BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

Yes I know Helen Keller was Blind and Deaf. As the topic said "Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does," but I did not say ALL deaf people. I was only referring to deaf people who can see. (I know I did not say that in the first round) Most people who was born deaf have one sense better than everything else. Most common sense that was better than other is eye sights because we are requires to watch everything around us. Hearing people really don't depend on their eye sights that much compare to Deaf people. As I'm saying, we depend to use our eyes to see the cars coming, lights going on/off, objects moving, sign language, lip-reading. Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see. How many of you guys are hearing and does not depend on the sights to know what's going on? Do you just listen to everything to see if you can figure out what's going on? Or you always look around trying to figure it out?
Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

Good evening. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like the voters to vote based on who provided the better arguments. If you happen to have a simple bias against the kind of argument I am about to use (and it is not refuted by my opponent), I would suggest that you not vote and carry out your complaints in the comment section. For everyone else, let us proceed. In today's case, I shall attack the claim "Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does" on two levels. First, let us focus on the word "does." According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "does" is defined as "Third person singular present tense of do"(1) Thus, it is quite clear that the topic is suggesting that the term "people" is singular, but I insure you that it isn't. Through observing dictionary.com, the term people is clearly a plural term(2). These facts alone would suggest that the resolution is impossible. Second, let us focus on the claim as a whole. My opponent provided no form of clarification in round 1, thus I must rely on my own comprehension for clarification. Looking at how it is phrased, it suggests that there are no exceptions when comparing deaf people to people who aren't deaf. This is my opponent's downfall as there are indeed exceptions. For instance, not all deaf people have sight. Helen Keller is a good example of deaf person who couldn't see nor hear (3). Therefore, since not all deaf people have sight in the first place, such a claim as the resolution cannot be made with any sort of validation. With these two points being noted, the contender of this debate is victorious. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Peanut butter and jelly or ham and cheese

I agree with you. While jelly is the "downfall" of the sandwich, as you put it, I believe it's based on the type you use. My family grows their own strawberries and make the jam with little to no additives, thus making it healthier. However, there is also the factor of pesticides, but that can be delved into at a later time. And yes, ham is a good source of protein and cheese is a source of calcium, but there's the factor of food allergies, such as one being lactose intolerant.
Peanut butter and jelly or ham and cheese

I've researched the calories per sandwich, and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich contains approximately 318 calories while a ham and cheese sandwich only contains 241 calories. However, this does not include health benefits regarding sugars and proteins. Although ham is typically more difficult to digest, a ham and cheese sandwich proves to be a good source of protein while maintaining its benefit of being a low carb meal. Comparatively, peanut butter is a good source of protein and healthy fats while staying low in carbs; however, the jelly is the true downfall to the sandwich. Perhaps the best answer is to prepare moderate portions and alternate types each day depending what you are in the mood for. My personal taste preferences regard pb&j as a higher form of sustenance.
this verse doesn't mean only sex within marriage is permissible. it is merely stating.....

Hello, I shall begin my first argument with a simple math analogy and some anthropological data based on an article by F. Engels. Given an even men/women distribution, {women in age to wed} and {men in age to wed} have same cardinal. As such the application that sends each man to a woman and each woman to a man is a bijection. And thus, saying "each man is to have his wife" AND "each woman is to have her husband" is equivalent to "each man is to have no other woman than his" and "each woman is to have but one man" (injectivity). Therefore the verse implicitely states that any other way is immoral, given that every other is exclusive to the one proposed. However it says nothing against "trading" wives and husbands. According to this introduction: https://www.marxists.org...This state of affairs is a way to reliably establish fatherly descendence, at times where one would know a mother but no (or many) father. Given the chronological progression (take it for what it's worth, but Engels associates the Orestie to the time this was being implemented, so ancient Greece) and the christian moral inheritance, it is only reasonnable to assume "immoralities" means "polyandry" and "polygyny" in this verse. Whether these immoralities exist or not to you; they did to the person who wrote this verse. PS: It is not, "because" is an implication: "P (immoralities) => Q (one-on-one weddings)" <=> "non(Q) => non(P)" and NOT non(P)=>non(Q)! For example "I ate because I was hungry" does not mean "I was not hungry therefore I did not eat". I might just like cakes a lot.
this verse doesn't mean only sex within marriage is permissible. it is merely stating.....

1 Corinthians 7 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. this verse doesn't mean only sex within marriage is permissible. it is merely stating a way to have moral sexual relations. is it fair as a matter of logic to say 'if there are no sexual immoralities, you don't have to have sex with just your own wife'?
Should students use iPads as textbooks or plain old textbooks

Why do black people have such low IQ's? It remains a question why blacks (we will use the words monkey, black, and scum interchangeably from now on) have an IQ comparable to an oak tree. But the oak tree can get clean rainwater, while the scum can only get water as dark as their skin. According to a study done by researchers at Harvey Mudd College blacks have an IQ amount of about 3.2 points, compared to 3.5 for a typical tree. Also after Hitler killed all those monkeys (which was good), Dr. Mengele of the Nazi SS dissected one, and found out that its brain was the size of a rice grain, which is surprising because blacks dont eat rice, they eat nothing. Arnold Benjaman
Should students use iPads as textbooks or plain old textbooks

iPads are better for textbooks, than regular paper textbooks.According to students of Saint Justin Martyr school, iPads are a lot lighter than textbooks that they used to use. The students claim that iPads are better when it come to bringing textbooks home. Textbooks are way to heavy and it hurts there backs. Parents also say that when they carry their books it not only hurts them but stops the children to growing a right posture. "Children theses days are growing up slouching and not walking straight." Humberto states. On Debate.com many adults say that iPads cost less money than two textbooks, and can hold many more."From Phoenix University textbooks for young adults courses are over $700 dollars for just one book." Elizabeth states "Before I could begin to take my classes I had to have the books, and now I have to finish paying them off in the next five years." Young adults spend lots off money on school loans or textbooks alone for over at least five years. Christy has been in school loans since she finished college at the university of Phoenix many years ago. Students from Saint Justin Martyr school also state that iPads save way more trees than having textbooks constantly made, because of age.A paperback textbook takes at least a quarter of the trees leaves. Even though we find leaves all over the place we only use fresh tree leaves for books.iPads also help save trees, and helps boost our environment from becoming a waist land of man made items, or causing global warming to worsen.In conclusion iPads should be used instead of paper textbooks.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

In my previous round i have demonstrated how TAG requires logical absolutes to be a product of the mind, with no objection. Therefore, the question becomes are Logical Absolutes the product of the mind. Pro objected when i said conceptual was used incorrectly. To clarify, i was referring to the following line: "Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature." given that this is the line where he defines conceptual, the only relevant definition is "not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature" My argument that con objected to was "by incorrectly using the word conceptual he implies that a mind is required for logical absolutes to exist, which i challenge." Pro refutes this by saying "if logical absolutes are concepts then *by definition* they have to be instantiated by a mind." this would be true using the correct definition of conceptual, however TAG did not show that logical absolutes met this definition. What it did show was that they are "not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature" and called this conceptual. Pro refutes my hypothetical argument by saying that if logical absolutes are non-conceptual we could never know them. The problem is that we can have a concept of something that is non-conceptual. For example, an apple is not a concept, but I still have a concept of an apple. Pro concludes "Con's claim that we could imagine a universe without any minds is incoherent if we accept that logical absolutes are conceptual by their very nature" I agree, the debate is now about if they are conceptual by nature. "We maybe imagining a universe without any human minds but that does not phase the TAG as the proponent would just say you've aptly just demonstrated why there would need to be an ultimate, transcendent mind to think of these logical absolutes." can you explain how i demonstrated there would need to be an ultimate, transcendent mind. I would like to close with 2 questions for con. 1. Is it possible for a universe with no minds to exist. 2. In this hypothetical universe, is a cloud a rock. The observant reader will notice that this is the same argument from last round. This is because pro still has not answered my question. What he seems to say is that in a universe with no minds nothing is preventing a cloud from being a rock.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

Your short summary shows the point i challenge "For logical laws to exist God would have to exist as God is a necessary precondition of logic." In the quote you provided, Matt Slick claims logical absolutes are conceptual, which i challenge. " Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature." by the structure of the sentence it seems like he means conceptual to be the opposite of being dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature, which i agree they are not However by incorrectly using the word conceptual he implies that a mind is required for logical absolutes to exist, which i challenge. To challenge his paper (which you are defending) directly His big conclusion to show god must exist is: A. person's thoughts reflect what he or she is. B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind. C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God. The problem lies in point C. He goes from perfect thoughts reflect a perfect mind to Logical Absolutes reflect a perfect Mind. For this to work he must show that Logical Absolutes are thoughts. He attempted this in section 6. before i continue, does this argument make sense- a causes b and b is c therefore a is c. This is his first argument (slightly re-ordered and shown below) for Logical absolutes being conceptual. Argument one "Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature." argument 2 for Logical absolutes being conceptual: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not-i'll concede to this he shows that they can not be non-conceptual by asking the question "what is their nature". their nature is logical, constant, absolute, anything i can use to describe them. In order for this argument to hold you must show that they do not have a 'nature' I will also show how they can not be conceptual by nature. because you are defending Slick's paper you have already granted his argument "If they are conceptual by nature, then they depend on mind for their existence."(6.b.i.a) consider a universe without any minds. according to this arguments the Logical Absolutes would not exist here. Clearly this is not so. In this hypothetical universe is a cloud a rock. No, therefore the law of identity still applies even without any mind existing.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

.. . I will be defending the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (hereafter TAG) and I just want to make it a little clearer what's going on with this argument. Obviously, TAG is a transcendental argument (hereafter TA) , but *what* exactly is a TA? A TA is "a philosophical argument that starts from what a person experiences, and then deduces what must be the case for the person to have that experience. " [1] In other words, they are arguments that seek to establish what is a necessary precondition for some particular phenomena. They generally take this form: For X to be the case, Y would have to be the case, because Y is a precondition of X. X is the case. So, Y is the case. Descartes famous "cogito ergo sum" could be stated as a TA. If I am able to doubt that I exist I would have to exist in the first place as existing is a necessary precondition of me doubting. I doubt. Therefore, I exist. We can do a similar thin with the TAG in case of the laws of logic: P1) For logical laws to exist God would have to exist as God is a necessary precondition of logic. P2) Logical laws exist. C) Therefore, God exists. That God is a necessary precondition is shown by conceptual analysis of what it means to be a law of logic and what kind of properties the laws of logic possess and by showing that all non-theistic attempts to account for the laws of logic fail. Some properties of the laws of logic would be conceptual, absolute, truth-preserving, etc. As for making the initial case I will just quote Matt Slick: "Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. " [2] I turn it over to my opponent. ========== Sources ========== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.carm.org...
Compasion Tourism

First, my opponent only has one point. "My argument is that wouldn't it be better for people to send money to a local business of that certain far away place to build the building for them. " This is not neccesarily true. Countries in Africa or South America are in much worse conditions than say Beverly Hills. Those people need the help much more than the local businesses. Now, arguments for compassion tours. 1-They allow people to help countries who otherwise would not be helped. As stated before, if people in countries such as Haiti cannot get help from richer industrialized countries, they will suffer. People often go on these trips to help those in much worse conditions than the United States. 2- Compassion tours increase multiculturalism By going to other countries, people learn about the culture and heritage of the place. This increases their awareness of the world and is obviously beneficial. If people only help those in their immediate vinicity, they will know much less about events in the world. Compassion tours allow people to learn about new cultures and areas.
Global Warming

According to "A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is not real." A group of scientists grouped together and signed a OP-ED saying that global warming is not actually supported by science. In fact our earth is not being heated up it is going through a cooling stage. Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. http://www.policymic.com... According to University of Colorado environmental scientist Roger Pielk, there is in fact a reason to argue global warming. Pielk testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, this included, California"s Barbara Boxer, Rhode Island"s Sheldon Whitehouse, and Vermont"s Bernie Sanders. "Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900," Pielke added. "The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970."" (He also noted) that U.S. floods have not increased in "frequency or intensity" since 1950 and economic losses from floods have dropped by 75 percent as a percentage of GDP since 1940. Tornado frequency, intensity, and normalized damages have also not increased since 1950, and Pielke even notes that there is some evidence that this has declined." droughts have been shorter, less frequent, and have covered a smaller portion of the U.S over the last century. Globally, there has been very little change in the last 60 years, he said." http://frontpagemag.com...
Global Warming

The key phrase in that statement is over the past 16 years.I also have data showing that the decade between 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record.Source green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/state-of-the-climate-hottest-decade-ever/?_r=0 I can see that you are falling into a common trap. You are thinking on too small of a scale. I used the graph in the first argument because it was the nicest, clearest picture I could find, but is also accurate.It also shows that ten fifteen, even twenty year measurements are meaningless. Climate science centers on far-reaching long term trends. If you step in close, put your hands around your eyes, and focus only on small subsets of the data, you will see what you want to see. In nearly every decade, you can find ten year cooling trends that seemingly disprove the theory that the earth is warming. The blinkered and restricted set of data that you cite is proof enough of that. But if you step back and look at the picture as a whole, you'll see what I see and what science sees. A steadily rising global temperature in which each decade has been hotter than the last.If we were following the earth's regular, cyclic climate pattern, we would be at the edge of a plateau and on the very precipice of a cooling trend in which the average temperature would drop by 0.1 degrees celsius every few hundred years, or possibly even faster than that. We would be at the beginning of an Ice Age. Instead we have seen the temperature rise by 0.8 degrees celsius in 150 years. This is unprecedented. At no time in the earth's history have temperatures changed this quickly. Look at the last time there was a cooling trend. From 1940 to 1960, temperature dropped by almost a full tenth of a degree. And then over the next 50 years it rose by six tenths of a degree. As I said earlier, this is a non issue. Temperatures are rising and have been for the last 150 years.Sourcegreen.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/state-of-the-climate-hottest-decade-ever/?_r=0
Global Warming

I accept your challenge. Since this is an argument regarding data, I will be using plenty of graphs.Graph the first: This graph shows a very clear upward trend in the years leading up to 2000. While even I can see that there are some rather large humps in the graph, it is undeniable that the annual average temperature has been increasing for the last 150 years. This is the most unbiased way of reporting a long term trend. Anyone can massage the data and find short term, five or ten year cooling trends. This is as clear and unbiased as the data gets.Source the first: http://content.usatoday.com...This is an article, posted in 2010, which cites a study showing 97% of scientists believe that climate change exists and is mainly caused by human activities. The 3% that disagree are less qualified and lack expertise or publishing credibility.The Earth is warming. Data shows this. It is a non-issue. Almost nowhere else in the world do 97% of people agree on something. The issue is what the ramifications of this are. Not everyone agrees it will mean larger, more powerful storms. It is also not part of the earth's natural cycle. If that were, we would have been cooling down. Instead we are warming up, by about 0.8 degrees celsius. Warming up, not cooling down, like climate models suggest we should be doing right about now. This is a slow, subtle process, not a gigantic, monumental event. It will take time, and you might not notice it at first because we are built for a timescale of a few years. But the world, at some point in the future, will change. For the worse. I turn the floor to you