BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The English language should be expanded to accommodate new forms of language use, not compressed

the English language dates back to the 5th centuryAmazing. I did not realize that English was this old.Shakespeare was prone to invent his own words when there was not one that expressed the concepts that he wanted to convey (3), and many of these words still survive today.Interesting._____________________________________________________________________________________That being said, English has already evolved to the point that we can express the concepts we want to, right? Wrong.Actually, I disagree. With a few exceptions, we are perfectly able to express all ideas freely.would it not be logical to now expand English again so that we may express a wider range of ideas in a smaller number of words?While that would not be unreasonable, I say that condensing the language is the correct (and much easier) approach.For example: lol. No, I don't mean "laughing out loud". Sure, "lol" is indeed used to indicate "laughing out loud", but it has a different use now. It approximates to "I know" or "You're right".Here is a TED talk on condensed language easily doing things that we have problems with.http://www.youtube.com...;As you can see, it is texting that has changed how we communicate, not by expansion, but by condensation.
The English language should be expanded to accommodate new forms of language use, not compressed

When crawling throughout DDO, I naturally checked the "Challenges" open. I saw this, and it looked awesome. So I accept.I take the position that we should let language evolve into a more consise, shorter version of English.i wldnt advoct a sstm n wch teh wrds r al shrt nd hrd 2 dsfr. I wuld advocat a sistem in wich ^e words 'r #orter & lss combrsome to rite.
The English language should be expanded to accommodate new forms of language use, not compressed

Written language has evolved over the years to accommodate new ideas and ways of approaching them. This has taken the form of new words entering the language and new styles of writing becoming prominent. In this day and age we should take active measures to ensure that it continues to evolve in a way that best represents the way that language is used in a verbal sense, and the way that the modern world requires its use. When I say that written language ought to grow, I mean in terms of creating new words and punctuation, and opposing any deterioration of language. I also note that this discussion is purely about the English language. Not because it is the only one I think is important, but because it is the only one I speak fluently enough to argue about and I believe that as languages are so different, it would be inaccurate to lump them all together. My opponent may choose to argue that written language should be preserved as it is, that the reduction of written language in the form of 'txt speak' is a positive thing, or any other stance that they see which opposes my own. Or any combination of the above. As this is my first time participating in a proper debate on this site, I apologise in advance for any breach of conduct or other failure to use the system correctly due to my limited knowledge of its inner workings. I also ask that if such an event should occur, I be notified so that I may avoid making the same mistake in the future.
The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

I see here that Pro ignored my main argument, that quality and quantity suffer the same problem. Pro states I committed the either/or fallacy. However you can see I didn't offer 2 solutions, but 3. I said the standard of great can be subjective. This is pretty much what Pro went with. That there's no standard of greatness, but then he says God is great because he has a quality and quantity of properties. Then how do you objectivity conclude those are great making properties. This all is just subjective opinion. I think God's properties are great, therefore God exists. 'No! thats not possible! you cannot have a subjective scale of greatness and an objective scale at the same time! ' Which is where my previous rounds rebuttal kicks in. There is no such thing as scales of greatness This would be subjective, not subjective and objective at the same time. Pro then repeats himself like my R3 response doesn't exist. Pro quotes me in saying I don't see how quantity is better. He falsely claims this underpins my R3 response. This is self-evidently false, it was a part of a response to the statement that something is great because of quantity. Pro then says I'm being subjective. If I'm being subjective isn't Pro equally being subjective? I gave justification for this too "I can have huge glass of water, which can be said to be great, but the most quantity of water in my room wouldn't be good at all. " The only way for quantity to be great, it must already hold quality. Which as I said, suffers from the same problem as "great" and Pro never responded to this. Pro then commits a straw man fallacy in claiming if such a scale exists, it would prove God. This is what I've been saying the ontological argument assumes all along! I'm not saying an objective scale exists, therefore the ontological argument fails. I'm saying the ontological argument assumes a scale, yet it can't reconcile the source of it without becoming fallacious! This was a complete straw man of my argument from Pro. Godel Pro is splitting his definition into two. The definition was "the greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe. " not "the greatest possible being/Tri-omni creator of the universe. " It was together. Pro also never clarified any definition, he just dropped the definition without specifying what it meant. Pro claims my argument doesn't defeat the other two because they define God as the tri omni creator. As I said in R2 "All of these ontological arguments assume an objective standard of what is great. Great seems to be the working link in the chain. If we took "great" and added "weak" the arguments would fail" If God's properties weren't great, then the argument can't prove God necessarily exists. Conclusion Pro never responded to my rebuttal in R3. He completely ignored it and repeated what he said in R3. He straw mans my argument, ignores it, and erroneously claims it doesn't do anything to the other two forms.
The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

Pro gives a definition of great which is 'markedly superior in character or quality'. Pro doesn't answer my argument, but only pushes the question up. I understand we must compare something with other things to be considered great. I'm asking, whose comparison are we going by? Subjective, objective internal of God, or objective external from God comparison? Pro says God is great because he has the most qualitative traits and quantitative traits. I don't see how more of something is better, I can have huge glass of water, which can be said to be great, but the most quantity of water in my room wouldn't be good at all. Saying God has the most qualitative traits is simply moving the question. Quality is simply a degree of excellence (as it's mainly used) [1]. I'm assuming Pro means the most quality, but we see how this just pushes it up a level. Something with the maximal amount of quality is basically synonymous with greatest. Saying God has the most quality or is the most superior is only pushing the argument up, it suffers the same problem. Pro says God must be compared to other things, but what about before these things? Was God just not great yet? On Godel Pro Godel's argument isn't defining God as the greatest possible being. We agreed the definition of God in this debate was “The greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.” When the words “God-like” come into play, we would be going by the agreed definition and not redefining as per rule 6. What does “God-like” mean if it's not the one set in R1? I'm sorry for such short responses, I wish I could make this longer, but my response to the OA is short, simple, and to the point. Back to Pro. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

My response fits for all ontological arguments, so it will be pretty short. It may seem like the response doesn't fit with Godel's, but since God is defined as the greatest possible being, it does. All of these ontological arguments assume an objective standard of what is great. Great seems to be the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can't objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind. So, where does the standard of great comes from to say that God is the greatest possible being? I can think of 2 ways The standard is above God The standard comes from God/God's nature/created by God. Both ways can't fit with the ontological arguments presented. 1. The standard is above God This can't be true under a theistic world view, because it would undermine a God, by saying there's something above him that he's subject to. It also means the source of such a standard must be the ultimate of great thing, which God is suppose to be. I'm sure 1 will be regarded as false by both parties. So the only one left is 2. The standard comes from God/God's nature/created by God. This however would mean the arguments are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Since God, being the greatest must necessarily exist, but “great” is set by God. It's like trying to prove a maximally fast car exists, but you say “fast” is set by how fast the car your trying to prove is going. If “great” is set by the being, then saying God necessarily exists because it is the greatest, is saying God mus necessarily exist, because God is most like himself. My argument simplified is, 1. The standard of what is great is either internal or external from God. 2. Neither work with the ontological arguments. C. Therefore the ontological arguments are invalid. Back to Pro.
The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

Motion: The ontological arguments justify a belief in God. Intro: I as the affirmative will be arguing that there is at least 1 valid ontological argument for the existence of God and Con will attempt to refute every argument I make. This debate is between myself and Magic8000 as a result of a previous debate for the existence of God, where the ontological argument I produced didn't get enough attention due to character space. Con in this debate is not allowed to argue that belief in God cannot be justified, rather he must directly attack my arguments. BoP is on me to provide at least 1 valid argument that succeeds in affirming the resolution. Definitions:Ontological arguments: Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e. g. , from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. . http://plato.stanford.edu...justify: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable. http://www.merriam-webster.com...God: The greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.
Doom is one of the best games ever made

"Okay you got me at the "popularity doesn't imply quality" thing but there's a difference between Adolf Hitler and Doom. " Yes, there is a difference but that is not what is being debated about. You brought DOOM's popularity as a reason for it being the one of the best games ever made and I countered by showing that just because something is popular does not mean it is the best, great, or even good. Your statements about being shot if one disagrees with Hitler are, while sad, irrelevant. I made the point to respond to your popularity contention. I was not denying that Hitler was a terrible guy. "And sure, graphics are important but aren't that important. " This is the only point in the last round where you mentioned graphics and you have conceded that point. You brought graphics as a reason for DOOM being one of the best games ever made and when I showed that there were games with better graphic quality you simply dropped the point completely. "Doom was popular for yet another reason. Game play. " This is abuse in that you posted a new argument in the last round. This reason should be discarded but to those who may disagree that it is abuse, I will nevertheless respond to and refute this argument. You have not really gone into much detail about the gameplay of DOOM and why it is so much better then any other game. I will respond to the details you did specify. "Fans mad countless wads such as: Ailen Vendetta, Psycophobia, etc" I must admit I am a bit confused. You have not actually clarified on what the definition of a 'wad' is in this context. I looked up what a 'wad' was and apparently a wad is "package files for the video game Doom or its sequel Doom II, that contain sprites, levels, and game data. ". This fact certainly would help if the debate was that DOOM was a very popular game but how does it reinforce the contention that DOOM was the BEST game? All this shows is that people really enjoy playing the game DOOM. And as I brought up last round and as you conceded, popularity does not imply quality. "And the game had puzzles sometimes you had to solve to get secrets that help you. Today, there arent that many shooters with puzzles in them. " You did not specify on why puzzles are indicative of one of the best games ever made. I have multiple apps on my itouch that have puzzles but they aren't even in the running for best game. So the point that most games don't have puzzles anymore is both not backed up and not relevant. "And by the way this whole thing was ment to be compared with other video games. Sorry if i didn't make it clear. " I sincerely apologize for the mix up. I honestly don't play video games much but I love to debate. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.
Doom is one of the best games ever made

Okay you got me at the "popularity doesn't imply quality" thing but there's a difference between Adolf Hitler and Doom. No one is going to shoot you if you hate Hitler (lets pretend you hated openly and you lived in 1940. Im pretty sure the German oficials were going to execute you publicly. And some people still execute people for hating Hitler today [privately]) . And sure, graphics are important but aren't that important. And Doom was popular for yet another reason. Game play. For what Id couldnt give, the fans made.Fans mad countless wads such as: Ailen Vendetta, Psycophobia, etc. And there's no "Your mission is to blah blah blah this blah blah blah that..." And the game had puzzles sometimes you had to solve to get secrets that help you. Today, there arent that many shooters with puzzles in them. This is why Doom is the best game ever made. And by the way this whole thing was ment to be compared with other video games. Sorry if i didn't make it clear.
Doom is one of the best games ever made

"It made shooters famous: True, but it was famous for a good reason. It had smooth gamplay (by smooth, I mean less stiff feeling than Wolfenstein 3D), you could use elevators, steps, fall, etc because of the new and improved engine, and it had the best graphics available at it's time." "The game is good because it's less bad then Wolfstein 3D? You cannot use as a merit for a game that it's not as sucky as some other game. And it had the best graphics available at the time? This debate is not about whether or not DOOM was the best game of the time, it is about whether DOOM is the best game ever made. Obviously compared to DOOM any game today would seem to have much better graphics or work much smoother. To name a few, any of the Halos. It had a variety of enemies: True again, but would anyone realy buy a game for $10.00 if it had 1 or 2 enemies throughout the entire game? Id software put in all the monsters to chalenge people so it wouldnt be very repetitve. It had a variety of maps: Yes but in this case, variety is good. For example if Doom 1 only had 6 levels, Im pretty sure nobody would buy the game. When everybody beat all 27 levels, there were people requsting more maps. So Id software released Ultimate doom, with 9 more levels that made the prequel of Doom 2: Hell on Earth." You seem to believe that a game is good if a lot of people buy it. Popularity of course does not imply quality. Hitler was popular. Does that automatically mean that he was a cool guy? Of course not.
Doom is one of the best games ever made

It made shooters famous: True, but it was famous for a good reason. It had smooth gamplay (by smooth, I mean less stiff feeling than Wolfenstein 3D), you could use elevators, steps, fall, etc because of the new and improved engine, and it had the best graphics available at it's time. It had a variety of enemies: True again, but would anyone realy buy a game for $10.00 if it had 1 or 2 enemies throughout the entire game? Id software put in all the monsters to chalenge people so it wouldnt be very repetitve. It had a variety of maps: Yes but in this case, variety is good. For example if Doom 1 only had 6 levels, Im pretty sure nobody would buy the game. When everybody beat all 27 levels, there were people requsting more maps. So Id software released Ultimate doom, with 9 more levels that made the prequel of Doom 2: Hell on Earth.
Doom is one of the best games ever made

Contention #1 It made shooters famous. ====================== Making something famous is not necessarily a positive. Hitler made Nazis famous, Satan made evil famous, and Osama Bin Laden made Islamic Jihadists famous. The act of making something famous on it's own does not necessarily make something "one of the best games ever made". ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention #2 It has a variety of enemies. ================== Variety also does not necessarily entail something being the best. There are a variety of ways to torture someone and a variety of ways to make a bomb. Again, this quality on it's own does not make something the best. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention #3 It has a variety of maps. ================ I'm afraid you must clarify on this specific contention and show why the fact that the game DOOM has a variety of maps makes it one of the best games ever made. Does it have the most maps of any game ever made? You must provide more details if I am to refute this claim.
chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

I accepted your definition of chicken, this is true. Is it not reasonable to say there must first be an animal in the same family as chicken, a chicken's ancestor, that must have been before the egg to lay the egg, so that the chicken family could exist? Lets break it down a bit. If, by your theory, life spotaneously just began, it did not come from an egg, since this first being would ultimately be the first chicken ancestor. This ancestor would have predated the egg by millions of years! It would also fit your definition entirely, because it had the ability to mate with other chicken ancestors, which was your only requirement of the chicken definition. Also, if we come at this from a Creationist view point, we can see in the book of Genisis that God made the first chickens on the fith day of creation. He does not say that he created an egg, therefore, we can assume the chicken came first. Either way in either belief, the chicken had to have came first to create the egg. How can you have chicken offspring without a chicken being first? Cheers everyone :)
Does God exist

Moral Argument-My opponent makes the claim that humans are born with moral senses, and that this could be the result of a higher power. My argument would be that it is not natural, but more of nurturing. For example, Hell is a good example of ways to frighten somebody into practicing morality. Public Humiliation is also another example of ways to frighten humans into obeying morality. Jail time is also another way of frightening people into obey. My opponent mentions how also humans naturally tend to be moral beings, but new studies have revealed that bullying starts in kindergarten. Kindergarten is when bullying is the highest. Humans naturally are here to survive. Humans naturally want things that will make their lives better. Our society has bought into the idea that morality produces a better society. . http://chpru.ecu.edu.au... . http://www.virtualchildshealth.com... . http://www.ama-assn.org... . http://www.aafp.org... Desire Argument-My opponent makes deep philosophical claims about life in general. The cause of life. She also claims that atheists believe that there is no meaning. I would argue that in order for their to be a source for god, than their would be a source for god. There must be a source for that God. Than a source for the other god which would make a list of causes which I find absurd.
Does God exist

I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for their respectful conduct. It's rare these days to have a religious debate that doesn't involve suffering passive-aggressive jabs at one's intelligence before the arguments have even been presented. Voters take note.Pro has challenged the assertion that the existence of our universe requires a god. As this assertion makes up a significant portion of my argument for the existence of a god, I will save my comments on the subject for my rebuttals in Round Two. However, a couple of arguments that have not been addressed yet are as follows:The Moral ArgumentSince the dawn of human civilization, people have had an innate understanding of the concepts of good and evil. We all possess a sense of conscience; a moral imperative. We should do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Even cultures separated by millions of miles and vastly different circumstances maintain the same core beliefs of what defines right and wrong. Because of this, it appears that good and evil are part of an objective moral law at the core of human experience. If there is an objective moral law, it follows that there must be an objective moral law-giver. I argue that this law-giver is God.The Desire ArgumentAlso inherent to the human experience is the proverbial question of meaning. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is the meaning of life? Whether or not one parses these questions the way I have stated them here, the underlying concept is nonetheless universal. People need for life to have meaning. The secular answer to the question of a universal meaning is that there is none. But, to quote C.S. Lewis: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark." It does not make sense that humans would have such a suffocating, all-encompassing desire to matter if that desire could never be fulfilled. I argue that this desire is instilled into us by a theistic God for the purpose of leading us to Him.In conclusion, while I concede that the existence of God cannot be proven, I believe for the reasons stated above as well as the arguments I will make in my rebuttals, that it is more reasonable to believe that a god exists than to believe that a god does not exist.