BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The usual arguments #4: Free will

1) No intervention can't prove God exists Divine intervention can prove God's existence, obviously. Free will is the lack of intervention, the idea that you are free to do anything you want, that your actions are not predetermined. If intervention proves God's existence and free will means the lack of intervention, then free will can't prove God's existence. 2) Free will doesn't need a source God is usually considered the source of free will. He gave us free will, he is the one who allowed us to do what we want. However, free will doesn't demand a source. Unlike miracles (like a resurrection for example), free will is natural. An organism can't come back to life without divine intervention, but free will can exist without divine intervention, naturally. Microbes have free will, viruses, prokaryotes all have free will. As long as free will is natural, it can't prove God's existence. God's existence can only be proven by supernatural phenomenons that can only take place if there is divine intervention. 3) No control demands no controller Free will means our lives aren't controlled by a higher power. Then, how can free will prove that the higher power exists? If our lives were controlled and our actions predetermined, there would be a need for a controller, a higher being that is capable of controlling your actions and thoughts. As long as we have free will, meaning that our lives are only controlled by ourselves, then free will can't prove the existence of a higher being capable of controlling us. Let's say you see a car that isn't moving. Does the fact that the car isn't moving prove that there is a driver inside the car?
Hillsong United

1. It never directly mentions Peter but it does say I meaning the singer has more faith. 2. It is nit the best the song "Mighty to save" had much better lyrics look http://www.songlyrics.com... it directly states "So take me as You find me All my fears and failures." the singer acknowledges their failures unlike in Oceans where the singer implies she\he has more faith than Peter. But yes, it does sound good.
Hillsong United

But when you sing the song and you make some inferences to the song it kind of describes about Peter because in the bible when he was asked to get out of the boat he said that it was crazy, but Jesus told him that to forget about everything and think about him, eventually when he did step on the water, he drown because he was afraid about what is going to happen. Then later in the verse it describes about how he would keep his eyes above the waves describing that he will do anything just to see him. Then later it talk about my soul will rest in your embrace telling that he would let his soul become in his embrace. But lets agree this is a actually pretty good song!!!!!!!!!
Hillsong United

First there are numerous other songs with better meaning but I'll talk about it in the next round. Second it never mentioned Peter or any of the 12 disciples. Third the song is prideful look at the first few lines You call me out upon the waters The great unknown where feet may fail And there I find You in the mystery In oceans deep My faith will stand And I will call upon Your name And keep my eyes above the waves When oceans rise My soul will rest in Your embrace For I am Yours and You are mine You see the singer states "In oceans deep My faith will stand" which means that even when she's \he's walking on water she will still have faith something even Peter lacked at that moment.
Star Wars Day should be a national holiday.

May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. "He joined the Dark Side" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

Let me clarify my argument. Beauty has definitions and classifications (such as an adjective) within language. It is my position that these descriptions do not fully describe the word, and do not fully cover everything that it can mean. My opponent said "I am more than sure that you could find one word that describes beauty." If this is true, then I challenge you to find one. In order to support your argument, find a word, or a series of words that truly defines the word beauty. I do not believe you will be able to find one, or even several words, that truly encompass all that the word beauty means. My opponent also said "If beauty cannot be described by language, then why use the word?" This point is actually the focus of my argument. Why do we use the word beauty if it does not properly describe the feeling/experience/physicality of the word? My answer is simple: because we have nothing else to use. A good example of what I mean is an inside joke. If you've ever been somewhere and developed an inside joke with someone, then tried to explain it to somebody else, then you've likely felt the frustration that comes with not being able to describe it. Many people will end conversations like that with the phrase "you just had to be there," or something similar. This is because the event you experienced is nearly impossible to convey through words to someone who wasn't there and didn't experience the event. Yet, you still attempt to explain to through words because you have no other way of conveying your point to the person you are describing the event to. The same applies to beauty. We may find it difficult to describe something beautiful, or to explain why something is beautiful. Still, we try to explain and give reasons with language because it is the best tool that we have for conveying things like that. Humans attempt to get as close as possible to the true meaning of beauty, but there is something about beauty that many find impossible or difficult to put into words. Therefore, beauty is something that lies outside the scope of what language is truly able to explain and define.
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

I have read your argument. Here is what I can conclude: "Beauty cannot be described by language because not everyone will always agree upon whether or not something is beautiful." You have just contradicted yourself. Beauty is a descriptive word, meaning it is an adjective. Beauty is the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). - stated by dictionary.com Notice how it does not attain a physical trait to beauty. The English language has over 1 million words in it. I am more then sure that you could find one word that describes beauty. However, beauty is highly subjective. Beauty is equivalent to entertainment, intelligence, taste, and so on. All of the latter are subjective. Subjectivity states that you can use language to describe it, but what you attain that specific word to is chosen by the beholder. Beauty is the same for all people, but not what you classify as beautiful. If you used that same argument that you created, you could take many words and paint them in a way that makes those words obsolete. If you actually read the definition, and analyzed it, you can see that those 46 sheers words disprove your entire definition. If beauty cannot be described by language, then why use the word? It is quite antithetical to use a word that you claim has no logical usage whatsoever.
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

Before we begin, I would like to clarify the topic. While there are definitions available of the word beauty, it is my personal opinion that most of them are incorrect, or do not cover the entire scope and all the details of the term beauty. With that said, it's perfectly fine to use those definitions, but expect me to give reasons why I believe they are incorrect. So, with that clarified, here's my argument. Beauty cannot be described by language because not everyone will always agree upon whether or not something is beautiful. If you look at a green ball, everyone who sees it that can properly see color (so nobody who may be colorblind, or have some other impairment that makes them see color differently) will say that it it green. They may disagree about the shade of green, but they will agree that the ball's color falls in the category of green. The same cannot be said about a woman, or a sunset. Looking at a woman (or a man, but I'm using woman as an example) not everyone will agree that she is beautiful. Some people may say that she is not beautiful because of the color of her skin, structure of her face, color of her hair, color of her eyes, the shape of her nose, or any of hundreds of other examples. For whatever reason, many people will disagree about whether a woman is beautiful or not. That is not to say that there will not be a general agreement. Most people would say that they think a certain model is pretty. However, not EVERYONE will agree that the models beautiful. You will always have disagreement. This leads me to the point that beauty cannot be described by language. Some may say that a woman is beautiful because of her hair. Some may say that she is not for the same reason. If beauty is "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest)," (Dictionary.com, meaning of the word beauty), then why doesn't everyone agree? One quality about a woman may give "intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind," for a certain person, but it may not for another. If beauty is the characteristics of something or someone that gives pleasure to the mind, then why doesn't everyone get that pleasure from the same features of something or someone?
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

Once again, I will restate my argument. Beauty is defined by language. If it was not defined, then there wouldn't be a word for it! Here's a word: attractive. Beauty is something that you are attracted to, or something that bears attractiveness. I do not know how more straightforward I can be. Beauty is literally, explicitly, defined in every English dictionary there is. IT IS DEFINED! If we were to treat every word like you want to, language would not mean a thing. Beauty is just an adjective. You can say that this part or that part of a human being or work of art is beautiful. It is all subjective! There isn't any way to argue with this. It is defined right in front of you.
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

My opponent said "Beauty is just some aspect of a human being or a work or art, or anything for that matter, that you find attractive." This may be true for some beautiful things, but not for all of them. A song can be described as beautiful, yet you do not see any part of it. Therefore you cannot find it attractive. Also, different people find different things attractive. Personally, I believe that the thought of small seeds growing into magnificent trees is beautiful. This is beautiful "in my eyes," but I cannot put into words exactly why I find this certain thing beautiful. In addition, if the description my opponent gave is correct, then this thought cannot be beautiful because I do not find it attractive or "aesthetically successful." However, I do find it beautiful, and the meaning of beauty should encompass all possible applications of the word. My opponent also said "There is very little that you cannot express with language, as language itself was created as a communicative tool so people could express their ideas and thoughts." I strongly disagree with this statement. It is correct that language was made as a communicative tool, but there are many things it cannot describe. Every time a person struggles or fails to put something into words properly, it shows a shortcoming in language. Here are some examples: trying to explain an inside joke to somebody who was not there, truly expressing all feelings of love, fully explaining reasons behind actions and emotions, and why you have feelings that you can't describe, like the sensation of being watched, or of "a bad/ominous feeling" about something creepy. All of these are examples that many people come across every day that show the imperfections in the language system. Beauty is another of these examples. Being unable to describe why something is beautiful is another form of the inability to properly define it. Lastly, in my previous argument I challenged my opponent to find a word or several that can describe or define beauty after they said "The English language has over 1 million words in it. I am more than sure that you could find one word that describes beauty." I do not know if they missed my challenge, or if they have simply chosen to ignore it. In light of this though, I chose to believe that they have not responded because they cannot find an answer. If they claim to be able to find a word in the English language that can fully describe beauty, then I would like to see proof. Finally, I would like to once more state that beauty is a term that cannot be defined by language, for reasons stated above. With all that said, Pro, thank you for the very interesting and thought provocative debate.
Beauty can be defined within the scope of language.

Beauty itself can be described. Beauty is just some aspect of a human being or a work or art, or anything for that matter, that you find to be attractive. Beauty explicitly has a description within the bounds of language. There is very little that you cannot express with language, as language itself was created as a communicative tool so people could express their ideas and thoughts. You can attain beauty, but usually beauty is used conjunctively. You can pair one adjective with another, or you can describe a specific part of the person or art you are talking about. "Those are beautiful eyes" "The expression on this piece of art is beautiful" Beauty just means some aspect that you are highlighting and that you feel attracted or at least attentive to. However, how you DEFINE beauty yourself is up to the beholder. I'm guessing you've heard the term "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". If "beauty" is defined as "aesthetically successful", one must continue to break down and define the following definition. Definitions should be defined in the most prosaic form of language to be understood. Failure to elucidate provides fallacious definitions. However, I am not arguing that beauty can be obscure, I am arguing that beauty in fact can be defined by language. Beauty itself is just a set term. How you define it yourself is what's important.
Music Debate

I must admit, I open up our third round with unconscionable excitement as I extend one of my all time favorites pieces: "Mira O Norma" from Bellini's "Norma". For me, Bellini is the veritable apex of music. The incontrovertible beauty of Bellini's music is, at once, enough to convince even those with the most passionate vehemence for opera. The childlike simplicity of his melodies summons even the most remote of emotions from the listeners past. Folks, it doesn't get better than Bellini.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Debate

For my next song, I present the "Quando Corpus" from Pergolesi's "Stabat Mater"In today's world of commercial repeats and ingratiating sell outs, nothing cuts through the spiritual void like the supernal, spiritually fecund music of Pergolesi. The lachrymose despondence combines with a melodic beauty of such spiritual force that it strikes the listener as cogent evidence of God himself. Enjoy.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Debate

Hello to everyone, and welcome to this debate. I was inspired by a similar debate going on so I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and try it out for myself. One song per round, ANY kind of music is acceptable. Whoever posts the best music wins.All songs must be listened to, start to finish, by each voter, before they vote.Look forward to some good music.I'll start off with the recently popularized aria from Saint-Saens "Samson and Delilah". Here, exquisitely sung by Christa Ludwig, one of the the giants of the opera world, with a sturdy and powerful spinto coloratura, Ludwig shows us a deeply personal and altogether unforgettable interpretation of this famous aria. http://www.youtube.com...
Music Debate

As much as I've enjoyed this debate and its eclectic mix of music, alas, it must end.I leave this debate with the most tender, kind, honest song I know: Chopin's "Prelude No. 13 Op.28" as interpreted by Ivo Pogorelich. Enjoy and I hope everyone has had as much fun in this debate as I have.Note: I couldn't find Pogorelich's interpertation on Youtube so I had to upload it myself.http://www.youtube.com...=
Interracial Marriage is a Wonderful Thing

Main subject is based on the subjective descriptive word wonderful. before this issue is cleared, the whole topic or whatever main part you are talking about, is not debatable. If you still don't understand, let me put it this way. the word wonderful can mean very different things to you and to me and to the audience, to an extent that the quality and feasibility of the whole debate is negatively affected. we can be debating on and on but what we are talking about can be totally different things, so that any conclusion that we can possibly come up with and its meaningfulness will be fairly meaningless.
Interracial Marriage is a Wonderful Thing

Being the con, I can disagree with whatever part of the pro statement. The part I disagree with is that marriage (interracial or not) is 'wonderful'. First of all, 'wonderful' is a very subjective concept, so maybe further discussion is needed, as of whether the topic of whether interracial marriage is 'wonderful' is worth debating. As a standing alone statement, I believe it is not scientific, logical, official to claim that 'marriage' is 'wonderful'.
Interracial Marriage is a Wonderful Thing

I'll be for the pro side. Interracial marriage is a good thing just like marriage is. There are some people who say that interracial marriage is a bad thing. While it's a small percent (11 percent according to the New York Times), it's still a bit upsetting that something some trivial bothers people. After years of civil rights, you'd think this would be put to rest. There is nothing wrong with people of different races getting married. As long as they love each other, who cares what color their skin is. What matters if that they love and respect one another. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com...
The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

one at a timeIn the parable of the long spoons, people are sitting around a table and unable to feed themselves. In the version I first heard, their elbows are strapped to boards and so they can't bend their arms. However, they are able to feed each other.I suggest that each person would only be able to feed another person at a time. Even though they have two arms (and may two spoons) if you're scooping stew or rice to feed someone else, you need to give it all your attention to get it into their mouth properly.Therefore, the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy. birthratePro has failed to show that polyamory would boost the birthrate.There are four ways to boost the birthrate: restrict women's career and economic opportunities (1), restrict access to birth control and abortion (2) degrade infant health (3) or pay women to have babies (4). None of these methods relate to polyamory.economic efficienciesPro argues that people are more likely to share resources and chores when they are having sexual relations with each other.I don't think this is right. Firstly, because cooking is most commonly shared among family members, mothers, fathers, aunts, cousins, etc., who are not having sex with each other. And secondly, if Pro's suggested arrangement is economically efficent, then sexual behavior is irrelevant. That is, the gains due to efficiency should be enough on their own.Pro has failed to prove any positive effects specific to polyamory.the parable and polyamoryPro has tried to argue that the food on the table in the parable can be interpreted as offspring, and that the goodness of eating the food can be interpreted as the goodness of reproducing.If that is so, then according to the parable, we should help each other reproduce, because we can't do it alone.However, I can't see what that has to do with monogamy or polygamy. The parable doesn't specify the types of arrangements that should be made in terms of groupings. Although obviously nature dictates that a heterosexual partnership is essential for producing children. Pro has failed to show that polyamory would produce any benefit over and above other kinds of arrangements such as monogamy.(1) http://blogs.reuters.com...(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(3) http://paa2013.princeton.edu...(4) https://www.mja.com.au...