BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The modal ontological argument is not sound

As my first debate, I would like to debate the argument which I have most interest in: The modal ontological argument. It is my position that the modal ontological argument is not sound. My apologies if my English isn’t very good, it's not not my native language. A few important definitions: - A possible world: A world without any logical contradictions. - God: A maximally great being. This means that it contains all great making properties to maximum value. - A necessary being: A being which if it exists in one possible world, exists in every possible world. - A sound argument: An argument in which all premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises. Rounds: 1) Acceptance, clarifying/explaining the argument and showing why it is sound 2) Rebuttals/arguments 3) Rebuttals/arguments 4) Rebuttals/conclusion Rules: 1) No trolling, no semantics, ... 2) Burden of Proof is shared: Pro has to show that the modal ontological argument is not sound, while Con has to show that the modal ontological argument is sound. 3) No new arguments in the last round 4) No forfeits 5) This debate is not about the modal ontological argument being reasonably true, or reasonably false. It’s about it being actually true, or actually false. 6) No other arguments for the existence of God allowed. This debate focuses solely on the modal ontological argument as presented here: P(1): It is possible that God (a maximally great being) exists. P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds. P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists. C(1): Therefore, God (a maximally great being) exists. Good luck and have fun!
US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

Although I agree with your quote by John Bolton, I must say that North Korea doesn't have a full grasp on nuclear warfare yet. They can't launch missiles anywhere but straight up in the air, which is essentially useless if they want to attack South Korea or the U. S. In addition, like I said in round 2, the North Koreans are currently being denounced by China, Russia, Japan, etc. for their actions due to their violations of UN resolutions. If North Korea was ever to instigate a nuclear attack, China and Russia, two of North Korea's and our allies, would most likely side with the U. S. due to our six-party talks which led to UN resolutions banning testing with ballistic technology. Although there is tension between these three superpowers, I highly doubt they would side with North Korea, seeing as the rest of the UN would not, especially since they feel threatened by North Korea themselves, as seen by their statements in regards to their 2012 testing. However, in the case the China (or even Russia) sides with North Korea, there are more than enough allies of South Korea to defeat such an alliance, as seen by this map (Green represents allies) [1]. [IMG]. http://i.imgur.com...[/IMG] Here are the most prominent/powerful of their abundance of allies [2] and their military rankings [3]: 1) United States (Since 1953) - Rank 1 2) Great Britain (Since 1949) - Rank 5 3) Germany (Since 1955) - Rank 7 4) France (Since 1949) - Rank 6 5) India (Since 1963) - Rank 4 6) Israel (Since 1962) - Rank 13 7) Italy (Since 1956) - Rank 9 * South Korea - Rank 8 Now, let's compare North Korea's possible (but unlikely) allies in a nuclear war and their rankings [3]: 1) China - Rank 3 2) Russia - Rank 2 *North Korea - Rank 28 Mean ranking of South Korea's forces: 1+4+5+6+7+8+9+13/8 = 6.625 Mean ranking of North Korea's forces: 2+3+28/3 = 11 Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.globalfirepower.com...
US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

I thank my contender as well for his response to my stance. Throughout your second contention you mentioned how we agreed on some aspects but one aspect that we disagreed on was the North Korea nuclear program. You make a point in how you say that it's not up to par with our own, but still they do a have a nuclear bomb and will stop at nothing to figure out how to use it. In the words of John Bolton, "When a country finally gets a weapon, their not afraid to use it." This issue is not one that will affect us this afternoon or this week, but still the North Korean government in my opinion will stop at absolutely nothing to keep their dictatorship in place. In fact last week according to BBC, "Last week the North vowed "merciless retaliatory strikes" if any shells landed in waters claimed by Pyongyang during a live-fire artillery exercise near the disputed Yellow Sea border." Threats like these occur all the time, but sooner or later something will happen. We must be prepared for that day. You also go on to discuss our relationship with Russia and China who are both superpowers unlike the countries I stated before. Yes, right now we do have a good, well rounded relationship with these countries but we still feel much tension with them. We as a country can say that China and Russia are simply not our "best friends." China especially, because of the fact that they have bought 1/3 of US debt according to CNN, which gives them a sense of leverage over us. China also is North Korea's only ally and if China had to go between us or the North Koreans, who would they help? I honestly can't say because I'm not China, but sometimes our defense policy here at home doesn't know where their true loyalty lies. Plus let's say China helped NK and ganged up on South Korea, they would need help that would come from us. This may never happen, but if it DID occur what would the effect be on our country. As I have stated before we are bonded to them right now in sense and who else is really going to help them?
US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

Since you already have a good grasp on most of my points, I'm going to focus solely on the one that we seem to disagree on: North Korea has no real intention of invading South Korea. First, I agree that North Korea is a very isolated nation, but isolation =/= danger necessarily. North Korea's nuclear program is a joke; they can barely get missiles in the air, let alone direct them to other countries, especially the U. S. This is why North Korea has only detonated missiles off their own coast or in the air, because they can not launch them in any direction but up yet. Even their most recent threat on March 7th can be laughed off due to its ridiculous nature. A professor of U. S. Foreign Policy at Wright State University says,"'It"s almost predictable, over-the-top and rash verbal behavior, which may very well be followed by a new overture to South Korea for peace talks. First, you show them what a tough guy you are and then you talk peace'" [1]. Next, you have already stated that Japan and South Korea are our only allies in the Pacific region, but I would argue that we have close bonds with China and Russia as well, due to our agreement to withhold all missile testing using ballistic technology (UNSC Resolution 1874). In response to their 2012 missile test, China responded by saying, "To maintain the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia is not only in the common interests of all sides concerned, but also the shared aspiration of the international community" [2]. Russia agreed with China, saying, "We call on Pyongyang not to put itself in opposition to the international community, to refrain from actions that increase tension in the region and create additional complications for the relaunch of six-sided negotiations about the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula". They also said, "In case of rejection of North Korea's rocket off course and a threat of falling into Russian territory, Russian Aerospace Defence Forces are ready to shoot down the missile" [3]. You also have to remember that North Korea depends heavily economically on China, who is tied to the United States. Also, North Korea is within China's sphere of influence, which means that China has some clout in the country. There have been some occasions where the Chinese have told the North Koreans to cease and desist their harassment after the U. S. displayed their concerns [4]. I have some other points I can make, but I will save them for the next round. To conclude this argument though, North Korea does not have a serious nuclear program yet, and since North Korea is essentially under the thumbs of China, Russia and Japan, there really is no need for alarm as they will be able to end the conflict almost immediately and with diplomacy. Sources [1] . http://www.daytondailynews.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.bizjournals.com...
US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

I do agree with some of the points that you stated before me because logically they do make sense. We as country have been involved with South Korea for quite some time, but here is one point that I present to you. Ever since we involved ourselves in the Korean War we have sort of been tied to South Korea. This isn't necessary a bad thing though. We do not have that many allies in Asia as you know of because of the fact that the United States is a "westernized" country. Our only three strong allies that we have over there are Israel, Japan, and South Korea. When we keep strong relationships going on, we also remain in touch with the world around us. As you also know North Korea is probably the most isolated and secretive country in the world. We don't have that much information about them but we do know that they have a nuclear bomb and could potentially use it to start a nuclear war. You say previously that North Korea isn't planning on attack, but I on the affirmation strongly disagree. It may seem like a comical threat now, but since we don't have any insight on their plans we never know. Since we never know we must always be prepare. So how can we prepare? We can try our best by sticking by South Korea. Plus even if we were to leave, they would still hate us because we are "imperialists" in their eyes. As of right now we have about 28,000+ US troops are stationed in South Korea. This includes the DMZ and coastal linings. I believe though that if North Korea or even China attacked we wouldn't be prepared or able enough to fight. There are many different arguments that we both can make and I look forward to discuss this timely issue with you.
US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

I accept this challenge, and hope that this will be a lively debate. As Con, my resolution is as such: we should not give additional funding/military support to South Korea. I'll use round 1 as the introduction to my argument, so I will list my reasons and briefly describe them here, then go into more detail in later rounds. A) The United States and South Korea have had a military alliance since 1953, so there is no reason to give additional military support. B) South Korea has been slowly weaning off U.S. support since that alliance, so it's obvious that South Korea really doesn't need much support from them anymore. C) North Korea has no real intention of invading South Korea. D) Providing additional military/economic support to South Korea would increase hostilities between the U.S., China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Students have learned how to WhatsApp but forgotten how to communicate.

Whatsapp has influenced a lot of students. Students while writing exams forget the simple spellings e.g. because. They write coz or becz instead of writing the correct spelling. Some students struggle as they do not remember the correct spelling of simple words. This leads to deduction in marks. So I completely reject my oppositions remark that the wrong communication on whatsapp does not actually effect students.
Anarchy better democracy

To me, government says they're for greater good, but we're trying to explore space already when we havn't even scratched the surface of our own planet. They throw their own people in prison without remorse for the smallest of non-violent crimes not to mention invading our rights, tax us out the *** for something i won't even qualify for in 40 years because it'll be broke (social security), and even the people who fight for this land we all share get thrown in prison for having opinions.
Anarchy better democracy

So your answer to all of that is anarchy? No more law and order. Just chaos. Anarchy. I mean don't get me wrong I feel where your coming from. Some things are really messed up. But anarchy? Usually people try criminal justice reform or tax reform or lifting the cap on social security first but no we're going straight to anarchy. So let me ask you who or what in this United States of Anarchy is going to protect your clean drinking water from pollution? Who is going to keep your roads paved? What military is going to protect you from foreign armies? The government isn't perfect and yes it needs improvement but it's better then anarchy.
If Tommy from Power Rangers were to reassume the Zeo powers now, he would be stronger then Superman

You're leaving out some important information. How many episodes were between the first King Mondo fight and the finale? And more importantly, how many weeks passed between those two events in the movie's timeline? Keep in mind that a few days between an episode's release dates could be weeks for those characters.And we also need you to source Kat falling into the ocean, preferably a quotation from a charcter's thoughts on said matter. If you're going to post a video, use a time stamp so I don't have to watch the whole thing.Also, is there a maximum potential for the Zeo Crystal? That's another possibility I forgotten about. Maybe the Zeo Crystal has a limit? I'm not seeing a whole lot on the wiki page.
If Tommy from Power Rangers were to reassume the Zeo powers now, he would be stronger then Superman

The reason Kat did not morph all of the way in the Turbo movie was not because of limited power, but because her falling into the ocean caused her zeonizer to malfunction. Anyway, back to the power multiplication of the Zeo Crystal. When the rangers first founght King Mondo, the machine king, directly, they got destroyed. In the finale of the series though, just Tommy and Trey were able to deal with him with little trouble. This would mean that the increase in power in the Zeo sub crystals happens relatively quickly. If left for 20 years, that kind of power could surpass that of everything in the morphing grid and beyond, the beyond Part including Superman.
If Tommy from Power Rangers were to reassume the Zeo powers now, he would be stronger then Superman

This is pure speculation. And a few things wrong with your claim that I noticed... "Part of the lore of the season states that the Zeo sub crystals gain power over time."But we first need to see how powerful the Zeo crystals were when they were used in the movie. Looking at the wiki, I don't see the Zeo power actually being used. But it does seem pretty formidable."we see Kat almost morph using her Zeo powers"However, the key word is "almost". Kat's Zeo powers weren't enough for a full morph. (In case you haven't seen Power Rangers, 'morph' means to get the armor you'd see them wearing)It wasn't just Kat who got Zeo. According to the wiki, the Zeo Crystal was split into 5 (pretty equal, except for Pink Ranger's) sub-crystals , each going to one Ranger. If Kat couldn't morph properly, it would follow that the other 4 would also have limited power. In the image shown, Kat (the Pink Ranger) seems to have more than just a triangular shard like the other 4, suggesting she has more of the Zeo power. If Kat couldn't morph, then what power does each individual ranger have? Here's the image I'm referring to [Taken from Power Rangers wiki]; Considering it was said it could "destroy the world", Zeo crystal's kind of confusing."Anyway, the movie came out in March 1997, which means it has now been 20 years since the Zeo powers have been touched. This means the sub crystals have had 20 years to gain power."At what rate, might I ask? Perhaps this power gaining is very gradual, and it would only be at 2x the power from back then. We'd better find a source showing its power."If Tommy, the most powerful in the team, were to reassume the Zeo powers, his power output would multiply beyond belief."Is this enough to bench press the Earth? According to Google, this is "5.972 × 10^24 kg" That's scary to think about. How much can Tommy lift? I'll let you answer that question. I've done more than enough.Sources:Zeo Crystal; http://powerrangers.wikia.com...Earth's weight; https://www.google.com...;*
If Tommy from Power Rangers were to reassume the Zeo powers now, he would be stronger then Superman

As you don't know which Ranger Tommy was in Zeo (red by the way), I assume you don't know the deeper lore behind the season. The object that powers the Zeo rangers, introduced late in the final season of the original series is the Zeo crystal, split into 5 sub crystals to fuel the individual rangers. Part of the lore of the season states that the Zeo sub crystals gain power over time. In Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie, the Zeo powers along with the sub crystals were tossed aside in favor of what was (at that immediate time) more powerful, the Turbo powers, leading in to the 5th Season and 3rd installment of the series, Power Rangers Turbo. Though some people believe that the sub crystals fueled the Turbo powers, this is not true, as in the movie (which is canon), we see Kat almost morph using her Zeo powers when the Turbo powers were either being worked on or were already finished. Anyway, the movie came out in March 1997, which means it has now been 20 years since the Zeo powers have been touched. This means the sub crystals have had 20 years to gain power. If Tommy, the most powerful in the team, were to reassume the Zeo powers, his power output would multiply beyond belief. I believe that this would make him strong enough to defeat the Man of Steel.
Abortion

Again, you are incorrectly claiming that a fetus is the same thing as a baby. It is not. They are two different things. A fetus has the POTENTIAL to become a baby, yes. Is a baby girl the same thing as a 40-year-old girl because the baby girl has the potential to become a 40-year-old woman? No A woman has no right to kill a baby; however, she has every right to kill her fetus, since her fetus is NOT a baby and is a part of her body.
Abortion

I never made it sound like that abortion has no consequences, nor was that ever implied. I simply said that a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body. Almost EVERY action has both positives and negatives " abortion is no different. Whether or not the baby has committed a crime against his or her mother is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. The argument is that a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her own body. For example, she has the right to cut off her hand if she wants, even if that hand has done her no harm.
Abortion

To chose what? You make it sound like an abortion is just something that has no consequences but to the mother. This is just not the case, an abortion, after a certain period of time after conception, effectually ends the life of a baby which has perpetrated no crime against the mother, and has never harmed her- being planned out, and executed on an unsuspecting innocent individual this is none other than cold blooded murder, which the mother should not be enabled to commit.
The pro-life position is not actually pro-LIFE

I am sorry that my opponent missed their final round as that leaves things a little awkward. So I will just summarize. The best way to find out what effect the legalization of abortion has had, is to compare two societies which are as similar as possible. I will leave it up to the voters if they believe that the same nation from two relatively close years or two different nations altogether are going to be more similar. I also want to continue to stress that this debate is not about whether abortion is morally correct or a right or not, but merely, whether people that are "anti-abortion" are actually trying to save lives (it was already agreed that the life of the unborn baby/fetus/embryo counts as a life). Thank you.
The pro-life position is not actually pro-LIFE

My opponent starts by saying that we cannot compare 1973 USA to 1970 USA, or to 1976 USA and so attempts to dismiss the facts. My opponent then goes on to compare to other nations, however they are subject to being even further from accurate. The truth is that the if we want to see how abortion laws effect abortion rates, the best and most accurate way is to compare two things which the fewest differences (if possible, having abortion laws be the only difference, unfortunately there are no two things which are that similar in the real world). So the voters need to ask themselves, which are closer, two different nations, which have different political climates, different social structures, different religious makeup, different cultural atmospheres, different economic situations, and different abortion laws? Or is USA 1974 closer to USA 1972? The USA, while different laws were passed, the economics, culture, religious, political, and social makeup are relatively similar, much much more so then comparing two entirely different nations. This means that comparing USA 1972 to USA 1974 is going to be more accurate in finding the effects of any abortion laws on abortion rates. And the numbers still hold that making abortion legal has a MAJOR impact on the abortion rates (causing them to quadruple in only a 5 years). This clear mathematical difference means that it is impossible for anti-abortion laws to account for more loss of life through pushing women to dangerous routes, even if every single woman who went to a back alley or doctor in a van were to die, it would not out number the number of abortion no longer done (since the rate difference is over 100%). Please refer to my same sources from R1, as all the numbers are there. Thank you,