BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Omnipotency is possible

I'll use a few situations that the only conclusion for it is that omnipotency is impossible. Situation 1: Can an omnipotent being create a computer that he cannot defeat in a game of chess? Yes he can, he is omnipotent. At the same time as that, he cannot because if he were able to do everything, he would be able to beat the computer. Both answers include something that the omnipotent being cannot do. Because omnipotency means that the being can do everything, he can not be omnipotent because there are things that he simply can not do. Situation 2: Can an omnipotent being create a rock so large that it cannot lift it? Yes, omnipotency means that the being can do everything, but at the same time, the being can't lift it. That does not work because the being has to be able to create the rock and lift it, but it simply cannot because the definition of the rock does not allow for it. I can come up with many situations about this, but I feel that it would be a waste of the readers and my time. In short, omnipotency cannot be possible because there will always be exceptions to its limitations.
Omnipotency is possible

Alright, let's get down to it. First, both sides obviously have the burden of proof here. I can easily prove my side, as can Con. Let's not do the BoP dance. Then, let us note that we are not debating whether an omnipotent BEING is possible, just omnipotence as an idea. If omnipotency is defined as "having unlimited power or authority", then I shall show that it is possible to have either aspects of it. A) Unlimited Power 1) If omnipotency means having unlimited power, then we must accept that this is even the power to do the logically impossible. A completely omnipotent being could do such nonsense as creating a square circle, or a round triangle. Unlimited power means that absolutely nothing constrains it - not even logic! 2) Alternatively, an omnipotent being is bound by logic - it can only do things which are possible to do. Such examples as the square circle, or round triangle cannot be done, because they cannot exist. A square has one set of characteristics, and a circle another - they are mutually exclusive. In this light, omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done. Furthermore, Con interprets omnipotence as "being able to do everything". If omnipotence is being able to do everything, then he has conceded this debate! By interpreting it as the ultimate carte blanche, he concedes that there is NOTHING an omnipotent being can't do! This should go to destroy whatever arguments he will doubtlessly make. B) Unlimited Authority Authority is defined as "the power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Such a thing is clearly possible in a few situations. 1) Supreme Dictator of the Universe If in possession of hegemony over the universe, a being could enforce any of its laws or statues. Plain and simple. 2) Sole Constituent of the Universe If, on the other hand, a being were the only one in existence, he or she (or it, for that matter) could enforce any law it wanted. Laws can only bind things with agency - thus the laws would only bind itself. Ball's in your court, B_C.
Cows Or Pigs

"Try feeding 21 piglets in a pen...impossible!!!" Did you try training them? Apparently not. And I realize you say "piglets" which is a baby pig. Pigs grow to be much more mature and well-behaved as they get older."pigs you can not catch or even put rope or something on them." Yes you can. Pigs, as they get older, will get fatter and slower. And at least pigs don't kill more people than sharks do."my cow lays down and I am able to sit on it." Well that's rude.
Cows Or Pigs

You obviously have not had 21 piglets in one pen. If you knew by first hand how hard and annoying pigs are then maybe you would agree with me. I have had 21 piglets in a pen... try feeding 21 piglets in a pen...impossible!!! We decided to let them out and then push them back in... try rounding up 21 pigs. 1 is hard enough!!!. Cows...you put a halter and lead on the cow and walk it. pigs you can not catch to even put rope or something on them. I hug my cow. Just the same as someone hugging their horse and dog...my cow lays down and I am able to sit on it.
Cows Or Pigs

"not all pets have to be indoor pets." True, but it is better if they are. That way you can always see what they are doing and it is easier to get to them."Cuddling your cow." What the...how is that possible? It's like trying to hug a tree..."Pigs, they squeal if you pick them up off their feet," But that's the thing: you actually CAN pick up pigs. "you get covered in crap, bitten and knocked over." Pigs can easily be trained to behave greatly. Cows, however, cause more human deaths per year than sharks do.
Cows Or Pigs

I have a pet cow. it is in my backyard. not all pets have to be indoor pets. It is just as much fun going out to the backyard and cuddling your cow. Pigs, they squeal if you ick them up off their feet. when you have bred piglets for meat you get sick of them. I have bred piglets. feeding them after weaning is heaps hard. you get covered in crap, bitten and knocked over. Pigs are cute but not as cute and clean as cows
Cows Or Pigs

Yes, cows give us steak. I will admit steak is delicious. But, pigs can be pets. As in household pets. You can't even bring a cow in a house, it would just dump all over the floor and bite your stuff. Pigs have better behavior. Pigs will be your best friend. What will a cow do? Make a weird moaning noise and then bite the ground... Pigs have actually been approved by many people to be intelligent animals. Cows are obviously not that intelligent, they just moo and rub up on each other.
The UK will be better off or just as well off without the EU.

Start off with my first arguments. The European Union (EU) was created in 1945 by several European countries, except for the United Kingdom (UK). The union was previously called the European Economic Community (ECC). [1] The United Kingdom was denied entry to the EU multiple times. Until finally the EU council allowed them in. [2] Since then, the EU has been harsh, unfair, and targets the UK in many of their rules, laws, and regulations. [3] Since joining the EU, the UK has seen unfair and unequal laws placed on them. Including during the 2012 London Olympics, when the EU placed some very unnecessary and difficult laws. [4] Including equal and fair trade, women's rights initiatives, pollution laws, and so on. The EU ended up having to repeal some and the UK just ignored others. By leaving the EU, the UK no longer has to follow the laws passed by the EU unless the parliament in Westminster decides to follow them as well. The UK is required to pay 13 Billion Pounds a year, although technically the UK is supposed to pay 18 Billion Pounds a year, however, they do get a 5 billion pound refund. Yet, the EU only reinvests 4.5 Billion Pounds a year back into the UK. [5] My basic math skills do tell me that this means the UK could easily save 8 Billion Pounds a year by simply leaving the EU. That 8 Billion is including spending the 4.5 billion back into the same programs the EU did fund. The EU law is considered the highest law of the land and EU law can out rank laws passed by the UK Parliminet. Even the EU courts are ripping apart laws passed by the UK. [6] This has been seen by many lawmakers and law followers as an overreach by the EU into strictly UK affairs. These things and many other that I will continue to outline for you are some of the reasons that the UK will have a much better future after the split from the EU. [1] http://europa.eu... [2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [3] http://www.bbc.com... [4] http://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eu... [5] https://fullfact.org... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The Affordable Health Care Act

I'll be arguing on how the scariest word in American polotics, the Afordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obama Care, is a step in the righ direction for insuring the 47 million people who did not have health care before the law. People that paln to accepted this debate I have hope you somewhat understand what the Affordable healthcare act does as well as your vocabulary that you use to describe it, aka if you call Obama care communist I will be quite sad. However, if a moderately educated person is interested on having a debate on the merits and future additions to the health care law I would be happy to entertain you. for those who are against Obama care I would ask that you provide a better solution to healthcare on how you think it should work. P.S a website not working does not mean that the law does not work Round 1 is for acceptance only
The Affordable Health Care Act

So I would just like to finish this debate by thanking my opponent for what we did argue, and I am disappointed that he had to forfeit. Now, I want to say that the scariest problem that faces the nation right now is the detrimental effects of Obamacare, average increases in premiums of 41%, $1000 more in premiums over the next two years for medium income families that are already struggling enough as it is, fines for people who don't want to get health insurance, it is a lose lose situation for these families, paying heavy costs for health insurance that hardly covers anything, or fines that are just as bad for choosing not to get crappy health insurance. If we want to talk about being fair then we need to acknowledge how unfair this law is to poor and working class people, a burden not anything helpful. That is the problem with this law, that is why we need to repeal and replace, that is the best solution to this problem, otherwise we could be the country that produces another Hitler Germany, as it started with government controlled healthcare.
cruelty on animals

Hunters in my opinion do not kil animals for their survial.some are good in this case..but many kill animals like elephant for example and their skin and teeth at higer costs..wild pig is also killed at sold at higher prices.do you also know peacock which is national bird of india is killed by your saying hunters which kill animals for their survival they sell this bird at international market and earn higher profits..why then in this way our national bird species which get endangered..and in circus also the elephant and lion are beaten unnecessarily by ring master just to enterain lots of people ad earn higher profit..do animals dont have feelings partner? You also know due to killing of various animals some species of animals have already endangered like for example snow leopard, white tiger,black panther..can you say that this species have died beacuse of any other reason then you could tell me..i do not believe on media.. Just see and say what i see by myself..if you se this topic pratically then you too will get against this topic..besides giving in this i your favour..
cruelty on animals

Let me rephrase my last statement. I don't think that Animal cruelty is a small issue I believe that it is a big issue but one that is taken out of context by the media and groups like PETA. I would like to touch on how you stated that the tiger in the village is angered by the human existence in the area but I would say that regardless of human presence or not the animal will have animal instincts and that is to survive so even if humans were replaced with an elephant herd for example the tiger would be just as angered and threatened and they would attempt to defend them self or to hunt and kill other animals. Which brings me to my opinion on hunters. I think that hunting is an okay thing to do simply because animals do it to. And they do it to survive and thrive as do some humans. Even today there are still some humans who hunt for food this is exactly what some animals do. Also I think that hens and goats are killed as food sources to feed humans not without reason.
cruelty on animals

Hello..this is bad of your part that you think this topic cruelty on animals is not a big issue..if you had a liitle concern to show on them you must go for their help,you said true that tiger is serious threat for people in the village but who had made this..who had made this animals more anger then previous animals that were used to be in earlier time.we people is answer to all of this..and animals are very lovely and friendly if you do same to do with them..if you have ever gone to circus you would find many answers against this topic.what your view about the greedy hunters? Are they doing right job.or do you think hens and goats are killed without reason..this topic comes forward becuase of important reason the greedness of men and not understanding the importance of animals in nature.
cruelty on animals

Hello to you as well and thanks for debating with me today on this topic! To get this first round started I would like to first say that I do not think that animal cruelty is as big as a problem that people make it out to be. I think that the media over exaggerates almost everything in terms of animal cruelty crimes. While much animal cruelty does happen I think that the definition of animal cruelty is a distorted and imperfect one. As you said in your first argument that and I quote "in villages people kill tigers see it. snakes are cruelly killed without no reason." I would assume in cases like this that a tiger is a very threatening thing for people to see however there misconceptions may be about the behavior of tigers it can still pose a threat to people and therefore killing it would be a reasonable response. As well as the snake situation. These are my views on animal cruelty.
cruelty on animals

hello.this topic is about cruelty on animals that is increasing day by day..do u all think that animals are beaten unnecessarily without any reason? animals like cows and buffalo are beaten with sticks. donkey and ox are made to carry heavy loads on their backs and beaten with stick. in villages people kill tigers s if they see it. snakes are cruelly killed without no reason. do you that government besides all the actions and policies is unable to stop this action? do you think that people should change their mind about this topic? do you think that all animals cry in grief when they are beaten?would you like to make groups for helping this animals? animals are also part of this motherland earth. people of circus unnecessarily take this animals with them and give training and made them work on their fingers actions. they forget that these animals also have feelings and must be left to the beautiful nature which is their home. the hunters go to forest and kill animals.
There Exists an Objective Moral Law

I thank TUF for debating this topic with me. I will not be arguing for drawing a Moral Law Giver from an objective moral law, since that is not within the scope of this debate.My task in this debate is to show that there is an objective, moral law; that is, a moral law that exists independently of human opinion, feelings, interpretations, or prejudices.C.S. Lewis writes, there is "something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong." [1]There must be an objective, universal moral law, or else no ethical judgements makes sense. Nothing could be called evil or wrong, and there would be no reason to keep promises or treaties. [2]There must be an objective moral law, for at least four reasons: 1) Moral disagreements would make no sense (as we all assume they do). 2) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (for example, you could not say that the Nazis were wrong for killing all those Jews during the Holocaust). 3) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. 4) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.In fact, if you compare the moral teachings of ancient cultures (e.g. the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.), it will be striking how similar they are to ours. While men have disagreed on what to be unselfish to (whether it be friends, family, strangers, etc.), they have always agreed you ought not to put yourself first. Additionally, while we may disagree on what constitutes murder (e.g. killing in cold blood, wars, abortion, etc.), we all agree that murder is wrong. In fact, we couldn't even say that a rapist was wrong, because his personal feeling is that it is an acceptable way to act. If morality were truly subjective, then we wouldn't be able to judge a horrific event as wrong. One action would be no better or worse than another action. A man who kills his kid to feed his dog would be no worse than a man who kills his dog to feed his kid.[1] Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, p. 34.[2] Summarized from Lewis, C.S., God in the Dock, chap. 1.
There Exists an Objective Moral Law

RULES:1. No semantics. The resolution says it all, but let's stick to the obvious meaning of this debate.2. Both debaters will remain polite, and cordial throughout this debate.3. Foreits conduct in the loss of the debate. DEFINITONS:Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes. Exists: to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.Objective: the state or quality of being objective towards an ideal. This ideal then is seen as reknown, rather than subjective, which is to say that this ideal can vary between parties. Objectivity is the a view that can be commonly accepted by all parties.Law: the controlling influence of such rules; the condition ofsociety brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.http://dictionary.reference.com...Upon my opponent agreeing to these definitions, both debaters will follow these definitions through all of their arguments.If my opponent does not agree with the rules, or the definitions taken from my source, he may bring up any discrepancies in his Round 2 rebuttals, that can be argued and decided upon by the voters.I am very much looking forward to round 2 of the 99th percentile tournament with my humble opponent, and wish you keytarhero, the best of luck through out this debate.Let's get this show on the road!
There Exists an Objective Moral Law

I wish to challenge TUF to a debate on objective morality for Phantom's 99 percentile tournament. The resolution will be that there is an objective moral law. I believe that TUF wishes to debate that arguments for the existence of one, and only one, certain Morality are fallible, which would negate the resolution if he can show that arguing for one objective morality is fallible. Voting will be one week as per the rules of the tournament. A few terms:Objective -- Independent of the human mind. Objective Moral Law -- A moral law that exists independent of human feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Subjective Morality -- Moral values that change depending on the individual or on society. Round one will be for acceptanceRound two for opening arguments (Con may rebut)Round three for rebuttalsRound four for closing statements/rebuttals.
the falling of the world trade centers

It's not a matter of simply mentioning Wikipedia. If you were to preface your argument by saying, "This comes from Wikipedia," I think it would still be wrong. Where's the debate? Where's the analysis? Frankly, you haven't defended your position that the towers were rigged, but are only repeating yourself -- asserting that they were. When we began, I noted that the burden of proof was on you: that you had to prove, without a shadow of doubt, that the towers were rigged. You have not done that, nor have you cited any sources or arguments in favor of your case. The only items that could even be construed as arguments were plagiarized, and therefore not your own. It is fine to hold a view even as controversial as yours. But my question for you is this: where's your evidence? "My friends and I believe this" is not evidence. I do not believe that you took this debate seriously. I was interested in having a discussion about this subject, but it appears that we were unable to do that. Nevertheless, thank you for the debate.
the falling of the world trade centers

I would like to point out that the entirety of my opponent's recent argument was copy and pasted verbatim from Wikipedia, which you can view here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Not only is Wikipedia widely regarded as a source that should be not be trusted, but my opponent has plagiarized his argument. Moreover, he has failed to address any of my points, or to prove conclusively that his argument is sound. He even copy/pasted the Contents page (with the "hide" option), and did not reference any of his claims (I suppose he ran out of characters). At least Wikipedia has a reference page. Of course, his post says "references" because, well, whoever wrote it wanted readers to follow those links and see for themselves. References provide credibility, after all. His footnotes are even identical to the ones on Wikipedia, except those provide links to the source, while his do not. I want to be as respectful as I can to him, and therefore I would like to point out that I am by no means attacking his character or his intelligence. But plagiarism should not go unnoticed, and I hope voters take this into account when they decide who ought to win this debate. At this time, I do not feel comfortable responding to his latest post, knowing that it is not his, that it does not even address this question, and that he did not take the time to even consider my points. I'll allow what I have written thus far to speak for itself.
the falling of the world trade centers

Can you prove that unequivocally? The essence of my argument is that you cannot prove that, and therefore it can not be stated definitively. Your claim takes the form of "A, therefore B." Your A is that the towers could not have fallen after having only been hit by a plane, and your B is that they were rigged with bombs. Even if I were to accept that A is true -- and I don't, because I know of no evidence that bears out that claim -- there is no way to conclusively prove B; if there is, you haven't done it. I must conclude, therefore, that your core premise is a non sequitur -- a logical fallacy that "does not follow." You have yet to prove your case, but are rather repeating your claim as if it were fact. I'm not going to accuse you of starting a troll debate, but I would ask that you provide more conclusive evidence with sources to prove your case to me and to our spectators. It is in no way a foregone conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Since I don't want this debate to simply be about structure and technicalities, I would like to take this time to comment on 9/11, and some of the core arguments in favor of the notion that it was a "conspiracy." I suppose, to an extent, I'm preemptively countering what my opponent may bring up. I acknowledge that this style is not ideal, but as of now it's all I have to work with, so I'll try to be brief and leave room for debate and rebuttals. A core argument is that Building 7 collapsed without having been hit by a plane. But, as the Guardian points out, Tower 7 fell by virtue of fires in the towers adjacent to it, which caused its steel beams to weaken and to buckle. Another argument is that the planes were controlled by a remote location and filled to the brim with explosives. People justified this claim by saying that the calls passengers made to their loved ones could not have been made at such an altitude. However, phone records demonstrate that the calls were made from satellite phones attached to the seats of the plane. Finally, people argue, as you have, that the Twin Towers were demolished by controlled explosion. However, demolition experts say that buildings are collapsed from the bottom, not the top. From what we know of 9/11, we can conclude that the windows were destroyed and each floor collapsed on the one below it, thus disproving this claim. I would like to ask, again, that you prove your case. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com...