BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Captain America (Pro) or Iron Man (Con)

Captain America is an amazing man, even before the injection of the super serum, he displayed bravery, self-sacrifice, and initiative. With the addition the super serum, however, Captain America"s greatest traits were personified into his transformation into one of the most physical fit characters in existence. Often described as "the peak of human condition", all of Steve Rogers regular abilities were enhanced to near the point of perfection. Lump that all together with the indomitable will and sense of morals that guide this man, it"s easy to see why he is so revered. A world class fighter, with skill training in everything from handguns and knives to his classic trademark shield made of indestructible Vibranium, who else would be chosen as the leader of the Avengers, but Captain America? There is no doubt in my mind that Cap is one the greatest superheroes ever. That being said, Any one of Iron Man"s suits is a walking bastille of warfare, equipped with weapons that make even the most advanced army in the world look like children with toys. Equipped with a barrage of guns and lasers, as well as magnetic force generators and a host of other energy weapons, the suit can also fly faster many other aircraft created on Earth with a top speed of just under Mach 5 in seconds. The specific Iron Man suit in the Civil War is near indestructible, made possible due to the fact that it is made out of nano bytes, enhances all of Tony's senses to the of Superhuman level, all of this personally built by Stark himself and has been used to go toe-to-toe with Thor during Ragnarok and even beat an angry Red Hulk. As the 3rd smartest human in the Marvel Universe, Tony"s armor is only a product of what is truly his most dangerous weapon, a superclass genius level of intellect. With a brain that processes information like a computer, Tony is an excellent future and on-the-fly tactician, often able to actually compartmentalize his brains functions to increase his focus on the task at hand. It's noted that he noticed the initial rift that led up to the Civil War, years in advance and began preparation, as well as during the Kree invasion it was his strategy that saved the day, again, set in place years in advance. When connected to his Bleeding Edge suit, there is no delay between his thoughts and the suits reaction because his brain is wired directly into his suit. As fast as he can think it, the suit can do it. Cap has no cover except for his shield, which was made by Iron Man and which is also susceptible to magnetic forces, which the suit can create. At the end of the day, Captain America is a really good man, a grounded man without any kind armor or any other protective abilities. Already out-gunned, we know for a fact, Iron Man has been analyzing Captain America"s fighting since the day he was defrosted, every punch and kick. He has memorized Cap"s fighting style, which would enable him to effectively counter anything coming from Cap. The fight may even last a while, but Iron Man is the one walking away. j.h
Captain America (Pro) or Iron Man (Con)

Let me just start by saying that this was not easy an easy topic for me. I am going to be coming at this fight from two angles. Number One - Skills. Number Two - Experience. To put the icing on the cake, when I finish I will give some facts that Captain America is the better player in this debate.In both angles, Cap clearly excels. Skills Tactician and Strategist (Master)On and off of the battlefield, Captain America is considered on of the greatest strategist on the planet. Even if the situation he is in changes, he is able to quickly change is plan to adjust to the situation.Martial Artist (Master)Captain America is an expert in hand to hand combat. Due to his military training he is skilled in multiple martial arts. He has even been able to defeat Martial Art Masters such as Iron Fist.Shield Control (Master)After spending years with his unique, indestructible Shield, Captain America has mastered control of the shield. HE is able to throw his shield with almost perfect aim. Also considering the fact that his shield is made of Adamantium - the most powerful metal on earth (in the comics). Acrobat (Master)He is skilled in all acrobatics. This is very useful when Captain America is fighting the offensive.Will (Extremely Strong)Captain America is able to handle the most extreme of extreme measures of pain.Strength (Peak-Human)Steve Rogers is said to not have Superhuman Strength, just Peak Human Strength. However in the Marvel Universe, a character is considered to have superhuman strength when they are able to life 800 pounds. Captain America has bench-pressed 1200 pounds (his limit). One nice, full-strength punch to the chest and Iron Man is done.ExperienceConsidering the fact that Captain America is about 95 years old and has been through WW1 and seen worst things than Iron Man, I think that this fact is pretty solid.Now for the icing on the cake. #1 I think we can all say that Batman is a pretty good fighter. He has taken on Ras al Ghul, Bane, Superman, and other powerful people, and he won. So in the JLA/Avengers crossover, Batman with all of his skills, acknowledged that Captain America could beat him.#2 Captain America was able to beat Bane, who is known to cripple Batman.#3 Captain America has been able to beat Martial Art Masters such as Iron Fist and Taskmaster.Sources: http://marvel.wikia.com...(Steven_Rogers)#cite_note-JLA.2FAvengers_Vol_1_2-118 Notes:As I said before, please do not be rude twards my arguments if they are not good. I am new and I am working to get better I am not saying this to get any votes. I just want this debate to be peaceable.
Captain America (Pro) or Iron Man (Con)

Hi! I am a huge comic book fan, ironically, Captain America and Iron Man are actually my #1 and #2 favorite superheroes so I often find myself engaged in these debates with my friends and while I do love Captain America more than Tony Stark, to be honest, Iron Man takes this more often than not. I look forward to this debate, however! p.s Since you didn"t specify a suit, I"m going with the one he"ll be wearing in the movie. j.h
Jesus was a young earth creationist

Con's opening: I understand the paramaters. I acknowledged that Philo and Augustine had unconventional ideas in regards to interpreting Genesis, but they still regarded the earth to only be thousands of years old. However, the conventional wisdom of Jewish interpretation of that time was a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, which is what I have already shown.Con's Point 1: Jesus referred to Genesis only to make doctrinal, and not historical or scientific claims.Jesus could not have referred to Genesis only to make doctrinal claims. He argued that God created male and female in the beginning, and this is the reason for a marriage union between a man and a woman. If this event did not exist as historically described, then there is no basis for the Christian definition for marriage. If this was just an allegorical message, then polygamous marriage should be accepted, because there would be no first male and female- there would be the arrival of male and female humans from the process of evolution.Con's Point 2: Same argument as Point 1 rebuttal/conclusion.Con's criticism of my deductive argument:Con seems to have misunderstood my point. It does not matter that Jesus may have said more that we don't know (and I would argue that the Gospels include all of the relevant and important messages that he taught). My deductive argument showed that not only is it more likely that Jesus was a young earth creationist, but rather Con must argue from ignorance to say that Jesus was anything other than a young earth creationist. Obviously, an argument from ignorance does not mean his argument must be wrong, but it is not a valid argument to accept his conclusion.Con's Rebuttal 1: It was not Josephus who argued that God created in an instance- it was Philo and Augustine who said this. I do not see any evidence of Josephus explaining any parts of Genesis 1-3 in a non-literal sense. Con's Rebuttal 2: Con misunderstood my argument for the genealogies. As the gospels contain the genealogies, if they are not true, then we cannot trust the rest of the gospels as they would contain false histories, thus showing that we cannot accept their historical account of Jesus. He knew he could not win this argument, so I understand why he refused to come up with an answer to my criticism.Con's Rebuttal 3: Con doesn't seem to understand how evolution works. Evolution does not create anything- mutations over time change one animal into another. There is no real point to where 'apes' became human- it would all be very fluid.My ConclusionCon only has one argument against Jesus being anything but a Young Earth Creationist- an argument from ignorance. As already stated, this does not mean he is wrong, just that he has no valid arguments to where we can accept his conclusion. I argue that my deductive argument is valid, and if the voters agree, they should vote for me,Thank you Con for a wonderful debate. Cheers!
Jesus was a young earth creationist

The resolution is that Jesus was a young earth creationist. By this I mean that he viewed Genesis 1-3 as a completely literal account, free of any kind of error, and not metaphorically. Pro's burden of prof will be to show from scriptures in the Bible - comprised of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments - that Jesus' teachings support young earth creationism. My burden of proof will be to show that Jesus' teachings in the relevant scriptural passages regarding Genesis 1-3 can fit just as well with a non-literal reading of the creation account. I have made this debate impossible to accept. Please notify me in the comments if you are interested. Happy debating!
God is not responsible for the evil in the world.

Thank you for your reply, So from what i take it is that, in the first part of your argument you claim that since god is omniscient and knows all of our actions before we do them how can we say we have any true free will? I would like to point out that knowing and causing are two different things. "Lord, you have examined me and know all about me. You know when I sit down and when I get up. You know my thoughts before I think them. You know where I go and where I lie down. You know everything I do." This verse is stating that God "knows" everything David has done, or will do. It does not state that God caused it. Think of it like this. "You are walking up a hill and notice a train track that curves and goes into a tunnel. You see the other side of the track out side of the other end of tunnel. You also notice that a man is stuck on the track and cannot become free as the train approaches from the other side of the tunnel. Knowing that you are too far away to help this man. You know that the incident is going to happen and there is nothing you can do to change the outcome. This does not mean you caused the incident but simply knew the outcome." "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" Again stating that God knows everything that will happen. Not that he has caused them. Though the usage of "Written in your book" can be used to claim that everything was predestined. I want to point out that these verses have to be interpreted, and we can never truly know what the full extent of their meaning is. But i take it as knowledge of the outcome instead of causing the outcome. Taking the statement literally. You can write about something before it comes to be if you know it to happen, it again does not mean that you caused it to happen. Onto the second part of your argument. "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things." While this does very clearly state that God has created "darkness" and "calamity" It is important to note that no one ever said humans created "good" and "evil" but that we have the option to choose them on our own. Creating good would be impossible unless the opposite was created along with it. God could create humans, but if evil did not exist. Then goodness would be completely useless and without an opposite we couldn't even consider acts of goodness good they are just acts. People would not experience certain things in their life. Which would not allow every individual on this planet their own person with their own characteristics, and would mirror not having true free will. So in order for true free will, good and evil would have to exist, but the fact that God gave us free will is a greater good than no free will at all. So he would still be an omnibenevolent being. God has created all the good and evil available to us. But we still have the option to decide whether we commit good or evil actions on our own.
God is not responsible for the evil in the world.

God is responsible for everything that has gone on in this Earth, as he was the creator of it. He has planned everything for you and I; knowing our very thughts and actions. David put it this way in Psalm 139:1-2: "Lord, you have examined me and know all about me. You know when I sit down and when I get up. You know my thoughts before I think them. You know where I go and where I lie down. You know everything I do." Verse 16 of the same chapter goes on to say this: "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" "...it is because of the fact we have free will as humans..." As my information states, God knows EXACTLY what we do and when we do it. Verse 16 also states that God has planned every single day for us, including what we do in them. This is relatively undisputed in Christianity. If this were true, God would have planned for us to have sinned. "Nothing told me to commit the action..." Again, the psalmist David very clearly states that God planned everything for our lives, including what we do. God predestined for us the actions we will make. This very clearly contradicts the idea of "free will". Isaiah 45:7 says this: "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things." This verse states very clearly that God has created "darkness" and "calamity", which are used in the Bible to mean sin. This verse is proof that God has created both good AND evil. John 1:3 has a similar description of God's creation: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If this is true, God has created ALL things, including the sins we make and the actions we take. It is very easy to see that God has truly created sin and planned our lives day-by-day, meaning God does in fact cause us to sin.
God is not responsible for the evil in the world.

Hello to you, and thank you for deciding to join in on this debate. I am interested to read your arguments, and test your thought as well as mine. Well as you read from my previous argument, I do not believe that God is the reason for the evil in this world. My logic also states from the previous argument that it is because of the fact we have free will as humans, and decide to do whatever we want on our own. Nothing told me to commit the action and therefore i am the one to blame. Good luck to you, and thank you as well.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

After reading my opponents rebuttals to my rebuttals of rebuttals I have decided to make a quick and simple conclusion. Those who read this debate can clearly see that my opponent thinks that I am portraying myself as a perfect, infallible person. I have never done such acts, I merely voice my thought on certain topics. As seen though out the debate I am able to pick apart some arguments without actually making a full rebuttal because I never think my own answers are right, merely just that my opponent is incapable of being right if I am able to find particular flaws. My opponent also seems to show himself off as a highly moral person, thinking that morality must be the end all be all of everything, which is purely up to the voter choice. I leave it at his and allow those who read this whole debate to vote confidently.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

This debate is about my idea of Nihilism as shown in round one. The questions my opponent asked me to answer are shown but have very little connection to this topic. I will merely touch one question than move onto comments he has made that are relevant. My view on murder and a reason it may be opposed. Cody_Franklin wrote: : "Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence. Social Convince. It allows for an easier coexistence. Now for myself I would not step out of my way to fight Hitler because I find no reason to. Others find it repulsive and absolutely wrong which lead them to intervene. Now onto comments that actually work with the debate at hand. "Why do you think moral absolutism is wrong?." Moral absolutism can not be right because of facts all around you. People vary in all aspects. How he or she was raised and where he or she was raised will effect their idea on morals. The way he or she was raised will dictate how / what is right and wrong. Which brings me to a question; What are my opponents moral absolutism views? What morals are always true everywhere? He claims there are moral absolutism but without elaborating on said claim how is he able to challenge me properly? "...very fact that you are debating it shows that you believe your belief is more valid. " You claim my idea of Nihilism is a belief, notice I said idea. I do not believe in anything. Beliefs are unchangeable, ideas are. It is human nature to think of ones self as better than another. Having said that you challenged me on a topic that I wish to explore for my own person interest to see if my stance is more valid. Thus far I am not shaken. "In a world without absolutes there are no absolute statements, claiming there are no absolutes is an absolute statement, ergo it is self refuting; this argument extends to include morality " Valid statement. My response is simply that absolutes should be questioned. "Only Objective morality provides for the kind of uniformity required to understand the nature of morality " If only objective morality allows one to understand morality how could your claim of an absolute allow for you to challenge my alleged absolute. "How is it decided who is correct when a debate arises " The voters. "In a relativist's perspective, no one else could decide that and each of the individuals disagree so a conflict could never be resolved. " The conflict would never be resolved regardless of that fact. If one, as yourself, firmly believe in something than your stance will never change regardless of facts present in front of you. I look forward to be proven wrong.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

“According to Nihilism, which I follow, no one is right or wrong. ” How do expect to win this debate then? In that case neither of us could win as it would be subjective to each of us. You can’t win something when there is no truth because winning entails that one of us is right while the other is wrong. “Neither again [referring to if murder is right or wrong]. Why because that is what Nihilism is. ” If murder is not wrong then there is no reason to oppose it. If Hitler was not wrong for killing the Jews then we had no right to try to stop him. You have no right to defend yourself or your family under a subjective worldview. You would be free to do so but you would not be morally bound to do so. “I shouldn't you are right. I will make a fuss about it because it has my one condom I'll never use. ” That shows that you are inconsistent, or at the very least acting merely out of your own emotions. “I do not value mine or anyone life. There is no purpose of doing either. ” Then why do you go on living? This implicitly affirms that you do value your life otherwise you wouldn’t bother waking up in the morning every day. Why do you think moral absolutism is wrong? You will probably claim that you don’t claim that since you don’t believe in right and wrong but the very fact that you are debating it shows that you believe your belief is more valid. “To claim Nihilism is correct with morals defeats the very purpose of it. Besides that morality is subjective to each person assisted by society. ” This is exactly what makes nihilism a self refuting philosophy. In a world without absolutes there are no absolute statements, claiming there are no absolutes is an absolute statement, ergo it is self refuting; this argument extends to include morality . Only Objective morality provides for the kind of uniformity required to understand the nature of morality. How is it decided who is correct when a debate arises? In a relativist's perspective, no one else could decide that and each of the individuals disagree so a conflict could never be resolved. I pass it back to my opponent.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

"If there is no moral truth then how could anyone be wrong?" According to Nihilism, which I follow, no one is right or wrong. "Was Hitler wrong for killing the Jews?" Neither. "Is murder wrong? If so why?" Neither again. Why because that is what Nihilism is. "If there is no moral truth then if I stole your wallet you shouldn't have problem with it." I shouldn't you are right. I will make a fuss about it because it has my one condom I'll never use. "Do you value your life and what is the purpose of doing so?" I do not value mine or anyone life. There is no purpose of doing either. "How do you know that your belief in nihilism is correct or the most morally just view?" To claim Nihilism is correct with morals defeats the very purpose of it. Besides that morality is subjective to each person assisted by society. "I would argue that a relativist and specifically a nihilist could not answer all these questions without refuting their own argument or being inconsistent." I beckon thee.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

This round I will present fairly simple questions that you must be able to answer if morality is not absolute. If there is no moral truth then how could anyone be wrong? Was Hitler wrong for killing the Jews? Remember in his society what he was doing was perfectly justified. Is murder wrong? If so why? If there is no moral truth then if I stole your wallet you shouldn’t have problem with it. Do you value your life and what is the purpose of doing so? How do you know that your belief in nihilism is correct or the most morally just view? I would argue that a relativist and specifically a nihilist could not answer all these questions without refuting their own argument or being inconsistent.
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

My stance is that morality is not absolute. That morality is subjective to all situations and vary from person to person. To clearly make my stance I am a Moral Nihilist. The Oxford handbook of Ethical Theory sums it up well; "Nihilism is the view tat there are no moral facts. It says that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. " [1] Now that my stance is clear as can be, I pass it on to my challenger. [1]. http://books.google.com...
Morality is Necessarily Absolute

Morality is absolute and not relative to each individual or society. My opponent must show that morality is relative even in some circumstances. As there are several forms of moral relativism, I will leave it up to my opponent to explain his position completely and clearly. Round 1 is for establishing our positionsRound 2 is when the debating beginsRound 3-4 is answering rebuttalsRound 5 is for closing statements and wrapping up the arguments.