BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Joker is the greatest cinimatic super villian.

I would start by suggesting that the term greatest in a subjective one, and is thus difficult to empirically measure; the cinematic world has had many super villains, and defining one as greatest is surely a matter of subjective opinion. As my position in this debate is attempting to prove The Joker is not the greatest villain, I will propose an alternative super villain who is superior in greatness, Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor, the same as The Joker, does not have any super powers, but is nonetheless considered a super villain. Lex Luthor, however, has an opponent far greater than that of The Joker's opponent (perhaps the greatness of their hero opponents is also a subjective one), as Superman, Lex Luthor's opponent, holds superpowers which can only be overcome by an extremely powerful intellect, one that is held by Luthor. He has at times in the cinematic universe managed to capture and circumvent Superman, subduing his powers and successfully leaving him for dead. Superman only managed to escape the fate of death in Superman I with the help of Eve Teschmacher (1). This shows that Lex Luthor holds an intellect superior to the one held by The Joker, thus in this respect Lex Luthor is greater. Lex Luthor has been portrayed in numerous films of the cinematic universe, as he must be considered highly as a candidate for the greatest super villain, as he continues to outwit an immensely superpowered alien being, whilst the Joker simply fights Batman, a human with no superpowers, who is able to capture and imprison The Joker in Arkham Asylum. Whilst The Joker is imprisoned with nothing, Lex Luthor has amassed a fortune of wealth. This again comes down to the superior intellect of Luthor to plan and make better decisions than The Joker does; this shows that Luthor has greater logical and reasoning abilities. In The Dark Knight Rises, The Joker is nowhere to be seen, posing no threat to Batman, probably cowardly running away from the Bane-led mayhem taking place in Gotham, which he claims to revel in so much. However, if he is in Gotham at this point, involved in the mayhem, then he is not the leader of it (as Bane is), and is therefore not even the greatest super villain in Gotham. Lex Luthor (or Bane for that matter) would not simply be one hidden in the crowds, he is greater than that. The Joker caused a bit of destruction, yes, but nothing comparable to that which Bane caused, managing to literally break the batman, imprison him, and take control of an entire city holding it at ransom (2). In conclusion, Lex Luthor is a greater super villain than The Joker for reasons such as his superior intellect, cunning and ability to overcome Superman, seen as the most powerful being on Earth. Bane is also a greater super villain than The Joker, for accomplishing more mayhem, destruction and terror within Gotham City and being able to physically as well as mentally break Batman. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(1978_film) (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
We should have assault weapons

Living in the UK I'm thankful everyday that we have to have a license to use a gun or anything of the sort meaning you have to be fully qualified to use a gun. People say they need to protect themselves against criminals braking into their houses but usually they will have a gun if you can just walk into a shop and ask for one. But if you need to be qualified to have such a dangerous weapon then most often they won't have one. By loosening gun laws you are just putting more violence into the equation, It's ridiculous and we need to move on from this.
Dogs are better at pets than Cats

My opponent tries to prove false my evidence about sense of smell, but doesn't provide a card like I have so I voters should prefer my quote over his own words. Because mine actually comes from experts, while his is just him saying that it came from experts. And then pro tries to change the word super hero to hero, a dog that sniffs out bombs to keep people safe is a hero, but a dog is not a super hero like superman. Not only by definition would it have to be fictional, it is not strong enough to the point where dogs can smell things extremely far away. Especially when cats smell better. Pro then goes on to say things which are futile in trying to prove dogs are better than cats, because he says dogs help people with stress and depression, well that's obvious but it's not just dogs but with every pet. People don't go out buying something that stress them out and depress them, pets are fun to have. And he makes another futile remark by saying that dogs help you stay active and social, cats do that as well by making you go over to him or feed, or just play with him. And cats are good topic to talk when you are talking to someone, just as much as dogs. Then pro says I don't say how cats are better than dogs but just stated false information, "And if are talking about real superpowers, how about being able to see in the dark? "Cats can see in light levels six times lower than humans can. Dogs have decent night vision, too, but still nip at cats' hindlegs. They can see in light five times as dim." Now I find nothing cooler than having a pet that could ACTUALLY prolong your life, which cats do by reducing someone"s risk of heart disease. A study I will provide the link to shows how accurate it was and is reliable coming from a scientific journal. And the fact that cats do smell better since my opponent failed to disprove it. All these my opponent has neglected. Also, aside from the see in the dark superpower, we see in a lot of fictional tv shows and movies that ability to take loads of damage, like for example falling from huge stories and only getting a bruise. "Cats' remarkable ability to survive falls from great heights is a simple and predictable matter of physics, evolutionary biology, and physiology, veterinarians and biologists say." In the link a cat falls 19 stories and only bruised her chance, so owners won't be afraid to drop them. Dogs however get hurt easily, and this is bad for obvious reasons since you don't want your dog to get hurt if you love it. Also, amazingly cats are actually really intelligent. Cats are not far off from humans and way better than dogs. "A cat's cerebral cortex contains about twice as many neurons as that of dogs. Cats have 300 million neurons, whereas dogs have about 160 million. In fact, cats have more nerve cells in the visual areas of their brain, a part of cerebral cortex, than humans and most other mammals." Source- http://www.bbc.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Dogs are better at pets than Cats

Con gives good points, however, his evidence of cats having more olfactory receptors is false. Yes the average cat cat has 200 million olfactory receptors but many dog experts and scientists claim that the average dog has more than 220 million olfactory receptors also including bloodhound breeds which has more than that. This proves Dogs have a better sense of smell than cats. Con then goes on to say dogs sniffing out bombs and drugs aren't something a hero does. You mean to tell me dogs sniffing out bombs in Afghanistan to keep people and military around there safe isn't something a hero does? Con then neglects my other evidence about how dogs are used to lead the blind and how dogs are used by police to track down criminals. Con then goes on to say how cats can prolong ones life by reducing the risk of heart disease. Did you know? dogs can help you with stress and depression, Dogs can also help you stay active and help you become more social, A study by Britain"s Warwick University found that 40% of people reported making friends much easier as a result of owning a dog. Con doesn't even state how Cats are better pets than Dogs, he only stated false information about cats having a better sense of smell than dogs and how cats can also pickup a phone and start calling. [SOURCES] http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au... https://dogvacay.com...
Dogs are better at pets than Cats

My opponent"s first evidence is flawed because is doesn"t in anyway show that the laughing occurred because of the dogs, because if not then that point is useless. Also laughing doesn"t always suggest someone is happy because they could be fake laughing, for example when someone tells you a joke and you laugh so they won"t be embarrassed you didn"t find it funny. And lastly I question how they conducted this study without being with each owner for a large amount of time, and having a significant sample pool, which my opponent does not provide. Next, it"s not like a superhero to be able to sniff out things with somewhat an odor that is not that miniscule, it is a really lame super power if someone dares to consider it as one. Not only that but cats are actually better at smelling than dogs "Cats even beat dogs in smell. While certain breeds of dogs, like bloodhounds, have up to 300 million olfactory receptors in their noses, most breeds have far fewer. The average cat sports approximately 200 million olfactory receptors, much more than the average dog. Then my opponent makes a weird that remark that dogs can be trained, as if cats couldn"t be trained either. It"s as if never heard of someone who is able to train their cat to use a litter box, in fact they could learn "dog" tricks. "And believe it or not, you can even train your cat to perform some "dog like" tricks if you want. You can train your cat to sit on command, or to walk on a leash." My opponent later on says that dogs can sense seizures 15 to 12 hours before by whining, and barking, but what good does that do? They could be barking or whining about anything, and would only be effective if every time a dog barked or whined, the owner went to the doctor. Lastly my opponent says that cats can"t 911, but I found evidence easily which indicates his lack of research, showing stories of cats calling 911, Tommy, an orange and tan cat, managed to hit the speed dial for 911 when his owner, Gary Rosheisen, fell from his wheelchair. "He"s my hero," Rosheisen said. A police officer called it "kind of weird." Columbus, Ohio, December 2005. Everything I provided refuted all of his arguments and even took them to my side. Now I find nothing cooler than having a pet that could ACTUALLY prolong your life, which cats do by reducing someone"s risk of heart disease. A study I will provide the link to shows how accurate it was and is reliable coming from a scientific journal. And if are talking about real superpowers, how about being able to see in the dark? "Cats can see in light levels six times lower than humans can. Dogs have decent night vision, too, but still nip at cats' hindlegs. They can see in light five times as dim." Sources - http://www.realclearscience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.lovethatpet.com...
Dogs are better at pets than Cats

hahaha, really? A pilot study of 95 people, found that dog owners laughed significantly more frequently than cat owners. Cats might even be a drag, even participants without pets reported laughing more than those who just owned cats. Dogs have an excellent sense of smell, this is why they are used by military to sniff out bombs, used by airports to sniff out drugs being smuggled, used by blind people to lead the way and also used by police officers to sniff out and track down criminals, dogs are pretty much like 4 legged super heroes. They also listen to you, you can train them to accept commands like sit, roll over, bark and more. Dogs have a sixth sense, Seizure Alert Dogs have the innate ability to detect if someone is about have a seizure. The dog will warn the victim using "attention-getting behaviors such as whining, pawing, or anxious barking" anywhere from "15 to 12 hours before the attack," according to National Geographic. The dogs can even be trained to hit a button on the phone that calls 911. Try getting your cat to use speed dial. Dogs are awesome! [SOURCES] http://www.businessinsider.com.au...
Dogs are better at pets than Cats

I will keep this really short since my opponent forfeited, cats have smaller carbon prints because dogs eat more meat which is impacting if you don't like prints everywhere. And cats eat more cleanly than dogs. "Dogs smash their tongues into the water's surface with a force up to eight times that of gravity, splashing and causing a mass. But cats delicately dip their tongues into the water with a force up to twice that of gravity, neatly pulling up a column of liquid to swallow." Source- http://www.businessinsider.com...
Feminism is bad

First to answer the attack on Observation One: Pro's response to this was that we are not in Iraq. This piece of evidence was from 2010, and since then nothing has changed as we still have people supporting feminism. During the Iraq war, it was true that they were more likely to be raped than shot. If we were in Iraq today it would still stand. Next he said he was never talking about pornography, however it can be inferred from his opener. Now the big argument he made in this last round was that all my arguments were about equal rights, not feminism. However, this argument is flawed. A quick google search indicates the definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." This meas that feminism, by its very definition means equal rights to women. Pro admitted they are pro equal rights, so therefore, by the very definition of feminism, they are pro feminism. Additionally, note Observation 2 and Advantages 1 and 2 were untouched in the last round, which is reason alone to vote for con. In conclusion, by the definition of feminism, pro conceded that feminism is good, as well as not denying that feminism is bad by not attacking my advantages of feminism.
Feminism is bad

Sure the points you made are true, but we are not in Iraq. Im talking about the United States society. Secondly, i never said a PORNOGRAPHY magazine. And third, all of your points are not feminism, they are pro equal rights. I am all for equal rights, but the feminist community has strayed so far from "equal rights," that they've turned it into taking rights away from men. In todays job market, there is no more equal rights, its minorities and women get jobs over white men. I could go apply at McDonalds with a high school degree and a white woman could do the same and because of "feminism" she would get the job. If, by a miracle, i were to get the job, assuming she is a feminist, would label it as sexist when in reality if she got the job, i would just walk away from it and go apply somewhere else. And while i will agree with your conclusion that women are still discriminated against, so are men. Nobody reports the cases in men because we dont freak out about it. We blow it off like they should. This is the same principle as racism, a white man can be racist yet a black cannot. Even though they sold their own people. The image that women are up in arms about, or the "barbie doll figure," is one that they made. They thought they looked good like that so they starve themselves or puke their food up. And still a man can be sexist but a woman cannot. Its a backwards outlook for an insane group group of people. Equal rights is good, however, feminism is not.
Feminism is bad

In todays society, i believe feminism is just another ploy to distract us from whats really going on. Nevertheless, I would love to hear a Feminists side of this. I believe that Feminism is bad in our society because Feminists do nothing but try to lower equality. Look around and think, what comes to your mind when you hear "Feminist"? For me its stupid, ignorant, liberal. irresponsible, and greedy. What is the point of them? Every feminist i've ever seen argue believes that they are right, even when everyone knows their nit. They will argue an invalid point and like most politicians, avoid every single question you ask by looping around it. One of the main topics Feminists love to fight for is the female image. And i believe that this is complete crap. The Reason that the "sexy" skinny model is on your magazine isnt because men hate fat women or hate women at all, Its because thats what most are attracted to. Same for women. On Most magazines, Instead of a large man, its some ripped man with "the perfect smile." Now Men realize that not all of us have that image, but we know that the general female population is attracted to it so we dont fuss over it. While women take it as a sign of hate. So why does everyone need to walk on eggshells over a few women with poles up their butt? Another reason they believe they are right in arguing is the little, beautiful subject of hitting a woman. They say all men are pigs who treat all women like crap and beat them. And although i believe that you ahould never hit a woman, like most men, it is a complete lie that there isnt a reason to. There are many reasons to hit a woman, it depemds on your situation, but you just dont do it, its just not right. So hopefully a feminist can spew their crap at me so i can see what they can come up with.
Taxation is theft.

Why Taxation is not theft Taxation is not theft because the government does not deprive one of the benefits of those tax dollars permanently, or at all. While the government does tend to be wasteful, there are services that are provided by the government, such as protection by law enforcement, and welfare, that secure the well being of all citizens. People who receive welfare are actually getting more money than they put into the system. The government owns the land, and as a resident of the land you have to follow the rules set by the government. Thankfully, those rules are set by voting. As a citizen, when the majority of people vote to continue paying taxes, everyone else still has that responsibility to pay taxes under the law. As a nation, we pay taxes to secure every citizens well being and protection.
Taxation is theft.

Why Taxation is Theft Taxation meets the legal definition of theft because it forcefully deprives an individual of their property permanently. [1] The main counter argument to taxation being viewed as theft is that it used for a common social good, which is irrelevant due to the legal circumstance for theft being valid. The conclusion is not changed by the fact that the government uses the money for a good cause; however, more often than not the government uses money irresponsibly for often unpopular causes. There is no social contract with individuals to pay taxes. Laws are irrelevant because they are compulsory and are legitimated by force, therefore would be disqualified as a legitimate contracts due to duress of one of the involved parties. Often the tax revenue is misused to benefit corporate or foreign institutions, which is essentially depriving the tax payer of their income permanently. Examine for instance the social security tax, when Social Security was established in 1935, it purpose was to provide minimal financial assistance to those too old or unable to work. The plan was to have certain workers and their employers make small contributions to a fund that would be held in trust for the workers by the government. At the time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age, but Social Security didn't kick in until age 65. Thus, the Social Security system was systematically taking money from the average American tax payer that most would never see returned. Intentionally and forcefully depriving an individual of income for a social program that they would not partake in, is by definition theft. [1] http://dictionary.law.com...
Taxation is theft.

I will argue that taxation is theft. Taxation is defined as: The process whereby charges are imposed on individuals or property by the legislative branch of the federal government and by many state governments to raise funds for public purposes. [1] Theft is defined as: The removal property without consent of the owner with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently. [2] The debate format is as follows: Round 1: Pro - Challenge Posting, Format, and Definitions Con - Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Definitions and Formats *No arguments/statements for Pro/Con in Round 1 Round 2: Pro - Opening Statement Con - Opening Statement *No rebuttals admitted in Round 2 Round 3: Pro - Rebuttal to Con's Opening Statement in Round 2 Con - Rebuttal to Pro's Opening Statement in Round 2 *Argument point(s) not refuted denotes 'Automatic Acceptance' on said point(s) Round 4: Pro R4 - Rebuttal Responses and Final Arguments Con R4 - Rebuttal Responses and Final Arguments *No new argument points allowed in Round 4. Rebuttal points not responded denotes 'Automatic Acceptance' on said point(s) Round 5: Pro - Summary and Closing Statements Con - Summary and Closing Statements *No new points or arguments allowed in Round 5, Case Summaries and Conclusions only! [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [2] https://www.britannica.com...
Anthropogenic climate change.

R2 ArgumentsA scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [1]Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so."in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [2]"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [3]"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [4]"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [5]My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.Sources:1. http://science.sciencemag.org...2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...3. http://dx.doi.org...4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://iopscience.iop.org...
Anthropogenic climate change.

I accept most of the rules of your debate, but do not accept the character limit. Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond.Since you didn't change the character limit to 10,000 within a half hour despite being online, I will use a google docs if I go over 8,000 characters, but will not go over 10,000 characters. You may do the same if you go over 8,000, but be sure not to go over 10,000 characters. Do you agree to this? If not, I'll just forfeit the debate. Definitions:Anthropogenic: "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature"[1]I felt the definition of that word may be necessary since it's a large word that many people may not have heard of before, so I defined it for the benefit of the voters.Sources:[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...