BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
reality is not possible

"reality is no other possibility, absolute, and possibilities are imaginary" "imaginary is the opposite of reality" Not true. If I imagined me going out on a walk, and then I went out on that walk, that imagination became true. What I had thought of before became a reality. Therefore reality exists, and is possible. "the world is imaginary, and anything this created is a machine" Machine: a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form. b. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine. 2. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment. 3. A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task 4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body. 5. A person who acts in a rigid, mechanical, or unconscious manner. 6. An organized group of people whose members are or appear to be under the control of one or more leaders By definition, yes, the human body is a machine. It is designed with all of its parts to work in accordance with each other so that it can survive. However, not everything created is a machine. For instance, clothes. Clothes don't do any of the following, but they still help me from embarrassing myself in public, and they help to keep me warm. While a lot of objects in our daily lives can be considered "machines" (computers, cars, lighting, etc.) not every single thing created on our Earth is a machine. "superman and unicorns doesn't come from reality, they are creations of the mind, stories" But those creations exist in your mind and they are still reality, just not on a physical plane. They could exist in your mind, and if they exist (even in your mind) they are reality. The comics about Superman and stories about unicorns exist, as does imagination of them existing exist. Even if imagination exists, it isn't false, it's true, it's there, and it's reality. I have yet another example as to how things can become reality, and how reality exists. Looking forward to Round 3. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
reality is not possible

I am here to debate Pro on this topic. First and foremost, we must define "reality" so we have a clear agreement as to what reality is. re"al"i"ty noun 1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So, by this definition, Pro's BoP is to prove that nothing exists in the world we live in today, and it is all imagination. If I prove that at least one object in the world exists, then reality exists, therefore reality is possible. First and foremost, opponent simply states "possibilities can happen, and reality is happening" which is a very vague sentence in the terms of this debate. Nonetheless, it essentially goes against his original claim of "reality is not possible". If reality is happening, then wouldn't it exist? As well, if everything was just an idea, those ideas had to be formulated by someone, that someone being yourself. If you are able to conjure up ideas or images of the world around you, then you are an existing entity that is reality. And if you never existed, and was just an imagination, then you wouldn't be able to respond to this debate, as I am doing so now. By this basis, I have countered Pro's BoP and showed that at least one object is real, therefore reality is possible. I look forward to round two. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
reality is not possible

Pro is obviously not reading back upon my reasoning and arguments. I'll state two things because that's all I need to state: 1. Pro stated in his opening for round 1 "possibilities can happen" thus proving my point and making the rest of his arguments worthless, seeing as he is trying to argue reality is not possible or "there are no possibilities in reality" in his words. As well, Pro contradicts himself one more (well then) by stating we have to "imagine the possibility". As I've already proven imagination is reality, so Pro proves possibility exists in reality and backs me up once more. :) 2. I have proved over and over that possibility exists in reality. However, Pro refuses to accept and goes off topic by debating true/false statements, if your imagination is reality, and the like. I have countered his statements yet he still uses essentiAally the same argument each time. I haven proved that reality is possible and possibilities exist in reality, both of opponent's claims. The BoP was on him to prove that there was NO possibility in reality, and that reality wasn't possible at all. I have countered both of these and stated my own reasons. I feel no need to counter Pro's arguments in R5 as I've answered most of them already. The rest are near pointless and contribute nothing to the debate. Voters, choose wisely. Thank you for the debate.
reality is not possible

2+2 is 4 because 1 is defined by something or everything, and everything is 1 if I have 2 stones in each hand I have 4 stones in my hands memory is truth, and imagination is false know is the balancing point between, belief and knowledge, belief is the opposite of knowledge, and know is the opposite of belief and knowledge, now balancing future and past future=false=belief=imagination now=true=know=physical experience past=truth=knowledge=memory there are no false statements in reality as you propose, its true a statement can be false but sound is true in reality, the light on my screen is true, the false part of the statement happens in your imagination. jesus walked on water, a dragon run across the field, these statemens can not be real/true information exist beyond space and time, matter is the opposite of information, and matter is space, and space is time, the balancing point between matter and information is experience you are misinterpreting what im saying, again, you have to imagine the possibility if I can make an imaginary man become real I am god in reality
reality is not possible

First of all, Pro assumes that true is reality and false is not reality, as any false answer is "imaginary". If my parent asks me "Did you do your homework? ", and I didn't, but I reply "yes I did", the truth value in that statement is false. However the statement still exists. The lie still exists. Both true and false statements are present in reality. As Pro stated above, "if a true answer exists, a false answer MUST EXIST. " Therefore, since a true answer exists, so does a false one, and both were a part of reality. As well, Pro does not seem to understand the concept of possibility. I state in R3 I have the POSSIBILITY to forfeit the debate, but I'm not going to, and pro states that this is "the only possibility with no other possibility". "NO OTHER POSSIBILITY". Pro explicitly states here that there is no other possibility. But, he forgets he is debating that reality is not possible, or, in his words, "possibilities don't exist in reality". If that was the case, then how could that be "the only possibility"? Pro states here himself that possibilities exist and are real, therefore possibilities exist in reality! I've already won the debate, but I shall continue to refute: "You are saying what you imagine becomes real" Yes, I did say that. Anything you imagine has the possibility to become real. It may be a very small one, but the chance is still there. You could even think "I'm going to become God! " and it has a POSSIBILITY of happening. Even if it's a very low chance or nowhere near any chance (as in this case), it's still there. Possibility is still there. Yet another example to prove my point. "You can't see reality if you close your eyes" But your imagination IS reality, as I stated in previous arguments. So even if you can't see, you still have imagination, hence, reality. "You have the possibility in your imagination, not reality" Imagination is reality. Refer back to previous arguments. Pro does not seem to refer back to my arguments and continues to rebut with his own reasons, that I have refuted. He asks questions and makes claims that have already been answered previously in the debate that he didn't (or has tried to) rebut to. Final round, state your conclusion.
Labeling GMO food

That would actually be a pretty good world, to. Now onto my arguments. Once you start labeling gmo food, people are going to wonder, why did the government label gmo food? Is it bad for us or something? Then they will start avoiding gmo food, which will end up costing them more (specialty (such as gmo-free) food costs more), and will make all the companies that have gmos have bad reputations, and major downfalls in profits. If you just label non-gmo food, people that don't like gmos will know to search for the label, and there will not be any direct downfall for the companies that make gmo food, and everybody will be happy. The end.
Labeling GMO food

The absence of information is not the same as information. The more information consumers have, the better decision they can make. For example, by analogy, in the scenario you propose we would put information on a bottle of water that it is safe, but we wouldn"t put information on a bottle of gasoline that it is dangerous and explosive. In such a world it would be expected that the consumer know that any product that doesn"t contain a "safe" label is automatically dangerous. The label on the back of every food product contains an accurate list of ingredients. It is not an outrageous requirement to mandate that companies state whether their product contains GMO or is GMO-free.
Labeling GMO food

64 countries ban or have GMO labeling. I don't think that we need to ban GMO development entirely because it has many positive effects. But the health risks of GMOs are unclear. We don't have long-term studies that prove the safety of Genetically Engineered Food (GMF). Also, the number of cancer cases has been increasing in the World over the last 20 years. Many people believe that the cause of it are GMOs. We have a right to know what is in our food and make our informed choice. It is my position that governments have to create laws that mandate that companies label whether or not their food is genetically modified.
Kit Kat is better than Snickers

According to NBC News, Snickers is America's favorite candy bar. [1] Snickers has also generated more revenue, ranking 3rd compared to Kit Kat in 5th. [2] Kit Kats are also way higher in saturated fats than Snickers. [3] [4] Sources: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com... [2] http://www.foxnews.com... [3] http://www.snickers.com... [4] http://www.hersheys.com...
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

"I stand by my statement, nowhere in the NT explicitly or implicitly hints that God allows Him [sic] (God) to be worshiped by the playing of instruments alone." I am not denying the above statement. I want to also point out that nowhere in the New Testament do the scriptures explicitly or implicitly hint that God DOES NOT allow Himself to be worshiped by the playing of instruments alone. In order to establish your premise that the ONLY instruments allowed in worship are stringed instruments, you have to give evidence that non-stringed instruments are NOT ALLOWED in worship. "This is especially true from Ephesians 5:19 where it commands that we definitely are required to sing," What the Scriptures MEAN is a matter of opinion, what the scriptures SAY is a matter of fact. In YOUR OPINION Ephesians 5:19 MEANS that saints are COMMANDED to sing; however Ephesians 5:19 does not SAY we are commanded to sing. The word "command" is nowhere in the text of Ephesians 5:19. Now, are we going to base our argument on the Word of God or the opinion of man? The Pharisees had many opinions about what the scriptures MEANT. Jesus called those opinions "the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8) "My opponent then goes on to say that Ephesians 5:19 is not a "list" of [th]ings we can or cannot do. This is a classic straw man, he creates an argument that I did not propose. Never once did I say Ephesians 5:19 was a list." Point well taken. This wasn't intended as a straw man, it was a misunderstanding of your use of Ephesians 5:19. I have yet to understand how you are saying that this verse forbids the use of non-stringed instruments. Does a command (your word, not mine) to chew forbid to swallow? Does a command to sweep forbid to mop? A "command" to sing is not a command against instruments. "By not authorized you mean that the bible is silent on these things. Where the bible is silent I would say we have freedom. But, based on my evidence the bible is not silent on the matter at hand." If the New Testament is not silent about musical instruments, please copy and paste a New Testament verse that has either "instrument," "trumpet," "horn," "organ," or any other reference to musical instruments that forbids the use thereof in worship. That is the evidence that will prove your point. You have yet to give any such evidence.
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

By the way, please forgive me for not thanking you in my opening argument for posting this debate. This should prove to be an interesting exchange. I would like to address a few of the statements in your second post: "we do not have authority to worship God with instruments alone in the New Testament" Ok, you have not cited a chapter and verse where I might find this statement in the New Testament; therefore, we shall conclude that this is man's opinion, and not God's Word. "if so, where?" The affirmative position in a debate has the burden of proof, not the opposing position. You affirm that with the exception of stringed instruments, Christians do not have authority to use musical instruments in Church. Can you prove this affirmation with scripture? If you do not produce proof for your position, then you are merely stating human opinion. "Ephesians 5:19 we would both agree makes allowances for instruments with the word psalms. I would argue that it only makes an allowance for stringed instruments based on it's definition and old testament usage." I would have to say that I don't agree with this statement because of the phrase "makes allowances." Ephesians 5:19 is not a list of things that are allowed in Christian worship. Preaching isn't on that list, does that mean preaching is not allowed in Christian worship? NO! This passage does not LIMIT a Christian service, man does that. In my opening argument, I pointed out a number of things that are thought to be "necessary" to Christian churches, such as pulpits, pews, etc. that are not "authorized" by New Testament scripture, does that mean those items are FORBIDDEN in church?
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

"My opponent said "There is not ONE verse in the New Testament that FORBIDS any instrument in Christian worship. My opponent has the burden of proof if he is saying any particular instrument is forbidden in the Church." Ephesians 5:19 we would both agree makes allowances for instruments with the word psalms. I would argue that it only makes an allowance for stringed instruments based on it's definition and old testament usage. In Ephesians 5:19 psalms ALWAYS had words, music alone would not suffice as a psalm. Also, Ephesians 5:19 commands we must sing. If you play a trumpet you can not sing, and we do not have authority to worship God with instruments alone in the New Testament, if so where?
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

I agree that musical instruments are not forbidden in Christian worship. I disagree that ONLY stringed instruments are allowed. (Correct me if I am wrong). It appears my opponent is saying that if the New Testament does not explicitly ALLOW certain instruments to be played in worship services; then those instruments are FORBIDDEN. My opponent seems to be saying that because Colossians 3:16 uses the word Psalm, that stringed instruments are ALLOWED. I agree with him here; however, that is where my agreement ends. I cannot agree that certain instruments are forbidden on the basis that they are not referenced in the New Testament. Following this logic, the following items that are considered to be staple items in church are ALSO NOT ALLOWED: 1) pulpits 2) P.A. systems 3) carpeting 4) modern clothing (robes only) 5) pews 6) running water 7) electric lighting 8) rest rooms 9) AIR CONDITIONING! 10) church buildings (the Early Church met in homes) There is not ONE verse in the New Testament that FORBIDS any instrument in Christian worship. My opponent has the burden of proof if he is saying any particular instrument is forbidden in the Church. Jesus fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice and many other Old Testament rituals; but, the New Testament does not indicate that He fulfilled the need for Psalm 150 worship. Psalm 150 and Exodus 20 are here to stay!
Darth Vader was more powerful than Darth Sidious

Well, First you said that at the start of the franchise, Darth Vader was a puppet to Sidious. But, I would remind you that Sidious himself was a puppet to Plagueis long before all of this! Do you see what I mean? You can't judge power based on the start of things. You have to judge them based on the end of things, When each has reached his full power. Next, You made the argument about using force lightning, But the only reason Vader cannot do this is because of his suit, Not because of him. Finally, If Sidious was so strong, Why couldn't he sense that Vader was about to attack him? It just makes no sense. I still maintain that because of Vader killing Sidious, He is naturally more powerful. Back to you!
Darth Vader was more powerful than Darth Sidious

When the Star Wars Franchise first started, Darth Vader was basically a puppet for Darth Sidious. Darth Sidious turned Vader to the dark side and was in control of him for most of the franchise. If this was a one-on-one battle, Than it would be much different. Since Vader technically can't shoot lightning from his hand, He would be at a disadvantage (http://starwars. Wikia. Com/wiki/Forum:Can_Darth_Vader_use_force_lightning) Also, Sidious is much more experienced and agile than Vader. In "The Return of The Jedi", Sidious asks Luke to kill Vader and take his place as Sidious' apprentice. But, Luke refuses. So, Naturally, Sidious, Tortures him with lightning. Then, Vader throws Sidious down a chute. But, Vader then dies because of the Emperor's Lightning. The only reason why Sidious dies is because Vader killed him by surprise. In terms of ability, Sidious is much stronger. If Sidious had time with Vader, He could easily force choke him, And then shock him with lightning. Vader would not have much time to react. Also, Sidious has extremely good strategy. He manipulated the Chosen One to the dark side. He also, Was the (sorry for my language) friggin' Chancellor of the Jedi Order. I mean, He was a fudging Dark Lord, Who practically ruled his enemy. In Revenge of the Sith, Sidious let Mace Windu "beat" him. He relied on Vader to protect him, Which he did. Then he (Sidious) proceeded to kill him with lightning. Mace Windu is obviously stronger than Vader, Because he was in the Jedi Council, And Vader (Anakin at the time) was not. Because Sidious killed Windu, That means Sidious could just about as easily slaughter Vader. Thank you for your time, And I hope you reply soon! -cyborghacker
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

To start, I apologize that I am more or less accusing Pro of committing a shameful act, but for the sake of the debate, I ask that he turn a blind eye to this. I first must point out that Pro is a intelligent goose; he has intelligence similar to a human. Intelligent nude geese are accepted in human society, but the fact that Pro felt the need to cover up himself shows he feels like a human. It is then a shameful act on his part. All of this shame could be instantly avoided if Pro admits to being a human and to have taken a picture of a goose. Pro hinted that since he is a Norwegian White Goose, there is some argument I could have made. I would appreciate clarification.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

When a Goose is nude, it is not a bad thing. I have feathers to cover up my skin. And if I wear clothes around people that are not my friends, I shall be teased. With a Norwegian White Goose, it's a whole different story. Even if it IS considered nude, so is every other Goose. And since I am a Goose, a) I don't have to follow the law and b) it's normal for Geese. P1: Geese are usually nude P2: Geese don't have to follow the law C1: It's not against the law for a Goose to be nude, therefore it's not shameful. I find it quite appalling that my opponent is judging me for acting like a regular Goose. Yes, I am smart and wear clothes, but I am still a Goose nonetheless. If I feel like being a Goose, I can be a Goose.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

To start, I am disappointed of my opponent. The link he gave showed a nude goose, which he claimed is himself. If Pro is telling the truth, I would have thought Pro would have more dignity than that, especially since of your claimed increased intelligence. Voters, please show that you don't believe that Pro did such a shameful act by voting Con. Furthermore, by voting Con, it shall disprove that Pro did such a things, and prevent him from being shamed. My main argument is quite short, actually. It is simply that I am watching you.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

My profile picture is a picture of a Goose wearing a monocle and a red suit. I took had a friend of mine take a picture of me so I could use this as a profile picture. I behave like a regular goose whenever others are around. http://www.advdelphisys.com... I am a Norwegian White Goose. I have a strange birth defect that makes me effectively more intelligent than the average Norwegian White Goose. I can also live for much longer. I know how to dress as seen in my profile picture, and I know how to argue as seen in this debate. I simply learned to type by carefully touching the screen with the tip of my beak and webbed feet. I used other profile pictures to simply hide my identity, but now, I decided to show my face. I wanted to show the world that I am a Norwegian White Goose and that I cannot deny it.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

This is my last argument: I AM WATCHING YOU! No, this argument is not new. I posted it in R2 and R4. Pro has overlooked or ignored this argument, not even trying to refute it. In R2, I even said it was my main argument. So who's at fault now? I'm not sure I can support this argument now. The nude goose argument wasn't even an argument. It was my expressing my shock on what turned out to be a perfectly fine picture. I am done.