BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman is more realistic than spiderman

In order to be Batman you must be brave, brilliant, born into a very wealthy family, possess genius-like intelligence, be willing to learn marshal arts training, use ninja-like gadgets, willing to take dangerous driving lessons, and willing to learn to fly unusual flying machines. In order to be Spiderman one must possess superhuman powers, from being bitten by a radioactive spider, that enable him to shoot webs out of his wrists, stick to and climb walls, possess superhuman reflexes, and know when danger is near without having any cues. One of these heroes lays down a very hard set of criteria to meet, the other (Spidey) is nearly impossible to be true. My opponent contests that a scientist can simply make gloves that allow you to stick to surfaces. The problem here is that he has forgotten that the person would need boots that stick as well, and that the gloves and the boots would both have to have some kind of power that makes the human body very light so that someone can cling on to the wall and not fall out of their gloves and shoes. Is it more probable that scientists create anti-gravitational sticky gloves and boots, or that they make boomerang blades and other gadgets on Batman's belt? The answer is obvious, Batman for the win!
Batman is more realistic than spiderman

People may say that batman is more realistic than spiderman , however......Batman has a lot of fancy gadgets which are mostly impossible to make! , spiderman has 1 gadget and that is his web shooters which can be made (obviously not exactly the same) and he can climb walls , well if your a great scientist you can make gloves which cling onto most surfaces!. Batman has a unbelievable suit and you should already know that it is ultra hard to make! spiderman suit is normal , any granny or you could knit one using the same materials. Anyone can be spiderman as long as they are strong , logical and brave. To be batman you need to be super smart , very strong , very brave , very rich , great at driving , awesome at stunts and lots more!. Think , what is easier to be.......
Batman is more realistic than spiderman

Improbable vs ImpossibleSpider-man's powers: "Spider-Man's overall metabolic efficiency has been greatly increased, and the composition of his skeleton, connective tissues, muscles, and nervous system has all been enhanced... Spider-Man is capable of healing from injuries as severe as broken bones within a matter of hours... Spider-Man is able to stick to surfaces using only his hands and feet, but later he is shown to be able to cling with his back... The speed of his reflexes combined with his spider-sense allows him to dodge almost any attack, even gunfire at point blank... In "Disassembled", Spider-Man develops the ability to shoot organic webbing from his wrists (after he recovered from being changed into a spider), and he stopped using his web-shooters which was a great advantage for him because it allowed him to stop being dependent on web cartridges."[1]My opponent will have you believe that it is realistic for someone to get bit by a spider and then be able to stick to walls, shoot webbing from his wrists, move faster than a bullet at point blank range, and heal from broken bones in a matter of a few hours. That is obviously very false. It is important to note that it isn't very likely that anyone become a filthy rich crime fighter in a black bat suit either, but it is at least possible for a human being to do. Possessing the powers of Spiderman is not possible, therefore it is obvious that Batman is the more realistic superhero. Batman isn't likely to be real, Spiderman isn't able to be real. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_powers_and_equipment
Batman is more realistic than spiderman

Take the example of MI6 or CIA , they have gadgets that are unbelivable and really good , they have anti-gravitional boots and gloves and may i point out that spiderman did get bitten by a radioactive spider but he was the creator of his own web shooters. If we can get some web shooter toys in shops for the little ones then obviously a logical or simple scientist can make some. Batman has some great super-cool gadgets like a flying spaceship (not exactly a spaceship) called the bat , it is a transformer and can not be seen on radar. Well you should know that it is nearly impossible to make. Spiderman is a normal teenager with a great brain and has awesome reflexes , you can find theses qualities in lots of people. Batman is:Very richNot everyone is rich.has awesome gadgets It is rare to find someone with gadgets like batman's learned very hard martial arts Spiderman had some fighting techniques which lots of people have , batman on the other hand has been trained very very well , its kind of rare to find people like that. Has a great suit As I said in the first round batman's suit is ultra hard to make , it has so many things on it and inside it. Spiderman's suit is do-able , if your good at knitting or if you tell a normal designer to make one then it would be done. there are many more but I will qoute them in the next round.....
Coming out on social media is unnecessary

Well there you go! So this is what i would do. I would probably come out on the internet first, and if my parents find out, they would come and talk to me about it. That way you wouldnt have to go through the anxiety of telling the, and then probably getting disowned(@myhouse). But that is just how I would do it cause i can get real social anxiety from talking about the LGBTQ+ community infront of my parents. but yeah.
Coming out on social media is unnecessary

Yea. For some people it is hard to just straight (haha lmao gay puns are fun) come out to their parents without any help. Like me. But also people use it to come out and make friends that are the same sexuality/gender as them so that they have more people to relate to. But if they didnt come out on the internet, then the people who wanna relate the gay and the queers, cant know who they are cause they dont state it. Do you know what i mean?
Coming out on social media is unnecessary

So you say it is necessary as a form of support and to show you are not afraid to tell your parents. That makes sense don't get me wrong but I'm wondering; if people want to show that they are not afraid to tell their parents, wouldn't just telling their parents be the perfect way to prove it? I understand it may be hard for some people to do, especially if someone has parents like yours; homophobes. A support group would be fitting for that situation but I'm not sure if that's the same thing as coming out on social media; a support group is composed of people who are willing to help in this situation, they're not just random facebook friends. What do you think about that?
Coming out on social media is unnecessary

Okie. So, I'm not saying that you are wrong. Yes sometimes it is unnecessary, cause a lot of times, people do it just for attention. But people, like me for say, do it to show that you aren't scared for coming out to parents. If you do it on the internet, then you might have enough courage to come out to your parents. Like me. I'm scared to come out to my parents cause they are very homophobic. I'm not going to say my sexuality cause that will defeat the purpose of this debate but it can also help if you are in a support group with people who have came out before. I am in a support group in Instagram and they have helped a lot. I haven't came out t my parents yet, but i will. But I will agree that sometimes it is unnecessary to some out on social media. Unless you really need the help. Like if you have LGBT friends that have already been through it, then it is a really big help. It is also really heartwarming to see them get excited that you are that gender/sexuality cause they just het so damn happy. But yeah. I really hope to see your side of this!
The Problem of Evil and Hell

Because it is the final round, I'm not going to go deep into the rebuttal; rather, I'll make a few quick notes. 1. Fallacy of Equivocation My partner has accused me of the fallacy of equivocation. Pro's rebuttal commits the fallacy of high redefinition. He takes our very broad definition of round 1 and cherry picks one attribute in an attempt to show an inconsistency. It is true: God is love. However, it is also true: God is not just love. Pro is straw manning my possition. I argued that because of God's attribuites, he is self-contradictory (incoherent). Hence, the argument is as follows:1) Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist.2) God has contradictory attributes.3) Therefore, God cannot exist. Because we are only debating the PoE and hell, this is irrelavent for now. However, the whole argument was that because God is agape, He cannot keep any record of wrong.2) Out of context. My partner accused me of bringing the quote out of context. But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:21, What I was arguing was, via Ezekiel 18, the doctrine of original sin (which is my partner's theodicy) is contradicted. He has not refuted that; and in fact, only added to my argument. Those are two points I felt was necessary for this round. As a closing remark, I thank my partner for participating in a scholarly debate with me. This debate has concluded.
The Problem of Evil and Hell

Resolved: The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Hell are sucessful arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian type God.Clarification: This debate is not necessarily about a particular religion, rather, it an argument aganist a Judeo-Christian type God who has the three omni-attributes (omnipotence; omnibenevolence; and omniscient). RulesA. Structure1. Acceptance/abstract2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals and closing B. Acceptance.1. You must be serious about this debate topic2. Do not play devil's advocateC. Behvaior1. No ad hominems2. No forfeiting; if you want to concede, don't let the time run out.3. Please follow the structure of the debate.4. No trolling; trolling will get you blocked.Good luck. :-)
Division I college athletes should be paid a stipend.

Every year the debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid seems to pop up. Some people want to pay them. I disagree. College athletes should not be paid for the following reasons. 1) They are already fairly compensated. College athletes don't just get paid, they get paid in big ways. Granted, no one hands them a check with 6 figures on it. But these athletes get privileges others would kill for. Free tuition, free room and board, free books, and all-around college experience. In total, scholarships can total up to $120,000 in 4 years. It may not seem like it, but athletes are already paid. 2)Education is a first priority. Just looking at the word "student-athlete", student is first. When an athlete goes to a college, he goes to get an education first. When you start paying college athletes, they'll view themselves more and more as athletes and less as students. 3)If you pay athletes, you can kiss most sports goodbye. Most athletic departments don't make a profit, and the ones that do use that profit to pay for other sports, such as golf or lacrosse. For schools to pay athletes, they would have to remove all but one or two sports. I now wait for an opponent.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare story lines are better than the Halo series

I sincerely hope that my opponent is alright since he hasn't been able to post a response, but nonetheless, all of my points have been sustained since he didn't argue against them because he wasn't here to do so, so extend all of my arguments across the flow. Now, to my opponent's case: The entirety of my opponent's case was nothing more than a short paragraph with a few points, so the entirety of my opponent's case is pretty vague, for the most part. His points are the following:Modern Warfare leaves people believing that these events could actually happen: There's a difference between people believing that the events could actually happen and the events actually having a possibility of happening. He doesn't explain that in his case, so knock down this point. Modern Warfare leaves people to think that he is fighting for something: I would assume that he is talking about Americanism here, but assumptions are a dangerous thing, so unless he explains what that means (as well as provides evidence that this is true), then we can't consider this point either. Halo is purely for fun: Pretty much every video game is just for fun, but they can have the occassional subjective messages behind the plots, as I've explained in my case. Therefore, consider my case over his.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare story lines are better than the Halo series

Although I very much respect my opponent's position on the topic, I must negate the resolution and stand on the CON side of this debate. Before continuing, I would like to define some key terms from the resolution today:better: more attractive, favorable, or commendable; more advantageous or effective storyline: the plot of a story or dramaHalo (series): a science fiction video game franchise created by Bungie and owned and published by Microsoft Studios. The series centers on an interstellar war between humanity and a theocratic alliance of aliens known as the Covenant. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: a first-person shooter video game, developed by Infinity Ward and published by Activision for PC, Macintosh, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii. With these definitions, we can make some analyses on the resolution of today's debate and make observations of it thereof to make parameters:Observation 1: A story is inherently subjective in meaning and requires the audience to make a subjective analysis on the symbolisms and meanings underneath the storylines. Therefore, both members of this debate must include a subjective analysis on the two objects of discussion in order to make this an effective debate. Now, for my argument:Contention 1: Halo's plot is more creative. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the games of the Halo series is not only its fun shooter game quality, but it is also the unique plot it possesses. The main plot of the Halo series to place it at a few short words: it essentially deals with an interstellar war between humanity and a theocratic coalition of aliens. Although there are some parallels to this storyline with that of other popular storylines (and few thereof), it is much more creative in existence in comparison to Call of Duty, whose plot imitates that of countless war themes and American struggles against other nations, including the Soviet Union and/or the Middle East. Examples of media with these themes are the following: Rambo IIIThe 9th CompanyThe BeastContention 2: Halo's plot is better in the subjective. Not only is the plot for Halo for creative, but the subjective view of both plots would show that the storyline for the plot in Halo is also better in the subjective. The message that Halo sends is much better than that of Call of Duty because it shows all of humanity collectively coming together for a common cause, in contrast to the opposing game because shows the image of country against country. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)
Sex education in schools

If you think you have a good argument against sex education in schools please be my guest. I believe sex education should be in schools because it will give teens a chance to learn before they have to learn from mistakes. I understand some may think that many are not mature enough. That's why teachers need to start teaching at a time when many become the age that they start having sex. Though they may not be able to make them not/stop having sex, they should teach them about safe sex, and way to make sure you stay away from pregnancy and STDs.
Affirmative Action

I accept this challenge and look forward to hearing your point of view. The belief that affirmative action is providing a leg up in society is a common misconception. I believe we can all agree that there are people in the United States that face oppression. Affirmative action was created to try and bridge the divide between minorities and the privileged. Affirmative action does not provide a plethora of opportunities for one group but instead creates an equal playing field. Affirmative Action/əG2;fərmədiv G2;akSHən/nounan action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination. If something is being seen as "affirmative action" but does not fall under the definition, simply put it is not affirmative action. You mentioned that those benefiting from said policies or actions are "unworthy" of them. How so? What standards must one meet to be "worthy" of affirmative action?I fully recognize that some people society would deem "unworthy" may slip through the cracks. However, the vast majority of affirmative action recipients are students or employees that otherwise would be working twice as hard for the same opportunities as their counterparts. - Lilah Kesser
moderate communism - good or bad

As my opponent has failed to provide proper definitions and boundaries, I shall set them myself.Also, as there is no such thing as moderate Communism, both theoretically and practically, it can be inferred that my opponent is referring to "Socialism", which truly is a more moderate form of Marxist teachings.Therefore, we will argue on the point of Socialism, and whether or not it's a good or bad system.Definitions: Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. [1]Rules:1. No trolling2. No semantics3. Forfeits are automatic concessions4. No kriticsI await my opponent's opening argument. Sources:[1]https://www.google.com...;
Pampers are the best type of diapers for any toddler

My opponent has stated something without providing any evidence. I could say that KFC is really Kentucky Fried Cows, this does not make the statement true. In order to tell which diaper is the best, we must look at the facts. Although there are no official tests to tell what diaper is better, we can look at the each item, then decide which is better. Evidence suggest that Pampers diapers are not all that superior to other diapers. One mother wrote that Pampers diapers leak, while the brand Luv does not. (1) That same mother says that Toys R Us brand didn't leak either. In the end, she says that the Toys R us diapers are her favorite. Pampers diapers are not to be trusted, say people. There was a federal investigation because many parents found rashes on their children once the diapers were used. (2) I look forward to my opponent's next argument. Sources: (1). . http://www.epinions.com... (2). . http://www.aboutlawsuits.com...
Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

First I would like to say if you bruise easily any age. That means your child or you has vitamin deficiency or signs of some type of cancer. Also as I said before you can use other tactics to teach your children not to do bad things like taking away things but it is also good to have some type of physical punishment(not physical abuse). Now this has been fun debating about this and good luck in the voting period!!!
Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

Children bruise easily, so a spank could sometimes leave one. Besides the point I don't think spanking teaches kids a good lesson other than to be afraid of their parents. Put kids in time out or take a toy away rather than spank them. Think about this, when adults slap each other they can be stuck with an abuse charge, so why would it not be the same when a kid is slapped, even lightly?
Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

"leads to aggression and other behavior problems like stealing and lying, makes it more likely children will have mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and could lead to learning problems at school. " Now I went to many websites to see what you meant by this and everyone said the same dang thing, and here is what I got: "Much research has focused on the effects that severe child abuse can have on a person's mental well-being. " Now you said it was caused by spanking, but according to Dr. Jennifer Shu it is caused by severe child abuse. There is a difference between child abuse and spanking. Child abuse is not spanking when you see child abuse there are bruises are even signs of blood or extreme pain. Spanking is not abuse when you spank it should be a couple licks, but if there are bruises after the spanking or blood it can be classified as physical abuse. "I don"t know how many times I have heard on the news about a child getting beaten to death because the parent or sitter were hitting them until they were quiet. " Um well I will say this something is wrong with that person to abuse. Most people who abuse are people who were abused or something really bad happened in their life. "there are many different ways to teach kids. " Yes there are different ways but it is also good to have physical punishment(spanking not abuse) until a certain age like 6. Its to teach discipline, but after that age you can use new tactics besides spanking like taking away stuff.
Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

"Physical abuse is physical force or violence that results in bodily injury, pain, or impairment." I am pretty sure that when a parent spanks a child it is going to hurt then or cause them some sort of pain. By the definition above that would be considered physical abuse. No child deserved to be spanked, like I stated before there are other ways to discipline a child if need be. I will agree that kids do need discipline but spanking is not the way to go about it.
Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

Children who are spanked when they are younger are more likely to spank their kids when they have their own later in life. "According to Gershoff, spanking does not improve behavior, leads to aggression and other behavior problems like stealing and lying, makes it more likely children will have mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and could lead to learning problems at school." (1) When we spank our children they often believe when they get older that it"s okay to do that because they grew up with it. We do not need to be teaching our kids that it is okay to spank people. They get to a vulnerable age where whatever they see they will do. Spanking a child could also lead to child abuse. When somebody is so angry and can"t help themselves they might only want to lightly spank the child but could end up beating them harder and harder. I don"t know how many times I have heard on the news about a child getting beaten to death because the parent or sitter were hitting them until they were quiet. There are different forms of punishment that would be better than a spanking. They could be; putting them in time out, taking away toys, taking away electronics. These are some of the ways that you can teach kids that what they did is not okay without having to hit them. Often times when you spank a child they don"t even learn a lesson in the first place. All it"s get them is angry that they were hit. Then they will act out in fits of rage and can become violent themselves. Spanking teaches children to only behave when there is threat of physical harm. This is not a good way to teach children the difference between right and wrong. "Those who experienced physical punishment were 59 percent more likely to have alcohol dependence, 41 percent more like to have depression and 24 percent more likely to have panic disorder, compared with those who received no physical punishments, the researchers said." (2) Spanking is considered a physical form of punishment. If you look at the statement above these stats are appalling. This is all because they were spanked when they were kids. As I have stated before, there are many different ways to teach kids. Spanking should not be one of them. (1)http://fox8.com... (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...