BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Is perfection an attribute or direction ? Pro says "As I argued in round one, perfection is an attribute. It cannot "exist" in and of itself - it must be tied to an object. " Pro says "Can the same be said of perfection? No. Perfection is in a different class to red in that red is an attribute, whereas perfection is a direction. " So is perfection an attribute or direction, and what is the difference ? Therefore such a X. .. .. .. .. .. .. must exist Pro says "In case it wasn't already painfully obvious, this was not in the argument. The relevant premise in the argument read: It is impossible to be perfect and to not exist" Allow me to correct this, Pro says "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" "P1: It is impossible (to be) perfect and not exist" But what is the (to be) in this statement referring too ? Is this just a generalization that applies to anything ? P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C: Therefore such a being must exist (A perfect being) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist Therefore such a world must exist ( A perfect world) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist Therefore such a number must exist (A perfect number) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist Therefore such an argument must exist (A perfect argument) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist Therefore such a (X) must exist ( A perfect (x) ) If Pro can conclude from his premise that a perfect being exists, what about other perfect things ? Like a perfect world, a perfect number, a perfect argument and a perfect (X). Circular Reasoning Pro says "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" We can't just assume perfection exists (existing perfectly in its perfection of course) as Pro says ""Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection" Perfection doesn't have to exist, or anything else for that matter, just because you say it has to exist. Pro says ""P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" It is impossible to be perfect and not exist = That which is perfect must exist. 1) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist = That which is perfect must exist 2) Therefore that which is perfect must exist Cirular reasoning Who's perfection ? Pro says "In other words by observing our thought of God we are in fact observing the reality of God, because the thought of perfection must logically be connected to the idea of reality. " Pro makes claims that our idea of perfection corresponds to reality. So what happens when one persons idea of perfection is a little bit different than the other persons ? Why should Pros idea of perfection trump anyone else's idea of perfection ? Do we now have lots of different perfections running around ? I look forward to Pros reply.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Sound argument = The argument is valid & All of its premises are true. [1] Valid = An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion [2] --- Opening statement --- "Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being" [3] --- Counter argument 1 --- Pro syllogism is as follows (Note we agreed to what it would be before hand) P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C: Therefore such a being must exist [4] "Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion" [5] The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In order for this argument to work it would have to prove that perfection actually exists. For example..... 1) Perfection actually exists (Insert justification here) 2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist (Claimed by pro) C: Therefore such a being must exist But what reason do we have for accepting that "perfection" actually exists and isn't just something that exists only in our minds like the flying spaghetti monster ? I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
Soccer fans are the most passionate sports fans in the world.

Personally, I honestly don't know much about soccer, but from what I do know is that soccer fans are not the only ones passionate about this sport.. There are many sports that other people are huge fans of, not just soccer. Soccer isn't the only famous sport in the world that would attract fans too. Also, loyalty is given to many sports even in hard times. I do agree that if someone is not loyal then really they aren't a fan.
Soccer fans are the most passionate sports fans in the world.

To me, soccer fans are the most passionate fans in the world for numerous reasons: 1: Loyalty. Soccer fans are the most loyal in the world. Even when the team is struggling, they still show up and cheer loudly and proudly. This video shows fan of Sunderland. This is a team that was in 9th at the time, and already out of the championship race. http://www.youtube.com... 2: Noise. Soccer fans are the noisest and craziest in the world. In the video, look at the difference between fans of other sports and soccer fans. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... 3. Knowledge of the game. Soccer fans know their history, stats, and stay up to date on their team. In soccer, there is no such thing as a bandwagon fan. Either you stand by the team though the good times as well as the rough times, or you aren't a fan.
Resolved: It is both better and more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God

I would ask that my opponent be patient as I am somewhat unfamiliar with this format; however, I am full prepared to argue for the rationality of worshiping YHWH(The Judeo-Christian God) instead of "luminous balls of plasma held together by gravity. " For the purposes of this debate, I believe it's necessary to provide the following definitions: Worship - reverent honor and homage paid to a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred (Dictionary. com) Moral - conforming to the rules of right conduct (Dictionary. com) Reason - a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc. OR a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action. (Dictionary. com) As to the burden of proof requirements, I am prepared to accept "shared BoP", but I ask my opponent to understand that the structure of this debate assumes a great degree of inter-connectivity, and the basis of my position may well rest in a refutation. I look forward to opening arguments!
Resolved: It is both better and more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God

Before I even begin with definitions, do not take this debate if you are Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Definitions: Stars: Massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. Better: Morally superior, preferable. Rational: In accordance with reason. Burden of Proof: The BoP will be shared. Con cannot win just by poking holes in my vase, he must build his own that worshipped God is both better and more rational. Think of it as a tug of war: Con must build his own case and argue effectively for the win rather than the entire burden being on me.
Margerine is worse for your health than butter

Here's what I think.I think you care too much. I think you love too much. I think you are stupid, and if you actually care so much about which is better for you margarine or butter, I would say you have zero life and at this point it doesn't matter what you do loser. :) I just had to get this off my chest. See, I was bored the other day so signed up for this stupid debate. You obviously are some sort of crazy life nut. Enjoy yourself freak.
Margerine is worse for your health than butter

Maybe it is better for your mental health but not physical health. I say mental health, because it may taste better and be more enjoyable then margarine, but according to the Mayo clinic Margarine lowers heart disease and is strongly suggested for anyone at risk for heart failure. The Mayo Clinic does say not all margarine's are created equal, and some do have trans fat. The more solid the margarine the higher the transfat, so tub margarine's are the healthiest of the margarine as stick margarine is thick and higher in transfat. However, both stick margarine and tub margarine are both still healthier then straight up butter. "Switching butter to margarine is one way to reduce saturated fat content and add healthier unsaturated fats, for heart health protection. Butter is around 50% saturated fat and 4% trans fat – the unhealthy fats that raise our cholesterol levels. On the other hand, margarine spreads with the Tick have around 28% saturated fat, less than 1% trans fat (most only 0.1-0.2%) and are a good source of healthier fats." (heart par 4)My debater will say "Margarine is full of transfats" According the the heart foundation, that isn't true across the board. In the 90's, the heart foundation worked hard to eliminate trans fat margarine in Australia, and today margarine in Australia has some of the lowest trans fats in the world, and is significantly lower then butter. Now, it may be possible to find some margarine here in the states that is "as" unhealthy as butter, but I don't think even in that situation you would find any that is "more" unhealthy. Some maybe equally unhealthy here in the states, but not more unhealthy, except for maybe a rare case or two.However, the topic didn't specify a country. The topic was a generalized statement about margarine vs butter and how margarine is worse. This was a general statement that is easy to disprove because if you took butter and compared it against the margarine of Australia, the margarine of Australia would win the healthy argument by an embarassing margin for my opponent. here is the link to the article from the heart foundation. http://www.heartfoundation.org.au...
Rap battle 1a: Benjamin Tucker versus Karl Marx

That's a great idea there man Absolutely nothing to control or ban Let them run wild with no restriction I have some terrible predictions So just follow me in communism It's a great reason for optimism Anarchy, no way it will last It will fall to barbarians, fast Control their lives, control their food You support them, they support you Anarchy is a fool's road Such a society will quickly erode It's the theory of power, theory of value You can see its power, can't you? Don't you understand how well I think? I'll throw all anarchy and that sh!t down the sink Don't you see the greatness of a communist state? It's absolutely perfect, it's absolutely great Only one man would dare defame me And that ain't you but Charleslb
Rap battle 1a: Benjamin Tucker versus Karl Marx

You made some mistakeslet me clear them up herein fear you'll quakewhen this battle I commandeerYou think society=stateyou really must be highthose two you equate?Why do you misapply?Society defined is people associatingwhile the state defined is people expropriatingsociety I think is really just finewhile government is evil by designAnarchy an anomoly?More like a free societyCommunism's best?What evidence can you attest?Famine, death, and bleak starvationthat's the Commie allocationIs that really an aspiration?Me, I'd rather have death by castrationAll of Anarchism you've misconstruednow I'm afraid you're really screwedof this battle I'm the MVPEs lebe die Anarchie!
Rap battle 1a: Benjamin Tucker versus Karl Marx

So you call yourself Ben Tucker?Haha, what a huge assfvckerIt must be sad to be AmericansWith you and your fellow barbarians You ask for no society?Ha! What worthless self-pietyI'm here to propose equalityYou would deny our polity?I show you Communist philosophyAnarchy is just an anomalyYour plan shows high levels of entropyCommunism's best, I guaranteeYou would submit to anarchy?Well, that would infect us adverselyYou're hearing this from Karl MarxI'm like a fire, and Pro's just sparksSo you wrote a magazine called Liberty?Let me show you this, it's called VICTORYI wrote up the Commie ManifestoWe should put it into action! Presto! Presto!I'm a good man, I'm all for equal rightsLet's read anarchy its last ritesTo each according to his need,Now let's make anarchy recede
Rap battle 1a: Benjamin Tucker versus Karl Marx

While my opponent may rap as a communist, his primary perspective in this debate is that of Karl Marx. So since Karl Marx was himself a communist, Con may take a secondary communist perspective in this rap battle. However, most of my attacks will be directed at Marx specifically. What's up mr. commieit's ben tucker speakin nowima go take down the four monopolieswhile your busy suckin maoYou wrote some heavy stuff I gotta admitbut when it comes to rapping I know you can't spitcause you know you're unfit, your lucky I even permityour weak a$s sh1t compared to my witGo back to Das Kapital and let the real g's speakbetter yet, you should probably work on your techniquewhile i form my critique of your weak a$s raps cause mine are uniqueBut now down to the pointlets go over your stuffim gonna crush your ideaslike i did your moms mvffYou had marxism, communism and too much ideologyand I know you contributed a little to sociologybut lets take it slowand just let the rhymes flowlet me school you in the science of a$s kick-ologyYou had your ideas about exploitationbut wasn't it voluntary association?your theory is misinterpretationand misqualificationNow on to "dictatorship of the proletariat"you seemed to have ridden in on your flaming chariotproclaiming to bring down the bourgeoisiebut then you replace them, don't you see?You say the poor are exploited by the richbut then you resort to their own methods, you b1tch!how inconsistent and contradictinghave you no shame with all this bullsh1ting?I have the solutionsall you have is questionsI practice non-aggression so fvck offthat ain't a suggestionI believe in private property you believe in forced povertyI believe in individual libertyyour just a social refereeTheft and aggression is all you knowyour all against the status-quobut whether commie or statist it's all the samewhether theft is the first name and aggression the surnameor even vice verca, geez it's all so lameI guess it's over quickgo home, little prickBen Tucker outcan you come back? Let's find out.
The international community should ban nuclear-powered spacecraft.

No,Nuclear Power powered spacecraft should not be banned it can only be controlled because till now except nuclear power there is no fuel in the Earth which can produce a huge amount of energy as required for a spacecraft instantly.Banning this will only make our way very much slower to reveal about ourselves,Universe and many things unknown and this will might happen that because of Nuclear-powered spacecraft we may get another source of energy or a new planet for us.
The international community should ban nuclear-powered spacecraft.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
The 2nd Batman movie was better than the 3rd.

I disagree. I believe the 3rd was actually better than the 2nd. The 2nd movie was definitely good but I feel a lot of people go with the hype of it being good mainly because of how well the character of the Joker was portrayed by Heath Ledger (RIP). In the 3rd one Batman actually faces an enemy who is not only as smart if not smarter than him but stronger than him, to the point he breaks Batman's spirit totally. It have very good character development in terms of the origins of Ra's Al Ghul as well as the story of Bane. In two, I don't recall it ever telling us how the Joker became the psychotic character that he was. It was as if all of a sudden he just decided to put the whole city in jeopardy. I am aware they did tell us that little tad bit about his "smile" and how he got it but nothing on how he became so twisted and why he picked THAT time to come out as a villain. Like what triggered it. In summary, the third one tells us how Batman rises after all seemed to be lost and this made the story more climatic than the 2nd one.
American sports cars are better than European ones

In this short (4000 character) debate, I will attempt to prove that American sports cars are better than sports cars manufacted by European, Asian or any other.I will choose 3 American sports cars: The Chevrolet Corvette, The Dodge Viper and the Ford Mustang and their variants to prove that American cars are better. My opponent will choose 3 cars: 1 European, 1 Asian, 1 of my opponent's choice. All 3 cars must come from different countries and none should be American. In round one, my opponent will merely accept and fill in the blanks as he/she chooses which of his cars go against mine.1) Chevrolet Corvette vs __________2) Dodge Viper vs ___________3) Ford Mustang vs _____________ In round 2, we both provide opening arguments for all 3 comparisons. Comparison based on emotion is allowed if articulated well.In round 3, we refute each other's arguments. Any qeustions or suggestions can be put in the comments section.
American sports cars are better than European ones

My opponent clearly does not understand what my point is with the loosely defined term of "better" if I say a car is better than one car because it is faster and my opponent tries to disprove that by claiming that his car gets better MPG we then are debating if speed is more important than MPG, and that answer being it all depends on the consumer. therefore my point about we need to define "better" still stands as we are comparing apples and oranges. furthermore to go over my opponents comparison of his cars against mine I will concede that the tundra is a truck and not a sports car but the rest of my cars still are better because of the apple and orange debate from my opponent. As I have stated before since my opponent will not agree on the definition that I have set on the term "better" which he had the opportunity to set as I had asked for in my first speech I have shown no form of miss conduct and if there is any miss conduct it should be on the pro as he did not set good enough guidelines (which is also his right) to allow either a educational or fair debate for either side. and my final point is that there is no specific way that DDO works I have seen debates in many different formats including Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy just to name a few so when my opponent says that I don't know how DDO works its actually the other way around in that my opponent doesn't know how DDO works so what we can boil this debate down to is that the pro has no grounds to make any argument against two of my three cars as I admit the tundra is a truck but the other two cars still stand as better cars because I have applied them within the defining term of "better" as my opponent is debating apples and oranges, secondly my opponent has neglected his right to set efficient guidelines to shape the debate which made the con sacrifice half of a speech to set guidelines that the pro should have done, and finally for my opponent to assume that someone knows something that they don't and to argue against them is unethical and also as he stated miss conduct. so because my opponent wont set guidelines, making apple and orange arguments, and showing miss conduct the con has clearly won this debate. And just a foot note thank you to the pro for a wonderful first debate on debate.org and I hope to have more discussions in the future and to the voters thank you for taking your time and judging all of the debates on this website and in your community THANK YOU
American sports cars are better than European ones

First off I would like to say your welcome for the debate, and second since my opponent who still will not be any more specific in the definition of "better" after I have asked him, I will then narrow the debate down and give my own definition to "better" and if my opponent tries to change the meaning of the word "better" as it pertains to this debate the voters should disregard any new definitions as my opponent has already has the opportunity to narrow this debate which he has neglected to do. so going back to my opponents first speech he has left three lines for the con to fill out which I have filled them out with my car that I pick to go against the cars that my opponent has picked and after that I have chosen a category in which my cars are "better" than his. and as I have stated before in this speech if my opponent tries to choose a different category to use against my cars the argument is invalid because my opponent has had the opportunity to choose them which he had neglected to do so. 1) Chevrolet Corvette vs Toyota Tundra in turning radius 2) Dodge Viper vs Bugatti Veyron in speed 3) Ford Mustang vs The Tundra beats the Corvette in turning radius 22ft to 40ft The Veyron beats the Viper in speed as the Veyron is the worlds fastest car as the Viper is a two way tie for 9th The Jaguar XJ220 beats the Mustang in horsepower 542 to 300 I got all of my stats either from thesupercars.org or from the manufactures themselves
American sports cars are better than European ones

"Better" is not defined. The purpose of the debate is so we can think up new ways of what "better" is, like faster, more hp, more torque, low price, higher luxury, anything and just convince the voters to vote for you by making a great argument. The car must be by a foreign owned company. For example, Acura would count as a Japanese car despite only being made for the North American market. Just to let you know, you can use the comments section for questions and clarification. Since you used it for a question and I used it to answer your question, we just lost a round. Since I couldn't make an argument, ehy don't just pick your cars in this round. I'll use round 3 to show why mine are better and you use your round 3 to show why your's are better. No rebuttals since we don't have enough rounds. Let the voters decide purely based on who made the better argument.
American sports cars are better than European ones

Before I can put any of my foreign cars against my opponents cars I need some clarifying information from the pro starting with the wording of the topic as the term "better" is too loosely defined and therefore I cannot pick cars to pit against my opponents cars as I don't know the criterion that makes a car "better" than other cars, and secondly with the brands of Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford, I ask the question are we only taking about American owned companies vs. foreign owned countries of are we talking about American manufactured vs. foreign manufactured?