BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified

1. Why are Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses opposed to vaccination? (by the way, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.) Are there other types of Christians that oppose vaccines? (Christian in a broad term) How many parents of these said religions oppose childhood vaccinations? 2. How many children actually get these rare yet serious side effects? 3. Do people continue to get vaccinations made before 1999? 4. What scientific studies prove your second contention, subpoint B? 5. Are you advocating that instead of vaccinating, children should choose to strengthen their immune systems naturally? 6. Aren't very young children (under 1 year old) especially susceptible to disease, especially without vaccinations? 7. Do you believe that if a large percentage of the population favors/opposes something, the government should do as the population says? 8. Is one of the duties of the government to protect its citizens? 9. You state "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children". So, it is completely alright if a parent has a child with a life-threatening (but curable with proper medical care) condition but refuses medical care for that child, correct? Should the government intervene when parents deprive their children of food?
JLA vs Avengers

In the end, having Doctor Strange and Scarlet Witch ensure victory for the Avengers. Doctor Strange would not be affected by Zatanna's power and would be able to stop time for all the members of the Justice League. Doctor Strange draws his power in part from the universes ambient magical energy, he could definitely do it. Scarlet Witch would then simply change the odds for various instances to end all of them (chances of spontaneous combustion, chances of becoming brain-dead, chances of becoming a cat [which she has actually done], etc). If you add Manifold to the mix, he could teleport Superman into a Red Sun, or just chuck everyone light-years away. While the Justice League IS full of 'powerhouse' characters, the magical elements that the Avengers have on their team would nullify their efforts.
JLA vs Avengers

Martian Manhunter has the same abilities as vision and more. He can also just phase a put his arm through the hulk or sentry's head or organs. Zatanna would be able to alter anyone's thoughts and calm them down. Captain Atom could absorb any energy manipulator powers. Any characters that can't survive in space could be thrown in space by the Green Lanterns. Batman would use most of his plans to maim the JLA on Avengers similar to JLA(quicksilver=flash etc). Superman would be very powerful. Flash could rewind time before the JLA lose and continue doing so until they win. Black lightning could short circuit any electronic equipment(Ant mans helmet, Iron mans suit etc). Cyborg could use his laser cannon. Steel with his suit and hammer would be very helpful to the JLA. Firestorm would be useful too. I thank you again for debating. I enjoyed debating with you. I can't wait for your last statement.
JLA vs Avengers

1. The Flash may be very fast, but Doctor Strange has the ability to stop/slow time, and has the ability to control others through telepathy. He could freeze Flash for the duration of the fight, or even make him fight against the JLA. Flash has also been seen on occasion to beat himself via tripping. Scarlet Witch could change the chances of him tripping to an amount that he would knock himself out of the fight. 2. John Stewart may have the power of the ring, but the Avengers possess an all-but-unstoppable force: the Mjolnir. Thor's hammer cannot be moved by anyone other than Thor (and few exceptions i.e Odin) and John Stewart would be powerless to stop himself from being pummeled by it. Also, Stewart is only human. His appendages can be cut off. If Wolverine got close enough, he could cut off his hand. 3. Hal Jordan is the same story for John Stewart. 4. You claim Martian Manhunter was cured of his weakness to fire, I find that claim invalid unless you can show a source. In the DC 'Trial By Fire' storyline (JLA #84-89), it is explained that the Guardians of the Universe placed a psychosomatic (mental disorder with physical symptoms) fear of fire into the Martian race to prevent them from devolving into a former aggressive state. An exploding arrow from Hawkeye should be enough to weaken him into a state that he could be defeated. Avenger member Moon dragon has the ability to induce mental illusions, and could simply make Martian Manhunter think he was engulfed or fighting flaming entities. Moon dragon is a very powerful telepath, able to control an entire planets population, communicate with Galactus, and force Thor to become her personal love slave. Doctor Druid also can manipulate fire. 5. Zatanna is simply not a strong enough sorceress compared to the magical powers some Avengers have. Doctor Strange could severely stunt the effectiveness of her abilities. The Vision, an android, would be impervious to her powers anyways and be able to dispatch her with relative ease. The primary difficulty in defeating the JLA is Superman. While he does hold back against his opponents and generally refuses to kill, he himself is very hard to incapacitate. Theoretically, the Vision could defeat him by becoming transparent. He could phase a part of his body into Superman and then partially re-materialize. If done at the head or vital organ, Superman would be knocked out. Alternatively, Manifold could create a portal and simply oust Superman from the fight by sending him back or forward in time. Characters like The Sentry, Sunspot, Thor and Hulk (who also absorbs solar energy) could possibly defeat him in a straight match (Sentry being the most likely).
JLA vs Avengers

There are 5 people who whould take large tolls on the Avengers. 1.Flash=He is faster than all the Avengers letting him take out many in seconds. Controlling the speed force is huge advantage and hard to defeat. 2.John Stewart=Being a green lantern would mean he could kill many. People like hulk, he could throw them in space. 3.Hal Jordan=Same as John Stewart. 4.Martian Manhunter=With no obvious weakness, the ability to phase and telepathy, he could kill many of the Avengers. Before you say he has a weakness to fire he was eventually cured of that. 5.Zatanna=She can read minds and alter a persons thoughts and actions. She can also create large-scale illusions. After you come back, I would like to hear some of your ideas so I can come back.
JLA vs Avengers

To start off my returning statements, let me remind you what this debate is arguing; Who would be the winner in a fight, the JLA or the Avengers. Better teamwork does not necessarily mean a stronger team. Adding on to that, later on in the Avengers movie they ended up working quite well together, fending off an endless horde of Chitauri. As for Civil War and World War Hulk, Civil War's storyline primarly had Iron Man turn against the Avengers; an episode similar to the many times Superman has turned bad (Injustice, every time Superman fights Batman, Justice League #8 when they come in conflict with Martian Manhunter) and in the end, Iron Man actually did what the Hulk asked when he fired the satellites at him. The Avengers have more female superheroes than what you outlined, The Wasp was part of the original Avengers, Scarlet Witch (Who could actually destroy all of the JLA by herself--she has the ability to change the probability of things happening; say the probability of all of the JLA dropping over dead is 1/676,348,348,595,224. She could change the probablity to 5/1, meaning they would all die. In the Ultimate universe, they change it so she must know the 'math', that is, the original probability of something happening.), Tigra, Spider-Woman, Firestar, Power Woman, Storm from the X-Men, Rogue also from X-Men, and many others. Rogue steals powers, so she could potentially kill many of the stronger DC characters. But in all actuality, the amount of women in the respective groups don't really effect the outcome of a fight between the two. Even if the JLA do have more members than the Avengers, a lot of them would not make much of an impact in a fight (Maxima, Vibe, Bloodwynd, Argent, Snapper Carr, Steel II, General Glory, Green Arrow, Aquaman (assuming they aren't fighting by the ocean)) Another problem is the ratio of damage one character could do to the other team. Wolverine could easily down 10-20 other superheroes before being stopped, Superman is prone to holding back against his opponents compared to the Hulk and Red Hulk, who would mercilessly wreck whoever stood in their path.
JLA vs Avengers

I admit some of your facts were surprising, so I bring up more points. The JLA also has strong characters Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, Zatanna, Flash and more. Now for new points. 1.Better teamwork As seen in the Avengers movie, Civil war and world war hulk, the Avengers aren't that great at working together. But the JLA are very loyal to each other helping on many occasions(Crisis on earth). 2.Woman The JLA has more and more powerful woman then the Avengers. Avengers only Black widow, Mrs Marvel and she hulk. But the JLA has hawk girl, Zatanna, Wonder Woman, Vixen, Black canary and few others. 3.More members The JLA has more members than the Avengers.
JLA vs Avengers

Starting with your first point; Each group has had a very large amount of superpowered persons in their groups many iterations with the members changing often. Counting all members the two teams are comparably close in number of super powered individuals. Moving on to your second point about faster heroes; According to MARVEL's website, Thor can travel at speeds up to Mach 32 ( < 24,000 mph) using his hammer Mjolnir. Plus using Odinpower, his speed can go much greater. Another MARVEL superhero, Sentry, has been shown to fly to the Sun and back to Earth in minutes and able to catch bullets out of midair. Superman can only fly slightly faster than lightspeed. Finally, rebutting your third point on smarter heroes, A direct competitor to Batman in smarts is the Black Panther, a hero who was offered a position in the Illuminati (No joke). He is also a master of prep time, and has also studied every fighting style known to man; very comparable to Batman. Moving on, Mister Fantastic, who was once a member of the Avengers was once said to be the 7th smartest man in the world. Other smart minds in the Avengers are Henry Pym (invented a suit that can shrink and enlarge your form, a helmet that can communicate with other life forms, and Ultron-- one of the strongest beings the Avengers ever faced.), Tony Stark (the Iron Man suits), and Bruce Banner (The Gamma Bomb). Going even beyond these points, the Avengers have some of the strongest superheroes of all time; The Sentry, The Hulk, Thor, and Doctor Strange.
Advertisement is harmful

"Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world." Everything today costs money. Does that make everything harmful? "Online advertising alone is believed to be worth $24 billion a year." That still doesn't make advertizing harmful. "Almost all public space has some advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the cinema, are also filled with adverts." This fact doesn't support Pro's position. "Whilst this helps companies sell their products, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer, many believe that this huge amount of advertising can be harmful." I need some proof that shows that people believe this to be harmful. "Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk." Children are open to many risks. Also, I need some proof that children can be at risk. Conclusion: My opponent shows that a lot of money is spent on adds. He fails to show that the fact that money is spent on adds makes adds harmful.
Advertisement is harmful

Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world. Online advertising alone is believed to be worth $24 billion a year. Almost all public space has some advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the cinema, are also filled with adverts. Whilst this helps companies sell their products, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer, many believe that this huge amount of advertising can be harmful. It may make people want too much, or things that they cannot have, or it might make them feel inadequate when they don't have something. Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk.
End the Federal Reserve of America.

I have. That's why I say it's a conspiracy theory. You're wrong about how it operates. The reasons you stated are wrong because that's not how it operates. The Fed doesn't print money, they don't invent it out of thin air, and they have government bonds for the money they do give out. They don't have control over the nation's money supply, they lend money in accord with monetary policy. Money is printed by a purely government agency. The Fed can ask for more money to lend it out, but that would be part of a larger monetary policy that the fed doesn't unilaterally decide, and it's still the government printing the money and they still must account for the money. The fact is, you are proposing a secret cabal of money cheats who secretly control the money supply for their own ends, and they could print themselves too much money and end up causing the entire economy to collapse under their own greed... that's a conspiracy theory. The Fed is pretty boring. They lend money to banks from the government, in accordance with monetary policy, in order to make sure the money supply is neither too much or too little. The problem isn't my lack of research, in fact, I'm extremely well versed on the Federal Reserve System. Rather the problem is that you buy into an odd conspiracy theory that contains a number of half-truths and outright lies. The actual Federal Reserve is not an evil cabal we'd be better off without. http://en.wikipedia.org... Basically, let me sum up the argument problem thusly, you need to prove your version of reality or surrender the argument. The fact that other people believe your conspiracy theory doesn't suffice to make it true. You could very well believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our government to blow up the twin towers, and references to similarly deluded individuals would not prove the point. Your version of reality is wrong, and since the onus is on you to prove your version of reality, you've done little to establish anything here. The Fed keeps the money supply from getting to small or too large, they clear checks between different banks, and they lend money to banks as a last resort lender. They are pretty boring and no where near the boogie man you've made them out to be in your deluded Ron Paul fantasies.
End the Federal Reserve of America.

No, not quite a conspiracy theory. You should do some research on it and how it operates. I'm not telling you that it is part of an evil organization that wants to control the world and kill all of us, I'm just saying that we would be way better off without it. (For the reasons stated above.) About the hyperinflation of Germany in the 1920's, I'm not saying that a central banking system caused it, I'm saying that printing money or creating it out of thin air does cause hyperinflation. Also, I am not exaggerating about how dangerous it is if a small group of people gain control of a nation's money supply. And yes, the Fed does have the power to print money. You can check these sites for more information on the subject. http://www.ronpaul.com... www.endthefed.us
End the Federal Reserve of America.

Eeek! Zounds! My goodness it's crazy scare tactics of freakish conspiracies. The Fed doesn't create money, they loan it out. They are quasi-federal. The hyperinflation of 1920s Germany was due to the idea that they could print money to fix their problems (the fed neither has that power nor would they use it). The federal reserve doesn't print money, that is done by an actual government agency called Bureau of Engraving and Printing which is part of the treasury department. http://www.geocities.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Basically they run some basic monetary policies by way of loaning money to banks at varying interest rates. While some of the decisions of the Fed are certainly suspect, such as constantly raising the interests rates under Clinton and lowering them more and more under Bush, the underlying problems do not suffice as a reason to end the Federal Reserve, at best it would require some tweaks.
End the Federal Reserve of America.

I strongly believe that the Federal Reserve is a great danger to the American People for these reasons. 1) They create money out of thin air, thus creating a Boom-Bust economy in which economic depressions and recessions are inevitable. If they keep this vicious cycle up, we will soon reach hyperinflation, where the currency is so inflated that it is worth nothing. This happened in Germany during the early 1920's. 2) The Federal Reserve isn't even a Federal organization! It is owned by private bankers that profit from all the recessions in American History. 3) The Federal Reserve is outside our government. They don't have to tell us anything about what they're doing. While congress is debating over whether or not to pass an eight-hundred billion dollar economic stimulus bill, the Fed is printing up Nine Trillion dollars and nobody seems to care! The number one way to gain control of a government and it's people is to gain control of it's money supply. This is what Kings have done in the Middle Ages to gain control of their people and it is what the Fed has done in the USA. I gleefully await my opponent's rebuttal.
"The Golden Compass" trilogy does not support atheism.

[Again, look to my conceeded analysis in round 1 that was made before the numbered list.] 1/2.) The reason the definitions for atheism do not include the word religion in it is because atheism is not a religion - it is essentially the lack of one. Not all religions beleive in God. Sure, liberal Christians might hate organized religion, but they are still Christian - Pullman, through the book, conveys the message that people not having a religion at all personally is best. Even if people hate the church and still beleive in god - the message is that the religion those people have is still bad because bad things are done in the name of religion - regardless of its organization. The book would show that one of the worst things that can happen is that a religion causes organzied power that becomes evil, but this is not the only problem that religion can cause. 3.) Yes, I know we are talking about the book - but you are missing the boat. Look at my analysis from the very beginning. Pullman conceedes that he is attempting to convey HIS message through THE BOOK. Therefore, the book supports Pullman's message - this is evident through our discussions about destiny, and the book's framing of evil, etc. Look to the concessions that Pullman makes himself about the book's message. Look to the plot. The children 'kill god.' The beliefs of the author are not secondary because the author conceedes that his book has an agenda to promote his beliefs. I have said this every round yet you ignore it. 4.) My point exactly, the evolution in the book or in Pullman's beliefs do not matter. There is no "closer to theism" about any of this. The message is still atheistic in the sense that it not only promotes the break from religion, but that NO RELIGION is the best alternative. We are together on what we are debating. I explained this before, I would be wrong if it was only a break from established relgion - but the message is more than that. The book conveys the message of Pullman, and he conceedes that agenda. The promotion is not only break from religion - it is that religion in and of itself is bad because bad things are done in the name of religion (look to the quote, round 1). Established religion gaining power is only one of these bad things. The books, along with Pullman because they convey his message, say that NO RELIGION is the best way. The reason I discuss the author is because a book often contains an author's message. In this case, Pullman has conceeded that his book DELIBERATELY conveys his message. The source of the message is the author, fine. But, the final result is the message being said through the story in the book. I trust after looking at the topic title the voters will make the correct vote.
"The Golden Compass" trilogy does not support atheism.

1/2). As usual, this arguement is one of semantics. We are disagreeing over the definition of the word "atheism." I will concede to you freely that the book is very anti-religion. It really is. Unfortuneately for you, religion has very little to do with the definition of atheism. I went to dictionary.com, and out of five entries, not a single one had the word "religion" in it. Atheism is a denial of the existence of any gods, and the trilogy doesn't deny the existence of any gods. There are many liberal Christians and Jews out there who hate organized religion, but they are not atheists. There are many out there who despise the Church and every other religious institution, but they still believe in God. 3). Actually, we are talking about the point that comes across in the book. Many debates are won by changing the frame of the arguement, but I won't fall for that. Pullman is an atheist, I grant it to you. His book is not atheistic, and the topic of this debate about his book. The ideas of the auther are secondary to the content of the book. I don't disagree with what you are saying about Pullman's beliefs, but Pullman's beliefs are beside the point. 4). I'm just saying, its a view normally taken by theists. Regardless of what Pullman believes about evolution, the books take on it is decidedly closer to theism than atheism. This is going fairly well so far, but it'd be nice if we could actually get together on what we are supposed to be debating. ************************* To The Voters *************************** I believe you should vote for me because I stuck to the topic. NRW makes some good points, but they are beside the point for this debate. He debated about the author, and I debated about the book. I trust after looking at the topic title you will make the correct vote.