BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

Re-read all previous arguments to evaluate your second appraisal to any preconceived notions you may have had the first time. Reference the context of the debate, and the methods which were applied when responding to each characteristic of the opponents arguments. Read the discussion article to find resolutions and further details regarding each argument as they became made, and any "apparent" lack of acknowledgement. All in All. It is important when considering something that you have little insight in, or are biased towards one side, or maybe have not considered the content prior, To analyse the methods by which the information was presented, applied and responded to. Thank you.
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

Apologies, I do not feel compelled to make remarks concerning my opponents arguments: Empiricism is nonsense, because it suggests reality has no bearings without a witness, that is delusional by definition; Solipsism is the idea that there is no reality but the mind, which is also delusional BUT clearly suggests God as the Only valid option; Constructivism refutes the fact that rue knowledge is based on facts and is not fabricated... I feel as though my opponent is trying to make a joke of everyone else by pretending that he is opposed to God. Now an argument for God. Just because you cannot personally perceive something doesn't mean that it is unperceivable. Moreover, just because you have not perceived something does not mean that it is not perceivable. as we discussed. So, Creation is a scientific fact. The third day of creation is scientifically provable and proven. There is a troll host on the internet, and a womanizer host in the population and government that prevent it from circulating as it would impair a man's ability to seduce prostitutes and harlots and hire prostitutes, However ~ when the planet expanded on the third day of creation it left a geological mark. Prior to light was matter, and when the matter had accumulated in a ball with the least dense matter enveloping it, the perfect conditiona rose for Light/electricity to stir and it did ~what? = It took the path of least resistance, while clinging to matter, molecularized the sky and ocean and then went into the earth. ... The eggs were created for all egged things by drawing on the immediate premises to establish DNA that was ascociable with this holistic entity that was the newly born earth etc... Then ont he 6th day animals were Fully developed formt his r I spent 53 minutes wrting a response...a dn didn't connect tot he internet to post it... and now I have 8127 characters left here.... So... we'lls ee how I lose points based on your responses contributions. Creation is a fact and thus The Christian God is a Fact. DAMN I went all out ,and added so much stuff XD next round
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

You Lose buddy. The Christian God, is a contingent part of our psyche, our culture, our heritage, economy, our day to day lives and much much more. That aspect of the Christian God, regardless of his personal representation. SO we cannot Exist without him, that is confirmed fact. He is here, we are here - the end. likewise, we can no longer live without Harry Potter and the PowerPuff Girls, for better or worse. However, I will thoroughly love hearing your arguments before I bring the full calamity of Theology to the table. I fear, the more you present means there is only more for me to obliterate. I can scientifically and Philosophically dispel any disillusionment to the holy truth, Lest you block your ears and refuse to listen.
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

I challenged ViceRegent to this debate but He cowardly declined It. Anyway, I thought this could be an interesting debate to have with anybody.Rules:1- Pro has the burden of proof. Pro has to logically prove that without the Christian God we cannot know anything. 2- Not acceptance in first round. Directly into arguments please.3- Definitions (the following definitions should be used throughout the debate and cannot be changed without previous arrange):Knowing: Is when a cognizant subject apprehends an object of knowing. Apprehending: Is the process where the cognizant subject creates a mental representation of the knowing object.Reality: What exists or what isn't false, fake or apparent.Christian God: The god described in the Bible and worshiped by Christians. Good luck to my opponent. Cheers!Note: Definitions were extrected from: Diccionario de Filosofia (Dictionary of Philosophy) by José Ferrater Mora
Macintosh is better than Dell

Defenestrator, you bring up a good point with how Macs and Dells are made with the same materials, but that seems to be your only point. They may have SIMILAR hardware, but even then parts of Mac are better. Even though they are made out of the same parts, the software in the hardware far exceeds that of Dell. In comparison to Dell hardware, Macintosh computers have: Better speakers Dual-layer DVD burner (Dell doesn't even offer this option, but rather one for a Blueray burner @ + $500 US) Thinner, lighter, quieter, with better battery life Not a "webcam," but rather an iSight camera that delivers full-motion video. There is a difference. An Expresscard-34 slot for expansion Firewire 400 and 800 ports, as well as USB 2 There are some things you get with a Dell that you won't get with a Mac, but these things are generally far outweighed by the additions that come exclusively with the Mac. But then, you must look at the quality of the hardware you're getting. There's no comparison; Macs are simply better-built, using better materials. And, the support and repair coverage for Macs is unparalleled. Now, let's talk about usage and software... With a Mac there's no additional software that must be purchased, something that cannot be said of a Dell. Plus, the software that comes with a Mac for doing many tasks is far, far better- providing far, far better results- than any comparable software available for Windows. I have seen some videos that a Windows computers have made, and they aren't exactly what one would call "great". I am used to what can be achieved in OS X, and what they are able to produce is truly embarrassing. In a closing statement i would like to say that a Mac computer is like a fully completed jigsaw puzzle, each great feature being a puzzle piece, and a Dell is the same jigsaw puzzle but with missing pieces
Macintosh is better than Dell

First off i would like to say that the reason that Mac computers are more money, is because they are of much higher quality than that of the cheap Dells companies often buy. Consider all the software for photos, movie editing, dvd authoring, music composition and web site creation that are all included in the price of a Mac. Not to mention peace of mind with NO virus threats, and in my opinion, a much better operating system. Plus, you can run Windows if you have to. I don't think you can run the Mac OS on a PC yet. Now is where I point out all of Dells flaws. Many people who have ever purchased a Dell, will tell you unimaginable horror stories. In one person's case case, had ordered a laptop, which had been defective. Dell had sent him a replacement, and it had been defective. Dell had sent him a third one, and that laptop had been defective. He had then asked for a refund. Dell had promised the refund, but they had never issued it for over a year. He had to file a claim as against them to finally recover his lost money. The judge in my case had even told Dell to clean up their act. With all possible respect, Dell is cheap. Their notebooks are usually warped, and their notebooks never sit flat on a desk. Their hard drives die often for some reason. Read the reviews. Dell has the worst customer service in the industry right now. With a Mac, you are getting the best. May family has purchased over half a dozen Macs over the years, and we have never had a single issue. Their support via phone or at an Apple Store is the best in the industry. Macs are built better, stronger, and are far better looking. Dell does not even come close. Sure Dell packs their computers with many cool things, but all of those cool things are of a very poor quality. Comparing a Macintosh computer to a Dell computer is like comparing a fresh crisp apple to a mouldy lemon. (please know that in this argument, i mean to show no disrespect towards Dell, im am just proving a point)
Macintosh is better than Dell

VOTERS: I do not want this debate to turn into a popularity poll, please vote based on the arguments, not which side of the line you personally fall on. First of all, you are stating that Macintosh computers are better than Dell computers period. The fact of the matter is that you leave no gray area. You claim that this is an absolute truth and therefore I will go the way of showing that this is not true. Macs are great machines for graphic design (I use them all the time in my photography exploits) and music creation; however, that does not make them all around better than Dell/PC computers as this debate topic claims. One example of the advantages Dell/PC computers have over Macintosh computers is their appeal to corporate offices. The Dell corporation (as well as other PC manufacturers) creates computers at many different price ranges in order to satisfy all areas of the market and provide for those who need networking in their offices. This arguably makes PCs better in the corporate realm. PRO ARGUMENT: "Dell computers break a lot easier and get viruses and cookies like crazy so they don't even work" This is the crux of your argument, and it is flawed. First of all cookies aren't all bad. According to Wikipedia: "HTTP cookies, sometimes known as web cookies or just cookies, are parcels of text sent by a server to a web browser and then sent back unchanged by the browser each time it accesses that server. HTTP cookies are used for authenticating, tracking, and maintaining specific information about users, such as site preferences or the contents of their electronic shopping carts." Macintosh computers also have cookies, if they didn't your information would not be stored, and it would cost you a lot of time. Furthermore, cookies can be turned off if you don't want them. As far as viruses are concerned. This is the main argument that mac users make to show that their product is better than a PC. However; this argument is flawed. There are many very good free Anti-Virus programs out there such as AVG which will keep your computer clean from viruses with daily updates. Any person who is careful about what they download won't even run into a problem with viruses on a PC and those who are reckless who have a decent Anti-Virus program should be fine as well, and the computer will not cease to work as you claim in your opening argument. In conclusion, Macs are good computers for those who are experiencing a computer for the first time and don't know the basic steps to protect a computer/network, but for those who do, the points that you have presented do not apply therefore it leaves it up to a matter of preference, and when it is a matter of preference, neither of the two choices are "better."
Euthanasia Should be Legalized

Just because Pro says that my points aren't clear does not make them unclear. My Disad is very clear, it is unique to the Pro's plan and has a chain of link and internal links that cannot be ignored or go unanswered much like they did. My entire Disad went unanswered, along with my counter plan. Pro says, "Doctors are the people responsible for treating a persons disease. They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person. In particular times, doctors can"t do anything if a patient has a terminal disease but to wait for death to arrive. " Pro says:"Doctors are the people responsible for treating a persons disease" My argument is that if they are responsible for treatment then why are you imposing a plan that would kill people and call it treatment. By definition treatment is something that improves the condition thereof not terminates it. Couple this argument with pros own words of, "They are the one who combat death and improve the quality of health of a person". The emphasis here is COMBAT DEATH, not administer and provide it. Pro says, "The famous maxim "do no harm" is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath"an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions. Many people interpret this to mean "do nothing to harm the patient"s chances of survival. " But, taken literally, it could just as easily mean "don"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable. " My argument is that through this ideology of "do no harm" you can vote for my counter plan. Pro concedes the plan, there is no reason to not legalize all suicide and it does not link back to the Disad of M. D. 's. Why should people who the medical world label as "terminal" get more rights and control over their lives than someone who is not? Answer this argument and then you have a double-edged sword on why Euthanasia should NOT be legal. Couple this with pros argument that, "No-one should force you to be in pain. They don't know how you feel or how agonizing it is to have a terminal illness. This definitely should be the patients choice, to continuing suffering, or to do as they wish, sleep peacefully. " EXACTLY why you vote for my counter plan because of the many instances like this. In pro's first argument she spoke of "free will" and has now dropped it, I can use it with her argument closer, "It all comes down to the patient, they have free will, they are able to make their own decisions , either to continuing suffering in agonizing pain, or sleep peacefully. " to say that for all these reasons you should vote for MY counter plan and make truly equal control over our lives. ***In closing it is important to remember why we debate and although there are many reasons, the main one is for education.
Euthanasia Should be Legalized

Thank you for engaging in this debate with me! My position is that euthanasia should not be legalized in any form. I will provide (1) argument for my position in this debate. *DISADVANTAGE TO VOTING FOR THE PROS PLAN* "The role of the M.D." -I. When a student of medicine finally graduates and earns a degree then proceeds to become licensed to practice, there are many things that are expected of them,choosing life or death for a patient as "treatment" is not one of them. --a. The conflict here is that you put the power to remove life to people in society who already have too much "God Burden". The place(s) where euthanasia is currently legal are set up to allow it ONLY when approved by an M.D. This then causes the people that submit application for it, to fall in the hands of an M.D. --b. What then happens is that they decide -NOT THE PATIENT-. --c. Even if this becomes legalized the political parity that comes because of it among the medical world would make it an issue similar to Gay Marriage, where independent counties and states would go and sue and demand for it to be removed. --d. Finally, the AMA would then be forced to not grant licenses to potential M.D.'s who would not -EVER- use this as a form of treatment. Thus causing a significant decline in the available M.D.'s practicing. This point (including all sub-points) vastly outweigh the argument of "free will". This is where you can vote for con because in the status quo this Disad does not and will not exist. -COUNTER PLAN- In case my Disad does not fully sway you away from the Pros plan then I will argue this counter plan as a TEST ONLY. counter plan: Legalize all suicide.
Euthanasia Should be Legalized

I have challenged my friend HiramAlexis to debate this topic with me! What is Euthanasia? Euthanasia: "1.The act or practice of ending the life of a person or animal having a terminal illness or a medical condition that causes suffering perceived as incompatible with an acceptable quality of life, as by lethal injection or the suspension of certain medical treatments. " My main point of this argument is that, everyone has free will. We are human beings, therefore we have freedom to choose what we want, especially if it has to do with our life. No one should be able to tell us how to live or what we should do. Here is point I'm making. Euthanasia is the easiest option for those patients who suffer from incurable diseases and where effective treatment is not even an option. The patient can be "put to sleep" if he or she so desires and sees no point in living until their last dying breath. In this case euthanasia is purely voluntary which only justifies the need for euthanasia. Sources https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...=
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Well, How about in a bathroom inside Borders & the favorite restaurant. There is zero excuse to breast feed at a table in a restaurant. If you can't go an hour without breast feeding your baby, I suggest you have a nice dinner at home...There is no need to breast feed in public. Women who do it only do it to make a statement.it's not about being anti-breast feeding or anti-woman. it comes from the same idea that infants shouldn't be taken to movie theaters at night, and church pews shouldn't double as romper rooms for children's toys and snacks. it's about coming to the conclusion that public places should not be treated like your own private living room. if you want to openly breast feed your baby, fine - more power to you, but cover it up when in a public place. It is a simple argument of common sense, did it ever occur to you that perhaps not everyones sense of modesty is not exactly what yours is? Look, I am a strong believer in chivalry I let anyone from the female sex take my seat if they don't have one, If I am walking with a girl I stand on the side closer to traffic, I go up the stairs last in case someone falls. Why? because I am trying to sound like a mans man? no it comes natural its common sense its courtesy. Show everyone else some courtesy and keep the breast feeding to a minimum. Maybe it does not bother your or even 75% of the people in a public area but chances are it bothers someone. It's as simple as it gets just show some damn standards for yourself and have some courtesy it's the same exact problem with smoking in a public area. It's just common every day courtesy that should be extended to everyone.
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Hmmm... something inside of me says, Umm... NO! Let's take a look at this idea you have: Scenerio 1: Mother feeds baby, probably nobody but your googly eye's notices. This is natural, LEGAL, and nutritous. If another woman see's, perhaps she'll recognize the beauty of the act and decide to breast feed as well. Scenerio 2: You get naked, and scar everyone for life. Hairy, scary, ILLEGAL... and just plain wrong. There's a difference between geting NAKED, and having your baby latched on to your nipple for noursishment. I never take off my shirt while feeding my chicadee. Plus, if you actually do see ALL the goods, you were trying to. As I'm a pretty practiced breast feeder, my nipple doesn't get a lot of air time. I'm a professional, man. I'm sorry if a woman breast feeding over in the distance would ruin your good old fashioned American dinner at the Olive Garden. Perhaps, if your feeling left out, you could just flash your nipple or something. I mean, sounds like your slightly jealous. Seriously my good man, come on. Also, we're not exclusivly talking about breast feeding in restraunts, so what else do you have for me Steve? That's your nick name now.
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Well as far as I can tell your father in law must be a very intelligent man. "So, you wish us to go back to the 1800's and not allow pregnant women to be seen? Is this because it makes you think of sex, and in turn makes you have naughty thoughts?" (Actual Event) haha not at all I may stand alone on this one but as for me say I am sitting down after a hard day's work sick of listening to liberal morons all day (History teacher in public school, lunch break included arguing endlessly 5 against myself) enjoying dinner of chicken Parmesan with a glass of white zinfandel enjoying myself. Then comes in a women with her little bratty kid and sits down across from me (in clear view) the little rat starts the high pitch screaming at once, so what dose she do? pops out her boob and the little brat starts sucking away...great all of a sudden my white chicken breast is not looking so good. Now your argument about "just don't look" is pretty foolish, living by that standard I can walk in a place naked and say hey if it bugs you don't look. I think everyone will agree that little children in public places like a dinning area are just simple not wanted. It's ridiculous to bring your little rat to an area where it will make everyone around you uncomfortable and then to top it off you pull out your breasts and let it have a snack....I mean come on it is simple common courtesy. I think that the next time a woman openly breast feeds in public I am going to strip down naked and say "two can play that game"
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Wow... are you my father in law? Seriously, if I didn't know better... I would think your name was Steve. I don't loath you Jlconservative, don't give yourself that much credit. My indifference for you is quiet solid. So, you wish us to go back to the 1800's and not allow pregnant women to be seen? Is this because it makes you think of sex, and in turn makes you have naughty thoughts? Perhaps YOU are the deviant, and everyone else around you is not as guilty of thinking nasty thoughts as you, my friend. This is exactly the mentality that is keeping breast feeding some kind of naughty little thing. So, the most of an "argument" you posted about my debate, is: < > No one has to look! If it seriously bother's you, please by all means, you have my leave not to stare. If I came up to you breast feeding and saying, hey buddy look at this, and wouldn't leave you alone THAT, my good friend, would be grounds for calling it inappropriate. So, you use the word EMBARASSMENT. It is you, kind sir that is bringing that emotion into this natural and wonderful act of feeding a child, not I. So, you realize you are the root of your own problem. I'm not embarrassed, so perhaps you should feel embarrassed for yourself because your not comfortable enough to be in the same vicinity as a boob. Sometimes, babies get hungry regardless of your feeding them before your departure to wherever it is you might be going. Babies must eat, nursing mom's must feed. Why would I want to take my daughter to eat in a nasty public restroom? Would YOU eat in there? So, what exactly DO you have to say about society badgering mother's who breast feed? Yes, yes... shocking things, such as you calling my baby a rat, and so on and so forth. That is supposed to make me mad I know your ways... you have to understand I LIVE with a conservative... this ploy will not bate me whatsoever. So, are you ready to debate, my conservative opponent? You've not frazzled me in the least.