BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Persons do not possess temporal parts.

I'd also like to include one last clarification: Purdurance: Terminology introduced by the 20th-century Australian philosopher Mark Johnston for an older contrast, and described by David Lewis in The Plurality of Worlds. Something perdures if and only if it persists by having different temporal parts, or stages, at different times, though no one part of it is wholly present at more than one time. It endures if and only if it persists by being wholly present at more than one time. Perdurance corresponds to the way a play is extended in time: Act I is not present when Act II is. The question then is whether it is better to think of ordinary objects as perduring or enduring.
Persons do not possess temporal parts.

Thanks to Vi_Veri for agreeing to debate me! I shall be arguing in favor of the position that persons do not possess temporal parts - or, in slightly less technical terms, persons endure over time and do not perdure over time. ========= Definitions and Clarifcations ========= Person - very minimally defined, a subject of experience. The term "person" no undoubtedly means more than that but it also can't mean less than that. Possess - to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill. [1] Temporal parts - are a concept used in contemporary metaphysics in the debate over the persistence of material objects. Objects typically have parts that exist in space—a human body, for example, has spatial parts like hands, feet, and legs. Some metaphysicians believe objects have temporal parts as well. A temporal part would thus be something like "the first year of a person's life", or "all of a table from between 10:00 a. m. on June 21, 1994 to 11:00 p. m. on July 23, 1996". [2] Perdurance - Perdurantists believe that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring'). [3] Endurance - Endurantists believe that ordinary things do not have temporal parts; instead, things are wholly present whenever they exist (things persist by ‘enduring'). [4] ========= Rules ========= Round 1: For acceptance and/or adding clarifications. Rounds 2 - 4: We present our specific cases. All rounds: Have fun! :P ========= Sources ========= [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
We should change the "Work-System"

Everything always serves its purpose in the universe, despite what small roles it may play in much larger operation. This "volunteering" system has many flaws, as it does not allow levels to exist in a society, such as the average American at the bottom, middle class above, and the government above. Without currency, leaders would not have anything to offer its troops with because this volunteering system would lack any sort of reward. Countries need resources to trade with other countries, and this volunteer system wouldnt enforce work upon anyone so there would be a large variety of individuals who would rely off of resources without contributing to societies at all. This system mostly works with very small societies because that way it is easier to gather resources, as many are contributing so it is not such an obstacle that a few arent assisting but with a large population with many ignorant people creates mass numbers of people who will not participate.
We should change the "Work-System"

Sry for my English. So my POV: We have too many useless Jobs in the world. For Example Call Center Agents or 24hour super market worker... But we need them because we need money. So here's my Problem. We should think of a better Method where we can earn money without forcing people to do senseless Jobs. I mean we are working 40h per week and 5 days.. 2 days off and sometimes not even in the row. And this is what we do the next 50 years. Nice. I mean yea I have a nice Job with nice money but I cant understand why people let their life control by work/money. People don't even know what to do without a job because they never had a chance to try it out ( without living on he street obv) We are so many people.. 1 of them must have an idea. I mean let the people work voluntary and let the people alone if they don't want to work. Yea, there is the money problem. Maybe give all people the same amount of money and working people get extra cash. So you can live good without working and live better if you work. This is just a random idea, there are millions of intelligent people out there with better ideas. So, tbh, I see the working system of today as he modern slavery. I do stuff that I wouldn't do normally for little money (people who get big cash are not that much obv) Someone in the 90s or something said that we would need to work 4hours a day in the future because of automation but we cant afford it or else we wouldn't get enough cash to live. I don't know if money or the work is the problem. Some Jobs needs to be done and with so many people here there must be someone who would do it. In China 600k people die per year because of overworking. Random fact. We are not here on this planet to work our whole life. That's my point. Do you like the Work system of today or would you change something?
I don't use logic and reason anymore

""Logic is ranscendental. " - Ludwig Wittgenstein"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, Beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen. The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this. " - Richard Feynman“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, Sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. ” - Douglas Adams"Formal logic is mathematics, And there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very mathematical, But what they're really doing is mathematics - it's not talking about things that have affected computer science; it's mathematical logic. " - Lawrence Krauss"Critical thinkers have faith in the power of logic and sound reasoning. Critical thinkers understand that it is in everyone’s best interest to encourage and develop sound logic. More importantly, Critical thinkers value the power of letting others draw their own conclusions. " - Lumen"Mathematics as an expression of the human mind reflects the active will, The contemplative reason, And the desire for aesthetic perfection. Its basic elements are logic and intuition, Analysis and construction, Generality and individuality. " - Richard Courant"Logic is the beginning of wisdom. " - Leonard Nimony
I don't use logic and reason anymore

I don't use logic and reason anymore It has been a long time Since the last time I used I used logic and reason I don't use logic and reason anymore Logic told me that sex with children That sex with children is wrong Because children can't consent to sex But instead of dismissing sex with children I dismissed reason and logic Because when reason and logic line up Against my dreams I will not dismiss my dreams I will dismiss reason and logic You have logic But you don't have love I don't let reason and logic Stop me from realizing my dreams My dreams and goals are most important to me And when logic and reason tell me to abandon them I will abandon logic and reason You have logic, You have reason You have common sense, You have conscience But you don't have love, You will never see You will never see your dreams and goals realized And this is your biggest failure You may have logic, But you don't have love
DDO needs a history catagory

"I will first like to start by defining "need" NO SEMANTICTS! Cons argument is are the same points; History has no relevance, it is not NEEDED in DDO, and it is not being asked for, therefore it is not wanted Rebuttal "The moderators have no use and the debaters from what I have heard have not been asking for one commonly." Moderators and users have a use for a history category. In order to be able to host this site, Juggle needs to have enough traffic. It is in Juggles best interest to create new features that will bring in more people, without people the site dies. Adding a history category will bring in more people, that want to debate history. By spending more time on the site, and having more traffic, DDO would benefit from this change. Many people already in the DDO community say that they do want a history category to be added. 8 out of 17 (9 people said they did not support it) people said that they do want DDO to add a History category [1]. Out of the people who responded, 47%, almost half, support it. 47% is a large enough percent for Juggles to notice. If almost half (of the people who answered) and another 10%+ (of 17) people joined, then DDO would have that much more traffic which would benefit the DDO and Juggles profit. If about half the people (who responded) do want it, then it is only reasonable to add it, therefore Con's argument that people do not want a history category, is false. Expanding on my point I made last round, adding this new category would encourage more debates in a strict discipline (history). If someone wants to debate the scientific possibility of a god, they debate it in science not religion. If someone wants to have a debate strictly on "actual evidence" in a specific category, adding new ones makes it easier to create a debate that focuses on a single aspect of a wider subject. Con says that History has no relevance, which is an opinion which is largely biased. History has lots of practical applications, but that is not what is being debated. Conclusion: The DDO community and Juggles will benefit from adding a new category, History. Enough people have asked/supported it, therefore it should be added. Adding a new category would be relatively easy, and if the people who did not support it still oppose it, there is nothing stopping them from just ignoring it. Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org...
DDO needs a history catagory

I will first like to start by defining "need" need-require (something) because it is essential or very important This means that DDO NEEDS a history category. . http://english.oxforddictionaries.com... Responses: "DDO needs to add a history category because, it is lacking one. " What? Just because something is lacking doesn't mean it is necessary. Your claim does not make sense. I do agree that history should be studied, but debating on history and the NEED of a category is unnecessary. R1) Jesus argument Debating about what happened thousands of years ago is not important today. Using example of history is relevant and important to debate TODAY'S topics, but debating history is merely a waste of time. It doesn't really get you anywhere, as compared to understanding history. R2) Evolution argument Since we are still evolving, debating evolution is a lot more relevant and useful to today than debating the past. What is important is to debate what is important now, therefore DDO has no NEED for a history category. C1) Quantity There have been some debates about history, but not many. Most of the arguments in history are related to today's topics, such as Religion. You do not see many users complaining for a history category. Let's define DDO as the whole community of DDO, the debaters and the moderators. If the debaters are not making a drastic request or even a somewhat strong request for the topic, why is it a need for the moderators/debaters? C2) Importance As I have stated previously, debating History is irrelevant. What is relevant is studying history, the aspects of how decisions affected society in the past, and understanding how different societies have turned out so we can make a better world for ourselves. If we are debating how to form America's government, we can use examples of previous government successes and failures. This DOES NOT fall under the history category. DDO has no use in debating history. If they have no use, it is not a need. Response to Conclusion: My opponent's conclusion does not really justify the resolution. The debate is not whether about whether it would be beneficial. The debate is about whether it is a need or not. Burden: My opponent must justify how the moderators and the rest of the staff of DDO NEEDS this category. Mikeee provides no reasoning explaining this. My opponent also needs to justify how this a need, rather than a beneficial process. Lastly, my opponent must justify how debating history is as important as debating any current issue, such as the categories refer to. Final Focus: A history category is not needed for DDO. The moderators have no use and the debaters from what I have heard have not been asking for one commonly. Debating history gets you almost nowhere, for you just proved a side on a problem of the past. If you want to use history to reflect on a current issue, this does not fall under the history category. Thus debating history is NOT needed.
DDO needs a history catagory

DDO needs to add a history category because, it is lacking one. A history category is needed because there are some topics that only fit into that category. History is as broad a category as science, economics, religion, society, and all the other important categories. Adding a history category would not big a huge change and will not affect any of the other subjects. Adding a new category will encourage more people to debate historical events, and will help categorize strictly historical debates and not historical/religious debates. One example of a debate category that would not fit in any of the pre-existing categories id; Jesus had a negative effect on the Roman Empire (another empire, or world). This would not be a religious debate because it is not discussing faith; it is discussing actual proven things that Jesus did. There is actual evidence that Jesus went from one place to another, however, there is not "actual evidence" for weather or not he was a god, or actual preformed all the miracles it talks about in the bible (that would be a debate concerning the religious aspects). If this was placed in the religious category, people would assume it was a debate on aspects of the faith, and not on the actual historical context. If there is a scientific debate about evolution, people are not discussing faith (if it's in the science category); they are debating the scientific aspects, and have no concern about faith for the purpose of that debate. Science is a broad category, as is History. Posting debates in a certain category allow the debater to debate according to a set discipline, such as science. Conclusion Adding a new category, History, will be beneficial to DDO and its users.
DDO needs a history catagory

Pro will have to make a convincing argument that DDO should add a history category Con will have to make a convincing argument that a history category is not needed and should not be added. First round is for questions and acceptance only No semantics (I don't know how it would be possible but...?) NOT A DEBATE OF WEATHER OR NOT HISTORY IS IMPORTANT SHOULD DDO ADD A HISTORY CATEGORY (yes or no)
DDO needs a history catagory

I was defining one word because I felt this was a key component of the debate, and does not venture deep into semantics. R1) You have no credible evidence saying that a new category will bring in new people. You can not just make such a blanket statement without something to back it up. In order for new people to join, advertising and recommendation must be done. Adding a history category will have almost no impact on advertising or recommendations, therefore this argument is completely invalid. R2) I would like to say that this argument is completely incorrect. We should already discredit this as credible evidence since you proposed this, therefore a good answer is not reliable. Onward, my opponent has falsely informed the readers! According to my counting of all the responses that were clear enough to determine, four people were for and 11 people were against, not including yourself. Also, one person did not care. This is not enough for Juggle to notice and like I said, this will not lead to traffic. My opponent has no evidence and I don't know why my opponent believes this. Therefore again, this argument is completely invalid. Again no evidence is provided and no logic is behind this claim that it will add more points. It would merely cause some debates to fall under a different category, not bring in more people. I don't see how this god example or the "actual evidence" example pertains at all to the resolution and justifies his case. Again, I am not disregarding the practical applications of History. I am saying that history has little positive impact in a debate and does not bring in traffic. Dropped Arguments: C1: My opponent completely disregards my second contention and provides almost nothing to argue against this. All he states is that my opinion is "biased" without justifying. C2: My opponent provided false evidence that people are demanding me, and as I proved earlier this is not true, therefore my contention still stands. Burden: My opponent has not at all justified how adding history is a NEED. This is what the resolution states, not that it will have not have a negative impact and very little positive. Conclusion: Due to the dropped arguments, false evidence, my opponent not justifying the resolution at all, and not fulfilling his burden. I strongly negate the resolution and urge a con vote. http://www.debate.org...
Does God exist? The proposition is that there is a Christian God who is omnipotent and all-loving.

I think that I have won this debate without question, I posted an argument against the existence of God, which had no rebuttal whatsoever. Then I posted two rebuttals of arguments for the existence of God, incidentally neither of the arguments he actually presented. Whether or not you agree with me, and whether or not you think my logic is sound, I am the only person you can, intelligently, vote for. If my opponent now presents a post, I hope that you all see it as a below the belt tactic, and so should be disregarded. As I cannot respond to it during this debate, as I've used up all my rounds. If anyone wants to have this, or a similar debate with me. I would be more than happy to oblige, so let me know or challenge me. Many thanks.
Does God exist? The proposition is that there is a Christian God who is omnipotent and all-loving.

OK, so to clarify, our definition of Christian God is: He is a triune, He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omnibenevolent, He is omniscient, He is omnipresent, He created the world with a purpose, He is the ultimate judge. You can object to any of these bar His supposed omnipotence, His omniscience, and His omnibenevolence, for all these are characteristics which I have, in my previous post, tried to demonstrate are mutually exclusive. There are only three rounds each in this debate, and this is already my second round, so could you, in your next post, present all your arguments and rebuttals of my initial argument, so that I will be able to respond to them and do them justice. (If need be we can have another debate if you're willing and don't feel we have been able to cover all the topics you'd have wanted) Good luck
Does God exist? The proposition is that there is a Christian God who is omnipotent and all-loving.

It is necessary at the outset of our debate to define our terms; that is always the case. And in particular here, I should make it clear what I mean when I use the term "God". I want to specify that I'm arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a unit or system of thought and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons for that. The various conceptions of deity found in world religions are in most cases logically incompatible, leaving no unambiguous sense to general theism - whatever that might be. I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience. Since I am by the grace of God a Christian, I cannot, from the heart, adequately defend those religious faiths with which I disagree. My commitment is to the Triune God and the Christian world view based on God's revelation in the Old and New Testaments. So, first I am defending Christian theism.
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

Pro's argument is essentially that, if God's nature is known to be tri-omni, then the belief that God's nature is not knowable is contradicted. Despite the fun run around the mulberry bush to get to this conclusion, the point is trivial and uninteresting, hence my request to allow the definition of God to be limited to that one given in the definition of agnostic ("the ultimate cause of things").Obviously agnostics do not believe that God is tri-omni (they believe such essential nature cannot be known). Therefore, Pro's definition of Agnostic is both incorrect and contradictory. As a result, I cannot submit that the original position that "Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist" is proved in a meaningful way. However, I do concede that, assuming Pro's strange & contradictory initial conditions, his subsequent argument is valid.Pro does state "when I say God, I mean...", but obviously this argument is about the beliefs of an agnostic. Therefore, Pro's definition of God should be applied to the use of the word God in his definition of Agnostic.Allow me to consolidate Pro's definition of agnostic. The contradiction becomes clear:Agnostic - noun, a person who knows God to be tri-omni AND that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.Clearly it is a contradiction to say 1) that God's existence and nature are unknown, and simultaneously 2) that God's nature is known to be tri-omni (in the case of existence). Therefore, including such restrictions on the definition of God makes this argument fruitless to discuss, as it is D.O.A., and simply incorrect. Clearly Pro has incorrectly defined the constraints for an agnostic.Again, though, technically the argument cannot be refuted as a fundamental contradiction is built-in to Pro's assumed definitions, whether those definitions actually correspond to the words' commonly understood definitions.
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

Claim: ...God's existence is knowable if he exists by default.Pro holds, that because God exists, God can be known to exist by default. This is essentially arguing that there are no inherently unknowable truths. Such claims have been disproven by Fitch's Paradox of Knowability[1][2], which shows that existence of a particular truth is not sufficient for it's knowability.Knowability is clearly defined by the scope of possibility, which is the only given limitation on God's omnipotence. As established in Pro's second sentence of his original argument, God's omnipotent power is limited by the scope of metaphysical and logical possibility. By Fitch's paradox, it is incorrect to assume that all things in existence can be known to exist. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that God's existence is necessarily knowable, even if his existence and omnipotence are assumed.In my last rebuttal, I attempted to provide examples of how God's existence could be unknowable (perhaps if God was undefinable). However, in this rebuttal, I will save the speculation and simply conclude by lemma that, since the knowability of God's existence is a requisite for God's power to make his existence known, Pro's argument that an omnipotent God necessarily has the power to make his existence known is affirming the consequent– a logical fallacy.Sources:[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;