BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Iceman would kill Hulk in a fight

First, I'm not really sure a PhD really helps in this argument. Anyways, hulk smashing iceman in half would accomplish nothing because physical attacks can't kill iceman. He will simply reform. In fact, hulk could never actually kill iceman for because all of his attacks are physical. But that's not the argument. The argument is that iceman can kill the hulk, which he can, not that the hulk can kill him as you just stated. As the con, you must explain how hulk could possibly not die in a fight with iceman.
Iceman would kill Hulk in a fight

Iceman can without a doubt kill Hulk. He is an omega level mutant. Hulk has the strength to resist iceman freezing him into a block of ice, and would probably break it right open. But, iceman can manipulate his control of ice by becoming different phases of water. Thus he could kill the hulk simply by taking the form of vapor, enter hulks body(bloodstream), and freezing his blood.
On human relationships

As of now, the debate is over and I'd like to close with a few words about the topic. To be honest, I was playing devil's advocate to an extent. Like pro, I do believe that social bonding is somewhat distorted due to all the formalized examples of it. However, on a human to human level, there are all sorts of touching bonds out there and despite every account of horrible social bonds, there are touching ones that still remain. It is easy to become cynical in a world like this but there are a never ending supply of good and intelligent people because I find it hard to believe that only bad can exist. As pro himself stated, we cannot have dark without light, day without night, etc. I view the relationship the same for good and evil on a moral scale within humans.
On human relationships

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am afraid to say that I can marshal no more arguments in favor of the surreality of human relationships. But my sincerest thanks goes out to con. Con, you have responded professionally and without heat, and have managed to touch me. I did not expect you to be persuasive; rather, I thought you would merely try to nail me down with trivial technicalities. I expected you to ask for endless definitions, debate with me about the "percentage value" of human friendships, or merely spew debate jargon at me without really addressing the issue. I expected you to prove my point precisely by being so enamored by the idea of "winning the debate" that you would ignore the relationship that you and I share: namely, that of intellectual rivals. You have my thanks for a wholesome debate, and for reaffirming the bonds that exist between humans. On human relationships: Merely because external factors play heavily on our predispositions does not mean that we as humans cannot make the choice to sustain that which is good and pure. "Nothing is true, everything is permitted"; it is a freeing statement, one that gives us the power to be wise and to choose that which matters. The same way human relationships can, at times, seem insubstantial due to outside pressures, so too can we make the choice to understand that the "outside pressures" only have as much power over us as we give them. Everything is, after all, merely "shadows and dust"; and we are permitted to make the decision as to what is truly important. Is it the outside pressure, or the human bond? The best part about all this is that no matter what we choose, we will have made a choice; and that choice helps us define the world we live in.
On human relationships

1. Ad hominem All within a good debate, pro. If you can call my assumptions "naive," I don't see why deeming your logic as nonsensical or considering your opening statement as long-winded or ranting is offensive. However, let's drop this. Neither of us will benefit from this battle of conduct; we'll let the voters decide. 2. The question My phrasing of it was very misleading, I apologize. Regardless, your answer still gives me something new to chew on. You state that these connections between different nationalities exist solely on a small, personal level and cannot overcome the concept of nations. With that established, you'd agree with the following statement that when a nation is damaged in some shape or form by another nation, two people from the two nations respectively that share an otherwise sacred friendship will cast this aside in devotion to their nation. Correct? 3. Step ALPHA Pro instigates that there is no sacred friendship simply because it always ends up being a pawn of nationalism or a social caste. How is it possible to prove this? The statement certainly isn't common knowledge nor is it provable so I can't see how pro could possibly defend this point. Yes, it's a given that there are instances that certainly follow pro's thesis but to say that there are no sacred friendships as a result is ridiculous. Pro's proposal is to promote the general understanding that nations, social circles, religious groups, and any other formalized social bonding only have as much power over us as we give them. Even if this sentiment were to be pushed onto the general society, it doesn't mean that anyone will listen or stop letting these social circles have so much influence over them. I have already stated people naturally seek to validate their own existence through friends so it would make sense that would also try to do this with bigger groups and even nationalism. It is a brutal reality that there is nothing we can do about the evils of nationalism or organized religious groups. Pro's inherency is that how the world is now has costs us many lives and caused wars. Conflict has been around almost as long as humans have so this is something that is clearly out of our control even with the pro proposal. Nations will form bonds with each other and will choose to discriminate against other nations; this is nothing short of inevitable even despite it's immorality. Pro, how is it possible to stop this? How is your proposal just going to get everyone to snap out of it? To say that it is possible to change this would be beyond wishful thinking. Furthermore, this doesn't confirm your resolution. Societies certainly have warped the concept of human bonding but human to human friendship, sacred or otherwise, still continue to exist and will even despite pro's proposal. The people involved in these formalized social bondings are too blind to see the damage they do but individuals can recognize recognize it. However, they themselves can do nothing to stop it.
There is no true opposite to any living and inanimate existing object

what you seem to not get is that just becasue a tree exist dosnt Means its opposite is non existence... define a tree, then you get something like, matter, nature, life, existence, true, what is the opposite of nature? must be the opposite of the tree, as the tree is nature the opposite of Cold is hot.. existence is defined by experience the opposite of something is nothing, matter and information
There is no true opposite to any living and inanimate existing object

a rock is inanimate, and opposite is human.. as human does have life imagination exist, lies exist the opposite of something is nothing, matter and information if you dont Count rocks as inanimate and humans as animate then your theory Works non existence, cant exist your argument is like this, hot exist, therfore Cold is not its opposite. where as truly hot exist, therfore it must have an opposite which Means Cold must exist
There is no true opposite to any living and inanimate existing object

Your statements are not proving any rebuttal to my theory. Additionally, the opposite of animate is inanimate, but that does not make rocks the opposite of people, rocks exist, therefore, humans and rocks are not true opposite. Love is and emotion. So is hate. They cannot be true opposites. You seem to be missing my point in that the true opposite of nearly every existing is is NOTHING. So, you are right in stating that everything needs an opposite to exist, that opposite is non-existence.
There is no true opposite to any living and inanimate existing object

i dont know the left and right thing. i think it has 2 do with choice thou and not so much direction. if my eyes could see in a radious of 360 all around my head, where is left and right? ANYTHING THAT EXIST, HAS AN OPPOSITE FOR IT TO EXIST. anything is matter, nothing is informaiton, 1 and 0, i agree matter is true, and the opposite of true is false, true is now, and false is in the future i dont know what the opposite of World is, but the opposite of reality is imagination, true and false the opposite of life is death, death can be physical, i can see a dead mans body in the street, and i wouldnt be looking at life i can imagine my neighbour, but anyone i create is dead love is hate hmm the opposite of animate, is inanimate, so people are the opposite of rocks O.o the face of stan walking this earth is the believer, and having no beliefs, is GOD im not sure i got your theory, please explain if i misinterpret some of it
There is no true opposite to any living and inanimate existing object

Let us begin. Left and Right, are they true opposites? No. Left is a direction, and so is Right, therefore they cannot be true opposites. They share a common trait which mean that they cannot oppose the other perfectly. Additionally, my belief is that the true opposite to anything is simply: nothing. Anything that can have an "opposite" is existing, therefore the true opposite is non-existence. Ergo, a theoretical "opposite world" does not exist, because our world is existing. My theory applies to all foreseeable supposed opposing things. Up and Down. Good and Evil. Forward and Backward. Water and Fire. Black and White. Red and Green. Anything, except two examples: Light and Dark. And Life and Death. Light is the presence, or existence, of photons. Darkness is the non-existence of said photons, therefore the dark is the true opposite of light. That also applies to Life. Death is the absence of Life in all organisms capable of utilizing Life. Prove my theory wrong.
It's probable that Palestine should it be created, will not be an enemy of israel

OK this is a bit lame but whatever. Just to clarify my position, i say that if Israel were to create a state of Palestine it would be an enemy state to Israel. The reason for that is, because the root of the conflict has nothing to do with the "occupied territory", as can be proven in numerous ways. But the method of proof that I've been going with in this debate is a few simple facts A. the Arabs made dozens of pogroms throughout the 1920s and 30s and killed hundreds upon hundreds of Jews because they were against a state being established in that area. B.after the partition plan was made (in which parenthetically most of the territory given to Israel was the desert in the south which until today is basically not settled) the Arabs rejected the plan and fought a bloody war in which 6,000 Jews were killed. C.There was terrorism throughout the 1950s and 60s before the "occupied territories" and the greatest terrorist organization of all the PLO "Palestinian liberation organization" was established in the year 1964 three years before the 6 day war. So the way i see it, there is no good reason for Israel to assume that it wont be a enemy, pro terrorism state. The point of course being that i believe that Israel has a moral obligation to it's children to never g-d forbid create a Palestinian state, because the first obligation and mission of a government is to keep it's citizens safe.
Dogs are better pets to have than cats

I'm glad you were able to agree with some aspects, no easy thing to do in such a debate. I want to respond to your claims that cats are "harder to understand" than dogs, when I looked at your source there was nothing that specified that dogs are "easier to understand, bond quickly to their owner, and listen to directions more". It goes on to say that dogs are more environmentally friendly and their brains are physically bigger. It also says that cats have more brain cells and are more popular, this is a result of their remarkable intelligence. In fact, cats are far more intelligent than dogs (1). Your video does prove that not all dogs attack cats, but also proves a point that I made earlier: cats aren't evil creatures that attack everything they see. You stated that cats are "evil and manipulative" and have been known to "attack owners and other pets". Your video in itself proves this to be wrong, that cats and dogs are determined by their individual personalities. Although I don't have any proof of this, I have 3 cats (don't get me wrong, they're both very good animals). Not all dogs have respect for human beings either (2). That is completely false! Two of my three cats were trained to sit, roll over, speak, and climb. Cats are able to be tamed and trained just like dogs, once you introduce this discipline then they will behave (3). Same thing with pit bulls and terriers. And also I've never heard of cats coming from Hell, I believe that the first breed discovered was from the fertile crescent of Persia and Egypt (4). 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.youtube.com... 3. http://sitandstay.banfield.net... 4. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Dogs are better pets to have than cats

I hope to gain more knowledge about cats after you rebuttal. As much as I would like to disagree, I am afraid you are correct in "each animal shows different amounts and forms of love. " Cats are more difficult to understand, which is one of the reasons why dogs make a better pet. Families want more of an easy, understandable pet. They listen to directions more, and bond rather quickly to their owner. In this scientific study, dogs barely won between having the company of a cat, but yet they still won 1). As for dogs attacking cats, that may be true, however, there are some instances where dogs are completely friendly towards felines 2). Dogs can be trained more efficiently to attack or not to attack, yet again it depends on who the owner is. At least you can actually trust a dog not get in too much trouble, or have respect for human beings. Also, I would like to point out that you yourself have two dogs as pets, not mentioning having any cats. Cats are evil and manipulative, and you happened to agree with me. They are more violent than dogs, more aggressive. Another reason humans cannot have cats as pets, they're so difficult to control, and once they get into that habit of biting and scratching, its hard to get them out of it. These are some of the reasons why cats are more aggressive than dogs, 3). My friend has this very beautiful cat, and every time a friend or outsider of the family nears her, it automatically starts hissing and goes into attack mode. She even scratched her owner in the eye once and the scar remained for a few weeks! This is why there are shows for this stuff, "My Cat From Hell. " Isn't that where cats originated from? 1: . http://www.heraldsun.com.au... 2: . http://www.youtube.com... 3: . http://www.aspca.org... 4: . https://www.google.com...
Dogs are better pets to have than cats

Dogs are wonderful pets to have, I have 2 dogs here at my house and they seem very friendly. But the notion of having dogs labeled as "more friendly and protecting" than cats is completely absurd. I'd say they're equal, but my purpose is to prove that dogs aren't any more loving, loyal, or playful than cats. Let's start with love from an animal, each animal shows different amounts and forms of love. Dogs jump on you and lick you while cats simply lay on your lap. They behave differently, but there's no way to prove that "dogs are more loving than cats". They both have loving personalities and signs of affection. There have also been many cases of "cat protections" from intruders. These remarkable and rare cats unbelievably fight crime and fend off burglars from their owner's home. Dogs are more likely to attack, sure, but no one is to say that it would be impossible for a cat to defend the fort. . http://www.mnn.com... Also, there's nothing that proves that dogs are any more playful than cats. This is actually an aspect that cats and dogs share most of the time, they both have an obsession over moving objects. As you can see in this youtube video: . http://www.youtube.com... About cats being "evil and manipulative", this can be very true in some cases. .. .but certain breeds of dogs have an owner attack rate of all breeds of cats combined! (pitbulls, terriers, etc). Not all dogs are evil, I have a pitbull and great dane at my house but statistically owners are more prone to dog attacks than cat attacks, and of course dogs attack cats all the time: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Dogs are better pets to have than cats

It is the facts and evidence that allow me to say such things. I will begin with stating how dogs are loyal, friendly, and trustworthy. How, unlike cats, can protect you from any intruder, and that dogs are just playful in every way possible - especially puppies. Point two is the mentioning of cats being evil and manipulative, taking their owners for advantage and also not making very good pets in the first place.
Dogs are better pets to have than cats

It does not matter if cats are more intelligent than dogs, the important aspect is which makes a better pet. In fact in this case it is worse to be smarter, if there were a house fire, cats would sneak quietly out of the home when a dog would wake everyone up and alert them. Take a look at this incident 1). Usually cats are more self absorbed in them selves to acknowledge their owner's safety. Most of the time it is cats being saved from fires than a dog. Why do you think policemen and firemen have dogs as trained pets? They tend to care about people, willing to risk their life to save someone. Or busting a criminal who contains illegal drugs. Dogs make the world a little safer than without them. Cats are considered from Hell due to the fact of being associated with witches. In the late 1800s, back in Salem, crazy old ladies would often be taking care of cats, usually black. Eventually, these crazy women would be found guilty with the charge of witchcraft. This is why cats are to be bad luck, especially if one ever is to cross your path 2). There are so many cat superstitions, it seems as if they will never be fully understood. Dogs on the other hand, can be fully understood with their goofy ways and neat tricks in store. It is said that dogs replace having a child, to get to know how it is like for young parents to take care of something and to be ready for a kid in the near future 3). It's an easier way to figure out what you want before following through with anything major. Also, dogs are great at detecting health problems, any serious illness, and with that in mind, will sick by your side 4). (Click the next page over too). Dogs are very loyal, it's one of their key skills. Next time you are deciding between getting a dog or a cat, think about it and choose wisely. A dog is the way to go - it will protect you, stick by, and be the cutest little thing ever. They become apart of your family, there is a special bond between dogs and their owners. Please vote for Pro, and thank you to my opponent for debating such a good debate! :) 1: http://www.catholic.org... 2: http://www.todayifoundout.com... 3: http://www.sheknows.com... 4: http://animal.discovery.com...
Christianity is the one true religion

Now then. I have realized this. Con has won. Why? He keeps asking me why Christianity is the one true religion and I try to explain in various ways. But he mainly wants to discuss the resurrection and if it can be proven. I have mentioned more than once that the resurrection cannot be proven with history or science, but by faith. All we know is that the body of Christ was no longer in the tomb where he resided. He was gone. Vanished. So faith alone is the only answer. I'm sorry that I have merely wasted time my opponent, who was strong in his defenses. I apologize to him and tell you to vote for Con simply because he has easily won this debate. Thank you Con. It was a nice debate. :)
Christianity is the one true religion

What I am saying is that you have not investigated all the possible religions of the world, so how can you eliminate the possibility that another religion maybe true. It is like me stating that I can prove god exists without having the ability to search the whole universe to prove that he does not exist, I cannot do this, so that is why I declare that is it is improbable that he does exist instead of declaring that he does not exist. Your burden is to prove that Christianity is the one true religion, thus far you have not. I have pointed out several reasons why you cannot do this. Your belief is in faith, which is claiming to know things that are not true or that have been proved. This is the core of the debate. Can you prove beyond faith (claiming to know things that are not true) that Christianity is the one true religion? I believe that you have already hinted that you cannot. I kept this simple due to time restraints. I am still very interested to still hear the proof that Christianity is the one true religion, how can the PRO know this beyond faith?
Novice Presidential Debate

(Pretend I’m the moderator) The first three domestic policy questions will be generic because a lack of actual questions. They will be: Gun-Control/Military Abortion Outsourcing and the American Economy (Vader) Well, I thank the “Doctor” for his comments. Before I move on to address the questions (which will be banned in the future), I would merely like to point out that no one has ever seen this doctor’s MD. He is a fraud that we all must bear the burden of calling “a relative.” Furthermore, Dr. Cooper doesn’t seem to have an MD either. Does citizens of your planet call themselves “Doctors” as to boost their ego because they lack real friends? Moving on to the questions. Firstly, regarding these “guns” you speak of, though my star destroyer informs me they are similar to blasters. Apparently you use these “guns” to shoot one another, so if I am elected president, we will have an outright ban on any form of “gun.” Instead, we will have Uruk-Hai’s armed with blasters patrolling the streets to maintain order, stationed at every building, and my men will frequently have military displays just so we can feel manly. Dissenters will be taken away. Any sort of rebellion will be crushed (you don’t I can do it? BRING IT.) Your military sucks robot balls. However, for some reason I cannot say better. My Imperial Stormtroopers seem to crap bricks whenever they see a jedi (which I killed) or a rebel enemy (who I strangled) and get shot. A lot. Thankfully, this problem will be easily rectified. Lurtz has informed me that the Uruk-Hai have no fear nor do they feel pain. (Vader gestures to the video (play youtube vid)). http://www.youtube.com... Your military will be completely revamped with Uruk-Hai soldiers outfitted with the latest tech. They will be commanded by us Sith lords, who will take from amongst you the strongest and turn them into the ruling class. My Stormtroopers will be busy subjugating other planets, and as POTUS, I will conquer this galaxy! My pacifist opponent on the other hand has not killed a single alien in his entire existence. He will drive you into the ground! On to the second question regarding abortion. The purpose of the human population is to be one of our sources of Sith soldiers, thus abortion will be banned. Give me an apprentice! On the final question regarding economy, this is also a stupid question. Money will be banned once we have taken over the planet. There is no purpose for money as it will only turn you into future Han Solos, desperate on earning coin. Thus, there will be no money, trading, or buying of any sort. A utopia. My opponents are wussies and their theme song is the song of defeat and wussidom (the state of being wussy). Vote Vader/Lurtz 2013!