BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe answers whether 'God' exists

"God is the principle of symmetry, and symmetry is defined as two mirror images." This is my opponent's view of God, and he is perfectly entitled to hold that view. Although I personally don't believe in a creator, God is a word that means different things to different people and my goal here is not to insult those beliefs. However, the argument created here by my opponent is presented in such a way that it cannot be disputed. By defining God as "the principle of symmetry" this means my opponent can now point to any example of symmetry throughout the universe and say that it is proof of a creator. In fact, his definition of God didn't finish there. "Since symmetry exists, it's mirror image, asymmetry must also exist." The definition of symmetry has now evolved to include asymmetry as well. This means symmetry is being defined by my opponent as ANYTHING that could exist, because there is only symmetry and asymmetry in the universe. This also means my opponent is asserting that God is defined as the principle of symmetry, which also includes asymmetry. If God is symmetry and asymmetry, that means literally everything in our universe is evidence of God, according to my opponent. We must remember that this definition of God was supplied by my opponent, just like countless other people have supplied their own definitions over time. The problem with this argument is the fact that, once again, it begins with the assumption that there is a Creator. This creator, which has already been assumed to exist, is then given a definition without ever being actually proven. Now, if my opponent wants to argue that God is the principle of symmetry, I do not have a problem with that. If that is what God means to him, there is nothing wrong with that. But my issue here is that my opponent uses his "symmetry argument" as evidence for a creator of the universe. This argument can't be proven or disproven, yet it is accepted by many as solid science. I could just as easily assert that God is love. Or possibly that God is harmony and balance. All of these statements cannot be proven or disproven, because they are all definitions of a force that is neither proven nor disproven. I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate; I enjoyed the discussion. My final message would be this: I think it is important for us as human beings to doubt assertions that are made without concrete evidence. I do not believe we should reject any idea or concept of God, but I believe it is best not to form opinions about things that can't be tested. I do not know whether God exists or not. Until we have a testable, scientific way to prove it, I will not put my faith into the unknown.
The universe answers whether 'God' exists

I respect my opponent's acknowledgment. I've invested a lot of time into my work. I also respect his precocious ability. The "evidence" is as follows. That which is immaterial is abstract, and abstraction is a mental process that "abstracts" or educes general relationships from observations. So philosophically, saying that space is immaterial and therefore abstract amounts to saying that it is mental"...that it is composed of mind rather than matter. By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So, if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself since we know that matter consists of energy [from Einstein"s e=mc2]. In other words, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. You may be asking how it does that. And the answer is: by configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be recognized as such by other matter. Now let"s answer my opponent"s question: "Why are there so many imperfect forces in nature...What about children born disfigure or mentally handicapped?" God is the principle of symmetry, and symmetry is defined as two mirror images. Therefore since symmetry exists, its mirror image, asymmetry must also exist. To entertain my opponent"s statement that "all matter will be engulfed by black holes", let"s pretend that precognition [predicting the future] doesn"t violate all the laws of our universe. Mathematically, if this were to happen, white holes would exist on the other side of these black holes"as mirror images of each other"because for every reaction, there"s an equal and opposite reaction. *black hole : white whole :: symmetry : asymmetry* But unfortunately, as Michio Kaku explains in his book, "Physics of the Impossible", precognition is one of only two things that violate the laws of our universe [the other is self-perpetuating motion]. I support my opponent"s statement, ""our definition of perfect comes from our own perception". However, more importantly, perception is reality.
The universe answers whether 'God' exists

Here is my response. It is quite clear that I cannot prove that God does not exist. That is a double negative, and cannot be proven about any entity that the imagination could conjure up. The case I will be making is simply this: Although we cannot prove the non-existence of God, there has been no proof shown thus far that a God does exist. I do not deny the possibility of a higher being, I simply ask for more evidence than has been provided. Let's take a look at some of my opponent's arguments. He stated that "God is the principle of symmetry and cohesion, which is what holds the universe together. " First of all, this statement was not backed up by any examples. It also begins with a fallacious assumption that there is a God, without showing any evidence to explain this God. Also, if God is the principle of symmetry and cohesion, then why are there so many imperfect forces in nature? Of course some symmetry can be found in the natural world around us, but what about children born disfigured or mentally handicapped? If god creates in "perfect orientation" as my opponent suggests, does that mean these crippling disadvantages are perfect? A much more likely explanation for imperfections in nature is provided by the theory of evolution, which states that genetic mutations will occur in certain species from time to time and that some of these mutations will eventually lead to adaptations that are beneficial to the organism. Another example of imperfection can be found in our universe. In the book "The Five Ages of the Universe" Fred Adams and Gregory Laughlin tell us that in the distant future, all matter that we know will be engulfed by black holes. These black holes will become some of the only celestial objects in the sky, and there will be absolutely no chance of life in the cosmos. If our universe was designed by a perfect creator, why would this be its final outcome? The world around us does have some natural occurrences that appear to humans to be "perfect". But we must remember, our definition of perfect comes from our own perception of the world. My opponent has clearly put some deep thought into this topic, and I would like to commend him for that. However, it appears that the majority of his arguments begin with the assumption of a creator. If we are to have a true debate about the origins of the universe, we cannot make any assumptions that will impede our progress to finding the truth. I await my opponent's response.
The universe answers whether 'God' exists

Isn't the human brain awe inspiring? A 3 pound blob of jelly that's able to contemplate the vastness of the universe, contemplate infinity, and contemplate itself contemplating infinity. We know that there are roughly the same number of neuron permutations in a human brain as there are elementary particles in the universe. As we exist in the image of the universe, so too does the universe exist in our eyes, as we look up at a night's sky. God is the principle of symmetry and cohesion, which is what holds the universe together. I do not believe in a 'personal God' [the God of prayer]. Rather, I believe in the 'God' that created such a beautiful universe. Perhaps humans are all tiny pieces of God's mind [the universe]. Perhaps now you're wondering: how can you determine WHOSE mind? And the answer to that is a physical and mathematical definition of God. Now, even though such a definition exists, we cannot see everything God sees. Whereas God perceives one total act of creation in a parallel manner, with everything in perfect orientation, we are localized in space (and time), perceiving reality only through a sequence of locally creative moments. Again, don't be blind to the other side of the coin, remember to not only see concrete reality but rather the relationship between mind and reality *mind : concrete :: reality : abstract*
PC vs XBOX360

As a gamer, we all love to play games, no matter what platform it may be. Now, I've came across a debate with a friend over the XBOX or the PC. So I thought I'd share my thoughts on the computer. First off, PC is a much more advanced gaming system. How? Their are more buttons than the XBOX controller has. The keyboard and mouse have a ton of different functions. One weakness that XBOX has is the lack of combos. What I mean is pressing different buttons in a certain order to do an action. Why can't XBOX have this? Because of the lack of buttons, that's why. Another thing is macros. Essentially, macroing is binding a key to do a certain action. This could be to aim, shoot, change weapon, or of course, do a combo with the press of one button. Why cant XBOX do this? Because ALL of the buttons are needed for the games, and it isn't possible to do so. That's all I'll say for now, and I'll argue against any points that I see invalid in the next round. Thank you.
PC vs XBOX360

"admittedly, the graphics are a tad bit better""Of course graphics better" [sic] As you can see my opponent has ceded the point about Xbox graphics being better than computer's graphics.Now, my Xbox has been in working order for well over 5 years and so have my friends. I want to point out that people usually only go to a forum when they are looking for a solution to a problem because they have problems. I've never posted to a forum about Xbox hardware problem because I've never had them. The vast majority of people with strong long lasting Xboxes will not post to these forums so I think your source is a little skewed. The 360 was predicted to have a "very long" life span [1] and was released in 2005. [2] If you tried to play Skyrim on a computer from 2005 it wouldn't even run so in order to play Skyrim you would have to have gotten a brand new computer or some SERIOUS updates to your 2005 rig. However, my Xbox from 2005 plays Skyrim just fine. Everything breaks, I'm sure I can find a forum where people's computers break just as fast if not faster. And I highly doubt that the average population (take my little brother for example, he games) has any sort of knowledge on how to fix a computer without contacting someone. Also, after 3 years a computer will no longer be working in peak condition. If an Xbox runs (until it breaks) it runs at the same performance as always. Computers get bogged down, they get slower and out of date. I can assure you that your computer after 3 years will not be playing the brand new games that come out with any sort of smoothness. Next, you cite the use of an emulator. Emulators can be expensive (since you have to purchase the emulated games) and difficult to manage. They are not conducive to average gamers. As you can clearly see it is more convenient to use an Xbox over a computer. If you want to use a computer to do things the Xbox can do you have to install all sorts of drivers, configure your computer and purchase and use an emulator. And then there is no guarantee that all of these things will work properly or that your computer will be strong enough or up to date enough to handle it all.The Xbox 360 is clearly better than the PC. [1] http://www.xbitlabs.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
PC vs XBOX360

I understand where you're coming from. Now, admittedly, the graphics are a tad bit better. However, the hardware is a downfall for Microsoft. Reading from a forum, and some other websites, it seems the typical XBOX360 can last from 6 months to 3 years, and sometimes a tad bit longer. Yes, you can indeed fix it when it dies, but what if it breaks again? A PC, however can last longer, by about a year or two(or three). If it does break, it is possible to fix it without contacting the manufacturer. Of course you need some knowledge on the hardware, but what does Microsoft tell you about their hardware? Of course graphics better, but its only an advantage, when the thing is alive. A PC can give somewhat good, playable graphics, and can last longer than the typical XBOX does. Also, yes. The XBOX does have more games. However, an emulator is a fix to that. You can buy an emulator for pretty much any game that is on the XBOX. Of course a keyboard is harder to play sports' games, however an XBOX360 controller is designed to be used with a computer as well. This means by installing a driver, you can play a sports game, say FIFA, on the computer(cheaper) with an XBOX controller. Now yes, you can use a keyboard on the XBOX, but can you use it for anything other than typing? Maybe on some games, but definitely not all of them. Sources: . http://www.tomshardware.co.uk... . http://petesgameroomforum.com...
PC vs XBOX360

While Xbox controllers might not have as many buttons as the computer doesn't make it an inferior gaming machine. Xbox alleviates this problem by adding menus, skill wheels and combos that utilize the available buttons. If you play a game such as Skyrim on the computer and on the Xbox the differences are very slight by way of controls and controllers.Graphics and Hardware The biggest advantage the Xbox has over a computer is convenience and uniformity. Every game that comes in an Xbox 360 box will run on any functioning Xbox 360 while computer games are finicky and require specific system specs to be able to run. On Xbox you can get all the great graphics of the latest games without having to buy a top of the line rig to get them to play. I can play Skyrim on my Xbox but my older laptop can't handle it. It is inconvenient. Also, the graphics on a flat screen TV running on the Xbox can be much, much better than they are on the computer. If you have an HD TV and a game such as Batman Arkham City it looks a lot better than it does on the computer. Another thing is Xboxes don't lag. Computers tend to lag if you don't have the right equipment which can disrupt a gaming experience. Types of GamesXbox also has a wider range of games you can play than computer. The computer genre is usually limited to RPGs, strategy and first person shooter games. Now the XBOX can play all of these and more. You won't find any (decent) sports games for the computer because the key board is not conducive to running it. You can't play Madden on the computer but you can on the Xbox. Xbox is more diverse in it's selection of games than the computer is. Most games on the computer also come on Xbox but most Xbox games cannot be transferred to the computer.
Getting Older sucks noodles

"This is possible with friends and colleages" Sure you may acquire some wisdom, experience, and/or luxury with friends but that does not happen all at once. It takes time to acquire those things even with friends. Than you have the audacity to bring up college as if a two year old would be able to do i. "Children are allowed to play outside and just have fun and not have to worry about rubbish such as wisdom or luxury." Yes, exactly. Children are just that, children. Dumb, joyful, hopeful, and blind. Furthermore you imply that wisdom and luxury are trivial. The very fact that you are able to make claims based upon personal thought imply s wisdom, which gets better with age. "I don't no about you, but would you rather look at an ugly or a hot person? It's a constant eyesore. And looks are symbolic of health and good genitics." That statement is more childish than my counterarguments. Two things; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. "Hot" has a price. Depending on a persons definition of hot they may not be healthy. For example if person A finds person B attractive because she is thin and big breasted that would be good but person B acquired those look by starving herself and getting surgery that may have killed her. Risky behavior in order to appear "hot" is not healthy. "Children are allowed to leech off their parents yet we get looked down upon for having to adapt to not being as so?" Yes. Children are in need of care of the parents. Must the parents spoil them, no, may they, yes. Again their children not yet capable of working or doing anything of use until they become older. Until then they have a reason to leech. As for someone who is above the age of 20 you better be looked down upon for being a leech offering nothing in return for being a child. "Aka, boring." Childish answer. Boring is how you interpret it because your unaware of their own enjoyment. What the older people do may be enjoyment to them. Selfish kind of attitude.
Getting Older sucks noodles

With age comes wisdom, experience, and luxury that you may earn. This is possible with friends and colleages, however, you forget to mention that requires effort which is not forced upon children. Children are allowed to play outside and just have fun and not have to worry about rubbish such as wisdom or luxury. You say as people age they may become "uglier" or "fatter" but a great thing happens with age those things matter only so much. With age comes maturity and a realization that looks are not everything. I don't no about you, but would you rather look at an ugly or a hot person? It's a constant eyesore. And looks are symbolic of health and good genitics. Furthermore of course you need a job to live, unless your a leech on the system. Having a family is optional. Children are allowed to leech off their parents yet we get looked down upon for having to adapt to not being as so? And single older people are viewed as pedos or child melosters or virgins. Again I will bring up the point of maturity. Of course older people - at least under the age of 70 - are expected to be mature. By the time you reach the age of 40 you are aware of most things and grow up mentally. Aka, boring.
Getting Older sucks noodles

A interesting? debate. With age comes wisdom, experience, and luxury that you may earn. Sure the older you are is another day to death but so is it for everyone else. You say as people age they may become "uglier" or "fatter" but a great thing happens with age those things matter only so much. With age comes maturity and a realization that looks are not everything. Furthermore of course you need a job to live, unless your a leech on the system. Having a family is optional. Again I will bring up the point of maturity. Of course older people - at least under the age of 70 - are expected to be mature. By the time you reach the age of 40 you are aware of most things and grow up mentally.
Abortion

The babies are scraped up and get there legs torn off during an abortin or a killed by poisons. Are children are a gift of god and by someone choosing to get an abortion you are disobeying god and are sinning deeply. It is said that abrotions can cause pain to a fetus. Did i mention that having an abortin can cause damage to a mother. 9 out 10 people who get an abortion regret it and are pressured into by there significant other. 1.2 million babies are aborted every year. Those are 1.2 million lives that could of helped make a difference in the world today. An abortin can also cause death to a mother by how far into there prgenancy they decide to get one. The posions can mess with the mothers body. The sucking up scraping and removing of the baby can cause significant damage to the mother. The mother can have permanent damage to her uterus causing her to never have the ability to have children. Dont have sex if you know the risks. If you have been raped it dosent mean you abort the baby. there is adoption. your not financially strong have bad living conditions. choose adoption not abortion.
Abortion

A full grown woman's power of will if far superior to that of a fetus, which by the way doesn't have a fully functional brain until it's a fully developed embryo.It will be born to a mother who doesn't want it, probably be thrown out and grow in foster care begging to be adopted and probably will be adopted by an infertile couple who take their anger out at the world by abusing it.Neglected babies tend to grow up to be harsh criminals http://www.theage.com.au...The baby will grow up to be a mother or father themselves and then take their anger out at the world by abusing the baby and the cycle will continue.The mother is a beautiful, amazing and undeniably valid being in our society for she is about to add to the overpopulation of the Earth as it is. http://www.overpopulation.org...You are forcing many mothers to DIE at childbirth! http://www.philly.com...How DARE you be so immoral.Kill the baby, save the world!
Abortion

3-7 days after conception the fetus is planted into the mothers uterus. On the 18th day of this childs life it gets a heart beat weeks after it starts to develop organs. From the moment of conception its has DNA that shows its hair color, eye color, personality and all those features. Just like you and me. A murder happened about a year ago. A husband murdered his pregnant wife. He was charged with double murdered because the fetus counts as a living breathing human being just like all of the other people on the planet.
Cats vs Dogs

"Cats are not as jumpy as dogs! Cats like to chill out!"This is a lie founded upon subjective opinion. I already gave evidence, in a link in round 2, that cats are prone to phobias and get severe separation anxiety when the owner leaves them, just as much as dogs."Cats are great animals, studies have shown that when you pet a cat, your body releases chemicals which can relieve stress and possibly make you live longer."Cats are great animals, studies have shown that when you pet a cat, your body releases chemicals which can relieve stress and possibly make you live longer.This is also true for humans that own dogs. Dog owners get more exercise just by taking their dog out for a walk. The American Heart Association says that 54 percent of dog owners are likely to get the recommended amount of exercise for good health. All this exercise lowers cardiovascular risks and cholesterol levels, making pet owners more healthy and more likely to live longer lives. Dogs can help you stay socially connected, which is vitally important for people who are at risk of social isolation. Walking with a dog often leads to more conversations and more connections with people. The National Institute of Health states that people who have more social contact and more friends live longer and are unlikely to decline as quickly as those who do not.(http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com...)(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) "Cats are smarter than dogs, dogs get hit more often and they bite more than cats, so cats are better to have around small children."What on earth does getting hit more often have to do with dogs? That sounds like it's to do with abusive owners taking advantage of such an empathetic creature. Animal abuse is disgusting and not relevant to this debate. There is no evidence that dogs fight more frequently than cats do, only that when they do fight that they fight with more brutality if they were raised that way. That's actually an advantage as people can train guard dogs to attack intruders whilst they can't train their cats to do the same.(http://www.cesarsway.com...)"My cat has been trained to attack animals and get my newspaper."That's one cat and it most likely did the newspaper thing on its own accord rather than you having taught it. the toilet trick is an old-school trick of training the cat to use a litter box strategically placed on the seat of the toilet. It doesn't come anywhere near to the level of blind dog, or police dog, training.(http://www.wikihow.com...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)