BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The DCEU Justice league beats the MCU Avengers

I would like to point out that, In addition to forgetting Cyborg, You forgot Hawkeye. Surprisingly, He may be my wild card XDHawkeye demonstrated in Age of Ultron that he can easily incapacitate speedsters, So he could do the same to Flash. Aquaman and Superman would be a bit trickier, But he could also use any number of gadgets whipped up by Iron Man, Or simply Kryptonite if he got his hands on some. I also think that Spider-Man could trip up Flash if he was distracted because the Flash is only fast and not strong (when he's not moving) and has been demonstrated to be extremely clumsy in the movies. I realize my mistake on the strength of Hulk. However, He stopped a Chitauri mothership with ONE HAND. Besides this, We know that the angrier he gets, The stronger he gets, So his strength has no limit while Superman's seems to have one. As to Vision, He thinks ultra-fast, And speed blitzing would simply not work on him because he is too smart and would see it coming. Again, Assuming the team was smart, Heavy hitters such as Thor and Hulk would take the front while Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, And other weaker heroes would take the back. Black Widow, Captain America, And Spider-Man could easily take out Batman, No questions asked. Actually, Captain America could do that by himself XDScarlet Witch and Dr. Strange could both trap any number of heroes. Scarlet Witch could telekinetically stop Superman or Wonder Woman in their tracks, And Dr. Strange could Sling Ring them to an infinitely falling dimension. Scarlet Witch could ALSO send any of these people into a fear craze like the one she used on Hulk, Thor, And other Avengers. In Thor 1, Thor actually caused an earthquake with a SINGLE HIT. Because of this, I think that he could stand a chance against Wonder Woman (leave Superman to the magic people + Hulk) and take her out simple force. Besides this, In Civil War, Iron Man stated that he can do MORE FORCE than a NUCLEAR STRIKE. We saw in Batman V. Superman that that would actually be enough to take Superman out, So with help from someone like Hulk to hold him down, Iron Man and War Machine could simply pummel Superman into oblivion. Another wild card would be Ant-Man. He could simply get into the ear of Aquaman or Wonder Woman and enlarge himself (although it would be pretty gross). Ant-Man becoming Giant Man would also pose a problem because speed blitzing would not work on him due to his size, And serving as a distraction would give his teammates plenty of time to do some damage. Also, Black Panther has demonstrated that his suit is completely indestructible. Speed blitzing him would not work and he could actually use that energy back on his assailants.
The DCEU Justice league beats the MCU Avengers

First off these characters are from the movies. What movie did Hulk punch time itself? Or stop a celestial in the Movies. These claims mean nothing because they are not apart of the MCU. You still are not accounting for a speed blits of these characters. Sure, These Characters have superpowers and enhanced abilities, But Superman I calculated to be at the very least massively Hypersonic. So He could very in fact speed blits every single one of them. Yes, They have powers, But they have regular if not a tiny bit faster than normal human reaction speed. Even Dr strange with the time stone has human reaction speed with the time stone until he activates it. So Superman could quite literally speed blitz most if not all the characters you just mentioned. Hulk and Vision are the exceptions. Even still they can not keep up with Superman who is literally scaled to a lowball hypersonic if not Lightspeed. Next, I would like to move to Aquaman. I would first like to start out with the fact the DC itself stated that DCEU Atlanteans are close to Kryptonians in power. That is a fact. Secondly, Aquaman is massively Hypersonic because he fought Steppenwolf who is a new god and is stated to be Massively hypersonic and he couldn't tag Aquaman easily. Aquaman is trained in multiple forms of martial art and has fought pretty evenly with orm who is a level 8 Dan in xebel-fu. It is insanely impossible to even get on a list of ten in xebel-fu. If you are even considered on the list at all you are one of the best fighters to ever live. Next I Will do a strength Feat for him. You know that submarine in the trailer well that is calculated to be 579, 283 tons. Oh, And he did it with ease. Once again that is more than we have seen Hulk and any of the heavy hitter in the MCU lift. He is faster and has a better reaction time than any of the MCU heroes as well. So only using two characters I could already speed blitz half your team easily. We haven't seen hardly any feats for Hulk that even scale near that and he has the speed advantage. Aquaman also had a durability advantage he healed from Atlantean tech which is the newest and best and he heal from it in seconds after black manta fired a fully charged shot at his chest and heald in seconds. I would like to take on vision. Once again both of the characters I stated could still speed blitz we. We don't have any proficient reaction time to even early counter a Hypersonic speed. Their speed on their own could get there before Vision can even think about turning intangible. They can take him out pretty quick You didn't talk about how any of your characters could even keep up with these characters that obviously scale way higher in strength and definitely speed. Both of these characters can wipe the floor compared to the characters you compared to Superman Also Once again make sure we are talking movies, Not Comics. Because the debate is over the Movie versions, Not the comic ones hence DCEU (DC extended Universe) and MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe).
The DCEU Justice league beats the MCU Avengers

You seem to be focusing on Superman this round, So I will look at who all could beat him on my team. I think that Scarlet Witch, Dr. Strange, Hulk, And Vision can all beat Superman. Scarlet Witch:Canonically, Scarlet Witch has had the power to make random, Unlikely events happen. She later developed the power to control what those events were. This power alone could demolish Superman by simply doing something such as turning is blood into kryptonite or something of that nature. In addition, In the movies, She has demonstrated very strong telekinesis powers and could control Superman himself. Lastly, She has also demonstrated telepathy to a certain extent and could make Superman go crazy from fear. Dr. Strange:I mean, Like seriously, This guy is the ultimate sorcerer. He could easily pull a trick like Wong did on Black Dwarf, Or perform any number of illusions or teleportations or seriously anything on Superman. For example, He could make him fall forever like he did to Loki, Or if he had access to the Time Stone, He could put him into a time loop like he did with Dormammu. Hulk:I mean, Come on. This guy PUNCHED TIME ITSELF, Stopped a CELESTIAL from stepping on the Earth, And almost destroyed the U. S. WITH A SINGLE STEP. Hulk could beat Superman easily. Vision:He is extremely smart and a quick thinker, Which automatically puts him at an advantage. One thing he has that Superman does not is the ability to become intangible, So he could do that and then rematerialize inside of Superman and kill him in that manner. He could also find numerous ways to defeat Superman because of these powers.
The DCEU Justice league beats the MCU Avengers

I didn't add Martian Manhunter because of the fact that he isn't in the DCEU yet. He is in the CW but not the DCEU. But you are correct in the Fact that I did indeed forget Cyborg. I will start off with Superman. We have Superman take some full force punches that are harder than basically anything we have seen Hulk intentionally take. So we can say that Superman scales above all the characters of the characters in the strength department. Secondly, We already know that Superman is insanely fast. In fact, He flew from the fortress of solitude to Africa in approx 9 seconds. So a case of a speed blitz is definitely possible. We also know that he is faster than doomsday's heat vision which has been stated to near the speed of light. Additionally, We had a news clipping in BvS shows that Superman Pushed 1 or more tectonic plates away from each other saving a very large earthquake. Seeing as the newspaper clipping said large its at least a 7-10 on the Richter scale. The weight alone on an average tectonic plate would be 24 quintillion tons, That's not even calculating the force he would need to push this tectonic plate or plates. It can also be stated that is pre-Ressurection supes. Resurrection supes gets an insane amp. And is way stronger. He also totally destroyed Stephen Wolf who is a New God and is stronger than the rest of the justice league to handle. It is also stated that He is massively hypersonic. Whenever Superman came in he took him out rather quickly. Also, We saw that he took on the rest of the Justice League and demolished them while seeing the flash move which is really quick.
The DCEU Justice league beats the MCU Avengers

The purpose of this debate is to determine who is stronger (Who would win in a fight) the MCU Avengers or the DCEU Justice League. MCU Avengers: Spiderman, Iron Man, Captain America, Ant-man, Scarlet Witch, Dr. Strange, Hulk, Black Panther, Thor, Black Widow, Falcon, War machine, Vision.
recycling

Just recycling wouldn't fix the entire "environmental issue" that we face here today. The town I currently live in has a policy where you are basically forced to recycle or suffer fees. We started this policy about three years ago, enough to start to see changes. Or so I thought. There has been no visible change in the overall look or environment of my town. You can also look at large cities like Boston, NYC and Los Angles that have similar policies. there is no change in appearance. Which seems to be my opponent's argument. Also let us just look and see what would happen if America as a whole enacted a similar policy countrywide. Sure it may be cleaner here in America, however we are not the only nation in the world. Even if America went green on every front; electric cars only, solar energy, required recycling, etc. There wouldn't be a significant change in the world's pollution problem. There are a lot of countries who are a lot more polluted and dirty then the US. Just take a look at China and India. They have a lot of pollution problems and the overall appearance wouldn't change with just recycling. My main argument my sometimes be lost in my short tangents. What I am trying to say is that just recycling would not really have an effect on our "environmental issue."
The United States government should limit the freedom of speech

----My case---- Hatefull speech has to be banned to protect and promote democratic equality and human rights. ----My opponents case--- my opponent argues that the direct amendment of the freedom of speech is also an oppresion to the other persons rights however; he failed to realize that in many cases, the victim does not get the time or has the will to freely oppose the instigator simply becuase the victim feels inferior to the instigator. My opponent also made the statement of "what about his job, family and etcetera ?" and again he neglected the fact that the person does not need to terrorize the victim multiple times to place him or herself above the victim making the victim feel inferior. in his second paragraph, my oppinion strongly argued that this would be an act of violation towards the other person's need however we find that in our current state as a united government, we must see the right of the citizens first and by limiting and amending the freedom of sdpeech, we are upholding the individual rights of the citizen. we also have to take in consideration that the United States government will not be oppresing therights of the citizens by limiting the freedom of speech simply for the reason that we are amending and not eliminating. In his second contentiopn, my opponent mentioned the issue of corruption and crime, we find that the united states already face the problem of crime due to hate towards another person. My opponent failed to realize that the limitation of the freedom of speech would reduce the amount of hate related crime as it makes it clear that there is a stronger law that completly upholds democratic equality. we must consider the fact that simply telling a child that is mean to tuant someone will not solve anything however; when a law or in the childs case a rule or punishment is enforced, we find that it is highly unlikly that the child will tuant another fellow again. Thank you.
The United States government should limit the freedom of speech

O Observation As I read my opponents speech I realized that this is about hate speech, anyhow as asked I won't address his speech in this round. O Definitions Hate Speech: speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Corruption: corrupt or dishonest proceedings. Words: an expression or utterance: a word of warning. Dictionary.com O Argument ---------------------- "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than -------------------------- ---------------------- to speak out and remove all doubt". ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- - Abraham Lincoln.------------------- Unless you're the supporter of hate speech then you think that the spokesman is a fool, idiot and a mere inconvenience in today's society. Now do you think that the hateful spokesman would become wiser when silenced ? Obviously no but do you think that the spokesman will be able to do this forever ? Again no because what about his job, family and etcetera ? All of those aspects of that persons life will be effected more and more until he shuts up. What if the spokesman offends his boss or his infamous status gets his family into trouble ? My point is that a fool can't survive even in the most lenient society. What is hateful speech ? Should we eliminate hate speech so that some people wouldn't be offended ? If you are offended by another persons comments, you have the right to say so. However, if you want to take away that person's rights to speak because you are offended, that is oppression. Remember: before the Civil Rights Movement, it would have been incredibly offensive, and even illegal, for a black person to sit next to a white person on a bus. What about corruption ? If the person is truly filled with hate, he will commit a crime. If someone is against for example homosexuals, he will bully them hence he will get himself into trouble. On the other hand a preachers loves a homosexual, he just thinks that his ways are sinful. Now this preacher would do anything to help a homosexual if hes bullied. Nevertheless my opponent suggests that both of them should suffer since both of them practice "hate speeches". To those that want to see an end put to hate speech being tolerated in this country remember this; your hate speech concerning those that publicly speak of their hatreds is, perhaps to you, the right and noble thing to do, say and think. Still, for all that, you hate. And you say so willingly and loudly every chance you get. You hate those that aren't thinking and acting like you. Collect your Nazi arm bands and practice your "Hiel, Hitlers!". Your quest to see a nation of little clones of yourselves will surely fail, thank God, just as every little dictatorship sooner or later does. And by the way,...I hate you! Have a nice day.
The United States government should limit the freedom of speech

Thank you for accepting and sorry for the inconvenience. many countries have deliberately prohibited the use of "hateful speeches" under intensive laws to ensure the safety of its citizens. we have to take in consideration that the united states should limit the freedom of speech as well as reducing the damage caused by hateful speeches each day. Contention one: Democratic equality>> the united states must uphold the democratic equality in which it stands for. We have to see that the democratic equality provided to the citizen by the government simply cannot be violated with a simple excuse as to the freedom of speech. Sub point one: democratic equality when looking into democratic equality, we often find that there are more issues connected to it than we often tackle. The United states supports the idea of democratic equality and the constitution in which the united states bill cannot be amended in anyway however; when looking into the issue of "hateful speeches" we often find that it is more important to uphold the equality and the human rights of the citizens rather than to neglect the fact that the many citizens feel inferior to others. "The two principles of democratic equality deal with liberty and equality, which is broken down into equal opportunity and what Rawls terms the "difference principle. Rawls argues for basic liberties that are equal for all. Included among these liberties are political liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and thought, integrity of the person, the right to personal property, and freedom from unlawful arrest and seizure. However, these liberties are malleable, allowing some to be compromised in order to attain the greatest total liberty. " (http://intjforum.com... Sub point two: Amend not Eliminate when looking into this resolution, we must find that it calls for the amendment of the freedom of speech and not its elimination. We also have to take in consideration that the amendment of the freedom of speech will provide us with the same amount of freedom but protecting the other citizens right. "To argue the case above, one has to dilute one's support for freedom of expression in favor of other principles, such as equal respect for all citizens. This is a sensible approach according to Stanley Fish. He suggests that the task we face is not to arrive at hard and fast principles that govern all speech. Instead, we have to find a workable compromise that gives due weight to a variety of values. Supporters of this view will tend to remind us that when we are discussing free speech, we are not dealing with speech in isolation; what we are doing is comparing free speech with some other good. For instance, we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." (http://plato.stanford.edu...) in conclusion the united states must amend the freedom of speech simply by limiting its range.
The United States government should limit the freedom of speech

My Case: There aren't enough good reasons to have hate speech banned nor is it a problem in todays society. Examining my opponents response: "he neglected the fact that the person does not need to terrorize the victim multiple times " You are referring to bullying whereby one person verbally harms a specific individual multiple times. Hate speech is verbal bullying in some cases. Nevertheless, as I stated in the previous round this isn't a big hinder to my position. There are many types of bullies but like I said before these type of bullies won't survive the modern world. "we must see the right of the citizens first and by limiting and amending the freedom of sdpeech" This is too insufficient, if you want to keep everyone fro being offended then you might as well get rid of all the American advertisement (half naked women and the materialistic version of life it promotes, etcetera) and make sure there's only one viewpoint in this world. Is hate speech more direct ? Yes but what is even more direct is family arguments and arguments between friends. Wherefore, hate speech isn't as half as offensive as what an average person experiences on monthly basis perhaps even daily. Now that we have read all this - shouldn't it be better to do as Pro says so that we would have at least some improvement ? The answer is no. Reasons below : "limitation of the freedom of speech would reduce the amount of hate related crime as it makes it clear that there is a stronger law that completly upholds democratic equality" Actually, the answer is education. .. Even if you silenced all hate, you still have hate furthermore silenced hate leads to explosive behavior. "when a law or in the childs case a rule or punishment is enforced, we find that it is highly unlikly that the child will tuant another fellow again. " I've done this as a child and so at some point did virtually every other child. I changed because I observed the adults and after getting my first friends, I started to despise those who spread pain. Do you think that silencing me would have done anything good ? Nope, perhaps my hate would build up but without education I would still be full of hate. So what do I propose ? : 1. Instead of silencing we should focus on educating people. 2. We should not let corruption take away my precious preachers. 3. We shouldn't let corruption take away the minorities view. 4. Education prevents number two and three.
The Otaku is Ruining Anime

Recently Director Hayao Miyazaki spoke out that Otakus are damaging anime due to their obsessive behaviour and tastes. Otakus who are the prime consumers of moe and pandering shows, are thus the cause of why so many are produced. Resolved: Otakus are causing a negative trend on artistic quality in anime.~Debate Definitions~Otaku: an avid collector or enthusiast, esp. one who is obsessed anime, video games, or computer and rarely leaves home[1].Anime: a style of animation that was created in Japan and that uses colorful images, strong characters, and stories that have a lot of action[2].~Rules~1. First Round is acceptance2. Fifth Round is for closing statements, no new evidence.3. Debate Definitions must be used by both pro and con4. Burden of proof is shared.5. No semantics6. Serious aguments only7. Have fun.~Sources~1.http://dictionary.reference.com...2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales

I apologize if I am a bit informal in my debate.. :) In all reality, backround checks will not save millions, thousands, or even hundreds of lives. I honestly doubt it will save any. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he will get a gun. Pure and simple. I have never heard of any criminal dumb enough to try to purchase a firearm legally, knowing his name will be run through a database. And say he were dumb enough to attempt to purchase a firearm legally. He would simply be turned away. This will not deter said criminal. There are easier and cheaper ways of buying a gun, whether you are a criminal or not. The only people that will submit themselves to backround checks are law-abiding citizens, so this 'solution' doesnt solve any problems. Backround info could be made public. And it would not be 'rare' for it to happen. Any database is susceptible to being hacked. Lets take this scenario to a very realistic conclusion: The US enforces backround checks, and builds a database, which includes everyone who owns a gun and what gun they own. If that database were to be hacked (and it would be) that information would be extremely useful for criminals interested in burglary. Said criminals would feel very confident breaking into houses that they know arent armed. I dont see a benefit in having a database on gun owners. There is no pro, but there are many cons.