BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman defeats Spiderman

This is a battle, this does not matter if they would or not fight, this debate does not discuss whether or not they would fight. The Spider Man and Superboy match is non canon at all because if it was canon one of those universes would cease to exist. Also the comparison between Batman and Green Goblin is ridiculous since the Green Goblin throws smoke grenades and Batman throws Batarangs that actually harm, and Batarangs that even explode. Only a simple hit of Batman's explosive Batarang and Spiderman is done for. Lets remember how Batman killed numerous Doomsday clones (Doomsday killed Superman once) with the explosive Batarangs. Also, Spider Man got a grenade in the face once in a movie and got heavily confused; Lets combine that with a Batarang that could slice his neck AND explode to evade the tissue regenerating. By the way, Spiderman's strength is really not that superior, see this video . If we are going to quote the opponents that each of our heroes defeated see this: http://en.wikipedia.org... Most of them are stronger than Spiderman.
Russell Westbrook is overrated.

I think he is. Don't get me wrong he is an amazing player but not a top 3 point guard in the league. He has proven to be bit of a stat patter considering his 20, 20, 20 game and the fact that Steven Adams rebounds per game is so low. His big ego makes him rally known and big name in sports. With Durant gone he can't find away to get his team anywhere and seems to be more worried about his stats than his team.
Only religion prevents disharmony

My opponent has just proven my case for me. I am not Pro. He is. His duty is to argue, in the affirmative, that ONLY (as in solely, alone, by itself, etc.) religion prevents disharmony. Instead he has provided me a heaping handful of resolution negation and absolutely no attempt to debate. Disharmony is measurable in a variety of social exchanges, including criminality. Where it can be witnessed that another thing prevents disharmony, the resolution is negated. Where it can be witnessed that religion has no effect on disharmony, the resolution is negated. My opponent has said that numerous other social institutions prevent disharmony. I concur. Many things could be responsible for harmony. Education. Medicine. Secular peace movements. http://www.slhg.adm.freeuk.com... http://www.nonviolence.org... My opponent doesn't want to argue. This is not a website to not have an argument on. I WANT AN ARGUMENT!! http://www.youtube.com...
Only religion prevents disharmony

I wont even bother to read your agruement this whole arguement is baised on an opinion that is not a fact but an opinion All i have to do is prove something else creates disharmony Human instinct through evolution to protect the young found mostly in mothers, that stops disharmony and teaches the children to be in harmony. Schools prevent disharmony by giving an area of interaction. two other things that prevent disharmony and now there is no more point in agrueing youve chosen a very unspecific arguement, next time specify
Only religion prevents disharmony

I think my opponent has failed to realize that he is the Pro side of this debate, and may not simply disagree but must posit why religion is the only thing that prevents disharmony. With no proof, he has presented no argument, and his assertion should not stand. We all know that crime causes disharmony. That is part of the reason why we try and punish it. Here's some fun research: Refutes correlation between religion and harmony: http://www.timesonline.co.uk... Also refutes correlation between religion and harmony: http://home.uchicago.edu... Apparently, religion is doing nothing to prevent crime. Does it prevent civil unrest? http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu... Nope. There is no evidence that religion actually does anything. At most, it gives people a rallying point. What they do from there, is entirely dependent on the culture and the times those people are living in.
Only religion prevents disharmony

Baggins made the following statement in this debate: . http://www.debate.org... "Human beings would indeed descend into great disharmony and oppression on its own. Only the presence of religion can prevent that. " I challenged Baggins but he declined. As a result, I have opened this debate to the general public. I would like to argue with my opponent about the belief that religion alone prevents disharmony. As I would like to debate this topic seriously, there will be no syntax or semantics arguments, except to the extent necessary to clarify a logical oversight (such as a failure to recognize that other forces besides religion prevent disharmony). If there is any disagreement over the proper definition of terms, we will rely on Merriam-Webster online. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... If there are any other concerns about semantics or syntax related issues, we will discuss them in the comments section as a side bar before continuing. I will be acting as the CON side of this debate.
Globalization

That's really embarassing since I am the one who actually started the debate, but I'll have to FF this one. That's too bad, i had a very good idea of my arguments and I had prepared all my sources, but I just underestimated how much time this takes. I'm really sorry man, especially since you did prepare a case. Oh well... Really fast, I have to say that I think you overestimate the western cultural power. Although I agree that soft power(including culture) is more relevant that hard power(And we are not a lot of people convinced of this case), the most influential cultural countries in the future will come from asia, most certainly. But there's no reason to believe that it will lead to an hegemony, we do have a balance between many superpowers right now and it seems stable, more than in a bipolar world in any case and probably more than during an hegemony. After all, the countries being all dependant of eachothers, they can't declare war, they have to cooperate. China having 1/3 of the american debt for example make them intimate partners that have to remain allies for both their interests. I think you may believe that culture could expand without the action of a country, that people could westernized themselves simply by following a model. And that's something we would never agree on, as I firmly believe that cultural influence is the direct result of the efforts of one nation. Alright enough of this, as you see I am passionate about the subject, It just really is too bad that I could not write a proper response to you : These take me several hours to make, sadly. But I am always open to simply discuss it, international relation is probably one of my favourite subjects
Globalization

Comment : So this is actually my first debate here. My opponent will have an obvious advantage since english isn't my first language (Which is actually the reason why I am interested in debating on this website). Topic : Globalization. Definition from wikipedia : Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas and other aspects of culture.[1][2] Advances in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the telegraph and its development the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[3] Voting system : 'Select winner' Additional information : I am interested in a debate of ideas, I do not wish to debate about semantics or interpretation of definitions. If this is not your cup of tea, do not accept this debate. I am in favor of globalization, I will make my case for it, but you will also have to make a case against it. Structure : Round 1 : Acceptance only Round 2 : Case and rebuttals Round 3 : Case and rebuttals Round 4 : Closing statements, no new arguments Thank you and good luck to my opponent :) 1. Al-Rodhan, R.F. Nayef and G"rard Stoudmann. (2006). Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. 2. Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and Society London: Sage. ISBN 978-0803983243 p. 8. "...all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society." 3. Stever, H. Guyford (1972). "Science, Systems, and Society". Journal of Cybernetics 2 (3): 1"3. doi:10.1080/01969727208542909.
Prohibition is a good social policy.

Before I forfeit this round, let me explain to you why I should be voted instead of con. I know that johnjohn12 is actually online right now and is just chickening out simply because he/she cannot argue back. Perhaps if you were prepared and knew that your opponent was this intelligent, perhaps you would not have backed out and not debated with me. Like I said before, you have the following errors preventing you from winning this debate even if you made rebuttals: -Too short of an argument that is also too vague -Does not take a stance or any position; simply remains neutral -Lacks thesis, arguments, introduction, etc. -Topic is too general and pro is unclear of what to say -Policy was not specified as a ban or prevention law With that said, should you have fixed or prevented these errors, you would have won. But because you have made these errors and forfeited each round after that due to fear of loss of debate, you are going to lose this debate whether you like it or not. You have a 0% chance of winning, while I have a 100% chance of winning, even if I am offending you and pointing out your debating flaws. A least I have provided a thesis, stance, arguments, rebuttals, logic and reasoning, conduct, and good spelling/grammar, while opponent failed to provide any of that.
econimic engagement towards mexico

Universal health care was achieved in Mexico in 2012. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Public Health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Therefore, Mexican health care is subsidized via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency. US citizens don't even have universal health care, which Mexico now has, and build within that is the SSA which also acts as a CDC as it is the head of governmental health services in Mexico. The CDC in America was largely privately funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which is kind of private funding http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... US is not responsible to create a CDC for Mexico, nor is it the US's responsibility to. Mexico has a completely different system and needs to support itself and create it's own forms of institutional systems.
econimic engagement towards mexico

Not exactly. The US benefits because we are capitalistic and Americans look for cheap labor, expect we don't have to cross a major ocean to find the cheap labor, just the boarder. Further, the "CDC" is an American institution. The invention of a similar institution might be called the MNDPG (Mexican National Disease Prevention Group. Stoping disease might be good. Stopping diseases from crossing the boarder from Mexico into the US might be better if your a US citizen even! But I have a feeling there are many who like it how it is...
Gay Marriage (Please read before accepting)

Correct. The government does not and should not interfere in religious views such as marriage. If the church outlaws homosexual "marriages", then two men or two women CANNOT be married. That does not mean they cannot be a union; it just means that they are not a married couple. Churches that do accept gay marriages are not orthodox ones that follow the Bible or other religious texts. Marriage is a SACRED union. The power to grant marriages solely rests with the Church.
Gay Marriage (Please read before accepting)

I'm sorry if you didn't understand the debate, but just so you know, on the topic of gay marriage, I presented the plan mentioned above which I will try to restate so you can understand. According to the government, both hetero and homosexual couples can be united under the law through the term "union." That way the government doesn't interfere in religious views such as the definition of "marriage." Thus only the churches can decide if gay marriage should be allowed or not. And for the record, there are churches that do accept gay marriage. This way homosexual couples are able to receive the same rights as heterosexual couples and are treated the same. This also makes it so the term "marriage" cannot be defiled. Therefore everyone is happy. I was hoping to avoid this confusion by putting (Please read before accepting) so that I could see if this plan was acceptable to both sides of the debate.
Gay Marriage (Please read before accepting)

I am assuming you are taking the argument for "Gay Marriage." It was difficult deciphering what stance you are taking on this argument after reading. Opponents of gay marriage do not want to defile the definition of "marriage." Marriage is not governed by the state. It is a Holy Sacrament. The Church does not give extra rights or privileges to followers who get married; the government does. When someone gets married, there are tax benefits and whatnot. That is the government's workings and not the Church's. Marriage is the union of a MAN and WOMAN as defined by the Church. So by the Church's definition, a gay couple cannot constitute as a married couple. That does not, however, mean that two men or two women cannot be in love and initiate a "bonding" or union in order to qualify for certain tax rebates. In the eyes of the Church, though, a gay union is not the same as a heterosexual union because it is not a marriage but a union. Separation of Church and State goes both ways- The Church does not tell the State what to do, and the State does not tell the Church what to do. If the Church feels that a gay union is not a marriage, then it is not a marriage. The government can get involved in someway to give the union the same benefits and tax breaks as given to a heterosexual married couple. A married heterosexual couple already is a union, but it furthers the definition of a union by becoming, what the Church calls, a marriage.
Gay Marriage (Please read before accepting)

I have debated this topic several times and I think that I've come to a happy medium on this argument. Most proponents against gay marriage say that they don't want the term "marriage" to be defiled as it states a union between a man and a woman. Those in favor of gay marriage just want the same rights as a heterosexual couple and to be treated the same. My argument is that in the eyes of the US government, any couple (hetero or homosexual) will be called a union with the same rights as a marriage. Then the different churches can determine if homosexuals are allowed to marry or not. This way the government is kept out of religion (separation of church and state) and homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexual couples.
Christianity is a Bad Religion

Thank you, that was a very good argument. I do apologize for my vagueness I will try to be more specific. Yes, obviously the "Christians" who have killed people were not true Christians, but statistically Christians have killed more people than any other Religion/peoples. You present many quotes that try to prove your point, but you forget the thousands of cruel and terrible quotes in the Bible. For example: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) sexism "This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3) how can killing women and children be just? "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (Exodus 22:18) we know witches are not real....so many innocents killed. "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 anti gay "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18) slavery "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) sexism Deuteronomy 17: 2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. kill unbelievers. Now do not get me wrong. I've seen Christianity help many people and it can be a very good thing. I know Christians do not follow these passages. But what I am saying is that Christianity is bad on paper.
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

Rebuttals: -I would like to address my opponent's mistaken remark, "She only argued that Chick-Fil-A fried while McDonald's didn't.." I clearly pointed out that Chick Fil A fries their chicken until it's crisp, there is a difference. -My opponent also misunderstood the fact that I listed many reasons why Chick Fil A was not a international company. My opponent also doesn't understand the fact that Chick Fil A is a Christian company, while McDonald's and such have not made a standing point in religion or enough to affect how their business is ran, like how Chick Fil A closes on Sunday. - Also since my opponent needs me to inform him that Chick Fil A is not a mansion restaurant, it's reasonable size for a good amount of people to come and eat at their fast food restaurant. Of course, it is bigger than burger king and land space is an issue in this world, therefore it would be much easier to plop down a ok fast food restaurant that was small in the middle of New York City than a good quality fast food restaurant that is rather larger than most. -Last but not least my opponent is not good examining my case well because I did give him a case.. it says, "My Argument", my opponent is the one who forgot to jot down his case. My Argument: Chick Fil A is better than Burger King and etc.. because it's a more educational/child friendly restaurant. McDonald's gives happy meals and small plastic toys a child will most likely only play with for a maximum for an hour. On the other hand Chick Fil A hands out small books, c.d.s, and etc. They are all educational for little kids, like the short version of Wizard Of Oz or Veggie Tales. Chick Fil A is also a better environment, I have never seen a gang hang out in a Chick Fil A parking lot but I have seen gangs in Burger King, Taco Bell and even America's so called child friendly McDonald's. I await your conclusion opponent.
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

I am going to do my rebuttal then my voters. Rebuttal: My opponent didn't really argue for her case. She only argued that Chick-Fil-A fried while Mcdonalds didn't, who says some people don't prefer pre-cooked? My opponent was saying that they aren't international because of the problem of freedom of religion. Well they are only in 37 of 51 states. And Mcdonalds and BK are in all of those states. I don't know what the significance of rats in an old house with a small family has to do with this debate so i am not going to attempt at that. And finally my opponent mentioned something about the size of Chick-Fil-A I would first like to point out that not all Chick-Fil-A's are larger. Also what does that have to do with it being better. What if some single guy who is the head of a large company wants to run in and grab him something to eat but he has to walk all that way just to get it, do you think he thinks its better to run in there or go to Mcdonalds over here with their quick drive thru? Voters: First I think you should vote for me because my opponent never gave me a case. Therefore her case falls and only mine is standing. Second none of her arguments were good as I have shown you in my rebuttal. Third Chick-Fil-A is not the best Wendy's is. That is all. Have a great day.
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

Rebuttal: My opponent believes since there are more burger kings and McDonald's therefore meaning they are better? Just because there is more of something doesn't mean it's better. For example if there was extremely old house that was infested with rats and a family lived there. (30 rats and 4 people) does that mean rats are better than humans? No. My Argument: Chick Fil A is not a international restaurant for various reasons.. First they are a Christian company, so most countries that don't have freedom of religion, don't want Christianity businesses or symbols influencing their country to become or learn about Christianity. Second, Chick Fil A is a quality restaurant, they are normally always bigger than a McDonald's or Burger King and they always have a inside playground. Which takes up land area, but a McDonald's or Burger King just needs a drive thru and a place to order and cook it inside and if they have extra space then they start to build playgrounds etc.. Third, Chick Fil A spends more time into their cooking and frying. A french fry (just one) is ten times the size of one McDonald's fry. Therefore it would take longer to cook. Their chicken is also fried longer than a McDonald's nugget, because Chick Fil A frys it until they are crispy and might I add delicious :) I await your response.
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

that may be, but what we are arguing is if it is better. If there are more Mcdonalds and BK's then people were buying more from them then they were chick fil a. Think about it if Burger King was worse than Chick Fil A more people would go to Chick Fil A. Then when more people went to Chick Fil A. Burger King wouldn't sell as much. And Chick Fil A would be the one located in multiple countries.But as it is the other way around, more people like BK, BK is bigger. NOTES: BK is acronym for Burger King
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

The reason there are fewer Chick Fil A(s) and more burger kings, etc, is because it's easier to throw frozen food and fill it up with grease than it is to put quality time and work into your food. Chick Fil A has more crispier chicken, yet it's not filled with grease. Everyonce in awhile I am forced to eat McDonalds and sometimes part of the chicken is not fully cooked, I have experienced this many times, yet I haven't expierenced this once at Chick Fil A.
chick-fil-a is the best restaurant there is

Chick-Fil-A is not the best restaurant there is. Look at it it's only located in 32 of the states in the United States; whereas the better restaurants such as Burger King and Mcdonalds are located in over 50 countries, yeah countries. Why would they have more locations if they weren't better? Also when you go look at Zagat fast food survey Chick-fil-a is ranked fourth in the large chains. But that isn't comparing it to the mega restaurants though. That is only comparing to other large ones. How would it even be ranked fourth if it was the absolute best? You can look at the zagat survey at: http://www.zagat.com...