BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pascal's Wager

Pro Is thinking all religions have a hell like punishment for nonbelievers, while I am not an expert on most religions I am sure this is not the case. I think it was not until Jesus and the bible came along that the idea of hell (the infinite punishment) came along, before then I think it was more karma based (you were punished according to your bad deeds), or were not punished but didn't get the reward associated with the religion. This is just general knowledge I acquired and it may not be 100% accurate, and if it is not would love Pro to demonstrate it. But, It is accurate enough to illustrate the point that there are diversity of outcomes for nonbelievers. Pro might be interested in another debate I where I argue that even if the bible is 100% true it still must be rejected, this deals with the logic of the bible itself and of Jesus in particular. As for poor Pascal I think his wager is done. I would like to interject a positive note. Another conclusion that one can draw from the 2 premises I listed, is that God would not punish anyone to infinite punishment as this would not be fair and just, or rational and logical.
Pascal's Wager

This will be slightly hard as I agree with quite a lot of the argument. You are correct in saying that if God exists then he would want us to use logic and reason. In your conclusion you say: I argue that it is many orders of magnitude more likely that in order to earn the infinate reward we have to use logic to understand that a fair and just God would expect us to use logic and reasoning and not partake in religion roulette (one religion is right and you have to get lucky enough to pick the correct religion to get the ininate reward), rather he would expect us to deduce that religion roulette is the test, and rejecting it in all its forms is the only way to be given the infinate reward, and avoid the infinate punishment. There is one thing I disagree with however. If God exists then he would want us to pick a religion as if we obstain from religion our chances of getting eternal punishment raise to one hundred since we aren't won't have any method of salvation. Also if we use our logic and reasoning then I believe we will arrive at Christianity,but that's a debate for another day.
Pascal's Wager

First off I would like to apologize for the spelling errors, this is my first post here and I was using rich text which I did not realize was not using the built in spell checker in firefox, I was in process of fixing them when you accepted. Second, I would like to thank you for accepting. Clearly pascal was making a pragmatic argument. That was not in question. He was also clearly arguing for the Christian belief, which is why I stated belief in Jesus as his argument. So if you assume God is real, then my argument is sound and I do not think you have rebutted it sufficiently. I can elaborate a little. If God is real, you must REJECT all religions or you have a much greater chance of picking the wrong one and getting the infinite punishment, and missing the infinite prize. Playing what I call religion roulette is counter to logic, and any logical creature can easily understand this. If God is fair and just, it is much more likely that he would not pick a religion as the correct one, but might instead expect us to see how religions are not his creation and to reject them, in that case you earn the infinite reward. The 3 other possible outcomes 1. all religions get the infinite reward, in which everyone wins, the generous God case. 2. God does not exist therefore you don't get punished or rewarded. (which for this argument can be ignored) 3. A religion other than the one you picked in pascal's case Christianity is correct, and you get whatever punishment for not believing in that religion is. I argue that my case gives you the highest probability of being the correct, based on the 2 premises given.
Pascal's Wager

I will argue that Pascal's wager is false, and that you should not take it. Pro will argue that it is valid and you should believe (or attempt to believe) in Christian beliefs because of Pascal's wager.Pascal's Wager: Believe in Jesus: If correct go to heaven, if incorrect no punishmentDisbelief in Jesus: If Correct Nothing, If incorrect go to hellNo matter how small the chance of heaven (infinate reward) then you have to believe as there is infinate benefit, and visa versa.Con position:When we evaluate Pascal as a dicotomy it clearly seems to be a good wager to accept indeed. But, clearly it is not a true dicotomy, as there are other options with some probaility of being the true result. Premis 1:God is fair and just.Premis 2:We were given free will and the ability to use logic and reasoning to observe and deduce knowledge about the world/universe. Conclusion:I argue that it is many orders of magnitude more likely that in order to earn the infinate reward we have to use logic to understand that a fair and just God would expect us to use logic and reasoning and not partake in religion roulette (one religion is right and you have to get lucky enough to pick the correct religion to get the ininate reward), rather he would expect us to deduce that religion roulette is the test, and rejecting it in all its forms is the only way to be given the infinate reward, and avoid the infinate punishment.With all else being equal.
This debate here doesn't exist.

But, they must prove their existence as well otherwise I cannot know they exist. Since I they have not proven their existence outside my mind then no seperate mind is percieving this debate. Therefore, the debate does not exist. The resolution has been upheld as I am the only one who with full certainty percieves this debate. According to the definition it takes two seperate entities. Both of whom have to exist seperate from each other. Thank you for this brief debate. :D
This debate here doesn't exist.

I define exist to mean in the geophysical universe and not residing in any one person's mind ie. it must exist both in my opponents and my mind. I cannot know with any certainty whether my opponent exists or not. Therefore, I cannot know with any certainty whether my opponent submitted this debate or if its just a product of my mind. My opponent must prove: 1) their existence outside of my mind and 2) prove they were the ones who submitted the debate. This debate does not exist. Good luck.
This debate here doesn't exist.

This, in here, debate does exist.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.IT DOES EXIST.Pro, my opponent, will argue that it doesn't.I created this debate and I submitted this debate, therefore, this debate does exist.This debate may not be "actual debate," but in Debate.org this debate is called a debate. Period.Good luck, Pro.
Resolved: Redistribution is ethical

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (http://www.debate.org.........).FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week.DefinitionsRedistribution - "Taxing higher income people to pay for a basic standard of living."Ethical - "In accordance with prevailing concepts of morality."Anything that Citrakayah wants to further define or clarify should be mentioned through PM or comments.Otherwise, it's game on.I look forward to debating you.
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

My references were written by fully qualified physicists. Thus, my opponent has run out of ideas and has no answers to my evidence. I have clearly shown that the system is corrupt and that the aether was found by a number of scientists over 100 years ago but it doesn't suit the agenda of my opponent nor of the scientists concerned that there should be an aether. Thus, they have blocked the eyes and minds to the facts and choose to live in a permanent state of ignorance.
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

I have backed up all my so called "assertions" with video evidence which my opponent has chosen not to study or comment on. Thus, I will wait till she properly addresses my previous post until I progress further on this matter. My last reference clearly shows that the Michelson/Morley experiment was conducted improperly and the results were distorted to suit the expected or scientific communities expectations and bias. The truth is that the scientific community has no will or agenda to find an aether because it doesn't suit their agendas. An aether would lead to a simple universe which can be easily explained. This is the last thing that the scientific community wants or needs because it would lead to a loss of employment; a loss of integrity; a loss of authority and a loss of power. All these things are far more important to the science community, than what is scientific truth and reality. The Michelson/Morley experiment did find an aetheric wind of 10m/s but this was discounted as instrument noise. The assumed that the Earth moves through the aether at a speed of 30m/s as the Earth goes around the sun. They never understood that the aether pushes the Earth and the other planets around the sun at the same relative speed according to Kepler's Laws. (VxR 1/2 = 1 for all planets.) http://www.sjsu.edu... The Sagnac Experiment of 1913 did produce the expected fringes. This is because the device was rotated at 2 revolutions / second. Note - 10 m/s is the speed that the aether enters the Earth - its called gravity. http://www.cellularuniverse.org...
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

On Pro's scientific assersions:Pro has made a bunch of scientific assersions, and they are all utter nonsense. For one thing, the sun is not a black hole. For another, the aether is an outdated idea invoked by scientists to explain light's wave-like properties, and this was debunked decades ago. See sources 4 & 5."The problem with fusion power as opposed to other forms of power is that fusion power will only ever give you back what you expend in getting it started. "Pro has not substantiated this, and there's no reason to think this is true.Nuclear weapons work in one of two ways- fission (see source 6) or fusion (see source 7). They do not use the so-called aether. Not is an aether responsible for gravity.I have a BSc. in physics; you can't overwhelm me by throwing around nonsense jargon from the 19th century.Why fusion is such a great idea:Fusion, once it can be successfully stablized, will be a brilliant thing. For one thing, we're talking endless electric power without producing any greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, it produces Helium as a waste product, and mankind is running low on Helium, which is a serious problem- it's crucial in running MRI machines, for instance. See source 8 for more on this. Huge amounts of money can be made from the production of clean energy and the sale of helium.Sources:[4]: [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org...(classical_element)[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[8]: https://info.blockimaging.com...
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

The problem with fusion power as opposed to other forms of power is that fusion power will only ever give you back what you expend in getting it started. The researchers are still far from breaking even with nuclear fusion. Fusion researchers have never produced energy in excess of what they expended in getting the fusion reaction to start. They have been at this for more than 60 years and have made little progress. Whereas, nuclear fission reactors only took less than 5 years before they became viable. Solar power and wind power may give you some power if the wind is blowing or the sun is shinning. My point is that fusion power will never ever be a viable source of free energy because it violates basic principles of how the universe works. To understand this, we must first understand how the sun produces heat and light. Firstly, the sun is really a giant black hole which attracts aether. The aether is spinning at the speed of light. The sun's pressure squeezes the spinning aether particles together so that they stop spinning and release E = MC 2 energy in the form of heat and light. This energy is transferred to the Earth via spin torque and wave energy. Thus, we can plainly see that the sun produces free energy by virtue of its huge mass which causes the aether particles to stop spinning which releases the universes secret energy source. Thus, the universe is energy rich as the aether contains all the energy that we need. This can be confirmed by studying how an atomic bomb is constructed. To make an atomic bomb you must build a large sphere which has explosives placed evenly around the outside of the bomb. You then place some unstable uranium in the centre. Atomic bombs work via the mechanism of aetheric compression which is just a miniature version of what the sun does every second of the day. The problem being that the scientific community is still stuck in the 19th century and haven't understood how the universe really works yet. They think that gravity is pulling us down to the ground. This is false. The aether pushes us down to the ground. Thus, their technology is faulty because their thinking is faulty. When it comes to fusion, only the sun can provide free energy. Thus, fusion is not possible on Earth if your aim is to get some free energy. http://www.fractaluniverse.org... https://www.youtube.com...
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

On fusion taking a lot of energy:Nuclear fusion does, indeed, require large amounts of energy to work (This does not necessarily need to be from gravity, however). However, so does nuclear fission power- fission power requires one to launch a very high energy neutron at an unstable isotope's nucleus, and this takes large amounts of energy to achieve.When you think about it, all methods of generating electricity require large amounts of energy- oil requires us to drill deep into the sea and then build an enormous generator, solar power requires us to build complex and intricate electronics systems, wind power requires us to build giant turbines, and so on. These all take huge amounts of energy.My point is, taking huge amounts of energy does not limit the economic viability of a method of any given method of generating electricity, as all of these other methods exist and are economically viable.Why it hasn't happened yet:The problem nuclear fusion power has experienced is sustaining the reacton for long enough to produce enough energy to end up with more than you started with. However, progress has been made here:"Prager points out that reaction outputs have come a long way in the past few decades—from milliwatts in the 1970s to 16 megawatts today,"(See source 2)A milliwatt is one thousandth of a watt, while a megawatt is one million watts. This means that sine the 70s, we've become ten billion* times more efficient at producing energy from nuclear fusion. If such trends continue, and it seems likely that they will, then we will have the ability to produce billions of watts of electricity from fusion plants within a few decades. Asterisks:*by which I mean the short scale billion, 10^9, rather than the long scale billion, 10^12. See source 3.Sources:[1]: http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2]: http://www.popularmechanics.com...[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

As said before, all of Pro's scientific assersions are utter nonsense.Nuclear fusion will be an economic success, as the consensus among scientists is that is not far off being done, and the sun demonstrates that it is at least physically possible to do. Fusion energy will provide the word with clean energy, and also have the useful side-effect of producing helium, which can itself be very useful. It will be an economic success for these reasons.
Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

If you spin a ball in a bucket of water, (the water will represent the aether), The water will be dragged along with the spinning ball. Its called 'aether drag'. That's why it is difficult to record an aether wind. https://debunkingrelativity.com... Modern day analysis of Dayton Miller and Michelson/Morley experiments. It was found that Dayton Millers experiment yielded an average aether speed of 6 m/s while the Michelson/Morley experiment yielded an average aether speed of 7.5 m/s. This was regarded as a 'null result' because they were expecting a speed of 30 m/s. They didn't understand that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun and that a spinning ball will have aether drag. Note - Any measurement above zero is not a 'null result'. 'Null result' is a terminology used by the scientific community to describe something which doesn't meet their expectations and preconceived ideas. http://ivanik3.narod.ru...
Evolution by natural selection is real.

This debate will be about whether evolution by natural selection is real the reason for the origin of species. My opponent MUST argue that Darwinian is not a real occurence and provide an alternative explanation for the differences between species. The rules of this debate are:1. Be respectful.2. Cite your sources.3. No strawman (misrepresnting opponent's arguments) or ad hominem (insults without regard to arguments) arguments.4. Follow the format if the debate.5. Bonus points for arguments made in limerick. The format of this debate will be:Round one: Acceptance. No arguments. Round two: Opening arguments. No rebuttals. Round three: Rebuttals and further arguments. Round four: Final rebuttals and conclusion.
Trump Is a Fascist

The reason I didn't refute any of the previous points is because in the beginning of round 2 you agreed to all of them. 1. You agree he is a Nationalist 2. You agree that as commander and chief he has a large degree of centralised power and h used this power single handedly 3. You agree that he has imposed economic restrictions on the American people, He has also imposed social restrictions which you have not addressed but are irrefutable (Transgender ban, Jeff Sessions as AG). 4. You agree that the president has used his immense political power to silence opponents, He has used his economic power, And above all his social media presence and power to silence opponents. These are the characteristics that YOU put in place to define fascism. Trump fulfills them. You are right, Almost every leader in modern history could fit into these points (hence why it is a bad definition for you to argue against). To separate fascism therefore, We have to look and see whether these ideals are on the political fringe. You have not responded to my comment about Trump being fringe which means you have "dropped" it, See (https://www. Debate. Org/forums/debate. Org/topic/13410/) on Legal Jargon. Meaning you have conceded that point for the rest of the debate. Which means, You agree that Trump meets the conditions you set out for Fascist ideology. And you have conceded that Trump is on the fringe of the political spectrum. If it looks like a duck, And quacks like a duck, . . . maybe the ducks a fascist as well
Trump Is a Fascist

You haven't exactly refuted any of my points though. 1. Every politician is/should be a nationalist. 2. Trump is not a dictator that runs an autocratic government. 3. Again, These economic policies are in our best interests. 4. He doesn't oppress opposition, Taunts them, Maybe yes. But never oppress. Look, The only point you could slightly argue for is 3. Even then, One tenet is far from enough for him to be called a fascist.
Trump Is a Fascist

dustryder has beaten me to the punch in the comments. You have agreed completely or partially with all the points you laid out. It may be that your initial definition was a bad one (or a too loosely defined one) but that’s irrelevant. You laid out a series of points that define fascist ideology. Trump fulfills or partially fulfills them all. Therefore Trump must be a fascist to a certain extent. One of the points themselves, Does not a fascist make. Not every nationalist is a fascist and almost everyone is a little nationalist. However when all of the points are true that does point to a certain ideology. It is true that all of these points apply to a lesser extent to almost every politician. That doesn't mean that every politician is a fascist (it might indicate that political power and fascism go hand in hand though). In normal vocabulary fascist is a relative describer. Hitler was a fascist only when contrasted to the west, In Germany many people considered him rational, Etc. . . So when we look to see if Trump's position on all these issues makes him a fascist we have to see if his positions are considered more than ordinary or fringe. It is irrefutable that our political system is more divided than ever, We know that almost all democrats (half of active voters) despise Trump and consider him fringe. We know that a significant portion of Republicans disagree with him but chose him as a lesser of two evils. Meaning that his views directly represent a minority of the population, Making him fringe. As stated before, A fascist would be someone on the relative fringe of a society that fulfills the points you laid out. Trump meets those criteria. Trump is a Fascist.
Trump Is a Fascist

1. Yes, He is nationalist. That's good every American should be a nationalist. Don't be a supernationalist, That's bad, But be a nationalist. Republicans and Trump beleive that race doesn't matter. 2. Yes, He used an executive order. Every president has used at least one executive order, Does this mean every president is a fascit? Why hold him to a double standard? 3. Again, Every president has tried to negotiate and put tariffs and start trade wars where they beleive necessary. Every president who's appointed a supreme court justice, Puts judges from there own party or political beliefs, Nothing special, Once again is every president a fascist then? 4. The president has a right to not allow reporters from certain news organizations into the White House. After all, It's technically his "house". The president has a right to allow and disallow people from entering. Also this is nothing, In China, N. Korea, And Russia opposing news reporters are KILLED! What's happening to CNN is nothing.