BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Determinism as a real thing

Since the definition of Determinism is: "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." The information present in the universe at one given time would be enough to define any event in the future Proving at least that there is one event that doesn"t follow the definition from above would be enough to prove that determinism is not real. But of course, one would think that the sun will obviously rise tomorrow, the earth will still exist and animals will keep on breeding to maintain their species. This sounds quite deterministic, but extending this definition to the whole universe is a type of fallacy called "Fallacy of induction". Now, let"s begin in our quest to: 1.- Find something "truly random" 2.- Something that follows no pattern 1.- Something truly random: Quantum mechanics describes quantum particles as probabilities, not because we don"t know yet, but because there is nothing there to know. The information is only known once we look. Let"s explain it with something close to us: a cat. Schr"dinger"s cat. In 1935, Erwin Schrodinger, in an attempt to explain the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, he proposed an experiment where a cat is placed in a box with a sealed vial of poison that will break open at a random time. Now, since no-one knows when or if the poison has been released, until the box is opened, the cat can be thought of as both alive and dead. This is an example of how quantum mechanics work, all in a simplified hypothetical experiment to make it understandable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr"dinger's_cat 2.- Let"s finish with the latter, something that follows no pattern: If we take a series of numbers following a logical order, there would be determination; the previous information would make the following redundant. Once something doesn"t follow any patterns (that is, the following information cannot be inferred from the previous one), we can say that it is a completely unpredictable system and thus defies the definition of determinism. Let"s examine it: "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." This is a deterministic set of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9" This follows a logical pattern. But this one doesn"t: 8, 9, 2, 4, 7, 1, 3, 10, 5, 6 For more information, i would suggest watching this three amazing videos i found on the internet: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... They might come in handy for your Free Will debate if you side Pro.
plus is cause and minus is effect

I am not asking you if you are reasoning. I did NOT ask you "How do you know you are reasoning." I asked you how do you know you are reasoning correctly. People reason fallaciously all the time. For example, an example of a logically fallacious argument is a "Ad hominem attack." An Hominem is attack is a logical fallacy where the debtor attacks the character of his opponent and not the opponent's argument and acts as if the character of a debtor as any bearing on a argument. For example, lets say Robert makes a good argument against to investing more money in public schools. His argument is that investing money in public schools will decrease crime rates. Lets say his opponent is Kevin and his counter argument is this: "Robert ran a red light this morning so he is a jerk so you should not believe his argument for investing money in public schools." As you can see Kevin did reasoned but his reason was false and incorrect and fallacious. How do you know like Kevin you are reasoning falsely, incorrectly, and fallaciously. I don't doubt that you do reason as I said before and I will say it again. How do you know you are reasoning correctly not just reasoning but reasoning correctly.
plus is cause and minus is effect

Your whole counter argument is begging the question. I ask you how do you know your reasoning is correct and you responded by saying that I reasoned that my reasoning is correct. This is very circular. For example you said: "you don't feed your child battery acid if you want it to be healthy for a reason, because you know logic." This is assuming the conclusion of an argument. You are in sense saying that "my reasoning is correct watch me reason." Anyone can reason I don't question that you can reason. What I question is how do you know you reason correctly. . I questioned how do you know Logic without God. I can know that I am reasoning correctly in my world view because I know The the all knowing God of the bible pre- programmed me with my reasoning skills. I am asking you how do you know you are reasoning correctly with your non-God world view.
plus is cause and minus is effect

i know its correct reasoning to keep my eyes open if i want to read this as i cant read it on my screen with my eyes closed cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic) know is everything, i know my experience of now, only today now 1 second looping is true, while 1 second ahead of now remains 1 second ahead of now, imaginary like this, 1.... 2.... 3.... but 1.... 1.... 1.... or now... now... now... i know if you cant read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, then it is reasonable to keep them open if you want to read these words reason+intent=morality logic+experience=reason(the concept of logic) you don't feed your child battery acid if you want it to be healthy for a reason, because you know logic to put my argument about plus and minus more simple, any cause is caused by another cause, therefore a first cause is impossible, or a cause that didn't cause anything isn't a cause, therefore a first cause would be caused by a cause that is not a cause
plus is cause and minus is effect

Absolute certain knowledge is only possible with the existence biblical God. There is a classical question. How do I know I exist? A famous philosopher said 'I think therefore I am'. My opponent my agree that to question existence presupposes existence. How do we know this is correct reasoning. Anything objection made I could counter by asking "how do you know this is correct reasoning." The only way to know one's reasoning is correct is to know everything about logic and philosophy. Attaining perfect knowledge about logic and philosophy is impossible unless you are God who knows everything. I can know that I am reasoning correctly because the God who knows everything pre-programmed all human beings with the basic knowledge of reasoning. Without God nobody can know they exist because unless they presuppose the bible God they can't know if there are reasoning correctly. Science is not possible without the God of the bible. When any scientist makes an observation in nature he or she assumes the uniformity of nature or that past observations in nature are going to be the same as observations in the future. For example, If scientific discover 211.9F degrees why or how could they ever expect water to boil at 211.9F degrees tomorrow or the next day or a thousand years from now. Some might say of course we can expect future experiments to be consistent with past experiments because they always have been consistent before. As we can see this is begging the question. It is impossible to base an assumption that nature behaviors in a predictable way without also assuming that a God of the universe organizes the universe in a way that is always consistent. objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible. Some may argue that the biblical God does some evil acts like sending people to hell or destroying civilizations, but by what standard could anyone call anything morally right or wrong without God. One could assert that Majority opinion makes up objective morality, but this is not really objective if it depends on majority opinion. The majority of people in Nazi Germany believed it was moral to murder mass amounts of Jews but it was never up to them to decade. God is the standard of objective morality not Man. I ague not the existence of God but that everyone already knows the existence of God. The problem is not about belief or unbelief but of acceptance or rejection. My opponent absolutely believes in the God of the bible because without it he can't know anything to be true since he would have to know everything to know he can't be wrong about anything and know somethings for certain.
If The Universe Has A Cause, That Cause Is A Personal Mind

I would like to debate Philochristos on this subject as I feel he is one of the most skilled Theists on this site. In this debate we will assume that the universe began to exist, and has a cause. It will be Pro's job to show that this cause is a personal mind, and my job to show why Pro's reasoning doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. In Pro's last round he will simply put "no argument will be posted, as agreed." My opponent's first arguments will be posted in round one; no acceptance round required. I hope Philochristos takes me up on this offer, as I have a feeling it will be interesting.
The Free Will Defense Provides Adequate Justification for the Existence Of Evil.

The problem of evil, which attempts to disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent creator, typically follows this line of reasoning: (1) God, if he exists, is all-powerful, and therefore could eliminate evil. (2) God is all-good, and therefore would want to eliminate evil. (3) Evil exists. (4) Therefore, an all-powerful, all-loving God cannot exist. I, Pro, will argue that the existence of evil is due to human action, and therefore is not inconsistent with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent creator. Con will defend the problem of evil. For the sake of brevity, this debate will focus solely on agent or moral evil. Natural evil (i.e. hurricanes, disease, earthquakes, and other natural disasters), while a valid component of the problem of evil, will not be addressed in this debate. The free will defense, which is the subject of our debate, focuses primarily on moral evil. Rules: (1) Con may choose to go either first or second. If Con wishes to go second, simply use the first round for acceptance. If Con wishes to go first, they may begin their arguments in round one. In the interest of fairness, if Con begins their arguments in the first round, they must waive their turn in round four. This way, each person gets three turns to argue. (2) First turn is for opening arguments, second for rebuttals, and third for closing statements. Third round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments. (3) No ad hominem attacks, swearing, or trolling. Thank you in advance, and good luck.
Welfare

As I have not received an answer from my opponent, I will not present any arguments. However I would like to ask that my opponent provide sources that back his claim, specifically: 1. Only few people use welfare for the right reasons. 2a. You can claim disability from back pains 2b. That a lot of people use this to claim disability 3. That the average worker earns less than an unemployed welfare recipient If you could find me some sources backing this up then that would be much appreciated. If not I will post my arguments next round.
Welfare

Personally i believe that the welfare system for its creation time was pretty brilliant and that it would be an excellent system if it were not abused by the American Citizens who in my belief are corrupt and extremely lazy and not patriotic. If the very few that actually needed help from the welfare system only used it that would mean that the employment rate would be way up but that sad truth is that it wont be because people feel that if they make more money off of welfare than a real job that they would have to work in regardless the hours. Though seeing that there is a groove in the welfare system letting people slide and just stay on it. I mean for pete sakes there are so many lawyers and people who are corrupt that say oh goodness my back i have back problems and for those of you that don't know, saying you have back problems is one of the things doctors can't disprove. So our government takes American Citizens hard earned money through taxes to give to those who are truly capable of working so they may afford nicer things than those who work ten hours a day. So i would propose that there be a much stricter circumstances for welfare and there would be very strict regulations and tests you would have to pass before you would be able to take money out of the working peoples pocket. So even though the system needs to be tweaked a bit i do feel that it could be very safe and efficient if looked after properly and only used for those who truly cant find a job and their children stomachs are empty to where they need money to make sure their family is safe. That would be exceptable.
US immigration is not biased.

When you said that the US immigration is biased, you were wrong. They cannot let anyone into the United States, they perform background checks and extensive paperwork for each person. If it is the cost that is a problem, it is still not okay to sneak across the border. If you honestly think that there could be the slightest biased agent, maybe you should think again. There have been many laws passed that support the immigration to the United States. As said at this website:http://nafbpo.org...There are four reasons, none of which are specific to certain races, genders, ect.
Whitewater Rafting is a Great Way to Spend the Day on a River

Just because you have a lower chance of dying from an activity than driving a car does not mean that you cannot die from it, or that it is a great thing. More people die from car crashes than they do from Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), but you can still conclude than cars, in general, are better than Adrenoleukodystrophy. The odds are not slim to none, as I have given you statistics that they HAVE, in fact, been combined into one extremely traumatic experience, many times. This is, of course, considering that death by whitewater rafting is a traumatic experience. Your first two points are attempting to refute my arguments, without any evidence or statistics given to prove that your rebuttal is accurate. 3. I have already successfully refuted this point, and all you did was simply restate the point which I have already refuted, next time, attempt to refute my refutations, please. 4. Thank you for the extreme sarcasm :) And again, you spelled "wear" wrong. Also, I never stated that "the most cold-related injuries come from rafters". I never stated that one. I stated that whitewater rafting can cause cold-related injuries. Next time, try to refute my actual statement, and not a statement you forced on me, thanks. 5. You both said that rivers are beautiful and you also said that everyone thinks that rivers are beautiful. You said, and I quote: "It is impossible not to admire the beauty of nature on a river". Nature would INCLUDE rivers, therefore, you DID say that everyone thinks rivers are beautiful, since you stated that it was impossible to think otherwise. (Definition:) Perfect: 2: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... There is room for improvement in rivers. If there was not, no deaths would result. Deaths have resulted. Thus, a river is not perfect. Since I have successfully refuted all of your points, and you have failed to refute any of mine, I would ask that the audience vote in my favor. Thank you for the debate. I enjoyed it.
Whitewater Rafting is a Great Way to Spend the Day on a River

Unfortunately, rivers like any body of water can be dangerous is someone is not prepared. Lucky for us, whitewater rafting companies in the US follow strict safety protocols to ensure that your trip down the river is as safe as possible. Heck, with over 40,000 deaths from automobile accidents per year in the US you are more likely to die driving to the river than on the river itself. (Source: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com...) The odds that whitewater rafting will combine all of the disadvantages mentioned in your previous debate into one extremely traumatic experience are slim to none. 1. One incident of a parent bringing a child whitewater rafting when they don't want to will not make that child troubled or disturbed. Psychological ramifications take many events and sometimes years to develop. 2. We've already established that whitewater rafting can be dangerous, but it is only as dangerous as you want it to be. Furthermore, we've already established that you are more likely to die or get injured driving to the river than on the river itself. 3. Whitewater rafting is done for relaxation, fun, and adventure. Most rivers are not constant whitewater so that leaves sometimes large sections for relaxation. Furthermore, when you are just a passenger and someone else is rowing you get to relax about 80% of the time. 4. Hooray! You caught my strategically placed typo. I was waiting to see if you caught it. I'm glad you're paying attention. Every reasonably prudent person knows that rivers can be cold and can cause cold related injuries. That is why whitewater rafters where proper exposure protection. If you look up the statistics you'll see that most cold related injuries in rivers are not from rafters. 5. I never said that a river was beautiful, nor did I say that I thought everyone thinks rivers are beautiful. I simply stated that it is impossible to ignore the beauty of nature while on a river. Truth is, it is impossible to ignore the beauty of nature. The area around a river has everything you could possibly want from nature. 6. Re-read my last statement and look at my opening paragraph. The statement makes perfect sense. My original statement was that a river is the perfect place to get away from the complexities of life. I supported this argument in point six by saying "Unless all of your problems come from a river, a river is a great place to get away from the complexities of life". A river is a great way to get away from the complexities of life. I enjoyed this debate. Thank you for taking the time to debate me.
Whitewater Rafting is a Great Way to Spend the Day on a River

Rivers have also been sources of death, tragedy, and trauma to thousands of people all over the world. The hot weather can be scorching, causing sunburn, the water can be cold, causing hypothermia if someone falls in, can't swim, and is alone. 50 people died from whitewater rafting alone, in the year 2006. (Source: http://www.cnn.com...) Whitewater rafting can combine all of the aforementioned disadvantages of the river into one extremely traumatic experience. -Some parents bring their children along to participate in activities, regardless of whether they want to or not. This can cause strained relationships between the parents and children, and if the children are treated in such a way, they can turn our troubled or disturbed. -Turbulent rapids can also cause people to be tipped out of the raft, and can cause death. This is hardly enjoyable. -Whitewater rafting is not done for relaxation. It is done for the thrill and the adrenaline rush that can come from such a risky and altogether unsafe activity. -You spelled "way" wrong. Also, as I have previously stated, rivers can be extremely cold, and cause shock, hypothermia, and many other coldness/water related death/injury. -Stating that everyone thinks the same way about a single thing is ignorant. Unless you were to ask every single person alive whether they thought the river is "beautiful", and have proof that they were telling the truth, you could not make such a statement and expect it to be a valid argument. -Your last statement does not make sense, and is a jumbled bunch of words that are painful to try to understand. It is impossible for peoples' problems to come from one source, and this last statement of yours is an opinion, not a fact, therefore, not a logical argument.
Whitewater Rafting is a Great Way to Spend the Day on a River

Rivers have always been a source of fun, adventure, and relaxation. People go to rivers to cool down, admire the beauty of nature, and just get away from the complexities of life. That being said, whitewater rafting is a great way to spend the day on a river. Whitewater rafting combines all of the aforementioned benefits of the river into one extremely enjoyable activity. -The fun comes from spending the day with friends and family. -The adventure comes from paddling through turbulent rapids. -The relaxation comes from the calm, flat sections of the river where no work needs to be done -What better was is there to cool down then to jump in the river or get soaked by a rapid? -It is impossible not to admire the beauty of nature on a river, even the East River in New York. -Unless all of your problems come from a river, a river is a great place to get away from the complexities of life.
abortion

1) If the mothers life is in danger then I guess in that case there should be an abortion, yes I'm agreeing with you that under some circumstances there should be an abortion. When there are two lifes in danger and you can only save on then you save the one that is most important. In this case it would be the mother. 2)Okay you have the consensus on your side. I don't care, what if I go out there and murder a child (infanticide) then I don't think the government should intervene because they should leave it to the matters of the individual who is committing murder to a human being not to a person. When you say a person is the only one that has the right to live, then they should legalize infanticide, because kids don't always know how to communicate, they do not have the capacity to reason. As you see not all children fit within the qualities a person needs, so they are just human beings and not people, so they don't have the right to life either? 3) "Nature does what it does for one purpose while the doctor for another purpose." -Pro The purpose why nature does it is because it has a reason. For example if someone has a miscarriage then that means that the mothers body wasn't strong enough or capable to protect it and make it a human being; but in case of the surgery abortion, the reasons are that she is too young and her life will be ruined, but she is just not accepting the consequences of her mistake, she won't learn from that. Another of the many reason they have an abortion is because they can't afford a child. There are many families looking for a child, go and look for a good family to adopt them and then, you're free without even having to deal with her and without taking someone's life. 4)"Abortion is practiced even if it's illegal."-Pro Well, let the government deal with those criminals just the way they do with drug consumers, or murders. I want to know the source of your information from your extra argument #1 5) I believe abortion is wrong when you do it because it convenient for you and it is not endangering your life. You are doing to get rid of a problem, but what you are supposed to do is to face the problem and deal with it the way you're supposed to. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Women's suicide rate is highest after abortion. The suicide rate among women who had abortions was six times higher than that of women that had given birth the prior year. www.afterabortion.org/news/suicide205.html 2. "Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth." I believe it doesn't matter where you are abortions and child birth are the same thing. http://www.afterabortion.org...