BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

1. To exist is to effect another existent thing Pro again insists that the definition of "To exist" is to effect another existent thing. I don't approve the definition change, and I've shown that it's not logical and not necessary. I trust that the reader will simply dismiss this claim. 2. If something does not effect another existent thing, then it does not exist Again, this is untenable. Pro's proof is not sounds and therefore should be dismissed. And I want to remind Pro that "just because something has an effect on something else", it doesn't mean that its existence is depended on what it effected (caused). This premise is based on the previous one and should be dismissed. 3. Pro's logic disproves God I've shown that if Pro's assertion were true (And they are not, just to make it clear), then God couldn't possibly exist (as per the syllogism that I provided). Con disagreed with my argument saying that "Con's reasoning would be sound if only this argument could not be just as well applied to the law upon which it is built. " As an advice for Pro, to refute my argument he must show that my logic doesn't follow (non-sequitur) or that one of the premises is false. So Pro argues that the Law of Existence by Effect didn't exist before all things (i. e. created). What? What does Pro mean by the law of existence didn't exist before all things? If that's the case, the God didn't exist before all things, because that law doesn’t exist. I find this argument again working against Pro. Or may be Pro is pleading for God that had a beginning at what point? 4. Pro's OA argument 1. Assume that Natural Law is a thing that exists – exists now? Or always existed? If it's always exists, then it contradicts the sixth point. So I'll just assume that it exists now. 2. Natural Law dictates that “to exist is to effect another existent thing”. [see Proof of Existence by Effect] –This is invalid as I mentioned earlier. 3. If something does not effect another existent thing, then it does not exist. [P2] - This is invalid as I mentioned earlier. 4. If Natural Law existed before all things, then there is only one thing that exists. – This is non-sequitur. Why only one thing? 5. If there is only one existent thing, then that thing cannot effect another existent thing. – Follows from P2 and P3. But according to Pro, it doesn't exist. Anyways… 6. Therefore, Natural Law can not exist before all things. [P3] – This logic used by P3 is invalid. 7. Therefore, all possible and impossible things happen. [P1] - This logic is invalid, and honestly I have no idea if my opponent really believes in that he's saying. And even if all possible and impossible things happen… So what? How does that prove my opponent's claim. I want to thank my opponent for this debate. My opponents fails to make a logical argument.
Computers will take over all human roles

It's been a pleasure debating with you too, and I have made all my arguments so will try to use this round to conclude.Here is my list of reasons why robots won't replace human roles/jobsFootball It'd be impossible to have a favourite robot player because robots will be built to have the same skill, stamina etc. Since humans are inspired by attainable talent and real people, robot football players will cause a reduction in the number of supporters. Acting The flinch scene I was thinking about was in a different star wars episode, sorry. Minor human errors are not a problem, and can be a positive thing if you like finding mistakes, or if you like watching bloopers. If computers are perfect and you can't tell the difference between real people and CG people then I do see why people would turn to the cheaper option of making films entirely CGI putting actors at risk of losing their job or more likely recieving less pay. However I believe people will still prefer watching real people even if they don't know the difference when watching, and would not mind paying extra. Political I don't think there will be a time when people will ever trust robots more than people, but that is just my opinion. Art I agree computers will be able to make lots more art and better art, but knowing a person made a piece makes it worth money. And collectors will be willing to pay more for original/rare art. Other jobs Companies have bought specialized robots to replace manufacturing jobs, and software to replace bank workers due to people using more convienent online services, and more jobs will be lost e.g. there may no longer be lorry drivers because vehicles can now drive by their self etc, but when a company begins to sell robots to households people will have a robot work for them. People wouldn't choose to replace their own job because they might enjoy their job, and if they replaced a job they hated doing but it was all they can do they'd have less options to make money. Greater profits would be achieved by sending robots to work in new fields, and because there are endless possibilities for robots like mining other planets so there will always be people who have a regular paid job. Thanks again
Computers will take over all human roles

Football - Human playersare liked for a mixture of reasons such as their fame, skill, and determination, it would be impossible for anyone to have a favourite robot player because each player on one team would be exactly the same! And if robots were created to accurately mimic humans by giving them flaws so each is unique then it would mean each team is not trying to win, and is instead trying to convince you that you are watching them play football. The game would be easier to fix too if robots played, would the referee be a robot? Having robots on your team would help that team to win as robots don't tire, but fans would no longer support the team resulting in a loss of income. I'd much rather have Rooney on my team or a player who people love and who can make money from merchandise. Acting - It's not unfair to have a bias against computers, it's natural, and mistakes can be made which wouldn't have been made if it wasn't CGI e.g. in star wars the phantom menace Obi One doesn't flinch during one part of a fight scene and the mistake just feels worse because it could have been corrected if it were actually filmed. If the computers are perfect and no mistakes can be made, and let's say you watch a video with an actress who you find really attractive, but who you know isn't real, it would detract from the film. The best way to make a film realistic is to use real human beings, this way it is possible for people to have a favourite actor. Political - Films like Terminator show why we shouldn't give computers complete control and why we should always keep a human in the loop who can make a decision.Art - A human can only make so much art in his lifetime, but it is a matter of quality over quantity. Perhaps a computer could make a trillion peices of art each day but people will probably search for art done by a human because for one they'd feel better buying it, and having a signiture sjust better as it is easier to appreciate. New jobs - okay, I will drop this argument.I have listed some jobs which I believe will not be affected by robots e.g. football players, actors, politicians, and artists but I believe that most people will be able to keep their jobs because if people are able to buy a robot for say £30,000 which is capable of doing anything they can do they wouldn't want it to do their daytime job, they'd want it to work on a spaceship or something greater which will bring in more money than they are currently earning. Buying a supersmart robot and then have it do the work of a human would be considered a very poor investment, and so people will continue to have a job
Computers will take over all human roles

Some interesting points, thank you1. Football players - Every football match is uncertain, but this is not the reason people enjoy watching football, people enjoy watching their favourite team play which involve their favourite players, these are players who have inspired them to play football. Robots will never inspire humans to play football especially when it's impossible to be anywhere near as good as them. Winning games does tend to increase revenue because more people are going to want to support a good team. Although a robot could do a better job than a professional footballer and for less pay, human players will always be worth their salery because winning doesn't matter if there isn't anyone interested in watching. 2. Actors - Do people buy films based on how perfect the acting is? The simple answer is no, there are plenty of human actors who do a great job, I can forgive some faults, and there are some people who enjoy finding faults. A computer generated film will never be better or replace human actors for various reasons, if a fault is observed then it can't be forgiven as easily, adults prefer watching real people who they could possibly meet one day, and who have a life story. 3. If robots can self heal then I guess we can drop this argument4. There seems to be some advantages to giving away control, but when it comes to defending or attacking another country a responsible leader would not want to give that choice away.5. I'm sure robots will beable to produce works of art, and print photographs of things they're not seen. However original paintings are always worth more money because a particular person painted it. There is nothing stop an artist selling photocopies of his work in the billions, and each would be worth more than something a robot can paint or print. Another argument:6. New jobs - I doubt robots in the future will have "robot rights", they will be made to serve us. For this reason they will cost people money, and people will own them, so the richer you become the more robots you can have, and the richer you can be. People's job in the future will thus be to decide what their robot does in order to earn them money. The robots existence essentially gives humans a job. Although humans will not feel like they are working, they will still have a job.Many thanks for reading
Computers will take over all human roles

Thanks for starting this debate, I agree that robots are becoming smarter and will replace more jobs s this happens, and they will probably be smarter than humans by 2029. However I do not think there will be a time when robots will replace 100% of human jobs.Here are some jobs that won't be replaced by robots:1. Professional football players - it might be interesting at first to watch robots play, but we are drawn to the players, children aren't going to say 'when I grow up I'm going to be just like that robot'. Players are role models.2. Actors - people would prefer to watch human actors3. Quality assurance - machines inevitably wear and break. You could argue that a machine could be made to fix the machine that breaks, but then you'd need a machine to fix that machine, at some point you'll need a human.4. Politicians - humans will always want to make decisions. 5. Artists - human artwork will always be worth moneyMany thanks, I look forward to hearing your arguments
Computers will take over all human roles

There will be no more jobs. The progress of technology will rise to the point where humans have been replaced. No jobs will be "safe" from the automation. Even the creative jobs (author, painter, composer) will be replaced by automation, sending all of humanity into a jobless hell or a relaxing paradise, but that is not the topic of this debate. I will be arguing that computers will improve until they will have the ability to be better than any human. They will be able to do human jobs faster and better than any human can do causing people to be fired and computer will be hired. This results with technology improving and the number of humans with jobs decreasing until the jobless rate is 100%
Underweight Models Should Be Banned

Underweight models should not be banned. I see my opponent's point but I contend that banning underweight people from modelling would not be fair. Banning overweight people from modelling would also not be fair. The industry should encourage people of all shapes and sizes rather than aim for some sort of physical perfection in models. I'm not saying that only underweight people should model. Nor that sickly undrweight people should. In the end however it should be up to the industry. Banning people from a career path based on their physique is unacceptable, in my opinion.
Underweight Models Should Be Banned

again i bring up that underweight models are a bad influence. People can become very sick by losing so much weight. It is also very sickening to see so very thin models. i am sure that people want to see healthy looking people on the front of a magazine. Models have died because they have had sicknesses such as anorexia and bulimia. They can also come down with other sicknesses such as depression. Underweight models are too unhealthy. Just eat as much as you want. You don't have to be so skinny. it does not make you prettier!! By the Way sorry for making the number of characters too small. My bad!!!! :)
Underweight Models Should Be Banned

My opponent seeks to prove that underweight models should be banned. I oppose that resolution. My opponent appears to misunderstand the very purpose of modelling. A model's job is to demonstrate clothing (and other articles) to the public with a view to sell those articles. The public consists of people of all phisiques. This includes underweight people just as much as it includes overweight people. Therefore, there should be underweight models just as there should be overweight models. There should be models of all shapes and sizes. Therefore underweight models should not be banned. I am running out of characters in this very limited debate.
Underweight Models Should Be Banned

Underweight models should be banned for the following reasons: *they are putting too much pressure on themselves to be thin enough for a photo shoot. *Other people look up to these models and think that they have to be as thin as them. *Underweight models make the thin people look fat and the fatter people look even worse to themselves. *Underweight models can get extremely sick by not eating. they could develop bad sicknesses such as anorexia or bulimia. *Underweight models can also develop other worse sicknesses like depression or anxiety. Last of all underweight models are sickening and nobody wants to look at them.
Competitions in Education : An Obstacle to today's learning Process

1) Competition incentivises students to learn. Rather than being an obstacle to education competition is powerful motivating force which encourages students to study and engage with the content of the curriculum. Without an element of competition many students would not study and this would defeat the purpose of education. 2) Competition is an important part of life and human nature, therefore it is reasonable to incorporate it into the education system. Whilst it is true that competition does put some stress and pressure on students it is integral to the education system as the reality is that the vast majority of students lack the intrinsic motivation to study. Therefore, competition is a powerful external motivating force which is necessary to encourage students to learn and study and thus benefit from their education.
Competitions in Education : An Obstacle to today's learning Process

Yes as you are talking i am against the absolute use of competition in education as it is hardly believed that it can ruin the future of the child. And as you have said i am making a social difference between winners and losers , no i am not making rather it is the todays system of education that makes a distinction between them. I want to know your views that if a child is declared as loser in a competition then he is depressed. then if there had been no competition then there would be no distinction ........................
Competitions in Education : An Obstacle to today's learning Process

Okay I am trying to decipher your position in this argument. Are you against the absolute use of any competition in a system of education as is suggested by the title of this motion or are you arguing against a social culture which divides people into 'winners' and 'losers'? You agree that education encourages children to learn which suggest to me that your position is that of the latter. Your argument appears to be rather than an intrinsic attack in the merits/demerits of competiton in education, instead, targeted towards the potential social consequences of failure in the education system on an individual. Almost all education system use competition in the educational process and as long as competitions are presented as being fun challenges, where to use the cliche 'doing your best' is emphasised rather than a ethos of 'winning', competitition is a powerful positive educational force. The problems which you allude to are the consequences of an educational system which is founded upon competition rather than where it is one of many tools used in the learning process.
Quantum Physics has nothing to do with women

I am thinking this is more an issue with your perception of women which seems to be rather poor. The idea in general isn't that the two are one in the same but they are indeed relatable. The way atoms and particles interact and the mechanics or "laws" that govern those interactions does indeed apply to women. Women are creatures, Yes, However despite widely different "attitudes" or personalities they are at their core identical in virtually every way. You will never find a woman who is made of sulfur instead of carbon. Because the arrangement in the bonds between say oxygen and hydrogen in comparison to sulfur and hydrogen would make entirely different beings. So, On the quantum level women are all the same. However, The patterns in atoms that help make up neurons within someone's brain can definitely create someone who is radically different than another person. Also while yes most if not all the bonding in quantum physics is done through chemical bonds. There are several different kinds of bonds to observe, Such as ionic and covalent bonds. Your issue seems to come from more of a misunderstanding of women and quantum mechanics, A strawman argument of something that probably hasn't really been said outside of a few key instances with people who don't understand the subject matter. Like any other creature mankind has evolved over time, Women included. Though the exact process we followed is still not 100% understood, Women and men did evolve from a common mammalian ancestor and over generations have developed and changed alongside their partner in species. I'm pretty sure this whole thing was a joke but still wanted to accept the challenge for just how silly this whole thing was.
Quantum Physics has nothing to do with women

Quantum physics has nothing to do with women. Quantum physics and women are completely unrelatable topics. Never when you are studying the atomic and subatomic level are you studying women in the same realm. Women are creatures that walk and talk; I don"t hear quantum physics talking or think it will be growing legs any time soon. Why would these two ever be in the same sentence? They are unrelated, And if anything is opposites. Quantum physics has evolved over time, Whereas women have not, They have always been the same. The wave function always has particles in response, Women never wave back. Quantum physics arose from theories to explain observations. There are a lot of observations you can make about women but no standard theory encompasses all that is womeness. Let me also mention, Quantum physics is rooted in chemical bonds, Women just want our money, They don't care if you have chemistry. I think you get my point. . .
In defense of McCarthy

My position on McCarthy is this. I regard it as the only sensible position, but it's actually in the middle of the spectrum. As they say, the truth of the matter always lies in the middle. I. McCarthy, who had access to State Department and FBI files, knew what he was talking about. He was right in most of his accusations. II. His conduct, however, left a lot to be desired. He was often confrontational. Not to the witnesses he was questioning; in fact he was in general courteous to them, even if they were hostile, but to his detractors such as Deputy Secretary of State Dean Acheson, General Marshall, and others. His conduct, of course, was important, but it isn't as important as the truth/untruth of his accusations. It should be, like JFK's womanizing, be just a footnote. III. The Communists at State and in other areas of the government were security risks, and even if they were not, their membership in the Communist party clearly contravened the Oath of Loyalty they swore to the United States Government. Here is a sample from a typical oath of loyalty: "I further swear (or affirm) that I do not advise, advocate or teach, and have not within the period beginning five (5) years prior to the effective date of the ordinance requiring the making of this oath or affirmation, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means, of the Government of the United States of America and that I am not now and have not, within said period, been or become a member of or affiliated with any group, society, association, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches, or has, within said period, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means of the Government of the United States of America." The simple truth is that the Communist party in America was funded by Moscow, sent its delegates to Russia to receive instructions, and was in actuality a full, functioning part of the Kremlin apparatus, totally controlled by Stalin and his underlings. It was explicitly involved in spying, policy sabotage, and disinformation in the United States, and had various "front groups" controlled by it. And it's interesting to note that members that didn't bow down to Moscow didn't stay in the part long. IV. The simple logic undermining my argument is this: The CPA was involved in espionage and was actively trying to mold America into a second USSR. Membership in the CPA thus contradicts the oath that public servants take, as seen above. McCarthy's "victims" were all current employees of the US government at the time his accusations were first revealed, to the best of McCarthy's knowledge. He sought that they be fired and, if necessary, be put on trial. His accusations were correct almost in their entirety. THEREFORE, he was right to have made his accusations. Connor, I haven't replied to the arguments you made because I think we both got off on the wrong foot. I invite you to make them again. I hope you accept, and again, I'm sorry about how the first debate went.