BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic is a Meaningless Concept if God Can Act Outside of it.

The debate is "Logic is meaningless if God can act outside of it" we are debating that If God can act outside logic then it is a useless concept. The Pro claims that men did not invent logic. Men did not INVENT logic, we studied it and have learned to use it to solve problems. The Con claims that God was the one who invented Logic but that is just not true. Logic is the study of inference and reasoning, it is a CONCEPT. Math is also a concept but god didnt invent math. The 4 things i listed were just examples of how logic changes over time because it is applied differently after more information is obtained and then used to make inferences. As for God, there is no definite way to prove that he is bound to the concept of logic....... so if we cannot prove he is bound to it then it is quite possible that he can exist outside of the concept of logic. Just because he can live outside it though, us humans cannot, so understanding and applying logic can be very useful and meaningful in problem solving. I thank my opponent for the debate and i offer my condolences to him for having his argument accidentally deleted.... Ive had that happen and I feel your pain. :D
Logic is a Meaningless Concept if God Can Act Outside of it.

This just deleted my entire argument. I am pretty upset at that. So, I'll write it again. Logic was not created by man. Logic is not something which can be created, just like electricity or sight. It is, like my opponent provides in his/her definition, the formal study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. I ask the reader's to remember this definition while we pick apart the claims of the contender. My opponent goes on to show four situations which he/she deems are examples of logic. They are absolutely not. Let's look back at the definition: the formal study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. "There was a time when the world was flat was just plain logic,"1. Popular belief does not fall under that definition. In fact, it was valid inference and correct reasoning that led to the discovery that the world was not flat by Euclid. Euclid used math to prove the world was a spheroid. "there was a time when crazy people were crazy because demons were trapped in their heads was just logic,"2. Religious belief does not constitute logic. "there was a time when 13 colonies could not overthrow an empire was also logic"3. A. the 13 colonies did not overthrow an empire, they just successfully seceded. B. Predictionsalsodon't fall under that definition. "there was a time when atomic bombs could ignite our atmosphere and incinerate the earth and that was just logic. "4. Possible outcomes do not fall under that definition. My opponent has failed to understand what logic is despite having provided the definition himself. Logic absolutely does not change over time. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. It may be false that all men are mortal, but that's irrelevant. Provided that "all men are mortal", "Socrates is mortal" because "Socrates is a man". A given set of premises will always yield the same conclusion if the logic is sound. "We do not know if these rules apply to God though because God is still a belief held by many"Not only is that irrelevant, it doesn't make sense. The fact that God is still a belief held by many keeps us from knowing whether or not God can circumvent logic? I have shown that logic is not created by man. I have shown that God operating outside of logicnecessarily makes logic a useless concept. I have shown that my opponent has failed to understand the point despite providing the operating definition of "logic".
Logic is a Meaningless Concept if God Can Act Outside of it.

Logic - The Normal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org... Logic was not created by God or the universe or some all knowing being. Logic was developed by humans long ago as a tool to make conclusions about mysteries using facts and knowledge we already have at hand. There was a time when the world was flat was just plain logic, there was a time when crazy people were crazy because demons were trapped in their heads was just logic, there was a time when 13 colonies could not overthrow an empire was also logic there was a time when atomic bombs could ignite our atmosphere and incinerate the earth and that was just logic. Logic changes overtime as more facts about a matter are accumulated. We use logic to usually successfully find answers to questions we do not know. We do not know if these rules apply to God though because God is still a belief held by many. Yes God can undermine Logic, but it is still far from useless just because God can live outside of it because God didnt create logic, humans did. :)
Logic is a Meaningless Concept if God Can Act Outside of it.

The most basic logical statement, 1=1 is evidence that logic must be absolute. If 1=1 is only true so long as God makes 1, 1, then it is not a true statement. However, it must be a true statement, or else 1=~1 (not 1) which is a self refuting statement. The only possible truth to 1=1 comes from the fact that definitive mathematical logic must always be true 100% of the time. The argument that God operates outside logic is nonsensical. One oft used argument is "Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it". Those who say that God can operate outside of logic say that "God can make a rock so big that he cannot lift it, and then proceed to lift it because he operates outside of logic". However, this violates sense. If he proceeds to lift it, then he can lift it, and he did not make a rock that he cannot lift, this isn't to say that He can't, but to say that He did not, in this scenario. Our entire understanding of the universe comes from the fact that logic is absolute. 1+1=2, 1+1 =/= 3. If 1+1=3, then 1 =/= 1 because 2(1)=2 not 3. If just one piece of mathematics is false, ALL of mathematics is false. Algebra is universally true or it is not true at all. Algebra is a method of expressing logic. Every idea ever deduced. Every thought ever manifested in logic. Everything of that nature would be false if God has the ability to undermine logic. If God created logic, God has bound Himself by a machine that will not release Him. If logic is false, there is no such thing as truth. Using logic we can come to the conclusion that 1+1=2. Without logic, there's no way to tell what 1+1 is. 1+1 could be equal to literally anything within or without numbers and it could be equal to nothing. There is no way to tell. It is for this reason that I believe that if God can undermine it, logic is useless.
The war in Iraq is both good for america and the citizens of Iraq

.. . He agrees that I only need to win one side of the debate to win the whole thing as he dropped this point. The only real thing my opponent my opponent argued that is death is a part of war. However, this doesn't matter, what matters is his resolution "The war in Iraq is both good for america and the citizens of Iraq" Death is obviously not good for the citizens of Iraq, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a part of war, it is bad for them. Thus I have won on that point. He then goes on to say that things are getting better for Iraq, however he fails to provide any evidence backing this up, or how this benefits the Iraqi citizens at all. I would also point out that death outweighs any good that could come, so I will win anyway. On to the US. .. He basically just says we are more unsafe, because of the biased meadia, not the war. However, he failed to attack my real points, there is no clash with this whatsoever! Thus my point will still stand that people who come and invade their country will get pissed and revolt. Would you be happy if the Iraqi guard was here in the US? Didnt think so. Because of the war, we are there, because we are there, they revolt, because they revolt, everyone including the US is less safe. He almost completely dropped my economy argument. Thus he agrees that the war is paying a huge toll on the US economy, and that is hurting us. The war in Iraq is bad for the citizens of Iraq as it kills them, and they are replaced. If the war had never happened, they wouldn't have had to be replaced in the first place, thus it is bad. And it is bad for America because it makes us less safe, kills our soldiers, and hurts our economy. Thus I have won on both sides of the topic.
The war in Iraq is both good for america and the citizens of Iraq

Deaths are a part of war my friend and our efforts in iraq are decreasing deaths. Our efforts over in iraq are also providing security for their citizens. Our military is effectivly training citizen iraqis to take care of themselves. Iraq has been also opening up trade with other countries and is effectivly expanding their economy. People without homes are getting those homes back. The reason they were displaced in the first place was to stop more deaths! Heck! Would you want to live in a warzone? As for people hating america that is a result of biased press. Not the war on terror.
Meaningful Rap Battle

Yeah, my inner black man wants to keep going, but my inner (and outer) white boy doesn't really give two f*cks and doesn't want to. So I'll forfeit. But to spread the wealth of meaningful raps, I will post videos of my own and just let my opponent do whatever he wants with his remaining rounds.http://www.youtube.com...Hands Held High - Linkin Park(yeah I know, not an actual rap group, but I don't listen to a lot of serious rap groups and Linkin Park is as close as I go to listening to rap).
Meaningful Rap Battle

Cycle of crimeDo you know what it's like,To come to school on a bike,And not know for sure,If you'll ride home or take a hike?To come to school with a little bit of money,That you stole from you imporverished father,Yet big boys find it very funny,To force you to find another,Source of income,So you resort,To shoplifting,Then you get caught,You get put in prison,Stuck in a cell,Dreaming of one day having risen,Up from this living hell. You get buttraped,Tormented,You head feels like,Its dented,The bullies surround you,Don't care if you,Get fed,They just want the power,The glory,The name,They'll use you,Abuse you,And put you to shame.You grow so distasteful,Juvie was hell,You're eighteen,And aching,To get out and tell,The world of the horror,You went through in there,But when you get out,Scream and shout,There's no one to care.You've been bullied,Pushed around,Left to rot in your own blood,Your heart's fallen to pieces,It breaks every 'thud thud thud',Your fury,Your anger,Your hunger within,It know no, Boundaries,It squeezes your moral code thin.You're alone,You've got no one,Bullied you one were,You're wishing that someone,Would here your pu$sy-quality purrrrr,But there ain't on one out there for you,You scream,and your rage,Just goes on,And stays strong,Now your nineteen years of age.You're broke,It's no joke,You drink,And smoke,You're addicted to coke,Barely got money to cope,Every moment your sober you wanna go grab a rope,And end all the suffering but somewhere in you is hope,So you go out beat little kids,Get money and run,You steal much better than,Than you were young,You know where the CCTV,Is and avoiding it is so easy,You steal,No guilt,Don't feel,Queasy,You just wanna get richer and sleasy,A rich snob,No job,That's your dream.Life in the ghetto,Ain't building your self esteem,So you use it and abuse it and hurt the people that are in it,Guess this cycle of crime must be infinite.
Meaningful Rap Battle

Yeah, this one goes out to all our boys overseas, giving it all for the people who hate them for what they do. Check it.America!Land of the free and home of the brave.Yet he who fights for this life to you is just a silly knave.Why? What must y'all misbehave?They've gave to save us all from being someone evil's slave.Come on, man, respect. What's the disconnect between us and those who protectAnd don't collect a cent, a percent, and then has to pay the rent? This dissent,without relent,it's intent to tormentThose who can actually representus well.Listen, they are the ones who giving it all.They answer the call to brawl and fall'cuz they're in it for the long haul.Above all, after they crawl to the wall and are left in a sprawl,and you're wanting to spit on the burial shawl?Bullsh*t.When you grow the stones to go into the warzonesand listen to the well-known moan of those who diedso that you can sit on your throne, alone, and shout"I'm holier than thou!", Don't bother to condoneand let your thoughts be overthrown.Semper Fi, HOORAH!
Meaningful Rap Battle

I was actually going to do a competition of posting vids. However, I can understand how it might have misled you that I said I was a poet. So I'll just freestyle my own as they say xD.Judge Ya' ReflectionWhile people think,They know more than enough,It just takes one little thing,And they begin learning stuff.People once said say 'gays be stupid',Now they say 'gays be cute',Gays be just like straight people hit by cupid,No need to refute,That homosexuality,Is a sexuality,That there's no need for illegality,For gay sin this reality,People come back down to Earth by gravity,Think they can confirm their own sanity,All blinded by their vanity,A man kisses a man and he,Would be,Discirinated against mercilessly,But time moved on,Gays stayed strong,Went on to sing songs,To prove the status quo wrong.People want to judge,Liek they know who you are,They say 'he too shiny', 'he too dull',He not like a normal star,They say 'ha he be drivin' a tata nano'He can't afford a decent car,Meanwhile that man is working his a$s off,Just to bring home some food for his starving father,He has to work like a dog,Gets used like a lab rat,He an animal so deperate,To succeed at just that,Just at existing,And persisting,And resisting suicide,He has nowhere to run,He has nowhere to hide,So he drives in his rusted vehicle,Tata Nano to you but you simply be delusional,To him a ferari would not mean as much as that rusted car,Cos fact is that man,That car, his life plan,Are proud to be a freaky star.Who was eminem?A whie boy in the ghetto,Did anyone think he would go anywhere back then,Just ask them, they'd say Heck no!Fact is he's a multi millionaire,Got his words to the world out there,He could rhyme,He had some luck,He rhymed all the time,To his goal he stuck,Now nobody would judge as a failure,As an abomination or a distateful freak ,If anything,they envy him,His flow, life and body are far from weak.Next time you wanna give somebody rejection,You want to mock them and take advantage of their complexion,You want to abuse power, in every form, shape and direction,First of all take a good look in the mirror,B!tch,Judge ya' reflection.
Should abortion be legal

I believe that abortion is morally wrong in ALL cases except if the life of the mother is in danger. I think that an embryo is a human being the moment egg is fertilized. Therefore according to the Declaration of Independence all human beings are entitled to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"( first paragraph).The reason that I believe that a child is human at the first stage of its life because it was created by human reproduction,The embryo contains human DNA the second the egg is fertilized and because it has the potential to become a fully grown human being. Also when a doctor performs an abortion he/she has broken the Hippocratic oath,because it says"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and NEVER do harm to ANYONE(emphasis added).""Hippocratic oath
Free college

Your argument is a prime example of the evils of identity politics. As a proud supporter of the LGBTQIAAP I believe your racist statement that "everyone likes getting laid" is very offensive to the first A, the asexuals. If your are good human being and if you hate hate speech you would not vote for this racist man. My cat likes fruit. THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA!!! Why? Just Why? Vote for my gold fish to obtain social justice for fish and to get free college for all! If you don't you are a bigot! With love, my gold fish.
President Obama would kick*** against past presidents

My opponent contends that he meant former presidents - I contend I have met his standards. Michael Jordan is former president of Washington's Basketball Operations (see round 1 for source). Micheal Jordan meets this criteria. I also find his contention that because Obama is black and from the south side of Chicago he is "tough and strong" dubious at best. But I shall leave that aside. I urge voters to vote Con as Pro has admitted that Obama has no chance of besting Michael Jordan in a bout of fisticuffs. I now turn it over to my opponent.
President Obama would kick*** against past presidents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The past president I nominate who's *** would NOT be kicked by President Obama in a fist-fight is former president of Washington's Basketball Operations [1] - none other than Michael Jordan himself. I propose this for several reasons: 1. Michael Jordan is taller than Obama (Obama is 6'1" [2] and Jordan is 6'6" [3]) - this gives him a wingspan advantage which is crucial in a fistfight. In a fistfight the safest and best way to use your height is to hit from the outside thereby reducing your chances of being hit as well. This increases his chances of winning as well. 2. Michael Jordan also is heavier than Obama. Jordan weighs 215 pounds [3] as opposed to Obama's 180 pounds [2]. Weight is often another crucial factor in determining who's *** would get kicked in a fistfight. Weight generally means you can put more power into your blows than a smaller person thus do more damage per hit. This is often the reason why combat sports such as boxing are split into weight classes. Obama and Jordan would be in two different weight classes if they were boxing. Taking into account that Obama has referred to himself as "skinny" [4] as well it does not look good for him. 3. I also propose that Michael Jordan is in better shape than Obama. Being that Jordan was a former basketball/golf/baseball player he is likely to be in much better shape than Obama. Being in better shape provides tons of benefits - as it enables you to move more quickly in attacking and evasion and enables you have more cardiovascular endurance which can be very important in a fight. Taking all these factors and adding them up and I am assured that Michael Jordan would NOT get his *** kicked by President Obama. Not only that - he'd DO the *** kicking. :D I now turn it over to my opponent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] . http://www.usatoday.com... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nba.com... [4] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] . http://www.nydailynews.com...
Death penalty is never justified, under any circumstance

I thank cermank for challenging me to this debate. I do not think about the death penalty often, so I view this debate as an opportunity to explore the topic. I will note before the debate begins proper that cermank and I both discussed and acknowledged that this specific resolution places a very high burden of proof on PRO due to the use of absolute wording, i.e. "never justified, under any circumstance". This extremely strong wording stems from cermank's own beliefs on the topic.I agree on the emphasis on practicality for this debate as noted by how "justified" is defined, and gladly accept.
Death penalty is never justified, under any circumstance

I thank wrirchcirw for agreeing to debate this resolution. This debate is mostly a culmination of some things I’ve been reading up on local news, and my reaction to them. For the purpose of the debate, I’ll be arguing that Death penalty is never justified. Some definitions before we get started:Death penalty- also referred to as capital punishment. Execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. Justified- The concept of justice can be multi- pronged, and extremely debateable, but for the purpose of this debate- I’ll be arguing for a utilitarian conception of justice. It is derived from a basic standard of rightness and consequentionalism, what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. This will be a no scoring debate, please do not vote for one or the other.
Do human beings have free will? compatibilist

If, in the future, I marry a woman named Sue, the present me does not make a choice to marry Sue. I meet Sue, grow a relationship with her, and marry her, because that's what always happens, even if you relived it infinite times. Because that's what's supposed to happen, and no wrench of free will can be thrown into the system, because it simply doesn't exist. You just have the illusion of freedom, when in reality all things are set in stone. And even if you do believe in free will, how can you also believe that things are already destined to happen, no matter what? Perhaps it's just a different definition of freedom, but to me, true freedom, though impossible, can only come when your existence isn't obstructed by an outside force, or in the case of free will, when your decisions are completely up to you. Determinism says everything is already going to happen, so how can those two mix? Explain to me why this reasoning is faulty.
Transsexuals are stupid.

ConductI urge voters to deduct Pro conduct points for implying I was an "idiot", and for providing a definition that I "must adhere to" after the debate was already accepted. This is not a show of good character or conduct at all. ArgumentsWhat about arguments? Well, my opponent's argument about being able to spot a transsexual out of a crowd implies they are not in disguise was sufficient to rebut my brief argument in the last round. However, does he deserve the argument vote? The answer is of course, no. The reasons for this is he has not shown that Transsexuals are actually less intelligent than your average human being or lack more knowledge. The burden of proof is on my opponent, and it has not been met. He tried to make the claim that transsexuals are hypocrites because if they really believed in accepting who they are, they would not try to change themselves in the first place. However, this is a fallacy of equivocation [1]. "Who they are" can refer to:(i) Who they are biologically(ii) Who they are subjectively They want people to accept them for (ii) not (i). Therefore, there is no hypocrisy involved here. Conclusion My opponent has not met his burden of proof, and I tore down his argument that they are hypocrites because it is based on a fallacy of equivocation. Thus, the resolution has been negated according to the debate outline. Sources [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...