BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans Can Have A Soul

Three thousand characters is ample. You did not have to accept, or respond to the first round if you did not. The first premise is actually just a definition for soul. From the ignostic perspective a soul is usually so ill defined that proving, or disproving it is impossible. However, I feel I’ve given a clear definition to proceed from. Under this definition if free will exists a soul would be the mechanism that permits it. If your objection is that I lack a source for this definition how about“The soul’s power with respect to the body - But the will is by its nature so free that it can’t ever be constrained. ” [1]This clearly defines a soul's primary action in relation to us is to provide free will. You’re free to present an alternative as a challenge. However, as an example, if I define a computer that is being used has a user all I would have to prove to prove that there is a user is that it is being used. It wouldn’t matter if the user was a person, or a bot. By definition the computer would have a user. Your argument against uncertainty appears to be rooted in the Copenhagen Interpretation, and fails to take into account any of the progression in the field of Quantum Mechanics since then. Bell’s Theorem was the first step to prove the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. Since then tests of the Theorem in 1971 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman your 5 principles have been in doubt[2]. You’re left with proof requiring the rejection of locality, or realism. In doing so each and every one of the principals are either discarded, or left in doubt. The tests of Bell’s Theorem has shown all combination of local variables that could exist cannot explain the results. Retreating to “Classical” Physics if an attempt to claim Classical General Relativity is superior to Quantum Mechanics when in Physics they are regarded as equal theories that each explains something the other cannot. Your appeal to Einstein is an appeal to an authority who cannot review the new data since he died in 1955. Comparing Quantum Physics to spontaneous generation, Creationism, is little more than an ad hominem. Given that it’s one of the most tested theories we have, and is the theory behind the Standard Model I will suggest you come up with a better analogy. I would argue that comparing a scientific theory you don’t agree with to Creationism is oddly similar to violating Godwin’s Law. [1] . http://www.earlymoderntexts.com... “Passions of the Soul” by René Descartes[2] . http://www.sciencenews.org...
Humans Can Have A Soul

Humans Can Have A SoulFor this to be true I must show that humans can have a soul, but that it is reasonable. A Souls is that which gives someone free will.Free will is the ability for someone to make a choice that is not predetermined. [1]If absolute determinism is true then there can be no free will.If there is no free will then there can be no soul. However, the uncertainty principle shows absolute “newtonian” determinism is false.[2] The world exists as a form of pseudo-determinism where we can predict short term outcomes with a fair degree of certainty, but not long term, and not with absolute certainty. This is caused by a universal mechanism for choosing values for things that are undetermined. For example, the spin of an electron is only known from the angle that it was last measured. If an electron is measured at an angle that it was not measured by last then it randomly chooses the direction of its spin. This was shown in the Stern-Gerlach Experiment.[3][4] The best word I have for this mechanism is chaos because chaos is defined as a state of things in which chance is supreme.[5] Therefore, a soul must be chaos. Quantum effects are one of the few, if only, sources for this chaos.If a human cannot have quantum effects then a human cannot have a soul.If biological organisms cannot have quantum effects then humans cannot have quantum effects.Conversely, if biological organisms can have quantum effects then humans can have quantum effects. This would be a result of common descent.Biological organisms have been shown to have utilized quantum effects. This has been shown in photosynthesis in plants, and in bird navigation. [6] Biological organisms can have quantum effects, therefore, humans can have quantum effects, and, thus, can have a soul.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://bigthink.com...[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[4] http://www-bcf.usc.edu...[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] http://www.nature.com...
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Montana has a 5.1 TD%, while Young's is 5.6 %; Montana has thrown 272 TD passes;Young has thrown 232. Montana threw for 40551 yards; Young threw for 33124. Montana threw for 211 yards a game; Young threw for 196. INt's were close – they both had an int% of 2.6, but Montana had more because he played longer, which leads to my point: While Young and Montana are close in terms of effectiveness, Montana played many more games – Montana played in 192; Young played in 169. This is highly significant because the more one plays, the more chances they get to contribute, and Montana was just as effective as Young, Montana having played more means he contributed more; thus, making him better.
Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true by interpretation of perspective viewer.

First I will Combat Con's Statement "Since we can determine truths without the need of a perspective, Pro's claim inevitably fails." We can not determine truths without need of perspective, but rather use perspective to determine truth. Truth Is continually being sought out by science but it can never be had as scientific theory, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" continually kills itself for new more up to date understandings and relations on the nature of the universe. Con states:"The nature of these things certainly do not make truth unattainable either. Qualities and characteristics of the universe can be understood and quantified." He fails to give a definition of the theory of Dark energy which postulates an expanding universe as each galaxy can be measured to be moving further away from those surrounding galaxies. A puzzling aspect of our universe which "Truth is still hidden". My Opponent Appreciates Merriam-Webster so here is Dark Energy: a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. Clearly two opposing factors in a universe ruled by cause and effect seems paradoxical. I surrender to your definition and description of heat as I can't disagree with evidence presented in the matter. though ultimately the truth of Heat and less heat is still unexplainable as is the particles that constitute its function. The Wavicle: "An electron is a tiny tiny bit of matter. The scientists in 1920"s fired a stream of electrons through a single slit and they behaved like a particle would be expected to. They then fired the stream of electrons through two slits and they got two lines. Great, just what they expected, until they left the room".. When they left the room the electrons acted like a wave and a particle, they got an interference pattern and bands. But again, when they were in the room, the electrons acted like particles and produced two strips."--"But the quantum world is far more complex than this. When they observed the electron it went back to behaving like a particle and produced two bands, not an interference pattern of many. The very act of measuring or observing which slit it would go through meant it only went through one and not both. The electron decided to act differently as though it was aware it was being watched." This evidence leaves one to wonder how objective science can truly be when the results of scientific query are influenced by sheer conscious awareness. How then can we "determine truths without the need of a perspective,"? "I'm not sure how you see no difference in description. One is the disbelief in God, the other is the belief in God. One could not logically agree with both as they are contradictory." I Sire, Believe God is absence of all that constitutes nature and thus can not be held by any natural law or thought derived from it. God Is Nothing, and I believe in god. I hope I'm not as crazy as you make me feel, but then again, what is paradox? :) Back to you
Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true by interpretation of perspective viewer.

After reading through debates on god and morality, I questioned the ultimate usefulness of such arguments in general as most people partaking in them leave with a stronger conviction than when they started. Debate has its purpose in coming to a consensus, or agreement. Paradox, or the binding of two opposite principles pervades every inch of our limited limitless universe, with dark matter and gravity pushing/pulling together what dark energy pushes/pulls constantly apart. Heat and Cold are also two explainable ultimately unexplainable polar extremes that own their own seperate nature while also meeting in the middle to create a life sustaining planet. Though self proclamized not to be a man of much reading Leonardo da Vinci put a large amount of emphasis on personal experience as the teacher of man. But personal experience is weighted by transpersonal experience or the experience of the whole. Many deeply personal experiences in history have resulted in transpersonal Religions and Customs. The Meditations of Buddha and Prayers of Jesus left different lasting impressions on culture worldwide, although many of their personal struggles could be veiwed as strikingly similar. One Might say there is a Supreme Immutable God beyond thought and comprehension, also beyond all material form. The other might claim that there is no god, only constant flux of an endless cycle of now which we create and experience, seperate only of nirvana, or unmanifest being. Meanwhile science maintains a primordial atom which housed all current matter, time, and space in it's grasp, before it gave itself for creation and duplication. Many worldviews hold a similar approach of creation, although each is tainted with personal dogma. As each of us carries and creates our own through our personal, transpersonal, experiences. In the Argument for Athiesm I agree. In the Argument for Theism I agree. As I see no difference in description. Only transpersonal interpretation.
druken shood be good en irulan

Ok, this will be interesting.Lets go!Ok to start I will offer a translation service of my opponents text to make this debate more understandable. Please note that I cannot speak fluently in my opponents tounge of language, I shall do my best."I dont like ye preety fackin coulors ladeeh. I be sticken me whopper straight in ye bum tif ya slam me ack in ta da fatty purteh. drunken no no good en irulan dont fack wit da meh on de iruland tis mah hoomeland and drunken is not good en iruland. I see a many drunkk fucs slamin der wee sherman rigt on te table far no reesoon beckas drunk en iruland. "Translation "I dont like your pretty f*cking colours, laddy. I am a**l pen***ting you if you slam me ----? ---- ? ----? --- the ----? ------.Drinking is no good in Ireland, don't f**k with me in Ireland, it is my homeland and drinking is not good in Ireland. I see many drunk people people having sex with the little (----?---) right on the table for no reason because they are drunk in Ireland. F**k of, Con"Ok, so we can see that my opponent has presented points regarding drinking and sex but has not shown why drinking is good in Ireland. If anything, he has presented points suggesting that drinking is actually bad in Ireland "drunken no no good en irulan". This seems somewhat odd My opponent also says that he is a**lly penetrating me... That is very flattering, but not today.... *nods.1) Being drunk in public will always be humiliatingBeing drunk in any country will be always be humiliating for you, therefore being drunk in Ireland will be humiliating. Being humiliated is never a good thing.Here are some examples in which im sure that you would feel humiliated if you were people in the examples below: 2. Alcohol related crimes in IrelandStatistics of crown goverment royal census reports have clear hard evidences that alcohol is evidently a great factor of contribution to the development of crime in many countries, including Ireland. This chart shows that alcohol consumption is responsible for and is a factor of influence in around 20% of reported crime in Ireland. Crime is bad- we can see the types of criminal acts that have been influenced by alcohol. This is evidence that drinking in Ireland is not good at all.Ok, That is my argument. I dont know if this was supposed to be a serious debate or a troll debate. Either way...To pro, thanks for being a good sport, stay gold.Vote me! http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie...http://www.ias.org.uk...http://www.justice.ie...http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie...;
druken shood be good en irulan

I dont like ye preety fackin coulors ladeeh. I be sticken me whopper straight in ye bum tif ya slam me ack in ta da fatty purteh. drunken no no good en irulan dont fack wit da meh on de iruland tis mah hoomeland and drunken is not good en iruland. I see a many drunkk fucs slamin der wee sherman rigt on te table far no reesoon beckas drunk en iruland. fack oof con vute proh ladeeh
Vladimir Putin

I will refute each argument with multiple responses. Your opinion that you like Putin does not prove your point, and is flawed logic. The entire point of this debate is to prove he is likeable. Everyone knows you like him, but your opinion must be proven by facts, which I have already demonstrated are not supported with facts. The actions that you mentioned are just a few good actions. That doesn't make him great. all of your examples were not backed up with evidence, so they do not stand. Overall, these few good actions do not make him likeable or a great leader. You never once refuted my example of how only 30% of Russians found him likable, and how almost every country in the world viewed him negatively! Next off, popularity is not the same thing as likeability. Justin Bieber is popular, but he is hated by many people, which does not make him likeable. Your logic is flawed. Even though you had evidence about his popularity, it is irrelevant. What is wrong with the money is that he is a liar. He said he only gets $110,000 dollars from the government, but ion fact, he is getting millions. That is flat out lying! That is a problem, which doesn't make him honest. Russia is not free. The economic freedom Index of the Heritage Foundation put them even lower than lat year, at a mere 50%. That is not free, and you never once refuted the study. Honesty: Fail Compassion: Fail (Due to lack of freedom in Russia) Integrity: Maybe Confidence: I'll agree Flexibility: Maybe Overall, you have left all of my polls unrefuted, have used your opinion instead of fact, have had a lack of evidence (only using two sources), and have made many logical fallacies. All of my arguments still stand. You have been looking at a few good actions, but I have looked at the big picture. Vladimir Putin is not a good guy, or a great leader. I eagerly await my opponent's response
Vladimir Putin

First of all likeable means like-able, meaning that you can like him, and I do, therefor he is likeable. Either way, if we went off of your definition, he is still likeable, because your definition constitutes that he have attributes that make him easily liked. For example, Vladimir Putin released Hillary’s emails and the DNC’s emails, he has also made gun regulations looser in Russia, allowing his citizens to openly carry shotguns in public, this shows the attribute that he supports transparency, accountability, and liberty, and that is more easily liked than any other quality I can think of. Popularity: Actually, Vladimir Putin does have a high popularity rating in Russia; {1} he is trying to reform their nation, giving the people more liberties, trying to crack down on inflation. Either way, that Vladimir Putin made child pornography illegal in Russia isn’t bad; in fact it is very good. Also, it makes no sense for a politician to increase second amendment rights but to decrease first amendment rights, if he wanted his people to be enslaved and not speak pout he would be tightening gun laws not loosening them like he is now. In regard to Putin’s Wealth, I don’t see what’s wrong with having money, besides, he most likely isn’t receiving much more than 110,000$, he probably has private assets aside from his presidency. For the rest of your argument you pretty much just repeat the same rhetoric, anyway, here are the listed qualities of a great leader: {2} Honesty - Check Compassion - questionable Integrity - Check Confidence - Check Flexibility – Check So he has at least 4 out of 5 leadership qualities, therefor a good leader, but either way I said that he is a great leader meaning that he is leading his nation on the right path, which he is, by making it freer. Also he has shown certain leadership qualities that no one else does, common sense for example, Putin has decided not to let Syrian terrorist “refugees” into his nation to rape women and young girls, that didn’t seem sensible to him, so he didn’t. {1}. http://www.politifact.com... {2}. http://www.slideshare.net...
Earth is older then 6000 years old.

Since you forfeited round 3. I will briefly expand on my last point about why the presence of C-14 in diamonds corroborates the findings of the helium/argon diffusion experiments. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, which means that uncontaminated samples of diamond that are purported to be millions of years old should not have any detectable amount of C-14 left. If the Earth were >1,000,000 years old, there would be no C-14 in the diamonds which were studied. In fact, a lump of C-14 the size of our planet would decay away in less than a million years. The earth"s mass is 6x10^27g which is equivalent to 4.3x10^26 moles of C-14. It would take 167 half-lives to get down to a single atom [log2(4.3x10^26 mol C-14 x 6.022x10^23 mol atoms) = log10(2.58x10^50) / log10^2)], and 167 half-lives is well under a million years; and in only 57,300 years, only a thousandth of the C-14 would be left, so in 1,000,000 years, virtually no C-14 would persist. (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...) (http://creation.com...) The studies conducted on the diamonds gave an upper-limit age of 58,000 years which is substantially less than millions of years. This shows us that the Earth is not 4.5Gy old. The findings of the helium/argon diffusion studies only support the C-14 findings and show that the Earth is indeed less than 58,000 years old and is in fact ~6,000 years old. (http://creation.com...)
Earth is older then 6000 years old.

Welcome. While I am impressed with your response some of your argument can be debunked easily. I am also happy that you were the first creationist that accepted one of my arguements so congrats on that too! and also don't use the Ken Ham strategy and talk about " Observable history " Because I can debunk that easily. Now on. First what you said about a young earth and an old universe the whole universe described in genesis was created just 1 day before the earth was made. Just 1 day here is a map of everything that was created in 1 day before the six day spent on the earth by your " Creator ". http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com... Well about the "Flood" it takes millions of years for rocks other than sandstone to form. Most of the fossils are in anything but sandstone. Also, if Noah's Flood were the cause for the fossil table, then the fossil table would look different: the fossils would not remain all in the same strata. For instance, you would find trilobite fossils mixed in with dinosaur, horse, and rhino fossils at all levels of strata. However, what we see agrees with evolution, not Noah's flood. About what I said about 4.5 billion ly away stars. I said that is the furthest with the naked eye. not necessarily with the Hubble. Ok about your arguments about preC Granite. The most extensive and devastating recent criticisms of Dr. Humphreys' claims originate from old-Earth creationist and materials engineer Dr. Gary H. Loechelt. Dr. Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys' and R. V. Gentry's data, which raise many new arguments that further undermine Dr. Humphreys' young-Earth creationist claims. Loechelt is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys' claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent and erroneous, and that Dr. Humphreys' helium diffusion data are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons. Although Humphreys briefly mention Loechelt Dr. Humphreys provides no detailed responses to Dr. Loechelt's models and his numerous criticisms. The "dating" equations in Humphreys Work are clearly based on many questionable assumptions (including: isotropic helium diffusion in minerals, constant subsurface temperatures over time, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, etc.). The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. http://www.reasons.org... http://www.asa3.org... http://www.reasons.org...
Earth is older then 6000 years old.

The earth that we both live on is way older than 6000 years contrast to bible literalist belief. There is much evidence proving that the earth is older than 6000 years old. and is in fact 4.5 billion years old. 1, Continental drift The fact that tectonic plates are moving the continents around. there is evidence that several fossils from one kind of dinosaur have been found in both eastern brazil and central-western africa. Thus proving that the two continents have been together at one point. If the world was only 6000 years old as said in the bible then brazil and africa split apart by an average of 1 mile each year. As well you belive for around the 3k years that our ancestors were settled none of them noticed that untill recently? 2,Light speed. This explains the speed light travels at each year. so lets say there is a star in our night sky that is more than 6000 light years away ( What the sky is mostly made of ) The light from that star can make it to our eyes even though we have never had enough time to see light from the star.we can see stars 4.5 billion light years away. but no further. this being proof that the earth is older than just 6,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org... Here you go now your turn.
Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

My opponent starts with the faulty claim that reasonable arguments do not always agreeMay I ask how two reasonable people can disagree that the sides of a triangle must equal three? Likewise, if a rational person finds that murder and theft are wrongAny hope for a rational rebuttle will soon be gone A syllogism does not rely on personal preferenceA is always A, regardless of your frame of referenceWhen two arguments seemingly conflictCheck your premisses; one must be a trickYour examples of ethical conflict leave much to be desired Is it not so that one side must be right? Your rapping is miredIn the swamp of subjectivism, even though that's what I'm accused ofOnly one of teleology and deontology can be rational, and that's a fact, love Even if we cannot know prima facie what is reasonableThe fact remains that moral systems remain feasible One can still be moral assuming he's not out of touch with realityGiven this, it is absolutely clear that I have argued my case valiantly.