BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GuyFawkes69 is 5 years old.

1. Pro is wrong here, much like a child would be. The only person who'd post polls like "could I be a dog" are obviously the move of a philosopher who is at least 20 years old. You see, if you look at it philosophically, we're all dogs in one way or another; some of us bury bones in the garden, some of us wear a collar, and some of us get dog hair all over the sofa. The previous sentence is the sort of rubbish that would come out of their mouth. Also, the fact that pro is conscious of his evil errors means that really he knows better. A normal 5-year old would just be 110% sure that he's right, because that's what these know-it-all 5-year olds are like.2. 5-year olds don't watch videos on youtube, they watch DVDs, such as the DVD in one simpsons episode that just has a load of floating shapes in it (Season 24, Episode 13: Hardly Kirk-ing). 5-year olds just recognize pewdiepie as one of them, a normal guy in their eyes; incoherent, babbling nonsensically about who-knows-what and playing games, so no 5-year old would watch pewdiepie as it would be pointless. It would just be watching their life, which isn't as fun as experiencing their life normally and fully.3. See, this is proof. This supposed 5-year old hasn't renderred his computer entirely unfunctioning. By now, a 5-year old would've poured 5 tons of apple juice into the hard drive and pro wouldn't have been able to write his argument.4. A 5-year old's favourite colours are the bright colours featured in the rainbow, everyone knows that! The tone of orange used on this site doesn't actually appear in the rainbow. Plus, there's no cartoon character so a 5-year old would have a -5000% chance of signing up to this non-cartoon non-appealing to toddlers site. This argument stands.5. Superheroes are for 3-year olds and 20+ nerds. Also, a 5-year old would spell it like "hooo wood winn a fite betweeeeeeeen soprman and battybooman", not the way pro spelled it. So you see, pro is much older than 5. Thank you. SourcesThe truth
GuyFawkes69 is 5 years old.

I am pro for me being 5. 1. I spam the poll section with terrible grammar errors and polls like "could I be a dog". Only a 5 year old is stupid enough to think he is a dog. I also watch family guy and my name has "69" at the end of it. 2. I have a youtube account. Many 5-15 year olds have youtube accounts and watch pewdiepie(look him up). This website has the colour orange all over it which is my favourite colour. I did forget a few times but I managed to make an account. 3. MY COMPUTER KEYS ARE BROKE. IT'S MY CAPLOCKS BUTTON AND ALSO THIS IS MY DADS COMPUTER NOT MINE. 4. once again my favourite colours are orange and black. This website also has the poll section which is covered in pictures and words that I can read. 5. I stopped that when I was 4 and my finger movements are cool. I went into the poll section and it said " who would win in a fight batman or superman". They are both comic book characters and they both pander to my age group.
GuyFawkes69 is 5 years old.

I am con. The font size of my arguments will be very big in this debate so this supposed 5-year old can read them. My arguments will also be in the font Comic sans MS because children love it nearly as much as colours and cartoon characters.First of all, I'd like to welcome Guy to this site.On GuyFawkes69's profile comments, he makes the claim that he's 5 years old (1). I know this to be false for the following reasons:1. His name is "GuyFawkes69". If he were 5 years old now, his user name would be one of these:IwillBuyAnythingSoLongAsItHasACartoonCharacterOnItTweeniesLover123IWANTITConstant_Cryer123Me=5Toddler123WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAToyssquirrels=lovlysweetsNothingWorthSayingIncompetentLittleAnnoyancecoolawesomedude2. Somebody who is 5 years old would never have been able to log in. They probably would've just stared at a pretty colourful shape waiting for the internet to happen for 5 hours and by then, he or she would've forgotten completely about the whole thing.3. A 5-year old would've dribbled the computer to death by now, meaning he wouldn't still have this account if he were 5.4. Debate.org is not a very colourful site, nor is the homepage covered by an easily-recognizable cartoon character, so it has no appeal to someone of 5 years of age.5. A 5-year old would still be amazed by the fact that his hand can move, so he would definitely be too distracted by the movement of his fingers to do anything else (other than cry or beg mummy and daddy to buy the thing with the cartoon character on it).Thank you. Sources(1) http://www.debate.org...
There is no God

I shall give my own definition of God. God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism(from wikipedia. org/wiki/God) God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere),omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), apersonal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and MuslimRemember. This debate is the God of the Bible and is referring to the Christian God. (also from wikipedia)Argument 1: Refuting the nature of GodGod is all-powerful, all-knowing, and is all-good. Let me break down this nature of God that is shown in almost all religions.1. If God knows all things, he knows the future;2. If God knows the future, he is powerless to change it;3. God is powerless to change the future, therefore, he is not all-knowingLet me break is down. If God knows the future, he can't change it. If you know that tomorrow a killer is going to go in the scools and shoot everyone, can you really stop it? Not really. 1. If God does not know the future, he does not know all things;2. Therefore, he is NOT all-knowing. Self-explanitory. God is also just according to the Bible. Let me break this down. Why does God need a sacrifice to forgive sins? Well, God is just and cannot let sin go unpunnished. Fair enough. But, let's say that there is a murderer-rapist before a judge who has confessed his crime and admitted his guilt. He is guilty and worthy of the punnishment. The judge sentences him and he pays for the crime. Is this just? Yes. Scenario 2: The judge says he is not guilty even though he admitted gult. Is that just? No. Scenario 3: The judge says "I'll give you a second chance, I'll let my only son pay for the crime. " (The son is willing and obedient. ) Is this just? No. The murderer-rapist has to pay for his own crime. What does that have to do with this argument? Well, if God is just, we have to pay for our sins. There can't be any attonment made for our sins. Therefore, God is not just. That breaks down his nature. Argument 2: Perfecton's imperfect revelationGod, by characteristic given by the theologians, God is perfect and cannot make any mistakes. Why then are there contradictions in every holy book (yes, including the Bible)? Therefore, the God of mainstream religion is not perfect. Then what makes him different from man? Final questions1. Is God eternal (The answer becomes important later)2. Where did God come from (again the answer becomes important later)Good luck to my opponent. That's all for this round.
There is no God

I accept my opponent's challenge and eagerly await his opening argument. Before I turn it over to my opponent for his opening argument, let me first define what I am arguing for.By "God," I am referring to a being which has the greatest array of compossible great-making properties. In other words, I am arguing for the existence of a maximally great being. Such a being is traditionally thought to have properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and incorporeality. Thus, I will not be arguing for the truth of any particular religion, only a generic conception of deity.I now turn it over to my opponent. Good luck!
God is real

Your argument is just based off a Uniformitarian belief system. Your assume that the world was exactly the same before and after the flood, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. You argument is a straw man fallacy. About prayers, your argument just shows that you don't know much about what prayer is. Prayer isn't "pray and God gives you everything you want". How we see prayers being answered is what we would expect from a Biblical viewpoint. You may disagree, so I suggest that you read about what the Bible says on prayer. My point that I stated earlier, that morality presupposes God, is a argument that I personally like. Try reading through it again. If some part of it is confusing, just ask for clarification on a certain point! My argument is that absolute morality presupposes an absolute personality (God). And that Logic presupposes absolute morality, because without absolute morality, there is no reason to be logical.
God is real

First I would like to point out that my argument does not, in any way, prove God's existence. I do not know how you get that from a paragraph talking about how God's existence is physically impossible, but whatever floats your boat. Speaking of floating boats, I will talk about Noah's Arc.In the story of Noah's Arc, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits". which means Mount Everest would have been covered in water. This would have left behind much evidence, geographical, and genetical, because all animals except for 2 of each type died. There is no genetical evidence of this ever happening.Also, God supposedly "answers prayers". However, most prayers are left unanswered. Those that are are just coincidence.This is a quick, proving answer to whether God exists or not. The answer: no.
God is real

Here is my proof that God is not real. First off, think of world disasters. If God is supposedly the overseer of the world, who is in charge of what happens and helps to stop it, then why are there tornadoes? How about war? If God could stop those things, he would. Also, they say that God loves all. Then why does he allow people to die in prisons when they did nothing wrong? Why would he let innocent people get kidnapped, raped, or even murdered? Another proof is simply the impossibility of the whole idea. It is physically impossible to supposedly "rise from the grave". When one is dead, they are dead. Also, science has proved evolution. Humans were not "created", but instead they were evolved from other primates, like monkeys. This is my part one of my argument. Your turn.
God is real

I take the position that God is real, or in other words, that he exists. Just to help clear things up, I am defending the Christian God (as understood from the Bible, in a natural reading style, which I have found is best defined in the protestant denomination). He is... Omnipotent-All powerful, able to do all that is doable Good- God is Good, and the basis of Goodness. Evil is not an entity that God created, but is the absence of the purpose and goodness that should be. Just as dark is the absence of light, is a way, evil is the absence of good. I suggest researching this for a better understanding All truth is in God- The law of non-contradiction is based in God's character. Paradoxes do not exist because all truth is in God, and it is God's nature to be non-contradictory. Logic is not a boundary, nor a limitation of God. Logic is a description of God's character, and as God made everything, all truth is in God Morality- God created all things, so we have an obligation to him as our creator. Morality is objective. This is my opinion. I hope this clears up some confusion so that you argue against me correctly. I find it important to define what I am defending, and this is what I am defending. I'm curious to see your reasoning!
hulk is better than the silver surfer/others with the power cosmic

Rebuttal: First of all I would like to state that by he I meant the hulk in his world breaker personality and implied that the hulk was weaker than the silver surfer and others with the power cosmic when he is on earth in any other comic that planet hulk, world war hulk, and world war hulk x-men. Second of all I would like to state that were my information was from was world war hulk - the complete story by comicstration a person who makes his living by anylizing these comics. Which would get a much more in depth knowledge about the comic that a casual reader like yourself. So your point about the hulk being in control entirely for the duration of the entire trilogy is completely nullified. Point: Now it is time to state my point, my point is the limitless power of the power cosmic. Now if you were to recerch the properties of infinity like I have you would know that no matter how little of a percent of infinity you were to take for yourself you would also have infinite power yourself so I will simplify it for you half of infinity is infinity so a quarter of infinity is infinity so on and so forth. So that if the power cosmic is truly limitless like so many comics state. The silver surfer would have infinite power himself and the same is true for all others with the power cosmic. Resolution: Because of the properties of infinity anyone with the power cosmic would have unlimited power and therefore would have at his fingertips what the hulk would take hours to get even half as powerful. But whait climbing at even a extremely fast rate getting to infinity would take literally forever. And that darth is why the silver surfer is (literally infinity) better.
hulk is better than the silver surfer/others with the power cosmic

Firstly I would like to clarify the definition of "better" for it can mean many different things, for example better could mean: stronger, more powerful (which comes with its own host of problems), or has won more battles. In this debate I would like to define better as the more achievements like battles or feats of strength, intelligence, or speed. Now since that has been clarified I will state my first point. my first point is bruce banner, sure he is smart I guess but he is a half of the hulk that can't be taken away he is weak and useless and is always trying to keep the powerful hulk at bay. here is an example the planet hulk/the world war hulk's in those bruce and the hulk agreed to work together but why has this never been used anywhere else? survival without working together they could have died proving that on earth were they do not do that the hulk is weaker than when he was on Sakaar even when he was king of the planet and happy with his wife and child on the way he is still stronger than the hulk could be. So the silver surfer might not beat the planet hulk version but hulk at any other time in marvel the hulk would easily loose to the power cosmic. (I am sorry for the short paragraph it is late and I forgot about it and I had fifteen minutes to finish this)
hulk is better than the silver surfer/others with the power cosmic

Opening: Salutations honerable opponents, debate.org and all voters whom might read this post Rebuttle: Firstly I would like to talk about my opponents neglegence about the hulk supposedly unlimited strength. But even if the hulk was in a state that his strength was doubling every plunk time (the amount of time it takes for light to pass the plunk distance, basically the shortest measurement of time ever conceived) it would still take an infinity long time to scratch the surface of the strength the silver surfer can have at an instant all he would have to do is focus the power cosmic into his strength which would be as fast as a thought. Point: My point is that the no matter how angry the hulk can get his strength will still be finite it is physically impossible for the hulks strength to ever be on par with the silver surfer. It's like a snale and a cheetah having a race to infinite Strength no matter how angry the snail gets it will never make it in time. Therfor no madder how angry the hulk is or how fast his strength grows it will never crack the infinite strength, speed, intelligence, or general power of the silver surfer. Because of this fact the silver surfer will be stronger that the hulk can ever be or not ever will or can be. Now to cover the others with the power cosmic, based on the things I have stated about the original herald of galactus the silver surfer so anyone that were to have the power cosmic they would have the same infinite strength at the same infinitesimally small period of time that the silver surfer would have his strength in. Resolution: I suck at long bits of writing (whoops wrong resolution) The silver surfer has his unimaginable strength at his fingertips but the hulk is the equivalent of a snail with light years to go, a snail that is constantly being brought back by an ant fighting to get control, a snail that would be squashed by the silver surfer.
Humans are both physically and mentally superior to most animals.

Okay, I have to agree with you there, asking a fish to climb a tree and measuring its abilities by that isn't the best form of measurement. However, I still do stand by the idea that human beings evolved so quickly because we know how to learn and be curious. At this point, I believe we are getting to the end of our debate, if there is anything you wish to add, just enter it, but other than that, I think we have given all of our argument. If you want to keep debating and you have another argument, I will respond. However, if neither of us have any more arguments, then we should just add a word or two to each round, and leave this up to the voters.
Humans are both physically and mentally superior to most animals.

What is the smartest species in the world? You might think it's humans by a long shot, but the reality is a lot more complicated. Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University, has a new book out called "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?" and in it he gives hundreds of examples of surprising intelligence from non-human species, including many instances where other animals appear to be smarter than we are. Chimpanzees, for instance, can easily beat humans at recalling a set of numbers that was displayed for a fraction of a second. Octopuses can learn to open pill bottles protected by childproof caps, which many humans can't figure out on their own. Dogs and horses, among many species that spend time around humans, are able to recognize body language cues that are lost on us. Many species can do stuff we can't even imagine: bats that map out space with echolocation; birds that figure out the complex mechanics of flight and landing; and ticks that identify passing mammals by the smell of butyric acid. In fact, every species' operating system is finely tuned to do what it needs to do, which makes intelligence comparisons across species rather pointless. "It seems highly unfair to ask if a squirrel can count to ten if counting is not really what a squirrel's life is about," de Waal writes. "The squirrel is very good at retrieving nuts, though, and some birds are absolute experts .... That we can't compete with squirrels and nutcrackers on this task " I even forget where I parked my car " is irrelevant, since our species does not need this kind of memory for survival the way forest animals braving a freezing winter do."
Humans are both physically and mentally superior to most animals.

Yes, I will give you the fact that some animals have superior brains, but is the size or function of your brain that really makes you intelligent? First, we need to understand what intelligence really means. Intelligence, from a survival standpoint, is the ability to comprehend, understand, and adapt to patterns. Using this as the definition for survival intelligence, I use the analogy of two students in the same grade trying to get into a school with a really low acceptance rate. Both students are placed up against a very long and very hard test, that involves needing a real understanding of the material. The first student, or another animal species, is naturally a little better at capturing certain types of patterns, and is able to understand how to do it better. They study a bit at home, until they understand how to do the material pretty well. They get a 95% on the test because some of the questions need a much more complex understanding of the material than the first student had. The second student, or the human race, is average, and has to take a long time to study. However, the second students gets curious. They search online to try and find out why something works, on top of their knowledge of how it works. They get an 100% because they are able to think a lot deeper than the first student, and can understand the more abstract and difficult questions on the test. The main reason that humans are so far ahead is because of our inherent curiosity. Koalas, domesticated pets, gibbons, they all have unique traits that are incredible, but they work only because they understand simple patterns. They are the first student, they understand how, but not why. In a way, it is kind of like watching a little brother grow up. We're an older sibling, we're ahead, but the other species' are getting there faster than we think. We're watching evolution similar to what happened to us, happen to them.It's incredible. However, just because they are growing and learning doesn't mean they will be at our level any time soon.
Humans are both physically and mentally superior to most animals.

Humans have long believed that they are smarter than other animals, but an increasing body of scientific evidence suggests that, as a species, we are just being arrogant. Evolutionary biologists claim that in some cases animals have superior brains to us and that many of their abilities are merely misunderstood by humans. They believe that creatures ranging from crows to koalas reveal this intelligence is widespread in the animal kingdom.For example, the gibbon's ability to make varied sounds with different meanings, the koala's sophisticated method of marking its environment and domestic pets" abilities to control humans are cited as evidence for this intelligence. "For millennia, all kinds of authorities from religion to scholars have been repeating the same idea ad nauseam, that humans are exceptional by virtue that they are the smartest in the animal kingdom," said Dr Arthur Saniotis, Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide"s School of Medical Sciences. "However, science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings," he said. The belief that humans have superior intelligence harks back to the Agricultural Revolution some 10,000 years ago when people began producing cereals and domesticating animals.