BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That Batman is the Greatest HERO in all of Marvel & DC.

My opponents counter-argument is very clever and well-thought out. I indeed relate to Anarchist characters. Another reason why I excluded non-Marvel/DC characters. .. I didn't want to debate against V for Vendetta, another of my favourites. I didn't intend for my restrictions on the debate to prevent a broader discussion on Heroes, I simply wanted someone to purpose another Marvel or DC hero and tell me why he or she was better than Batman. Regardless, my opponent has stated that it is the intention that makes the hero, which is why even I cannot refute Anarky's superiority to Batman. Alas, I must disagree. Batman's intention is to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. I can relate to that. Batman is in essence a Vigilante who works outside of the laws of society. He has one rule. He doesn't kill anyone, even mass-murdering psychopaths. While this logic is flawed. .. -He will main and torture an individual for information. -He will use brutal force to fight criminals, often crippling anyone who stands against him. I believe a Batman-like individual would be perfect in my ideal Anarchist society. -He doesn't do it for profit. -He doesn't do it for social recognition. -He clearly doesn't agree with how our bureaucrats go about their business. -He does it because it has to be done. Criminals work outside the laws of society, so must he. A well used fight fire with fire attitude. He understands that society isn't perfect and uses the law when useful and ignores it when necessary. Thus, I still declare that Batman is the greatest Hero in Marvel/DC.
That Batman is the Greatest HERO in all of Marvel & DC.

I see Pro has made himself quite a bit of leverage for this debate. He gets to decide what is hero, superhero, villain, etc and what it acceptable in this debate. I may indeed lose for this. I submit to this; that it is by Pro's own discretion, as the former of this debate, by which the eligibility and level of which for any character is decided that are presented in this debate. Why make this statement? Why even take the debate if I accept this? I present my candidate for a greater hero than Batman from DC comics: http://en.wikipedia.org... He is Anarky. And this is my case; That what makes a hero is not his abilities. But for what intention he uses them. I pick this character not only because he is an awesome character and that I find it funny that Anarky ends up fighting Batman, so this would be perfect, but also because the intentions which are so pivotal to making a hero are reflected in both me and my opponent by this character. Both me and my opponent are Anarchists. By both of our values, and by the standard that intention makes the hero, which is surely why villains are not included, Anarky is the greater hero here. Not Batman.
That Batman is the Greatest HERO in all of Marvel & DC.

INTRODUCTION Batman. The Dark Knight. The Caped Crusader. Bruce Wayne. (1) I declare that Batman is the greatest hero in all of DC and Marvel. Now let me get a few things about this debate before I begin my round one argument. When I say HERO, I am including characters with super powers (superheroes), but to avoid any "Batman isn't a superhero" crap I am characterising him as a hero. Batman is a superhero. No villains are to be included in this argument except as examples of a heroes prowess, however due to the dark nature of Batman's crime fighting style, neutral characters may be included. My opponent should choose one hero and base their entire debate on that particular character. Good luck. ROUND ONE ARGUMENT - POWER & SKILLS: In the real world, there are no superpowers, only maximised skills. A expert illusionist may appear to be able to do magic. A trained ninja warrior can disappear into and strike from the shadows. An inventor will use mechanical devices and technology to make whatever area he focuses on easier. A skilled athlete can push the human body to its absolute extremes. A powerful martial artists can beat ten men. A traceur or traceuse (2) can travel through a city without touching the ground. A clever detective can solve crimes with the most basic of clues. A brilliant tactician will plot out scenarios with all most supernatural accuracy with his foresight and attention to detail. While Bruce Wayne is all of these, he also has the most important power that a normal man can have. Money. Money is power and Bruce Wayne is a multi-billionaire. Dictionary.com defines SUPER as "of the highest degree, power, etc." A combination of his massive amounts of money and maximised combat, acrobatic, detective and stealth skills make Batman SUPER. I declare that Batman is the greatest hero because he easily stands equal among other superheroes, yet he has no special powers. My round two argument will consist of my rebuttals to my opponents counter-arguments, my counter arguments to his opening arguments and examples of Batman being equal to super-powered heroes, despite a lack of any super-powers himself. RESOURCES: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
A visit to a doctor

A visit to a doctor My parents found out that I was sick So they took me to a doctor To a psychologist and psychiatrist Psychiatrist gave me some good pills Psychologist talked with me She told me how I need to get a job To secure my future How I need to have friends And some joy in life Oh, What a naive fool she was I won't get a job I don't need it to survive I will have food and water in prison And everything I need to survive My existence is secured Joy in life I will get when I molest children I probably will never have friends And that's something that doesn't Bother me too much I know that you are just trying to help But I am a sick person that can't be fixed Just pass me to my psychiatrist, I want my pills They make me happier They don't cure me of my sickness They don't tell me how I need to do this or that They just make me happy and I love them for that
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

Ah, no problem at all. Happy to clarify. In absolutely no way is this seriously bashing George W. Bush OR his supporters. There's only one part of the whole article that could even lightly be considered to be insulting, and that's not even the paragraph that you quoted. The vast majority of the writing is simply making fun of overly right or left people in general. If you'll notice, there's a section making fun of right people and another section making fun of left people. I mean, the paragraph you quoted is even helping my argument, since it's making fun of liberal democrats, none of which support Bush. I'd also like to point out that 395 words make fun of conservative republicans whereas 966 words jest at liberal democrats, and not the other way around. That's about 2.5 times as much jesting, there. Anyone unbelieving of this (including Randomknowledge) should read through the whole article, and a few times if they don't fully understand the humor intended, and the equality between the jesting. That's my other point on the link you gave me. Like I said, the only part that could possibly be considered making fun of Bush supporters would be the last two sentences. This is hardly bashing supporters in any way, shape or form, and if anything it's simply making an empty joke. Thanks for the debate, I had a great time.
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

Hello, again Kierkegaard. Thank you for clarifying that passage about the actual mistreatment of nush supporters because of their political preference. I want to show you some reference to the fact that this bashing actually happens. I will only paste a snippet but I will provide the link. Here it goes, from Political Poseur: pretending to be a Republican in Blue California. By Richard Rushfield and "W." button, I first stop at Silverlake's ï¿½ber-cafe, the Coffee Table. "The Table," as it is known, is the daytime HQ for the area's writing community—the bed-headed brigades of aspiring indie auteurs who hunch over their laptops, whispering pitches back and forth like state secrets. I stand in line for a soda; my T-shirt first makes contact with the locals as the server, a rather prim-looking Asian-American man, double-takes at my unabashedly partisan display, his smile freezing into a look I can only describe as bracing for me to pull out an assault weapon and open fire. I order, pay, and walk with my Diet Coke through the restaurant, taking a seat on the patio that puts me and my garb on prominent display for the 20 or so patrons. A wave of distressed glances ripples in my direction, but I remain unmolested. Yet as I finish my soda, two hipsters saunter past. One of them, untucked shirt hanging over his jeans, gapes at my shirt and mutters, "As*hole," only slightly under his breath. There is much more to read and prove but i do not want to take up too much space or time, as many people vote based on length. http://www.slate.com... Thank you and I know i only proved one thing but I believe that this was an important thing to prove. I await your rebuttal.
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

Of course. Same to you as well. If it's as real as you say, I'd love some examples of said teasing or bashing. I honestly haven't seen much of this. How is the president in charge of defining political substance? He has absolutely no power or authority over anything of the sort. I am and was fully aware of what the topic is, I may just have worded my arguments so that they were hard to understand, which I'm genuinely sorry for. I did, however, fully address why they should be treated how they are. Read this over a few times so you better understand it. "As Americans, we're destined to bring out the bad parts of anyone, especially political candidtates, to make them look worse in the eyes of the general voter. However, if someone knew the facts and did research themselves, they'd know for themselves the upsides and downsides of anyone, and it's these negative comments that spur this interest to know more about any given person. Without some of these harsh statements, no matter how harsh, America could be even blinder than what we are today. And the truth is that anyone who took the time and effort to look into what he's done, they'd realize how much of an--excuse my language--dumbass he is. People who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush." I honestly don't know how to make "people who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush." any clearer than what it already is... In response to the Bill O'Reilly thing, I'd like to say three things. 1. Bill O'Reilly supports Bush, and thus is a Bush supporter. The quote you used was partially used out of context since he was just describing how creepily similar (in his eyes, which are blind to the obvious). The red meat thing and the other things one could normally qualify as being insulting were simply his normal language. 2. Here's a video clip of him defending Bush: http://video.aol.com... 3. I hardly think that Bill O'Reilly is a valid person to prove your point. He makes fun of just about everyone if they have a hint of not agreeing with him on any point whatsoever. We're debating whether or not people should make fun of Bush supporters, not any supporters of political candidates or people who hold office in general. Bush supporters feel sorry for themselves.
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

I would like to say thank you for responding to my open debate. Best of luck. I am here for the purpose of debating, and the information I presented about the turmoil and verbal harrasment given to Bush supporters is very real. I concur that as americans we are destined to bring out the worst in people, and this is something that our country is known for. In political circles, the united states is a body that is recognized as having poor political substance, and the president is in charge of this. Thus having said this, I want to point out the topic of this debate. I am debating that president bush supporters should nto be treated badly. You did not address why they should be treated badly, so you did not properly adress the debate topic. Here is something from a wesite by or about bill O'Reilly. "I feel sorry for Bush-supporters. Just like Kerry, he isn't giving them anything, just tossing some people red meat on gay marriage. And unless they're rich, they can't tell me that's their biggest problem." The bottom line is people feel bad for bush supporters. 'nuff said.
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

I think the biggest point that I should probably bring out first is simply that there really isn't much conflict, and definitely not to the levels of abuse that you're describing, between Bush and non-Bush supporters. Part of this is simply becuse if there's a disagreement between two different parties, a conflict of some sort is inevitable. This is the same thing with Bush supporters, although the fact is is that there isn't enough Bush supporters to spur a conflict or any type of conflict of great power or media attention-getting. Also, I wasn't aware that agreeing with Bush's acts was considered a specific religion or race. I was under the impression that agreeing with anyone's political views and/or acts was just your opinion, and not your religion or race. I could be wrong, though. As Americans, we're destined to bring out the bad parts of anyone, especially political candidtates, to make them look worse in the eyes of the general voter. However, if someone knew the facts and did research themselves, they'd know for themselves the upsides and downsides of anyone, and it's these negative comments that spur this interest to know more about any given person. Without some of these harsh statements, no matter how harsh, America could be even blinder than what we are today. And the truth is that anyone who took the time and effort to look into what he's done, they'd realize how much of an--excuse my language--dumbass he is. People who refuse to do so should be treated badly for being a blind voter, a blind follower, and better yet, they should be convinced to find out more information before blindly giving money and kind words to a person such as George W. Bush. Also, I'm fairly sure that the ESPN commercial you talked about was being humorous, and thus so not being actually serious about what happened. I'm skeptical if you use a humorous commercial as evidence.. Your welcome, and thanks. I look forward to your response.
President Bush supporters should be treated badly.

While I am completely and utterly against Our Current president, I am not against his (few) supporters. Whenever someone is picked out of the crowd as being someone who Supports the President, they are pinpointed by the non-bush supporters and are just about turned into mincemeat. There is a legal right to have whatever beliefs you want, and these non-bush extremeists are not following these guidelines. They harrass them, they yell at them and give them a hard time because of waht they believe in. Do we make fun of hindu's on the street becuase of their religion? Do we make racially insensitive comments to others on the street? So we walk into an Asian restaurant and start calling names? These are not exactly examples of supporters, but they are examples of doing the right thing in terms of making fun. We as americans are destined to make fun of the opposing team, the others. Its in all the media, all the hype. There are even ESPN commercials that showcase a man jumping out of a moving car because his blind date was of a different sports preference. I will not use up all of my resources now. thank you and good luck to my challenger.
God exists.

wow this is retarded. pro basicaly just skimmed my entire debat and wrote based on what eas in his head, not what i wrote. well looks like i have to finish the d beate anyway. sentience I ALREADY SHOWED THAT GOD HAS TO BE THE CHRISIAN AND JEW GOD!!! since they invtendted the concept of "One God"!!! There's no other monotheism Gods except for Christian, Jews, and Islamic God. Pro is just trying to get out of this by saying that hes not refering to it, but why not, since the argument he uses is used to give god persoanlity! Wilam lane craig who defends the kalam says "Such an account of the origin of the universe will work only for agent causation, for only a libertarian agent could interrupt the static reign of being of the First Cause sans the universe. It is for that reason that we should conceive of the First Cause as personal." http://www.reasonablefaith.org... The kalam cosmolgoical argument is always used for the god that is personal and has a mind so pros only argument leads him to a personal god rather than just a timeless god so god is sentient, AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ENTIRE TIME...... So god is sentient, and i have proved with my sources in the previous round that sentience is a brain, and a brain is complexated so it must have a cause, but god doesnt have a cause so he cant exist because then, it's a logical contradiction kalam cosmolgical arg im not saying that everything has a cause, i'm saying that that is whwat everyone who uses the kalam is saying, because they are just chery picking in saying "begining to exist" rather than 'exists", because they only say that so they can exclude god from needing a cause. well god is setnient, so he needs a cause, but it is still cherry picking even if god isnt sentient. bible At this point pro is just completely ignoring what i said, i cited almost ten different books which showed that the one god is the god of the ISTRAELITES, like moses and noah, and jesus. if you're arguing over god you have to be arguing over the ONE god who has all the same features as the god of the Bible. well the god of the Bible cant exist because the Bible isn't even scientific, as i said in round 2 what have pro and i learned well we learned that i won this debate, but also that god has to be sentient, god needs a case, that the kalam cherry picks and is circular, the bible is false. That is what we learned, so i won.
God exists.

Sentience Con is still backing up the fact that God is sentient because the Christian God is. We're not talking about that God, we're talking about an uncaused, spaceless and timeless being who created the universe. I could've called this being anything, but I decided to call it God because with the properties it has, it is quite similar to some definitions of "God". My God never talked to Moses and Noah or the Israelites or Jesus or Peter. They are not the same God, they are different. One God may have a sentience, but another may not. Just because the first pencil ever invented has a rubber on the end of it, that doesn't mean that all pencils have a rubber on the end of them. Kalam In response to what Con has said, if it were true that everything that exists has a cause, then that would mean there would be an infinite regress of events, which is impossible because it means we go back forever. So, we need an uncaused cause. What do we know about this cause? We know that it's spaceless because it existed before space and timeless because it existed before time. So while the hypothesis that everything needs a cause may be less complex than the hypothesis that the Kalam Cosmological argument is sound, the hypothesis that the Kalam Cosmological argument is true is much more likely to be true than the hypothesis that everything has a cause. The Kalam Cosmological argument does not cherry-pick. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and we have good reason for thinking that. If something that begins to exist doesn't have a cause, then it came from nothing. However, if it came from nothing, then there is absolutely no reason why it began to exist and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause. But what about things that don't begin to exist? Well, the Kalam Cosmological argument doesn't state that everything that has a cause begins to exist, so things that don't begin to exist don't necessarily have a cause. But if something that doesn't begin to exist has a cause, then to have a cause there must've been a time when it didn't exist and if that's true, then it began to exist. So, everything that doesn't begin to exist does not have a cause. BibleAgain, there is no link between the being we are arguing the existence over, and the God created by Christians and Jews.
God exists.

Well pro says everything that begins to exist has a cause i can just say that everything that has sentience has a cause beause sentience cant come from, nothing because if it did there would be no reason why sentience came out of nowhere and not someone else and thats' the same argument he is using so he cant argue against it or he refuts his own argument.premise 2 is also true because you cant create things if your not sentient, like a rock never created a house or anything. So if god creates stuff thatn that prove that he must have a sentient and if he does then he cant exist as rationawiki already proved http://rationalwiki.org... Kalamn this argument is already proven false by modern quantum physics and cosmologics so that right there provs my opponent has no credible point in his argument which is just false and no one belives it except stupid theist who have no understanding of science and astrology Laurence Kraus is an expert in physics and he knows what hes talking about when he says that the unvierse didn't get created by god apparently pro thought that he is smarter than a THEORETIC PHYSICIST. the kalalm argument is cherry picking because it just says that god doesnt have a cause. But as I already proved with the sentient argument god must have had a cause if was sentient so ist arbitraryly cherry picking to just say that 'oh god doesnt need a cause because hes god' and, that violates occams razor which is an unbreakable law of logic and again this proves that pro has no rationalargument but just stupid christin propaganda instead. bible con says that this debate isnt about the christian god well i say back that christianity and judaism invented god based on paganism so my opponent is just ignoring my argument s since there is no rebutal because it s obvious that the bible is wrong and stupid. my opponent needs to start studing actual science and then he will understand why the kalm argument falls miserably to anyone with half a brain.