BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God probably exists

PRO: So the main contention here is that nothing can transcent possible worlds, and compares the notion to a novel.While this may seem obvious at first, the simple fact about this part of the argument is that it follows the laws of Modal logic, and so does transcend possible worlds. That is what Modal Logic is all about - more specifically axiom S5, which states that if it is possible that "A" is necessary, then "A" is necessary. This is a logical truth:S5: 00"`33; = `33; and 00"`74; = `74;, where each 0 is either `33; or `74; [1]Although the ontological argument for the existence of God can be formulated in modal logic, it cannot be derived from the axioms of modal logic alone. An additional premise/axiom is needed, namely the premise 2) from round 2:"It is Subjunctively possible that a Maximally Great Being exists"This statement, together with the definition of "Maximally Great Being" I find nonsensical. It can be formulated in modal logic, but that does not make it true or self-evident. Con then compares the idea to a novel. The analogy, however, fails. Modal Logic cannot apply to a novel, and the challenge of writing "a character that is so powerful that it transcends the novel and enters every novel known to man" simply shows a lack of understanding of Modality.Yes, we can apply modal logic to novels. Modal logic is just a formal language with symbols. We can apply this formal language to different situations and as long as the axioms of modal logic are satisfied with this interpretation of the symbols appearing.Modal logic has two symbols, but the symbols don't come out well at DDO. So I will just just # for square, and ^ for diamond.# means "it is necessary true that"^ means "it is possibly true that"We can interpret these symbols as:#: in all worlds it is true that^: in some world it is true that But, we can also interpret these symbols as:#: in real live and in all novels it is true that^: in real live and/or in some novels it is true that(here, novels within a novel are also considered a novel )The axioms of S4 modal logic are satisfied. In the novel interpretation, S5 modal logic may not be applicable, but then again, it may not be applicable in real life. In S5 modal logic, one assumes that if something is "possibly necessary" then it is "necessary". I could imagine, that in some world it is necessary that God does not exist. According to S5 modal logic, it is necessary that God does not exist. In particular, God does not exist.I do not accept this to be true. Or, at least if PRO wants to convince me that this is true, he should explain what exactly "possible", "necessary" and "possibly necessary" mean in real life. Since I have little time right now, I will respond to the other arguments in the next round.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
The Objectivist Solution to the Problem of Induction is Sound

My opponent is once again attacking a strawman. His confusion can be summed up in a single sentence: His argument is based on the idea that “[t]here’s no reason to think that we will be dealing with “entities that behave in X way by definition””, disregarding the fact that thisdoesn’t matter if the knowledge gained, no matter how useless, WILL apply if we do deal with such an entity.As defined by the Encylopedia Britannica, the Problem of induction is as follows: the problem of justifying the inductive inference rom the observed to the unobserved. It was given its classic formulation by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–76), who noted that all such inferences rely, directly or indirectly, on the rationally unfounded premise that the future will resemble the past. There are two main variants of the problem; the first appeals to the uniformity observed in nature, while the second relies on the notion of cause and effect, or “necessary connection.” If a person were asked why he believes that the Sun will rise tomorrow, he might say something like the following: in the past, the Earth has turned on its axis every 24 hours (more or less), and there is a uniformity in nature that guarantees that such events always happen in the same way. But how does one know that nature is uniform in this sense? It might be answered that, in the past, nature has always exhibited this kind of uniformity, and so it will continue to do so in the future. But this inference is justified only if one assumes that the future must resemble the past. How is this assumption itself justified? One might say that, in the past, the future always turned out to resemble the past, and so, in the future, the future will again turn out to resemble the past. This inference, however, is circular—it succeeds only by tacitly assuming what it sets out to prove—namely, that the future will resemble the past. Therefore, the belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is rationally unjustified.As you can see, my opponent is not talking about the problem of induction as understood by Hume.
The Objectivist Solution to the Problem of Induction is Sound

I’m not going to address my opponent’s arguments individually, since they all follow the same line of reasoning and thus can be refuted all at once.Essentially, what my opponent is arguing is that induction is sound so long as one adequately qualifies all of one’s conclusions. I.e., given the right conditions, X will occur. I agree with this, as it is tautologically true (things which behave in X way will behave in X way by definition). However, it is irrelevant to the problem of induction. The problem is that induction uses past experience to predict how entities will behave based on appearance. When making predictions, science cannot claim it is dealing with an entity that will behave in X way by definition. All science can say is that it is dealing with an entity that appears to be identical to an object it has dealt with in the past, and predict how it will behave based on that entity. My opponent is not even dealing with induction. He is “deriving” causal nature via deduction, such that definitions of entities include casual natures, and then hopefully applying such definitions to the real world, effectively assuming that said entities will be relevant in the future. This is unjustifiable, which is precisely why induction is limited. An example of induction: whenever I throw this ball into the air, it comes down. Thus, that which I recognize as the ball will come down when I throw it in the future. My opponent would claim that if the ball did not come down, it would not be the ball in question, and thus the original conclusion would still hold true. However, the entire point of induction is to predict how entities will behave. We are limited to appearances when predicting how things will behave, so we cannot assume that we are necessarily dealing with a ball that will come down after we throw it. In order to get around this, my opponent must prove that it is logically impossible for two physically indistinguishable entities to behave differently. But that would require that an entity’s causal nature logically follow from its appearance, which would be deduction, not induction. States do not embody their causal natures, since laws are not material. The Objectivist solution to the problem of induction requires that nature meet it on its terms. However, nature is obliged to do no such thing. There’s no reason to think that we will be dealing with “entities that behave in X way by definition” just because we have in the past, and there’s no reason to think that entities which appear the same possess the same causal natures.Reasoning from the specific to the general is flawed, because there's no guarantee that specific instances of behavior will always be releavant. Objects that we recongize as X under conditions we recognize as Y will not necessarily behave the same way as they did in the past.
A dictatorship isn"t a long-term solution.

To point out a valid point of the other side of the argument about benevolent dictators, is that although there is a possibility for such a leader, once that leader dies the chance of them being replaced by a leader with similar values and ideals is very slim, more often they will be replaced with either a pathetic pushover who will fall to the contradictory whims of his followers or a megalomaniac who follows the harshness of past and present tyrants. Another example that is missing from this thread is that of Mao Zedong. An awful dictator who one can"t help admire his control over so many people through fear. Although Mao created a lot of what china is today, very little of what he did had positive repercussions for his people at the time. Many were tortured and starved and the bad in people rose above the good in them, creating many murders of all ages. Furthermore, China is also a good example of how the removal and oppression of intelligence ruins a country, during the reign of Mao many peasants used farming tools and methods ancient for the western world in the mid twentieth century because of the lack of innovation and creativity implemented within the country. Dictatorships are not long term solutions, I"m not one for positively condoning democracy but despite the potential corruption and slow processes of democracy, I would prefer the political freedom and freedom of thought and speech which more often accompanies a democracy than the more often repression and fearful compliance of a dictatorship.
Abortion

So this argument has been going on for a while now, but allow me to put this thing to rest. I am 100% Pro-life, and I will never change that. The people I have had this argument with in the past have labeled me as someone who is against women's rights, and that is not true. I am simply against murder. Especially the murder of innocent, unborn children. The argument that the people in the past have used against me is that the baby isn't born yet so technically it is not murder. However, life does not begin when the baby is born, but it begins when the sperm fertilizes the oocyte and they together form a zygote. This is when the human life begins. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another. So, if this is true then abortion is considered murder and should be punished exactly like a murder. "But it's the woman's right!" I'm so glad you said that because I'm about to break this down to where a kindergartener can get it! It is not so much the woman's right as it is her freedom. You have complete control over what you do, which basically means freedom of self, so if this woman chooses to take a life then it is her "self-freedom". However, it is also a known murderer's "self-freedom" to murder an innocent person in cold blood. But, these are not rights. Everyone has the freedom to break the law, but if they do then they have to pay the price for doing so. I am going to save the rest of my argument for round 2 because I want to give you a chance.
Ban islam

Cuz islam is a global problem, and christians can pick and choose while muslims are forced. there is over 100 verses that call to the death and torture of unbelievers.. wonder where you get this crap from, maybe your asss? or some one elses? If thats the case, that you live in an "islamic country" where you havnt been threatened, its not a muslim country.. islam has a submit or die policy, does the country you live in follow sharia? Anyone for freedom of choice is for the ban of islam, any one else are for terrorism and pedophilia.. islam has absolutly nothing to do with peace, islam is rooted in terrorism, cuz the penalty for leaving islam is death
Ban islam

Why Islam? Why not Christianity? Unlike other religions, the Muslim belief supports amnesty to non believers. In the Qua ran, it says that Christians, Atheists, Jews and Hindus have no need be afraid. Islam is grounded in the ideas of tolerance and peace. Sure there are extremists but there are certain groups who interpret ideas in a very radical way. I live in a Muslim country and I have not once been threatened or discriminated against for my Dietist beliefs, unlike back in Europe.
THBT space exploration should be pursued by private companies rather than governments.

I will be working with my partner, TN05, against missmozart and her partner, Biodome. Therefore, neither Biodome nor TN05 are eligible to vote. The full text of the resolution is as follows: "This house believes that space exploration should be pursued by private companies rather than governments. "Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments Definitions:pursue- to attempt space exploration by self-funding (or by creditors, investors, etc. ) and self-managed efforts (using own employees, facilities, etc. )Notes: No new arguments in the final round. No kritiks of the resolution. No trolling. No semantics. Once the debate is accepted by the contenders, they waive all rights to add definitions, change structure, or any other aspects of this debate. Should they attempt to do so, do not weigh these ideas when voting. If any changes are to be made, the contenders must PM myself and/or TN05 to do so. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance. Good luck to my opponents, may the best team win!
Music is all about looks now!

While I agree that music has changed mostly to pop-type music, is that nessecarily a bad thing? We have seen numerous changes in musical style throughout history, notably through civilizations. Why, then, should this be different? While there may be good artists who don't get the credit they deserve, there is plenty of legitimate, emotional music out on the radio today. The only reason that music videos exist is to promote marketing and the purchase of music recordings-so of course they want the video to be cool and the singer to be "hot"! In the digital age of today, marketers and advertisers have learned to adapt to the rapid change in public interest. People now focus on looks more than the quality of the music, and the marketers know this. So it's hardly the thought of the people who actually care about music that it's this way now. To conclude this argument, music is not all about looks now. The musicians actually put effort into their songs and create interesting melodies that are catchy and capture the attention of audiences. It's only the advertising companies' fault that the music industry is this way.
Music is all about looks now!

you are right, but in this year, this music that is coming out has no meaning. 2014 had the last of the good music and now it all sounds like the same thing, everyone wants to rap, or create jungle type music. Rock isn't even rock any more, it's pop rock, country music sounds like One Direction. Artists and groups like HAIM, Imogen Heap, Dumbfounded, Toro Y Moi, chairlift, etc. don't get the credit they need even when they have good music and the music they put out there for the public, on the radio sucks, big time. Every one I know likes the music they like because either the singer is "hot" or because the music video was cool, they don't focus on the concept of the song.
Music is all about looks now!

Music does, indeed, have meaning. Songs with pleasant-sounding lyrics and melodies will gain accolades and awards more than songs based on egotistical divas. While I will concede that the original purpose of several musical genres has become lost in the modern world, there are still deep and emotional songs that are produced by artists. Take, for example, Eminem's "When I'm Gone" and "Hailie's Song", which both profess his love for his daughter. But Eminem is just the tip of the iceberg-there are so many other musicians who put emotion into their songs that it would be unfair to say that music is about looks. While appearance has become a major part of music, there is still so much else that could be said about music nowadays.
Music is all about looks now!

I think that music has no meaning, it seems to be focused on the looks of the singer and not the words. there was a time when singers had meanings to thier songs and rappers rapped about the deep stuff. there was a time when rock was a riot against the world and now all music is about is sex, drugs, and getting money. Back when there was no youtube, people were more concerned with the music than the artist's looks-now poeple are mor intrested in whether the artist got chest implants then whether the artist's music is good. Overall music has just gone downhill...
Music is all about looks now!

When you say that every generation has its own style you are right but it gets a little different when you are referring to the music of this day and age. The music of now has almost all of the same melodies, and a lot of the artists out today have similar voices. During the 80's you could tell the difference between journey and Bon Jovi, even though they had the same style of music, their melodies weren't the same. Now however, you can hardly tell the difference between Miley Cyrus and Tailor Swift, because their Music is just too similar. No artist that they promote seems to have their own style anymore, except the seniors that started their career in a earlier time. You are also right about the music videos being a good way for artists to advertise but, they have taken their music videos too far, all their women half(or fully) naked and their men singing with twerking women beside them, its quite revolting, really. There was a time when music videos were more about the song than the actual person singing. Now you see artists trying extra hard to look good for the camera. Sure artists work hard to create interesting music, but it becomes less interesting when the next artist comes out with a song that sounds just like it. Sure the artist is meant to look "hot" to attract attention to the songs they make but the songs become less important when the artist's hotness is the focus and not their music.
poem debate

In the Heart of a Rose In the heart of a rose, You will see my pain, My joys, my tears, my sorrows. It's all here, In the heart of a rose. In the heart of a rose, You will see my identity, The who's, the what's, the there for's. It's all there, In the heart of a rose. In the heart of a rose, You will see my heart, My love, my adoration, my exaltation. It's all there, In the heart of a rose.
poem debate

you told me lies from the start, but I always wanted to make it work, and then you broke my heart, and said it was a game. my love is not to take for granted, and that's why I hate you, you lied about stupid things, and now I see why. save the best for last, that must not be you, cause your long gone, days go by and I keep swaying my pride, now not wasting my time, actually living my life. today I'm fine, cause I'm not the one living a lie, I'm fine, I'm not wasting my time, and its all because your A LIVING LIE!!! this is one of my originals
poem debate

I was cold and hurting lost out in the night wandering and searching for heaven's light I saw the night sky clearing when you spread your rainbow wings But little did I know what joy you would bring From that moment on a friendship did start you kissed away my tears and sheltered my heart I bless the day God sent him from above But then I grew fearful for I had fallen in love I told you this feeling and what did you say? You said you liked our friendship and that's how it would stay I cried for a friendship I thought I lost But then felt your warm, gentle hand You then whispered in my ear that by my side you'll forever stand
freedom is'nt free

In R2, my opponent said, "war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments in war are monstrous." However, as pointed out, the revolutionary war was not needed to achieve "freedom" (I pointed to Canada's non-violent achieval of independence). My opponent had no counter for that. I also point to the many wars we've had since and said that not one of them was about our freedom. My opponent had no counter to that and even said, "vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason." My opponent actually then goes on to claim that we do not have freedom, which contridicts his entire notion that we use war to preserve our freedom. My opponent gives the example that you can't take a piss on someone else's block of cheese and claiming that proves you don't have freedom. This is where my original argument of "freedom is an idea or concept" comes into play. Because it is an idea and concept, it is unique to each and every individual person. Everyone has their own ideas on what freedom really is and what rights and liberties are. Since my opponent has not been able to defend a single case of buying or paying for freedom, his cases falls. Thank you,
freedom is'nt free

you make some very good points but here are a few things. canada was technically not at war, for they did not fight. asa you clearly stated in your argument. and vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason. all in all we lost many brave men and women in these senseless wars, well over 500,000 people. a hefty price to pay to BE free. but were not free. if you think your free in this country try and walk in your nearest deli shop and take a leak on the cheese. i believe i have made my point. thanks for reading.
freedom is'nt free

My opponent points to the American revolutionary war, as a cost of freedom. I would like to point to the Canadian revolutionary war, which resulted in the deaths of 0 soldiers, because Canada didn't fight one. They achieved independence non-violently in 1867 [1]. This clearly shows that freedom can be given freely. Given that the revolutionary war was clearly not needed, and no other war by the US was used to preserve our freedoms (war of 1812 was an invasion into Canada, civil war was for maintaining the union, Spanish-American war was an intervention of another nation, WW1 was an intervention, WW2 was an intervention, Korea was an intervention, Vietnam was an intervention, etc). It should also be noted that one does not fight for freedom, but fights to prove freedom. As has been said several times on this board, your rights exist regardless of whether or not your government recognizes those rights. This goes in line with what the founding fathers said about rights being "self-evident" and "inalienable" [2, definition of inalienable]. I would also like to point out that my opponent said nothing against freedom being a concept and an idea, and as such can have no cost. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1867%E2%80%931914) [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
freedom is'nt free

freedom is most certainly not free. that what you have posted is simply a definition from a dictionary. use YOUR words in this. i don't know if you are against or with from that post. war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments in war are monstrous.in the Revolutionary War, there were 10,623 causalities and 4,435 K.I.A. i cannot make any more arguments until my opponent responds. thank you for reading.
freedom is'nt free

Freedom [1] - "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint." Free [2] - "enjoying personal rights or liberty." Based on the number 1 definitions of "freedom" and "free," it is safe to say that freedom is free, by definition. Now, if my opponent mead "free" as in "free from cost" (like "buy one get one free"), then freedom is still free, because freedom is a concept, an idea, not a physical characteristic. As such, I can hold any idea without having a cost for that idea. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...