BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

Ok allow us to begin. As implied in the comments, Deja Voodoo has decided (out of sheer boredom) that he wants to invade Mike's colony, now with everyone either frozen or under the glares' influence, he sets his intentions on to Grace. Now somehow Grace was the only one who survived Dejas blitz attack. Fascinated by this, Deja develops sexual attractions towards Grace. However she rejects him, making him angry. He tries his deafening scream, but he is too weakened by her beauty, so he calls upon his partner Incubus to awaken Grace's sexual energies so he can swoop in and finally control her. Unbeknownst to Deja, Grace heals in a matter of seconds, launching a full fledged assault. However just as she is about to Kill Deja, Incubus arrives and both molest her for hours. After this he applies his glare once again, this time Grace is struggling to escape its power.. With the ball In Dejas court, what will Grace do to survive?... (neither character can die until round 3, so just built up the next scene).
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

I accept this very weird and intriguing debate. Name: Grace Status: Unknown, origin unknown. Abilities: 1. Nigh Omnipotence 2. Supreme weakness detection 3. Reality Warping/Molecule Manipulation 4. Enhanced Power Replication 5. Enhanced regeneration Allies 1. Beyonder, Pre Retcon 2. The Living Tribunal 3. Mike, supreme leader of Grace's race Accessories: 1. War Armour 2. Book of hindsight 3. Mace Energy Source: 1. Life energy
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

Hello, this here is a fun, open challenge to anyone. The synopsis is simple, you must create, describe and introduce your very own Superhero or villian. Rules: Your character will compete against mine (below) in a battle of fantasy characters. To expand, neither characters can be immortal or omnipresent, otherwise no one will win. Only 5 abilities , 3 allies, 3 accessories, and 1 energy source permitted. R1 is acceptance and the introduction of each opponents character. R2 We refute the opponent's character, eg debating the pros and cons of nightvision for example R3 Further arguments, and can expand in to comments section. So enjoy, here's my character. Name: Deja Voodoo Status: Villian From France Abilities: 1) Can pause time, therefore freeze frame others whilst maintaining motion. 2)Can control your mind via a disturbing hypnotic stare, forcing you to become his b1tch. 3) His stare can turn also you into a dolled version of yourself, if he were to recite a specific hoodoo curse. 4) Highly seductive in to luring you in, super athletic specimen 5) Emits frequency scream that severely damages your hearing. Allies: Baron Samedi, Medusa, and Incubus Accessories: Voodoo For Dummies, Sunglasses, and a voodoo doll Energy Source: Gains power by looking you in the eye, stealing your sanity. Catchphrase: N/A
Horseback Riding is a Sport, and so much more!

I've been horseback riding for 5 years. I do barrel racing, equestrian vaulting, and trails. According to dictionary.com a sport is an athletic activity requiring skill or physical powerness, also competative. Even though i ride horses i dont think its a sport. One reason i think horse riding isnt a sport is because it doesn't require much physical skill. (Getting a horse from a walk to a canter isn't good for it). I play hockey, ski, and mountian bike and used to play soccer and base ball. Compared to ice hockey, horseback riding isnt physical it all. Yes, you are controlling a large animal but most of it includes common sense. Hockey is skating up and down the ice, shooting pucks, and checking (slamming people into plexiglass). Another reason i think its not a sport is because it isn't very competative. I play ice hockey and we have people trash talk, give dirty looks, and fight. I dont see horse riders fight or trash talk. I've been to my fare share of competitions and dont see how its competative. When i went to completions people where generally friendly, laid back, and not competative. The definition of sport even had competitiveness. Last i dont think horseback riding is a sport because, except for barrel racing, in competitions its judged by scores given by a judge. Scores in baseball or soccer games record the points of the game. The score reflects how well the judge thought the competitor did. Even the judge has knowledge of the sport it can still be bias and different people have different opinions so it isn't accuret. Also the score in other sports gives the exact mark of points. Scores vary a lot. Also next time can you make yours shorter? I made mine long because you did. My sources Dictionary.com My instructors My knowledge
Welfare

1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market dropsMy opponent makes assertions but offers nothing in the way of evidence or studies. I have shown 2 references. There are more. My opponent is summing his argument up as welfare is a way of hiding economic failings.But this does not match with the argument on the evidence I have showed. What is shown is that the countries with more spending on welfare enjoyed longer periods of sustained economic growth. Even if this growth was shared between similar countries with similar economics such as Japan and US.2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growthMy opponent continues to cite the Cato institute. I have offered 6 sources from universities and government establish that poverty hurts everyone. Most people on welfare are on it for less than 2 years. So they are not dependent on welfare nor make it a way of life.Welfare is to address temporary poverty. My opponent says to fix poverty we should focus on other things like education, certainly but that is not what this debate is about.Plus it has been shown that increasing IQ does not eliminate poverty [1].3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and DiseaseThe title of the first 3 points is directly related to Welfare. Welfare in its pure intention is too help the poor subsist and live. So explaining why we, as a nation, should invest in doing so is important to outline.Yet again a quote from the Cato institute. And no link to verify or review this quote. Is the Cato institute the only source of information for my opponents case? Surely a national view with billions at state must have other studies from other places supporting my opponent? 4. Child SupportFine, my opponent asserts welfare leads to more single parent homes... Where is the evidence for this?5. Welfare aids economic growth.It is pretty sad when 2 parent homes with both parents working need help to feed their kids. Thank goodness there is a welfare program to insure they are not starving.Conclusion: My opponent has not adequately addressed the details of the arguments I have put forward.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Welfare

I've noticed on my opponents Big issues he is pro welfare. I am con welfare and would like to debate the topic with him. Burden of Proof is fully shared and he is open to advocate for welfare in the United States in any way he chooses. Structure Round 1-Con acceptance- Pro opening argument Round 2- Con opening argument- Pro rebuttals Round 3- Con rebuttals - Pro counter rebuttals Round 4- Con counter rebuttals - Pro closing statement no new arguments Round 5- Con closing statements no new arguments- Pro will route "no round as agreed upon. Failure to do so shall result in a full forfeit.
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

Compared to the hundreds of other taxes that Americans pay, the Affordable Care Act is minuscule. Saying that we do not need something just because we haven"t needed it yet is just plain ignorant. The same people that are protesting the Affordable Care Act are going to be the same people that are complaining that health care costs are too high when something inevitable will happen to either them, or on of their loved ones. Health care cost is not the only price tag that keeps increasing. As previously stated before, this act is not attempting to lower the cost of health care but rather is attempting to insure that everyone is covered despite the rising costs. In response to "Middle-class families can barely afford health insurance and it would be more tragic if they were getting charged for more money by their premiums", which do you believe is more expensive? A slight raise in premiums to protect your family in case of an emergency or footing the entire doctors/hospital bill? Out of all the taxes that we pay this should be one that is the most beneficial and most important for everyone. Lastly, a few months back everyone was complaining about the lack of jobs, now that the Affordable Care Act is providing jobs the complaints have been moved somewhere else.
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act doesn't benefit small businesses because they are forcing them to insure their employees. Further, employers cannot afford to insure all their employees due to the high cost of health insurance. According to cnbc.com, the majority of these people especially middle-class have negative views towards it. Some owners say that they would rather pay the penalty than do what the law is requiring. Moreover, the Affordable Care Act allows 16% of U.S population, the number of Americans who don't have coverage, to obtain health insurance. This becomes problematic because providing health insurance for everybody will cause the cost of health care to increase. In addition, insurance premiums will increase due to insurers having to provide covered services. This is also problematic because not all people who have health coverage get sick particularly the young and healthy ones. As response to your statement, "It will also give the owners control as to how much is paid towards employee premiums," it is impossible. Employers are mandated by the law to follow what they are requiring. One of the main reasons why the majority have negative towards that act is mainly because of its high cost. If they had control to what is being paid towards health insurances, then we would have expected otherwise. The health-care act uses complex rules and uncertainty with things that small businesses are unaware of which causes them to unwillingly comply. "It is harder for small-business owners to follow the new rules and requirements than it is for bigger businesses, since they don"t have big human resources departments to help them out." Sources: cnbc.com... politico.com... It is clear that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to insure everyone regardless of their gender, social status and preexisting conditions. However, the leading effects of it is what people are concern the most. Yes it is true that young middle-class Americans can stay with their parent's insurance until the age of 26, but that is not where the problem is coming from. The problem is the high cost of premium they are charging these families when most of these families do not see their doctor for more than twice or thrice a year. Middle-class families can barely afford health insurance and it would be more tragic if they were getting charged for more money by their premiums. Sources: cnbc.com... politico.com... They are using these funding scholarships and loan replacement programs to shift the public's attention. The Affordable Care Act is not contributing a positive impact on employment. In addition, it is cutting millions of jobs and hours of employees because of its regulations. Furthermore, employers are unwilling to hire people because it would cost them money to insure them as to what the law requires. Also, by hiring more people at the hospitals or other health departments doesn't solve the issue at stake because the problem is fiscal cliff and money spending.
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act will not only benefit many small businesses it will also even out the playing field for all. Despite "managements generosity", as you have put it, half of those that are uninsured are small business owners, employees and those that are dependent; the Affordable Care Act plans to fix that. While we know that the cost of health care has been steadily increasing this act is at least attempting to cover and insure as many people as possible. Small businesses, those under 25 full time employees, will receive tax credits from the government in order to pay for employee premiums. The top 2% of businesses, essentially those that can afford to spend more money than others, will pay extra taxes in order to cover the gap in the budget. The act will also create the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP, will ensure that small businesses, under 50 full time employees, can shop for group health care plans. It will also give the owners control as to how much is paid towards employee premiums. It will give you the option of deducting from your taxes the rest of premium costs that are not covered by tax credits. Sources: http://obamacarefacts.com... http://obamacarefacts.com... The Affordable Care Act is not a piece of legislation that was meant to cut down on our budget deficit but simply meant to insure that many more people are covered despite the rising health care costs. Even young middle-class Americans can stay covered under their parents insurance until the age of 26. On the flip side of your argument, those that are "young, middle-class people" also cannot afford doctors fees and hospital visits if they do not have insurance either, at least this way they will be covered and will pay less if something were to happen. With the Affordable Care Act in place there will be 15 million more low income families covered with medical insurance and despite rises in health care costs, many families are eligible to apply for, and receive, financial aid. Sources: http://thinkprogress.org... http://obamacarefacts.com... The Affordable Care Act is funding scholarships and loan replacement programs for those going into the primary care workforce. This will not only essentially guarantee that we will have enough workers in hospitals and other health care departments, but also will create jobs and careers for Americans. It also funds and expands community health care centers. Sources: http://obamacarefacts.com... http://www.hrsa.gov...
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act does affect not only businesses with over 50 employees, but also businesses with less than 50 employees. Prior to this act, it has been identified that the cost of health care in United States has been increasing throughout the years. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act prevents small businesses from growing because they cannot simply afford to insure their employers due to its high cost. In addition, it will also lead to negative result for future employment because employers will be afraid to hire more employees for the same reason. Small businesses don't have to insure their employees, but they do it anyway because of the managements generosity. Despite generosity, they are still being penalized for it. On the other hand, this act may not be a problem for big employers; however, considering the steady increase of health care will perhaps make employers wonder. They will perhaps cut down their employees' hours to escape or turn full-time workers into part-time workers which regularly happen to small businesses. As a response to your second premise, the Affordable Care Act is not unfair with everybody. Although it provides health care for everybody, it has some disincentive for young, middle-class people. They are healthy and rarely visit the doctor whole year round. However, their premium increased because of the new plan they are being funneled into. According to articles.latimes.com, this new plan will increase their premium up to 43%; not many people could afford this especially the middle-class family. The law is far likely to cut down deficit because statistically one-sixth of the U.S economy is dedicated to health care and the rise in the cost of health care is inevitable. "Total health care spending in the United States is expected to reach $4.8 trillion in 2021, up from $2.6 trillion in 2010 and $75 billion in 1970," (http://www.ahip.org...). Scholars from different universities say that the Affordable Care Act uses shady accounting to hide its overall cost. They try to shift the attention to funding scholarship to students because of the unthinkable increase in tax. In addition, they will be adding new taxes fee which was started this year. I personally think that we don't need more health care providers. What we need is to lower the cost of health care in order for people to afford it because I don't think it is fair that if you don't buy the insurance (for whatever reason but particularly the high cost of it), you get to pay a penalty.
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

1) The Affordable Care Act will only require businesses to provide insurance for their employees if they staff over 50 full time employees, the Affordable Care Act will provide tax credits to small businesses to buy insurance. Source: http://obamacarefacts.com... 2) The Affordable Care Act will provide fair coverage to those who could previously not afford insurance due to strict restrictions, this essentially will cut down our debt crisis in the long run. Source: http://useconomy.about.com... 3) The Affordable Care Act has been funding scholarships for students in order to double the number of health care providers in future years. Source: http://useconomy.about.com... Conclusion: We should not repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Repeal the Affordable Care Act

1) 75 percent of small businesses is making it harder for them to hire Source: http://www.usnews.com...... 2) It fails to address the long-term drivers of our debt crisis Source: http://www.usnews.com...... 3) It treats everyone unfair Source: http://www.nationalreview.com...... C) United States should repeal the Affordable Care Act
The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

1) Actually, I gave you 3 examples (UK early this decade, Israel now and 90s US). A stable economy is one that can limit unemployment, maintain social programs, kill inflation and stabilize the budget. Ive responded to this at all 3 rounds now but you seem to keep repeating the same ridiculous statement 2) If you cant deal with the fact that a stable economy isnt fictitious, thats not my problem. Just because you dont understand logic doenst mean it doesnt exist. 3) Industrial abuse of workers is real and has EVERYTHING to do with the abolishment of MW. Without some legislation protecting a the MW of workers, industry controls what they make to their own discretion. 4) Than look again 5) Untrue. without a MW, all you have is an uncontrolled industry that can, and would, underpay its work force. Just because companies can afford to pay you 1 cent an hour now that there is no legislation protecting you doenst mean that there are going to be more jobs. sorry In summation, good debate. Thank you for your time.
The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

You are digging yourself a hole and burying yourself in it. 1) You state that there are "stable" economies that exist, without providing an example of one place in the world where that is true or defining what a stable economy is. Nothing you said is an argument for increasing unemployment and the cost of living, which is exactly what the minimum wage does. But, if you want to know, where production is most efficient, look no further than capitalist nations. So, I am still winning this argument substantially on why the minimum wage should be abolished; 2) You neither proved or demonstrate anything against my straightforward example of why the minimum wage does not work. Your counterargument again creates a fictitious world where production increases just because you say it does. Well, I could declare by fiat that the world is flat, but that would not make it any more true; 3) You are now diverging into whether or not we should prevent collusion with anti-trust legislation. That still has nothing to do with the minimum wage, and in fact the minimum wage during collusion would still have the result of increasing unemployment and the cost of living; 4) I'll take your word for it, but I did not see anything that you said that refutes my argument; 5) You ended off by saying that no Country has 0 unemployment. This is my whole point; with no minimum wage, the market would continuously work to have full employment. If you set a minimum wage, you increase it; Your last argument about exploitation and morals and ethics is baseless. It is immoral to crate a system that increases unemployment and the cost of living at the expense of the poor.
The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

In case youre unaware, Macroeconomics is economics dealing with broad society, im not sure what you mean by economic theory in that sense. I was merely saying "this is how MW works in the broad sense". Im not sure how that constitutes a legit argument on your part though. Ill go down on your numbered responses: 1) You misunderstand, workers get laid off as a result of poor production. Minimum wage that forces the worker to work harder (in the way you portray it) is in fact, the ideal criterion of capitalism. My argument are not based in a fake world. Stable economies have, and in some places do, exist. In an unstable economy (where there is poor production and a lack of jobs are available) there are going to be layoffs no matter what the MW is or if it exists at all. 2)you did not demonstrate that at all. only that 10 people in your example would lose thier jobs, but i logical showed you how that isnt true. 3) Im not assuming that businesses are alone in setting prices of their products. I am assuming that they would (in your MW-less world) would be free to set the wages of their employees. I understand what you say about the job pool, but look at it like this: cell phone companies charge ridiculously high prices for an unlimited, overhead-less product... "minuets". How does this happen? The cell phone minuet industry is by no means a monopoly? It happens because if all the companies work together to sell at the same price, they dont compete, but share the market. The same happens if you have no MW. you end up with companies who make the universal agreement to pay lower workers, lower wages (i.e. if all companies pay their factory workers 2 bucks an hour, whos gonna stop them?) If your competitive job pool assumption was correct, current companies restricted by the MW laws would offer their employees above MW to attract them away from competing companies. Unfortuneatley, that doesnt happen 4) i did address this, refer to my opening rebuttal in round 1. 5) Theres no such thing as an economy that has a 0 unemployed rating, but there by all means are stable economies (research US of the 90s, UK of early 00s, israel now). Prices are created by supply and demand, but MW doesnt increase price unless youre willing to give companies that free will that allows them to abuse workers. In all, this debate comes down to whether or not you can prove logically or empirically that abused workers is a justified means to reaching the end result of cheaper products. Morally, ethically, economically and politically, youre 100% wrong.