BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman > Spiderman

Contention 1 Yes, it is unfortunate that Batman can't save every person in Gotham City. You showed as example the game Arkham City, many people have died in that time. But this was not because Batman was too weak or ineffective. It was because almost all of Batman's foes were in an area of, let's say 3 square kilometres. The Joker, the Riddler, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Zasz, Two-Face, the Penguin, mr. Freeze, Solomon Grundy, Hugo Strange, Deadshot, Hush and more were in the same location at the same time. This would be close to impossible to save all of them. Now let's say if we put Spiderman in Arkham City along with Green Goblin, dr. Octopus, Venom, Sandman, Carnage, Hobgoblin, Kingpin, Beetle, Electro and Mysterio, I'm pretty sure Spiderman wouldn't be able to save every single person as well. Of course I have no evidence for that but a bit of common sense would do. This is also because of the difference in villains. Green Goblin became a villain because he wanted to kill Spiderman and take revenge on those who made him that way (and he did kill them), while Joker is an insane maniac who wants to kill everyone but Batman. This is a huge difference. Also for example dr Octopus wanted revenge on the Spider because he felt humiliated because he was beaten by him (Sensational Spiderman #28). Also is important that Batman is relatively a more realistic hero than Spiderman. If you take a look at the allies and foes of Batman we see that not much of them have actual powers, while Spiderman's foes definately have superpowers. Deaths in the Batman story adds up to that reality. Contention 2 Again this is the problem with Batman being really realistic. Batman does not have superpowers but his wealth and intelligence makes up for it. Sure if Spiderman was as smart and rich as Batman, he would be unstoppable with his Spidey-sense, but since he does not..
Batman > Spiderman

Alright, so before arguing this topic at hand, I must establish the following definition:Great: Remarkable in magnitude, degree, and effectiveness (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)At the point where this is the actual definition, it means that my opponent's burden for the CON is confusing considering that evaluating this definition would imply not placing the two in combat with one another but evaluating the effectiveness of their heroic actions entirely. With this burden established, I move on to construct my arguments.Contention 1: Spiderman is a more efficient, effective hero.When comparing the effectiveness of Spiderman as a hero to the effectiveness of Batman as a hero, you will notice that not only is Spiderman more effective at saving people, but his fewer advantages than Batman has, as my opponent describes he has, can show you that Spiderman is a more efficient hero as well. Death riddles the Batman comics. Whether it is the Joker, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, or the Penguin, we can be sure that there can be plentiful deaths that Batman did not stop in contrast to Spiderman. A perfect example is the newest video game Batman: Arkham City, where almost all of the villains had been able to kill several people throughout the course of the game. Joker killed Talia al Ghul; Strange killed several during his administration of the prison; Killer Croc had secretly been pulling prisoners off the streets and devouring them; the biggest example was Hush, who after slicing off the faces of countless victims was allowed to just leave Arkham City by Batman. If it isn't that Batman fails to save a litany of people, it's that Batman's villains in some way win even after losing. The perfect example is Batman: The Killing Joke, where even though Batman was able to stop the Joker, there was still Barbara Gordon, who had lost her ability to walk because she had been shot in the spine. In Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, although Joker had been stopped (only after several deaths), the Joker had still managed to prove his worth by destroying Harvey Dent. Spiderman is not that way. We notice throughout Spiderman comics that there are few deaths, if any, by the actions of the villains, and Spiderman is always able to not only defeat them, but also to the fullest extent save everyone, in contrast to Batman, who even with many resources as my opponent claims he has is still incapable of saving people. Contention 2: Spiderman has powers. Spiderman is also certainly greater in magnitude when he has the powers that Batman doesn't, as my opponent has clearly pointed out in his own argument, including a Spidey-sense that allows him to be able to detect danger.
Batman > Spiderman

Let's first go over the abilities most superheroes have.BatmanGenius level intellectPeak physical and mental conditioningMaster Martial ArtistMaster DetectiveExpert AcrobatAccess to high-tech equipment, gadgets and weaponsMaster of stealthMaster of disguiseBillionare thanks to his companyHe has (criminal) records on every personTrained Computer HackerMaster tacticianExcellent observational skillsPhotographic memoryMaster strategistExpert MarksmanMaster EscapologistSpidermanSuperhuman speed, strength and agilityAbility to cling to almost any surfaceAbility to shoot webs from his wristSpidey-senseMaster hand-to hand combatant#1 Batman's got dirt on everybodyBatman has records of every single person in his batcomputer. Thanks to his intellect and information he could find out every weakness Spiderman has and use it against him. He could plan a scenario in which he wouldn't even have to make any effort and he could beat Spiderman. Even if this wasn't the case, Batman is genious in adapting to his environment.#2 He can put his money to good useBatman has something Spidey doesn't, and that is money. It's only natural, Peter Parker is a teenager, Bruce Wayne owns a huge company. He has tons of handy gadgets that Spiderman doesn't. He even once used his money to create his own kryptonite to defeat Superman. I know Green Goblin had once designed a gas that could temporarily shut off Spiderman's spidey-sense. If Goblin could obtain it, Batman can.#3 Batman is a predatorBatman knows that Spiderman with his sense could easily counter the batarangs or any things Batman has. So he plans his attack carefully. Learning everything he can about the spider, he uses tactics to wait for the perfect moment to strike. Even Spiderman has to replenish his webshooters, even Spiderman gets tired. This can put Batman to his advantage since he's a master escapalogist and can hide almost everywhere (also because he wears a black suit instead of a freaking red-blue suit).#4 Batman can defeat anybodyWhen Batman joined the justice league he collected information on every member so he could take them down when they turned against him. And he did. Even Superman knew his temper would be a great enemy so he trusted Batman to take him down when it was that far. And he did. Bane even broke Batman's freaking back once and he recovered. Batman has had several oppertunities to kill the Joker, mr. Freeze, the Penguin, Bane and many others. He doesn't because he's not an executioner.These are my arguments.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy should be defined as the murdering of a child and is wrong.

I'll skip the whole gray area of when life begins, when the fetus becomes a person and what rights does it get... etc. Let's get right to the point: If we define the choice to abort as MURDER, then we should prosecute the people who perform abortions as if it were a murder. In that case, the mother would be prosecuted for making the choice, and the doctor would be prosecuted for assisting the murder (note that the although the doctor performs the abortion, the doctor did not make the choice and my opponent said that the choice is with the mother). I will show several situations where the choice of the mother should not be considered as murder (assuming my opponent wants to label ALL choices of abortion as murder, regardless of the situation). "She should not have the right to end the life of that baby just as she would not if the baby were nine months old, and newly born." > I argue that a mother should have the right to end the life of the baby if it's endangering her own life. If at any point of the pregnancy the mother's life is endangered by the baby and the only way to save her life is to perform an abortion, then the mother should be able to make that choice if there are complications that threaten her life. Furthermore, the majority of the time that the mother's life is endangered the baby's life is also endangered, so if the mother dies it becomes VERY difficult to save the baby, so the choice to abort would take residence most of the time. If your proposal is to call this choice murder, then you're excluding at least one case when the mother does have a choice, but it's between her life and the baby's. > The second situation is in the early stages of inception... the first several days the fetus is no more than a bunch of dividing cells, so abortion in that stages is probably equivalent to a menstrual cycle- for example an abortion may occur when using the morning after pill. So at the point of inception I believe that there is still time when the choice of the mother should not be taken away, and it should not be considered murder. Defining EXACTLY how long after the inception the choice should be considered murder is difficult to make, will there be a cutoff day? If you miss that day then do you go to prison? I think a better approach is through education, people should be educated to use contraceptives and they should be educated about options on what to do with the baby (adoption etc.) if the mother doesn't want it. Conclusion: I have shown that there are multiple cases when the choice of abortion should not be considered murder, therefore successfully affirming that the choice to terminate a pregnancy (especially in the early stages of inception) should not be considered murder.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy should be defined as the murdering of a child and is wrong.

I am not versed in any debate techniques and I've never learned any formal rules, so I am simply going to type as if I were having a discussion (as many debates on here are). I also am starting this mostly because I'd like to understand the stance of pro-choicers before and after I state my thoughts. I also do not study medicine, so my knowledge on the facts is that of a general sort. I will accept medical and scientific facts of course and will try not to make claims that could be backed by facts, that are not. Also, I notice lots of debates on here edging towards condescending and involving great emotion, and I'd truly like to avoid that if possible. I read another debate on abortion where the con defined abortion and murder, claiming that the statement "abortion is murder" was incorrect, even though it was clear what the pro meant. I am making the same claim, and do not need definitions to make my claim wrong even though it's understood. I think the choosing to have an abortion should be defined as murder, because in my opinion (and as far as my education on the matter has taken me) it appears to be. My thoughts on when life begins are fuzzy and open for debate, but as for now, I believe it begins at conception. After all, if the fetus is left alone, it would (in healthy cases) grow and eventually be born, with no interference from the mother. The heart beats at around five weeks, so I have a hard time understanding the thought that a fetus is not also a living human being. The moment another human is alive inside of a woman's body, that body no longer is only hers. It is an incubator. To claim that a woman has choice to do what she wants with her body is correct; however, a pregnant woman has another body inside of hers. She should not have the right to end the life of that baby just as she would not if the baby were nine months old, and newly born. I'll leave it at this for now to see what other arguments there are as I've never actually had a conversation about this with somebody who was educated and pro-life. Thank you.
Wikipedia is an acceptable source to use in debates.

The page that my opponent put up has already gone away, and the definition of yellow is back now. Seeing as my opponent's page didn't even last three hours, the chances of someone running into this false statement is highly unlikely. Also, we could see clearly that "sunny funny brother day" was not a right answer, and we wouldn't have posted it as a source. Furthermore, my opponent has dropped all of my points, ergo I win.
Wikipedia is an acceptable source to use in debates.

Wikipedia is often not allowed as a source in a debate. People say "Oh, anyone can change it, they can make it say anything." While this is partially true, one forgets that unless something on Wikipedia has a source, it can be challenged and removed. Also, I would like to point out that Wikipedia has been found to be about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica http://news.bbc.co.uk... The Encyclopedia Britannica is considered reliable and is by no means taboo, but for some reason, Wikipedia is not given its just desserts. This debate does not require a lot of words, so I'll rest my case here, I await my opponent's response.
should white people be superior to blacks

White people have put their place into the dominant race in western society, it not our fault black's did barely anything for us besides picking cotton and lugging logs. WE beat them into submission and they were to fickle to revolt for years till they found us in a soft spot. Do you see? They are lazy people. They have rights, but do they really deserve them after ALL they did? Their color is just a grouping, and this group of blacks did nothing to help us whites besides hard labor. Why do they deserve rights?
War in Iraq.

"Can you just tell me why you are for the war and what we've achieved in that war that you like so much? That's all I wanna know, I don't care if you win the debate, just try to convince me that that war had a purpose worth dying for. " Worth "dying for?" That would imply 100% casualties. The needed standard is worth RISKING dying for. Almost nobody will do something if they know for a fact that they will die as a result, and almost nobody should. The achievement in the war was removing Saddam's Baathist party from power and thus causing difficulties for Iran and Saudi Arabia to fund terrorists to attack Americans and thus abrogate American freedom. Much of this achievement has been cancelled by the subsequent occupation. But since the occupation cannot in any effective sense be permanent, a part of the achievement will remain when it is over. The continued entry of the volunteer soldiers into the war demonstrates that they consider this achievement or some other worth it, and their opinions are the ones that matter here (along with the opnions of those of the Iraqis fighting alongside us, the rest if innocent should frankly flee to safer ground, and most have since removing Saddam left them with that option).
War in Iraq.

NO! My whole argument got deleted... :/ Well here I go again... Apparently you do not CURRENTLY support the war in Iraq and you don't believe that Iraq was a direct threat to us. So why the war? < > The Republicans don't want to pull out because that will show what a waste it was to go there. < > We killed more than half of the people Saddam had killed in his entire life. How long did it take us? Imagine we stay for 100 years. I'd say at least half a million Iraqis would die. For what? Answer that question. < > So does the Bush administration and we're not dropping bombs over their heads. < > < > I would love to see your plan work, but what makes you think they'll spill over into other countries? Wouldn't they want to just stay in Iraq? Even if they did, was it worth it having so many of our own killed? < > I would say that it's "a bit of a security risk" is a bit of an understatement, considering that due to this war hundreds of thousands have died. You can go and tell THEM the great shot at freedom they've got thanks to us! :)
War in Iraq.

I see you are a libertarian, and you support join McCain. However, one of the FEW things you agree with McCain on is the war in Iraq. I'm against the war so I'm curious of why you are for it. So let me tell you why I am against it and you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 1) The people who have made predictions before we entered Iraq such as "we're going to find WMD's, the Iraqi citizens will welcome us there, etc..." were dead wrong, and now they're the ones saying "if we leave, they're going to follow us home". We found no WMD's and the Iraqi citizens prefer Saddam Hussein than us. And I understand why. With Saddam you just said "sir, yes sir" and you stay alive. Poor and starving. But alive. With America you can get a bullet through you just crossing the street. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have died, you can't possibly believe those were all evil guilty Islamic extremists that we killed with good reason. We decide that Saddam is an evil mass murderer so what do we do? We kill even more innocent people than he did, not to mention our own who also died by the thousands. So now these people who got us into this mess are making the prediction that "they're going to follow us home" because they don't want us to leave. And why do they not want us to leave? Because then this war will be looked back at as a mistake on their part for making these false predictions. I also find it hard to believe that "they're gonna follow us home", because they have nothing to follow us home with. Iraq never attacked us, Iran never attacked us, and they never will. If Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon why is it that America has to be the only country disarming them? America needs to stop pretending like they're the world police, because with a 9 trillion dollar deficit, we can't afford it anymore. If we never had gone into Iraq, we'd save 2 trillion dollars, 40,000 soldiers (and counting), and Iraq would be more stable than it is now. I'll leave it at that, and I'll save other arguments for later.
Fast food restaurants should not sell to under 15 persons

The Pro has not shown a direct causality between fast food & specific health problems they are supposed to cause. Further, the definition of fast food would exclude the majority of restaurants such as McDonald's, which offer a growing selection of healthy food. And, if the food is unhealthy why set an arbitrary limit at the age of 14? Finally who enforces this? Should we pass a law? I contend parents are responsible for their minor children, and let market forces drive change as they have.
illegal imigration is wrong

i think the goverment should take down the wall on the mexican border. reasons: 1.because of the drug wars the mexican goverment is starting to go rouge and is killing mexican citizens, thus citizens want to come here to the usa for protection. coming legally can take at least 4 months and it's a hassle. http://www.youtube.com... 2. as long as illegals work and participate as active citizens they should be able to stay. http://www.youtube.com...
Solipsism disproves nihilism.

Okay, I'm not sure if it's still here as Juggle has now begun to act more actively but previously (applies to both my opponent and me) our rounds were being screwed up in formatting as there was forced altering of links and any sentence with a period or comma forced a space and capital letter to be after it. I hope it's not there now but I won't know until I submit it and can no longer edit it. Solipsism states only the self is real. This involves (as I said) the need to prove why Pro is even having this debate. If I am not real and the voters aren't real, This debate is pointless and perhaps itself not real. Pro keeps saying how Solipsism doesn't have to be proven but Pro is wrong. Solipsism has to be proven to win this debate. Solipsism even further is curious as while it doubts everything being real except the self, It doesn't apply the same doubt to the self being real something that Pro never explained this entire debate and which I didn't say was wrong as that helps it lead to one supporting Nihilism. Throughout this debate, We've seen Pro consistently explain that while Solipsism is a theory about reality, Nihilism is somehow an attitude. This is a lie in itself contradicted by Pro's own definitions. Nihilism, In this debate, Is a theory that states that ultimately nothing means anything in any significant or 'true' manner. If only the self is real (which has yet to be proven true, So Pro has already lost the debate in that regard) then it follows that everything other than the self is ultimately meaningless as it's not even there to begin with. If only the self is real, There is nothing for the self to mean anything significant to. Pro tries to twist around the burden of proof in their Round 3 by demanding me to prove Solipsism false. It's not only a lie to say that the default is Solipsism but even if it were the default, The fact that Pro is engaging in a debate with an opponent who isn't them on a site which isn't them and is owned by people who are not them (Pro doesn't work for Juggle in any apparent manner) then it follows that Pro is conceding to you voters and readers (who also are not Pro) that others exist than Pro himself/herself. Then we must prove Solipsism true despite this, Yet Pro never ever does. If Solipsism is not true, It cannot disprove anything as it's a lie to begin with. Even if Solipsism is true, I've explained how Nihilism in the way Pro's defined it is entirely viable.
Solipsism disproves nihilism.

Nothing I said was rebutted successfully or even indirectly. I'm going to simply reiterate it and win by pure logic and truth without bothering to address what Pro is posting:1) Pro (seemingly admits it's unprovable but anyway) can't prove Solipsism as true. If Solipsism isn't proven to be true, Then it doesn't disprove anything as its ability to disprove other things is contingent on it being true and the burden of proof is on the positive claim. 2) Pro keeps reiterating that Nihilism is an assumption without proof. The 'assumption' that the only thing real is the self is something that goes against all evidence to the contrary (literally this debate alone implies Pro conceding that their opponent is real and the voters and audience is real, Let alone the people who invented the English language that they use had to be real too). Solipsism is itself an assumption without proof of any kind that flies in the face of what's blatantly true so saying Nihilism is an assumption without proof is hardly a good line of argumentation on which Pro can try to win this debate since I state clearly that if Pro can not prove that it is because of Solipsism that Nihilism is untrue then Pro cannot win this debate. Pro's entire rebuttal to Nihilism being true is nothing to do with Solipsism being the basis on which Nihilism is disproved. 3) If the self is the only thing that's real, There is literally nothing else to which it can mean anything or be worth anything. This is Nihilism in congruence with Solipsism. What is so hard to understand? If only you are real, Everything that appears real is a potentially fake thing (including the consnet of people you rape) and you can begin to enter an entirely Nihilistic mindset whereby you mean nothing to anything else and everything else isn't real to even mean anything in the first place. I have clearly stated (again) what I did in Round 1 and angled it in a way that more blatantly combats Pro's stance and basis for their stance. I have won this debate, It is a fact.