BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Solipsism

Let's try and summarise the debate. My opponent wants to show that Solipsism and Idealism are true. If this were true he would of course be arguing with himself, but of course no actual evidence nor reasoning has been put forward. His asserions remain just that, bare assertions with no actual foundations. I have argued on the basis of foundational Axioms. The key point is that to be conscious at all, we must be conscious of something. There must be an objective external existence to be conscious of. Since my opponent must also concede that he came into excistence at some point, he must also concede that, time itself was clearly a pre existing objective part of a reailty he doesn't want to admit to. Thus he is left in an incoherent position, where he believes he is a consciousness, conscious only of his own consciousness. Under his view he is infact less aware than an infant in the womb, that can at least be conscious of their envioronment, such as the mothers beating heart. As a solipsist he beleives he is the sole existing consciousness in existence, he has no stimuli, nor experience, nor knowledge. But yet he asks us to believe that he, can create whole universes through his mental processes. None of this can be shown to be true, it is quite literally unbelievable. My opponent additionally believes he has refuted "proof of outside" by reference to "extra dimensional space". I wish I knew what he meant, assuming he means higher dimensional space, I would simply refer him to physcicts who both understand dimensional physics and are happy to believe that reality exists. The bottom line here (as i argued for in my opening) is that existence,exists. It is independent, metaphysically prime and objectively free from conscious minds. And in turn consciousness is only possible if that were true, otherwise we would be conscious of nothing. Any attempt to deny these truths leads one to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, by borrowing from this worldview in order to disprove it. This is what my opponent is trying to do. If he really believed in his own worldview he would not be debating, because he would literally be arguing something he already knew with himself.
Solipsism

Box 1. [`33;] Aware subject inside box Aware subject is not aware of outside. Box 2. ]`33;[ Although aware subject is inside box, subject is aware of outside. This does not happen, people do not sense beyond their feelings. Box 3-4 [`33;]"proof of outside" box becoming [`33;knows of outide] It's easy to refute "proof of outside" as I did before with remaining dimensional spaces. The illusion of others feeling works in the same way as it is part of what aware subject feels along with a belief.
THBT men should be the ones to pay monetarily when dating.

First off, definitions for this debate: Date: a romantic outing between a man and a woman, typically to get to know the partner more. Pay: to bear the monetary cost. Monetarily: with money. With definitions taken care of, I have two main reasons as to why men ought to pay for dates. 1) Men are leaders, and leaders take responsibility Over history, men have lead our world, whether Con likes it or not. Men have been sources of leadership in times of difficulty. This is not to say women cannot be leaders, in the same way where it is possible for there to be a very feminine man, yet Con would have to agree with me that this happens rarely. Men lead in the dating world as well. Dates are on the whole initiated by men, organized by men, and actually implemented by men. It then falls that the men are the ones leading the date, just as men were to lead, say, a dance. To affirm my second statement, leaders take responsibility, I need to provide evidence that leaders take responsibility and that this can take form in who will bear the costs of some action. In any choice, there are consequences, benefits and costs. I am sure Con would agree here. It is those who make these choices in the individual sense that bear these costs. For example, if an individual does not pay his water bills, he will reap the benefits of having more money in the bank and bear the cost of not having running water for the next month. If an individual goes partying rather than studying, he will reap the benefits of social interaction and bear the cost of not studying on the next test. As we can see, the individual making the choices, or the one leading, is the one that bears the cost. As we have seen above, the man is leading the date, thereby the responsibility to pay for the bill falls upon his shoulders. 2) Even if men are not leaders, they still ought to pay for the date I expect Con to argue that "women can also lead dates, therefore by your logic women should pay for those dates." First off, this argument assumes the minority of cases. It is unfair to argue this way, as we need to argue what happens on the whole, not only in cases that favor Con or Pro. But the second, and more alarming, reason this argument falls apart is because of the way men are charged to act. Seeing that men are inclined to lead, even if they are not the ones leading the date, they are still charged by their inclinations to pay for the date. As such, the one who leads the date in its individual context does in no way change the inclinations, and thereby the duty, of the man to foot the bill, or to lead. This is what most people call chivalry, Con. To deny a man his inclination is to oppress him, and thus, to not allow the man to foot the bill would be unnatural and unethical. I have not heard of women having such an urge, unless Con can inform me of it. I have offered substantial and accurate reasons as to why men ought to foot the bill on dates. I hope to have a substantial and accurate discussion with Con. Your round.
The existence of God

Pro I believe in the existence of a God, and Con will have to argue otherwise. This will not be a religious debate about which religion (or lack thereof) is right, it is purely about the concept of God. With that being said, I will use (and Con may also use) examples from religions to prove or disprove God's existence. For example, Con may argue that God doesn't exist because Christianity says so and so, but if I bring a counterargument from Judaism, and in a later round refute Judaism and bring an argument from Christianity then that is completely fine because the : | | | | exerpt >>>>> :"debate aims PURELY to prove or disprove God's existence": Neither of us accomplished this. It was worded as an agnostic debate. Now i understand why we need burden of proof. But i did destroy all of pro's arguments. Pro also did not prove his side. May the voters vote be unto the best arguments then. It is in their hands now. Thanks for a good debate pro. | | | | :, nothing more and nothing less. The debate structure is as follows: R1-Acceptance AND basic argument as to why God does not exist.
The existence of God

You did not definitely win, that is up to the voters to decide. I will now conclude. My opponent presented arguments that tried proving that we cannot know for certain whether God exists or not. His goal, however, was to prove that God does not exist. Throughout this debate, I brought arguments about the integrity of humans and other creations, as well as scientific miracles in religious books, to prove God's existence. My opponent, on the other hand, was not able to prove that God doesn't exist, but he brought arguments to show me that there is no way to prove for sure whether God exists or not. Simply put, my opponent was to prove atheism, but he argued for agnosticism. He may think that he disproved me, which I disagree with, but he did not prove his own argument that God does not exist. Good luck, Con
The existence of God

Not to us humans but to our ancestors it did. We are a breakthrough in evolution and everything has changed since homo sapiens. Evolution isn't what it was. And there is still genetic drift and ect. And there were people who would die from weak immune systems. Obviously. But human intervention is a still just a factor. We are doing incredibly well at healing the sick though so it definitely distorts things. Think back to the middle ages. We didn't have the medicine we have today. (note this was pre potato famine) Strong knights and warriors would live the weak would die in battle. They would go home and reproduce. Hidden natural selection there. And they could have evolved. Over a really, really, really, really long time. http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com... Hence 4.6 million years. No wait, 1000 times that. 4.6 BILLION years. And the last 3 sentences of the first paragraph are nonsensical. But what I really need to address is the arguments presented in your last post is in all three other posts. No mas! I destroyed it. You have failed to prove god definitely exists. You lose.
The existence of God

To address survival of the fittest: It does not apply to humans. Even Darwin said that himself, because humans have always adapted themselves to different environments and managed to live even with weak bodies by using medicines, etc. Consider the time when people only lived to be 40 years, such as in Ireland during the Potato famine. They were very weak and had some of the worst immune systems but they still reproduced. They had access to medical things, just like we do today. A sick person can still reproduce, and his kids won't be the best, but they will exist. Diseases are passed on, yet we still manage to make our bodies work perfectly. Can you explain the brain to me? How does memory work? How do your eyes see? All these intricate tiny things could not have been formed even over billions of years, even by survival of the fittest. Look at fossils and skeletons as far back as we can find, these humans still were generally the same shape as us. They lived just like we did, but on trees instead of houses. If the dead of them were not fit, why can't we see the dead of them that had no brains, eyes, livers, etc? Also about God, majority of religions (and namely Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) believe that life is a test from God. If you believe, you will go to Paradise, and if you don't, you will go to hell. God allows those other people to exist so he can test them if they will believe later on and test the believers if they will fall to the others' traps. In other words, God told us that he will leave other people and not destroy them. Keep in mind though, that God does destroy some people and nations if they disobey, but not everyone.
The existence of God

It is not living. It doesn't evolve. It is a bad example. The messed up or defected would die off while the fittest survived. http://www.britannica.com... Survival of the fittest. By the way in the Miller-Urey experiment amino acids formed. Here is the link again: http://krishna.org... Amino acids make up DNA. Any yes, we all work perfectly. But it is the product of millions of years of evolution. http://www.livescience.com... It may all be fascinating to you but evolution and natural selection are to thank for our near perfection. God doesn't need to exist. If unlikely there is a chance. It seems to have happened. But there is a chance of god, right? Let me spread some doubt. Consider all the religions, faiths, and deities existing today. If there was one true god why wouldn't it destroy the other blasphemy? It doesn't make sense. Gods are a figment of humans imagination.
The existence of God

I will go back to the example of the phone. In a trillion years even, would a phone be able to form in the Sahara desert, have its software developed, evolve to reach long distances on its own, improve its camera quality, be bigger, and overall improve itself in every manner and have many different types of operating systems? No, it has to be created by a person, who is intelligent. Same thing with the universe. That energy and everything that took place, that could have been caused by God. Religion does not contradict (nor encourage) the Big Bang theory for example. It could very well be that God allowed all that to happen, but He designed it. Look at our bodies for example, we have all these systems in our bodies that are so perfectly designed and would take forever to replicate in real life. Our kidneys perform such powerful things that to be replicated need whole entire machines. Yeah, kidneys do fail, but if you see the design it is very intricate and to this day we fail to produce something that does the same function in the same exact way (and no dialysis does not do it the exact way). Look at our livers, the function of our liver is carried out perfectly. Our intestines would be bigger than a baseball diamond if spread, but it still manages to fit (https://online.science.psu.edu...). Each strand of DNA is 2 meters long (http://www.sciencefocus.com...) but wrapped very tightly together to fit in our cells. Our brains can store an unlimited amount of information, and just think of how they work. It's fascinating how our excretion system works; you have a divided partition for liquids and others for solids, and they pass through the intestines where the water is re-absorbed from the solids into the body to prevent dehydration. Our hearts also work perfectly, they keep pumping and adjusting to the amount of oxygen we need, and our lungs support it. My point from all this is that even after 4.6 billion years you NEED an intelligent being to design everything. It is not enough for it to happen on its own because then we would have very messed up systems.
The existence of God

The thing is if you say something was just there why can't I? Just as god was just there energy was there. Most of the energy turned into matter. Galaxies formed, then solar systems, then planets. Then the earth cooled and had water from melted icy asteroids and comets. Now note the earth had 4.6 Billion years to accomplish this. http://krishna.org... The chemicals essential to life can be formed through simple chemistry. 4.6 Billion years. For the first cell to form. 4.6 BILLION years for life to evolve. 300 years ago we were in colonial times. You will probably live a little over 75. http://www.cdc.gov... Four of you could fit this timeline. Think of how long your childhood and young adulthood was. 20 years. Multiply the feeling of the length by 3.5. Now 4. But then 10,000,000. You can also thaw in a third or fifth of it's current number. That is a lot of time. The internet we are arguing on was created less than 30 years ago. The point is, in that amount of time it can happen. There doesn't have to be intelligent design.
The existence of God

First, I am christian. I was raised christian but I started questioning my faith. My faith was only strengthened. I always argued for the side of god but I want to argue against it so I can destroy all atheistic arguments thus further destroying my doubt. My logic: Find or create strongest atheistic arguments --> Try to destroy them --> Problem solved --> Create strongest christian arguments --> Try to destroy them --> Close all loopholes and find illogicallicies --> Go spread strong, indestructible christians --> Spread destructive anti-atheistic arguments. So this will be interesting. Good luck Pro. //////////// This is the best one I have seen so far, it will hold you off until I can bring an ultimatum. Me: ? --> Creation/Big Bang --> Now You: ? --> God --> Creation/Big Bang --> Now The topic of god only delays the subject. Just a unnecessary link in the chain. What created the big bang? Christian: God What created god? Christian: ... It makes no difference if god "exists" if you can't prove where god came from.
The existence of God

I believe in the existence of a God, and Con will have to argue otherwise. This will not be a religious debate about which religion (or lack thereof) is right, it is purely about the concept of God. With that being said, I will use (and Con may also use) examples from religions to prove or disprove God's existence. For example, Con may argue that God doesn't exist because Christianity says so and so, but if I bring a counterargument from Judaism, and in a later round refute Judaism and bring an argument from Christianity then that is completely fine because the debate aims PURELY to prove or disprove God's existence, nothing more and nothing less. The debate structure is as follows: R1-Acceptance AND basic argument as to why God does not exist.
Gum chewing in school

Hello, and thank you for the debate. I will not address your "point" of glucose, since you claim glucose is not in gum anymore. You seem to claim that gum has laxative effects. It may contain things that are used in laxatives, but it doesn't make it primary for that function. For example, cigarettes have a chemical used in rat poision. That doesn't mean a cigarette can be used as rat poision. Also, I would like for you to present a source that says chewing regular gum (regular defined as not drug enhanced) acts as a laxtive and has caused such a "problem". As for the weight loss, I'd like you also to present a cite for it, because I've never heard of such a thing. Gum has little to no relation to weight loss. " More importantly, not enough research has been conducted to strengthen the hypothesis that sugar free gum can make you smarter, or do better on tests." You just stated that it was proven to enhance cognitive function; however, in this, you state that it's NOT proven? You contradict yourself. "Chewing gum in class can be a nuisance and can reduce the concentration of others in school when people make nose when chewing their gum. People find chewing gum annoying in general." I presume you mean noise, and if it becomes a problem, the teacher can easily tell the person to spit it out. There can be rules set in place for gum. Furthermore, you can't generalize like that by saying "People find chewing gum annoying in general.", because you can't prove it. "Chewing gum litters floors, sidewalks, undersides of desks, and other surfaces and cannot be removed easily. By enforcing a rule that disallows people from chewing gum, surfaces are less likely to be littered." It is possible if you allow students to chew gum and show them the wastebasket JUST once, perhaps they'll use it. If not, you can ban it, but there's no way to know unless you find out. However, even in schools where gum is banned, you can easily find gum under desks. As for your point on Nicotine gum...that costs about 30-60 dollars to supply. It is incredibly improbable that students would purchase this to distribute. The probability is so unlikely, that I will not address it further. "Chewing gum can cause headaches because two muscles near the temples can become chronically tightened, which puts pressure on nerves causing chronic headaches." If they want to chew gum, that's their choice and it's legal. Any medical repercussions are their resposibility. Permitting gum chewing does not endorse nor condemn the fact they chew gum, such as "smoking sections". "Chewing gum constantly wears out the cartilage that act as shock absorbers in jaw joints, which leads to pain & discomfort for life." So does eating, but that can not be helped, reguardless what you do. This is where I draw my conclusion: Chewing gum is okay. As far as I'm concerned, everything is unhealthy nowadays. There are far worse things than gum, and if you're not busy living, you're already dead. Am I right? =VOTE PRO=
Gum chewing in school

People have chewed gum in schools since the dawn of when the first schools have opened... or whatever. Gum chewing at school may be considered beneficial by some, but in the eyes of others, gum chewing can pose a risk and can be more harmful than good. In a 2004 study, glucose in gum was found to enhance cognitive function to some extent [1]. However, chewing gum filled with glucose was found to cause cavities (gasp!), which is why most gum does not contain glucose anymore. Artificial sweeteners have replaced sugar, mostly the sugar alcohols, sorbitol or xylitol. However, sorbitol is a laxative and when gum is chewed in large numbers, a person can experience unhealthy weight loss [2]. Xylitol is also a laxative and can result in the same effects. While sugar free gum can be healthier for your teeth than gum containing sugar, sorbitol & xylitol are laxatives and can contribute to unhealthy weight loss. More importantly, not enough research has been conducted to strengthen the hypothesis that sugar free gum can make you smarter, or do better on tests. Other methods that have been proven to enhance cognitive function significantly include the simple task of simply eating breakfast in the morning. Chewing gum in class can be a nuisance and can reduce the concentration of others in school when people make nose when chewing their gum. People find chewing gum annoying in general [5]. Chewing gum litters floors, sidewalks, undersides of desks, and other surfaces and cannot be removed easily. By enforcing a rule that disallows people from chewing gum, surfaces are less likely to be littered. By allowing chewing gum in school, there is an increased possibility that someone could bring nicotine gum and distribute it to friends [3]. People are less likely to suspect drugs when it is in gum form. Chewing gum can cause headaches because two muscles near the temples can become chronically tightened, which puts pressure on nerves causing chronic headaches [4]. Chewing gum constantly wears out the cartilage that act as shock absorbers in jaw joints, which leads to pain & discomfort for life [4]. For all of these reasons, I do not see any benefits that outweigh the risks & nuisances of allowing people to chew gum in school. Therefore, chewing gum should not be allowed in school. Sources: 1. Stephens, R. & Tunney, R.J. (2004). Role of glucose in chewing gum-related facilitation of cognitive function. Appetite, 43(2), 211-213. 2. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... 3. http://forums.families.com... 4. http://www.drbenkim.com... 5. http://community.tasteofhome.com...