BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Captain America vs Iron man - Fight to the death.

How fast are his reaction speeds? Iron man has millisecond reaction speed as I showed above. Unless you can prove with either a scan or video that shows he has millisecond or faster reaction time, Iron man is faster end of story. Iron man's suit even knows ever single one of Cap's moves and can react to them faster than Cap can. http://static.comicvine.com... Also, just because Caps shield penetrated the winter soldiers armor, that doesn't mean it can penetrate Stark's. The 2 suits aren't anywhere close to being the same. I provided a scan that showed that a nanomist cannot get through. That means Iron man's suit can keep out things on the nano-meter level. That's one billionth of a meter. If his suit can tanks hits from Thor, Sentry and Hulk, Cap can not get through it. Period. If he as ever been able to, prove it or the claim is bunk. I've also mentioned his Strength. He can lift 100 tons compared to Caps 1200 lbs. He one shot Luke Cage and She-Hulk http://static.comicvine.com... So I'll break it down like this Durability- Iron man Strength- Iron Man Weaponry-Iron Man Speed-Iron man (He could speed blitz cap at Mach 8 and wouldn't be able to do a darn thing.) Hand/Hand combat- Iron Man. Winner-Iron man no contest. Unless you start showing some hard Evidence to counter these, Iron man wins no contest. I don't mean well he did this or he did that, scans or videos buddy. Otherwise I can say Iron Man is god and it counts because I said so.
Captain America vs Iron man - Fight to the death.

You're only focusing on one thing about iron man. His endurance. You haven't mentioned any other trait about him. Captain america's shield can easily take a hit from Iron Man. As shown here. http://imgur.com... Captain America, also has quick reactions and speed, shown in his fight against the winter soldier. He matched him move for move. Also, back to if his shield can penetrate Iron man's armour. During the fight vs the Winter Soldier, his shield penetrates his armour. It proved to be quite strong as it held against close explosions.
Captain America vs Iron man - Fight to the death.

Well, I'll go simple this round. Iron man almost kills Cap: http://i.imgur.com... Iron man's suit so tightly fit it can't be penetrated by a nanomist:http://i.imgur.com... Iron man one shot Luke Cage: http://i.imgur.com... Tanks multiple hits from the Sentry, who's strength is comparable to the likes of Thor, Hulk and Superman: http://i.imgur.com... http://i.imgur.com... http://i.imgur.com... Iron Man wins no contest.
Captain America vs Iron man - Fight to the death.

If Caps shield has ever been able to penetrate one of the many Iron man suits, show it. If you can't, I'm going to call BS. Now on to Stark. Captain America trained Tony stark to fight. He's also been taught by black widow, black panther and Shang-Chi. He has a number of suits that he can call in and swap out at any given time. He can lift up to 100 tons in the Hulk-Buster and has been able to tank blows from Mjolnir as well as having millisecond reaction time. https://arousinggrammardotcom.files.wordpress.com... http://static.comicvine.com...
Captain America vs Iron man - Fight to the death.

This is a debate to find out who would win in a death match. Captain America, vs Iron Man. Rules: No rude conduct. If you are accepting this debate, do not FF every round. Follow the structure. Structure: Round 1 - Acceptance/Opening Statement Round 2 - 4 Arguments/Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Statement. My opening statement: I believe that Captain america would win, due to his intelligence at finding a weakness in his enemy. and his military agility.
Pro should have won the following debate

First of all can you please get into specifics in this debate of the prophesies I do not want to have to keep flipping back and forth between the two page. You yourself said that the revelation at Sinai was accepted by all three major monotheistic religions. So how exactly does this strengthen your point and what con was trying to say(I think) was that just because something is passed on does not mean that it is true. Now I do not support this claim but your evidence is still not valid because stories are over exaggerated every time someone tells them so a 2000 year old story does not escape that. (Not part of Debate) I am just wondering why do you even bother to debate about religion it is called faith in my opinion there is no physical proof but there does not need to be.
Pro should have won the following debate

I apologize to anyone who does not like this debate, I will stop posting such debates. But since this one has already been accepted I will precede. I thank History buff for accepting this debate. Welcome to the site. I hope that we have an enlightening debate. I would like to open with my main argument which is based on pros last argument, mid/end of pros turn in R4. In this argument pro cited 3 prophesies that were fulfilled. Con instead of arguing that these were not fulfilment of the prophesy, dropped the argument. On the basis of this, I argue pro should have won the debate. The voters as well as con apparently did not read the entire argument and thus it was ignored. There by pro wrongfully losing. One voter even seems to have admitted that he didn't read the whole thing. Why he voted is beyond me. It is my purpose in this debate to show that pro should have won, and right that which is wrong. I now turn the debate over to my opponent.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Religion is very rarely the cause of conflict, more often it is used to justify war when in fact the true cause is something else entirely. Also, I never said we, but if I had it would most likely be referring to myself and the rest of the literate world. You are in no position to criticize my grammar, your argument is an affront to the English language. Based upon the fact that you have diverged from the original debate so much, I take it you have nothing constructive to add and have therefore already lost. Yours, Solomon
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

"Firstly, the main flaw in your argument is that one of these religions that you are criticizing may in fact be correct." Which one? The Fuzzy wuzzy nano technology bumble bee tuna furry tongue piranha gives b.j.'s hour? "Since such matters are beyond conceivable evidence," You don't have ANY evidence for ANY religion. "we" whoa there barf bag toy boy, who is this "we"? Um no. Its just you all tangled up in your twine of little box that you left behind for your kitty to snivel up. "Secondly, religions have also united the world far more than divided it;" Oh really? Strange isn't it that religion is the #1 cause of war, hate, death, greed, violence, hate, bloodshed - just about every bad term you can think of religion is right at the top. "More people have dined in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin. And he's 100% correct. Religion goes to war in the name of religion all the time. You cannot find one, not one major war where atheism has fought over atheism. "Lastly, if you are in fact correct, how do you propose that religion be abolished." That's a very good, well you didn't put a question mark beside it, but who knows? One thing that is for sure is that unless religion ---all of it--- is abolished, there can be no worldwide peace. "and religious groups all over the world would unite against you." actually against each other just as they have in the past, just as they are doing so now. "To eliminate religion you would have to commit monstrosities..." religion is a monstrosity. I've read enough. You clearly know nothing about religion.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Firstly, the main flaw in your argument is that one of these religions that you are criticizing may in fact be correct. Since such matters are beyond conceivable evidence, we cannot rule it out, especially in a philosophical argument. Secondly, religions have also united the world far more than divided it; the Holy Roman Empire for example, brought together many minor nation's with a wide variety of cultures which would have led to conflict in all likelihood, if it were not for sharing a religious bond. Lastly, if you are in fact correct, how do you propose that religion be abolished. It is impossible to monitor belief, and religious groups all over the world would unite against you. To eliminate religion you would have to commit monstrosities that would make the Spanish Inquisition or Islamic State seem like playground bullies. In doing this you would also cause the rise of many zealous and fanatical demagogues, going off on crusades or jihads against "non-believers". I hope that you now see the error of your ways and keep a more open mind in the future. Yours, Solomon
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I'm having difficulty with my response as I don't have a clue what you tried to say. I used your own argument of hate against you, then you criticized it? I don't know what you mean by moving past my own eyes, and you have revealed that you hate all Christians. This was a debate about whether or not religion was damaging to humanity, but you've spent the whole thing slagging off Christians. Yours, Solomon
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

That is how the bible is made you squeezable pent up pillow fluffy tinker toy. Oh wowzers, telling me I have pent up hate, the only out you christians have, thus proving your god, and you have nothing else to offer unto this world. Great going! Keep up the good work. Maybe some day you will move past your shadowy eyes.
wjmelements has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.

"In both of these debates, my opponent claimed that he would not break a rule. In both of these cases, he finally did break a rule. He told me so himself, in person, that he did in fact break a rule. Thus, he was, at one point, wrong, so he is not always right. " I never said that I could predict the future. I clearly just guessed wrong, and I did not have a difficult time tolerating that I guessed wrong and, in fact, could guess wrong. In those instances of the rule debates, I did not have a difficult time tolerating anyone's opinion. My participating in debates does not mean that I have trouble tolerating other people's opinion. My losing debates does not show that either. Argumentation in itself does not mean that an opinion is not tolerated. In debate, it is acknowledged that someone else has another opinion and the very concept of debate obligates me to disagree with an opposing opinion. Therefore, in all cases of debate, it is not that I do not tolerate an opposing opinion but that I am obligated to defeat it. So, the resolution can only be proven using examples from non-debate, and the only such example given is that one where I said, "No it doesn't. " My opponent claims without proof that my saying that was impulsive without proof. My opponent has burden of proof as he is both the instigator and PRO. He did not meet this burden; therefore, my saying that was not impulsive. Further, I claim that I had though about it and had chose to disagree with him. Therefore, we can easily conclude that the resolution has been effectively negated.
wjmelements has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.

Thank you for responding so quickly. "The first claim of my opponent has against me, it is mostly of the first incidence. I am always right. And I would like my opponent to provide an instance that I have been objectively wrong. In other cases, the differences are subjective and I just choose not to tolerate someone's opinion." http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... In both of these debates, my opponent claimed that he would not break a rule. In both of these cases, he finally did break a rule. He told me so himself, in person, that he did in fact break a rule. Thus, he was, at one point, wrong, so he is not always right. The fact that he thinks that he is always right in itself proves that he has a difficult time accepting and tolerating the opinions of others. Another debate in which he was wrong: http://www.debate.org... And some more random examples, scattered here: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... "My opponent's specific claim, the second one, sources a time when I chose to not tolerate someone else's opinion. It was not because I impulsively had to crush his opinion with the phrase, 'No it doesn't...', but because I wanted to." It is simple; my opponent has such a difficult time tolerating snelld7's opinions that he does in fact have an impulse to point out that he is wrong. When wjmelements first saw the comment that said that the phrase, "True or ralse," sounded funny, he automatically and instinctly told himself, "That's a terrible idea!" He then allowed this impulse to convince him to post his disagreement. Even if he does not know it, he has an impulse to challenge any opinion that is not his. After all, he is a part of debate.org, and this website is full of people not tolerating the opinions of another. Thus, my opponent does have a difficult time tolerating the opinions of others. Thank you for this debate. And even now, my opponent is having a difficult time tolerating my opinion that he has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.
wjmelements has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.

There are two types of statements: objective and subjective. Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought . http://dictionary.reference.com... Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased . http://dictionary.reference.com... There are two different ways in which this resolution is negated. -First, I may prove that an opinion that I have "a difficult time tolerating" is just simply wrong. If it is objectively false, then it is not an opinion. -Second, I may prove that I do NOT have a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions, I just choose not to sometimes. The phrase "difficult time" implies that my not tolerating opinions is involuntary. However, it is often voluntary. The first claim of my opponent has against me, it is mostly of the first incidence. I am always right. And I would like my opponent to provide an instance that I have been objectively wrong. In other cases, the differences are subjective and I just choose not to tolerate someone's opinion. My opponent's specific claim, the second one, sources a time when I chose to not tolerate someone else's opinion. It was not because I impulsively had to crush his opinion with the phrase, "No it doesn't. .. ", but because I wanted to.
wjmelements has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.

From my opponent's profile: "If you disagree with your mom, you're dumb. If you disagree with me, you're wrong. I hate Keynesian economics and government intervention in the economy period. It disgusts me. " My opponent clearly has a difficult time tolerating the opinions of other people, as he thinks that everything that he thinks is true. Additionally, from here: . http://www.debate.org... "No it doesn't. .. ." My opponent is trying to squash the opinion of another, because he refuses to tolerate it.
"Traditions prevent progress"

"but my frend ur not argument does not support da topic u can see everywhere around us that tradition are aur way to progress which is having a diastarous affect on our socirty." I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. But I believe I can make it out if I really try. If I have deciphered your response correctly, you mean to say that tradition is disastrous to our society, and that it is clearly visible, and hence, my argument is incorrect? I find this to be a valid view, but one you need to back up. The winner of a debate is not chosen based on how many times you repeat your point, or how loudly you make your point, or how broken your English happens to be. The winner of a debate is the one who makes the best argument. Simply saying that you are correct does not win you a debate. Besides, you argue that it can be seen everywhere. I guess that's wrong because when I look around me, I don't see culture destroying society. I live in New York City, where people in all neighborhoods cling to the culture of wherever country they came from. I myself am a Chinese-American teenager attending university. I retain a lot of my Chinese culture, much more so than my other American born Chinese counterparts, and it's making my life better, not worse. You haven't provided any reason as to why you believe culture is detrimental to society, so let me end this debate by explaining how good culture is. Hanging on to your culture allows you to express some form of individuality among your peers. It keeps you in a different mode of thought and allows fro growth as a person. Media images on TV, the internet, and in music poison our thoughts and force us to think collectively as a unit. Since many of us who have cultural heritage outside America are eager to fit in, we sap up the images fed by the media and are brainwashed into drones. Fashion, popular music, trends, we loves all of that for no other reason than the fact that everyone else does. If we retain our culture, we can learn how to see both sides of the coin. And when there is conflict, we can recognize and choose what we believe to be best for us. If we eliminate culture, we would still have culture: The culture of everyone around us. This would destroy individuality and freedom, which is what America stands for, right?
"Traditions prevent progress"

The argument is that tradition prevent progress, and progress is usually seen to be a positive thing. However, this is simply not the case. What one country views to be progress can be chaos and rebellion to another country. Whether change is good or bad is completely subjective. In this day and age, globalization threatens individuality and culture. Being bombarded with social messages from all directions only serves to create a homogeneous population. Instead of having a chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla sundae of cultural diversity, you have a light brown glop. This is most visible in America, where immigrant families who raise their children here are suddenly becoming distant and out of place in their children's lives, as they absorb more and more of the generic American culture. They lose a part of their identity when they are isolated from their traditional heritage. While many traditional thoughts and practices may seem like they impede progress, this is not to say that we should do away with them. Preserving culture is a value that is at least equal to social progress.
"Traditions prevent progress"

I think that traditions do prevent progess.The best example of this can be seen rulal areas where knowledge is just passed over from one generation to another and children are not allowed to study more they are just used as a labour.Another example is of early marriage of girls who are married at an age of 10 or 11 which ruin their lives.in the end i would like to conclude that these tradions r blocking our way to new things.THank u.
RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

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
RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

Preamble: So-called "randomness" is a myth -- it has never happened in the past, it is not happening now, and it shall never happen in the future -- it is an existential impossibility. Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00: Formal Argument: P1: Absent a concrete and confirmed demonstration of true randomness in reality, randomness cannot be established to exist in reality. P2: True randomness has never enjoyed any concrete and confirmed demonstration in reality. Conclusion: Therefore randomness cannot be established to exist in reality. QED