BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
batman is better than sailor venus

Contention 1: I have accually seen an episode. By observing, its not difficult and lots of people can do it! Contention 2: Although the resolution does not specifically state anything about crime-fighting, it is what Sailor venus and Batman are both known for and it is how they both are created. My opponent believes that Batman is sometimes in the wrongg, however, they havnt mentioned any evidence or examples to support their statments. One of the many examples in which Batman is in the Right is when he saves all of Gothem from Scarcrow's drugs and plot, and ultimately becomes more of a hero. Contention 3: Oh contrare, on the one episode that I did see, Sailor Venus was driven purely by her heart and not her mind. she tries to have a boyfriend and fails. Just because she doesn't have a boyfriend, doesnt mean she hasnt tried. a true hero can set aside his/her personal feelings in order to do what is best. Batman demonstrates this when the major is saved and his girlfriend murdered instead. He did what was best for the community. Contention 4: Friends often serve as a distraction, however, Batman isnt ditracted at all Contention 5: Batman also has not suffered major injuries, due to his amazing armor. Also, very very few children know of Sailor Venus, more children in the United States are familiar with Batman. Contention 6: As demonstated in Batman's: Dark Knight, his assistance is cell phones around the city. He con track every person anywhere, and also know what they are saying. This serves way better then an incompetent furball could ever be.
batman is better than sailor venus

Contention I: Batman has accual skill Sailor Venus can only really use her looks to attack. However, batman has insane ninja skills, he's bough, he is smart enough to use technology, has cool gadgets and can fly. Sailor Venus is incompetent in all these areas. Contention II: Batman has smarts Batman' secret identity is a well-known multi billionaire, he's obviously a genius. experience in art, science, music, or math wont always help when fighting crime. Batman however has all of these(since he attended private schools all his life) and more. He also is excellent when it comes to trickery. He has a good sense of what is right and whay is wrong. Contention III: Batman already has a girlfriend Batman already has a girlfriend and would never be attracted to sailor venus. Contention IV: Batman is 'immortal' Batman is indeed older than SV, however, he will leave behind a greater legacy then Sailor V could ever live up to. Notice how every kid in the united States knows about batman, then notice how like 11 kids in the U.S. know SV, BECAUSE they are from japan! Contention V: Batman doesnt need to rely on many other people. he has one person helping him and he is able to protect THOUSANDS of people! Sailor Venus mite save more people, but she also has a lot of people working with her, who's to say she does half the work? Contention VI: Heath Ledger is irrelevent to this resolution. Contention VII: Batman has awesome costume! Batman's symbol is universally known. Batman has all the armor needed to protect himself and others from harm. Sailor Venus could easily be slaughtered considering she only wears a small shirt and a mini skirt-no armor!
batman is better than sailor venus

Thank you. Contention One: Sailor V's seductive charm Sailor Venus is a very sexy character with a very seductive outfit. She herself is named after the Roman godess of love and beauty. Her power element is love. She could simply cast her Venus love-me-chain attack and Batman would be to stunned and overwhelmed by attraction to attack her. Contention 2: Sailor V is Japanese The Japanese have a better developed education system than Americans, and Batman is American. Sailor Venus is therefor more experienced in art, science, music, and math. While it is true that Batman is older, thus he should be wiser, this is not true as he is a man and thinks with his hormones which brings me to my next point Contention 3: Batman is suseptable to pedaphilia Sailor V is 14 and since Batman thinks mainly with his male instinct and testosterone, he would be atracted to her, making him a pedaphile. Contention 4: Sailor V is younger than Batman Batman will die long before Sailor Venus because he is far older than Sailor V Contention 5: Sailor Venus has more friends Sailor V has at least nine very close, very loyal friends that help her save the universe. Batman is a bit of a "loner boner". Contention 6: Sailor V saves more people Sailor Venus saves the whole Universe. Batman merely saves Gothum City Contention 7: Mental health of actors Heath Ledger played the Joker in The Dark Night, the most recent Batman movie. Playing the part gave him severe nightmares. People believe this is part of the reason he mixed meds and died. Thank you! =3
There is no pratical purpose for a 5-minute Debate.

A Few ground rules. 1. Semantics, Trolling, and other such tactics will be allowed. 2. This is not a serious debate, but voting will be based entirely on the other side. 3. The person who accepts this debate does not have to meet any criteria. 4. The opponent must make his argument within 5 minutes of acceptance. 5. This is merely an experiment, and a better way to state the question IMO then go to the forums. 6. You may C-P arguments, or make them up before the debate. However, 5 minute rule still applies. 7. As this is a 1 round debate, I will make my argument in the first round. 8. My opponent must prove the use for a 5-minute debate. My Argument: There is no time to make a good argument in 5 minutes. My opponent must counter this. Voting etiquette is not going to be enforced, as this is an experiment. GO!
There is no pratical purpose for a 5-minute Debate.

" There is no time to make a good argument in 5 minutes." It really depends. If you know what you are doing, you can predict your opponent and come up with counter arguments for their arguments. In chess you do not have a lot of time to make a move, but you can still play better than someone who takes much time to make a single move. I argue that there is only one problem with the time limit. The only problem is articulating your argument. I had a lot of time to think of an argument, just not a lot of time to write it out.
God Exists

Resolution: God Exists I will be negating this and defending the position that God probably doesn't exist. BOP is shared Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Start your arguments in round 1 Follow the debate structure Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Con's arguments Round 2: My arguments + rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.
God Exists

Con never really understood the substance of my points – with noncognitivism, he failed to understand the descriptive regression of primary attributes into secondary attributes, as well as the metaphysical simplicity of God with respect to His existence and essence. With the First Way, Con repeatedly made huge mistakes such as confusing linear and hierarchical series, translation and change, etc., attesting to his obvious disregard for my initial case. Con’s only serious objection was that of Newtonian physics, which I demonstrated presupposed the Aristotelian principle of motion. His attempts to refute the necessary properties of a First Mover resulted mostly in a reiteration of my original, untouched, analysis. Most of Con’s attempts at rebuttals were nothing more than confused notions of metaphysics – i.e. that a material can be purely actual, that metaphysical possibility is designed, or that Aristotelian goodness revolves around an ultimate instantiation.
God Exists

Conclusion, remember, keep under 1000 characters.I would like to thank Pro. I haven't found Pro actually trying to give "God" meaning at all. Pro has repeatedly straw manned me in the discussion of immaterial and atemporality. Pro ignores that by the laws of physics things can "change" without the need of a prime mover. Pro really hasn't answered me on the objective moral section and flew over my full argument in the metaphysical possibility section. Pro also seems to be interchangeably terms like "Hierarchical" "Spatial" and "Linear". Along with "potential" and "passive potential".Let the voting begin!
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

This is a debate for christians only because its content is directed toward a christian individual, although It really mirrors for everyone. My statement without sourving, merely opinion: You cannot be against Abortion but for the Death Penalty because they both entail in taking the life of a human being! The only difference is age. Like abortion you don't have the authority to decide someone's death, whether for your own selfish reason or for mere "convenience.". I am now restating why you must be christian because NO CHRISTIAN CAN BE NOR SHOULD BE FOR ABORTION.... The CON should state their case in a similar matter; opinion no sources or statistics. ----forgive my ordering for I am on my ipod----
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

It was not my job in this debate to prove capital punishment wrong. The resolution is that one cannot oppose abortion and support capital punishment. I have shown that it is not incoherent to support capital punishment but not abortion, namely because I believe in the protection of innocent life. In abortion, an innocent human's life is taken, and in capital punishment, a convicted murderer is put to death. The differences between a murderer and unborn human are like night and day. Since the stipulations of the debate was that it was between Christians, I was justified in bringing up the fact that God instituted capital punishment. Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14). If God was for it in the Old Testament, then Jesus was for it in the New. The verse about casting the first stone was regarding personal vendettas, not regarding capital punishment as done by governing authorities. I have shown why it is not inconsistent to oppose abortion and support capital punishment.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

The contender has not taken on my point that "capital punishment" is wrong and that you CANNOT BE FOR IT IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION, WHICH IS THE MAIN POINT (and has yet to be proven wrong) and has then distracted to looking towards interpretations of the bible. Instead of using lingo like "one of the best" for bibles and searching through bible quotes and passages with interpretations that can VARY GREATLY AND IS BASED OFF OF PERSONAL OPINION LIKE STATED BEFORE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS: WHY is killing a baby different from killing an adult? You have not negated my claims at all except trying to prove that capital punishment has happened? whaaa. .. ? I know it happened back then, I made that a point, my point was JESUS WAS NOT FOR IT, that was the point of the CAST THE FIRST STONE reference, which you then brought up personal vengeance. IT IS THE CONTENDER'S JOB TO PROVE ME WRONG ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BEING ABLE TO BE SUPPORTED WHEN ONE IS AGAINST ABORTION.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

Thanks again to Pro for his response.It is irrelevant whether what I said has been debated for some time. Pro has not rebutted any of my points, so I extend them into the next round. God doesn't change, and Pro has not shown how He does. I gave reasons to support my argument. The Bible is not updated annually. There are many "good" translations of the Bible, but one of the best is the NASB (New American Standard), and the NKJV, while not perfect, is one of the better translations. Pro has not shown how God changes. Simply making a promise not to do something again does not mean that someone changes their nature.Pro has also supported my point that capital punishment is about justice, not about vengeance.Additionally, Pro's point about the code of Hammurabi is irrelevant (though I do confess I misunderstood what his point was last round). However, even if the concept of a murderer forfeiting his right to life is simply a "human" concept, then it seems that by Pro's own argument it is the only one that can be trusted. If God constantly changes (as he alleges), and you can't trust the Bible (again, as he alleges), then you could not trust the Bible on matters of justice. You would be left with only human intuition, in this case that a murderer forfeits his own right to life.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

Most of which has been posed by the con has been a debate for sometime...many claim God doeshttp://www.2pi.info... . You cannot say it is flawed because much analysis of the bible is opinion since it is determined in over thousands of ways, including many "versions" which are updated almost on an annual basis. I would like to get to the grit, as I have limited time currently and leave for Colorado tomorrow. <--packing....uuugh -Stoning was not used as just a "means" of vengeance. It was used as justice because the reason was the individuals had either committed adultery or some kind of a "fracture" of the law or order. http://www.keyway.ca... This was their way of justice back then. Also, "that is a concept that humans and the "law" have, a concept much mirrored in the code of hamurabi" which I stated has nothing to do with christians following it nor giving credence to it. However, from my studies in criminal justice, our laws has been greatly been modeled after the code of Hamurabi, "It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world."-wiki http://en.wikipedia.org... I said it mirrored the concept too. Which it does.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

Thanks again for issuing this debate.Pro's concept of God is, unfortunately, flawed. The Scriptures say that God doesn't change (James 1:17). God has promised to never again flood the Earth. This doesn't mean that He has changed, it just means that He will never again bring such a judgment on Earth until He returns again (and when He does, it will be by fire and not by flood).God is the same God in the Old and New Testaments. God has always been a God of justice (in the Old Testament, we have examples like Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the New Testament we have examples like Ananias and Sapphira, who were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit). God has also always been a God of love and mercy (in the Old Testament, we have examples like Lot, who was spared from the destrution of Sodom because he was a righteous man, and in the New Testament we have numerous examples of God's mercy, such as Jesus taking our place on the cross to die for our sins). God has never changed; the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. In fact, the word "testament" would be better translated "covenant." The Old Testament refers to Jews under the Old Covenant, and the New Testament refers to Christians who are under the New Covenant.When Jesus said "let He who is without sin cast the first stone," He was referring to personal vengeance. I have no right to go out and take revenge on someone. Capital punishment is about justice, not revenge.The Code of Hammurabi is not a Christian document, nor is it considered part of Biblical canon. Therefore Christians are not required to live their lives by that code if any part of the code conflicts with Biblical teaching.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

Interesting, however God had also changed after the old testament. Remember, the flood use to wipe out almost all of humanity for being out of control (basically)? He said he would never do that again and therefore changed. The old testament is irrelevant to the point of many issues be God is significantly different in the new testament. Btw, remember the he who is without sin cast the first stone? So, if you are a sinner it is not up to you to determine the fate (life and death) of another individual because you are not perfect either! Just because someone commits a horrible crime doesn't mean they give up their right to live, that is a concept that humans and the "law" have, a concept much mirrored in the code of hamurabi.
Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

It doesn't seem like it will be a very long one. I am opposed to abortion but in favor of capital punishment. This is certainly not an inconsistent position to hold. My pro-life position is about the protection of innocent life. If someone commits a murder in cold blood, they forfeit their own right to live, nor do they have any right to expect the government to protect them. In fact, God originally instituted capital punishment in the Old Testament. There many sins, not just murder, that was deserving of capital punishment. That's about all I have to say, opinion-wise (since Pro doesn't want sourcing or statistics. Back to you, Pro.
Agricultural Subsidies

And yes i am sry hv= have i ws texting a minute before i posted this previous argument. I'm saying that if the methane gasses are by there own digestive system, then this is a nartural cause that no matter what we cannot prevent. So by taxing somthing natural we are putting the people in a possibly worse situation. I am saying that if 61million tons of waste is produced each year where could it possibly go? The waste would build up to extreme levles if this was true. Thank You for the advice But then going back to my previous argument where "if animals are producing 61million tons of waste each year where is it all goin? Making on my point here that, there is no need to have taxes on somthing that is doing littl to no harm. I have no need to provide a source becasue it is well known that that much waste would build up to extreme lvls if it were true,making it impossible because there is no place that can hold that much waste. My opponent is providing he people a harder quality of life by putting more taxes on them. Please ask yourself that"Is this really fair to us and others out there? " before u vote. I do urge you to vote Pro becasue taxing agricultural farming will be making it harder for people who maby already in hard enough situations. I would like to provide thanks to my opponent for this debate for truley i have loved the expierence. And yea he has been quite a challenge for me so agian thanks.
Agricultural Subsidies

Roadmap:I shall attack my opponents case once more,then move on to my own case. So my opponent is stating that "Livestock animals naturally produce methane as part of thir digestive process". Making this a natural occurence that we can not control but,then we would hv to do somthing about the animals not the whole idea. If 61million tons of waste each year then where did it all go? I am aware they do burie it for enviormental impacts but then, there is no large enough place for this waste to go an since neither me nor you see it around your area's, there (agian) is no proof that 61million tons of waste is being produced each year. I'm sorry for that argument i made a mistake, this is my first debate. (In this part i am addresing point 2. ) Then if the food prices do go up because you are taxing agricultural farming, your idea is not just for the people for one. In these hard times where the economy is failing the Gov. should be helping the people with there demand's, not making it harder for them to live a full quality of life. Addressing point 3. You see but this is not fair for the people if you are to just let agricultural farming go untaxed, then it will be better for the people and will help prevent global warming at the same time. And these are the reasons why we should just let agricultural farming go untaxed an left alone. Good Luck in round 3.
Agricultural Subsidies

I negate that Agricultural,because of it's negative enviormental imapcts. I would like to say that i am starting on my opponents case then i shall introduce my own. There could be no possible way that farming is producing any harmul gasses. My opponent states that, Farming is negativley externality becasue it is resonsible for producing methane. He only stated that somone said farming is producing methane but there is no possible way that farmin has anything to do with methane. Here he is stating that the (USDA) reports say that animals in the meat industry produce 61 millions tons of waste each year, but how does it produce waste? There is no solution that my opponent has given that meat industry produces 61millions tons of waste each year. We should not tax farming. So my opponent is saying we should be taxing agricultural with the cost of cleaning up the pollution of methance gasses and other forms of pullutants. He is stating that it's the Gov. responsibility to prevent the citizen from being takin advantage of,but by taxing the gov. is making money fo themselves and therfore they are taking advantage of us. I shall now introduce my own case First off i would like to state that Agricultural farming consiting of plants not only helps us with the issue of world hunger but also it helps us with global warming. Plants have a proccess of photosynthesis in which the plant uses carbon dioxide as a reactent,also providing a product of oxygen. Statement One: By taxing agricultural farming,we are forcing people to pay money to help prevent global warming. In wat way is it right to force people to pay money to provide a better world? By taxing agricultural farming we are putting farmers at risk of going broke which will stop agricultural farming from helping us supply the food we need to survive, but we are also potentially destroying another persons life which is not the American way.