BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Proving Your Argumentative Skills: Why DC is Better Than Marvel

"as you can see DC basically stopped getting movies made and marvel are still getting movies made." That statement is partially false. DC has had at least 20 movies made and produced from 2010-2013 and have more in the process. "DC can never be as popular as Marvel..." This is an extreme statement that cannot be supported by fact. "... and there wont be anymore movies that are going to be as big as the new marvel movies that are coming out these next few years." This has no evidence to support it, seeing that it is a prediction of the future. I would also like to point out that Con's statement of "and there wont be anymore movies that are going to be as big as the new marvel movies that are coming out these next few years." directly contradicts his earlier statement of "as you can see DC basically stopped getting movies made..." None of Con's statements can be factually supported.
Proving Your Argumentative Skills: Why DC is Better Than Marvel

(Con has failed to follow guidelines of the debate. However, I shall continue,) Villain: (in a film, novel, or play) *A character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot. "the terrorists are cartoon villains" synonyms:criminal, lawbreaker, offender, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer; gangster, gunman, thief, robber; rogue, reprobate, ruffian, hoodlum; miscreant, scoundrel; maleficent; crook, con, bad guy, baddie, lowlife; cad, knave; blackguard. *The person or thing responsible for specified trouble, harm, or damage. "the industrialized nations are the real environmental villains" A villain's existence is not limited to a movie or comic book. To the people affected, a villain is any person who commits near constant or continuous misdeeds and needs to be stopped. There are villains everywhere, in everyday life. This is also a recurring representation in many DC comics. And every day in our world, someone goes up against some sort of wrong to fight it, someone completely normal. There is more than one type of superhero, and more than one type of villain, and DC comics shows this.
Proving Your Argumentative Skills: Why DC is Better Than Marvel

DC Comics has a very wide variety of heroes in its log, Many of them represent characters typically subject to social oppression that are overcoming that oppression with a new sense of empowerment. Wonder Woman is the representation of female empowerment and stepping out of gender roles. V represents the power of a single idea that can deliver freedom from an oppressive force. These are the first few that came to mind, mainly because they are each in an extensive category of heroes that reach far beyond those of Marvel. Wonder Woman is one of many female superheroes, while V falls into the vast vigilante category. V is just a simple human -like Batman- without any biological powers, but inspires a massive revolution and shows that you don't NEED biological powers to be a hero. These characters are created to not only entertain the individual, but to inspire them with the knowledge that they can make a difference just as they are.
Proving Your Argumentative Skills: Why DC is Better Than Marvel

This is a different kind of debate. Basically, we are trying to prove what is typically reserved as an opinion, why DC is better than Marvel or vice verse.We don't have to cite sources, but it is encouraged. No profanity or offensive statements please. Forfeit is an automatic loss UNLESS it is stated in the next posted round. Failure to follow the guidelines is an automatic loss (i.e. Round 1 Con gives a rebuttal to Pro argument, Round 3 Pro gives a rebuttal addressed to Round 1, etc.) (Message me or comment if you would like to debate this topic) Here's the breakdown: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2 :Pro & Con arguments Round 3 :Rebuttals for Round 2 arguments Round 4 :Counter-rebuttals for Round 3 Round 5 :Final counter-rebuttals and conclusion. Remember, you don't have to like Marvel, you just have to prove why it's better. Good luck!
Bring back the Death Penalty

The point you miss with regards pedophiles is that they give the victim a life sentence, the effects on the victim are often so profound that they struggle to live what one would consider a normal ordinary life, I could list the effects but that would mean almost writing a book. The thing to remember is that in effect the pedophile has killed the person in a spiritual and mental way. Seeking the death penalty for such perpetrators is therefore not in consistent with my philosophy. You talk about morals in your argument against the death penalty and human rights of the perpetrator , what about the human rights of the victims and their families? We don't have mob rule or justice meted out by a majority, we have a justice system that has taken many years to develop and indeed will probably continue developing well past our lifetime. The principle of an eye for an eye in the justice system would then mean the victims rights are considered above the rights of perpetrators which is not before time! The only alternative in sentencing would to reform both the justice and prison services so that sentencing matches the crime, a murderer or pedophile for instance would be sentenced to life without parole. But this option does not really give proper justice to the victims, therefore the only real sentence that balances the books so to speak is a sentence of death.
Bring back the Death Penalty

My opponent has stated that he is of the view that "an eye for an eye" is fair recourse. I do not accept this premise personally, but I will point out that his argument is inconsistent with his own philosophy, as pedophilia does not include murder or killing. Therefore, the argument that the death sentence is a valid response to pedophilia is, by my opponent's reasoning, untenable, regardless of any "life sentence" carried by the victims of pedophiles' crimes. The "eye for an eye" position of my opponent does hold for murder, but there are several factors to be considered as well.1). MoralityMoral views differ both within a society and between societies, but the idea of mob justice is generally held to be a bad one in modern societies. Unless my opponent is for mob justice as a means of running a legal system, meaning he is Pro mob justice in every criminal case or perceived wrong, then we can only assume that a purely democratic means of determining punishment is not correct, and may even be immoral.In light of this, the death penalty must be seen as immoral and wrong because it not only violates the fundamental human right to life given espoused in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act of 1998, but it goes contrary to the notion found in the HRA 1998 that such right can be revoked simply because a sovereign state follows its own procedures to revoke said rights. I could declare that anyone entering my household is to be hanged, but this would not make it fundamentally right or moral. My entire household could agree with me, but this does not change that fact.Government-sanctioned death penalties are simply this same ideal on a larger scale. The belief that someone should be deprived of life because the majority says so (or an elected or unelected body espousing the views of a majority) is simply wrong, regardless of rationalizing it.True, there is the issue of public safety to contend with, so there is a reasonable expectation of others to be protected from murderers, which is why there are prisons and other means of detention, but my opponent has asserted that time spent will likely amount to ten years or less. Without citation, I cannot speak to the veracity of this statement, but it is not a fundamental argument for the death penalty, but rather is suggestive of the need for reform in the prison system.
Bring back the Death Penalty

If you take someone's life by committing murder or you damage someone's life by being a pedophile and targeting them for abuse then I believe that you are no longer fit to be part of society, In the UK sentencing for both offences varies, for Murder its a mandatory Life sentence but in real terms that could be less than 10 year in prison. Pedophiles often get sentenced to a couple of years and put on the sex offenders register for a given period of time as decided by a Judge. The victim of abuse has been given a life sentence by the pedophile which is clearly not a good balance of justice. The murder victim is of course dead but their family and friends still face the life long loss of the loved one. The only correct punishment for either crime is to deprive the offender of their life, therefore the death penalty should be reintroduced in the UK and that any appeals process should be done quickly. Its time the justice system paid more attention to the rights of the victims rather than the offenders who deserve no rights.
Bring back the Death Penalty

I accept the Instigator’s challenge, and I thank him for posting this issue. While I am not from the UK, I do believe there is an underlying principle that transcends country to be debated here, and thus my arguments against the death penalty should remain fairly constant from sovereignty to sovereignty. Since no formal structure has been proposed, I assert that the format will be as follows: Round 1: Introduction of positions. Round 2: Arguments Pro/Con (no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals I Round 4: Rebuttals II Round 5: Closing statements My position is that there should be no death penalty, imposed by the state, for convicted murderers and pedophiles.
Bring back the Death Penalty

My opponent has primarily offered emotional appeal throughout this debate. While his zeal is laudable, the lack of logical basis makes the Pro stance tenuous at best. The links provided merely back up these points, but they do not change the nature of the debate.Certainly punishments should fit their respective crimes, but a lack of harsh enough punishment does not necessarily equate to the harshest of punishment's being viable or right. While one could serve only a year or two in prison for a murder (and most would agree this is wrong), that does not mean one should skip over decades or life in prison without parole and head straight to death.I will simply restate the non-existence of a true equity between pedophiles and the death penalty as "just' punishment, and let my previous arguments against the death penalty stand.
Bring back the Death Penalty

My Opponent seems to have missed the links to information in support of my argument. My opponent also does not seem to agree with justice that fits the crime and seems to believe that. The issue is one of simply the right level of justice for the crime committed. However, current justice in the UK does not give murderers or pedophiles a sentence proportionate to their crime. Point 1. Pedophiles are often sentenced to only a few years Point 2. Murderers don't always serve life in prison. While the mandatory sentence in life in prison, offenders often get out after 10 years of serving their sentence, or get reduced sentences because of plea bargaining. Unfortunately life does not mean life which would go at least some way to being proportionate to the crime. Point 3. Prisoners rights are held at a higher value than the victim or that of their family or friends. For justice to work it must balance the rights of the victim, the crime, and what would be a justifiable and proportionate sentence for the offender. In my view for either Murderer or Pedophile the only proportionate sentence can be the death penalty. There are plenty of moral good doers out there, but all they do is weaken the Justice system and the rights of the Victim, a point to consider on Human rights is that the offender has denied the victim the very same set of rights that moral crusaders think offenders deserve, to the live their lives.
Bring back the Death Penalty

You clearly have no understanding on the affects of being abused by a pedophile. A child's innocence is lost and their childhood taken a way. Most victims suffer with long term bouts of Depression, panic attacks, Post traumatic stress disorder and emotional unstable personality disorder, most suffer these throughout their life ever in periodic episodes or life long. They often have extreme trust issues and become isolated often as a means of protecting themselves. It should be noted that in some parts of the world Rape is punishable by death, the actions of a pedophile are in effect rape often of someone unable to fight back. While I under stand your various arguments regarding murder, hundreds of scenarios could be put together either to justify the murder or the sentence. I believe that there is only one true act that justice can provide on this issue and that is the death penalty. this maybe emotional, but murder is emotional at least for the victims families and friends. After all real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing, and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. Each criminal should get what their crime deserves and in the case of a murderer what their crime deserves is death. As for governments making law that's part of what we put them there for, and if you don't like the laws they are making you remove them from office at the earliest opportunity. As for violating the murderer or pedophiles human rights, its is my opinion that they gave up these rights when they committed the offence. Another thing to consider In one year in New York 85% of those arrested for murder had been arrested for murder before http://www.almac.co.uk... surely if they had been put to death other lives would have been saved. Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. It can also be seen as a deterrent, if you look at the following website http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org... it looks at 3 counties examples.
You do not have control over your on life

It seems everyone on TV and anybody you'd meet in a business group workshop is telling you that you have control over you're own life. Both major political parties champion the concept. Pick up any self-help book or take a trip to your local AA meeting, and you'll hear it mentioned at least a few times. The problem is that most scientists agree that behavior is dictated by basically a balance between genetics and conditioning (what you have experienced, done and learned). Some say genetics plays more of a role, others say conditioning. But the point is that neither genetics nor conditioning is fully under your control. You can negate the forces of genetics through medical means and you can overcome some of the forces of conditioning through willpower, but isn't even willpower itself a result of genetics and conditioning, as well as the access to medical means to diminish the negative influences of genetics (like being born to a wealthy household, which falls under conditioning). Now, I understand why people say it. If people in trouble don't believe they can control their lives and make it better, they will not try and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the fact of the matter is there's only so much simply telling someone that they are in control of their lives compared with the powerful forces of genetics and conditioning. If I saw someone running their lives into the ground, I too would say something along the lines of "You're in control of your own life. You've got to get yourself together." I would do it because it's the only thing I could reasonably do to help. But that doesn't make it true. The person I'm coaching may react strongly to what I say depending on how well I say it for a day or two, but before long the person will undoubtedly behave based not on what I told him one day and more about what thousands of things were said to him, the thousands of things he said and did and experienced and choices he made and where he was born and what his family and friends were like and his first love, not to mention his genetic makeup. The worst case situation of the phrase being used is of course by the right-wing who often uses it to excuse the existence of poverty/suffering and relinquish responsibility to do anything about it, both in this country and the world in general. That, of course, is evil, but really I'm more interested in the idea that "You have control over your life" is not true. Even a choice to "completely turn your life around, for real this time." doesn't just come out of nowhere. It's a result of genetics and conditioning. My posting this debate is a result of conditioning and genetics. You choosing to debate me is a result of conditioning and genetics. You do not have control over your life.
god

Since my opponent hasn't given a specific resolution, I move that the resolution be "The universe requires a creator"My opponent will be arguing Pro, that the universe requires a creator and there is no possible way for the universe to have come into existence without one.I will argue Con, that the universe does not require a creator, and I will do my best to demonstrate that it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without a creator.I will let my opponent post his argument before I post mine.
With the current constitution, current bans on gay marriage in any state are unconstitutional.

If you put it on the challenge board, I may re-respond. Otherwise I'm sure others will gladly take this one. Voge for Pro. However, it would still be fair if I made an argument and you couldn't respond. The rounds end with my arguments and you wouldn't have a chance to respond at the end of this round anyways since it was the last one. Any arguments you wouldn't be able to form are more than made up for by the automatic wins you get in the first two rounds.
With the current constitution, current bans on gay marriage in any state are unconstitutional.

My opponent must lose this debate. Now, whatever arguments he presents, I would have no way to respond to. And that would be extremely unfair. If my opponent would like to retry this debate and challenge me, I would love to try it. 1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." A ban on gay marriage says that straight couples can get these rights, but gay couples cannot. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
With the current constitution, current bans on gay marriage in any state are unconstitutional.

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." A ban on gay marriage says that straight couples can get these rights, but gay couples cannot. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
Quizlet is better than Kahoot

I think there is till some confusion going around this part of my argument. Probably because my evidence was too subjective. I was stating the fact that there is no work ethic behind Quizlet. Students love Quizlet because it spoon feeds them the exact answer to the questions. Quizlet's like the smart nerdy kid in class who seems to know everything, except that he does know everything, and everyone walks up to him for answers. You said that Quizlet is good for upcoming tests, that it's good studying material. Leave that to the textbooks. If you think students use Quizlet to study, you have'nt been used Quizlet for what it's supposed to be according to the majority of kids. Quizlet is one of the many aspects of school that don't prepare you for college. College curriculum is not applicable for Quizlet. Kahoot actually trains your mind and sees what you know which is why it is fast paced. Under pressure truth emerges. Because what you actually know is what you'll be using on the test.
Quizlet is better than Kahoot

To start off, you have explained that when your teachers hand out a worksheet, the students "pull out their smartphones, types in "quizlet" on the web, and copy off the answers", and while this is not a good method of teaching, it is not Quizlet's fault, but rather, the teacher's fault. If this happens, it just means that class management may need to be incorporated into the school. Secondly, in Kahoot, students are rewarded on not only whether or not their answer was correct but also their speed. This means that many students will only be looking to get an answer swiftly and when they do happen to get it right, it's due to luck and not their actual knowledge of the answer. With Quizlet, however, you have various different ways in which you can study better. An example is the Gravity game, where you can compete with other students in a way where you can't just guess the answer. Why? Because you need to manually type it in - this strongly helps the students to study more efficiently.
Quizlet is better than Kahoot

Let me further elaborate on why Quizlet is a handicap for lazy students. I have a tendency of being anecdotal, so bear with me. Kids at my middle school and now highschool have been leaning on Quizlet for years. When a teacher hands out a worksheet, instead of analyzing the question and figuring out what the answer is, the students pull out their smartphones, types in "quizlet" on the web, and copy off the answers. Do you think that's a good method of teaching students? It's not even considered teaching, as the website only gives answers and definitions rather then offering information that's essential to stimulate the cognitive thinking of students. In short, Quizlet teaches you what to think, not how to think. Sure, quizlet might be a good source for studying, but students are forced to remember the exact terms and answers; they would be better off with being taught by the teacher and equipped with crtical thinking. Kahoot, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for free thought
Quizlet is better than Kahoot

Now, onto my arguments. You have stated in your argument that "Quizlet is a metaphorical pair of crutches that students use to cheat, be lazy, or as a last minute tool" but how is this so? Quizlet, like Kahoot, is a website that we use specifically for the purpose of learning a certain topic, so if you insinuate that using Quizlet is cheating, then wouldn't using Kahoot be cheating too? Secondly, Quizlet also offers you specific sets that refer particularly to what you've been learning & what is soon to be in a test or quiz. The fact that Quizlet is slow-paced & can apply to each student individually is a much more effective way for them to learn their strengths & weaknesses. As a result of this, students will get better results as they're not simply playing a short game on a topic, but rather, are studying it more thoroughly & personally - each to their own abilities.