BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 4th Dimension is imagination

You disagree to my point about time being a dimension by agreeing. Yes time would be its own coordinate if it were a dimension, But time itself in the context you explained is not a separate coordinate its actually a combination of the xyz here is why. . Based on what you said. What am i saying when i say meet me under the tree at 3pm? Or better question. Is 3pm a concept that can stand on its own? No. This is why time is reletive. When i say meet at 3, I can just as well say, Meet me when the distance between the tree and the north star is 2 inches when holding two fingers 2inches from ur left eye while facing true north with the tree at your posterior. Did we or did we not meet at the same time? Yet we used 3d geometry to express time. We used x y and z only, Not an added coordinate. We just specify the 3 coordinates already provided. Now yes time would make it easier to word but it is not neccesary to meet at the same place at the same moment? Answer that question and explain how not in that exampme. Or, Meet me at the temple when the shadow cast on the building is 33degress from true north. X left, Y north, Z the position of the sun. Therefore, The next coordinate can not be time as time is not neccesary to specify a point. I can specify a point using xyz coordinates in the same fashion. So my question how do we percieve the xyz coordinates, From an added coordinate? Imagination, Or even metaphysics better explain the next dimension. Here is how. Meeting me anywhere at any moment doesnt require an added perception or coordinate. But what if i percieved you almost reaching the destination with out physical evidence that you were. What if i simply just 'felt in my mind' you where one block away. When i imagine correctly in my mind and see you accurately in route, What coordinates did i specify to myself to identify your location. Xyand z of course, But there is an added coordinate because i can percieve your location as if i am there though i am not. So how would i map what i am percieving? I can't draw a 2d or 3d map. As i can be on any point and yet still observing you on your way.
The 4th Dimension is imagination

There are so many problems with this round's argument, Not one part of which is backed up by any scientific evidence as compared with me. These are all aside from, Or on top of, The plethora of spelling and grammatical errors that make the entries difficult to understand at times. These fallacies can be found starting right away with the attempt to reframe a definition halfway through the debate to suit Pro's needs. The definition of dimension has nothing to do with perception. As I said, There is no construct through which we can interpret what it means for a non-3-dimensional creature to "perceive" and thus using that word in the definition of "dimension" is nothing short of vacuous and irrelevant. The true definition of dimension has to do with the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Furthermore, On what is Pro basing the claim that the mind is the tool for mankind to perceive the 4th dimension like the 5 senses are used to perceive the 3rd? Are the senses not centered in the mind? How are you possibly separating the part of the mind responsible for perceiving light from the part responsible for perceiving time? What does it mean that the mind and imagination let us live beyond 3D limits? Perhaps we can have dreams about the past or future, But we are still perceiving everything in three dimensions. In 3D reality you absolutely do not have to go to where the snow is, You can close your eyes and imagine it. This is utterly unrelated to the 4th dimension. Point #2 is simply incoherent and meaningless, As is point #3. What does it mean that a 3D limitation is broken in imagination by the conscious awareness of being observed? I am observing my friend in my apartment right now and am aware of his consciousness. Am I existing in any sort of higher dimension or imaginative realm? The first sentence of the last paragraph is honestly a bit disturbing and scary when it offers a window into Pro's mind. "I can perceive you in my mind and you're limited to not being aware as if I was perceiving you in a higher dimension. " Sure, I may not be aware of you perceiving me, But I don't remotely see how that calls higher dimensions into play. We don't at all use imagination to process the perception of hair cells tingling as a result of vibrations of the cochlear fluid that come from protuberances of air waves entering our ear drums. It is our three-dimensional synapses and the electrical impulses that fire between them that lead to what we consider to be the phenomenon of hearing. It is very unclear to me why or how a higher dimension is necessary to understand this. I'd urge Pro to produce the following: Scientific evidence or sources backing up his/her contentions Scientific evidence or sources refuting my contentions Logical arguments as to why my contentions and scientific evidence aren't valid Have a good day
The 4th Dimension is imagination

To rephrase, For the sake of my argument Dimension: a plane and limit of perception The mind is the tool for mankind to percieve the 4th dimension like the 5 senses are used to percieve in the 3d, For 3 reasons: how perception is limited in each dimension, How imagination increases our ability to percieve reality and how the perceptions observed in the mind (metaphysically) stand separate or arguably above the 3rd dimension reality we know. 1. If, Perception was limited to one dimension, The 2nd dimension would virtually not be percievable. And so forth moving upward. Logically case. This shows that what separate dimensions are their limitations. Does the mind and imagination not let us live beyond 3d limits? In 3d reality if i want to see snow i must go where it is. But in thought, That limit is arguably broken. 2. Which brings the 2nd point, Arguably, The mind is the only place to mathematically explain the 4th dimension. X is one dimension, When stacked another dimension, Y is percieved. Once that xyplane is stacked 3dimensions are percievable. Is not a thought a stack of 3d planes in another, Dimension? 3. For the 3rd point i would like to highlight a 3d limitation broken in imagination and thougt. The conciousness awaress of being observed. The "beings" i referred to are hypothetical of course. But in each dimension there is an inability for one to know one is being percieved from the higher dimension if said being were limited to said dimension, Hypethically. Which redifnes the conclusion. I can percieve you in my mind and youre limited to not being aware as if i was percieving you in a higher dimension. Similar to when the proverbial "burning of the ears" when some one is talking about you behind your back. Perhaps that phrase expresses the ability to be aware you are being percieved in a higher dimension. Thought the ear tingle is a physical occurance in the 3d, The tool we use to process said perception is imagination and thought.
The 4th Dimension is imagination

Unfortunately, These points are neither well-reasoned nor logical. I will go on to show that not only are most of these arguments based in fallacious thinking, But they are wholly unrelated to proving the point Pro is attempting to prove. Let's look at #2 for example, "the explaination of the dimensions as seen on youtube lol. " Aside from the fact that we are not told where on YouTube these explanations sit, This argument demonstrates a severely flawed understanding of basic physics. To attribute the human notion of "perception" to 1st dimensional "creatures" that don't have senses, Bodies, Or even consciousness in the conventional sense, Is a complete non-starter. As 3-dimensional creatures, Yes we can perceive the 2nd dimension itself, But we cannot perceive 2-dimensional "creatures. " I'm not even sure what a 2-dimensional creature would look like. Unless we're discussing the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott (highly recommended), I don't think attributing human sensations, Phenomena, Or perception of qualia to other-dimensional creatures is a reasonable way to discuss this issue. I'm also utterly perplexed by argument #3. "The definition of mechanics, By bases of my argument, Is to bring imagination to reality. " I'm quite certain that is not a definition of any sort of mechanics, Quantum or otherwise, That has ever been used by anyone. Furthermore, Quantum mechanics is definitely not limited to 3 dimensions. See any of the following: Separability, Locality, And Higher Dimensions in Quantum Mechanics (Alyssa Ney) General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Five Dimensions (Paul S. Wesson, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada) Quantum Physics in Higher-Dimensional Hilbert Spaces (Internationale Akademie Traunkirchen) Quantum Mechanics In 5-dimensional Space-time And Special Relativity Theory (XiaoLin Li, Chongqing, China) Your first mention of meeting criteria quite literally mentions time as the dimension by which you measure a thought, Yet you're trying prove essentially the inverse. Your next mention is similarly unconvincing. Even when you're seeing "her face in mind", You're still seeing a 3-dimensional rendition of her. This is just like the way we dream in 3D even though, Obviously, The objects we see in our sleep with closed eyes do not exist in the three dimensions you're speaking of. Your third also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and quantum mechanics. I believe you are referring to the concept of quantum superposition which is utterly unrelated to the discussion of the 4th dimension being time versus "imagination" or anything else for that matter. Some more sources: Seeing Things: Science, The Fourth Dimension, And Modern Enchantment (https://academic. Oup. Com/ahr/article/119/5/1466/44608) Time As a Geometric Property of Space (https://www. Frontiersin. Org/articles/10. 3389/fphy. 2016. 00044/full) On higher-dimensional dynamics (https://aip. Scitation. Org/doi/10. 1063/1. 1462418) Time as the Fourth Dimension (https://www. Jstor. Org/stable/27750742? Seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
The 4th Dimension is imagination

Well put, However 3 points to counter your argument: Perspective of time in each dimension, The perspective of one dimension to the higher and quantum application. 1. Perspective of time excludes time as a dimension itself because as you explained, Locations require time to be reachable (simplified point but i have made that complex argument before so i get it) in the 3rd dimension. This would also be true for 2, Two dimensional beings on a 2 dimensional plane, And so on to the 1st. There for with out time, There is no 1st dimension to observe. 2. The explaination of the dimensions as seen on youtube lol, 1st dimensional creatures can't percieve 2nd dimensional creatures and 2nd dimensional creatures can't observe the 3rd do the lacking axis in a lower dimension. I believe this to be true, As it agrees woth einstein. So i argue the 4th dimension is a perception where the 3rd dimension can be seen with out being seen by the third ( percieved, Not seen) 3. Quantum mechanics is still limited to the 3rd dimension although quantum theory is not. The definition of mechanics, By bases of my argument, Is to bring imagination to reality (3rd dimension or combination of xyz axis). So q-mech aline does not isolate time as a dimension but rather a way to better understand matter in 3d terms. With these 3 points expressed i ask, Can i meet all three criteria with thought? 1. I can measure the time i spent in a thought, About a person. 10 sec. 2. I can percieve someone or a place, In thought, With out being percieved in the 3d, Ex: i can think of sally, See her face in mind she not perceive me at all. That fits the criteria of lower dimension limitations. 3. Quantum application shows a particle can be in 2 places at once. Thosr places are however measured, Observed and tracked in the 3d we perceive in. Which excludes quantum behavior from being q dimension.
It is reasonable to be an Agnostic!

I was once completely Atheist, Theist and even Deist, however I do not have the energy to have faith and to claim philosophical similarity with a far left or far right ideology. Sure, I'm Atheist Agnostic! However, I'm Agnostic about a lot of things, like the supernatural. The supernatural would be like the afterlife. But, I have my own opinion on it, I personally think it's too good to be true. I mean something supernatural probably had to have happened though to begin this earth, either way if there's a God or not. Being a skeptical Atheist Agnostic I can't really accept that spontaneous entropy through the process of Abiogensis created us yet. I just can't fathom something coming from nothing. And not until I receive reason to believe in it, I will remain Agnostic. A common logical fallacy Atheists or Theists use is Petitio principii. The Atheist may state there is no God because we have found no evidence of God or the Theist will say there is no evidence disproving there to not be a God, especially in nature, so therefore There is a God. However, are these fallacies subsequently true? No! We just don't know enough about nature to make a conclusion like that, Eventually, the possibility that there is a God or not could be proven. However in the mean time, it is reasonable to be Agnostic! I wanted to keep you voters with a reasonable doubt in both directions so it balances it out. So you get a taste of what it feels like to be neutral. Hopefully that is the case and that I've proven its okay to not be too far left or too far right you can just be in between. Con failed to show why it's not reasonable to be Agnostic. Vote pro! Con is obviously trolling.
It is reasonable to be an Agnostic!

So I opened up this debate and was all like: Please learn to use paragraphs; they help to convey your ideas more clearly. Alright, so let's break down what Pro really did in Round 2. They tried to tear apart atheism's attacks on Theism implying that Theism is very entitled to be true. Instead of supporting agnosticism they end up supporting Deism because really they are saying it is absolutely possible for there to be a higher power and atheists have no right to say no. Agnostics say this: because you don'tn know something, then it is right to say it is impossible to guess. Last time Roulette was played a guy won.
It is reasonable to be an Agnostic!

Looking for either an Atheist or Theist to challenge my claim. To put it very simply, is there someone that does or does not believe in God, that's willing to challenge my claim? Definition: Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Source: 'Google Definitions'
Corporations are people.

It is unwelcome to "win" a debate under such circumstances, and I look forward to a more complete contest as soon as my partner is able to participate. Such eventualities can not always be avoided, as I am sure all the readers are well aware. Considering this was a debate instigated by my partner, I will forgo any further arguments, and react as though he had initially scheduled this competition to only the rounds already presented - thus rendering the debate "ended."
Some authentic Hadeeths show that Prophet Mohammad was neither highly moral nor well-mannered

Thank you, my rival, for your ever prompt reactions and good conduct. I wish to apologize for the forfeit I made. It would be only fair to lose this debate and this doesn't hurt me. In the few months I have been debating on this site, I have not won any debate yet... No matter. PERSONAL CONCLUSION The Prophet (pbuh) did not say this, but to stress the seriousness of the error. Compare this exclamation with those of them pop stars that many people almost worship these days: the morality of the Prophet was better than anyone's. Not all pain leads to injury. If the educational tick of the Prophet did cause some injury, it would have been mentioned. Thus, injury is no part of pain, and not always likely - it was not violence. I do share the wish of debating with my opponent again soon. But this time with a very clear resolution. (Note: I did not say 'clearly expressed' - I said 'clearly' in context)
Some authentic Hadeeths show that Prophet Mohammad was neither highly moral nor well-mannered

"3- Forfeits are not allowed. If anyone forfeits a round, he/she directly loses the debate. "In summary, my argument in this debate was that Prophet Mohammad, according to some authentic hadeeths, was not highly and well-mannered. I showed that by giving two hadeeths that prove that: (1) When he said, "Make anyone practicing Jaheliya funeral rituals bite his father's pen! s and don't hesitate. (2) When he pushed Aisha, his young wife, and caused her pain. In my opinion, I haven't received any worthwhile objections or apologetic from my opponent, who forfeited in the previous round and didn't respond to my refutation of his previous apologetic. My opponent can still argue in the last round, but I won't be able to respond to any objections or counterarguments he will present.
Some authentic Hadeeths show that Prophet Mohammad was neither highly moral nor well-mannered

I would like to excuse myself for not noticing the regulation on the burden of proof. And, not as a part of the debate, I would like to ask where my opponent lives.First Argument of my OpponentAfter examination, I have found that it is indeed authentic, but some others are more authentic. My question is: in what sense does this sentence turn our Holy Prophet into an immoral person? First of all, in our society the word 'penis' or any euphemism of it is considered pejorative. But, as my opponent knows better than I, in Islam, we have no taboos. Everything we need to talk of, we talk of. No censure.To make the point I'm trying to put forward clear, I shall add a credible definition of the word morality, extracted from Wikipedia.Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). As we can see, it has to do with deeds or plans for a deed. Biting the private parts of your father can be seen as an immorality. Asking someone personally to do so is an insult and therefore as well immoral. But the prophet did not address any person directly: he stressed the seriousness of such actions by making it a little heavy...Not within the borders of immorality.Counterargument towards my Opponent's Refutation of Argument #2I beg his pardon on this, for I had a more clear explanation which did not came to me before me first argumentation.Immorality can be viewed from two opinions: ethics, which change with every nation and generation and theological jurisprudence, which lasts in its original form.According to both, violence is immoral. The World Health Organization defined violence in its report of 2002 as follows:Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. None of the words in the Arabic context refer to an injury, and Aisha herself spoke only good about the Prophet after his death, which makes it only more clear that none of the results of violence mentioned above is actually present in this case.SINCE MY OPPONENT has been so kind to remind me that the burden of proof rested upon him, I no longer think it is required to further strengthen my own arguments.I await Pro's reply.
Wylted is a homosexual old man.

Pro has dropped the argument that I had sex with his mom. Pro has dropped the argument that I had sex with a girl and had a baby. Pro instead mentions something about a Nae Nar, I don't know what that is, I wasn't around when that was invented. I do the Nae Nae. I also smoke weed, and an clearly a ride or die nigga. Things old people don't do. I challenge my opponent to name one old person that is a ride or die nigga. My opponent has two things to prove here. He must prove I am a homosexual and that I am old. If he fails to prove one, than I win. Since my opponent has dropped my arguments that I had sex with his mom, he can not win this debate.
Wylted is a homosexual old man.

My little brother hacked into my account. I didn't post that last round. The burden of proof rests on pro this debate, just like my penis rested on his mom's chin, proving I'm not gay. Also my profile picture is of my newborn son, I had sex with a woman to produce that baby, as is usually the case with producing baby's. The third fact supporting my hterosexuality, is me and Thett often flirt with each other through Pm, and clicking on Thett's profile proves she's a girl. I'm not old either. For one, old people are mature, and I made an immature your momma joke this debate, for another thing, I had sex with my opponent's mom, and she only bangs young dudes. More testaments to my immaturity are a rape debate I once did, me trolling the religion section with my run for site president. My opponent cannot whip it or Nae Nar, but I can do both. Old people cannot Nae Nae.
You can jump in the same river twice

I believe that you can't jump in the same river twice. Let's say you are about to jump into the river Nile, you jump then you get back up to jump into the river Nile again but you would be jumping into a different river because after your first jump the water would have changed, the fish and other marine creatures would have moved and the rocks and mud would have moved too, so it would be a different river. There would be similarities such as the river's name which would've stayed the same but since there are differences it would be a different river the second time you jump in which is exactly why I believe you can't jump in the same river twice. My belief may sound crazy but it's what I believe and I've got a perfectly good reason for it. Looking forward to debating with you
Resolved: Truth is Subjective

Hello everyone I would like to propose a debate in which my opponent will defend that truth can be subjective. By truth I do not mean ethics nor morality.The following definitions must be accepted as fact throughout this deabte: Definition of Subjective:A.) existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).B.) open to interpretation. C.) based on personal opinion. Definition of objective:A.) Not dependent on the mind for existenceB.) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or realC.) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudicesOrder of the Rounds:______Con_____________________________________________Pro_______1.) Terms (TOA)....................................Acceptance and oppening constructive arguments2.) Refutation/ Constructive arguments..............Refutation/ Constructive arguments 3.) Refutation/ Constructive arguments..............Rebutal (No new arguments) 4.) Rebutal (No new arguments).......................Pro will state "No round as agreed upon"Failing to comply with any of these Terms Of Agreement means a forfeit of all 7 points. Please no kritiks, the one who accepts must finish the debate. Thank you :P
God Exists

"You said in the beginning of this debate that we have the Word, therefore you admit that God exists" I already refuted this ontological fallacy and showed how it is a non sequitur, my opponent's argument makes absolutely no sense. I refuted every single argument my opponent put forward whilst my opponent did not even address one of mine. In no way shape or form did my opponent prove 'god exists' which was the topic whilst I put forward credible arguments against the notion.