BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Shah Rukh Khan is better than Amitabh Bachchan in EVERY field

On The Last Part When You Said That: NOTE: Shah Rukh Khan copies him ,Yes But He Does not Say Hey Let Copy Amitabh Bachchan,He Gets Roles That Is A Copy Of Amitabh Bachchan- I Meant To Say who Has Made The Movies Like Whoever Said Lets Make A Part Or A Remake Of This Movie He Is The Person Who Is To Tell Which Actor Should Be In The Roll!!!!!(So Drop It!!!) This Is What you Said Shah Rukh Khan has less experience than Amitabh Bachchan. Shah Rukh Khan started working in 1988, Amitabh Bachchan started in 1969. If you do the math, Amitabh bachchan has almost twice as much experience than he does.= It Is Not his Fault.God Made Him @ That time So It Is Not his Fault.(So Drop That Too) This Is What you Said: He has 3 three films coming up, while Shah Rukh Khan is filmless NOTE:Special Appearance Don't Count ( HE IS NOT IN THE WHOLE MOVIE)!-If You Have Seen Shahrukh Khan's Interview he Said That In 2007 He Did So Many Movies So He Said By His Own Mouth He Is Going To Work So He Can Have A Break.And Why Don't Special Appearence Count So You Could Win Yes They Do He Still works In A Movie.Even If It In A Song Or A Little Part It Does Not matter He Still Came And Worked. U Said our Picture argument is pointless and Amitabh Bachchan has appeared in tons of magazines. Ok If You Read The Bollywood Magzine In Every Magzine Shahrukh Khan Apperes In It Amitabh Bachchan Does Not! So Shahrukh khan No I Meant To Say king Khan Is Better Cause In The Present People Are Carring Pictures Of King Khan Not Stupid Bachan.Even If He Apperes It Is On The Last Page And It Is UnImportant You Said: Shah Rukh Khan is too arrogant first of all. He calls himself King Khan and puts everyone else down. Dude All Actors Have Some Kind Of Attitude So Does He.(DROP IT) This will never be true until Shah Rukh Khan gets Star Of The Millenium-The Biggest Star Of The Century, Amitabh bachchan already won that in 1999! It Is Going To Take Time! He Isn't Going To Get It Just Like That It Is Going To Take Time!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Arguments: If Their Was A Vote About Amitabh Bachchan And Shahrukh Khan.Shahrukh Khan Would Win Because TODAY People Like Him Not Amitabh Bachchan.NEW GENERATION Do U Know What That Means??
Shah Rukh Khan is better than Amitabh Bachchan in EVERY field

Your argument was again short, but I don't mind. Amitabh bachchan Is Not Doing Anything.- He has 3 three films coming up, while Shah Rukh Khan is filmless NOTE:Special Appearance Don't Count ( HE IS NOT IN THE WHOLE MOVIE)! In The 2000's Amitabh bachchan Has Done So Many Less Films- He has done MORE films than Shah Rukh Khan in the past 8 years. Amitabh Bachchan has done 39 films in the past 8 years, while Shah Rukh khan has done only 18! Can You Explain That? (Amitabh Bachchan Has Done More Than Double than him) Your Picture argument is pointless. Amitabh Bachchan has appeared in tons of magazines. He just appeared in the TIME magazine this year. (IN THE US)! Shah Rukh Khan is too arrogant first of all. He calls himself King Khan and puts everyone else down. Even Though Aamir Khan's success and hit ratio is higher than his! (Aamir Khan was also one of the two khans that ruled Bollywood In the 1990s along with Salman and Shah Rukh Khan), he still calls himself King Khan! Since Shahrukh Khan Came Amitabh bachchan Got Kicked In The Hole- This argument is not even worth answering, but I will answer it anyway. Amitabh Bachchan is still getting hits from other directors and is still active, while Shah Rukh Khan works with his same people: Yash Chopra,Karan Johar, Or Farah Khan and gets hits from them. He is dependent on them for hits, while Amitabh Bachchan works with new directors every year. Shahrukh Khan Past His Way- Ha! This will never be true until Shah Rukh Khan gets Star Of The Millenium-The Biggest Star Of The Century, Amitabh bachchan already won that in 1999! Shahrukh khan Is Doing All The Work NOW- Filmless in 2008 so far. Two releases every year, while Amitabh Bachchan has more than 7 every year? I don't think so. NOTE: Shah Rukh Khan copies him ,Yes But He Does not Say Hey Let Copy Amitabh Bachchan,He Gets Roles That Is A Copy Of Amitabh Bachchan- You just agreed on my argument, so I won this argument (You CANNOT use this argument in round 3!)
Shah Rukh Khan is better than Amitabh Bachchan in EVERY field

Hello! You Said That Shah Rukh Khan copies him ,Yes But He Does not Say Hey Let Copy Amitabh Bachchan,He Gets Roles That Is A Copy Of Amitabh Bachchan.And Kaun Banega Crorepati-Original Host Was Amitabh Bachchan, Now Shah Rukh Khan is.Shahrukh Khan Got A Offer To Be The Host He Just Did Not Stand Amitabh Bachchan From his Kaun Nabega Cororpati.He Got In Offer. And Yes I Agree With U On The Awards Part. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Arguments: Ok In The Past When Amitabh bachchan First started His Carrer He Got Bollywood In The Role But Now Amitabh bachchan Is Not Doing Anything.Since Shahrukh Khan Came Amitabh bachchan Got Kicked In The Hole.Shahrukh Khan Past His Way.In The 2000's Amitabh bachchan Has Done So Many Less Films.Shahrukh khan Is Doing All The Work NOW.Yes Amitabh bachchan Was Good In The past But Today The Mega Is King Khan (Shahrukh Khan).Have You Seen Anyone Carry Amitabh bachchan Pictures.Because Now Amitabh bachchan Is No Longer The Super Star. It Is Shahrukh Khan.Ur Turn Amitabh bachchan Big FANNY!!
Shah Rukh Khan is better than Amitabh Bachchan in EVERY field

Hi! Your argument was REALLY short, and I will answer all of it, and also make some of my own arguments against the resolution. You said: In His Looks Shahrukh Khan is more attractive- Amitabh Bachchan in his time was also attractive. I heard girls use to keep pictures of him in their schoolbooks during THAT time. And let me remind you that one day Shah Rukh Khan will also GET OLD. He Takes good roles What he thinks is gud for him- Amitabh Bachchan also took good roles during his time and also the present. He starred in many hits and super hits in the last 8 years. Amitabh Bachchan Sometimes Takes Roles That Don't Fit Him- No,he has done many father roles that fit him according to his age, I can give you some examples of roles that he has done. During the past 70s and 80s, he also did many action roles that were huge hits. So You Should Admit Sometimes Amitabh Bachchan Does Not Take Good Roles.- The only role of Amitabh Bachchan that is not good would be in Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007), I thought that role didn't fit him because he kinda overacted there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Arguments: Shah Rukh Khan has less experience than Amitabh Bachchan. Shah Rukh Khan started working in 1988, Amitabh Bachchan started in 1969. If you do the math, Amitabh bachchan has almost twice as much experience than he does. Shah Rukh Khan copies him. If you have noticed Shah Rukh Khan is following the footsteps of Amitabh Bachchan: Darr (1993)-Remake of Amitabh Bachchan's film Parwaana (1971),Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003)-Remake Of Amitabh Bachchan's film Anand (1970),Don (2006)-Remake Of Amitabh Bachchan's Film Don(1978). Kaun Banega Crorepati-Original Host Was Amitabh Bachchan, Now Shah Rukh Khan is. Amitabh Bachchan has won more national acclaim than Shah Rukh Khan. Amitabh Bachchan won Star of The Millenium, has Shah Rukh Khan won anything like that EXCEPT PADMASHRI, which is not national acclaim? Amitabh Bachchan was got way more super hits and blockbusters than Shah Rukh Khan has. Shah Rukh Khan only has 2 blockbusters, while Amitabh Bachchan has more than 9. Shah Rukh Khan has 3 super hits, while Amitabh Bachchan has countless in his reign in the 70s and 80s. Amitabh Bachchan has less flops than Shah Rukh Khan.Shah Rukh Khan has 19 flops in his career, while Amitabh Bachchan has 12 according to boxofficeindia.com.
Shah Rukh Khan is better than Amitabh Bachchan in EVERY field

Hello!Shahrukh khan is better Than Amitabh Bachchan Because In His Looks Shahrukh Khan is more attractive.He Takes good roles What he thinks is gud for him.Amitabh Bachchan Sometimes Takes Roles That Dont Fit Him Like Example:Veer Zaara Even though It Was A Successful It Was Because Of Shahrukh Khan Not Because Of Amitabh Bachchan So You Should Admit Sometimes Amitabh Bachchan Does Not Take Good Roles.Your Turn!!! =D
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

I do appologize for this finial round. I have to forfeit here as my friend is in the hospital with Leukemia and I've been busy with him and making sure he's alright. I've already PM'd my opponent reguarding this and he'll post in the comments the verdict if its a loss of conduct or a loss of the debate. I deeply appologize to him as this has been a great debate.
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists.

I have done this topic before, but there wasn't a lot of clash so I want to reinstate this. This debate is impossible to acept. Apply in comments. The voting floor is set at 2000.______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.DEFINITIONS Man-made: Created by a human or caused by a human.Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general.Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Exists: Is in existence; have objective reality or being.Rules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS Round 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original case Round 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttals Round 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS 9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!
Death Battle's result of Superman beating Goku is incorrect.

My main point for this argument comes from the fact that allot of people find that the fight was bias, or just done wrong. This is from the majority of claims that I have found on the internet and you tube. I will post some of the rants bellow. Most of the arguments come from within the actual battle itself. I will address this when Pro makes the specific claims. I will refute any claims of it being unfair when Pro gives examples. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Hitler is terrible

Actually it was Hitler's opinion that fanned the flames of the rage people had for Jews. Also, if the religion of the Jewish is so bad because it involves sacrifice of ten people a week, then technically that is supporting that Hitler who was the leader of the people who hurt Jews, who in which killed thousands of people killed more than 10 people a week. Also, there is valid reason in my opinion that Hitler's opinion was stupid. His opinion was that the Jewish is why they lost the war, which is false information because it wasn't just that particular group that lost the war. Also, saying that it was also the people's opinion, that statement is true, but you can also say that if it wasn't for Hitler and his opinion thousands of people's lives would be spared including ones who served during the time of the war. Also, by saying he does not suck, not good;bad, you are saying he was good? I don't believe that a man who thought that all of the Jews were garbage could be good.
Hitler is terrible

Come at me brosif.I do not believe Hitler was terrible because for one, he himself did not "take thousands of lives", it was simply suggested and encouraged among the citizens. It was the choice of the citizens at that point. Therefore the reason for this is invalid, and please elaborate on what makes his opinion "stupid". Cite his opinion too.I would believe that Yorker is uneducated and ignorant to the events of the war. If there were a religion in which they constitute to murder 10 people a month in order to meet the needs of their God, I would say it is fair that people who believe this religion are "bad people". (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...): "bad person - a person who does harm to others".Good luck
Hitler is terrible

Hitler does indeed suck. He took thousands of innocent lives because he had a stupid opinion about religion. He had Nazi's conduct torturous experiments on people of all ages including children and gassed thousands. He thought everything was the Jews fault and that they should pay. Think if a Jew named Yorker decided they lost a war because of all the Christians. Can you really categorize if someone is good or bad depending on religion... I didn't think so. I rest my case.
Myth and legend are false tales

Refering to something which is not true but claimed to be literally true is myth ( such as urban myth and folklore ). Myth and legend are just mere tales. This theory believes that animals like dragons exist but have you actually see one? Remember " seeing is believing" you can't believe in such tales. They are only made possible in movies. "Here are many more popular myths which are less obviousbut still very much untrue. I don't see the necessity to 'bust' all the myths. Most are debunked by your common sense. *. It takes seven years todigest chewing gum *. The Great Wall of China is the only manmade structure visible from space It's long, but it's not very wide. *. Humans use only 10 percent of their brains. Psychics love to use this myth and claim they use like 20 or 30%. Most people actually use all of their brain. *. Adults don't grow new brain cells *. On the southern hemisphere water drains the other way around This myth is globally accepted, but still not true. *. Animals can predict natural disasters *. A penny dropped from the top of a tall building can kill someone Not unless the penny weighs several pounds. *. A dog's mouth is cleaner than a human's Feel free to french kiss a random dog. *. Men think about sex every seven seconds Often, but not *that* often". It does not take a minute to think of a myth. Myths and legend are false tales.
A ban on Youth Football for kids under the age of 14

I think that there should be a ban on youth football for children under the age of 14 because it can cause health problems and mental injuries. Concussions are a leading cause of dimension. Up to 3.8 million kids get concussions each year. This is a major problem that can be easily solved. Putting a ban on the sport can easily solve the problem of getting to many conclusions. In my school there are usually 5 or so concussions each year that are caused during youth football season. After the age of 14 the brain is still most likely to young to handle a lot of trauma, but it might be mature enough to handle a few bumps and bruises. When the brain is mature enough it will teach itself how to fix problem, which in this case is concussions. There can also be bodily injuries such as arthritis caused by hurt bones and joints. Playing sports can cause injuries that can and probably will last your whole lifetime. Putting a ban on youth football can help to spare these kids the pain and suffering of mental problems and hurt bones and joints. We can help to protect these kids if you help me help them. Leave comments and posts on a few reasons why youth football should be banned.
Robux Should Be Free

I have not played that game. But as I said before, would you like to continue playing the game for free without robux. Or would you be fine paying $10 in order to have to play the game, but have the same privileges as someone who has robux. Almost all companies are greedy. It is the only way they make money. And since money is very important in today"s society, the change isn"t going to happen. If you want robux maybe ask your parents for a robux card or use some money from a birthday gift.
Quote debate

:) Happiness is not an ideal of reason, but of imagination. -Immanuel Kant Fear is the mother of morality. -Friedrich Nietzsche It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job: it's a depression when you lose yours. -Harry S. Truman A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -Winston Churchill A lady came up to me on the street, pointed at my suede jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket? " I said, "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have to kill you too". -George Carlin, (R. I. P) My opponents quotations: In my opponents first quotation he decided to pick, one great man. However, he picked a quote, that really does not mean anything, it has no humor, or meaning to life, therefore this quote is inferior to mine. Also, there are many translations of what this actually means, so we can not look to it In my opponents second quotation he decides to make fun of Gary Coleman, and he says the oceans will rise to 4 and one half feet, and he will drown. Firstly, he wouldn't drown because Gary Coleman is 4 foot 7, . http://www.celebheights.com.... Also, there is no need to make fun of someone. My opponents third quotation comes from Winston Churchill, and it is about failure. However, my quote from him, is better, and is more realistic. No one is enthusiastic about failing. My opponents fourth quotation comes from one of the most evil men ever in the history of the world. He slaughtered his own people, and was just an evil person. Also this quote DE-humanizes people, so it should not be looked to. I stated in the introduction that each side would present 5 quotations, and my opponent only has 4, so there is nothing to refute. Note that my opponent must present 5 more quotations during his turn, by 5 different people. Whether or not he attacks my quotations is up to him. Good luck, and I look forward to the future rounds in this debate.
Quote debate

"I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. " George Bernard Shaw "Ich bin ein Berliner" John F. Kennedy (May he R. I. P) "Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world's oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing - Gary Coleman is going to drown. " Conan Obrien "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. " Sir Winston Churchill "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. " Joseph Stalin
Single-sex education

Hi there, I'm also looking forward to a good debate.I accept your challenge and your rules.I defend single-sex education because:1- Students from single-sex schools are better academically than mixed-sex schools2- Students from single-sex schools don't have any sociability problem3- I study in a single-sex school and I'm more sociable since then than when I studied in mixed-sex schools(personal argument) Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Single-sex education

This opening round is for definitions, acceptance, and a brief outline of contentions only. I'm looking forward to a good debate. RulesStandard debate conventions apply. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 10,000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence or make new arguments in R4. R4 is for summarizing the debate and pointing out merits and deficiencies of the arguments rather than introducing new contentions. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. My Position Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls Indicative of the primeval and antiquated system of education that asymmetrically favored males Emotionally detrimental to young males in particular Definitions Single-sex education-institutions that admit members of one sex only; not coeducational[1] Antiquated-to make obsolete, old-fashioned, or out of date by replacing with something newer or better[2] Primeval-ancient and original: at or from the ancient original stages in the development of something; primitive, or arising from instinct rather than thought[3] Detrimental-harmful; causing damage, harm, or disadvantage[4] [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://www.bing.com... [4]http://www.bing.com...
Immigration

I concur that some taxes are almost unavoidable such as sales tax on goods and services. I was referring to federal and state taxes, andn FICA type taxes not paid due to the lack of obtaining a social security number. I further concur that many Americans are guilty of abusing the system. Both major parties are guilty of supporting programs that contribute to this abuse of services. Although I agree with my opponent, the debate resolution is more focused toward immigration as opposed to deadbeat citizens. As for the language barrier, I am referring to immigrants coming to the U.S. with the inability to communicate in English. Countless forms, booklets, instructions, pamphlets, phone messages, and the like have to be translated for the for convenience of those who do not speak English at the expense of the taxpayer. My previous arguments that were dropped are extended. Thank you.
Immigration

Many others would get caught up in the emotions of this contentious topic. You might be surprised, but I actually agree with some of your points. They are very poignant and valid. But I do disagree with some. On the issue of illegals and taxes, illegals do in fact pay some taxes. They pay sales tax, beer tax, cigarette tax, and sometimes even income tax. The interesting thing is that most of these illegals never claim their tax refunds (for fear of the system) and consequently add to the tax revenue. The abuse of social service resources is not just an illegal immigrant issue, but an American issue. Many of those who abuse this system are not always illegal, but legal American citizens. Both illegal and American citizens use unscrupulous methods to circumvent the appropriate way of using our social services, and choosing to vilify just the illegals is unfair. Placing the "language barrier" as a means of justifying curtailing immigration is not very fair. Culture conflict has always existed since the inception of this country with the waves of Irish, Italian, Chinese, Latino, etc. immigration. They should not be rejected for speaking a foreign language, but methods of ameliorating the difficult assimilation/acculturation process should be studied and implemented.