BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Batman is not a true superhero

Because Wikipedia and Wiktionary are such valid sources? It doesn't even matter, because your other attacks don't follow through. You're saying that he and Superman were the archetypes, but that's not true. Superman was around about twenty years beforehand (Batman was making cameos in comics of OTHER superheroes; He didn't have his own title until the 1950s). I know he does more than an informant. My point was that helping the police isn't enough to make one a superhero. And Batman doesn't have suprpowers. That was one of the big points about him: that he was a normal human, without special powers. He just had money and training. He didn't get superhuman strength anywhere. He's just very well trained. According to "Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America" by Bradford Wright, Batman has no superpowers. Here's an NPR article that confirms this: . http://www.npr.org... BBC says the same thing: . http://news.bbc.co.uk... This source says the same thing: . http://lambiek.net... ABC News: . http://abcnews.go.com... This one talks about the original Batman with no superpowers: . http://www.coverbrowser.com... I've provided you with many valid sources as to Batman lacking superpowers (and I'll bet if you ask his creators, they'll confirm this), while you've only talked about him punching someone across the room. And now I'm going to return to your definitions, and show why they don't fit anyway. "Wikipedia defines a superhero as "A superhero (also known as a super hero) is a fictional character "of unprecedented physical prowess dedicated to acts of derring-do in the public interest. "" He doesn't have "unprecedented physical prowess", as he learned all of his physical skills from other martial artists. Definition one doesn't fit. Even if it did, it's Wikipedia, and we can't count it as valid in the realms of debate. "Encarta defines a superhero as "a fictional character, e. g. from a cartoon, who has superhuman powers and uses them to fight crime or evil. "" We've already established that he doesn't have superpowers. Definition two doesn't fit. "Wiktionary defines a superhero as "Any kind of fantasy fiction crime-fighting character, often with supernatural powers or equipment, in popular children's and fantasy literature. "" Batman has no supernatural powers. This has been established by my sources. Definition three doesn't fit. Even if it did, it's Wiktionary, and we can't count it as valid in the realms of debate. "Oxford Dictionary defines a superhero as "a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers. "" Once again, I have established that he has no supernatural powers. Definition four doesn't fit. So, even if you don't want to accept any of my other arguments, I've disporved that Batman is a superhero WITH YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS.
Batman is not a true superhero

Wikipedia defines a superhero as "A superhero (also known as a super hero) is a fictional character "of unprecedented physical prowess dedicated to acts of derring-do in the public interest." A FICTIONAL character. Encarta defines a superhero as "a fictional character, e.g. from a cartoon, who has superhuman powers and uses them to fight crime or evil" A FICTIONAL character. Wiktionary defines a superhero as "Any kind of fantasy fiction crime-fighting character, often with supernatural powers or equipment, in popular children's and fantasy literature." A FICTIONAL character Oxford Dictionary defines a superhero as "a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers." A FICTIONAL character. I think we can say that superheroes are generally considered fictitious. As to the argument of his originality, I am not saying that tradition is the only way. I am however saying that he and superman form the archetypal image of a superhero. Ask any four year old and they'll back me up. The definition should fit the archetype, so batman must be a superhero. And I think we can say that batman is a little bit more than an informant. Informants tend not to seek out, apprehend and beat up the villains and crooks. He effectively does a huge chunk of the detective work for himself. In fact, much of the time he has to completely disregard what the police say, as they have the wrong idea all together. He is a fundamental part of the crime fighting effort in Gothem City. As to his superpowers. He has them, it's plain to see, he just doesn't brag about them. His strength goes far beyond that of any normal human being. There is no way anyone would be able to punch someone hard enough to shove them to the other side of a building, while feeling no discomfort themselves. It's not possible, no matter how much you work out, train or take steroids. If he did not get his strength from natural means, he must have obtained it from supernatural means. No, he can't fly, no, he wasn't horribly mutated after some nuclear accident. But somehow, along the way, he got superhuman strength and decided to use it for good
Batman is not a true superhero

First of all, you didn't source your definition. I don't think a superhero has to be defined as fictitious. And I'll offer you a counter "definition" from reference.com (encyclopedia version of dictionary.com): "A superhero (also known as a super hero) is a fictional character "of unprecedented physical prowess dedicated to acts of derring-do in the public interest." Since the debut of the prototypal superhero Superman in 1938, stories of superheroes — ranging from brief episodic adventures to continuing years-long sagas — have dominated American comic books and crossed over into other media. A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine or super heroine. By most definitions, characters need not have actual superhuman powers to be deemed superheroes, although sometimes terms such as costumed crimefighters are used to refer to those without such powers who have many other common traits of superheroes." There's nothing that says it has to be fictitious in that entire entry. Therefore, I flow through with my original argument that Batman is not a true superhero because he is fictitious. But I guess I'll go ahead and refute my opponent's points, just in case. a) Who cares if he is original? That's an argument of tradition, and an argument of tradition is fallacious. b) He isn't superhuman. He learned all of his martial arts skills from other martial arts masters. He isn't superhuman, just very skilled. And I don't see how he quite clearly has superhuman strength. And as for the gadgets, having money to buy all the equipment you want with does not make you a superhero. c) Okay. He helps the police force. An informant helps the police force. An informant is not a superhero.
There is nothing in existence that does not require faith to exist

I do apologise for using the incorrect pronoun, I'm usually good at saying 'him or her'when I don't know, but of course the one time I slip up.... I'm still uncertain what it is we're debating. The statement 'nothing exists with a person or group of people believing in it' isn't making sense to me. Did you mean that it *doesn't* exist without a person or group of people believing in it? I could only assume, which leaves still ambiguity. Are you arguing in favor of rationalism? As in knowledge of the existence of consciousness is indoubitable? Or for objectivism? As in what does exist, exists regarless of whether or not it's being observed having a presence in someone's mind? You haven't invested in presenting a clear and concise arguement, and with our mere two rounds already over, I'm afraid there isn't a foundation even established for a proper debate.
Donald J. Trump Would be an Amazing President

Donald Trump would be absolutely amazing as the united states president. His policies reflect that. His tax plans for businesses will create more jobs and allow manufacturing to come back to the united states. His plan for healthcare would allow you to choose any healthcare company you want and because of the competition prices will be at an all time low. Renegotiating the current international trade would be easy for trump seeings how hes been negotiating international deals most of his life. His plan to return 35% of taxed income to families who are making less than 55,000 per year is great. He wants to lower power of the federal government and return it to the state, like our founding fathers wanted. Not to mention he wants to stop government corruption. I can't see why anyone would appose him.
Donald J. Trump Would be an Amazing President

Charging larger taxes for importing goods also cause other countries to start raising their own taxes on imported goods in retaliation. This causes the economy to suffer, since a lot of revenue comes from importing goods to foreign countries. The United States will make less and then the budget deficit will increase. Also when you raise taxes inside the country companies tend to branch out to other countries with lax tax laws, causing unemployment in the United States to rise. Jobs will be outsourced, and Americans will not receive any jobs, the United States will be deeper in debt, and taxes will have to rise to combat it, nullifying the initial glamour the tax plan offered in the first place. How has he negotiated business deals without offending people? Because people don't pay attention to his character, only his name. His name is the only thing that carries weight, and his demeanor has become famous because of it. Also Donald Trump has many quotes which show the depth of his actual character. The quotes the media uses to vilify him are o outstanding that even with context he has painted himself as an idiot. "Bombing the (expletive) out of ISIS."? Having Mexico pay for a wall along the border? Both of these thing are what Trump has said will happen when he is president, and both are, in all probability, not going to happen. What is his plan to locate ISIS? Also, simulations conducted by the government indicate that eliminating one leader of ISIS will actually increase its threat level. And how on earth is he going to force Mexico to pay for a wall? Instigate war? However, both of these can't compare to his plan on beating ISIS by taking their families and killing them, which is a war crime. Lastly, Dwight D. Eisenhower was not a founding father of this nation. He became president after Taft, soon after WWII, not in the 1700's. And as he is a Republican, he is predisposed to advocate for smaller government. The reason the founding fathers had to advocate for a larger form of government was mainly due to the fact that the government could not collect taxes, which is also a major problem today. In order to decrease our budget, taxes must rise period. But even "uncorrupted" Donald Trump has not advocated for raising taxes, because his chance of winning will be nonexistent, although his chances of winning right now are not well either.
Donald J. Trump Would be an Amazing President

If you read his tax plans thoroughly it is apparent it would make manufacturing cheaper in the united states. By charging a larger tax for importing goods it would give companies the push they need to return the manufacturing back to the Americans. What behavior would that be exactly. He has said that it is vital for the united states to get along with our allies while strengthening our own side of the deals (hence the end to nafta). How has he negotiated all his buisness deals without offending them? The only reason he looks so evil is because of the mainstream media who take his words and statements out of context. As far as "our founding fathers being for a strong national government" you can find dozens of quotes that argue that point. I will give you the one that I memorized because it stuck out the most to me. " Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Donald J. Trump Would be an Amazing President

Trump's tax plans are nothing but a cheap plan to increase revenue for his own business by lowering taxes for businesses. Really the question should be how Trump plans to decrease the national debt by decreasing government profits. If he decides to cut departments within the government, which departments would he cut? He can't cut the IRS, because they provide resources citizens desperately need in order to understand tax forms. He can't cut the Department of Education, because they provide releif to student loans, the most prevalent type of loans. And how is Trump going to negotiate with foreign countries? The behaviors Trump has exhibited whil running for the office of president call into question his ability to effectively arrange foreign policies with foreign leaders without offending them! Also, while most poiliticians are corrupt, he is a corrupt businessman, as he used tax loopholes in order to cheat taxes. Lastly, our founding fathers agreed that a strong national government was needed to run the country effectively. Those founding fathers were called the Federalists, and those are the people we attribut the Constitution to.
Music Battle

I got this idea from Sapphique's recent debate, so I'm just gonna copy-paste her opening: Basically this is a battle to see who can post the most beautiful music. Note: Notice I said the most beautiful music. It doesn't necessarily have to be popular or catchy. Post songs/pieces that genuinely moved you. The debate will be structured as follows: R1: Pro outlines debate, Con accepts R2: Pro and Con each post a link to their first selected composition R3: Pro and Con each post a link to their second selected composition R4:Pro and Con each post a link to their third selected composition R5: Pro and Con each post a link to their final selected composition, along with which of their opponet's choices they liked the most (if any :P) and additional comments if desired Rules: 1) No forfeits 2) Compositions must have a duration no longer than 10 minutes 3) The song/piece name and the name of the composer(s) must be provided in each round except this one 4) Pro and Con may not post compositions by the same person or group 5) If a composition is in a language other than English, an approximate translation must be provided 6) Insulting an opponent's selection or otherwise trying to influence voters is not allowed 7) A violation of any of the above rules constitutes a loss
Eat your chicken.

Pro only gave 2 video clips, I gave 5. Talk about cherry-picking!But here's the point - if you type "friendly chickens" into Youtube, you get 36,700 results (1). However, if you type in "vicious chickens" there are 48,800 results (2); that's a difference of 12,100! We still haven't considered that making a video of a chicken attacking a human isn't a very nice thing to do. Therefore, the ratio of people making videos of vicious chickens to existing vicious chickens will be lower than the ratio of people making videos of friendly chickens to existing friendly chickens. It takes a special kind of lunatic to capture a video of a chicken attacking somebody. Therefore, it's way more likely that a chicken will rip your face off or commit other similar violent acts when you try to eat it live. If chickens are vicious normally, then when you're about to gobble them live they must be super vicious.Pro insults the people featured in the videos I put in my round one argument. However, they're just doing very normal things when all of a sudden, a typically violent chicken attacks them. Prior to the attack, the people are:1. Approaching the chicken2. Moving their hand slowly closer to the chicken, probably to pet it.3. Trying to feed itAll of those are perfectly normal things.Also, it has been proven that there are lots of dangers in eating raw meat (3).Thank you.Sources(1) http://www.youtube.com...(2)http://www.youtube.com...;(3) Sammarco, M.L., Ripabelli G., Grasso, G.M. “Consumer Attitude and Awareness towards Food-relate Hygienic Hazards.” pp. 81–90
The war on REDNECKS. exists.

Whether you meant to forfeit or not, it happened. I posted my argument only to find out it didn't fully upload? All I know is that you might have wanted to use Round 4 a little more wisely. Now, it's like you've forfeited 2 Rounds. Plus the first two rounds lack any explanation or evidential basis for your argument. To prove that there is a lack of war on the demographic of self-declared "Rednecks," I present the ever more popular farmersonly.com and their Rednecky commercials. The jingle is catchy yet the production is terrible, so... great touch. Not to make your argument for you but maybe you're confusing the war on racism as a war on Rednecks. Understandable mistake but the difference is huge as far as this argument is concerned. There is a war on the ability for mentally unstable and historically violent people from obtaining firearms. It follows that those types of individuals would protest this war or take it personally.
The war on REDNECKS. exists.

I'll rebut your argument from Round 2 as we both forfeited rounds. If you purposely forfeited for my benefit, thank you. If not, thank you still. :) Retail is too large an industry to say something as ridiculous as "Retail is not work." Perhaps you believe all retail jobs are cashiers or something. If your job role within the retail field is a Freight Team Manger of the nations #1 home improvement store that cycles through 2 million dollars worth of merchandise per month, your duties include frequent heavy lifting over long hours, as well as the administration aspects of the job; hiring, firing, training, etc. That aside, I'm still confused as to how exactly there is a war on Rednecks. The fact that someone works outside does not make them unafraid of guns. They still could be. It doesn't have any affect on their diets, meat or no meat. And most of all, nothing about working outside makes you automatically white. Any race of person could work outside. Ridiculous.
The war on REDNECKS. exists.

Great argument header, Max!In order to debate you accurately, I'll please need some clarity from you. First of all, I'm confused as to who you are talking about. You say there's a war on Rednecks and then went on to say "the war on light skinned folk that work, exists." Do you mean that all light skinned folks that work are Rednecks? Also, because of the vague use of "war on _____," it's difficult to know what you mean. To me, it has that "Fox News" vibe like The War on Christmas, etc. I know you don't mean a literal war with soldiers, artillary, etc. so if you could expound upon that, we'll get this debate goin'! Thanks Max! May the best light skinned working man win.
People who do not drive manual transmission cars are not bad.

Are you taking the con side or are you being stupid? I am for the position that: "people who do not drive manual transmission cars are not bad people" You should be the one to argue against this and should provide arguments against this. In the next round, please be serious and focused. I would offer my argument right now. Argument: People who do not drive manual transmissions are not bad. I argue that this is because they simply choose the automatic transmission because it is better to work with, simple, and efficient. These people are not bad because of their choice, they are not "lazy" people, they are good people like you and me. Conclusion: The con person should provide his arguments against my argument in the following round of this debate.
People who do not drive manual transmission cars are not bad.

I made this in response to another online forum I saw last night criticizing drivers or people who do not own cars with a manual transmission. I will argue that people who do not drive manual transmission cars are not bad, and that transmission does not matter, and make someone more masculine or feminine. The rules: 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere4. No trolling5. No "kritiks" of the topic6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossRound 1 is to accept.2 for debate3 for conclusion.PLEASE DO NOT FORFEIT.
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

Interestingly enough, that's not at all what your source says. It says that 91.6% of all abortions take place before 13 weeks after gestation (http://www.cdc.gov...). That was the 2013 figure. It is again reinforced in the 2012 report, where it states that 91.4% of all abortions took place before 13 weeks of gestation (http://www.cdc.gov...). You didn't accurately cite your sources now, did you? People who use life support use life support for a reason; to replace their dysfunctional organs with machines. So yes, their organs ARE working but under the assistance of a machine. They are still "alive". Plants may not have the same biological mechanisms as humans, but the ones they do have are still completely functional, in a plant that's alive at least. So yes, they are ALSO alive. As for people who are missing, for example, a lung, they do get by somewhat. But when have you heard of a living person with no lungs at all?
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

Funny, because planned parenthood and the CDC released that 92% of abortions occur between 10-15 weeks, your source claims something different, yet sources it from my source and lied about what it said. "being in a state in which the organs perform their functions" This is bogus, what about people who need life support? What about plants? What about people who don't have organs that function and are barely getting by? There organs don't function, so I guess it would be okay to shoot them. Most of the organs are formed and are performing what they need to do by the 15th week, of course with the mother help since they are frail, and are not complete, meaning they can only do part of the job they are being formed to do.
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

Abortions are generally performed before the 10th week though. In fact, according to the CDC, cited by http://abort73.com..., 74.5% of all abortions are performed before the 10th week of the pregnancy. This means the odds of an abortion taking place while the baby has ANY sensory awareness is small. Whether the baby is a living thing or not is really an argument that boils down to semantics. The definition for "alive" or "living" accepted by biologists sums it up perfectly: "being in a state in which the organs perform their functions" (http://www.biology-online.org...). If we take a look at how the organs form during fetal development, we'll see that while organs like the brain begin forming during the 5-8 week period, they aren't functional until much later in the pregnancy. In fact, one of the first organs to become fully functional is the kidney. Even so, kidneys don't start functioning until after the 13th week (www.acog.org)
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

Actually, in your own source it says that pain can be felt between 10-17 weeks, meaning that at 10 weeks it's possible, the baby grow different parts at different times, but at the latest it is 17 weeks. But it is possible for the baby to feel it at 8 weeks, if the body focused on that but, most of the time pain can be felt between 12-15 weeks, which, as I said before is when 92% of abortions occur. But, even if what you said was true than the baby still would be a living thing, it's like a plant, the cells that make it up are alive but it does not have anything that would make it able to do the things an animal can. But, a plant cannot live on to become a doctor that cures cancer, a person that stops a huge war, a scientist that makes light speed possible.