BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Captain America would beat Batman in a fight

Batman has the technological advantage. Batman has a wide array of diversionary tools in his utility belt with which he could blind, disorient, or flat out knock out the Captain. Sure Captain has the shield, which is nice, but it's no match for the tools in Batman's utility belt. Everyone, including the bat, knows Rogers loves an icy nap, so Batman could use a freeze pellet on him so he can catch up on some more rest for a few decades. Batman also has the tactical advantage. I know Captain America is supposed to be a great tactician (even though he lost the civil war), but Batman routinely must develop tactics and strategies to fight superhuman opponents without the luxury of having superhuman powers himself. Not everyone can be lucky enough to be injected with superhuman juice and become an insta-hero. Batman knows how to deal with opponents that are bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter. Captain America is little more than a version of Bane (not the Joel Schumacher version) that is more restrained by rules and morality. Batman would lay back, avoid direct blows, and study his opponent to find the opportune moment to deliver a crushing defeat on the overgrown brute. After all, Batman has done more with less to defeat greater.
Captain America would beat Batman in a fight

My first argument is that Captain America has the physical edge. Let's look at both of their stats:Batman can bench-press an average of 1,000 lbs. Impressive, but Cap can easily lift 100 lbs. more than that; and that's not even his best.Batman can run as fast as the best Olympic athletes, which is about 27.44 mph (that's Usain Bolt's time). But Cap is way faster, with a speed of about 50mph.Batman recovered from having his back broken, which is an incredible feat for a human. However, Captain America has fallen from an airplane 200 ft. above the ground onto a car, and landed without a scratch.So Cap is stronger, faster, and more durable. You might make the argument that Batman has been able to defeat opponents physically more powerful than himself. And while this is true, it would be irrelevant in this instance for three reasons:1. Cap doesn't have an exploitable weakness like Kryptonite, so Batman wouldn't be able to take advantage of that.2. Most of the super-powered characters Batman faces are really dumb and can easily be outsmarted. But Captain America has peak-human menal faculties, and is a great strategist and tactician.3. Batman doesn't have prep time in this situation, which is almost always the way he defeats people with superpowers.Sources: http://www.planet-science.com...http://marvel.wikia.com...http://www.comicvine.com...
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Allowed

Why is there so much discussion over the Bible? Its completely irrelevant. You want you church not to marry two gay people, go right ahead, but don't drag laws and the legality of marriage into the matter. The Bible also condones a lot of stuff we consider illegal and damns things we do consider legal (see below), so why should this be any different? The Bible has no ruling on law and should never be the way. Either gays should get the legal right/privilege of marriage given to everyone else, or heterosexuals shouldn't be given the legal right/privilege of marriage - just call it something else. A legal union, civil union, domestic partnership, I don't care but the term and benefits must be the same for both 'types' of civil marriage. "Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, and revellings are all sinful acts which are considered legal or semi-legal in the United States. Now obviously I understand that that you probably don't seek to outlaw homosexuality, but by using religious grounds of calling homosexuality a sin to keep them from marrying you might as well go so far as declare it as such. As I've said twice not by keeping homosexual couples from engaging in marriage with one another you're denying them the same privilege awarded to heterosexual couples and this goes against the 14th amendment of the United States. Homosexual and heterosexual couples must both be allowed legal marriage with the same legalities involved for both, otherwise its "separate but equal". Otherwise just have the government butt-out from using the word "marriage" at all and have both homosexual and heterosexual couples engage in some sort of 'civil union.'
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Allowed

Under the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homosexuals are abridged the privilege(or right) of marriage. By making civil marriage (churches can do what they please, but this is when the government gives you your marriage license) unavailable to homosexuals the government is showing a blatant preference of one group over another, and this is entirely unconstitutional. If you don't want gays to be legally 'married' than neither should heterosexuals. The same term (civil union, whatever) with same legalities must be shared between the two 'types' of marriage in the legal field.
Drug addicts are completely at fault and responsible for their addiction.

Sometimes people can be responsible for their addictions but it's all about who they were around. people go to drugs for comfort which is depressing but it's true. If someone's had like a rough childhood or no one's there for them, they turn to drugs. The first time they try, the can easily get addicted. It could also be because of peer pressure. I mean, people will do anything to get with the "cool crowd" it's not their fault. We've all been there when you're at the state of desperate. You can't blame them for wanting to be "cool" because maybe their parents never taught them drugs aren't okay. You never know so don't just go blaming everyone if they're addicted to drugs.
Drug addicts are completely at fault and responsible for their addiction.

There has been some controversy when i offered this opinion to my friends, i believe that drug addicts specifically those that are currently addicted to drugs are completely responsible for their problem. I would like to also set the stage by affirming that any form of addiction is a problem, which can be argued over as a sub topic to this main topic or not. The only acception to this stance applies only to those that do not consume any substance of their own free will. however i believe that those that voluntarily depend on drugs or physically spend their own or any funds in their possession to acquire drugs regularly are the only ones to be blamed for their problem.
to remove the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance

"The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state"More like representative of an ideology that 87% of the American public holds close [1]. Religion being included within the government is not inherently bad or anything. If it was then there should be no religous people at all within the government, and that is a wild claim to make. "The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower. "Not disputing this. Just because the Eisenhower administration added two words to a government poem (basically a poem), then what's the real harm, really? "When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion"First, congress =/= the state. States are basically sovereign and adhere to their own laws, after adhering to federal ones. That's not the point though. Promoting something that nearly 90% of Americans believe in is not something that is bad. That is like saying that the federal government was promoting eating healthy, because 90% of Americans believe in that [1]. It's not inherently bad. As I said above, the pledge does not even diminish the rights of religion so how is this a valid argument against 'under God'? "The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed. "The wording 'no place' is really slippery. 'No place' could mean something as big as no religous peoples in all of the congress, the state governments, presidency, judicial branches. .. anything. That's not democracy, that's suppressing the majority with the whims of the minority. "Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity. "I deny this claim. 'God' is pretty broad if you really look at it. 'God' could fall under Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Druze, Lingayatism, Mandaeism, Rastafarism, Pastafarianism, and many many more religions. This is not showing any preference toward Christianity and is certainly not referencing it. "This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American"Says who? :OYou can have national pride without having Christianity, for you can have many other religions that believe in a God (or gods, of course) that would fall under the line of 'under God'. "If we remove the two words then it will still be there for people to 'opt in'"Is this a concession that we should not completely remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? It seems that way. .. Voters, I urge you to take note of this line. [1]. . http://abcnews.go.com...Thank
to remove the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance

Last ArgumentC1. Separation of church and state/ReligionThe inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed. C2. Removing under god would promote religious tolerance. Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity. This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.RebuttalsIf we remove the two words then it will still be there for people to 'opt in'
to remove the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance

Thanks for starting this debate.I was never told that I had the BoP, so all I have to do is to discount my opponent's argument to win."we are a country with many religions and not all of them worship one god or even a god"I am not disagreeing with you. But that's not applicable to the debate"The original Pledge was written by a Baptist minister and even he felt that "under god" was not needed in the Pledge"Just because you created something then didn't like it doesn't mean we should get rid of it.A perfect example of this (and relevant to the time of posting this) is Anna Jarvis and her creation of mother's day [1].She created mother's day, but after creating it, she hated all that it had become. That does not mean it is inherently bad, just that the creator fell out of love with it, if you could say."This is a violation of our First Amendment rights and to have our children reciting it in schools is a direct violation of their Children's rights."Woah now, back up.Voluntary recitation of a few words does not impede on any rights that you have [2]. See that bolded word? It's important.The freedom from foundation, which is all about keeping religious rights, notes that you do not have to stand for the pledge. It is just something voluntary [3]. This point is invalid." The thing is that if we are a nation who lives by the rule that we accept everyone no matter the color of their skin, their religion, or even their social status we are contradicting our self by making the Pledge of Allegiance harbor the words "under god". "No, we live in a nation where the majority gets to decide how things work.If the majority of americans believe in god and want it to exist in the pledge, then that is fine.Just because you are the minority does not mean that you get to have the ability to overturn the majority's rule.That's not how democracy works."That is not fair to not only the citizens who come here for a better life but the ones who live here and do not worship "the one true god" as it is said."It is fair. You have no moral or legal obligation to stand for the pledge, so why does it matter to you?That's like saying that we should ban churches. Not because they are inherently bad or because we have to go to them, but because someone will get butthurt over their existence at some point in time.[1]. http://mentalfloss.com...;[2]. http://aclu-or.org...[3]. http://ffrf.org...
to remove the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance

We should act to remove "under god" from the Pledge since we are a country with many religions and not all of them worship one god or even a god. The original Pledge was written by a Baptist minister and even he felt that "under god" was not needed in the Pledge. This is a violation of our First Amendment rights and to have our children reciting it in schools is a direct violation of their Children's rights. The thing is that if we are a nation who lives by the rule that we accept everyone no matter the color of their skin, their religion, or even their social status we are contradicting our self by making the Pledge of Allegiance harbor the words "under god". That is not fair to not only the citizens who come here for a better life but the ones who live here and do not worship "the one true god" as it is said.
fornication = not good

I think I understand what you are getting at. Certainly, in many aspects of our lives, our morals seem to pester us despite our rational thoughts. Followers of a particular faith my consider that divine intervention on a small scale. However I believe that sometimes things might seem wrong, and their might be some guilt because of how our society might look at that. I know, personally when my partner and I engage in sexual acts, we feel a certain amount of guilt. That is because others might view what we are are doing as to be wrong.
fornication = not good

thanks for your arguments. your's have been the best so far, and i should have said that. i think the only thing that will appease me is studies showing the beliefs of people who have studied comprehensively both sides of the issue, and seeing where they fall, in terms of marjoty and super marjority etc. there has to be a reason why some people who feel it wrong and others right. also, it could be simply fear, but i think it's mroe than that, and i want to know how. and, i want studies that say what indigenous peoples tought about it all. without preconceived notions of it. did they think they were doing wrong when fornicating? obviously they'd do it given their inclination, but their thoughts on the matter, ant true freelings would be more persuasive without the religous influences tha crept in later.
fornication = not good

I am a little bit confused as to what you are asking for your contender. As a individual, I believe that fornication, which is a religious term, Is permitted. As a society, we need to start trusting our rational judgements and stop adhering to our superstitions and our childhood myths (religion). It is common knowledge that in our teen years, as we enter puberty, hormone rates increase and thus encourage sexually activity. This is a natural, biological, situation that occurs and sexually activity is often the result of this. Marriage, which is a religious institution, may not be right for young adults who might be experiencing these increased hormone levels. And honestly, I do not see how a slip of paper and a very expensive marriage ceremony can determine how much a couple loves each other and whether or not they should engage in sexually intercourse.
fornication = not good

honestly, i'm not sure where i stand on this issue. my religous upbringing has messed me up. i could see saying fornication, even when it's done as responsibly as possible, is inherently bad. the feelings of permanency that one has for another, indicates we're to save ourselves for that one other person. and the guilt associated with fornication, is also an indication that it's wrong. of course, these are just my feelings, and i could see a rational statement being put otherwise. given both are rational, it'd seem i'd defer to "feelings". i want others' feelings.
Is the levitating hot pocket our TRUE lord and savior

The levitating hot pocket is our true lord and savior, and if you argue with this then you are ardy committing a sin "if you do not believe the levitating hot pocket you will go to hell and be eaten by the eater of hot pocket souls" and also if there is a multiverse then the levitating hot pocket did create the universe. reember to eat your hot pockets kids!!
THBT High Emission Country should Financially Aid developing countries to reduce soot

Im totally agree with this motion because 1. High emission country produced somehow big precentage of emission that polutes the earth and it is also affecting another country including the developing country because of the global climate change so the high emission country should financially aid developing country to reduce soot. 2. if the high emission country financially aid the developing countries because kenya is already apply the invent of solar power system that changes the uses of fossil fuels. but kenya does not apply it n a mssive product but in an individually way. the kenya's people apply the solar system on their house so it can produce electricity. if the high emission country help them, kenya's government will produce solar system massively . the individual techonlogy has decrease 47.8% of emission , what about if governent develop it? it will decrease more emission each year. 3. developing country will use the aid to invent renewable energy that can replace the uses of high-prices-fossil-fuel. renewable energy must be affordable and cheap. the poverty will use the renewable energy to produce something they can sell with cheaper production-cost , and then it will increase the prosperity of people in deveoping country. 4. if high emission country do not financially aid the deveoping countries, the uses of fossil-fuel , natural gas, and coal will be trippling by 2050 and will dominte the world-supply energy 4. if high emission country do not financially aid the deveoping countries, it will make the environment get worser and worser because none of them could decrease the emission rates and it would destroy our earth and biotics population due to the globl anomaly problem and
Parents should be fined if their children are unsuccessful at school

Reasons why this shall cause more problems then good . 1. Some kids can't help it and they can't get passed there disability like others u see she kids like me are born or have a disability that stops them from learning let me use an example me . Im a 14 year old child and I am legally blind that's how blind I am . You see being blind isent my fault I can't help it if I wasn't a person who rad and loved to learn I wouldn't be good at school and have bad grades thus I get blamed for being a bad student while I'm not I'm not doing it on purpose I have a disability and I can't see what others see . So my main question why be fined when you have a form of disability that prevents u from learning . 2.. If u make so one pay for not doing good then in the end those who don't what to take the punk nets they get from there parents and are always a getting bad grades arnt going to take it there going to drop out and leave becouse they are being stressed to get Good grades . 3 . School isn't a place just to learn sure it's a place that main priority is education but school is also a place were we learn to socialize but if we are paying for not eating good grades then that stops and making generations isolated form one another sure u get them smart but they won't be talking and and just be quiet nothing more .m
Parents should be fined if their children are unsuccessful at school

How is it causing more problems? This could bring more curiosity to the children's education on the parents, because parents don't want to pay a fine and even if they don't they will still be interested. A lot of children's parents don't know much from their child's grades and behaviour, even if they want to because they are not in school with them and anybody can tell lies. This fine could instantly change that, strengthtening the child-parent bond and that's a rare thing to do, especially for teenagers this century & this has so many benefits.
Parents should be fined if their children are unsuccessful at school

Parents should be fined if their children are unsuccessful because the fine could lead to more special classes that will help the students. As in school, education is #1 priority and it is just doing what it is right for the next generation, to educate. Education is important for anyone and it is just a bit pricey but a very effective way to help those who are in need (I had to make a new one)