BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We landed on the moon.

Thank you taking the time to copy and paste a bunch of prefabricated, overused arguments directly from the web. (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...). I will devote time to refuting them, even though this has been done countless times by amateurs and professionals on the web. 1) Yuri Gagarin said this about outer space, not specifically standing on the moon. Having never been to the moon (of course, you are arguing that no one ever was), Gagarin's personal accounts are not quite relevant to our discussion. Had Gagarin gone to the moon, he would not have seen stars. On Earth, it is not the atmosphere that obscures the stars: it is the sun. The brightness of the sun outshines all the other stars, and they are too dim to show up. The moon is the second brightest object in the sky, and on the photographs taken on the moon, it outshines all the stars, causing them to not show up on the photographs (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk...). 2) The oxygen in the module was at a sufficiently low pressure to guarantee that this would not happen. (http://www.bautforum.com...). 3) I don't think any sufficiently informed person would argue that the dust under the LEM would be blown away. Since there is no atmosphere, the thrusters would not move the dust in a significant way. There is no air through which the force of the thrusters would travel and move the dust. Also, it's not like the thrusters were on full blast, because the craft was landing. (http://everything2.com...). 4) Could you provide the video evidence? 5) I'm not exactly sure what your objection is here. The astronauts could leave footprints because there was no atmosphere to blow around the dust, and because of the irregular consistency of the dust which causes it to pack together, unlike dry sand. 6) Simple. NASA actually didn't focus on developing the broadcasting technology fully until the later missions (they were in a bit of a rush). (http://www.clavius.org...). 7) You're just seeing the beginning of the slope of the nearest hill. It is a natural illusion on the lunar surface. 8) When it appears that shadows are running in different directions, it is usually just caused by the slope of certain hills in the photographs. 9) The "C" is not on the original photograph. Yeah. 10) They didn't have the antenna out during the descent. It emerged once they were already down. Could you provide some specific evidence of an explanation for why and how the moon landings would be faked?
We landed on the moon.

Ten quick points: 1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answer is simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam. 2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected? 3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away? 4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come there is video footage showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere) 5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place. 6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions. 7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background? 8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? Skeptics will tell you because there are two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon). 9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it? 10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
We landed on the moon.

In this debate, I will be putting forth the arguments demonstrating that U.S. astronauts have indeed landed on the moon, specifically with regards to the Apollo missions that took place from 1969 to 1972. I know there is a considerable amount of support for so-called "moon hoaxers" on the internet, and am curious as to whether similar sentiments exist on debate.org. If so, I am excited to engage in a debate with an individual of said opinion. It has come to my attention that certain individuals find it entertaining to tear apart the purpose of a debate by focusing on semantics. To deter this strategy, I'll have everything simply defined. "Moon" = The Earth's only natural satellite. "We" = Astronauts hired through NASA and representing the pursuits of the U.S. in space. "Landed" = Touched down upon, set foot upon, and successfully communicated messages from the surface of the destination. I suspect that it will not take me long to provide compelling evidence for the resolution, seeing as it is so abundant and strong, and so will allow my opponent to begin with and opening statement.
Resolved: God is a logically necessary being.

In my reading of the analytic/synthetic division, I have come to the conclusion that I do not know as much about as I thought. From what I do know about, I reject it's validity on the basis of it's own terms. That being said, I have decided to drop this debate, though I am willing to participate in this debate in the future as I intend to learn more about the analytic/synthetic distinction. I still hold to the logical necessity of God, as I believe he is the necessary precondition for anything, even the ability to have this debate. So I respectfully forfeit with the most sincere apologies to my opponent as it seems he was looking for a great debate. Hopefully, he may come across someone who shares the same position as me, but who will be able to speak of these things in much greater detail.
Resolved: God is a logically necessary being.

I have recently heard a lot about presuppositional apologetics. This is a variety of apologetics which seeks to demonstrates the acceptance of God's existence as a necessary consequence of logical thought. This seemed fishy, so I decided to make a debate on the topic. There are two slightly different definitions of necessary being that are meant by the resolution. Firstly, a necessary being is one that, by its very definition, must exist. Secondly, a necessary being is one without which logical thought is impossible. Also, in order to qualify as a necessary being in either case, the definition of the being must be free of contradictions. The burden of proof will be on pro. Rounds one and two may be used for arguments or, for 2, rebuttals. Round three is for rebuttals only (no new arguments) and a closing statement, which may repeat points made in earlier rounds. By accepting this debate, pro is agreeing to these rules. Now, I shall begin my argument. It is obviously possible to think logically without belief in God as there are plenty of atheists who think logically. Indeed, many of the greatest minds of our time have been atheists. It would be ridiculous to say that these genii were logically impaired. Secondly, there is no actual being that, by its very definition, exists in reality. This is confirmed by the analytic/synthetic division. The reason why this is so is that a being having a given property is contingent on its existence. Therefore, even if a being's existence were part of its explicit definition, its existence would be contingent on its existence, thereby making any claim that it exists due to this property circular reasoning. Good luck to my opponent!
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

I would like to talk my opponent for this debate. I think that the conclusion is kind of a stretch so I admire that my opponent has no problem arguing for it. Definition of Supernatural I totally agree that once a subject is explored with science, then it is natural not supernatural. However, I don't really think that just because we are unable to explain something, that this thing is by default supernatural. For example, thunder used to be unexplained yet it is a natural phenomena 2000 years ago just as it is now. There might be some phenomena we might never be able to explain. For example, why does light move as a particle sometimes and a wave? In the event that we are not ever able to figure this out, this problem is still not supernatural. The way light works is still a natural phenomena that yes lacks a complete explanation. Supernatural the word is often used to define certain forces that we don't understand well, and are also outside and above the natural world and yet still able to interact within it. Most claimed supernatural events are also unable to be analyzed scientifically. If they were, then they would be an accepted part of science. Often supernatural things are derived from mythology or storytelling and have some sort of intelligence. So I submit to you a more complete definition of the supernatural. This is what naturalists like myself mean when we say we don't believe in the supernatural. The reason we don't believe in it is because there is no way of scientifically confirming that it exists. No naturalist claims that everything is knowable to humans. We admit many scientific mysteries all the time. So we naturalists use a different definition of supernatural than my opponent personally does when we say we don't believe in the supernatural. In conclusion, naturalists do not have a problem with the supernatural because it claims that some things are unknowable, but because these supernatural things cannot be scientifically confirmed and therefore lack good evidence.
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

Thankyou Dan!Well, the reason why Naturalism assumes Supernaturalism so is self defeating is as follows:There is no other way to divide naturalism and supernaturalism than by the human ability to explain something. As soon as there is an explanation, the subject becomes natural. All the while there is no explanation, the subject is supernatural.But the naturalist believes that there is no such thing as supernaturalism. He therefore believes there is nothing that a human cannot explain. He therefore believes that humans have infinite intellectual capacity. Can he explain why humans should have infinite intellectual capacity? If he cannot, then the naturalist assumes himself supernatural.Thus, naturalism is self defeating.Thankyou, over to con.
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

Fun quick debate:I will be arguing that Naturalism assumes that humans are supernatural and is therefore self defeating. "Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws" 4 Rounds 4000 char 24 Hours to respond Best of luck to my opponent.
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

Thanks very much to my opponent for participating in this debate!Regarding all the definitions my opponent posted: The nature of this discussion is philosophical, this is why it was posted in philosophical debates. Philosophy, by its nature, is an attempt to grasp what is beyond a mere definition. It is an effort to find deeper truths about the reality of our existence and beliefs. Ofcourse there are many definitions of supernaturality and nature, but if the debate were about definitions it would look like:"hi, Naturalism is supernatural","no, Oxford dictionary says..""thanks, i'll be off then."My argument is designed to grasp at the deeper truth of naturalism, in that it is in practice indistinguishable from the sentiment "nothing exists which cannot be explained", which assumes man has the power to explain everything that could ever exist, and is therefore endowed with supernatural intellect. The reason why it is indistinguishable is that humans can only ever define something as natural or supernatural through our ability to explain it. Critically my opponent has offered no other way, by which in practice, humans can divide natural from supernatural.He cites examples like thunder and light, but in the case of thunder he only fortifies my argument by showing that our definition is entirely dependent on our ability to explain. In the case of light the distinction between natural and supernatural is only dependent on the predilections of the assessor. He argues "No real scientist claims that scientific mysteries are supernatural by definition." but many theistic scientists believe scientific mysteries have a supernatural cause, as evidenced by the cosmological arguments for God. The only distinctions he can make are flawed by subjectivity. When something is 'indistinguishable from', it is necessarily 'the same as', so by showing that naturalism in practice is indistinguishable from "nothing exists which cannot be explained", I show the deep flaw in naturalism, that its possesor assumes he has a supernatural ability to explain everything that could ever be.Thanks again to my opponent, I hope everyone enjoyed the debate!
Naturalism Assumes that Humans are Supernatural

Thankyou Dan,My opponent remarks that "just because we are unable to explain something, that this thing is by default supernatural." He gives different examples concerning thunder and light which I will examine in due course.The first problem is, on what basis does my opponent assign the 'supernatural' classification? We only have one way to distinguish a supernatural claim from a natural claim, and that is through our ability to explain a subject. Ironically this is evident in my opponents examples:"For example, thunder used to be unexplained yet it is a natural phenomena 2000 years ago just as it is now. "Thunder was universally a supernatural thing 2000 years ago, it has become natural because of our ability to explain it." There might be some phenomena we might never be able to explain. For example, why does light move as a particle sometimes and a wave? In the event that we are not ever able to figure this out, this problem is still not supernatural."A naturalist might maintain that it is natural while a person with supernatural predilections would just as quickly conclude supernaturalism. When my opponent says "In the event that we are not ever able to figure this out, this problem is still not supernatural." This is entirely subjective. Why isn't the problem supernatural? How do you distinguish? Because the problem sounds 'sciency'?My opponent later admits "Most claimed supernatural events are also unable to be analyzed scientifically. If they were, then they would be an accepted part of science." This is my very point. It is only possible to distinguish a supernatural claim from natural through our ability to explain the subject. The naturalist, who believes there is no such thing as supernaturalism thereby endows himself with a supernaturally infinite intellectual ability because he assumes that nothing exists which he cannot explain.He also claims "No naturalist claims that everything is knowable to humans.". Well, ofcourse they don't, but they are acting on that assumption because their unwritten doctrine is: "Nothing exists which cannot be explained", because this is their only way to differentiate a natural from a supernatural claim.Over to you, Dan.
Elderly drivers(65 and older) should have to renew yearly.

As you so rightly said in the first argument, as we get older our brains begin to slow down. Reflexes begin to slow, eyesight and hearing begin to weaken. Therefore elderly folks are more at risk for accidents and injuries in a car. On average. 500 elderly drivers are injured, and 15 die, every day. [1] Many elderly people, especially males, tend to be very independent, and not want to accept help or illness. If an elderly person is tested every year to make sure their reflexes, eyesight, and hearing are where they need to be in order to drive, then these injuries and deaths could be prevented. Therefore it is in the best interest of all drivers to have elderly people tested yearly. However, in fairness to the elderly people, all should have to be tested, especially those who had an accident of some sort in the past year. This is to prevent any injuries and keep all drivers and pedestrians safe. While you are correct in saying that elderly folks have more experience than teens, both pose a risk to all drivers and pedestrians. You also say that elderly drivers are overly cautious and "drive slower than molasses," this also poses risks. There comes a point where driving too slow, just as driving too fast, presents an opportunity for safety issues, which is why you get a ticket for both. I also agree that you say that many elderly drivers can't afford to renew. I say that they should have to renew, but at a lower cost. For example, my grandparents are both diabetic, and both live off of social security and other government benefits to help those who can't afford to help themselves. So they ask my family, who is lucky to live right up the road from them, for help with traveling for things like doctor's appointments and shopping. My grandparents gave up their licenses because they couldn't afford to renew. So I say give them a lower renew rate, but make them renew just the same. That way they still have a little independence, and, in some cases, dignity. [1] http://www.cdc.gov...
Elderly drivers(65 and older) should have to renew yearly.

Sorry about that I have prepared a con argument Many elderly adults don’t have the mobility they used to, and wish to stay as independent as possible. Driving is one of the few things that allows them to keep some of their independence. Driving allows them to stay mobile without having to rely on their children or grandchildren to take them places. Also elderly drivers are less likely to drive when weather is bad, and are more cautious when driving. If you think about it people 65 and older don’t leave the house for many occasions. Maybe go to the store for some milk or to Jimmy’s soccer game. Many are probably retired and don't drive often due to the fact that they really don’t need to go anywhere because they don’t have a job. They live a fairly sedentary lifestyle of soap operas, sleep, and denture cream. So It doesn't make sense to make them have to get up and drive somewhere where they probably hadn’t planned to go anywhere. Due to the fact that they are most likely retired they might not have the money to renew. Many elderly adults live of social security and don’t have much money to spend. Most of their income goes to food, housing, bills,and medicine. They don't have the money to be spending on something they already earned, which is the privilege to drive. Elderly drivers are also probably the most cautious drivers out of all the age groups. This is the reason why they drive slower than molasses going up hill in the middle of winter. They have to make up for reaction time so they drive slower and overly cautious. Also elderly drivers are less likely to drink and drive like a great number of teens. Nevertheless the elderly have decades of driving experience while teens only have a few years. To make the elderly go out of there way to pay for something they rightfully earned many years earlier makes about as much sense as a football bat. Elderly drivers have many years of experience compared to that a teen. If we require the elderly to renew then we should to the same to ill minded teenagers.
Elderly drivers(65 and older) should have to renew yearly.

Elderly Drivers In 2008, more than 5,500 older adults were killed and more than 183,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes. This amounts to 15 older adults killed and 500 injured in crashes on average every day. It has become apparent that age has an effect on a drivers safety. As you age you become at risk for the many problems the come with age. Many of these problems may affect the ability to do tasks that involve a quick reaction time and fast thinking. Older drivers are more likely to have health issues that would impair their ability to drive.Loss of vision among the elderly is a major health care problem; approximately one in three elderly persons has some form of vision-reducing eye disease by the age of 65. An example of an eye disease is cataracts. Older drivers with cataracts experience a restriction in driving mobility and a decrease in their safety on the road. Of course not all elderly drivers are unsafe and should be taken off the road, but there is a considerable amount that are unaware of the increased danger they pose. If we require those above the age if 65 to re-new there licenses yearly, there could be a great sum of revenue made.It was reported in 2009 there were 33 million licensed drivers 65 and older in the U. S. If we charge a mear one or two dollars,we could use the revenue on the roads to make them safer and more comfortable. As we age our brains begin to deteriorate and function slower. One of the most common form of brain deterioration disease is dementia. People with dementia have problems doing daily tasks and communicating. In more extreme cases they may begin to see hallucinations. It has been estimated that 10-15% of drivers over the age of 65 have dementia. Of course not every person with dementia will see fluffy unicorns or have trouble brushing their teeth, but there may be drivers that are getting worse and need to be removed from the road. If this resolution is put into effect it would greatly increase the safety of the roads. Roads may also be safer and smoother due to the money that would be made from the small fee that would be charged at renewal. Now this resolutions goal is not to single out the elderly and take away there privilege. The goal is to make driving conditions safer for everyone. An impaired driver is not only a risk to the people around them, but are also a risk to themselves.