BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

You have provided little evidence for your original statement. You assumed that either something else could be proved through, witch would obviously mean you win, or nothing can be proved through, making the original statement true. But since you haven't provided evidence for any other statement being true, the first part of your logic has no base. And the second part of your argument has no base because if it was true, it wouldn't be true. A paradox is definitely not an example of absolution. I pointed this out in the first round; the only way to demonstrate this idea is to show how a given piece of information could be not true, there isn't any overlaying logic that covers all pieces of information. That's not to say that there isn't any reasoning behind my side of the argument, it just doesn't seem reasonable to list all information and why it isn't absolute. So about your proof for why my information reasoning is flawed, It was only intended for reacting to your specific statement, not addressing the idea overall. Circumstantial evidence can't prove a statement false, but it can keep you from knowing that your right.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

That's the point of the argument ;) But anyway,The problem with my opponent's argument is two fold: Firsty, my opponent attempts to say that because we don't know everything as of right now, then the resolution is possibly deniable, supposing we get some information in the future that undeniably proves something to be absolutely true. What's wrong with that is that it doesn't matter what information we have and what information we don't have: in order to affirm, you have to prove that nothing can be known for certain at any time. The statement isn't dependent upon the information available, as it functions as an independent statement. Secondly, though, that even if my opponent's arguments are true, then it still negates since his arguments only prove that there's no actual proof behind his statement, since he even concedes that we don't know all the information possible to make this decision. This just means that the resolutional statement is more likely true than false, and you negate the resolution.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

Way to turn the argument around on me. now whatever I do, I lose. Anways, The entire collection of human knoledge obviously doesn't include all the information that can ever be known. So w. e don't know that there isn't some new piece of information that we will get at some point in the future that will absolutly prove something to be true. So even if we can't prove anything to be true now, we also can't prove that we won't be able to prove anything ever, therefore making my initial statement without undeniability.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

I'll give my opponent another shot at not forfeiting, since his last debate with me was an accidental forfeit. My case will revolve around the notion that saying that "Nothing can be known with absolute certainty" is, in and of itself, a statement of absolute certainty. To say that it's impossible for anything to be known for sure would contradict itself, since we wouldn't know if that statement was true, thus meaning that things COULD be known for certain. From here, I can't really do much else except wait for my opponent to rebuke my argument. I wish him good luck.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

This debate isn't exactly an argument, but something that I'm interested in exploring. so far as I can tell, there is no information known to man that is undeniably, unarguably true. I don't mean that all of our data says that some conclusion or another is true, but that there is absolutely no way for it to untrue. I ask that my opponent simply come up with as statement or fact that they believe can be prove undeniably, and I'll try and refute it. in the second, third, and fourth rounds, they can come up with new statements, and/or point out how my refutation is wrong.
I have proof God does exist

I accept the challenge. Since you did not define terms, I will do so here: PROOF- noun 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. EXIST- verb 1. have objective reality or being. GOD- noun 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. To prove a negative is impossible, therefore, the Burden of Proof rests with you. Show me your "proof".
I have proof God does exist

I love these pros and cons none of them have any foundation, just point of view. The Fundamental church view is He did it in 6 days (speaking everything into existence) BAM! The scientific view of an evolving is understandable however they still haven't completed the puzzle as of yet. When anyone says creation began with a Big Bang I say, I believe that but what caused that? They say it was an atom and I say I believe that also but where did the atom come from? Cosmic dust or a molecule. I can believe that also but they had to have a beginning. That's the piece of the puzzle the scientific community hasn't figured out because that's where God comes in to the puzzle He says He created the heavens and earth and all that is therein. The Church with their view that it happened in 6 days and that God spoke everything into existence isn't very biblical either because if you read the Gen. account you'll actually see that God did it in about 20 plus seconds, WHAT!! Well how long does it take to say, "Let there be light" or "Let the earth bring forth seed after its kind." Is God handicapped with a speech impediment? If we knew Scripture or had a teaching beyond "something things we just have to believe by faith," something that makes sense like FACT that would solve the question wouldn't it? Do you know that Scripture tells us, "A thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years to God? If we were to apply this to creation we could see that with a 365 day year (which wasn't at that time) multiplying that by 1000 we'd see 365,000 years x 6 days we'd see more than 2,000,000 years I can see an evolving here and it says the earth was without form and void not it wasn't there it could have been there trillions of years. But the real question to put an end to pros and cons is DOES GOD EXIST? Is there PROOF? The answer is yes. If your interested to know write voiceofthesign @aol.com this fellow is from Colorado and has written a booklet entitled, The Signature and I have never read or heard anyone explain with proof the existence of God. He has a PDF file that he will share with you. Than come back here and tell me what you think
A Possible Interpretation of Mordor of the Lord of the Rings

So I really tried lol, spent a good amount of time trying to come up with a counter argument and the more I tried the more I realized that I myself didn't believe my own arguments. Pro, in my opinion, put out a rock solid argument that I myself now find pretty much true so to continue trying to argue it would be arguing against myself as well. I still believe that a representation of WW2 is the more stronger probability however even if I did prove that it still wouldn't disprove your theory and if there is an argument that can be made to counter it I just honestly don't have the skill to see it. I believe that Pro has proven his case and I formally surrender. Hate to be beat this bad but hey when your own opinion has been changed by your opponents argument then what's a guy gona do you know? I hope this isn't a let down to my opponent but I know when Iv been beatin. And you have beatin me. If this is a disappointment then please reopen this debate for someone else to take for I would love to see what arguments they could put forth since I just can't think of one that I would believe myself. Thank you for your time Wirch and I hope I don't waste it. You put a lot of new ideas in my head and I gota say it's pretty interesting.
A Possible Interpretation of Mordor of the Lord of the Rings

This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this resolution, feel free to either leave a note in the comments section or PM me. This is to avoid the tendency of forfeitures on this website. BackgroundI recently engaged in a discussion about Israel, and somehow a tangential line of thinking led me to muse about the Lord of the Rings (hereafter LotR) in a Jewish context. This musing made me inadvertently stumble across an exceptionally dark reading of what Mordor may represent. I want to state that I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, and that the arguments that I will be putting forth I find to be deeply disturbing. This is not a troll debate. The more I thought along these lines, the more disturbed I became about the content of the LotR and related works, and of course J. R. R. Tolkien himself. ResolutionMordor May Possibly Be Interpreted as Israel Definitions (from wikipedia and Merriam Webster)Mordor - In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe of Middle-earth, Mordor was the dwelling place of Sauron, in the southeast of northwestern Middle-earth to the East of Anduin, the great river. Possible - being something that may or may not be true or actual <possible explanation>(opposite of "impossible")Essentially, CON will have to argue that my interpretation is not possible. Interpret - to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable termsIsrael - the land west of the River Jordan that constitutes the modern state of Israel. RulesMy standard boiler-plate:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate. I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you.
existentialism is the preferred philosophy of life

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.
existentialism is the preferred philosophy of life

"existentialism wouldn't allow you to deny your own nature" Yes, that's exactly what existentialism is. Again, as Sartre said, "existence precedes essence." Existentialist would agree with nihilists that we are just a bunch of meaningless irrational fragments, but that is okay since we can make our own meaning. It's not word games we are playing; it's just that you haven't explored the history of existentialism deep enough.
Resolved: Dwarf Tossing should become an Olympic Sport

Arguments for making Dwarf Tossing a Sport:1) It is indeed classified as a sport. The definition of a sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature". http://dictionary.reference.com...Dwarf Tossing qualifies as an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess, and is also a competitive sport, since Dwarf tossing is defined as: "A bar attraction in which dwarfs wearing special padded clothing or Velcro costumes are thrown onto mattresses or at Velcro-coated walls. Participants compete to throw the dwarf the farthest. ". http://en.wikipedia.org...So basically, it is an actual sport, meaning it can very well be an olympic event. 2) It would make the Olympics more interesting. Apart from the 100 meter dash and a few swimming events, when was the last time you came across an olympic sport on TV that actually interested you? Im willing to bet that 90% of people reading this right now never even watched the Sochi Olympics this year. Of the 10% that did, I'm willing to bet that a tremendous majority of people only watched mens Ice Hockey too. If Dwarf Tossing were an olympic sport, it would make the Olympics more watchable, that is simply undeniable3) It would help create jobs for dwarfsIf you think regular sized people have it tough in this economy, imagine how mad dwarfs have it. Christmas is over now which means Santa isnt hiring any additional help, there is an abundance of garden nome applicants, and the cookie-baking industry have been laying off dwarves like crazy after Congress declared that 'its not safe to bake cookies in trees'. .. .. Point is: Dwarves have it really hard in life with very, VERY few options to pursue as a career. Dwarf tossing though could change that!
Write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. what happen

Resolved: Write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. What happen I negate the resolution write about the time in your life where you followed the crowd. What happen Being CON, all I have to do in this argument is not write about a time where I've followed the crowd, and nothing will happen. So, once I use up all 500 characters I will hopefully have not shared about a time in my life where I followed the crowd. T
Usa dropping nukes on japan

The use of the atomic bomb was unethical and immoral as if created a new meaning of total war by destroying thousands of civilians in grotesque manner. William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated: "My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Usa dropping nukes on japan

The U.S. should not have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. The U.S. shouldn't have because it killed tens of thousands of civilians. Also it destroyed their economy that they had before the war. In Fact the Japanese even hoped for a negotiated peace and a conditional surrender, and the Americans only demanded for the unconditional surrender of Japan. The use of the atomic bomb was unethical and immoral as if created a new meaning of total war by destroying thousands of civilians in grotesque manner.
Usa dropping nukes on japan

The United States of America did the right thing in dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We dropped bombs as a retaliation to the Japanese killing 60,000 to 70,000 american citizens and injuring almost 140,000 more at the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The Pearl Harbor attack did not benefit Japan in the end because we retaliated back by dropping an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By dropping the bombs on Japan we ended the war and saved thousands of American lives by not sending them into combat or war anymore.
The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins

I thank con for his rebuttals. In this round I'm going to defend against his rebuttals to show that we should really get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins.Con said that if we keep the cents you'll eventually end up with a big amount of money. However, you are barely able to spend those cents for two reasons:1. Paying with a big pile of cents isn't very politeLet's imagine you go to a café and order some drinks. The bill is €10,-. You decide to pay it all with the 1 and 2 cent coins you have been saving for quite some time. So you will pay with at least 500 and at most 1000 coins. Now imagine the face of the cashier who realizes he (or she) has to count all those coins. After you're done with that, imagine the faces of the people who are standing behind you in line. They will have to wait for quite some time.2. You can get suedIn the UK a man tried to pay £804 with mostly 1 and 2 cent coins. He got sued and had to pay £ 1,118.62 (1). According to the Coinage Act 1971 you're only allowed to pay with 1 and 2 cent coins if the total bill is 20 cents or less (1). But this debate is about the eurozone and not the UK. In the eurozone there's a similar law. People are only allowed to pay with up to 50 coins in a single payment (2).After that con tries to rebut my third argument by saying that many people aren't exact about time. It's right that some people don't care a lot about time. However, all people have one thing in common: people who spend time waiting in line or accepting change aren't doing something else. That time could be spent on other things. To give some examples, you could spend that time with your children, exercise a little or go on a date. Those are some of the most common regrets (3).Con also said that people will pay cash if the price gets rounded down and electronically if the price would get rounded up. Some people will probably do this, but I doubt this will have a big impact on the national budget. After all you can only save at most 2 cents with a single transaction. Only a small portion of those 2 cents is sales tax. Meanwhile the government also saves €400 million by not producing the 1 and 2 cent coins (argument 2, round 2). So unless the 338 million people who live in the eurozone (source 5, round 2) manage to bring the sales tax down by more than €400 million, the savings of governments get are bigger than the drop in sales tax.Con tries to prove this by showing that of 5 of the 6 countries I mentioned the deficit grew. However, correlation isn't causation. The government deficit can be caused by hundreds of reasons. One of many examples is baby boomers retiring, which leads to less income tax and since many governments support the elderly, more expenses.I will now hand the debate back to con, so he can write the last part of this debate.Sources1) http://www.theguardian.com...2) http://eur-lex.europa.eu... article 113) http://uk.businessinsider.com...
The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins

This sure has been an exciting debate. I shall now proceed with my rebuttals. A1, A2, A3: I am going to rebut this case with another argument Pro has put: A2: the cost of producing coins. Sure, if you don't keep them, pennies are useless. However, if we are going to be super miserly, saving up pennies for years will eventually get to some big amount of money. You can choose one of these arguments. Also, the third argument would be good if people were incredibly exact about time. The thing here is that some people aren't. There are misers and there are people who don't care. This would argument only appeals to some. The new system: Well, it comes down to this: Some people would see this as a great opportunity to save money. If the price would be rounded up, you'd pay online. If it's going to be rounded down, pay in cash. I'm not so sure how many people would do this, but with 742 million people in Europe [1], there's bound to be a significant amount of people who do this, leading to a lower national budget (or one of the other cases I mentioned in the previous round). Evidence: I thank Pro for making this round easier for me by choosing examples of countries that are on a decline in national budget [2][3][4][5][6], furthering my proof that getting rid of the one and two cent coins lowers the budget. The only country that isn't on the decline is Denmark [7]. So, is it doable? Yes. Will it lower the budget? Yes. I now pass the debate mike to Pro. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 5. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 6. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 7. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins

Position: the eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coinsI thank con for his quick response. In this round I'm going to rebut the argument he gave last round.It seems like con has the idea that the prices including taxes themselves have to be a multiple of 5 cents, but that is not the case. The prices are still allowed to end on any number. After that the total gets rounded. The image below shows how this rounding works. (Please replace the $ signs with € signs in your head) (1)To give an example: (1)As the example shows, the total including taxes is €4.92, which got rounded to €4.90 when the customer decided to pay with cash.But wait, the shop just missed 2 cents in revenue from this customer. That's right, but when the bill including taxes of the next customer is €4.93 it gets rounded to €4.95. So the shop earns an extra 2 cents in revenue. In the long term these little advantages and disadvantages tend to cancel out, so the shop isn't gaining extra revenue or losing revenue.I now hand the debate back to con, so he can rebut my arguments.Sources1) http://www.mint.ca...
The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins

Please forgive me if I confuse an American system with the Eurozone, The whole reason that I decided to take this debate was because I feel both are similar enough, and I don't think that America should get rid of coins. Rounding Taxes: I'm reasonably sure that taxes vary around the Eurozone. I'm not going to use a number I know that is the Eurozone taxes. Let's just say 7%. 7% on a Euro would require one or two cent coins to pay, if you aren't paying online. This may not sound like a lot, but with everyone missing a few cents, numbers can get big. This wouldn't be a problem easily solved. Changing the taxes isn't the easiest thing, but I'm going to focus on the impossibly of getting taxes to a number where we don't need to use one or two cent coins. The fact is, only if you raise taxes to 100% will you ensure that there won't be any need for 1 or 2 cent coins. Otherwise, you'd have to start meddling with how much people are paid. In summary, one of these outcomes are required: 1. Everyone has to pay online for taxes. 2. The governments of Europe are going to have a much lower budget. 3. Taxes are 100% 4. There are requirements for how much someone can be paid. I again would like to thank Pro for this debate. I hope he responds soon, because I am itching to rebut some of his arguments.