BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman could beat Wolverine

I am taking the side of Batman in this debate for several reasons. In this scenario, we will assume both heroes have had very little time to prepare for this fight, because it would be giving an extreme advantage to Batman if he could make preparations. Also the fight would take place in a city, as that is realistic for both heroes. I believe that Batman's intellect and ability to adapt to his environment and opponent will be a primary reason for his victory. Batman is undeniably one of the greatest tacticians of all time. He has defeated many opponents who I would argue as being much more powerful than Wolverine. These foes include Superman, Bane, and Darkseid. He also defeated Slade Wilson, A.K.A. Deathstoke, who possesses very similar regenerative abilities to Wolverine. Batman doesn't kill, at least not in recent renditions, so he doesn't need to kill his opponent in order to beat them. Batman has pushed the limit of the human body, so he I would argue that he is physically stronger than Wolverine. This in mind, Batman could find a way to restrain Wolverine. Batman's other great ally is his stealth. Batman wouldn't find himself in a situation he can't get out of. If he started losing the upper hand, I believe in his capabilities to evade Wolverine and recuperate. Batman's arsenal of gadgets would also play a major hand in his victory. While stun batarangs and other weapons would have a reduced effect on Wolverine, they would still work to slow his attacks.
Creationism should not be taught in biology class

She has not responded to my rebuttals so I'll take it that all her contentions have been dropped. Therefore, I'll summarize my case once more: When teaching science in public schools it's important to show alternate theories in order to help the students understand and better associate with the topics at hand. For example, in teaching that the world is round it is often also taught that people thought the Earth was flat. The NSTA agrees with showing context as well. This shows that science teachers feel context is important in their teachings. The teaching of creation myths helps to show the context as well as the societal impact of science, therefore it should be taught in biology class.
Evolution is fact

Alright, thanks for debating with me! But first, when I said "fact", I did not mean 100% true and there is no possible way that it could be false. I am simply saying that evolution has enough evidence that theres no reason to not accept evolution. Also, I believe that you mistranslated Google"s definition, but, if you still want to debate, let"s begin! Although, first, let me introduce myself. My name is Daniel, I am 12 years old, and it is very nice to meet you. Evidence --- Vestigial Parts Humans (and other organisms) have chromosomes and body parts/functions that have no to little use in the organism"s current state. For example, humans have goosebumps. Goosebumps are almost useless in human"s current condition, but, if we had more hair, they could be used for scaring predators and other things. It is theorized that we were more ape-like and had more hair on our bodies, making goosebumps actually useful. It is theorized less hairy "humans" strived in their environment because of lice and other dangers that came along with lot"s of body hair, but our "goosebumps" had neutral effects on survival and reproduction, and so they stayed. Some other examples of vestigial structures would be the human"s tailbones, blind cave-dwelling salamander"s eyes, and the Chromosome 2 in humans. But there are definitely many more examples to share. (1) Transitional Fossils Transitional fossils are "Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms." (2). There are many examples of transitional fossils. Although not every single transitional fossil has been found (which is outrageous to demand), enough have been found to conclude that evolution has occurred. We have discovered not only transitional fossils between humans and our more ape-like ancestor, but of many species and families. For example, between the Pakicetus and the Gray Whale was the Aetiocetus. Check out source (2). If you would like to see more examples, I have a source with many different examples of evolution and transitional fossils. Observed evidence of speciation http://www.talkorigins.org... I would just recommend checking this link out, theres not much for me to talk about. In Conclusion, I thank you again for debating evolution with me. I might not be able to respond again for a day or two, but I should be able to get in time before I forfeit. Sites and Sources (In one of the most lazy formats possible): (1) http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu... (2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (3) http://www.talkorigins.org... (I apologize if there are any errors or it is hard to understand, I copy and pasted this after writing it in Google Drive.)
Evolution is fact

In this debate, Pro is the one making a positive claim-- that one cannot reasonably doubt the theory of evolution. Therefore, he has the full burden of proof and is the only one obligated to offer arguments in favor of the resolution. In other words, all I really have to do to win the debate is show that none of Pro's three arguments affirm the resolution. Thus, the opening argument I put forth negating the resolution is actually irrelevant in the context if this debate. And because of that, I concede the Cambrian Explosion argument (not worth the effort, especially given Pro's very thorough job of addressing it). On to the affirmative case... After reading through Pro's defenses of his arguments, it becomes exceedingly clear that all three of them are *logically invalid*. More specifically, they fall into the category of the "Affirming the Consequent" logical fallacy, which generally follows the following syllogistic format: P1: If X, then Y P2: Y C1: Therefore, X "Affirming the consequent related to the generic phrase that "all x are y, but not all y are x" in that the formal fallacy fails to recognise the "not all y are x" part. Its statistical equivalent is confusion of the inverse, where two conditional probabilities are mistaken to be equal when this is not necessarily true." [1] In Pro's case specifically, X represents "the theory of evolution", and Y represents "vestigial structures", "transitional fossils", and "observed speciation". The obvious problem with this is that we can use the same argument to affirm ANY alternative to the theory of evolution (i.e. Biblical Creationism, Aliens using planet Earth as a life simulator, etc.) by simply substituting it into the place of "X". It is most certainly reasonable to doubt a theory which is only supported by logically invalid arguments; if anything, it would be UNreasonable to believe in such a theory. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to doubt the theory of evolution. The resolution is negated. ** I urge any and all voters to keep their personal biases out of this completely... by no objective voting standard can a resolution supported only by logically invalid arguments be considered successfully upheld ** [1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Heaven-Not Real

Unconventional acceptance: I am new here and have yet to have a debate. So, when I saw PapaNolan about to accept this debate I had to jump ahead. Sorry PapaNolan, but I think I have some good ideas for zoooom. And pardon any informalities on my part. Once I am more familiar with how you all do things on here it will run smoother. zoooom: I accept your challenge and plan to outwit you and show you (and our readers) that heaven is real. Unfortunately, I have an evidence final beginning in 30 minutes. So, for this acceptance I will not be formulating any thoughts or arguments. Will you, zoooom, agree to let this initial "acceptance" be for further clarification on your point? I mean, is that all for your point: heaven is not real? I can go from that, but do you want to clarify or expound? Can you give me something more to start with on your position? I believe we have 4 rounds (but I am sure we can wrap this up in two). Again, zoooom (and readers), sorry for the unconventional acceptance, but I wanted to take this topic. Looking forwards to your insights, zoooom. We'll be in touch. - MSP
Homeopathy is a load of crap and it doesn't work.

I appreciate my opponent not forfeiting. Of course, this could just be a ploy to gain an extra three days on writing his argument. My internet died just as the last round was due to be posted and I had to go over to a friend's place to post the round, which thankfully I had properly saved to an external memory device. So while I encourage you to not vote conduct against pro in this debate, since I actually believe him, let this be a lesson in always saving and backing up everything you write. It saves wasting precious debate rounds.
Homeopathy is a load of crap and it doesn't work.

Hello.Unfortunately everything I wrote has just been deleted due to my computer shutting down unexpectedly.Please do not see this as bad conduct. It is purely unlucky on my part (especially as I was nearly finished I had written loads!) Please just ignore this round or just answer however you like and I will re write (god it's going to take ages!) my debate the next round.Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience. Owen
Homeopathy is a load of crap and it doesn't work.

-I'm going to be arguing, that homeopathy (the pseudo scientific idea that using super diluted substances (diluted in water usually so much so that the no remaining molecules of the original substance are left so it's basically water (water in which homeopathy practitioners say has some form of healing power left in it)) you can cure illnesses and diseases. -I'm going to argue there is no or next to no scientific evidence for it (evidence from understanding what goes on in the substances and water or evidence from FAIR, VIABLE, DOUBLE BLIND and UN-BIASED experiments completed by reputable scientists and/or scientific places of study or research.-I will also argue that the techniques and 'medicines' have no effect other than occasionally the placebo effect.Rules:First round isn't just acceptance - please feel free to post your arguments.The burden of proof or overwhelming scientific evidence lies on con/against as I can't PROVE CONCLUSIVELY it doesn't work but it would be possible to show it does. By accepting this debate you are agreeing to that.Citations would be good for any experiments ect.Thank you and I look forward to this debate. Owen
the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs

just bringing this up I didn't say it was Americas fault that Egypt had a coup i was simply stating that our aid going to that country meant nothing because it didn't stop the collapse of their government (we gave the Egyptians military weaponry ) second gathering intelligence is important but it doesn't require sending the army in that what the CIA was founded for and as for guarding raw materials like oil from insurgents and para-military groups thats not intervention in a foreign conflict thats protecting whats ours we paid for it so naturally we want to protect what belongs to us. you think stopping seddam was an accomplishment but that traded one villain for another we killed and evil dictator but no there are insurgents all over that country so we stayed and fought for ten years and lost 4,000 soldiers and didn't even stop the enemy we tried to stop. that and we searched the country there we no weapons of mass destruction so the war started on false causes that and the insurgents attacked while we were there to you said they didn't start to attack untill we left. also i already said im only against our interventionist way of handling foreign relations our military interventions in the wars and conflicts of other countries is a bad thing and it rarely works in our favor. I never said stop having relations with other countries or that im against globalization.
the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs

fist off i don't have anything against a globalized economy. what i am against is the u.s getting involved in the conflicts of other nations. just because there's a global economy doesn't mean that our involvement in the conflicts of other nations is a good thing. Iraq is another good example of this we attacked them after there invasion of Kuwait he was killed and we stayed there for ten years just trying to keep the insurgency from destroying there country but even after we had pulled out of the country there still battling the insurgents and Kurds would that be considered an accomplishment in our relations with Iraq. what about Pakistan and Yemen we launch drone strikes in those countries and in the process killed 3,000 people only 2 percent being high profile targets. our relations with allot of other nations are abysmal for this reason. http://drones.pitchinteractive.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com...
the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs

I believe that in his mind, the resolution reads: the u. s should stay out of foreign affairs militarily. That seems to be the major point my opponent is arguing. Unfortunately, that is not the resolution we are debating. We are debating whether the U. S should stay out of foreign affairs. This not only includes militarily, but also economically, intelligence gathering and influence efforts. This is keeping in mind that the foreign affairs is commonly defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries. My opponent seems to be arguing solely that we should not get involved in military conflicts in other countries. That is a completely different discussion from debating on whether or not the U. S. should stay out of foreign affairs. Perhaps my opponent wants to start a resolution stating that the U. S. should not give aid to other countries financially. Up to this point, my opponent has listed 3 countries in which our aid or military efforts had a negative or null result. Throughout the entire debate I asked my opponent to explain how such a minuscule amount of examples could possibly justify banning our activities in regards to foreign affairs on a global scale, but even now he has failed to do so. Egypt's government collapsing is a reason we should stop all of our foreign affairs on a global scale? That is absurd. My opponent then goes on to say that ". .. as for guarding raw materials like oil from insurgents and para-military groups that's not intervention in a foreign conflict that's protecting what's ours we paid for it so naturally we want to protect what belongs to us. "This statement alone shows my opponents true intentions, which is that he is against intervention in foreign conflicts. This is not the same as involvement in foreign affairs, and this is why we now see him arguing for a resolution that isn't here. I would suggest my opponent create a new debate resolution with a topic more appropriate to his actual position. Taking the position of being against foreign affairs is indeed against globalization, intelligence gathering, influence efforts and political relationships between world leaders. At this point, there is no reason why we should stay out of foreign affairs when in reality my opponent only wishes to stay out of military conflicts, which in itself is an entirely different debate. At this point, there has been no good reasons for stopping our current foreign affair practices as we are currently in a globalized economy and world as a whole.
Abortion should stay legal

Definition Abortion: 'The termination of pregnancy performed in the first 28 weeks of pregnancy' Abortion is a very cruel way to handle with pregnancy yet the women has no right to take abortion. 1) A fetus is created inside the women's and is a unburned creation performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. The fetus inside women is a baby being created. Not only that your killing the baby with Abortion but some women intend to . Die when taking Abortion . They feel more depressed and gain more stress . They could also be sent to prison While taking abortion all these facts I listed above could happen. If I was a women I rather take the pain then die or get sent to jail. When killing a child during the abortion process it is also murder and murder is against the law. This is taking a life away from a innocent child and this also makes a women feel bad. If you don't want the baby you can place it for an adoption for someone else to take care of it. And if you were religious it also counts as killing gods creation and follows part of the seven deadly sins. Rape is not an excuse to kill a human baby. Some couples also have sexual intercourse reproduction and plan on taking the abortion when they were the ones who raised the baby. This is another case on how abortion is murder and how it is not right. We all want a life and we all want to live. Why kill a innocent baby that didn't do any harm? Would you like it if you were a raped baby and your mom killed you? An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. Abortion is also a lot of money. For a first timer the average range is 350-550$. Sure is a lot of money. To conclude abortion is a cruel way to hand with pregnancy Waiting for your argument
Clash of clans easy

Alright, I'll try to prove that this is a game that to some degree requires skill. First of all, yes, the game does take loads of time. This make the player be absent of activities for quite a while. But that does not make the game any easier. 1) Attacking another player requires lots of skill - that is when you don't use the hog rider tactic on max. lvl 9 town halls. A player needs to take everything into account, and get as much loot as possible. For this, the player can put together his own army. You could, ofcourse, look tactics up, but you could do that for any game to make it easier. Generally, an attack can go horribly wrong when a player doesn't do his best to draw out barb king, clantroops and if his troops go the wrong way. 2) Creating your own base is something you should do with alot of care. The base will not work unless you place every defense optimally, and you will often see your base destroyed and loot taken making the game even harder. Gathering 2 million does take time, but a total of 200k will be stolen from you meaning you'll need another 2 attacks, or a day of mining. But 2 million is doable. I'm stuck at gathering 3 million. 3) Lastly, what makes this game kind of a challenge, is that your friends will also have this easy waiting-thing going on. You'll be trying to level up faster than your friends/clanmates, and getting more trophies. There is competition. The player will be changing his own faith by having more succesful attacks, so surpassing a friend is definately possible.
This world should be polluted

Humans cause less than 3% of all greenhouse gasses. Animals are mostly responsible for their own extinctions. Some animals are supposed to go extinct! Who are we to say we can control the events of evolution and extinction? If pandas refuse to mate quickly enough to populate the planet then screw them, let them die out. The world's ecosystems change over time. Species that adapt thrive. Species that do not adapt, like those panda fu%$*ers, die out. character limit too small
Frozen is better than all the crap you watch

Rebuttal"Frozen forever"IS that even an argument?!?!Oh well. Clearly, I have not only shown that Frozen is not better than all the crap we watch, but also that Pro is an offensive, unoriginal debater who deserves to be reported for the following:-plagiarizing-offensive language-wasting the time of serious debaters-being a jerk-all of the above repeated multiple timesVote Con! swag
Frozen is better than all the crap you watch

As you all can tell, Pro just posted the same thing in two rounds. Personally, I think Pro set up some bot to automatically post. Everyone should report this profile and contact the admins or mods for the banning of this person. hd1997 is disgusting in my opinion. Of all the 9 debates she has had, none of them show any effort to even try and properly debate. People like this are wasting the time of good honest DDO members. Everyone should immediately vote Con and give Con all 7 points to show that Pro does not deserve even a single point. Then, they should report this person right afterwards. For those who think I sound harsh, I have one thing to say to you : what if this happened to you? What if u want a serious debate on a topic that is passionate to you, then your opponent turns out to be someone like this. It is just disappointing and very frustrating. Vote Con if you do not support what Pro is doing on DDO!Swagmasterpooswag
Death of an animal after an attack.

I'm not quiet sure of what's happening with con and if she is still with this debate but I will make small arguments. These culling's are not to the degree that con has put it when searching up the culling of animals in Australia I was only really able to find the controlling of some animal population (animals that are not from Australia often create problems for native creatures and the environment). These stories seemed to have only showed up very little and can be dramatised by the media.
Death of an animal after an attack.

You said that these animals are only killed if they attack a person so we would have to see the number of animal attacks in Australia. Snakes: With 41 recorded deaths between 1980 and 2009, snake deaths in Australia average out at less than two per year. Spiders: Nobody in Australia has died from a spider bite since 1979 after the successful introduction of antivenom for all native species. Sharks*: Accounted for 25 deaths between 2000 and (March) 2012 in Australia, about 2 a year. Crocodiles: Historically, crocodiles account for less than one death per year here in Australia, although that is increasing slightly as the crocodile population rises following the ban on crocodile hunting in 1971. Blue Ringed Octopus: Just 3 recorded deaths in the last century. Stonefish: One unconfirmed death by stonefish in 1915. Cone Snails: I could find no recorded deaths from cone snails in Australia whatsoever. Killer Jellyfish: Jellyfish account for (at time of writing) 66 deaths since records began in 1883. The box jellyfish was responsible for 64 deaths, and the Irukandji the other two. It sounds a lot, but still less than one death per year, more like just half a death per year. Link: http://www.bobinoz.com... Albeit alot of these animals cannot be hunted down the kill streak is quite low so Australia's need to hunt these animals down would also be a bit on the not really needed side. There has been talks of shark culling on the coasts but it has been scrapped. My point is animal attacks are not very common as of their need to kill these animals. You can say it is unfair for animals to be killed on nothing more than a basic instinct but alot of the time they will not be hunted down the people living in the area are most commonly given warnings on the creatures.
Death of an animal after an attack.

I don know if there is a whole legislation on the matter or anything... I'm going of observation from Australian media. Recently, tonight actually, I saw on the news of two women who were jogging on Fraser Island and two dingo's chased them and bit them on the ankles except one woman actually got a bad puncture anyways they were talking about trackers finding the dingo's so they can be killed, so tourists aren't at harm however my point is that's the dingoes habitat, they shouldn't have to control themselves or hide in the own environment simply because of tourists