BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Green Lantern is Superior to Superman

I used to think Superman was disproportionately powerful and that he hogged all the powers, however, I now realize that Green lantern has phenomenal powers. I shall start with a comparison of powers Flight: Both Superman and Green Lantern posses this power Breath in space: again they both have this power Superman has laser and x-ray vision as well as ice breath. Green lantern can create any weapon imaginable including Superman’s weakness which I will get to in a minute. Superman can lift heavy objects with his bare hands. Although Green lantern can’t do this, he can create any sort of apparatus to do it for him. Weaknesses: Superman’s weakness is kryptonite. What Color is Kryptonite? Green. Green lantern can create anything that is green including kryptonite. Therefore, if they fought each other, Green Lantern could win simply by creating Kryptonite. Green Lantern’s weakness is the color yellow. In order for Superman to beat GL he would have to get him to some place with a lot of yellow, GL could easily avoid this simply by staying in an area without yellow and just creating kryptonite. Advantage: Green Lantern Jurisdiction: Superman is confined to defending the Earth though on rare occasions goes elsewhere; Green Lantern has a whole section of the Universe to defend that includes more than just the Earth. I await my opponent’s counter arguments.
Vietnam War Hawks vs Doves

There is no rebuttal that some people in South Vietnam wanted Communism but what about the people that wanted democracy as they all get a say in what the government did and that was what the US troops in Vietnam were trying to fight for, freedom of speech. What the Con side has mentioned is that 'many communist regimes were terrible. Vietnam was NOT one of them.' What I want to know is how do you know? Everyone knows that the idea of Communism is just a theory that never works properly and if Vietnam had chosen that system they will have found that they don't get a say and the government chooses things for them. The US were not the only aggressors. The Vietcong during the battle of Hue systematically rounded up officials and 'traitors' and killed them. Some by burying them alive. What a example of Communism Communism always fails. PS. No matter what I say I know I will probably lose
Vietnam War Hawks vs Doves

*Quotes from Pro are Italicized and Underlined*Pro has taken the usual American stance that I expected. With complete negativity to anything and everything that is 'communist'.Another point in the Domino Effect, if we let Vietnam be Communist then goodness knows how many other countries will fall to that dreaded system. Asia already has 450 million people lost under dreaded communist dictatorships. And there can"t be any further losses.The majority of the Vietnamese people wanted a communist government, whether it is good or not is another debate. I am a pro-socialist however I do know that many communist regimes were terrible. Vietnam was NOT one of them.Many of the Vietnamese considered America as the heir of French colonialism and the unpopular President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam as its puppet emperor.[1]However, the popularity of the North Vietnamese government was soaring. People even defected from the South to the North."Of the estimated 20,000 guerillas at least one third are South Vietnamese. The other are either northern "volunteers" or Southern refugees now living in the North."[1]Without doubt, the majority of the vietnamese wanted a united communist vietnam. Therefore it is only democratic that Vietnam should be united in a communist government. A democratic United States should not have tried to go against the will of what the majority of vietnamese want. Let them decide their own future, how can the US intervene? The United States does not have the right to invade any country as they please just because they prefer another economic system.The US committed many war crimes in Vietnam, such as using chemical weapons."During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the U.S. military sprayed nearly 20 million gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel over parts of Vietnam" My souce [2] shows many of the birth defects children suffer even today and of course, the large scale slaughter of innocent civilians.This could have all been avoided if the United States minded its own business instead of poking their imperialist noses into Vietnam (hey, thats what the vietnamese feel). Sources:[1]http://www.thecrimson.com...;[2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;
Vietnam War Hawks vs Doves

No one can deny that at times it may have looked bleak. But if the US had kept at it, they would have indeed won. There have been many battles in which the US have proved that they were going to win. At the battle of Khe Sanh as well as the TET Offensive, 20,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers attacked a US Base who only had 6,000 Long story short they won with 10,000 dead on the North Vietnamese side and only 2,000 men on the US side. It's because they had superior trained and armed. And if General Westmoreland had been given the 206,000 more troops that he had asked for then he would have been able to win the war then and there. As well has the Tonkin debacle, the US were attacked, we were patrolling the gulf and the North Vietnamese patrol boat fired upon us. What else were the US supposed to do. Another point in the Domino Effect, if we let Vietnam be Communist then goodness knows how many other countries will fall to that dreaded system. Asia already has 450 million people lost under dreaded communist dictatorships. And there can"t be any further losses. These are my points, I hope to hear your response soon
Vietnam War Hawks vs Doves

The Vietcong during the battle of Hue systematically rounded up officials and 'traitors' and killed themPro makes allegations but has no source to back this up. Even if we were to believe him, those officials are not civilians, they were enforcers of an totalitarian government (South Vietnam) which the people hated. There is no rebuttal that some people in South Vietnam wanted CommunismI proved that the MAJORITY wanted communism, not just some.US troops in Vietnam were trying to fight for, freedom of speechFreedom of speech maybe, but freedom of choice? If the US invasion was successful, would the Vietnamese have a choice to be communist? No, they would be a puppet of the US. but what about the people that wanted democracyIt is a common misconception that communism can never be democratic, this notion is incorrect. Infact since most people in vietnam wanted communism, it can be argued that it is somewhat democratic. Defenitely more democratic than South Vietnam.Pro implies that the South Vietnamese government was a democracy. This is incorrect, South Vietnam was a dictatorship[1], and was unpopular with the people unlike the North. My source clearly states that South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem was a "president with dictatorial powers" and he ruled till his death (this is what the US fought for, a dictator)What the Con side has mentioned is that 'many communist regimes were terrible. Vietnam was NOT one of them.' What I want to know is how do you know? It was the communists who freed Vietnam from the French and communists who united their people and drove away the US invaders as per the people's will, be it north vietnamese or south vietnamese.Everyone knows that the idea of Communism is just a theory that never works properly...Communism always fails.That is no reason to invade other countries killing innocent civilians with chemical weapons. PS. No matter what I say I know I will probably lose Why are you saying this? To get sympathy votes? Please do not tell me you have gone to that level.If the US had not invaded vietnam, the country would have been united faster, the southerners would not have suffered under an unpopular dictator, people would not have lost their lives and their family member's lives and children would not be living with chemical weapons affects today.Hence the United States should not have waged war in Vietnam.Vote for ConSources:http://global.britannica.com...;
should they let girl wear tank tops in school

NOTHEY ARE COMPLETELY RUBBISHTHEY DO NOT EVEN HAVE ARM SLEEVESWHYWHYWHY WOULD YOU WANT TO WEAR THAT UNFINISHED SHIRTNO SLEEVES !!!!!!!WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE THINKINGALSO, THE TANK TOPS WILL ATTRACT MENMEN WHO WANT....sEcksALSO THEY ARE TANK TOPSTANKTANK TOPSTHAT SOUNDS VIOLENTTANKS ARE IN WARTOPTOPTOP SOUNDS GOOD LIKEYOU COULD SAYI AM THE TOP DEBATER ON THIS SITETHAT WOULD BE A GOOD THINGSOBASICALLYTANK TOPSARESAYING THAT THE WOMEN WILL THREATENALLWITHTHREATS THAT THEY WILLBLOW BOTH A PERSONS ARMS OFFWITH A TANKAND THENIT WILL BE A GOOD THING!THAT IS NOT NICEININCINFAINFACIN FACTIT IS A OPPOSITE OF THE NICEIT IS NOT NICEIT IS MEANALSOALSO WALSO WEALSO WE AALSO WE ARALSO WE ARETALKINGABOUTAASCHOOLA SCHOOLSCHOOLS ARE FOR LEARNINGYOU NEED TO LEARN THE TRUTHTHE TANK TOPS THEY ARE OTTER THE TRUTHNOT THE TRUTHSORRYDAMN AUTO ERECTIONNICE IS THE TRUTHNOT TANK TOPSSO NO TANK TOPSESPECIALLY NOT IN SCHOOLSPLUS, GIRLS.GIRLS ARE BAD ENOUGH ALREADY.WE DO NOT NEED DIDDILY THEM BEINGEVEN WORSETHEN THEY WILL BE SO BAD THAT IT WILL BE T.O.R.T.U.R.E.PLUSPLUSPLUSPLUSWHO IS THEY,THE GOVERNMENTTHAT'S WHOTHEY ARE LISTENING TO USTHROUGH OUR VOTESWE HAVE NO CHOICETHE GOVERNMENT SUCKSTHEY SHOULD HAVE NO CHOOSINGS OCER ANYTHINGI SHOULD KNOW, I AM A LUNATICSO THEY SHOULD NOT CHOOSE THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MAKE EXXXXCUSE MEWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREIWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREIIIIIIWHEREIWHEREIIIWHERETHEIWHEREWHEREIIWHEREIIWHEREIWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREIIAMWHEREWHEREIIIIIIWHEREIWHEREWHEREIIWHEREIIWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREIHAVEWHEREIWHEREIWHEREIWHERE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ZZZZZ,,,,,,,,KKIKINKINGKINGDKINGDEKINGDEBKINGDEBAKINGDEBKINGDEBATKINGDEBATEKINGDEBATERKINGDEABTEKINGDEBAKINGDEBKINGDEKINGDKINGKINPKINAPKINNAPKINNAKINAKINKINKINGKINGDKINGDEKINGDEBKINGDEBAKINGDEBATKINGDEBATEKINGDEBATERKINGDEBAKINGDEBKINGDEKINGDKINGKINKIK...I AM SORRYIFMY ARGUMENTSARE NOT RESPONDEDTOTOOTO?By mY OPPONENTBECAUSEIT IS MY RIGHTMY FREEDOMMY . OPPONENT MAY WRITE OFF MY ARGUMENTS AS SPAM OR NOT IMPORTANT, BUT THAT's JUST BECAUSE HE IS JEALOUSWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHEREWHERE WHERE WHEREWHERE WHERE WHEREWHEREWHEREWHERE Sources Just JustJustKJustProper job look
should they let girl wear tank tops in school

Yes, they should let use wear tank tops as long as they not showing anything. like the one the girl got on in the picture is nice to wear, because its not showing anything. Something like spaghetti straps no not at all nobody shouldnt wear those without a shirt over them kind of tank tops; they show to much wearing them, and then you will be having boys looking all down your shirt. So why not let us wear them during the hot days that we have before we get out the school that when they should let us wear them.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

This is a reinstallment of the recent debate I had with Torvald only this time the definitions rule will not be applied because of it's failure in the last debate.Rules:1. No semantics2. No trolling3. No profanity4. No vulgarityStructure: 1. Acceptance/Definitions2. Opening Statement3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals 5. Closing Arguments/ConclusionDefinitions: public school- a free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.should- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.teach- to cause to know something.about- with regard to.creationism- the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.
Letting someone die is just as bad as killing them.

Yes, I know, this is a slightly confusing debate topic, but I couldn't really word it in 100 characters. To simplify things I will prevent a scenario. Scenario: Drowning child-Version 1 Person X is babysitting his 6 year old brother. X's father is an extremely rich widower, who although X is older has put the younger child as his heir. X drowns the child while he is bathing, and calls it an accident. Version 2 Person X is babysitting his 6 year old brother. X's father is an extremely rich widower, who although X is older has put the younger child as his heir. X sees his brother have a seizure in the bathtub. He decides not to act, and his brother dies. Parameters: For this topic, letting die will always mean that the victim could have been saved. As a guideline, argue based off this scenario, so as not to run into silly semantics. I contend that because the result was the same, and X could have prevented the result, X is just as wrong in version 2 as he is in version 1. In short, X's actions/inactions led to the same result, ergo the actions are morally equivalent.
School bands are essential for successful students

"My quote does indeed have a source"It does not however say he was involved in any of those things, thus you can't prove his success comes from being in a band.Also, it's a politically biased website. Not that it matters too much."Once again, my opponent is using a celebrity who everyone knows very well. However, my opponent never states that Alfred Hitchcock was/wasn't in any band programs to make him act rudely towards other actors"But I thought bands taught everyone about friendship. Thus, if he wasn't in a band according to your claims, he would be unsucessful for not learning about respect, however he was very successful. Your claim, is false."To prove my point, I will also present a celebrity who can be proven to have been in a school band and performing arts program, as a child, Jennifer Lawrence."While you can prove she was in a band, can you prove she is nice? No, donating to charity does NOT count. A rude, selfish, and disrespectful person can donate to charity and come off as "nice". Do you see my point?"Jennifer Lawrence is a highly looked-upon role-model because she is kind, friendly, generous, and talented. Alfred Hitchcock was a talented celebrity also, but he was not kind, friendly or generous, and was instead "rude, mean, aggressive, and harsh" according to my opponent."Alfred Hitchock is the "Master" of suspense, and very sucessful. Well, was very successful. Regardless, your claims about not learning how to respect and showing respect does not apply to Alfred as he was harsh. Don't believe me that he was harsh?"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle."[http://www.brainyquote.com...]" My opponent seems to be forgetting about the topic entirely. This is about band, and whether or not BAND makes you successful or not. My opponent says that "there are rude people who were/are very successful". Of course there are, like Alfred Hitchcock, who may not have been in band, or been inspired by school band."I did not forget the topic. Your claims included to be successful you MUST be in a band AND respectful, fair, nice, etc,.I am arguing against those claims, that one does NOT need to be in a band and be respectful, fair, nice, etc. to be successful. It's rather silly to believe you MUST be in a band to be successful anyways. As mentioned earlier, Bill Gates was not in a band yet he is successful and claiming he was "influenced" by one is a shot in a dark anyways.
School bands are essential for successful students

"Bill Gates was a genius, not the average student. He didn't need to go to college to be successful. I researched Bill Gates' high school and it said: "Seattle's most elite private school, Lakeside... Full arts program with drama, various choruses, various band including jazz band, chamber orchestra". Bill may have been affected by his peers who were in the band and other music programs to convince him to succeed." My quote does indeed have a source:[http://www.democraticunderground.com...] Okay, so to get on with the debate... My opponent argued: "There are rude people who were/are very successful. A good example is Alfred Hitchcock. He was rude, mean, aggressive, and harsh on the actors he worked with when directing movies. However, his movies made him rather wealthy." Once again, my opponent is using a celebrity who everyone knows very well. However, my opponent never states that Alfred Hitchcock was/wasn't in any band programs to make him act rudely towards other actors. To prove my point, I will also present a celebrity who can be proven to have been in a school band and performing arts program, as a child, Jennifer Lawrence. "...Lawrence's band teacher at Kammerer, Amanda Cornish, says she'll never forget the blonde teen who "sat in the very front row, right in the middle" and played the oboe. Jennifer was always vivacious, full of energy, full of laughter. She had an awesome humor about her even as a young kid,' Cornish said...Charlie Sexton, artistic director at Walden Theatre, worked with Lawrence when she was an eighth-grader. During the group's April 2005 spring showcase performance, 'In Celebration of Shakespeare,' she played Desdemona from 'Othello'. The thing I remember about her was how determined she was." Source: [http://www.usatoday.com...] Jennifer Lawrence is a highly looked-upon role-model because she is kind, friendly, generous, and talented. Alfred Hitchcock was a talented celebrity also, but he was not kind, friendly or generous, and was instead "rude, mean, aggressive, and harsh" according to my opponent. My argument: My opponent seems to be forgetting about the topic entirely. This is about band, and whether or not BAND makes you successful or not. My opponent says that "there are rude people who were/are very successful". Of course there are, like Alfred Hitchcock, who may not have been in band, or been inspired by school band.
School bands are essential for successful students

"You may not need to be in band to graduate, but colleges nowadays are becoming very picky over all of the programs and organizations you were in as a student. You may need to have been in band in order to get into a good college."My opponent has conceded thus, forfeiting the debate. The BoP was "I say that school bands, such as marching, jazz, and concert bands are essential for students to succeed"By using context clues, I can assume for students to succeed means for the students to pass and graduate high school, middle school,or college. My opponent has just said you may not need to be in a band anymore, thus denying the claim as earlier mentioned. On another note, provide a source of a college or school that requires you to have band education. Note, that not what you can learn in college but an actual college." Bill Gates was a genius, not the average student. He didn't need to go to college to be successful. I researched Bill Gates' high school and it said: "Seattle's most elite private school, Lakeside... Full arts program with drama, various choruses, various band including jazz band, chamber orchestra". Bill may have been affected by his peers who were in the band and other music programs to convince him to succeed."Provide the source, otherwise you are making it up. ""I don't see how. What about depressed, rude, selfish, hating, impatient band players. Yet again, another fallacy. I knew people in band that were complete jerks." Argument: There are many kids in bands who are like that"My opponent has conceded once again. The original claim was, " Students in band learn life lessons about fairness, disciplining yourself, patience, how to treat others with respect, to never give up, to love yourself no matter what anyone else says,"However they just admit that they are aware of the many jerks in band, even though the claim was they learned how to be nice and show respect.The defintion of learn is "to gain knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something"[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]If most of the students are "learning" about respect, most of them would be nice instead of rude correct?"However, kids who never learned these qualities will obviously not be educated to lead a successful life."Let's see here...There are rude people who were/are very successful. A good example is Alfred Hitchcock. He was rude, mean, aggressive, and harsh on the actors he worked with when directing movies. However, his movies made him rather wealthy.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]So let's toss this into a scenario...Alfred Hitchcock is rude and doesn't show much respect to the actors.According to my opponent's claims, Alfred Hitchcock is now unsuccessful and uneducated.However, Alfre Hitchcock was rich from the movies he made, thus making him successful in a more realistic sense.According to my opponent's claims, if you never learned how to be fair, respectful, etc. you won't succeed however Alfred Hitchock just proved them wrong.
School bands are essential for successful students

I am arguing the opinion of my opponent, who's claim is that band is not a necessity to be successful. "At most if not all high schools, you do not need to be in band to graduate and to be successful. Anyone has the potential to be successful without the need of band in their life." Argument: You may not need to be in band to graduate, but colleges nowadays are becoming very picky over all of the programs and organizations you were in as a student. You may need to have been in band in order to get into a good college. "Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and is still successful. If someone can drop out of a prestigious private university and still make billions, they can live without band." Argument: Bill Gates was a genius, not the average student. He didn't need to go to college to be successful. I researched Bill Gates' high school and it said: "Seattle's most elite private school, Lakeside... Full arts program with drama, various choruses, various band including jazz band, chamber orchestra". Bill may have been affected by his peers who were in the band and other music programs to convince him to succeed. "I don't see how. What about depressed, rude, selfish, hating, impatient band players. Yet again, another fallacy. I knew people in band that were complete jerks." Argument: There are many kids in bands who are like that. They are the ones who do not sincerely care about their band life and are typically exclude themselves from the band life. They honestly do not care about band and are simply doing it because 1. Their parents forced them to join and they'd rather be on the football field actually playing the game 2. They are doing band simply for the college and school benefits. I will say this much: band teaches kids, like regular school classes. But like school classes, it is the student's choice to remember and use the information they learned in school or not. As I had previously said that they learn life lessons about being fair and disciplining themselves, it is completely their option as to follow this path or not. However, kids who never learned these qualities will obviously not be educated to lead a successful life.