity from its TV series, rather than its movies. Both have had affects on American culture, but the Star Wars Franchise was more prominent, due to the fact that it had a broader range of audience, and it won more academy awards. Score (OST) This is where the Star Wars really take the edge in my opinion. The score of the Star Wars Series is a huge reason why it was popular. John Williams did an excellent job perfecting his music, and it certainly paid off. The Imperial March and the Theme Music are arguably one of the most influential pieces of soundtrack Hollywood has seen. John Williams won the academy award for the best Score, which none of the Star Trek movies won. Merchandise Due to the cultural impact of Star Wars, many toy companies decided to make action figures to help increase their sales. It certainly worked as the total sales the franchise made from toy sales was 12 billion dollars. The Star Wars Franchise is currently ranked #1 in toy sales,(Star Trek isn’t even in the top 10) so Star Wars effectively captured the toddler and children market also. The Star Wars Video games made 2.9 billion in profit, (the Star Trek franchise didn't even manage to sell 20 million copies) So it safe to say this helped the Star Wars franchise become more successful due to its merchandise. I'm saving some of my arguments for next round. http://www.statisticbrain.com...http://www.imdb.com...;
Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God

The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate historical facts that are best explained by the notion that God rose Jesus from the dead. I only must undermine my opponent's arguments. My opponent will argue in the first round, but to ensure we have the same amount of rounds to argue, in the last round, Pro must not argue and put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfeit.
The Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip was Justified (3rd attempt)

Okay, I'll try this debate one more time! Maybe the third time's the charm. My position is that Israel's decision to launch military attacks in the Gaza Strips against the terrorist group Hamas is justified. Israel's goal is to achieve a viable peace and to stop the rocket fire. The only way for this to happen is for Israel to destroy as much of Hamas' members and their rockets as possible. It is clearly apparent that Hamas does NOT desire peace with Israel. This is why they continue to launch rockets and break cease - fires. If Hamas would stop their terrorist acts, Israel would have no need to invade their territory. The only action Israel can take with regard to Hamas militants is force. The question of proportionality is irrelevant. Any country who is attacked in this manner would do what they needed to do to crush the attackers thereby ensuring the safety of their citizens. As a matter of fact, Israel has not gone nearly as far as they could have. Israel does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. If it didn't, there would probably be more than double the amount of civilian deaths. The fact is, Hamas is known to attempt to maximize the number of civilian deaths by intentionally launching their rockets from areas that are densely populated by civilians in order to provoke a response from Israel that will kill civilians. Since Hamas is not willing to stop the terrorist attacks, Israel has no choice but to retaliate.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

This is absolutely ridiculous. PRO seems to think that the wording of his debate isn't important. However, (s)he keeps urging me to explain why I think Kobe will not be the second best to have played in the NBA when he retires. Therefore, I accept his new resolution. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar will easily better than Kobe when Kobe he retires. Kareem set a record for the highest amount of points ever. His signature, the skyhook shot, was very hard for defenders to block. On defense, he collected an insane amount of blocks, as his wikipedia article states: 'He is also the third all-time in registered blocks (3,189),which is even more impressive because this stat had not been recorded until the fourth year of his career (1974). 'The article also states:'Having collected six championship rings, six regular season MVP and two Finals MVP awards, fifteen NBA First or Second Teams, a record nineteen NBA All-Star call-ups and averaging 24.6 points, 11.2 rebounds, 3.6 assists and 2.6 blocks per game. However, he made up for his relative lack of bulk by showing textbook finesse, strength and was famous for his ambidextrous skyhook shot, which defenders found impossible to block. It contributed to his high .559 field goal accuracy, making him the eighth most accurate scorer of all time and a feared clutch shooter. Abdul-Jabbar was also quick enough to run the Showtime fast break led by Magic Johnson and was well-conditioned, standing on the hardwood an average 36.8 minutes. In contrast to other big men, Abdul-Jabbar also could reasonably hit his free throws, finishing with a career 72% average. 'As you can see, Kobe Bryant is not going to be the second-best to ever play the game when he retires, as Kobe only has five rings and an MVP award.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

All right, CON. First off your definitions do not help your cause, because, I was referring to Kobe Bryant in the future tense and how he will be recorded; as the second best player in the NBA. Let me explain this debate in a different way. I believe most everyone can agree that this debate can be based mostly on opinion, and in my opinion, Kobe Bryant is the second best player in the NBA. CON has not given me his opinion about where Kobe Bryant ranks and why, and combined with the fact that CON has still been arguing over the wording of my resolution and hasn't gotten past that, makes me think that CON thinks he is going to lose this debate. Vote PRO. One last thing, I do know what fulfill the burden of proof means.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

No, if you meant that Kobe Bryant will go down as the second best player as in when he retires, then why did you 'write will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game,' (as in 'will go down in history) and mention nothing about retirement in the resolution? DEFINITION OF 'WILL' :1; Expressing the future tense:you will regret it when you are olderREFERENCE:. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...DEFINITION OF 'GO DOWN' :2: Be recorded or remembered in a particular wayREFERENCE:. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...PRO mentioned nothing about retirement in his/her resolution. PRO said that (s)he didn't say that Kobe is the second best of all-time, which is true--but what (s)he did say was the word 'will,' and 'go down,' therefore, PRO's case is that Kobe Bryant will, beyond a shadow of doubt, be the second-best player to ever play in the NBA, no matter how long the NBA will last. PRO totally changed his/her resolution by adding retirement, so therefore, I refuse to debate the resolution 'Kobe Bryant Will be the Best Player in the NBA when he Retires,' and we should stick to the original resolution because I accepted that one. I did not give any evidence that Kobe is the second-best player in the game, or will be, of course, because I don't need to. PRO states: 'Last I checked, 'not enough' evidence is better than none at all. And until CON can 'fulfill the burden of proof' and give evidence that Kobe is not the second best player, I assume he has agreed with me and that his arguments would then be irrelevant. 'I don't need to give any evidence, PRO, because, if you don't give sufficient evidence, you lose. I'd like to point out that PRO put the words 'fulfill the burden of proof,' in quotes, as if (s)he doesn't know what it is. CON, maybe if you paid attention to my first post, you'd know that I don't have a burden of proof. You do. I don't have to give any evidence provided you don't have enough. You never said that the burden of proof was shared. Therefore, if there is just a sliver of doubt that Kobe Bryant will not go down as the second-best player to play in the NBA, you lose. I don't need any evidence.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

First of all, I did not change my resolution. It said that 'Kobe Bryant will go down as the second best player' as in when he retires. Besides, I did not say that Kobe is the second best of 'all time'. Since CON is claiming that I changed my resolution, I take it that he thought he was going to lose to my 'first' resolution, and because of this, vote PRO. CON has also not given any evidence that Kobe Bryant is not the second best player in the game. He has stated that I have not given enough evidence. Last I checked, 'not enough' evidence is better than none at all. And until CON can 'fulfill the burden of proof' and give evidence that Kobe is not the second best player, I assume he has agreed with me and that his arguments would then be irrelevent.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

PRO stated: 'Hello CON. I suppose I should set a few definitions straight. When I say 'Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game' I am saying that when he retires he will be the second best. I am not talking about the future, so that part of your argument would be irrelevant. 'PRO basically just changed his resolution in round 2. You cannot even change your resolution once your debate is accepted, because I accepted what the resolution was, not what PRO decided to debate after. PRO's change-up of the resolution is ridiculous because (s)he knows (s)he would have lost if I argued against his/her resolution--which I did, and now I am in a debate I never accepted. Therefore, I absolutely refuse to argue against PRO's new resolution. If PRO still uses his new resolution, vote CON. I'm sure you understand. PRO also stated:'One more thing. If Kobe Bryant is not the second best player in the NBA, who is then? I have just given some evidence that Kobe Bryant could be the second best player in the NBA. And since CON has not said that someone should be in Kobe's place, I urge you to vote PRO. 'Yes. You gave evidence that Kobe may be the second-best player in the NBA, but your burden of proof isn't fulfilled--you haven't given enough evidence. Until you have shown that nobody else in the NBA other than Kobe has the potential to step up their game to be the second-best, your burden of proof isn't fulfilled. Even then, your burden of proof isn't fulfilled, because you have to prove that every future-NBA player doesn't have the potential to be the second-best player to play in the NBA. Until you have done that, you have lost this debate.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

Hello CON. I suppose I should set a few definitions straight. When I say 'Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game' I am saying that when he retires he will be the second best. I am not talking about the future, so that part of your argument would be irrelevant. I believe that Michael Jordan is the best NBA player right now. No one could do the things he could do, so this could bring up another form of ranking all of the NBA players. I could rank them by who resembles Michael Jordan the most since he is the best. (if you don't believe he is the best, I have another debate ready for anyone who wants to join. ) In this case I would have to put Kobe Bryant at number 2, since he can, not only, shoot well from the perimeter like Jordan, but he can also drive in to the basket like Jordan, and can pull some of the spin moves like Jordan. No center can do that and other players like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and LeBron James couldn't do that. He has one of the most consistent jump shots ever as well. Sure, he is third on the all time scoring list, but that is mainly because Kareem and Karl just stand under the basket, wait for the ball, turn and shoot an easy basket. One more thing. If Kobe Bryant is not the second best player in the NBA, who is then? I have just given some evidence that Kobe Bryant could be the second best player in the NBA.
Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game.

Hello, PRO. Your thesis is: 'Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game. ' My thesis is: 'Kobe Bryant will not go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game. 'The burden of proof is on PRO to prove that, without a doubt, Kobe Bryant will be the second-best NBA player to play the game. I have to prove either that: a) Kobe Bryant will not go Down as the Second-Best NBA player to play the game, or:b) There is not enough evidence to prove that Kobe Bryant will be the Second-Best NBA Player to Play the GameOf course, PRO does not have enough evidence to prove that Kobe Bryant will be the second-best player that will play in the NBA, just as PRO doesn't have enough evidence to prove that Michael Jordan will be the best player to play the game. Maybe another player who is better than Kobe will enter in the NBA in the next NBA draft, or in the NBA draft 5 years from now, or in the NBA draft 10 years from now. Maybe a basketball player better than Michael Jordan and Kobe will enter the NBA in 2 years, or 10 years, or 20 years. Or perhaps a current NBA player will completely step up their game and surpass Kobe. Who knows? It is possible that Kobe is the second-best player right now, but the statement 'Kobe Bryant will go down as the second greatest NBA player to play the game,' is a shot in the dark. I just demonstrated that there is not enough evidence to prove that Kobe Bryant will go down as the best NBA player to play the game.