BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existance with free will.

OPENING STATEMENT PRO claims that I have ignored the difference created by perspective. This is not true in the slightest. I have considered it in my original arguments and it has failed the test of our logic. I will re-form some of my previous arguments to address the problem of perspective specifically. THE CLAIM FOR PERSPECTIVE Pro claims, in his conclusion, that: In your world, only you have free will and as it relates to me, only I have free will . This conclusion was reached through the following premises: 1) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus "predetermined" 2) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things 3) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox 4) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will THE PROBLEM OF PERSPECTIVE Pro addresses perspective in the conclusion. In our analysis of the resolution we found that there were logical issues with the third premise that causes the conclusion to fall. This is why we can ignore PRO"s claim that perspective changes a person"s impression of free will. Why or how could our perception of free will change with perspective? If we accept the first premise, we can also accept the second premise considering PRO"s incompatibistic (with determinism) definition of free will. However, we are left again at the problem in premise 3. PRO claims that there is a paradox and uses this so called paradox as an excuse to ignore the first premise. Even in PRO"s world, the first person perspective, the universe is still predetermined and thus precludes any free will. PRO"s paradox is actually circular reasoning that flows as follows: PRO can predict PRO"s next move >> PRO uses free will to change to a different next move for all infinity, creating a paradox >> Therefore PRO cannot predict PRO"s next move >> Therefore PRO has free will In reality, PRO doesn"t have free will and the correct third premise would be the following: PRO can predict PRO"s next move >> PRO cannot change to a different next move >> Therefore PRO does not have free will. Thanks PRO for a great debate.
One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existance with free will.

In this debate I will assert logically that out of all people who roam the earth, I am the sole individual who has free will; does this mean that I believe I am truely the only one? Well not exactly, but in essence, yes. I will show that because each individual lives in his or her own world, that they are logically restrained to accept certain ideas, especially when they experience a certain theoretical situation which logically demonstrates that others are not free but that you yourself and I myself (seperately) are. Here is a logical proof explaining in further detail and clarity to what exactly I am refering. Please note that BOP is shared, and that currently the debate is impossible to accept, doing so without permission is an auto forfeit. There are only 48 hours to respond to each argument. Message me or comment if interested. Case: 1. ) All actions are predetermined and thus predicatable. 2. ) Thus, given enough information, I could theoretically be put in a viewing room which allowed me to watch and anticipate another person’s every-move. This would prove to the me in the story, that other people's actions are predetermined 3. ) Logically however, I could never view and anticipate My own actions as this would be a paradox, this would prove to me that my actions are not predeterminable. 4. ) Thus, in your world, only you have free will and as it relates to me, only I have free willThus if we look into this scenaro from a god's perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom'. Thus, because I am stuck in my ignorant, mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and justifiably say that only I have free will. The examples above stating that other have free will depending on the perspective is not a concession of the round, but rather a method for me to demonstrate why what I said make sense, the shifting nature I show above helps strengthen my position but again, please do not assert that because I have 'admited' that I Can, not have free will that this is a concession. Forgive the semantics disclaimer. Further Rulesto win I must show that it is reasonable or rational to believe the idea that I am the only person who has free will. Con must prove that such a claim or belief is unreasionable and/or irrational.
The Offspring is not punk rock.

The Offspring is not punk rock. Why? Simple really. All of their music sounds the same. Granted I've only heard a handful of their songs but I've heard enough to generate my personal opinion that The Offspring, is not it. While they started out very small and not very well known under the name of "Manic Subsidal" and eventually changed their name to "The Offspring" mainly so they could, my theory, get the attention they so sorely craved, because who wants to have their band named "Manic Subsidal"? Clearly not "Manic Subsidal", what with all the band line-up changes, and different members, one guy going from drums, to guitar (or was it bass? Doesn't matter), and finally to vocals. I mean. come on! Make up your minds already will you? They did, with a band named "The Offspring". Small step up from "Manic Subsidal" if you ask me. Anyway, I do not feel like The Offspring belongs in Punk Rock. I feel they belong in the Alternative Rock genre.
The existence of God.

Since my opponent has forfeited their 4th round, I'll just summarize what has happened throughout this debate: My opponent has defined God as 'the of the bible'. My opponent has broken the rule of 'no vexatious semantics' shown in the above dot point. My opponents only rebuttal for my argument is one that strengthens my premise. My opponent has made no arguments for the existence of the judeo-christian God, this debates primary scope. My opponents only arguments commits the Red Herring Fallacy with regards to the intended scope of the debate. My opponent has forfeited round 4 for reasons unbeknown to me. My opponent has commited egregious misconduct by violating the rules of the debate. In short: My opponent has made no arguments. My opponent has made no rebuttals. My opponent has conducted himself sardonically throughout the debate.
The existence of God.

My opponent has failed to come up with a definition of God. I'll begin to rebut what he has stated."In response to 'Evidence of Absence', not everything... your standard of confirming non-existence is faulty now." I notice that my opponent has not attacked any of my premises. Since my logic is valid, the conclusion must be true.My opponent says: "Now, voiding the portion of your... considered to be in existance in reality". My opponent is relying on vexatious semantics and has already violated the rules of the debate. Also, it's not my definition of reality, it wikipedia's definition of reality and they have sourced it from Oxford."However, God, being defined as 'The God of the bible'... are voided from the definition." It is blatantly obvious that my opponent relies on vexatious semantics in order to try and win this debate, even though it is against the rules. While this is infuriating as instead of being intellectual, we are debating over words, I will continue. This debate scope is primarily about the "juedo-christian God". This God is synonymous with "The God of the bible". To be more precise, 'Yahweh' is: "the personal name of the God of Israel as described in the Hebrew Bible". [1] My opponent is arguing that 'Yahweh' is a string of words. I would ask my opponent to please substantiate this definition with proper sources (A dictionary for example). Let us recap on what my opponent has done this round:My opponent has violated the rules of the debate which is misconduct - he used vexatious semantics.My opponent has ventured outside the primary scope of this debate.My opponent defines Yahweh (synonymous with: the god of the bible), as a string of words without sources.My opponents only arguments are semantcs.My opponent has failed to rebut any of my premises in a valid logical argument; this implies concession to my argument.I would urge my opponent to please abandon his semantics as they do not provide for any form of intellectual and rewarding debate, and instead, debate with proper arguments over the widely accepted definition of God which can be found in any dictionary.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation)
The existence of God.

I thank my opponant for discarding the necessity of omnipotence and omniscience in the definition of the, "of the bible". In response to "Evidence of Absence", not everything which may exist is immediatly observable. Pre-historic man would have had no method to confirm the existance of various microbiological creatures (such as cells and multiple forms of bacteria) through, specifically, observation, and yet we now know such things to exist in astronomical numbers. Had you held the same belief at that time, you would have come to the false conclusion that since you possess no method of observing microscopic creatures they positively didn't exist. By upholding the same standard that would have been faulty then, your standard of confirming non-existance is faulty now. Now, voiding the portion of your definition of "God" that includes omnipotence and omniscience, the remaining specifics of the definition are, "The God of the bible". "And so on", may be voided, since it's a vague expression that presents no defining characteristics. In your definition of reality, you're clever enough to state that imagined things aren't considered to be in existance in reality. However, God, being defined as "The God of the bible", can be demonstrated to exist by any individual or group who has access to a Bible, and possesses sight, the sense of touch, and the ability to read (either visually, or through brail). "The God of the bible", objectively exists as a written word, and meets the instigator's definition of being, "of the bible". This meets this debate's definition of existance in reality by not just being imaginary. Ink on paper, following the exact pattern of the word, "god", objectively exists in the physical world. I realize that this probably isn't the justification my opponant was expecting, but it does prove the existance of god to an extent that meets all of the given definitions, now that, "omnipotence", and, "omniscience", are voided from the definition. I await the Con's response. Sources: (not the date at which the microscope was invented) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nobelprize.org... (note the date at which the cell was discovered) http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology) http://www.biologyreference.com... (note the references to "God") http://www.biblegateway.com...
The existence of God.

It's alright, I'm new to this site as well: I'm sure we'll manage!I consider it highly unorthodox for one to void 2 of Gods cardinal characteristics: Omnipotence and Omniscience. Nevertheless, since you are postulating the existence of God, I suppose I should let you be the arbiter of the definition of God. Conversely, you say: " believe God to be both all-knowing and all-powerful at all times" this does concede that God is at the very least sometimes omnipotent and omniscient. I won't spend too much longer on the definition, but I will make a point of your bible reference. It says (in my bible at least) that: "The people of Judah were not able to drive them out". Judges 1:19 makes mention that God helped the people of Judah, and also that the people of Judah failed. This does not imply that God is not omnipotent, for God can be able to do something, but not willing. It's interesting to note that even if you hold the position that God is not always omnipotent or omniscient, that still doesn't mean it's not a characteristic of God as you've just conceded that God is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, these abilities just seem to come and go, however.Since you want to void omnipotence and omniscience, I won't argue it in this round. Here are some sources citing that God can be defined with these characteristics [1] [2] [3]Evidence of Absence.If God exists in reality, then we can observe God.We can't observe God.Therefore God doesn't exist in reality.This is classical Modus tollens, and is a valid argument. This is a very primitive argument and the gist of it is that the evidence for the non-existence of God, is merely the lack of proof of his existence. Science has searched indefatigably for the existence of God. There has been no evidence in support of his existence. This is like a needle in a haystack. If we want to find the needle in a haystack, we need to search for it. After hours of searching, we cannot find it. Is it therefore reasonable to conclude that their is infact no needle in the haystack? Yes, because we have evidence of the needles absence from the haystack.Since I can't argue omnipotence or omniscience, I won't argue the omnipotence paradox, or the argument from free will. I will also leave this round short as I believe that an atheists 'job' should be centered more around rebuttals. I would ask Pro to please post his definition of God, and the attributes of God.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The existence of God.

Not all Christians, and certainly not all theists believe God to be both all-knowing and all-powerfull at all times. To best represent the diversity of interpretation of the Abrahamic texts, I would ask that the instigator make void the inclusions of omnipotency and omnisciency in the definition of "God". In support of this objection, I'll reference Judges 1:19, which could be understood as displaying a god that lacked the power to defeat those in possession of iron chariots, thus not being omnipotent. Being new to this site, with this being my first debate, I'm still very much growing accustomed to the workings of this community, so I must ask your forgiveness for not submitting my issue with your definitions before accepting the debate. If the instigator would please be so generous as to honour my request of definition alteration (the removal of omnipotent and onmiscient from the definition of "God"), we could then continue this already underway debate, rather than have it ending without the enjoyment of thorough discussion.
The existence of God.

Hey guys, this debate will be about whether God exists in reality, or not.Debate Structure:Round 1: Acceptance + Definitions.Round 2: Arguments + Rebuttals.Round 3: Arguments + Rebuttals.Round 4: Arguments + Rebuttals.Round 5: Rebuttals+ Closing statements/reaffirmations; no new arguments.Debates Scope:This debate will cover whether God exists in the reality.This debate will primarily be about the juedo-christian God.This debate shouldn't be about probability.Rules:No vexatious semantics.Follow debate structure - failure to do so is misconduct.Resolution:Pro wins if they have put the best arguments forth that God exists in reality.Con wins if they have put the best arguments forth that God does not exist in reality, or they have succcessfully rebutted all of Pros arguments that are relevant(due to the burden of proof).Burden of Proof: The burden of proof will be on Pro, as Pro is asserting the positive claim that: God exists in reality.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Definitions:God: The God of the bible; this God has the characteristics of omnipotency, omnisciency, and so on.Reality: "reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." [1]Universe: "The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists." [2]I'm looking forward to a challenging and intellectual debate.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game Ill)

January 1, 2017: I command my best pilot to learn how to fly my 1 Stealth Bomber. January 9: I order the beheading of 2,000 citizens to discourage a small rebellion that took place 2 blocks from my palace. January 14: My pilot crashed my 1 Stealth Bomber into the sea. I have his wife and children executed. January 19: Domestic rebellion intensifies. January 22: Mozambique supllies rebels with weapons to help overthrow my regime. February 1-18: The rebellion is crushed. February 20 I Declare war on Mozambique. March 2: An intense air raid from all 13 of my F-16s take place in Mozambique. 6 are shot down leaving me with only 7 left. I throw a temper tantrum and have 600 random people killed in my own country. March 4: I send 20,000 soldiers and all 80 tanks into Mozambique along with 49 Helicopters. My top general challenges my tactical decision. I have him hanged outside my palace. March 5: with all my tanks in Mozambique the domestic rebellion resurfaces. March 8: 1 of my generals attempts to assassinate me. I have him and his family fed to dogs. March 19: Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzanian, and Madagascar declare war on me. I order all tanks and helicopters back to the capital, but leave the 20,000 troops fighting in Mozambique. March 19-26 The 4 nation alliance have sacked half of my country. 20 Tanks 38 helicopters make it back to the capital. March 27-April 19: With the capital surrounded I threaten to use my 1 nuke unless there's a cease fire. April 20: My terms are accepted. The 4 nations remove all military forces and 12,000 of my troops return from Mozambique. My military force is now: Soldiers: 62,000 Tanks 15 Helicopters 28 F-16s 5 Large Fishing vessels:170 1 Submarine with nuke May 1: Another rebellion takes place. May 3: I order the amputation of 800 captured rebels hands and feet. May 17: A general with 5,000 of my troops leave the capital and seek asylum in Zimbabwe. May 18: Zimbabwe offers asylum to refugees. May 19- 29 After reports of citizens fleeing my country for Zimbabwe I have the borders closed. June 1: I order Slave factories through out the country to increase production.Under the influence of extreme paranoia, lack of sleep, and heavy medication usage, I outlaw religion and declare myself God.
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game Ill)

I am the Dictator of Malawi. I have led a successful revolt against the government of the Republic of Malawi. It is a republic no more. Many died and much property was destroyed. The economy has plummeted. Lilongwe, the capital, is under strict marshal law. Anyone out past curfew is shot on sight. 1) Military Force: 80 tanks 80,000 soldiers 1 submarine with a nuke (former property of the U.K) 50 Helicopters 1 Stealth Bomber (former property of U.S) No qualified pilot at the moment. 200 Large Fishing vessels armed with simple assualt weapons 13 F-16s 2) Political State Mozambique is horrified of our nuke. 3) Economy Defense budget: 50 million Debt: 8 billion Anyway I picked the poorest country for giggles.
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game Ill)

This is a war debate. I was playing another one, but the other person was so unrealistic so I created this one. I will be playing again as the People's Republic of Southern China. I will also note that no one cause these countries to collapsed. There was just a global economic and political crash worse then 1929. Also, Strategery is not allow to take this debate. If so, I would create another one. These are the rules: 1. If you take this debate, tell the name of your country, and tell the numbers of your armed forces for things like vehicles (aircraft, ships, tanks, armored cars), men, missiles, and hackers (Yes, certain countries have the ability to do cyberwarfare). You can not play as the People's Republic of Southern China. You can play as any country except the ones that are dead (USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, China, Australia and Russia) 2. If you need information on a country tell me in the Comment section. Wikipedia is allowed to be used for military units. 3. You do not have to choose the countries I present, they merely represent the countries that broken up. 4. You do not have to declare war on my nation as soon as possible, for you could conquer any nation. 5. Please listen to the Geneva Convention, if you do not there will be major consequences. Here is a link to the Geneva Convention: http://www.redcross.org............ This also includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 6. If this AOW Debate takes more time then 5 rounds, it will be extended to another debate. Link to new countries: http://mapgame.wikia.com.........(Countries) 1) Military Force: Tanks: 3,621 AFVs: 1,954 SPGs: 684 Active Soldiers: 948,000 Reserve Soldiers: 920,000 Manpower: 309,000,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 8,600,000 Total Aircraft: 1,122 Fighters: 452 Fixed Wing Attack Aircraft: 529 Helicopters: 320 Attack Helicopters: 81 Aircraft Carrier: 1 Frigates: 17 Destroyers: 12 Submarines: 27 Coastal Defense: 55 2) Political State Disputes: South China Sea Alliances: ASEAN (Dialogue Partner) (The UN has collapsed) Wars: None 3) Economy Defense Budget: 60.2 Billion USD Debt: 374.3 Billion USD Reserves of Foreign exchange in Gold: 1.288 Trillion USD GDP nominal: 6.345 Trillion USD Current Account Balance: 321.34 Billion USD
Russia is a new dominant power in Middle East

First of all, I think we are talking about Russian influence and USA influence in Middle East region. Whether it's a violence or not, ifluence still exists. So, it's doesn't matter independent Syria or not. After such polical games, Syria will be play on Russian side. And I have some arguments: 1. "Assad regime" is winning the war against rebels. Almost all cities is under control now. As we know, "Assad regime" is pro-russian. 2. USA with their huge externa debt (over 17 trillions, data by Wiki) will cut their budgets and especialy in external decisions. At least this situation will continiue until Republicans will win. The war was their only chance to support such big external debt. 3. Also we can see interesting tendencies in USA society. People is turning to Russian side. My point of view based NOT only on mostly subjective opinions of CIS mass media. Many organizations and journalists located in USA and other NATO counties talks about that. For example "The Atlantic" with their topic: "Beyond Airstrikes: On Syria, Ask 'What Would the Godfather Do?", or even "The Times" with topic: "We can"t stop the world, we can"t get off". So, I think the situation is clear. USA is loosing this political battle on every fronts.
Russia is a new dominant power in Middle East

Hello, basically I know all news about this region and this situation. And I can't agree with you, that Russia is a new dominant power in Middle East. Honestly I don't like all western policy, because they all think only about power and money, not about people. So what about Russia. Yes, I respect Russia, how they always sometimes with China resist Western countries. But I don't think that Russia is a new dominant power there. Syria is independent country with own rules. Yes, there is violence. It's bad. I hope that they themselves and with help of other arabian countries will solve this problem.