BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am a n00b.

1. This is irrelevant. Because my opponent is new to this website, he is a n00b. He is a 'newcomer' to debate. org. 2. My link linked to a forum that links to debates with nubs. They have similar arguments to CON's opening. For example, . http://www.debate.org... Nub makes false claim; doesn't back it up. . http://www.debate.org... Nub makes stupid claim; doesn't back it up. In fact, the entirity of his case is: "I have viewed people as long as I can remember,they are good @ telling others how to live there lives even by force sometimes. People should live there own lives,the hypocritical way I say! I Can Prove that people suck! !! !! !! !! !! !! " This is comparable to my opponent's case, in which he says: "I am not a n00b. If you think that I am a n00b, try to PWNZOR me. " IN CONCLUSION, my opponent is not only a n00b by definition but also resembles and debates like other n00bs.
I am a n00b.

1. Although this is my first debate on Debate. org, it is far from my first debate online. I have been involved in debates in online forums before, although they were not organized as they are on Debate. org. 2. I question the purpose of your link in this point. The page it links to does not mention newbie or n00b, nor anything similar, nor does it include any posters with fewer that half of the posts than my opponent has, and I doubt that that is few enough posts to be considered a n00b. I await my opponent's response.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

Think about the food chain. Bats are above spiders for a reason. In response to my opponents questions: #1. Batman goes through sidekicks faster than you or I go through dirty laundry. and nobody besides Dick Grayson seems to has escaped his custody with their sanity and good health intact. (And even Dick seems to have been screwed up a little). The creater of Batman refers to batman as a loner, and goes on to explain the purpose of the sidekicks in the following link. Also, Batman is so formidable in Justice League, you can hardly call him human. (http://www.worldsfinestonline.com...) #2. There is no way of telling how much he thinks of her during battle, but it would be irresponsible to say that he doesn't at all. I was just giving an example of how Spider-man has more things on his mind then Batman. #3. That is not the only way he was trained. Batman was Trained by Richered Dragon The Worlds Greatest Martial Artiest. He also trained with Zatara, the worlds greatest escape artiest. He spent time with tebtin monks learning how to control his mind and sprit. He learnt karate from an ascended master in the Paektusan mountains of Korea, and savate from a convicted killer living as a beach bum on an island off Borneo. He discovered the value of judo and ju-jitsu during six months in a Japanese hermitage, and learned the secrets of the tao from an old Chinese woman. He mastered a dozen disciplines, and merged them all into a style which was uniquely his. From the ninjas he learned how to use the shadows, how to use psychology to win the battle before it's even fought, the precautions to take when you make yourself a target, and how to use fear. All of these skills, combined with a photographic memory and a genius level intellect make Batman a much better fighter then Spider-man. #4. The point is that they were stronger/stronger then Spider-man. I have already given other examples and reasons on why Batman would win a fight with Spider-man even without need for a rematch. #5. Ok, then I shall drop that point. #6. How do you explain how theses 'amazing' spider senses don't protect him from a mere butler: http://joshreads.com... Other sources: http://www.darkknight.ca... http://mises.org... And now, some questions for my opponent: 1. If Spider-man is so smart, as you say, then why does he still remain poor? 2. What fighting technique are you talking about? Please describe this and provide a source. 3. What is your definition of 'defeat'? 4. Who do you think would have more motivation to defeat the other? 5. If Spider-man did not posses his spider senses, how would this effect a battle between him and Batman? 6. Can you please define "prior preparation"
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

Cross Examination: #1. If Batman is a loner, how do you explain all of the sidekicks he has had? Are you aware of how large the Bat family has grown over the years? And what about the Justice League? How does he not have anyone to worry a given all of these affiliations? #2. How often does Spider-Man think about Gwen Stacy's death during battle? #3. How would you compare being trained in Tibet with hallucinogens to being trained by Captain America and gaining experiencing from frequent battles with other martial arts masters such as wolverine and DareDevil. #4.Are you aware that Batman has lost to the super villains you've cited upon their first encounter, only to "find a way to win" in time for the rematch? #5. This is Batman against Spider-Man; not Batman and his sidekicks vs Spider-Man. If outside forces are allowed however, what is to stop me from citing the avengers, the X-men, The Fantastic Four and pretty much every other group whom Spider-Man is frequently rubbing elbows with? #6. Spider-sense isn't that helpful? How do you explain Spider-Man using his spider-sense to evade projectiles moving at the speed of light from a silver surfer possessed by Carnage (a scan which I'll link you to in the next round). And that'll be all for now. I'll post my case in Round 3
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

Pull all arguments across! BOTTOMLINE on Spider-Man vs Batman: 1) Spider-Man is fast enough to be avoiding machine gun fire and shielding himself from lazers (which move at the speed of light by definition, although it must be noted that he wouldn't be able to anticipate any light speed projectile without spider sense) at close range. As I've already shown, he is literally faster than a bullet as we clearly saw him webbing up bullets AFTER they were fired. What's more, he pulled this off with his goal being to protect someone OTHER than himself. My opponent has given us no reason to believe that Batman can move at a similar speed, much less move fast enough to avoid being clobbered by Spider-Man the very INSTANT the battle begins (i. e. a speed blitz). Batman won't even have the opportunity to CONSIDER using gadgets. 2) Even while shrunken down to the size of an action figure, we saw Spider-man EASILY knocking out trained soldiers who were normal in size. Again, imagine how one of these punches would effect Batman when up against the wall crawler at normal size. ONE punch is all it takes to put Batman down for the count. As of now, you could probably stop reading and just vote CON since there's pretty much no way Batman is getting around someone who is too fast/strong for him without any kind of prior knowledge of the battle or his opponent. 3) Spider-Man has his own unique fighting style which has enabled him to have fighting skills superior to most of the fighters in the Marvel Universe. Not to mention that Spider-Man has trained under Captain America as well (who is regarded as the best fighter in the Marvel Universe). Even if the two were close in strength and speed, Batman would not have his martial arts skills as an advantage. 4) One of the most intelligent people in the Marvel Universe (Hank Pym) claims that Spider-Man was smarter than him merely at the age of 15 (when he invented his spider tracers). Spider-Man is much older now and more experienced. When taking into consideration his own share of intellectual feats, he can at very LEAST a match against Batman. Thus, intelligence won't be an advantage either. 5) I've shown that the foes who my opponent has claimed to be superior to Spider-Man to have either been beaten only after Batman had lost earlier (hence had time to prepare for the rematch) and/or that Spider-Man is superior and has bested foes even greater still on a regular basis. When taking all of the facts into consideration, the dark knight doesn't stand a CHANCE! Mr. Wayne would approach the battle with his usual overconfidence and tough guy demeanor, only to be quickly dispatched and webbed up against a lamp post as if he were some common crook. The web head would then proceed to take a picture, make a joke and then continue the night on his usual patrol as if nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. . . . . to him, life is great big bang up, whenever there's a hang up, you'll find the SPIDER-MAN! !! !! !! !! !! !! No new arguments next round. Thanks for the debate!
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

Another game debate. Everything is simple and straightforward, I will be debating for the side of the Death Korps of Krieg from the Warhammer 40k series. My opponent will be allowed to pick an organized and hierarchized military force from any game, novel, movie, etc. All we must do is prove that, when fighting on land, why our military force would beat the other. First round is for acceptance and statement of what military force you pick. All further rounds are fair game as long as we defend our side and attack the opponents. Lore would play a great deal in information of your force. Restrictions: No profanity, let's try and keep this peaceful. The Flood may not be a military force, nor the Xenomorphs, Tyranid, or anything of those sort. Any questions please voice in chat, be it about what force would be acceotable or definitions and so on.
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

...Ok. I was hoping for a challenge there, but it seems that Emperor didn't live up to my expectations. For next round, if his initial intention was to recognise that his army can't surpass the Covenant, then he should say it plainly, instead of forfeiting. Anyway, here's my case on how the Covenant beat the Kriegs.Argument 1: The Covenant are more technologically advancedA rather simple title, who illustrates well my point. As presented by Pro, the Kriegs Death Korps have a steampunk aspect that is highly noticeable, meaning they're both equipped of futuristic tech and ancient tech. In this case, the Lasguns being the futuristic piece of equipment, and the rest of their equipment akin to what soldiers had during both World Wars. In other words, you could call the Kriegs World War soldiers who have been given laser guns, gas masks and an indomitable will to die on the battlefield for their nation-here the Empire of Mankind. But there is so much that willpower can do against an opponent that utterly crushes you. The Covenant have many futuristic tech that include laser guns, plasma guns, particle beam guns, and armour that would make today's version of bullet proof vest look like a joke. To say it bluntly: the Covenant are far better equipped than the Kriegs for a land battle.Argument 2: The Covenant have a better tactical compositionBy virtue of being composed of many different species with each their unique traits, the Covenant show a diversity that is practically impossible to match for the Kriegs, who are solely composed of humans. Hence, different, more unique, battle strategies can be operated with the Covenant than Kriegs. Add in a probable inexperience of the Krieg Death Korps in fighting aliens(referred to as Xenos in Warhammer 40k), while the Covenant have made a several-year long genocidal war against humans(these humans being more advanced technologically than the Kriegs, referring to argument 1), and get a clear tactical advantage for the Covenant.Argument 3: NumbersWhen this debate started interesting me, and I researched the Kriegs to find plausible opponents, one major problem struck me: the Death Korps in their totality have probably millions of units operating under them. A single regiment was ambushed, lost 1800 men, and still seemed to have enough men to raid other objectives and conquer them. And since there are over a hundred-ish regiments, it's safe to say the Death Korps count in the millions. Well, the Covenant too. They are in control of several star systems(or solar systems if you prefer), with each multiple planets inhabited by them. The Kriegs near total population live to fight. The same can be said about the Covenant. The Unggoy themselves forming a big chunk of the army, and seeing the speed at which they procreate, the Covenant has more than enough cannon fodder to deal with most of the Kriegs, while the other races can take care of what's left.
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

I abide by my opponent's request to merely introduce our militaries before actually having them engage them. As previously stated, I am vouching for the Death Korps of Krieg, whose seemingly inexhaustible amount of soldiers and bloody and feared means of conducting a war is feared by many throughout the WH40K universe. As a start off point, allow me to introduce just who the Death Korps are for those unaware. The Death Korps of Krieg is a specialized regiment of the Imperial Guard of the Imperium of Man. Where the Catachan Warriors are feared jungle fighter and the Cadians are all soldiers against Chaos, the Death Korps are the fearless and faceless Warriors of Attrition. They win their battles by shelling their foes with a storm of artillery and then charging across vast wastelands to meet their enemy face to face. With Lasguns capable of ignoring heavier armor than a standard issue lasgun and bayonets sharpened to a fine edge. Each Kriegsman bears a trademark gasmask, seemingly never removing it. Each Kriegsman also bears a long Trench Coat and is covered from head to toe in armor and cloth, no skin ever truly showing, their faces are faceless, their words emotionless, their zeal commendable. The Kriegsmen are born to die, waging war for the Emperor as a means of repent for their ancestors betrayal. Due to this belief and lack of fear of death, the Death Korps are a remarkable foe to anyone. Their forces are trained to wage long battles and lose men, that is what makes them the perfect warriors for a war of attrition. Each man is versatile in a variety of weapons so that all available resources can and will be utilized, and the Krieg specialty is their ability to make and break formidable lines. The Death Korps are masters of Trench Warfare and artillery combat, they truly know no fear and are exemplary tacticians. Each Kriegsman find penance in death, and therefore does whatever it takes to fight and die. Suicide missions are a common thing among their plans, and every soldier volunteers for them. Hazardous warzones are a constant sight in a universe that knows only war, and the more dangerous the warzone, the more the Death Korps want it. Overall, their zeal and unfaltering morale, their bloody and tactics and lack of morals, their numbers and sheer will, is enough to allow them to take any foe including the Tyranids and the Necrons. The faceless weapons of the Emperor can, will, and do all it takes to achieve victory, men are replaceable, casualties are not a concern. I await my opponent's introduction.
Does Five Nights At Freddy's Suck

I was personally challenged to this debate. There's also only 1 hour to post an argument, RIP opponent, since he'll probably time out.Five Nights At Freddy's is scary, because it has an atmosphere about it. Freddy laughs in the backround, there's miscellanious noises, it's dark, and animatronics are about to murder you.But the main reason FNAF remained popular throughout the first 4 games is the story. A Purple Man is killing children, hacking animatronics, and there's all these little clues everywhere. Who is the Purple Man, why is he murdering everyone, and what exactly is Freddy Fazbear's Pizza (the company the series revolves around)? Heck, the story was so cryptic, fans demanded MatPat make theories on FNAF.So will you respond in the next 60 minutes, Pro?Eh, I got enough time for a rebuttal, so I might as well do this.Rebuttal:"Alright so Five Nights at Freddy's was fun for about 15 minutes. After the first or second play of the game the jump scares become totally predictable, making the game not only not fun but not scary." Well, similar could be said for many games. You get used to the scares after a bit."Speaking of not scary, jump scares are the cheapest form of horror, due to the fact that it's not scaring you with disturbing imaginary and twisted scenery and tones but instead a flashy image and a loud noise." Conceded."When you jump at these scares it's not because your actually scared but you jumped because it's human instinct. After a jump scare happens your more pissed off then scared for about what just happened." Markiplier never seemed angry after the first 5 jumpscares on any FNAF game.In 10/20 mode in FNAF 2, he was angry because it was pure luck whether or not you survived.I think the debate's complete.
Does Five Nights At Freddy's Suck

Alright so Five Nights at Freddy's was fun for about 15 minutes. After the first or second play of the game the jump scares become totally predictable, making the game not only not fun but not scary. Speaking of not scary, jump scares are the cheapest form of horror, due to the fact that it's not scaring you with disturbing imaginary and twisted scenery and tones but instead a flashy image and a loud noise. When you jump at these scares it's not because your actually scared but you jumped because it's human instinct. After a jump scare happens your more pissed off then scared for about what just happened.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

With thanks to my opponent for posting this debate, I should like to make it clear from the outset that I'm not some old fuddy-duddy that disapproves of mass demonstrations. On the contrary, the right to participate in public protests is of fundamental importance to a healthy democracy and I have personally taken part in a number political rallies, some of which have degenerated into riots, such as was the case in the Poll Tax Protest. http://news.bbc.co.uk... However, while I was happy to register my disapproval of the then right-wing Tory Government's proposal to effectively bar poor people from voting by peacefully participating in the demonstration, I was deeply disappointed when violence broke out (not least of all because some coppers on horses bludgeoned me to the ground with their truncheons!) In the ensuing chaos, innocent people had their property damaged or destroyed. I witnessed numerous acts of wanton destruction. Prestigious cars were overturned and set alight and upmarket shops were trashed. While a peaceful protest is perfectly legal, these acts of criminal damage are not and it was the rioting and destruction that made the headlines, rather than the mass protest at a patently unjust Government policy. My opponent referred to the traitors that, with the help of treacherous French insurgents, rebelled against British rule in America! At that time, America was not a democracy and so it can be argued that at that time civil disobedience was justified, just as the citizens of Palestine, which is illegally occupied by Israel, are justified in attacking strategic Israeli targets today. However, those that shout loudest are not always right and in a democracy everyone has to accept the will of the majority of the citizens that elect Government's on the basis of their manifestos. No citizen in a democracy can pick and choose which laws they obey. If a citizen disagrees with any given law or policy, they have the right to organise a peaceful protest, lobby their political representative and vote for the opposition in the next election, but not to engage in illegal civil disobedience.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

This is a classic debate topic, whose roots, at least within an American context, go back to the struggle for American independence when British colonists engaged in acts of civil disobedience to protest against British rule. The Boston Tea Party, an act of civil disobedience, helped spark the American Revolution. It was a far less dramatic act of civil disobedience, a single individual refusing to pay his taxes in protest of the Mexican-American war and slavery in the nineteenth century that made the term "civil disobedience" a definitive part of the lexicon of American political protest. In July, 1846, Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail as a result of refusing to pay his taxes (he might have stayed in jail longer, but his aunt, against his wishes, paid the taxes on his behalf). His experience inspired him write the classic defense of civil disobedience, "Resistance to Civil Government, or Civil Disobedience Note" Thoreau's essay continues to have a lasting impact, and served as inspiration for, among others, Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Gandhi and King, along with Thoreau, should be required reading for this topic. For a convincing argument against a commitment to nonviolence at the expense of justice, see Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State. Gelderloos argues convincingly against applying Gandhi's methods in other contexts. At the core of this topic is a very basic question: in a democracy, where people have a chance to vote for change, is breaking the law a legitimate form of political protest? Does respect for the democratic process obligate protesters to refrain from breaking the law? I believe that civil disobedience is one of the most efficient ways of inciting change in government, and ultimately gaining justice.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

My opponent's contention, if I summarise it correctly, is that civil disobedience can be justified if it results in a net benefit to society and that the perpetrator of the crime is willing to accept due punishment for his or her actions. Yes, very noble and selfless indeed. To be prepared to sacrifice one's life or liberty in pursuit of the greater good is the ultimate act of chivalry and must be applauded. Except in a democracy. You see, the question is: who is the judge of what is in the best interest of the general populace? The answer is the electorate, not a vocal minority. Let's take the controversial issue of foxhunting, for example. This was recently outlawed in England, much to the chagrin of the rural toffs and the landed gentry to whom this bloodsport is so precious. Consequently, they organised a huge protest against the ban (I was outside the Houses of Parliament myself hurling abuse at the protesters as they marched by, as it happens) but despite their objections, hunting with dogs remains illegal because it was in the Labour Party manifesto in their election manifesto and the majority of the population voted for Labour to form a Government. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Mind you, foxhunting still takes place, albeit illegally, and the foxhunters hire thugs to intimidate and assault hunt saboteurs that try to film their nefarious activities or take the law into their own hands and beat animal-lovers up themselves. http://www.realca.co.uk... http://www.league.org.uk... http://www.realca.co.uk... My opponent's final argument was thus: "In conclusion, the bottom line is that civil disobedience is breaking of the law as a form of political protest. An act of law breaking can only be considered civil disobedience when the protester willingly accepts the punishments associated with crime he or she committed." There are many countries that imprison or otherwise punish people that break the law on the grounds of moral principal. Some would consider them refusniks or political prisoners. My own grandfather-in-law was a Czechoslovak insurgent who was imprisoned in Auschwitz because he helped resist the Nazi invasion of his country (he survived, by the way). In my mind, he was a hero of the highest order but his selfless acts of bravery were performed in the context of an invasion. In a democracy, one cannot legitimately break the law, no matter how unjust one thinks it is.