BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
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. Mediumsalsa is someone i met 5 minutes ago in a youtube discussion, and this is the result :)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.........
logic is cause and effect

since pro has declined to expand on his assertion or refute my interpretation of it, I am forced to continue to use that interpretation. if logic were cause and effect in the sense that the premises cause the conclusion, then there should be no exceptions to this rule. However, non-sequitur arguments, or arguments with false premises and true conclusions are exceptions. thus, pro's original argument is invalid. rebuttals: "logic is not reasoning" google defines reasoning as "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.". I fail to see how thinking about something logically is not logic. " all cause and effect relations are logic" This statement is the converse of the original title of the debate, thus it has different logical truth values. As such, it cannot be used as evidence to support the original claim. " you show why I am wrong, con.. or you do not exist in this debate" Pro seems to be making statements that are demonstrable untrue. This sentence alone proves I exist in this debate.
logic is cause and effect

Addressing the title of the debate: 'logic is cause and effect'. by logic, I presume he means that in a logical syllogism, the premises are the causes and the conclusion is the effect. while this seems intuitive, I believe it to be a flawed analogy. Pro has defined cause, but not effect. As such, according to Google, a definition of cause and effect is "the principle of causation. ". kinda self-referential, but it also lists causation as "the relationship between cause and effect; causality. " causality is defined as "the principle that everything has a cause. " now we are getting somewhere. in order for the statement 'logic is cause and effect' to be true, Pro would have to show how the premises cause the conclusion. this will be difficult in the case where the premises are false and the conclusion is true, or when the premises have nothing to do with the conclusion.
Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon" is the greatest classic rock album of all time.

I accept this challenge, mainly because I consider the album in question to be over rated. R1: Not "absolutely superb" This is a simple Modus Tollens review, If A, then B Not B Therefore not A. If "perfectly crafted and made," then "the greatest classic rock album of all time." It is not perfectly crafted and made, as evidenced by it needing to be repeatedly remastered [1]. Therefore, it is not "the greatest classic rock album of all time." R2: Other Great Albums I "Nothing even comes close to its mastery," is an easy to disprove claim. Without appeals to authority of sales charts etc., I offer up Nine Inch Nails The Fragile for consideration [2, cue YouTube at 16:26, and I suggest just leaving it playing in the background]. The entire album is one continuously flowing piece of music which evolves from one track to the next, rather than doing the standard disconnect. For an example, At 23:42 (listen a few seconds before and after) the songs seamlessly shift from We're In This Together Now, to The Fragile. C1: Burden of Proof The claim is not merely a very good album, but the greatest of all time. This is an incredibly strong claim, which will prove difficult for Pro to support let alone prove, and prove it he must. This problem is worse for the entirely subjective nature of the terms (were I a jerk, I'd play a semantics game arguing that The Rock Book contains far more pictures of rocks), when pro is trying to prove an objective conclusion. Conversely, my duty is not to prove any other album is the greatest, but to cast sufficient doubt on pro's claim (no I will not argue that hypothetically one that wasn't released could be better). C2: Ticket To Ride The Dark Side of the Moon contains a clip from Ticket To Ride [2]. If accidental, it proves the album is flawed. If intentional, it suggests their humility in proclaiming The Beatles to be "a perfect pinnacle of rock music," which their own having to borrow from cannot be. C3: Other Great Albums II I'm not trying to Gish Gallop into the sunset, but offer a small sampling of popular disagreement with pro's assertion. ShortList.com proclaims Green Day's American Idiot to be the best [4], an album so great it was adapted into a Broadway musical. The same list rates The Dark Side of the Moon at 18th place Guitar World puts The Who's Who's Next first [5], and The Dark Side of the Moon at 5th place. Sources: [1] Remastered https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Nine Inch Nails, YouTube http://youtu.be... [3] Beatles Superiority: http://www.songfacts.com... [4] Green Day http://www.shortlist.com... [5] The Who http://www.guitarworld.com...
There is a God who created the universe

Thank you Patsox for taking almost three days to respond. Let's continue: My opponent: I never said that at all; my opponent is completely misrepresenting my argument. I was saying that since the universe's constituency has always existed, that means there's no need for a creator. I also said it's impossible to be around before something that has always been. My opponent is saying that there is no need for a creator. He justifies his belief that there is no creator by saying the universe's constituency has always existed, and it is impossible to be created if you were around forever. However, he believes that it hasn't been in its current form for all of time. So, if nothing else was around, what caused it to change forms? A God? My opponent: Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well. What I was trying to say is that any way of trying to explain our universe through logic is truly, not logical. I mean, what do we know? We're only human. So, any attempt of a human trying to explain something is flawed. However, a theist doesn't need to explain, a theist has faith. Faith triumphs logic any day of the week. My opponent: My opponent is saying that humans are flawed, which means our conclusions are flawed, which means our conclusions aren't true. So...every conclusion drawn by an individual human is "flawed," and therefore, "not true," according to my opponents logic. If something is flawed then it isn't true. Well, its not 100% true. It can have elements of truth in it, but, ultimately, it will be flawed and contain only some truth. It's called a gray area. Humans are smart enough to figure out some things, but dumb enough not to figure out everything. Science, ultimately, makes theories and laws based on half-truths. Science is very "circumstantial". Take for example evolution, evolution is established like a pyramid, with each idea relying on others. If one idea comes crashing down, then the whole theory is wrong. Science is too "iffy" to explain our universe. My opponent: "My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails." Our universe is like a filing cabinet. Everything is in its place. We have the laws of motion and time, which keep the universe steady and never changing. Something with so much order must have an organizer. If our universe was created by chance, then it would be too unstable to sustain life. Thank you.
There is a God who created the universe

God-an all powerful being who presides over all the universe and created it. Creation-the act of creating. In this case, the act of creating the universe. **Note: We are not debating about any religion's God, just whether or not the idea of a God is feasible. My opponent will also have to present a theory that explains the creation of the universe without a God, that argument must prove, or he will have lost this debate** I understand I have the burden of proof on me, but so do you. You have to prove their isn't a God, I have to prove there is. We are both equally challenged. MY ARGUMENTS: 1) A painting requires an artist. Simply, because the universe exists it requires a creator. The Big Band Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, because, it states that everything came from one molecule in space a long time ago. However, the Big Bang Theory doesn't tell us how that molecule got there. How can something come from nothing? 2) The universe is perfect. Our universe is governed by a set of laws that is never changing. Examples of these laws are the laws of motion, the laws of speed and time, etc. Since our universe is perfect, then it must have a perfect creator. 3) There are too many "coincidences" to be chance, a creator must have made these conditions. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun, the "perfect" evolutionary history of the Earth led to human life, the atmospheric and meteorological conditions on Earth are "perfect" to sustain life, humankind played its cards right and it is now the master "perfect" species. Statistically, the odds of all these "perfect" coincidences are less than one millionth of a percent. 4) Since humankind believes in a God, he must exist. Humankind has believed in a God since the very beginning of time. So the aspect of God is not simply a cultural aspect, but rather a trait that all humans share. Even though several cultures have been isolated from each other, they all believed in the idea of a God or gods. So humankind inherited a belief in God. Who did they inherit it from? None other than God himself. 5) The human body has instructions. And all instructions have intent. Human cells contain a code that consists of chemical compounds that scientist abbreviate as A, T, C, and G. Example: CTGAATGTA. These chemical compounds tell our cells how exactly to work and how to sustain our lives. They act like our instruction manual. Instruction manuals are written by people, our instruction manual is written by God. 6) I love therefore he is. The human being is the only known living organism on the planet that can experience love. Since the human being is the only organism that can feel love, it did not inherit that trait from any other living thing. The human being did not gain love through an evolutionary process. Instead, it was granted love. It was granted love by God.
Is FoodLion Better than Walmart? (Pro is for FoodLion)

1. Come on guys.... Is money everything in this world? Food Lion only made about 13.7 billion dollars, but what they lack in money they make up for with great atmosphere and FANTASTIC customer service. When I walk into a Food Lion I can feel the friendship in the air. There has been more than one occasion where I have walked into a Wal-Mart and have been overwhelmed with the smell of disinfectant and the witch that inhabits register 2..... just saying.2. Electronics? That's what Best Buy is for! Food Lion has a pretty awesome bakery. Who cares if Wal-Mart's is larger? It's about QUALITY not QUANTITY.3. Who CARES if Wal-Mart has christmas decorations and halloween costumes? Who cares besides middle-aged women and 5 year olds. Everyone knows that Food Lion appeals evenly to all ages. That's all that matters.My opponent has failed to refute my AWESOME LION LOGO argument. Extend that argument. Because lions are F*CKING AWESOME!!!!
Is FoodLion Better than Walmart? (Pro is for FoodLion)

Points 1. Wal Mart makes more money than FoodLion. Walmart makes 400 billion dollars a year, Food Lion has no such statistics on the net so im going to assume less. 2. Walmart has more items such as electronics, larger bakery, etc. 3.Walmart also sell holiday items such as christmas decorations to halloween costumes.
Spider-man would beat Batman one to one combat

It's fight so Batman would not try to think out of it and if you did he would he would lose the fight. To keep adding on Spider-man has his web's which could slow down Batman a lot. Plus with one punch landed one Batman by Spider-man Batman would be at lest knocked out. Finally when Batman faces unorthodox people like joker, bane, ect.. he usually fail's to win the first time and Spider-man very unorthodox plus with Spider-mans extra strength well K.O
All actions are meaningless from an objective perspective.

Unless I'm mistaken, for the purposes of this debate, the following definition of "meaning" is being used: "the end, purpose, or significance of something. "[1]My opponent's arguments, syllogized, seem to be:P1: The universe is nothing but physical processes. P2: Physical processes are meaningless. C: The universe is meaningless. P3: Life is about procreation and survival. P4: Procreation and survival are meaningless. C: Life is meaningless. Pro, please correct me on these if I am wrong. Both arguments are logically sound. In order to dispute the conclusions, I must attack the premises. I will now address P2 and P4. Purpose On a Basic LevelBy definition, anything that results from a process can be that process' meaning, as the result is the "end, purpose, or significance" of its process. Almost anything can be said to have a purpose. Butterflies pollinate flowers, vultures clean up waste, I take part in online debates. Now, perhaps you don't consider those purposes to be truly meaningful. .. ObjectivityMy opponent's resolution states that actions are meaningless from an objective perspective. However, is it possible to know this? Has my opponent ever examined meaning from an objective perspective? How did he know it was truly objective? The problem with arguing from objectivity is that objectivity in regard to meaning is impossible to achieve, because. .. Meaning is Inherently SubjectiveWhether or not an action or result is truly meaningful, purposeful, or significant is purely subjective. To me, physical processes, procreation, and survival may be very significant and meaningful, while they are meaningless to you. Which of us has the objective perspective? Neither of us. The concept of "meaning" is not some transcendent being that exists outside of physical processes. We, the observers, invented the word and concept to describe things that we subjectively consider significant. The Standard of MeaningIf it were possible that meaning could be determined apart from our own subjectivity, then there must be a standard. Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that my opponent is correct, and physical processes and life are meaningless. In order for him to have judged this, he must have a standard of measurement. So, what has my opponent used to measure meaning? He must, necessarily, have something he considers meaningful with which to contrast everything else. Declaring that nothing has meaning, therefore everything is meaningless is like saying nothing is big, therefore everything is small. If you have nothing you consider the former, how can you judge the latter? I do not need to address my opponent's P1 and P3, because his P2 and P4 are impossible to support. Back to you, Pro. ------[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
All actions are meaningless from an objective perspective.

My argument is essentially that which I have stated in my opening remarks.1. There is no meaning in physics.If it is accepted that an element of the universe is bound by physical laws, and that living beings are observers are elements of the universe, there is no room for meaning or purpose. The position that "everything happens for a meaning" is also false since the root of all events can be traced to the physical/chemical processes which initiated them. Laws of physics are too simple to lead to any purposeful outcome. 2. Our existence is a cycle of life and death.Each living being, or each component therein, exists in such a way that it lives with an apparent purpose of allowing its successor the ability to live. This even applies to mental processes: one often thinks in order to predict future events for the future self (successor) to handle. However, once the living being perishes, it is no longer of any apparent purpose. With respect to that specific conscious being, its existence was meaningless, and so is the successor, especially since the origin of life was without sufficient purpose as well.
All actions are meaningless from an objective perspective.

I will attempt to argue that all conscious actions or thoughts originating from a conscious observer are essentially meaningless.By meaningless, I am trying to suggest, among other things, that all actions and thoughts effectively lead to an empty goal. With respect to life, it is my position that life constantly reproduces itself with no meaningful objective.At some point, life can be said to have begun. The cause for this beginning is likely a result of essentially deterministic physical processes which resulted in a replicating structure. If it is accepted that the ultimate goal in life is reproduction, and that the origin of life is a result of the application of uncontrolled physical laws, then the inevitable conclusion is that life is meaningless.However, if those beliefs are not met, I believe the conclusion that life is without meaning can still be reached.Keep in mind that this refers to the core of meaning. For example, if I move my fist to punch a wall, moving my fist would have meaning within the context of the need to punch a wall; however, for the purposes of this debate I would say that moving the fist is effectively meaningless, assuming punching a wall is a useless action.
xxxtentacion was a great person

Also even after his death, X had a foundation going, And it raised $25, 000 to buy a machine that assisted a paralyzed fan. A similar charity was also able to feed over a thousand people in need. To add on, X knew that he was a bad person in the past, And he desperately tried to redeem himself. Malcom X was a bad person as well, But he also tried to get better and became a civil rights activist. Just like how Malcom X was respected for his change in life, We should also respect X for trying to turn his life around.
xxxtentacion was a great person

Well, Thanks for accepting the challenge. xxxtentacion's made several songs that touches on heavy subjects such as heartbreak, Loss, And depression, Which helped many people that suffer from depression and trauma from past events. His song "Hope" is a tribute to all those who lost their lives in the parkland shooting. x has also participated in various charity events to help those in need. One of such is the #helpinghandchallenge, Where he bought several game consoles, TVs, Musical instruments, And stuffed animals to a foster home. People shame x for he's a supposedly beat a pregnant woman. X was only charged with battery of his girlfriend, Not convicted, So it has not been confirmed that X did indeed beat Geneva. Several evidence and medial reports prove that Geneva lied about being domestically abused: https://imgur. Com/a/6wIxy Geneva herself even admitted that she lied about being beaten. Her instagram username "@liar" suggests that she was lying. The phone call between X and Geneva alongside her friend Jasmine also shows that she lied: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=6Z1MQMdKsgE Geneva also attempted in attending X's vigil (which was unsuccessful after she was kicked out) and she also visited X's grave to pay respects after he died. I mean, If someone who tortured you and severely injured you just died, Logically you wouldn't go to that person's grave and mourning to pay respects.
god is a being composed of thirteen thousand box copies of "Arthur's Wonderful Day at the Library"

scientists have observed molemacules triboolizing and foobulating at a very fast rate. This allows us to triangulafoobulate the variables and conclude that god not only exists, but is a being created out of 13,000 box copies of "Arthur's Wonderful Day at the Library" "yaint argue with that, this boi finna know what he boolin' about" - Plato
god is a being composed of thirteen thousand box copies of "Arthur's Wonderful Day at the Library"

Now don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that microscopic foobulations has not been proven to have any direct correlation or relationship when it comes to triangulafoobulating the variables. Secondly there is an inherent problem of having God being made of something physical. All physical objects have to apply to the rules of cause and effect, and if something did cause God, he would not be the ultimate God anymore. In fact the God that created your god would be the ultimate god. So since your whole entity is composed of 13,000 copies of a physical object, there is no way this could be truly God.
why "surveys, offers, discounts, circumstances, approaches...." are countable nouns???!!!

In fact This is rather a question than debates, Why " Surveys, circumstances, lies, approaches, procedures " are countable nouns??? Can it be tangible?? Or visible?? They are so abstract concept!!!! Then how could we -dare..- count them as "decisions"???? Let me know the reason! And show me the way to define it clearly!!!
Food Irradiation

Although the produce loses vitamins during the irradiation process obtaining those vitamins through other items would not be a problem. The risk of hospitals, schools, restaurants, and prisons, selling contaminated or even insect infested food to America's population would be chaotic. Irradiation allows specific produce to be stored for months and even years, decreasing waste and increasing the amount of food given to those whom need it. http://www.physics.isu.edu...
Food Irradiation

It may be safe but losing enzymes is horrible because the food loses vitamins that a person requires to keep a healthy body. For example irradiation food loses Vitamin C which are in oranges, potatoes, and other fruits which is important for having healthy gums,teeth, muscle , helps heal wounds, fight infection, reduce heart diseases, and reduce cataract. Example 2: Vitamin E which are in oil, corn, nuts, seed, and green vegetables, this vitamin produce materials to protect body tissues , fight heart diseases and cancer, and Alzheimer disease. Example 3: Vitamin B1- which are in whole grains, beans, and meat which are source of thiamine (which converts carbohydrates to energy) while these products are in storage for three months it losses about 62% of the vitamins in the food plus more vitamin loss when cooked. http//:document.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/IrradiationVatiaminsLoss.pdf
Food Irradiation

http://www.foodhaccp.com... (first point) You're correct, irradiation cannot kill ALL types of bacteria in the produce but it is certainly a safer and more productive alternative to any other techniques to clean food. Like toxic chemicals being sprayed over the produce or even pasteurization. Which pasteurizes the food by heating it to extreme temperatures and killing vital enzymes, which are important our health. But more importantly irradiation decreases the use of the chemicals to better the environment. http://www.fda.gov...