BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we pay more attention to coding or reading? Pro is coding, con is reading.

The wording of the motion is whether we should *pay more attention to* reading or coding, which of course implies we're allowed to do both, but we're arguing as to which we should emphasise taking to a further level. My opponent's points 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are completely irrelevant to the motion they proposed- they are arguing that we need to be able to read to a basic level, not that once we reach such a level, we should *pay more attention to* reading than to coding. Once could reach a basic (or even rather advanced) level of reading ability while still *paying more attention* to coding, and indeed one should, since, as I argued above (and my opponent failed to respond to at all), coding to an advanced level is a more useful skill than reading to an advanced level. In response to my opponent's point 3, I would like to reiterate my earlier argument- that coding also develops the mind in a similar way to how reading does, but also develops it in further ways. My opponent emphasises how reading encourages communication, but one simply cannot deny that communication has been improved considerably by computer coding- Facebook, YouTube, Gmail, and countless other social media sites have made it so much easier to listen and to be listened to. Someone who is okay at reading but excels at coding can communicate a lot more effectively than someone who is okay at coding but excels at reading. Hence, we should *pay more attention to* coding. In response to 5, I'd like to once again emphasise an earlier argument- coding also allows one to test one's imagination- CF: the universe I simulated in VPython. Reading allows you to experience someone else's imagination. Coding allows you both to do that, but also to express your own imagination. It is therefore better for that purpose. 6 is effectively 5 but re-worded slightly. Having refuted everything my opponent said, I feel I should emphasise my original points once more. However, since my opponent failed to address any of them at all, I feel it is sufficient to briefly state my original points, rather than to re-argue them thoroughly. Rearranging them to what I consider to be a more sensible order: 1) The wording of the motion concerns which we should *pay more attention to*- therefore, we can assume that one could have basic skills in both areas, but then the disagreement is with regards to whether it is more important to develop reading to a higher level or to develop coding to a higher level. 2) All of the benefits my opponent suggested for emphasising reading were also benefits of emphasising coding- such as developing creative skills. Coding also develops other skills that reading does not, such as mathematical ability, and it is a better thing to pursue knowledge of for that reason. 3) Advanced coding benefits both individuals and societies at large more than advanced reading does. Just think of the internet, modern physics, mathematics and medicine, mobile telephones, and the list goes on; the things advanced coders can produce for themselves or for society at large is overwhelming.
Should we pay more attention to coding or reading? Pro is coding, con is reading.

We should read more because then we will know how to spell. We also can get our MCA scores up. If we do coding we will forget how to use our imagination and will not know what happens around us. A person is limited in what they can accomplish without good reading and comprehension skills. Reading is important because it develops the mind. Teaching young children to read helps them develop their language skills.
Disney making star wars old canon legends

Ah, I see that I came in under the wrong pretense. I suppose I am to defend Disney. It would have helped to make the prompt a bit easier to understand. When it came down to it, star wars as far as legends stayed pretty true to the star wars theme, besides the yhuzan vong, which were criticised as too far outside the realm. Legends was also heavily fragmented and many of the stories failed to fit into one another. Disney has done a decent job at trying to fill in the gaps, both with using rebels and rouge one. And they have gone to added lengths to throw in cool side material for fans, in particular my favorite: Thrawn. They also gave a shout out to the YT freighter that was flown by a character similar to Han Solo. Besides this, Disney has only recently picked up the mantle. Judging them now is little too harsh.
Disney making star wars old canon legends

At this point I think you are also saying some cons about Disney now. I'll just elaborate more on my main points. Like I said, and what George Lucas said, Star Wars EU was made solely to allow fans to create their ideas and share it to the public. It answered a lot of questions that were not answered in the movies. I really feel that Disney should not have done this because a lot of people love to add their ideas to the wonderful Star Wars. I really wish that Disney could create something exactly like the expanded universe, but for now, I don't really see it coming...
Disney making star wars old canon legends

I have mixed feelings about rebels. While I like how it cleans up the clone wars and draws connections, it also brought back a character I was already shocked to see leave the saga in such a anti climactic way, and had her leave again with a massive amount of questions. I like seeing this expansion into the post clone wars galaxy, but I have my objections. Namely the fact that they have discarded perfectly good lore in favor of catering to a more child friendly agenda. (BTW did you know commander Cody was killed in the attack on Kamino during the force awakens?). Rouge one left a sour taste in my mouth. While it was really cool visually, there were too many characters not elaborated on and just killed off. It needed to be expanded into by another movie or novels. Again, there was also another character in legends responsible for the death star plans, Kyle Katarn. To see Disney throw away the neatly crafted legends is dismaying...
Disney making star wars old canon legends

Well, this is my first debate, and I also just want to have a conversation as well. I see your reasoning here, I agree about your thoughts on how they basically shut down the Clone Wars. So this info feeds into my point, if you say that Disney is going to expand in the prequels, personally, I highly doubt that. If you see, they are already making Rebels season 3, and just recently Rogue One. You could kind of see how they are focusing in the originals now. But at the same time, I still feel they are shutting down a lot in the originals era. First of all, The Force Unleashed. The whole game made sense. For example, Count Dooku had a secret future apprentice. So I don't see why Dart Vader can't. Second of all the expanded universe really fills lots of wholes back then. There were so many characters we could connect to, and see how they could of done some unexplained things in the canon. So hopefully you could understand my reasoning here. I agree with your statements about the old canon and what Disney did. Thank you so much for accepting this.
Disney making star wars old canon legends

To be honest I just wanted to have a conversation, if my profile picture doesn't give too much away. Id have to say I am both disappointed and excited for what Disney can do. Unfortunately more of the former. I think its universal that the prequels were terrible, save maybe revenge of the sith, and the best canon aspect was perhaps the animated series, which Disney so informally terminated, much to my dismay. I was not impressed with the force awakens (Phasma was left out), and rouge one was mediocre at best. But I also prefer some aspects of the new canon too. Primarily the introduction of the inhibitor chip in place of the brainwashing in the case of the clones. I was relieved that the clone commandos were kept as canon, and I am interested to see if Disney will expand into the prequels.
Shirts are for losers.

1. shirt to show respect to other people in modern society, politeness matters a lot. you cant just go naked in public since it is considered sexual harassment (especially for women). wearing t shirt, while it is your very right to wear it or not, is also a sign that you respect people. it is true that we don't mind seeing our own body, but think about someone else. do they want to see those hairs on your chest? do they want to see your nipples? do they want to see your swelling belly? some people (i think most of people) find that seeing other people body is uncomfortable or even disgusting. and even if you have a nice body, showing it to public is an act of discrimination, mockery, and insult towards those who don't have nice body. people will feel that you have been such a bully for bragging that kind of body to them. 2. shirts aren't useless, not even a bit. saying shirts are complete useless is very extreme. i believe that humans create their tools for a purpose (now i sound like a religious person). originally, we create shirts because we need them, anyway. because we feel a need to cover our body. if you think you don't feel a need to wear one, does not mean that it can be applied and accepted by other people.
2s and 5s ; anti-racist whites are doomed

The opponent has verbally forfeitted. A common quote, commonly attributed to Einstein, is this: "If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough." I have given the opponent ample opportunity to explain his "2s and 5s" theory in a way that can easily be understood. He has not done this, leading one to the conclusion that the opponent does not know what he's talking about. If an idea cannot be discussed, analyzed and challenged, it cannot be improved. If it cannot be improved, it will be forgotten. The opponent has benefitted no one in this debate, least of all himself. Instead of getting a unique look at race and racism, we've gotten a poorly written, pseudoscientific blurb that the opponent didn't even have the decency to elaborate on. This has not been a debate. This thing you just read represents the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge and it should be reviled, hated and utterly disregarded.
2s and 5s ; anti-racist whites are doomed

I will forfeit the argument, Con wins. I know this is a bit rude, but I truly don't see that Con has respected my argument. Con has not shown honor in this debate; instead, metaphorically, Con questions what the word 'honor' means. I'd prefer to debate someone who understands the concept, and am not worried if the majority doesn't understand, because I understand it.
The Professor Layton Games are Better than the Ace Attorney (Phoenix Wright) Games

While I agree with you that AA does have its quirky characters, find the gameplay to, sometimes, be repetitive. and the over-the-top character presentation makes it harder to relate to the characters and for them to all make memorable impressions. Also, I would like to focus on the puzzles. In AA, I feel it can be quite simple and, at times, obvious as to what you need to do. However, in the Professor Layton games, the puzzles are rarely continuations or adaptations of another one, and even when they are they are still challenging and interesting. As the puzzles are only needed to progress the story at certain points, this gives a wider range of gameplay possibilities and exploration, whereas AA can seem very linear at points.
The Professor Layton Games are Better than the Ace Attorney (Phoenix Wright) Games

while the professor Layton series is a good series of games ace attorney has a colorful cast of characters and funny scenes with serious stories within each case. Everyone from miles Edgeworth to both Von Karmas to the defendants. To your number 4 i say only one word. OBJECTION! that's all you need. The trials and the investigations are the game play. As such it focuses on gameplay 100% of the time
The Professor Layton Games are Better than the Ace Attorney (Phoenix Wright) Games

Personally, I believe the Professor Layton games to be better than the Ace Attorney games. 1) They focus more on the gameplay, with minigames and thousands of unique puzzles. 2) The story is richer, with a wide variety of lovable and memorable characters. 3) The art style is perfect, with quirky character design and interesting set pieces. 4) The cutscenes and animations are top-notch, and the voice acting is great and fits the characters seamlessly.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

This exercise/debate has been designed for certain young-earth creation-science promoters (i.e., Ken Ham, Kent Hovind) and their like-minded sympathizers with the intent to illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills. Step #1: > Is the argument so constructed > that if its premises are true > its conclusion will follow as > true therefrom (i.e., is it > logically valid)? > >> Robert Baty - Yes >> ??????????? - No Step #1 of this simple, 3-step exercise is about "form", and not "content". I propose that the argument has the following, relevant, "form": If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. I propose that using normal mental processes, one can reasonably conclude that, "if p, then q" is true, and if "p" is true, then "q" will follow as true therefrom. Think about it. Let me know if there be any here who think otherwise as it applies, specifically, to determining whether or not the following argument is so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom. MAJOR PREMISE: > IF (A); God's word (the text) says > everything began over a period > of six days, and > > IF (B); God's word (the text) is > interpreted by some to mean it > was six 24-hour days occurring > a few thousand years ago, and > > IF (C); there is empirical > evidence that some thing is > actually much older than a > few thousand years, > > THEN (D); the interpretation of > the text by some is wrong. MINOR PREMISE: > (A); God's word (the text) says > everything began over a period > of six days, and > > (B); God's word (the text) is > interpreted by some to mean it > was six 24-hour days occurring > a few thousand years ago, and > > (C); there is empirical evidence > that some thing is actually much > older than a few thousand years. CONCLUSION: > (D); The interpretation of the > text by some is wrong.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

Step #1: > Is the argument so constructed > that if its premises are true > its conclusion will follow as > true therefrom (i.e., is it > logically valid)? > >> Robert Baty - Yes >> Anti-Atheist - ??? Did anybody else notice where an answer was given! The full text of my opponent's latest submission is: "I debunked it by proving yec true. Your argument is fail. Just take glue. What's wrong with opponment that he cant see why it fails?" Nothing in there that addresses the issue in this debate. Step #1 can be answered either "yes" or "no" regardless of whether or not anything is more than a few thousand years old or not (i.e., the YECS position). I have answered "yes" and explained the basis for my decision on that fundamental, critical thinking issue. I found no rebuttal in this debate. And so my part in this debate comes to an end.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

The Step #1 question does not concern that which my opponent, whether real or just an imposture, spends his/her time. His/her opening "yes" is not connected to any statement, question or other matter so that it's relevance, if any, can be determined. I'm inclined to consider him/her an imposture, but, alas, that also is not at issue in this debate. The question remains for my opponent's consideration and response: Step #1: Is the argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is it logically valid)? Robert Baty - Yes Anti-Atheist - ??? I have given the basic reasons for my answer, and they remain un-rebutted. Will my opponent "give an answer", with his/her explanation? We will see.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

Yes Just look inside yourself and you will know god and yec are true. Just breathe and you will be instantly converted. We can feel god and he proves it. Just hit your knees and ask jesus to come. Forget science for now for Jesus well show you it's wrong and that yec is true. Look on the inner side of yourself and it's obvious god is real. Atheism has no proof. Just accept christ and yec on faith, just do it!!!! Isn't it better to just believe in it? just drop all logic and rationality and to just accept the god into your heart for old times sake. Do it Glue proves yec (see vid) http://youtube.com... Just do it and believe.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

Step #1 Issue For Debate: Is the argument so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., is it logically valid)? > Robert Baty - Yes > Anti-Atheist - ??? THE ARGUMENT Major Premise: > IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a > period of six days, and > > IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean > it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and > > IF (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually > much older than a few thousand years, > > THEN (D); the interpretation of the text by some is wrong. Minor Premise: > (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period > of six days, and > > (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it > was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and > > (C); there is empirical evidence that some thing is actually > much older than a few thousand years. Conclusion: > (D); The interpretation of the text by some is wrong. For purposes of this debate, the argument has the following "form": If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. It is proposed that one can conclude that my argument, which follows that "form" is constructed in such a way that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom. It is requested that my adversary answer the Step #1 question and then explain his answer. My adversary has not answered the question nor provided any rebuttal to my position. My adversary's entire second round submission consists of the following: > 1. If YEC were true the moon would be young > 2. The moon is young and can't be old via recession > 3. YEC is true. > > 1. If YEC is true than not many supernova remnents should be observed. > 2. Not many supernova remnets are observed. > 3. Therefore YEC is true. I find nothing in that response that purports to be an answer to the question or an explanation as to why my position should not be accepted.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

My opponent probably presents the best young-earth creation-science promoters have to offer regarding these simple, fundamental matters; though he does so in his own peculiar style. He writes in response to my Step #1 challenge and presentation, in relevant part: > Look us YECs know yecism is true. > > Even if there existed no proof, we > would still believe by the conviction > of the holy spirit. > > It's a truth that atheists can't understand. If young-earth creation-science promoters were always so candid about the matter, the relevance of my exercise would be diminished. They aren't, so my exercise is able to retain its historic significance to the popular public debate over the merits of young-earth creation-science, without quibbling over the complex, scientific details better left to others with the time, talent and interest. Some might have noticed that my opponent did not even come close to actually, explicitly posting his answer to the Step #1 issue (at least I didn't notice it if it's there): Step #1: > Is the argument so constructed > that if its premises are true > its conclusion will follow as > true therefrom (i.e., is it > logically valid)? > >> Robert Baty - Yes >> Anti-Atheist - ??? Those who are doing as I asked, and actually thinking their way through the exercise, will realize that that issue does not require any consideration of the "content" of the argument. Step #1 has to do with the "form" of the argument; the relationship presented as to the premises and conclusion independent of the "content" of said premises and conclusion. Hopefully, if my opponent returns to this discussion, he will be explicit in indicating whether he actually takes up the negative to my affirmative on the Step #1 question and then present something relevant for my consideration as to why he might answer in the negative. Anti-Atheist: What sayeth ye on Step #1; "yes" or "no". Explain your answer.
YECS 101 - Critical Thinking Exercise, Step #1

Look us YECs know yecism is true. Even if there existed no proof, we would still believe by the conviction of the holy spirit. It's a truth that atheists can't understand. Moon The rate of the moons recession isnt constant, but it would be faster in the past. If you calculate this, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. Here's the calculations since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years. Supernova Remnants Creationwiki writes "... if the Milky Way galaxy were really billions of years old as evolutionary astronomers claim, then many SNRs should be observed. Mounting evidence however, reveals a wide discrepancy between the number predicted and the number observed. In fact, the numbers are far close to a galaxy of thousands rather than billions of years old. The numbers for the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Milky Way's satellite galaxy, also supports a young universe. The utter dearth of SNRs is a baffling mystery to secular astronomers but an affirmation to God's creation of the cosmos less than 10,000 years ago."[1] [1] Exploding stars point to a young universe by Jonathan Sarfati. Creation 19(3):46"48. June 1997. [2] creationwiki.org/Supernova_remnants
Theism

The Judeo-Christian idea of God as a Father and judge is incorrect, based on several simple facts: 1. The Holy Bible was written by mortal men and, if it were written today, would be criticized and torn down to complete incredibility. Knowing this, its only redeeming factor is its age, but this is true for all other religious texts as well (making us wonder why the Bible is supposedly the most credible). The Bible is no different than any typical myths. 2. There is no proof of God's existence that is not also proof of Atheist or other non-Christian beliefs. 3. The Bible is so self-contradictory that two people who follow it strictly can have radically different viewpoints. The teachings of God are therefore so muddled, the absolute truth of the Bible cannot be reasonably believed.