BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RESOLVED: In a fight, Goku would defeat Superman

I'm having bullsh!t latency issues at home, which prevents me from doing what I'd rather be doing (fraggin' n00bs with 'Newton's Third Law', my rocket launcher) so, inspired by an awful debate of the same subject I am throwing out this challenge. HOW THIS DEBATE WILL WORK: I'll be presenting my argument in two ways. The first is detailing, with evidence, the ways in which Goku is superior to Superman. The second will be hypothetical ways Goku would beat Superman. My opponent may present their argument in any way they like, assuming it fulfills their part of our shared burden of proof. The fight will begin on Earth. NOTE: To prevent semantics, Superman's sun-activated abilities and Goku's ki abilities are compatible; Goku can block Superman's lasers with a Kamehameha and vice versa. All DC sources must be canon. I will arguing for a Goku at post-Buu saga, pre-GT form. I don't like GT, but on top of that Super Saiyan 4 would be unfair to ol' Supes. I'm not fully aware of all of Superman's many, many abilities but for simplicities sake, no time travel or other 'infrequently mentioned' abilities. I would appreciate if my opponent choose which version of Superman he will be arguing for and includes it with any other relevant definitions in his Acceptance Round. HOW TO DEFINE THE WINNER: Don't vote for the one you like more. Just don't do it. Vote for the one who was presented better. That's call objective voting. Good luck.
RESOLVED: In a fight, Goku would defeat Superman

I accept I acknowledge that you have more experience than me-My choice s Superman Prime Superman Prime is the second most powerful being that has ever existed in the DC multiverse only surpassed by The Presence. He has acquired countless powers and abilities from his travels and lineage that allow him to do almost anything he wishes, which range from teleportation to the manipulation of magic and warping reality. He can manipulate time, space, matter, and bend reality on almost any scale he wishes. Creation - Superman Prime is able to create lifeforms out of nothing. Resurrection - Superman Prime can resurrect the dead. Omniscience - Superman Prime has possibly learned everything in his time in the sun. Omnipotence - Superman prime has near limitless abilties as far as we can see. Omnipresent - Superman Prime can be any where at any time. All Kryptonian powers under a Yellow Sun. All of his Kryptonian powers are enhanced. Godlike Super strength - His strength is limitless, he is capable of lifting his own multi-verse. Godlike Super speed - His speed is incomprehensible to even the abstract beings. Godlike Super Senses Godlike Xray vision - He can see through any solid object, with no exceptions. Godlike Heat vision - A million times hotter than the center of the sun. Godlike Super Stamina/Endurance - Capable of surviving the end of the Multiverse. Godlike Invulnerability - Capable of surviving the end of the Multiverse. Godlike Super Hearing - Cosmic Awareness. Immortality - Superman Prime, will live until the end of Reality.PS WIKI http://superman.wikia.com...I await the next roundGoodluck
The US Gov has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on US soil.

I apologize for CLEARLY being an idiot & making a mistake on my first try. & NO we AREN'T going to use LD structure. I think that we SHOULD give the same constitution rights to ALL people because really, there is NO point in discriminating just becuase some people are here illegally. Does anyone OWN the Earth? Any ONE person? Any ONE nation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no. Yes, we do have the United Nations but they don't nesacerrily own the World. So why should we get to decide that certain part is OURS & that anyone who has the misfortune of entering must follow certain steps to be treated equally? I don't think we have a MORAL obligation because not everyone has the same morals. I just think we need to get off our high horse & realize that we arent exactly the most polite travellers ourselves. Since my opponent took arguement when he COULD HAVE gotten his own, you should CLEARLY vote pro. But since I am CLEARLY too unintelligent to be perfect, you should CLEARLY vote con/
The US Gov has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on US soil.

I guess we aren't going to use LD structure then. I am arguing AGAINST, clearly since my side is CON. You can pull my opponents argument of illegal aliens to my side, because they shouldn't be given the same constitutional rights. Therefore, since there are no arguments justifying the resolution, you must vote con. Illegal aliens bad, therefore, we shouldn't give them constitutional rights, therefore, vote con. Thank you.
The US Gov has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on US soil.

Yeah this is my first time. I don't know what your fancy jargon means but I'll take a stab anyways. I'm guessing that your FOR "The US Gov has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on US soil." If not, then my profuse apologies. No, I don't believe that every single person on U.S. soil deserves the same rights. I live in California & have seen first hand the effects of illegal aliens From what I have seen, they barge into MY country that MY parents & forefathers have worked for and then just swagger around like they belong here. It's not only bothersome, but its not right. Why should they reap what I sowed?
Abortion before the third trimester is the shizz!!!

MY OPPONENT HAS AGREED TO ALL OF MY POINTS EXCEPT WITH THAT ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. SHE ONLY BROUGHT UP ONE ARGUMENT WHICH IS THAT ABORTION IS MURDER. IF I PROVE THAT ABORTION BEFORE THE THIRD TRIMESTER IS NOT MURDER, THEN MY OPPONENT HAS NO HOPE OF WINNING THE DEBATE BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE ARGUMENT LEFT IN IT. murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. - to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. However, the fetus was never alive, so it therefore cannot be killed or "murdered." - abortion is not unlawfu and therefore is not murder. - abortion is not done to harm the baby but instead to save it from a life of crime and neglect, which is not only an obvious occurance but rather my opponent even agreed that this is the result of a non aborted baby. - the University of California team said foetuses probably only have that capacity at 29 to 30 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy lasts around 40 weeks. http://news.bbc.co.uk... - Many physicians and medical researchers believe that fetuses can begin to feel pain sometime during the third trimester. This is long after: Essentially all miscarriages occur, Ectopic pregnancies have been dealt with, and After about 99% of abortions are performed. Some researchers suggest fetuses cannot sense pain, no matter how far along in pregnancy. They believe that pain can only be felt after birth. Some pro-life physicians believe that fetuses can feel pain much earlier in pregnancy - to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "human" life. When you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine, you have not committed murder. When butchers slaughter pigs for hot dogs and cows for steaks, they have not committed murder.
Abortion before the third trimester is the shizz!!!

I actually agree with you on 2 as well. I included" back alley abortions" in increased crime rate. However, I believe all of these empirical statistics are subjugated to RIGHTS. Since you addressed libertarianism, I'll do the same. Libertarians believe the government should not regulate our lives because of our natural rights to life, liberty, and property. So you see, since I believe that it is impossible to COUN OUT a fetus as a life worth saving, I can maintain libertarian and anti-abortion stances. That said, legally,Im still against government interference with abortion. I'm speaking only form an ethical standpoint. My opponent has not yet addressed my argument concerning that statuses of fetuses and our responsibilities regarding them. Therefore, I'll spare the reader more babble until he does. Thanks for reading
Abortion before the third trimester is the shizz!!!

2. "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile. 6. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person. MY OPPONENT AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 2 & 6: 1.I do not contest that making abortion illegal would increase crime rates because of the increased amount of impoverished children 2. I do not like government regulation... of anything 3. I agree a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body 4. Rape victims did not agree to let the child use her body and thus may have an abortion It is for these reasons that I do not believe that abortion should be made illegal. I, do, however, draw a distinction, as you should if you are a libertarian, between legal and moral actions. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION AND DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE ABORTION ON A MORAL STANDPOINT. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT LIBERTARIANS WERE FOR ABORTION AND GAY RIGHTS. IS THAT CORRECT? NO MATTER WHAT, I AM FOR BOTH.
Abortion before the third trimester is the shizz!!!

1. Government gets to control a woman's body. 2. "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile. 3. It's arguably better for society to have babies aborted than have them be brought up poor and neglected, where not only will the child suffer but society when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc. 4. One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. 5. Raped women would be forced to have unwanted, criminal enduced children without support for that child. 6. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person. AND I CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR BEING LIBERTARIAN. GOOD JOB ON THAT.
Abortion before the third trimester is the shizz!!!

First of all, the fact that I agreed with most of your arguments DOES NOT MATTER because the only thing that does matter is whether the act of abortion is morally unacceptable. I hate doing the quotes thing, but if policydebategod is going to insist in twisting what i said then i will do so. "to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. However, the fetus was never alive, so it therefore cannot be killed or "murdered" - A fetus is DEFINATELY alive. It is a group, at the very least, of living cells, growing and changing. To claim that a fetus is not alive is simply bad science "abortion is not unlawfu and therefore is not murder." This argument is simply ridiculous. The legality and morality of an action are completely separate. Slavery was lawful at one point. Does that mean it was not a rights violation until 1865? Absolutely not. "abortion is not done to harm the baby but instead to save it from a life of crime and neglect, which is not only an obvious occurrence but rather my opponent even agreed that this is the result of a non aborted baby. " How naive are you? Many abortions are performed because the mother deems it an inconvenience to have a child at point X in her life. In addition, it is equally appalling to say that you are saving the life of the future child by killing it. Im sure it would thank you for removing its chance at life. In conclusion, IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE ARGUMENT whether or not I agree that abortion, can, sometimes, lower crime rates or prevent back alley abortions. What matters is the ETHICAL status of the action based on rights. My opponent has not addressed my original argument against the logic that we should consider all fetuses before random time X not people or my argument against Consequentialsim, the philosophy on which most of his arguments rest. Therefore, EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH HIM, I do not think he won this debate Thanks for Reading
Lowering MLDA to 18

Drinking is illogical. The people of America know this. The U.S. government attempted to ban drinking in the past. The only reason that it is not still illegal to drink is that Mafias and other criminals started moving drinks like meth. America was in an state of panic. The only reason is that it is not 18 is that the government wants to flat-out ban it and the reason it isn't banned as that the American people would revolt.
Lowering MLDA to 18

I agree the legal drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18. People are constantly saying that an 18 year old are more immature, and too irresponsible to handle drinking, but the fact of the matter is that it all comes down to your tolerance level, morals, and values that you grew up with. No matter what age you start drinking at, your tolerance level is going to be the same because you just started and if you've taught yourself discipline throughout your years growing up then you should have enough discipline to moderate your alcohol intake.
Lowering MLDA to 18

The brain isn't fully developed until the age of 27 so by your reasoning no one should be allowed to drink until that age. There will be vehicular accidents everywhere you go someway somehow, not all of them are because of some 18 year old that couldn't hold their liquor. Statistics actually show that more 21 year olds who drink and drive cause more accidents than the 18 year olds that do it, and in foreign countries 18 year olds are allowed to drink and they handle it exceptionally well. We have bigger problems going on in the world and that's even shown by the police as they recognize underage drinking to be a low priority for them. If it's already a low priority why keep it illegal? It's simply causing more problems than necessary. There's no knowledge of what the future holds for anyone. Yes, there are measures that we can take to try and ensure that it's a safe one but there are no guarantees. This is life and life is rough. If we provide previsionary places for the 18 and yes even the 21 year old to drink we can minimize their intake. It's called 'moderation' and everyone should practice it. Allowing the 18 year old to drink would also lower death by binge drinking percentage. They binge because they don't know where and when their next drink is coming. I standby my decision that the MLDA should be lowered to 18, with all the liberties they have now, it only makes sense for them to get this one.
Morality is subjective

Not only have you ignored the rules of the debate, but you have posed a fallacious argument in such a confident way as to try and end the debate before it has begun. Because you have chosen to ignore the rules, I am going to use the rebuttal of your argument to make my opening argument. 'Not everybody shares the same belief' Yes, in this point you are right, that is why Divine Command is a form of moral subjectivity. Never in the history of the world has one set of divine moral codes been universally accepted. This makes them subjective even if they are enforced as the truth because there are countless people in the world who disagree with the 'moral truths' that religion put forward. They are not truth unless they are universally accepted as a truth, and my argument does not need to 'disprove Christianity and all other religions' because until their moral rules are accepted as fact by every human on the planet, they are not fact. Therefore this debate is not over, because you have not proven moral objectivity, you have just made it easier for me to make the case of subjectivity. Thank you for accepting the challenge of this debate, and I hope to prove a more worthy opponent than you were obviously expecting. The ball is now in your court CON.
Morality is subjective

If you believe in a religion, you can find clear guidelines for morality and immorality. For instance, Christians who believe that the 10 commandments are the final breakdown of what is moral and immoral. There is absolutely no action (whether it be passive or active) that isn't covered. Not everybody shares the same belief, but if Christians are right (not saying they are) then they did have the factual moral guidelines you are looking for. So now your argument needs to disprove Christianity and all other religions with similar rules. Good luck and nice topic. I would have preferred the other side.
Abortion is a reproductive right

Greetings there! By right I mean the latter, so if I say it is not a right, I'm saying that abortion is not a female entitlement in a free society. I do not think that abortion is a reproductive right, because it is an issue regarding another life. To call it a reproductive right would be to claim a women has the right to take the life of a human at will solely because it lives inside her, which as a humanitarian is for me a fundamentally wrong idea. The debate ultimately boils down, for me, is whether what exists inside the womb is a living human, which I feel inclined to belief yes, yes it is. Scientifically there is no agreement as to when a ball of cells becomes a human foetus, and so I see more and more people justifying abortions with arbitrary anatomical features (a developed brain) or otherwise (can survive outside the womb) which make no progress to actually deciding when it becomes human. One could argue it isn't human until it has first sucked its thumb; yet another arbitrary deciding point albeit a very exaggerated one. I do not believe in ending a life for convenience, or for mercy with the assumption that disabled babies are better of not existing. I would be lenient if lives were at risk, but with new developments in medicine and C sections, this is increasingly irrelevant. I think that ending the life of a young human is not a right by any means, and that no one regardless of their situation should be the arbiter of who should live and who should die.
Abortion is a reproductive right

Hi there! I would like to accept this challenge and ask if 'right' is to be defined as: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. "she had every right to be angry" synonyms:entitlement, prerogative, privilege, advantage, due, birthright, liberty, authority, power, license, permission, dispensation, leave, sanction, freedom; Thanks for engaging me:-)
Abortion is a reproductive right

So my conclusion/closing to this debate is as follows.You state that your reasoning for the resolution which rejects abortion as a reproductive right is:1. That it is your personal opinion that it is in best interest of society and that other humans should share it. This is fallacious logic as it is unfounded and circular, thought you still offer it in support of your claim.2. Your only attempt to back it up has been by relying on yet another fallacy, which is the slippery slope, in which you claims that if abortion (which you deem a violation of the right to life) is permitted, it will lead to the 'slippery slope' where the goverment can then value and devalue human life at will.But this is also flawed reasoning. Taking a life is permitted (not unlawful) under certain conditions, (self defense, war, capital punishment, etc.) but that does not mean that all killing e.g, murder, manslaughter is, or will ever be lawful. 3. You acknowledge that there is no scientific proof for when a human is a human, yet still maintain that those humans that live within other humans should have an equal right to life as 'born' individuals. My rebuttal has been that human rights, includes the rights of the individual to sovereignty, both physically and mentally, Because these rights are based on a functional definition of human beings (how human beings behave/exist), i.e., that a human life is self-sustaining/self supporting; or does not require that we place designs on the lives of others to survive; abortion is permissible because to deny it would give a foetus (a non-self sustaining life) the right to feed and thrive on another person against their will! So to permit this right, directly encroaches on the rights of another. This does not apply to foetuses who can survive outside the womb, which is why abortion laws have specified a point at which the termination is not legal, i.e., when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Though it has been contentious at times, lol... I am sincerely grateful for your attention to this engagement!!!.
Atheism is based on Faith

1. The Conditional "I'd first like to say that to the everyday definitions, proof and evidence are interchangeable"I disagree! Evidence is something that points to a particular answer; proof is a collection of evidence that shows something to be absolutely true. Evidence can show a set of possibilities, while proof only gives you one absolute answer. In any case, by admitting that evidence and proof are the same, CON admits that there is no evidence against God either. Therefore, atheists have no evidence to base their beliefs on, either; it all comes down to faith. CON also argues that disbelief is not a belief in something. Again, I respectfully disagree. If someone has a lack of belief in ghosts, for example, they believe ghosts cannot and do not exist. It is the same with God. While atheists may not have the BoP, they are still arguing for something. If you are debating someone about a smoking ban and you are CON; yes, you are refuting PRO's points but, equally, you are arguing for there not to be a smoking ban. b. EquivocationI apologise for being vague in my previous round. This debate, as I understand it, is abou gnostic atheists rather than agnostic atheists who are, in my mind, not "proper" atheists at all. CON has refrained from responding to my points in this area.2. The Linka. Non-SequiturCON has not answered my question in any degree. The lawyer takes it upon him/herself to defend the accused and is, as such, arguing for their innocence as much as the prosecution is arguing against them. b. Unfounded ClaimI'd like to point out that there is no absolute proof. Does that make belief in God false?3. P2"Atheists are not required to make any claims to disprove God, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to"Here, atheists are taking the BoP upon themselves. How is this not hypocritical; the ones who claim they do not make claims are making a claim!4. The ConclusionCON seems to neglect the idea that there is a difference between agnostic and gnostic atheists. The former may be considered agnostic rather than atheist; agnostics are the only party to not make any claims in a debate about God. ==============1. Faith vs faithCON's meaning was misleading; by his own admission:"most of my case is against atheism being based on faith anyways. "CON moves away from the resolution he put in place.2. Based onYep, I don't see any problems here. I also apologise for being a little brusque; I meant that, in the sense of making use of both faith and Faith in your arguments, it seemed highly misleading. =============="I hope this response was quick enough for you, Pro. "Just :P. I thank my opponent for posting his arguments as quickly as he could, allowing me to finish this debate. And finally. .. CON and I have already agreed that I will not present any arguments in the last round. However, I will be unable to post my last round; therefore, I request that voters do not see the last round as a forfeit and base their votes on the debate up to that point. I thank CON for this debate.