BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The creation of a utopia is impossible

I am going to make my opening statement without referring to my esteemed opponent's as requested. as such, our definition of Utopia may slightly differ, but I suspect will be close enough for the purposes of this debate. I will predicate my argument on the notion of human progress. However unlikely a true utopia may be, I would contend that it will ultimately be possible in the fullness of time. Consider the more miserable ages mankind has lived through: The Dark Ages, the era of chattel slavery, the great wars. To a person living in any of these times, our society may well seem like a true Utopia. Consider that if your day-to-day concerns are acquisition of food, threat from predators and sickness, then modern day America has almost eliminated all of these. We need fear only the worst and rarest diseases, mostly at the end of a long life, food is arguably too abundant, and predators are in cages at zoos. We've invented NEW concerns, like having enough money, or moral decay, or obesity, it is possible we would always invent new concerns, but I'd like to believe in the fullness of time our troubles will be no more pressing then the kinds of disagreements we see on this very website. At the ultimate extension of the human progressive argument, we get into the realm of transhumanism. In a purely speculative way, it is possible we will one day learn to electronically encode and replicate the human brain, that we will be able to live as disembodied minds in a state of decorporialized bliss, that we will no longer suffer the concerns of a mortal world, no god required. but even taking away the possibility of that particular utopia, it is worth noting that every world we manage to make with the passage of time will be better than the one before, that any world we make will be one that is enviable if not perfect to the world that came before, and thus we may always have utopia already, we just don't realize it.
The creation of a utopia is impossible

Alright the conclusion problem is fixed in the comments. Now, lets get this party started! First, I will define a utopia: Utopia: any visionary system of political or social perfection. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) As this definition states, a Utopia is a system of perfection. This, in itself, proves itself wrong in the fact that people are not perfect. One cannot have a perfect society if the people themselves are not perfect. Now to already see the rebuttal that my come out of this, perfection is also a perspective. Let us say we have two people, one a hard working construction worker and the other a sociopath who kills for pleasure. The Utopia for the worker would be a world where work is not needed and he can live without having to do anything. The sociopath would want a world where they could kill freely and without consequence. This makes a Utopia impossible because the perfect society for one is not the same for another. The only way to create a Utopia is if everyone had the same perspective and vision in what a Utopia would be. The Utopia ideal is not possible with people of different perspective and character. Over to you Con!
The creation of a utopia is impossible

This is going to be in this format: 1. acceptance 2. main body 3. rebuttal(no new evidence) 4. conclusion (no rebuttal or new evidence) The only rules I really have are may the best debater win and that the Utopia is one of Man and no God involved. I am hoping to debate philosophy in this debate, not religion. I am christian and believe in the Millennium of peace that will come with the Second Coming and so I cannot debate against my own belief. I apologize for making a biased rule but I hope that you can respect my beliefs and my unwillingness to go against it. Anyway, hope for a good debate:)
God probably doesn't exist

I'm happy with your honesty. And since you didn't add much to your previous round, I will try to do the same and keep it short. There is a serious relativism and subjectivity in regard of the real and absolute existence of the physical world that we know. We can't just claim that nothing can exists without it, without even being able to prove its own existence. Second, our understanding of our Universe and the evolution of our knowledge about it, if allows us to claim something, is that we don't know everything and even the physical laws that we are aware of, are relative and not absolute. And I'm disappointed, because you should know this better than most of the people. You have the example of how Einstein and Quantum mechanics, showed that Newton physics couldn't be applied in other contexts of our universe. I even gave you that thesis about how quantum mechanics disproves a materialistic approach to our own existence.
God probably doesn't exist

1. You're saying that without time, there's no space. Therefore you can't exist in a place where's no time, because that place doesn't exist. But instead of saying that God can't exist without a place to exist, you're saying that he needs time? Or do you think, if time could exist without space and vice-verse, God would need both? I would also like to invite you to deepen your understanding of the concept of time: http://cns-alumni.bu.edu... 2.You finished this first point by concluding, " therefore the laws of physics which allow for life don't exist outside the universe." In the second point you stated "Well for God to be God he can't be confined to our universe but he can't extend beyond the universe because then he would be frozen in time." First, the state of frozen time goes completely along the definition of God. Imagine Time as a simple line that you've drawn in your math book. It stands still, frozen, and you can see it in all its extent. Second, are you just claiming that God needs physical laws to exist and can't exist needing them? Why didn't you wrote this from the beginning, instead of that confusing reasoning of time and space? 3. I'm sorry to tell you, but all this arguments about the correlation between space and time are utterly pointless. Have you just tried to claim that if two events of one reality affect one another, that reality, as those events, must exist? I will give you the chance to withdraw this claim. And you may try a different approach to prove the existence of this reality, without which, you're claiming, God can't exist. As I did in the first round, I will tell you once again, there's no point in a trying to disprove metaphysical matters through physics. Is just like trying to disprove humanism through maths. Besides, there are so many things to discuss inside physics. There are so many things changing and evolving, so many new discoveries... Why don't you try to discuss physics with physics? I'm not saying that science can't help us improve our understanding of metaphysics, but it certainly isn't in in the way you're doing it. 4. In conclusion and in regard your love for physics I invite you again to see how mechanical quantum disproves your approach: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com... Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism, at least with regard to the human mind, is not "logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing." I hope you enjoy both thesis that I purposed you to read.
God probably doesn't exist

1. What is time? And why do you claim nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist?Time is a property of space as described in general relativity. Space and time are connected; effecting one effects the other. Now as to why a being can't exist where time doesn't exist; the answer is that space and time are linked; you can't have time without space or vice versa so where time doesn't exist space doesn't exist and therefore the laws of physics which allow for life don't exist outside the universe.2. What's your understanding of "transcends"?Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere)As in be beyond the range of; meaning outside of space-time.According to this, a being transcendent to space-time, exists in space-time and beyond. Therefore, only according to this point, you could only claim that God cannot exist beyond space-time. Not that God exists, exclusively, outside space-time.Well for God to be God he can't be confined to our universe but he can't extend beyond the universe because then he would be frozen in time. In fact God must have originated outside of our universe to create it but outside our universe there is no time or space so nothing can originate beyond our universe.You also claimed that God couldn't existed in a PLACE where time doesn't exist. So, you took God from the sphere of time, but let him exist in space? (place: a particular position, point, or area in space.)Bad choice of words, but that was the only way I could think of describing it.3. According to Albert Einstein, who did some good contributions for our understanding of this subjects, "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live."He also created the concept of space time, and time dilation which pretty much negates your statement. In time dilation time LITERALLY SLOWS DOWN. For example if you took a spaceship to speeds very close to the speed of light, time would slow down and you would age less than a person on earth. No amount of thinking is going to make you age slower and this effect is actually proven with muons. In labs muons moving at different speeds can be produced. The faster one has a longer half-life; no amount of thinking is going to change that.PROOF SPACE-TIME EXISTSAccording to relativity gravity is actually the warping of space time; if this concept is true then we'd expect light from stars and galaxies to be bent, and that's what we observe. Because of those observations we know that something must be being warped and the only answer is space time because the warping of anything else wouldn't produce the same effects. This is proof that time is linked to space: gravitational fields slow down time! The only way a space warp could produce that effect is if time is linked to space.
God probably doesn't exist

I will like to start asking you some questions, so we can debate this, based upon similar understandings. 1. What is time? And why do you claim nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist? In a very simple approach, supposing time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. In a place where everything is stationary and there's no progression, where the past, the present and the future are the same, there will be no such thing as time. Therefore this place doesn't exist? 2. What's your understanding of "transcends"? Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere). According to this, a being transcendent to space-time, exists in space-time and beyond. Therefore, only according to this point, you could only claim that God cannot exist beyond space-time. Not that God exists, exclusively, outside space-time. You also claimed that God couldn't existed in a PLACE where time doesn't exist. So, you took God from the sphere of time, but let him exist in space? (place: a particular position, point, or area in space.) I believe, that you think that there are many dogmas inside religions, that prevent people from thinking about certain subjects, and deepening their knowledge and evolving. But you're not resolving this problems by trying to approach metaphysical matters through physics . 3. According to Albert Einstein, who did some good contributions for our understanding of this subjects, "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." So if we admit that space and time do not actual exist in physical terms, would you claim that we don't exist too? For the 2" round, besides expecting your answers to the questions I made throughout, I also hope that you can prove the existence of time and space, unless you change your claim from "God doesn't exist" to "Nothing exists" or something like this. Good luck!
God probably doesn't exist

The argument from physics1. Outside of the universe time doesn't exist.2. God transcends space-time.3. Therefore God exists outside of space-time.4. God is outside of space-time and outside of space-time time doesn't exist(1 and 3.)5. Therefore God doesn't exist.Basically God can't exist because if he does he's in a place where time doesn't exist and nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist.
God probably doesn't exist

You're serious?? --' Do you think that Newton knew that his laws weren't absolute? As all the physicists in the next 200 years?? You completely failed to understand my point. The article ends like this : "The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry. If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?" I just wanted to point out the fragility of our knowledge about our Universe and how even through a very physical approach there is more than a place to God to exist --' But you completely failed to understand it again. Conclusion: I'm not sure if my opponent was serious about his arguments trough out this debate... Since even his presentation of the topic didn't make sense, as he himself admitted. I'm just disappointed... I tried to make it simple and to address every single approach of my opponent, but he completely failed to understand his and my arguments. This debate wasn't worth the writing and it will not be worth to read... Unless it is for the article about Quantum mechanics and the one about the time... Is really confusing, but is interesting. But the debate itself, was pretty worthless.
God probably doesn't exist

Second, our understanding of our Universe and the evolution of our knowledge about it, if allows us to claim something, is that we don't know everything and even the physical laws that we are aware of, are relative and not absolute.Only some of the physical laws are relative like Newtons 3 laws. However others are absolute like the 1st law of thermodynamics: energy can't be created or destroyed.I even gave you that thesis about how quantum mechanics disproves a materialistic approach to our own existence.Quantum mechanics according to the article doesn't necessarily disprove a materialistic view of the universe; it says that there's another possiblity: the many worlds interpretation. As of now we don't know enough to say for sure whether the traditional interpretation or the many worlds interpretation is correct.CONCLUSIONI presented my argument and adequately responded to con's arguments. Therefore: I have proven my case.
Video Games Cause Real-World Violence

Well, you are contradicting with yourself now. "Video Games Cause Real-World Violence" is the topic. You are con so you are against this, meaning you defend there being 0 circumstances of video games causing violence. Then you say: ". .you will always be able to find someone that committed an act of violence because of whatever you can imagine. .". "people have killed people over loud music. Does that mean that loud music causes violence? No! " Sorry, but that is a terrible example. In this case, the music is not the thing that annoys the person, the thing that annoys the person is the people listening to music loudly. The cause here is of course not music, it is the people who play loud music. If someone gets excited over a rock music and starts a killing spree though, then we can say "the music caused the violence. ". Even if you claim that the man had mental health problems, the thing that triggered him is the music so ultimately, the music caused it. The same logic can be applied to video games. Again, what I am doing here is taking advantage of the way that the topic is worded.
Video Games Cause Real-World Violence

The problem with that argument is that you're giving video games as the only possible reason for violence ignoring the fact that many people who kill "because of video games" suffer from mental health issues, abusive families, bullying, etc.. To say that violent video games cause violence is to say that no other factors affect it. And, there is statistical evidence that video games do not affect violent behavior if you account for external factors such as the ones listed above. And statistical evidence is always more valid than circumstantial evidence, you will always be able to find someone that committed an act of violence because of whatever you can imagine, people have killed people over loud music. Does that mean that loud music causes violence? No! It means that people will use anything as a reason to kill one another.
Video Games Cause Real-World Violence

While video games are not the main cause of most of the violence in the world, they do -in fact- cause some amount of violence. The violence caused by games being very minor, does not change the fact that some violence is indeed caused. One example would be the GTA copycat murder in Thailand. It is made clear the cause is the video game itself: "He allegedly intended to rob the taxi driver before the robbery turned violent and later allegedly admitted to police that murdering someone was harder in real life than it appeared in the game." Video games directly causing violence is a rare issue but it does happen.
Factory farming should be banned

I am sorry for the very short posting in Round 2. 1. The effectiveness argument Factory farming is currently more efficient, but small farms can be efficient by WSPA's Model Farm Project. http://www.wspa.ca... Furthermore, feeding edible crops to livestock reduces the number of calories produced.(http://www.ciwf.org.uk...) 2. Contradicting arguments If you read this carefully, you can see that 2-6(consumers can buy from foreign factory farms), 4-6(consumers can buy from foreign factory farms) contradict each other. Also, the title of this debate is "Factory farms should be banned." not " Banning factory farms is effective"(Rebuttal to Number 6 of Con's argument) 3. "3. Intensive farming can be more easily monitored or regulated than numerous smaller farms. Inspecting livestock and conditions at thousands of small farms takes more time and money than inspecting one large farming operation. " It is worth the effort because the government can protect the environment and the workers who had worked in factory farms. 4. "Governments should not ban free market to cater to special interest groups. Governments may have a role in regulation and quality control, but have no mandate to ban a product that people want or production method that a minority find offensive." "By allowing free markets (not a ban) we allow individual consumers to purchase what they want. Those who want free range, organic meat can purchase it at a higher cost. Those who want the less expensive product also get to purchase what they want." The intention is not to ban the product, but to protect the environment in which the country's citizens live. And since only the government has the power to do this, the government should do this for sake of its citizens. Lastly, I want to add that if the government makes the right policy for workers who had worked in factory farms to transfer to organic farming, the production of organic farming would increase. Additional sources http://beyondfactoryfarming.org... http://www.all-creatures.org...
Factory farming should be banned

Thank-you for your clear presentation of your position in round 2.Let me be equally clear. Governments should not ban factory farming.Let me give you my reasons. Governments should not ban factory farming for reasons around practical farming.Governments should not ban factory farming for reasons of the scope of government. 1. Intensive farming feeds our growing population. As emerging economies move to a high protein diet the demand for meat will increase. As the planet becomes more urban there is less opportunity for people to grow their own food or raise their own meat. 2. Intensive farming can be more efficient in use of land and other resources. Factory farms are good economically. The can produce a product at a lower cost than smaller farming operations. Small mom and pop farms are going out of business because consumers care more about being able to afford food than they do about arguments of people who want to ban factory farms. 3. Intensive farming can be more easily monitored or regulated than numerous smaller farms. Inspecting livestock and conditions at thousands of small farms takes more time and money than inspecting one large farming operation. 4. Governments should not ban free market to cater to special interest groups. Governments may have a role in regulation and quality control, but have no mandate to ban a product that people want or production method that a minority find offensive. 5. Governments should be encouraging high efficiency production methods and help factory farming to improve quality control and animal health. Legislation that drives us back to 19th century farming methods would increase food prices and cripple the economy. 6. Banning factory farming in one country would simply have consumers purchase their meat products from other countries as market forces made our meat products too expensive. 7. By allowing free markets (not a ban) we allow individual consumers to purchase what they want. Those who want free range, organic meat can purchase it at a higher cost. Those who want the less expensive product also get to purchase what they want. 8. The purpose of factory farming is to have the most product for the lowest cost. This is most profitable with high stocking density, economies of scale, specialized machinery, global markets and inexpensive transportation. Opposition to factory farming will come at a high cost to consumers, and may take us out of the global markets.There is much more to say, but let me repeat my main points.Governments must not ban factory farming for reasons around practical farming.Governments must not ban factory farming for reasons of the scope of government. Sourceshttp://www.theguardian.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.debatingmatters.com...http://environmentalresearchweb.org...
Factory farming should be banned

As Con has accepted the debate with my definition, my definition is not changed in any way, and it still stands. Now I will post my arguments. 1. Factory farms have an enormous environmental cost. 2. Factory farm workers are often obused. 3. Farmers of small farms often lose their jobs. 4. Factory farming is not so effective after all. As a government's number one priority is to protect its citizens, the government should intervene in factory farming. Sources http://www.motherearthnews.com... http://www.sustainabletable.org... http://www.foodispower.org... http://www.sustainabletable.org... http://www.globalexchange.org... http://www.ciwf.org.uk... http://www.foodispower.org...