BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

Charlie Sheen has a variety of superpowers listed below. Adaptation - Charlie Sheen adapts well to attacks. Animal Attributes - "Tiger blood" Clairvoyance - He knows what his enemies are doing Cross-Dimensional Travel - "Perhaps, my brain is not from this particular terrestrial realm." Endurance - Been around since the late 70s Energy Blasts - He can blast star power Enhanced Memory - He remembers the 70s. (The 80s are a blur though) Fire Resistance - He has firey passion. He an resist this fire. Force Fields - Tiger Blood. Your argument is invalid. Healing Factor - "I thought it, and in a nanosecond I cured my brain"> Heat Generation - His anger. Heat Resistance - He can resist his anger Human physical perfection - Charlie Sheen Illusions - He makes them. Some think that only he can see them Immortality - "Death is for for fools". Insanity - some argue. Intelligence - His brain is extra dimensionally extraterrestrial. Invisibility - Used from 1990-2010 Invulnerability - Adonis DNA grants this Latent Abilities - He's a nice guy until you mess with his family. "I will defend them with a violent passion. Longevity - Adonis DNA Magic - "Defeat is not an option. They picked a fight with a warlock." and "I'm rollin' out magic, bro." Magic Resistance - Warlock Omnilingualism - His movies can be dubbed in any language Power Nullifying - Winning! Radiation Immunity - He is immune to star power Reality Warping - He thinks it, and it is. Until 2011, you could only win. Now, you can bi-win. Reflexes - He responds quickly Resurrection - He came back in 2010 Stamina - Most people would drop dead from his life. Stealth - He sneaks into the spotlight Cyberpath - He has a Youtube channel. Time Travel - Ever time he watches Platoon. He ones got stuck in 1985. Time Vision - He sees the 80s as the present. Toxin and Disease Resistance - Resist the affects of the drug "Charlie Sheen" "If you try it once, you will die. Your face'll melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." X-Ray Vision - He sees your lies Wishing - He thinks, therefore it is.Charlie Sheen can also do anything. If you say he can't, you must remember "Can't is the cancer of happen!"He will beat Chuck with these powers.I am winning!
Charlie Sheen (with prep) VS Chuck Norris

Though substantially less awesome normally, I believe that Charlie Sheen, with a week of preparation, would beat unsuspecting Chuck Norris in a fight to the death.DefinitionsCharlie Sheen: the man who was WINNING two years ago (except for that short stint of bi-winning).Chuck Norris: Chuck NorrisFight: A violent, physical struggle.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (aka the part where I start winning)Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals (aka the part where I continue to win)Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttals (aka where I win)Round 5: Conclusions (aka where I look back and say "Wow, winning!)Seeing as both these people are deities, I almost put this debate under the "religious" category. However,I didn't because Llama-Lord probably won't show up to this debate.
Star wars: rogue one is overrated

It's overrated. don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie, I just think it's overrated. for a start, there are so many references to darth sidious, but he never once appears. also,you are introduced to so many new characters, but they all die at the end. There's no opening crawl at the start of the movie, like there is for EVERY other star wars movie. There's no lightsaber duel. I know, there was a lightsaber scene(which was epic) but it felt wedged in, like Disney knew they had to have one appear in the movie, because wouldn't darth Vader get his Stormtroopers to kill all the rebels instead?
Time Constancy is Proof of God

I don't know how I straw manned his argument, and if I did I am sorry. But I merely attempted to summarize it and place it into syllogistic form. If I made a mistake on this part, that is my fault, but this would just me making a mistake. If he has a syllogistic form that he approves of, he should have used it. I, of course, offered evidence that your argument is not proof of God, citing time dilation, time perception, and broken compass fallacy. You have still yet to provide evidence that I straw manned your position. We are arguing about the temporal argument, not the presuppositional argument. And again, what evidence do you have for this. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to argue against my rebuttals, keeping them standing. He has said I have lost the debate before we even started, yet when the debate has started, he has failed to rebut even one of my points, piling assertions on top of assertions.
Time Constancy is Proof of God

Someone wrote: "Please provide evidence and argument that I didn't just straw man your argument." But you DID straw man my argument: The statement that you claimed was my argument was actually your own statement -- not my statement. Therefore your claim that it was my argument was a straw man logical fallacy (and a lie) on your part. "Don't just assert your position, for assertions don't equal evidence." I provided evidence for my position, but you provided none for yours: Therefore you lost the debate. "The logic in you saying that is horrendous." Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good logic and horrendous logic.
Time Constancy is Proof of God

Please provide evidence and argument that I didn't just straw man your argument. Don't just assert your position, for assertions don't equal evidence. I too could merely assert a position, yet I try to provide argument. If I did, please cite where and we can deal with it then. Till then, my rebuttals still stand.Additionally, I too could say that you lost just by taking too long to post arguments or such. This is a gross misunderstanding of what debate is, and how to win one. Just because one side does something that's not to your liking, does not mean you won. I could cite how you compared atheists to defecating babies, and say that I won for that reason. The logic in you saying that is horrendous.
Time Constancy is Proof of God

Someone wrote: "My opponent links to a Youtube video instead of writing his argument down. So I will summarize his argument in syllogistic form. P1. Time is constant P2. There must be a reason for this. P3. The only reason possible is God or something similar to a god. SP1. There is no law that posits the consistency of time. SP2. Even if there was, it would suffer from infinite regress. C. God exists" That is not my argument, so you just committed straw man logical fallacy. You are arguing against yourself, not against my actual argument, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Time Constancy is Proof of God

My opponent links to a Youtube video instead of writing his argument down. So I will summarize his argument in syllogistic form.P1. Time is constantP2. There must be a reason for this.P3. The only reason possible is God or something similar to a god. SP1. There is no law that posits the consistency of time. SP2. Even if there was, it would suffer from infinite regress.C. God existsRebuttalsP1.I'm not sure if my opponent is arguing time is constant in subjective or objective terms. If he argues that we know time is constant in subjective terms, the statement time is constant is false, due to time dilation from Einstien's theory of relativity. Additionally, our perception of time can be affected by drugs, severe mental illness, etc. If he does argue in objective terms, however, the premise stands.P2.Why couldn't this just be a brute fact, like the universe existing, or in your case, God existing? P3.How did you come the conclusion that the divine is the only possible arbiter of time? SP1 & SP2This argument is similar to asking why is there something rather than nothing, and answering God. Then you just made the question why is there God rather than nothing? If you posit God as the arbiter of time, what reason is there that he would remain constant? And then you invent an arbiter for the arbiter, you must ask why he remains constant? To add, why is God not subject to time in the first place? You may posit that he is timeless, but you must add an argument for that position and not merely assert it. C.And now we get to the point where this argument truly fails. Why must the conclusion be God, rather than Shiva, Allah, Horus, Thor, or Zeus? You could use this argument to prove any God whatsoever, not merely the God of Christianity. As a corollary to this, it is a broken compass argument, leading to infinitely many mutually exclusive conclusions.
God is real

Argument from Morality. In the examples you give, it still points to a system in which there are moral norms, instead of a subjective system, in which each person somehow decides their own moral values. There exists a nearly universal moral intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. Even if evolution is the cause (and this a little off topic from our argument), all humans evolved with the same objective morality. Non-theists also run into the problem of lack of moral accountability. What is to stop a person from acting for pure pleasure, instead of being held accountable by a higher being. Even if there are objective moral values under evolution, it does not make a difference whether one is a saint or whether one dies at 20 from drug overdose. "There is no god, no hereafter, and no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish. " "Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality "pays off" in his social life or makes him "feel good. " There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him. " This brings it back to the argument that care for others cannot happen in a world without god. Why would you sacrifice your own self-interest for someone else? Life is too short to jeopardize it with irrational actions like risking your life for others. WHY SHOULD HUMANS RISK THEIR LIFE FOR OTHER HUMANS? Moving past evolution and creating a system of morality as separate human groups does not explain the moral norms that are so predominant in every culture. I spend so much time on morality because it is one of the main clues that point to a god who created the morality code that we live by. The fact is that non-theists have no answer for the fact that we live by an objective system of morality. I will end my round 4 argument with the ontological argument. 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. 2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " 3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. 4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). 5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " 6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
God is real

Argument from CausalityThe current scientific theory is the big bang theory, those others you mention are competing hypothesis which have not archived the standard of evidence or predictive capability of the expanding singularity theory. Argument from MoralityYou make the claim that certain acts are considered immoral across all cultures, this is true to some extent. Some acts are universally considered wrong, for instance every culture has a prohibition on murder, on an evolutionary level you cannot have a society that allows for murder, you cannot have more people die than are born, a god is not required to prohibit murder. A similar comparison can be made for stealing (because it damages social cohesion), rape (because the offspring are much less likely to survive) and a few other acts which are commonly prohibited amongst differing cultures.I feel morality is better explained by an understanding of evolution than a god.You do raise an interesting point, that of self sacrifice and evolution. We can recognise that our basic morality comes from evolution but we can move past evolution and come to create a system of morality that treats all humans as equals. The Difference Between Positive and Negative Claims.I did not ask for proof, proof is a purely mathematical term. I simply asked for evidence that stands up to scrutiny.A note on freedom of speech.If each thought does not have a direct cause then it violates your model of causality.
God is real

Argument from Causality You start by assuming that there was no time before the Big Bang (which I believe that such a thing occurred), which is a statement that has come under question in many years. Some assert that our universe was created out of a parent universe, or that the universe redundantly fluctuates between a Big Bang and a Big Crash, in which all of the universe is crushed into a singularity again. Both theories assume that there was time before the Big Bang that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Since each thought is caused from a brain that I believe has free will, free will and causality can exist together. I still wonder whether you do not believe in causality because you are subjectivist or because you believe free will cannot exist with causality. Argument from Morality Forgive me for not defining my definition of the atheistic view of morality. An atheistic view of morality would be any view of morality that does not involve a god. A theistic view of morality would be a view of morality that involves a god. What I am pointing to is that there needs to be an ultimate being that gave us the objective moral code we have. I am assuming you believe in natural selection, or the survival of the fittest or whoever can adapt to their environment the best. But your belief that morality is caused by compassion for others is not compatible with that belief. It would seem that the humans who would put their life at risk for others would not survive very long nor would it be the dominant trait in humans. In a world without objective morality, it would seem as though the strongest and most dominant humans would survive, instead of the humans who cared so much for other humans. I argue that there is objective morality because nearly universally across human cultures there seems to be the same moral code for all humans. Even saying "survival of the fittest" is an objective moral code in which you say this applies to all animals, except for some unknown reason, humans. The Difference Between Positive and Negative Claims Your chief argument is that there is no proof for existence in god, but then again, how is there 100% proof for anything? Everything you see and hear and sense is only what you perceive to be reality. In a world where nothing can be proven, I point to the only thing that can explain knowledge and morality, god. By the way, I do believe in evolution, and do believe that the universe is older than 10,000 years old, that idea is totally absurd.
God is real

Argument from Causality I don't agree with your initial premise: "If you agree that all things are caused to exist by other things". For the initial cause you must talk about the time before the "big bang" (if the word time even has any meaning in that context) according to the most recent scientific discoveries the word "time is meaningless in that context, essentially there was no time before the "big bang" and therefore no causality. (this is in anticipation that you will bring free will up and I want to nip this in the bud now) Furthermore this idea of causality completely invalidates the whole idea of free will, if everything has a cause then each though must also have a cause and therefore there is no human free will in the matter. Argument from Morality You bring up the idea of "atheistic morality". You must remember that atheism is a position taken on an individual issue (the existence of a divine being) there is no such thing as atheistic morality any more than there is such a thing as theistic morality (remembering that theistic morality would include everything from the seemingly worthless morals of Joseph Kony's lord's resistance army to the jihadist ideology of hezbollah neither of which positions I think you would want to be associated with). Personally my morality is based on empathy for other human beings and a division of actions into the categories of normal behavior and pathological behavior. Now onto your point about the moral obligations. First I do not think that you have in any way shown that we have moral obligations to each other, I feel that this is actually better demonstrated by my specific brand of morals which in no way require a god, simply stating that "but really the only rational explanation is God." does not make it true. You have made very little argument and not even shown that moral obligations are either inherent or helped by a theistic universe.Argument From Desire This in a new one for me and quite and a interesting argument. This desire is much better explained by evolution through natural selection rather than a god. I have too much respect for you to think that you do not accept evolution and am sure you understand the process. You must understand that everything you listed has an evolutionary advantage money and power represent influence which is a very desirable possession amongst social animals such as ourselves and sex is the mechanism by which we reproduce and pass on our genes.The more powerful this desire the more advantage it will have, this I feel explains this more than a cruel practical joke by a divine being.The Difference Between Positive and Negative ClaimsMy chief argument against the existence of god is failure of theists to prove her/his/it's existence, this allows be to use absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the most powerful tool in the atheist’s arsenal and one I will continue to use until someone comes up with an argument that stands up to scrutiny. Since theism is a positive claim and atheism is a negative claim the negative is assumed until the positive is proven.
God is real

First, I want to side with you in the fact that I used to be an atheist. I see where you are coming from and understand where it is to be in that position. Since the goal of argument is to find truth, I hope we find truth in this argument. First there is the argument of causality. If you agree that all things are caused to exist by other things, then there has to be a main causer of it all. The argument of infinite regress, or that is would keep on going back infinitely is irrational, because then everything would be dependent on nothing. Second, there is the moral argument. It is a fact that there are real moral absolutes and obligations. Either the atheistic view of morality of the religious view is correct. Since the atheistic view of moral obligation is incompatible with atheism, the religious view must be correct. Now you may argue that these absolutes can come from nature, our own individual selves, or society, but really the only rational explanation is God. Third, there is the argument from desire. I would argue that there is some innate desire in us that cannot be quenched by things such as money, power, sex, etc. Eventually, nothing on Earth can satisfy us, and there must be something outside of Earth and time that must have created this desire. I would argue that this something is God.
Private college prep schools should require service hours for transcripts.

To make service hours a requirement to graduate may seem like a detriment to the student, but the current form of mandating service hours is clean and clear enough to make this idea practical. It is both the required amount of service time and the means in which a student may acquire these hours that allows for extracurricular activities and even working outside of school. While I cannot speak for all private schools the ones that I am aware of (and the one I attend) requires X amount of time over the school year rather than having mandatory service opportunities. At the school I currently attend we are required to have 20 service hours by the time we are seniors. It is worth noting that the aforementioned school is also a college prep school that has also begun requiring grades under 70% to be remediated. The service hour requirement is strict but is utilized to create a better transcript. Keep in mind that I stress the term college prep private schools being that i'm fairly certain it slipped my mind to make that designation earlier. This particular service hours system is a smart one, allowing the student a full school years to acquire only 20 hours of service work (which the school provides a "service leadership" class to get said hours) in order to help your chances in getting accepted to a good college. So even with extracurricular activities or a job to occupy time the service hour system isn't much more detrimental of a requirement than going to class every 5 days a week.
Private college prep schools should require service hours for transcripts.

While I agree that public/community service is a wonderful learning tool with the ability to teach students a range of things, I must ask, who is it that would mandate this requirement. Private schools are, a lot of ways, outside of strict government control. Can a governing body require something of the private institutions that is not required in public school education? Individual schools or school systems may take on such a requirement, but to mandate, across that board, that all students in the country fulfill a extracurricular obligation may not be feasible. Many students that attend private high schools are from households that can afford for their child to not have an after school job. However, there are those students, those scholarships or on their family's 'last dollar', that work in their free time. Should those students be required to choose between studying and service for their diploma. A mandate requiring service can have similar consequences to the No Child Left Behind act in that communities, such as those in very rural areas, are left with few options. Private institutions have the ability to work as they see fit for their community and students without, for the most part, catering to a list of requirements from an external body. This freedom allows the school administration to decide what the students in their community would benefit from most. The idea of a community service requirement for students is a good one, however, mandating private institutions to enforce such a requirement could be detrimental to the very students it is meant to help.
Private college prep schools should require service hours for transcripts.

A growing trend in American private schools is the requiring of a set amount of community service hours. These hours can be obtained through volunteer work and the school administration generally has volunteer work offerred far before the deadline. Being that these schools are private it is certainly fair that they may have a policy as such in order to achieve graduation. These required service hours teach important lessons about responsibility and helping your community while also teaching students that sometimes you have to be a good monkey and bang your symbols if you wish to succeed. There is little detriment to any of the involved parties to this policy being that the student is rewarded with graduation and the community benefits by the student's help. It may seem strict to make the hours mandatory, but has become the only way to teach students the importance of community service. I think more private schools should consider this idea. Speaking as a senior at Faith Lutheran High School/Middle School i'd say it is working well for the student body.