BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violent video games lead to violent behaivior

I see you are still not specifying an age. But until you do, I will stick to children's age. But here is something for you. "The question of whether children's participation in violent video games can lead to an increase in violent thoughts, emotions and behaviors has been resolved, and the conclusive answer is yes. Studies that have provided this answer are based on statistical comparisons between large groups of children who do or don't play violent video games. " Also as i stated in my previous statement, why do you think there are ratings for games? Game designers even recognize that violence can influence people, especially children. Thank You. Now your argument.
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

By infinite, I mean an endless amount. I cannot think of an actually infinite number of physical things except when talking about space. But space is not technically a thing. It is really the abscense of things or a measurement of distance between things. I'd say it's potentially infinite. Numbers are not infinite either. Numbers are not things. They are descriptions. They are potentially infinite, but there is no number called infinity. Rather, the things that are potentially infinite are facts. Take this example. X is true Above is true Above is true Above is true ... Or 1+1=2 1+2=3 1+3=4 ... We can argue mathematically, abstractly, or philosophically.
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

First of all I will request a exact definition of what you mean by actually infinite number of things is indeed possible. Are we arguing physically (infinite number of possible shapes and stuff or something along those lines), mathematically or something I am not even thinking of. Will this do as a definition of infinite? limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. I will leave you to create your first argument and I hope to have a fun and interesting debate. One last question, Are we supposed to prove it mathematically, scientifically, abstractly ect? Could you just give me a rough idea?
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

I (pro) will be arguing that an actually infinite number of things is indeed possible and we can easily see it. BoP will be on me, but con must provide a refutation to my argument. Rules 1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 2. No trolling or lawyering. 3. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

The questions I asked at the end (What is infinity divided by infinity or infinity minus infinity?) were really just interesting things that came to mind and also a questioning of infinity. My answer to the question about philosophical facts and why they can't be true is that philosophy mostly focuses on no answers and thinking and opinions. For example is war good? Of course from an ethic or moral thought it is probably said to be bad. I am of course making a slight generalization but it doesn't really matter. Anyways from a scientific viewpoint there is no good or bad. Lets assume by good we mean it helps "humans". What is a human? Wars tend to kill humans but many hep humanity as a whole. What is the difference between humans and humanity. If a war kills 5 billion but means that 5 billion and 1 people who otherwise would have been killed live is it bad. Wars promote standards of living in general (with a couple of notable exceptions). They advance science and often trade. They help define "Us" and "them". I kind of got distracted there but anyways the point is that in philosophy the general idea is to think , not to find the "truth" in the scientific sense. As a matter of fact many believe that the universe can be written a purely mathematical equation and evidence points toward this being correct. If this is true then all of the facts in the universe would be reducible to a few mathematical equations. For example we currently have the standard model and relativity in physics that essentially sum up all that is known about the subject and mostly sum up physics as we know it(again with a few exceptions). If you believe these scientists then essentially the universe can be reduced to numbers and symbols and again it likely can. Again we come back to the question of what is a fact and what is true and a bunch of other questions that are semantics or have no clear answer, not even one that can be argued.
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

Well by definition, facts can't really be divided. That aren't physical things. I wasn't really arguing for a physical infinite. But nevertheless, the number of facts can't really be counted. Why can't philosophical facts be part of the world? But for the sake of argument, if they are true in some possible world (facts), then what's to stop other things from being actually infinite? What discriminate between physical and nonphysical (abstract) objects? Without abstractions, how would we even be able to calculate or understand what's around us?
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

I understand your point. Sorry, I thought you were arguing something else about facts. The first thing I have is just something I though of and it is just a thought, not an actual argument. If infinity can be defined as "impossible to measure or calculate" and the way you measure something s with numbers than essentially the definition of infinity is the point at which one thing in one set has nothing to match to in the numbers set. For example if I have 7 cows what does that mean? It means I have 1 cow for each number 1-7. Since numbers will always have something in the set to match to they can never technically reach infinity anyways. Anyways I will continue with the main part of the debate. This is actually largely semantics. For example 1+1=2. That is probably a fact by any reasonable definition. However 1+1=2 is a fact does not describe anything in the physical world. It could be true but it is not a fact. This turns into philosophy and is basically determined by the definition of "fact", "true" or another similar vague word. Here are a few interesting questions to think about. What is infinity divided by infinity or infinity minus infinity?
An actual infinite is possible and does exist.

I made a typo sorry. I meant there was an actually infinite number of facts, but only potentially infinite numbers and space. Con hasn't really addressed my argument from facts. For example, 1+1=2 is a fact. But if is also a fact that 1+1=2 is a fact. It is also a fact that 1+1=2 is a fact is a fact... And so on and so forth. Please address that argument.
It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Motion: It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God. Intro: In this debate I will attempt to argue that it is logical for someone to believe there is a God. Con will present a case to establish his assertion of the resolution's negation. BoP is shared.Definitions:Illogical: not observing the principles of logic. [1]Suppose: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal. [2]God: Tri-omni creator of the universe.Rules:1) No semantics, trolling, exessive amounts of foul language or insults.2) Forfeiture in 1 round results in conduct point loss, forfeiture in 2 or more is 7 point penalty.3) Case must be coherent and in English.4) Material may not be posted in comments, material from comments may not be used in the debate.5) If 10 or more sources are used, they may be posted in comments section.6) No redefining the defintions set, any clarifications must be sent in pm to me before the debate, clarifications may be made during the debate if absolutely necessary.7) Use of copywrited material is not permitted.Structure:My opponent will be debating as Con.4 RoundsR1 for acceptance only2 week voting period72 hours to respond8000 charactersSources:http://www.merriam-webster.com......http://www.merriam-webster.com......
Evil must have had influence on religion(s)

I am curious about this bc i never really get a straight answer. i would like my opponent to argue how it is logical that religious text was not influenced by evil in any way. Or at the very least, used for the purposes of a humans greed, control, ego, power, etc. I haven't taken a logic's course in a long time so please excuse me if i didn't do this right. I basically look at the logic like this: P1: Evil people exist P2: Evil people crave power among other narcissistic things P3: Evil people are not all unintelligent P4: Evil people are methodical and manipulative P5: Evil has always existed Conclusion: If one was an evil person x number of years ago and saw how easy it was to gather people through religion, they would use the religion for their evil desires against the followers. Hence, religious text must be tainted by evil.
Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

So I only have 12 minutes to do this, and I'm on a plane, but I'll give it my best shot. First of all, thank you to Zab for a very interesting, spirited round. There are just a few things I want to focus on to sum up the debate. 1. Do women give meaningful consent to polygamy as practiced in the US? I've argued that they do not, both because intuitively there is no intrinsic motivation for engaging in polygamy as a woman and because in practice the only group that engages in polygamy in the US is the FDLS, a Patriarchal group characterized by numerous other coercive behaviors towards women. We heard little response to these arguments, my opponent merely argued that allowing a single religious practice is somehow more important than protecting the rights of women. In particular, his failure to respond to the FGM analogy should win me the round. He argued above that the analogy doesn't hold because young women aren't old enough to give consent. The question I would ask is, if they were, would we then be okay with FGM in our society? I doubt it. 2. What do we achieve by banning polygamy? We have a broad-based initiative to target the many abuses that happen under its guise within the FDLS. Given that no other groups practice polygamy or want to, this seems like a reasonable infringement of rights. We also protect minors from the numerous harms of being raised in a polygamous society -- both analytical and empirical. I am afraid I am out of time, but I think my arguments above will hold up well enough. Please vote for Con! Thank you for reading, and thanks again to my opponent.
Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

I'm going to take the position "Polygamy ought to be legal in the US." I don't believe any definitions are needed to clarify this, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Please don't accept this debate if you aren't going to finish it or if you want to quote bible passages at me. I would like round one to simply be an acceptance to debate with me, we will use the remaining three rounds for the actual debate. Good luck! Zabcheckmate
The Paradox of the Stone is sound

Before I begin, I must ask that my opponent remain cool during the entire debate. The demeaning tone is not very conducive to academic discussion. With that, I'd like to begin. My opponent opens up by saying that the existence of such a stone is a logical impossibility. This only further bites back into the paradox as I already explained. He gives he example of it being like a square circle but a) gives no warrant for why it is such, just merely asserts that this true, b) it isn't like a square circle, since things exist that people cannot do. To say that the paradox is a square circle would be like me surviving a 50 foot drop unassisted is a square circle and cannot exist, which doesn't make sense, and c) even if this is true and it is a square circle it still links into the paradox since God can't create it, meaning he still bites into the paradox. The rest of the responses to the paradox itself follow that basic line of logic, and so since my opponents gives no analysis as to refute any of my arguments that explain why he isn't correct or still losing even if he is, you prefer my paradox. He then claims the first pre-empt is a strawman, but I never claimed my opponent made that claim I just picked out a possible place to attack it and outlined why that response isn't true. Obviously if he isn't making that response then it obviously wouldn't apply to the debate at hand. He then says that because its a logical contradiction it cannot exist because it would have no meaning. However a) he's still not providing a warrant as to why its a logical contradiction and b) it still would link into the paradox. My opponent then goes on to cite a few different people's argument without any sort of original analysis. I must ask that my opponent use his own work, or at least provide original analysis to expand upon other people's arguments. But to respond to the points about the paradox misinterpreting what omnipotence is, this is te ultimate example of cherry picking. It makes no logical sense to believe that god is omnipotent and capable of anything. .. .up to a certain point. Omnipotent, by definition, is capable of ANYTHING, meaning that there is no limit to God's omnipotence. To claim there are things God "cannot logically do" is illogical. So to recap: 1. My opponents sole argument against the paradox itself is that it's a logical contradiction and this doesn't apply to god. My opponent is not providing any warrant for why its a logical contradiction. He never explained how, even if he's right, how it doesn't link further back into the paradox, and he never answered back for why its bit a logical contradiction. As such, my arguments stand unrefuted.
The Paradox of the Stone is sound

http://www.youtube.com...There are many answers that have been given to this question.My favorit answer is that it's not even a question. The term "a rock god can't lift" has no meaning, it CANNOT exist.The term "a rock god can't lift", is an internal contradiction, analogous to the term square circle.There is no such thing as "a rock god can't lift", so you can't ask if he can create it.Analogy:Can god check mate with just a king? Is not a question, because there is no such thing as "check mate with just a king".(I give credit to Prof. Dale Gottlieb for this answer.)http://www.youtube.com...
The Paradox of the Stone is sound

This would happen to be the second debate that I have created, so hopefully I will have the time to engage in some good religious discussion in this one. My topic is simple, and hopefully will result in deep discussion of logic and faith.Resolved: The Paradox of the Stone is a sound argument against the existence of an all-powerful deity.Lets use some definitions, shall we?Paradox of the Stone: an argument that postulates that the existence of an all-powerful god is paradoxical, through using a metaphor depicting a large rock and asking god to create it to where he cannot lift it.Sound: of and making logical sense, reasonably sure of correctnessAll-Powerful: capable of any action, all-capable, omnipotentThe burden of proof, for this debate, will be upon me to present a defense for the argument. Of course my opponent's job is still to poke holes in the theory. But if I do a good enough job patching up the holes then I should be declared the winner. The first round, as in accordance to the "meta" of the site, is acceptance only so that my opponent may state his greetings and acceptance to me. The last round shall be free of any sort of new argumentation that cannot be found previously, as that would be inherently unfair. Let the academic discussion begin!
The ends justify the means

Among the most important things humanity faces is the philosophy of ethics. What should we do? Why should we do it? The answer to these questions is cardinal to the development of humanity. Morality is a complex issue, and sometimes it's not necessarily clear if there are even definite answers to these questions. When one sets out to determine if something is moral or not, one must first conclude what should be included for analysis. For instance, most people would agree that pushing a random person off a cliff would be an immoral act. However, it is only immoral if one looks at the results of that push, not the push itself. Thus, when one determines if an act is immoral or not, it is necessary to look at the full ramifications of an action rather than the intrinsic action itself. I argue that the ends to an action justify the means, because the morality of an action lies in the ramifications. If the 'means' produce lasting negative effects that outweigh the 'good' of the ends, then the 'means' to that situation become the ends. One has to remember that the 'ends' of a situation include the 'means,' so if the 'end' of a situation is morally preferable to the alternative of the action not happening, it is apparent that the action is moral and justified. I pass the debate to Con.
The ends justify the means

In this debate, I will be arguing that the ends justify the means while my opponent will be arguing that the ends don't necessarily justify the means. Definition of 'The ends justify the means' : "A good outcome excuses wrongs committed to attain it. "In this debate, nihilism (or apathetic views toward morality) may not be used as a talking point agaisnt or for the resolution. Important : Voters will ignore all other categories other than ' made more convincing arguments,' when voting. It is the responsibility of voters to counter any votes for other categories with a vote for the other party in the same category It is also the responsibility of the voter to comment that they have done so. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round. Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments. DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. By responding to this proposal you accept this debate. By accepting this debate, you accept all terms provided. Failing to comply with the above rules means a loss for the offender.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

Although I am Con, I will hold the same position that ALL the angels are subject to the law of Moses or, Torah, but the Character called "the angel of the LORD" is 100% Good. The Hebrew word for murder in Exodus 20; "Thou shalt not kill, or murder" is ratzakh, which means strictly murder in the sense of killing someone based on your own desire as a morally wrong motive. In every place where it says that "the angel of the LORD" killed some one it does not use this word, it uses the word nakah. this word actually only means to smite and it is required that it specifies "to death" for it to for sure mean to take a life. Yes, the text does clearly say that "the angel of the LORD" smote TO DEATH. But this killing is not called murder. God also commanded other righteous men, like Joshua, to kill the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The word nakah, or smite, is used here as well as another Hebrew word that means specifically to kill (harag). This word, again, does not mean murder as a morally wrong motive to kill as the word ratzakh does. It was only the ratzakh that we are all commanded not to do. The angel of the LORD is 100% good, only executing the righteous judgement of the Almighty.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

In "The Angel of the LORD is evil" part 1 my opponent made the argument that there is a double standard. That the LAW of Moses does not apply to the angels. That was the entire debate. As Pro I argued that there is a double standard but that it should not be allowed. That the angels are just as subject to the LAW of Moses as the humans are. Specifically that murder is against the law whether one is an Angel or a human. In this debate we are going to apply the LAW of Moses concerning murder directly instead of in the abstract as was done in the first debate "The Angel of the LORD is evil" My Bible text is thus- "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 NIV The Pro position, (mine) is that the Angels, all of them are subject to the Scripture just like all the humans are. As always my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con. Argument One: Jesus says that the devil was a murderer from the beginning. Therefore The Law of Moses directly applies to the Angels.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

Still stuff coming out of that hat... Exodus 2:11- "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto HIS BRETHREN, and looked on THEIR BURDENS (burdens of his brethren the Hebrews): and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, ONE OF HIS BRETHREN." Moses knew full well who he was. He knew that the Hebrews were his brethren. Moses was never called a murderer, although it is a possibility that it would have been considered murder. But the God of Israel is a merciful God and well able to forgive. When Yahuwah Showed himself to Moses in that burning bush, Moses surrendered all to Yah and was made clean. Yah then used a clean and humble man to set his people free. Not to kill them. The law was to show us how imperfect we are so that we would know that we need a savior; Y'shua the anointed one who gave himself on the cross, that we might live and not die. I don't know if maybe you are a Satanist, but what you are saying is so blasphemous. Your religion is obviously not based off the Old/New Covenant Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures.