BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists are wrong

"Okay let's try again, Most atheist belifs are illogaical and not based on evidance. " The only thing that connects atheists together is the lack of belief in a god. " You believe the universe is random. " What if I don't? That doesn't matter in the atheist world, All that matter is a disbelief in a god. "Would you take random as a valid reason for anything? " Well, No, But would you take some all powerful guy who you can't even see as a reason for anything? They're theories, Not facts. We aren't certain, We need to do more research. Can you accept that we don't know yet? " You are saying matter was a random creation. " I haven't said that. "There is a difference between blind Faith and faith based on data. " No, When you mean faith based on data, You mean inquiries, Or possible solutions to answer why or how something happens. But, Yes, There is a difference. "Science Wich is all about data needs faith. " You mean research, Experiments, And theories, Right? "Beliving in a scientific axiom wether it be Infinty or Universes require faith. " You mean a sound argument. Science doesn't care about your faith, It only wants the truth. " It is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. " I mean, As long as you have sound evidence to support that everything has a cause/everything is random, Is it really irrational? "So you believe in science and science is faith and there is your physical proof and the theory is faith. " No, Science is not faith. I'll link two definitions below so that you can understand the difference between faith and science so that you can understand. I asked Con to prove that god exists and Con has failed to done so. Con also assumes that all atheist believe in the same things when in reality the only thing that brings them together is a lack of belief in a god. Con hasn't brought up any evidence that can stand to scrutiny because Con believes that if you have faith in something, That is physical proof that god exists, And thus, Tries to use this brain of thought to say that science is basically faith-based. If Con can prove that god exists, I will concede this debate. https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=fiath&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS797US797&oq=fiath&aqs=chrome. . 69i57j0l5. 763j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www. Google. Com/search? Rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS797US797&ei=jDR-W9GINuic0gKX6JmoDw&q=science+definintion&oq=science+definintion&gs_l=psy-ab. 3. . 0i10k1l10. 2816. 7647. 0. 7791. 24. 19. 5. 0. 0. 0. 159. 1844. 13j6. 19. 0. . . . 0. . . 1. 1. 64. Psy-ab. . 0. 24. 1851. . . 0j0i131i67k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i20i264k1. 0. N7ofZHM7KYc
Atheists are wrong

Okay let's try again, Most atheist belifs are illogaical and not based on evidance. You believe the universe is random. Would you take random as a valid reason for anything? You are saying matter was a random creation. There is a difference between blind Faith and faith based on data. Science Wich is all about data needs faith. Beliving in a scientific axiom wether it be Infinty or Universes require faith. It is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. So you believe in science and science is faith and there is your physical proof and the theory is faith.
Atheists are wrong

"God exists on your level of faith. " I need physical proof, Not 'faith' to prove that god exists. " Everybody has faith but some people choose to accept it and others don't. " Okay. . . "Why do you believe Infinity exists even though you will never experiencine it? " Well, What if I don't believe if infinity exists? "Why did you believe parallel universes exist even though you will never experience them? " Well, What if I don't believe that they exist. " Because you have faith. " Or, The theory made sense to me and therefore I accepted that theory. "How do I know that you're human you're not an alien? Because I have faith. " No, You know that I'm a human because my DNA is like a humans. "Say you put a cat in a box of poison and close the Box you have no way of knowing if the cat is dead or alive so until you open the box the cat that is both dead and alive but you have faith that the cat is alive. " No, I hope that the cat is alive. That doesn't mean that the cat is alive, Nor does this prove god. " We will never know how the universe was made since we never experienced it. " We can never be certain before you try. " Yet it says it all in Religion. But you refuse to accpet that because you are blind to acknowledge faith. Instead you choose to accept a random answer even though there is a legitimate ansewr. " So you say to not trust something that you havent experienced, Yet you point to the bible? Nice hyprocracy there. Also, Whats the answer then? "That is the most unscientific ansewr I have ever heard of. " Says the guy who would point to religion for the answer of the universe.
Atheists are wrong

God exists on your level of faith. Everybody has faith but some people choose to accept it and others don't. Why do you believe Infinity exists even though you will never experiencine it? Why did you believe parallel universes exist even though you will never experience them? Because you have faith. How do I know that you're human you're not an alien? Because I have faith. Say you put a cat in a box of poison and close the Box you have no way of knowing if the cat is dead or alive so until you open the box the cat that is both dead and alive but you have faith that the cat is alive. We will never know how the universe was made since we never experienced it. Yet it says it all in Religion. But you refuse to accpet that because you are blind to acknowledge faith. Instead you choose to accept a random answer even though there is a legitimate ansewr. That is the most unscientific ansewr I have ever heard of.
Atheists are wrong

"Atheism is pointless. They believe in a meaningless random universe that was made just because. " No, They just deny the existence of a god. If you can prove that a god exists, Then atheism is pointless because then its beliefs are false. "How did the big bang happen? Where did all those atoms come from? They were just there right? So he universe is also just here? " Well, We aren't certain yet, But just because we can't find an answer now doesn't mean that atheism is pointless. "No beginning? " We're not certain yet. "If you can counter my arguments that please do so. " I think I did an okay job. https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=what+is+atheism&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS811US811&oq=what+is+atheism&aqs=chrome. . 69i57j0l5. 2575j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Big_Bang
Batman is Better than Iron Man

If we were to take apart Batman's suits and technology it would be simple compared to Iron Mans. The Batsuit is made out of Kevlar, making it darker than the original, however Iron Man's suits are made out of titanium alloy.. His Batclaw is simple compared to Iron Mans pulsers. The Bat-a-Rangs, made like a shuriken, are made out of metal, compared to ion blasters. Batman's utility belt, has 28 items: Batarangs Grapple Gun Cryptographic sequencer Bolas Tracers Smoke Pellets Gas Pellets Line Launcher Tranquilizer Gun Glue Globles and so on. But, Iron Man has 42 suits. Most of them for just because. But some of the suits he has: Hulk Buster Space Suit Under Water Suit Thor Buster Saturn Armor, and so on. So 28 compared to 42 and stills kick butt, I'd say Batman is better.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

1; Anyone can beat superman with Kryptonite. 2; Except that's stupid, since it's really obvious who Batman is. Sides, Tony has only one enemy with the nerve to attack him at his home. 3; Iron Man 3 showed Tony can be sneaky in light and dark. 4; Batman needs his utility belt to fight properly. As well as the Batmobile and the Batwing and two sidekicks, one of which he keeps losing. 5; Everyone knows Gotham's a crime ridden city. In the films, it's almost been destroyed thrice. In the games, the entire population seems to be goons. (arkham origins) Not sure about the comics crime density, but a; It's really apparent anyway b; Batman isn't lowering the crime rate, and the bigger names are attracted by his presence, who cause more damage Angst-driven characters aren't better, they just try to look cooler. Same reason Spiderman is better than wolverine. If you threaten a fight, even a metaphorical one, when a fictional arsebiscuit is ridiculed online, you're forming a bit too much of an attachment there.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

Batman is by far the better superhero for these 5 reasons: 1. Batman can defeat Superman with ONE punch with Kryptonite Ring. 2. Batman has only ONE enemy who knows his real identity. 3. Batman is very sneaky in the dark. 4. He doesn't need 50 suits of armor for a fight. 5. Finally, he doesn't need a special group of security to tell him something is wrong in a city. If anybody actually thinks Iron Man is better, prepare for a fight
Batman is Better than Iron Man

Bruce made a promise to rid the city of crime, but his main method of fighting this crime is by beating criminals up at night. It isn't working; Gotham remains the most crime infested city in the world, and if Bruce took the money he spent making the vehicles he uses and used it to lower unemployment, help fund the police and improve the standard of living in Gotham, it would be much more effective than attacking them. The super criminals, like the Joker and Riddler? You might say he has to stay because normal police can't fight them, but they exist in Gotham because the Bat is such an iconic figure that they all want to claim the bounty on. His intentions may be good, but there exists in him at least subconsciously the desire to punish criminals in the most visceral manner possible. He is using the role of Batman to take revenge upon the disenfranchised. Tony and Bruce both design their equipment and make it. Tony makes better things, he's an inventor not a martial artist. To say that it's not the skill of the hero that determines their value but the "human" inside doesn't make much sense either. Tony's suits are not an inherited power. He was not taught how to make them by a shadowy league. They are an extension of his character and are as much a part of him as fists are t Bruce. The Arc reactor in Tony's chest links him to his suits in such a way that if his suits were stripped from him, he's make an equivalent gadget to replace them on the fly. Counter-rebuttal 2; Are you joking? Who else in Gotham has the money to to create such vast arrays of equipment and also has a motive to hate criminals to the point of fighting them at night? In the film people figure it out, Ra's al Ghul knows his identity, Bane knows it, Dr. Strange knows it too, as does the Joker. It's not hard, people just aren't able to come forward about it. 3; Firstly, if this is the disruptor from Arkham City you're talking about, remember that it has a very short range, a short duration of disabling its target and cannot be activated more than three times in quick succession. Against someone who can break the sound barrier, the disruptor poses little threat. Anyway, why do you think superiority has to come down to a fight? In terms of fighting, one fights human enemies and the other fights cosmic enemies. As I said before, you wouldn't expect Batman to win against Lobo, and the argument that if you took away all of Lobo's powers doesn't work because it's only ever a hypothetical. Having said that, this was a debate I enjoyed, and I hope we'll get to debate again in future. Duncan.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

Vigilante. What is a vigilante? The dictionary dercribes it as this: any person who takes the law into his or her hands, as by avenging a crime. This crime that Bruce has expirenced, was the death of his parents at a young age. He made a promise, to rid the city of all crime. He puts them all away in Arkham Asylum or Blackgate Prision. But once they break out, he puts then back where they came from. The only reason criminals come is because they try to challenge him, and end up failing. Only once did HE fail. In Breaking the Bat, Bane breaks his back, but Batman has a helper fill in till he's better. But, that's a lot of criminals, nuthobs, antagonist and etc. to add up for a single hero. Take away Batmans suit and belt, and give him a titanium alloy super suit. He's like Iron Man. But, he'd be better because he knows the skills to pull of some pretty wicked tricks from that suit. He'd be unstoppable. Do the same thing to Tony, now what? It's not the skill that hero posesess, but what the human inside can accomplish by himself. No suits. No belt. Just them. Rebuttal: Round 2; Batman isn't easy to figure out. Why'd you think he's easy the pick out? Bane is the only person who attacked the Batcave. So there equal there. Round 3; Batman could still beat Iron Man with suits on. He has a gadget called a Disrupter. It disrupts a gun, a machine, a suit, anything with electronically used powers.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

Ah, I see. The problem there lies in the ridiculous nature of that argument, ie: that if the person Batman fought had no "powers" he would win. They may seem external, but Tony's suits are in fact an extension of himself, the ones that never get used because they break, the ones that clearly show he's trying to surpass his co-workers; they are his power. And with each successive suit made, he can more easily equip a suit in the midst of battle. But if you're going to say that Batman would beat Tony without his suits, then you're essentially saying Batman could beat anyone who has had their powers drained. That line of thinking is foolish because Batman's fighting is based upon martial arts, when anyone with a super power is going to base their fighting upon their power. Years of training would be required that they cannot afford to spend. In that sense, Batman's power is his fighting skill. The word power here has been used to describe an external ability, but in reality, a person's power is simply something they hold strength in. Tony may use a stronger power, and if it was to the point of Superman (where he could one hit kill everything, punt them into space, shoot laser beams, travel back inn time etc.), it would make him suck, yes. But the suits don't make him overpowered; even with a house party active he's not overwhelming the enemy. You wouldn't fault Batman for not being able to take on someone like Lobo or Doomsday. If you're argument is that Tony bases too much of his ability on his suits, you're forgetting that the suits are his power. This is about who is better, not who would win in a fight. When you get down to that level; it is a very subjective subject. If you want to go by who's more interesting as a character, then it's Batman's villains who make him interesting. In terms of powers, it's true that a character who is weaker is more interesting since they have to be much more cunning to win, but Tony still has that edge because outside of the suit he is weaker. Not to the point of having no power; he just has to make new equipment from whatever lies around. To be wholly honest, I'm not entirely sure how a debate can be based around a subjectivity. Which colour is better, Red or Blue? I get it if you think one has "ripped off" the other, but the characters have plenty of degrees of separation.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

Wrong. Batman makes his equipment in The Cave. Also, there mostly physcopaths.Batman's strength. His strength is from training since his youth. He went to China for extreme training of martial arts. Batman's known martial arts are currently debated in what they are. But one of them, known as, Kazy, it is a bentiful martial art, and a lethal one at that. However, Iron Man knows none. But some people say he can make a weapon out of anything, if that was the case for in combat, he would need time. So, what if you took away Batman's utilities? He could still fight crime, he knows many other fighting technicians. Like Kazy. Or other martial arts. I have Batman Arkham Origins and I only use Batman's utilities if I'm low on health, which only happens if there's a lot of goons or a hard boss. If we took away Iron Man;s suit, he could maybe punch, kick, or slap somebody. But that's not enough for a single man, not knowing any martial arts, against a lot of goons or a boss opponent.
Batman is Better than Iron Man

I don't quite see how discussing who needs more equipment determines the superior. After all, Tony designs and invents each suit himself, where Batman simply buys equipment. Tony doesn't even use the majority of the suits (since he can only wear one at a time) and they simply exist because it's in his nature to try and push his abilities in all directions. Rarely does he use more than one suit at a time, the others are spares or for certain situations, and they're left at home. It doesn't even matter that Batman has less gadgets when you consider he fights gangs primarily as opposed to Iron Man who faces cosmological threats.
Women should be ashamed of having sex.

Sex: A consensual action to sexually stimulate oneself and another, for the sake of orgasm/ pleasure and/ or sexual reproduction Pleasure: A feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment [1] Sex is not shameful Sex is not a taboo, it is not shameful; but rather extremely natural. The need for sex, especially sexual and minor pleasures, is infact in our Dna. The dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism, or DRD4 gene, is responsible for sensation-seeking, and novelty seeking, behaviour. When a person finds a new thing, that intrigues them in some way, the brain becomes active, and may even release dopamine (commonly known as the feel good neurohormone) to the discovery. When a woman finds that touching that certain place, or even the psychological need to reproduce, or the curiosity of having sex will intrigue the woman's mind. This of course, is just a very possible theory. When dopamine is released from the Hypothalamus, because of a certain event, like drug and alcohol usage, the person becomes happier. Generally if something makes you happy, you'll want a good amount of it in your life. If you get a regular amount of dopamine from sex, you'll want to keep getting that much dopamine from every act of it. The desire of sex is through novelty and pleasures of dopamine. Dopamine and the gene DR2D are responsible for this desire of sex; so in a form, it is genetic, therefore natural. We shouldn't shun women if they have sex, because it is natural and something that can't be controlled easily. [Resources] http://www.crystalinks.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Women should be ashamed of having sex.

Pro, DAXTUDE, has failed to bring an argument with evidence why women should be ashamed for having any form of intercourse. He used foul language, and made a pointless claim that does not support his actual claim. His language skills made an incoherent retort. "Bitc'hes will be bitc'hes imo. Sluuuuuts gib de stds dude. " This makes the claim that all women are 'whores' and 'b*itches'. This is not true, stereotyping a group of people doesn't make anything true. Although women, not all, can give men and other women Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Infections, it doesn't mean that it was on purpose or their own whereabouts. It is natural, because humans love novelty, and sex is one of the many novelties this world has has. It is in our genes, and sex should never be a taboo. People should not be ashamed that they have had sex, especially females. I have taken this debate seriously, gave actual evidence that women should not be ashamed to have sex, or be sexually open in any way. Pro has treated this as a joke, and failed in the debate.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.2 Let's actually debate this.

"First of all, this is not about any other team in the league, so the Jets, or whoever else has been accused of anything is not relevant to this topic." Incorrect this is about every team in the league. It would be unjust to point the finger at only one team, for violating a rule that many other teams have been accused of breaking. If the topic was "The Jets should have an asterisk next to their name" people would laugh because nobody would care about the Jets' legacy. Given that there has been speculation about other teams, you must examine each of those teams and place an asterisk next to all of their seasons in order to be fair. In the same way, you cannot put an asterisk next to Barry Bonds name without doing the same to dozens of other players at the same time. Baseball has taken the approach that they will frame the time-period and basically admit that steroids were a problem in the league. Until we know who is guilty and who is not, the most the league can do is to say that this was a problem in the league. The New England Patriots should not be treated differently and punished because they have an incredible team. "Second of all, although they have been under speculation who knows they just haven't found a better way to cheat?" Who knows that the Giants aren't all on steroids. Bottom line is, there is no evidence that the Pats have done anything wrong since week 2. "Also, the NFL commishioner's office burned the evidence from week 1... this to me is extremely suspicious, if there is nothing to hide.. why do that?" Bringing up this suspicion is once again speculative and is not a valid argument. "Third of all, going undefeated throughout an entire season (and possibly playoffs) is a major accomplishment and if there is any doubt then it cant be considered the same thing and there needs to be an asterisk or some kind of mention as to there cheating." I whole-heartedly disagree. You cannot place an asterisk on a team based on doubt. If that were the case then you would also have to agree that the Spurs should have an asterisk next to their championhsip season because one of the refs gambled on games that he officiated. There is certainly some doubt as to whether they would have won that series and therby the championship if there had been different refs on the floor. Unless you can justify the tons of other teams and players that have doubt swirling around their accomplishments, you can't justify an asterisk next to the patriots season. It would simply be nitpicking because they better than everybody else. The doubt that many in the public feel, just like the doubt about baseball players, is punishment in itself. A stigma will always be on their accomplishment.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.2 Let's actually debate this.

First of all, this is not about any other team in the league, so the Jets, or whoever else has been accused of anything is not relevant to this topic. Second of all, although they have been under speculation who knows they just haven't found a better way to cheat? Also, the NFL commishioner's office burned the evidence from week 1... this to me is extremely suspicious, if there is nothing to hide.. why do that? Third of all, going undefeated throughout an entire season (and possibly playoffs) is a major accomplishment and if there is any doubt then it cant be considered the same thing and there needs to be an asterisk or some kind of mention as to there cheating.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.2 Let's actually debate this.

While the valididty of past successes should be questioned that is not the topic of debate. We are discussing this season's outcome and was has taken place in 07-08. The patriots were outed on week 2 by a backstabbing former assistant of Bill Belichick's. Since then they have been under the microscope from every angle. We can confidently say that the outcome of the games this year have been legit. Furthermore there has been a lot of speculation that many other teams were using some of the same tactics, namely the Jets who ratted them out. Until an investigation of the entire league is conducted we can't start pointing fingers and getting mad at the patriots. They have gone out all year long and beaten teams with no advantages other than talent.