BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing has never been absolutely so

I will be arguing that nothingness has never been absolute. Now for some definitions. Nothing: nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. Absolute:unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc. , in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch. My argument: If nothing was ever absolute we would not be here. For something can not be made from nothing. And since we exist therefore nothing has never been absolutely so. ========================================= Syllogism: If nothing was absolute we would not be here. We are here. Ergo nothing has never been absolute. I'm looking forward to an intellectually stimulating debate. . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... *Sidenote* You will be debating that at one point in history nothingness was at one point absolute. In other words nothing existed at some interval of time. I on the other hand will be arguing that nothing has never been absolute and there was always something.
Nothing has never been absolutely so

Before I begin I would like to point out that the only time I used "he" was when I was quoting Con and Con was refering to me. Now to refute Con's arguments. Con: "This is not to argue for any specific type of first cause, only for the logical necessity for one" The need for an uncaused event doesn't automatically mean one exists. Also, human reasoning(logic) does not dictate universal truth. Con: "But it is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. If the causal chain truely stretched back forever, we could not be here." The causal chain and the amount of time passing effecting us being here is negligible. And the causal chain and amount of time could be in fact an infinite loop of epic proportions. Either way time doesn't dictate change. If raw hamburger meet is sat on a counter it will not cook in an 30 minutes. Now if you fry that meat for 30 minutes then it will cook. The heat affects the entity not time. Con: "Furthermore, if (according to your first premise, and thus my syllogism) we are not here, and yet we are(according to your second premise) You have in fact smuggled a contradiction into your argument." All based on the assumption your syllogism is correct. To get off the subject of cause and effect and onto nothing being absolute or not: If you claim that an event can oringinate from absolutely nothing and present no real evidence that it exists is a leap of faith. It all boils down to if it's an event without a cause or an event with an unknown cause. I'm advocating the latter. The law of conservation of energy and matter states that energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed, thereby negating something coming from nothing. Even if what you propose(an uncaused event) is true does not refute the resolution. It would only prove that at one point there was nothing somewhere; not that is was absolute. I ask that Con doesn't introduce new info to the debate on the account I will not be able to refute it. Thank you.
Nothing has never been absolutely so

First, I am a "she" not a "he". Second, you caught me! My semantic argument fails. Moving on... "To build on my case I would like to say if nothing was absolute there would not be anything outside of it to cause the existence of anything." This is an expansion of the premise I called into question earlier, but still rests on an assumption; namely that every event must have a cause. In everyday experience we know this to be true. However, when applying that assumption to more vast intervals of time, we come accross a paradox. For if every event indeed had a prior cause, then the causal chain would need to stretch back to infinity. An infinite number of events would have had to occur for us to be here. Since events occur over some discrete time period, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to be here. But it is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. If the causal chain truely stretched back forever, we could not be here. This is not to argue for any specific type of first cause, only for the logical necessity for one. Since we know of only events with causes, it makes sense we would have no idea what a self-causing or uncaused event might be like. However, it doesn't follow that its IMPOSSIBLE. It is, in fact, necessary, unless you wish to endorse the proposition that we're not really here. I offer a competing syllogism: If the causal chain were infinite, we would not be here we are here therefore the causal chain is not infinite. The support for your syllogism actually leads to a competing syllogism which asserts exactly the opposite. If the premise is true (that everything must have a cause) then we are, in fact, not here, which is obviously untrue. If it is false, the your first premise fails, and so your argument. Furthermore, if (according to your first premise, and thus my syllogism) we are not here, and yet we are here (according to your second premise) you have in fact smuggled a contradiction into your argument. Which means, again, it fails.
Nothing has never been absolutely so

Firstly, I would like to state that I am not talking about vacuum fields. I'm talking about the "nonsense" Con tells of. Con: "In that case, the "nothingness" he refers to is entirely uncharacterizable, literally unthinkable, and can't have anything truthful said about it" At first glance this looks like a legitimate argument, but paradoxically if nothing truthful can be said about my nothingness than the above statement is moot. Simply because you stated something about it that you assumed to be true. Con: "Because the subject of the resolution is incoherent nonsense, the statement is false. .. " I have just showed why the above statement is not incoherent nonsense. So, I advise Con to provide reason why the resolution is false. To build on my case I would like to say if nothing was absolute there would not be anything outside of it to cause the existence of anything.
Nothing has never been absolutely so

First off, I would like to point out that, as CON, I need not argue that at some point in the past, nothingness was absolute. Rather, I simply need to demonstrate that PROs argument fails in affirming the resolution. That said, I negate the resolution on the grounds that my opponent's first premise is unsupported. Simply stating that "if nothing had existed at some point, we wouldn't exist" isn't proof of, or even evidence for, the statement. Though it sounds like common sense, that is insufficient grounds to include it in the syllogism as fact. Remember, in Aristotle's time, it seemed like common sense that the earth couldn't possibly move because if it did, the birds and clouds would be left behind. Given the state of knowledge at that time, Aristotle's argument was extremely viscerally compelling. The people knew of no reliable way in which the clouds and birds could remain attached to the earth. Of course, today we know better. PRO's assertion that "something cannot come from nothing" could just as easily be supplanted by further scientific findings. In fact, it has been found that "virtual particles" are popping in and out of existence all the time, even in the complete "void" of space. [1][2] Of course, if my opponent is referring to the idea that "nothing or no thing equals the absence of any thing including the absence of absence itself"[3] as wiki quaintly characterizes it, then the above argument fails because empty space is still "something". However, I don't think he would want to use such a definition since it reduces his resolution to a meaningless statement that cannot be coherently endorsed or affirmed. In that case, the "nothingness" he refers to is entirely uncharacterizable, literally unthinkable, and can't have anything truthful said about it. Because the subject of the resolution is incoherent nonsense, the statement is false, just as the sentence "green ideas sleep furiously" is false. 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 2. http://science.jrank.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
eating alot of sweets/chocolates is good

chocolate was scientifically accused of causing itching, causing migraines, and causing indigestion. In 1989, science found that the fat from cocoa butter is good for you, but since most chocolate also has milkfat in it, it's bad! And a 1990 article called "New Insights on Why Some Children Are Fat" continued the chocophobic trend, with a Dr. Stunkard noting that "no one binges on hard candies, which are pure sweetness...ice cream and chocolate are more often the villains."
eating alot of sweets/chocolates is good

Chocolate contains a lot of fat. A 100-gram serving of dark chocolate has 42.6 grams of fat, including 24.5 grams of saturated fat, which is 66 percent of the daily value for total fat and 122 percent of the DV for saturated fat. Milk chocolate is lower in fat, with 29.7 grams of fat, including 18.5 grams of saturated fat. Even though a high percentage of the fat in milk chocolate consists of a type of saturated fat called stearic acid that doesn't raise your cholesterol levels, this is still a lot of fat. Consuming too much fat or saturated fat increases your risk for obesity, high cholesterol and heart disease which is really bad for your health.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

RebuttalSince the debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to me NOT whether junk food is absolutely beneficial to me in every imaginable category, my opponent needed to provide evidence that junk food does not meet the characteristics for beneficial as defined. His claim that he only needed to present one thing that is somewhat undesirable in order to meet his BoP is a massive goalpost shift.Beneficial was defined as "resulting in good..." where good was defined as "to be desired or approved of..." where what is considered desirable is dependent on the individual. It was not defined as "resulting in only good with absolutely no undesirable possible effects." As I have stated, potential health risks do not change the fact that I desire junk food, and therefore the conclusion that "junk food is not beneficial" is unwarranted."Extremely low is not impossible."Just because it's not impossible doesn't mean I care. I'm not paranoid about every possibility. I know that there is a possibility every time I drive that I will die in a car accident. This does not change the fact that driving is beneficial to me as it provides much quicker transportation than I would have otherwise."This is an article on other common artificial things."My opponent does not even explain this article or try to incorporate it into his argument.ConclusionAs I have explained, possible health risks do not magically make it so that I stop desiring junk food. They are of little concern to me and do not make it so that junk food cannot be considered beneficial as defined. I have shown that junk food "results in good" for me with regards to convenience, cost, reliability, and taste. My opponent has dropped these arguments and has claimed that because of potential negative health effects that I cannot find junk food to be desirable and that it cannot "result in good" for me. I have shown these possibilities to not change the fact that junk food does result in good for me.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

RebuttalSince the debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to you NOT whether junk food is mostly beneficial to you, I only need to prove completely that in one case junk food is not beneficial to you. Junk food might be partly beneficial to you ie. the taste (the reason why you eat junk food), but it does pose as health risk, that even you have partly agreed on. A small junk food meal can easily grow into a big one; no one is immune. So this is a slight risk, and this leads to the statement that "junk food is not beneficial"."My perceived risk for getting cancer or heart disease is extremely low."Extremely low is not impossible."Chicken McNuggets are just one type of junk food (that I have never had) and not representative of junk food as a whole; my opponent only asserts that a lot of junk food contains artificial things. Even if he showed this to be representative of what I eat, this is the same argument I already refuted."This is an article on other common artificial things. http://www.thebetterhealthstore.com...Conclusion Junk food is NOT beneficial to you in one way or another as all the health risks described are possible to ANYONE even very healthy people. Muscle stiffness, cancer, heart disease etc. are all POSSIBLE to ANYONE. Even in little doses, the artificial things found in junk food can easily pose health risks.Thank you.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

RebuttalMy opponent argues that his speculation over possible future occurrences he perceives to be negative affect whether I find junk food beneficial/desirable. As I have pointed out, I am not addicted to junk food; it has not changed my diet or caused me depression. These are not factors I consider as they have not affected me, do not affect me now, and likely will not affect me in the future. If they affect me in the future, I will be wrong on the last point, but this would not change the fact that I find junk food beneficial."Also, as explained before junk food leads to disease, which I am sure outweighs taste."This is simply an undefended assertion. As I have explained, based on the definitions for the debate, what is considered desirable is dependent on the individual. My perceived risk for getting cancer or heart disease is extremely low. Eating junk food occasionally does not necessitate either and does not worry me. Furthermore, my opponent has dropped my argument that if junk food was not beneficial as defined, I would not eat it because I would not eat something I did not desire. He has also failed to show that junk food is not beneficial for me with regards to taste, convenience, and price, the factors I listed as my primary concerns. He conceded this."Most teenagers rank health in front of convenience."A common stereotype about college students is that they live off ramen. Since I only eat junk food occasionally, my opponent seems to suggest that most teenagers never eat junk food. Regardless, the statement is not relevant as the debate is about me. If most teenagers value health enough to never eat any junk food, that would not make me one of them.RebuttalChicken McNuggets are just one type of junk food (that I have never had) and not representative of junk food as a whole; my opponent only asserts that a lot of junk food contains artificial things. Even if he showed this to be representative of what I eat, this is the same argument I already refuted.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

Rebuttal To argue that junk food is not beneficial to someone does not mean they have to be already affected. So, I have already given evidence that you are prone to depression by junk food. Depression changes people's appetite as well, so this will lead to the possibility that you do not like junk food, even if your intake is not high. (1) Also, as explained before junk food leads to disease, which I am sure outweighs taste. Most teenagers rank health in front of convenience. Since junk food is addictive, you can easily be buying a lot of junk food which is not cheap.(1)http://www.everydayhealth.com...Argument Another reason why junk food is not beneficial to you is because of the artificial things it contains. Here us an article on Chicken McNuggets. "The meat alone in McNuggets is compromised of 7 different ingredients, many of which are made up of several other ingredients. Some ingredients that make up the ‘meat’ include sodium phosphate, safflower oil, wheat starch, dextrose, and a particularly dangerous substance known as autolyzed yeast extract. Autolyzed yeast extract is similar to MSG, an artificial sweetener that has been linked to obesity and other health conditions. Frighteningly, these are not the worst chemicals found in McNuggets. Dimethylpolysiloxane, a type of silicone, is added as an anti-foaming agent to the nuggets. This is the same ingredient that is used in breast implants and silly putty, yet McNuggets are marketed towards children with complete disregard for their health. Chicken McNuggets truly represent the crazy use of chemicals in fast food."(2)This is just one example of the many foods that contain artificial products, which are very dangerous to young people.(2) http://naturalsociety.com...
Junk food is beneficial for you.

RebuttalTo even begin to use this argument, my opponent would first have to provide evidence that junk food is causing me depression. He then would also have to show that this possibility makes it so that I no longer desire junk food. I just had a bag of microwave popcorn. Furthermore, the debate resolution is not "a diet high in junk food is beneficial for your mental health." My diet is not high in junk food, and this is irrelevant.My opponent's rebuttal fails as it attempts to tell me my opinion is incorrect. My desires are neither correct or incorrect. My preferences are determined by what I consider valuable. In this regard, the potential negative health consequences of a diet that involves the occasional consumption of junk food don't change my eating habits. If I thought the cost outweighed the benefit, I wouldn't engage in the behaviour. I perceive the value the convenience of and enjoyment from the taste of junk food to be greater the cost of potential health risk. To say that potential injury outweighs the good taste is to make the absolute claim that health risk is objectively worse than tastiness is good. It is my individual perception of what is beneficial, as defined, that matters.Furthermore, I am not even necessarily impeded at all by such concerns when eating junk food. Even if I was consuming a high amount of junk food and it was having a clear negative impact on my health, that wouldn't change the fact that I find it desirable. Even if the negative health risks crossed my mind, it wouldn't change the fact that I still desired the food. If junk food wasn't desirable, I would not consume it. My opponent's claim seems to be akin to claiming that I eat junk food against my desires.Also note that it's not just the taste that makes me call junk food beneficial. As a college student, the convenience and low price are very helpful and greatly outweigh possible harmful effects for me. My opponent has dropped the convenveince and low cost arguments.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

Argument Another reason why junk food is not beneficial to you is because of the increased chance of depression. It is proven that hormone changes makes one susceptibleto mood and behaviour swings especially in and near teen ages. According to yourprofile, you are 20 years old, pretty close to being a teen so I can assume that youare susceptible to mood and behaviour swings. " A healthy diet plays a part in keeping hormone levels on an even keel, while a diet high in junk food falls short of theserequirements. Consuming trans fats, saturated fats and processed food is associatedwith up to 58 percent increase in risk of depression." (1)(1) http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...Rebuttal Think about it - the obesity, heart disease and cancer definitely outweigh the tasty side. This applies to you as well. It is certainly not beneficial for you to have an increasedchance of the healthy problems. Even if it is tasty to you, injury still overrides the tastefactor and thus it is not beneficial to you.Sorry for the formatting, I had to manually do it since this spellchecker did not work and returned me with a error even if I reloaded it several times. So, I pasted the text into an externalspellchecker which destroyed my formatting without me knowing. When I pasted it here it wasjust one long line.Thank you.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

ArgumentJunk food is beneficial for me as defined, as I find it to be desirable in taste. I have certainly benefitted and continue to benefit from it by enjoying the flavour and convenience of a quick meal at a cheap price. Furthermore, I have found it to be reliable as the expiration date is often long into the future.In short, pre-prepared food is desirable for me as it saves me time and money while simultaneously providing me with tasty meals.RebuttalSince this debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to me, what my opponent considers desirable is irrelevant. I am not obese or at risk of a heart attack, nor does my current level of consumption of junk food put me at risk for any of these things. Even if I was, this would not change the fact that I benefit from junk food. Even if I agreed with my opponent on the things he lists as undesirable, it would not change the fact that I still find junk food desirable for the taste, price, and convenience. If I did not find it desirable, I would not eat it.Whether junk food is not beneficial overall to people in general is irrelevant to the debate, as the debate resolution is about whether it is beneficial to me. For my opponent to refute my argument, he will have to show that it is not desirable for me in terms of taste, convenience, and price.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

Junk food can cause many undesirable effects such as obesity and heart attacks. Obesity is a state where your body is overweight. Being overweight can affect many things, such as walking speed, heart condition etc. This is certainly not beneficial for you, and these conditions can cause injury or death. By avoiding this unbeneficial junk food, one has much lower chance of obesity, as it is mainly caused by food habits. Good food habits also has other benefits such as a good blood stream. Overall, junk food is certainly NOT beneficial. Thank you.
Junk food is beneficial for you.

Since R1 is for defining terms, I will further qualify what my opponent has presented.Definitionsgood (n)- to be desired or approved of; suitable, fit <good to eat> ; that can be relied on <good for another year> [1]"you" (n)- meWhat is considered desirable or favourable is highly subjective and will defined as such (dependent on the individual). Based on these definitions, I will argue in this debate that I find and have found pre-prepared or packaged food with low nutritional value to be desirable, reliable, etc. and feel that I have benefited from it whether it be from enjoyment or from any other factor I deem desirable. Thank you. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

Full topic: The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true or false is to dramatically reduce man made levels of Co2. We need to take drastic measures to reduce man made Co2 levels ASAP. I've become convinced of this due to the climate change deniers. Simply, put the climate change deniers are correct, there is not enough evidence. Therefore, we need to accumulate more evidence via experimentation. Thus far all we have done is endlessly discuss if climate change is real or false and collecting observation evidence. Empirical evidence is split into two grounds. A. Observation evidenceB. Scientific experimentsAll I've seen is A, thus far. We need B, and we need to know soon. The only way I can imagine to test this theory of global climate change is via experimentation. We must take control and change a variable. I vote Co2 is the best variable. Now as Co2 as the variable we have two choices, to raise or lower Co2 levels. Considering it would be immoral to raise Co2 levels given the observation evidence, we can only lower Co2 levels. Since a small decrease in Co2 levels would be more difficult to determine, a large decrease in amount of Co2 produced by man made sources is the only solution. That way if climate change is caused by a confounding factor we will have a better chance of acknowledging that confounding factor and taking corrective actions. To recap, we need more evidence for whether or not climate change is true in the form of experimental evidence. Lowering man-made Co2 dramatically is the best and only moral option.