BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Word "Omnipotent" Can Be Shown To Be Oxymoronic

The proposition on offer is that the word omnipotent can be shown to be oxymoronic. Relevant definitions: Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. [1] Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. [1] 1 - The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ********************************************************* My opponent has claimed that the word "omnipotent" contains within itself an oxymoron because of the omnipotence paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org...), which follows as such, for example: God is omnipotent. God cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. However, there is no implicit contradiction within the term omnipotent. What is required to understand the notion of unlimited power/force/etc... is the understanding that omnipotence incorporates the power to do anything. However, in the case at hand concerning the rock, a rock so heavy God cannot lift it is not a thing in the very same way that a three-sided square is not a thing. The flawed reasoning in describing omnipotence as a contradictory term is in supposing that the term is inclusive of things that are logically incoherent. I suggest that my opponent deliberately engages in this faulty reasoning as part of the fallacy of begging the question to attempt to import some mystery into God's existence, when in fact, his argument is simply flawed. ***************************************************** A brief list of things an omnipotent being cannot do: Make a three-sided square Make a square circle Make a four-sided pentagon Make a five-sided hexagon (etc...) Make it the case that I have/never existed/will exist Make a rock so heavy it cannot lift **************************************************** I await rebuttal. NEGATED.
Deontology is not a justified normative ethical system

Morals are based on man-made rules which are solely based on perception. You cannot argue morality objectively because morality is equivalent to personal interests not practical interference. This is not to say that subjectivity is all a human is capable of, no - it's arguing what is otherwise detrimentally ingrained within a person's mind that results in futility. You cannot say "what you do is right/wrong" - you have to use contrasts and consequences to reflect their actions and their results. Understand?
Deontology is not a justified normative ethical system

Thank you con. I will provide a quick rebuttal of my opponent's case, and then I will provide some arguments in my favour. Firstly, since deontology depends on the existence of objective morality, my opponent's doubt of this integral aspect does not make the resolution "Deontology is not a justified normative ethical system" false. Secondly, if my opponent truly believes that existing without morals is acceptable if manslaughter is not a result, then I'm afraid that's conceding to the ideas of consequentialism, which directly oppose deontology. I have to wonder if my opponent was aware of the fact that they are on the Con side of this debate. "In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare." [1] A simple way of calling out the flaws in this this argument would be to look at what we call actions. A deontologist might say, for example that lying is an unjustifiable action, even if it leads to saving lives. They might also argue, that it is an unjustifiable act to knowingly kill a person. These two ideas cannot coexist, and I will explain why. If we look at any act, we can see that the consequences that follow are always grouped with the act, to some extent or another. For example, saying the words "I don't know where Brian is" is not in and of itself lying; saying "I don't know where Brian is" in order to deceive someone is. Likewise, refusing to lie is not in and of itself killing a person; refusing to lie knowing that it will result in someone's death is. Besides that, any world with less goodness is worse than a world with more goodness. If an act leads to more goodness than another act or inaction, then the world is worse. Good luck, Con. [1] http://www.britannica.com...
Capitalism is better than Socialism Change my Mind

First of all the national average is not accurate. It varies a lot for different states. States with higher minimum wage have higher average private tuition cost. The statistic you provided does not adjust for individual state inflation. I said earlier it would be affordable to go to private school if you did not pay taxes for a school you do not go to. You could also get a scholarship. https://www. Minimum-wage. Org/wage-by-state https://www. Privateschoolreview. Com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state
Capitalism is better than Socialism Change my Mind

What constitutes private school differs around the world, So I will stick with the United States private schooling system. They show the following statistics: 1. 87% of parents with more than $75, 000 choose public over private school. Why? Average tuition for all private school levels in 2011 was $10, 740. Of the 13% who attended, Less than 6% of those students came from families who made less than $50, 000 compared to 26% of the students whose families made $200, 000 or more. The majority of people who polled were from middle to upper class status. These schools aren't being distributed equally. They are being segregated to middle-upper class areas, So they can make money. Every statistic on the Education Next website shows the large population disparity of lower income to upper class. 2. Private schools are incomparable to public education quality. - They have less students. - Since they have typically less "serious problems" and better benefits, More qualified teachers are willing to take a pay cut to teach there. Private school teachers are twice as likely to have PHDs. -They are allowed an extra hour of school for religious purposes which could increase their literacy rates. -Their teaching methods are not restricted by the federal and state curriculums. So either people of lower SES students should be afforded more opportunities for private school or programs should be funded to improve the quality of public schools. To address your "public education" tax you propose, It doesn't seem different from a welfare program. Money is money, However, You choose to gather it. After it is gathered, It can be distributed directly to the public schools whether it comes from the tax or a welfare program. (http://www. Capenet. Org/facts. Html) (https://www. Citylab. Com/equity/2014/08/where-private-school-enrollment-is-highest-and-lowest-across-the-us/375993/) (https://www. Educationnext. Org/who-goes-private-school-long-term-enrollment-trends-family-income/) (https://www. Theatlantic. Com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/)
Capitalism is better than Socialism Change my Mind

Instead of welfare we need to have public education tax only occur for those going to public schools. Because according to evidence private schools are better without public education tax. "Private schools are more cost-effective than government schools and are financially sustainable. Private schools, The evidence shows, Have lower cost of education delivery than government schools; in combination with their higher quality levels this would suggest greater cost effectiveness. Using the proxy measure of length of operation of private schools, Private schools are very clearly financially sustainable. Even stronger circumstantial evidence comes from the vast number of private schools: so many educational entrepreneurs would not be entering these markets if they did not believe the schools to be financially sustainable " "Some evidence indicates variation in the relative performance of private school pupils in different subject areas. Kingdon (2008) concludes that private unaided schools are 27 percent more effective than private aided schools in their mathematics teaching in Uttar Pradesh. Using data from Andhra Pradesh, Singh and Sarkar (2012) similarly find a private school advantage in mathematics (though attainment was still lower than expected). Notably, However, In Kingdon"s analysis (2008), All three school types studied (government, Private aided and private unaided) were equally effective in imparting reading skills" "By contrast, Emerging work by Muralidharan and Sundararaman (2013) reports that children in private schools in Andhra Pradesh are performing better in English and Hindi, And no worse in mathematics and Telugu. This is in spite of the fact that 40 percent less instruction time is dedicated to these subjects in private than in government schools (Muralidharan and Sundararama" They are also shows to be less sexist ""Private schools may mitigate gender differences " if private schools fulfil differentiated demand (e. G. , Provide local schools so that girls do not have to travel far or provide separate toilets for girls and boys), Availability of private schools will increase girls" access to schooling and learning and thus reduce the gender gap in literacy" Research study on private vs public education https://assets. Publishing. Service. Gov. Uk/media/5b76ab24ed915d14e1fe34b1/K4D_HDR_Basic_Education_and_Employment. Pdf
Capitalism is better than Socialism Change my Mind

To begin, I'm not a supporter of state socialism. The USSR, Venezuela, And Cuba have shown the problems with that system. Instead, I propose more of a democratic socialist standpoint. 1. I am not opposed to capitalism. In fact, I believe that free markets, Voluntary exchange, And capital accumulation help society but those systems can become corrupt without state intervention. If people were left entirely to their own devices, Then the people at the top would oppress the people at the bottom to maintain their positions. They would pay exploit people's labor to maximize profits. I'm not suggesting CEO's don't incur more risk, But people should at least be paid a living wage. If they aren't, Then they can't even afford to buy the products the companies are selling. State intervention allows consequences to those people at the top, And though it is still somewhat corrupt today, It is better than the alternative. 2. The United States discriminated against specific minorities in the past. This made voluntary exchange coerced and opportunities for the future limited. Economically speaking, African-Americans are still recovering from Jim Crow laws. In order to help facilitate social mobility, We should invest resources into welfare programs. Though some people will surely abuse the system, There will be others who use it properly and I don't believe those who abuse it justify the system itself as worthless. I think those people instead should be punished. 3. (Expansion of 2) I believe programs should be created to keep kids from lower income areas in high school. Only 2% of people who graduated high school, Got a full time job, And waited until 21 to get married and children stayed in poverty. Yet, 30% of African Americans and 17% of Hispanics don't graduate high school (Pew research). I suggest taking a small portion from the $600 billion spent on the military to fund these programs. If people decide at some point not to use them, Then the money can be taken out and used elsewhere. 4. Lastly, Capitalism will exploit natural resources without consideration for future generations. Profit over social good leads to a depletion of resources which leads to social strife. I think this is at least a decent place to start.
Modern Christianity is FKED UP!

The Instigator, Debatwinnerpro, has decided to forfeit on the second round. To wrap up this "debate" off, i'll like to give props to Debatwinnerpro for deciding to roll out such a bold and bias debate topic. I thought this debate was gonna be a hard one at first. Thank you to all the people who viewed and read this debate. I believe that I, GeorgeG (The Contender) has clearly won this debate because of my valid evidence, opinions stated and my good grammar. The Instigator on the other hand, in my opinion had poor grammar, not enough valid statements and no evidence. Vote > Con. Stay Blessed.
Modern Christianity is FKED UP!

I see you believe that "Modern day Christian Beliefs are false." I would like to question, what makes you say such a bold statement? In my opinion, I believe that Christianity, modern or not, it the same. The term "Modern" means relating to the present or recent times. In the Bible, it refers to the present time, for example, the saying "The Lord is always with you" which is a saying commonly used among Christians to remind each other that miracles happen everyday. That the Lord makes miracles. Everyday. Therefore I believe the saying "Modern Christian" is nothing more then Christianity at its purest form. Furthermore, I would like to add on, what are the beliefs of "Modern day Christians?" What makes "Modern day Christians" "Modern?"
it is better 2 call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

how do you fit that argument into a definitional framework? according to the definitions i cited, which seems to be more along the lines of what prominent atheist richard dawkins supports, as cited earlier..... agnostic means no belief and no disbelief in God. there must be some sort of proactive disbelief in God to be considered an atheist. that means, they would by default be called agnostic. that comports to common understanding of the terms as well. trying to get into the slippery slope edge of limited athesits has too many problems to jump into it. that's why, like dawkins, we don't get into it.
it is better 2 call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

Really, I'll be quick, simply because i think it's a pretty simple thing. First of all, though, I'm not entirely clear if you're against calling babies atheists, or that they be called agnostic. With that said, I'll be brief. I think that to address their theological views, in the first place, would be somewhat foolish as...well...they don't have such views. And, with that, I say that if you were to call them anything, you should classify them as atheists. Simply because they neither understand the concept of "God" nor are they even aware that there is such a concept. They do not consider it because in their minds there is nothing to consider. They cannot consider the possibility of there being a "God", as an Agnostic or Agnostic Atheist might, because they do not know of that possibility or impossibility. So, I conclude, I think that they should be called Atheists because they strictly do not believe in "God". Lest one were to force them, that is
it is better 2 call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

i'm trying to find some sort of objective information on what public perception would define those terms. if it were better established that public perception is that agnosticism includes some sort of awareness that rejects belief and active disbelief, i would consider conceding. it is clear, to me, the way i perceive public perception. of course, i also have definitions that fit for me from dictionaries, but i know those can vary. i do have notable support by the prominent atheist, richard dawkins. do you have any objective information about public perception? it is very hard to find, and i hope it doesn't just come down to that. i'm pretty sure it's clear that i'm right, but i always admit to the possibility of being wrong.
it is better 2 call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

...it's...how do I put it? I disagree with your definitions of the terms. I view an Agnostic as somebody who is aware of the existence of a God and is undecided on whether or not one such being exists. IE: Thinks that "God" may or may not exist. Whilst an Atheist is anyone and everyone(and thing) which does not believe in(or disbelieves) "God", be it because they lack the knowledge of the existence of the concept, or because they are aware of the concept, but view it as unlikely/impossible/illogical etc. Under the terms you define them...it's kind of a set up, really. One would have to agree that they should be called Agnostic simply because choosing the alternative, in this case, would be wrong(it'd be assuming that babes, ignorant of everything, posses the knowledge of the concept of "God" and the capability to believe or disbelieve the concept). One cannot propose an argument upon a set of definitions that are, in the end, incorrect or rigged. Therefor, I conclude that they should be called atheist on the matter, as they do, in fact, not believe in God. PS: It's my first debate on this site, so I'm still trying to grasp the format.
schools should have uniforms

I had to wear uniforms for most of my school life and I hated it. There was no unity at all. We were all different and I was even later ignored by my peers. As for not getting fun for having different fashion sense, that can still happen. Someone could say they like Lady Gaga's fashions and get made fun of because of that. As for less fights, I doubt that a uniform would make it so a kid doesn't get into more trouble. Some kids are more prone to being disrespectful.
Her Majesty the Queen is a worthy owner of all Britain's wild swans

Well, well, Captain Priviledge decided to respond... Let's get this over with... CONCLUSION My opponent has tried some ridiculous fallacy to try and paint this war criminal swan as some kind of hero. Well that's not going to fly here bucko. That swan is a menace and needs to be destroyed! It's very existence fulfills my burden of proof; that not only should the swans be returned to the people, but that the Queen and Mr. Asstomouth should both be publicly executed by way of hot oil poured down their throats! I must apologize I can't elaborate any more but I'm writing this on my iPhone and it's very difficult. Peace out.
Her Majesty the Queen is a worthy owner of all Britain's wild swans

Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to reply to his arguments to the extent they deserve, but, in short, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter: and Mr Asbo was simply defending his territory from a bunch of over-privileged toffs. By the way, I'm not a monarchist - who in their right mind would opt for an all-powerful, unelected head of state? However, Queen Elizabeth II is a benign old lady without a bad word to say about anybody and she cares about swans, so she's a good egg in my opinion - not so sure about her son and his horse-faced wife though. By the way, doesn't everybody wear swan-feather underpants? Surely it's not just me. Save Mr. Asbo, vote Pro. Thank you.
Her Majesty the Queen is a worthy owner of all Britain's wild swans

OPENINGMy opponent, (who appears to be some sort of boot licking, monarchist suckhole and thus should be ignored anyway) has stated that because the Queen has denied the request for the immediate execution of known terrorist, Mr. Asbo, she has somehow demonstrated that she is indeed worthy of continued ownership of this misrepresented minority group. How wrong he is. ARGUMENTSMr. Asbo is a terrorist! I need not explain the definition of a terrorist. Anyone who uses fear tactics to get what they want is a terrorist and this psychotic swan is no exception. According to my opponents own sources, the swan would attack people who tried to make use of the public river for rowing, trying to drive them out of the area. This is clearly appealing and no leaniance should be granted! It then follows that. .. The queen is a terrorist sympathiser! Since we can see that the terrorist was not only not apprehended, but was escorted by public servents to some secret location for his own protection, it's clear the queen supports the actions of the criminal. I ask you, dear reader. .. Should such a dispicable individual be granted any power over a potential army of terrorists? The answer is clearly no. SOME MORE ARGUMENTSWho the hell does the Queen think she is, anyway, the old whore? This is not really any argument, but nevertheless. .. Why should some rich, old, dittering, old, alcoholic be granted any kind of special treatment by a country she does next to nothing for? A country who she owes her fortune and health to? I assert that the PEOPLE OF ENGLAND should be granted collective ownership of the swans. CONCLUSIONThis brown-nosed attempt by my opponent to get into the Queens good graces is transparent and pathetic. I can personally reveal to you, the people of DDO, that Brian has an extreme fetish for wearing swan feathered underpants and this is clearly an attempt to procure said feathers through less than reputable means.
Her Majesty the Queen is a worthy owner of all Britain's wild swans

No doubt most of you read Britain's leading revolutionary anti-capitalist newspaper, The Socialist Worker, from cover to cover every week, but for those few who do not (and if not, why not, may I ask?) please find reproduced hereunder a short article from this week's edition which is entitled ‘What have toffs done to Cambridge swan?' "Concern is mounting for a swan that has been moved to a ‘secret location' — after attacking posh Cambridge University rowers. The class warrior bird had been launching himself at many of the 2,000 poshos who regularly row on the river, capsizing some of their boats. The toff rowers even nicknamed it 'Mr Asbo' and wrote to the queen to demand it be killed. Officials say they didn't get their wish — but suspiciously its current whereabouts remain unknown." By way of explanation for non-British readers, by the way, a ‘toff' is an upper class person and an ‘Asbo' is an anti-social behaviour court order issued to restrict the social activities of someone who makes a nuisance of themselves in public. In addition, many foreigners may not be aware that all wild swans are considered the personal possessions of the reigning monarch – it has been that way since the 12th Century (2) - and that is why the snobbish students appealed to the Queen, rather than any government authority, to demand that the socialist swan be killed. Thankfully, the Queen did not cave in to the toffs' demands and the bird has escaped the vengeance of the posh boaters – though it seems it has had to go into hiding for its own safety. Quite rightly, in this case, Her Majesty put nine hundred years of tradition before the spiteful demands of a bunch of nautical Hooray Henrys and, by so doing, demonstrated that she is a worthy owner of all Britain's wild swans and should remain so – at least until the Glorious Revolution takes place, of course! Thank you. (1) http://www.socialistworker.co.uk... (2) http://www.royal.gov.uk...