BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marvel VS DC

To begin, I understand that you said Marvel and DC Universe, however it is such a broad topic that I chose to use Avengers vs JLA as a starting point to show you that DC characters are comparatively better than marvel characters. If we were to make an argument for every DC and Marvel character in the Multiverses then we would be here typing out arguments forever That is why to simplify things, I began with Avengers Vs JLA. Now one of your main arguments is that Superman would easily be defeated by a tag team of marvel characters, however, if the five characters you mentioned are working together, then why couldn"t superman be working together with superboy and supergirl, the three of them together would easily be able to take down iron man, thor, hulk, and deadpool. And as for Galactus, your apparent trump card who can obliterate any DC character in space, Krona with his immortality, and ability to absorb any energy into his body, including his foes, he could easily defeat Galactus. In fact he did defeat Galactus during the JLA/Avengers miniseries. And in case you are looking for more, the marvel univere is severely outnumbered when you factor in the 7200+ members of the green lantern corps and however many members are a part of the Sinestro Corps. Overall, not only is the Marvel Universe outnumbered, but it is also out powered. Extend all previous arguments.
Marvel VS DC

First off, I said Marvel and DC Universe, not Avengers vs JLA. Secondly you are taking two random characters and making them fight when it is an all out battle, you used the example, martian manhunter vs captain america= cap loses (Which I (sadly) agree with) However, Martian Manhunter and Cap might never even meet each other in battle, who`s to say Hulk doesn't get to Martian Manhunter first? Then Martian Manhunter is screwed. See what im getting at? You also have to think of smaller characters, not just the mainstream ones. And the villains too! If almost any of the DC hero's go into space, they would be completely obliterated by Galactus, no doubt about it! The dude eats planets for god's sake. Also, Green Lantern (As awesome as he is) would not be able to take down Hulk, Yes I played Injustice he did take Soloman Grundy into space, but Hulk is without a doubt way stronger than Grundy. Black widow (as you mentioned) would be on the ground fighting, while Hawkgirl would be flying around fighting probably Iron man, Thor or other characters who can fly, same with Superman. Iron man would not be defeated by Batman as iron man would already know of his EMP rifle and tell another hero to take care of him. Most peoples arguments are simply, Superman. Well, 5 characters could take down superman (especially when they're working together AND they have the help of any other character in the Marvel universe) Iron man, Thor, Hulk, Galactus and Deadpool. Deadpool could easily be a distraction to Superman and would be able to avoid/cope with all his attacks. Iron man is very rich and powerful, he would definitely be able to get his hands on kyptonite and make a kryptonite weapon or even a kryptonite suit. Remember, Iron man is much more powerful than the last few live action movies. Thor would also be able to keep Superman fighting or draw him places. Using Mjonlir to break his jaw and keep him fighting and keep coming back for more. Hulk would put up a big fight against Superman and end up getting so angry he could simply pin him down without him being able to even move(Remember the angrier Hulk gets the stronger him and his powers get). Once they get him in space, Galactus would EASILY grab Superman between his fingers and literally turn him into dust. Poof, Superman's gone. Your move... Remember the villains. (Jeez I just helped you a ton with your argument there are plenty of insanely strong DC villains)
Marvel VS DC

Judging from what I"m reading I believe you mean which characters would win rather than which is a better comic company and how well each company is doing. Therefore I will begin with the best comparison, the Avengers in the 2012 film and the original JLA First of all, Batman would defeat Iron Man. He would use his EMP rifle that we saw in the Dark Knight Rises to turn off the electronics of Iron Man"s suit rendering it useless in battle and Tony Stark just a regular guy. Martian Man Hunter would defeat Captain America hands down. Captain America has nothing but his shield to defeat a shape-shifting, energy projecting, invisible, super strong, telepathic alien. Get the point. Captain America does not stand a chance. Superman, being super fast, and having superior weaponry would defeat Thor. The only chance Thor would have would be to find Kryptonite, but Superman also has an Anti Kryptonite suit to negate this effect. Black Widow is just a trained government agent who definitely couldn"t beat hawk girl who has actual powers. Wonder Woman would defeat Hawkeye by deflecting his arrows with her indestructible wrist bands and then beat him. Finally Hulk, the only Marvel avenger who poses much of a challenge Could be flown into space by Green Lantern as Green lantern does to Grundy in the video game Injustice. This gives a comprehensive look at some of the main superheroes from each which clearly shows how much stronger DC heroes are than Marvel Heroes Sources: http://www.ign.com... http://dcanimated.wikia.com...
The UK should take back the US (thirteen colonies)

I don't really see a point in making a huge, elaborate case, but since I have to make one in order to score "argument" points, I will make one, even as wrong and misleading it is (remember, my points cannot be refuted thus they must be true).Contention I. The US has a lot of issues. As we can see from FoxNews.com article entitled "Lawmakers condemn 'barbaric' killing of American aid workers help by ISIS [1], the US has a lot of foreign policy issues that the rest of the world cannot take. The UK is mostly a liberal country, and because of that they cannot collaborate with foreign affairs with the US, since the US is mostly republican (as you can se from the current standing congress). Because the UK cannot collaborate with the US on an allied level, I would not be so quick as to say that they could do so even if they were joined in the same country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Contiguous United States, Hawaii, and Alaska), which means that the resolution is negated, since foreign affairs nearly completely defines a country.[1]: http://www.foxnews.com...;(sorry this was more of a troll source but I just put it in there to accentuate the point that the US is mostly conservative, thus are more likely to take word from this source)
Should Australia lift the ban on (most) firearms

It would not nessisary open any doors. Australian gun owners are one of the most careful people in the country. Although I do admit there are some stupid people with guns, I would not consider them a danger to the general public. If a person wanted to commit a terrorist attack, There are many other options form them. Good luck trying to stop a truck from killing a large group of people. There is nothing stopping someone from walking into a shop, Buying a knife and stabbing members of the public.
Should Australia lift the ban on (most) firearms

The Port Arthur incident happened 23 years ago. The gun laws were not developed completely back then. Since the incident, Many other changes have happened other than the gun ban. The laws regarding getting a gun have changed completely. I am the owner of a gun in Australia. The process of getting a gun is very strict. Back then, The process was a lot easier. Even the method of dealing with a shooting incident have changed dramatically. As for the statistics in America, I am aware that there may be a large amount of firearm related incidents. However, An extremely large majority of those incidents are used for self defence. Less than a quarter of those incidents are violent crimes or homicides. Also, America has a completely different procedure for allowing someone ownership of a firearm. In order to get a firearm in Australia, The person must undergo very strict procedures. Much more than in America.
Should Australia lift the ban on (most) firearms

Your point is valid, However this opens the hole for massacres like at Port Arthur. That"s the main reason why Australia has those bans; and that's why they will stick. For instance, Take a look at America"s situation. Compared to 22 other high-income nations, The U. S. Gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, The U. S. Had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns. This, Is what happens, When you relax firearm bans.
Should Australia lift the ban on (most) firearms

I believe that Australia should lift the ban on guns. Keep in mind, The actual process of getting a firearm does not change. The only law changed is the types of firearms available to the public. Fully automatic firearms can be banned, But I do not have a problem with legalising semi-automatic carbine style weapons such as the AR-15. This change will benefit both the economy, As well as the firearm industry in Australia as it will allow more people to access better, More reliable selection of firearms.
Batman can beat Darkseid

Darkseid, #6 on IGN's top villain list [1], has a wide range of superpowers including enough strength to make Superman bleed, teleportation, invulnerability [2]. Batman has none, he's a normal human who'd die from one superpowered punch.Pro's entire case seems to be that Darkseid's omega beams would miss. This would not allow Batman to beat him, as Darkseid can simply punch him. Game over.[1] http://www.ign.com...[2] http://www.dccomics.com...
Religion will not survive to see the future

While some of what you say makes sense, it is naive to think religion will just disappear like that. Your argument revolves around the fact that science shows us ever more about the world, and many phenomena that once needed religion as an explanation can now be explained with science. As a statement, this is clearly true, but as an argument for why religion will die out, it is lacking. You are forgetting several key factors. Firstly, it seems likely that science will never entirely explain away all the mysteries in the universe. There may only be so much that humans are capable of discovering empirically. Our capacity to store information is finite, and we can comprehend even less of it. As such there will likely always be mysteries and questions, which religion will claim as evidence for their beliefs. I"m obviously not arguing they"d be right to do so. Logically it makes little sense to claim that just because science doesn"t know everything, religion is plausible. However, people do claim this today, regardless of the truth of it. The second thing you"re overlooking is that Religious thought is very good at co-opting science for its own purposes. We disproved creationism with the theory of evolution, and many religions just said "Fine, there was evolution but God caused it". The same has happened with the big bang. This will happen regardless of what new theories science demonstrates. Furthermore, even if science could disprove religion entirely, you"re assuming that all the people of our future society will have the scientific knowhow to understand the proof, and the motivation to go through with applying it. I doubt that this will be the case. Many people can"t understand or have no interest in science or advanced logic, and so are unlikely to stop believing in religion on scientific or logical grounds. The third factor is that people sometimes find the comfort of religion more appealing then the coldness of reality. People intuitively seek purpose and meaning in their lives. They want to view their lives as significant at an objective or cosmic level and religion provides this comfort for many. Add to this the temptation of paradise and the fear of Hell, and it"s easy to see why people are so attached to their religious beliefs that they are willing to put logic to the side. On some level, we all do this, believing things because they give us comfort, and not thinking too hard about them for fear of what we might discover. For example, I like to think that my cat loves me back, but I also really don"t want to think too hard about whether that"s true or not. So overall, I believe that religion will survive long into the future. Science may never reveal everything and even if it does, we may not understand it or may even reject it in favour of theories that are more appealing.
Religion will not survive to see the future

Religion has been a thing till now because science hasn't been able to prove the origins of everything. So if you notice religion is succeeding not by any achievements of their own but by the failure of others. They always say that no scientist can prove that god doesn't exist but can they prove that god Does in fact exist? They would always show us some random coincides and call them miracles to prove themselves right but even science can show the slaughter of humans in the Middle-east, the starving poor Africans and the decades of tyranny in North Korea. What do they have to say about all this? they would find an excuse they would say its a trial of faith but let me ask you haven't we passed enough trials before? The black death, The world wars, The god forsaken years of colonialism, etc. And if this "GOD" of yours still isn't done with his trials i am afraid i think he is a maniac who likes to see his children suffer. Science is what has changed our lives. Our knowledge and man made facilities have given us longer lifespan and a wonderful life. Its because of our technology that even you can access the internet. Science will continue growing and faith will keep deteriorating until it finally is lost. The pope, The priests, the imams, the pandits all of them people will see through through the lies of these people who call themselves servants of this hoax and they will be abandoned. Temples, Churches, Mosques will be destroyed and religion will be a thing of the past seen only in the history books.
I like to keep my excrement. People think this is wrong

Welcome to DDO! You're doing well. Thanks for keeping this debate in the Misc section. I. Keeping poo is unsanitary and may lead to death. Poo (or fæces, butt mustard, Hershey squirts, doo doo, etc.) is unsanitary. They contain death inducing organisms such as the Deathicus Shyticus, and facilitate the growth of bacteria such as Fecal coliform. Allowing these organisms to grow inside of your pocket is endangering the health of you (suicide is illegal in this country. ‘MURCA), AND the people around you. In addition, poo is a chock hazard. 7 thousand infants die a year because they chock on poo. 9 thousand dogs a year dies because they chock on poo. And, and astounding 200 thousand adults die every year because they chock on poo. II. Keeping poo in one's pockets in public is a violation of human rights. Poo is an aggressive agent that disperses molecules into the air around it. Those molecules then sexually violate everyone around it by sneaking up their noses, ears, mouths, eyes, and any other openings found on the human body. You cannot justify this with “I didn’t do it. It was my poo.” Facilitating the sexual assault of your poo is just as bad committing it yourself. Like we all keep leashes on dogs, so you must not let your poo disperse aggressive odor molecules in public. And, what makes you think the poo wants to be in your pocket? Poo are sensitive and nice things. III. Keeping poo is an insult to people whose poo are not as good as yours. From what I have heard, your poo is simply amazing. You will make others who do not have superior poo feel marginalized. This is like that one giant show off who likes to shove his large objects in other people’s faces. Nobody likes a show off. You stated that you want to trade poo with others. You can do this in private, in the General Poo Trading Sewers. There, you will find a large variety of both high quality poo and exotic poo. In fact, I have seen purple poo in the Sewers. However, you may not display it in a public setting. Displaying it will get you a felony in the same degree as exposing a minor Conclusion: Keeping poo is bad on several levels. Thank you. []. http://en.wikipedia.org... []. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com...
I like to keep my excrement. People think this is wrong

I'm new to this website and debating so I dont really know how to format it, or if there's any etiquette to follow but here is what I have to say. Everybody makes poo. What's different from my poo to the next guys poo? sometimes I wish there were other people to trade poo with just to explore the world of poo a little bit more. I love the sensation of poo in my pockets, it feels warm on my thighs and keeps me that little bit warmer in harsh conditions, its also nice to just dip your fingers in if youre feeling a bit cold! I would love to hear an argument based on both topics, the public poo carrying and then the poo in my pockets, are you strongly against both?
I like to keep my excrement. People think this is wrong

Many people of todays society seem to think that me keeping my poo after i've been to the toilet is wrong. I strongly disagree, it's something that I have created and If i want to keep it then I will certainly do so. I always walk the streets with poo in my pockets + in my hands. Ive actually had the police called on me one time, I was trying to buy a magazine, and i forgot to hide my poo, i almost placed a turd in his hand instead of money! oops! Getting back on track, I would love to debate with someone who thinks this is wrong as ive been bottling my feelings up now for a while nyam
Writers debate: Fiction

The purpose of this debate will be to intellectually get around the challenges posed by your opponent with each plot twist. At the same time, both writers will focus their skills into making their prose interesting, legible, and well written. "Is this a debate?" some of you may ask. I personally believe a writers debate requires a great amount of skill as it shows a debaters confidence in their speech, and they have to overcome obstacles through the use of creativity, imagination, and wit. RULES: 1. Each debater will set a plot twist, or a problem for the protagonist to overcome at the end of each round. The opponent will continue off of the story that was instigated, and do their best to make it interesting, and smake sense with the rest of the story. At the end of their round, they too will pose a challenge for the instigator to overcome.2. This is a tournament debate, so a forfeit will conduct in the loss of the debate.3. There will be a maximum of 8,000 characters per round, with a minimum of 4,000, such that the story does not become detached, and detail-less. 4. Judging will be determined by the voters, however voting categories will be: S/G, writing style, Plot interest, and coagulation with the opponents writing.I ask that if my opponent has any discrepancies with the rules, to please PM me in our private message, or to leave a message in the comments of this debate prior to accepting to discuss the issue with me. First round will be acceptance, and I will begin the story in round 2.I look forward to a very exciting clash of words with my determined opponent!
All J-walkers should be run over and the drivers should not be stopped

All people who J-walk across the road or are running across a city street should be considered open targets for cars and no driver should be liable for a hit on a pedestrian if they are crossing a road or darting across a street in a non designated crossing. Sidewalks are for people, Roads are for cars. We have designated crossing areas, Stop signs, Crosswalks for pedestrians to cross the road. If you are too lazy to walk to the next designated crossing area then you deserve to be run over by a car. I don't drive on the sidewalk, So you don't walk on a street. If you do I will turn you into hamburger or you can go flying over the hood of my car. J-walking is illegal by law and anyone doing it should be run over by a car and left on the road like road kill.
"Love" is a State of Mind

Everyone has something that makes them happy, whether its different from another. Like eating escargo makes me happy and it makes my friend gag. But everyone knows for sure what makes them happy and everyone knows what makes them sad or angry. Because they are basic, identifiable emotions. But they never really know who they will fall in love with until they meet someone and decide, "Hey, I love this person." There's also the matter of loving someone like a family member, a mother or father, brother or sister, etc. If a person grows up in a loving household, he or she grows to love their family in return if they have no reason to hate them. Or if you lived in the unfortunate circumstances I grew up with, the way you think of your parents changes. I didn't know my dad, and I didn't live with my mother long (thank God) but the more I learn of them, the more I hate them. Like how you hate that total jerk in your class that throws stuff at you or your friend for no reason. That's just an example if you don't go to school anymore. While Love really does seem very similar to an emotion, I still firmly believe that it is a state of mind, something you have control over, that can be affected by your emotions if you choose. I believe that the mistake of thinking that love is an emotion and getting lost in it like you would an emotion is what makes a heart-break so much harder than it has to be or how people "fall in love" too soon. Maybe that's just the way I am. Maybe I always keep people at arms length and too afraid to take a risk. I have not yet fallen in love with anybody because I don't really care if I do or not. If I meet someone I really like and and decide that I may be love with that person, good for me. But that's not really a priority of mine. Thanks again for this debate. I can't wait for your response and read some people's comments!
"Love" is a State of Mind

Bravo! however I must still disagree with your view on emotion. true if Love was as simple as Joy or Anger, the entire World would be falling in and out of love as quickly as a change of clothes. No Love is not simple, but very complex and as you say varies among diffrent people. You say that everyone feels the same toward happiness? nay i know that i get happinss Snakes while my brother gets joy from his pet dogs very diffrent yet the same joy. love is unique and yet it is the same emotion. For example Joy is a good feeling thus emotion. anger feels Hot,sorrow feels cold, love feels warm. it is sad that Feelings have been made so primitive but i hope that you understand that love is indeed an emotion ah here is my chart: Joy Anger Sadness stage EMOTIONS! Love Loathe Fear State EMOTIONS! Pain Hate Depression Effect EMOTIONS! there are stages for the stage emotions mental states for the state emotions and lasting effects from the Effect emotions