BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

If I thought your argument was just about epistemological limits, I would have been much more reticent to debate you. It is almost impossible to conclusively prove anything to anyone unless it is an a priori fact and even then people find ways to disagree. So, just demonstrating that I can't prove something to you is almost a non-statement – a truism. Kant's argument is that even a pseudo-reality would not be able to generate a stable world because our minds are constantly changing. We seem to be going around in circles on this point, so I'm not going to say anything else, I'll just leave it at that.
I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

Hm..I'm beginning to fear that, once again, my lack of clarity will be a significant downfall for me...Well, I'll try to be as unequivocal in my conclusion as I can be. As for the statement "The argument is not simply that you do not exist, but that it is impossible for me to personally be proven otherwise," I confess I did not state this as clearly as I intended. Perhaps it would be better understood if I phrased it as such: "The argument is not the simple idea of whether or not you exist, but rather that I cannot be proven otherwise." I realize that this lack of clarification is, unfortunately, a bit unfair, but as your major argument is addressing the proof of something's existance, I'm not feeling -too- guilty.. Now, then, turning to the main argument. Personally, I find Kant's ideas, while certainly plausible, to be speculative. While it does seem logical that our minds would have to actually experience the external in order for it to create a realistic fabrication, who can say what our minds are in fact capable of? Certainly, it may seem, at the very least, that our minds have limits, but much of this would be based on supposed scientific research on what may be simply false representations of the mind. In truth, we have absolutely no knowledge of the extent of power our "actual" minds may have. Also, I concede that it does seem improbable, regardless of the power of our minds, that they would be capable of creating a temporal world with realistic interactions. However, it's entirely possible that what we experience in a pseudo-reality is nothing at all what an "actual reality" is like, if there even is one at all. Thus, our concept and understanding of the temporal may in fact be entirely false, with "unrealistic" physical properties of interation, but it would still be naught but a fabrication. To make it as clear as I can: It may indeed be true that our minds are not capable of creating a realistic temporal world, that it would be impossible to do so without the understanding of a true external object, but we still cannot say with absolute certainty that our minds are not capable of creating a pseudo-reality, even if it is not accurate in comparison to a true reality.
I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

You'll have to forgive me for being a little confused by exactly what you're arguing. In point 2 of your opening statement, you say this:" 2) The argument is not simply that you do not exist, but that it is impossible for me to personally be proven otherwise." In interpreted this to mean that BOTH the claim that I do not exist and the claim that you cannot be proven otherwise are true. I you endorse the first claim, you are clearly mistaken as per my argument, but it appears that you do not endorse this claim. Shame – the argument was so good. Onto my big argument: I do think you misunderstand Kant's argument. According to Kant, time is an addition to the perception of the world that out minds make a priori. We gain this understanding of time though experience – we cannot gain it through the kind of intellectual understanding that your 1+1=2 analogy argues for. Just as all the knowledge in the world about the physics and movements necessary to hit a baseball do not train your muscles to actually hit it. In Kant's view, you need to actually experience the stable external and a mental construct won't do. The problem at a fundamental level is that the mind does not posses the stability needed to gain temporal understanding.
I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

I do concede to the equal impossibility of proving something does not exist. But as I said before, "[this] argument is not simply that you do not exist, but that it is impossible for me to personally be proven otherwise." Though I did not make it perfectly clear in my opening argument, I think it's fair to say that the same idea is applicable if you replace "you" with "anything," so that the argument would read "[this] argument is not simply that [anything does] not exist, but that it is impossible for me to personally be proven otherwise." So, if I do believe that proving something's non-existence is just as valid an argument as proving its existence, why did I choose the latter? Simply, it's more interesting. If I was to say it was impossible to prove that you do not exist, who would care? We already take for granted the existence of everything. But in challenging the existence of everything, of posing the idea of nothingness, I get a lot more thoughts going, and typically will get a much more interesting argument. I will now address your last point, questioning why I would bother posing this argument at all if I did in fact believe that everything was just a creation of my mind. Well, I see it as such: just because everything else doesn't exist, my emotions still do. Thus, I will still interact with others, and still posted this argument, because I enjoyed doing so. Whether or not they are fabrications does not change the enjoyment I get from them. Thus, it seems that you might suggest that if, in fact, nothing is real, why bother doing anything? Well, why not? Who cares if it doesn't matter? If it keeps my conscious mind feeling good, then I will do it, whether or not I believe it to be real. Now, to address the big point you raised. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding on my part, but I see no need to have knowledge of some external reference in order to validate internal awareness. Why not simply presuppose the existence of the internal knowledge? In doing so, nothing would be required to follow. That is, true knowledge of something makes it the case, by defintion: if I can truly say that I know 1+1=2, then it must follow that that is the case. However, if I was to simply presuppose that 1+1=2, it does not necessarily mandate it to be so. As such, why not simply presuppose the existence of the external object, rendering it's actuality unproven?
I am God, and you do not exist--Take II

Ah Fernir, we meet again! I too believe that I have experienced some problems with people reading my position and voting on that instead of reading my arguments, so I sincerely hope that anyone who reads this doesn't vote for me just because I am endorsing an intuitive position, but actually votes for the person who does a better job. Ok, so this debate is going to get real complicated real fast, but I'll start with an easy argument. Your claim is that because everything is ideas (or as you claim neurological responses to stimuli) you are never aware of the external world directly and thus have no reason to think it exists. Even if I give you this claim, you also don't have any reason to assume that it DOESN'T exist. Not having knowledge of something only proves that you don't have knowledge of it, it does not prove that it doesn't exist. Now the complicated bit: the philosopher Immanuel Kant deals with this sort of argument in his famous work, The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant argues that human perception of the world is necessarily grounded in time and space (I can go into why this is so, if needed, but it will take a while). Now with that as background, here is summary of Kant's argument: "(A) I have knowledge of myself: ‘I am conscious of myself as determined in time' (B) In order to have such knowledge, I must have knowledge that something ‘permanent' existed from the time of my previous mental state to the present (C) This permanent could not be one of my mental states (D)Therefore, the permanent of which I have knowledge must be something ‘outside me,' i.e. an object in the external world Kant uses this argument to prove that the external world does in fact exist, refuting your argument. A final argument is a cheap one, but I don't think you take your own argument seriously. If you thought the external world existed, who are you debating with? Who's voting on your arguments? Why would you ever post on a site like this if you really believed what you say.
Sexual Activity Should Be Legal

All laws on the books can be enforced, by authority of the government that has it on the books. If the government for which the law is on the books or another, higher order government wants otherwise, then it sometimes takes time for the enforcement of that law to stop. Even in that sometimes true case, another instance of the law being enforced can work its way through the courts and still succeed through a reversal of previously set judicial precedent. Outrage and riots alone should not be a reason for the government failing to enforce a law. Outrage and riots can be overcome by the better power, the government. If everybody's partaking in sexual activity except for a few, then those few deserve the benefit of the law, to the detriment of everybody else, even if that detriment is lethal or causes serious bodily injury. Nobody, and no judicial decision, is above the law. Statues of limitations only limit, but do not completely prevent, laws that prohibit sexual activity from being enforced. The best way to ensure laws that prohibit sexual activity are not enforced is to repeal those laws completely.
Sexual Activity Should Be Legal

A law on the books that is not enforced can still be enforced. A law that has been ruled unconstitutional can still be constitutional. The laws on the books are not just decorative pieces, nor should they be. They are there to be followed and enforced. If we want sexual activity to be legal, we should ensure that there are no laws prohibiting it. It's possible that: if a person committed a crime and neither was nor is prosecuted for it, then he or she is not protected from the negative consequences of having committed the crime. If I violated a law that prohibited sexual activity and neither was nor is prosecuted for the violation due to the law not being enforced or due to the law being determined unconstitutional, I do not want to face the negative consequences of having committed the crime, and I do not want to live with the fear of possibly being subject to future legal prosecution. As I've said in an earlier round, whether sexual activity is legal is different from whether sexual activity should be legal. You seem to like to argue in support of the proposition that sexual activity is legal. But you really should be arguing in support of the proposition that sexual activity should not be legal. That is the side of this debate you have opted to take. So, your argument is off topic.
Sexual Activity Should Be Legal

Many of the types of sexual activity I mentioned may still be technically illegal. Even if all those types of sexual activities were certainly legal, debating their legality could still be beneficial as it could help to maintain their legality and to advance humankind's pool of knowledge. There are legislators and politicians that do not seem to be doing enough to ensure that certain sexual activities are legal. In that sense, they are pressuring to keep sex illegal. In principal, everything that feels good should be legal. All drugs that make people feel good should be legal. Murder must be, by definition, illegal. Killing another person, on the other hand and in principal, should be legal if it feels good. Freedom is one of the most important and cherished values of the United States. United States' citizens should strive to maximize their freedoms. In principal, people should have the right to do whatever they want to do. I want to own my entire existence. I want to own my entire universe. That sexual activity feels good was not the only argument I presented for why sexual activity should be legal. There are other arguments that I have presented that come into play as well. You have disregarded those other arguments.
Sexual Activity Should Be Legal

Whether sexual activity is already legal is different from whether it should be legal. In Massachusetts, which is where I reside, certain sexual activities are still illegal. Some sexual activities are arguably still illegal. All of the sexual activities I mentioned in the last sentence of my round 1 argument are arguably still illegal in some form in Massachusetts, due to Massachusetts' or United States' law. Furthermore, the Massachusetts' or United States' judicial system determines that a law prohibiting a form of sexual activity is unconstitutional does not imply the law actually is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth and federal judicial systems could be wrong. If they are wrong in certain cases, such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003) of the Supreme Court of the United States, those laws that prohibit certain sexual activities and that are still on the books are still in effect and can currently be enforced. To better ensure that sexual activity is technically legal, those laws should be repealed or weakened.
Sexual Activity Should Be Legal

Sexual activity feels good. Sexual activity can be positive. Sexual activity makes people feel good about themselves. Sexual activity brings out the true feelings and the true character of people. Sexual activity makes people feel that the world is a good place and that they are glad to exist in it. Sexual activity can be safe and fun. Freedom of expression, freedom in general, and freedom of speech encourage that sexual activity be legal. God may make sexual activity good and positive. God may encourage and promote sexual activity. For these reasons, sexual activity both between people married to each other and between people not married to each other should be legal. Sexual activity between members of the opposite and the same genders should be legal. Sexual activities that should be legal include sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, anal penetration, contact of the mouth and the anus, contact of the mouth and the genitals, public sexual activity, and without maintaining certain records, producing sexually explicit photographs and videos of producers themselves and other people.
Early abortion should be legal

My Position: My position is short and simple. Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal. Abortion, therefore, should also be illegal. The reason why I believe abortion is murder is as follows. The only way to define a human being is through genetics. If an organism has human DNA in its nucleus, it is a human. Otherwise, it is not a human. Killing an organism with human DNA is Opponents Position: Right to Life: I reject my opponents argument here. It is based on the idea that the people against abortion have a double standard. This is true. The problem isn't that abortion isn't legal. The problem is that people drop bombs on things. What we need to have here is the principal of negative utilitarianism (the least bad for the most people) in place. Bodily Rights: I reject the analogy because it is founded on a misunderstanding of human anatomy. I will, however, forgive it because it is just an analogy. I would say that the person who is plugged in has a moral obligation to be plugged into him. It may harm him temporarily, but it will save a life, which, under a negative utilitarian view, is the superior obligation. Conflict of Right in the Embryonic Period: This is simply a twisting of the definition of human. As I have mentioned, the only functioning definition of human is found in genetics. That embryo is merely a little human. Unjust Burden: Once again, the analogy is bad. The analogy compares people stopping people from doing something and people forcing people to do something. In this case, I will crack down on this analogy. You can't compare apples and oranges. As for the actual substance of the argument, the burden is not unjust. It's about saving lives vs temporary agony. Keep in mind, I will authorize abortions in situations where the mother will die otherwise. Those situations are already covered in other laws and are currently legal. One Five Year Old vs One Hundred One Hundred Days Old Embryos: Once again, you have to do the arithmetic. They are all human. You save all of them. It doesn't matter what they are. The order doesn't matter. If Abortion is Murder: The two options you present are not the only ones. You have employed the straw man logical fallacy. You say that there are endless rows of women who have had abortions during the embryonic stage. As has been noted, this is currently illegal. The number of women with these types of abortions are small. Not only have you done this, but you have assumed away the laws of logic by having the second option deny a principle because it would lead to pain otherwise. You should never deny a principle. You should weigh each principle next to each other. Personhood: I would like to contend with everything after 1. When you say "If X has none of the characteristics [1-5], it is certainly not a person", you should be saying "If X has none of the characteristics [1-5], it is certainly not alive". 1-5 shouldn't be a test of humanity because it applies to literally almost all other organisms on earth.
animal testing

Of course humans lives have a big value. But nowadays there is a big progress in technology and there are a lot of new innovations. I think people should search for alternatives , because they are too dependant from animals. We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. One more reason to support my point of view, is reduction of animals. The new studies show that each year about 115 million animals in the world used for experimental purposes. Keeping the number of animals used to a minimum is extremely important. As much we use as much we lose. The animals are the essential part of our life. They have played various roles; that of a friend, companion, benefactor, protector, comforter, and more. This world would be a very different place were its sole inhabitants humans
animal testing

Of course animal testing had a big value in medicine in the past. but nowadays it is not so profitable. Animal experimentations not always helps. the reason is that animals are not like humans. they have different genes, organism, different reactions to decease and so on. They do not suffer from all human diseases, so scientists have to give them the illnesses artificially. These tests do not always work because animals do not react to drugs in the same way as humans. Aspirin, for example, damages pregnant mice and dogs, but not pregnant women. That is why I'm against of animal testing
America should help the poor and needy.

Okay, I guess I'll get this started. America should not help poor people in America because it causes free-loaders and disabled people to increase. There was a study done in 2013-2014 that says there were 109,631,000, or about 35.4% Americans living on welfare. That is far too much for any country to have. It also ruins the middle class' lives because they cant afford to be heavily taxed. I know several people on disability than can walk and perform any physical or mental actions just fine. This also affect presidential elections because the people who want to live off of welfare or disability vote for them just like Barrack Obama received many of his votes. Sources: Terrence, Jefferey. (2014, August 20) http://www.cnsnews.com...
Any topic

Let me clarify my argument on the high tax on cigarettes. As I stated before, the tax on cigarettes has brought in $16,563,684,714 across the states. That tax money is being used for important things such as roads, schools, and the various other things that the states use tax money for. I am not saying that it makes all the deaths from cigarettes okay. But I do believe that if cigarettes were made illegal a lot of people would just get them illegally. The money made from the cigarettes would, instead of going to the state, go to the people illegally selling the cigarettes. Just because you make something illegal does not mean people stop doing it. In conclusion the arguments that I have made were cigarettes should not be illegal because it is a persons choice to begin smoking, businesses would be destroyed, and because of the tax money that cigarettes have provided for the state.
Any topic

First I will answer Con' second rebuttal. I am just saying that it is bad for your lungs which will be bad for the smokers. You are just saying that it is a high tax. So what? Explain!!!Now I will tell you my 3 main points again. My first point was that, decreases population. This is because of bad lungs and also because of the pollution. My second argument was that it is very easy to die. Because it is bad for your lungs, and has white things in your lungs so you can't breath. My third arguments was that it just costs a lot of money for buying cigarettes when you can just use other things you need. Also Con did not even try to rebut this argument.I will show you the good picture again of how smoking Now I will tell you why I should win this debate. First I tried to rebut all his arguements. Also Con did not even try to rebut my 3rd argument and the rebutting round ended. So if you rebut you do not follow the rules and lose this debate. Also my arguments were stronger and Con's was weaker, from my ways I said that it is bad for your health, and also when Con said his argument of stress, I found a website and had rebut how you can stop other ways of stress. Therefore, I think Pro should win this debate. Vote for Con!!!
Any topic

Rebuttals 1. I will agree with the statement that smoking cigarettes for extended periods of time may eventually kill you. Nor will I try to said that tobacco is good habit to take up. If we make cigarettes illegal then I think that something similar to when the United States prohibited alcohol will happen. From 1920 to 1933 the United States prohibited alcohol, on the thinking that it would decrease crime rates and allow for more work to be done. Instead, it increased the rate of homicide and illegal activity. The following are the homicide rates before, during, and after alcohol was prohibited. http://www.druglibrary.org... I believe that banning cigarettes will have the same effects that banning alcohol had on the United States. 2. I do not believe that I will be able to rebut this point because cigarettes are harmful to your lungs and can cause you to die sooner. 3. The expensive cost cigarettes have are because of the high taxes. If the person smoking does not want to smoke because they are having trouble affording it, then they can contact an organization that will gladly give them tips and help them in the process of quitting their addiction.