BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

ahh its good to back at my desk:Summary:Superman is the most powerful super being who will always be a super hero:We know that superman is one of the most powerful characters in comics, however my opponent hasn't provided anyone who is more powerful then him, The examples I Provided are not heros and thus cause catastrophe for no reason, not following a moral compass as stringent as superman, intern showing they are not heros.Red Kryptonite:Once again the ability for red kryptonite to manipulate superman is not from the comics, it is from smallville, and the resolution states comics. Even in movies we don't see this red kryptonite manipulating superman, its only in a non cannon tv show.In the comics red Kryptonite simply neutralizes superman's powers, this means his moral compass doesn't fluctuate in the comics.No individual more powerful then him has been shown to always stick to their moral compass like superman:As stated in previous rounds Superman always sticks to his moral compass, this means that superman will always be considered a superhero, while others, as stated above, fluctuate making them more super villains then superheros because of their destructive tendencies.Why you vote Pro:You vote Pro because Pro is the only person to provide you with examples of alternate individuals then shown how these individuals are not necessarily guaranteed to be superheros. Because they are not guaranteed to be superheros we cannot weight them as such. This means that superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall. My opponent provides no rebuttal.
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

Oh my god this is ridiculous , you have went off the track of the debate, GET OFF THE MORAL COMPASS ALREADY. I originally stated that Superman is not the most powerful Superhero in comics and movies, and could be beaten by others. Now your gonna tell me since Superman has the best moral compass that means no others are superheroes, that's ridiculous. Because if you look and anyone else does , that's all you have been trying to say. Is that no other can be qualified as a superhero because they don't have a pure moral compass and as strong a one as Superman. So you say therefore Superman is the strongest SUPERHERO their is, because you don't think no one else qualifies as a superhero, thats so ridiculous though, a moral compass is not the only thing that defines a superhero. Besides other beings have a moral compass to, so to argue about how strong Superman's is to try and prove a invaild point is petty, good luck in round 5 , you'll need it.
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

1) Its important to differentiate the two, Deadpool while powerful, is not driven by a positive moral coumpass. 2) Aquaman destroying all human civilization because he is manipulated is not heroic, Aquaman is manipulated and loses his hand because his mobility is below that of supermans.3) Red Kryptonite is not Cannon to the DC universe, its origins are in smallvile. This means in the actual DC universe, Superman will never encounter this kryptonite. Even if he did, It doesnt make him lose his abilities, and simply distancing himself from the material eliminates its effects, so this ficticious material would be less then temporary, thus not effecting his moral coumpass.However in the comics this material isnt something that manipulates superman, it is something that removes his abilities for a short period of time, this means his moral compass is strait on.4) If you watch this video, which is cannon, you will see braniac as a boy being killed by superman for the better good. His moral coumpass is not hindered.Superman is essentaily a god who is morally sound, there is no other individual who has a moral compass that is as good as supermans. You still have yet to show how any other hero matches the same moral compass as superman, and thus is more powerful.
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

Here I thought you had a valid argument.1. You played with my words really trying to use the word superhero and mess with it when I originally just put that in their because that's what they are called. 2. No matter the casualties Aquaman is still a superhero because with war and battle their will be casualties, he fights for the greater good though and this makes him a superhero, he now can stand toe to toe with superman.3. Even if we go your way, Superman can be taken over to, like you said with the Hulk. Superman is vulnerable to magic and red kryptonite turns him evil. This makes him just as much a risk. 4. About the part with the boy Braniac in Gods and Monsters, which I haven't seen yet, from what I understand this is an alternate universe Justice League that uses more brut force. Who knows if our Superman would have killed the boy Braniac or tried to help him. And this would just be a risk of Braniac killing more people. - YOUR TURN -
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

Glad to see u didnt abandon:1) Ok so this is where I play in the argumentation, In round 1, I show that other heros are powerful However they are not guaranteed heros, let me show you: Aquaman: Aquaman is while powerful, not morally strait, this allows for him to be manipulated into causing disasters, at one point he assists in destroying a city because he throws a whale into a city. This essentially shows he is not garunteed to be a 'Super Hero', Instead it is probable to state he may cause catastraphies making him a super villian.[1] Hulk: As stated the hulk is often manipulated into destroying innocents this means he may also be a super villian. [2] Silver Surfer: The Silver Serfers mentatlity of being a servant means he may also be a villian, He nearly kills several heroes because they stand in his way. Thus he also qualifies as a super villian.[3] Superman: Superman always stands with his moral compass this means he will always do what benifits the greater good. In some depictions he allows his father to die so he can save more people. 2) Supermans moral compass doesnt eliminate his ability to protect, in the new reboot he kills a child version of brainiac to save the world:This means that Superman is the Most Powerful Super Individual who will always remain a hero, he doesnt bend to threats.Thus Superman is the most powerful super hero.3) Im glad your intriuged, I challange you to show me [1]http://i.newsarama.com...[2][3]https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

Ok, so I was in Chicago and couldn't get to the argument in time, Let's get on with it. 1. You proved my point exactly.2. I don't see how speaking on Superman's moral compass is going to make him the most powerful in comics, I mean if anything wouldn't that just make him weaker against opponents because he wouldn't go all out on account he might seriously hurt or kill them?3. I can't wait for your response explaining how, I'm intrigued.
Superman is the most powerful superhero in comics overall

I cant wait to see your response:Ok so in order to determine if superman is the most powerful superhero spread over all comics we must look to a certain criteria:Vulnerability: Super man while powerful is unable to coexist with Irradiated pieces of krypton, When in its presence, ANYONE can beat him up. Applied Abilities: Super man a ton of abilities HOWEVER, his lack of intelligence disallows their use most circumstances, people are in danger, superman faces them head on rather then using his enhanced sight and laser vision to eliminate threats. Its Cannon that superman kills criminals to protect innocents, but superman is unable to actually protecting people without endangering them.He gets a 4/10ALT Heroes:Aquaman: 8/10 Vulnerability Aquaman has absolutely no weaknesses Applied Abilities Aquaman has the strength and durability of superman, is super intelligent, can phase through time, and lead soldiers from the ocean that can breath air but do not invade the land because aquaman has ordered them not to. Hulk: 6.5/10 Vulnerability The hulk cannot die, he is indistructable in hulk forum and Is the only Marvel survivor of ultron in the comics, He transforms right when Bruce would take damage. Applied Abilities The hulk smashes everything in his way all the time, this makes him inneffective yet powerful. Silver Surfer: 10/10 Vulnerability He is indistructable and filled with infinate power, this is why Thanos, the most powerful villan is his enemy, because silver surfer can challange him. Applied Abilities His powers include the ability to absorb and manipulate the universe’s ambient energy, navigate through space at hyperspeed, super human strength and endurance. He can also project energy in various forms for offensive and defensive purposes, as well as having the ability to see through time. His senses give him the ability to detect objects light years away and to perceive matter and energy, including life forms. He can also use his nearly indestructible board to attack and capture enemies. Did I mention he can phase through matter and cast illusions? The Silver Surfer can just do it all, he’s absolutely unstoppable.[1] Superman is not nearly the most powerful, his moral compass hinders his ability to cleverly outsmart enemies and thus he is not the most powerful super hero.[1]http://whatculture.com...
you fear spiders no more

My opponent has chosen to be pro for the argument, "You fear spiders no more. " I take this as an assertion that I once had arachnophobia, but have since recovered. Sadly, that is not the case. As it is, I find spiders to be absolutely terrifying, as just the mere thought fills my mind with terror. Not only has this intense fear not ceased since I accepted this debate, but it actually seems to be getting worse.
The bible and its falsehood!

Again its your burden to definatively prove the bible is false. Your questions are valid, however your explainations are suspect. You claiming the bible is full of false stories is like me saying I know the origins of the universe. I could be right and I could be wrong. No one knows. Same goes with the bible, it could be false and it could be true. No one knows. You can BELIEVE whatever you want, but don't attempt to state an unknown as a fact. You never answered any of my questions to you either.
The bible and its falsehood!

Of the authors...of the many books, we are either in complete ignorance, or at any rate in doubt...Furthermore, we do not know either the occasions or the epochs when these books of unknown authorship were written and we cannot say into what hands they fell, nor how numerous variations originated nor lastly whether they were not other versions now lost. We may then not be certain that every event which is truly described in Scripture necessarily happend. The bible is contrary to reason and therefore absurd.It The bible proves to us that it is easy to tell a lie but hard to support a lie after it is told. the writer of the book of Mathew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again and went into the city and what became of them afterward and who it was that saw them.
The bible and its falsehood!

I have just a few questions for you which I will number for simplicity. 1. Where/by whom were you given the knowledge as to the authenticity of the bible? 2. How can anyone prove that the bible is true or false? 3. Without being able to question the authors (who were apparently divinely influenced to write the bible) how can one question their authenticity? 4. How can even argue something that is unknown to all? You are taking a shot at a collection of books which form the bible. The bible is essentially a book of faith. that is a book where nothing can be proven definitively, however it is to be BELIEVED through FAITH. It is impossible to argue the validity of the bible. We can argue the contents of the bible, however that is purely an exercise in futility due to the fact the any argument would be based on interpretation. That is you may read a verse one way, and find your own meaning to it, and I may read that same verse and have a completely different take on it. Hence why there are 100's of different denominations which all interpret the bible differently. To simply state that the bible is riddled with contradictions, and that it is inherently false is absurd. The burden here is for you to prove its false, which is an impossible feat. No one can prove it one way or the other.
Xbox 360 Is better then ps3

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is good. Microsoft is a larger company. Sony's main source of income is from the PS3. However Microsoft has laptops, tablets, and even their own of brand of smart phones....along with XBox. I'm not saying this to elaborate on how wealthy Microsoft is, and I will agree that Microsoft has more money than Sony. However Sony's main purpose is for the PS3, Microsoft's main purpose is for MANY things, not only XBox. What I'm saying in a nutshell, is that Sony is a more dedicated company, because they have much less other things to worry about. Unlike Microsoft, who instead of focusing on XBox, worries about other things like Windows and smartphones and whatnot.
Xbox 360 Is better then ps3

Well, it seems as though my opponent has restated his previous argument. I have already contradicted this argument that "Microsoft is un-hackable", therefore I am kind of confused as to how I'm supposed to respond.I am a fair player, and since my opponent gave up the first round, this seems a fit round for me to return the favor.Finn3322, in your next argument please provide a different argument.Good luck
Xbox 360 Is better then ps3

First off, please don't copy past. http://www.debate.org..."also xbox has lot better computer connection the ps3 or (sony) cause its not free. if stuff is cheap then its not good." If something is cheap, that does not automaticaly make it bad. There are many good, high quality things out there that are cheap, but are also nice. An example would be, clothes. Just because you bought a 3 dollar shirt instead of a 30 dollar one does not mean that it is bad quality. "Microsoft is also a lot better than sony because, First of all, Xbox Live is secured online gameplay." "In Xbox Live, it is not hackable" Susan Taylor's tale describes how she logged on to her e-mail to find over $200 worth of Xbox Live's virtual "Microsoft points" currency charged to her linked PayPal account, and then transferred to a separate dummy account. On discovering the problem, Taylor contacted Microsoft support immediately and was told her account had been blocked to prevent further fraud while they investigated. So you can imagine Taylor's surprise when, as she tells it, over $100 more was taken from the supposedly blocked account for the same fraudulent purpose the very next day. When Taylor called up Microsoft support yet again, she was told simply that the fraud department was "unable to block your account." She was also told that she should change her password, despite the fact that her password had been changed and she was unable to access her account through the Xbox.com web interface, she said. "In short, I think Microsoft's fraud handling process is a shambles.SOURCES: http://www.nbcnews.com...Vote CON!
Xbox 360 Is better then ps3

microsoft is a lot better than sony because, more people like it.Xbox Live sets new user record with over two million playing at once. thats about three to five million more than sony. also xbox has lot better computer connection the ps3 or (sony) cause its not free. if stuff is cheap then its not good. Microsoft is also a lot better than sony because, First of all, Xbox Live is secured online gameplay, unlike PS3 blu-ray player. As Brandon Kim, a PS3 owner, stated, "I couldn't play the whole spring break, because someone hacked blu-ray"In Xbox Live, it is not hackable, and worth $59.99 per year, for secured and exciting gameplay. also Graphics- Xbox 360 beats PS3 on graphics. Also, Xbox 360 has far less loading times than the PS3. All the games in XBOX 360 look better, run better, and less lag and jutter. and again xbox live, Xbox Live is FAR better than PSN. It has netflix ... the PS3 does now too, but you need to put in a CD to play it. Xbox 360 just stream it even up to 1080p, Xbox 360 and xbox games for download, DLC comes first ( usually ) and sometimes its exclusive, now has Last FM radio, facebook, twitter.
Xbox 360 Is better then ps3

Ok thank you. Well, I don't know were to start....Maybe the part werePS3's are Facking awesome!!! Lets pretend little you goes into a little store, and you are confronted with a little problem. "What's the problem JDoG?"you ask Well son, you see, there comes a time in a mans life when you have to make a decision. And son, that 'aint just any decision. That is the decision of whether or not you are truly going to stand up, and be a MAN. Or more plainly son, it is to choose whether to buy anXBox,orrrrrrr aaaaaaaaaaaa PS3!!!!!*confetti*<><><><><><><> . ' ; '; . ' ,- ,..' ,.' /' ;'; ;.';.' ;'. ' ';. '.'(Pretend that's confetti) Now, you might also ask, "Dad, what are some good reasons I should buy a PS3instead of an xbox?"In which case me,your dad, would say that......."Well, sonny, one of the best reasons to buy one is because those PS3's can play bluray discs, and not only that, but all PS3 games are also bluray. You don't want none of them XBox's that have normal DVD games. Why would you when you could have bluray games that have better graphics and higher quality than an XBox's DVD quality games?""Is that it for you arguments this round dad?""Why yes son, I suppose it is, however I have one last thing to say. When you play a PS3, you get a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside. (Translation: When you play a PS3, you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside)P.S. If you could read that without looking at the translation, them I love you.
This house believe that animals have rights

There will be four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance. You just have to say "I accept". Please do not start your arguments until the second round. If you have any questions about the debate, say in the first round. I will answer through either the second round or the comments. The second round will only be for arguments. No rebuttals will be allowed until the third round. The third round is for rebuttals, and for extra explanations for your current arguments. No new arguments are allowed The forth round is for the conclusion. Rebuttals and extra explanations for current arguments are allowed. No new arguments are allowed. 1. No forfeits with no excuses. You should make sure that you have enough time to ensure a fun debate. 2. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 3. No trolling 4. No K's of the topic 5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the round set-ups merits a loss and the instigator has the power and authority to coerce the challenger to accepting so.
Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

Thank you. In fear of death? If we're still talking about terrorists, then I'm fairly certain that they do not fear dying; after all, if you're talking about 9/11 terrorists, it's evident that they were not in fear of death. Since we're on that train now, let's think about this. Say you're a terrorist (sorry for this mental torture.) You want to make the Pentagon crumble. Plans have started, and your enemies want to know what you do so they may cease the plans. Since you had originally planned to die for this mission, what's taking a bit of torture in exchange for your plans succeeding? Just lie to save time and pain, and rinse and repeat! How DIABOLICAL! But, it CAN happen. You're right, they may not cease their plans. It's unlikely, I'll even venture to say (but not an impossibility.) However, they might a ACCELERATE their plans. Let's go back to my former scenario. Your friends know you're captured. They decide to be hasty and explode the bombs now. See how this works out? If they do stop, it's unlikely they'll abandon their mission before causing at least some sort of harm. Terroosts lie and are lied to. They recruit through their fallacies and lie to gain advantages to carry out their plans. Since you brought up using torturing as a last-case scenario, let's roll with that. Say you caught a terrorist. So, what do? He's not cracking under this uber foolproof torturing system, so we is SKREWED! But seriously, just publicize that a terrorist was caught. Talk about endangering his life. See if that yields results (it would yield just the same if you tortured him.) No, torturing is not better than nothing. Interrogate him HUMANELY and threaten him. You don't have to waterboard him or anything (I wouldn't really feel like spilling my guts if I was too busy drowning and begging for air. I'd just lie, tbh.) Lol... of course you'd have to train someone. These people would work with law enforcers. You want some idiot who signed up that could possibly kill this guy before any information was given? Fools would sign up. The debt was just an example. Oh, a hunter talking about innocent life... (another discussion for another time.) But anyways, I'm not saying lives aren't important. I'm saying that spending funds and time on torturing is foolish when it is clearly unnecessary. Intimidation and fear is what should be preyed upon. Torture instigates lies. Peace and torture should not be used together. Sorry, but no. Ah, so you're saying we should torture in order to achieve a cause, even if it's by any means necessary? Yeah, that's a lot better. Make them more afraid? They're not scared of us. That's WHY they're terrorists, they are fearless of us and wi do anything to harm us. You think torturing will do diddly about that? If anything, it'll arouse more hatred towards us (irony at it's best!) Torturing isn't the only way to get information out. It's not like if we're not busy pounding someone to a pulp, we're not trying to investigate. If you're talking about grammatical errors, I've seen quite a few of your own. "Vote Con to promote terrorism" Rofl. That's not even what I'm advocating. Lol.
Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

I'd like to say hello to Blackhawk and to say thank you for bringing up this debate. I wish him the best of luck. Firstly, I shall address my opponent's points accordingly. "Now, I think torture is acceptable when it is being used to coerce people into telling information that could save lives. Here is an example, and then the argument is open to the first to accept it." At first, this argument seems understandable; who wouldn't crack under torture? But, would they crack the way you wanted them to? Allow me to elaborate. Under torture (I shall use something like wounding.) Say you're being wounded repeatedly and being asked where you've planted the bombs. You'll say anything to get them to stop, right? Right? Of course! So... what do you do? You think on your feet. You tell them information, but the wrong ones. You give incorrect coordinates, incorrect details, and they cease their afflictions. It's a win-win. Also, upon getting notice of an associate's capture, don't you think the fellow terrorists would change their plans? Smart ones would. My point here is that what is to stop a terrorist from lying? They are liars from the beginning, you think a measly torture session can make them crack? Yes, they CAN, but there can be instances where they'll say anything - lies, even. Moving on, I'd like to bring my own view on the table. Torturing accompanies the fact that some people would have to be trained to be torturers. Torturers have sometimes been shown to have psychological problems. This can spread to their families. We'd have to give attention to those who are tortured, diverting our focus on more vital issues (our debt, for example?) How are we being any better than the terrorist if we're torturing, anyway? You're helping them by doing so. Their goal is to cause pain and terr, and if we torture someone we're going through a mental metamorphosis; human morality is thrashed and stepped on in exchange for information that could be false to the tether.