BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

First when you look at both Jason and Michael they're abilities are both pretty similar. they both stab people, and they pretty much don't care at all. When we look at Jason Voorhees, he is an unmerciful bringer of all kinds of death. he does not care who he kills at all. man, woman, child, handicapped or not, and any race. it doesn't matter who you are, Jason Voorhees will kill you without thinking twice at all. Jason's killings include breaking and twisting people in half, and beating them to death in a sleeping bag up against a tree. Michael Myers targets mostly his family members, which if you have seen all the movies you will know that that is his curse. Some of Michael's deaths include stabbing you with a shot gun, and crushing your neck. in all fairness Michael would have no chance at all against Jason. Here's a perfect explanation of my argument from blogs.amctv.com/movie-blog/2010/10/michael-myers-vs-jason-voorhees.php Who's got the better backstory? Though they both put on masks and murder people, Jason and Michael couldn't be more different. Jason has a complicated history: he drowned as a child, came back to life, and raised himself in the woods around Camp Crystal Lake. He's been killed, buried, and resurrected so many times that he's little more than a gooey and drippy walking corpse. Myers, on the other hand, has a simple origin -- he's the personification of evil. That's it. There's nothing human within him -- no soul, no love of cheeseburgers, nothing. Winner: Michael Myers Who's a more creative killer? Even the most die-hard horror fan will find his or her patience tested after six or seven films starring the same killer. It's up to Michael and Jason, then, to raise their games and keep our interest piqued. Over the course of his series, Mr. Voorhees truly rises to the occasion, dispatching victims with whatever happens to be handy. Sure, he uses all manner of sharp metal objects, but he also really thinks outside the box. He kills with a weed whacker, by slamming a victim up against a tree, and by squeezing a dude's head until it pops. Hell, Jason even punched one guy's head clean off. Mr. Myers is far more conservative, largely preferring the time-tested methods of stabbing and choking. Winner: Jason Voorhees After going through the necessary facts it is clear that the winner who will come out on top is Jason Voorhees. Please if you comment or give a rebuttal have it be very little opinionated.
Tesla Model 3 is possible

However, even if Tesla do manage to use only a 50kWh battery, and reduce the price by 30 percent, 50*175=8750 dollars. I think there must be a huge mistake because 50*175 is not 8.75 but 8750. That will be approximately 250 times the amount you suggested (35 dollars). So even if 35 dollars is not for the whole car but only for the battery, it will be significantly underpriced. Therefore we do not have 26.250 left. The Toyota Camry sells for 22970, or around 1000 times 23.000. I am sorry if I made a mistake interpreting what you wrote but this does seem like non sense. Please talk to me in the comments section before this goes any farther.
Tesla Model 3 is possible

Full resolution: it will technically be possible for Tesla to produce a full electric car by 2017 with 200 miles range for less then $35.000Together with my contender I want to explore if the lower priced Model 3 car is technically possible by 2017. Reasons why I think Model 3 can be a lot cheaper then Model S:1) Tesla has more then 25% profit on the Model S, they will take less profit on Model 3.2) The Model S has 200 miles range using a 60 KWh battery, the Model 3 car can have the same range with only 50KWh battery.3) Battery cost per KWh can be reduced significantly.4) Model 3 car will be smaller, use cheaper materials, less luxury and have the advantage of production on a bigger scale compared to Model S. My contender may already point out his arguments in round 1. Arguments and rebuttals in rounds 2 and 3. No new arguments in round 4. My main purpose is to have an interesting discussion with someone that has a different view and to learn from eachother, because I don't want to be a blind Tesla fan that doesn't see the problems. I'm not interested in winning the debate.
Lying

Rules, the constitution, or integrity issues have nothing to do with whether or not lying is wrong. Just because other people maybe lie "all day everyday" (which they don't, but I'm taking that as sarcasm) doesn't necessitate that lying is not wrong. "Law enforcement officials lie to us everyday the news media get paid good money to lie to us everyday." Do the situations officias and media put us in by lying do us any good? Not in the least, in fact I believe their lies are harmful in a way and should be stopped. For example: http://thefederalist.com... http://mediamatters.org... http://authoritynutrition.com...' "Everybody for many reasons lie from time to time and this is irrefutable proof that lying is as good as the truth is bad." Again, your proposition is not only irrelevant and illogical but also a bit crazy--no offense to you personally. When we do something bad such as lying, does it mean it's ok and that being honest is the worse thing to do? Just because we sin doesn't mean the sin is good. Obviously lying is a sin. Sins are bad things. Therefore, lying is a bad thing and telling the truth is almost always the best option. Most of your sources, especially #3, explains only how SOME lying an be good, and this is something we both already agreed about. What you're supposed to be debating is why lying is a good thing USUALLY and that it is BETTER than telling the truth, and none of the links proved either. Buddha said this: "Three things that cannot be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." Malcolm X said this: "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for and against." Willa Cartha said this: "The stupid believe that to be truthful is easy; only the artist, the great artist, knows its difficulty." And finally, H. L. Mencken said this: "I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." I hope this has helped you in your journey of ethics and truth. One thing is for sure, and that is that the truth plainly states it is better to tell the truth than to speak lies. Thank you.
Lying

Now that you have provided reasons for why your so against lying including the reports I read I'll attempt to provide you a rebuttal to your stance against lying. I disagree that lying is wrong because lying does not automatically constitute an "integrity issue" because people have a "Right to Free Speech" it's The Law this means that I can say whatever I want to you even if it's not true because that is my right my choice to be a trickster just like it's your right your choice to just tell me the whole truth and nothing but the truth if you want. There is no rule on Debate.org against lying either and that's the truth people lie here all the time including everywhere else in the real and virtual world and they lie all day everyday my friend. Our religious, governmental, top scientists, corporation leaders lie all the time even the Law enforcement officials lie to us everyday the news media get paid good money to lie to us everyday. Even family members lie to us from time to time. Too much truth would cause a rift in human civilization. Everybody for many reasons lie from time to time and this is irrefutable proof that lying is as good as the truth is bad. There is a natural order to things including for conversations; a time for everything. Now that I gave you my rebuttal now it's time to show you some evidence which backs up my belief system that lying is okay. 1.) www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/02/08/when_is_lying_good.html 2.) www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/lying-dishonesty-psychology_cx_lr_comm05.html 3.) www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/how-lying-can-be-a-good-t_n_100369.html Now for my concluding quote to you my friend: Honestly who really cares what the whole truth is; you don't even know it, you don't want it. Trust me the only friends of the whole truth are dead so you'll never know it while alive and sane. Abelardo Cabrera III
Lying

As I have stated before, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not wrong. Do you agree? Also, which side are you debating for? I've sort of lost track. Actually, I see that you're trying to say: the Burden of Proof is fully on me and I need to show you the reasons why lying is wrong. However I think I have done an OK job at that in previous rounds, and the way to keep a debate going is to at least attempt a rebuttal of what your opponent has said, thus, I encourage you to do so. Also, please take a look at the sources I presented in R3. Give me your feedback so I know a bit more of what I'm debating besides your personal story and personal opinion of lying. :) Well, I honestly have nothing left to refute because I've been waiting for a rebuttal from Pro this whole time...so, onto the next round.
Lying

Of course my cousins didn't get in trouble they however did get "cut off" by me! I only got a strong recommendation to never go on vacation to Northern California because she didn't like what my cousins "pulled with me." Also overall I'm not against telling lies I'm like all for it because in most instances unless your caught lying nothing bad can happen to you. To tell you the truth there is no evidence which I'm aware of that lying is wrong (excluding purjury). It's overall....legal! :)
Lying

The problem with what your cousins did is not that they told the truth about your partying, but that they lied to you by saying they weren't going to snitch. If they went and told your important family members the truth about your "partying" but they did the same, it does not make sense that they got away with it and you didn't. I'm sure they lied to get themselves out of trouble, so, it is not only their telling the truth that makes them hypocrites but also them lying. This is why lying is worse than honesty. Also, your story won't change the generalization that most lying is bad because the situation you and your cousins were in is not the usual case for lying, although it does happen a lot (don't get me wrong). I understand why you're mad and all that, but I just think it's for the wrong reasons, and that because your cousins snitched on you doesn't mean that lying should be used more than telling the truth. The story should not force you to thinking that all or most lying is OK. Luke 6:42 doesn't prove anything for your side since it doesn't have to do with lying, however in context I realize that it speaks of hypocrisy as a wrong-doing. The point I'm trying to make is that it is hypocritical to SAY you're going to lie but then tell the truth, and I believe the only wrong thing your cousin(s) did was to lie to you by saying they were going to cover for you. Besides, didn't your cousins get in trouble for partying just like you did? Just remember the consequences lying can have on you. If you get into a habit of lying it can cause you to second guess yourself, creating inner conflict and stress for you. And it's a lot more effective and better in the long run when you simply look at the positive in a situation instead of telling little white lies. For instance, if your friend has a new sweater and you don't like the color on her, you don't have to tell her that. You could comment on the style of the sweater when she asks you what you think. One last thing: you don't need lies to make you look like a good person. There is no reason to lie to make who you are seem more interesting. But, if you feel you need to do something about becoming more interesting, let's talk more about that. Also, if you care more about the way telling the truth makes you feel versus the way lying makes you feel, it's because you're not happy with the way you're acting. The way to avoid that is to worry about behaviors other than honesty/lying and focus on actions that will make you feel good about yourself without having to be perfidious. Hope this makes sense. Thanks for debating me on this! It's fun. Sources: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://en.amerikanki.com... http://lifehacker.com...
Lying

Here's what I don't understand; why would my cousins snitch on me by revealing to my important family members some of the things I mentioned to you "through the grapevine" when they were guilty of doing the exact same things as me like "partying" for example? They in the process revealed which also proved the truth that they are untrustworthy and unreliable hypocrites. Telling the truth would of been justifiable had they not been doing the same bad and unsafe things as me. In a situation like this telling the truth rather then lying is an act of hypocrisy it's even a "sin" by Christian standards it's even in the Holy Bible. I have further evidence within my argument to back up my claims. Luke 6:42 says: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye, when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Lying

I agree that it's ok to lie at times but sometimes you have no choice. I like have been in situations where I had to "cover someone" literally lie to keep them out of trouble. Sometimes when people tell the truth they become a snitch. Let me give you evidence from my real life experiences that happened to me. First like more then a year back I go to Northern California to hang out with family members for 2 or 3 weeks per trip. I took like 3 trips before having to cut them off. First I go "party" and have fun kicking it with my cousins and I have all these casual conversations with them and next thing you know I get back home home to Las Vegas and my Grandmother greets me and everything is cool because I believed that my "cool cousins" just not only "love me" but they "had my back". Of course I thought the "drug test " I took without resistence back Jan 2014 I in all honesty passed. Luckily by the "Grace of God" I didn't "party" with my cousins too hard otherwise I would of failed then I'd be screwed royally. Unfortunately my friend even after "covering" for one of my cousins I found out from my Grandmother that my cousins snitched on me. They revealed the truth to all my known members in my d.amn family. I "covered" for their stupid a.ss and this is how they repaid me! These losers defamed my character behind my back revealing all "my secrets" including all "the conversations" that I had with them to all my important family members "through the grapevine". All I got to say to further back up my evidence is that "Snitching" is immoral and even a "sin" by Christian standards it's even in the Holy Bible! James 4:11 says: Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgement on it.
Lying

Just for fun I want you to accept my challenge to a debate. It covers lying specifically. I don't see what's the big deal with lying to get what I want from time to time. My parents are lied to when I have certain conversations with them when it deals with me in general as they get mad when I am "too truthful" with them. My parents were disappointed when they found out that I lost "my job" back in the days when I lived in Kentucky and was "out of work". They treated me "badly" when I told them the truth over the phone but they at least were able to get me a bus ticket to Las Vegas I lie to family from time to time here in Las Vegas to avoid doing things or being exposed as an idiot. My grandmother confronts me repeatedly when I lie about how I truly feel. For instance I'm majorly depressed or angry but I lie and say "I'm fine". The list of lies I've told goes on. Other times I tell the truth and I regret it because now I'm feeling like I just ate "the Red Pill" I don't like telling the truth because somehow I end up feeling guilty. I tell lies to cover my tracks; when I can't I run away from telling the truth. What do you think about me? Why are you con/against lying?
The 2nd amendment is an invalid argument against american gun control

First, I believe that the main fault in using the 2nd amendment as an argument against gun control lies in the first half of the sentence-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " This is the only amendment of the Bill of Rights which supplies a context. If you do not own weapons for the purpose of forming or being involved in a militia fighting for protection of a free state, I see no constitutional right to bear arms. While there are some people who are a part of military organizations, the majority of people aren't. The ones who are in military organizations DO have the right to bear arms for our states security. Secondly, there is the issue of which weapons are regulated and which aren't. In United States V. Miller, it was ruled that guns which don't possess any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In this day and age, some weapons are just much much less efficient than others, and are essentially useless for security of the free state. There is no constitutional reason to own these weapons, therefore they should be regulated, as you aren't automatically conferred the right to possess these. Third, in District of Columbia V. Heller, the supreme courts decision included this in their decision: " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court"s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller"s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" Simply put, the supreme court ruled that it is not unconstitutional to have limits on which weapons may be carried in which manner, for which purpose, by which people.
The 2nd amendment is an invalid argument against american gun control

Gun control is a hot topic, especially in the USA. It is a widely debated topic with maybe proponents of both sides. Oftentimes I see people attempt to use the 2nd amendment as an argument against gun control. I will be arguing that the 2nd amendment is not a valid argument for gun control. First off, I am in no way trying to debate for or against gun control, only against the use of the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights as an argument for gun control in the United States of America. The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

*sigh* ...it seems that my mishap from last round (accidentally pressing the Submit button instead of the Make Changes button when I was taking a break from writing my case to fool around with the formatting options) has resulted in some unfortunate complications to arise (see comments for details). Basically, I would pretty much be handing the win over to either myself or Zaradi according to what I choose to address. Because Zaradi has graciously given me permission to do whatever I wish with the debate, and I don't believe that my petty slip-up deserves the punishment of a loss, I will implore the voters to leave this a tie. Apologies to all, and especially Zaradi, for screwing this up :/ Hopefully we can redo this debate eventually... Please vote null.
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

On the idea of his utilitarian framework:First, that's not a framework. One contentional argument does not a framework make. Second, extend out Nussbaum and Nussbaum 2 explaining as to why under a Util framework animal rights are disrespected even more. This means that if he's adopting this utilitarian mindset then he's doing far more harm to animal rights than I could ever do. Third, utilitarianism relies on metaethical justifications in order to be logically sound. Since I'm the only one reading a meta-ethic (i.e. egoism), you're still looking to the NC framework first. Fourth, util relies on egoism to make sense. The only reason why one would look to utilitarianism is if it was in their own self-interest to be utilitarian, which necessitates egoism. This means that my framework functions as a gateway to the AC framework, meaning that if he wants any possible access to his own framework, he inherently has to concede mine, otherwise there's no meta-ethical justification behind util, and you default to my meta-ethic anyway. Fifth, extend out the response I gave to the idea of utilitarianism not actually showing why we have to recognize rights. All util does is say that we should reduce their suffering, which means I can go from keeping them in really sh*tty pens before we cook them and eat them to putting them in a comfortable penthouse suite with legions of personal servents before we cook them and eat them. So long as I can make their suffering less I'd still be justified in violating their rights. Moreover, if util actually mandated we respect rights, then human rights abuses wouldn't be a thing since we all realize that humans have rights, rights which are commenly abused and disrespected for "the greater good". Then, go to his is/ought fallacy response:First, I'm not commiting the is/ought fallacy. Egoism doesn't talk about what is morally desirable but rather why things are morally desirable. It's the difference between normative ethics (i.e. util) and meta-ethics (i.e. egoism). Secondly, I most certainly am talking about why egoism establishes a valid criteria for morality. That's what Mercer and Mercer 2 are talking about. Extend Mercer who's talking about how the only reason we take actions is because there's some point of self-interest to be fulfilled by taking the action, otherwise we never would've performed the action in the first place. And extend Mercer 2 which explains how egoism relates to realizing a self-regarding end. Conclusion:Since my opponent accidently submitted his round too early, I'm not going to super punish him for missing my contentions. But since this was mainly a framework debate to begin with, since I'm best upholding egoism, showing how util is a really flawed position to take, and showing how util relies on egoism to even justify itself in the first place, I'd say it's fair to say I'm winning the debate.