BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
night crawleror blue beetle

To fulfil my burden of proof, I will now show you the powers of Nightcrawler.Affirmative CaseNightcrawler has some pretty crafty abilities. These include [1]:- Teleportation (so long as he could visualise the area), which could be continuously used until Nightcrawler was in a favourable position to fight the Blue Beetle- Shadow Camouflage in the darkness further allows him to grab weapons or position himself in a favourable position without Blue Beetle being able to respond- His has a hand-like tail that can grab onto things (strong enough to lift a man), but can also be used as a sword or blunt object- He can stick to walls- He is more acrobatic than a normal human, which includes abilities like: balance, agility and reflex- He has eyesight that allows him to see in the dark As you can see, Nightcrawler has all thee abilities to help him win a fight, especially at night-time. Currently, my opponent has provided no evidence to suggest that Blue Beetle can even fight, let alone at this level. Thus, as it stands in this debate, Nightcrawler's fighting abilities outweigh Blue Beetle's. The resolution is affirmed.Reference: [1] http://xmenmovies.wikia.com...
Resolved: Raising the Minimum Wage will do more damage to our economy.

For sake of clarity, I will establish my interpretation of the debate topic as: "Raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate will cause more damaging repercussions to the U. S. Economy than not raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate. " If this is not Dpowell's interpretation of their established resolution, I welcome Dpowell the right and ability to specifically define their intended topic within their opening arguments.
This House Asserts That ISIS Is Anti-Islamic!

Greetings! Resolved: This House Asserts That ISIS Is Anti-Islamic!This is a simple enough debate, it seeks to establish whether or not ISIS the terrorist organisation is based on Islamic ideals (or represents Islam) or goes against Islamic teaching and belief. I should note that for this debate Islam is the religion as set out by the Quran, the Sunnah (the actions, writings, sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad), the 'Ijma (the consensus of scholars of Islam), Qiyas (analogy or extension of Quran, Sunnah or Ijma), and 'Urf (Islamic culture). It is NOT defined by a small minority of Muslims (though the argument from consensus may be made). The burden of proof rests on the Proposition, but Opposition must explain their refutations and counter-claims, backing themselves up with evidence. All translation of the Quran should be referenced to the Noble Quran website which has multiple translations (all the popular ones) however Arabic explanations of words are allowed. The website can be found here: http://quran.com...By ISIS I obviously refer to the Islamic State of Iran and Levant. Goodluck to whoever accepts!
In-school suspension for fighting is better than out-of-school suspension.

AFAIK no, the kids are not put into different rooms. Even if they were, that would be incredibly inefficient. At that point, you would need several teachers, and if you are to go to the extreme- one teacher per student, it becomes incredibly expensive (teachers AND free rooms) inefficient. Students are less likely to cause trouble out of school than in school, there's far less of a chance of direct contact. If out of school contact is still made, then there is nothing that can be done to prevent the violence. Out of school suspension programs are far more efficient, and safe than in school suspension programs for violent students.
In-school suspension for fighting is better than out-of-school suspension.

In an in school suspension program, the kids are put in different rooms and will do the work they would miss if they were suspended out of school. A paid teacher or a substitute will be watching the kids. Some kids will be willing to do that work as others will not, but there is a big difference between having an in-school suspension program and having an effective one. Also, if the kids who got suspended are out of school, they can cause as much trouble out of school than in school.
In-school suspension for fighting is better than out-of-school suspension.

As for fights and violence go, out of school suspensions will be more favorable than in school suspensions. Removing two violent people from the situation in which they are violent is a good thing. Allowing them to go to school for this could cause more fighting, especially if both are in the same in school suspension room at one time (as most schools do). Allowing them to use in school suspension will just cause more violence, something the school is trying to prevent.
Tattoos in the workplace.

I decided to do this argument because I thought that it would be fun. Before beginning, I wish "Good Luck" to my opponent for the Debate. I am on the side of Con, meaning that "Tattoos should not be revealed in the workplace, but instead should be covered up within the workplace". To begin, we can both agree that tattoos can be fun and cool. With, like my opponent said, its meanings and showing the personality of one person with the engraving on ones body. But I must ask the question, "What about being professional at a job"? The point of a job is to do work, and receive money; and is used to survive in the world. The company that is represented by its employees need to look professional, otherwise they will lose business. And without a business results in no pay for the worker. Of course its the person with the tattoo decision in the first place, but if he or she is going into an environment that requires a certain criteria of professionalism; they need to understand that they must comprehend with the business, and not start tons of drama. They made the decision to work in the environment, ad should follow the rules in that environment. Even if it requires a simple closure of the tattoo, or cover up.
Tattoos in the workplace.

So, I have been wondering for a while now, should employees be forced to cover tattoos? I think not because a lot of tattoos are meant for honor and lost loved one, and as long as they are not offensive in racial OR obscene they do not impair my ability to do my job. Also unless i am working at say a church-y store where I am in presence of highly judgmental and prejudice groups with strong viewpoints of having tattoos ( which who with tattoos would subject themselves to that??) Covering tattoos SHOULD NOT be mandatory.
Smoking Ban

I will be posting my rebuttals this round. My opponent should have made his rebuttals, so that I can make my defense. My opponent cannot make his defense, because it is unfair if he does and I can't.RebuttalsI: Crime IncreaseII: Tax RevenueIII: Ease of Access would not be effected muchIV: Freedom of Choice/ Personal LibertyRebuttal I: Crime IncreaseMy opponent says that popular drugs have led to a signficant crime. My opponent says that gangs will sell it to the black market. "Richer countries invest more than poorer countries. This is clear from figure 1. Notice that PPP investment rates are 2-3 times higher for US and Norway compared with poorcountries like Mali and Kenya. Thus both faster growing and richer countries invest more than slow growing and/or poor countries. [1]" So, basically we are debating about America, that means that smoking, tobacco and cigarettes are about 2-3 times its actual cost.What is the cost of smoking?"According to The Awl's annual cigarette price check, for which they call delis in each state and ask how much a pack of cigarettes costs, New York clocks in with the most expensive, at more than $14 a pack. In Kentucky, where the cigarette tax is just 60 cents, a pack costs$4.96, about a third of its cost in New York. [2]"The cost is 4.96. About 5 dollars. Then this means that when you buy it is about 10-15 dollars. Criminals don't have lots of money, or gangs to buy this. This much cost for 10-15 dollars will be useless, as most people think.Also many people who don't want to do illegal things, a majority would not. Also we can easily make pollution smaller, because we can catch people who illegally bought it, many people will not by following the law, which will make about 20% of what is was normally.Rebuttal II: Tax Revenue This argment is basically about economy. My opponent says that the government gets lots of money from smoking.However, the medical illness of smoking costs 170 billion in 2014 [3]. How much for taxes? 4. How much for medical illness? 170. My opponent might say that the smokers pay for this, but then because of the lack of money, non-smokers pay more. This is just bad for non-smokers, because evn though they are getting harmed, they are paying the medical bills.Rebuttal III: Ease of Access would not be effected muchI rebutted this in the first argumentRebuttal IV: Freedom of Choice/ Personal LibertyMy opponent says that they have the right to smoke. But then don't non-smokers not have the right to roam free with no smelling bad smoke that pollutes them? Smokers are not the only people, non-smokers are much more than smokers, meaning they should have more rightsSourceshttp://grizzly.la.psu.edu...http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.prevent.org...Thanks. Remember, no defense.
Smoking Ban

I will be making my argument. I live in Paris, where smoking is legal. I honestly really hate the air, and know for sure there are a ton of pollution. I think that smoking should certainly be banned. My argumentsI. Secondhand smokingII. PollutionIII. Harm PrincipleArgument I: Secondhand smokingLets, see why do everyone want to stop pollution and global warming? Also what is pollution? Lets do this into premises1. People also talk about stopping global warming and pollution2. What is Pollution?3. Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. 4. Also this is bad for your health5. Does smoking have pollution?6. Yes it does7. And pollution is bad for people, bad health8. Because smoking has pollution, it is bad for your health9. This means that smoking should be banned. I will explain why smoking is bad for non-smokers. As I said in the premises, smoking has pollution. This means that people's lungs will get unhealthy. "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. "Why do non-smokers have to die for people just do let people smoke? We are giving up many lives, banning smoking is much better. Without smoking do you die? No you don't. With smoking do other who not smoke not die? They do, meaning that secondhand impacts are bad, vote for Pro. From quote: . http://www.cdc.gov...The source I gave has tons of info of secondhand impact. Argument II: PollutionAs I said in my premises, pollution can cause you harm, your health harm. Because smoking has this, and the world will be more polluted, artic animals will die, glaciers, 97% of the fresh water will melt with the salt water. Just for smoking do we have no do this and harm animals and people? No. Argument III: Harm PrincipleI saw many Con debates say the harm principle in their arguments. But however, smoking does harm others. I will give a list of how much it harms others.1. Secondhand smoke2. Pollution3. Economy Impact4. Non-smokers have to pay for smoker's health because smokers are poorYou get it. The harm principle clearly then says Smoking should be banned.
Atheism is Illogical

It is not logical to believe in something until it is proved not to exist. If this were the case, we should all believe in unicorns, fire breathing dragons and fairies at the bottom of the garden. None of these have been conclusively shown not to exist. No proof has been offered in this debate that an afterlife exists, therefore Pro's burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, since Pro has indeed been logged on to the site on a number of occasions during this debate, I presume that his failure to enter any argument is not the result of some unforeseen circumstance preventing him from doing so; rather it is a conscious decision to waste my time.
Atheism is Illogical

I will be arguing that Atheism is illogical. I take Atheism to mean the denial of the existence of an afterlife instead of just merely the absence of belief in an afterlife. Though Atheism is often related to the denial of a deity along with the denial of an afterlife, I chose not to posit any stance upon the belief in a deity as illogical or logical. Thus, the debate will center solely around whether it is logical or illogical to deny the existence of an afterlife. I define the afterlife the continuation of consciousness after death.
Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity.

I'll start this round to answering annhasle's questions. >When I put forward my argument, it was in hopes that he would then answer with how the world does prove a deity. I was 'Con' to a statement/position you made, unless this was duel burdened debate(which I must have stated as so in the opening round 1), I see no way you could take it upon you >The only response I received was that I could not prove with absolute certainty that there is no God based on my surroundings. Then why challenge me? Why put forward such a debate when in the first round you were planning to state, "Sorry, can't happen" and then move on? With all due respect, I am confused on why I wrote such a response to your challenge and then you did not have to. This debate revolved around your original statement on the forums which in order to be true requires the certain non existence of god. Your an intelligent person and I was sure that was not what you had intended to mean in that statement; I didn't even expect you accept but you did. Here's the comment again "My surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics but not a divine being. " With the use of the word "definitely" and how many times I used the word "certain" in the first round one would assume you knew what I meant. >"It would be a more fruitful debate if Zetsubou argued from the counterpoint, "your surroundings can prove a deity"" No. ========================================================================== I agree with most of Pro's argument, there just a two minor mistakes. "Of course, my surroundings could be scientifically proven but could not prove a God. " No they can not, seemingly proven to the nous of healthy humans yes but not to everything else, our senses form the limit to our faculties; our senses are inaccurate, they do not PROVE anything. Sorry but metaphysics is messed up like that. "And that absolute certainty should not be the deciding factor but maybe "beyond a reasonable doubt"? " Reasonable is Subjective.
Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity.

Thank you for the timely response. Let's begin. I want to start out with saying that I'm disappointed in the response I received. I understood beforehand that proving 100% that there is or is not a deity would be extremely difficult. But I was placated by the assumption that Zetsubou would also have to argue from such a hard position. When I put forward my argument, it was in hopes that he would then answer with how the world does prove a deity. But that did not happen. The only response I received was that I could not prove with absolute certainty that there is no God based on my surroundings. Then why challenge me? Why put forward such a debate when in the first round you were planning to state, "Sorry, can't happen" and then move on? With all due respect, I am confused on why I wrote such a response to your challenge and then you did not have to. Regardless, I also want to respond to your statement. Implausibility does not state that it is impossible. It merely states that it is difficult to believe and on that basis, I drew doubt. I never stated that it was impossible so I will continue to argue from implausibility of a God and not probability like you suggested. When I stated that my surroundings could prove biology or physics and not a deity, I was not intending to state that with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no God based upon my surroundings. I was implying that, of course, my surroundings could be scientifically proven but could not prove a God. To prove there was a deity based on surroundings (like a tree or building) is (or at least pretty close to being) impossible. However, since I cannot prove with absolute certainty that here is no God based upon my surroundings like Zetsubou believed I should have in this debate, I believe it to be over then? If not, I would gladly continue but with some minor adjustments. It would be a more fruitful debate if Zetsubou argued from the counterpoint, "your surroundings can prove a deity". And that absolute certainty should not be the deciding factor but maybe "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Thank you.
Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity.

Annhasle has accepted the change of resolution to: Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence (or lack) of a Deity. Little mistake I made. Your surroundings do indeed prove some of the laws of biology and physics as objective, fact given that those claims are testable, however unless with absolute certainty(evidence) you cannot make claims about anything else. I'll follow Pro's idea that the belief of in deity is implausible. Implausibility does not equal impossibility. If you want to talk fallacy it is an argumentum ad probabilitam(unconventional) or argument from probability. What is likely or rational is not always true. The resolution does state that from ones surrounding you can be sure, certain even, of the existence or non existence of a God, how so? Nothing in the known world shows with absolute certainty and with objective evidence anything about that which appears to not exist. To use your example(Dawkins') fairies at the bottom of the garden, you can't proven without a doubt that there are not fairies unless you go to the bottom of the garden. RESOLUTION NEGATED Sorry for the semantics, I thought you knew.
Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity.

Ones surroundings give you certain knowledge of the existence of a Deity. In this thread ->Bible... a question - http://www.debate.org... <- (post #164), user annehasle claimed that from her surroundings she could prove the existence (or lack) of a Deity. "My surroundings can definitely prove biology or physics but not a divine being." This debate is annehasle's chance to prove this statement.
That Batman is the Greatest HERO in all of Marvel & DC.

". .. who, by your own standards, has a more clear perception of what a criminal is? .. ." I believe Bruce Wayne, who saw his parents murdered as a child and lived in the criminal underworld for several years during his training would have a very clear perception of what a criminal is. ". .. Anarky also is described as having an extraordinary intelligence. .. " His intelligence is artificially enhanced, so he may be smarter than Batman but is also less realistic. ". .. it is notable to state that Anarky is not only superior in principle but physically as well. .. " I believe your paraphrasing here doesn't do Batman justice. In fact, I think this statement is completely inaccurate. Yes, on one occasion Anarky bested Batman in combat, but through your own admission this is through trickery, rather than physical skill. On several other occasions, the link provided by you shows Anarky fleeing combat with Batman. ". .. I do smell in the air a bit of an unsettlement from my opponent. .. " I already admitted that this debate hasn't gone the way I had expected it to. I was thinking someone would brings up Spiderman or Ironman. Much like Anarkys only victory over Batman, I believe you are trying to beat my superior character with trickery. Regardless of the fact that Anarkys ideology is indeed closer to mine than Batmans, Batman is still the superior character. -Batman has the greatest arch-nemesis of any hero. The Joker. Their relationship is nothing short of epic. -Gotham City's transition into film as depicted by Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale is nothing short of brilliant in my opinion. I have watched Batman Begins and the Dark Knight more times than any other movie. -The 1989 depiction by Tim Burton and Michael Keaton was groundbreaking, setting the bar of quality for Superhero movies for decades. -In terms of Global Appeal, Batman is infinitely superior to Anarky. Batman is a pop icon. Anarky is a nobody. -Business Week of all magazines listed Batman as one of the ten most intelligent superheroes to ever appear in American comics. Entertainment Weekly named Batman as one of The 20 All Time Coolest Heroes in Pop Culture. -In terms of comic quality, Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns are absolute classics. Anarky is again, a nobody. -Superman, one of the most powerful superheroes in terms of super abilities, called Batman "the most dangerous man on Earth". Yet, in the Hush storyline we see that Superman has previously given Bruce Wayne a Kryponite ring, showing an amazing amount of trust towards someone he sees as the most dangerous man on Earth. So in conclusion the fact that Batman is not an Anarchist and I am isn't really even relative. Batman is most popular than ever, 71 years after his first appearance in Detective Comics. He is the character Stan Lee himself is quoted as saying "I wish I had thought of that". He is the perfect blend of Darkness and Heroic. Batman is the GREATEST.
That Batman is the Greatest HERO in all of Marvel & DC.

"Batman's intention is to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. I can relate to that." I contend that Anarky does the same. But I ask you Pro, who, by your own standards, has a more clear perception of what a criminal is? A man who is actually apart of the corporate elite himself, or an Anarchist? "Batman is in essence a Vigilante who works outside of the laws of society." As is Anarky. Except that Anarky shares the values that both you and I hold. Whereas Batman does not. You see, Anarky is a lot like a another Batman, just better. They are both gadgeteers with keen martial art abilities. Except Anarky also is described as having an extraordinary intelligence and fights for a more noble cause. I do also contend that, though I have pointed out intention makes the hero, it is notable to state that Anarky is not only superior in principle but physically as well. A quote from the link I provided regarding their face-off: "he defeated Batman in combat by confusing the hero with holographic projections long enough to attack and subdue him." Also, if I may say, I do smell in the air a bit of an unsettlement from my opponent. Is it perhaps that he finds himself in agreement that Anarky is truly better than Batman yet hopelessly tries to defend his original stance in-order to win the debate? I reaffirm that the clear winner here is Anarky.