BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science is based on logic fallacy/s

I accept your definitions. You raise some interesting points, but the underlying problem behind your overall view is that you restrict science to speaking in absolutes when science instead admits its own short comings. 1.) Uniformitarianism You are right in that uniformity is an assumption made in science. It is not a logical fallacy because science admits that it is making an assumption on this point. But on what basis is it claimed that the universe operates in the same way, in all places at all times ? 1.) That claim is not made. We make that assumption because it is useful and allows us to attempt to learn more about the universe. Without assuming uniformity, there is no science. So we start with a few basic assumptions and see where it takes us. But science admits the possibility that the assumption is false and thus averts a logical fallacy on this point. 2.) And as a point of clarification, science even admits that the universe doesn't operate in the same way, in all places, and at all times. Examples of this are at the proposed singularity at the beginning of the universe or past the event horizon of a black hole. Consider this argument......... 1) All observed swans are white (This was true in some region of the world in the past) 2) Therefore all swans are white True, but the scientific argument is: 1.) All observed swans are white. 2.) Therefore, until we have evidence to the contrary, the most logical theory is that all swans are white 1) All observations of the universe, show consistency of universal laws (This is true for now) 2) Therefore the Universe has and always will be consistent with those universal laws But science doesn't claim uniformity on the basis of observation. It assumes uniformity to be pragmatic. Without observing some basic unformity assumptions about light, we have no observations of the universe to begin with... 2) Empiricism and the reliability of experience The scientific method itself is an answer to your begging the question argument. We can never know with certainty whether or not experiences are reliable. However, it is more useful to assume that the more experiences we have that are in agreement (without have any that are in disagreement) then the greater the probability that our experiences about that subject are reliable. Again, science admits this limitation and leaves itself open to always be reinterpreted or overturned. 3) Falsifiability :So how is the principle of falsifiability its self falsifiable ? It isn't, as such according to its own rule, it should not be regarded as a scientific. Science built on a rule that its self says is not scientific. The definition of science we have agreed upon is "natural and physical science". The principle of falsifiability is a philosophical and not a natural or physical . You can't apply science to this principle therefore this argument is a mute point.
Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

Pro hasn't made any attempt at an argument in favor of the resolution, which means that he completely fails to meet his burden and thus, should lose this debate. The choice of saying the pledge of allegiance is a choice. Saying the pledge does not mean that you are not following the rules of the constitution - just saying the pledge while being atheist doesn't mean anything. You are free to skip over "under God" or just not say the pledge at all. Having the pledge exist is not the problem about its constitutionality - forcing kids to say it is what is unconstitutional. But that isn't the debate - the debate is about the constitutionality of the pledge, in and of itself.
Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

School usually never tells kids that they don't have to do the pledge, meaning kids usually do it not knowing they can not do the pledge. I was using the unjust government as a example of why the pledge is unconstitutional, they cannot do what the founders did as they made a oath, allegiance means loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause. if one is truly loyal then they would stay with the country at all times even if they are doing something they disagree about, this was how the Nazis became so famous, a pledge. Also the pledge does infringe on the rights of the atheist or other religious person saying the pledge, it is saying that that person has to believe in God and since i already mentioned the school thing, that means Atheists and other religious people have to quit their beliefs and believe in God for Murica. Also not nearly every child is told to read the bible, unlike the Pledge, plus the bible says anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as their savior goes to Hell, does that mean Innocent children go to Hell because they never learned about jesus? That infringes other religions as well as what if the child knew about Jesus but believed in another religion but was innocent? Do they go to Hell? Does that mean Gandhi is going to Hell even though he protected many animals and people and believed in equality because of religion?
Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

Pro doesn't even come close to a proper rebuttal of anything that I said. All he does is say that forcing someone to say the pledge is unconstitutional, not that the pledge itself IS unconstitutional, and that is what the debate is really about.He says that the pledge of allegiance forces kids to never go against their country, which is insane. Nobody is forcing children to say the pledge of allegiance, since that is illegal, and we are debating if the pledge in and of itself is unconstitutional. He goes in a tangent about how we should overthrow an unjust government, even though this has nothing to do with this debate... he is saying that saying the pledge of allegiance is an oath to never go against your country, but that's not what the pledge is even about, it's about being proud of your country and never wanting it to fall apart.He goes off saying something about the freedom of religion. Just having the pledge of allegiance's existence doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights... the same as having the bible exist: it doesn't do anything to anyone in terms of basic religious rights. Basically, my opponent is arguing whether or not forcing a child to say the pledge is unconstitutional - in a debate about whether or not the pledge, in and of itself, is unconstitutional. This is not an argument that is in favor of his side of the burden, thus he has not met his onus.
Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

1. it is unconstitutional as what if someone did not want to say the pledge because they came from another country? Wouldn't that be against the first amendment? Freedom of Speech, that also means you have the freedom to say the pledge or not. Also the 5th amendment says you cannot speak against yourself. 2. The pledge is unconstitutional as it forces children at a young age to make a oath to never go against their country, that means that they are with this country till the end, if that is the case then it is against the 1st amendment again. This is because they have to agree with the country because of their oath or they are not being a patriot for following that certain oath. Also the founders of this country (They aren't that good of people either, just making a point) said that in the declaration of independence. that people have a"right and duty" to overthrow an unjust government. While this should only be done in extreme circumstances, many do not approve of the government, and they should feel comfortable saying so but they can't because they made that certain oath. The sake that schools never say that you don't have to pledge means kids have to pledge (I am a strong believer that kids are very very smart and are usually downgraded) because they think adults will make them because it is against the "rules". Also the 2 words "Under God" are unconstitutional as they mean anyone saying the pledge (Nearly every kid in Murica) are christian. Murica has many religions and the fact that both Atheists and other religious people have to say this is once again against the 1st amendment. They have the freedom to believe in whatever religion they want but they still have to give into Christianity as it is within the Pledge, against their freedom of speech.
Is the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

Pro makes a deadly assumption about the nature of the constitutionality of actions. He says that if forcing someone to do X, then X must be unconstitutional, and at a glance this seems to make sense, but when we look at it it does not.Saying the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because forcing someone to stand for it is, is like saying that letting someone speak against themselves is unconstitutional because forcing someone to do so in a criminal setting is [1]. Pro also makes the claim that teachers and schools are forcing students to stand for the pledge of allegiance, even though this has been illegal since 1943, as pro also says. If this is true or not (I would err on the side of logic and say that this does not occur on a widescale), it is actually irrelevant to this debate. Whether the actions of these schools or teachers are unconstitutional does not have any impact on the true constitutionality of the pledge itself, just how it is used by different people and school boards.
Men are better than women

Interesting argument your making here..but aren't you going to post your rules and the round outlines? First of all, in case you are new, debates usually start with the creator of the debate outlining how he will make the debate go. Like the rules and which round is for the argument, conclusions, rebuttals, and etc. Then you have to provide your BOP, (Burden of Proof,) as you need to prove that your point, (Men are better then women,) is true in some convincing, way shape or form that convinces the audience and stumps your opponent..otherwise theres nothing I can really disprove as you have made opinion states that have no real logic behind them. Good luck, and I hope we can continue with a nice, well-thought-provoking debate.
Abortion is murder

I'll roughly lay out my position in the opening argument. A fetus is roughly morally comparable to a human. It has potential to become a person and the biological functions and sensation of one (increasing in late pregnancy) and therefore should be treated as such. I also hold that there are no convincing arguments that discount abortion being the taking of a human life. I should also say that there are clearly some abortions that are not murder, justified through the life of the mother being at risk.
The Situation Game

Oh lol I'll throw the light blue box against the door, checking to see if either the box or the door will break. The man laughs. He looks like he has finally snapped. He pulls out a knife and stabs your hand, then kicks you in the hole. You scream (As your hand was just stabbed and you don't know what's down there) and you can hear the mans laugh fade as you fall down the hole... You then land in a pile of poop. Immediately, you are filled with disgust. You then remember how this was a "Squatty potty" and you have been using this for the past month. Still, you remember nothing else. You feel something wet on you, and you realize the man from above is peeing on you, and you can hear his maniac le laughter from above. You're eyes have started to adjust to the complete darkness you are in, and you look at your surroundings. Their is a tunnel that has bright red walls, and a tunnel with walls that are dark steel gray. You stand up.
The Situation Game

(Sorry, I forgot to mention, the door was locked. Inside the box that alows you to escape, you'll find the key. Also, if you die, I'll just create another situation for you to do). "I'm feeling lucky," I said, spitting out blood. Suddenly, I spin around and grab his gun, emptying it of bullets and throwing them into the hole.(Because I forgot to mention the door, you'll have to try again. Sorry! And I'm not being sarcastic).
The Situation Game

I walk out the door, and carry the boxes with me. (If I die what happens? You wake up in a room. A man is holding a gun to your head. You start to recall the events that have just happened... It's in a blurry state though, and you can't quite recall how you've gotten there. The man asks you: "Are you feeling lucky?!" You look over to your right, and see a door. To your left is a hole. The man hits you with the gun, his face red with furry. "I asked you a question!"...
The Situation Game

The way that this is going to work is that I (Pro) will post a situation, which Con will then put what he/she would do to get out of the situation. Then, Con will post their own situation underneath, which I will answer and leave another situation for Con. Situations will normally have an interactive choice to them. In the situation below, I already know which box holds what, and if you do a situation similar, you must decide what happens with each option ahead of time. Also, you must let me know what happened due to my choice.No foul language aloud. The winner is the one who you think made the best situations and answered the best way.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When you wake up, the room your in is dark, and you can barely see. You take a few a minutes to let your eyes adjust, and during that time, it takes all your willpower not to fall back asleep. When your eyes finally do adjust, you see that there are three boxes, all in different corners of the room. One is light blue, another brown, and the third box is white. In the fourth corner, there is a door. There is a note taped to the door. You walk over to it and read the note:Dear Captive,As you can plainly see, there are three boxes in three corners of this room. One holds all the necessary supplies to allow you to escape. One holds a trap that will knock you unconcious, and erase your memory ever since you woke up a few minutes ago. One holds a trap that will kill you. You must choose which box to open. Good luck,Your Captor.You swivel around and eye each box warily.
The Situation Game

(Well, this is my last entry. Do you want to continue this in another debate? I can set it up. Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's hilarious, but has nothing to do with this).www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofNR_WkoCEMy StoryAs he's about to punch me in the nose, I muster enough strength to duck. He punches the metal pole I'm tied to, and immediately the skin on his fist opens up. While he's pulling his hand back, my own hand slips out of it's binding and I'm ableto grasp the machete he has on him. I swipe it at him and he jumps back. While he does that I cut the ropes holding me. Then I turn the weapon on him. "My turn," I say. "Do you feel lucky?"He turns and runs away, but I'm able to hurl the machete at him. It pierces his heart from the back, killing him. I bend overe and vomit.Your StoryYour plan works, for the most part. Soon, the bullets punch through the white box so much that it manages to open it. You throw it to the ground and hope for the best. A bullet lodges itself in your arm. It doesn't kill you, but you are in pain, and you almost drop the brown box. Then you realize that you need to drop it when you hear a beeping sound. The box has opened. It's a bomb. Then you notice something else: The door is only a few feet away. Then you look to your side. There is a shield there, and , being the comic nerd that you are, you know it's Captain America's. You grab it, knowing it's unbreakable, and thinking you have a better chance of survival with it on you at all times.(Sorry for calling your character a nerd. Also, if you don't know, Captain America's shield cannot be broken no matter what. It would be wise to keep it. Remember the question at the top.
The Situation Game

I throw the brown box across the room for fun, thinking it's the killing box. I then drag it back with the rope. I do the same with the white box, being carefully not to actually touch the box. Ouse the boxes as armor, and casually walk across the room. <> Your story: "Showers?" The man asks in confusion. "Y-you didn't know???" You respond. "Nope," he says. "I never made this place. You seem to remember nothing Charlie!" At the sound of your name you seem to remember a little bit of who you are. Your family of two children, one a boy and one undefined, and your wife, Big Bertha. The gun pressing against your head snaps you back into reality. "Go ahead and shoot," you say. "I'm not scared of you!" You spit in his face. The man laughs and hits you on the head with the gun. He then drags you to the red side of the tunnel while you are barely conscious. You're outside! Finally free of your prison. It seems that you're in the middle of a dessert. The man ties you to a post and starts beating you, as you slip in and out of conscious. You feel him stop. "are you STILL feeling lucky punk!?"
The Situation Game

(You chose correctly). :)My Story"Why do you care?" I ask, raising my hands in a sign of surrender. "Also, while we're talking, why did you put a shower in the sewers? Did you expect me to come down here?"Your StoryAfter cramming your pockets with as much as you can, you walk out the door, wielding the gun in your right hand and the rope in your other. You notice that the floor changes from metal to carpet. As soon as your foot touches the carpet, someone fires a gun at you. You step back, barely avoiding the bullets. Without stepping back in the room, you scan it. You don't see anyone. Tentatively, you take another step in. More shots fly around the room. You now know that the carpet has weight sensors that if activated will cause guns to shoot at you. The problem is, you don't see the guns. You glance at the items in your hand. You don't see how the gun could come in handy, but the rope might. You glance back at the three boxes, one now empty. Could you use one of them?
The Situation Game

My story: (Because you left out what happened, I can't do anything with it unless you wanted me to) This is what I will make up, tell me if you want to change anything. I look at the box, and see a gun, a phone, a pack of gum, some rope, a credit card, and a banana. I use the gun to shoot the lock and step outside. YOUR STORY: You eventually see a door, which you open. To your luck, their is a shower there! You take a shower and then make your way back, as their is nothing else there. To your demise, you can see the man climbing down a ladder, apparently still angry at you. He aims a large gun that you seem to almost remember... But don't. "I'll ask you one more time..." Your eyes widen with fear. "ARE YOU FEELING LUCKY???" Well are you?
Cooperatives are better than traditional businesses

All I see is cooperatives supplying information. You are arguing in favor of cooperatives. The power company owners has over workers is legitimate because they are beholden to their organization to eliminate problem cases in the ranks. For when one person is working unproductively and they don't know, there is a commonly-utilized solution: Observe. (Profanity. Viewer discretion advised.) http://www.youtube.com... One backwater Spanish town does not a world economy make. The first nine companies listed are, wait for it, traditional business models. So being number ten in your local nation means what exactly? There is more money for the people who have won the economic battles in the current model, therefore it's staying that way. Those who own the company are free to prosecute their policies upon their line workers, who must present a case to their local arbiters of arbitrary power flowing from a barrel of a gun (such as the local government) to get any privileges beyond the right to quit whenever they want. What burden of proof is there? The person who owns the company has every right to determine who or what is employed there, and what their roles are, and finally what they can and cannot do there. Oh, also, he has to pay them for coming in and doing their jobs, but then he gets the money left over, which he can re-invest. Everyone wins. In spain alone, the tenth largest company made: 0.000.024.725,000 Compared to the GDP of Spain, which was: 1.393.000.000.000 This is the largest cooperative in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Also, nice completely ignoring the public record historical sources in favor of socialist views. I prefer to keep what I earn, thank you very much. tl;dr There is more money being made by traditional business models across the board, therefore they are objectively superior. End of discussion.
Cooperatives are better than traditional businesses

If you don't know what cooperatives are, they are democratically-run businesses, in other words, the workers control the means of production of that particular business and vote on the policies of the company, what decisions to make, etc. Traditional business models have one person or a few people at the top making the decisions. The first indicator that cooperatives are better than traditional business models, is that 80% of cooperatives survive the hard first five years of being in business, compared to just 41% of traditional businesses( see page 8 http://www.uk.coop... ) In addition, cooperatives allow for workers to be paid more, since cooperatives do not have one person at the top piggybacking off of the work of the workers and taking a share of the profits. Those profits, instead, are divided up between the workers. While cooperatives are in the minority and are not out-competing traditional businesses, this is primarily because most of the world lives in a market or capitalist economy. To begin with, the traditional businesses have an advantage because banks are more willing to lend to traditional businesses since we live in a capitalist economy, and it's tougher to get like-minded people together to contribute money to start a cooperative. ( ) If there was a level-playing field for cooperatives and traditional businesses, I'm sure cooperatives would take over since most people would prefer to work under a cooperative, where they have more autonomy and more profits going to them, than under a traditional business model.