BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
logic is cause and effect

Logic is: The law of identity states that A is A The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. "there is no logic in fantasy" " but it is logical that fantasy exist " you just contradicted yourself. "a cause causes, and an effect is caused" " and what caused the cause? If you cannot determine that then maybe the effect is the reason for the cause. Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form: 1. A and B regularly occur together. 2. Therefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification. http://www.nizkor.org... "logic is the opposite of logical and illogical... reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true, only now is true.. past is logical" You cannot say logic is true if logic is the opposite of logical and illogical. The fact that you claim something can be true is contradicting everything you said. You cannot logically say something is true if it is the opposite of logic. "reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true" Again, there is no way that you can reasonable say that logic is true because the opposite will mean reason is false and is a lie. Therefore stating anything reasonably will be a lie. Your logic is a distortion of your imagination that equals an alternative that became a mental illusion that replaced what is logical and therefore also reality. Your reality is not real and therefore your statement is false that logic is cause and effect because your effect is based on your imagination, and considering all the things you usually say about imagination in your comments, has no cause to justify the effect. Cognitive distortions are exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that are believed to perpetuate the effects of psychopathological states, especially depression and anxiety. Cognitive distortions are thoughts that cognitive therapists believe cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately. These thinking patterns often are said to reinforce negative thoughts or emotions.[2] Cognitive distortions tend to interfere with the way a person perceives an event. Because the way a person feels intervenes with how they think, these distorted thoughts can feed negative emotions and lead an individual affected by cognitive distortions towards an overall negative outlook on the world and consequently a depressive or anxious mental state. https://en.wikipedia.org...
logic is cause and effect

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: _5;_9;^7;_3;_4;^2;, logike)[1] originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.) The form of an argument type is a schematic way of representing what is common to all arguments of that type. Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below. Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.[2] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language. Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.[3][4] Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic. Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. https://en.wikipedia.org... Logic is not dependent on cause and effect but is a way of determining, amongst other things, if it can be concluded that the effect justifiably follows the cause. Therefore, cause and effect can be classified as logical or illogical without changing the meaning of logic itself.
The King James Version is stupid

C1: I will drop all of my opponent"s points other than this. "This is a severe argument against the King James Version, which used late and much inferior texts." All other translations which I have seen so far still contains the error I mentioned. Hence it is not an argument against KJV. I will now note that archaic-ness does not determine stupidity in the manner used in this debate. C2: The original manuscripts do not consist of OT and NT. As I mentioned, it is a collation of 60+ books in an order convenient to the reader. My opponent insists that it has to be part of the OT if it were canon, however, this fails in that it is known to be not part of the recognized canon of the OT. If it were indeed inspired, it would have to have been put separately, not necessarily within the OT. Maps are not divinely inspired, and if Pro"s contention is to be respected, all versions of the Bible must be void of any substance other than the text itself. No dictionaries, no concordances, nothing. They are not inspired. Furthermore, the DC books were not included first in the KJV. They were widely accepted by the early Christians, why they are now regarded as non-canon is unknown. C3: If indeed Goliath was him who was killed, then who was the Goliath that David killed earlier? Is this a Bible contradiction? Pro forgets that "Jesus" is the Greek form of "Yeshua" or "Joshua." They are the same word. Jesus son of Joseph and Joshua the son of Nun have the same name. [1] My opponent has failed to take into account the information I have given, namely, that "unicorn," or a form of it, appears in the texts from which TR was translated and from which almost all others are. Conclusions: My opponent"s argument to antiquity fails because the Scriptures itself is old. His second opposition fails on grounds I have stated. The third contention has almost no substance. What he has dropped, I will leave dropped. However, he fumbles on the second two of those retained. He does have a point, though, about the first. 1. http://barnes.biblecommenter.com...
The King James Version is stupid

Alrighty, challenging Muted persuant to this [1].I don't have quite as much time to debate as I would like, so I'm going with a simple three-round format with the first round being for acceptance. Time to argue is only 48 hours.Round 1: Acceptance, relevant opening commentsRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Conclusions, no new argumentsDon't use 'semantics', don't troll, don't be retarded, etc. etc. I have no doubt that Muted would have conformed to these implicit expectations without me declaring them, but I want to be sure I make a token attempt at setting rules.A definition:'The King James Version' refers to the English translation of the Bible made by the Church of England in the early 17th century. It is also known as the 'Authorized Version' [2].When I say the King James Version 'is stupid', I do not literally mean that the King James Version's faculties are deadened or that it is in a stupor. I am colloquially expressing my view that I believe the King James Version to be a subpar translation of the Bible compared to other modern 'good' translations (excluding other poor translations such as the NIV).Sources:1. http://debate.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard

I shall negate the resolution, "Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standard. " I assume my opponent wanted to add "exit exams" to the resolution. ======================== Burden of Proof: As Instigator and Pro, my opponent contains the Burden of Proof to affirm and uphold the resolution. However, seeing that my opponent has instigated a round one debate and has failed to make an argument, my opponent has not reached his Burden of Proof. I heavily urge a Con vote. ======================== My opponent quoted: "I need help with neg, so if someone can post some neg contentions that will be appreciated. " Here are some negative contentions: 1) Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. 2) Standardized exit exams test on the most basic skills, which include reading and writing. They are reliable in the essence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. 3) Standardized exit exams are able to level the playing field of competing school systems. Although there will always be some sort of unfairness in these exams, they still provide the opportunity for different institutions to prepare students for the exam and the future as well. ====================== I have provided some negative contentions, which is what my opponent wanted. My opponent failed to present a single argument, and has not reached his Burden of Proof. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

Hmm.==Arguments==1) Influence -- Everyone has heard of this before. "Money talks" Guess where else money talks? Within our political system. Although the US's foundation includes equality and equal voices among the people, that is simply no longer truthful. The rich and the poor simply no longer have equal voices. The rich, often with plenty of money to spare, canafford to campaign. They can afford air time, advertisements, attack ads, and they can afford to skip work. Nowadays air times can cost sometimes up to or over $468,000 for just 30 seconds of airtime on some popular T.V. channels. Now I ask you this. Who gets their opinions heard? A group of wealthy people paying for advertisements or a group of poor people struggling to survive? The answer is clear here. One group of people have a bigger voice than another. This is a clear violation of our democratic ideals of fairness and equality.2) Education-- 1) People who are educated to college level have a much higher chance of voting.2) Poverty hinders and affects a person's education.3) Therefore, those living in poverty are less likely to vote.This simply furthers my point on fairness. Are these elections fair? Poor and struggling people often don't vote. Consider this. It is perfectly fine for a rich person to ask if they can leave work and go vote, since they can afford the slight loss in income and their bosses often don't care (if they have any lol) However, it is far less likely that someone who is desperate and falling into poverty will go vote, because they need the money and it is probable that they are working labor and that their boss is a lot less accepting.3)Mental Health--A study by the APA has shown that there is a correlation between a person's socioeconomic status and a person's risk for mental disability and psychiatric hospitalization. Furthermore, this was true no matter what kind of economic hardship the person went through. http://mentalhealth.about.com......;4)Unfair Tax Cuts-- The Rich are recieving unfair tax breaks, and in turn, the middle class and the poor class are paying more to make up. Is this fair? Step back and ask yourself, is the government treating everyone equally? This is another violation of democratic ideals. Our country was founded upon the principles of equality and fairness.http://www.aflcio.org......http://www.faireconomy.org......;=====That's everything for now.
In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

:D I accept and I look forward to this debate.==DEFINITIONS==As the PRO side of this debate, I have the right to define this resolution.I define...1) Income Disparities as "differences in the amount of money people earn through employment"2) Threaten as "to be a menace or source of danger to"3) Democratic Ideals as "our current beliefs as a democratic state"
Happy holidays vs Marry Christmas

I said, "Thank you, Happy holidays, " yesterday to a lady that held the door for me at the post office while i carried out some packages. Her reply, "We say MERRY CHRISTMAS around here! . " She also mummble something I could not hear as I walked away. I say happy holidays because I don't know, Or care, What people celbrate during the holiday season. I would not expect a Jewish person to say Merry Christmas, Or any other religion. You also done hear Jewish people say "Happy Hanukah" to strangers. So the arguement is, Why say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays to people you don't know. Why do christians argue the merry Christmas is right, When other religions don't for the holidays?
All Pastafarian should take a day off on International Talk Like a Pirate Day

I believe that all members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, should be allowed to take a day off of work or school, on the 19th of September, due to the incredible importance of International Talk Like a Pirate Day. This day is like the Pasatafarian equivalent to Christmas or Eid. We should also be given the 1st of June off, as this is the birthday of Robert Newton, who portrayed Long John Silver twice, and he is also the patron saint of International Talk Like a Pirate Day.
Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

You consistently refuse to prove your argument that you are not indoctrinated into believing Canada has a democratic government as defined by Blacks law Dictionary. You have not prove Canada is not a Democracy; that leave you to prove that you have documented evidence by Hansard record or a bill passes claiming Canada's independence from British rule, and Documented record and results of a referendum ratified by all the people in Canada by a majority vote in all the provinces. The U.S passed a declaration of independence. Post the bill the Canadian government passed declaring it's independence : so that it would satisfy the requirement of independence, freedom and sovereignty,. Post a referendum by all the people of each province ratifying a constitution. That is all you have to do . Everything else you post is just a demonstration of your evasion of proving you have been indoctrinated into believing Canada is a democracy as defined. http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca... Where does it say the 1992 referendum was passed? Canada a country without a constitution by Walter F kuhl http://www.detaxcanada.org... As presented in parliament The BNA. Act could not be considered a constitution neither in law or in fact. Your indoctrination has transcended all facts presented. Canada's and the U.S. constitutions are not the same and their creation are not the same. The American states created a constitution as sovereign states; the Canadian provinces had no say in creating the BNA Act as a constitution as it was a British bill passed as to how the British wanted to govern the colonies they united. You have not posted what changed from the government being a colonial government- which is not a democratic government ; to the present government ;but you claim it was because of your indoctrination reasoning as the people still have the same voting ability. post the required documents that are required of you to demonstrate your beliefs are based on facts, not on government propaganda and indoctrination..
Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

You keep making statements as a indoctrinated person would without any documents ; claiming you don,t need any proving that you are indoctrinated. If you had documents to back up your claims you could then claim you based your statements on them, and were not indoctrinated; but you refuse to do that. I wonder why you want to demonstrate how indoctrinated and uninformed you are about Canadian politics . It took the government 100 years of propaganda to indoctrinate the people and it seems like it will take you that long to understand Canadian politics. Read the Synagogue of Satan and you may understand how the government works on their principal. You state in your research you have not found any notation of sovereignty exist ; and yet haven't the ??? to understand sovereignty is a requirement before a democracy can be established. Their is nothing in a dictatorship that stops that government from operating like the Canadian parliament, assuming power, allowing elections, as long as those elected swear allegiance to the supreme ; appointing corrupt judges, passing any law it wants. , The creation of the Canadian parliament was a colonial government not a sovereign government. Wrong - the governor general is anointed by the Canadian government not the crown. The governor general does not appoint the P.M. You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge on Canadian politics. If you think you have some knowledge on Canadian politics other than your indoctrination post the letters of patent for the governor general. You claim of elected members is a claim of democracy; then using your indoctrinated reasoning all communist or dictatorship governments which have elections are democracy's. Your refuse to acknowledge first the people must be free before a democracy can be established demonstrating your indoctrination of what a democracy is. If you believe Britan could give Canadians a democracy without the people having any input or right of ratification; then you must believe the U.S. could of passed a bill giving Iraqe a democracy insted of creating one by means of a war and allowing the freed people a vote on a constitution.. You have demonstrated you have no understanding of what a democracy is or how one is created. You just believe Canada has a democracy because of your indoctrination beliefs , without any documentation to prove Canada is a democracy. All you have demonstrated is Canada is still goverend by colonial laws, and as such is not a democracy but you believe it is.. As a colony was Canada a democracy in your belief? What changed ? Canadians never ratified a constitution in 1982 as you claim. If you claim Canadians ratified a constitution except Quebec ; then you have to claim Quebec is not part of Canada because it didn't ratify the constitution. Your indoctrination is proven.
Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens.. Who is the sovereign power in government - The Queen not the people . Who is the sovereign power in the U.S. government- the Queen? Why not. For the SOVEREIGN power to reside in the people they would of had to ratify a constitution giving the government power. The Sovereign power in Canadas government is the Queen; not a constitution. The people of Canada have never given the government any power. You refuse to admit you can't come up with any hansard documents declaring Canadas Independance and sovereignty because their are none, all you can come up with is government propaganda. The Queen is not the whole body of free citizens; only in your indoctrinated mind.
Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

US declared it's independence from Britain-Canada did not. Canada was a colony and not a democracy as defined by Blacks law Dictionary. First you have to be free and sovereign and you have not produced any hansard record of any debate or bill stating Canada is free from British rule and is now a sovereign country. It may look like a democracy but just like a picture of you looks like you it is not you it is just an image of you. Just because you believe the indoctrination of the government saying it is a democracy does not make it a democracy. The people of Canada never had a choice of what kind of government it wanted , like the U.S. did. A colonial government can not one day be a colonial government and the same day be a sovereign democratic government just by saying so with no ratification by referendum by the people. You are arguing Canada is a democracy not that you have not been indoctrinated to believe so. You have to produce documents , not statements of what you believe to win your side. How was a democracy created in Afghanistan? How was one created in Canada? Canadian documents please, not comments.
Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy and can not produce any hansard record showing when Canadians became free from the BNA Act and colonial rule .To believe Canada is a democracy and you were not indoctrinated you have to produce the following documents: 1. Hansard record of a British bill declaring all Canadians sovereign and free from British rule and the Queen. 2. A copy of a referendum ; stating Canadians vote to be free of the British bill the BNA Act. and the queen. 3. A copy of a referendum ; approving Canada's sovereignty and freedom and a constitution ratified by the people of each province , agreeing to give a federal government the powers they want a federal government to have. 4 . The legal definition of a democracy as provided BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. My last debate proves my point Canada is not a democracy ,but you believe it is ; only because you were told it is, that is indoctrination.