BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corvo Vs. Connor

Thank you for the response, it would seem like Corvo is the clear winner. Since we cannot yet have these two figures actually battle, I would like to show what the human intellect is capable of when they seem to be in a near impossible battle. I will be basing this off the generalization that Connor has the superior intellect, Corvo is the more brute assassin, a royal guard, but not the smarter fighter. Let me give you an example of how an intellect can achieve anything. When you think Superman, you think unstoppable, no human could stop him right? Take Batman for example, he has won on mulitple occasion with the Man of Steel. He found his weakness, and used it to his advantage. If Corvo has a weakness, and he does, (few people have beaten Dishonored without dying) Connor would find it, activate it, and execute it. I must concede that Connor couldn't beat Corvo head on, but that isn't what Connor would be trying to do anyway. Connor is the legimate assassin, he would be the assassin in the fight, not the warrior. The body doesn't win the battle, the mind does.Thanks to my opponent and to the readers for taking the time to read this over.
Corvo Vs. Connor

Corvo Attano is the superior assassin. Stealth is his friend, defeat is his only true enemy. Corvo went from royal guard to dirt and worked his way back up by murdering those against him, even if it meant infiltrating the most secure facility in the land. On his own. FIRST I will state why Corvo is superior THEN I will state why Connor is inferior 1. Corvo has great weaponry: The knife he uses is just as powerful as any hand to hand weapon of Connor's. Also, in my opinion, Corvo's elegant blade looks cooler than that of Connor. Long range Corvo has a gun(more mid range) and a crossbow. The crossbow can defeat the guns of AC3 using not just the regular arrow, not just the sleep dart, but also the bolt specifically designed to catch people on fire. For special weapons Corvo has grenades and springrazor traps. These are trip mines that explode into shards that pierce and kill the victim 2. Attacks: Both games have the slo mo slice, and AC does have a wider variety. However, the same ones are often repeated over and over with a random one thrown in every once and a while. Corvo does have the superior rush in and kill style, but he wouldn't even know where Corvo was. Corvo's air attacks, head removals, and special one character only strikes are superior to the double slash of Connor. On the chance that this battle is in the open- 3. Powers: Corvo has many magic powers. His rat swarm or wind blast could do enough damage, but lets imagine Connor (miraculously) dodges it. Corvo can blink behind Connor or blink back to the shadows. Using possession he can then slip behind Connor, and if Connor realizes there will be far too many rats to try and kill. One trick is to attach a springrazor to a rat, then convince it to commit suicide to help Corvo 4. Blocking: Connor does have superior counter attacks. If only he lives that long CONNOR'S DOWNFALL He can be seen through walls and his best strategy is "CHARGE!" I will post a depiction of the battle in the entertainment forum later tonight because I am low on time and already wrote too much to rewrite... Over to you!
Junk food doesn't make you fat, it's all genetics.

You said that meat takes long to digest. Nuh uh! Just chew and then swallowFirst of all, this line made me facepalm so much, my face got stuck, i think you're trolling now, or you're just to young to be debating here, chewing the food isn't digesting, the fact that you think that is digesting tells me you shouldn't be debating here, the same thing applies to the rest of what you said.I watched them sip down several big macs in a similar fashion to how scooby & shaggy eat those massive sandwiches.I looked to see whether they had visibly gained any weight from consuming that stuffit can't be junk food that's making these already whale-like beings inflateWhale like beings ? at least there not just bones like you are.The defination of digestion : the process of breaking down food by mechanical and enzymatic action in the alimentary canal into substances that can be used by the body.Your mouth doesn't do these stuff, your mouth is just there to make the food your eating into smaller pieces so it doesn't get stuck in your throat , but your stomich is the one that digests using hydrochloric acid to remove the things your body needs like protein and Vitamins, and the rest is basicly junk so it throws it out of the body, it's basicly like sqeezing the lemon, after all the lemon juice is out you don't need the rest of it.It is mathematicallity proof that junk food can't make you fatYou can't mathmaticly prove that like for an example proteins can make you fat, you use science to do that, and whats One burger = +0 fatness ,do you seriously think that this is how math works ? haha, yea ok lets do math, One burger= +100 fat, case closed lol, dude seriously ask your science teacher about this ok ?I hate the gym Eat a balanced diet? NoExercise reguarly? NahI'm not going to say anything about this because you know where is this going...Look kid, go to your science teacher, or ask your mom or something ok ?, i'm hoping your grades aren't as bad as your answers are.
Junk food doesn't make you fat, it's all genetics.

You said that meat takes long to digest. Nuh uh! Just chew and then swallow. That should take like less than one minute !!It is mathematicallity proof that junk food can't make you fat, look! :One burger = +0 fatness* by a zillion trillion (Doctor's estimate of quantity of burgers consumed by the average #1 fridge-fan in the average sitting)= 0*zillion trillion = 00 times anything = 0=it's all genetics I hate the gym. I nearly went there once but I got intimidated and just decided to go home and eat a cake and I got fatter. Coincidence? No, it's the genetics.Eat a balanced diet? No, I have great posture, thank you.1,500 to 2,000 calories per day? No, I'd get distracted and lose count by about 174. I only have three meals, breakfast and lunch and dinner, not 2,000.Exercise reguarly? Nah, I'll just do it for one second, but really well, so I won't have to do it ever again.Thank you. Sources[1] http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com...[2] ibid[3] ibid[4] ibid[5] ibid[6] ibid[7] "[8] "[9] etc[10] #boredom
Junk food doesn't make you fat, it's all genetics.

What makes people gain fat or extra flesh ?1_Eating food that has alot of fat in it and not exercising to burn the calories in you2_GeneticHow much time does it take to gain calories after eating ? You mentioned that these people were eating at McDonald's, that means they were eating meat.First of all, Meat takes alot of time to digest because it has alot of protein, Portein is hard to digest so your heart needs more power to digest it and alot more time, it takes from 24 to 74 hours to digest meat, it depands how much did you eat, so eating one burger doesn't make any differents, to explain it in a easier way, did you ever get longer within just 5 min's after playing basketball ? of course No.GeneticsIt's very, very rare, ALL fat people blame there Genetics when it's not because of there genetics but it's because they sit all day on there couch eating, If they tried going to gym for a year and start eating healthy and there weight didn't change then yes it's because of there genetics but they never do try, they say it's because of there genetics because they don't want to work hard, also you can't decide if it's because of there genetics or not just by looking at some guy.Eating food that has alot of fat in it and not exercising to burn the calories in youEat a balanced diet - appropriate amounts of carbohydrates, fat and proteinDo not eat excessively - for most people, a diet of 1,500 to 2,000 calories a day is sufficient to maintain a healthy weightExercise regularly.
Junk food doesn't make you fat, it's all genetics.

I went out slobberchops-spotting today, picking the honeypot site of all blubber beasts and brobdingnagian-boned diet dodgers - McDonald's!You see, I live in Hippietown, so there were no car parks, so even the most genetically-close-to-whales were forced to go wee wee wee, all the way to the shop. I decided to do some further investigating.I saw several ginormous thumbs with hair stomp (by default, of course) their way up the queue and order a burger meal. They proceded to waddle their way to the tables they had asked their genetically-overeating children to reserve for them.I watched them sip down several big macs in a similar fashion to how scooby & shaggy eat those massive sandwiches. I looked to see whether they had visibly gained any weight from consuming that stuff, and no - she didn't look any different! So, it can't be junk food that's making these already whale-like beings inflate, it must've been all the genetics all along! Thank you.
People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

He provided some good definitions, all of which I accept. However I think, for the sake of clarification, I should add that when a choice has several outcomes that pose significant individual risk (as opposed to just one) that is also a dangerous choice. From the con perspective, I will argue that when something becomes "significantly risky," we should not have an inherent right to make that choice, but rather it should only be a privilege reserved for exceptional circumstances. To win this debate, I intend to both offer convincing reasons as to why exceptionally dangerous choices should only be taken in exceptionally dangerous circumstances, as well as rebutting any reasons my opponent brings up that this is untrue.
People should have the right to make dangerous choices.

The ResolutionIn this debate I will affirm the individual's right to make dangerous choices. My opponent suggested the topic after noting that in my profile I affirmed tobacco rights, which indeed I do. The topic will be debated more generally, but that provides an idea of the context. This round is for definitions and acceptance. The debate begins in R2. DefinitionsA right is "something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled rights> right to decide>". http://www.merriam-webster.com...Few if any rights are absolute. Even a strong right like free speech is restricted for example, for perpetuating a financial fraud. A right can only be overcome for a strong reason. By contrast, a privilege is"a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office". http://www.merriam-webster.com... "Right" is used in the sense "right in law" in the definition of privilege. For our debate a right is something that a person has by default, and which government may restrict only for good cause. A privilege, by contrast, is something that one must be granted, usually by application for a grant from the government. For example. a physicians license is provides the privilege of practicing medicine to the person to whom it is granted by government. A "dangerous choice" is a decision wherein one of the outcomes poses a significant risk to the individual making the choice. For example, the choice to smoke cigarettes poses a significant health risk to the individual who decides to smoke. Other words used in this debate are standard dictionary definitions, taken in the appropriate context in which they are used.
should college athletes get paid

Being an athlete, I know how hard it is to stay on top of school work and keep up to performance (sport) expectations. Expectations of yourself, from the school and the wider community can be very stressful. Adding to all of this, is the financial difficulties rising athletes deal with. No money can mean your diet is poor, you can't buy gear for training, can't travel for competitions, can't pay off school loans and you can't pay for a social life. It is all well and good if you have a scholarship, but for the 95% of athletes who don't have an financial benefits, it is a major issue. If schools and colleges want their athletes to do well, they need to support them. Sporting faculties get paid lots if one of their teams or students does well. But what about the athletes. Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the off season, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it. It"s also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university"s advertising team. They promote the college/school and encourage athletes who look up to them to attend the same college that their role models do. Being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes and finding time to study. Maintaining a balanced life as a student-athlete is near to impossible. However, I also know from my friends and peers, that giving money to an athlete can make them lazy. Shocker right? I do believe students should be paid, but only partly, and they should be put on a contract stating that if they stop their sport they should not continue to get funding. I have seen many of my friends offered scholarships. Two years later, the will still be on the scholarship but are performing poorly and hardly ever training. I find this incredibly unfair especially when their are so many deserving athletes who aren't given scholarships or funding. The problem with scholarships is that they are given to the athletes performing 'best at the time', and usually colleges don't track how their athletes are competing or under training (except for basketball) ... and even if they do, they won't remove their scholarships, if they aren't performing well. In conclusion; athletes are amazing. They work so hard for their sport, and the passion they have is inspiring. However I believe that if people want athletes to get paid, they need to push the colleges to create a contract, outlining that if you are on a scholarship you have more expectations than a non-scholarship athlete would have.
The earth is about 6,000 years old

The historical evidence and scientific evidence indicates the earth is about 6,000 years old. The historical evidence I am using is the historical reliability of the Bible. In addition, there are significant anomalies in the earth model. Also, old earth dating methods such as radiometric dating have untested assumptions. My main defenses are: How old is the earth: http://creation.com... 101 evidences for a young earth and universe: http://creation.com... Historical reliability of the Bible: http://www.icr.org... and http://www.bethinking.org...
The earth is about 6,000 years old

1. I feel like this is irrelevant to the actual debate. 2. The article is strawmanning Radioactive dating. These arguments are outdated and have actually been defended on the site! http://www.debate.org... 3. See #2. 4 & 5. He you state he really had no crown jewel yet criticized him for his being dispelled? Unsure of you the point. If you also look at books like The God Delusion (Dawkins), and many of the books that listed in the references, the historical creditability of the Bible is lacking.
The earth is about 6,000 years old

!. My previous "questioning heavily" comment was a rebuttal to an argument of yours. 2. Excerpt from a PDF document at Rae.org from www.rae.org/pdf/radiodat.pdfR06; "Creationists believe that the assumptions of radiometric dating are invalid and cannot be proven. These assumptions are: (1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate (2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product (3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed (4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur" 3. The number and quality of assumptions does affect the reliability of a dating methodology. Occam's razor also applies (deals with competing explanations and the fewest assumptions). Also, God does not have be assumed. His existence is self-evident. Every painting masterpiece requires a painter. Atheists are very able to see the beauty of nature. 4. Farrell Till was a minister. So was Jim Jones. You failed to demonstrate any prerequisite skills in Bible exegesis that Farrell Till would need to do competent exegesis. What was the extent of his knowledge of Hebrew and New Testament Greek? What was the depth of his knowledge of Ancient Near East culture/history? Did he write a book on Bible exegesis? Did he write a history book dealing with Ancient Near East culture? What was the extent of Mr. Till's knowledge of historiography? To be frank, it seems as if you have given him a rather blank check in terms of credibility. 5. Farrell Till refused to tell me what he thought the best example of biblical error was. He really had no "crown jewel" of biblical error. Otherwise, one would think he would have offered it. He merely had ill-informed speculation.
The earth is about 6,000 years old

1. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an actual argument. If anything, the second part is anecdotal and has no place in this debate and does not validate your claims. 2. Part A: Saying that scientists use assumptions to help with radiometric dating is providing an unreasonable double standard. If one believes in creationism, a deity of some sort must be real and it is automatically assumed that this deity is real, even without evidence. Whereas science must have evidence to go forward with a theory that can eventually turn into scientific fact. In short, this means that creationism automatically garners "respect" without evidence, but science must have infallible facts & evidence to even be considered. This is an unreasonable double standard that is heavily popularized by people by the likes of Ken Ham and others. Part B: Please list these assumptions and I will answer to the best of my ability about how reasonable/unreasonable they actually are. (Please cite) 3. Farrell Till may not have been an expert, but he was a minister and missionary until 1963. Please also show where his "crown jewel" bible error is dispelled.
The earth is about 6,000 years old

WeLoveRange, My rebuttals: 1. Questioning something heavily doesn't make something invalid. At one stage of my life, I heavily questioned the Bible. 2. How many assumptions do scientists use as far as radiometric dating. Can you show me those assumptions are reasonable? 3. Farrell Till is not an expert in the Bible. If you look at his article at Wikipedia it indicates his specialty was in English. Many years before he passed away, I asked him what is the most compelling alleged contradiction in the Bible. He refused to answer the question. I believe it is because once his "crown jewel" of supposed Bible errancy was dispelled, his claim that the Bible had errors in it would be severely weakened.
The earth is about 6,000 years old

The historical evidence and scientific evidence does not support the Earth being ~6,000 years old. The historical reliability of the Bible has been questioned heavily recently by scientists, scholars, and also amateurs. Old Earth Dating is reliable just read my sources and it becomes quite clear that there is overwhelming evidence for radioactive dating being reliable. Radioactive Dating: http://science.howstuffworks.com... Reliability of it: http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu... (Quite a long read) How old is the Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org... 101 Evidences for a young earth and universe rebuttal: http://rationalwiki.org...(rebuttal) Historical reliability of the Bible: http://www.theskepticalreview.com...
Actors vs. Costume designers

Preparedness should deal with how ready you are for show, not the costumes. The costume designers check with every indian on their costume and modify them to fit the needs of each indian. The costume designers have been entrusted with this job and have years of experience.The costume designers know how to make the costumes visually pleasing and comfortable for each cast member. It's also less stress for Mr. Cooney because he is able to see the costumes ahead of time and approve of them. The costume designers also take very good care of each costume, and by taking care of the costumes the designers give the cast one less thing to worry about. It's their job, and they are only trying to help.
Actors vs. Costume designers

You said you are trying to make it easier and less stressful for the Indians by providing them, but it just puts more stress on us. By not knowing what we might get and not being able to practice in them, we do not know whether we can move in them and do our dance the best we can. We realize our audience and wouldn't wear something if it wasn't appropriate. Our main focus is to be able to dance. I believe that it wouldn't be confusing if we made our own, it would only give the costume designers more time to focus on the others and the Indians would feel ready and prepared.
Actors vs. Costume designers

As costume designers, we believe we hold the control over all costumes and assume the responsibility of making it easier on the cast by providing costumes. Mr. Cooney would not have assigned us this job if he did not believe we could handle it. We provide free costumes for the whole cast and we want to make everyone feel less pressured on costumes, so that they can focus on the show. We understand that the Indian's main role is a dancer, but everyone has to match the tone of the show and realize that the show is for an audience of parents, fellow class members, and younger children. We believe that we can unify the show by taking up the position as costume designer. The costumes for meet the department were only temporary and we have been working on everyone's costume every single day. We attend scheduled rehearsals so that we can fix any costumes and make sure that the cast member approves of it. If the Indians had the right to make their own then other characters would want to make their own too. I believe we create less confusion and add to the organization of this show
Actors vs. Costume designers

Mr. Cooney may have choosen you for the job, but he also did tell all the Indians from the first rehearsal that we would be able to make our own costumes. We have been planning on making them from the beginning and were not so thrilled when the costume designers came in and told us we couldn't make them anymore. Some of us had already made the purchase and the already made Indian costumes can not be returned. Some were $50. None of us are trying to stand out by having different costumes because with the costume designers, everyone still has different costumes. Either way some Indians will stand out, but not purposely. Also, the costumes provided for us for Meet the Department were difficult to dance in, which is the main focus of the Indians. We are known as the dancers and how are we supposed to be able to take our part in the play if the costume designers do not understand how difficult it is to move in the giant, constricting dresses they give us. If you want to bring up the subject of appropriate, the costume designers would not let us wear leggings under the dresses they gave us for Meet the Department. So while sitting cross-legged in front of the audience, we did not feel these costumes were appropriate and therefore believe that the Indians should be able to make their own.
Actors vs. Costume designers

The Indians' costumes are just as important as the rest of the cast. As costume designers, we believe that we are responsible for making everyone look like they match with their costumes. Mr. Cooney picked us for the job and trusted us with making the right decisions. Although it is kind of the Indians to take the intiative to make their own costumes, they are not appropriate for the show. Some of the Indians have too little fabric and other Indians are trying to make their character stand out by wearing a different costume. We believe that we hold the responsibility of making everyone look the same everyone feels equal, and so that the costumes are appropriate for the show.