BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible should be under fiction in the library

Hence, I'm going to present my arguments which will basically correct Pro's misunderstandings. I'm personally an agnostic atheist, but I refuse the condensing proposal to have the Bible classified as fiction. REBUTTALNonfiction does not necessarily mean factualAccording to the definition of "nonfiction," a book is nonfictional if it is either factual or assumed to be truthful by the author or many of the book's readers[1]. The fact that the Bible is classified as "nonfiction" does not say anything about its factuality as opposed to Pro's false assumption. A book might be based on false historic accounts and yet be characterized as nonfiction because some people(including the author) believe its content. This also applies to many works of natural history and literary criticism which fall under nonfiction when they could have been based on subjective opinions and extraordinary claims. Encroaching on the liberty of dissenting authorsApplying Pro's proposal is an encroachment on the liberties of dissenting authors, in the sense that they would be prohibited from categorizing their works, but forced to leave such judgment to the dominant paradigm's advocates, who would classify the thoughts of others as "fiction" if they do not go along with modern-day thinking. This does not only persecute dissenters, but damages all what lies at the heart of free inquiry. The Bible's supernatural claims are plausibleIt is plausible that there exists a God who is behind miraculous phenomena that cannot be naturally explained. Although I personally do not accept many biblical stories because of my empirical approach, my intellectual modesty prohibits me from claiming that I have absolute knowledge that such stories are fictional. It is plausible that such stories are surprisingly factual, although this plausibility could be nominal for all I know. That is to say, my limited knowledge of the world does not permit me to state with absolute certainty that biblical accounts are definitely fictional or truthful. It is more reasonable for me to simply classify the Bible as nonfiction, given that this particular classification carries out the intention that is carried out by the Bible itself which claims to be a gospel of truths that lead man to heaven, without having to include my personal judgment on whether the Bible is actually factual. --SUMMARYPro seems to be holding a heretic stamp with the word "Fiction" written on it and stamping it on works that contain supernatural or extraordinary claims, when being classified as nonfiction does not mean that such works are factual, and when we have no absolute knowledge that such biblical accounts are fictional. CITATIONS[1] Fact & fiction: the new journalism and the nonfiction novel. J Hollowell - 1977 - Univ of North Carolina Pr.
This house would make public college free

There is no thing as free college. Even in countries that students do not pay for college, their is still a cost. I will assume based on what my opponent has written that his premise is it is impossible for college to be incorporated into a system in a similar way as the public school education system. The education in these settings takes place is public funded so for the student there is no cost. For the sake of this debate I will take this position to mean "Free college education" or any other of the various semantics and euphemisms. My opponent seems to be making a case, that because the US is nearing 20 Trillion dollars in debt that does not leave any budget room for the government to offer a free education. The first problem with my opponents view is he feels the college system, the public college system should be Federally funded. The purpose of the federal government is NOT to manage or pay for the college system. The states, like with the public k-12 system is funded mostly through state property tax. Such a funding has nothing to do with the original thesis of my opponents position - the federal government can't afford it. State governments can make it work if the wanted to by raising property taxes or reducing benefits in other areas such as state funded healthcare, or food stamps. The priorities are there for the fixing and just because there is no room under the current budget does not mean the next budget would be unable to be revised allocating money into a different category. Lastly, I would suggest a different paradigm that allows for this to be completed in the public school setting. And one that would be less costly and more close to a real "free system". First I would suggest extending high school to grade 14. The students would be able to take college level classes taught by the current teachers. The teachers would then give the students state standardized tests. Those students who score a certain level are given college credit. After graduating highschool in the 14th grade, they would have enough credits for a BA. Secondly, online is a much cheaper system. There is little overhead. The course could be standardized with video sessions, online course work, and online exams. Successfully passing the final exam would equate to college credits. Enough college credits would allow the student to graduate from a state university/college.
The Earth is flat

1. Corolis Effect:I guess my opponent is asking me to further elaborate. The close, small sun and moon are some sort of electromagnetic phenomenon, pushing the water in the atmosphere away from it as it travels over the equator.2. Foucalts Pendulum:I accept it as valid evidence after re-reviewing the video.3. Chicago SkylineHow exactly is it logically fallacious? Also, if we're going to play the fallacy game, then by not explaining what I say, instead dismissing it at fallacious, you're commiting the Appeal to Fallacy fallacy.Oh wait, the same FE Insanity blog. You can see an air gradient even in your photo. The white line of air followed by a light blue batch of air which blocks the lower half of the sky line. At no point does the skyline "magically bend back to the observer". If that was true we would see those light bends in all 3 dimensions including in crepuscular rays that travel 100s of miles through air and horizontally when we can see 100s of miles of horizon there isn't any bend of light at all.4. Evidence of Curvature1. Space ShuttleMy argument was that video cherry picked footage. He starts off with a dismission of my claims, then claims that in the video he showed, the video cannot be distorted due to the gases. Once again, the argument is that the video you provided cherry picked footage.And, even if they were differnet videos, it is still undeniable evidence that the Earth is flat and NASA and friends manipulate imagery of it. Which was my original argument.https://gyazo.com...https://gyazo.com...Pause it in between and its flat.2. PontchartrainMy opponent cannot counter the rebuttal to Lake Pontchartrain. GG5. Antarctica And, were they smacked down by weather? No. Again, if we're going to use weather as an argument, then I guess flying should be banned.6. GravitySo, can you provide proof that gravity is the correct answer? My theory and gravity are both explanations, but they're both theories. Atleast I have A little bit of proof for mine.7. Midnight sunNASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever, and there is no proof these motions exist.8. QuestionsI will work on your questions in the next round!
The Earth is flat

1. Corolis Effect Nullschool recently removed the AE Map from their website. Hmm I wonder why. However, here is a reupload giving a demonstration. 2. Chicago Skyline Clip I've... seen the same video twice. The explanation is for all to see: It seems like a mirage is pulling the water up in the day due to the heat of the water creating a mirage effect, and that obscures the building when the sun's out, but as you can see, when it goes away, it lowers and more of the building is exposed. 4. Space Shuttle Good try, but if you watch the full video (at around 15 minutes), you will see it uses a fish eye lense. 5. Lake Pontchartrain This is quite simply an optical illusion. This video explains it well 6. Antarctica Weather Winds are sometimes strong. Thats your argument? 7. Flight patterns My original argument was "Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth. " Somehow my opponent has twisted that into a discussion about how people want to go there. 7. Gravitty Either way, its a theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is a theory, created to support an assumption (globe Earth). 8. Midnight sun Lets go over what the article says. One more time. "Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense." Read very closely...
The Earth is flat

Re: Focaults Pendulum and Corolis - Corolis proves flat Earth Eric Dubay seems to always have me covered... huh. His channel was recently deleted because of something he said about the holocaust... Heres a reupload. 1. Defending the Chicago Skyline My opponent claims the phenomenon is due to refraction. His sources? Other people claiming it. Insufficent evidence, please try harder. 2. Defending the no evidence of curvature Still, you would atleast have some time to look at the 80K-317K feet pictures right? 3. Defending the arctic flight patterns My opponent claims that the reason for these flight patterns is because of weather patterns, further stating "strong winds, hailstorms, etc". His argument is essentially that, because of the extreme weather in Antarctica, planes cannot take these paths. So, Antarctica maintains the same weather all-year round? Lets use, as an example, the weather near the Amundsen-Scott Station. As of writing this, it is almost 3:30 AM there and the temperature is -18 F with snow flurries and gentle winds. https://gyazo.com... This is why you cannot use whether as an argument for anything really. 4. Defending the other flight patterns My opponent extends the same whether argument and then claims the reason for these patterns is because people "want" these patterns. I doubt my opponent fully understands my argument. 5. Defending the lack of curved standing water Once again, I doubt my opponent fully understands my argument. My argument was that standing water cannot curved as water naturally finds and maintains his level, not that water would fly off the globe. However, I will explain how gravity works on the flat Earth. On the flat Earth, objects fall if they are more dense than the air, and rise if they are less dense. 6. Defending the midnight sun The axis argument was pre-refuted in the same article. "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense."
The Earth is flat

Hello, I have recently noticed quite a lot debates concerning the shape of the Earth, and so I was motivated to instigate a similar one, issued to SilverishGoldNova. However, anyone that is interested in taking the position of Pro may notify me in the comments or via private message. I contend that the Earth is not flat. I do not think there is a need to define something in particular. Rules: 1. Please, do not forfeit. 2. No insults or ad hominem. 3. No use of external links solely as arguments, but only as sources. 4. The burden of proof will be equally shared between the two sides. 5. Have fun! Pro may post their initial arguments in R1, along with their acceptance. It is highly recommended that no arguments that have not been fully addressed in previous rounds will be posted in R5. On to Pro!
Atheism is a religion

First of all we have to settle what the definition of religion is. The oxford dictionary defines religion as: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". By this definition it is clear that a human being can not be a god, which completely eliminates one of my opponent's argument. If my opponent has a better and more accurate source of definition he will be very welcome to represent it. And one question we ought to ask ourself is wheter a belief in something makes you religious. I believe that Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful woman alive, is this now a religion. Or let's say that some people believe in UFOs, does this mean their gods are now UFOs? First of all there are non-religious people who does believe in a god. What makes them non-religious is simply because they don't belong to an organized religion and they don't follow a written down set of beliefs. A religion is an organization with a belief system in a god/gods with a large following of people. Atheism rejects the possible existence of god, which is not a belief in and of itself, it's a disbelief of other religious people's beliefs. However there is no doubt that there are a lot atheists that worship other things such as the government, the global warmist agenda, political leaders etc. But that does not make them religious.
Atheism is a religion

Atheism is a religion and I'm for that being a true statement . Simply because it is a belief system, believe it or not with no pun intended . Accept or not , that is the debate challenge . This is a cordial invite to any who wishes to find out how the statement is true detailed above . Any who requires explanation on the matter and argues otherwise, please come forth . Atheism is a belief system like any other religion , and the god is the very person that holds the religion of atheism.
The Principle of Utility

Please only accept if you have won 20 or more debates. Resolution: The Principle of Utility is valid(valid as in true) DefinitionsThe Principle of Utility: a utilitarianist principle that states "actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness"[1] And likewise, actions that have a negative affect on overall happiness are wrong actions. Thus any action that increases net-happiness is a morally good act and any action that decreases net-happiness is a morally bad act. Happiness: a mix of pleasure, contentedness, joy and absence of painDefinition of happiness should not be taken strictly throughout this debate. Burden of ProofThe BoP is on pro, though he is free to contend that if he wishes. Structure 1st round is acceptance only.4th round there should be no new arguments introduced. Voters are not to vote on sources as this is a philosophy debate and those points are so abused anyway. If claims are made that do require sources but no sources are given, then simply treat those claims as weak claims.[1] http://inside.msj.edu...
The Principle of Utility

I'll just summarize some things and hopefully pro will make it for the final round. -Pro has the burden of proof but has not made any arguments of his own. Default goes to contender. -By far pros main emphasis of attack rests on a different ethical version than the principle of utility. Since there is no way for his views to correlate with the definition provided, most of his objections can be deemed irelevant. -In response to contention 1, pro never addresses motive. Even if we accepted his views, motive would still be very much an issue, for morality would still be based only on consequence. For reasons highlighted, it is implausible for moral actions to rest only on consequence for then even throwing a baby of a cliff could be morally good. "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualifications, except a good will."~Kant - In response to contention 2, pros response again rests on a different view of ethics than that which are relevant to the debate. Moral actions according to the principle of utility, very much rest on circumstance. Pro has no justification in advancing different principles. -Pro argues that preference is different than moral obligation, but this fails in many ways as demonstrated. -Pro essentially asserts that all goals are based in happiness, which as shown, is very much of the contrary. Many many ethical theories do not posit happiness as the aim, otherwise all ethics would be some variation of utilitarianism which is obviously absurd. The objection still stands that values are completely subjective and there is no way to justify an ethical theory such as utilitarianism in regards to its objectivity of goals.
Make a paragraph without using the letter "e."

This is basically straightforward. Construct a paragraph without using that symbol. That symbol is common in almost all words. This looks hard, but a lot of words don't contain that symbol. I can form a long chain of words without that symbol. I am using a broad vocabulary of words that do not contain that symbol. It is amazing to think of a lot of words that lack that symbol. A flood of words in a dictionary will show you many things that lack that symbol. It is amazing to find that many words.
I will not contradict myself

Please don't lose any sleep over the forfeit which was a simple and honest mistake. I don't think Thad's rebuttals in his final round adequately defend his contradictions. The crux of them seems to be that most of his contradictions were mere errors that shouldn't count against him. This holds no weight with me. Obviously one would not expect someone to make a debate as Pro for the resolution "I will not contradict myself" and then contradict themselves intentionally. Of course his contradictions were all errors, this doesn't make them any less contradictory. As Pro and instigator, Thad clearly bears a heavy burden of proof in this debate, but has not even denied my R4 contention that "there may well be many more" contradictions I did not manage to spot. By dropping this point he apparently concedes that there may well be more contradictions, a clear failure to fulfil his burden of proving that he has not contradicted himself. In many cases my R4 accusations pre-empted Thad's defense of his contradictions. Rather than addressing the logic I have used to prove his statements contradictory, he merely glosses over my points, deciding what is and isn't "valid" in a most arbitrary fashion. My supposed "assumptions of behaviour" all stem logically from the information Thad has provided in this debate. Information that I have demonstrated to be contradictory in many instances. Thanks again to my worthy opponent Thaddeus and to anyone else who happens to read this.
I will not contradict myself

Now to defending myself; Clear contradictions: (Where there is an explicit logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. ) I shall be using this as the accepted definition of contradiction. 1. I see no contradiction in deciding not to explicitly state that some of it was true. You may infer a contradiction, but there is no explicit contradiction. Referring to the behaviour in which I typically answered the questions has no relevance. Proposition one; I live in Kent Proposition two; My profile info is not accurate. It would be illogical to assume that not being accurate means that its entirety is inaccurate, as only one piece of false information on my profile would render it inaccurate. 2. The important word here is Valid. When I state the contradiction as not being valid I mean that it cannot be used for the purpose of the debate. The contradictions you note between what I say and my the info on my profile are indeed contradictory, but they are not valid for the purpose of the debate. 3. I occasionally accidently capitalize things which ought not to be and don't capitalize things which ought to be. Purely error, no contradiction. This is assumption of my behaviour. Again not a contradiction. 4. "No. The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. A wave cannot have two different values at once. " I clearly state what colour is in relation to the question in my answer, thus barring the possibility for red to be defined as your dog, or blue as a state of mind. furthermore, I only state that they appear to have that capacity, and therefore I still don't know if the your dog Red is sad for certain. 5. It is false to assume that I meant the directional right. The propositions are compatible as it is possible to take a single definition of right. As the propositions are compatible, they are not contradictory. ---- It is interesting to note that you have made assumptions about my behaviour to constitute contradictions, however this would contradict (lol) the definition of contradiction as these statements are easily compatible if your antecedent assumptions about my behaviour are wrong. ---- 1. Obviously no contradiction. It is not unusual for people to have religious parents but are not religious in any way themselves. 2. It is illogical to assume that I would be afraid of ordinary life. My fear of death stems from my love of life. 3. You are correct in that I evidently have a gaping hole in my knowledge of basic physics. However, not all scientific knowledge is requires pre-requisite knowledge of other areas in the science. It is easily possible for me to be knowledgeable in one area and ignorant in another. 4. A typo is not a contradiction. You are making antecedent assumptions about my behaviour which are false, rendering your conclusion that I have contradicted myself, as incorrect. 5. Evidently no contradiction. Deviation from behaviour is not a contradiction. Just in this case bad manners.