BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

My opponent has said that clint doesn't have as many arrows as I've said. If the viewers would click on the link and look at the bottom of the list they would see all of hawk eyes arrows. The ones he said were just the most common ones but if Clint gets to choose he will choose one or two of each. The debate as far as I'm concerned will end in me winning, losing, or a stale mate. The stale mate will occur if or heroes have the same weapons and arrows, him winning will occur if Clint doesn't get a choice in weapons and arrows. And me winning will occur if Clint gets a choice. It will also vary depending on the location of the fight. My opponent keeps coming back to the island. And that the green arrow had trained since he was a boy too. I feel that robin hood was my idol when I was younger. Yet I didn't feel the urge to follow in his footsteps. And the island. I know he was there, its just that before the island I remember him having girlfriends and drinking and getting speeding tickets. I didn't see much training. Clint found his love for archery and practiced and trained then got money for it. He now spends at least two hours a day practicing. He also said that iron fist isn't the best martial artist in the world. True. But he is considered the best because of his chi, durability, speed, strength, etc. Even without his iron punch he has lasted long enough with wolverine that he had to give up. This means that even without very good strength he has won against two of the worlds best peak human martial artists in the world. This must count for something. I will hand over the debate to my opponent after we discuss in private where it'll be and what weapons they shall get
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

In my my next argument I will be making more points towards my respective side but I will also prove some of my opponents wrong. Firstly he claimed that Hawkeye utilizes more arrows but through the source of the Marvel wiki page (http://marvel.wikia.com...) we find that really he only used these: Sonic Arrow Explosive-tip Arrow Smoke Bomb Arrow Flare Arrow Tear Gas Arrow Acid Arrow Suction Cup Arrow Cable Arrow Putty Arrow Bola Arrow Electro-disrupter Arrow Net Arrow Rocket Arrow Boomerang Arrow Secondly he also stated that Hawkeye would be far superior in close combat. I believe that the Green Arrow would instead be better. For a start I will bring back the island that Oliver Queen was stranded on. He was trained by again the same mentor that taught Deathstroke who is advanced in dual-wielding combat and also the "World's greatest assassin." He had to use these skills in order to survive on this island. Much better than a sparring match between him and Captain America. You also stated that Iron fist was the finest martial artist in the world which is also wrong as Marvel actually only states that he is "one of the best." Green Arrow then went on to to join the Justice League where he trained further in martial arts to the point that he knew virtually every one. He has been trained in the use of a katana which is way more efficient than Hawkeye's bow which he uses in hand to hand combat. I will also like to point out that Hawkeye uses a gun and this is not true. Through private conversations with my opponent I have learnt that he may be drafting info from the Avengers movie which is a completely unreliable source of information and in which Hawkeye did use a gun. My opponent makes a good point in saying that Hawkeye has trained since childhood which tells me that he might not be doing as much research on my side of the argument as if he did he would know that Oliver has been training since his childhood as well through inspiration from his idol "Robin Hood." I use this to again back up the case that Oliver's training is superior. I will now let my opponent make his case
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

My opponent makes a good argument and now I know that the green arrow has multiple arrows (not as much as Hawkeye) but anyway. It is partly about the arrows but if it came to hand to hand combat, and I'm pretty sure Hawkeye would beat green arrow. He has been trained in Boxing, Judo, Aikido, Jujutsu, hand techniques in Ninjutsu, Karate, Muay Thai, Escrima, Chin Na, Wing Chun, Northern Shaolin kicking methods and Wushu. He was taught these by none other than captain america and iron fist who is considered the finest martial artist in the world. He has gotten to the point where he has been able to defeat the hand and Electra in hand to hand combat. And if it was down to sword combat, I'm sure Hawkeye would win. He has received training from and beaten the swordsman who is the most skilled swordsman in the world and although he doesn't wield a sword, if he did he would most definitely win. She has trained in nunchucks,throwing knives, daggers, swords, staffs and has been able to master captain Americas shield. He is able to understand how to use virtually any weapons and can work out how to use technology and how things work. He also is a shield agent and what would a shield agent be without a gun. He has been in the circus and has received more than just archery training, he was trained in both acrobatics and aero acrobatics and is able to achieve the most complex acrobat moves. He is able to use katanas and shurikens and throw them extraordinary distances. His bow is also custom made and he has a quick release quiver that can allow arrow release at abnormal rates
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

Con's argument makes some very good points but I will continue to debate for the Green Arrow. My opponent brought up a few of the opponents Hawkeye has faced. This is very impressive but I would like to bring up that in a fallout between the justice league Oliver Queen was able to defeat the likes of superman and of course has faced up against the likes of Doomsday and Solomon Grundy who have more to offer than both Captain America and Quicksilver. Now you mentioned that he managed to hit quicksilver which I find hardly impressive after Oliver was able to hit the Flash who is considered (even by Marvel) the fastest speedster. You also mentioned the use of trick arrows arrows as well. Well I will now list the extensive list of arrows used by Oliver Queen: Standard Arrow Bleach Bottle Arrow Flash grenade Arrow Greek Fire Arrow Glue Arrow Phantom Zone arrow Acetylene Torch Acid Anchor Anti-Missile Antler Aqua-lung Avalanche Bait Balloon Bazooka Battering Ram Billiard Stick Blackout Blade Bloodhound Bola Boomerang Boxing Glove Buzz-Saw Cable Chimney-Sweep Chloroform Colored Disc Arrows Cobweb Cocoon Depth-Charge Diamond Drill Dry-Ice Dynamite/TNT Electric/Electro-Arrow Electric Eel Arrow Electronics Explosive Fake Uranium Fan arrow Firecracker Fire extinguisher Fire-Foam Fireworks Fish Hook Flare Flash Grenade Flashlight Fluted Fountain-Pen Gas Pellet Gelatin Glider Glow-Fish Arrows Greek Fire Grenade Glue Handcuff Harpoon Heli-Spotter Ice-Cutting Incendiary Ink Jellyfish Arrows Jet Lariat Lasso Lightning Magnetic Magnetic-Rope Midnight Mummy Needle Neon Light Arrow Net Octopus Arrows Oven Paint/Paintbrush Parachute Arrow / Arrow-Chute / Para-Arrow Phantom Zone Arrow Plastic-Net Radar Radio Rain Reflector Ricochet Ring Riveting Rocket Rope Saw Short-Circuit Signal Siren Sleep/Sleeping Gas Smog-Alert Arrow Smoke Smoke-Screen Step-Ladder Stun / Stun Grenade Suction Cup Supersonic Sun Tear Gas Telescoping Trail Trap Tumbleweed TV arrow Two-stage-rocket Umbrella Vacuum Arrow Falcon Arrow (as Robin Hood, having gone back in time) Yoke Arrow (as Robin Hood, having gone back in time) Jousting Arrow (as Robin Hood, having gone back in time) Vine Arrow (as Robin Hood, having gone back in time) Soot Arrow (as Robin Hood, having gone back in time) I would like to point out that not all of these are even arrows which shows he is capable of shooting objects around him at the time. I also believe that the feats the arrow has achieved are way more impressive. For example the time when he back-flipped of a building, shot and arrow into the barrel of two guns and still had time too shoot and "arrow-chute" to descend safely
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

I admit that a circus isn't nearly as cool as being trapped on an island. But. I do need to mention that oliver queen was stranded on the said island for five years... Long time. But not as long as Hawkeye spent in the circus. He didn't train himself either. He was trained by the swordsman and trick shot for his entire life. He met black widow and started using more advanced arrows. He later on joined captain america, quick silver, and the scarlet witch. He trained with them to test his aim by hitting quicksilver and defeating captain america in hand to hand combat. The team went on to defeat people like doctor doom. As you can see, he's a lot more than a circus clown and is none of the most skilled marksman and martial artist on the planet. He has a supply of arrows designed by none other than tony stark (ironman). He has enough to last wars and can antisipate what a person will do and counters their move
Green Arrow would beat Hawkeye if they ever fought

I believe that Oliver Queen or the Green Arrow would easily beat Hawkeye. Oliver Queen had been stuck on an island for 5 years where he has to train and fight for his survival against the drug lords that inhabited the same island. He was trained by the same mentor who trained the "World's deadliest assassin" Deathstroke who is no pushover. He is considered the best archer in the DC universe and has a wide arrange of arrows to use for any occasion. I can easily say that with the rigorous times he has been through he also has more motivation than Hawkeye who trained in a circus. I now will let my opponent make his case
Let's talk about Feminism

As I have said in the previous round women do not receive the same rights as men in many countries including the UK and USA. You claim that you have bumped into feminists yet you also claim that you don't know what more they could want? I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they would have told you what they wanted. As I mentioned earlier women are fighting for the same wages as men (for the same jobs). Continuing on from this point women also find it significantly harder to receive the senior positions that men do. "The overall gender pay gap, which the Office for National Statistics defines as the difference between men"s and women"s hourly earnings as a percentage of men"s earnings, stands at a record low of 19.1pc as of April 2014, after increasing for the first time in five years to 19.8pc last year. For full-time workers, the pay gap narrowed to an all-time low of 9.4pc from 10pc last year. Women working full-time saw their earnings increase more than their male counterparts this year, by 0.6pc compared with 0.3pc, which took the average weekly earnings as of April 2014 to "462 for women and "558 for men." This is not equality. Men can get custody, but if the judge feels that the kids would be better off with the mother ( and usually at a young age they will) Also they consider the gender of the kids, who takes the kids to school, drs appointments, who cooks for them, picks their clothes, etc. and most of the time it is a mother. If there is a male child and he is older they will likely want to put him with the father. Feminism isn't about whether you have the right to slap a man or not. It is about important issues. Who cares if a woman slaps a man. If it is serious the police and the court will get involved - if not then the man should be a responsible adult and deal with it. Feminism is about equality that will improve a woman's life quality to the same life quality of a man. Wages and job positions are important. The right to slap a man is not. When I wrote about men being paid more than women (in case this is unclear) I was talking about men being paid more than women for doing the same jobs - with the same amount of work. Sources http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... https://answers.yahoo.com... (verified)
Let's talk about Feminism

My apologies for not being specific. There is no way that I think men should have more rights than women. I'm more against the feminists. Not everyone, but the ones that I have recently bumped into have made me question feminism. I know that having equal rights is important, but I also think that women have all the same rights as men. I don't understand what more the women could want. If anything, women have more rights than men. For instance, men rarely ever get custody of a their children. A man cannot hit a women, but a women can hit a man, and no one says a thing (I'm not saying that men should be able to hit women). I also can see both sides of the conflict of men getting paid more than women. I see why women think that they don't get paid as much as men is unfair. Although, based on the stereotypes of men and women, a man has the pressure of being obligated to able to provide for his family, and with that stereotype and obligation, I can see why they get paid maybe a little more than women.
Let's talk about Feminism

Your argument is not specific. You claim that you are against feminism yet you believe that women should have the rights as men. I do believe that woman do receive the same rights of men in some countries although feminism is not a country specific belief system. Just because you cannot name any rights that men have and women don't it doesn't mean that you are against feminism. The fact is, there is still no law enforcing equal pay for equal work. What's more, the gender wage gap becomes exponentially worse when a woman is also a person of color. According to the American Association of University Women, white women earn 78 cents to men's dollar, but black women only earn 64 cents to men's dollar. Hispanic and Latina women earn even less at 54 cents! This is just one of countless examples of women's rights that should be enforced in the UK and America. If we were to talk about other countries such as: " "Afghanistan: The average Afghan girl will live to only 45 " one year less than an Afghan male. After three decades of war and religion-based repression, an overwhelming number of women are illiterate. More than half of all brides are under 16, and one woman dies in childbirth every half hour. Domestic violence is so common that 87 per cent of women admit to experiencing it. But more than one million widows are on the streets, often forced into prostitution. Afghanistan is the only country in which the female suicide rate is higher than that of males." " "Iraq: The U.S.-led invasion to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam Hussein has imprisoned women in an inferno of sectarian violence that targets women and girls. The literacy rate, once the highest in the Arab world, is now among the lowest as families fear risking kidnapping and rape by sending girls to school. Women who once went out to work stay home. Meanwhile, more than 1 million women have been displaced from their homes, and millions more are unable to earn enough to eat." " "Nepal: Early marriage and childbirth exhaust the country's malnourished women, and one in 24 will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Daughters who aren't married off may be sold to traffickers before they reach their teens. Widows face extreme abuse and discrimination if they're labelled bokshi, meaning witches. A low-level civil war between government and Maoist rebels has forced rural women into guerrilla groups." If we were to talk about these countries then I'm sure that it is obvious, even to people against feminism, that women are not receiving equal rights. If you believe that it should stay this way in these countries then you may continue to debate this with me but judging from your argument in the second round I doubt that you interpreted this debate the way that most people have. Sources http://www.thestar.com... http://mic.com...
the US should support the death penalty.

The first reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live. The second reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the death penalty involves a permananent act. People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life. Many other reasons show that the United States should not support the death penalty are available to the open mind. These include the cruel and unusual punishment that comes with waiting to be sentenced. The death penalty, among other punishments, is meant to act as a warning to end further crimes from being committed, but the death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent. A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient.
If you are less instructed, you believe more in God

I will show evidence that "instructed people" are less likely to believe in God and vice-versa. http://tinyurl.com... The people in the Royal Society have been "instructed" much more than the majority. "A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the [...] UK [...] described themselves as believers." "A separate poll in the 90s found only [7%] of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."
If you are less instructed, you believe more in God

Straying from Science to biblical instruction. People who are well known in the educated world tend to make the similar claims. That, The Bible is the atheist's best tool. http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Both have written books on their disbelief in a god, each book contains arguments from the Bible. Their knowledge far passes that of an average churchgoer, yet they are atheists. Thosev"less instructed" on the history of their own religion tend to believe more.
College education is not necessary to become successful

Although that might be true. The job market for people who are recent graduates is very low. For example look at the people who want to become lawyers , they graduate with their bachelors degree , further their education in law school and at the end still end up with no career. In college you focus on one major, and if the job market under that major is not hiring, then you are left with nothing. People who have their high school diploma can get jobs easily right after they graduate and make connections that can get them into higher positions without the trouble of wasting 4 years in college.
College education is not necessary to become successful

College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.
College education is not necessary to become successful

College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or "career". In order to get a "career" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .
College education is not necessary to become successful

If you are to do good in your LSAT or graduate in law in their bachelors degree then you can open so many doors for you. You can work in a hospital, schools, correction facility or any other public place, you can even open your own law firm. And even if that does not work out you can be a college professor, teaching college students on laws. You would at least make $50 an hour .If we are talking people who get job right after their high school graduation vs students who gets their job after college educations then we have to look at the Job quality, pay rate, hours and what kid of job it is. For a high school student it is very unlikely to get a job that pays them at the most $15 an hour, even if the manage to get a job that pays that well, it has to be a really odd job ( speaking from experience). Now for college students there are loans you can take, financial aid and not to mentions the scholarships. Any of the above can pay for your tuition. The connections that you make in college and the connection you make in high school is different between an acorn to an oak tree
Should the United States continue to allow illegal/undocumented immigrants to enter the country"s

We are a nation of immigrants. Not ILLEGAL immigrants. "So why now do we have such a large problem with it, Why should we close ourselves off from the rest of the world? " Every other country has border security and doesn't allow anyone to enter their country. We don't have a problem with immigrants. We have a problem with illegals. If you want to come in, Come in the right way. It's not that hard. America is a nation of laws. With no immigration laws crime would rise and we would hardly be a country. We are letting in many more immigrants now than we were back then.
Should the United States continue to allow illegal/undocumented immigrants to enter the country"s

Other than the dwindling population of Native Americans that still live in reserves all Americans are and were immigrants at one time. Even though those with strong family ties to this country may claim to have a stake here this land was never truly ours. We moved in like a hostile force with no regard for anyone or thing else. Our nation's history is one of immigration and change. Monuments and what are now tourist destinations such as the Statue of Liberty(Ellis Island) and Angel Island are remnants if what once was. Immigrants came by the boatload to have a new and better life in the land of opportunity, But now even more so they are looked down on and made to feel as though they are less than us, The only thing that separates us from them is the amount of time we've been here. So why now do we have such a large problem with it, Why should we close ourselves off from the rest of the world?
F*** you

Bugs, Bugs, Bugs B! U! G! S! Bugs! I like bugs, bugs, bugs, buggy bugs. Bugs! I like bugs, bugs, bugs, buggy bugs. Bugs! I like the honeybees and butterflies. I like the crickets for their shiny eyes. I like the ants and grasshoppers, too. I like all the bugs. How about you? I like the caterpillars and ladybugs. I like to watch them crawling on the leaves. I like the spiders and dragonflies. I really like them. How about you, guys? I like bugs, bugs, bugs, buggy bugs. Bugs! I like bugs, bugs, bugs, buggy bugs. BUGS!