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

You're in trouble my friend! :-)You stated that "a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause" This is self defeating and doesn't make any sense. This is similar to: I love you, because I don't love you!You also stated that a first cause is a fallacy by itself. You didn't demonstrate how, but I think I can explain what you're trying to do. Your argument is like this: "Because every cause is caused, therefore first cause is a fallacy by itself". But why is your premise true? If you believe it's true, then this is a truth claim and you have the burden of proof. What proof do you have? On the other hand, I just proved that your premise is false by showing that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause.Regarding your statement "How could a beginning be uncaused?": This is a red herring (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue). Why do I say that? That's because knowing or not knowing the answer to your question doesn't change anything. We don't have to know how the beginning was uncaused to come to the conclusion that there exists at least one uncaused cause. To illustrate this: Just because we don't know why we yawn, doesn't mean that we don't yawn.Regarding your statement "creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine". This is a red herring. This is not a debate about God. Your statement has nothing to do with refuting my argument... Not to mention that you are presupposing your opinions and world views into the argument, which is another fallacy. If there's an issue in my argument, you have to show that either my premises are false or that my logic is incoherent.Your last sentence is an ad hominem. I won't respond to it.
cause and effect is logic

a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause, first cause is a fallacy in itself if any cause is caused by another cause, a first cause is necessarily non sense, as there is no such thing as an uncaused cause how could a beginning be uncaused? there is no, your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is. make the matter that is an apple nothing, matter can at best transform, is true, is logic, not circular, but absolute creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine ´cause+cause=motion=i punch you in the face, you fall backwards, you wouldnt have if i didnt punch you, or unless something else caus you to fall
cause and effect is logic

You stated in your response that "A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause". I don't disagree! I never claimed that. What I proved in my argument is that "a cause is not necessarily caused". These are not the same. An uncaused cause must have caused something else... otherwise it would be, as you stated correctly, not a cause.You also made this fallacious argument:1. Premise A: A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause. (I agree. It's not even premise, but that doesn't change the point)2. Conclusion: Therefore any cause is caused by another cause.This is a non sequitur (doesn't follow)! An uncaused cause would have caused something (which meets the criteria of your premises) but conflicts with your conclusion. Your logic is similar to the following:1. Premise A: Numbers 1 and up are real numbers.2. Conclusion: Therefore all numbers are greater or equal to one!!It's a non sequitur (doesn't follow).You also stated that "matter can only transform". This is a presupposition. You're basically using a "Begging the question" or a "Circular reasoning" fallacy. You're referring to matter conservation (matter can neither be created nor destroyed) as you presupposed premise.Does that mean that I don't believe in Newton's law? I do believe in it, but it has its limitations. For example, that law doesn't apply nor explain how matter was created from nothing (Regardless if you believe in God's hypothesis, M-theory or something else). Also consider this:"The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications." - WikipediaRegarding your equations: cause + cause = motion, cause + order...etc: I won't argue those because you haven't shown how these statements (which I don't fully understand) refute my argument in any way. I can't say John + Jane = Love, therefore marriage exists.ConclusionIn summary, your rebuttal doesn't refute my premises. In fact you agree with them. Also, you didn't challenge the coherence of my logic itself. Yet, you refuse the conclusion which follows necessarily from the premises. Also your rebuttal includes logical arguments which I demonstrated to be fallacious.
cause and effect is logic

a cause, causes, so a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, as a first cause would have to be caused by a cause that is not a cause matter can only transform, this destroys all your little logic games above í agree no infinity in the past cause+(and)cause=(is)motion chaos+order=the sum of all logic cause+effect=logic random cause+effect=chaos(any non intended change in eternity) without 2 causes, motion cant exist funny you mention these points about 2 causes, i naturally found that very fast
cause and effect is logic

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? how could you eat the mushroom without adding, and how could you pick it up without minusing? and this equals, if you didn't pick it up and eat it there is no equal of you getting poisoned and a missing mushroom on the forest floor somewhere cause=plusis=equaleffect=minus i determines where cause and effect begins and ends, but existence determines cause and effect as it is minus is the effect of a cause equal is where im holding my hand in front of me, plus is where i can move my hand to, and minus is how my hand got to where it is, and where ever my hand is, is equal. i equal because i can plus and minus giving is taking, and taking is giving. you cant give me an apple, without taking an apple from somewhere
cause and effect is logic

Once again, my opponent's rebuttal doesn't refute my argument in any way or form. It doesn't even weaken it! He again makes the same fallacious arguments. I won't go through all of them as they are self evident.Also, my opponents made some comments that are not related to the subject matter (Red herrings) such as supernature from nature. I won't respond to these claims. Not to mention the formulas that are not logical in any sense (e.g. math=absolute=not belief!!?) I won't argue those too.In summary, my opponent and I agreed before the debate that if I am able to prove that there could exist at least one uncaused cause, then his argument would be refuted. My opponent on the other hand had the burden to prove that his claim is true, but he failed to do so.I believe that my argument is rock solid. As long as my premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Also, I've demonstrated how my premise (that there cannot be an infinite number of past events) is also true. My opponent didn't disagree with my assertion. But he's still not happy with the conclusion that follows.I understand that the existence of an uncaused raises many questions. How could that be? What does it mean? What's the best explanation? But that's a different question and a discussion for a different debate. Theists state that the best explanation of this is God... Some naturalists say that this is best explained by M theory... Other naturalists state that they don't know the answer and leave it at that... And there's those who simply say logic is illogical in some cases.
Insult War

1. You are so ugly and stupid that you went to the prom with your mom. 2. You drink beer for breakfast. 3. You try to make your fat legs look model thin by wearing skinny jeans, but they only revealed your fat ugly thighs. 4. Because you are too ugly to get up, you just peed in the bed and diarrhea in it. 5. You have no girlfriend because you are gay.
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb.

Yo mamma so dumb she studied for a drug test. Yo mamma so dumb she heard its chili outside, so she grabbed a bowl. Yo mamma so dumb she tried to drown a fish. Yo momma so fat she saw a yellow bus full of white kids and said, "STOP THAT TWINKIE! !" Yo momma so fat she jumped up in the air and got stuck.
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb.

Well, you are dumb cause yo mama said so. I may be dumb but i am not dumb cause nuff said so. I love to troll and I assumed you have problem with that. I am not dumb because I AM NOT DUMB. Me grammar and spell are extremely good and better than yours. Prove me that I am dumb, com'on, whoever who have problems with me.
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb.

Thanks Con. Dumb is defined as: "lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted."[1]. Certainly must be defined an assertation we take to be true. I'll list numerous reasons that Con is dumb. 1. He can't spell. Round 1 says it all.2. He started a debate as "Con", which is dumb because when you negate something you're affirming it's opposite, IE, my opponent is affirming: "I am not dumb", which is what he should've been doing.3. Con is probably trying to trick me by pretending to be dumb in his first round to essentially "bait" me. This is a dumb debating strategy for a few reasons: First, I'm well known as the king of noob sniping[2], he should've blocked me to keep me from accepting the debate, and secondly baiting is viewed as abusive by most if not all debaters (because it is), so my opponents attempt to do so is a dumb thing to do on this site when public opinion is against it.4. Con is dumb for making this an open debate, because brilliant and highly intelligent debaters such as myself (ok, exaggeration) can accept it and easily defeat him. 5. Con admits it, look at his username.6. Con made this round have a 12 hour response time, which will likely lead to forfeits. A dumb move. 7. Con is almost certainly trolling, which is dumb. 8. We have to weigh factors in debate rounds based off the information in the round, thus we need to compare my opponent with the only other person in the round, me. Intelligence is relative, so if I prove I'm smarter than he is, I win. I have an IQ of 189, got a perfect score on both my ACT and SAT test, have 3 Post-doctoral degrees, worked on the international space station, have won a Nobel Prize in all categories, am an advisor to president Obama, and I am the voice of a generation[3]. I think I've met my burden. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://tinyurl.com...
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am dumb.

Thanks Pro. Dumb is defined as: "lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted."[1]. Certainly must be defined an assertation we take to be true. I'll list numerous reasons that Pro is dumb. 1. He can't spell. Round 1 says it all. 2. He started a debate as "Pro", which is dumb because when you negate something you're affirming it's opposite, IE, my opponent is affirming: "I am not dumb", which is what he should've been doing. 3. Pro is probably trying to trick me by pretending to be dumb in his first round to essentially "bait" me. This is a dumb debating strategy for a few reasons: First, I'm well known as the king of noob sniping[2], he should've blocked me to keep me from accepting the debate, and seprodly baiting is viewed as abusive by most if not all debaters (because it is), so my opponents attempt to do so is a dumb thing to do on this site when public opinion is against it. 4. Pro is dumb for making this an open debate, because brilliant and highly intelligent debaters such as myself (ok, exaggeration) can accept it and easily defeat him. 5. Pro admits it, look at his username. 6. Pro made this round have a 12 hour response time, which will likely lead to forfeits. A dumb move. 7. Pro is almost certainly trolling, which is dumb. 8. We have to weigh factors in debate rounds based off the information in the round, thus we need to compare my opponent with the only other person in the round, me. Intelligence is relative, so if I prove I'm smarter than he is, I win. I have an IQ of 189, got a perfect score on both my ACT and SAT test, have 3 Post-doctoral degrees, worked on the international space station, have won a Nobel Prize in all categories, am an advisor to president Obama, and I am the voice of a generation[3]. I think I've met my burden.
De we live in a Democracy when Gerrymandering is going on? AWC English101 AM

Gerrymandering is basically redrawing districts in order to help swing a vote in a certain politicians favor. Gerrymandering is not at all today what it used to be. Most people today believe that this gerrymandering is preventing minorities in specific to vote. The peoples' solution to this is by reimplementing section 4 of the VRAs. In the last 8 years this "racism at the polls has been for the most part eliminated, especially in the South which is where the majority of this gerrymandering and racism at the polls is occurring. Proof of this is that in 2012 the state of Mississippi had the highest minority voter turn out, out of any state at 78%. This for the most part proves that the gerrymandering is not occurring anymore because the 10th,12th,15th, and 16th amendments have eliminated this redistribution of districts. These laws are fixing and disallowing these attempts of gerrymandering every time a vote occurs. So if there is no real gerrymandering occurring anymore, then yes I think we still live in a democracy. That is why I urge you to vote in affirmative to the question presented thank you.
De we live in a Democracy when Gerrymandering is going on? AWC English101 AM

Gerrymandering has taken out the democracy in America, because of gerrymandering the community does not have a say. This has been happening for years now and the citizens of America do not have a voice in this. In Long Island many civilians have protested that they want "their community together and as one strong voice". In order to help gerrymandering be fair they would need to have a legislature come up with the right map to help each state have its equality, for example Washington redistricting states that "the goal is to have someone who represents our community". The only reason why gerrymandering is still around is because the population keeps growing in every state. Because of the unequal lines gerrymandering is being judged negatively, this has caused some citizens to distrust America. It has lost peoples trust by showing us that our vote does not count because every line within its state has its own percentage. This shows that this serves the best for the politics and not the citizens because they don"t get a say in this. In the long run it will favor the republicans not the democrats. An idea for a more responsible manner to have gerrymandering would be to listen to what the people have to say and try to make it as fair as it can be.
is jesus still alive

1. as you can see con has had some very good said arguments but their is one flaw he does not understand that Jesus could be the son of God In Luke 1:34 she said " how can this happen since I am a virgin?" she knows that she is still a virgin and tells the Angel Gabriel that but Gabriel said in Luke 1:35 The angel said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you. For this reason the baby will be holy and will be called the Son of God." this show that the angel of God says that God's power comes over her and because of that reason she will have a son and He will be named "Son of God". Also in his second argument he showed out many things that are different in the bible, but I say there are just different accounts of the same event. Like " 2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)" this is a prime example two people said this Samuel and Paul, Paul was much later that Samuel and Samuel most likely saw the event Paul most likely heard about it and you know that words can be changed over time like the game telephone one person might have told Paul one thing but it might not have been the truth
is jesus still alive

Jesus is still alive because the bible says he rose back to life and he rose back into heaven 1. And Jesus called out with a loud voice, " Father into your hands I commit my spirit." And when he said this he breathed his last ( Luke 23:46) he was on the cross then and he breathed his last so he "died" on the cross 2. After The Lord Jesus had spoken to them he rose up to heaven and sat at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19) this tells us that he was human flesh but when he finished he went up to heaven and sat ant the right hand of his father God the father
The US has not fought a single just war since WWII.

To quote Dhoulmagus' from Dragon Quest VIII, "Such a pity." It is a pity that my the instigator was not able to attend this party for three whole rounds. Therefore, my arguments are left unquestioned, and as I've shown, make me the winner of this debate by default. Therefore, extend them all to round 3. Also note that I was willing to negotiate with my opponent in the comment section, yet my attempt at a negotiation for debating the way he wanted to debate has been ignored. So for those who'd buy into his potential "appeal to pity" (not necessarily his intention, although there are those who may see it as such) in the comment section, note that I have attempted fairness at all cost. Bottomline: I have shown that the United States entering WWII is not just according to my opponent's idea of just. Not only that, but I've gone the extra mile and have shown that the War on Terror is justified according to my opponent's understanding of just. Thanks to all. The contender rest.
The US has not fought a single just war since WWII.

Salutations to both my opponent as well as my dear audience. I have never debated a day in my life and will do so as of now. In this debate, I shall be arguing that the War on Terrorism is just, although like my opponent, I will not be insisting that all of the activity in the "War on Terror" can be called just. We shall now look to my opponent's criteria: Just cause: The grave public evil which is being attacked is the tragedy that ensued due to terrorist actions during 9/11. Right Intention: Correcting a suffered wrong is the case as correcting the wrong that came from 911 is what has been attempted at being corrected. Last resort: Terrorist are unreasonable and peaceful viable alternatives have not been successful due to the unreasonable demands which terrorist in general make. Furthermore, attempting the aforementioned methods of peace would be impractical. By no means does this mean that I am defending the United States' invasion into Iraq . Rather, I am simply arguing that it's war stance against terrorists (especially the ones responsible for 911) is well justified. If my opponent attempts to argue that I must include all of what is the War in Iraq, then I see no reason not to include the actions of the United States' in WWII, specifically the bombing of civilians in Hiroshima. Either way, I win. To add, I am going to attack the instigator's argument from a completely different viewpoint. The instigator claims that the US was justified to enter the second World war, yet if we look back to "last resort", we clearly see that the US did not attempt and exhaust all peaceful viable alternatives. After fulfilling merely two conditions of jus ad bellum, the US went into action. The only argument my opponent can offer is that it would have been impractical to try any peaceful methods with the Japanese that had bombed Pearl Harbor. I'll have to see his argument on this before I respond further.
The US has not fought a single just war since WWII.

Using the following criteria (if there are others please suggest) I judge all wars fought by the USA as being unjust, either totally or in part. Only under all of these "Jus Ad Bellum" (and perhaps some others) may war be waged: Just cause. "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations." Right intention Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Last resort Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. (Some though not all of US activity in WWII can be called just, I believe.) A potential opponent should be able to show why any wars that have been or are being fought are morally defensible. If they do not find fault with my conditions, their candidate(s) for a just war should conform to the 3 "Jus ad bella" above.
If God exists as an emotional entity, it is not omnipotent.

Personally I think you should have made this longer to serve as an actual debate, nonetheless I find the subject intriguing enough that I accept. :) Per request I will reserve my arguments for the 2nd round. I will however point out, simply in advance, that I define "omnipotent" simply as having all power that exists, not all powers that might exist, and that this does not necessarily imply omniscience (which is a separate concept). God can be all-powerful without being all-knowing in regards to the future. That being said, I await Pro's response.
The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

Any times has Atheism stated that the Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy. Even in a prolonged forum debate on the subject he called ignorance and changed the subject. This is Atheism's moment to shine. Arguments come in Round 2. Ready up. Atheism has this round to explain his ‘Problem of Evil', note - your definition has to be similar to the conventional argument. Thank you and Good luck. Good = Rational and Logical