BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USA (pro) or England (con)

Nick, that was, an acceptance. It was just long, a mere introduction. And I must say, thank you for wasting a whole arguement on telling me off. And, on many reliable sites and news stations, such as the newsroom, all agree that America is not the greatest country in the world. And again, I never said England was the greatest country. Just better than the US. And what about this country is "best"? We are 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median income, 4th in labor force, and 4th in exports. The most educated country? Canada. There are many countries that are better than the US at many things. I am saving up most of my ammo for my rebuttals because, in a country of Americans, I will have to work extra hard to open their eyes. Again, thank you for wasting a whole argument to tell me off. You have made the whole thing just a little more efficient.
USA (pro) or England (con)

I think that it is childish of you to not read the instructions and then respond with an argument instead of "I accept" which you were instructed to do. Also who acts better than everyone else calling yourself an expert debater, that is for other people to decide, not you. If you are in this website and have followed the criteria to vote you probably wont get many blindsided voters. Yes Zofia, blind sighted is two words, but blindsided is one word . First of all when I said that New Zealand is the only country with more freedom than the USA, it was not an opinion like your twelve countries, it was a fact. You have no hard evidence to support your case you arguments will only be about your personal opinion. England has done many wrong things to the Kingdom of Scotland (read the second link). I saw a video (watch the first link) where a English man thought that a book that portrays England in a bad way must have been written by a "homosexual," I would not like to live in a country with residents who have that mind set. Sources 1) 2)http://www.theguardian.com...
USA (pro) or England (con)

Ok then. Nick. Out of the world, I can think of a dozen countries better than the US. Including, England, Germany, Japan, France, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Spain, and Scotland. I am here to defend these countries. And, being an expert debater, I think I will win. And I never said England was best, just better than the US. Since this is an American dominated site, I think you would get votes from the blindsighted ones. The ones who think that America is the "perfect country". I think I will get all the thoughtful ones on my side. The ones who dare to challenge. I dare America to think. "Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." -William Shakespeare
plus is cause and minus is effect

Ok, so the effect cannot exist without the cause. However, this isn't within the plus and minus system. For example, if I get poisoned, I don't have to lose poison, or anything else really. The plus exists without the minus. "cause+(and)effect=(equal, is)logic plus+minus=equal" According to wikipedia, Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning. I'm not sure that cause + effect = the use of valid reasoning.
plus is cause and minus is effect

i intended the pancake to flip, i added the flip, and intent is cause 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, ai? 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 it works on all levels, because i determine the beginning and end cause+(and)effect=(equal, is)logic plus+minus=equal
plus is cause and minus is effect

Ok. I have to hand it to you Vi_spex, you've made a good point here. If you break the system into microstates then you'll see a lot of equal and opposite cause and effects. However, the system as a whole isn't so easy to observe this way. You can't assign a plus to flipping the pancake, and a minus to the pancake being flipped. So yes, within the realm of strict physics and forces and work, broken down into microsystems, this system is sensical. However, for different concepts, like macrostates, daily routine, or philosophy, cause and effect can't really be qualitative. The big claim you make is that plus can't exist without minus. I'm interested in hearing about how you quantify that, and a real world example. Even in a microstate system, the second law of thermodynamics says that energy is lost between processes, and so cause is always stronger than effect. And then you go on to say that equal is logic. EhH?
plus is cause and minus is effect

well that is a complication if we cant to find just plus and minus, because I have to break that pancake example into many parts for every movement you make, there is a plus and minus going on is what this means, so holding your arm out in front of you, and now moving to the left and stopping it, minus happen with the plus, one could say minus becomes what I have to remember and plus is where my arm is, that's where I added it to and also im holding it there so basicly so one could say, I move my arm and the pancake turns in the air, i add a motion that flips it into the air, and it comes back down again because of gravity, 2 plusses and minus happened, but the thing about it is if you go down on cellular level, MANY causes and effects happen, so i determine where the example begins and ends, but not the cause and effect relation a cause is either random or intended, and I determine where cause and effect begins and ends as there is no beginning and end, so where ever I say is the beginning is the beginning so the pancake falling and hitting the pan is the cause that the oil sounds began again plus and minus is equal, true equals now
plus is cause and minus is effect

I took this debate because I consider it a free win, and everybody needs a self-esteem boost every once in a little while, you know? Cause and effect is a very abstract principal. It is taken on axiom that doing something must equate to something else happening. Cause and effect is almost always predictable and is almost always true except when considering high energy applications and quantum physics. Therefore, it's the basis of all experimental science. You are considering letting the cause be denoted by a positive quantity, and letting the effect be a negative quantity. This only makes sense if the effect is equal and opposite the cause, which in many cases, it is not. For example, this system makes sense with forces, but it does NOT make sense with momentums. As for the rest, I will leave it up to you to prove it in more detail.
How something can reach the speed of light.

The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second through a vacuum. This "through a vacuum" part is key since the speed of light is slower when it is not through a vacuum. Generally, the denser the element the light is passing through, the slower the speed of light. Now, here is an original way to go faster than light. No matter can accelerate to the speed of light because said matter would reach infinite mass by the time it had fully accelerated to the speed of light. However, since gravity is a function of mass, would increased gravity accompany the object that is moving at near light speed? Gravity warps space. Warped space is a way of breaking the light "speed limit" without going faster than light. Therefore, why could we have a "warp-drive" by the simple function of accelerating to near light speed?
How something can reach the speed of light.

I understand that the "response posting" is confusing. I just hope I am doing it right now! Consider this: Lets say that you are a being that exists on a different "size level" from humans; that is, you are so large that the entire Universe is only a spark off the end of a cigarette that you are smoking. We would not be able to perceive this being because it would be so large, our viewport wouldn't be wide enough to see it. The being would not perceive us unless it had an incredibly super microscope. Now, here is the question: How long would it take this being to get the cigarette to its mouth? Would it take millions of years, as the speed of light limitations suggests? Hopefully, this poor being is not an addict because he/she would need another cigarette before the first "drag" is over! Does this being's arm move faster than light? No, it is "time" that moves at a different speed. From the "being's" perspective, it would happen just as quickly as it happens for us. From our perspective, it would take the poor being billions of years to take one "drag" from the cigarette. This difference in perspective is due to the difference in the speed of time. It would be fortunate for the being to see things from our perspective as it would be good for him/her to not be able to smoke!!!!
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

Rebuttal to Con's Round 3:I do not see how this would show that free will is not an illusion. As it could be possible that we perceive to have free will while in reality do not have it. That could be a possibility, although I have shown that both can coexist. I agree that if God is omniscient then this suggests that God knows the future. I would like to specify that this knowing the future is more than a guess that it would be definite knowledge at this point. Agreed. I disagree with the idea that knowing a set future would not imply that the choices are already made. I also do not see how the idea of God setting a path without our knowledge and then sending us to heaven or hell is relevant to this debate. OK, you disagree with it, but please explain why. I have said that knowing is not the same as influencing, as you make it out to be. I did not say God sets our path and sends us to heaven or hell, we set our own path and send ourselves to heaven or hell. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... The reason I used a man who strongly predicts but doesn't truly KNOW was to show a correlation of the two. For the purpose of the analogy, the two are basically the same thing. I chose the man to be strongly predicting instead of all knowing simply because no man is all knowing (making the analogy unrealistic). You claim the analogy to be misleading, but I think you are overthinking it and have missed the point. For all intensive purposes, I'll ammend thae analogy and make the man omniscient, like God. Doing so makes no difference except that it satisfies your complaint. Your next paragraph about the man rewinding time a hundred times just to see her grab the same paper over and over again is plausible, but so is my explanation. Suppose the man did rewind the scene over and over agiain, just to see her choose the paper. Key word choose. Although her descision is set in stone, it wasn't the omniscient man who made her choose that one paper, it was the lady. Even if she can not differentiate from that choice by rewinding back again, it was still a choice nonetheless and happened in the percieveable future because of her choice. This is assuming that eternalism is true, and I have already stated why it doesn't necesarily have to be for an omniscient God. God doesn't have to experience the reality to know it to be true. He knows reality even when it hasn't happened yet. This is different from predicting. Concluding Statements: Omniscience isn't the same as predicting something, or witnessing something and thus knowing, it's simply knowing; knowing what has happened, what is happening, what will happen, what did NOT happen, etc. Omniscience is simply knowing everything, even without exposure or learning. This falls perfectly in line with Pro's definition of omniscience, "having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight, an omniscient author." Thus, we can see why eternalism is not necessary, and why free will, known but not influenced by God, is a possibility. Thank you for the debate and the kind words. However, I wish to continue this in the comment sections if you'll allow it.
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

Rebuttal: I can agree with Con that we perceive to have Free will. While I can also agree we do not appear to be mind controlled. I do not see how this would show that free will is not an illusion. As it could be possible that we perceive to have free will while in reality do not have it.I agree that if God is omniscient then this suggests that God knows the future. I would like to specify that this knowing the future is more than a guess that it would be definite knowledge at this point.I disagree with the idea that knowing a set future would not imply that the choices are already made. I also do not see how the idea of God setting a path without our knowledge and then sending us to heaven or hell is relevant to this debate. As for the analogy I believe it is a bit misleading. The man in the scenario is said to “know” that the woman would choose the times. This knowing and the knowing of an omniscient being is different. The man in the story is making predictions on things he has learned. While an omniscient being would not be doing this. I propose the omniscient being would know for certain as if having watched the events unfold in the future. Something the man in the scenario could never do. Because the purpose of this story is to show an example of knowing being similar this is an equivocation fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... While I do agree mind control is not used I see no suggestion that it was not an illusion of free will when the woman picked the times. I suggest that if this man would know the future in an omniscient way that the story should be changed as the man would have watched the woman pick the paper then rewind time and the woman comes back at the same time exact same place and the man watches the woman pick the same paper up. The Woman in this scenario is not aware that time was redone. The man had previously seen the woman pick the paper and knew she would pick the same paper. If you rewind time 100s of times the woman will always pick the same paper up. Because of this I suggest free will is an illusion as the woman can never change her mind and can not choose a different paper. This also implies that all of time not just the woman’s life, but all life before and after her is set in stone. While we may perceive free will the illusion is whatever choices we have made have already been made before we make them.
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

I will save my rebuttal to Con's Round 2 Argument for Round 3. Argument: God, an omniscient being, knows our future choices, but does not influence them. Explanation: One of God's presumed traits is that he knows everything, even events that have not happened yet. For instance, he knew that man would turn on him with sin. But there is a fine line between knowing something will happen, and influencing the said something. Man was not programmed to sin, as we are not robots. We are born with a free will, not mind-controlled by God. God simply knowing our choices before they take place does not require "mind control" it's more of "mind-knowing." In a sense, God already: knows the destination before us, what choice we are to make, and whether we shall be in heaven or hell. This does not mean he: sets the destination before us, chooses our choices, and then sends us to heaven or hell. We are accountable for our actions, the only thing that God has to do with them is know about them. I will also offer an analogy: Let's say an extremely smart person who easily picks up on patterns of people notices a woman walking past the newspaper stand. The smart person somehow knows that the lady prefers The New York Times to USA Today. So, the man knows, or at least STRONGLY predicts, that the woman will choose the Times. Sure enough, she does. The smart man represents God, and the woman represents people with a choice. The smart man did not use the Force to take over her mind to grab the Times, he simply knew she would. Bye.
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

Argument: If omniscient (knowing the future) is true, then eternalism(1) is true (set timeline)Thus Free will is an illusion (perceived to be true though in reality false). It is a given that we perceive to have free will since we have the ability of acting on our own accord. My argument goes into the ideologies of eternalism. Eternalism is the idea that time is a linier object and that the future already exists just that we have not perceived it to have happened yet. While this is not my personal belief I do believe that If an omniscient being is real then that would imply eternalism to be real as well. The reason for this is that for a being to be all knowing then it would need to know the future and for such a being to know the future it logically stands that the future must have happened. Otherwise it would not know the future it would only predict the future. For an example of this idea I will use the analogy of a movie. In the movie the characters are not aware of the future events that should occur. While you as a viewer of the movie could watch it and then know the ending. This movie would represent time all the things that happen in the movie are set. You having the power to see the future events in the movie would have the same ability as an omniscient being, in the fact you will know what will happen as you have seen the movie before. Now if the being is omniscient and knows the future this tells us that eternalism is true. This also implies that any decisions you make will have already been made, as you cannot change what the future would do. This is just like a character in the movie that can make decisions though that person if you rewind the video will always make the same decision leading to the same future. This gives the illusion of free will. If it is true that a being should know what the future holds as it has seen the future then free will is an illusion as any choices you make have already been made. While I agree that when you make the choices you have the perception of free will. I am suggesting and implying that this perception is an illusion as the events and choices you make will always lead to the same future. With the omniscient God I can point out Judas betraying Jesus as an example. In this case assuming God to be real. It was planned that Judas must betray Jesus condemning Judas to an ill fate. While Judas has the perception of free will in this case, Judas will always end up betraying Jesus and will never not betray Jesus. Thus giving an illusion of free will. Judas was destined in betraying Jesus in this scenario and there was never a time that Judas had the option to not betray Jesus. To summerize, If you know the future then any choices you make currently has already been decided before you made them. . https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

I will be arguing that man's free will and God's omniscience can coexist, and that free will is NOT an illusion. Definitions (from dictionary. com): know: to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc. , of others: Format: I propose that we are allowed rebuttals to the rebuttals in Round 4 as well as closing statements.
If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

Round 2 argumentRound 3 rebuttalRound 4 closing statements - The debate will assume that a omniscient God is real. Omniscient 1:having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight, an omniscient author “the narrator seems an omniscient person who tells us about the characters and their relations” —Ira Konigsberg 2:possessed of universal or complete knowledge “the omniscient God” Free Will the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Illusion 1a obsolete :the action of deceiving b (1) :the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled :misapprehension (2) :an instance of such deception 2a (1) :a misleading image presented to the vision (2) :something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) :perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) :hallucination 1 (3) :a pattern capable of reversible perspective - Burden of proof for the debate is shared equally. In Round 2 it will be the responsibility of both pro and con to provide an argument supporting free will being an illusion(pro), or not being an illusion(con). If Con has any changes to the format of the debate please add the stipulations in your Round 1 acceptance. If Con wishes to go first He may begin in Round 1 and close in Round 3. Thanks,
The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

You don't give me anything to negate yet, so I'll just note some observations and you can make your case whenever. The resolution sets out three burdens for the affirmative to meet, whereas the negative only has the burden of adequately negating one of the three facets of the resolution. If just one of these is met by the negative then you have sufficient reason to negate insofar as the burdens set out to affirm are not wholly met. There is no 2/3 vote here; burdens are burdens for a reason. They are as follows: 1) The earth is 6,000 years old. 2) The bible proves 1) 3) The biblical proof is scientific. Constraints: 1) 6,000 years old can be proven through any kind of logical reasoning, there doesn't need to be a sticker that says "Earth: 7,000." or whatever, only it has to prove 6,000 exactly. The resolution says "only" so it's implying some precision in the calculation of age thus 6,000 is the number that MUST be met. 2) The bible alone must prove it. Any arguments not deriving from the bible on the affirmative can be instantaneously disqualified as they are not within the scope of the resolution. Contradictory evidence can derive from forums outside of the bible, as the negative is not constrained by the resolution only to operate within that text. 3) Scientific means that it employs technology to prove something; dropping two things off a building could be considered scientific proof for gravity, but obviously we wouldn't accept that as sound justification. Thus, scientific proof involves some form of technology. Uh, as for an NC (Negative Constructive) I'm not really going to worry about that. I'm just going to block out the AC (affirmative constructive) and void his impacts, which would give you sufficient reason to negate, insofar as he won't be meeting the triple burden set by the resolution. So my "constructive" will be in rebuttal, and the debate will be waged on the affirmative side - myself demonstrating how he doesn't meet the burdens, him trying to prove how he does. Obviously he hasn't given me anything to negate yet, so at this point (if like, we forfeit every round after the initial round) you'd automatically vote in negation as he gives you no proof on how he meets the three burdens. Word of advice, you should probably just structure your argument by burden (3 contentions on how you meet each burden) and that'll make the debate a whole lot easier, nobody wants to sift through a bunch of useless words to find how and where you meet what I've placed upon you. It'll make the debate run much more smoothly. Aiight, whenever you're ready.