BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's reasonable to believe in magic

I will try to use physics to support why magic probably can't exist. Here are a few ways magic isn't able to exist:Argument:1) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Here's a source, http://www.physicscentral.com... .For example, when you eat an apple, it goes through several physical and chemical changes through your body, but the mass and energy contained in the apple still exists. The energy goes into your body, and whatever's left goes in the toilet. You can't create matter, it has to come from somewhere. There also hasn't been any way to remove mass from existence either.2) We haven't seen real magic.Ever been to a magic show? It seems like they're really turning doves into swans and making things disappear, but in reality, they're tricks. For example, when they use smoke, they use it to hide coming out/in trap doors. They also use mirrors and various other tools.You should check out the Masked Magician, who exposes many magic tricks. Here's a video where he shows how to survive a spike trap: Counter Arguments:These are some arguments I'd expect from a magic defender, and the fallacies they contain:You couldn't do it because you don't believe it'll work.This is an Appeal to Faith argument; it's not true unless you believe it to be. But the thing is, if you fail a spell, you might have even a little doubt it's possible. I used to believe magic existed when I tried looking up spells, but I later gave up on that, seeing as nothingwa shappening. It's impossible to have 0 doubt, especially when you've tried to shoot a fireball 5 times and not even a spark. If we're going off of faith brings magic, magic's practically impossible to achieve.You aren't a real wizard.This is a No True Scottsman fallacy; suggesting people who tried haven't tried enough or just weren't competent. Why not show me exactly how it's done?I can do magic!Then I'd proceed to ask for video evidence. Again, they're open to critique.God did [thing].You can't really prove that. And anything about how the universe was created is speculation.That's all I can think of off the top of my head. So why should I believe magic exists?
It's reasonable to believe in magic

Recently I've been seeing advertisements about magic on this site. So I decided to make this debate, to see if anyone would defend the notion that magic exists.Definitions:Magic; the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forceshttps://www.merriam-webster.com...Exist; to have real being whether material or spiritual, in this worldhttps://www.merriam-webster.com...Rules:1) The Burden of Proof will be mainly on Pro to show magic likely exists, but I'll also bring a few arguments that show it probably doesn't.2) We won't be arguing whether magic exists in media (like video games or TV), but whether it exists in this world. Also, science doesn't count as magic.3) It's preferred to have sources alongside your arguments, but they can and will be open to critique by the opposing side.(If there's anything you'd like added to this debate, say so in the comments.)I'm arguing that magic doesn't, or at least can't be shown to, exist in this world.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

Whilst a dictionary is very useful to understand the social use of language, it is unfortunately inadequate in explaining the philosophy of language. The vast number of definitions that have been cited by my opponent are either circular, or just used to describe social use of the word 'logical'. To clarify, the definitions given either describe being 'logical' as agreeing with the principles of 'logic', which leads us to ask, what is logic?, or give the definitions of similar, but not exact synonyms (such as 'reasonable' or 'to be expected' which do not mean the same thing as 'logical'). As we are dealing with the exact, and not with the obtuse, we can immediately throw out any definitions belonging to synonyms of 'logical', which do not have the same exact meaning. Hence, we need to examine the philosophy of logic. I guess I should have been more clear in expressing the fact that 'logical' statements cannot possibly apply to the empirical/physical world, because 'logic' is reasoning without experience (in the mind). For example balls are logically round, because the predicate concept of roundness is contained within the subject 'ball' (i.e. balls are by definition round) and 2 + 2 is logically 4. All of these statements I can validate 'logically' without ever having to touch a ball, or touch numbers (which don't exist in the physical world) since I can use logic of the mind. This also means that all logical statements are necessarily true, because they are not exposed to our fallible perceptions. However, I cannot say something like 'there are fossils' so 'logically there is evolution' or even 'I see a cat in front of me' so 'logically there is a cat in front of me'. This is because logic interpolates from what we already have, whereas all empirical propositions require extrapolation from observations (which are susceptible to human fallibility). So, by definition, what we actually mean by logic is the careful analysis of what we mean when we say things, which means that it doesn't make any inferences whatsoever. Going from 'there are fossils' to 'evolution occurs' is an inference, and therefore isn't based on logic, and even seemingly very obvious inferences cannot be said to be 'logical', such as 'I see a cat', therefore 'logically there is a cat'. In conclusion, a proper definition and analysis of logic shows that it only applies to necessary truths, such as 'all balls are round' or that 'all bachelors are men'. It is based on analysis in the mind, without any need to go and find evidence, because logic is the evidence in these cases. As empirical evidence is not logical by definition, we cannot say that any empirical claim is logical. Therefore, asking whether creationism or evolution is more logical is like asking whether red is taller than blue. I thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate so far, his politeness and his eloquence. I look forward to your response.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

First of all, I extend all my arguments, as my opponent did not object to them. Second, I would like to challenge my opponent's definition definition of "logical", which my opponent describes as: "By the term logical, I mean to say 'justified with certainty'" Definition: Justified with certainly. On this basis, I would have to consent the debate to my opponent, as nothing can be justified with certainty; thus nothing is logical at all. However, I dispute this definition and do not consent the debate. Logical is defined by (I'm assuming - as it was Google search and no source was given) Google is: log"i"cal /G2;l"jikəl/ Adjective 1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument: "a logical impossibility". 2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoning. [1] Nothing about "certainty". Similarly - "1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference. 2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking. 3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats. 4. of or pertaining to logic. "_dictionary. com[2] "1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic. 2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year. 3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. "_Answers. com[3] "1 a (1) : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2) : skilled in logic b : formally true or valid : analytic, deductive 2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion "_merriam-webster. com[4] I could cite more if my opponent wishes; all of these don't mention certainty, 100% or otherwise beyond doubt completely. Instead, with these definitions, your argument (which is based off the definition of logical, which appears to be false) no longer makes sense with the "shaky foundations fallacy". (You shaky foundation being the [apparently] an incorrect definition of logical) I believe that I has disproved your argument - and have extended mine. I patiently await your response! [1]. https://www.google.co.uk... [2]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]. http://www.answers.com... [4]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

Before moving the debate forward, I need to clarify the definition of logical, in the sense that it is a dichotomous definition; something is either 'logical' or it is 'not'. By the term logical, I mean to say 'justified with certainty', which means that 1+1=3 is not 'more logical' than 1+1=3333333. Both are equally illogical, as only 1+1=2 is 'logically' true. As I have established in my previous arguments, nothing based on empirical evidence can be 'logically' true, since the only propositions which are, are analytical. Therefore, my argument is that we cannot logically justify creationism or evolution, both of which are empirical propositions. As you put it in your final paragraph, all empirical propositions are indeed deserving of equal respect (or rather, skepticism), because we cannot say that any of them are 'logically true'. Although the given science and our current perception of history makes it seem more likely that evolution explains our natural history better than creationism, more likely doesn't mean more logical, and this certainly isn't just an issue of semantics. To give a brief reason why we can't equate 'more likely' with 'logically' - if I fasten my seat belt, I am more likely to survive a car crash, but does it mean that I logically survive a car crash? I guess you would probably concede that they are not the same thing. Therefore, to conclude, I wish to continue challenging the proposition's argument by examining the fundamentals at play in this debate, and fundamentally, I wish to differentiate between the concepts of 'more likely' and 'logically', thereby proving that evolution, although more likely, is not more logical than creationism.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

First of all, my opponent did not refute any of my contentions, therefore I extend all of my arguments. As for my opponent's argument: I sum up my opponent's argument as follows: "Since no one can prove anything 100% without being omniscient (all knowing) (true), and no one is omniscient (true), anything proposed is equally logical. (false). " I will now attempt to indicate how this is false. Think, if you will, of two vertical, empty tubes and several blocks that can fill these tubes. For every piece of evidence, a block goes into the respective tube. So with your argument, nothing actually happens because everything, on face value, demands equal respect. However, this is exactly why we need evidence, so we can deduce which one is more logical. Now my arguments tie into it - fossil distribution and transitional forms. That's two blocks for evolution. 2-0, if you like. It allows us to show how evolution is more logical. If your argument was indeed correct, one can believe in anything with every belief demanding equal respect. I think that this was your argument summed up and if I have got it wrong; I do apologise. Otherwise, I patiently await your response.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

I will now make my opening case for the Theory of Evolution. Contention 1: The distribution of fossils supports the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution predicts that as we move up the higher levels of strata, we should see more complex life forms fossilized, because animals will have evolved more over longer periods of time. However, the Argument for Creationism (should) predict that fossil distribution is random as bunnies were made with cyanobacteria which were made with mammoths which were made with homosapiens etc... OK, fair enough. But which does the evidence support? The Theory of Evolution. The fossil record show the distribution as predicted by the theory of evolution. You never find wooly mammoths with humans! I conclude that this fact (of the distribution) supports evolution. Contention 2: Transitional forms support evolution. The Theory of Evolution predicts that because of random mutation and natural selection, we will see animals in transition from one form to another. We should see these in fossils. However, the argument for Creationism states that we shouldn't see any at all, because all animals were made how they are now. What do we see? Transitional forms, supporting evolution. "From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians." As an example. I will use these as my initial arguments. Thanks you.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

Hi, I'd quite like to play the devil's advocate and try to produce a sound logical argument that can challenge the theory of evolution on a philosophical basis. I'm actually an atheist and accept evolution (although with reasonable philosophical doubt as I do with all factual claims) and have argued the proposing side several times. So if you are looking for a religious opponent, I would not be offended if you are no longer interested.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

Welcome all to this debate! I am making this debate for two reasons: a) I want to take the "Pro" side for a debate for once and b) I want to demonstrate to some people who don't agree with me why they are wrong. If I'm wrong and they're right - I'd very much like to see this pointed out in this debate. The first round is acceptance only. My opponent accepts the following things by accepting this debate: S/he can only use logic and logical arguments. S/he takes the standpoint of: Evolution isn't more logical than Creationism. Man has not evolved but has been created in its present form by a creator. (Most likely God for my opponent - but that's not the point). The last round is for closing statements only. No new arguments can be given in the last round. The BoP will rely on me to make a stand for evolution. If my opponent would simply like to refute my arguments then the BoP will rely on me alone. However, if my opponent would like to prove creationism then we share a BoP. I will make my opening argument in round 2. To confirm, the format will go like this: Round 1: I introduce and my opponent accepts. Round 2: I make my opening statements; my opponent makes his/her opening statements. Round 3: I refute my opponents argument(s); my opponent refutes my arguments. However, both myself and my opponent can concede arguments and/or the debate at this point. Round 4: I either make a counter-argument(s) or makes more argument(s); my opponent can refute my counter-argument(s). (My opponent can not make new arguments as round 5 will be for closing statements only - not refutes). Either me or my opponent is still open to conceding arguments or the debate. Round 5: Closing statements - no refutes or new arguments; although one can re-cap on past refutes. If you have any questions feel free to post a comment. Thank you, good luck to all, and allez!
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

I return the thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable, if not narrow-focused debate. Perhaps he was not expecting the slightly tedious analysis of the word 'logical', although I whole-heartedly concede that if we had focused in on any other of the words in the debate title, I would not have stood a chance, because I can see no reasonable path in defending creationism as the more likely theory. Had the original topic been 'evolution has more scientific merit than creationism', then I concede that opposing such a motion would have been futile. Although it seems a small nit to pick however, I stand by my argument that neither creationism nor evolution is more 'logical' than the other, and refer readers to my arguments in the 4th round, describing the true definition of 'logic', and why neither theory is 'logically' true. I thank my opponent, MysticEgg, once again for providing me with a platform to engage in my first debate on debate.org, for his reasonable arguments, and his exceptionally good natured debating style. I very much enjoyed the debate, and the topic! With Regards, A_Polemicist.
The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

His refutes were, indeed, very philosophical and it could take me awhile to come up with a refute/response. However, as per the rules of this debates, I cannot refute in the fifth round; I have to keep my opponent's refute open. So, since I cannot refute or propose new arguments, all I can say is: I extend my arguments from round one. Once again, I thank my opponent, A_Polemicist, for this debate, for his conduct, strong philosophical argument(s) (even though it was only clarified in round 4), and his (as far as I can tell) perfect spelling and grammar. A good debate, my friend! Kind regards, J
Marijuana Legalization

I didn't mean "we" I meant people that have nothing better to do because all we have here is corn meth and cannabis. The state I live in has many small towns so there is not many activities here for people to do. Saying that it will give more product for drug dealers to sell is not true because they will ose business with hig paying consumers. Only business they would receive is from the youth in our society. I know I wouldbecause there is no point in getting arrested from buying it illegally when I can go down the dispensary and buy high grade cannabis where I know it wont be lased with any harder drugs. Saying it causes extreme hallucinations is a biased opinion which is not proven or is it true. If it is natural grown and not lased with any hard drug it will not cause any hallucinations. This I know because I have used high grade cannabis and not once have I ever "tripped" or heard of any other user that I have personally talked to has "tripped" either. Any doctor or government official that opposes marijuana will tell you whatever they have to so that it will not become legalized. It is called a terror tactic to scared the majority of the public into believeing anything they say. Do you also believe that marijuana causes caveman ike tendencies and makes a person more likely to cause a crime like going out and shooting someone or stealing? For industrial hemp to be made into a product like paper and smoked ispointless because it is made from the steam of the plant which is low in THC (Delta-9-tretrahydrocannabinol). It has another cannabinoid in it that blocks the high. Which is why people pick out the stems and seeds from there marijuana buds that they buy because they have no effect on a person. Source: http://www.naihc.org... I am truly sorry your uncle died from a drunk driver but smoking and driving have no effect on a person. Have you ever heard of when people go smoking and driving it is called a roadie? maybe not but it is a common thing here and it has been for a long time. Smoking does not effect your driving even from my own personal experience I will tell you it has no effect on a persons driving ability. It all depends on how stupid the person is driving and how reckless they are. You said a it effect the stability of a person. That I will agree with on a few cases, but it has no effects on a persons motor skills like walking, talking, breathing, seeing, or etc. It is not alchohol where that effects a persons motor skill. Back to when you said it effects the brain. I agree it increase the production of dopamine which Is a chemical in your brain that controls emotions and movement. It increases the production and it is hard to get the production back to normal which is why it is link to schizophrenia because the people becomes a lot more emotion but this is only in severe cases.
Marijuana Legalization

Industrial hemp is fine, but this debate is about legalizing it, thus why the name of this debate is "Marijuana Legalization." In my opinion, you excuse in this round of the debate for using weed wasn't very good. "We have nothing better to do" is not a good argument, so I will continue to list more awful side-effects of the drug. Marijuana causes extreme hallucination, and affects balance. Some recent studies have discovered that the hallucination and affects on balance or worse than those of alcohol. Imagine "high" drivers out there. My uncle died from a drunk driver, but "high" drivers already sounds like a bad idea. Marijuana is pretty much impossible to have an overdose on, but do you really think society will benefit from another legalized drug? No I do no think hemp is okay for products for several reasons. First off, the fields where the drug grows will become easy sources of weed for dealers. Second off, if we make products, such as paper, out of hemp, a person could easily burn the paper and smoke it as weed. Your right, they would make better quality products, but I don't see many economic benefits considering a lot of money would go into law enforcement to stop people from abusing the hemp products or taking advantage of the weed fields in their own back yards.
Marijuana Legalization

I know what the government says about the connection between marijuana and IQ points in New Zealand but you can not prove that it is the main cause for someone losing their IQ points. Its not a pain killer but its a pain relief that's why it is prescribed in most medical cases. A lot of users have reported that when the smoke marijuana they feel better in the regions where there is pain because of the soothing effects it has. I know plenty of people that have used it to help with the pain they feel because of arthritis. I live in a town where there is nothing better to do then go out and smoke and drink. there is a gas station a restaurant and liquor store. If i was making up a false argument you would know because i would be making up more absurd numbers then 10. the town right next to me has a marijuana bust every other week because how much there is transported throughout this county. I know it sound absurd but my town and state is a huge drug state because there is nothing better to do. I know there is over seventy percent of youth that smoke in my town so there is an increased number of dealers because it is a great way to make money. What is your view on industrial hemp? It should be allowed to be used in place of timber and plastic because it is bio-degradable and it helps out with our economy.