BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Thank you KoolKid for deciding to oppose me in this debate, however, by analysing your introductory paragraph, I'm going to assume that you are not going to take this debate seriously. I must warn you my good sir, that I will not hold back on my arguments, which in turn may leave you defenseless, with only an unneccessary sardonic sense of humour to defend you and nothing else. You have been warned. I will present to you my first argument: The Incredible Hulk was a super-hero created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1962, in the comic-book The Incredible Hulk #1. He was first pictured as an anti-hero but soon, became just a superhero. The Hulk has several super powers: 1. The HULK has limitless strength. His strength is subject only to how angry he is. The HULK'S strength has been able to match that of THOR'S, a Norse GOD of ASGARD (basically, a GOD). On two occassions, the Hulk has come close to KILLING Thor, a feat that The Red Bee can most likely not even come close to achieving. 2. The HULK also possesses SUPER-HUMAN speed, on par with THOR'S. He has been known to bound around Earth's atmosphere, in one instance, jumping from America to Mexico in one bound. The Red Bee, physically, is not capable of achieving such a feat. In fact, the Red Bee, after much further analysis, is on par with that of an average human. Comparing the "average human" to the "Hulk" bares results so gapped apart that it's almost pointless comparing the two. 3. The HULK is immune to many forms of poisoning and radiation. He is immune to nuclear blasts, most gaseous substances, and is almost impervious to extreme heat, and extreme cold. If the Red Bee were to be put in extreme heat and/or extreme cold, he would most likely freeze/burn to death, along with his precious bee, Michael. The same goes for if you were to put the Red Bee in a nuclear wastezone. He would most likely get radiated and die soon thereafter. 4. The HULK can survive in outerspace for a certain amount of time, without suffocating. The Red Bee, (an average human being with the help of a specially trained bee) cannot achieve the same feat, seeing as how he is on par with that of the average human. This concludes my first argument. I now await your next point.
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Thank you bich. I accept your claim that the Hulk is the most powerful super-hero of all time. I will be arguing that the Red Bee is the most powerful superhero of all time. Here is some information if you need it nub: #9. The Red Bee Appearing in the 1940s in "Hit Comics #1″ the Red Bee was basically your powerless vigilante type character. However instead of wearing a cool costume like Batman or the Shadow, the Red Bee opted for a red pirate shirt with pink pouffy sleeves and red and yellow striped tights. However, what made the Red Bee truly lame wasn't just his eyesore of a costume, but the fact that he fought crime with the aid of a trained bumble bee! That's right! You read it right! A trained bumble bee named Michael that lived in a compartment in the Red Bee's belt buckle. I'm serious! A frikkin' trained bumble bee… named Michael! So unless the Red Bee's villains were allergic to bee stings he wasn't much good. It may not surprise you that they also killed off the Red Bee in the pages of "All Star Squadron" but, again, the Red Bee remains to "bee" a fan favourite to this day.
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Hello, I would like to present the argument, that the Incredible Hulk, a comic-book superhero created by Stan Lee, is the most powerful super-hero ever created, in the entire history of comic books. Before we begin, I would like to set a few definitions: POWERFUL; adj. of extreme strength and power MOST; adj. greatest in amount or degree HISTORY; noun; the span in which something has existed COMIC-BOOK; noun; a document that contains visual content pertaining to a fantastical subject EVER; adv; at any given time CREATED; verb; to bring into existence I would prefer not to have any trollish or roguish comments/arguments/counter-arguments of any kind. I would like to keep this debate as LEGITIMATE as possible. (sorry trolllers, maybe next time). All-in-all looking forward to a good fight.
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Well, I didn't think you were worth my time in ROUND 4, so I didn't reply, seeing as how you're just being a downright smart-a**. And I guess I was right. You DIDN'T submit an argument in ROUND 4. LET ME CONCLUDE THIS DEBATE WITH THE FOLLOWING: My opponent has not taken any of the debate rounds seriously (R1; INTRODUCED A SUPERHERO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE SAME BALLPARK AS THE HULK R2; ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MY ROUND 2 ARGUMENT WAS "GOOD" AND DID NOTHING MORE THAN TO CONGRATULATE ME. R3; AFTER I INTRODUCED A SENSIBLE QUESTION FOR HIM TO ANSWER, HE SIMPLY FLIPPED ME OFF AND REJECTED THE OFFER, TOO LAZY TO PUT IN THE EFFORT TO EVEN MAKE A COMPLETELY NEW ARGUMENT. R4; I FORFEITED ROUND 4, BELIEVING THAT MY OPPONENT WAS NOT WORTH MY TIME. HE RESPONDS BY FORFEITING IT AS WELL.) Another thing I should point out, is that I did state in the 1st round that I preferred not to have any trollers. I pointed this out for everyone to see. My opponent decides to accept the debate, and decides to do the one thing I specifically pointed out NOT to do. IN CONCLUSION, the HULK can beat the RED-BEE and my point still stands (seeing as how my opponent has not proven me wrong): The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Who would win? well, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying who will win this debate? Coz I'm not so sure about that. It depends on my 50% chance of luck to win this debate. With the scenario between The Red Bee and the Hulk, well I don't have that much a vivid imagination, so fvck off. I cbf imagining who would win. ~KoolKid
The Incredible Hulk is the most powerful super-hero in the history of comic books.

Thank you for your relatively short argument/counter-argument (although, in all truth sir, it is more like an act of surrender) I will present a fairly short counter: In a scenario in which The Red Bee and the Hulk meet, and fight to the death, who would win? Take in mind, the size, the powers, what they've managed to achieve, who they've managed to defeat in batttle. Forget that this is a debate for a minute and answer the question truthfully: Who would win?
Ocra's in Captivity

As previously stated, most Orcas in captivity were bred in captivity and not taken from pods in the wild. While it is understood that they do not get the amount of activity in captivity as they would in the wild, again the benefits stated before in my previous argument outweigh this downside. And these animals are usually peaceful even in captivity and only under rare circumstances do they attack and kill their handlers. These Orcas are also trained and enjoy to perform just as one might train a pet animal.
Ocra's in Captivity

To warn you guys I will may put some dolphin and whales rules. Most whales/dolphins swim ten times more a day in the wild then they do in captivity. They swim in pools which causes them to be less active when it comes to swimming. Most whales have been taken from pods when young. They are helpless when they are in pools, they can't do much. They are like human kids and parents. The parents told the kids to do something or not do something and the whales are told what to do or not to do. They get frustrated because they only been commanded by family pods. This frustration, like I have said once before may be acted out on and you don't know what that animal is going to act on! My next round will be on there natural ability!!! Sites: http://us.whales.org...
Ocra's in Captivity

I believe that Orca's should not be in captivity because they are wild animals. Like every animal that is wild. We do not keep them as pets. Orca's get very deadly when held captive. They get frustrated and act out on it by killing or hurting people. If you see them in the wild or free they are friendly and not aggressive, unless hunting or protecting. Otherwise the magnificent creatures are harmless and dossal.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!

Reasons that Stalingrad was important:-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil.-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties[1]-This was the largest defeat for Germany[2]-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axisKursk did not have as much of an effect on the outcome of WWII as Stalingrad did. Although Kursk was the largest tank battle in history and ended all hopes of Germany surviving WWII, Kursk did not influence WWII in the way that Stalingrad did. The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in WWII.What would have happened if Germany had won the battle of Stalingrad:Had Germany won at Stalingrad, the Red Army would most likely have been entirelydestroyed in the process. This is largely because Stalin was prepared to sacrifice everythingin order to save Stalingrad. Had Germany won the battle of Stalingrad they would have gained access to unlimited quantities of oil (the forces sent to the Caucasus were forced to retreatfrom the oil fields because of the German encirclement at Stalingrad). A German victory at Stalingrad would have almost definitely won the war for Germany. Britain and the Soviet Union would most likely have been crushed.What would have happened if Germany had won the battle of Kursk:Had Germany won at Kursk, Germany would still have probably lost the war. On the eastern frontalone, Germany was heavily outnumbered. With fresh troops from America pouring into theEuropean Theater, Germany would have been overwhelmed. A German victory at Kursk would not have won them the war in the east. Conclusion:By 1943, Germany simply didn't have the manpower and resources for victory. In 1942 however,Germany was still strong. Without the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Kursk would never have happened. In terms of effecting the outcome of WWII, Stalingrad stands above all other battles.I await arguments from my opponent.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.history.com...
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

Hello. I am Jordana Brewster. You may know me from such movies as Fast and Furious and TV shows such as Chuck. I argue that Raptor Jesus is blasphemous. I offer one reason why: his prayer. Our Raptor, Who art in /h/eaven, shopped be Thy face; Thy donations come, Thy posts be done in /b/ as it is in /h/eaven. Give us this day our daily Bridget; and forgive us our trolling as we forgive those who troll against us, and lead us not into f****try, but deliver us from /fur/ry. In the name of the Moot, the Raptor, and the Holy Server, Amen. My opponents burden is to prove that Raptor Jesus is somehow NOT blasphemous. And by the way, a definition: adj. Impiously irreverent.
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

I'm glad PRO has stayed positive and hasn't degraded into pointless ad hominens as they usually do! Its been a good debate! Firstly I'd like to point out that my comment which you refer to has been taken out of context - what was said was actually substantially more: "Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy, it is NOT the case that Raptor-Jesus is a legitimate instance of such" For example - one can write a test, thus the point is to pass the test. But you can fail to pass said test, therefore even though the point may have been to pass, it was not a legitimate instance of passing. However I do realize the potential confusion created by the comment so perhaps it would have been more sensible to offer the following comment in its place: "the point of Raptor-Jesus is to belittle Jesus-Christ" Continuing on - I am happy to see PRO's reformation of the term Blasphemy, although I still do not think her argument goes through. As PRO points out, when extended, blasphemy is also the "the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God", and possibly, "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless"; to which PRO concluded: "There doesn't have to be a god to be blasphemed". This seems to me to be a misinterpretation on behalf of PRO. The first definition -the crime of assuming to be God- still clearly needs God to be a legitimate instance of Blasphemy. The second definition actually says the same thing - only discretely so. "Irreverent behavior towards anything sacred, priceless". As noted, Raptor-Jesus is an attempt to belittle a specific sacred or priceless thing - Jesus-Christ. Following from PRO's expanded definition, I could technically Blaspheme anything that has been established as sacred or priceless, and of this point I do not disagree. What I DO disagree with is the specific instance of what Raptor-Jesus Blasphemes. For Raptor-Jesus' irreverence to be complete, we would still need to establish that Jesus-Christ is a sacred or priceless thing - for which we still need God. Thus its seems that the second definition, although it initially appears innocent, in reality discretely expresses a need for an established entity to which one Blasphemes; an entity called 'God'. Consequently it seems that even though the definitions may have shed some additional light onto the concept of Blasphemy - it still remains the case that a great burden of proving God lies with those who wish to claim Raptor-Jesus of being a legitimate instance of Blasphemy. Anyways - it was an orderly and good-natured debate! Thanx; Remi
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

First of all, I would like to apologize for my approach on this debate. And second, I would like to offer a new stance. Blasphemy- the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God. Blasphemy- irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com...... There doesn't have to be a god to be blasphemed. Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy..." My opponent stated this fact very clearly, and as I have shown that there does not have to be a god that has to be blasphemed upon (the def. states anything sacred or priceless), my opponent has essentially agreed that Raptor Jesus is indeed blasphemous. Vote for Jordana.
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

Thank you for realizing the next phase in the debate! Makes things go much smoother! your argument for the existence fails for two primary reasons: (i) Was the temperature of the Earth set at where it is because God knew we would like it that way, or did we evolve to fit Earth's climate? The Universe is immense - there are literally thousands upon thousands of planets that the exact right distance from another star and are the right size and chemical composition to support life; Earth is no coincidence. to claim that this planet is the only planet that can potentially support life, or the best planet to support life is horribly Heliocentric. Going on too long about Earth in your manner reminds me greatly of Voltaire's 'Dr. Pangloss', with his infamous phrase: "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds". http://www.youtube.com... (ii) Even if your Heliocentricity was correct, and this is the best of all possible worlds, there is still absolutely NO reason to think Earth is the product of the Judeo-Christian God, or even a supernatural power of any sort. If we apply the principle of Parsimony to a list of possible candidates (for 'creator') there is no clear winner. It could be equally likely to Be God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ra, Mithra, Vishnu, Aliens, a giant crustacean, a scientific explanation, what-have-you. Thus it seems that since not only is our world not the perfect conception of what a life-bearing planet could be (think Tsunamis, earthquakes, ect...), and because there is NO reason to think that even if it was the case that the Earth was perfect, that a GOD, specifically Jesus, created or had a hand in its realization. Thus my position remains that without a GOD there is NOTHING for Raptor-Jesus to Blaspheme.
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

So the burden is then on me to prove that God is real, or a god which can be blasphemed to, is real. Fair enough. If I can prove that there IS some sort of god to be blasphemed upon, then I win this debate, since my opponent offers no counterattack on how Raptor Jesus is NOT blasphemous. All he does is argue that Raptor Jesus is not a legit form of blasphemy. God exists simply because of the way the Earth was formed to it's exact calculations, and it's unique way in supporting life. Although there is no actual, real, or tangible proof of God, the Earth is all the proof we need. It has the perfect temperature to support all beings on Earth, thus it is the perfect distance from the Sun, which is more than a complete coincidence. It would be implausible to think that a random series of incidents suddenly created the perfect planet to sustain life. So with that, I find no argument on how Raptor Jesus is NOT spitting on God's name, so vote for Jordana.
Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

Firstly I mean no disrespect when I say that I have no clue who you -Jordanna Brewster- is; 'Teh Fast & Teh Furrious' is not overly conducive towards intellectualism... (in response to your 'Troy McLure' introduction). Anyhow..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Blasphemousness of Raptor-Jesus. Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy, it is NOT the case that Raptor-Jesus is a legitimate instance of such. Blasphemy is an "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things" [1]. Thus although we are free to use the word blasphemy in our common language, for an instance to actually be considered such requires two things: (i) an 'impious utterance or action' towards: (ii) GOD - or a 'sacred thing' which is a manifestation of GOD. Thus despite the clear mocking nature of Raptor-Jesus (and especially his delicious prayer) - for us to consider it to be LEGITIMATE blasphemy one would need to prove the existence of, or manifestation of, the entity which is to receive said Blasphemy - that is, you must prove the existence of GOD to prove an authentic instance of Blasphemy towards it. Therefore the burden of proof is NOT on me to disprove Raptor-Jesus' Blasphemy... [1] <http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

Your sources have people that say evolution is proven because chimpanzees act like humans. I know cats that act human too. All I have to do to win this debate is prove that a theory is not scientific law. They can be very convincing theories, but still are not proven by the scientific field as of yet. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I especially like the second entry, "An idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. " Again as I have said, it is possible that it is true, but not 100% guaranteed, scientific law.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

I'm afraid that you are sadly mistaken about scientific theories. Scientific theories, until they are replaced they can be considered laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics. 'Therefor (sic) the only way to prove it definitely would be to take a time machine and watch it occur over time. ' You did not read my point three, did you. It clearly states that we've seen it. You have 1. Failed to engage with any of my points 2. Directly contradicted my evidence. Thank you to Con for a great debate, and I hope you vote Pro. Thank you.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

I believe my opponent has tried to cut me off with a very small time limit. I say evolution is not proven because it is a theory. Theories, as we all know, are hypothesis on certain things. It is not scientific fact. Therefor the only way to prove it definitely would be to take a time machine and watch it occur over time. Mutations are not evolution. Humans have not been around long enough to notice evolution in any animals either.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

My job in this debate will be to rebut your evidence and present mine. First, a definition Evolution A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Point 1 Our family tree can be traced back to Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. (he was probably a bacteria) From there, we lose track until Lucy, Australopithecus. http://upload.wikimedia.org...... This is startlingly human-like. However, scientists have carried out test which show that she knuckle-walked, just like a gorilla (you can see the rounded fingers), and probably had fur, just like an ape. Point 2 Our genome is like a map of who and where we came from. We share 99.8% of our genome with apes (and 99.99% with pirates!), therefore it seems almost self-evident to assume that we must be close relatives of apes. Point 3 We've seen it happen. We've started, and are continuing an experiment known as the e-coli project. Basically, it consists of taking bacteria, and waiting. A long time. And sure enough, the generation 50000 bacteria grow about 100 times faster than Generation 1. (1)http://humanorigins.si.edu...... (2)http://myxo.css.msu.edu...... (PS, thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. It's going to be interesting!)
Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transferred to the legal contracts defining civil unions." So you encourage Civil Unions over legitimate and (ultimately) moral marriage? You state that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution, but yet that civil union are a perfect example of a legal institution? In essence, the two are the same. Marriage is a commitment to another, no matter what the sex. By dividing it up, you are being as discriminatory as you accuse the Government of being. In fact, a civil Unions is often defined as heterosexuals whom just haven't legally married, yet. Furthermore, you advocate the rights of parties of civil unions (gay marriage, for example), but you state that peaceful religious beliefs are intolerable? Please. Morality in marriage is intolerable just because a pastor typically is the one to conduct ceremonies? What about Justices of the Peace? They also have the authority to conduct marriage. That would exclude any 'religious' sense. By abolishing marital status, you would be breaking that 14th Amendment just as much as you claim the Government is by not ceding the same rights to Civil Unions. Legally Married couples have rights. The majority of people are legally married - who are you to say that the rights that these people have gained with their moral status should be abolished? Marriage is a practice as old as humanity itself. Abolishing its legal status would be an outrage among legally married people. In order to advocate the rights of one group, one Cannot impede upon the rights of another, which is what you are suggesting. Rather, any form of marriage or union should be recognized as so before the law. Lastly, what about moral and societal implications? A homosexual couple cannot naturally nurture or reproduce children. Homosexual marriage is of immorality and breaks all the laws of nature. I agree that people should be allowed to make their choice, but they can also make that choice knowing the consequences of Civil Marriage rather than Legal marriage. To discourage morality would be to encourage the downfall of humanity, step by step.