BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

I agree, either way, we can see he is coming back, when we look at a series, we can usually see why zones are incorporated, the nights watch is focused around jon, it was a couple of his friends but very little to do with them normally. the walkers are becomming a huge threat and so far we have had 2 PoVs with the walkers, without jon or his friends being alive or in castle black any longer; what is the meaning to even show glimpses of the war? after the starks died, we no longer see anything to do with the allied alliance of the north, we do see the boltons but not until they were really introduced after killing the starks. with jon snow gone, i don't see any other characters other than davos and mel, but they would just be ostricised. we also have the 5000 white walkers, but they are going into the lands. i can say for certainty that jon is coming back some how, i see no other reason for melisandre to be there, davos hates her too. also, you mentioned that jon has honor and would keep his loyalty to the watch... he was just killed by his brothers, he is regarded as a bastard and threw away his only chance of redeeming his name as stark from stannis. the honor of characters means little when arguably the most honorable person, ned stark apparently slept around with someone, whether it's right or now. he put his honor on the line. if he believes melisandre, he will put his honor on the line, the same as ned
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

I see, someone made a very compelling case on FB for what could happen. I will copy and paste it for you. "Melissandra realized after Stannis's forces deserted him melting the snow wasn't for him to march forward but for her to get back to the wall. There is visible shock on her face for the first time in the series when she learns of the desertion, as if she had an epiphany; Jon was Azor all along. Her seeing snow wasn't metaphorical, it literally meant Jon Snow This also does two things 1) Ends JSnow's contract to the watch, as it's "until death" 2) gives him the only part of the Azor Prophecy he's missing: born amongst salt and smoke. Red Lady will bring him back through fire Mel isn't evil, she just got the wrong person. Her actions towards Stannis inadvertently saved Jon several times, it was all the lord of light's plan. Without her telling Stannis to free the North Mance's forces would have taken the wall" I basically got converted to his idea when he stated it. I'm not sure where he got it from though.
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

Brilliant thoughts friend. I agree, the scene between Olly and Sam where Sam claims that "Jon always comes back" could indeed serve as a piece of foreshadowig. And while it would be interesting to see Jon take the role of Coldhands, I do not think that will be the case unfortunately. You claimed to have not read the books, which is fair, but may I point out a few pieces of information about Coldhands? Firstly, despite Coldhands dressing and acting similarly to a member of the Night's Watch (i.e: killing a number of mutineers in the aftermath of the Mutiny at Craster's Keep), there area number of reasons why Jon could not take his role. Firstly, Coldhands is first introduced towards the end of "A Storm of Swords", the third novel. He guides Bran and company to the cave of the Three Eyed Crow, and is last seen defending them from wights as they enter said cave. At the end of the fourth season, Bran and co. reach the cave and enter alongside the Children of the Forest, losing Jojen Reed to the wights. Now admittedly, Coldhands may have a larger role in future novels, however, one must consider that it is unlikely that Jon would rise from the dead essentially, desert the wall, find Bran and go from there. It seems too big a coincidence. Secondly is the fact that Jon is a major player in the game of thrones, while Coldhands is only a reoccurring character at best. I feel as though the producers of the show have already given far too much background and information on Jon's role in the game (see the discussion between Littlefinger and Sansa in regards to Lyanna Stark in season 5, episode 4) to simply reduce him to the role of such a minor character. While it is an interesting thought to entertain, it will most likely not come to fruition. You also mentioned the possibility of Jon filling the shoes of Lady Stoneheart. While this is a fantastically exciting prospect, I am sad to say that this is unlikely at the most as well. At the end of "A Feast for Crows", Lady Stoneheart is in The Riverlands, leading the Brotherhood Without Banners after the permanent demise of Beric Dondarion. As mentioned before, it has been seen before that the dead retain their memories after resurrection, so it would seem unlikely that Jon would completely abandon the Night's Watch (especially after how desperate he was to defend the wall after the Battle at Hardhome) simple to wage a guerrilla war against the Freys, who haven't been seen since episode 10 of season 3. It is somewhat possible however, that Jon will be resurrected as a wight. Although, for this to happen, his body would need to come into contact with a White Walker after death. Again, it would also completely disregard all the foreshadowing that the show has put into Jon having a pivotal role in the endgame. If anything, I've no doubt that he will be coming back, however, it probably will not result in him being reduced to a minor or reoccurring role.
Socialism v Communism

Socialism and Communism are the same thing. I will argue here that both are almost equally detrimental to a successful society. Socialism and communism both form dictatorship. China and the Soviet union are the largest forms of communism that have formed dictatorships. Venezuela despite being 'socialist' has also resulted in a dictatorship Socialism is not peaceful. According to the marxist definition socialism and communism can only be truly achieved through violent means. Neither is sustainable. All socialist countries have either collapsed or are approaching a depression. Even European socialist countries are becoming crippled with debt with economic depressions as well. Venezuela's government is on the brink of collapse with protests erupting throughout the country, and china no longer follows economic socialism and the Soviet Union has already collapsed.
is batman better than iron man!!

Topic Analysis: first of all, the topic says "batman is better than iron man" therfore, the con is not ironman is better than batman, but simply that batman is not better than iron man" because of this, I (the con) do not have to prove that iron man is better, but, simply that he is not worse. on to the arguments: Batman is, in fact, not better than iron man for the following reason: 1. ) Iron man's suit has a purpose. face it, batman doesnt need the spandex and the cape, in fact, in a fight, a cape could get in the way. Iron man's costume, on the other hand, protects him, shoots rockets and energy bolts, and flys. this leads my to my second point. 2. ) Iron man can fly. Batman, however cool, cannot fly. there probbaly is some comic where he has "batwings" or a "batglider" or something, but, for the most part, he must go on foot. 3. ) iron man, unlike batman does not have a bat-noun to automatically get him out of any prickly situation. I havnt seen the movies, so i'm going off the old comic books where batman just happens to have whatever he needs in a given situation. (and it's always a bat-something. seriously. that is ridiculous. in fact, in another comic, robin jokes about installing a bathtub in his utility belt,proof that the entire idea was a big joke. also, batman's first bat-noun was the batarang, which is totally lame. 4. ) Tony Stark is better than Bruce Wayne a. Stark runs an international weapons development company. bruce wayne is just a normal buisnuessman. b. Bruce Wayne is seen as a "playboy" and a man who is "living extravagantly off his parents fortune" Tony Stark is seen as a man who has proven himself numerous times, and has earned his money and reputation. 5. ) Iron Man's villan is cooler The Joker is just a crazy guy, who, although is somtime truly threatening, often is just trying to mess with the batman. Mandarin on the other hand, is a compleatly sane, nobleman who has quasi-magic powers (alien technology technically). Finally, although my opponants fist constructive was quite short: my opponant said: "batman does not need a suit of armor to fight, so he is better" this is very very flawed. it appears my oppnant has not read batman comics, where, in many instances, batman does, in fact wear armor. Also, even if he's not wearing armor, he has his utility belt, and, if you look to my 3rd argument, this actually gives batman more of an advantage than a mech-suit could ever give him, and, if you look to my 5th point, his villan is actually a worse villan than iron man's.
India should unite to what it was during the British Rule

In the last rebuttal, my opponent does not provide any logical support as to why these countries should unify. My opponent has not given a single benefit which could arise from this situation. Thus, as the instigator, my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. Additionally, the only argument that my opponent does make as a rebuttal to my point about religious violence is that religious violence can be avoided in places like the United States, so it can be eliminated in the Middle East. This is obviously erroneous since the United States was built upon religious tolerance but the Middle East region has had large amounts of religious conflict in the past, so the comparison cannot be made. [1] [2] Additionally, in my first argument I pointed out the problems that having elected officials in this scenario would create since a Hindu president would most likely be elected, which would anger the Muslim population due to a lack of representation. This would merely increase the amount of violence, something which is clearly detrimental. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.globalpolicy.org...
India should unite to what it was during the British Rule

My opponent has the burden of proof, and therefore I only need to negate my opponent's arguments, not necessarily present my own. However, as my opponent has not presented any arguments, I will start off this debate by making one key observation on why this would not be beneficial. I will present further arguments in the next round after my opponent has had a chance to present opening arguments. 1) Religious violence would increase dramatically due to the difference in populations between the countries, as the total number of Muslims in those countries is approximately 482 million and the total number of Hindus is approximately 926 million. [1] [2] Since the number of Hindus would be approximately twice the number of Muslims, Hindus would have a much larger representation in the government than the Muslims, yet the Muslims would represent a large enough demographic to protest this, likely leading to violent confrontations. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
PS3 is better than XBox 360

First off, I would like to say that I have never even owned a PlayStation so this is all new to me. So as this is the last round, I would like to thank my opponent for teaching me this. Now back to the debate. "Honestly, I would rather be locked out of my account, than have $350 dollars stolen from me! !! " Yes, Xbox players have been hacked, but would you rather have your personal ID stolen? They include credit card numbers and passwords leaked online. On January 24th, 2013, Sony was sued over 250,000 euros because someone leaked that personal information online. Don't believe me? Than look at . http://www.guardian.co.uk... People could use enough of that information to impersonate you or spend your money like Susan Taylor! !! Also, how would you like it if a hacker group finds a secret set of codes that can decrypt the PlayStation 3's Level 0 security layer? Well it already happened! Hackers have found a way to break down one of the toughest defensive walls in Sony's PlayStation 3 software security! !! Look at this website: . http://news.cnet.com... When you said, "this argument is invalid because the PlayStation does in fact have Netflix, Hulu, EC. ", I never stated that it didn't have those features. I stated that you might have to restart if you accidentally turn off your console! Basically this debate is just an opinion! You decide on what you prefer and what is more "comfortable" for you. Thanks Jdog for this fun opportunity!
PS3 is better than XBox 360

"On an Xbox, you have Hulu, Netflix, etc., but on Netflix and etc., you can pick up where you left off. If you are watching a movie via bluray and accidentally turn off your console, you have to restart and that is definetly a pain!!!"First off, this argument is invalid because the PlayStation does in fact have Netflix, Hulu, EC. I have Netflix on my PS3, and it works perfectly. Also, on Netflix on the PS3, you can also(just like the Xbox) go back to exactly where you were in a show if you lose power or something."Why isn't sony well enough secured? They are a major company, and should therefore be nearly impossible to hack! Lag, freezes, blackouts, that is too much to risk if you are playing some hardcore Blackops or something."Stories of Xbox Live users seeing their accounts hacked and used to make unauthorized purchases have continued to come in at a slow trickle since they were first widely reported last October. But one user has taken to the Internet with a highly personal account of her hacking experience, and what she says was, initially, an almost total lack of help from Microsoft on the matter.Susan Taylor's tale, as told on the HackOnXbox Tumblr account, describes how she logged on to her e-mail earlier this week to find over $200 worth of Xbox Live's virtual "Microsoft points" currency charged to her linked PayPal account, and then transferred to a separate dummy account.On discovering the problem, Taylor contacted Microsoft support immediately and was told her account had been blocked to prevent further fraud while they investigated. So you can imagine Taylor's surprise when, as she tells it, over $100 more was taken from the supposedly blocked account for the same fraudulent purpose the very next day.When Taylor called up Microsoft support yet again, she was told simply that the fraud department was "unable to block your account." She was also told that she should change her password, despite the fact that her password had been changed and she was unable to access her account through the Xbox.com web interface, she said."In short, I think [Microsoft's fraud handling process] is a shambles," Taylor told msnbc.com's -http://www.nbcnews.com...Enough said!! "70 million people were locked out for six days!!!" Honestly, I would rather be locked out of my account, than have $350 dollars stolen from me!!! And lastly.... "Microsoft came out with motion sensed game-play, also know as theKinect, and Sony hasn't been able to come up with that yet."Sony may not have developed a Kinect, however thay have come out with the PlayStation Move. This uses a motion contoller, simmilar to that of a Wii, only instead of a sensor, sony decided to use a special camera(comes with PS move) that not only sences the special glow the PS move controller gives off, but it also scans you entire body before gameplay. Thus allowing the best possible bodily detection. I have one; It works great.
PS3 is better than XBox 360

You stated that the PlayStation Network is free, but you can do a lot more with Xbox gold. It may be 50$ but tell me, how many things can you do with an Xbox gold membership? Xbox Live Gold Features Multiplayer Gaming Early Access to Some Demos Beta Access Game Discounts (40-50% off, often) Hulu Plus Netflix Amazon Instant Video Party Chat Video Kinect Zune Music Streaming Halo Waypoint Avatar Kinect Internet Explorer Cloud Storage Facebook Skype Twitter YouTube last.fm MLB.tv HBO Go ESPN Forthcoming: Free-to-Play Gaming Here's what PlayStation 3 owners get for Plus: PlayStation Plus Features Instant Game Collection (Free Games) Game Discounts (40-50% off, often) Early Access to Some Demos Beta Access Cloud Storage Automatic Patching/Firmware-Updates 1-Hour Free Access to Full Games That's a smaller list! You also said that the PlayStation has a bluray drive. On an Xbox, you have Hulu, Netflix, etc., but on Netflix and etc., you can pick up where you left off. If you are watching a movie via bluray and accidentally turn off your console, you have to restart and that is definetly a pain!!! Also, when you watch a movie on your PS3, you may be using up GB's on your Hard Drive. "And not only does the blueray player play blueray movies, but ps3 games are also blueray."Yes, they may be BluRay, but tell me how many games does Xbox have? How many games does PS3 have?When you stated, "Sure, sometimes the PSN goes down or is taken down by hackers(extremely rare), a problem Microsoft has done a better job avoiding, but Xbox Live Gold will cost you $50 a year." Why isn't sony well enough secured? They are a major company, and should therefore be nearly impossible to hack! Lag, freezes, blackouts, that is too much to risk if you are playing some hardcore Blackops or something. Yes, there may be hacks on the Xbox, but look how far it has gone with Sony and the PlayStation: http://www.thetimes.co.uk...70 million people were locked out for six days!!! One more fact before I close. The Xbox came out one year before the PlayStation did. Since then, they have been competing and have kept improving. I have to throw this out there, but Microsoft came out with motion sensed game-play, also know as the Kinect, and Sony hasn't been able to come up with that yet.I am glad to see what your next response will be. And thank you!
PS3 is better than XBox 360

For my first argument, I will say that the PlayStation Network is free. Sure, sometimes the PSN goes down or is taken down by hackers(extremely rare), a problem Microsoft has done a better job avoiding, but Xbox Live Gold will cost you $50 a year. That's $50 more than you'll pay to play online games on the PSN. Just think, if you had that money to spend, you could buy a new PS3 game. Second, the PlayStation has a blue-ray drive. If you"re like me and my family, most of your media these days is streaming.(netflix, hulu, EC.) Still, especially for animated movies like ones from Pixar, as well as other big-screen flicks full of action and what not, the Blu-ray can make a big difference, both in terms of visuals and sound. And not only does the blueray player play blueray movies, but ps3 games are also blueray. This also means there's more room per disc for PS3 titles over Xbox 360 titles, allowing for somewhat noticeable improvements in graphics on PS3 versions of many games, and (perhaps even more importantly) allowing each title to fit onto a single disc. There are few things more annoying than having to stand up and switch out an XBox 360 disc in the middle of a game.
Communism vs democracy

Yes what you say is true, everyone is equal economic wise, they are all POOR. Ironically you say that America specifically has a corrupt government where communism in comparison has had way more corrupt governments. I mean how does America have a corrupt government?. No leaders in a democracy do not do whatever they want, there is something in democratic nations that is called the rule of law. In somewhere like America, or my country Australia you have the power to decide who leads you with elections. And I will say once again Capitalism is the fairest system, you can actually become rich no matter which social hierarchy you were born into. Not to mention it is completely ridiculous and unfair to make a doctor who has studied for 9 years receive the same wage as a cashier.
Communism vs democracy

But if everyone is at equal money level, that means that we could all help everyone with there problems because they are the same problem that you face, and capitalism has rich people who pretty much do whatever they want (look at how corrupt the government in America is) then there are mid-wealth people who are just used to work to support the aristocrats, and the people living in poverty are starving and are getting little to no help from the mid-to-high wealth people, but with a communist government all people are between the mid-to-low wealth area so people suffer the same problem that other people do, so that means all of them can help each other on getting rid of the problem.
Communism vs democracy

Ok so as a start I will like to debunk the ridiculousness of this statement because not only is it not true it is quite ridiculous that a question like this is being asked in 2018. But anyway to get to your point about communism making everyone equal you may be correct about this, however the thing about communism is that it makes everyone equally POOR. Communism is a system that oppresses whoever is apart of it, being made to give up the fruits of your labour to someone else is NOT FAIR at all and even more so worrying about Communism is the amount of power is placed in the government. Because of this Communism has killed many MORE people than NAZISM has. I'm sorry but Capitalism by far is the fairest system out of every system invented as you work for yourself and you yourself can start your own businesses no matter who you. This means anyone can become rich and anyone can succeed while in a Communist country you are forced to stay at the bottom while the government reaps the benefits of your labour. Take Venezuela for example, because of Communism people there are starving and are being forced to eat rats, even though Venezuela is one of the most oil rich countries around. I challenge you to name one communist country that has been, or is around today that you would like to live in or where peoples basic human rights have not been taken away.
Suicide is a Rational Decision

Ok, Thank you for the clarification, That helps a lot. I do believe that rational people would not even consider suicide, But there may be an exception with terminal illness as you have mentioned. However, With a terminal illness, The pain and suffering may cloud their judgement and I would disagree that suicide is a last resort. As we have seen, People can suffer bouts of depression and then come out of it. Suicide can absolutely be an impulsive decision. I do understand that what I'm talking about here is different than assisted suicide, But I believe the point carries over, As in that it can be brought on and leave in an instant. So, That's my point on the morals of it again. But if we are arguing solely on the logical side of it, Then yes you would be correct, A person can make a rational decision to end their lives. I don't agree that it is a correct choice under any circumstances, Or that the morals of it are correct, But, Again, Logically you would be correct. This is my first debate, And thank you for the experience, You made some really, Really good points. I'll use some of this experience to become more involved in the community of this website. Unless you have something else to post for round three, I'll concede this argument