BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

Although I am a huge Batman fan, Batman is hopelessly outmatched when compared to the omnipotent and omniscient God of the universe, even when that God kenotically limits himself as we see in the Gospels. There are two primary abilities that Jesus demonstrates that would allow him to handily defeat Batman. First, Jesus is commonly seen to supernaturally know things before they happen, as well as being able to know the thoughts and secrets of an individual. In Luke 5:22 Jesus is said to have known what people were thinking and asks questions based on this. This is only one of many references that demonstrate this ability. In John 4:18 Jesus is said to have known that the woman he was speaking with had previously had 5 husbands and was currently living with a man who was not her husband. In John 1:49 Jesus supernaturally percieves the location and activity of Nathaniel despite being located in a different place. These three things combined means that Jesus not only knows exactly where Batman is, but who Batman is, and what Batman's plans are. Batman's primary strength is his ability to execute complex plans that take his opponents off guard. This would be impossible in a fight with Jesus. Finally, Jesus demonstrates the ability to kill with only a word. In Matthew 21:18-19 Jesus simply tells a Fig Tree that it is cursed "And the fig tree withered at once. "Simply put, Jesus knows where Batman is, what his plan is, and could simply command Batman to die and he would. Batman cannot surprise Jesus, nor can he resist Jesus command. I think Batman is awesome, but as we will see over the course of this debate. .. he is no match for Jesus.
Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

The debate is that Batman (The superhero) would beat God (The all powerful being) in human form more often in a fight on any terrain. There are a few parameters that I shall set for the fight1) Batman has full access to all of his gear and any vehicles he owns2) I will not argue about the existence of God, It is agreed on that he does exist 3) The debate is about who would win more fights on average, please do not cling to one scenario, there will be multiple scenarios presented in the debateAnd more importantly4) Any power that is given to God in human form must be referenced to scriptures in the Bible to show that God possesses that power, you cant just make sh*t up and give it to God and use the argument "Well of course he has that power, he's God!"5) The Con MUST use the first round to cite verses from the Bible to show all the powers God in human form has. 6) The Con may ONLY introduce the powers that God has in the first round. You cant add sh*t later in the debate. let the debate begin :D
Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

I could respond to Pro's points one at a time, but that would be overkill and quite boring. Here is the simple truth. My opponent seems to want to have things both ways. He can argue about why Jesus WOULD not simply command Batman to die, but I cannot argue about why Batman WOULD not attack Jesus. Inconsistent. My opponent argues that Jesus would not break a law when he says he would not command a person to die, but at the same time argues that he did break a law in commanding the tree to die. Inconsistent. These are the only two possible scenarios: Either Jesus would never break a law, and thus Batman has no reason to attack him... or Jesus did break a law and Batman would attack him. If he did not break a law, Batman would not attack him. My opponent argues that perhaps Batman attacks because of mistaken identity. Really?!? The greatest detective in the world, holding multiple degrees in criminal science and law? He wouldn't do his research and ensure that when he "beat God/Jesus into submission" that he didn't have the wrong person. This is a ridiculous argument. Does my opponent really want you to ignore that Batman is not stupid? If Jesus did break a law, then we have no reason to believe that he would follow the other laws. If it is a sin to kill a tree, why is it more of a sin to kill a person? If he respects the second, why would we believe that he does not respect the first? Furthermore, since it is out of bounds to talk about what a person WOULD do (since my opponent considers this to be a semantic argument), then we are only considering the abilities of Jesus. It is clear that Jesus has the ability to command a living being to cease living, so all he must do to win the fight is command Batman to cease living. His moral preclivities against such an action has been determined irrelevant by my opponent. To summarize: It would be impossible for Batman to WIN in a fight. It is outside of his moral scope to attack an innocent man, and if Jesus were not innocent such that it was okay for Batman to attack Jesus would not be concerned with the moral implications of commanding Batman to die (I am not saying Jesus would do that, but in this contrived scenario in which Jesus is not a respecter of the law this would not be an issue). So the fight either results in a draw or a win for Jesus. Neither of these is a win for Batman, therefore my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show the resolution true. Thank you.
Rap Battle Cheesedingo1 V.S. Tulle

Ok, so Tulle was going to accept the previous debate, but someone else took it and then forfeited everything. I MUST RAP. TULLE, FEED MY THIRST.RULES:1. You must rap a song or part of a song that has already been made. Just use the instumental for the song and rap the part that the artist would.2. If the song has singing, singing is not required, but you can if you want. You will not be docked off points for singing (even if your not good).3. When you record your song, it does not have to show your face. It can just be audio, but please provide the video or link in your argument.4. In the area where you usually post your argument, post the video or audio and the name of the song or verse you are rapping.Rounds: 1. Acceptance (no rapping).2. This round you only rap one verse from a song. For example, the Big Sean verse from "Mercy". This means NOT THE ENTIRE SONG. Just one verse.3. Rap at least two minutes of a song. It doesn't have to be an entire song, but it can be. 4. Rap an entire song. THE ENTIRE SONG. The song must be AT LEAST 2:00 long. If there is more than one verse, you must rap all verses.That is all I can think of. LET'S GO!
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

Again, PRO has left me very little to work with in terms of relevant arguments that would attempt to affirm the resolution. I'll deal with him more or less line-by-line, to try to ensure that he understands his error before the close of the debate. PRO: Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss! CON: No it doesn't, because his 'factual' statement has nothing to do with the Trinitarian premises. Assuming the veracity of this statement, which is in itself a dubious venture, the only conclusion that could possibly be drawn is that which is explicitly stated, i.e. 'he was never a real man'. However, that doesn't even begin to touch upon anything Trinitarian. PRO: IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god. CON: Who, besides PRO, has said anything about Story book jebus being 100% a man? It doesn't appear anywhere in the definition I provided in Round 1. In fact, nothing even vaguely similar to that expression appears anywhere in the entire article whence I obtained that definition. PRO is strawmanning Trinitarianism at worst, or using a nonstandard definition of his own devising without informing anyone at best. PRO: Con has failed to provide any legitimate evidence that he doesn't believe those facts! CON: My belief or disbelief of anything is irrelevant. PRO: Conversely Con freely admits that the trinity formulation is founded upon the belief that a literal supernatural being pre-existed elsewhere, then came down to earth in the form of a 100% man & 100% Supernatural god in one human form. CON: No, I do not freely admit that. Look at the definition of the Trinity I provided if you don't believe me, and you'll find that it nowhere says anything of the sort. PRO: Con keeps demanding my evidence fatal to his cause and Con is apparently also oblivious to the other facts apart from my two analogies already a given, other facts fatal to Cons cause that Con has actually provided for me;' CON: Even if these other facts are indeed fatal to my cause, they still fail to affirm the resolution. -----Skip PROs pointless quoting of my source----- PRO: Con claims (I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . . CON: It never says that he came upon earth as a 100% man 100% god, does it? It never says that he came upon the earth as a real man, does it? Of course it doesn't, and that should be obvious to anyone. -----Skip PRO repeating himself several times----- Conclusion PRO hasn't really addressed my arguments, nor has he affirmed the resolution.
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

There's not really much left that I can say, as PRO hasn't even tried to affirm the resolution yet. Putting aside the endless red herrings PRO supplied like an expert fisherman, let us deal with the first analogy. Let us assume that I believe the heretic's comments, as PRO clearly knows what I believe better than I do. Let us assume that the heretic's remarks are completely accurate. Even making these rather gracious assumptions, PRO has not shown how that decimates a Trinitarian ideology in any way, so the resolution is plainly not affirmed on this end. For the second analogy, let us assume that it too is completely sound. Let us assume it is without error. With these equally gracious assumptions, PRO still fails to affirm the resolution, as he has not described how this could possibly decimates a Trinitarian ideology either. In fact, this analogy even contradicts his first analogy, because if a story book character is only pretending to be a human (dressed up as Father Xmas), than that story book character is clearly not 100% human, so PROs argument isn't even internally consistent. If PRO believes he has shown how these analogies decimate a Trinitarian ideology, he is welcome to point out where and how they do so. Conclusion Since PRO hasn't come close to affirming the resolution yet, I see no point in making further arguments at this time.
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

By providing absolutely NO relevent evidence to the contrary, Con has proven by his own lack of evidence that Con has only ' illegitimately denied ' he doesn't believe the following - "Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas." What Con has failed to do, is actually legitimately sustain by legitimate evidence to the contrary; that he does not believe the Bishop's comments, which so far he obviously does believe, simply because Con has presented absolutely nothing but his ' empty say so ' that he doesn't! The trinitarian catholic ideology catholics admit, is the indirect & non-immediate but convoluted words of men and even admitted by the catholics themselves in their following admission - The Trinity "is not directly and immediately the Word of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 304). So they freely yet fatally admit the trinity IS NOT based upon " the Word of God ", but rather by their own admission - by another ' indirect means ', i.e. not of their catholic god; leaving the only alternatives that it is the corrupt words of men, that we know led to the Johnny Come Lately corrupted and contrived trinitarian belief/concept, that a literal Supernatural pre-existent god-person became a god dressed as a man-person, the man part apparently died, then it returned to being a god-person, LOL! Which is precisely what the Bishop's remarks attests and Con can not and has not legitimately shown with evidence that he doesn't believe it, because he does believe the Bishop's comments by Con's total lack of evidence to the contrary and thus actually believe the Bishop's comments in its entirety, i.e. that most claiming to be a trinitarian xtian, believe a literal pre-existent god-person became a fully man and a fully god in one on earth, then some time later the man part died and returned to being a Supernatural godperson? LOL! Hence my second analogy also fatal to Cons trinitarian cause steps in to again defeat Cons trinitarian ideology - i.e. IF some one claims to be 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god! 100% human means EXACTLY that. Fully, totally completely 100% human, means just that. Nothing more, and nothing less! 100% Pure Orange juice is nothing but pure Orange juice. The very definition of 100% fully human, excludes a god! If there were something, or anything about ANY biblical Story book character that was non-human, it would immediately disqualify it as being 100% human!
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

IntroductionI take PROs lack of commentary on the outlined definitions, resolution, and distribution of burdens as tacit acceptance.ArgumentsPRO accuses me of attempting to deflect my 'inherent failure to legitimately refute his following beliefs', however my beliefs are germane to neither the topic nor the resolution. Despite this, I will vehemently deny that I accede to the teachings of the heretic Robinson, and deny that his 'Father Xmas' analogy is an accurate depiction of the doctrine of the Incarnation.As I remarked in Round 1, and PRO has yet to comment on, belief in the Trinity does not presuppose belief in the Incarnation. For this reason, any attacks on the Incarnation, even if successful, will fail to affirm the resolution. At this point, I feel secure in saying that PRO has yet to mount a topical argument.ConclusionYes, I legitimately deny that that is what I also believe, although my belief or disbelief is irrelevant.
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

Con tries to deflect his inherent failure to legitimately refute his following beliefs e.g. - The trinity formulation & Incarnation etc. etc are all based upon the Johnny Come Lately NON-Original & NON-Earliest trinitarian ideological beliefs that this biblical character was a literal supernatural pre-existent being i.e. Hence according to the Bishop's remarks upon the beliefs of most calling themselves trinitarian xtians i.e. they actually believe - "Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas." Let Con attempt to legitimately deny that this is what Con also believes?
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

As there do not appear to be any rules, I will take this round to set forth necessary definitions and make some relevant comments. DefinitionsTrinity: 'The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion - the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. ' [1]ResolutionAs no resolution has been coherently expressed in PRO's opening round, I submit that we use the topic of the debate as the resolution, as follows. Resolved: Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J. w. ideologiesIf PRO takes issue with this, I am amenable to modifications. Burden of ProofAs PRO challenged me to this debate, I expect him to provide his alleged evidence that these analogies decimate the Trinitarian ideology. While the wording of the resolution would indicate that these analogies decimate the J. w. ideology as well, I leave it to PRO to decide whether or not he wants to argue that point as well, as I do not care about that issue one way or the other. I may attempt to show that these analogies do not decimate the Trinitarian ideology, although since it is quite plain that they do not, and this will likely be evidenced when PRO fails to affirm the resolution, it may prove superfluous for me to do so in which case I will not. Opening RemarksIt is clear that PRO has yet to demonstrate that either the 'Father Xmas' or 'Pure Orange Juice' analogies decimate Trinitarian ideologies. Bearing in mind what a belief in the Trinity necessary entails and what it contingently entails, it would appear that the argument PRO is fielding would be more effectively applied against the Incarnation. As belief in the Trinity is not dependent upon a belief in the Incarnation, however, these analogies are, as of now, impotent against Trinitarianism. ConclusionI do hope that PRO will provide an explanation of these analogies in a fashion more applicable to the resolution next round. Sources:1. . http://www.newadvent.org...;
Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

. . . . the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view jebus: "Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas." Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org............ - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!) & IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god! 100% human means EXACTLY that. Fully, totally completely 100% human, means just that. Nothing more, and nothing less! 100% Pure Orange juice is nothing but pure Orange juice. The very definition of 100% fully human, excludes a god! If there were something, anything about this Story book jebus that was non-human, it would immediately disqualify it as being 100% human!
We should find cure for aging

Wylted, it's very hard to debate with someone who is not giving con arguments. I'll be happy to state my arguments. And here they are: First of all we are created to find the cure, as we are looking for other cures. This is no difference except that is more effective way to defend from age related diseases. Prevention instead of struggling with various diseases arising because of no prevention. In my opinion it's no different then hygiene, I see it as hygiene on molecular level. We are supposed to do this because it is in our nature, to progress, to make our life better just like in other areas. We are given this gift and obligation to develop things that makes our life better. The only reason people are not for this because it's new, it's strange, nobody ever done it before, so in people's mind it's not right, it's not normal. But what's normal is going to change. Religious people are pro life... so how come are they against this... it doesn't make sense to me, so I've concluded that the only reason that people are against it is because of fear of new, unknown. And we need to shatter that fear. God said "Do not be afraid"... I believe God will adapt us for this change, but it will take some time.
We should find cure for aging

As somebody who loves this topic and has devoted a ton of my personal time researching this as well as e-mailing the Sens foundation, reading all of Kurzweil's books, spending a ton of time watching speeches of and reading material from Aubrey De Grey I look forward to this debate. There is not very many subjects I'm extremely knowledgable on and yet I still do reasonably well on a wide variety of debates. I strongly encourage my opponent to look up all the common objections to scientists working on creating indefinite lifespans for people. I also encourage him to give well reasoned, researched and cited arguments. This debate will not be easy for him to win and I want a strong challenge. None of this advice is meant to be offensive only preemptive to insure a high quality debate.
Can't rationally argue for theism

Ok so now we are arguing about deism. Do remember that this has nothing to do with the resolution but lets proceed anyway. Ok, so you say: "Well whose fault is that. Proving something wrong doesn't make it irrational." That's right, if its the first time. So when William Paley made his famous watchmaker claim in 1802 see: http://en.wikipedia.org... it was very rational indeed. But after Darwin proved it wrong, then making the same claim again in a slightly different field, again based only on appearance is irrational, because it means you have not learned anything. It would be like saying the moon is the size of a watermelon because that is how it appears. Granted, rational if no additional information exists. But after someone shows you that the moon in in fact the size of Africa and you are confusing angular size with absolute size, you go ahead and make the same claim about the sun. Now that is irrational ! It may not be irrational to make a mistake once, but it is irrational to make the same mistake twice.
Can't rationally argue for theism

Look, all I'm going to say is that I'm not arguing that theism is right or wrong. I'm arguing if it's RATIONAL. "we humans have the appearance of being designed therefore we have been designed right ?" That seems like a logical conclusion. "It took the genius of a man like Darwin to find an evidence based theory that shows how we all evolved out of humble beginnings by means of natural selection." Well whose fault is that. Proving something wrong doesn't make it irrational. Just like the argument with T-rexes: If you don't move, they can't see you. I believe it's been discredited, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrational, just untrue.