BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unperceived Existence Is Not Possible

I still do not follow. The idea of cars "coming into existence" when Pro looks for them and sees them and then ceasing to exist when Pro looks away is bizarre, unnatural, and anything but "reasonable and practical". It would elevate babies to the pinnacle of logic attainment because they lack object permanence, which permanence is by the title "Unperceived existence is impossible" some form of logical impossibility.But since Pro has asserted that if the cars are not seen, they are not, I propose the following thought experiment.Pro is standing in a room on a televised game show. Within one room, he sees an enormous pile of money and nothing else. In the other room, he sees an angry tiger and nothing else. A third doorway leads to a hall which Pro can see as leading to the outside world. The doors shut on the first and second rooms, leaving only the hall which goes to the outside world. The game show host gives Pro the option of opening either the first door, the second door, or walking down the hallway which is visible, risking nothing but also gaining nothing. If Pro`s thesis that objects only exist when seen, then the money he could have gotten while it was being seen has ceased to exist! There is no money to be gotten! Pro could say "Yes, but it is highly probable that the money is there. I just saw it." True, but if unperceived existence is not possible, then the unperceived money not only probably isn`t there, but it is impossible that it is!
Unperceived Existence Is Not Possible

I don't quite see how the Münchhausen trilemma is relevant here. I believe proving my position by a valid infinite regress is not required here. Proving my position by a valid infinite regress is possibly impossible, and if it is possible, it seems it would complicate things further and introduce many irrelevant elements. I disdain neither foundationalism nor axioms. I don't know why and am disappointed that you've suspected otherwise. I actually find those approaches to knowledge to be rather good.I believe my assertion that "if a proposition is true, then it is provable" has not yet been commonly proved. If it has, I'd be able to cite a specific published fact or theorem. My assertion, however, seems reasonable and practical. Perhaps someday it will be formally proved and commonly accepted. But for now, and for the sake of my position, I feel secure and am content moving forward with the claim that if a proposition is true, then it is provable. I refer you to my aforementioned previous debate "A Proposition Is Logically Provable If and Only If It Is True," located at http://www.debate.org..., for more information on my thesis.In answer to your first question about when I go to cross the street, yes; when I go to cross the street, I at least usually do look both ways. If I see no cars, then there are no cars. But just because I presently see no cars, doesn't mean no cars will suddenly come into existence while I cross the street. Before I cross the street, I, usually at least, make sure no cars that would interfere with me or that I would interfere with will suddenly come into existence in the usual and expected ways they do.
Unperceived Existence Is Not Possible

Logical contradiction: Pro`s argument begs the question. I quote: "a proposition is provable if and only if it is true." or rearranged into the classic conditional form "If a proposition is true, it is provable." I refer to my opponent the Münchhausen trilemma.https://en.wikipedia.org... By asking for proof unendingly for any proposition, one is forced to either present circular reasoning, which by the rules of logic is a fallacy, or infinite regress, which is a practical contradiction and I would invite my opponent to attempt proving his posititon by a valid infinite regress (there would always be proofs in the infinite regress which by its infinite nature would never be known to humanity, so Pro`s argument about unperceived existence would negate itself anyhow), and finally, what Pro likely disdains, which is dogmatism or axioms, where we assume certain precepts to be true without evidence and proceed therefrom. Pro`s very assertion that "if a proposition is true, it is therefore provable", is not provable. Practical contradiction: I ask Pro to answer honestly the following question. When he goes to cross the street, does he look both ways? Or if, at first appraisal of the street, he does not see a car, does he cross? If he continues to look after seeing that where he is there is no car, then he is seeking for an object that to him does not exist, which of course, would be illogical. If unperceived existence is impossible in fact, then at the moment Pro goes to cross the street, seeing that there are no cars, he would logically conclude that there are no cars and cross the street, since no cars beyond his eyesight exist and thus none can flatten him.
It is more reasonable to not believe in God than to believe in God.

My argument is that due to the lack of credible evidence for God's existence the most reasonable position is to disbelieve in God. The burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, just as the burden of proof would lie on Bigfoot believers to make their case. Since the burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, then the debate I take it should focus on the Con side of this argument attempting to give credible evidence for God, while I on the Pro side will attempt to argue for the evidence put forward not being credible, unless it is genuinely credible in which case I would concede.
It is more reasonable to not believe in God than to believe in God.

I'm an antitheist, but I also thought it might be a learning experience to try to argue the other side. What I will not do in this debate is argue for the God of the Bible. Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I will argue that it is irrational to believe that gods do not exist. To not believe in God based on a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Let's deal with some positive arguments for my position, due to positive claims requiring positive evidence. The Kalam cosmological argument, for example, says that everything that begins to exists has at least one cause, and due to the universe beginning to exist, it too must have at least one cause. The teleological fine tuning argument shows that our existing universe is incredibly improbable, and due to its incredible improbability, there must be some reason for us existing rather than not. Additionally, from the moral argument, there must be an objective source of morality or morality is then made subjective.
examining omnipotence

Hello. As Pro, my resolution would be defending the concept of omnipotence and proving that it is logically consistent.Note that I have no obligation to prove whether God exists or not, only that an Omnipotent being is logically consistent. When using the word "God" I mean a being whose only known charactristic is omnipotent.Omnipotence is, as you defined, being all-powerful. However, what it implies is the ability to actualise every possible affair effortlessly rather than raw power.Thus, I agree with your definition with that clarification.A:I am required to make an opening argument per the rules. However, there isn't much for me to work with, and since the nature of the argument was never specified, I will go with a simple one:1- If there are no logical incosistencies in the concept of omnipotence, omnipotence is logical.2- There are no logical incostencies in the concept of omnipotence.C: Omnipotence is logical.R1: Omnipotence ParadoxThe scenarios my opponent presented are similar, so I shall group them and address them together.Statements such as "immovable" are relative (Immovable to/by who). When making the statement: "God creating a stone He cannot move" we are desribing a self-contradicting affair that is impossible and with no value. The concept is as self-contradictory and impossible to exist as a "full-white full-black cow" or a "married bachelor" or a "circle triangle".Basically your questions are with no meaning: A stone God cannot move is impossible to exist per Def 1. Something God cannot destroy is impossible to exist per Def 1. Something that God cannot interact with is impossible to exist per Def 1.In a nutshell, your questions is: "Is God able to be inable?", which is contradictory with Def 1. Failure is not an aspect of omnipotence.Your assumption can be summarized as: "God is all powerful He can do anything which includes failure", which is as self contradictory as saying: "An all powerful being cannot be an all powerful being"R2: Suspending Laws of LogicThe only person I know of who believes in Universal Possibilism, in which an omnipotent being can suspend the laws of logic, is Descardes. That is an interruption of omnipotence that is a very unpopular.For example, an neccessarily-existing omnipotent being cannot logically create himself, as that would be creating something uncreated.Even if we assume Universal Possibilism, the omnipotence paradox sets double standards by assuming that an omnipotent being can break the laws of logic by creating an impossible object, and then complaining that the being broke the laws of logic if the answer happens to be yes. Thus, if you accept that the first premise in the omnipotence paradox is logical, you have to accept that the rest are logical, as you have already accepted the ability to defy logic to not be illogical.I personally don't acknowledge linking breaking the laws of logic with Def 1.Self-contradicting or paradoxical concepts are not existant and not concievable.
examining omnipotence

I find that my own logic in regards to the omnipotence paradox has been invalid. reflecting on my opponent's point, i realize that whilst a possible world where the power to create something that cannot be destroyed would (in such a world) make an omnipotent entity impossible, it does not make such an entity illogical or nonsensical. as i have already conceded that failure is not implied by omnipotence, and as the power referred to in the paradox implies failure, i cannot count it amongst the group of 'all powers' referred to in def1. as such, i concede my point on the paradox and thank my opponent for furthering my knowledge. i will also have to concede my point on the suspending of logic. my opponent did ask me to show how such a power is not illogical, but the power to suspending logic is definitionally illogical. however, that is not why i concede. (if anything, the fact that the power is illogical was why i brought it up in the first place. ) i had somehow missed that the principle of explosion, which i was using to further my point, also implies that an omnipotent entity would also have the power to fail as well. as i have already conceded that omnipotence does not imply failure, for sake of intellectual honesty, i must also concede this point as well. all other arguments that i had planned on bringing up would have relied on the two previous points, as this debate has led me to realize my inconsistency, i cannot with honesty continue to use such arguments. as i have failed to defend my position and in that i have also failed to refute pro's second premise, i ask the voters to vote for my opponent. had i not had this debate with pro, i may not have realized my folly.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

Now-a-days media is so very common. Almost in every house from the eldest to the youngest member of a family everybody listens radio, watch televisions and read newspapers. and most of them now are saturated with ads and posters of shameful models which effects the mind of children also men and women are now in this spell too. it has unbalanced our society completely and we all are unaware of it. And IT IS ACTING AS A VIRUS IN OUR BRAINS and is slowly malfunctioning are thinking capabilities. increasing are inhumane and devilish desires.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

My opponent has been talking about how it hurts the children's thinking well then like I said the parents need to make sure on what they watch and what kind of friends they have so his/her friends don't show them what there not aloud to watch. Voters do you really want your 1st Amendment rights taken away? media has everything they can to keep profanity away with making the beep sound plus if we ban profanity into shows that are on they will either have to rewrite the script in which will take awhile or they will have to cancel the show, and these shows and movies make a good portion of our money and economy just like banning alcohol in the 1920's it drove us into the great depression and this will hurt our economy if you choose pro please choose con in this debate for these very reasons thank you.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

As a community, we are heavily influenced by the media and other sources of information. However, we tend to overlook the fact that there are not only much bias but also skewed perceptions of events and reports in the news today. The media does a poor job portraying things as they really are in order to follow a sort of convention and to keep their show on air or their papers in stores. And yes you said that parents have to deal with their children here this dealing has become too much difficult we all are aware of the fact that to which extents this next generation is fast. and do not easily obey what their parents or elders ask for. if we are protecting our youngsters from this rubbish stuff , then may be their friends' parents are not making such restrictions. Here my point is how much you can make limitations , how much you can forbid your children ? you cannot protect a body against cancer until you remove every single tumor from the affected body. giving relaxing pills to the patients may calm him down but will not protect him as he or she will always be in risk.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

My opponent says that we can't keep children from watching Inappropriate movies, and Cartoon shows . Yes we can it's called There's a program on your cable or satellite box to block certain ratings, and antenna's there is no obscene images because the only cartoon network on a antenna is PBS and that's for kids and meant for kids. Cartoons like American dad or family guy don't come on till about 10 on FOX so many children are sleeping. If parents want to opt out of having there kids watch inappropriate stuff then they need to deal with it. You just can't censor media like that because of the 1st Amendment because alot of that is freedom of speech and freedom of expression like I said in the 1st speech it is against the constitution and plus they are censoring inappropriate profanity by making the bleeping sound so this is as far we can take it.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

Yes parents can have a check on their children. What if even in cartoons these TV channels are showing inappropriate scenes. we can forbid our children from watching some TV channels but not all. Even on this small restriction a number of questions arise in their mind that why are we stopped from watching it? Why? And if it is a bad thing than why is media showing it. as all t.v channels are there on are antennas to be watched then whats the problem with our elders that they are making limitations on us. and as my worthy opponent is talking about the freedom right then there is also a right of every individual to live in a peaceful environment and if one evil factor is ruining a society's peace then there should not be any objections if somebody is raising his/her voice against it.
Media should stop showing vulgarity

My opponent said in his first speech that it disrupts the mind of children. It may for some children not all plus it is the parents or supervising adults responsibility to see what they watch that's why we have ratings for TV- TV-G to TV-MA and movies-G-NC-17 to tell parents look this is great for kids to watch ( TV-G and G) to hey you may need to be cautious of this show or movie ( TV-MA, R, and NC-17) alot of the vulgar stuff is for Adults but also it is the parents responsibility on what the children watch, Also the 1st Amendment says we have a freedom of Speech, Expression, and Media so that would be violating the 1st Amendment thank you.
The US Constitution should be rewritten

Pro's subjective urge for the constitution to be rewritten is the entire basis for this debate. If he can have a subjective basis for his case, he has no right to attack me for having one too. Unfortunately, my two angles were not based on subjective opinion but on objective fact; either the constitution is satisfactory or it may as well be gotten rid of aas it is standing in the way of politics today. In order to avoid this, Pro begins by linking to a random student posting an article on a forum site. Nowhere in the entire quoting section of the link is Thomas Jefferson ever quoted saying to rewrite the constitution, let alone every 19 years. This is a biased interpretation of what Jefferson said and Pro didn't even write it himself he/she linked you to it expecting you to read the entire thing which ended up being biased interpretation. When the original constitution (the one we currently use) was written the founding fathers never once indicated or suggested rewriting it.[http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...] On top of this a suppsed constitution itself [https://www.ucl.ac.uk...] has to meet three criteria in order to be considered an officila constitution of a nation: 1. The document is identified explicitly as the Constitution, Fundamental Law, or Basic Law of a country 2. The document contains explicit provisions that establish it as the highest law, either through entrenchment or limits on future law 3. The document defines the basic pattern of authority by establishing or suspending an executive or legislative branch of government. If 2 is true then no law could be made to rewrite it or challenge it. If 1 is true it is the entire basis on which all other laws are built, you can't build a law on the constitution to then rewrite it as this would destroy the foundation of the law in the first place. Pro has yet to explain why we should keep the constitution at all.
The US Constitution should be rewritten

Well you're saying that I have the burden of proof, which is true, but the two criteria you're giving are completely your own opinion. You don't get to impose a subjective opinion of what the criteria of proof is without even starting the debate.You also only made one argument indirectly, saying it is a "waste of time and resources". Spending time on rewriting a document which is a main pillar in the American government I would wholeheartedly say is worth the effort. The constitution is the basis for our entire democracy and if what I have said is true, that it is out-dated and has no authority in today's society, then it is cause for major concern when bills and laws are passed based on a faulty document. Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation' - what do you think about that ? http://student-of-life.newsvine.com... Jefferson himself knew that keeping the same ideals from previous generations would prevent progress and keep the potential of the nation from being fulfilled. If we continue to look back for support from those that have been dead for centuries then how can we grow as a nation? It takes an incredible amount of time to pass bills and laws in Congress and a very influential reason for this is the archaic Constitution. The Constitution includes: Slavery, women not having the right to vote, and it's built with far too many choke points that halt any new progress. Obviously a system of checks and balances is necessary but the bureaucracy is outrageous today. Also the French government has successfully rewritten its constitution several times, a constitution mind you that is based heavily on our own. It is completely possible to rewrite an institutional government document.
The US Constitution should be rewritten

First, I think this should be more a more hypothetical discussion because I don't see any way that the American government could agree enough to pass something this massive. I'd like to take it in the direction of debating whether the current Constitution really has any authority after how vast the differences in our time periods are. I assert the Constitution needs to be rewritten due to it being out-dated in our modern times. Morals and laws are now much different then when it was written and no longer reflects the nation today. There have been a total of 15 amendments (not including the Bill of Rights) and I think that is entirely too few. Current legislature and laws are still based on this document and, in some cases, prevent progress from occurring.
The US Constitution should be rewritten

Firstly, there are multiple sources stating Jefferson believed the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 or 20 years. NPR did an article on rewriting it. And while no the Constitution does not state itself to rewrite it, when the writer of the document believed it should be redone so as not to hold back progress I think that lends credence to my stance. I do not know the circumstances in which he expressed this opinion but I can believe that it would not be a popular one in the government at the time. (Also the article I linked was not be read, sorry about that, just showing where the quote was from) Second, the Constitution's highest law assertion doesn't make sense, the Bill of Rights were immediate amendments and there were many more changes later. If a document in democracy is absolute and not subject to change then its not democratic and should certainly be rewritten to not be given absolute power. Another point for my side. There are tremendous issues with the current political system and the Constitution is the main reason for this. I also don't understand what your argument is because you've given very few reasons why it shouldn't be written or if it should just be thrown out.
Bloodborne is the best game this year

http://www.gamefaqs.com... shows the unpopularity of Blood Borne. http://www.kotaku.com.au... also shows how the game is basically rigged. Dead Island 2, however has great reviews- you can check the websites in the above debate. Dead Island has wicked animation, creative ways to kill zombies, a brilliant story line, great setting and in general, a much better game. http://au.ign.com... states that Dead Island 2 is loved by many people.Dead Island 2 is way better than BloodeBorne!
Bloodborne is the best game this year

Yes Dead Island 2 seems like a great game, and the first one was a lot of fun. However the links that you put in your argument doesn't show any ranking system or voting system that show how the fans really think of the game. I also saw that some of the release dates on that website were off. It Said the release date for Grand Theft Auto 5 was 27 January, 2015, but the real release date was 14 April, 2015. The website seems to be out of date. http://www.ign.com... This shows how much the community likes Bloodborne from Hidetaka Miyazaki and FromSoftware. This game has been said to be one of the most challenging games of the year too. It is one of the best strategy action games. http://www.ign.com... This is a great review of the game.
Bloodborne is the best game this year

Recommended on http://www.pcgamer.com... "Dead Island 2" is most likely the best game so far in 2015. Developed by 'Yanger Development' and published by 'Deep Silver', this game is one of thbest me and my friends have seen. Released in Spring this year, it has already been one of the top games reviewd- http://www.gamespot.com....How doesn't like slaughtering everyone in a zombie apocalypse?http://www.pcgamer.com... shows how this game is in one of the top recommended categories.I mean, get serious; we all love killing zombies with that look so real when you turn around you jump!