BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Open-Topic Discussion

In this post, I'm going to highlight some of the weaknesses with the scenarios on offer, and why they hurt Batman rather than help him. 1. In order to stand a chance of winning, Batman needs prep time. 2. He needs to find an area to fight that negates Iron Man's aerial advantage. If the two of them were to wander across one another and a fight breaks out, I believe we can agree that Iron Man wins? After all, he went toe-to-toe with a Demi-God and held his own. He would have beaten Steve Rogers (aka Captain America, an enhanced supersoldier) in Civil War if not for Bucky's last second interference. There's no telling how good Batman's powered armour was in BvS. We have nothing to gauge it against, and the armour did nothing to resist Superman. How good would it be against huge jolts of electricity (Iron Man's suit not only withstood this in The Avengers but he was able to channel and use that power)? How effective would it be against the impact of a military jet (shrugged off in the first Iron Man film)? It's all well and good to theorise that Batman would be able to bring all sorts of toys to neutralise Iron Man's abilities, but no form of energy attack has managed to permanently disable his suit, and it remains solid as armour regardless. Plus, Iron Man can analyse an opponent's fight pattern (as seen against Cap in Civil War) and very quickly devise countermeasures. You say Wayne has the upper hand in terms of wealth - Stark is a billionaire as well, one who designed military hardware. That's a fair bit of networking right there.
Open-Topic Discussion

Okay, sure Iron Man probably comes to this fight prepared. But like I said, Wayne does his research. We know what he tried to build to go against the Man of Steel, someone who is invincible to almost anything that is not a green glowing crystal. That was a challenge, but Iron Man. Let's be real, if Batman was able to build a super suit that could at least help to withstand an all-powerful alien super-being, surely he could build a mechanism to defend against Iron Man.Moreover, the Batman package includes his mobiles, aircraft, etc. So what is Iron Man going to do when Batman comes in an aircraft equipped to defend against projectiles and other gimmicks Stark has in stock? Batman easily has the upper hand when it comes to wealth and networking, he may be taking on Iron Man solo, but I have no doubt he could contact some of his friends to tell him exactly what Iron Man's weaknesses are, and how to take him on. Moreover, with all the money Wayne has, not even the genius that Stark is could predict what Batman will bring to the fight. Sure, he can prepare for the classic defensive moves, explosives, traps, etc, but Batman knows how easily Iron Man could defend against the very weapons he is familiar with. Batman would give himself an overhaul of an upgrade and design himself to be the perfect weapon against Iron Man.Tony Stark does not prepare. This is fact. He plans at last minute, relies on his allies to help him out, and comes to most battles with a naive and conceited attitude. Sometimes this helps, if he knows what he is going against he can easily play the psyche game and throw his opponent off guard, but against a man of many surprises, not so much. It is hard for me to even believe Stark would consider himself losing this fight, and that is exactly why he will lose. It is notable that many times in his fights he fails a first time, not yet understanding the strength of his opponent, and I think that is what will happen here. He will come in to the fight thinking it will be an easy victory against a so-called Dark Knight, but with this attitude he will be thrown off guard when Batman comes in with blows that he did not think would hit him.No matter how well-equipped Stark may think he is, his ego will always prevent him from going an extra mile, and he will not be prepared for the loss he is to face.
Open-Topic Discussion

I take it we're going with the movie versions of these characters? I would suggest that it depends on whether Bruce Wayne's genius is enough to out-fox Tony Stark's genius. Stark has designed armour and weaponry that is undetectable to even SHIELD (see Age of Ultron - the jet Banner got away in was designed with stealth systems by Stark), so there's nothing to suggest Stark couldn't sneak up upon Wayne and catch him off guard. I will concede that this is not typically how Stark operates - he lights direct confrontation, whereas Wayne - not so much. However, if they are both aware of an impending fight, this affords Stark prep time too. He would be aware of Wayne's combat prowess, the likelihood of traps etc, and take steps to bombard the area where Wayne is waiting. His weaponry allows him to effectively operate at a stand-off distance, beyond the ability of Wayne's toys to hit him. Element of surprise or not, what is Batman going to do when several missiles (like those launched in droves in The Avengers against Loki's army) are coming for him? What about the tank-killing missiles from the first Iron Man movie? Or the various high-powered beams he can shoot out from a safe distance? Even in close-quarters, there is nothing to stop Iron Man from using his powerful weapons. His suit took a battering from Thor's Hammer, got blasted at by Ultron, he's been hit by tank shells, aircraft, other similarly armed beings to him, and he's weathered it all. He can use his missiles at close quarters and survive, even if hurt. Batman on the other hand, wouldn't survive. Batman just doesn't have the firepower or physical strength to win. He can't evade forever - and one decent blow to the head is all it takes. After all, Batman wasn't completely unscathed even when fighting against thugs in Batman vs Superman, if they can catch him off guard, Iron Man certainly can.
Open-Topic Discussion

Iron Man does not stand a chance. This is not even a debate. Sure, Iron Man has the hi-tech advantage, but lets be honest, Stark is not the best combat strategist. I think we can agree that Wayne has had way more close-up combat experience. The issue is, Iron Man has not only a range advantage, but also an aerial advantage, being much more stable and capable of long-term flight. But, what Iron Man does not have is the element of surprise, I mean for real, you can hear him coming a mile away with those thrusters. Batman on the other hand is quiet, and could easily strike Iron Man with something he did not see coming. Batman does his research, he goes into fights prepared with almsot exactly the right utilities for the fight. It's no question that he would bring some device that could drain some power from Iron Mans suit, rendering at least his thrusters useless if he gets a sneaky attack on him.If we assume Batman gets that attack on him, then we would have to see this battle as an on-the-ground fight. Still, Iron Man has the range advantage. Even then, Batman chooses his battlegrounds wisely, and I would assume that he has picked a location with lots of cover. Sure, in an open arena I would have to give the fight to Iron Man, because not even Batman could do anything about incoming projectiles one after another, but assuming this is taking place in a more closed area, such as a rooftop with lots of places for cover, or maybe a dark alley way, Iron Man's weaponry would be quite useless, bringing this fight to a fist-to-fist close-combat engagement.As I mentioned earlier, Batman is far more experienced with close combat than Iron Man. Even with his boosted punches and throws, Batman would dodge, block, and strike back. A simple jab to the eye area on his helmet would completely throw him off, since he would see shattered glass whereever he looked. Repetetive pushes and throws from Batman would keep Iron Man unstable, and we know that he already has some stability issues on the ground, so he would have trouble getting even a single controlled and coordinated hit on Batman.I will take some time to weaken Iron Mans armor, but luckily Batman always carries the right tool for the job. Perhaps some devices that drain more and more power from Iron Mans suit if hit in the right places, such as the obvioyus arc reactor, would render his tech useless. Explosives or stealth devices, like a smoker would make it impossible for Iron Man to locate and target Batman. In the end this can only end one way, and that is with the victory of Batman.
Open-Topic Discussion

Hi, to whoever considers accepting this offer to an open-topic free-style discussion/debate, allow me to elaborate what this is: The format is simple: Pick ANY topic you would like to talk about and go for it. I encourage picking something you are more familiar with to limit the amount of time spent providing citations, as I would much rather prefer a direct explanation of the issue (of course background and data to back it up is appreciated). There is no true structure to this, other than the mandatory limited 5 round system. Simply pick a topic and state it in a format so that you are arguing CON/AGAINST and I am arguing PRO/FOR (in other words use a double-negative if you need to), and go for it, do not worry about form or style or consistency, I want to hear what you have to say about something, not how well you can say it. I will naturally be arguing the opposite of your stance, and in the end I hope we come to some gratifying feeling of engagement with one another's ideas. I look forward to an open discussion.
Resolved: The 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

"He also didn't refute my case, so, extend my round 1 arguments" Response: Your case doesn't prove that the 2nd amendment is not unconstitutional, so there is no need to address it. Now that that's out of the way: "My Opponents argument is false. The Senate and House reformed the grammar used by the Convention. But it was ratified." Response: They still ratified a different amendment, the meaning was the same, but it was still a different amendment. The original amendment that was passed is different however slightly it may be, from the one the states ratified, ergo the amendment is missing a step either way. "Slight difference is grammatical usage, but that doesn't make the amendment null and void." Response: They still acted on separate amendments, the small differences, however trivial matter.
Resolved: The 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

LOl, if u didn't want to debate this, then don't. But w/e. However, lets begin then. ================================================================================= "Okay, my argument is pretty basic. The second amendment was never ratified." My Response: This actually false. The first 10 Amendments, i.e. the Bill of Rights were all ratified at once. According to http://www.usconstitution.net... #StateDate* 1New JerseyNov 20, 1789 2MarylandDec 19, 1789 3North CarolinaDec 22, 1789 4South CarolinaJan 19, 1790 5New HampshireJan 25, 1790 6DelawareJan 28, 1790 7New YorkFeb 24, 1790 8PennsylvaniaMar 10, 1790 9Rhode IslandJun 7, 1790 10VermontNov 3, 1791 11VirginiaDec 15, 1791* 12MassachusettsMar 2, 1939 13GeorgiaMar 18, 1939 14ConnecticutApr 19, 1939 Ratified in 811 days My Opponents argument is false. The Senate and House reformed the grammar used by the Convention. But it was ratified. "The states did ratify what they thought was the second amendment, but it read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My Response: Slight difference is grammatical usage, but that doesn't make the amendment null and void. So yeah, you an drop my opponents round 1 argument. He also didn't refute my case, so, extend my round 1 arguments
Resolved: The 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

Okay, my argument is pretty basic. The second amendment was never ratified. The house and senate passed the second amendment which read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The states did ratify what they thought was the second amendment, but it read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the amendment that was passed by congress was never ratified, it isn't actually an amendment, therefore, it is unconstitutional to enforce the second amendment. There's probably a very good rebuttal to my argument, but as I can't think of one at this moment, I'll post this argument. Note: I didn't mean to accept this debate. Note: I didn't feel like getting a source for the two wordings, because I think it counts as "common knowledge" as my English teacher would say.
Resolved: The 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary. Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms. --Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves. Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government. =============================================================================== It's for these reasons I negate. I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military. A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Is Jesus the Son of God in a literal sense or in a figuratively way

I thank YoungZelous for making this debate, I will take that side that Jesus is the figurative Son of God, Pro will be taking the side of that Jesus is indeed literal Son of God(God forbid!).First, St.John even saw the confusion in the OT as said in John 19:36-37 :"36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”OT was confusing even to St.John.Proverbs 30 is 'The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an inspired utterance. This man’s utterance to Ithiel' Proverbs 30 nowhere is related to Jesus, does not name him, Proverbs 30:4 does not describe Jesus."...Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?Who has established all the ends of the earth?" I do not think that Jesus wrapped up the waters in a cloak nor established the ends of the Earth nor gathered up the wind, because it does not say that in the Gospels.In John 1 It is not Jesus speaking, these are the words of John not Jesus, we are talking about Jesus.Matthew 1:23 :Part of the sign to King Ahaz was that the child will be named "Immanuel". Since that name means "God with us", it was supposed to show Ahaz that God was on his side. But, despite Matthew's unreasonable claim that Jesus would be named "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:23), Jesus was not named "Immanuel", but rather "Jesus" (as Matthew himself declared at 1:25).John 8:34 :Jesus is not sinless, because he did not say it in John 8:34 and was tempted by the devil, Matthew 4:1 :"1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."Jesus was tempted by the devil, therefore not sinless.I will refute your arguments that you will post next round God willing, and present Jesus as a figurative Son of God.
Is Jesus the Son of God in a literal sense or in a figuratively way

my name is Young Zealous on this page I really love to debate then I was going to consider to be a Muslim one day;I look at what the Quran and the Bible said about Jesus this is not a pLaying matter. this Christ Jesus is written in the Old Testament of who he supposed to be when he comes and when he came. This argument will be very easy based on the previous scriptures.so I will give you references to the Scriptures proverbs chapter 30:4 explains of the only Son of God. There is mini sons of God in the Bible but they aren't literal sons of God they are figurative Sons of God. let me give you an examples of these Figuratively of sons of God. Adam and Eve and David and the angels were referred two sons of God. Say if I created an iPhone and I call it my son because I created that doesn't mean that it's a literal son of mine it is not flesh of my flesh or anything related to me it is only in Sonship of me. so also it is with all creation they are just creation and God is the father on creation. Now let's get down to the Literal son of God. the reason why we have children is to understand that God has an order of his unity. That starts with the Heavenly Father which is Himself . second is the Son of God who is before all creation of John chapter 1 says. Jesus come from the father the heavenly father to be exact. Jesus was a sinless being because the one whoM he came from was sinless. We all know Muslim Christian and the Jews know that God only just Sinless. well Jesus not have no father but only the one from above had no sin so this proof of not having a father should have made people look up to the sky and say who but his dad indirectly the soul should know the Jesus father was the Heavenly Father the Son of the Most High as Matthew chapter 1 verse 23 says he would be the angel Gabriel mentions this. now reflecting upon the nun little sons of Godthey hadsin they also could Sin. now this ability to see it does not come from God the Father because He is holy so someone who can't see in at all prove himself of what he is. let's give credit to the Bible where Jesus says Jesus is you want to see it is a slave to Sin. Jesus call himself the Son of the master which is God the Heavenly Father. Why because Jesus is serious that he does not Sin. he says the slave has no permanent place in that household but the Son does so who the son sets free is free indeed. so Jesus is supporting what I just said he is the Sinless and Son of God. John 8;34Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
resolved orange is better than yellow.

I offer definitions yellow - of the color intermediate between green and orange in the color spectrum; of something resembling the color of an egg yolk wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn orange - orange color or pigment; any of a range of colors between red and yellow wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn better - something superior in quality or condition or effect, # (comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more ... # surpass in excellence; wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn I stand that yellow is better than orange seeing as my opponent has said no arguments I look forward to her next post and I will not post any arguments as well to make it fair and only place definitions.
Global Warming is Real.

Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate.Is Global Warming (now on GW) real or is it myth? Rules :1. The first round is for acceptance. No argument will be posted.2. We are dealing with facts and evidences, here.3. The maximum number of videos allowed to be posted per round for each user is 2 (two).4. The maximum number of images allowed to be posted per round for each user is 5 (five).
Is cheerleading a sport

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited their last round as well. Therefore, my planned rebuttal was scuppered, and I shall have to make one last point of my own. Cheerleading in major games wins nothing: it only provides atmosphere and attracts fans. Everything you do in all sports help you win or lose. Cheerleading, on the otherhand, helps nothing.I shall say no more. Let the community decide the winner of this debate.
Is cheerleading a sport

Cheerleading is not a sport, because all sports have a winner and a loser. For example, chess is a sport that is recognized by the International Olympic Committee, and it has a winner and a loser. Though it is true that there are cheerleading competitions, the vast majority of cheerleaders are at other games, for example, basketball. Cheerleaders entertain the fans while there is nothing to see in the game, and they make way for the actual athletes. No one wins or loses.
Is cheerleading a sport

Is cheerleading a sport? This is a question that has been discussed for many years. The actual definition of a sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleading meets all of those standards. In this essay I will prove how cheerleading is a sport. The first thing that it says is that it must involve physical exertion. In other words that means the activity of exerting your muscles.