BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pacific vs. Atlantic

Pacific Ocean may be the largest ocean, but it didnt get that way on its own, scientists believed that the pacific ocean is the result of the long ago collision between the moon and the Earth..... PACIFIC OCEAN CHEATED AND IS USING STEROIDS. Atlantic is all natural. Atlantic Ocean has Spain, France, England, Ireland, Tahiti, Bahamas, etc which are all great places to vacation. Pacific Ocean has China, Yucky Pacific Ocean may be less salty, but Americans love Salt! why do you think we put so much salt on all of our french fries? Because we love salty things! You cant surf in the Atlantic? GOOD. Less hippies and long haired pot heads running around on the beach. ============================================================================ Atlantic Ocean does get chicks (South Beach) and they get a variety of chicks which includes Brazilian, Spanish, French, and Canadian girls, Pacific only has Asians.... The Atlantic sunk the Titanic? At least my ocean gets sh*t done, whens the last time the Pacific ocean did anything cool? Tsunami in Japan? ooooooo real bada**..... Pacific Ocean borders Vietnam and North Korea, they are way more sketchy than west Africa Atlantic may rhyme with fatlantic, but pacific rhymes with Georgebushisaprick and Pacificcansuckadick... ============================================================================ Pacific Ocean has tsunamis and way more volcanic eruptions Atlantic Ocean has Atlantis Pacific Ocean was where Pearl harbor happened Atlantic Ocean prevented HItler from trying to f*ck with 'MERICA Pacific Ocean has China Atlantic Ocean says F*ck China Pacific Ocean has a massive garbage pool Atlantic Ocean is where the Mayflower came to America Atlantic Ocean is where Columbus found America That is why the Atlantic Ocean is better than the Pacific Ocean....
Pacific vs. Atlantic

Pacific Pros:* The Pacific is the worlds LARGEST ocean! Bigger is always better. By this logic the Pacific Ocean is clearly the better ocean. * The Pacific Ocean has such nice destinations as Hawaii. In the Pacific you don't have to go to the sketchy Caribbean Islands where the cities smell like human feces (literally, they smell like straight up butt). Instead you can go to Fiji and Guam and Hawaii for a much more pleasent experience.* The Pacific is home to the very cool and very interesting Great Pacific Garbage Patch! This is a place where boaters can go look for a new fridge, TV, message in a bottle or couch FREE OF CHARGE. Just fish it out of this amazing natural phenomena! It can be seen from space! * The Pacific Ocean is less salty than the Atlantic meaning that when you go swimming and surfing there is less spitting into the water, less sore eyes and more overall enjoyment! It's easier to enjoy the water when you aren't constantly spitting on yourself to rid your mouth of the saltiness. * You can actually surf in the Pacific in places such as the North Shore, Hawaii and Lima, Peru!Atlantic Cons:* It's smaller than the Pacific so it doesn't get as many chicks as the Pacific does which makes it a loser.* The Atlantic sank the Titanic... 'nuff said. * The Atlantic borders the West Coast of Africa... who knows what kind of strange crap goes into the ocean from Africa?! * Atlantic rhymes with Fatlantic... In conclusion: The Pacific is massive and therefore massively popular with the ladies. It gives out free stuff while providing spit free entertainment while the Atlantic is a small and boring place.Atlantic rhymes with Fatlantic...
Pacific vs. Atlantic

I will be arguing that the Pacific Ocean is better than the Atlantic Ocean. My opponent will be arguing that the Atlantic Ocean is better than the Pacific Ocean. No sources needed! This will not be a serious scientific debate but rather a fun/funny/interesting debate on the Pros and Cons of North America's two oceans. Character limit: 3000Rounds: 3Voting Period: 3 DaysFirst Round Acceptance. Good luck, have fun.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

Prime: Sorry about this mistake. I misread what you wrote. It will be difficult now. I assume we mean at their abilities prime in the movies, since we're going only on Canon material, and that would be fairest. This would place Kylo Ren right he was shot, as he there possibly is at his greatest achievement. Placing Luke at ANH would be unfair, as it he has tiny lightsaber experience while Kylo had a large part of his life to. So, it would be fair at the end of ROTJ. Lightsaber: Luke, in Empire, is at his first lightsaber light ever. He loses an arm, but if one looks closely, Luke had a swing at Vader's arm, which didn't do anything because Vader's suit is lightsaber resistant. Imagine if the suit wasn't. The blade would have gone through Vader's arm and chest, doing a upper version of a Darth Maul kill. That was his first duel on a highly trained killing machine. That swing could've ended the battle. A swing on Kylo Ren like that would kill, if not severely maim (although, knowing Kylo, he would hit his arm stump). The point is, Luke did make a nice swing. Before my opponent screams "He didn't mean to kill Luke!", I would like to answer that this may be true, but that answers the question "Why didn't Vader kill Luke immediately". Remember, this was Luke's first battle. He is otherwise inexperience. It would be easier to understand it like this. Pro shows why the person is better, and Con shows why he is bad. Each variable is considered equal because value of each is unknown, so they are presumed equal. Luke Pro: 1. Holds his own for quite a bit versus Vader 2. Makes a serous blow on Vader that would kill someone else Con: 1. Vader wasn't trying to kill him and Luke still lost. As we see here, the first cancel each other out. Kylo: Pro: 1. Fights and beats Finn with serious injury. Con: 1. Takes much longer to defeat Finn. 2. Finn had a couple of strikes on him. Visa Versa for Kylo. One would need to change a lot here to prove that Kylo is better.' Conclusion: This is a last-ditch job. Pro did an excellent job, and I needed to do everything to disprove him. I congratulate him for debating so finely.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

Rebuts: Force Abilities: I would like to argue that this wasn't a very special ability. After all, this is simply telekinesis used on a very fast moving object... It shows that he had training, but this isn't so special. In the Clone Wars series, which is confirmed Canon, it shows multiple times that torture has been done. Since midichlorian is shown to be genetic, it would be assumed that Luke would would have a lesser amount than Vader. Even more so for Ren, as he is the son of the child who is shown not to have powerful force abilities. Overall, I'd like to conclude that Kylo had at best has lesser force abilities than a Jedi from the prequels. Lightsaber Combat: Pro's claim that he slaughtered all of Luke's apprentices is a very weak claim. After all, we've seen that Jedi training starts very young, so what did Kylo do? Kill a bunch of 10-year-old's? The Knights of Ren is a very mysterious topic. We can not say anything definitely about them, besides that they look pretty mean. It could just be a posse that Kylo has for himself. We don't know, so we can't say anything about them. Finn and Rey point: Pro repeating brings up that Kylo gained power from his wound. It still took him the greater part of a minute to beat him, and still a hit a bit. Remember, Finn isn't a trained swordsman. A First Order stormtrooper, the butt of many jokes, took him down in a few seconds. If Klyo is at least semi-pain tolerant, he should be degraded around to the abitly of that storm trooper. Needless to say, he wasn't. Prime: Well, Pro has dug his own pit. Kylo was passed his prime in TFA, and still, he didn't finish his training. His prime would be earlier than TFA, meaning that some of his training wouldn't have happened yet. He wouldn't even have gone through the TFA battles! Luke's prime would be right after ROTJ. How this Duel would play out: I mostly agree, but this would be Kylo's first fight, before the TFA. He'd have no fighting experience, so would try force rage. Luke would go defensive, learning Kylo's style. Meanwhile, Kylo would tire, going defensive. Luke, noting the croosblades, would be careful to avoid him. Also, Luke would be trying to convince Kylo to join the Light side (Not so much as relatives, because I'd hope this fight would be as if they had no relations, but since he was originally good). After the initial force rage, Kylo's limited energy would be spent on dueling Skywalker. He wouldn't be protecting himself verbally. A combination of the two would make Kylo pause for a second, before Luke makes him follow the tradition of male Skywalkers. Disarmed (in all understandings), Kylo would be forced to surrender.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

You are welcome. I am sorry I did not say that in the previous round. Force Abilities: Kylo Ren is the grandson of the man with the highest midiclorian count ever. Also, he idolizes the dark side version of him which was definitely stronger. Either way, Kylo Ren was stronger in the force than Luke. Kylo Ren is shown using telekinesis in the beginning of The Force Awakens, and using the ability of force immobilization(the ability to manipulate one's midichlorians to freeze them.) These are very advanced force abilities which Luke was never displayed showing in the canon universe. I think it is also fair to note that I do think Luke had more midichlorians than Kylo Ren. But, this really does not say much. Midichlorians just show force potential, but they don't show experience in the force. Luke just never was able to learn abilities that Kylo Ren has learned. Luke is a fast learner, but Kylo Ren's achievements go without saying. He is by the way twenty years old which is about the same age as Luke in ROTJ. Kylo Ren is the Field Commander of The First Order. He is the Master of the Knights of Ren. He also earned the nickname Jedi Killer. He also killed all of Luke's apprentices, and destroyed what he was trying to build. Kylo Ren has done far more than Luke Skywalker, and has way more power(in the real sense of the word) than him. Lightsaber Skills: Con uses Wookipedia to describe Luke as a gifted duelist, but Wookipedia says the same thing about Kylo Ren. Wookipedia says something like that for almost every main star wars character, because there the main characters. I did say Vader did not want to kill Luke, because if he wanted to he would have. I hope me and my opponent can at least agree that Vader was more powerful than both of these figures. Vader had immense power, and was 8/10ths of Darth Sidious. He babied Luke in lightsaber duels just to turn him to the dark side. He wanted Luke to be his heir. Too bad Ren was not around. Pain Tolerance: Luke survived the force lightning, but it is listed in ROTJ novels that the Emperor was giving him one-third of his power just to see Luke being tortured. The emperor is cool like that. Also, Kylo Ren would clearly win on this, because he survived a bowcaster, and damage from both Finn and Rey. How this duel would play out: This duel would play out a lot like it did in the end of Darth Vader vs Luke in Empire. Kylo Ren would start to use his force rage abilities on Luke. Luke would have a solid defense for about 30 seconds, but with Ren's unorthodox style, he would just take strikes at Luke. Luke would be overpowered, and outmatched by Kylo Ren. Vader wanted to tell Luke that he was his father, but Ren would simply kill Luke. Kylo Ren would just be too fast and unpredictable for Luke who has only really had experience fighting a father who is 1. Robotic 2. Slow, but powerful 3. Defensive dueling 4. A father who does not want to kill his son Kylo Ren is 1. Fast and Ferocious 2. Unorthodox lightsaber moves that could puzzle Luke 3. Up in his opponent's face 4. Ruthless Luke would be confused, surprised, and outmatched when confronting The Master of The Knights of Ren.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

I'm not sure. Well, thank you. .. Force Abilities: Luke is the SON of the man who had the highest midichlorian count ever. He was trained by Obi-Wan Kenobi, and by Yoda himself. Also, on his first time flying an X-Wing, he blew up the Death Star. Mind you, many more better trained pilots, like Red Leader and Gold Leader were shot down. He is shown to be a quick learner. Perhaps his most impressive feats was communitcating with those that had become one with the force. I don't know about other people, but talking to ghost is pretty impressive. Who else accomplished this? Lightsaber skills: Wookipedia describes him as a "extraordinarily gifted duelist". He defeated Darth Vader. Although I'm certain Pro will say Vader didn't mean to kill him, that's debatable. I mean, didn't Vader kill a bunch of kids? Seems pretty evil to me. Pain Tolerance: Luke survived extensive exposure to force lightning, which would kill the average person. He then walks away just fine after that. I think I'm done here. Onto the rebuts!
People are too dependent on social media

Well, back to the past, people didn't have any devices to communicate with their friends or family, they just wrote a letter to each other. Same goes to kids, they didn't have any X-box games or Internet connection, thus they will just play hide-and seek with their friends. Another thing is that, there are a lot of fake news and profiles on the internet that people should not trust when they don't have any evidents. For example, some people put a fake picture for their profile which actually not their real photo and background as well. On the other hand, some people depends on GPS too much that sometime they get lost and also meet an accident.
People are too dependent on social media

What is dependence? "The state of relying on or needing someone or something for aid" (Dictionary.com). Social media is one of the most revolutionary ideas in human history. It has allowed for people to expand and open up their social connections to wider degrees. There is no factual proof for the "older generation" V's the "new generation". People have historically been avoidant and closed off towards others. Social media has not caused a drastic increase. From a subjective personal level, this may seem true and accurate but then again personal bias and the lack of concrete evidence raises problems.
People are too dependent on social media

People who are too dependent on social media can be lack of communication in face to face situation. Older generation used to spend more time with their family and visit friend at the weekend, but now they spend most of the time on social media because it's easier and faster. Before if your friend was facing a bad problem, you would come and cry together or hug each other, but now you would just console his/her through social media that sometimes it's not from your heart that it can be lost an abilities of real friendship or relationship. Young generation make friend by just clicking like on a button and can delete just as easily. Unlike a real relationship would takes a lot of effort and many ruptures and repairs,the young generation does"t seem to be familiar with these aspects of authentic relationships.
squirrel girl or namor

Well, let us see, though Namor may have an army of Atlanteans, Squirrel girl has an army of squirrels. Think of the rabies. Not only was she a key player of The Great Lake Avengers/ Great Lake X-Men/ Great LakeChampions, but Doreen Green (Squirrel Girl) was a baby sitter for Luke Cage and Jessica Jones in the New Avengers. Her power set is pretty great, too. Her powers include enhanced senses, superhuman agility and strength, prehensile tail, razor sharp claws, and retractable knuckle spikes.
squirrel girl or namor

I am pro for Namor. Namor is totally amazing and is much cooler than that putrid girl. Namor was sent to find vibranium in Antarctica. What a noble cause. He is also called the submariner so he is Namor the Submariner what an awesome name it almost kind of rhymes. I am not sure but I will have to consult with my buddy on this one but Namor was the first mutant? Sometimes he is wearing a speedo, how awesome is that? Namor totally wins.
Resolved: When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of Achilles

Resolved: When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of AchillesIn Greek mythology, Achilles was given a prophecy that presented him with the choice to control his destiny:He could either live a quiet, long, and happy life to die peacfully in his bed or he could live a life of great deeds but die young and be remembered for millenia.Achilles famously chose a life of glory. The prophecy was fulfilled when Achilles was slain in his prime at the battle of Troy.This debate is not specifically about Achilles, but about whether Achilles' choice should be taken as paradigmatic for humanity. I will be defending Achilles' decision to live a life of fame and glory, Con will be defending the decision to live a happy life of anonymity.Note that this is a rapid fire debate with a half hour round limit. Rules:1. First Round is Acceptance Only. I will make the first argument in R2.2. Any citations must be provided in the text of the debate.3. No trolling or trivial semantics. The Resolution is intentionally poetic, arguments should be in the spirit of the Resolution. Legitimate semantic disputes should be resolved in the body of the debate for the judges to weigh.4. BOP is shared5. No new arguments in the final round.6. Violation of R1 terms constitutes a loss.This debate is open to anyone who wants it. I will pull it down in two hours or so if no one accepts so get while the gettin's good.
Resolved: When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of Achilles

The resolution is "When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of Achilles." The manner in which it is phrased implies that the choice is given to an individual without regard to whether other people have that choice or not. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as every living person having that choice since technically, everyone does although there may be practical obstacles to both choices. My opponent loses the debate right in the first round when he assumes that the majority of people will lead long and happy lives because he is implying that a status quo of most people living long lives and a select few achieving great things is preferable. When humans die, they cannot think, feel, or do anything. Their consciousness ceases to exist. They cannot feel happiness, content, regret or any such emotion. As such, our main goal must be to achieve happiness in our life rather than hope that we will be remembered as legends. The entirety of Con's argument is based on forgoing individual happiness for the benefit of descendants. We have nothing to gain from people remembering and being inspired by us. Alexander's conquests were of no benefit to Achilles. Achilles could perhaps have chosen to live a long and happy life with the drawback being that no one remembers his name. But this is irrelevant to him as he is dead, cannot think and feel and obviously has no clue whether people revere him. What has Achilles gained from Alexander and Caesar? I disagree that a refusal to live a life of glory is cowardice as that would imply that the vast majority of humans are cowards. While Pro may argue that they have no choice, that isn't true as anyone that has the will can find a way to make a mark in the world. The values that my opponent provides for what constitutes a good life also provide no benefit to the individual in question. What good is being brave and dying on the battlefield to protect your comrades when you are just as dead as if you died of a drug overdose. All the respect that you get is rendered worthless by the fact that you aren't there to enjoy it.
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

As this is likely to be the last round due to the time constraints, I shall provide both defense and summary of the round. Both the Pro's original contentions of the lack of humor involved with the show and the potential for the Holocaust denial and inaccuracy stand. I would like to specifically extend contention 1 by noting that Holocaust denial is a concept that can produce both violent Antisemitism and violent reactions against violent Antisemitism. Both this issues are global problems which can only be worsened by the presence "Hogan's Heroes" globally. In terms of the third contention, the United States has no real precedent in a global internationally community where mirror servers and other means of distributing material that is illegal in one country but not the rest of the world are available to the global community. To say that nobody would want to watch the show because it is not popular or good is a fallacy. Rather, the controversy around the show could potentially call attention to it, with strong opinions on both sides of the matter that have a potential to result in violent actions, as described above. In terms of the fourth contention, the Pro merely conceded that the U.S. would be making an exemption so as to allow the U.N. to censor an unjustified free speech. In terms of the value clash, the Pro would again like to reiterate that national sovereignty cannot take precedence when the issue is global, and any issue involving digital media available on the internet is clearly a global issue. Even in terms of individual nations, justice must take precedence to freedom when freedom severely threatens the safety of individuals. To summarize the round, the Con has conceded that "Hogan's Heroes" certainly can yield several harms, but the debate is now about whether or not the elimination of the show should be U.N. policy or policy that is decided among individual nations. Because of the reasons listed above, I believe that the Pro has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that "Hogan's Heroes" is an international threat that requires U.N. involvement and that leaving the handling of this to a "bilateral" agreement is an inferior means of controlling this societal menace.