Exactly.
Meh, there’s no proof other than folklore.
The story of Robinhood’s death was published in 1917. There is no concrete evidence to support any of that. 
He’s not real man.
I didn’t say he was ‘real’. I think there’s a possibility that the story was based off of a real person but at present time such postulations are inconclusive.
I like entertaining the notion anyways. Nonetheless I like the literary story.
Let’s go and steal some rich people’s shit and evade taxes.
That’s a plan I can get on board with. 
I’m gonna go to the gas station right now and run the change scam where you give em a 20 then they give you 10 and change, then you say, “wait, I have a ten right here.” Then they give the 20 back and you give them the 10 back and you end up leaving with your shit free or something, depending on how much shit you got and all.
That only works if the cashier is mentally retarded. I suggest you go to the local Walmart instead.
Might have better luck since a bunch of retards work there.
You have to find the weak gas station attendants. They’re usually in the lower rent areas.
I don’t know man. In the cities it is mostly Indians and Pakis nowadays.
True.
So, are there any contenders out there?
Name and pick your poison for debate. Let’s have at it.
A few propositions I would support in a debate:
- Capitalism is bad (you argue that it’s good)
- Life is meaningless/pointless/etc. (you argue that it’s meaningful/purposeful/etc.)
- Morality is subjective (you argue that it’s objective)
My idea is to pick something where I think we disagree, and swap sides for the purpose of an exhibition debate. I’m open to other topics that fit the general mold.
- I support anarcho capitalism which isn’t the same thing to its state run counterpart.
- I argue that fundamentally existence is a chaotic one where I am in acceptance of that.
- I support the notions of moral nihilism and skepticism within my own very cynical perception of the world.
OK, so lets have a formal debate where I support anarcho-captialism and you support keynsian capitalism with central control. The point is to get use both to argue in favor of positions we don’t agree with, and against the position we do agree with.
Why debate like that? That doesn’t make any sense.
Debates are exhibition. They’re more about the art of rhetoric than actually proving a position. Arguing a position you don’t agree with is great practice in that respect.
Moreover, they are beneficial in helping you analyze your own beliefs: if you can’t present the best case against what you believe, how can you be sure that your belief is right? And an exhibition, where your reputation for rhetoric is on the line, forces you to make as good an argument as you can - if you half-ass it, you might protect your blind adherence to the belief, but everyone will see it and you’ll lose the debate.
Such a debate is a personal challenge and a good habit. It makes perfect sense.
I’ll only debate under normal circumstances.
You can do that with somebody else if you like. 
Alright, I challenge you to a debate in which I defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good, and you argue that they make no sense or you’re somehow above them.
Nice try. No.