BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Daredevil, The Man with No Fear vs Batman, The Dark Knight

Living under his secret identity, Bruce Wayne didn't have the same life as Daredevil. Wayne was born into the riches, taking over his dad's company, Wayne Enterprises. Wayne's mother and father were both killed when he was just a young boy, so he had to live his life with no father or mother to watch over him. He studied criminology, forensics, and criminal psychology, and learned from manhunters and martial artists, mastering every fighting style. He kept a vow to keep Gotham safe forever. Superpowers (skills):Unlike most SuperHeros, Batman lacks what they all have; Superpowers. Now, just because Batman doesn't have Superpowers, doesn't mean he doesn't have any skills. He uses his intellect, detectives skills, physical prowess, and like Daredevil, mastered martial arts. Tools:This is probably Batman's main catergory. Batman has so many cool, effective, and advanced tools, that the badguys have no match. He has a finger taser, a collapsible Bat-Sword, freeze grenades, computerized Batarang (boomerang), magnetic Batarang, handheld rocket boosters, EMP Gun/Remote Electrical charge gun, remote-controlled Batarang, gas pellets, cryptographer sequencer, pneumatic mangler (metal tearer), cloaking device, line launcher (rope hang), electric Batarand, ear microphone (for Arthur to talk to him on), tranquilizers, cell phone sonar device, bat tracer, glider wings, rebreather (even though it wouldn't do anything for him in this battle ~ Under water breathing), Batman's Utility Belt, Batmobile remote control, batsuit taser, bat bomb, bat cuffs, power armour, gauntlets, and cowl lenses (x-ray, night vision, and thermal vision).Weaknesses:Alike Daredevil, Batman is still human, albeit a near perfect one though. He still requires food and sleep. His batsuit was designed to fight crime, so this is why I chose to defend Batman. His suit can defend himself against Daredevil. Batman has a very hard time fighting against ranged fighters. He likes face-to-face battles. In my opinion, Daredevil has no defense against Batman and that is why Batman wins this battle.
Daredevil, The Man with No Fear vs Batman, The Dark Knight

Matt Murdock was living in Hell's Kitchen with his father Jack Murdock, who happened to be a boxer. When he saw an old man about to be hit by a truck, he saved him, but as a result, chemicals being stored in the truck splashed into Matt's eyes causing him to go blind. Although he lost his sight, his other senses being strengthened to superhuman levels. When his father was killed, Matt vowed to serve justice and became a lawyer by day, and the vigilante Daredevil by night. Superpowers: Daredevil has incredibly strong senses, so much so that he is able to fight crime without his sight. He has a radar sense, enabling him to fight arguably better than most people with their eyesight. These senses can detect movement, and can discern even very quiet noises from very far away. He can even use these senses to determine if someone is lying by listening to their heartbeat. Skills: Daredevil is a master of martial arts. His combat style is a mix of many martial arts, including jujitsu, ninjitsu, kung fu, aikido, and boxing, along with his acrobatics. These are all enhanced by his radar sense, predicting moves, and dodging with his heightened reflexes. He also is a master of his primary weapon, the billy club. Tools: Daredevil uses a specially designed billy club disguised as a blind man's cane. It has a cable connecting both ends, and the ends can be launched using a spring mechanism. He uses it for hand to hand combat, and throwing, including ricocheting the ends off of walls to throw off his opponents. This weapon, in addition to his heightened senses and reflexes, make him a reckoned with. Daredevil also wears a suit with protection from hand to hand blows and knives, but it isn't very practical against firearms or explosives. Weaknesses: Daredevil, despite all his superhuman traits, is still a man, and is vulnerable to anything a normal human is. In addition however, his heightened senses make him susceptible to extremely loud noises, or very overpowering smells. These traits combined make Daredevil the clear victor in a battle with Batman. I'm going to establish the battlegrounds here. A warehouse, with over hanging lights, and boxes and shelves all around (Ala Home Depot, Lowes, etc) I believe this to be a fair sight for both combatants, as they have very similar advantages in this environment.
Cell Phones Are Dangerous

\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands
do you want little timmy to lose his career just because he tripped and his back got stepped on

but if he is smelly then the nffle will kick him out of an football for stinking??think about that stinko!!!!!??DOn'T????HeLP?????? .. / ..-. . .-.. - / .- -. / .- -... ... --- .-.. ..- - . .-.. -.-- / .. -. -.. . ... -.-. .-. .. -... .- -... .-.. . / ... . -. ... . / --- ..-. / -- . -. .- -.-. . .-.-.- / .. - / .-- .- ... / .... . .-.. .-.. / --- -. / . .- .-. - .... / - --- / -... . / - .... . .-. . / # .. -. / - .... . / .--. .-. . ... . -. -.-. . / --- ..-. / - .... . / . -. - .. - .. . ... # --..-- / .- -. -.. / -.-- . - / .. / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / -- --- ...- . --..-- / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / -.-. .-. -.-- / --- ..- - --..-- / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / --. . - / .- .-- .- -.-- .-.-.- / .. .----. -.. / .-.. .- -.-- / .- ... / ... - .. .-.. .-.. / .- ... / -.. . .- - .... --..-- / ... ..- ..-. ..-. . .-. .. -. --. / .. -. -. . .-. / .- --. --- -. .. . ... .-.-.- / .-- .... .- - . ...- . .-. / .-- .- ... / - .... . .-. . / ... . . -- . -.. / ... --- / -- --- -. ... - .-. --- ..- ... .-.. -.-- / ..- --. .-.. -.-- --..-- / ... --- / ..-. .. .-.. - .... -.-- / .- -. -.. / -.. .- .-. -.- / .- -. -.. / ... .. -. .. ... - . .-. .-.-.- / --- ..-. / -.-. --- ..- .-. ... . / - .... . -.-- / .-- . .-. . / -.. . -- --- -. ... .-.-.- / - .... . -.-- / .... .- -.. / - --- / -... . .-.-.- / .- -. -.. / - .... . -.-- / .-- . .-. . / .... . .-. . / .- -. -.. / .. / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / --. . - / .- .-- .- -.-- .-.-.-
The American military budget should not be reduced

In the prior rounds, I have shown that the US military is over-equipped for what it needs to protect our interests. My evidence has not only been the statistics on other country's militaries, but also how big the military needs to be to protect its interests considering a variety of things, such as the size of our military, our allies" militaries, and how our potential enemies can threaten the interests of the US. Many of these things my opponent has not appropriately responded to. He has not responded to my argument stating that our allies" militaries alone could defeat potential enemies or to my argument that sheds doubt on the ability and willingness of potential enemies to attack our economy in the first place. Nor has he responded to my argument that states that we have such a large military that it is redundant, or why cutting the military"s budget would not lead to greater efficiency in the US military and the money cut could go to reducing the national debt. There are more things, but these are the biggest ones. More importantly, he has not sufficiently proven that we need the current budget to protect the US"s interests. He has merely stated that we need to protect our interests, but he does not prove that we need as big of a military as we have now to adequately protect our interests. He has not proven why a smaller military, even a slightly smaller one, could not sufficiently protect our interests. On the other hand, I have proven that the US military is over-equipped to protect our interests. For these reasons and others mentioned in the rounds above, I advocate for a budget cut, even a small one, in the US military.
The American military budget should not be reduced

The United States and Russia are often seen as two very old adversaries. But, today the Russian military operates nearly 4 times as many tanks as the United States. Is this an excessive number? No. Why? Because Russia is a very large land based country, and they require a large, and powerful ground force to defend themselves. As Russia's generals decide how many tanks they need to defend themselves, they do not base this decision solely on how many tanks the United States has. They base this decision on how many tanks they need. One of the most common mistakes made in these types of debates, are budget comparisons. "The US spends significantly more on our military than our adversaries therefore we spend too much on our military." While this argument may seem sound, it does not address the question of how much do we NEED. And that is the very mistake i feel my opponent made throughout our debate. You see, our Country is unlike any other, in that we have economic interests across the globe. And it is this that we must protect. As i proved in round 2, this is what our military is designed to do. Our Global economic reliance is both America's greatest strength and weakness. It is our strength as it bolsters our economy, and it is our weakness as it leaves our economy vulnerable and our assets spread out across the globe. That is why our Navy and Air force are so heavily invested in, to protect these areas, on a global scale. Waste and inefficiencies are both unfortunate. But they come with anything. Even if we reduce our budget, waste isn't going away. My opponent repeatedly brought up the F-35, but that's just another debate in itself, as i personally have seen it to be an incredible (albeit expensive) aircraft. In summary, by reducing our budget we risk losing our position as the worlds superpower, and we risk the consequences of an unprotected globalized economy. Avoiding economic hardships, is certainly worth spending 3.3% of our GDP on the military. And i hope any American can agree with that.
The American military budget should not be reduced

While I agree that the US can afford to have such a large military, that does not mean the military needs such a large budget. One hundred billion too much is still one hundred billion too much whether it is .01% or 10% of one"s GDP. It can be used to more effective ends. Just because we have the largest GDP in the world does not change that fact. To this end, the main debate boils down to this: What we need and what is useful. What we can afford takes only a secondary position because the fact we can afford the current military and the fact my opponent is not advocating for an increase in the military makes it largely irrelevant. We spend so much on NASA because NASA is useful. The reason we spend so much compared to other countries is mostly as my opponent says, we have a larger GDP. However, unlike out military, the spending on NASA is not redundant because NASA is involved in exploring the nearly endless depths of space and knowledge, unlike the military whose main goal is to protect the finite confines of US territory, trade routes, allies, and interests. Whether you agree NASA should get funding is not really the point here. If there is something else the money can be spent more usefully on, the point that the military"s budget should be cut still stands. Link back to my prior rounds where I prove that the military"s budget is too big for what is useful. While my opponent has stated that we can afford a large military, and I agree with that statement, he has not proved that the current size of the military is what we need. He simply states because the size of the economy is large, and our GDP is large, it means that the budget is reasonable. Here he is guilty of something he argued against in the rounds before: Looking at the simple statistics. He never goes farther and proves why we need such a large military. Why does the US Navy need so many ships even though it would almost never deploy even half of them, even in a time of war? Why do we need to waste billions of dollars on unnecessary projects such as the F-35? My opponent, at a minimum, needs to prove that these things are necessary in order to win this debate, and he has not fulfilled this burden.
The American military budget should not be reduced

The defense budget primarily boils down to 2 things we must consider -What we need -What we can afford In round 2 i argued what the United States needed. I will now hope to prove that our current defense budget is affordable, and even reasonable given the size of the US economy. As i already stated in round 2, the United States spends more than the next eight militaries combined, on it's own military. Initially this may sound absurd. But you may be surprised at other areas of the US budget as well. For instance space travel, as i recall you mentioning NASA earlier. Now you suggested that we should take some money away from the military and put it towards NASA.... but would you call it wasteful if i informed you that the US already spends more on space travel than every other country in the world combined? [1] You may think It's crazy or even false... but it's true. Now believe it or not... this is how almost every aspect of our budget looks. The reason for this is simple. The United States has the largest nominal GDP in the world, and the 3rd largest population in the world. Simply put the United States is a big country, with a lot of money. What i believe is interesting to note is that despite having the largest budget in the world, proportionately we are only just above average when it comes to spending proportionate to our GDP, with 3.3% of our GDP going to the military. Where as other countries can spend much more Russia, one of our adversaries for instance spends 4.5% of it's GDP on defense, and military. The of course there are countries such as Saudi Arabia, which spends 10%, and Oman which spends 16.7%. [2] Now you are probably thinking that this doesn't demonstrate how much money we need to spend on our military. However, that was the point i tried making in round 2. As i said in the beginning this is just answering the question "what can we afford?". My point here, is more or less that simply the United States is a big expensive country. But we are also a very wealthy country, and we have the ability to invest more heavily in programs than other countries. We can afford our current military budget, and given the size of our economy, i would say it is a budget that is reasonable. ---Sorry if this argument felt short I've been very busy the past few days and only had a few hours to post this.--- [1] https://www.weforum.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The American military budget should not be reduced

I will now provide rebuttals to your 1st, and 2nd arguments Contention 1: The US military is over-equipped for conventional threats I feel as if there is a fallacy in your argument, mostly because what you proved was the United States has a much larger Navy, and Air Force than Russia, or China, but you did not prove we were over-equipped. What do i mean by that? Well we must remember different countries have different goals, and objectives for their militaries. We also have different geography, we have different allies, and different enemies. As i said before, simple number comparisons are just too simple unless we know why the numbers are different. Essentially the problem i have with your argument is that you prove our Navy and Air Force are larger than Russia's, and China's but you never actually prove we have too much. If our military members are already spending a lot of time deployed, then do we have the capabilities to reduce our military by a significant amount? After all, as i said in my first argument it is expected the United States would focus on having such a large Navy, and Air Force, because we would want control over our trade routes, to ensure our economic security and stability. Contention 2: The US military is woefully inefficient. I actually agree with this... BUT... i would like to reword your statement to "The US GOVERNMENT is inefficient" [1] [2] You see, as unfortunate as it is, Governments are never efficient. To single out the military would be misleading. This however is not a reason to reduce the budget, but instead a reason to increase accountability. Another important note, is you suggested some of the money could go to "healthcare, NASA, poverty, reducing the national debt", but it is important to note, if we consider the government is inefficient with money, then why should we assume there would be any less waste in these programs? Overall i think you make a good point with contention number 2, but too me that is still not a good enough reason to reduce the budget, as frankly it is something I believe we will never be able to truly eliminate. [1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] https://posey.house.gov...
The American military budget should not be reduced

I already posted this debate but someone accepted it and then didn't post anything. Hello, I am a current Sailor, in the USN, and a proud patriot of the United States. One of the most frequent, and controversial, debates in American politics, is our vast military budget, of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is by far the largest in the world. While it draws a lot of criticism, i believe it is reasonable, necessary, and benefits the American people, far more than it hurts us.
The shooting of Alton Sterling was justified

On July 5th, 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police after being called to the scene for an individual threatening a homeless man with a gun. There were two different videos taken from cellphones that showed two different angles but both videos told the same story. After Alton was taken to the ground he continued to resist the officers knowing he was in felony position of a firearm. It is reasonable to assume that after threatening someone with a gun he was illegally in possession of, Alton knew there was a good chance he was going to be arrested and chose to resist the officers. It is also reasonable to assume that if someone has just made threats with a gun and then refuses to comply with officers, that person might be willing to turn that gun on the officers as so many people do especially in recent years. It is not unreasonable to believe that these officers were in fear for their lives given Altons resistance and the fact that he had a gun in his pocket and was seen reaching for it as the police officer screamed "he's going for the gun." in the video. Alton has an extensive criminal background including battery, resisting an officer, and pedophilia (he impregnated a minor) In order to make the claim that this shooting was not justified, my opponent has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alton did not intend to use the gun on the officers despite his criminal records and obvious refusal to cooperate with police.
LGBT rights in America are equal to those of straight or cisgender people in the same country.

In order to close my argument, I would like to (1) respond to the previous submission of DonutQueen and (2) summarize the points I have made to in favor of my argument that LGBT rights in America are equal to those of straight or cisgender people. When you refuted my point regarding the religious freedom of others, you used Biblical to scripture to substantiate your point. Per the instructions of the debate, I did not take into consideration these references. I understand that you did not intend the Bible to be used as a source, but you still use it to make a point which is against the parameters of this debate. Therefore, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to discredit the fact that other Americans have the right to religious freedom just as we have our own rights as LGBT individuals. What you have to understand is that homosexuality has many more implications to a "religious" person than the other demographics you have outlined. To these people, the LGBT community infringes on one of the most sacred Biblical traditions: marriage between a man and a woman. Thieves and criminals do not have the same resounding effect on their beliefs, so that is not an effective point. Yes, these religious individuals should do more to understand our side of the coin, but the same can be said about us. You also addressed that some of our rights are going to be taken from us. However, this is largely speculation and there is more evidence in our favor that these attempts at injustice will be defeated. The recent rulings of the Supreme Court (and the fact that we have a Democratic President) are in favor of pro-LGBT legislation prevailing. I think you have made an excellent argument that there is room for improvement in terms of how LGBT people are treated. However, the argument has failed to debunk the fact that the inalienable rights of LGBT Americans are any less than those of straight or cisgender people in this nation. I think this debate has been very constructive in highlighting ways that our nation can improve, and I believe that it has served its purpose of creating stimulating conversation among the American people. When it is all said and done, I think it is pivotal that we realize how far we have come. As LGBT people, we can marry, we can adopt, we have the freedom of speech, we have the freedom of religion, and we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (I have provided a link below regarding the bill in the Ways and Means Committee of the North Carolina Senate to repeal HB2.) http://www.newsobserver.com...