BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spiderman could kill Batman in a gladiator fight.

1. Strength/Durability It does not make sense that Spidey's strength levels would determine the pack of a punch. His strength levels determine how much he can lift or how much he can push. POWER is a different thing. Power is how hard you can punch. Spider-Man doesn't really have that much power, whereas Batman has trained for years with ninjas, and some of the best fighters in the world. For durability, Batman has a lot of armor all over his suit. 2. Spider Sense Though Spidey does have this advantage, Batman has a larger advantage: stealth. Batman could just easily zip away from the fight and hide somewhere. Spider-Man would go looking for him, then BOOM! You're tackled, and a man in a bat suit is beating you! 3. Speed/Agilty Spider-Man does have superhuman factors in this area, but Batman was trained to use an opponent's speed to their disadvantage. Back when Batman was trained by Ra's al Ghul, not only did he learn stealth, he learned about timing, reflexes, advantages, and many others. Batman is almost guaranteed to be able to easily evade any of Spider-Man's moves, and then strike back with a hard hit.
Spiderman could kill Batman in a gladiator fight.

I'm going to start on a large scale and work the details in next round. 1. Strength/Durability Spider-man can lift approximately 10 tons. This is 20 times the limit that Batman has been able to lift. So for every 20 punches Batman deals to Spiderman, it would feel the same as if Spiderman had punched Batman once. Spidey is also Superhumanly durable, he's been thrown through, and had many a skyscraper collapse on him and he get's back up (A, B ). 2. Spider sense "Spider-Sense is one of Spider-Man's most unique and prominent powers. The power itself originates as a tingling feeling at the base of his skull. Spider-Sense presents a psychological awareness of Spider-Man's surroundings. It allows Spider-Man to detect danger. The greater the danger or how close the danger is increases the tingling sensation. It also allows Spider-Man to navigate when unable to see or disoriented. It also helps Spider-Man fire his webshooters without having to concentrate every time he does so, greatly helping his ability to swing through the city. Spider-Sense is almost precognitive in nature and Spider-Man sometimes acts before realizing it. Thanks to his Spider-Sense Spider-Man can typically dodge physical attacks, laser blasts, and even explosions. Spider-Man has also been known to use his ability to find hidden objects such as passageways. When Spider-Man fought The Spot he used his Spider-Sense to figure out which portal would allow him to hurt the Spot. It also warns Spider-Man when someone is watching him when he is about to change into either Spider-Man or back into Peter Parker." ( C ) Speed/Agility "Spiderman possesses speed that is far superior to any human being. His speed, combined with his spider sense has allowed him to dodge gun fire at point blank ranges. Spider-Man has the ability to maintain his equilibrium on any surface that he can stick to. For example, he can balance on one finger on a high wire, or stand upright on a wall, his body parallel to the ground. Additionally, he is able to flex his body like a contortionist, assuming postures that would be impossible or harmful for most normal humans. His tendons and connective tissues are at least twice as elastic as the average human being's." ( D ) A. http://marvel.com...(Peter_Parker) B. http://www.comicvine.com... C. http://marvelanimated.wikia.com... D. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_powers_and_equipment#Enhanced_strength_and_durability
Hilary Clinton should not be registered as a democrat

First, Hillary is possibly the most disliked Democrat amongst Republicans now. There are Stop Hillary coalitions and nearly every facet of the republican anti-democrat campaign is focused on taking her down. The republicans have been expecting to take her on for almost a year now and have been gathering the intel to run against her. Watch any republican show or listen to any republican candidate and within five minutes you will hear a Hillary reference. Granted, republicans also dislike Barack, but it is clear that their hatred for Hillary and the Clintons runs deep. That being said, even if you are correct on the war, HIllary is a violent Democrat on EVERY other issue. Healthcare, economics, general foreign policy, immigration. Hillary is virtually a carbon copy of the Democratic platform. I don't see how her being allegedly weak on the war trumps EVERY other stance she takes on every other issue. Your argument is essentially that Hillary doesn't want to take troops out as fast. This doesn't change her hatred for the war, as she has demonstrated in the past five years. To be sure, Hillary is a democrat through and through, regardless of how strong or weak you think she is on troop withdrawal. Furthermore, HIllary isn't as weak as you claim on the troop withdrawal. Her whole campaign is focused on her being "ready on day one". How many times have we heard Hillary talk about how prepared she is to walk in and get things done right away? And, HIllary would know more about an effective, safe troop withdrawal than either of the other candidates. She has been a ranking member on the Armed Services committee for years and is privy to more experience and information on the issue. We see this in the campaign as well. The other dem candidates have steadily shifted their postured their position on the war closer and closer to HIllary's. While distinctions between the candidates remain, Hillary has taken her experience with the situation and posited a practical and reasonable option for troop withdrawal. The other candidates are relying on what they think voters want to hear. Hillary is putting forward straight talk about the issue. While I don't agree with the troop withdrawal personally, I think its obvious that Hillary Clinton is a gleaming example of a Democrat. Whether she is as strong as Obama and Edwards on the war is a matter of debate (i think she is strongest as I have shown above), but still, her positions on every single issue are gleaming examples of Democratic ideals. She consistently wins the Democratic base's support, while Obama wins moderates and independents, proving that registered Democrats see her as a more representative candidate.
Hilary Clinton should not be registered as a democrat

I thought it was perfectly cleat: Hilary should not be registered as a democrat. She holds republican ideals, and is not true to her party. "If it is that Hillary shouldn't be a democrat or she should be a republican than you are obviously mistaken." This comment is misinformed. Have you noticed that she is not refuted nearly as much as obama or edwards (aside from the whole crying spell, but that was only an act, im sure). This leads me to the conclusion that either she is seen as not a threat or they feel that if she becomes the nominee than its a win-win situation for the GOP. Im much more sure of the latter. A party with as much experience as the republicans would not underestimate someone with a following that powerful. Simple people see the way out, but only talk. A troop withdrawal has been decided is necessary, but if elected its rather obvious that Hilary would follow the same track as the republican counterparts would do: talk and talk and talk and talk. and what will that do to the economy? ruin it, not like its not horrible. If you read what i had put, it was from april 2004, just using that as direct quote. and now if you consider that we forced them into a democracy it would make more sense for us to not interfere and pull out NOW, but she doesnt seem to uphold that idea as well. Barack says to bring home two combat brigades a month, and to have all soldiers and troops home in 16 months. that is an immediate withdrawal, not the four years that, if she stuck to what she said in this debate (http://www.youtube.com...). Obama and Edwards both say the will not build anymore perm. bases in iraq, and the only soldiers there will be at the embassies, or if al qaeda were to cause problems and if we were needed, such as if our embasies were involved. What has hilary said? contrary to what the typical dem. views (that of obama and edwards, as her dem. major opponents) and upholds ideas that have not been, as i said earlier, remain unrefuted by any of the republican runners. I eegerly await your arguement.
Hilary Clinton should not be registered as a democrat

I'm not really sure what your argument is. If it is that Hillary shouldn't be a democrat or she should be a republican than you are obviously mistaken. The only point you provide me with is that she voted for the war and does not want to pull troops out immediately. Her explaination for her vote is simply that she was dooped by intelligence into making what she thought was the correct decision. This does not make her any less of a democrat. Second, Hillary recognizes that immediate troop withdrawal would be dangerous. She is just as much of an opponent to the war as any of the other nominees. Her approach is simply a realistic one. In short, Hillary holds nearly all of the typically democratic views and is widely considered one of the more liberal congresspersons. There is absolutely no way she could be considered a republican. As for the war, I am not going to sit here and defend the decision to go in. But, to straighten out your info. The war has been going on for north of six years. I don't see how April is relevant. In the latest months we have seen a dramatic drop in insurgency and the Iraqi government FINALLY start to adopt some legislation and structure just last week. The progress there is undeniable, even by the democrats, regardless of whether or not we were right to go in there in the first place.
Hilary Clinton should not be registered as a democrat

The GOP has been in favor of our war in Iraq since the beginning. As the presidential race is getting more heated, more of hilary's character and beleifs are becoming more pronounced. She was in favor of the war when it began, and is the only of the 3 contenders of the Dems. that is not saying "Pull out immediately!" also, please take this into consideration: April has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the war began more than a year ago. The U.S.-led coalition faces insurrections on several fronts, including the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, and the militia of a Shiite Muslim cleric in Najaf in the south. To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." (CNN)(April 21 2004) It was already imminent to the US that there were no WMDs. while i have no reliable source for this, lets be logical. If Hussein or Suddam had had wmds dont you think that they would have used them? also: Iraq has no wmds. Now, a group may get them, but Iraq has no strong government so i dont see how they could have more than a militia. and how does a militia arm a nuke? they dont. they have to be trained and im sure they wouldnt be. she was just using the current catchphrase to make a point that has now been proven BS (on wmds). Yeah, of course hussein was a problem to the global community, but he was being taken care of, or would have been. He was an extremist fascist, and, seeing as history does have a tendency to repeat itself, he would have been overpowered. Either by the people or by another group. Not to say that we shouldnt have done something about him, but a militarized action was overkill. If we had been logical and objective than im sure that the UN would have helped in this situation. The UN has much more influence than a strongly redneck perceived country. We have no creditabillity and are seen as overly violent and no tact. that should not be the case.
Given A, B, & C, Accommodations for Workers with Depression & Anxiety Should be Required

Please leave a comment if interested in debating this! Terms: A: No terms were set prior to employment that would be affected by the accommodation B: The worker has committed no wrong doing in obtaining the accommodation C: The worker should not be required to reveal his or her health conditions until the issue needing accommodation arises Here is an example to work with: "A New Jersey woman is suing her former employer for not letting her avoid commuting during rush hour, which she says aggravated her anxiety and depression. Andrea DeGerolamo says her employer, Fulton Financial Corp. of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was legally required to accommodate her doctor-backed request for different work hours." [1] I claim that Andrea's employer should have legally been required to accommodate her for different work hours, given terms A, B, and C. The resolution of this debate is to prove whether or not requiring doctor-backed accommodations for individuals with depression or anxiety is justified, given the terms described. Again, they must be doctor-backed accommodations. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments & rebuttals Round 3: Arguments & rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals & conclusion only [1] http://abcnews.go.com...
Hitler did nothing wong

The Holocaust. One of the most horrifying events in recent history. Hitler was the man at the center of all this. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...'s_First_Antisemitic_Writing.html A moment's reading of this letter, and it becomes chillingly clear what Hitler's intentions were. Hitler authorized the genocide of millions of Jews, 6 million, to be exact. 6 million Jews don't just disappear! The world Jewish population never recovered from this blow. ==SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE== Round 1 My opponent made his challenge, but failed to define the motion, and so I did. Round 2 My opponent made an irrelevant point about how god is like Hitler, which I fully support, unfortunately for him, he failed to a) answer any of my points. b) make any points of his own. I then said that Hitler, whether directly or not killed at least 4 million people, thereby constituting something wrong. Round 3 My opponent resorted to insulting me viz. 'your (sic) dumb'. I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but he used a double negative, Hitler did NOT do nothing, therefore he must have done something (that's the second time in this debate he has submitted to me) I made the point that Hitler authorized the Holocaust, and then finished off by writing this part. I can feel safe in turning this debate over to the voters. I would like to thank RickyMT for a very interesting debate. Vote Con! (1) http://www.yadvashem.org...
Hitler did nothing wong

My opponent has completely failed to address my points, and in fact has even submitted to my argument. He has said that Hitler committed genocide, therefore Hitler must have done 'something wrong'. On to my point. Hitler made the decision to invade Soviet Russia, and called it "the most difficult decision of my life.". This operation alone, ended in catastrophic defeat for Germany, and the German lost 800,000 men, while the Russians lost as many as 4,000,000. This can't just be explained away. Besides, if we are treating the Bible as a reliable source of information, I have a quote for you, from the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill. Using the evidence I have given, we can safely assume that Hitler, whether directly or not caused the death of millions of innocents. In the next round, I will examine the hard truth about the 'Final Solution', or the Holocaust. (1) http://www.ihr.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitler did nothing wong

(My opponent should be aware that his view is deeply controversial. However, if he wants to have an intellectual and intelligent debate I will be only too happy) Since my opponent has failed to provide a definition, it falls upon me to make one. I will define this motion as "Hitler did something wrong", in the global context, in other words he did something wrong by starting World War 2. Even, if we discount the points which will be made by my opponent on how the Holocaust is a "myth" and a "folk tale", Hitler still discriminated against other minorities including "Blacks "Homosexuals "Gypsies In the next round, I will do some rebuttal and make the points that "Hitler knew, and authorised the genocide of the Jews "And he knew, and authorised plans to invade the world and establish a dominion. I await my opponent"s reply.
There should not be any CHILD BEAUTY PAGENTS!!!

"Children should not be forced to join beauty pageants by their parents. I think that it should be the child's decision..." Are you now saying that beauty pageants should be legal? Your resolution stated that there should be NO beauty pageants, so this is technically irrelevant. Anyway, children cannot be forced to join a beauty pageant. Although parents may have some influence, a child would not be directly forced against her will to participate in a beauty pageant. And once again, you have no sources to back this up. What makes you think that body waxes and implants hurt more for kids than adults? No sources, just guessing. Although permanent things on children such as implants and tattoos should probably be illegal, this has nothing to do with why child beauty pageants should be illegal. Instead of completely getting rid of it, it may be more reasonable to simply make child implants against the rules, or even against the law. I agree with this point, but it's irrelevant as to why there should be no child beauty pageants. Why would the grown-up child think that it's good for their children? If it was really that bad, it would have the opposite effect. The child would think of it as a bad and painful experience, and would keep their children as far away as possible from beauty pageants. What does boredom have to do with anything? Just because you think they're boring doesn't mean others find them boring, or that the kids find them boring. This argument is meaningless. Your final argument makes various unsourced claims that I seriously doubt are true. I think the winner is clear. Con (who is actually supposed to be Pro) only made a few arguments in the final round, all of which are irrelevant and without sources. Many of Con's arguments are assumptions, and don't prove anything. I ask for the conduct point for obvious reasons. I ask for the spelling/grammar point for my slightly better spelling and grammar. I ask for the convincing arguments point because none of Con's few arguments were convincing, and I easily rebutted them. I ask for the reliable sources point because Con included absolutely no sources. For me, sourcing wasn't necessary to rebut the arguments.
There should not be any CHILD BEAUTY PAGENTS!!!

Alright here you go: Nathan Chadsey Children should not be forced to join beauty pageants by their parents. I think that it should be the child's decision... The parents of the children are forcing them to get implants and full body waxes and stuff to make them look the part! I think that the children should have the chance to decide whether or not they want to have to go through all of the preparations. I don't think that the parents know how much it hurts for their small children to have body waxes or implants; I mean, it already really hurts for a fully-grown adult, so it must hurt even more for the kids! Also, if the kids are exposed to this at too young an age, when they grow up they will think that it will be good for their child to do this too, so they will end up hurting their own children too!! Also, I think that ‘Beauty Pageants' are already very boring, and it is even worse with kids! In my opinion, there is nothing more boring than having to watch kids walk up and down an aisle! It is even more boring than having to watch kid do ballet dances; at least then they aren't just walking! I think that the children in it must be bored with it too! More than half of the time, the parents are pushing the kids to win, because they didn't when they tried. Also, everybody thinks that beauty pageants improve the child's maturity, when that isn't true. I think that they just make the child more likely to be encouragers for this type of thing, which will end up spreading and ruining more and more kid's lives. From my essay, I hope that you think that child beauty pageants are horrible, and that you now know why!
There should not be any CHILD BEAUTY PAGENTS!!!

You have proven absolutely nothing. Although I did do exactly what you told me, you haven't placed any actual sources here, and you haven't explained why it's crazy or wrong. Most importantly, you have not explained why beauty pageants should be illegal. It's a free country, so you can't outlaw something like this. Since you have made no real arguments, I have nothing else to say. The next round is your last chance to make a significant post. I highly recommend that you post several strong and detailed arguments, and not just one little thought.
There should not be any CHILD BEAUTY PAGENTS!!!

Why are there so many debates about beauty pageants? I don't understand why it's so important. I'm at war with myself on whether I should take this debate seriously, or troll it using the fact that you are con (against) there being no beauty pageants. Meaning you actually said there should be child beauty pageants. Okay, I guess I'll take it seriously. But next time be sure to take the side of your resolution, unless you're against the resolution. Begin your arguments.
The US should deport elderly people, not illegal immigrants

1) Illegals work, elderly don't "While I agree" Concession "elderly people have the legal right to live in the country" I'm arguing that it doesn't matter, and that its better off for the country if they are deported instead if illegal immigrants . . . . . 2) Its way easier to catch the elderly than illegal immigrants "This isn't really a reason, why would it be better if they were easier to "catch"?" Because then we don't have to spend as much money or manpower to catch them, duh. " If they are easier to "catch" that doesn't mean we should." Opinion.... . . . . . 3) Its not like elderly people will remember that they were deported "Iif someone can't remember such an important event such as that, they need to be cared for and looked after" And they will be looked after in Mexico (that's basically where all the household maids come from these days), the elderly will be fine in Mexico! Plus it's dry and arid as hell which is exactly the temperature that old people love. . . . . . 4) It would save the US a sh**load of money "A valid reason" Concession " It would also save the US a lot of money to euthenize people with special needs, deport all people that are unemployed and raise taxes to ridiculous levels, does that mean we should do it?" Probably... I mean have you even SEEN our national debt? . . . . . 5) Other reasons " (The elderly) have earned the respect to be looked after, rather than thrown out." They can be looked after in Mexico since every woman in Mexico is qualified to be a maid, as Ive already explained "how can we allow people to just come into the country without reason?" They DO have a reason idiot, to get a better life and work for a living, rather then sit around and wait for death like the elderly do "the consequences would be a overworked infrastructure, more unemployment and many more detremental factors to the country." We already have all of those things thanks to the elderly though!