BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

Can God be Measured by Logic? It depends on how we define omnipotence. Since the stone paradox implied the use of maximal omnipotence, then it is therefore logical that we use maximal omnipotence when referring to the stone paradox. By definition of maximal omnipotence, God can do what is illogical. My opponent does not seem to truly understand this considering she continues to argue that God either can’t create the stone or can’t lift the rock, but this ignores maximal omnipotence as a whole. Under maximal omnipotence which is implied by the stone paradox, God can create a rock he cannot lift without contradicting his omnipotence. As already explained, we can’t wrap our minds around such a notion because we must think within logic, whereas God can act outside of it. My opponent cannot argue that the use of maximal omnipotence is unfair because the stone paradox implies that the definition of maximal omnipotence is being used. To reiterate: P1. God should be able to create any possible situation (Create a rock he cannot lift). C1. If God cannot create any possible situation then he therefore is not omnipotent. Non-Sequitur My opponent drops my argument that her statements were non-sequiturs and instead tries to turn it on me. My opponent however, misuses the term non-sequitur considering she applies it to my statement that a maximally omnipotent God could create a state of being where he is no longer omnipotent. This makes sense since even though at first glance it may appear contradictory; it logically follows via definition of maximal omnipotence. In fact, I could argue that if God could not create a state where he was no longer omnipotent, then God could therefore not being about any state of affairs, and therefore God would not be maximally omnipotent. Therefore via maximal omnipotence, God can create a state where he is no longer omnipotent. The definitions I provided for omnipotence were relevant to the debate, especially maximal omnipotence which is directly begged for in the stone paradox. To use my opponent’s “unlimited” analogy: A truly infinite being can limit himself; otherwise he would not be truly infinite. Even though this defies logic, a truly unlimited being must necessarily be able to do it, lest he contradict his state of being unlimited. Under common omnipotence, it would be argued that God, and unlimited being cannot limit himself because that would be logically contradictory, and a God with common omnipotence cannot do what is logically absurd. The same applies to the stone paradox. Conclusion My opponent dropped numerous points and conceded many also. She failed to understand what exactly maximal omnipotence entailed, conceded that the stone paradox implied maximal omnipotence, and continued to argue as if common omnipotence applied to the stone paradox. However, I had already explained that God cannot do what is illogical under common omnipotence. When voting, please keep in mind my opponent’s conduct violation, poor spelling and grammar, and the numerous points she dropped and conceded. Thank you for this debate. It was a pleasure.
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

pro argues that we cant measure God against logic if he is able to act against logic. perhaps in some sense. but we have no other way to measure him. and, if we do use logic, we see that whether he makes the rock, or doesn't shows that he is not omnipotent one way or the other. he can't both make the rock and not make the rock. pro is basically arguing, "yes it doesn't make sense. but it doesn't have to, cause it's God". it's a self supporting rule of thumb that cannot be argued against. but if we actually do use reason, again the only standard we have, God is shown to be not omnipotent. pro tries to argue that it is i that has the non sequitur. actually, it is him. afterall, it was he who said that an omnipotent being can be in a non omnipotent state. i can follow con's attempted logic here, as it might make sense to be able to 'turn off' his omnipotence. but if he does so, he is not truly omnipotent. an unlimited being who has limitations is not an unlimited being. pro is trying to act as if i'm arguing fallacies when he's the one making those kinds of statements. at best pro later goes on to say "by definition God is not contradicting his own omnipotence if....." he is trying to win 'by definition'. but if we probe these definitions, as in the last paragraph, we see that trying to say the unlimited can be limited is not a state of affairs that is consistent, or makes much sense. pro says my statement is unsupported, that God must not be omnipotent if he can't lift a rock he created to not be able to lift. how is it unsupported, though, if we are both stating in agreement that God "can't" lift the rock? a lack of omnipotence is supported by teh very fact that he can't lift it. pro is merely trying to win 'by defintion', but his definitions do not hold up under scrutiny.
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

My opponent conceded and dropped a pretty large crux of my argument including my entire argument regarding common omnipotence, and chose to attack certain increments of my argument. Misunderstandings “God an do the illogical, but by doing so, has shown that he has limits. either he can make the stone he can't lift proving his lack of unlimited power, or he can't make the stone, again showing his lack of unlimited power” My opponent does not quite understand what I am asserting. My opponent is arguing under the sense that God is commonly omnipotent, that is he can only do what is logical, therefore if he attempted to do this illogical action his omnipotence would fail. However, maximal omnipotence entails that God can do this action without making his omnipotence impossible. That is, God can defy logic, which in turn implies that we as rational beings cannot understand what exactly that entails. As I already said, maximal omnipotence by definition states that God can bring about any affair, which includes illogical or even seemingly impossible affairs. Non Sequitur “if God is found to be not in an omnipotent state, then omnipotence is proven impossible.” This simply does not follow. If God is maximally omnipotent then by definition God could bring out a state of affairs where he is no longer omnipotent, this does not prove omnipotence at all, and I have no idea where my opponent could get such an idea. God could simultaneously not be able to lift a rock he created in a non-omnipotent state and also be able to lift the rock in an omnipotent state. “he's not omnipotent if he chooses not to be able to lift the rock” As per definition of situational omnipotence, God can create a state of affairs where he is no longer omnipotent. In no way does this contradict his omnipotence, especially if as per definition of maximal omnipotence God can bring about any state of affairs. “by all power after that decision cannot undo it and lift the rock.” This statement is unsupported, and there is no reason to believe it to be true as per the definitions of omnipotence.
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

"The paradox creates a logically impossible situation, but because maximal omnipotence entails that God can create logically impossible situations then the stone paradox is defeated. ' the paradox isn't defeated. the paradox is upheld.... that is, God an do the illogical, but by doing so, has shown that he has limits. either he can make the stone he can't lift proving his lack of unlimited power, or he can't make the stone, again showing his lack of unlimited power ""A God with common omnipotence may very well bring about a state that makes him no longer omnipotent, but the conclusion that omnipotence is therefore logically impossible or incoherent simply does not follow!"[1]Since God is no longer in an omnipotent state when such an affair happens, omnipotence cannot be proven logically impossible. " if God is found to be not in an omnipotent state, then omnipotence is proven impossible. i don't see how your reasoning prior to this quoted statement has changed any of this? this statement alone is self evidently contadicxtory. if God is shown to be not omnipotent, then he is not omnipotent. i see your point, God can choose to be or choose not to be omnipotent, and there is something to be said about his ability to choose. but in the end, he's not omnipotent if he chooses not to be able to lift the rock, and by all power after that decision cannot undo it and lift the rock.
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

If god can do anything, he should be able to make a man. he should be able to make a man who can lift anything. if god can do anything, he should be able to make something that can that no one can lift. what happens when you put the man who can lift anything with the rock that cannot be lifted? what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? pro will probably argue that God has logical restrictions that he cannot do, based on reality. but, each of the above points are not of themselves against reality. when you put them together, you have a paradox that God cannot solve.
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

The Omnipotence ParadoxCan an Omnipotent God create a stone he cannot lift? The question is formed in order to disprove God as an omnipotent being or to show that omnipotence itself is illogical or impossible. If one answers yes to the question, then God is therefore not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock, but if one answers no to the question, God is no longer omnipotent because he cannot create the rock. I will argue that this notion is flawed, while my opponent will defend that it is not. Rules1. First rounds is for acceptance.2. Pro has the BOP.3. Standard conduct applies (no plagiarism, swearing, insults, ect.).
Rock music is superior to classical music

Ok I will jump right into my refutations. 1. "Classical music is much more complex, and if one masters classical music (i.e. learns an instrument through classical training) he can learn to play virtually any form of music he chooses." If you learn to play the violin will you be able to play dubstep? What about rap? Heavy metal? The list goes on. Yes you can play jazz and blues but do you ever hear those on the radio? And we can agree classical music is harder to play then rock but is that better or worse? Would kids rather learn to play their favorite rock songs or Johan Bach songs? It is a fact, more people like rock better than classical music. I would like disagree on your point when you said that the melody for rock stays the same. Just turn on the radio plenty of songs have changes in melody. And rock is good because it is easy to make good music that people will enjoy listening to. 2. "Classical music has been appreciated for centuries. Many popular songs tend to dramatically decrease in popularity and/or die out." Classical music has clearly died out Not many people listen to it in our society according to the New York Times. So what if rock changes, it evolves as people get new ideas. Classical music stays remotely the same which is why it does not have longevity. And I can bet you that 100 years from now people will still know famous rock artists You have the burden of proof in this debate so I am required to give my own points just to tear yours down. I might give some in round 3 though. Source: http://www.nytimes.com...
Rock music is superior to classical music

Pro will argue that rock music is superior to classical music. First round is for acceptance. Since this is my very first debate, and I feel as if I need experience debating, I have decided to select a non-serious and relatively non-controversial topic to start out with. I will be debating against the common belief that rock/pop music is superior to classical music. This debate is intended to address the advantages and disadvantages of learning both genres, and for each debater to make an argument for why learning his preferred genre is more worthwhile than learning the other." I will post opening argument in round 2." It is obviously the majority of the public's opinion that classical music is "outdated" and "boring" on many levels. However, I would like to make the case that learning to understand and appreciate classical music will result in a far greater total understanding of music in general than if one masters rock music. It is not my intention to completely discredit rock music, but to offer a sound argument as to why classical music has much greater advantages if mastered." Many thanks, in advance, to my opponent, and best of luck. I hope that this will be an interesting and enlightening discussion. Being a very avid fan of music, I know I'm looking forward to it! :)
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

religion=to rely on I have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason to truth or distrust information is false and truth, not true I have to imagine nerves sensing electrical signals, information is separation, I am one is true do you want me to burn you? why not.. physical experience is necessary, no trust involved, you are dead without your senses now you are just entertaining, I didn't use soft language like you but I easily can.. "human beings as I know them", done I can at best believe what others tell me. imagination is future, and memory can only be in the past so because everyone is more credible to you as a mass, shouldn't you be a Christian? just go with whatever the masses is required to believe, annnnd also its a fallacy, only personal physical experience of now is true, therefore even if everyone on earth said the same thing and you disagree... this gives them no advantage, as the definition of true is not determined by humans, but by existence sense=physical experience=true non sense=Imagination and memory=false and truth you are a theist to science, and science is your god new borns are not selfaware, as they have no memory memories come from now, experience is only now look I can make it real easy, did I just look at my dog, is it a fact that I just looked at my dog? actually, I don't have a dog, but am I now lying about not having a dog in which case it could be a fact? how do you know what my opinion has to do with murder is irrelevant... im talking about what is true to me... the police force is necessary, being mechanical is necessary, for jobs, beliefs are necessary... this is you sidetracking
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

how do you know the information is correct the paper and the words written I would be able to see is there, but anything written I have to iamgien is true unless its speaking of something now, like you are reading these words, you don't have to imagine that is false, as you know its true it is true I have 4 limbs as i physically experience it, i know it, and I have plenty memory of others to confirm that human beings have 4 limbs, the fact is my memory you don't know, what others remember, you cant see it, you have to imagine it, so its not a past observation, like superman is not a past observation beyond what I remember happening as light on my screen when I see superman in a movie I can at best believe what others tell me, as I have to imagine it, and belief is false, not truth, not knowledge knowledge=free will without memories there is no self-awareness as a human you have reason, memories, physical experience and imagination to discern weather you like a person or not do you think you can experience what other people think??? how does that happen exagtly, you grab their thoughts with your hands? im talking about what is true, morality is an imaginary system guided by logic which is true, you are just chaning scope into these wilds assumptions. are facts knowledge or belief?
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

pro has not refuted my mathematical claim. Pro has conceded that memory is unreliable, because we reimagine what we forget. Thus, no true knowledge can come from ones on memory; even if knowledge can come from nowhere else either, the resolution cannot be upheld without memory as a standard for knowledge. This turns in favor of con. Pro has not refuted cons critique of the resolution, which is separate from the counter examples above it.
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

knowledge is memory of personal physical experience, and facts are past observations math is about what is true, not about truth, an equation goes to true or false, not truth truth can only be in the past, and truth is knowledge, know is true, and belief is false belief=false=future kNow=true=now knowledge=truth=past I can at best believe what others tell me, unless they are talking about something here now or I share experiences with them from the past the main point here that counters what you say is, facts are truth, not true, not matter, not now if I don't remember, I have to imagine the rest of the memory, and it becomes a belief. there are different kinds of knowledge thou like muscle memory facts are subjective, knowledge is subjective, and know is objective, I know is matter, as I can see these words with my eyes I don't have to counter all of your examples... as they are based on the same flaws
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

Since the pro is arguing that facts and knowledge can only come from ones own memory, the Con must be able to hold a counter-example which proves that knowledge can either be held without memory, or that others memories can be accessed. 1. Knowledge Without Memory A. Mathematics. We can count to a number we hadn't before, even though we hadn't memorized that number. Operations such as addition can give us the answer to an equation and what it represents without prior knowledge or memory. One example is two red fish and three blue fish; Add them together and you get five fish in total. First off, discounting irrelevant information is something we can do without memory. Second, two and three making five is knowledge that is not an inherent property of either number. Thus, new knowledge is gathered without memory. B. Documentation If one writes down everything, then they have no need to use their own memory to recall it. just think of a cheat sheet on a test! 2. Others Memory A. Reminders All one needs to look to is the statement " remind me to. .. ". This shows what is, in retrospect, plainly obvious: we rely on the memories of others all the time! B. Cross-Apply Documentation Almost all of our knowledge comes from the prior knowledge of others. Take history, for instance: looking at the recording of others memories to get new knowledge about the past. The same applies to instructional videos. 3. Flaws in the resolution A. Facts. This resolution leaves no room for interpretation (that was a joke, but not really). Statistics are one thing, but the interpretation of them requires logical deductions that have nothing to do with memory, such as the statement that " higher depression among gay children means gayness is an illness that must be cured" . B. Error Memories are not perfect. If the only facts come from memory, which anyone will tell you is faulty, then there can be no objective facts. This is plainly false, as unreliable witness testimony does not change the fact that a murder has taken place, and no amount of forgetfulness changes what physical experience one actually went through. C. Emotion The feeling of being heartbroken is not physical, but we still develop trust issues. Thus, experiences that are not necessarily physical can contribute to knowledge Con has provided sufficient counter-examples. He has done so without memory, which is another point in favor of con. If one of these counter-examples still stands by the end of the debate, then Cons burden of clash has been fulfilled, and The resolution falls.
marriage age should be lowered

everyone knows that people debate about stupid things, but I think this is a good debate, marriage age should be lowered because it should not be up to other people if your in love with someone then they should be allowed to spend the rest of their lives together. it's their decision to be with the person they love, not someone Else's decision. this topic has been argued a lot in my family but that don't change the way I feel about my true love. give me 10 reasons why it shouldn't be lowered
marriage age should be lowered

i think that the marriage age limit should be lowered because if people love each other at any age they should be able to get married. it doesn't matter how old you are as long as you know its true love, i am madly in love with my boy friend and he already proposed but we are still to young to get married but i will do anything to get married to him i love him and i am sure that there is a lot of people that agree with me and there might be people in love to so please come join our debate.
marriage age should be lowered

well a lot of people should know that divorce is an option but if you are willing to make a sacrifice and marry who ever they want if they love the person that they want to marry. I am pretty sure that younger kids will make good decisions about using protection and being safe and it is also up to the parents to decide if they want their kid to have a good safe happy life. I feel that I cant be happy if I am not married. people deserve a chance not just being judged before they even get a chance
marriage age should be lowered

1) There would be much more divorces. People change.It is possible for couple to not like each other's personality after those changes.Divorces are hard, because people feel like they wasted so much time and they gotta sue each other in order to get as much property as possible 2) People would get kids at younger age. Young people are by default bad parents.They have a hard time dealing with their own problems.Some people would feel like they never experienced things they wanted to do in life.
Disney: is it the happiest place on earth

I do believe that Disney is the happiest place on earth. It can make people so happy weather they are young or old. It can make sick people happy such as me when i had cancer I went to Disney and felt that nothing was wrong and it was the happiest place in the world to be. People come from all over the world to go to this place and to experience so it must be one of the happiest place on earth.
Disney: is it the happiest place on earth

Think of those families who don't have the money to go to Disney.. How sad is that? VERY. It is a sad place because it forces people to spend money that they can use for food or bills just so see a man in a suit and a castle. Don't even get me started on the workers. Think of those in the character suits. They suffer from heat exhaustion and live in constant fear of terrorist attacks while being harassed by small children. How is that joyful? Not to mention, children may not even remember their time in Disney. What a waste of money. Not very happy to me
Disney: is it the happiest place on earth

Well as you said in your argument many people spend years saving up too go to this place so why wouldn't it be one of the happiest places on earth if they are saving all this money to go to Disney. Also there are plenty of adults who love and think Disney is the most happiest place on earth. And many people do save up money to go to Disney but isn't the point of saving that money to go to Disney. And some memories can be made at home but to make memories out of Disney can shape a person. And if you ask majority of kids if you think Disney is the happiest place on earth they would say yes just plenty of adults would say the same thing.
Disney: is it the happiest place on earth

Although it is a very happy place for CHILDREN, it may not be as happy for parents or guardians. Unfortunately, Disney whether* a family is going to Florida or California, financially it is a hardship. Some families spend years, even decades, saving up for a three day trip to Disney. Sure, the memories made in the parks are incredible. But do memories over ride being secure when it comes to money? I don't think so. Personally, I would rather save money and make memories in the home rather then waste thousands of dollars on one weekend.