BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

Almost every sentence in your last argument is patently absurd: "You think something exists because in all conceivable instances of your imagination something has to exist." So, you are saying that my imagination might be incapable of conceiving that nothing exists. But you admit that there is SOMETHING called an imagination which has this incapability. "It is possible that some being has blocked your ability (has in fact blocked all our abilities) and prevented any of us from being able to imagine a scenario where something does not exist." But if that is the case, then there is a being which has blocked our ability, and there is an imagination which that being is blocking. So, there are at least TWO things that exist: an evil being which can block imagination, and an imagination that is capable of being blocked. "...a being that prevents us from imagining its existence cannot be proven not to exist." Why would I want to prove such a being does not exist? If it does exist, that means SOMETHING EXISTS!!!! "Only if we accept your conceptualization of the universe can we assume that "something exists"." But if you come up with a different conceptualization of the universe, then that conceptualization EXISTS. Therefore, something exists. "Perhaps the universe is actually nothing, and we don't actually exist." Then why does it appear that there is a debate going on? "Perhaps nothing exists, but we are just unable to comprehend this." We??? "You can not argue the existence of absolute knowledge through logic because logic itself is vulnerable." If logic is vulnerable, then logic is SOMETHING which is vulnerable, and so vulnerable logic exists, and therefore something exists.
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

If you wish to truly hinge your argument on "something exists" then so be it. You only believe something exists because in your mind this is "rational". You in fact even listed all these "rational" arguments in support. But in this debate, the existence of rational arguments cannot be taken for granted. You think something exists because in all conceivable instances of your imagination something has to exist, but it is possible that some being has blocked your ability (has in fact blocked all our abilities) and prevented any of us from being able to imagine a scenario where something does not exist. The beauty of this statement is that you cannot prove me wrong. You cannot prove me wrong because by definition a being that prevents us from imagining its existence cannot be proven not to exist. And so long as it is possible, we have no absolute knowledge. In short: Only if we accept your conceptualization of the universe can we assume that "something exists". But we cannot accept your conceptualization of the universe. Perhaps the universe is actually nothing, and we don't actually exist. Perhaps nothing exists, but we are just unable to comprehend this. Perhaps we don't exist. What's typing this then? I don't know. Maybe something, maybe nothing. Maybe these words don't exist. You cannot argue the existence of absolute knowledge through logic because logic itself is vulnerable. And therefore there is no absolute knowledge. Because there is no foundation upon which to deduce anything else; not even something exists.
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

Hi, thanks for inviting me to this debate. I will attempt to disprove your thesis by giving a single example of absolute knowledge. By giving one such example, I will prove that absolute knowledge is POSSIBLE, thus negating the claim that absolute knowledge is impossible. Here is my example: Something exists. In your initial post, you made the following argument: 1) All knowledge is derived from our senses. 2) Our senses are capable of being deceived. 3) Therefore, we can never be certain of anything. I agree with premise one and premise two, but I don't agree with your conclusion for the following reason: Just because our senses are capable of being deceived doesn't mean they are capable of being deceived about anything. There may be one or two things that our senses are NOT capable of being deceived of and of these one or two things we can have absolute certainty. If there is only such kernel of knowledge that we can be sure of, it must be: Something exists. How can you possibly be wrong about this? To even consider whether something exists or not is to prove that it does. Even if your senses are ALWAYS deceiving you, that means that your senses ARE SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE DECEIVED and hence, are SOMETHING. Even if you have no senses but are just some whisp of immaterial consciousness that a malevolent demon has fooled into thinking you are a human being living in a world of other human beings and so forth, that is STILL SOMETHING. If it were true that nothing exists, then you wouldn't even have any senses at all and the question of whether or not your senses are deceiving you would be absolutely moot. The fact that we are having a debate proves that something exists. Even if this is all an illusion created by a trickster God, it still means that SOMETHING (the illusion) exists. Consider the keyboard I'm typing on. It might NOT really be a keyboard. It might more accurately be described as a matrix of particular types of molecules and atoms bound together in a certain way. Ok, but that's still SOMETHING. But what if there really is no such thing as molecules and atoms? What if there is no material stuff at all and everything is only in the mind? Well, that's still SOMETHING too! Ok, but what if I only think I have a mind but really I'm just a computer program? Ok, well, a computer program that thinks it is a human being typing on a keyboard made of a particular matrix of molecules and atoms is still SOMETHING. No matter how deep you go, you will never convince yourself that there is nothing. So, I believe I have shown that there is at least one thing that our senses can not be deceived about and so there is at least one thing that we can have absolute knowledge about. Therefore, absolute knowledge is possible and the claim that it is impossible is false.
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

Absolute knowledge is impossible for a set of simple reasons 1. all information we gain about our world is derived from our senses. 2. all our senses can be deceived. 3. Therefore, we can never be absolutely certain about any information we "know". Ever watched the matrix? Same principle. Descartes might believe I think therefore I am, but he was a mathematician and should've stayed where he knew what he was talking about. There is no way to be absolutely certain because everything could be an illusion. We might think 1+1=2 but there is always the possibility its a thought implanted into our minds. What we think is logical and correct is manipulable, and as long as its manipulable, we cannot have absolute knowledge.
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

I'm not really going to address any of my opponent's last arguments because I don't think he has done anything to adequately counter the claim that "something exists." Saying that my claim is an appeal to logic, which may not have a sound foundation itself, still admits that: One, there is a claim. Two, there is a construct called logic. I'll just leave it up to the readers to decide whether or not it can be doubted that "Something exists." (But if you doubt the claim, then there is something to doubt and there is something which doubts, both of which are SOMETHING. So by doubting the claim, you prove it.) I'll rest my case here. Thanks.
Absolute Knowledge is Impossible

Okay, to put it simply and coherently: In order to prove that "Something Exists", you used the process of LOGIC. You LOGICALLY believe "Something Exists" and to support it you gave a wide array of LOGICAL reasons. HOWEVER, Logic is NOT ABSOLUTE. An insane individual believes many things to be true because of "logic". Children draw "logical" conclusions all the time. Logic is MUTABLE. There is no reason to believe that Logic is absolute, or that Logic is any guaranteed approach towards truth. Any conclusion we perceive to be LOGICALLY arrived at, cannot be accepted as ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I'm not attacking your statement. I'm not attacking it because it makes sense. Logically. And there isn't any value from attacking it either since you could just create another logically sound statement of "Absolute Truth". What I am attacking is the principle of LOGIC from which all conclusions you derive. If there is NO LOGIC, you CANNOT conclude that "Something Exists". In fact, you cannot CONCLUDE anything. All Conclusions rely on the principles of LOGIC, which if do not exist, then neither do conclusions.
Euthanasia should be legalized

In this debate I will be arguing in favor of legal Euthanasia programs globally, although with specific references to more western countries, and in particular the US, where only 4 states have legalized euthanasia. In my personal view I believe euthanasia to be a critical discussion as I see the illegality as straight-up restriction of the human right. The right to intentionally end ones life is one in which I feel should 100% be gratified. People who are perhaps in significant physical or mental pain who want this certainty upon them quicker than what perhaps their body can last is, I feel, fully justified. Of course there would have to be bureaucracy so the establishment that one is ready to die is fully committed and no other outside players were involved. I believe that the person wanting to end their life should be subjected to questioning before the act is taken, for example if the person is mentally unstable, irrationally wanting to end their life but is willing to accept help and try to get better then this could avoid lots of irrational endings of life as euthanasia is made legal. Euthanasia should maintain its controlled assessment of patients and should be a last resort, but however, should most definitely be made legal. I look forward to hearing your arguments.
All drugs of all classifications should be legal.

Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When they turn 18 and can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) and do all other kinds of things... yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.
The World V. Santa Claus

This Debate is impossible to accept. If you wish to accept then please say so in the comments section and if you find some magical way to accept this debate without my permission then you will forfeit the debate plus all of your Christmas presents to me. This debate is the Companies of the world which will be listed to bellow, but is not limited to the following list: -General Motots -Ford -Chevy -Toyota -Barbie -TMNT -MLB -NFL -NCAA -NHL -Wal Mart -Toys R Us -GI Joe -Cartoon Network -Disney -Pixar -Frozen -Star Wars -CBS -Fox News -Konami -Pokemon -Nickalodeon -DDO -Microsoft -Dell -Apple Starbucks -etc.... Rules First round is acceptance. Second round is opening arguments, no rebuttles shall be made. The Procicuting side will call witnesses to the stand in Round 2. Third Round is Rebuttles. Forth Round is Rebuttles and conclusion. Wikipeadia is not an acceptable source. Pro is the Prosecuter while Con is to defend Santa Claus. You may use movies and such as video evidence. In order to win the debate you must win at least 2 out of the 3 Court Cases for your side. By accepting the debate you will be accepting that the following facts are indeed true. 1. Santa Clause is real and lives at the north pole. 2. Elves make toys of Santa at the North Pole. 3. Santa has magic Reindeer to pull his slead. There are multiple court cases going on at once. Court Case 1: PETA V. Santa Clause Suing Santa for the mistreatment and abuse of the Reindeer. Court Case 2: Corporations of the World V. Santa Clause Suing Santa for illegal use and production of their pattoned products. Court Case 3: Child Protection Services (CPS) and OSHA V. Santa Clause. Suing Santa for illegal use of child labor and child abuse all over the world. Together these cases are put together as the Wolrd V. Santa Clause.
The World V. Santa Claus

Per the debate rules, I cannot rebut allegations from the prosecution in round 2. I will instead establish the character of Santa and how (and where) he runs his operation. Santa: the animal lover Santa has a special place in his heart for animals. Consider Rudolph! He was being bullied and was not allowed to play in any reindeer games by the other reindeer. St. Nick decided it would be helpful to give Rudolph a special job leading Santa’s sleigh. This decision really had little to do with Rudolph’s nose (it is really not that bright). Thanks to Santa and his compassion for the red nosed deer, Rudolph has gone down in history. [1] Santa: Businessman Santa is quite an entrepreneur! Through the branding of his image (red suit, bushy white beard, sleigh, and reindeer) he has been able to expand his operation from a small local provider in the 19th century to the worldwide operation we all know today. Through hard work, clever marketing, sponsorships, the help of parents and volunteers, and a little magic, Santa has been able to cover his extensive overhead expenses and achieve his goals of giving the children of the world a special gift every Christmas. [2] Base of Operation and workforce: Santa’s world headquarters are based at Finnish Lapland. This little known fact was discovered in 1925 and is actually for the sole purpose of reindeer grazing. [3] Santa’s workforce consists strictly of elves and he himself is an elf as illustrated by the well-known “T’was the Night Before Christmas” [4] “He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself”In the next round I will address the serious allegations the prosecution has submitted, and I am confident my client's innocence will be proven. This concludes opening statements for the defense. [1] [2] . http://www.usatoday.com... [3] . http://www.the-north-pole.com... [4] . http://www.poetryfoundation.org...
Logic Presupposes God: a Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

I'm just going to do my best to add to what Pro said in the debate preliminary, in order to lay the ground work for the debate, and then we can begin properly in the next round. = = = Definitions and Abbreviations = = = The definitions Pro has given seem perfectly acceptable. But I would just like to clarify that when Pro speaks of logical "laws" and I speak of "absolutes", I take these to be synonyms for each other, and not different in any way other than name. ------------------ TAG - The transcendental argument for the existence of God. TANG - The transcendental argument for the non existence of God. LAs - Logical absolutes (or laws). = = = TAG mission statement = = = TAG is essentially a theistic argument that seeks to eliminate any sort of non-belief by charging that without a God which has certain characteristics, logical absolutes (LA) cannot be accounted for, and thus any attempt to justify non-belief fails to even get off the ground, as it can't even account for the prerequisite to do so - rationality (1). Thus the aim of TAG is to present a situation where: "The only way to account for . . . logical absolutes is by postulating God's existence. " (2) By first acknowledging that LAs exist, Slick then identifies LAs as (3): a. conceptual b. transcendent c. absolute And concludes both that the atheist cannot given an account for LAs, and that the Christian can: "Logical absolutes, thus being conceptual, must come from a mind, and this mind in turn must be an absolute, transcendent mind . . . This mind is called God. " (4). Obviously Pro's job is to flesh out this argument, which he will do in round 2, but this is just a rough outlier of what the atheist is up against, and what a conclusion reached from TAG would amount to - mainly the existence in a God with these attributes (and, for sure, many others besides). = = = TANG (5) = = = TANG, first formulated by atheist philosopher Michael Martin, is an argument to show that the implications of the TAG argument carries so much baggage that the case for the non existence of God can be made purely on the conditions created by reaching the conclusion of God's existence through TAG. Just to be clear, it is more of a reaction against TAG than it is a positive argument for atheism, mainly because it only works with the theist who accepts the said implications of TAG. In this way, it should be seen as a sacrificial argument - employed to parallel the TAG argument from an atheist perspective (much like the Atheist Wager is used). I will be using my own versions of this, which will try to encapsulate the same principle that Martin used in attempting defeat the TAG argument - which I take to be my objective for the debate ahead. = = = Conclusion = = = Anyway, I hope I haven't telegraphed my punches too much, and I would like to invite Pro to state his case, and to thank him and wish him the best of luck. Cheers. = = = Sources = = = (1), (3), (4) . http://carm.org... (2) . http://www.youtube.com... (shown above) (5) . http://www.infidels.org...
Public Transport Should Be Free

Public Transport should be safe, reliable, efficient and affordable for everyone. Stepping onto a bus and finding it full of people, is something nobody likes. It happens to everyone. Imagine how crowded a bus would be if all public transport was free. This is something which cannot be helped but if more and more people took public transport to places then more transport would get overcrowded. If transport is overcrowded, the government would have to provide the pubic with more transportation services which means. Building the transport, hiring drivers and filling up the petrol. If the government does not have enough money then they increase the tax. This is unfair because those who have a job and do not use public transport have to pay the tax. But those who take public transport and don"t have a job do not have to pay tax. People may misuse the privilege of free transport. An example is that if they do not have anything to do they could take public transport just for fun. But that"s not all, overcrowding could also lead to danger. If there is too many people on a bus and they bus turns, people could stumble into each other and someone could get injured.
The eighth amendment

Stealing a lollipop is not a serious offense, And is not exactly protected by the eighth amendment. Unless you count getting your hand cut off or sitting in a cell for a week or two, Which they actually do in some countries. I do not believe these are right and are sort of a major thing for something so small. I'm not saying that the eighth should be abolished, Just that it should be changed. It should be changed to have more a little more serious punishments for some crimes. The average cost for incarceration per inmate, Per year is between $31, 000 to $60, 000. It would probably be more if they included building and maintenance costs. My point of this is that if someone is given a life sentence, They cost that much every year. And there have been millions of people incarcerated. This is billions of dollars per year. If people that killed someone or ruined someone's life could be given the death penalty, There would be millions to billions of dollars saved.
The eighth amendment

The eighth amendment in my opinion, Is a great amendment because if you kill somebody then you will get what you deserve. If you kill somebody then either you meant to do that or it was an accident. If there is evidence that there was a accident, Than i would see that you could get a light sentence, You probably feel very bad about it and will regret it the rest of your life so you have to live with that feeling. If you kill because your crazy or have a grudge against that person that i can see that you can get the death penalty because you are a very bad person. Cruel and unusual punishment is a good thing because it keeps us from going crazy on things like stealing a lolipop or getting a parking ticket.
Are black people over populated in the United States of America

I care for our American future. If we let blacks take over American will completely change. They just break into our country and steal our oil. I say we put a wall around Africa. This will stop a lot of things expessicslly the black population. They will end up taking our food and stealing our money. His will stop the spread of African disease like AIDS. This will also stop the outrageous music Elijah listens to. I will talk to mr farrish and ask him his details about what we should do with the blacks. This is a big issue in the United States. They have taken over very nice city in the world like New York. When I drove to Florida last year we went threw Manhattan and there was 4 blacks fighting right next to us on the right. We stop this mass destruction we will solve all American crisis
Are black people over populated in the United States of America

First off, there are no school rules allowing African Americans to miss school on veterans day, so that statement is false. Your education cannot be stolen from you, as it is under your control whether you choose to further your education or not. Unless of course it is the case that an African American gets accepted into a college over you (which is highly likely in your case.) It is very evident you know little about what you are talking about, as Chicagos streets are run mostly by the mexican cartel. You state that this is a national crisis, are you so clueless as to the very real threats that face country every day? You, sadly, seem to have no real clue as to what is important and what is not, as most of your time I can only imagine has been spent consuming the nations abundance of KFC, claiming your helping the world, and adding to increasing amount of obese persons living in the U.S.