BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The jokers statement in the "Dark Knight" that "We are destined to do this forever" is true.

Thank you for replying to the challenge. first i will rebut the comments that my opponent has made on my original statements, (than will attack): 1. He says that batman does the selfish thing and saves rachel moss. this is wrong. He told the cops thats where he was going. But He was the one to pull Harvey dent out of the building before it blew. 2. Nothing. 3. This matters because it is part of what drives the Joker. as long as the batman exists he wont see the result he wants. but this is contradicted by my next statement, which leads back to a circle.So, whether you think this has to do or not with my argument, (which i have proved it does)and so it has not been contradicted. 4.nothing. Alright, attacks on your points. 1. Batman will not take a life, this includes preventative, him grabbing the joker as he jumps, and stopping himself before the final blow is thrown. (this may be obscure)but batman did not allow ras al ghul to die when the last of the lazurus pits where gone, he gave in. He gave him one. Does this mean hes weak? no, but it supports me. He may be human, but he will not take a life. As alfred says to bruces question "What would you have me do?" alfred says "Endure". Enduring can mean fighting as long as the joker continues to exist, and not lowering his standards. 2. 3. 4. Joker wont kill batman. as long as he has tried, no matter who becomes his ally, or who helps him, he never wins. This is not purely because the good guy always wins, harvey dent didnt win, and as you said the theme is evil over good. But batman is the drive for joker to work for what he wants. Chaos. Anarchy. No one else can put up the challenge for the joker. Obviously comm loeb couldnt, and neither can gordon. not without the help of the batman. and anarchy, cant exist without people trying to put it down, (from the webster school dictionary, 2007). Your points: 1.people die every day from crime for whatever reason. The joker is just part of gothams thing. The reasoning behind batman is that he will not do what the criminals do. He will not kill. Out of all the weapons he uses, he has no guns. He has weapons that are deadly, but he uses them non lethally. Batman knows people die from people like joker of scarecrow, or even a regular criminal. He has accepted this in not killing joker. 2.ah. well, as much as i would like to agree with this, i cant. An accidental death would not fullfill killing each other. the burden of a death doesnt fall on someone just because he was involved in the accident. One more point of my own: Rachel moss said in her letter to Bruce "we could be together if ever there was a time when Gotham wouldn't need batman, but i don't think you'll never not need him." Batman wont just give up and let it happen. He needs the joker as much as the joker needs him. The joker gives him a villain to constantly look for, fight, and match wits against, thats what he does. Well, we'll see how this goes i guess. ive just been told that apparantly my writing is too sporadic to understand. we'll see i guess. Rich
The jokers statement in the "Dark Knight" that "We are destined to do this forever" is true.

The Joker: You just couldn't let me go could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won't kill you, because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever. I am an extreme fan of the Batman comic book. And i believe this statement to be true. 4 reasons will support me: 1.Batman is, as the joker states, truly incorruptible, and will not take a life.The Batman works to rid this city of the evil that took his parents life, and that means to deaths on his hand. 2.Because the joker is insane as well as a genius, he will forever be able to either escape from Arkham, or plead insanity, or trick and connive his way out.And because of batmans morals against killing he (the joker) will always end up back in arkham. it is a never ending circle. (Which came first, the joker, or the bat?) 3. Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. This quote from alfred in the dark knight is one of the last supporting statement i need. The joker has no goal. He just wants chaos, anarchy. He wants to see the world "burn". and, in response to one of batmans questions 4."Why do you want to kill me?" the joker replies: The Joker: [laughs] Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, you... you complete me." Because the joker feels the batman completes him than its only logical that he will not kill batman either. This is circular, and a circle never ends, (now to use some science) not until an outside force ends its pattern. I assume this to be Comm. Gordon or Harley Quinn, which would end it. However it ends though, it will not be by the joker or by the batman. But by An outside force. Thank you for taking me up on this in advance. Ive been working on it in my head for a while. Lets see how this works out, aye? my sources for direct quotes was imdb.
Should trump be president? aganist

Trump is that one of few white trash rednecks who somehow isn't in a trailer and whose sleazy ways actually managed to get him a place on the world that isn't raising an inbred family on the little wage that his farm brings in. He's not afraid to turn on his own kind (the white trash) and mercilessly abuse them by lowering taxes faster than his dysfunctional half-mast erection does the moment he looks in the mirror. He's one of the ugliest people who have ever run for president who would look sexier with almost any haircut other than the one he currently has and has had for basically all of the American Apprentice which is a sleazy, toe-curling cringe-filled mimicry of the brilliantly crafted one that Lord Sugar set up and still runs annually. Trump is filthy rich and isn't going to hide that from his people. He's not in debt to anyone and thousands of very terrified people are in debt to him, not all of them Americans. He's the very opposite of what America currently is in the world and will bring it out of its debt by his raw instincts to turn whatever he is and whatever he has in to filthy rich efficient monstrosities be it his business, his family or his country. Trump is one of the few presidents who doesn't need to be fake to win this election and also one of the few presidents who wouldn't even if he had to because he's so rich that whoever wins he's still a shark in the waters of America. He has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. He is not likely to abuse the army as he's never been a fan of violent solutions to problems that can be alternatively solved by economic bullying. He'd bring world peace through trade sanctions and be the hero we don't deserve but the one that we need right now. Trump is sleazy, a natural-born bully of the nonviolent kind and very great at making the smartest remark sound so stupid that when he says a dumb one he actually sounds smart and people admire him. He's such a good liar that he doesn't have to lie. He's so rich that being rich is boring to him and he wants to be president. He's someone who everyone can find something to hate in and if you're hated by everyone then you're everyone's enemy's enemy and that makes you everyone's ally whether they like it or not. Trump is not hot enough to commit adultery not horny enough to use his power in that way. He's too good at ripping people off to ever make USA fall into debt and too sleazy to ever pass a law that isn't going to further the needs of those who are contributing to America’s lack of debt by forcing people to work for $1 per hour because we cannot deny that the 0% unemployment rate is worth the starvation and prostitution that would be going on everywhere. I would even think that this would support homosexuals to gain even more exposure than they already have as male prostitutes would likely be pleasing a few and be in higher supply thus cheaper and more commonly used and abused. I declare Trump to be the most efficient president that USA could ever hope for.
All EPA actions (before 11/15/2011) under Obama and Lisa Jackson have benefited society.

----Once you take into account the health and environmental effects of Tar sands and the pipeline the economic benefits of not building that project outweighs the economic benefit of building it. The health and environmental impacts of pollution from the tar sands includes increased rates of autism, cancer, obesity, heart disease, lower IQ's, lung disease and ailments, also increased greenhouse gasses increase tropical storms, floods, tornadoes, droughts, and wildfires[4] . ----Another negative aspect of the pipeline is oil spills. TransCanada the company that would build the pipeline has had 12 oil spills this year with one spill dumping 21,000 gallons of oil into North Dakota[3]. ----Energy produced form the tar sands is even dirtier than conventional oil and coal[1] and when you include health and environmental impacts of conventional oil and coal (this means that the tar sands is worse) you find that they are twice has expensive as solar and wind[2]. This is supported by 3 scientific independent research studies. ----Also there is only 1 independent study (IE not done by the pipeline company) and is in fact done by people who support the pipeline, they show how the study done by the pipeline company inflated its jobs numbers (meaning they lied) to make it look like the pipeline would benefit the economy when in reality it most likely would harm the economy, the environment and peoples health. [1] http://thinkprogress.org... [2] http://thinkprogress.org... http://thinkprogress.org... http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org... http://www.reuters.com... [3] http://thinkprogress.org... [4] http://www.debate.org...
All EPA actions (before 11/15/2011) under Obama and Lisa Jackson have benefited society.

thank you for posting this debate. resolved: A EPA actions (before 1115/2011) under Obama and Lisa Jackson have benefited society. I stand in firm negation of the resolution for the following reasons. The EPA supported stopping the keystone XL pipeline. The EPA has stopped numerous jobs from being created. Overall society has not benefited at all from the actions of the EPA. they stopped a pipeline that would create jobs in the united states and also provide oil from Canada which is closer to the united states.
Pop-Tarts are better than Toaster Strudels

No,Toaster strudels are easily better.Instead of waking up and eating processed garbage,you could eat warm,flakey,gooey goodness.So good that my mouth is watering right now just thinking about it.You can microwave em' or toast em' and either way they are still delicious.You can even make designs with the icing packet,so it is a game and breakfast at once! Coming in flavors such as apple,strawberry,even Boston cream pie!Yum.
Debate.org

My aren't you a feisty one, you say "i would like to debate with someone who can't even spell actually correctly." Which means you're debating the right guy! Sure I may be horrid at spelling but that doesn't matter what matters is how negative your outlook is towards the people at this site, why be here if you don't like it? Also you should start to capitalize the first letter of a sentence: "oh boy i would like", also don't forget to capitalize "i".
Implement a Flat Tax w/ Standard Deduction

Hello! As the battle for the presidency wages on in both major parties, one of the most important topics brought up is tax policy. The two democratic candidates are supporting tax increases, while the Republicans are supporting tax decreases. However, no two candidates have the same tax plan. This will be a debate on the topic of reforming the individual income tax. I believe the best way to reform income tax is to throw out the former income tax code (except for the earned income tax credit, child tax credit, home mortgage interest deduction, charitable tax deduction, student loan deduction), and replace it with an 18% flat tax on all personal income with a standard deduction equal to 200% the federal household poverty line for every household. The details of this plan will be laid out in round two. My opponent must either be for keeping the current income tax code or for replacing it with their own plan, and must briefly state what they will be arguing for in the first round. If you would like to debate me on this topic, please say so in the comments and I will choose the most qualified person within a few days!
The Visigoth(Germanic) people are superior to Non-Visigoth(Hispanic) people

In what specific ways are you contending Visigoths more advanced than Iberians ("Hispanic" is too broad of a category; It's like saying "Asian"). And saying "It's because one conquered the other," is a straw man I can knock down easily. Is it intelligence? Bigger muscles? I look forward to a fun and spirited debate :)
The Visigoth(Germanic) people are superior to Non-Visigoth(Hispanic) people

Hello to all, I am known as Provideoman123 This debate will highlight that Visigoth people are superior to those of non-visigothic origin (Hispanics). Terms that will be found in the debate: Germanic - A race of strong people who originated in Scandinavia and conquered their way into powerful nations such as the roman empire, Britain, and retook Spain from the Muslim empires . Hispanic - The race native to Spain, descendants of ancient Iberian people then conquered by Romans, British Celts, and North African Muslims Visigoth - Germanic people who migrated to Spain and formed civilized kingdoms that formed the backbone of modern Spain. Castillian - Natives of Spain who were saved by Visigoths but became pretenders and not the rightful people of Spain. Asturias - Legendary kingdom formed by Visigoths, drove the Muslim Umayyads and Almoravids/Almohads out of Spain. The rightful creator of the Christian Spain. Please note: I am not a racist. In fact, I am very tolerant of other races and accept all cultures and love to learn about different cultural traditions and histories. Do not call me a racist or imperialist. I am not even a Germanic or Hispanic man. I simply wish to enlighten the minds of common folk on the races of Spain, and show who is superior. Rules: R1: Cordial and Respectful acceptance and friendly introductions R2: Friendly discussion R3: Friendly discussion and pointing out what is wrong R4: Apologies and conclusion Do not vote against me for bad conduct! I am always cordial and respectful! To my opponent: You must be either Hispanic visigothic or Hispanic non-visigothic in order to debate me. This is to ensure you know what you are talking about. Note: You may bring up topics about other nations or peoples within the Germanic or Hispanic subgroups within your arguments.
God is Dead

1) As a believer of evolution as opposed to Biblical Creationism, how do you explain your morals and where they come from? I'm not making the claim that atheists can't be moral people or that people need to read the Bible to good deeds. Evolution does not teach good or bad morals. Evolution is "survival of the fittest". There is no place for morality or rational thought, only animal instinct. I believe God has put a moral conscious of good and evil within every person. Animals don't know the difference between good and evil in the sense that we do. How can evolution explain the existence of human morality? 2) The Cell Theory states all living organisms and cells originate from pre-existing organisms and cells. If this is the case, how can you explain how the first cell came into existence without pre-existing life to create it? If you claim the Cell Theory is false and life came from non-living matter, why isn't it possible to replicate this in the laboratory or why don't we see this in the natural world today? 3) You claim that Christianity is false and that the Bible isn't authoritative scripture. By this, I presume you also reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 , Paul says if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the Christian faith is in vain. Let me ask you this. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead and the Apostles fabricated the whole thing and probably hid His body, why did they die for His sake? Why would someone wilfully die for something they know is a lie? The disciples of Jesus were absolutely certain of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, claimed to witnesses His miracles first hand, and gave their lives believing in Him. 4) How do you explain all the visions and dreams of Jesus witnessed by people all over the world? You might say it's all fake and people do it for fame or money. But what about the people who have no gain in telling their story or converting to Christ? Many Muslims for example, claim to have seen Jesus in visions and have converted to Christianity. And their reward? Abandoned by family, friends, community and sometimes beaten or even killed. Do you think all these Muslims are lying for no reason except to lose their lives? Why aren't thousands of people coming out claiming to have seen Allah or Vishnu? Oh yeah, maybe they didn't. And hallucinations isn't a convincing answer. If a Christian claimed to have seen Jesus, we could say it's possibly a hallucination but someone of different faith especially one that is unexposed to Christianity claiming to have seen Jesus is not a coincidence. 5) If the Bible is not the Word of God, how do you explain all the prophecies that have been fulfilled and continue to be fulfilled. Is coincidence to be blamed for the hundreds of predictions accurately fulfilled as written in the Bible? Here is a link to few Bible prophecies miraculously fulfilled: http://www.reasons.org...
God is Dead

I'd like to have a civil, evidence-based debate with someone who really believes in the Abrahamic / Judeo-Christian God. The opponent must agree to the following format and rules: R1: Acceptance Round, where the opponent states their religious persuasion for clarity. R2: Opening Remarks. R3: Pro Question and Answer Round, where Pro asks as many questions as they want, and Con answers all accordingly. R4: Con Question and Answer Round, where Con asks as many questions as they want, and Pro answers all accordingly. R5: Closing Remarks --The definition of God for the purposes of this debate will be the following: An all powerful, all knowing, personal force of love that is responsible for the creation of the world and humanity, and has revealed itself to humanity in the form of a Holy Text or Holy Prophet. As stated above, please state your religion to clarify (Muslim, Catholic, etc. No deist gods allowed, as these are impossible to verify). --The debate must remain civil at all times, with no character attacks or name-calling. --Any trolling will result in termination of the debate. I look forward to the challenge!
God is Dead

I'd be happy to debate with you again in the future. For those voting, I ask you see the evidence for the Bible which is supported by science, history and archeology. The Bible is not an ordinary religious book. It has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, scientific miracles and historical accuracies not found in any other text. The argument my opponent gave on evolution and the Big Bang that we will prove these in the future is a very weak argument and easily refutable. However, the evidence I provided for the Bible has historical and scientific basis. The Bible is not the best selling book for no reason. I believe my opponent has failed to answer how humans can have morals if we evolved from animals or why animals don't have morals when they're apparently related to humans. Morality is the notion of good and evil. Again, evolution doesn't teach what's good and what's not. It's only "survival of the fittest". My opponent falsely related animals working together with morality. They're totally different things. I could be a completely ruthless and evil person and still work in a team for my own survival and benefit. I believe my case that humans didn't evolve form animals and that we are created separately and uniquely as stated in the Bible is the most logical assumption to make. I also would like to answer a question my opponent asked me in their answer. Why Yahweh, the God of the Bible? Why not Zeus or Thor? Because these are clearly myths and have been proven to be. There is no historical and/or scientific basis for the stories told in the Greek/Norse/Roman mythologies. On the flip side, the Bible as I mentioned has tons of evidence which you would have to literally shut your brain down to ignore and come to a conclusion that the Bible is unreliable. My opponent claimed Jesus' body was fed to the animals. A very new and intriguing argument but one with no basis. Also, if this was the case, it doesn't explain why the Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection and died for that belief. And my opponent's statement that all the visions and dreams of Jesus are hallucinations is false assumption. It's very unlikely all these people around the world (especially non-Christians) would have such similar dreams and convert to Christianity. The odds are so slim, such an assumption can't be made. It's either a super slim chance they all have similar hallucinations or God is indeed real and what they see is true. I let the voters make the decision.
People are idiots if they argue against Religion.

Now the debate has become interesting… My opponent may be surprised to find out that I don't have a problem with his argument. However there are two fatal flaws in using this argument. 1 - It doesn't address my resolution. 2 – It collapses under its own weight and negates itself. 1. – My resolution, restated. (capitalized for skimmers, not to be offensive) "MY RESOLUTION IN THIS DEBATE IS THAT IF SOMEONE ARGUES AGAINST RELIGION THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AN IDIOT. " Even if my opponent's conclusion was valid, that Dawkins is an idiot, it doesn't address my resolution. In order to disprove my resolution my opponent must show not just that Richard Dawkins is an idiot, but that he is an idiot BECAUSE he argues against religion. The act of arguing against religion must make Richard Dawkins an idiot. 2. – The argument collapses under its own weight. The conclusion of my opponent's argument is negated by the argument itself. Lets examine my opponents argument. > There are two ways by which knowledge may be gained. One is through sense perception, and the other is through reason. > To gain knowledge through reason, the object of that knowledge must first be reached by sense perception. > Sense perception does not yield trustworthy knowledge. > Ergo neither reason nor sense perception can be a criterion of knowledge. Conclusion: > Thus, regardless of how many awards or doctorates Richard Dawkins achieves, he still has no sure knowledge about anything. The conclusion that Richard Dawkins has no sure knowledge oversteps the argument. My opponent cannot conclude this. All that my opponent can conclude is that he has no sure knowledge. My opponent cannot know what anyone else knows b/c my opponent has demonstrated that he has no sure knowledge about anything. We can go one step farther> My opponent just proved that he has no sure knowledge about anything. Therefore we should not take anything he has to say to be true. I extend my arguments. Don't listen to my opponent.