BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justice League vs. Avengers

"Heh. I actually just googled her superpowers."Google! My old nemesis. "Hulk, for example. The definition of hulk:"Okay, I thought I mentioned this, but I know that some of the lead avengers have obvious names, but Ms. Marvel isn't marvelous, WOlverine doesn't take the form of a wolverine, Thor (well he is the norse god thor, but he's not called hammerman) and Black Widow isn't spider person #7."just plain animal senses"These things can be attributed to just about any carnivorious animal, and his claws don't look anything like a wolverines claws. "Indeed he did. But that still goes with spider abilities."I wouldn't classify that as an ability, more as a bonus. He didn't get the spider webs from the bite, he built it. Hell, if uncle ben had still died, he could've still built the web shooters and been a grade B spider man."Like Hulk, Thor, and Sentry, among many others."These characters can be killed, they have weaknesses. Hulk is only indestructible when he's hulk. If a sniper were to shoot at him as Bruce, he would be dead. Thor isn't exactly invincible, he's just durable. "Heh, all the 300 Spartans died"Yeah, they did. But not because of their own strategy, because they were stabbed in the back (and I'm sure some of them literally stabbed in the back). If someone backstabbed the Avengers, they would fall as well. My point there was that The Avengers work as one unit. They all contribute. If one of the Avengers characters in the movie even were to not show up, they would've failed. "You've got Red Tornado, an awesome android that makes, well, red tornadoes"Okay, that guy sounds like a badass. "You see, Flashpoint was a story line where..."Yes, I know what flashpoint is."If villains didn't cause any destruction, we wouldn't need any superheroes to save us."Not all villains are destruction villians though. The best villains are the ones who want control (or in the jokers case, chaos). "Agent Coulson isn't even an Avenger."There aren't "helpers" in the avengers. Everyone does their part. More than you'd think."Chris Nolan"Okay, he's just producing stuff, and The Dark Knight trilogy is non-canon. Also, what's Moffat doing? I didn't hear about that.And yes, people saw Avengers due to Johansson. I'm one of them.
Justice League vs. Avengers

"Well I guess you know more about Scarlet Witch than I do". Heh. I actually just googled her superpowers. "What's up with names of JLA characters?"Have you realized that Avengers' names match their powers, too? Hulk, for example. The definition of hulk: a large or unwieldy boat or other object. And this is exactly what Hulk is, a large unwieldy thing. Hawkeye: has eye view of a hawk. Iron Man: Wears iron suit. I could on for days."Wolverine doesn't have wolverine abilities". Actually, he does. He's got the anger, rage, and just plain animal senses, not to mention the fierce claws. "Build his web-shooters post-bite". Indeed he did. But that still goes with spider abilities. Now, for that next part, Wolverine would probably put up a fight for a good while, then have to quit to go drink beer and smoke cigars. "...Overpowered, cannot be killed". Avengers have many characters like this. Like Hulk, Thor, and Sentry, among many others. "...like the 300 Spartans". Heh, all the 300 Spartans died. Including Leonidas, who was brutally slain by a barrage of arrows. Way to go, Leonidas. This isn't Sparta anymore. Aquaman is by no means their most creative. You've got Red Tornado, an awesome android that makes, well, red tornadoes. Or Metamorpho, the amazing morphing man. There are plenty more."I'm pretty sure that took place in an alternate universe." It did, but not the kind we usually see. You see, Flashpoint was a story line where the Flashes and other Speed Force members jacked up the time continuum by going to freaking fast and bursting the time barrier. That changed everything, and even caused the New 52. How did you not see realism in MoS? I honestly found it more realistic than the comics. "That's the same thing, right?"Merhaps (that wasn't a misspelling, I actually say merhaps. It's funnier than Perhaps). BUT! That's the reason why destruction is a good thing for superheroes. If villains didn't cause any destruction, we wouldn't need any superheroes to save us. Erm, hello? Every superhero quit wearing outer-underwear and tights a LONG time ago. And Aquaman isn't just a fish-man. I hate to advertize, but read my "Aquaman is an awesome superhero" debate, and you will understand that he is definitely not just a fish-man. Agent Coulson isn't even an Avenger. He just helps them. And, finally the Joss Whedon thing. DC has a pretty good production line-up, with those like Zach Snyder, Chris Nolan, David S. Goyer, and Steven Moffat. Not to mention writers like Paul Dini.Plus, the Avengers popularity thing. Most non-geeks only saw Avengers and it's predecessors because of it's actors.For example, a lot of teenage girls saw the movies just for RDJ and Chris x2. And Loki. Teenage boys (if they weren't geeks) mainly could've seen it for Scarlett Johannson. (Side note: I thnk so too).
Justice League vs. Avengers

1. Abilities. The JLA has more abilities than the Avengers do. For intelligence, they have Batman. For power, they have Superman and many others. For speed, they have the Flash. For telepathy, they have Martian Manhunter. 2. Success Even though the Avengers was very successful, the franchise of JLA is more, if not as, successful. Though they have not had a movie, they have had cartoons like Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, Legends of the Superheroes, and many animated films. Also, the members' movies are more successful, those including Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, the tv show Arrow, the tv show Wonder Woman, and many others. 3. Teamwork The Justice League is together and friendly with each other mainly always. This is not the same with the Avengers. With the Avengers, we've got conflicts here and there, people dying, and fights happening for petty differences, like in Civil War. The Avengers have even split up and formed into smaller teams, like Young Avengers and Secret Avengers. 4. Larger Demographic For the non-comic fan, the Avengers are relatively new. To the non-comic fan, the Justice League is a classic and is known from the start. For many people, Avengers were unknown until the movie in 2012 were released. It was then when they got really popular. However, JLA's heroes are way more popular, many thanks to the cartoon. If you saw a random guy on the street and asked, "Hey do you know who Superman is?" You'll probably get a reaction like, "Well duh, who hasn't". If you asked a random guy on the street a question like, "Hey do you know who Iron Man is?" You'll probably get an answer like, "Oh yeah, he's that blue robot guy from the video games, right?" Justice Leaguers are more popular, as I have stated. Their famous old Superman movies, Wonder Woman tv shows, Batman 1960s show and others help support this statement. 5. Live Action TV Adaption The JLA had a live-action appearance in the show Smallville. The team consisted of Superman, Aquaman, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Impulse. I don't see Marvel doing anything like that with the Avengers. More next round. As for now, see ya.
The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"

Okay, glad you finally decided to join the debate (that isn't sarcasm) and I appreciate you reading my debate thoroughly considering my last debate was the complete opposite with my opponent. I will try to be respectful as I can to your nationality because I am assuming you are Turkish. Anyway, I agree with you that the Armenians did in fact rise up against the Turks during that time period. However, can you really blame them? This was the time that the Young Turks rose to power, and from what I have read about them they weren't very nice people. Maybe the Armenians felt threatened by the Young Turks. If a nation with your religious beliefs promised to keep you safe under their rule wouldn't you help them in a war? Now to the so-called genocides the Armenians are accused of committing themselves. Most genocide scholars and historians say the Armenian genocide was a genocide because it was a very wide-scale attempt to destroy an ethnicity. When the Armenian people fled the Ottoman Military continued to hunt them down across the empire. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered. http://en.wikipedia.org... The keywords in the definition of genocide are "systematic" and "widespread". Based on these words the events that you mentioned didn't match that criteria. They were neither "widespread" nor "systematic" which means it was not genocide. The Armenian Genocide was a genocide because it was "widespread" and "systematic". While these events you mentioned were tragic they were not genocide. The Turkish people themselves were not to blame for the Armenian Genocide just like Germans during the Holocaust. The Young Turks were the ones who were responsible just like the Nazis during the Holocaust. Which is why I don't understand why the Turkish government spends so much money to try and prove the Armenian Genocide never happened. When the United States tried to recognize the Armenian Genocide the Turkish Government threatened to shut down our embassy, military training camps, and trade relations with our country. Why so sensitive about an issue that you are willing to shut down any relation with another country. I have also read instances of Turkish Government persecution of citizens who spoke out against the Armenian Genocide. I do not understand why a government would go through all of this trouble just to keep people from speaking out against an event they claim never happened.
The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"

I carefully read the argument of Pro, but I didn't see any evidence for his claim (but I may be wrong, I will read it second time). Before we start to talk about whether there was a genocide or not, we should talk about the historical conditions. So called genocide said to be started in 1915. In 20th century Ottomans were in war against whole world (Ottomans fell in 1922) in East Europe, in Africa, in Middle East, in Anatolia, in Caucausia, in Crimea, (Mediterrarian, and Black Sea included).Up until 1850 there was no Armenian problem in Ottomans, Armenians had their autonomous communitty, led by Armenian Patriarch of Constantinopole (Istanbul). The problem began after the treaties signed in San Stefano and Berlin in 1897, when Russia declared itself protector of all Orthodox Christians who lived under Ottomans. Later Armenians began to uprising, and government has to suppress it, in result rebellious militia were killed, and who left alive were deportated.Armenians claiming for genocide is like Germans claiming that Jews massacered them. Why do I say that? Because Armenians are themselves are guilty of genocide.Here is two of them:Quba Genocide - was done by Armenians in 1918 against Azerbaijanians, Jews, and other ethnic groups. Mass graves were found by coincidence in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org... Second is Khojali Genocide, in 25-26 February 1992. You can read about it in NY Times : http://www.nytimes.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... .
The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"

I have heard very mixed accounts of what happened during the event known as the Armenian Genocide. I myself am not an ethnic Armenian, but I love Armenian culture which has graciously been shared by one of my favorite rock bands, System of a Down. There seems to be a lot of controversy behind this event concerning what actually happened and whether or not it was Genocide. I believe that in definition it was indeed a Genocide. Genocide: the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Based on what I know the Turks were indeed trying to systematically exterminate the Armenians regardless of what the Armenians' actions were. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly murdered in cold-blood. It also raises suspicion that the Turkish government spends millions of dollars each year trying to convince the world that this genocide never happened.
The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"

Again, please prove an evidence for your claim. Do you know what else Vatican says, Jesus is god, and everyone else will go to hell. I read an article on Vatican Insider, and I didn't see any historical document, or record to support the claim, it is just an article without any evidence. I would love to read the "Secret Documents" they are taling about. So, go and find them, then read, make an argument based on the evidence, post it, and also give the reference to those historical documents, so that I can read them and falsify them.
The Armenian Genocide Was By Definition a "Genocide"

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it... This article from a Catholic website says that there are records within the Vatican that say the Armenian Genocide did indeed occur. Listen I do not mean any offense that might be given by this statement. Ninety percent of the time someone is denying the Armenian Genocide it is done by a Turk or someone of Turkish descent. There would be a lot more sources and documents on the Armenian Genocide if countries could thoroughly investigate it for themselves. However, anytime a world power such as the U.S tries to investigate this event further the Turkish Government throws a fit. Do you think the United States throws that much of a fit if a foreign government tells them that 9/11 was an inside job? The answer to that is no. The Turkish government not only denies this event happened, they are preventing other countries from gaining any information about what may have happened. If the Turkish government is so certain that this event never happened why go through all this trouble to silence those who speak out against it? http://en.wikipedia.org... Until Con or any other person can explain to me why the Turkish government is so defensive about this issue there is no other explanation except that the Turkish government is covering it up. Like I said the Turkish people were not responsible for the genocide themselves, it was the Young Turks. Just because people want to recognize this event as a genocide does not mean they hold any ill will towards the Turkish people. Every nation screws up big time some where in history.
Dogs better than cats

1. My pointsMy opponent has failed to refute any of the arguements that I made last round on how cats are better than dogs because they have a unique way of making us love them and how they can get food, so with that you can extend those points across the board. 2. His pointsCats are indeed smarter than dogs. http://www.pawnation.com... you see in this source the cats are more sly and independent then dogs thus making them smarter.Cats are great hunters, they even care about humans inability to hunt by bringing them the prey that they have caught. (see video) http://www.youtube.com...;(1st one) I would like to point out that your class and your friends are not reliable sources. Why you may ask? It's because we have no proof of it and they are not qualified sources. http://animal.discovery.com...But since he likes bringing up points on how dogs are better I'll do the same for cats1. Cats don't need to be walked2. Cats bring you gifts after they go hunting.3. Cats don't smell as bad.4. Cats purr.5. Cats are natural insect repelant.6. Cats aren't annoying like dogs.7.Cats aren't mean to your guests.8. Cats take good care of your stuff.So as you can see here cats are better than dogs double of how my opponent said. So there you have it, Cats are better than dogs. http://www.youtube.com...
Dogs better than cats

Alrighty then lets get things rolling. Cats rule the world by the cat poop parasite, or scientifically known as Toxoplasma gondii. This parasite is formed by an infection in the cat's intestines and then it makes it's way into the cats poop. Even touching the places where the poop has been you get you infected. http://animal.discovery.com...... And it has infected 22.5% of the US population that is 12 and older and 95% of the world! Those found with the parasite have a 1.5 chance of committing suicide. http://www.newser.com...... and http://www.cbsnews.com....... It also infects ants and makes them stand on the edge of grass so birds will eat them and then it will infect the bird so it won't fly away when cats go after them. It started when Jaroslav Flegr got a strange urge to take care of cats and said, "There's something wrong with me." Since he didn't like cats and all of the sudden got a strange urge to take care of cats. And the T-Gondi parasite kills millions of people each year! http://www.theatlantic.com...... Then there is Cat Scratch Disease which causes mild infection, swollen lymph nodes, fever and fatigue. Cryptosporidiosis causes fever, nausea, cramps, vomiting, and diharria. Hookworm causes intestinal bleeding, inflammation, and abdominal pains. (the link for these are at the bottom of this page titled 10 scary diseases pets can give you. http://www.cbsnews.com......) Secondly cats have 9 lives compared to the one life of a dog, so obviously 9 lives are better than 1.
Dogs better than cats

1. My arguementsMy opponent hasn't even refuted my main case on how cats are better because of their ability to make us love them and how they can get food from round 1. So please extend those arguements across the board. Score cats 1 dogs 02. BrainsMy oppoenent openly admits that cats are smarter so I win this category aswell. Score cats 2 dogs 03. Shared HistoryThis deals with evolution and stuff that this debate is not suppose to be about so I won't touch it. Score cats 2 dogs 14. PoplularityMy opponent openly admits that cats are more popular so I win this category aswell. Score cats 3 dogs 15. Points on why cats are better via round 2. I brought up 8 reasons on why cats are better in round 2 and my opponent didn't even touch them! In debate arguements are like egg shells once you drop them you can't pick them back up. Final Score cats 4 dogs 1ConclusionAs we can see here in today debate that cats are better than dogs. Weather it's from my opponent openly addmitting that they are better or he just goes out and says it himself.
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

My opponent has wasted his final round and instead of having providing the evidence his burden calls for, he urged an affirmative vote. Thus, seeing as I have disproved him and he has neglected to provide the only evidence that could have lead to his winning the debate, I am winning. Early listeners believing it to be literal doesn't make it real. Believing unicorns are real doesn't make them real. What must be provided in order for consideration of the existence of unicorns is factual evidence, not providing of text out of a storybook that hasn't been proven true. My opponent needed facts, and he didn't provide them. My opponent went the whole debate refusing to lift his own burden, thus I have won.
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Again, my opponent says that by accepting this debate on concedes Christianity is true, however the resolution does not state so. Also, even assuming that Christianity is true, that would mean that every denomination of Christianity is entirely correct, which would completely muddle the debate and make it useless. Protestantism: The Protestant movement began to coalesce into several distinct branches in the mid-to-late 16th century. One of the central points of divergence was controversy over the Lord's Supper. Early Protestants rejected the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and wine used in the sacrificial rite of the Mass lose their natural substance by being transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. They disagreed with one another concerning the presence of Christ and his body and blood in Holy Communion. Saying that Christianity is correct is saying that transubstantiation is true and that transubstantiation is untrue. Even assuming Christianity is true, which you would have to prove or put in the resolution before the instigation of the debate, you prove nothing. The only way this debate can go in your favor is by you providing factual evidence that the bread becomes human flesh and the wine becomes human blood, then you must provide that the blood is that of Jesus Christ.My opponent again only provides his faulty statement that he is right because this debate means acceptance that Christianity is correct. He refutes none of my arguments while I refute all of his, and he ignores the burden of evidence that he must provide. Thus, the only way this debate can go is to the negative.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

If Christianity teaches transubstantiation, then transubstantiation is true. Christianity teaches transubstantiation. Therefore, transubstantiation is true. My partner yet again shows that he has no understanding of how this debate works. By accepting this debate, he has conceded that Christianity is correct. If my partner wishes to argue from a protesant perspective, then he certainly can.Please vote affirmative as my arguments still stand.
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Firstly, I would like to state that simply changing the resolution within the debate in the way that my opponent did cannot be done. The resolution did not state: "Pre-assuming Christianity is correct, the Eucharist becomes the 'real presence' of Christ," and even if it had, Christianity only pertains to religions believing in Christ, not transubstantiation. Thus, I could simply refute by citing Scriptural Protestant beliefs. Because debating one religion's text against another is impractical, we cannot look to Biblical evidence or religious evidence. So, my opponent must provide factual evidence, and seeing as he did not, I am already winning this debate. Again, adding a tag to the resolution mid-round proves nothing. In fact, it completely muddles the debate and makes it more difficult for the two of us. And the syllogism, as any religiously educated person would notice, is entirely wrong. Comparing Protestant beliefs to Catholic beliefs disproves my opponent, and both are Christian religions. My opponent neglects to provide factual evidence, so we can assume he has none. Because he has acquired the burden of providing evidence and hasn't, I am currently winning this debate.
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

My partner does not refute anything of what I say. Likewise, my partner completely ignores round 1 "This debate pre-assumes that Christianity in some form is correct." Hence, the syllogism is as follows:(1) If Christianity is correct, then transubstantiation is correct.(2) Christianity is correct (as pre-assumed by round 1).(3) Therefore, transubstantiation is correct. We know p1 is true because Christianity teaches it to be true as my partner concedes.Please vote affirmative.
The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

I am familiar with the term transubstantiation, though what will be debated here is whether or not it is the real presence. Therefore, real presence being within quotations makes the debate topic a bit more questionable. Because my opponent offers scriptural evidence, I could simply offer a Protestant quote from the Bible providing that the Eucharist is not the real presence of Christ and only a figurative sense. However, debating one religion against another is impractical. Thus, the only way my opponent can win is by offering scientific evidence stating that there is real human blood in the wine at Mass and that the bread truly becomes the flesh of a human. Then, my opponent must provide scientific evidence proving that the bread and wine have become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ particularly. I with-hold any other arguments until my opponent succeeds in offering the evidence I call for.