BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
North America Needs to go Green.

It is no secret that our world governments (including Canada and America) rely on oil for their infrastructure. Oil is still affordable by the general public and is relied on heavily. We in North America use oil, the burning of fossil fuels, and petroleum based products for so much. A few uses are: plastics, powering vehicles and machines, and trade. Despite all of the positives associated with oil, it has devastating negatives. These negative aspects include: it is bad for our environment, rising in cost, relatively rare, and running out fast. The Canadian and American governments still rely on oil anyways- so why is this? Well, sources have said that the cost of making the whole world green would be about $42,000,000,000,000 ($42 trillion). So governments can argue that going green would have catastrophic affects to their nations- but consider this. The day when oil either runs out, or becomes too expensive to purchase will put world governments in a much larger state of catastrophe than $42 trillion ever could. I ask that somebody can argue why going green/moving away from oil take part in this debate. I want somebody who is serious, and respectful- as I will be towards them. You can consider the above text to be my opening statement. *No matter what is said during this debate- or the outcome afterward, I would like to thank those that participate and want them to know that I respect and value your opinions.*
Cats are better than dogs.

Hello everyone,This is meant to be a light hearted funny debate where we debate the most common question of all time: Are cats better than dogs?I will argue that, yes, cats are better than dogs. Round 1: Acceptance. Opponent may choose to state his/her arguments. Round 2: State arguments. Opponent may rebutt. Round 3: Rebuttal. Opponent or I may state more arguments. Round 4: Rebuttal & Conclusion. No new arguments will be presented in this round. I expect at least three arguments/points, with at least one source. I am looking for a decent debate. I am not that skilled at debating, but I am looking for a person with at least some debating background (i.e. club, school, etc..)I wish whoever accepts good luck, and I look forward to this debate!
skiing

A dance is defined as a series of steps and movements that match the speed and rhythm of a piece of music.(http://oxforddictionaries.com...)Skiing is defined as the action of travelling over snow on skis, especially as a sport or recreation.(http://oxforddictionaries.com...)If skiing is a dance then I fail to see where exactly the music comes into it and where there is supposed to be a rhythm. It's just going with gravity and trying to stand straight while being toppled down a steep slope.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

id say most experts would agree, even the one's who don't agree that miracles occur.... would say there's probably a physical reason behind the cures, most of them. placebo would have to almost by definition be a much smaller amount. also placebo and "your brain somehow causing your body to be fixed", are not necessarily the same thing. placebo is you get better cause you think you will by something that happened. something deeper is where you are not necessarily thinking something caused you to get better, you just do, by your brain. this should affect atheists even all the more cause they don't think it's God healing them. it's something else. if you try to say it's cause they think it's God healing them, then it's a placebo and we should be able to tell that that's only a fraction of explanation. whatever the case, ive shown plenty of examples of inexplicable tings happening to theists... and you haven't shown one to an atheist, as requested in the initial post. you should be able to if what you say is true. that's the bottom line.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

most cures are not mental related, but hard core physical healing. we may not be able to explain most of it, but placebo accounts for only a fractions of healings. the wiki links ae not fake. you can google the information provided in them to verify what they say, that the councl etc exists. the AIDS example is obviously a scienctific cure. there's question, and more importantly there's nothing inexpicable. the council has people of all faiths and walks of life.... and not just religious only,but doctors and scientists. i have provided inexplicable cures that appear supernatural. i asked for the same in return, only to atheists etc. a simple question, yet you havent done it.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

OK placebo placebo |pləG2;sēb!3;| noun ( pl. placebos ) a harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect: his Aunt Beatrice had been kept alive on sympathy and placebos for thirty years | [ as modifier ] : placebo drugs. " a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs. " a measure designed merely to calm or please someone. ORIGIN late 18th cent.: from Latin, literally "I shall please," from placere "to please." This Is why atheists don't like religious people. They claim that good stuff happens to people who are religious and bad things happen to secular people. You have sent me websites that only have religious proof and your wiki links are fake. I am going to tell you about that person that was curred of HIV. When they were a baby they had HIV. So the doctor gave them an extreme amount of Drugs. That killed the virus. NO godly presence was there. You said that the bureau has religious officials on it. They are not classified to make any claim about miraculous happenings what so ever. MY point is that religious miracles don't exist. Just because science can't explain some thing doesn't make it a miracle from god. You can infact not prove god. So you can not make any correct claim about miracles. Atheist believe in science so they do not chose to recognize any form of a miracle.
Animal testing

Animals sure did come before us. Just like the CD came before the MP3 and the bow before the gun.We are the next stage of evolution. We are animals, after all. We just happen to be the best one at dominating all others at once. They are too inferior to us to fight back despite there being trillions of them (depending how deep you go in your definition of 'animal' things such as algae could even be considered animal as there are non-plant forms of them that move and hunt [http://tinyurl.com...]).The fact is that most sane humans would rather see a rat writhing in agony under a failed attempt at devleoping a cure or make-up brand than their boyfriend or girlfriend and/or family.
The philosophy of the existence of God.

P1: The only argument I gleaned from this is that the universe must have been created in some manner. Many theories exist to explain this, e.g. the Big Bang Theory [1]. Of course, this theory is subject to criticism. However, creation by God is equally flawed. Who created God? The remainder of this paragraph seems to be devoted to calling me lazy, lost, delusional, etc. P2: "You believe in science without seeing the science, you place your faith into science because of that reason." I base my belief in science upon data and empirical evidence. However, my faith in science is not absolute. No statement can be absolutely proved through empiricism, including the existence of God. "God is personal to a person like a father is to a child." This is definitely not "universal proof". P3: My opponent still does not present absolute proof of God's existence. "Their genetics may answer the question? But it might also not? DNA proves there is a designer. The Golden Ratio proves God, of that it is a design of His. All the sea shell's spirals are twisted clockwise. Why?" My opponent concedes that genetics may answer this question. The Golden Ratio is not an absolute proof either, it is merely evidence. P4: What created God? Some cause must exist for Him. My opponent has presented very little evidence for the existence of God, let alone an absolute proof. My opponent, in order to affirm his position, must prove, beyond any doubt, that God exists. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The philosophy of the existence of God.

A good in-closed concentrated argument from my foe. I still think God exists 100%. Since I think 100%, there is no doubt, so God exists no question on my arguments behalf. By me giving you in-debatable evidence for God, would be like life being taken away all together, and they you asking for proof for life. You see God and life are both the same God is life, life is God. You believe nature created life I believe God created life. Nature is life, life is nature. What is the difference? If you choose nature as the answer you have just made your just and righteous judgment a delusion, when clearly righteousness and justification is not. God is righteous and Just, what then makes God none existent? What blocks God from existing? Is it your thoughts or is it that God is lost, like a lost one pence piece to a rich man, but which the man needs it so he can effort a knew car, he is also one pence short. Like you desire truth you dislike the effort needed to find it. You will also be one short of the truth because you believe there is no God. That being how did the universe come to be? I can simply say, "God is perfect and therefore God made the universe at His command." You believe in science without seeing the science, you place your faith into science because of that reason. You seem to be asking for universal proof of God, like I have said, God is personal to a person like a father is to a child. We're Gods children and God is our Father, not only that but our dad in heaven. God is so obvious that there needs to be people like you to try and disprove God. You could that that to me, but there we go. God is so obvious even His creation's creations claim there is a God. Video gaming and film, cars and damns etc... Beavers have the perfect technique to make a damn, we learn from them in engineering to help us build a damn. And the beavers are born with this gift. How do they know how to build one. Their genetics may answer the question? But it might also not? DNA proves there is a designer. The Golden Ratio proves God, of that it is a design of His. All the sea shell's spirals are twisted clockwise. Why? If there was no first cause then there is nothing. That first cause is God. God is the structure of life. as everything has a structure, God is the universe's structure. If God is perfect and by definition God can create, build and make anything He wants, surely nothing can not allow God from existing? Am I right? If I am not why am I not. And I want logic what defies that, not any of, "It's circular reasoning" rubbish. Or, "Just because you can say it does not mean it is true" Junk. If you can not defy that God does not exist be proving that question incorrect to it's statement, that I must be correct. Thanks, please I would like a good argument in the next round from my opponent. Thank you.
The philosophy of the existence of God.

My opponent has presented a vast multitude of arguments. However, he has not affirmed the resolution. My opponent is arguing "for God's very existence 100%". Hence, he has the burden of absolute proof. He has not presented this, simply because absolute proof of any statement cannot exist. "God is out side time, since time needs matter and a space to exist. .. Beyond my intelligence of understanding. " God's very nature, as proposed by my opponent, is beyond human comprehension. Therefore, God is outside the field of empirics and logic, and his existence cannot be proved. The resolution is negated, as my opponent cannot, and has not proved "100%", that God exists.
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

The seven sins: Con is making the argument that the seven deadly sins are ambiguous, which would compromise my definition of justice. His argument involving the sand is sound; however at this juncture my formal interpretation of the seven sins has yet to be defined and instead of refuting his argument I will bypass it completely. Con's definition of the sins involves "attachments". This is a pretty good explanation, for the most part, but it is not the definition I would use. His definition is ambiguous; mine is not. How does my definition differ? Again, Con's definition involves "moderation". You can enjoy the seven sins to a point, but keep them under control. This creates an obvious opportunity for ambiguity. My interpretation is starkly different, however. In my interpretation, the seven sins are "intentions". Example - I see a girl at the bar, and bring her home with lust as my intention. In this case, I will fail simply because I acted out of lust. This scenario begs the question: "But what about the small chance that your lustful act actually introduces you to a woman you fall in love with and marry? Doesn't this open up the chance for ambiguity?" My answer is: only in the short run. This will unambiguously open up the chance for failure. Both of these people will always be stricken with the knowledge and insecurity that eachother acts out of lust. This insecurity will invariably lead to jealousy - the demand for the other to remain faithful. How can you trust the other person when they are not in your sight, if you know that they are capable of using this intention in and of itself? It may not be a marriage-breaker in every case, but the fact remains that the action, based on lust, will invariably cause a problem. The degree of the problem in question is outside the scope of this debate. The only way to start the relationship perfectly is to associate yourself with the person for reasons other than lust; and then the sexual relations will unfold for non-lust reasons: mainly, the opportunity to please THEM and not yourself. If you are having sex with someone to please them, then it is not lust. Lust is when you are trying to get your own rocks off and you really don't give a damn about the other person. The other sins are similar; never should your intentions for action be lust, greed, wrath(avarice), gluttony, envy, sloth, or especially pride. Pride is the cardinal; the most dangerous; it lurks without much chance of being detected and fuels all the rest. Whenever you make an action, based on these intentions, you will be working to produce immoral results. So you see, there is no moderate vs. immoderate argument to be made. If there was, I would be toast right now! This also begs the question about temperance. Isn't that about moderation(ambiguity)? Again, the answer really is no. A calorie count would serve as a quantifiable indicator with food, and any intoxication leads to lapse in judgment.
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

Obviously, human reasoning is not as rigorous as mathematics, and I pointed this out. However, it is because it is NOT so rigorous that there is room for ambiguity. My opponent accepts that there might be a possibility of ambiguity, but it is not worth considering if the chance is only infinitesimal. In a similar vein, some human experiences, such as pain and love, are so ubiquitous that they can effectively be called universal. The best way for me to demonstrate the flaws of perfect prudence is through an examination of the Seven Deadly Sins. The common thread behind each Sin is that each describes an excessive attachment to a particular thing. This is similar to the Buddhist concept of attachment, in which we focus so intently on one thing that our well being becomes entirely dependant on it. It is easy to see how each of the sins is an attachment. What makes the Seven interesting is that each of those behaviors is only a sin when practiced in excess. I particularly like this aspect of the Seven Deadly Sins because it reveals how intertwined good and evil are. However, this aspect is also the Seven's downfall as a flawless system of morality. Let me use a variety of the Sorities paradox: If I have a small heap of sand and I add one grain to it, it will still be a small heap of sand. However, if I continue adding grains, at some point the heap of sand will become big. Is there some point at which adding one grain of sand changes the heap from small to medium and then to large? The answer is obviously no, and it introduces the biggest difference between formal and informal logic. Whether or not we can call a heap of sand "small" is an example of a Classification Problem. For this problem, there is no rigorous set of rules that can be used to differentiate a small heap from a large one. Even if one did define a small heap as one with under X grains of sand, it would still be impossibly to actually apply this rule without devoting days to counting grains. Instead, we use a system of pattern matching which we call "intuition". When observing a heap of sand we may either project the concept of "small" or "large" on top of it. The exact mechanism of this pattern matching is almost entirely unknown to us. Intuition is based off one's experience and as such it is highly subjective. We can apply this same pattern to any of the seven deadly sins. It is easy to spot extreme attachment, because through our experience we build up a conception of what the acceptable levels should be. Like the heap of sand, however, we can not say EXACTLY where the cut off point is. We must instead rely on our highly subjective intuition. For my opponent's system to be flawless, we must all share the same intuition about certain core components of the system. This is demonstratably not so, therefore the only other refuge is if his system were as rigorous as a formal system so as to remove any traces of subjectivity.
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

C1: Con is attempting to prove that prudence is ambiguous because absolute logical truth cannot be said to exist in the real world. I disagree. "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." If I chose to beat and burn you, Con(we'll see how the debate goes first though), I think you would find very suddenly that although our math tells us otherwise, there does exist absolute truths in this existence. Pain and love are absolute truths, and happen to be the very truths that morality does in fact deal with. Again, while the math may introduce hypothetical inconsistencies ("this sentence is false"), our existence is not "powerful" enough to produce these inconsistencies. We, as humans, are ultimately complex systems that experience limits in reality. Non-infinite limits. You can show mathematical inconsistencies in reality with mathematics but you cannot EXPERIENCE these inconsistencies yourself. I will be happy to entertain real-life examples of the inconsistencies you speak of. "...there is some room for ambiguity to creep in. Either way, we run the risk that we will come across a moral situation for which there is no provable judgment." Well, there is always a non-zero chance for anything. There is a non-zero chance that a herd of African Elephants are going to come stampeding out of my bathroom at any instant. If we allow ourselves to be guided by infinitesimal chance, then there literally is not a single sentence that any of us can say that would have any bearing on reality. C2: Conceded by Con. C3: A better definition is asked for. A person is demonstrating justice when he or she acts selflessly. The person is acting selflessly when he or she is able to rid the sentiments of greed, lust, envy, pride, sloth, wrath, and gluttony, and when he or she treats individuals as equals. C4: Does overeating not count as always bad for someone? If you are eating and you have passed the point of nourishment, then you are wasting resources and hampering your body's ability to digest. Is there no chance of demonstrating that an intoxicated individual has definitely impaired his or her judgment? Con calls for "a perfect way to determine if something is good or bad for the body." Well, let's start with choking to death. Perfectly bad, if you ask me. Overdosing on alcohol. Not ultimately bad(death), but perfectly bad - a negative strain on the body. There are things that are less bad for the body, which is why there are infinite degrees of badness(temperance in this case). Amount of overeating or intoxication=amount of intemperance=amount of badness for the body. This formula is simple and unambiguous; flawless.
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

I do believe my opponent's moral system is very well thought out, and perhaps through this debate he will be able to make it even stronger. Prudence / Sound Judgment : Judgment, in the most abstract, is the ability to assign qualities to entities. If there is good reason behind the assignment, we call the judgment "sound". To apply any of the other pillars of my opponent's moral system, or any moral system for that matter, we MUST have the ability to properly assign qualities to people, actions, behaviors, and events. Thus, I accept that Prudence needs to be at the very core of a moral system. The question is, however, "Is it flawless?" For judgment to be perfect, we must believe in absolute logical truth. This means that the only statements we can call "true" are ones which can be derived from the law of non-contradiction, by way of theorems which are also true. Godel's Incompleteness theorem proves that if a system is sufficiently powerful (and the system we're talking about certainly is), there will always be statements who's truth value can not be determined by applying proven theorems. Of course what we call "reason" isn't as rigorous as formal logic, but this means that there is some room for ambiguity to creep in. Either way, we run the risk that we will come across a moral situation for which there is no provable judgment. ========================================== Fortitude: The willingness to endure pain caused by misfortune. Any ambiguity in this statement would be nit-picking, so I won't explore it any further. ========================================== Justice: The definitions of "just" and "fair" are circular. A fair judgment, aside from being an awesome Opeth song, is one in which each party gets what they deserve. How do we define what they deserve? Furthermore, what do we do in cases where being fair to Party A and being fair to Party B are mutually exclusive? To explore this concept further, I ask my opponent for a more formal definition of justice, one which does not depend on definition loops. =========================================== Temperance: The most simple incarnation of temperance is moderation of food and abstinence from mind altering chemicals. Of course this rules out chocolate, caffeine, and some medicine, but one could argue that the principle of temperance only applies to chemicals that alter your mind in a negative way. This does leave some room for argument though, as we now must prove that there is a perfect way to determine if something is good or bad for the body.