BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Right to work laws.

The instigator appears to have abandoned this debate, as despite having been logged on 8 hours ago, failed to post any rebuttals to the last two rounds and has forfeited both rounds. The union-busting "right to work" states are a detriment to the public well-being and the sustainability of government. By taking away the rights of workers to unionize, unchecked power is given to the already wealthy whose lobbyists have gotten them to pay little tax for their wealth, while paying sub-poverty wages to their workers and no benefits such as basic health coverage. "Right to work" states add to the deficit by making full time workers reliant on the government to provide basic assistance while earning so little that they pay very little tax, and with lobbied tax loopholes the owners pay little in tax either (certainly not enough to pay for the public assistance their employees are forced to seek due to being underpaid). In 1981, some 12,000 air traffic controllers went on strike to fight for shorter work weeks to decrease exhaustion that was a menace to safety, but then President Reagan busted the union and fired every union worker. The result was an immediate skyrocket of accidents that did not return to pre-strike levels until the 1990s. Although the replacement air traffic controllers were eventually allowed to form a new union, it is not allowed to strike and thus has no real force when pressing for two controllers to be on duty all night, leading to a recent string of incidents in various control towers of only one controller being on duty and unable to do their job on their own. A similar incident occurred with a prison guard here in Washington state recently, as despite her and her union's protests, "reduce the government" efforts led to staff downsizing and she was a lone guard on duty with dangerous prisoners, one of whom murdered her on the job. Unions always have and continue to fight hard for their workers to have decent working conditions for safety, to let their members do their jobs and be paid fairly for it. Without union representation, employers (whether public or private) will always seek to cut corners wherever they can and can easily ignore workers, because one worker who complains they are overworked or underpaid can be fired, but the force of a labor union prevents this and gives some measure of safety and fairness. There is no excuse for full time workers to be in need of public assistance, that's obscene greed and it needs some sort of check. Workers should be allowed to form unions to negotiate working conditions, pay and benefits. Without collective bargaining, workers have no real voice to negotiate anything. "Right to work" laws harm safety, worsen the deficit, and only benefit the already wealthy. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my arguments, and please take the time to cast your vote for who conducted themselves best in this debate in the appropriate categories.
Deadpool is not over powered

I am assuming that rebuttals are completely valid as you have not stated otherwise.Healing(Defense)Deadpool has superb healing abilities. He can regenerate tissue at an extremely quick rate as well as being immune to any disease ever. He also has brain cells that can regenerate quickly which makes him immune to any telepathic/psychic attacks. With this incredible healing, him dying is virtually impossible. Attacking(Offense) Deadpool is an excellent assassin and mercenary. He has been seen numerous times killing 10 fully armed people. Here is a quote from the Deadpool article on marvel.com. "Deadpool's musculature generates considerably less fatigue toxins than the muscles of an ordinary human being, granting him superhuman levels of stamina in all physical activities. His natural strength, agility and reflexes have been enhanced to levels that are beyond the natural limits of the human body. Deadpool's agility and reaction time are superior to those of even the finest human athlete". It clearly states that, in the physical section, he is extremely developed and better than the finest human athlete. This shows that he is an excellent fighter.Rebuttals "Deadpool has almost no skill in fighting at all". You are mistaken. He chooses not to use his abilities to its full potential as his character is a joker and he cares much more about women and pizza than beating an opponent in a fight. However, I have shown that he has excellent fighting skill. "You can drown him" While true, it would be very difficult to drown him as he, most likely, would eviscerate you before you could touch him. Also he has many tech gadgets upon his belt; one allows him to teleport (even out of water)."He has been killed by a human. Punisher shot him with a shotgun in the head. His brain splattered everywhere". I believe you are referring to either battle or . In both you can clearly see him being able to speak post shooting and he is still alive. "An arrow went into his head once. He was disabled for a while. He couldn't think or speak". This is impossible. His brain cells regenerate at a superhuman rate, so if an arrow was in his head, his brain cells would regenerate to the point where he would be back to "normal". "You can scatter his body parts." In the Deadpool video game, he can be seen numerous times without his head and in one part you must get all his scattered bodyparts and connect them together. Final StatementA combination of amazing defense and superb offense is proof that Deadpool is overpowered. Sourceshttp://marvel.com...(Wade_Wilson) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Deadpool is not over powered

Deadpool, is not an OP character.He has been killed by a human. Punisher shot him with a shotgun in the head. His brain splattered everywhere.No brain... No healing....Deadpool has almost no skill in fighting at all. If his head was chopped off. And his torso was pinned down, he would be a head.You can drown him. He only regens tissue and blood. You can scatter his body parts.An arrow went into his head once. He was disabled for a while. He couldn't think or speak.He just went brain dead. On the scale of heroes, he would be a mid-tier hero
Gay Marriage Right

I am all for gay people being together. Honestly, if someone is born that way, don't even try to fight it! That is who they are. The problem I have with gay marriage is because I am Christian. No I don't think it is wrong because God "hates gays" I am confident that God loves them just as much as his own son. My problem is that legal marriage in the United States stems from Christian marriage. So yes, I think gays should be able to be united in a legal way similar to marriage and I think they should have all of the legal benefits that come along with marriage but calling it the same thing that Christians call it is what I disagree with. Marriage as defined by Christians is a procreative union between a man and a woman who intend to spend the rest of their lives with each other (not an official definition, just my interpretation of Christian marriage). The government then added legal benefits to this such as tax cuts. And then legal marriage became a separate thing than Christian marriage (which I am not a fan of either). And now gays are trying to get married. Again, I'm all for gays doing exactly what Christian couples do but I don't like that it is called the same thing as Christian marriage. basically: I'm all for civil unions or anything like it but I don't think that homosexual marriage, an act not justified by most Christian churches, should be called the same thing as a Christian marriage, a sacred bond between a man, a woman, and God.
Gay Marriage Right

Why not let them be happy? If somebody us attracted to the same sex, leave them be. A man knows how to please a man, and a woman knows how to please a woman. As for those of you who think its gross, stay out of it. It's not your life so, therefore you shouldn't worry about it. We all bleed the same color, doesn't matter what makes us happy. It's a proven fact that people become oppositional to things simply because they don't understand. Just let them be happy and mind your own business.
Global Warming

Firstly I'd like to point out that Co2 is not CO2, because Co is the element symbol for Cobalt not Carbon Dioxide. Please be careful. My opponent argues stating that the graphs of millions of years ago doesn't matter, but it does, because if the harms of Global Warming that my opponent says are true then we currently wouldn't be here, because as I have showed Earth has had CO2 levels and Global Temperatures way higher then we currently do. This shows that my opponent's case has no impact to it. Then he goes on to say that there's a spike in levels due to oil and such, but if you remember the chart that I have given you in my last round you can see that it has a negative slope with means that Earth is actually cooling. In my 4th Graph you can see that the IPPC is incorrect in there readings of Global Warming and that we are currently cooling and heading into another Little Ice Age. As for you EPA souce, I have already pre-refuted that in my last round with my hockey stick chart evidence showing that we have a negative slope in terms of the Global Temperature showing that we are cooling and not warming. My opponent drops my second graph showing that though we have had a major increase in the burning of focil fuels that it has had no effect on the atmosphere. My Hockey stick Chart, if you click on the link that I had provided you, is from the Johannes Guttenburg University where the scienctists there conducted a study and that was their evidence. This study was conducted in the Artic Lattitudes and, you would think that if Global Warming exists that it would have an upward slope, but it has a down ward slope. Last Decade the US has passed the Kyoto Protocol which banned the Production of CFC's from first world nation's, but will have no real impact due to it excluding countries like China and India. You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (http://www.geocraft.com...) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Though the world has been in a drought for hundreds of years the techonology has been picking up with new agricultural techonolgies like GMOs and factory farming.
Global Warming

My case is that global warming, the phenomena in which greenhouse gases and ozone destroying chemicals, is a prevalent problem that currently affects the global health of the plant. It has led to more a more deadly weather pattern, stronger storms, droughts a rising sea level, a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. If steps are not taken to reduce the emission of green house gases and other destructive chemicals that cause acceleration of the greenhouse effect the climate will progressively grow hotter and will lead to further drought, storms, and eventually making earth a inhospitable place or humans to live. Good luck to your counter argument. You don't need to sight your sources but be aware I will fact check everything you say.
Global Warming

My first graph was showing the CO2 spike that Pro may be refuring to is from massive plant extintion and not from CO2 emmissions. As for satellite readings I give you the second and 5th chart from Round 2. These both are satellite imagings and they both show the same thing. That CO2 levels do not affect the atmosphere Much like the 2nd graph in Round 3 we can see that CO2 and even man-made at that matter has no affect and doesn't contribute to Global Warming as Water Vapor does. It also shows that the IPPC is incorrect and many of the NASA scientists are in the IPPC and this actually discredits their sourcing. The Ozonen hole is above the Antartic, not the artic. The graph does include the CFCs from third world nations. As for the CO2 gasses contributing, I know that there are billions of tons, but it still doesn't contibute to the Greenhouse effect even comparably close to Water Vapor. This shows that there is no corrilation between Warming and CO2. Now as for those 97% of scientists that my opponent was talking about. When it comes to scientists there are a total of 2,500 scientists that do believe in Global Warming, but when it comes to not believing in Global Warming there is a large amount that have signed a petition stating that they believe that Global Warming is a hoax. There is a current count of 31,487. (. http://www.petitionproject.org...) and (. http://www.informationliberation.com...)
Global Warming

Firstly I'm confused by your first graph which has nothing to do with the topic of global warming I also don't think you understand my points on your graphs. Your graphs on temperature are either based on ice core temperatures which is imprecise when used as a measure of temperature especially over short periods of time which is what global warming demands as in order to study. Or your measurements are based on terrestrial based temperature readers which have been use by both anti global warming and anti global warming pundits because they are so chronically unreliable. The NASA measurements are the closest possible reliable source of information because they are taken from space which gives the the most complete view of the planet. On the "theory" that the ozone layer has developed hole above the arctic circle is not a theory because it has happened. And the hypothesis that the WHO presented does not account for CFC's that are being made in china and India And in relation to the fact that water account for the greenhouse effect than other greenhouse gases is correct however I believe you are underestimating how much greenhouse gases is composed of three percent of all greenhouse gases (the percentage that is man made). For this 3% accounts for several billions of tons of greenhouse gas such as CO2 and methane that humans are putting in the atmosphere. This increase upsets the natural equilibrium of the greenhouse effect and in time will lead to an exponential increase in temperatures. over 97% of scientists agree with this theory and distrust of general scientific theory is only harmful to the continued existence of mankind.
Global Warming

You see as the human population increases the number extintions for different animals also increase due to our need for resources and the human population is growing and when the resources are used up we move on like a paracite. Extintion rates have been increasing because of this. (http://www.pbs.org...) You have provided one graph while I have provided several that say the same thing done by different sources and not NASA and the EPA which can be bias to your case. (If you wish to debate on the EPA we could do so when this debate is finished) It's the steadiness in the graph that makes me question the validity of the information while mine so both increases and decreases. You have looked up the hockey stick graph, but I have shown that in my graphs that the hockey stick graph does not exist and that it is unlikely that the Earth is warming at all as I have shown in several graphs that the Earth's temperature is decreasing. I have shown that it is cooling and that the IPPC is incorrect on their Warming Predictions. My opponent now brings up one theory relying on the Ozone hole, but this is incorrect as the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that the Ozone is actually getting thicker and is expected to make a great recovery by 2025 due to the banning of Hydrocarbons. (http://www.express.co.uk...) My opponent attempts to refute the last graph that I had provided in my last round, but even though we are dumping large amounts of CO2, methane, and CFCs into the atmosphere they are contributing little to Global Warming. The graph shows how much it contributes not the quanitity and it shows that Water Vapor by far is more superior than that of CO2, Methane, and CFCs combined!
Global Warming

First of all sorry for the CO2 typo spellchecker loves to hate on me I am also a bit annoyed that you have misconstrued my point on the first few graphs you used which had a measurement of earths greenhouse gas levels over millions of years. To be clear these CO2 spikes happened due to mass extinctions that left a majority of plant life dead on the earth. Thus unless you are implying that massive amounts of plant life is dying the current spike of CO2 is man made. http://www.climatecentral.org... And in relation to your graphs that earth is heading towards a cooing era the measurements used to take them were provably ground based temperature readers that tend to vary widely. For NASA's reading of global temperatures has read a stead increase in global temperature by a total of 1 degree Fahrenheithttp://climate.nasa.gov.... Though that fact may no seem scary that mere temperature change has huge ecological and weather ramifications. And if this trend continues and earths CO2 emission only increases than this temperature shift will increase at a quickening pace. In relation to the hockey stick graph I looked into what the graph actually meant seeing as their was not labeling o the axis but what it does show is a 0.3 temperature drop per millennium. In the last 20 years the earth has had temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Thus their is no way that the earth progressively moving away from the sun will effectively counteract climate change. Also the effects of CFC's are very different than traditional greenhouse gases for this dangerous gas, for lack of a better term, eats up ozone and is largely responsible for the hole in the ozone layer that has slowly developed over the arctic circle. Thus it is a completely different and much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2 and Methane. In relation to your graphs on overall greenhouse gas contribution I have not seen repeated in ever source I looked at with the average impact of Humans on global warming to be between 3 and 5 percent. Although this may not seem scary this small percentage change is several billion tons of CO2 that affect the rates of the greenhouse effective and over time( and i'm talking about hundreds of years) will lead to exponential temperature growth. Right now it is linear but will only level out if mankind as a whole reduce carbon emissions or find some way to create balance between our CO2 creation and capturing. To see some of these solutions I recommend you watch the Nova special on global warming.
The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

Erwin Rommel, one of the most able and trustable Field Marshals in the Nazi team was placed into North Africa. I believe that had Rommel and the German High Command placed him in Russia, NOT NORTH AFRICA, the Axis could've used his expertise and beaten the Russians. Thus, the Italians, with their pathetic army, was the reason why the Nazis, and indeed the Axis Powers, lost the war. Had the Italians decided not to attack the British colonial forces in North Africa: A. Those forces could've been deployed in Russia, sufficient to beating the Russians on the Eastern Front. B. The time spent sending reinforcements to North Africa (several weeks) would not have been delayed, allowing the Nazis an earlier invasion time, thus weaker and more unprepared Russian defences.
The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

First off, I apologise to have 'offended' my opponent about France, Spain and Italy's military strength, but you need to look at the facts. Spain WAS indeed an Axis Nation, simply not looked upon as large as Germany, Italy or Japan. That's like saying Romania, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria weren't Axis Nations, but they were: they supported Hitler in Russia. Going to France, that Nazi soldier was clearly stuffed in the head. All the French Resistance did was blow up a couple of railway stations and train cars and other whatnots that could've helped the Nazis. Did they stop the trains that took innocent Jews to Auschwitz? No. .. They were too scared of the Nazis, and simply hid in the shadows. To be honest, their main help was during the liberation of Paris during 1944, and that was it. But to Italy, my opponent seems to claim that had the Italians not been allies with the Nazis, they would've been on the Allies side and invaded Germany. That is a flat lie. Let's say that weren't Fascist. They could be neutral: there is no argument that claims they could've been Allies. Now, let's look at Italian Soldiers on the Eastern Front. During the Battle of Stalingrad, the Russians were getting destroyed, with little resistance in some buildings stopping the Germans from taking Stalingrad 100%, and, of course, moving on to the Volga. The Germans' flanks were defended by the Satelite countries: Finnish, Bulgarians, Romanians, ITALIANS. So what happened? Zhukov put his army, the one he prepared for a month or so, to trap the German Sixth Army inside Stalingrad. How? It involved destroying the men on the flanks. What happened? I'll tell you. The Romanians didn't have any Anti-Tank weapons. The Hungarians didn't have enough ammunition. The Italians were SLAUGHTERED. Thus, the Germans were trapped in Stalingrad with no reinforcements possible, and no nearby army to break through the Soviet circle. Result? The Russians moved in for the kill, Paulus' Sixth Army was captured, and thus, one of Germany's greatest generals was now Russian. Paulus would testify at the Nuremburg Trials. I'm not saying the Italians were the COMPLETE blame for the loss at Stalingrad, but as one of the Axis Powers, you gotta be able to hold off the Russians. If my opponent's statement above is correct, then the Italian Army is worse then the Spanish. Pathetic. But I guess I'm comparing the Blue Division to a bunch of stooges, so what do I know? Talking about Rommel, he was a great general. So I think that he'd understand, along with Guderian, Paulus and all the other great Nazi generals, that they could beat Zhukov alone, for he was the one in charge of the defence of Moscow. Luckily, the Russians trapped the Nazi army in a pincer movement, something I believe Rommel would've seen. THAT was when Hitler became Commander-in-Chief, after the failure of Moscow. About North Africa, the British forces there were quite good. But, even with Italian lack of skill, I believe that they couldn't beat Italy, had they tried, as the Nazis would simply drive their tanks through to help with the defence.
Communism is better, in general, than Capitalism

I have accepted your debate and your terms.However, I would like to add some more:1. As stated in the resolution, I (or my opponent) have to prove their system correct on general accounts. I would like to quote one of my opponents from a previous debate:"My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true. " Refutations like this will hold no water. If you are trying to prove your system statistically (like my opponent was), 50% or over must be for your resolution. I don't know what my opponent meant when he said 'proceed with caution' but I hope that it was not a threat.Please provide your BOP next round.May the best man win!