BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman is Better Than Any Superhero in the Justice League

This debate is not a "troll" debate, but it isn't serious either. Most funny arguments if you would like. Good luck.Batman could defeat any superhero in the justice league. Now some of you may think, "No there are people that are invincible in the justice league." Well, you're right, but Batman doesn't kill, and he doesn't need too. Batman is the smartest person in the justice league and even devised a plan to protect the world against the leaders of the justice league in case they went rogue. In Justice League doom, Vaandal Savage (the bad guy) plans world domination with the help of Bane, Cheetah, Mirror Master, Metallo, Ma'alefa'ak, and Star saphire. Savage stole Batman's plan. Anyways, the leaders of the League are all nearly killed, but being that The Batman escapes his self set trap, he saves the rest of the justice league, and the world. Thus concludes my first argument. To the Bat Cave!!!!!!!!
Batman is Better Than Any Superhero in the Justice League

Bruh, don't you remember when you accepted this challenge, reading "this isn't a serious debate".I read comics when I have the chance. The closest comic shop to my house was half an hour away, and I don't usually have time to get out there. Maybe now that a new comic shop opened up closer than that, I might be able to subscribe to some new comics, or get a few more novels. Also your Capt. America argument would invalid in this debate, also would the Lobo, and the Lady Shiva too. I said "Superhero in the Justice League". None of those characters are in the Justice League. Batman might be able to outsmart Wonder Woman, yea the fan boy caves in a little there. She has the rope of truth thing so she could always be able to wrap that around him when he tries to lie his way into an advantage. But he's super smart! He could most likely out think Amazon Lady. But you said that I have to do a fight scene or state another fight. Okay. I'll do Wayne manor, mixed with a battle vs Superman. Everybody knows Batman fights dirty sometimes. KRYPTONITE KNUCKLES!!!!! But yeah Superman can still hand The Bat's arse to him. But this debate isn't over power. I named the title better for a reason. Batman has a set of morals that make him different from any other hero. He could kill alot of criminals if he wanted to. But he doesn't. Know why? Maybe not since you seem to be hating on me so much for saying so.He doesn't want to go below that bar. If he kills someone that killed another person, how is he any different. People always give him crap, especially in the Christopher Nolan series (yes another movie reference, get over it) people always chase him down because he's a vigilante and he should let the cops handle it. Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash. They never get burned for being vigilantes.But Batman still fights on and protects his messed up little city. And he will to the day he dies in every comic series. You have to think that he's better because of that right? Or are you a guy that likes O.P. characters with no heart. Yes I like The Flash and Green Arrow and nightwing and many others.But why do I like The Bat the best?Because.....He's Batman.......Thanks for the debate bro. You did a good job. But next time don't come off like a jerk calling people lobos.
Ultimate Team War - High Altitude

Thank you, Maikuru, for posting your team. Here's mine:TEAM PRO1. Blue-Eyes White Dragon (Yu-Gi-Oh anime) (200,300,300): http://yugioh.wikia.com...2. Rayquaza (Pokemon anime) (800,300,800): http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(movie_7)3. Harry Potter (Harry Potter book series) (riding Blue-Eyes): http://harrypotter.wikia.com... (epilogue of Book 7)4. Link (The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) (riding Rayquaza): http://zelda.wikia.com... (Dawn of a New Day)5. Mewtwo (Pokemon anime) (500,300,500): http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(anime)And... start!Mewtwo covers himself in a psychic forcefield. Harry casts Protego Totalum around himself and Blue-Eyes, along with Impervius and a Supersensory Charm for good measure. Link chugs a bottle of Chateau Romani, strengthening his own magical powers, then equips his Lens of Truth, allowing himself to see the invisible.Mewtwo first charges at Spot, Peter, and Super Skrull, who are all conveniently together. Super Skrull's power relies on an interstellar beam fired on him from his home planet; because such a beam does not exist in this planet, he lacks the power of flight, and he falls to the ground, defeated.Spot and Peter will probably try to fend off Mewtwo, but when they're close enough, he can use his psychic powers to wipe their minds of the battle. If any other foes have charged him as well, they will also lose their memory. He can then teleport them back to wherever it is they came from, disqualifying them.Rayquaza will rise to attack Graviton; as gravitons, the subatomics particles controlled by Graviton, don't exist in this world, his powers are useless. He will be helpless against Hyper Beam and Link's Light Arrow.This leaves only Magneto, although if he didn't get away from Mewtwo, he will be caught in the memory wipe with Spot and Peter. Blue-Eyes will attack him with White Lightning, joined by a Fiendfyre from Harry, quickly followed by numerous blasts of Avada Kedavra. As Magneto is distracted by the joint attack, Mewtwo can bring him down with Psychic. If necessary, he can use Disable to cut off his magnetic power.The respective wikis that I cited can be used to look up the various weapons, attacks, and spells that I mentioned.Good luck with your response, Maikuru!
Ultimate Team War - High Altitude

Let me start my thanking Mongeese for this debate opportunity. I believe he and I debated twice before and both were entertaining. I look forward to a similarly positive experience. Throughout this debate, I hope both he and I work to keep our arguments powerful and concise; Ultimate Team Wars often suffer from a lack of reader participation. TEAM CONUnless otherwise noted, each character is based on classic continuity, prior to any power-downs, serious injuries, or death. I intend for each character to begin between the middle y-axis (500) and the back wall of the boundary. However, my math is not great and I apologize for any unintended illegal placements. 1. Spot (600L, 600W, 600H): http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Magneto (700L, 700W, 500H): http://marvel.wikia.com...3. Peter Petrelli (599L, 600W, 600H ) - Prior to losing abilities to Arthur Petrelli : http://heroeswiki.com...4. Graviton (800L, 800W, 900H): http://marvel.wikia.com...5. Super Skrull (601L, 600W, 600H) - Prior to losing any shape shifting abilities: http://marvel.com...With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent. Good luck!
Stalinism is better than democracy

In your argument you stated information from after the death of Stalin, as in the Cuban Missile crisis. This can be noted as a leaving of the idea of Stalinism after the death of Stalin. I The level of death Stalin needed in order to consolidate his power did in fact justify the ends. "For decades Stalin had been the "father" of the nation, and many grieved as if they had lost a family member. Tens of thousands of ordi­nary Russians wept openly in spontaneous and genuine displays of public grief when crowds gathered in Moscow to pay their last respects; several mourners were killed in the crush to file past the bier. In spite of his brutal repression and his rigorous control of the economy, Stalin was still hugely popular throughout the Soviet Union. His death marked the end of an era; for most Soviet citizens it had been an era of greatness for their country."[1] Many individuals under the Stalin era where proud of the nation they lived under, unlike many in democratice countries who in fact resent their government. The disaprovel of the government can be shown in a graph of approval on how individuals in the congress of the United States have had relatively low amounts of times in which individuals were happy with the government of the nation they lived in. It can still be seen today that approximately half(49%) of russians still have a positive view of Stalin[3], even after years of anti-stalinist propaganda. s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="Trend: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?" width="559px;" height="263px;" />[4] II During the reign of Stalin, productivity soared. It can be seen that, though quotas were not necessarily met, production continuously went up during the first five year plans. 1927 1932 1937 Coal 35 million tons 64 mt (75 mt target) 128 mt (152 mt target) Oil 12 million tons 21 mt (22 mt target) 29 mt (47 mt target) Iron Ore 5 million tons 12 mt (19 mt target) unknown Pig Iron 3 million tons 6 mt (10 mt target) 15 mt (16 mt target) Steel 4 million tons 6 mt (10 mt target) 18 mt (17 mt target) I’d like to point out that fraternity unity in the case we are both discussing exist in both example societies. It exists only in different forms. [1]http://homepages.stmartin.edu... [2]http://www.gallup.com... [3]http://rbth.com...
Stalinism is better than democracy

"You are basing this on the argument that morals and freedom are good things in a society" No, I have not once focused on the ethical failings of Stalinism, but instead the technical and institutional failings, and what the ethical degradation causes in the way of division and instability. A state where the wife of the leader kills herself cannot be a stable or problem-free state, however you look at it. This was the point I was making. "Tyranny in its finest form can provide more stabilty and happiness than any democratic society" Even you conceded that totalitarianism will not result in greater happiness, but it would seem stating the thing as fact that you were expected to prove is not an argument. "The idea that democracy doesn't fair the same problems is indeed laughable. Democracy indeed breeds divisions among its political parties much more than Stalinist systems do. " Yes, but that division is negated by the fact that everyone can practice and support their ideals, and have a hand in the political system. In a Stalinist, despot state, if one fees their opinions are ignored or oppressed, they will be much more violent than in a society where they are free to express and campaign for their beliefs.
Stalinism is better than democracy

"The system of tyranny and desperation was so severe that Stalin's wife actually killed herself. (2) This cannot form the basis for a 20th century government, and certainly did not act to improve the country."You are basing this on the argument that morals and freedom are good things in a society. This is not the case. Tyranny in its finest form can provide more stabilty and happiness than any democratic society. This can b eseen in hpothetical examples such as in Brave New World where the majority of the society is indeed very happy."It is completely irrelevant whether Stalin or his followers divided opinion on the country; it's still a critique and an evisceration of the system. As under any political system, different opinions inevitably rose from the oppressive and tumultuous state, and while Stalin had great power, because the system did not accept and work with these differences like a democracy, but instead attempted to cling on to its absolutist despot roots, the system was doomed to falter and fall come Stalin's death." The idea that democracy doesn't fair the same problems is indeed laughable. Democracy indeed breeds divisions among its political parties much more than Stalinist systems do.
Stalinism is better than democracy

1. RebuttalI1.Stalin was feared by his advisors which in fact was a good thing, even though it may have caused his own death. Through fear he reinforced his power, causing them to be more reliable. Instead of faltering like those in democratic societies they feared mistakes, which in turn prevented mistakes.2.It is amazing that that many people still like Stalin after years of anti-Stalin propaganda. This is because of how much he improved the country and how it was made strong by him.3. Stalin didn't divide his people in half, it was his followers that did. He in fact should have purged more if he wanted the country to grow as it did under his power, but perhaps in that case he cared more about his power more than the nation after his death.IIWhat stalin did to the Russian economy was amazing due to the weakness of it before. It can in fact be expected that the growth of other already developed nations because he in fact was developing the nation. It is easier to build after establishing a foundation and what Stalin did was build a solid foundation for a Russia that could have grown strong under his leadership, but sadly he died.2.Critique of DemocracyI The public is ignorant about politics and lacks even the basic facts that it would need to make sound judgments about political issues. poll by Ipsos-MORI[1] shows just how deep this ignorance is. Among other things, the poll found that: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn) 26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on, when it actually made up 1.1% of expenditure (£7.9bn) in the 2011/12 financial year. More people select this as a top item of expenditure than pensions (which cost nearly ten times as much, £74bn) and education in the UK (£51.5bn) the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m, compared with £5bn for raising the pension age and £1.7bn for stopping child benefit for wealthier households. These are not just little mistakes, they’re absolute howlers. This ignorance is perfectly rational and understandable. The problem is that these are the people who decide who runs the country. How can you choose the best set of welfare policies – ‘the best’ being what you would choose if you had all the information available – when you know absolutely nothing about welfare? How can you choose which of the two main parties is offering the best immigration policy if you haven’t got a clue about immigration? [1]http://www.ipsos-mori.com...
Stalinism is better than democracy

In response to his noting that the Cuban Missile Crises was after Stalin, it was Stalin's aggressive and enemy-creating foreign policies that resulted in such a hostile international environment for Russia, that destabilized the country and led in part to its ultimate destruction. 1: Unity Assuming this is a rebuttal to unity, anyone could find support and people to mourn over the loss of a leader. However, the feeling was far from universal. "So scared were his staff that having suffered a stroke he was left to fester for hours before anyone plucked up the courage to check on him". (1) Not even Stalin's own family were noble enough to check on their ailing president, and through a beautiful example of poetic justice, Stalin died as a result of his own malevolence. Indeed, even after someone finally entered Stalin's chambers, and called for the doctors, the dictator's closest advisers were "pacing the anterooms worried whether their boss would ever wake up and likely more anxious that he should wake up and their behaviour would need to be accounted for. " (2) One of those advisers, Beria, was quite pleased at Stalin's demise, as it likely preserved his life, since he was an intended victim of a future purge. (3) I do not doubt that half of Russians, commonly sheltered from Stalin's true atrocities, hold a positive view of the ruler. However, in retrospective polls of US presidents, nearly all scored higher than Stalin's measly 49%. Kennedy, Ford Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all received greater than 50% favor-ability, (3) despite the controversial nature of democratic elections. Stalin, in the 20-20 lens of retrospection, did not unite his country behind him, but has seemed to divide his people almost in half. II: Productivity Production in almost all areas of the Russian economy soared during the Stalinist period, and it was all over the world. I have two primary responses to this. Firstly, it better have. The Russian economy had been consuming itself since the Great War, and Russia was very far behind in the race to industrialization, still operating on a system of peasants and landlords. (4) Through a process of forced labor and agricultural collectivization (which caused the biggest famine in history, I might add), Stalin was able to jump start the economy, especially with regards to its outdated military. The second point on this is that the growth failed to outpace that of almost every country in the world, including the United States. (5) I once against thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to his next entry. (1) (2) . http://ezinearticles.com... (3) . http://www.gallup.com... (4) . http://www.humanities360.com... (5) . http://econc10.bu.edu...
The voting system of debate.org is unreliable

Let's go! The voting system requires you to complete three debates, something not very hard but not too easy either, so you at least have to wait around a few days and create arguments against something for your votes to work in the first place. It would take a long time to make multiple accounts to give yourself votes, or vote bomb in general, discouraging people from doing so. There's my first argument. I hope you can dispute it.
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

My opponent has come to conclusions with speculation, without logic, and without citing any sources. The scenarios are fine, but we are simply asked to accept the conclusions of the contender. There are multiple reasons of crime. Punishment is never justified. Whether or not the person understands punishment as a consequence, that just means, like I showed, that they will simply not do the punishable action IF they think they will be caught. It doesn't actually change the behavior, no matter how many faulty scenarios, my opponent thinks up. I have never made the argument that "punishment is totally useless" only that "punishment is never justified". It is not useful when the crime is need because punishment doesn't change behavior. My opponent then uses an argument to authority fallacy. He/she suggests that I should talk to a criminologist despite not citing any sources to show that a criminologist would be any better at gleaning the truth in this matter than me. I am not a psychologist, I just studied psychology. One of my majors is actually criminal justice- also known as criminology. I urge my opponent to not make assumptions about my education and to not draw conclusions on the issue because of education. Education is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

so my opponent is saying about behavior change. but punishment will not change the behavior. negetive reinforcement (nr) can.lets see when punishment is usefull or when it is useless.let us see an example to understand.suppose x has stolen something because he needs that thing but he has no means to get that except stealing. how to change this behavior of x?in punishment:x will spend some years in jail. govt. will watch and then x will be freed.limited time.predictable terms.there will be a change of his behaviour because he will understand the consequence of his act. also he is not going to steal if his need is fulfilled in future.so it is effective.in nr:x will be treated painfully unless x will give up his behavior.there will be no fixed time limit at all. no predictable terms.there will be a change of his behaviour and he will probably be a mental patient.also he is not going to steal if his need is fulfilled in future.therefore it is ineffective.now consider another scenario........suppose x has stolen something because he likes stealing. how to change this behavior of x?in punishment:x will spend some years in jail. govt. will watch and then x will be freed.limited time.predictable terms.there will be no change of his behaviour because his attitudes will not change.therefore it is ineffective.in nr:x will be treated painfully unless x will give up his behavior.there will be no fixed time limit at all. no predictable terms.there will be change of his behaviour because his attitude will change.here nr is effective.now you see, there are 2 reasons of crime: need and behaviour/attitude.in case of need, punishment is effective, nr is not effective.in case of behaviour, punishment is ineffective and nr is effective.so, we cannot say, that punishment is totally useless. it is usefull when the reason of crime is need.it is useless when the reason of crime is behaviour or attitude.As Alfred says in "The Dark Knight", "Some men just want to watch the world burn.""I disagree that all crime is not psychological. All behavior is psychological. All crime is deviant behavior, so all crime is psychological. It is my belief that their own wish to commit crime is evidence of their need for therapy, not evidence of their need to be punished. I direct my opponent's attention to Norway again."please consult with an expert of criminology.you may be a psychologist but not a criminologist.
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

punishment is a system to warn the society that if somebody will do this crime, the result of their action will not be good for them.this is also called negetive reinforcement. if this mechanism are not there, chances are that there would be no control over crime.the society will be a perfect hellhouse. not all crime is pchychological. some are. many are not.we must punish those criminal who are not phycho.because they do crime, not out of mental incapability but out of their own wish. we better eliminate the reasons of crime that is rooted in our society. that reason is: "not getting something when we want it".if we solve this problem, there will be no crime anymore. elimination of punishment therefore not justified.
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

1. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean is that since crime is predictable at a certain rate, there is no reason to suggest that a person is totally at fault. Crime is social deviation. Social deviation shows a psychological problem. If someone has a psychological problem, punishing them for it is undesirable- that includes white collar crime. 2. I don't just think so, I provided sources. The most effective method of operant conditioning (behavior changing) is negative reinforcement. The least effective is punishment. It would be cruel for us to do either and more cruel to use negative reinforcement, however, at least a system that uses negative reinforcement would be more likely to be effective. The punitive system is both cruel and ineffective. 3. Has been conceded by the opponent. 4. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, I'm suggesting punishment is not the way to change them. Social deviation is what crime is. Social deviation is behavior. Punishment is ineffective in changing behavior. Ergo It is unrealistic to change A and B via punishment. 5. Or perhaps it is because 3 people ate 4 donuts in Norway that day. My opponent has used the after-this-therefore-because-of-this fallacy (ad hoc ergo propter hoc). It could have been the prison system, or it could have been any number of other causes. Just because one happened after the other doesn't mean the first caused the second. However, let's give it a response anyway. It is unlikely that the prison system caused the bombing because Norway also has a much lower crime rate (1) than the United States, so all other things being equal, it would appear the opposite- that Norway's prison system prevents crime, not the other way around. (1) http://dev.prenhall.com...