BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We will not contradict ourselves

Thank you.1. Are you sane?YesAdditional clarifications: I am sane in the sense that I can form accurate models of reality and these models lead me to not be a threat to others or myself. Moreover, I am sane in the sense that I am of a sound and healthy mind.2. Is the direction to which gravity pulls to be considered "down"? Additional clarification is needed. "Down" in relationship to what?3. Does the sun exert gravity upon you?4. Does the moon exert gravity upon you?YesAdditional clarification: The sun and moon both exert gravity upon me in the sense that gravity causes the sun, earth, and moon to be drawn to each other. The gravity keeps the earth in check and the earth's gravity keeps the moon in check. They balance out perfectly. 5. Are all things to be permitted? No Additional clarification: There are certain things that are morally impermissible (i.e., rape, murder, etc.)6. Do you believe that the universe exists? NoAdditional clarification: I do not believe that the universe exists, rather I accept that the universe exists based upon my observations and experience.7. Is it sure that I exist?8. Is it sure that you exist? I'm not 100% certain, though I can be reasonably confident that you and I both exist. 9. Is the universe the same as its identity?10. Can the universe have a specific cause?Additional information is requested, what do you mean by "identity" and "cause"?Questions1. Can we know anything for absolute certainty?2. Are you positive that you are not insane (per question 4 of round 1)3. Is solipsism true?4. Do you consider yourself a reliable person?5. A barber cuts the hair of all men that live in a fictional town that do not cut their own hair. The barber lives in that fictional town. Does he cut his own hair?6. If someone states, "I am lying now", is he lying?7. You travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he conceives one of your parents, which preculdes your own conception. Are you ever born?8. Is anything in science absolute?9. Have you ever told a whopper?10. Is Obama better than Bush?
We will not contradict ourselves

Welcome to the variation of the "I will not contradict myself" debates that my opponent and I thought of in a PM. In this debate, we will try to answer each other's questions without contradicting ourselves. Con will ask me questions that I must respond to and I have to ask con questions that he must respond to. Rounds:1) Presentation of first questions by Pro and Con (no answers please to keep this parallel)2) Answer/Ask3) Answer/Ask4) Answer5) ClosingAnywhere in this debate you can point out a contradiction that the opponent has stated. The definition of a "contradiction" is two or more propositions which are logically incompatible (X cannot be and not be simultaneously). Rules:1) 10 questions per round2) Must be yes/no/na questions3) If additional clarification is needed please state so (no points deducted)4) The first definition that is presented is the one that is used5) If neither player contradicts himself, then this debate should be tied.Questions:1. Is your profile information on your DDO profile regarding the stance you take on the big issues accurate?2. Do you support a minimum wage?3. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults illegal (NOTE: This question does not refer only to sexual activities)?4. Are you insane?5. Do you like to sing?6. Have you ever mooted before?7. Can you know for sure that this debate is taking place?8. Do you agree with all the actions that Barack Obama has taken as President?9. Should the US Government force employers to pay for contraception, even if it goes against their religion?10. Do you believe in a big government?That's all and I look forward to your answers.
We will not contradict ourselves

as CON has little opportunity to rebut except in comments (which I hope voters look at, and use to make such a decision), I will keep this rather brief.Con in my estimation has contradicted himself in two of his rounds.First, he has contradicted himself in claiming that he is sane, and then in claiming that from his own perspective, he is unsure of the existence of himself, when the existence of self is a tautological truth. No sound or healthy mind questions whether it questions, at least not very long anyway!Second, CON has claimed to be an athletic supporter. As it was no previously defined except to outline what it is not, I construe this to mean "an article of clothing designed to support the testicles, penis, or breasts of a athlete". In the following round, CON then claimed to NOT be an article of clothing, or in any way preventative of the jiggling of such organs. This is clearly contradictory!Thank you, and best of wishes to CON for this enjoyable debate!
We will not contradict ourselves

Thank you. I have not been able to find any contradiction from con. Unfortunately, if con finds me to contradict myself, I will not have any more rounds to defend myself though the rules clearly state that he is allowed to do that.1. Do you believe the universe exists? N/AI don't "believe" the Universe exists, I accept the Universe exists.2. Do you believe that knowledge exists?Yes3. Do you believe that predictive models are superior to any non-predictive model?In science, yes.4. Do you believe that equals ought be treated equally?Yes5. Are you a nihilist?6. Are you a solipsist?7. Are you an article of clothing?8. Do you prevent the jiggling of another person's dangly bits while they play at sports? No9. Are furries sane? What's a furrie?10. Am I sane? If by "I" you mean "you", then I would not know for sure as I am not you nor am I your Doctor.Thank you and good luck.
We will not contradict ourselves

First, apologies to PRO for depriving him (and myself) of one full round of questions. Second, I'm fairly certain that I'm entitled to one additional round of questions so that me and PRO might be even; he opened with asking, thus I close with asking, and doing so does not deprive him of the ability to respond to this, my last set of answers.1. Have you answered the questions reliably throughout this debate?YesAdditional Clarification: Insofar as I have tried to answer them reliably; I have no way of knowing for sure, except that I know that I exist.2, Have you stopped beating your wife?NoAdditional Clarification: While I have stopped beating my ex boyfriend, I've never had a wife to beat, so I can't have stopped beating a wife I don't have.3. Is your DDO profile accurate? NoAdditional Clarification: As my DDO Profile is not necessarily accurate on the big issues, it cannot be accurate in whole.4. Has President Bush made any good decisions?N/AAdditional Clarification: There is no "President Bush" at this time. Currently there is only President Obama, however Once-President Bush, both Sr. and G.W. Bush, make good decisions in the pragmatic sense: their decisions made a lot of money, and allow them to continue to live fat and happy.5. Have you ever told a lie?YesAdditional Clarification: I have said things that do not reflect the true state of reality.6. Are you lying now?NoAdditional Clarification: But there's no way to really know that for sure...7. Have you contradicted yourself in this debate?I don't really know.8. Do you consider yourself to be "fat"?sometimes9. Do you believe in Common Descent?NoAdditional Clarification: I do not belive in common descent, nor do I even like it very much. However, being geneally sane, I accept that it is more likely, given the evidence, than any alternative.10. Is it possible that any Deity exists.N/AAdditional Clarification: A Deity, as a being that is not affected by the laws of the universe, would not be able to be a part of the universe, and thus would not exist. The very concept of a deity actively "existing" is nonsensical.1. Do you believe the universe exists?2. Do you believe that knowledge exists?3. Do you believe that predictive models are superior to any non-predictive model?4. Do you believe that equals ought be treated equally?5. Are you a nihilist?6. Are you a solipsist?7. Are you an article of clothing?8. Do you prevent the jiggling of another person's dangly bits while they play at sports?9. Are furries sane?10. Am I sane?
We will not contradict ourselves

Thank you. 1. Can anything be known with absolute certainty?YesAdditional Information: Answering "No" is self-contradictory.2. Can solipsism be valid?N/A: What do you mean by "valid."3. Do you answer the questions from this debate reliably?Yes4. Has Bush been a bad decision?YesThere are bad decisions that George W. Bush has made. That does not mean; however, that he made good decisions. However, I believe that over all, Bush was a horrible President. 6. Are boxers preferable to briefs?N/AAdditional comments: I have really no opinion on this.7. Do you shave your crotch?Sometimes.8. Do you make good decisions?Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.9. Are you clever?YesAdditional comments: I'm "clever" in the sense that I consider myself to be quick to understand, learn, and devise or apply ideas. However, this is of course my opinion - others may disagree.10. Are you an athletic supporter? I am not athletic myself, but I am an athletic supporter.Questions1. Have you answered the questions reliably throughout this debate?2, Have you stopped beating your wife?3. Is your DDO profile accurate? 4. Has President Bush made any good decisions?5. Have you ever told a lie?6. Are you lying now?7. Have you contradicted yourself in this debate?8. Do you consider yourself to be "fat"?9. Do you believe in Common Descent?10. Is it possible that any Deity exists.
We will not contradict ourselves

1. Can we know anything for absolute certainty?yesAddictional Clarification: I think therefore am; the one thing any sane person cannot deny is the existence of self, as it is tautologically true2. Are you positive that you are not insane (per question 4 of round 1)YesAdditional clarification: insofar as I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt3. Is solipsism true?n/aAdditional Clarification: There's no way to know for sure, however. If I were to assume that the universe exists, as I generally do, then I would be begging the question that solipsism is false.4. Do you consider yourself a reliable person?yesAdditional clarification: The parts of my person work generally reliably, and do not break down often.5. A barber cuts the hair of all men that live in a fictional town that do not cut their own hair. The barber lives in that fictional town. Does he cut his own hair?N/AAdditional Comments: The preconditions in the question result in a contradiction.6. If someone states, "I am lying now", is he lying?N/AAdditional Comments: He is speaking nonsense, which is not even a lie.7. You travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he conceives one of your parents, which preculdes your own conception. Are you ever born?N/AAdditional Comments: It depends on whether or not time travel spawns a branching of universal causality; in the worst of cases you invoke a paradox into reality, and we don't really know what happens in that case, or if it is even possible; generally it is thought not to be.8. Is anything in science absolute?NoAdditional Comments: Key word in rather than of, where "in science" is taken to mean "the discoveries or theories of science" rather than the metaphysics of science.9. Have you ever told a whopper?NoAddiional Comments: I have never spoken to a whopper sandwich from Burger King; I have never even seen one, let alone told anything to it.10. Is Obama better than Bush?YesAdditional Comments: Obama is quite attractive, and a fairly intelligent man, whereas the hair that grows from a crotch I find marginally unattractive and otherwise useless. If given the choice between Obama and Bush, I would pick Obama any day; for all I know Obama might have Bush, in which case he'd certainly be better than just Bush.Questions:1. Can anything be known with absolute certainty?2. Can solipsism be valid?3. Do you answer the questions from this debate reliably?4. Has Bush been a bad decision?6. Are boxers preferable to briefs?7. Do you shave your crotch?8. Do you make good decisions?9. Are you clever?10. Are you an athletic supporter?
The Death Penalty is Unconstitutional

The Eighth Amendment provides that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The common arguments are that there is no form of execution which does not violate the Eighth Amendment, or that under substantive due process (look it up) that it is fundamentally unlawful to take a life. The latter argument having been rejected by the legal community, the former is currently before the court in this term. My argument in this case is simple. The Constitution cannot prohibit what its text explicitly permits. In spite of the 8th Amendment, the Fifth Amendment states: No persons shall be held to answer for a capital crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life without the due process of law.' This clearly permits the death penalty to be imposed, and establishes beyond doubt that the death penalty is not one of the 'cruel and unusual punishments' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Even if the Supreme Court finds the current cocktail used for Lethal Injection (which is the current case) to be unconstitutional, they must still hold that a legal combination of drugs exists, and give an indication as to what "punishment" must be avoided using that combination rather than the current one. Either way, the Death Penalty is legal.
An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

Well, speaking of logic how can 99.9% of the species die out if the Human Race and Animal Kingdom are still very much vibrant and alive unless he means death which is a natural process. And just because the atheism forum contradicts my argument doesn't mean it's not valid. The evidence I present,which my opponent has barely one example for his argument,is that God can explain the inconsistencies of evolution such as how life began or how anything began. My other example will be the Genome code which is an [1] extremely sophisticated genetic language necessary for even the simplest life forms to exist. Called by Bill Clinton "The Language of The Creator".So my argument is as follows 1. that everything has a cause and 2. there is evidence for design. Now,I will ask to those that will be voting to look at HIS evidence which is minimal,he has not supplemented his argument but has only rebutted my arguments. Other than that I like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate vote PRO. http://www.andrewcorbett.net...
An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

The source provided is not viable, it is an atheist forum where everyone is disproving God. What I am getting from what you just said is because of the fact that our planet in this solar system contains life, that must mean that there is an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God? I would gladly disagree with that. My opponent is making a broad generalization. Please understand the massive size of the universe we live in. How does a single planet being inhabited prove there is a "creator"? My opponent later says "...does not see science as an enemy but rather utilizes science for his creations." This creator uses science for his creations and yet allows 99.9%[1] of species to inhabit this planet die out? Does that logically make sense that "God" loved his creations so much that he would let the vast majority of them go extinct? This "creator" is either impotent, uncaring, or non-existent. [1]http://mjperry.blogspot.com...
An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

When I said I "Believed" I said that to state my personal belief in a god in no ways did I express this as "Proof" of god's existence. Well on "the variation of degree" my opponent should note how other planets are inhospitable they don't and can't sustain life Earth is perfect size, [1] The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter, Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. So now there is one explanation for the "just right" conditions of Earth a creator who knows what he is doing and does not see science as an enemy but rather utilizes science for his creations. [1] http://www.rationalresponders.com...
An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

I asked for logical reasoning that could potentially give evidence to an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God." You started off your argument by stating "I believe". Beliefs do not suffice as any form of logical reasoning. It is possible to say that the universe has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe. Time is an aspect of the universe. There was no "time" before the universe. Without a time before, the idea of cause no longer appertains. Later you say: "so my argument is just BECAUSE were discussing god it makes him real or he exists".. so essentially by that same logic, if we were to go on and discuss a flying spaghetti monster, would that too be real or exist? No, that is completely illogical. I would like to see your sources on the supposition that "the Earth is the perfect size and is perfect in it's distance from the sun any variation in degree.." No 'proof' that the perfect "God" I described exists was given.
An all loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "God" does not exist.

I believe that the God described here does in fact exist,and it is professed by various religions including the major monotheistic religions including Islam,Judaism, and Christianity. God exists because we exist,nature exist,justice exist good and evil exist because the universe exist. The Kalam argument that there is cause for the universe to exist everything and everyone has a purpose this is why they currently exist,if you think about it for a moment there isn't many things that exist and do not have a purpose so my argument is just BECAUSE were discussing god it makes him real or he exists .God is omnipotent in the fact that he created the universe it takes quite a skilled hand to create such a thing like the Earth,the Earth is the perfect size and is perfect in it's distance from the sun any variation in degree could mean we burn up or we freeze. God is loving in the fact that he loves all his creations. I am finished and await my opponent's rebuttal Thank You.
Jesus is the archangel Micheal

Well I believe the bible is true.I mean all I can say is that if there wasn't a God...then why is there right from wrong in the universe.I have learned many things from the bible.If I may be irrational then let it be but I will say I study the Bible.I don't see the mainstream beliefs as always correct.If I have been questioned by somebody I answer by the truth I know.If I am wrong then prove it.I question not only religions but God himself.So henceforth let this debate be proven wrong by not opinions but truth.If you find fault then let it be tested and not judge.
Jesus is the archangel Micheal

While I both respect and am intrigued by your argument, I have to say this seems farfetched. You seem to be making the Bible into Fight Club, and I don't see why the authors of such a book (intended to teach the word of the Lord) would intentionally go out of their ways to be cryptic and confusing in a text that is meant to be understood by even the simplest of men. Besides, such an argument is pointless anyway, as any sane/learned individual understands that science clearly has more merit than religion, rendering the Bible and this argument utterly useless. I was excited to see what you had to say, but this seems like a crazy conspiracy theory devised for no clear purpose.
Is Darth Revan the most powerful force user

Sidious was the first to create a Force Storm without using the Darkstaff artifact. All previous observances of Force Storms were created using the Darkstaff. Darth Sidious discovered the technique. There are reasons as to why Sidious did not kill Luke with his Lightning. It was entirely possible for him to do it (1). One theory is that Sidious wanted to keep Luke alive to replace Darth Vader as his apprentice. Another theory is that Sidious wanted Luke's death to be slow and painful, and thus decreased the intensity of his attack. Sidious also tortured Darth Plagueis in a similar way shortly before Plagueis' death (2). "As well, a force-storm could not be used in a battle" - Force Storms were used extensively by Sidious (3). During a major battle near Coruscant, Sidious created a Force Storm that swallowed entire Imperial and New Republic Fleets. Please tell me where you found this information. "His combat, both saber skill and offensive force, was much greater" - Please provide evidence to back up this claim. Sidious is considered to be the one of the most deadly duelists of all time. Sidious forced Yoda, one of the strongest Jedi in the Order, to retreat during their duel. He also used techniques such as Force Rage to augment his abilities. (1) - http://starwars.wikia.com... (2) - Star Wars: Darth Plagueis (2012). (3) - http://starwars.wikia.com...
Is Darth Revan the most powerful force user

Sidious did not invent the force storm. There are many pre-recorded documents of a force storm. As well, a force-storm could not be used in a battle and required time and meditation. Sidious's force lightning could not even disintegrate Luke Skywalker, a naive Jedi with a few years of training. Revan's lightning could disintegrate a member of the dark council (one of the most powerful sith in the galaxy) in a second. Revan could easily boss Sidious in a battle. Revan could, with no training in Sith alchemy, prolong his life for over 3 centuries as well as completely preserve his youth for the same time, with no rituals. That feat has never been equaled. imagine his potential had he chosen to focus on Sith Spells. Revan's force power was much greater than Sidious. His combat, both saber skill and offensive force, was much greater. His skills in Sith Alchemy, though he never trained in it, was still god-like. Revan's force power was overall, just , much better.
Is Darth Revan the most powerful force user

Other Force-users were much more powerful than Revan. I will be arguing that Darth Sidious is much more powerful than Revan. Darth Sidious was very strong in the Force. Even before he was trained in the ways of the Dark Side, he was able to hide his Force presence from Darth Plagueis. Then, he instinctively killed his family using the Force without prior knowledge of it (1). Darth Sidious was very proficient with his powers. His Force Lightning could instantly reduce a victim to a pile of ashes, and was one of the most powerful Force Lightning attacks ever recorded. He even invented his own attack, called the Force Storm, that created a hyperspace wormhole and tore apart space-time. The attack could destroy entire fleets. Not only did he learn to create a Force Storm, he learned to control it. Luke Skywalker commented that the power could "kill planets" (2). It took the combined power of Luke and Leia Skywalke , two of the most powerful Force-users to ever live, to cut of Sidious' control over the Force Storm. Although Revan was a very powerful force-user, he was not THE most powerful Force-user. Sidious is but one example of a force-user who surpassed Revan. (1) - Star Wars: Darth Plagueis (2012). (2) - The Jedi Path (2010).