BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Superior Spider man can beat batman

Otto Gunther Octavius (the superior spider man) and Bruce Wayne (the Batman new 52) are both rich super Intelligent people who are good at prepping. The battle will take place in New York City. Batman gets 2 weeks of prep. Ock also gets 2 weeks to learn who the batman is and how to prep against him. I think SPock can easily beat batman because he has all of peters abilities with all of Dr Octopuses money and intelligence. When superior spider man became superior venom he almost beat the Avengers. SPock also constantly brutalizes his enemies. SPock has killed Both Allister smythe (the spider slayer) and massacre. Instead of a bat cave he has a converted prison. Spider Island II. SPock updated spider mans costume adding a HUD, a backpack with 4 spider legs and claws that can inject micro spider tracers inside someone's body to listen to them ( he can even make them explode). SPock has adamantium web shooters which contain communication units, flame thrower, sonic blaster and even bulletproof webbing. SPock uses Dr Octopuses old hologram generator to make an avatar of himself to trick opponents. SPock also uses his old enemy the living brain as a lab assistant and formed Parker Industries. As Dr Octopus he has beaten up iron man to the point where he wanted to retire, he has beaten the hulk with his adamantium arms, and took out the avengers in under 5 minutes.
Abortion

I only have two rebuttals. Rebuttals: - Like you said, every child does deserve a fighting chance at life but in some situations you just have to choose abortion! The kid that brought the machete to school once would not listen to anybody trying to help his behavioral issues! When a disciplinarian used to try to calm the kid down he would say " I am a good boy, I never get into trouble! " He would leave the room after that. This is one reason why I believe his parents or his community could have talked to him about it without having him freak out. But now he is getting into lots of trouble and he once went to prison and even they couldn't raise him! His mother should have picked abortion when this happened! - Also, the man who killed 26 people from Sandy Hook Elementary School should have been aborted. There were rumors that he got into lots of trouble as a youth sort of like the boy from my other story. His favorite childhood game featured tons of weapons including guns and knives which made him adore weapons. His mother then took him to the shooting range to try out a gun and he kept the gun in his possession. On the cold December Friday during the year of 2012, he took the gun that he possessed, shot and killed his mother, went to Sandy Hook Elementary and shot 20 students and 6 adults before shooting and killing himself. This is another situation in which the mother should have picked abortion! This was a good debate! I am not saying whether you should vote pro or con because that is the reader's choice! Thank you challenger for being a good sport during the whole debate! Good Debate, Majducator
Abortion

Again only 3% of Abortions are due to fetal health. 97% are for other reasons that have no basis. My sister was in college when she got pregnant and she dropped out and did everything she had to do to make my nephew's life wonderful. Her and her boyfriend have made a beautiful life for their son Connor. Her friend who was 20 also got pregnant and panicked, she aborted the child and had no regrets, or so she thought. She hates herself now for killing her child, and will probably have to go through therapy to recover. We have to start y educating women on the fatal choice they are about to make! No the situation you gave does not qualify for abortion. It qualifies for a community or family getting together and helping raise that troubled boy. I am 15, and I help take care of my Nephew while my sister takes courses at a local college. My grandmother, mother, father, and aunt all help carry the weight. When more children in an inner city go to jail then a four year college, there are many problems. I don't see a solution as simply killing possible problems. I see education and law enforcement as a problem.How do you know what child is going to be a delinquent, and which child will cure cancer? You don't know, you have to profile mothers and that is what is happening. That is why 70% of abortions are attributed to minorities. We have to come together as a nation, and as a community to save every child. Every child deserves a fair shot. Charity, Community, and Medicine all will aid us in our fight for the right to life. We have to come together not as democrats or republicans, not as white and black, not as left and right, but as Humans. We must come together as Humans, and fight for every human, no matter how small. I will not rest until every fetal heartbeat is defended. How can America justify any of it's policies when children are massacred every year. Over 1 million babies re aborted every year. And even if we make exceptions, like fetal health, we can still stop unmerited abortions. I am glad we have had this talk,while we haven't changed policies we have put ideas out there and I hope restrictions can be placed on abortions so we can at least start to make a dent in the American Genocide.
Abortion

Those were good stories, Instigator! I have two arguments and one rebuttal. Arguments: You have to consider abortion if you believe you are too young to be a mother. Usually, women are comfortable that they are young enough to be mothers when they are age 18. Some women think more, some women think less. Like about 2 years ago, I knew a 14-year old girl who was in the 8th grade. One thing she used to like to do is kiss other 8th grade boys and take them out to dates. Well one time, I saw her walking around with a few extra pounds than normal. I asked her "Where is the weight from?" She answered "Oh I'm 3 months pregnant!" I then asked her "Aren't you too young for a child?" She replied "Yeah. I'm considering abortion." Personally, I do not have any respect for women who choose abortion for no reason but I understood her position this time. Another story that I have is I once knew a child who was born to his mother when she was 13 years old. Well ever since he was in the 3rd grade, he has been getting into fights, writing graffiti, vandalizing property, he even got expelled from school for bringing a knife to school. But it wasn't just any knife, it was a MACHETE and he had intent to stab somebody! All of this was happening because his mother is too young for him, his mother took illegal drugs, smoked cigarettes, and got into too many bar fights. That is just a situation that you had to pick abortion! Rebuttals: The Declaration of Independence did state that all men are created equal and I support that. I have lots of White friends, Lots of African American friends, and many more raced friends. How about if it was an incurable disease like a rare case of Fetal Lung Cancer which is extremely rare but it happens. If your child had an incureable disease like Fetal Lung Cancer, would you rather watch your child not be able to breathe and eventually pass away or would you rather have the child start his/her journey west in your stomach which is abortion? If you aren't in the debate put a comment in the comment box stating life for no abortion or death for abortion! Good Luck Con, Majducator
Abortion

I find it extremely unlikely that a parent would terminate their pregnancy, because their child is ill, rather than give their child a fighting chance in this world. If there is one thing that continually surprises me it is medicine. My sister was born with a whole in her heart, my parents did not give up, and she is now in perfect cardiac health. My uncle had life threatening cancer extremely close to his brain, but doctors peel it off and he is cancer free now, after being told he most might not beat the disease. My uncle lost both of his legs in Vietnam, yet he stands today. Medicine has advanced so far that a baby born 7 months premature can survive. Every child deserves a fighting chance, and our Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal" and you are created at conception. We must stand for what is right, and allow all men to be created equal in this nation. About 70% of all abortions are performed on minority patients. Liberals are all about defending minorities, and ensuring they have an equal shot, except they allow this genocide to go on, which is destroying the minority population. And only 3.3% of abortions are do to fetal health. The bulk of abortions happen for other cowardly reasons.
Abortion

I voted as a pro on this topic because say the newborn is unhealthy and he might die right after being born. Would you rather abort the baby or cry when the baby dies of a disease. Also, say if you don't have time to teach the baby right from wrong and you would be in trouble when he/she gets suspended from school or gets expelled from school. So would you rather kill an unhealthy baby while you are still pregnant or will you grieve when he dies?
Abortion

Now many of you, upon seeing my name in this column will assume I am taking away a woman's right to choose. Think of it as giving a child his or her's Right to Life back. 56 million babies have been aborted since roe v wade 40 years ago. That is a number Hitler would be proud of. We know we are on the wrong side of an issue when we've killed more babies than Hitler killed Jews. We have an American Genocide going on right beneath our noses, and I will do everything in my power to save the sacred life of an unborn child. When your child has been in the womb 22 days, they have the gift of life, a heart beat. Think of the days they have ahead of them, walking, playing and laughing. Who has the right to take away that life? Not a mother. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the suspect is indicted for a double murder, so the government does recognize that the child is alive. Our government endorses the American Genocide by funding Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, a racist who wanted to destroy minorities through sterilization and abortion. Her goal is being achieved and it is a sad day when we have to tolerate these mass murders. You democrats may not realize it, but their is a higher authority than the federal government, and one day we have to answer to him, how do you explain to God letting 56 million children die?
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

If the Federal Government implanted a national curriculum, schools wouldn't necessarily benefit. I take a lot of pleasure in learning things in school based on what is relevant to my town. By implanting a national curriculum, you are erasing the individuality of each classroom. If a teacher had a passion for Steinbeck, but didn't necessarily have the same passion for Shakespeare, but the government said he had to teach Shakespeare, I can guarantee that the level of education would suffer. Students deserve to learn in an enthusiastic environment, where they can openly discuss topics that are relevant to them. And, you claim that in times of financial need, the federal government would be able to provide funding for schools. The federal government already pays the states to run schools. If the state funding is suffering, federal funding is suffering.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

I apologize I meant to say country. But let me give you an example. Singapore is number 1 in the top 10 education preforming countries and the U.S isn't even ranked in the top 10 like we used to be. Why? Because Singapore has a national curriculum and they have structure, unlike the U.S. Most of the information that are taught in schools, no one uses it once they graduate High school because some of it is useless so how could they stick to what they are teaching? The Federal governments involvement should be there even if it is a little bit because then we would have a standard based reform and we would be getting taught things that will be helpful. Like I said in my first argument, what I researched was that the Federal government does play a role already, but they are basically just a backup if the states and private industries don't have enough funds. The Federal government should be involved so that if there was a crisis about money, we wouldn't have to worry about it because the Federal government will already be providing the funds that we need.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

First of all, I was just using one of the scenarios from your round two argument. You said, "you would be having different information (lessons) taught all around the world". First, I'd like to point out that we already do have different information taught around the world, but I am assuming you meant to say country. Secondly, in my argument I was merely saying that if a state chose to change its curriculum like you mentioned, they would face consequences, namely in the form of their students AP and SAT performance. No state or school would ever want this for their students. The information they teach would be have, to some extent, stick to the information students will come across in the future.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

Well it seems to me that you kind of helped my argument. You're saying that if one state chooses to omit certain aspects of American History from its classes that the students would do poorly on the AP tests. So basically states shouldn't be in control of Education because they would be setting up their students for failure, whereas if the Federal government was involved, they would have a national curriculum and know what they are doing as far as tests go because they would be standardized.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

I disagree. I think national testing would keep curriculum regulated. For example, if one state chooses to omit certain aspects of American History from its classes, the students would test poorly on AP tests. The same goes for English. If certain states and schools chose not to read a classic selection of appropriately challenging books, then their students would suffer when taking the SAT or ACT. Schools will cater to make sure that what they are teaching will bring success to their students. Schools want to have good reputations and win awards for their matriculation and high testing scores. They wouldn't do anything (especially drastic curriculum changes) to put that in jeopardy.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

Honestly, without the Federal governments help, we would have no structure. The states may be in the best position to understand what their children need, but the Federal government can do that as well. If the states controlled education, you would be having different information (lessons) taught all around the world, so what if a child moves to a different state? They are going to be learning two totally different things. If the Federal government was involved, you would have the same curriculum in all the states so that if something like that ever did happen, the child as well as the child's parents, wouldn't have to worry about missing something.
Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

The government should not be in charge of education reform. Each individual state and district should be in charge of it"s own schools. They are in the best position to understand what their children need. Any broad educational reforms that the government passes lumps all of the schools in America into one. Each school is so different and its students so unique that anything the government does will not have a great impact. For example, I know students that go to two different public schools that are less than twenty miles apart. Each school has equal funding and they are relatively the same size. However, one of the schools was ranked number one in the state while the other is struggling with less than a 20% proficiency rate in nearly all of it"s subjects (as proved by the state wide testing) as well as a 30% truancy rate. If the government were to implant reforms that would effect both schools it would be nearly impossible to say that any reform would be necessary or to the benefit of both schools.
Should Obama be impeached

My opponent has forfeited the final round of our debate. Conduct should be awarded to me for the forfeit. Spelling and grammar to me for Con's 26 total mistakes. Arguments to me because I have properly refuted all of Con's claims and held my case. Sources should be mine for I have provided 20 while my opponent has provided absolutely 0. May we soon try and convict this failure of a president. Arguments extended.
Should Obama be impeached

1. I did not use improper grammar and you are claiming that I used an incorrect argument when you say the same thing only you use it as a "reason why people should be impeached" 2. I'm pretty sure that we are talking about Obama's possible impeachment not what has happened in the past Andrew Johnson,Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have nothing to do with this they made mistakes but Obama has not. Plus we all know what gun law I'm speaking of you are just exploiting it so that you can look like you don't understand it so that your confused by my argument. 3. "His Royal Highness President Barack Obama" really? His royal Highness one HE IS NO KING america is a democrical republic meaning we are a democracy but we use republic ways for our government so no His royal Highness is offence to the government our forefathers built. 4. He could have done this so that there is no bloodbath have you considered that maybe just maybe he tried to prevent soldiers and civilians from raging in the streets the only reason they probably didn't is because "Hey lets just blame the government like we know every thing that goes on without considering the fact the government's job is to protect us" this supports me by simply unless the pro is a witness and all of america we don't know jack so stop acting like we do. 5. You know this how? i mean by that by how Obama is involved once again were you there did you watch this could have been dirty agents could of been a senator see its easy to just claim o some one else did it with out a throu investigation 6. Its not even worth saying it again i feel like a broken record YOU KNOW THIS HOW? ?? ?? ?? ?? yes there military drones but wait i thought we had generals and commanders who could call orders without the government's hand holding but no lets just blame the big guy screw justice or investigating pfft. My argument sticks all I'm saying is that Obama has done nothing wrong someone find me proof ill shut up but let me just say a few things 1. No investigation 2. No evidence 3. Apparently everyone know exactly what happened and who is responsible.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Invalid

A definition of God is needed in order to advance into the actual part of the debate. Since we are arguing whether or not the Paradox of the Stone actually exists, we ACTUALLY need to understand who and what is God exactly. This would be like reading a last chapter of a book without understanding the previous chapters... I've provided a definition of God because my opponent failed to answer my request. God : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions. 1. God's Power is forever growing Since my opponent has stated in his introduction "...God is assumed to exist for the purposes of this debate." We don't have to waste time. In my opponent's first contention he states "creating a stone so heavy..." First, we have to understand that God has the ability to create a stone with a set weight but cannot "create a stone so heavy.." Because the stone wouldn't have a SET WEIGHT. God is all powerful, but it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to determine his strength because it is not definite. God's power is forever growing. You cannot measure INFINITY. You cannot put the weight of the rock so heavy on a graph because you add +1 pound to it forever and it wouldn't stop. By saying god can't lift it, is like saying a person has all the knowledge in the world. But you could just teach that person a made up language and another piece of knowledge would be given unto him. God can lift the rock not because he is set at a strength, but because his strength is forever increasing. 2. God can defy logic Yes, god can defy logic. But my opponent keeps referring to a "rock so heavy." A rock so heavy doesn't exist, there isn't a set weight as I stated in my first contention. But, what he can do is make a rock forever increasing in weight. So can god lift the rock? Yes, God can lift the rock because his strength increasing as well.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Invalid

A definition of God is not needed; also, God is assumed to exist for the purposes of this debate. It isn't a debate on whether or not God exists (regardless of how you define "God"), but whether or not the Paradox of the Stone proves that omnipotence is an illogical concept for any God to posses.I noticed that you said in your comments you meant to say you would argue that the Paradox does exist; however, that is not your burden. It is not debatle whether or not the Paradox exists as a concept, because it self-evidently exists or else we wouldn't be discussing it. This doesn't mean it is actually a true "paradox"; it's just the title of the concept. Anyways.Best of lucks to you too! Here is the Paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it? This question is often posed to try to show that the concept of an omnipotent God is illogical. 1. Can't defy logic Let's assume that God posseses omnipotence where he can do anything that doesn't defy logic. The answer is “no,” because creating a stone so heavy that an all-powerful being cannot lift is a logical absurdity. This doesn't concede that God isn't omnipotent, as the defintion of omnipotence excludes the ability to defy logic. 2. Can defy logic God can do anything, even defy logic. Making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a logical absurdity... but God can defy logic! God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, yet remain omnipotent because he can defy logic! Even under this definition, the Paradox of the Stone fails to prove that omnipotence is illogical. Remember, because God can defy logic doesn't mean that his ability itself is illogical. I have proven my case. Best of lucks, Con!