BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman could kill Superman in a fight

I'm sorry that you thought that this was a debate over who would be more likely to win, but, respectfully, the title does say "could." I have met plenty of people who (foolishly, I believe) think that it is literally impossible for Batman to beat Superman, which is why I started this debate. It is, in fact, over this issue, not over who would most likely win. Addressing your entire second paragraph: Yes, Superman stores energy from the Sun so that he can use his powers when he is away from yellow stars. My point is that once he is no longer exposed, he is running on empty, and therefore it is much easier to drain him. Eventually, if it were night long enough, or the solar radiation were otherwise blocked out long enough, Superman would, in fact, be drained. "This shows that for someone like Batman, kryptonite would be necessary if he were to try to fight and kill him." Alternative methods have already been discussed. "You mentioned Batman could've created a arrow shooting machine gun, so why didn't he instead?" As I said, it was a matter of convenience. The Green Arrow happened to be right there at the time. It expedited the process, but didn't change its outcome. "Well in the story Superman had accidentally caused an EMP blast, which rendered all technology useless." Firstly, E.M.P.'s only render electronic technology useless, and only within a certain area, and there are places that are protected from them (i.e. the Bat Cave). Also, Batman was using an electric suit in the video that I posted up there, so obviously the E.M.P. didn't affect his plan too much. Also, bows and arrows don't rely on electronic technology anyway. I mean, they might need an electronic trigger, but that's something that Batman would have lying around in the evidently electronically protected bat cave. "That means someone would've had to manually fire the arrow themselves..." As stated, no it doesn't. Additionally, this is only one scenario in which Batman fights Superman. I really suggest that all voters watch this video (the same one I posted before). It literally has Batman talking about how he could beat Superman while Superman is collapsed on the ground from kryptonite exposure. https://youtu.be...Also, I'd like to remind my opponent that he's not to argue in the last round. See full rules in round one.NOW TIME FOR SOME AWESOME PICTURES THAT REINFORCE MY POINT AND ARE AWESOME http://i.newsarama.com...http://static.comicvine.com...https://g.fool.com...http://www.comicbookbrain.com...http://static.comicvine.com...http://i.crackedcdn.com...http://i.crackedcdn.com...http://i.crackedcdn.com...
Batman could kill Superman in a fight

Well with the existence of kryptonite technically anyone COULD kill Superman, that doesn't make it probable. If this debate was entirely about whether or not Superman could be killed, well the existence of kryptonite means there's no debate about it. That's why I assumed we were really talking about whether or not it was LIKELY Batman can kill Superman since almost anything has a chance of happening. Being possible does not mean it's probable, and in the case of Superman vs Batman, it's definitely not probable that Batman would kill Superman. Let's not forget a very important fact about Batman, he is very much against killing. I can see how with the existence of Superman why he would try with him, but as was mentioned he didn't kill Superman when he could have. Batman would only ever try to kill Superman if he were under the control of evil influences. My opponent claimed my description of solar energy exhaustion was very narrow and said that blocking out the sun or flying away from the sun could also cause this. Solar energy exhaustion has to do with using up the solar energy that Superman currently has without absorbing any more. Blocking out the sun wouldn't prevent Superman from his powers, his powers come from how close Earth in general is to the sun. Superman doesn't act like a solar panel who needs sunlight to operate, he gets his powers from the radiation of the sun and Earth being close to the sun means he still has his powers even if it's blocked out. This is also why at night Superman still has his powers. So flying away from the sun would make him vulnerable and lose his powers once the solar energy he has stored becomes depleted, but not blocking out the sun. As was discussed before, Doomsday nearly killed Superman and almost would've, but you have to keep in mind that Doomsday was as strong and fast as Superman without having to make Superman vulnerable with kryptonite or other means. This shows that for someone like Batman, kryptonite would be necessary if he were to try to fight and kill him. I personally don't really call using kryptonite much of a fight since Superman can't even fight when weakened by kryptonite, but it is still a fight and exploiting weaknesses is smart in fights. But using Green Arrow to hit Superman with kryptonite very much does make a difference, as opposed to my opponent saying that that didn't matter, and I would like to say "slightly assisted" is a huge understatement when it comes to using one of the only ways to make Superman vulnerable. We're not debating Batman and Green Arrow vs Superman or Batman and Robin vs Superman, we're debating about just Batman vs Superman. You mentioned Batman could've created a arrow shooting machine gun, so why didn't he instead? Well in the story Superman had accidentally caused an EMP blast, which rendered all technology useless. That means someone would've had to manually fire the arrow themselves, which as I said before makes the fight no longer just Batman vs Superman.
Batman could kill Superman in a fight

Burden of proof is on me to prove that Batman could kill Superman in a fight. Round 1- I lay out the rules, Con's argument is laid out. Round 2- I lay out my argument, Con rebuts my argument. Round 3- I rebut Con's argument, Con does not argue because I did not argue the first round. This round's forfeiture should not count against Con, because it is specified in these rules that he should do so. Con may also type something not pertaining to the debate in lieu of an argument to expedite the process and get the debate to the voting period more quickly. If Con uses the last round to argue, this should be considered automatic forfeiture of the debate on his part.
The christian god likely exists

I accept the burden con has handed me to prove that "Chances are God exists". As we are arguing the Christian God, I think if any disagreement comes about on Gods' attributes it must be decided on by what the scripture says. Thus I neither fully accept or decline pros definition, as the neccesary definition would be way to long to put in the debate, but I do accept that we will be debating the Christian God in particular.Con has stated that BOP is shared so I will let him get the ball rolling.
The christian god likely exists

I rarely do religion, so my opponent might get an easy win. I am arguing god probably not exist. BOP The BOP is shared 50-50, and we must prove this: CON: Chances are god does not exist Pro: Chances are god exists Definitions: Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Basically some all powerful deity that cares for his people and created the universe.
"Batman the Dark Knight" was better than "Batman the Dark Knight Rises"

Nolan has perfectly pushed the scale meter as far as it can go without breaking while still remaining believable in the world he has created. When it comes to the summer blockbuster scale "The Dark Knight Rises" does just that, rises above "The Dark Knight"." Although TDKR was all about action and blockbuster scenes, The Dark Night was all about storyline and when audiences compare movies between one with blockbuster scenes and mediocre storyline and one with excellent storyline and mediocre action. Majority will always choose movies with a strong storyline over good action films. However it is also clear to anyone who has seen the movies that Tom Hardy"s bulking and strutting Bane posed much more of a physical threat to Batman than the Joker did." I can soundly agree with your statement. Although Bane is a physical threat to everyone he sees ie punching security guards, threatening mercs and breaking batman's back, the Joker is clearly the more superior villain. Batman The Dark Night Rises was all about testing an aging batman to see if his body was still up to the test. However, in Batman The Dark Night, Nolan put more of an emphasis on not Batman's physical body, but on his morals. Joker makes no moves on Batman himself but instead targets innocent citizens because he is purposely wanting to break Batman mentally. Forcing Batman to choose which of his two closest friends to save was ultimately more gripping then Batman realizing that Miranda was the mastermind. There was no doubt that Batman would defeat the Joker due to the fact that, as I discussed earlier, the threat level wasn't quite to that "will he die" plateau that "The Dark Knight Rises" and Bane achieved. While The Dark Night Rises was all about whether Batman dies, The Dark Night was all about who else is going to die that is close to Batman. This creates more tension in the film that when Batman is going to die. It is also good to note that Bane would not kill Batman before Gotham is destroyed. ("Once Gotham has burned, then you have my permission to die" quote from Bane) However, Nolan wouldn't think of destroying Gotham because of the controversy and bitter feeling the audience would be left with if Gotham was destroyed. (AKA Something similar to Mass Effect 3 if you know what I mean...)
We should remove free Medicare (ObamaCare)

I accept your challenge. I understand that you think medicare is free, but it's not. It is given to those who have already paid for it (PART A) Which covers hospitalizations. This is not FREE. It was already paid by you in the form of medicare tax. But if you did not put into the system then you do not get it for "free". So saying it is free, or even staying as you do that it is paid for by the tax payer is not being honest. It is paid for in advance by the people who will be using it. If you did not pay into the system already, then it is 400/month. Lastly in most states if you have part A, you also need part B which is NEVER free. The argument you are making that it is free ie no out of pocket expenses is untrue. It is paid directly for those who get it in both tax and premiums. https://www.medicare.gov...
We should remove free Medicare (ObamaCare)

This topic will reside at on the ineffective attempt of free Medicare, often referred to as ObamaCare. I would like to start with a simple, yet true statement; ObamaCare is not free. This healthcare is coming from us taxpayers. In regards with the people who can't afford normal healthcare, there are already insurances and charities to help them, (in which we are also being taxed.) Call me cold and heartless, but the economy is better without free Medicare.
UN Resolution 1674 should be invoked to stop the genocide in Gaza

Since the last post, Israel have sent tanks into the occupied territory and are shelling houses and places of worship from warships moored off the Gaza coast. The casualties are mounting and as the international condemnation of this cowardly attack rises to a crescendo, the UN remains unwilling to act. http://www.reuters.com... Are they going to sit on their hands, as they did when the situations in Bosnia and Rwanda deteriorated into orgies of unchecked ethnic cleansing? Extremists purporting to represent Hamas have been rightly condemned for provoking Israel by firing rockets over the border and thus giving them the excuse they were waiting for to attack. However, no amount of military intervention, short of annihilating the entire population, will ever stop terrorists when they hide amongst civilians – and Israel knows that. No doubt, if the UN allows Israel to commit these heinous crimes against humanity with impunity, similar attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank will follow soon. For this reason, I affirm that the UN should invoke Resolution 1674 in an effort to end the violence in Gaza. Thank you.
UN Resolution 1674 should be invoked to stop the genocide in Gaza

The Arab / Israeli conflict is one of those few issues in life that absolutely polarises opinions. For this reason, I don't expect to change anybody's mind with this debate and, with American media being traditionally pro-Israel and most voters on this site being American, I certainly don't expect to win it! I say this with no disrespect to my opponent, however, as his arguments are intelligent and forceful and he may very well deserve to win regardless. Nevertheless, this is an issue that I feel very strongly about and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to debate it. So, let's examine each point in turn. 1 – In relation to humanitarian aid my opponent quoted the Jerusalem Post and the Huffington Post. These newspapers are based in Israel (the main protagonist) and America (their most loyal ally). In response I could quote the Palestine News Agency http://english.wafa.ps... and the Islamic Republic News Agency http://www2.irna.ir... but I realise that they may be equally biased. That is why I prefer to quote neutral news agencies such as the BBC and Reuters. http://www.reuters.com... The above report shows that Israeli forces have murdered 386 Palestinians, not 51 as my opponent's pro-Israeli sources claim. 2 – My opponent claims the Rabbis I referred to were not representative, but did not back up his assertion with any source. With this being the case, here is the result of a recent survey of Israeli public opinion, conducted by an Israeli organisation, which shows that the majority of Israelis want to kick all Arabs out of Israel.. http://www.ynetnews.com... 3 – The source my opponent quotes to support that Israel's attack on the defenceless people of Gaza is an act of war, rather than genocide reads: "War – a state of usually open and declared hostile conflict between states or nations" It is not a war, because Gaza is not a state or nation – it is illegally occupied territory, has no functioning government, no army, no navy, no air force; it doesn't control its borders, its ports or its airspace. The people of Gaza are totally reliant on Israel for their welfare and Israel is bombing them. This is not war; it's genocide. https://www.cia.gov... 4 – My opponent quoted the Israeli government spokesman who claimed they were not targeting civilians. What would you expect him to say? It's political propaganda, even Hitler didn't boast about massacring Jews, gypsies, disabled people and political dissidents. The bottom line is that Israel wants the whole of Palestine to be a totally Jewish state. They know that the internationally-brokered peace process will not achieve this goal for them, which is why they have disengaged from it. Instead they have decided to drive the Palestinians out of their homes and off their farms and murder those who dare to remain. This is an act of genocide and the international community has a moral and legal duty to put an end to it by whatever means necessary.
taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

Rebuttals: My opponent may have typed a lot, but he had only one argument P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary. P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures. Therefore, taxes should not be cut significantly. Premise 1 I contend against this premise. My opponent may argue that the "necessary" part may be excluded. But if spending is not necessary, one cannot justify keeping it. Contention 1: Military Budget Cuts The United States accounts for 48% of the world's military spending yet only 4.4% of the world's population. $711 billion could be cut over the next ten years by doing the following [1]: Cut back military retirement pay for new entrants. ($87 bil) Change military compensation calculation ($55 bil) Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years ($387 bil) Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000 ($69 bil) Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores ($9 bil) These cuts are entirely feasible. Also, Military Waste and Fraud costs over $170 bil a year. [2] All this coupled with the fact that increased military spending has NOT made us any safer. There have been MORE terrorist attacks on the US and her allies after 9/11 than all of the time before 9/11 COMBINED. [4] Instead, 4000 US soldiers have died as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. My opponent must defend how these deaths and this wasteful, unnecessary spending is absolutely necessary. Spending has increased dramatically in the past decade, yet again, we are no safer. Clinton level spending is entirely feasible. Contention 2: Social Security Social Security is unsustainable. [3] Phasing out SS would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Clearly, Premise 1 is false. Argument: I. Spending Cuts are Entirely Feasible. See above. II. Economic Benefits Taxation in the form if income taxes is forced theft by the government of our property. And the constitutionality of the income tax aside, it limits economic growth. Were taxes lowered, consumers would have more money to spend. Consumer spending has an exponential effect on economic growth. [5] Government spending has a much lower efficiency. Growth is linear and plagued with waste and fraud as there is no competition. Statistically, pure consumer consumption drives the economy. ___________ 1. http://www.nytimes.com... 2. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com... 3. http://www.cato.org... 4. http://www.politifact.com... 5. http://www.google.com...
taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

Resolved: Taxes should generally be lowered in the United States.Definitions: tax:a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. [1] BOP:We'll have a shared BOP.Structure:Round 2: Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals/Defenses ONLY (no new arguments--if Round 2 is fofieted, argument vote should be given to opponent).Sources:1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

Taxes in the united states should be lowered.I will take the negitive, arguing that we ought not lower taxes signifigantly.I hope this will be an interesting debateAlso i have some debates going on if anyones intrested you should go vootefor me.....lolTopics arewikipedia should be considered a valid sourcepotenial vampires who could logically exist would win against ninjas5 ninjas would win against 5 vikingsThe united states should suspend all assistance to pakistanpornography out to be illegalId appreciate your votes
Free Will is incompatible with Foreknowledge

Choice only in the Mind:Con defines choice only as the perception of choice, and ignores the consequences - on the objective world - of making choices. I am not merely talking about the perception of choice, but also the acting out of that choice. It is indisputable that the world is in a constant state of change. It is indisputable that the cause of some of those changes are the actions of humans. It is indisputable that humans made choices in carrying out those actions. Ergo, our choices affect change on the world. Choice occurs in both UOD.Objective states only in Wuod:This argument enters the unresolved philosophical, psychological, and neurological debate of mind-brain duality. Given my previous rebuttal, it is irrelevent. Even if Objective states exist only in the objective world (Wuod), our ability to make choices and act on them bridges those two UOD.Foreknowledge only in Wuod:This has nothing to do with my argument or my representation of Foreknowledge. My definition of foreknowledge simply states that if something is true in the future, then it is foreknown now. Regardless, the argument presented by con is incoherent. Knowledge is a justified, true belief[1]. Whatever I know, must actually be true (precluding it from possibly being false). That doesn't mean it is true simply because I believe it to be true, just that it is, in fact, true. I don't understand why the possibility of being mistaken makes something objective. Con needs to explain this point better.Universes of Discourse:Con attempts to reject my "bridging" analogy on the basis of UOD explicitly defining the scope of respective contexts. Since our choices can affect the objective world, I am then denying, and refuting, that they are in separate and un-bridge-able universes of discourse in this sense.Redefined Conclusions:Con is confused about my inclusion of his arguments in the formal logical framework I have used. I was hoping that my opponent would be using the same order of logic and for this to be an argument in these terms. That portion of my argument is actually immaterial (I was simply being thorough) and my argument and support stands on the refutations and rebuttals I have previously made.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Free Will is incompatible with Foreknowledge

I accept that the argument Pro presented is logically valid. My case will be based on showing that Pro's first premise (P1) is not true. I accept Pro's remaining premises (P2-P5). Pro explains this first premise in natural language as follows:"P1. If there is a free will choice between (s_i), then:there exists a state (s_j) where a is true and that state is a possible future to s_i;and there exists a state (s_k) where b is true and that state is a possible future to s_i. "Essentially my argument is that Pro has used the word "choice" out of context. This is because the universe of discourse[1] in which foreknowledge exists is different from that in which free will exists. Choice only exists in one of them. To make this more easy to understand, I'm going to coin two terms for use in this debate:Moud - The universe of discourse of the mind and the mind's experience of itself. Wuod - The universe of discourse of the objective world. For example, when we are within Muod, we can speak of things like emotions and desires. These are unique to Muod and do not exist in Wuod. If we believe that the mind is completely caused by the natural world then we can explain the physical causes of emotions in Wuod but this is not the same as talking about emotions. If there happened to be some entirely different causes in Wuod, this would not change the definition of the word in Muod. Therefore the concept of emotion exists entirely within Muod. Another concept that lies entirely within Muod is the concept of choice. When we talk about choices, we are not talking about anything that exists in Wuod. The concept simply does not exist there. Foreknowledge, however, is referencing future states of the objective world which are firmly within Wuod. Therefore we cannot discouse them along with the concept of choice. To do so would be to render a meaningless statement. Pro's P1 references choice along with possible future states and is therefore meaningless. Meaningless statements cannot be true (whether or not they are false or simply lack a truth value is not relevant to this debate). Therefore, Pro's P1 is not true. Pro cannot prove the resolution without P1 and so the resolution is negated. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...;