BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Superman is far better then Batman

Alright I"ll begin by talking about housing. Fortress of Solitude V. Bat Cave: For starters in terms of a base the bat cave is far inferior to the fortress of solitude. For starters the fortress of solitude was created after Superman defeated Lex Luthor and received a crystal from a Kryptonian battle ship, after the victory superman cast it into the arctic, thus forming the fortress. The fortress serves as a repository of all Kryptonian knowledge, and has the ability to control solar eclipses, time, and even space itself, the fortress is the single most powerful object in the universe. Ability"s: Superman: *Invulnerability *Flight *Super Strength *Super Speed *Super Breath *X"Ray Vision *Super Hearing *Accelerated Healing *Heat Vision *Mental Powers (learning languages quickly) *Ice Breath *Super Hypnotism (apparently to hypnotize himself into not having powers, and keep his identity secret) *Super Ventriloquism *Microscopic Vision *Telescopic vision *Energy Absorbing (yellow sun) Batman: Although Batman does not have any 'superpowers', he has elevated himself to near superhuman status through years of rigorous training. Through these years of training, he has obtained peak human strength, agility and skills in acrobatics. On some occasions, Batman has been known to be able to perform humanly impossible feats such as punching through brick walls or kicking down trees. He is a master of 127 different forms of martial arts, thus making him a very unpredictable opponent to his enemies. Batman was also trained as a League of Shadow ninja assassin, becoming a master of stealth, and escape artistry, thus having the effect as being "invisible. " Through years of deep study, he has become one of the world's greatest scientists, criminologists, tacticians and detectives and a master of disguise as well. Villains: Batman: For some reason Batman has chosen to spend all his time chasing a deranged clown and fighting Penguins to bother with real threats. Superman: Lex Luthor: Lex Luthor is one of the most dangerously intelligent men on the planet- a super-villain, a brilliant scientist, a billionaire industrialist, and Superman's greatest enemy. This combination makes him an extremely powerful and formidable opponent; he is ruthless, efficient and creative. In addition to his personal vendetta against the man who thwarts his every scheme, he despises the alien Man of Steel from an ideological standpoint for contradicting his human achievements. He has always been a controversial figure in the public eye due to LexCorp's corrupt business dealings, but he has also maintained political popularity. He has been a member of the Injustice Gang, the Injustice League, the Secret Six, the Secret Society of Super-Villains and Project 7734. :D
TJ Maxx has high quality items

Since I am Pro, I will go first. It will be my sworn duty in this debate to show that TJ Maxx (we will stick with just that one for now, so no Marshalls, etc) does, in fact, have a number of high quality items. I will avoid an obvious semantics and only look at items for sale. First, let us start by defining and understanding some key words. Quality [1] - "The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something" High [2] - "Of great vertical extent." I would start by liking to point out the difference between "high" and "highest." High does not require that one be at the top, and so there can be other products of an even higher quality, while the product in question is still considered "high" quality. As such, simply pointing to higher quality items will not disprove the high quality of the items that I list. So now lets move on to the arguments. This is a Cole Haan leather purse that was sold at TJ Maxx [3]. Now of course, I can't just go to Cole Haan and asked them about their own quality, because stores have a tendency to over-sell themselves in that department. So off to independent reviews. This review is for a particular Cole Haan store [4]. It is a compilation of 39 reviews from customers and it averages 3.5 stars, compared to Coach (one of the highest "quality" stores around, though I hate them) which was only 4.5 stars. We can also see here on a style forum [5], some reviews for Cole Haan. While some are talking about how Cole Haan is not all that good, they are talking about for $300 dollar shoes. That's like saying "Oh, the Porshe is not that great of a car, not compared to the Lamborghini," even if it is not compared to the Lamborghini, in general it is still one sweet car. And likewise, even if Cole Haan is not so great compared to other super high quality stores, it itself still makes a high quality product. Other examples of high quality products purchased at TJ Maxx [6][7, though I hate Prada][8][9][10]. I will leave it at this for now and leave my opponent to argue that brands such as Cole Haan, Pour la Victoire, Prada, Kors, Alexander Mcqueen, and Lanvin are not really high quality. Thank you, [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://www.tjmaxx.com... [4] http://www.yelp.com... [5] http://www.styleforum.net... [6] http://www.tjmaxx.com... [7] http://www.tjmaxx.com... [8] http://www.tjmaxx.com... [9] http://www.tjmaxx.com... [10] http://www.tjmaxx.com...
should there be welfare

Pro responds by telling us what welfare aims to do; however, she fails to mention that welfare doesn't work. If it did, then welfare programs would be decreasing after helping people, instead of increasing by fostering more incentives for non-production and the creation of a welfare state. Sure there are some people who "really need" welfare, but again, what's their incentive to work? I'm waiting for Pro's answer. Taxes are essentially legalized theft. In the case of income tax, the government actually penalizes productivity. Welfare rewards the lack of productivity. This is an essential illogical dichotomy that makes welfare immoral. Also, Pro didn't respond to my points about there being other programs to help people in need, and more importantly, my point about the government working to create jobs instead of providing welfare. Since that's not what happens, we can observe how the government is actually oppressing people in this way, and assume that the politicians do it for their own personal gain. "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul's vote." I'll send this discussion back to Pro for now.
should there be welfare

welfare strives to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need. These efforts usually strive to improve the financial situation of people in need but may also strive to improve their employment chances and many other aspects of their lives. welfare helps people who truly need it like single parents who's spouse died or went to prison. people want to band welfare why? because you don't want to pay the extra money in taxes for people who's too poor to barely eat. yes, their are some people who take advantage of it but why punish the people who truly need it? if you band welfare you might as well band Medicaid and chip and other programs that help people, that use tax payers good earned money for that too.
should there be welfare

Hey - Welcome to DDO! Good luck :) -- -- -- Ill begin by assuming that this debate is focused around the United States. As such, it's fair to say that we live in a capitalistic society. When we do something that works, we are rewarded with money and subsequently continue doing what works. If we do something that doesn't work, the result is that we lose money, and that's our incentive to drop what doesn't work and try something else. This is how we remain productive and contribute to society, as well as command the supply and demand aspect that rules our economy. With welfare, the incentive works the other way around. The money you receive isn't about your effort - it's about your lack of effort. In that case, the incentive is to do what is rewarded, which is to be dysfunctional (do what doesn't work) or simply not work at all in order to keep being rewarded. The result is a lack of production (work) meaning a lack of contribution to society, and actually a drain on society (the tax payers) who are forced to give money without merit... in other words, legal theft. The quickest way to ruin a productive society is to create a welfare state. As I said, there is no incentive to work and contribute. For those who wish to work but have lost their jobs, we have the social program of Unemployment. For those who wish to work and can't find work, I submit that the government should utilize the money spent on paying people for nothing and instead create jobs. For those with disabilities or handicaps, we again have various social programs to take care of those individuals, as well as insurance plans, union benefits and other company policies that specifically help in those situations. Now, I could go on regarding social and responsibility, but I'll wait to see how Pro responds before discussing philosophy, politics and other things that we here on DDO like to discuss :)
should there be welfare

Ladies and gentlemen, you'll notice that Pro still hasn't provided one incentive to work when one receives welfare. As such, my point stands. Pro mentions single mothers and convicted criminals who can't find jobs, and harps on an appeal to emotion fallacy explaining that it is society's obligation to help these people. The reality is that people suffer all the time for various reasons, but we can't steal from others to rectify something (especially when the proposed solution doesn't even work). Perhaps the felony offender should have considered the penalty for his crime before committing it, or the single mother should have insisted that her partner wear a condom. If we don't hold people accountable for their actions, we'll wind up with a society where the responsible support and pay for the mistakes of the people who become burdens on society. This will only create a widening disparity between the rich and the poor. If people know that they're going to be responsible for themselves, they will do their best to make good decisions, work hard and seek success instead of purposefully remaining stagnant to receive help. The problem with welfare once again is that it only helps those who make under a certain amount of money. Therefore once an impoverished individual gets a job, they'll probably be making the same or just above what they were receiving from the government. The difference is that they would have to work which is inconvenient. So, as I said, welfare specifically encourages people to remain stagnant and irresponsible. Once again, you'll notice that Pro completely ignored my arguments about the government providing jobs instead of hand outs. Additionally, Pro didn't respond to my point about government programs like Unemployment which are also aimed at helping jobless individuals get back on their feet. The government doing "better monitoring" of welfare recipients once again costs tax payers money, so either way the people who do work and are productive are hurt by this system. As such, it's not only unfair but illogical. The reality is that we're not helping anyone - neither the individual or society as a whole - when we provide government welfare. We should continue to seek charitable alternatives and responsible choices.
should there be welfare

con says what is their incentive to work? well people who actually cant find a job like convicts or single mothers who has small children and cant go out and work right now. its hard to find a stable good paying job this day in age especially when you have kids and bills you need to take care of. yes their are some people who take advantage of welfare but should we let the people suffer who actually need it? their are some people who is on welfare till they find a job. it does help some people get motivated to get a job but some its a small income to put food on their table and clothes on their children's backs while they go out and look for a job. governments should do a better job of monitoring the people on it and help them find other solutions instead of cutting it out completely for the people who really need it. should we really be that worried about were are taxes are going if its helping someone? forget all about the people who take advantage of the program and focus on the people who actually need welfare those are people that matter, they are the people we help support.
Universal Healthcare/ Single-payer Healthcare

1) Ethics: Is it ethical and moral to judge how fast people are given treatment based on how much they make? Why should someone who makes a far higher salary to get a check-up before someone in poverty and can't afford health insurance to get treatment for a deadly disease? That is how it currently is in the US. We need to create a system where people are treated based on severity, not salary. You need to side with a Universal Healthcare plan in order to save lives. 2) Healthcare as a right: Another deciding point is if healthcare is really a right to citizens. Well when asked what your personal rights are as a citizen, you probably say "Life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness/right to resist tyranny" (last part depends and varies from person to person. ) Look at that first one, the most consistent and inarguable. Life. Life is the largest right as a citizen. How do you achieve life? By having a fair and government-provided healthcare system. Otherwise, people die, and that's unconstitutional. 3) Money: I'm sure your argument will be how much it costs. "The US already spends the most on healthcare. " When people say this, they're right. I'll tell you it's ridiculous how much America spends on healthcare. But here's why it's ridiculous: Switzerland is number 2 on healthcare spending, below us, and has a very well managed healthcare system, providing care to it's citizens as well as allowing the insurance companies to compete and keep them in line. Want to go further? Canada spends HALF as much as America. They have an all-inclusive healthcare system, going as far as forcing you to be insured by at least it, and going even further than what I advocate for. Universal healthcare isn't too expensive - the US just can't get it's finances together and spend it's money wisely. 4) How inclusive? I don't actually advocate for Canada's healthcare system for it's "gun-to-head" style of forcing you to have it and how much it includes. We could easily have a system similar to Switzerland's, where it's very minimum, (we could even have less than theirs), and this is going to allow businesses to compete as well as keep them in line so they don't reject people based on "pre-existing conditions. " 5) Pre-existing conditions A universal healthcare system is preferable to one solely left to the free market due to the fact that, not only do people no longer go uninsured, with one I am advocating for, businesses will be kept in check to ensure the customer does not get left out of any plan that they may want. Why buy a health insurance that cuts you out due to your pre-existing condition when the government will cover you? Businesses will be forced to not screw anyone over, without the guidelines set by Obamacare. Conclusion: We need to be supporting a universal healthcare system to protect citizen's for their right of life. It is far less expensive than people make it out to be and in fact already affordable. Universal healthcare is going to let businesses do as they please but protect the citizens who can't afford them have an option of life.
Businesses Have a Right to Discriminate

Thank you for your acceptance and I too look forward to hearing and considering your reasoning. My opening statement will attempt to be just as brief: In arguing against this motion I will attempt to show that my position is the more reasonable in the same aspects that you mentioned. A private business, while owned by someone privately, is a service that you provide to others. By selling a product or providing an active service you put yourself out there for criticism and legal punishment. A restaurant is not legally allowed to feed their patrons food that will poison them. By discriminating against, say, a gay couple, you are not providing the service that you promised to provide and therefore, like in the case of infected food, not holding to your contract as a business. Freedom to choose is different from freedom to not provide for certain groups of people. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, a gay couple has the right to choose what happens to their future, but a business should not have the right to choose who they get to serve and who they don't, because by doing so you are indirectly choosing what happens to their body and their future, even if it's a very minimal difference. The government has had a history of protecting those who are being discriminated, even if it doesn't always succeed. If a minority such as homosexuals decides not to patronize a store because of discrimination, the majority, heterosexuals, may still provide enough of an income for the business to succeed. This would mean that the bigots of society continue to prosper because they took advantage of a majority group that isn't affected by their discrimination. Plus, lying isn't the same thing as providing for people you don't approve of. A doctor has to operate on any patient they've been ordered to, even if they don't like the patient personally. If we allow the members of our society to choose who to provide for and who not to then our society would quickly fall apart due to the number of misanthropes and bigots in the world. I, too, will continue to press my own points against yours and look forward to seeing how you will counter mine.
Businesses Have a Right to Discriminate

Thank you for your acceptance and I greatly look forward to hearing your side of this debate. I will keep my opening statement short. In arguing in favor of this motion, I will repeatedly set forth to show that this position is both correct from a moral and legal perspective as well as from a practical business one. Let's begin with the former: A private business is an extension of one's private property. What I do in the privacy of my own home, is not the business of the government or any individual, as long as I am not harming another human being. While it is true that they might be offended and displeased, this is not equivalent to the use of force. By making it illegal for me to choose who I do business with, you are literally saying that it is okay for the government to use force against a person who has not used force against anyone else. This is morally abhorrent. The right to discrimination falls neatly into the American liberal tradition of freedom to choose. Do not tell a woman what she should do with a fetus in her body, don't tell a gay couple that they can't get married and do not tell a business owner who they should and should not do business with. The philosophical principle is the same and cannot be changed because one may not like it. Freedom to choose is the freedom to choose and has to be consistent or else you are hypocritical. The right to discriminate is further a fair way for people to operate in a free society. By telling one they can't discriminate and have to serve everyone who comes in their door, you are LITERALLY telling them that it is perfectly acceptable to lie. Lying should be the basis for our society. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to know openly who likes them and who doesn't? Shouldn't the bigots in our society be penalized by the free market and not government force?
Is it acceptable to have sex under the legal age? (16/18)

In my opinion, it is acceptable to have sex under the legal age to a certain extent. If you are above 14, and have been in a long term relationship with someone who you feel safe, secure and know they will respect your wishes whatever you choose to do then it is acceptable for them to do what they believe is right in the sexual intercourse area. However, if the person is sleeping around, doing whatever with whoever I think that is when it's borderline dangerous due to stuff like STD's or if you don't know the person very well the risk of them spreading rumors, causing danger for you should not be acceptable.
Is it acceptable to have sex under the legal age? (16/18)

I personally feel like 14 year olds should not be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse for a few reasons: 1. Lack of responsibility 14 year olds have next to no huge responsibilities to commit to. Apart from schoolwork, which can easily be completed, and extra-curricular activities, 14 year olds have no huge commitments waiting for them, like a job. As such, they don't know about having money, and with that money responsibility. If some complain they are unable to handle their current course load, then why would allowing them to possibly have a child help their case? They have no job of their own (unless they find an extremely rare position), so supporting the child would have to be done by the parents of the two kids. Plus, maybe the woman might not want a kid, and the whole abortion argument comes up and it's not something 14 year olds (likely freshman in high school or eighth graders) should be worrying about. 2. Indecision in Relationships In middle/early high school, relationships with others are very fickle. Backstabbing, gossiping, etc. are all commonplace within the confines of the school. As such, what would happen if a girl were to get pregnant and the boyfriend just dumps her or moves away? That would put the soon-to-be mother in a horrible position, especially at such a young age. Because 14 y/o have no income, they cannot pay for "child support" which, again, leaves the responsibility on the parents. In addition, imagine the teasing a couple would go through for having sex and the woman getting impregnated. 3. Lack of Understanding/Ignorance The common thing stipulated by the media and sex is that "sex feels good", so even younger people will buy into that a lot easier than 16/18 year olds, as 16/18 year olds are better able to weigh the decisions of doing the action. It's obvious that there are more ignorant 14 year olds than 16/18 year olds, not because 14 year olds are stupid, per-se, but they just don't have a developed enough brain to weigh these decisions often. Therefore, if a student goes around and has se with every girl he wants to just because he can, he might not know about condoms, safety, etc. and could very easily get a girl pregnant, get an STD, or both. Conclusion: I had a busy week and was unable to write up much, but I feel like my points are pretty self explanatory. 1. 14 year olds have yet to understand huge amounts of responsibility/commitment, and immediately jumping into caring for a child is a bad idea. 2. The nature of middle/high school is that there's lots of fickle relationships, which means it isn't a good idea to commit to someone. 3. 14 year olds are inherently more ignorant/unknowing than 16/18 year olds which can lead to bad consequences. Sorry again for the delay. Pro's arguments now.