BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Superman is stronger than Goku.

Firstly, I am very impressed with the in-depth analysis of these two hero's it is good for looking at their pros and cons, however it cannot be taken too seriously as the fight was a somewhat vague simulation of certain circumstances. Furthermore, in rebuttal of your previous statement, there is no evidence to your claim of Goku's impossibility to determine or misinterpret Superman's weaknesses. Goku proves time and time again his resourceful intuition and strategic cleverness. One example of such is in his fight against Frieza. He easily notices early on that Frieza cannot sense his opponent, Goku uses this to his advantage tactically which ultimately leads to Frieza's downfall. There should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Goku would analyse his opponent and find a weakness. It might take some time considering it is Superman he's up against but he will definitely find it and a lot easier than most I might add) At the end of the day (as I have previously mentioned) Superman's power is defined by his distance to the sun. Goku's by his intense training concentration and will. In addition to this (as your video has shown) Goku himself can draw power from the sun. This, combined with the instant transmition to give Goku the time and space he could need in the fight ensures his superiority over Superman. Also on a side note, as it states in the video, there is no real way to determine the real extent of Goku's or Superman's power, and trying to is a futile attempt.
Superman is stronger than Goku.

Contrary to your belief, Superman is in fact stronger. His strength, speed, and endurance far surpasses Goku's. If you use the "gravity formula", "snake way formula", and "Dr. Gero's bomb formula", it will show that Goku's stats are FAR below superman's stats. I've posted a video that covers their stats more in depth. And furthermore, it's 99.999% impossible for Goku to determine Superman's weakness, which is kryptonite and red sun. And if goku DID find out about superman using the sun, he would misinterpret how superman uses the sun. The video I posted also covers that in depth. So after you watch that video, it'll be impossible for you to argue that Goku is stronger. http://www.youtube.com...
Superman is stronger than Goku.

As I previously mentioned, in a fight between Goku and Superman, Goku would surely triumph. My opponent has not replied in the previous round, I shall recap on my previous points. Goku has immense strength, often parrying and defeating his enemies despite being severely injured. He can run at speeds of a millionths of a second in comparison to Superman's thousandths of a second. While Superman is an immense opponent, he is as good as he is going to get. Goku is constantly bettering himself through hard work, a series of fighting styles and raising his Super Saiyen level. Goku's powers cannot be taken away or lessened while Superman relies heavily on the sun and absents of Kryptonite, Goku no longer has a fatal physical weakness. In addition to this (for the sake of presenting a new argument), I would like to add that if Goku happened to get into more than he could handle, there is no shortage of those who would step in to help him (Gohan, Picollo, Vegeta etc.) As well as this, in the very extreme and highly unlikely case of Goku dying (for circumstantial reasons and little to do with the fight) he would soon be brought back to life with the Dragon Balls. Please respond to this post as I would enjoy this debate
Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

By observing each response, you can see how you write out your responses much larger than my own, instead of simplifying your thoughts - this is to say that I'm more intelligent than you are; I can simplify these complex thoughts much more than you can simplify what aren't even complex inquiries, just stubborn skepticism. Calling similarities meaningless is exactly why you're so behind. There's not a single wise man that can call even the drawing of a child's meaningless because some guy can paint the heavens for everyone can see. By calling something meaningless, is your inadvertent way of telling yourself "I don't understand this, myself". You cannot make connections to what is otherwise the genius I spent years crafting and refining over the course of my childhood. I do far more thinking than you'll ever do yourself, so again, I would highly suggest for you to stop being so stubborn about your skepticism and start understanding how the brain can deflect its erroneous behaviors by projecting its own failures unto others, which complicates communication through and through. "I have never heard an asteroid being...", this is exactly why you shouldn't be in this debate. You are skeptical towards me, while not doing any research yourself. You base everything off of your own experience - I shape my ideas around this Universe, not my heart like yourself; this is why I am on such a different level; I opened all windows and doors of this mental palace to let all the darkness and creatures in so I can face them once and for all. Water contains amoeba - amoebas produces chemicals that allow us to feel "human". Therefore water is "human" - without water, there would not be amoebas, therefore there would not be "humans". If you cannot experience the wonder that I have in realizing these correlations between how humans behave and the Universe behaves, while having great knowledge on things like water containing creatures that produce chemicals which allow us to be "human", or how our ability to observe this world today is the result of photo receptors being formed billions of years ago before stars were even born, then this is no longer my problem - it's your problem for being so behind on such grand knowledge.
Lane splitting and Filtering should be legalized.

My apologies as I had thought I had made a few things quite clear. Firstly, on your last rebuttal point, these tests are not new. They are in practice as we speak and they are mandatory everywhere. There would be no monetary issue to be found whatsoever. On your second issue you mention that there is a learning experience. That is something I cannot deny. All drivers must learn to drive somewhere. However, it is seen as commonplace that until you know how to operate safely you drive on a parking lot. Of course this isn't a written rule but it is one that is for the most part considered. Regardless of preparedness, you should be able to keep your vehicle in the middle of your lane at all times. Changing lanes should be simple as well. I had thought it was rather self explanatory how lane splitting works. We both defined it, and on top of that I labeled that lane splitting is a safer alternative from the standard sitting at the back for motorcyclists. You sir are very correct on that I have not sited any sources. I think that if you have to site a source for a debate of this caliber you must not know much on it (aka: you don't need to win the debate just because I didn't give you any sources of quotes that are just that. Quotes). This truly is a great big issue for me. This one hits home.
Lane splitting and Filtering should be legalized.

While my opponent has brought up some good points, he has failed to address arguments I made to his initial case. Please take that into consideration. Let's begin this rebuttal.My opponent's has made three points in this rebuttal, first of which concerns accidents themselves and inability of drivers to completely avoid them. This is a statement we can all agree on. However, my opponent has yet to prove how legalizing a dangerous practice (being lane splitting) will prevent these accidents. Furthermore, I have shown the dangers, general public displeasure with such a practice, and credibility to all of these aspects. Though we cannot totally predict accidents on our own, we shouldn't legalize something that has been proven to be fallible and even deadly. Besides this, it is essential to realize that lane splitting doesn't preserve motorcyclists' safety, but rather creates a more dangerous situation for the driver.His second point is in regards to the concern of drivers, and their "inability" to travel safely in the presence of lane splitting. Basically, my opponent says that if a driver cannot deal with lane splitting, he/she should not be driving. This, however, eliminates a learning experience (which every driver must have to become a good driver) and younger individuals driving. Furthermore, it is not unnatural or wrong in any way, form, or fashion for a driver to become nervous when a motorcyle lane splits beside it. In reality, there often isn't much room between the two vehicles in the first place. Adding another moving object, regardless of size, is an added danger to the driving experience. It has also been proven that most motorcyclists speed in order to get through the gap quickly. Any moving object is more difficult to control at higher speeds, thus ramping up the chance of an accident. In his third and final argument, my opponent finally details his intentions for the debate, and more clearly presents the plan he has in mind for this legalization policy. However, he fails to point out that courses as such, and tests, would cost money. The last thing our economy and government needs is to pay money to an inherently and most definitely proven dangerous practice.I would lastly like to point out that my opponent has brought forth no evidence to back up his claims or validate his statements. On the other hand, I have given my arguments by using credible sources in my case, and referring back to them throughout this rebuttal. Thank you for a great rebuttal, Pro, and good luck in the rest of htis debate. :)
Lane splitting and Filtering should be legalized.

Seeing that all vehicles can suffer from potentially life threatening scenarios at any given time while travelling, it would be fair to say that not all potential collisions can be seen. As someone who actively hyper-focuses on driving when doing so I can say that you do not even begin to see a majority of your own close calls. The safety of bikers should not rely solely on their vision but safety precautions as well. While enclosed vehicles are guided by safety measures upon their creation, bikes do not have harm prevention built in. That is something that can only come with riding experience. If enclosed vehicles have safety buffers, riders deserve some too. The uncomfortably of other drivers should not be of concern when changing lanes. If a driver is not capable of driving within his or her own lane competently, they should not be driving. It is safe to say that the space between two vehicles can on a majority of occasions on roadways hold a motorcycle without issue or contact. As a driver and a rider I can say that I feel uncomfortable with the vague laws regarding blind spots on SUV or vehicles with length. However, there is no debate to made over my nerves. If nerves were what made laws I believe we would not be seeing the types of vehicles meant for destroying corn fields stacked up on tractor trailers going down I-44. Collision avoidance being the purpose of passing a law enabling filtering, the point of hazards within filtering are necessary for the debate. My argument is that when one gets an M class license (whatever class rating it is for motorcycle in the state in question) they have to undergo a skills test that ensures they are capable of riding a motorcycle through tight courses and challenging cones. That being said, any rider who has a license is well equipped in skill, enough so to pass between the not so narrow gap between cars. More importantly is that they are armed with the power of judgement. This ability which is granted to all on the road is inherently important. Licensing of an individual proves they have obtained this and can make proper judgement in traffic. This being said, motorcyclists should not be causing problems when riding. If there is an issue and outside source other than the act of filtering should be investigated. In my belief, a majority of these wrecks have partial if not entire blame on the vehicle changing lanes, as often it is that vehicle that did not check their own rear-view and door mirrors before switching (an illegal change).
Lane splitting and Filtering should be legalized.

When riding a motorcycle of standard size you tend to find that the other vehicles on the road lose sight of you. Cell phones, GPS, passengers, and even watches distract drivers into accidents every single day. The most common collision associated with these distractions is a rear ended impact (most commonly at a traffic stopping point). Collisions in closed or caged motor vehicles are never good, yet the more severe collision type is found when an enclosed vehicle hits an open vehicle. In these accidents, people tend to be crushed or have their necks broken due to the pressure change. These accidents are not acceptable for the crowd that truly uses open cockpit vehicles as a daily driver. So what do we do to prevent our death? We filter. To filter is to go between motor vehicles or around on the right hand side at traffic stopping points to prevent a feared (most likely fatal) rear end collision. My stance is that bikers should have the right to protect themselves by filtering or lane splitting when the need is there. Where it is not illegal to operate a phone and drive it should at least be legal to filter.
Feminism is a form of sexism

I have three main arguments against feminism: it's sexist, it makes sexism a dialectic problem when it is not, and it states that the feminine image is bad and that women should avoid it. Feminism is sexism This is the first and most significant argument. Sexism is discriminating by gender. As far as I'm concerned, that's what feminism does. Feminism is always fighting for the women's right but never for the men's. This is indeed discriminating men by its gender. Also, they state that all men are bad, and violent, and dominant, and oppressive, and so on, and so on, just for being men. Again, this is a way of sexism. Even the name is sexist. Feminism, that doesn't sounds like a movement looking for equity. And indeed, feminism is a one way movement. It only cares for women.I understand that women were more discriminated throughout history than men. Nevertheless, this isn't a valid argument to support discrimination towards men. What we really need is equity.Sexism isn't dialecticFeminists describe the sexism problem as dialect. They think of this problem as a war between men and women. However it is not like that. First, the relationship between men and women shouldn't be seen as a war. We need to dialogue and debate in order to achieve equity. Fighting isn't the way civilized people should act. Secondly, there's more than men and women in this problem. The gender spectrum is in this days better described, and thus more complex. There's not just men and women any more. There are transgenders, gays, lesbians, and more others. It is simplistic to describe sexism as men vs women. But again, this is another way to attack men.Feminine image is badAnother negative point of feminism is the systematic attack to the image of a woman being gentle, delicate, "feminine". They attack the women who are men dependant, who are housewives, and all what conforms the stereotype of women.I don't believe that all women should follow the stereotype. But also, I believe that women must have the opportunity to choose what they want. If they want to follow the stereotype, let them do it. If they want to be different, let them too. It's a matter of free will. However, feminists oppose to this and state that following the stereotype is wrong, and propose another way of being.Summarizing, what feminist do is limit the free will of women, making them change from one stereotype to another.As you can see, feminism is a movement which has negative effects to society. We must promote a movement of gender equity, one which ensures the protections of every gender's rights.
Feminism is a form of sexism

Nowadays, the feminist movement is bigger than ever. They have achieved some great things against gender discrimination. However, feminism has sexist roots in it. I think that feminism ends up being bad for society, because it doesn't defend gender equality, but a prevalence of females before males. Also, it makes the gender problem very dualistic (men vs women) when It isn't (there are transgenders, gender fluids, etc. ). Then, feminism shouldn't be celebrated, but fought against, just as any other form of sexism or discrimination.
Morals Do Not Exist

No worries. Indeed a child may be very happy in a poor country, however what causes us to bring up our kids in our own society? Surely it would be cheaper if we didn't have medical facilites and a stable water supply, or electricity? The fact of the matter is, is that these things are luxuries that improve our well being. Is the well being of a child in Africa, who is ecstatic to get some water, the same as a child in the West who has just received a new Xbox? I would argue no. The strains and stresses of not having a stable water supply, of having a much lower average age, of having no medical services, make it impossible for the child to have as happy a life as someone in a western society. The sheer number of bad events that will happen to a child in a poor country means that a child is much better off in a rich country. Pain is objectively bad as it has a negative impact on the lives of everyone affected by it. Indeed some people may have been abused and so enjoy pain, however this goes against human nature and so can be considered an anomaly. If pain did not have a negative effect on those who suffer from it, it would not serve its purpose, which is to warn of dangerous stimuli. What on earth would be the point of pain if when a flame is held to your skin, it feels fine or even pleasurable? Bad according to the Oxford dictionary in this context is: 'Lacking or failing to conform to moral virtue'According to your claim, there is no objectively 'bad' behaviour as there is no objectively moral virtue. I would argue otherwise.I propose the idea that morality is the word given to the well being of conscious creatures. Bad behaviour thus is behaviour that impairs the well being of conscious creatures. I think that well being is a scientific concept, not a subjective one. The well being of a creature can be measured on the level of the brain through the brain's responses to suffering, generosity etc. As this measurement is a scientific measurement, it is not subjective. It is not subjective when looking on the level the brain, to say that torturing a child has an effect on their brain that impacts on their ability to experience happiness and joy. This is not subjective. Consequently to say that torturing a child is immoral is not a subjective claim, as the impact the torture has on the child's brain is a scientific claim, not an opinion. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Morals Do Not Exist

Yes, that was my mistake. I forgot to add Objectively. This world you describe is only based off of the fact that we humans have already experienced modern day society. A child in a poor country with terrible conditions can be extremely happy. But if you put someone from a middle class home in their position, they would be miserable. This good and bad you speak of does not exist. Humans have biological instincts. Avoiding pain is one of these. This does not mean that pain is bad. There is nothing that is objectively bad. Everything is subjective. Objective morality does not exist. Morals have been developed by society to serve a purpose or agenda. If objective morals exist, give me a list or solid proof they do. How come every society has different morals if objective morality exists?
Morals Do Not Exist

Thank you for this debate.I'd like to start by defining morality, from which you have obtained the term morals. Morality Pronunciation: /məG2;ral=8;ti/ NOUN (plural moralities)[MASS NOUN]1) Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... In spite of the bad wording of the question, as morals clearly exist regardless of whether they are subjective or not, I will debate on the assumption you mean no objective morality exists. You have stated that 'They are created by man' and so have already admitted their existence; how does one create something that doesn't exist? A world filled with torture (even if you enjoy physical pain, there are many ways to torture people, so assuming everyone on the planet is uncomfortable). This is an objectively 'bad' place. The reason it is objectively bad and not subjective is that no one can possibly describe this place as good. Even the masochists and sadists are in their own world of hurt (bearing in mind this is a hypothetical world). As we have established an objectively 'bad' place, we can now say, objectively, whether one thing is better than another. If this is the worst possible place to live in for any conscious creature, then there must be better places. Every situation can't be equally bad for everyone. Although we may never know the answers to some questions like 'Is killing one person better than leaving ten to suffer?', we have established that there must be an answer out there. The reason there is an answer out there, is our objectively bad place has shown us that we can compare the 'goodness' and 'badness' of places. Indeed some behaviours may be equally bad or equally good, but some will be considerably better than others. Consequently there is an objective morality, even if we don't know the answers this objective morality will give yet. One way we may discover this objective morality is through neuroscience. The science of morality is very young, and is described very well by Sam Harris, whose books explain this in great detail. As a neuroscientist, he believes that breakthroughs in the study of suffering and happiness can allow us to establish whether societal behaviours will improve or impair well being. Indeed some people may prefer pain to generosity, however when it comes to the human race on the whole, the ability to experience happiness (a positive emotion) is impaired by pain and suffering, and so consequently we can for example establish that a world of total pain is worse than a world with total generosity. (1) (1) https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com...