BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objective truth/reality exists

Pro doesn't seem to take the debate seriously.. Or maybe he just doesn't realize how deep this topic goes.. He hasn't addressed the most important issues which I brought up in my last post.. Pro constantly resorted to logic without once having justified to do so.. He seems to have skipped the perhaps most important issue of all, which I bought up in my last post, and so I shall bring it up once more: Using logic to prove logic is a circular argument and thus flawed.. This points out a major issue.. If only logic can prove logic then logic is biased and unreliable.. If logic is really a reliable method then it must be so because an even more reliable method has proven it to be.. And whatever method is more reliable than logic must itself be proven reliable through an even more reliable method.. And so on ad infinitum.. You can't just define logic to be the most reliable system without proving it with something else.. Anyone can define anything how ever they like.. It doesn't prove anything.. Secondly Pro seems not to understand my role in this debate.. I don't have to prove anything, because if I could then that would refute my main claim.. Nothing I say would have to make sense since that is exactly what is to be expected if no objective reality exist.. Whatever DOES make sense of what I say only makes sense because we share a similar world view with the same concepts such as logic etc... If there IS an objective reality, then we could measure any claim against it and see which of them match up and thus are objectively true.. But if we only have a world view then we could only compare claims to that world view.. We are only able to discuss with people with whom we share a world view.. We cannot compare claims across world views..
Objective truth/reality exists

I commend my opponent on bringing up the best argument he could, yet his argument, though the best anyone could come up with, is pitiful. Honestly, arguing that objective reality does not exist is pitiful. "Can you prove that logic is right without using logic. .? " The very nature of debate assumes logic exists. "If every claim is based on logic and logic is fallacious then the claim is unreliable. ." By definition, logic cannot be fallacious. Logic is pure reason. "I know I am using logic myself, but the BOP is on Pro. . I don't have to be right, I just have to not be proven wrong. ." My opponent is basically admitting he is wrong and then claims he does not have to be right. If my opponent is not right, then he is wrong. "The only thing that is absolutely true, if anything is, is that everything else is not absolutely true. . that is the only constant. . everything else is variable, arbitrary and most importantly incomparable in truth. ." Again, this is self-refuting. My opponent has just conceded a second time that absolute truth exists. "logic is a system defined by human beings. . any attempt at determining what is true and false is merely an act of persuasion, not proof. ." I don't think Con can prove this. Readers, this is the most flawed and insensible argument I have seen. My opponent clearly recognizes this, yet continues by attacking logic, the very basis of argument and debate. If logic was false, then debates would not exist. All of Con's arguments and conclusions come from logic, therefore, he contradicts himself on a number of levels denying the existence of logic. He is clearly in the wrong, and if my opponent is wrong, then he is not right. Con is a testament that logic exists. Readers, you could vote for common sense or you could ditch it and vote for Con. If any of you does not believe in logic, there would be no point in reading or voting for this debate.
Objective truth/reality exists

Can you prove that logic is right without using logic..? If every claim is based on logic and logic is fallacious then the claim is unreliable.. I know I am using logic myself, but the BOP is on Pro.. I don't have to be right, I just have to not be proven wrong.. Using logic to prove logic is a circular argument and thus flawed.. The only thing that is absolutely true, if anything is, is that everything else is not absolutely true.. that is the only constant.. everything else is variable, arbitrary and most importantly incomparable in truth.. logic is a system defined by human beings.. any attempt at determining what is true and false is merely an act of persuasion, not proof..
Objective truth/reality exists

Welcome readers to this debate. First, thank you bodhiBit for presenting this debate to us. I intend to convince my readers, and possibly my opponent, that objective reality or absolute truth exist. My argument will be simple and straightforward. Let's define absolute truth, objective truth, objective reality, or whatever one wishes to call it.absolute truth (redirected to universality) – a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. [1]I thank my opponent again, for he already has proven that absolute truth exists. My opponent claims, "there is NO objective reality." He has presented himself with a dilemma – either there is no objective morality, or there is an objective reality. If my opponent proves that objective reality does not exist, then that would be an objective reality in itself. In other words, "objective reality does not exist" is presented as an absolute truth. It either exists or it does not. Con's argument is self-refuting.Let's look at mathematics, the most obvious case for absolute truth. By definition, 2+2=4. It cannot equal anything else because it is the Law of Mathematics. The Laws of Mathematics are objective, thus if these laws exist, absolute truth exists. We may also take logic. If my opponent proves that objective reality does not exist, he will have to use logic. Logic is an absolute. If logic was subjective then maybe my opponent could prove his point, but arguments are either logical or illogical. My opponent's arguments fall clearly under the illogical type. The main problem is that logic exists or else we wouldn't be debating this."we all have each our own subjective world view all of which can be equally true" I have already proven this false. Either absolute truth exists or it does not. I have shown that absolute truth does not exist, therefore the worldview that absolute truth does not exist is not as true as the worldview that absolute truth does exist. Let's take the example of other worldviews. Some believe that God does not exist, while others believe God does exist. God either exists or does not exist, therefore the two worldviews are not equally true. One is obviously is more true than the other. "There is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong." I have proven this statement false by proving my opponent is wrong. We can clearly tell who is right and who is wrong. I think I have adequately shown that objective reality exists. The only way that my opponent can win now is by proving that logic does not exist, for all my arguments were based on logic. It is impossible to prove logic does not exist without using logic, but I'm afraid he has no choice. I'm afraid I win. Thank you Con. Readers, I urge you to vote Pro.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
the legal age to drive should be 18

To my opponent, that situation sounds rather unfortunate, with the excessive adolescent suicide overshadowing even what's statistically considered the number one killer in the United States. However, you surely must understand that the law isn't for your small town.Deliberately Denned DemonymMy opponent starts her argument with facts from experience. Namely that, as a possibility, "Maybe in your area this situation would not affect your economy, but I live in a very small country town that is only along only less then 1/4 mile stretch of road." Con lives in a small town.However, being that we are debating the law, a significant note would be that laws are not exclusive to towns. In the United States of America, which I know my opponent is speaking of due to her mention of the particular US state "...Indiana," age restrictions are exclusive to states.[1]Thus, any amendment to the age limit for certain things should not be for the benefit for specific towns. My opponent claims that, in her area, "...the main deaths...are suicide not accidents." This is very tragic, but it fails to do anything in favor of her argument. Con asserts that the suicides exceed the collisions, and I believe the intention is to imply a link between driving and preventing suicide, but she provides no evidence to support this.It's also possible that she's meaning to create a comparison to show that the deaths of those in collisions are nearly completely negligible, but she fails to show how changing the age limit of the entire state would benefit more than simply her town.Ironically, this bias is something she implicitly accuses me of.Back to the original quote, Con appears to be saying that my argument is biased due to me being in a different area. Note that her assertion refers to bias involving "the economy." The economy looms over the entire world.Being that we are arguing for the state law to change, I believe "...the economy in that tiny farm town..." must benefit the state's economy were it to change for the better, something my opponent argues for without supporting.Moving On UpI've explained why we shouldn't have the age restriction be lowered, but why should it be raised? I've already provided evidence that this would help us through statistics on the individuality side, but not for the government side.My argument was based entirely on my opponent's logic. I wasn't carrying my own burden of proof. Thusly, that's what I'll do here."More teens=more money=better economy!""Less teens=less money=WORSE ECONOMY."Really, this is more my opponent's assertion, as I was using her logic and she didn't refute it, but it supports my side. So, I'll support it.[2][3][4][5]There. Vote Pro. http://www.iihs.org... http://www.businessweek.com... http://www.newswise.com... http://usanewsbrief.com... http://www.deloitte.com...
the legal age to drive should be 18

Maybe in your area this situation would not affect your economy, but I live in a very small country town that is only along only less then 1/4 mile stretch of road. And on of the main things circulating the economy in that tiny farm town is the teenagers and young drivers that live in that town. And I agree I don't use driving to help me explore my boundries but a lot of kids in my community do. This may not affect you area but it does mine. And the main deaths in my area are suicide not accidents. We've only had three deadly accidents in the last three years but we have had 12 suicides in the last 4. I do agree that the driving test need to be more strick to ensure that we have better safer driver on the roads to help prevent more accidents, but changing the age is actually hurtful in towns like mine.
the legal age to drive should be 18

The legal age should to drive should not be raised to 18. The legal age in Indiana to drive is 15 w/permit and 16 w/drivers ed. Teenagers at the age 15-18 like to start experimenting with their boundaries and surroundings, wanting to get out into the world, to try things on their own. This allows teenagers to get a taste of living on their own and becoming independent. Being able to drive allows teenagers to do just that. Teenagers at this age also want a little extra spending money instead of waiting for allowance or having to ask parents. This means that they would need a job and that means they need transportation to their place of employment. And a lot of teens parents are like mine, which means that they refuse to drive their teen to their work place. No licence means no job which means less teens will have money. With less money teens wont be as likely to spend money in towns and in businesses. This would hurt the economy greatly, seeing how a lot of the money flow through out the economy is from teen spending in clothing, grocery stores and malls. Changing the drive age would only hurt the economy.
animals

Out of respect for my opponent I will not add to my claims in case he/she comes back. I have noted that the Con (Pro?) has not been online since he/she created this debate. Being a new member, they may have forgotten their password or forgotten the time limit of the debate. They have yet to see my argument for round one and thus I do not believe they have given up. In other words; I'm giving Con (Pro?) the benefit of the doubt. Voters, if he/she comes back for round three, I request that you pretend this round never happened. We will continue the debate like normal. Here's to hoping round three happens.
animals

Wouldn't the Con side be against the statement of "animals"? Whatever. I am assuming Con's (or Pro's?) argument is "humans should protect all animals". This would mean I, as Pro (or Con?), am arguing that "humans should not protect all animals". Since there was no structure agreed upon before hand, I will be moving straight to rebuttals before making some claims of my own. Rebuttals: "we should protect animals so they do not die" - This is currently impossible. It is possible to extend their life span but humans do not posses the means to prevent death. "animals are not just wild they are also our pets" - Some animals are. Such as cats and dogs. But we should keep in mind that most animals ARE WILD and should be kept in the wild. "do you want our pets to die I mean they are cute and adorible." - Some house pets such as domesticated cats, dogs, birds, various reptiles, and other mammals can be considered adorable to some peoples' taste. But, "adorable" is an opinion based feeling. Thus this word is very vague and does not always apply. I already mentioned we can extend the lives of animals but not give them immortality. Yes we should let them die. It is completely natural. I would even argue that extending their lives in most situations is HURTFUL to the animals. I'll elaborate on this below. "we do not want to let those die do we." - Yes. Yes, we do. Here's why: Claims: In regards to domesticated pet animals, it is usually hurtful to extend their lives. Pets, like us humans, have aches and pains that increase as they get older. They are also prone to disease and infections. Pets are usually very stoic about their problems and so most human caretakers do not notice anything is wrong. You could be thinking you are doing the right thing by caring for an animal and extending its life when in actuality you are causing it to go through the living hell of constant pain. Sometimes enough is enough and the pet slips away to die on its own. There are reasons why most of us have to have our pets "put down". We, as caretakers, should care enough about said pet to let it die rather than to keep it suffering. It believe this would be an act of "mercy killing". We should not mess with animals, wild or pet, in general. This affects their natural evolution process. For the most part, the food chain and natural death take care of everything on their own. If we truly did protect every animal then that would mean we would also have to protect a said animal species from other animal species as well. This leaves the other animals without a food source and thus is counter productive as it means they will then starve and die off. Humans should honor animals but we should not try to protect them or extend their lives. It is unnatural and can cause entire species to evolve differently or go extinct all together. I pass to Con. Good luck, I hope for a fun debate. Sources: - My elementary school education. - Common sense. :P
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

To win this debate, I need to prove that at least 1 government is not a criminal organization, because "ALL" means "everybody" or "everything" - all inclusive.All Gov'ts have the potential to be criminal of course. This however doesn't make them criminal. I have committed no crimes, but I could trespass somewhere. Yet, I am not a criminal.I said Ancient Greece.A better example of a Government that is not a Criminal Organization:C1: The Principality of Sealand It has a population of: 4 peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org...Now, criminal means that it is against the general welfare. In Sealand, 4 people (one family) rule.In 1968, Britain ruled that Sealand was a separate area that Britain cannot rule over. Sealand has not broken any UN laws or any of its own laws. Since nobody has charged Sealand's gov't, it cannot be regarded as a criminal organization (see my explanation at the beginning of this round). Therefore, I have my BoP, not you.Vote CONtra(short debate)
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

That definition includes an "arbitrary exemption" as explicitly excluded from the definitions I assumed you had accepted when you accepted this debate. If we don't accept that a state even has the potential to be a criminal institution, simply by fiat, we are in fact accepting that all states are legitimate, regardless of any criminal behavior, including the violation of the "applicable criminal laws" of other states, including states claiming overlapping geographic regions (ie, Int. or Federal Law). Not all people in Rome were "the state", or had a vote, or even property rights - many were slaves, and your assertion that "the people choose the law themselves" ignores this inequality. Even if we accept this definition, we are still left with the fact that many actions of the Roman state were in fact instances of criminal negligence that were demonstrably injurious to the public welfare, leading finally to the catastrophic collapse of the civilization and the deaths of thousands
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

Good luck. The resolution says "all"All = The greatest possible, the whole of, everything/ everybodySo, it does not place limits on what, when, or where. C1: GreeceAncient Greece: Was a direct democratic government. Criminal = an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. The definition shows that "criminal" is defined by the state. In Ancient Greece, the people literally choose the law themselves. That government organization of citizens couldn't be a criminal organization, because they decided in their self interest and for the best interest of the nation as most citizens would do. They did not act to harm their nation (not criminal then). Thus, this gov't was not a criminal organization. . http://dictionary.reference.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: 1) The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. 2) The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. 3) The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime).
Its better not to live in the matrix

You're right, I cannot say for certain what each individual's life purpose is, but I believe it is safe to say that, as a species, we are constantly trying to better ourselves. By creating individual realities and avoiding our mutual reality, we will fail to evolve as a species. As for physical needs, all of the above and more. Unless you are proposing some sort of matrix that we can physically enter, our bodies will still be in the "real" world. There is, at this point, no technological way to care for our physical needs in an exclusively mental reality.
Its better not to live in the matrix

I am responding to the point my opponent says about "The main purpose to our lives is to better ourselves as a species". First I would like to point out the purpose to our creation is a very subjective matter and to come up with the theory "We cannot grow or thrive, as individuals or as a species, if we avoid reality" is an illegitimate argument for you cannot speak for everyone on the controversial matter of the purpose of life. For arguments sake, I'm going to say the purpose of life is too form a connection with your family and friends and maybe a divine power. If one were to live in the Matrix where they are to believe that all these important factors are occurring around them (e.g) God, family, personal relations, then I can argue the purpose of life in the Matrix is being fulfilled. To the point where my opponent mentions that we have physical needs that may not be met in the Matrix, I would like you to elaborate on these needs. Hygiene? Relations? Motor Skills? Please elaborate.
Its better not to live in the matrix

My opponent has failed to answer or address any of my points, and has merely repeated what was said originally. Because of this, I will use this round to ask my opponent a few questions and reiterate my points. 1. What do you believe the point of life is? 2. Do you agree that tragedy and pain is necessary for our growth? 3. Do you agree that ignorance can be harmful? My main point here is that we cannot grow or thrive, as individuals or as a species, if we avoid reality. My second point is that, even in a matrix, we have physical bodies that have physical needs and do not currently have the technology to assume these needs could be met within a matrix. I believe that avoiding reality and living in ignorance is a great detriment to ourselves as individuals and as a species.
Its better not to live in the matrix

Living in an altered dream-like world is not only benifical for our safety and well being, but our intellectual knowledge as well. How does one no they have finished dreaming? When they have awoken of course. If one was to be living in a dream forever and potentially never have to wake up, then this "dream" would be no different then reality as we know. How do we know we are not living in a dream right now? A matrix of our own? We don't. We cannot trust our senses for they have deceived us in the past. Living in the matrix would be no different then living in reality, plus it would be a reality of what we want and need. Instead of living in a reality where our lives are in danger and we could potentially be harmed by what to real world is offering, why not live in a reality of our own? A safer reality on that matter, one where we do not know the other side of things, one where we do not ever need care.