BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...
I am God.

As my opponent has offered a definition of God, we will not change it, that would be semantics. Whether it is out of desperation is irrelevant. Semantics would just complicate things, so a modified definition would be unwise, considering we are at Round 5 now. If there is a way for you to do the impossible, that would make you truly omnipotent. My point is that omnipotence does not exist, therefore by Pro's definition, gods don't exist. There is something Pro should know about me. Technicalities are my best friends. I can easily get somebody on a technicality, so I could get this debate victory fairly easily. If there is no word specific enough, why not describe whatever characteristic you were referring to? My point is, definitions are extremely important in debates like this.
I am God.

My opponent accepts that using the word omnipotence was a mistake on my part, and apparently sees it fit to deny any possibility of reformation of the definition. This is an act of desparation. Clearly my opponent can't refute the fact that I am God with a slightly modified definition, so he won't allow such a modification, despite how fair it may be. How is it fair? My intent was to use a word that means "capable of all things," in such a way that it is implied that impossible things are left out. I don't want to debate the definiton of omnipotence, and whether this is implied or not. I wonder, had I used a word completely incorrectly, if my opponent would have held me to such a mistake in order to scrounge up a victory. I'm assuming he would. Is it fair? No, it is capitalizing on the mistake of an opponent with complete disregard for the intent of the debate. What word should I have used? There is no word specific enough to capture what I meant, if omnipotence indeed does not imply what I thought it did. The weakness of Con's position is blatant.
I am God.

You know what? Just 'cause I feel like it, and I have very little time, I'll only refute a few of Pro's arguments: Omnipotence: You are incapable of destroying or creating energy. All current scientific knowledge says that it is not possible for energy to be created or destroyed. But, I have a challenge for you. In order to prove your omnipotence, I would like Pro to exceed the 8,000 character limit on this debate. Unless Pro can accomplish that, there is no case supporting that he himself is capable of doing anything. As well, I will offer another argument: You are incapable of creating matter and destroying the same at the exact same time (by exact, i literally mean exact) you are creating it. Let me elaborate: in order to destroy matter, the matter must already exist before it can be destroyed, therefore matter that is being created can not be destroyed at that moment. But, I can also go even further. You cannot destroy matter before it is created. I think the latter is self-explanatory. Omniscience: There is a difference between knowing what its like to be able to do very little, and actually being able to do very little. This does not support any of your previous arguments. Omnipresence: I have a technicality here: you say that you have a mind, a body, et cetera. That is not possible, as you are omnipresent, correct? If that is the case, then you would have several bodies as you are everywhere at once. Pro said: Clearly I'm God, because that's how I feel. :P That is not how things work. I could easily claim the same, but that won't make it so. Before I finish, may I suggest leaving Round 5 for closing? I would like to thank Pro for continuing the debate with me. Now, back to him.
I am God.

All excellent arguments. First, let's examine things. A thing is typically a collection of matter that is distinct from what it is not. I'm sure we all know, a keyboard is a thing. It has a specific pattern we can discern from other patterns. Things get complicated when one attempts to find their borders, however. The borders of a keyboard's existence seem simple in our experience, but they are nothing but arbitrary labels. In reality, nothing separates you from your keyboard. The keyboard is to the universe as a wave is to the ocean; so it is with all things. In reality there are no separate objects. In reality there are no separate events. These are all myths, or images with which we interpret the world. In reality, there is only a single and complete function of what we, under our roles in the universe, may call inter-dependent systems. You cannot describe a thing without implying it's environment, and not just it's immediate environment, as such a term is arbitrary - it's whole environment - the universe: all things. In reality, this role is an expression of the universe in the same way that a whirl pool is an expression of a body of water. When I think, I take it for granted as something that I do. The inner and unconscious workings of my mind, however, are easily regarded as that which happens to me. I, in this sense, am a conscious mind. But this is an illusion. My unconscious mind is just as much a part of me as my conscious mind. I beat my own heart just as I breath. And this is taking arbitrary borders that separate myself from the envoronment into account. In reality, I wave the ocean and shine the sun just as I beat my heart. If you ask how I grow the flowers, however, even the Goddess of spring doesn't know. In effect, I do all things. I encompass all areas of the universe. I even exist and yet don't at the same time. Condradictions are beyond me, you see; as I am all, that which exists implies that which doesn't. Why would one leave such things out of the equation? I have created such rocks as you described over and again, more times than this role would care to count. So have you, my friend, as you are merely a similar expression of the true self. Nothing in reality separates me from you. We are not omnipotent, or any of these things, however, under such roles as Josh and whatever you call yourself. There are many rocks we can't lift, and yet we are more than roles being played. This is how we create rocks we can't lift, and yet the true self is very capable of lifting such rocks. And at the same time, we are the true self, who cannot lift such rocks. As I said, contradictions are not beyond me, they are beyond human experience.
I am God.

First, let me begin with the fact that I am surprised that this isn't a joke debate, but I will debate you anyways. I would also like to thank Pro for instigating the debate. Before we do this, shouldn't the BoP be on you? Anyways, I will, in any case, present an argument that renders you incapable of qualifying for the definition you have given, and that is: can you create a rock, that at no point in your existence, will be able to lift? If your answer to that question is "yes", then you are not omnipotent, therefore you are not a god, as you can not lift that rock. If you answer "no", then you are also not omnipotent, as you can not create that rock. As for omniscience, I'm guessing that you didn't know that that paradox existed, because if you did, you probably would not have created this debate. Therefore you are not omniscient. And finally, for omnipresence, in order to use a computer, you must have a physical form, so that you may use the keyboard. If you have a physical form and are omnipresent, then there would be no room for anything in existence to move while you are in that physical form. Also, that has never happened, because that would have been documented by the news, which has never happened. Each of these arguments refute the possibility of Pro being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, thus refuting the possibility of Pro being a god (at least, by your definition).
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

by god i was only refering to an all knowing being == " Lets say that I momentarily acquire the eye of omniscience. I know in advance what my opponent will do, think, say, and write back in the second round. Does this negate his potential to choose what he writes or thinks about? No, at least not logically." what he fails to see is if my response is predetermined than at no point could I have chosen to write anything different. whether I believe I am making that dissiscon is irrelevant. it is not a matter of me being forced into a dissision but a matter of only having one outcome. =="Imagine that you have a child and you put before that child a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of broccoli. Even if we knew that the child would choose the ice cream this does not mean that he never had a choice in the process". yes it does. the child at no point could choose the broccoli. so there is no choice in this situation. there is only the illusion of choice in the child's mind. == The only way a all knowing "God" and "Free will" could not coexist is if "God" was forcing us to act one way or another beyond our own control. The "future" is whatever is going to happen. This doesn't mean that knowing the future will nullify anyone's ability to make free choices. becouse god knows the future that means it must come to pass or he would not be all knowing. this means the future is predetermined that makes us players acting from a script. this shows that free will and an all knowing god can not coexist. your argument seems to be that threw our perception we have free will but in actuality we do not if this is your argument you have violated the condition of this debate that free will does exist this would make your point moot.
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

My opponent has failed to define God so I will assume he means the creator of the universe. ======= Case Pro ======= Can an all knowing "God" and free will exist? Sure they can. As it happens I don't believe in "God" but this doesn't prevent me from understanding that your logic is incorrect. Lets say that I momentarily acquire the eye of omniscience. I know in advance what my opponent will do, think, say, and write back in the second round. Does this negate his potential to choose what he writes or thinks about? No, at least not logically. Imagine that you have a child and you put before that child a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of broccoli. Even if we knew that the child would choose the ice cream this does not mean that he never had a choice in the process. The only way a all knowing "God" and "Free will" could not coexist is if "God" was forcing us to act one way or another beyond our own control. The "future" is whatever is going to happen. This doesn't mean that knowing the future will nullify anyone's ability to make free choices. This should be enough to negate the resolution All the best, Freeman
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

i am re posting this argument because my previous opponent failed to complete his arguments for the premise of this debate free will does exist pro will argue that because of this there can be no all knowing god con will argue that they can both coexist If an all knowing god exist than it must know the past, present, and future so if this god knows what you will do than you can no longer choose to do anything but what it already knows. If you are at a stop sign u can choose to go left or right. if this god knows you will go left than you no longer have the free will to turn right.
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

Lets imagine that we live in a world where freewill exists. After we have done this lets imagine that an omniscient God pops into existence ex nihlo. If your position were correct then after an omniscient God popped into existence ex nihlo free will would be destroyed. I don't see how this could logically be possible but we shall leave the rest up to the voters. I'll just wrap by saying that knowing someone's choice is not logically incompatible with free will. You can claim victory if you like but victory will only be determined by the good people viewing this debate. My opponent would have you believe that he has been predestined to win. This, to me, seems like a silly assertion. ;) Good people of Debate.org it is now your turn to exercise your free will, choose wisely. All the best, Freeman
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

to start this round I believe my opponent misunderstands the term free will so I will define it according to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy "Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents {a person} to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. the key part of this is the ability to choose from several options. now for my rebuttal to simplify this lets say X= 5 according to your argument I was predetermined to pick 5. thus limiting my options to only one and by doing this negating free will as for the definition above. conclusion my opponent has shown no instances were free will and an all knowing god god can coexist. the only evidence he has shown is of delusional free will were in the subjects mind there is free will but in actuality dos not. as a result he has violated the precondition of this debate that free will is real. finely I have shown why they are not compatible why they cant coexist and given several instances of this. I have completely negated all of my opponent arguments and there for claim victory in this debate.
If there is free will than an all knowing god can not exist

I'll keep this relatively short. Think of a number, 1 through 10. Do you have it in your mind? Lets assign a variable to the number you were going to think about, we shall call it (X). You could have thought of 1 or 4 or 8 but you thought of (X). Whatever number you thought of was your choice. It was always going to be that number, number (X), because after all that's the number you chose. The fact that you were going to choose it and it couldn't have been any other way doesn't necessitate you not being able to have freely chosen that number. All the best, Freeman
The Euthyphro Dilemma

Oh well I guess I would reject 4. But this argument is the same as the second horn in the original dilemma, namely, that God approves something because it"s good, and I"ve already rejected that. But now does God 'happen to be' morally perfect? That doesn't seem so, there's a difference between God's having his attributes accidentally and his having them by necessity, and I think God is necessarily good. If he's not, then well we're talking about satan then, or some other god I guess.
The Euthyphro Dilemma

Ah well then in that case: Is God"s nature good because of the way God happens to be, or is it good because it matches up to some external standard of goodness? I'll form the argument a different way: 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. 2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. 3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. 4) But, if moral values are objective, moral perfection represents (or at least tends towards) a unique, maximal set of moral values. 5) So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. 6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness. Still happily NOT a theist my boy..
Buddhism is good for me.

The topic of course: Is Buddhism good for Ithuwakaga. The answer is going to be a rather obvious no. First off let's examine the idea that all the "good" benefits of Buddhism are not Buddhist specific. In other words, my opponent, the illustrious Ithuwakaga is just as good of a person with Buddhism as without. Let's take an analogy on this one: Hitler felt that strong nationalism was a good thing and thus based a great deal of his party on the idea. Thus to be part of Hitler's political one was therefor strongly nationalist. However this does not mean Hitler's political party somehow MADE you nationalist. You can be nationalist without Hitler. Same case here, Buddhism doesn't make you anything, all of it's advantages hold no uniqueness to Buddhism. Which brings me to the main issue and a direct extension from my above. Buddhism does not somehow MAKE you limit suffering in the world. You do that, whether you have Buddhism or not. P.S. Buddha is mythological.
Buddhism is good for me.

You are missing the topic point. The argument is "Buddhism is good for me," not "Buddhism is the only way to be a good person." Defense: I can choose to not be Buddhist, and at the same time obtain all the benefits of *being* Buddhist (as stated in your argument), but again, that's not what we're debating. "Buddhism skews your view of the world. Something that typically happens when one adopts mythological creatures to worship." This statement proves your lack of knowledge on the topic of Buddhism. You do not "worship" any sort of creature in Buddhism. Making such a reckless statement says you are not worthy to debate on a topic you know so little about. I suggest you read the wikipedia article on Buddhism; http://en.wikipedia.org... Offense: Buddhism's very root principles tell you to limit suffering, in yourself and in the world. Whatever your religious beliefs are, we can all agree that if the world was actively trying to limit suffering, it'd be a bette
Buddhism is good for me.

It's nice to finally debate you dude, you should definitely come and visit us at some point. Anyways, debate time. You list three advantages of Buddhism yet little do you see that all three of these are just as possible without Buddhism. It is entirely possible to focus your mind without Buddhism, you can meditate for example or simply concentrate. On your second point, "see the world in a better way" I would argue that not only is it possible to adopt the philosophical foundations of Buddhism without actually being Buddhist but also that Buddhism skews your view of the world. Something that typically happens when one adopts mythological creatures to worship. And finally, that it is very easy to be an altruistic person without Buddhism. The fact of the matter is my dear friend, that Buddhism, while it has the possibility to do all of these things, it isn't unique in doing so. In fact, Buddhism effectively puts your mind in a box, whereas mine is unlimited.
Ps3 is better than xbox

360 has better online gaming -the controllers are more comfortable. -they are cheaper than ps3. So here you get more for your money, and its better -the add ons are cheaper. Once you have the Xbox all the accessories are cheaper so you aren't going broke if you are an accessories gamer. -you can create an avatar on xbox live. Who wouldn't want to do this??? The XBOX 360, IT HAS FREE HD AND NETEFLIX AND SOME AWARD WINNING games such as fall out 3 and left 4 dead. Heck ya great deal!! If your talking about ps3 your talking about long loading screens not that many games, if you want real entertainment then go out and buy yourself an xbox 360 ELITE IT THE BEST OVERALL!!!!!!
Poetry Debate No.3

I really like these debates... Round One - confirm acceptance Round Two - Haiku Round Three - Petrarchan Sonnet Round Four - Epitaph Round Five - A poem of your choice or of your creation Rounds 2, 3, and 4 should be the works of published authors, with citations to their works. All your poems should be connected by some sort of theme, which should be stated in round one. My theme will be nature. My opponent's must be something different. I'm excited to do this debate. Please accept, and let's get this poetry war underway!
Poetry Debate No.3

I included the authors' names as citations. I will be happy to have not put up the proper form of sonnet because I enjoyed the modern sonnet about music. Modern sonnets are rare. So, I am happy to have broken that rule ONLY for the joy of sharing modern works. MY POEM: Cruisin' post nine, using some fine tune thrills Passed "MOT'L" gassed and caught hell - added to the bills Odious motorists, fog and food mists, shotgun chills Roll by frustration and finery, glimpse flourish and failure All money mills Day Cruisin', view perusin' with tasteful trills Bothers roll off, fuel and slide off, filled with skills Clustered playing. Radialed roadships, sashaying. Cerebrum fills ( by: me)
Poetry Debate No.3

A Shakespearean Sonnet is a style of poetry, [1] invented by Shakespeare, but used by others. It has an ABAB CDCD EE rhyme scheme, which fits your early poem. A Petrarchan Sonnet, which was required, typically follows an ABBA CDDC EFGEFG [1] scheme. Therefore, Con's earlier poem was indeed in violation of the rules, regardless of the author. For this round, I will offer a poem of my choice, "Jabberwocky," by Louis Carroll. This is my favorite poem of all time, and I sincerely hope you find it amusing and enjoyable. "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch! " He took his vorpal sword in hand; Long time the manxome foe he sought" So rested he by the Tumtum tree And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! " He chortled in his joy. "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Citation 1: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Citation 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Citation 3: . http://www.poetryfoundation.org... VOTING ISSUES: 1 - I hope you enjoyed my selections most! 2 - Con's Round 3 Sonnet is invalid 3 - Con has provided no citations, which were also required Thanks to Con for a good debate!
Poetry Debate No.3

It seems that, sadly, my opponent has offered a Shakespearean Sonnet, when last round was only for Petrarchan Sonnets. I remind Con that there are specific requirements per round. For this round, round Epitaphs, I will offer "Epitaph" by William Carlos Williams. Please enjoy. An old willow with hollow branches slowly swayed his few high gright tendrils and sang: Love is a young green willow shimmering at the bare wood's edge. Citations: http://www.poemhunter.com...
Poetry Debate No.3

( Happy to not take the easy, Shakespeare, path is: me. ) Thirstforpeace Lying in bed with these buds in my ears, I go from dead silent, to alive and fantastic Feeling vibrations that beat out the tears In a void of music, I feel captured by magic This magic is real, and that is no lie When I play my guitar with that clean open sound It paints me a picture of a deep purple sky And bring back my memories, to the past I am bound But the magic doesn"t always work the same way I see purple skies, but you"ll see something else So these magical emotions, all I can say Is they are not in the music, they are in myself So as my mind is an endless page of white I am painting a picture on this dead silent night