BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is the only reasonable, default position to take.

Resolved: Atheism is the only reasonable default position. Preliminary Definitions:Atheism - lacking a positive belief in a god or gods (irrespective as to whether or not there is a positive belief in a no god or gods). Default position - the position to take, with regards to belief, prior to the inclusion of evidence or argument, either empirical or logical. Positive belief - a positive belief is a logical proposition which is held to be true. This distinction is important because refusing to hold a logical proposition to be true does not require one to hold its negation to be true. While we must acknowledge that, given two logically contradictory statements, one must be true and the other false; we can nevertheless refrain from staking a claim as to which, specifically, is true and which is false. Argument:1. There are an infinite number of logical propositions which could be believed.2. For any proposition which can be held as a positive belief, its negation can also be held as a positive belief (though not both at the same time).3. For a given proposition, we can either hold it to be true, or refrain from holding it to be true.4. A default position should be consistent, treating all propositions as being on equal footing (reminder: a default position is prior to the evaluation of evidence or argument in favor or against any proposition)5. Given that we are initially treating all propositions equally, we must either initially accept all propositions as true, or refrain from accepting any proposition as true.6. Given that the set of all propositions include contradictions, and given that contradictions cannot be believed, we cannot accept all propositions as true.7. Therefore, as a matter of establishing a default position, we must refrain from accepting any proposition as true.8. This includes the proposition: "a god or god exists."9. Therefore atheism is the only reasonable default position. The axiomatic premises of the argument above include #1, #2, and #4. Con's refutation, then, should (but not necessarily) be either: A) A demonstration of why we should not accept #1, #2, or #4.B) A demonstration of why the remaining steps of the argument do not follow from #1, #2, #4 or other accepted logical principles (such as the Law of Non-contradiction).C) A demonstration of how this argument could lead to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum). The above list is by way of example, and not limitation.
Atheism is the only reasonable, default position to take.

I will focus my last round on this phrase, that seems to me to be the main point of the argument provided by Pro, since it is the only argument he provides for the acceptanceof #4 as an axiom:"I submit that randomness is not suitable to establish a baseline of acceptable propositions.The odds of settling upon a set of default positions that are cohesive and usable are negligible."I just would like to remember that the alternative proposed by Pro to solve this problemconsists in accepting either all propositions or none of them. I just would like to rememberthat both solutions are as random and as unlikely to provide cohesive and usable results as any other possible random default positions.My argument for rejecting #4 is therefore the same as the one Pro uses to accept it: assticking to a random solution is not suitable for establishing a baseline of acceptable propositions, the idea of choosing a default position by a method that does not take intoaccount or analyzes the chosen propositions is doomed to produce random, unusable and uncohesive results.By the way, what is more random, unusable and less cohesive than a position that accepts ANYTHINGby default? That is what #4 proposes.As a final remark, maybe the core weakness of the proposed argument is not in the argument itself but on the idea of selecting a "default position" without consulting any kind of evidenceor argument before deciding what position to take, which we both agree that seems to producerandom, unusable and uncohesive results. In fact, the very fact that one seems to be looking for cohesive and usable results indicates that the idea of "default position" as it has been defined inthe preliminary definitions is not reasonable.Let me explain. By the answer provided by Pro in round 3, I suppose that a "reasonable default position"would be a position that is at least "cohesive and usable", but, in order to know if any given default position is "reasonable" one would need to analyze it to make sure that it is "cohesive" and "usable".However, the fact that it is cohesive and usable would constitute an argument for accepting this particularproposition instead of other ones; which leads us to conclude that this proposition is not a default proposition because it has not been accepted without argument! That is the case of the present argument, that is used to propose atheism as a default position, the very fact that an argument justifies the acceptanceof atheism makes it not eligible as a "default position".Finally, this whole idea of "default position" seems to me to be very contrary to what atheism itself defends: consulting the evidences of the inexistence of god to conclude that it doesn't exist.
Atheism is the only reasonable, default position to take.

Acceptance of #4. Con raises a good question. Indeed, it would seem that my argument would have us reject all axioms (since, by their nature, they do not stem from prior arguments). If we reject all axioms, however, logic fails. The debate may turn on this point. My reasoning is this: That axioms do not stem from prior argument is not to say that axioms are accepted without reason, without argument, or without evidence. Consider the Law of Non-contradiction. This is an axiom most people accept. If I were asked why should one accept it, I might cite the principle of explosion and the ill-side effects of not accepting it. This is an argument in a more informal sense and doesn't entail the truth of the Law of Non-contradiction (otherwise it wouldn't be an axiom) but it nevertheless provides a reason to accept it. The default position, however, is the position taken prior to such reasoning. So, how does this apply to #4? Well, we have a choice between taking a stance that is the same among all propositions, or a stance that differs from proposition to proposition. If we perform the latter, by what means do we decide what propositions we accept as true and which we refrain from accepting as true? Since this is a discussion of default positions, we cannot rely on evidence or argument, so what does that leave? Randomness. I submit that randomness is not suitable to establish a baseline of acceptable propositions. The odds of settling upon a set of default positions that are cohesive and usable are negligible. Since it seems that this premise is the only primary point in contention, there seems little else I can add. Either the reasons above are sufficient, or they are not. Providing support for axioms is difficult, often relying upon mutually agreed self-evidence. I do not submit that #4 is self-evident, but I do argue that it should be accepted for the reasons above.
In the long run, Keynesian economic policies have proven to be ineffective

Also, some definitions to clear up any confusion: Long-run: The period of time in which all prices, especially wages, are flexible, and have achieved their equilibrium levels. Keynesian: Acting along the lines of the Keynesian school of economic thought, which is based upon the work of British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics follows demand-side theory, and focuses on influencing aggregate demand through active stabilizing policies. Proven to be ineffective (In this context): Failed to achieve long-run economic growth, which would be shown in long-run economic measurements and observations.
In the long run, Keynesian economic policies have proven to be ineffective

2C0A: I accept. 2C0B: Let me remind everyone that the full Burden of Proof (BOP) is on the Pro side. I (Con) do not need to prove that Keynesian economics are effective, merely negate Pro's evidence, though proving so would win me the debate. 2C0C: For the definition of "long run", I request a method to determine if an economy is in equillibrium, and if not, then how close it is to equilibrium. 2C0D: For "Keynesian", whether reemployment programs (ie, the CCC) apply, whether poverty and unemployment assistance programs (food stamps) apply, and whether all government-run programs (NHS) apply. 2C0E: For "ineffective", which indicator(s) are accepted. 2C0F: I'm going away for Monday-Wednesday. Please post as late as possible, to allow me time to respond.
There is no such thing as an immune system

1. Quote - "I disagree that iodine can directly replace the immune system." My research reference clearly reveals that this assumption is false. page 2 - http://iodineresearch.com... You have completely disregarded the research of Stossel, Venturi, Woeber and Deruberti. Iodine is the main weapon that the immune system uses in destroying bacteria. Without iodine the immune system would be like a toothless tiger. 2. Quote - "I also disagree that the having a paleo diet for the rest of your life can ensure that you can never see a doctor in your life." Before going onto a Paleo diet I was constantly sick, had chest pains and headaches. Since going on a paleo diet all my chest pains are gone, no colds or flu and no headaches either. I have given you dozens of reference books about the Paleo diet and its health benefits. You can test it for yourself. Then you will see that I was right. 3. Antibiotics. The fact that doctors give people antibiotics to kill bacteria in the gut tells us three things. (a) The the immune system doesn't work because the immune system isn't killing the germs. (b) Doctors ignore the true cause of disease and pretend that the germs are making people sick when they should be looking at the person's diet. (c) That doctors don't use iodine to kill germs because there is no money in giving dietary advice or issuing iodine which can be produced very cheaply. Thus, we can see that the medical system is corrupt and all about making money. This is why they ignore iodine as a cure for disease. Yes. Iodine is very cheap and you can get it for next to nothing. Thus, doctors will recommend that you use dangerous drugs to kill all the bacteria in your gut so that you will most likely starve to death as a result. This is because you need bacteria in the gut to aid in food digestion. The medical system even spreads rumours that iodine is poisonous to humans so that people will avoid trying it as a solution for their particular problem. 4. Quote - "Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a major and worsening problem today," This is just nonsense. Bacteria are not the cause of disease. Bacteria belong in the gut and not in the blood stream. "Bacteria are a result of a disease and are not the cause of it". Antoine Bechamp. https://www.naturalnews.com... 5. Most diseases are airborne. Just an unjustified myth. I am constantly in the presence of cold and flu suffer's and don't get any of their symptoms. That's because I know what the true cause of these so called 'viruses'. Its bad diet. My final piece of evidence is Professor Pettenkofer who famously swallowed a vial of cholera bacterium to prove that germs are not the cause of disease. Note - He survived without any ill effects. https://jamanetwork.com...
There is no such thing as an immune system

1. Iodine and the immune system. My opponent states that iodine has nothing to do with the immune system but nothing could be further from the truth. Quote - " However, iodine does not play a leading role in the immune system" http://iodineresearch.com... My reference quote -- Iodide is accumulated during phagocytosis, the process of engulfing and ingesting bacteria and other foreign bodies. The iodide is attached to the bacteria and to proteins, creating iodoproteins including monoiodotyrosine. Thus, we can plainly see that without iodine the immune system would not be able to kill any bacteria in the blood stream. This demonstrates that my opponent hasn't researched the matter in much detail and is just relying on hearsay evidence. 2. My opponent seems to think that it is highly unlikely that all disease begins in the gut. "All disease begins in the gut." " Hippocrates Now, the father of medicine really knew his stuff. Right! And that was 2,500 years ago. https://www.dietvsdisease.org... https://www.healthline.com... 3. Antibiotics have nothing to do with this debate? Evidence is evidence. You shouldn't discount any evidence until the final synopsis and analysis of all the evidence put forward. Only in hindsight can we say that something is irrelevant. Well, as things stand at the moment, the antibiotics evidence looks like pretty bad news for your side of the argument. Thus, I can see your haste in wanting to get rid of it. lol Note - The immune system doesn't need a huge amount of iodine. The tiniest trace of iodine is sufficient to kill bacteria. Don't forget, we evolved from the ocean where there is an abundance of iodine. 4. No research done on the Paleo diet? I don't think that you have spent much time looking for it. http://thepaleodiet.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://scholarship.depauw.edu... 5. Where's the fraud? Answer - Just step into any medical clinic and you will see it everywhere. Maybe Wade Frazier can answer that question for me. https://ahealedplanet.net...
There is no such thing as an immune system

Hello Akhenaten Big claim you're making here. Trying to disprove everything about what humans have discovered about how the body fights off germs. Antibiotics have nothing to do with this https://www.naturalnews.com...... The fact that the website is about how to IMPROVE your IMMUNE SYSTEM already says that the immune system exists. https://www.globalhealingcenter.com...... In your "soldier analogy" You cannot compare nature to what science has discovered. Nature is great and wonderful and science has only scratched the surface. The immune system is not some "invention". It is a built in system that is present in most living organisms. Firstly, The human body relies on different enzymes/chemicals/cells from different organs to create a fully functioning immune system. If you claim that the immune system does not exist. If you have an insight into how nature/human body works, how do you explain white blood cells, T cells, B cells, NK cells? If nature takes the simplest path, why didn't nature just not create white blood cells etc. The fact is that the immune system does exist and that it plays an essential role in fending off foreign objects and harmful organisms. Secondly,The endocrine system is hormone based and mainly stimulates other parts of the body to perform their functions and does not directly destroy bacteria or other harmful organisms like the immune system does. This is another "soldier analogy" One army just has a bunch of supplies but has no soldiers, just some people sitting in an office 1000 miles away. vs One army with some supplies to remain functioning with soldiers, equipment etc The first army could be a key factor in a battle should it aid the second army, but without the second army, it is completely ineffective! Lastly, how much proof do you need? The immune system is common sense. https://www.health.harvard.edu... https://www.vaccines.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... All official organizations with research Thanks
There is no such thing as an immune system

1. Hmmm????????? Your video sounds very convincing. The pictures are flashing by very fast and the commentator is talking very quickly too. It looks like a very complicated process. But, fortunately, I have an insight into how nature works. Nature doesn't work by complicating things. Nature works by simplifying. The model that is shown in this video is just a computer generated model of a very vague theory about how the medical authorities think the immune system SHOULD work. They have all these interconnecting pathways leading to and fro throughout the human body. Note - Nature always takes the simplest path to complete any task. 2. The soldier analogy If you have two armies going to battle. Army one has weapons, transport, food and ammunition. Army two has no weapons, transport, food and ammunition but has knowledge of the enemy. Which army would win this battle? Obviously, army one is going to win this battle, because army one is prepared for anything whereas army two is better prepared but has no means of destroying the enemy and feeding their troops. Thus, we can plainly see having knowledge of the enemy is a waste of time and as I have stated previously; - Nature doesn't do either waste or complication when a simpler solution is available. 3. The human body's natural defense system doesn't work in the manner described in the video. The human body works on the endocrine system which is an iodine based system. Thus, if you have a sufficient supply of iodine your body will be able to defend and repair itself. https://www.naturalnews.com... https://www.globalhealingcenter.com... 4. Mistakes. Only humans make mistakes. Like germ theory, vaccination, Koch's laws and virus theory. All mistakes. 5. The human gut already contains all the worlds most deadly bacteria, yet, nobody is dying from it. Why? That's because bacteria belong in the gut and not in the blood stream. How do bacteria get into the blood stream? Answer - Leaky gut syndrome from eating inappropriate foods. http://www.myleakygutsyndrome.com...
There is no such thing as an immune system

Hello Akhenaten., First of all 1.are you talking about how the immune system is only an excuse for doctors to use vaccinations? or 2.are you saying that the body's "natural defense system" that destroys bacteria/foreign objects does not exist. Secondly, what is this "mistake" you are talking about? It's very confusing. Are you saying that humans made a mistake when creating humans? or some thing similar? I hope you will clarify that. I watched the video that you posted. If you touch or have contact with an infected person. its not a 100% guarantee that you will become infected. That's just like saying My brother has a common cold. I touched his forehead. Therefore, I must be sick. The virus is probably in the infected woman's partner's body. HIV spreads very slowly and most infections aren't revealed years after infection. If you don't know how the immune system works, check out this video for you. Thanks
story writing debate

I appreciate and accept birdlandmemories" humbly apology and I implore you, to give him the points for conduct as he fairly deserves it, and is far more worthy of them then I. Years past and Zacharee grow up into a beautiful young woman. After she was adopted by a Christian couple the Waynes , she dedicated her whole life to stopping human rights violations. She authored 5 books her best title being: The battle field is not all love- A true story of child soldiers" close encounters with death, which won 20 awards. She fell in love a man named Zaleczender and the day of her 18th birthday they were wed. they went on and had 7 children their lifetime: Ziri, Zakuro, Zaltana, Zelos, Zenevieva, Zesiro , and Zevenagos. Their whole family died after a terrorist attack on September 11th 2077, all together they ascended to heaven to walk with the Most High. At their joined funeral a wise man spoke about their lives, and the 5000 people all raised their voices and sang, "To God be the glory great things he hath done, so loved me the world that he gave us his son"" Though the sadness they all had hope, the had hope in Christ to see them all again when they met.
story writing debate

I apologize for the forfeit. Please award my opponent conduct. I met with a doctor the next day. He told me that if I had come just in time and that if I had continued watch so much tv, I would suffer serious brain damage. So I went on a tv hiatus. I eventually got to the point where I was almost watch little to no tv. Instead, I was spending more time outside, going for a walk, or playing a game of basketball with the people down the street. I decided to go back to the doctor one more time to check my progress. "You are perfectly healthy now", the doctor said. I was filled with joy. I had cut down on tv and unhealthy foods, and was now in good shape, and began eating healthier. I had found success and enjoyment in something other than tv.
story writing debate

Obviously by this time you realize the story teller is a huge idiot but it's all cool, right? So Aluko and the war lord's collaborators looked around shocked to what had just happened, the men still told him to continue his evil charge. As he came closer to Keinetti's father everyone heard a deep rumble, it was so loud. Then the ground shock, it was a great earthquake the ground opened up and swallowed them all. She woke up with a scream seeing their bodies fall into a endless pit. Zacharee looked around the room startled making sure she woke no one up. In a orphanage she didn't have the ability to make to much noise in fear she would wake up the other children.
story writing debate

The rain poured and poured for 7 more minutes. It was at least if not more then 10 inches a minute. Nobody has ever seen anything like it (except for Noah's flood but that's a huge exception). Now this might be a awful time for a plot change but better now then ever, right? Wrong, let's continue this story as if nothing had ever happened and we never had this conversation. Okay? Good. But spoiler alert everyone dies. Great right? The rain all of a sudden stops, everybody looks up at the hot blue sky, if you didn't know any better you would have thought it was a dream. Wait, was it a dream?
story writing debate

Thank you Spencerjoage14 for story. As I walked around the scene, I pondered what to do. Should I get a new tv? Should I Go to a neighbor's house and watch the games? Should I just give up sports altogether? I ended up getting a new tv. I also decided to give up on taking notes, as I suddenly saw no purpose in taking them. I could just watch the games for pleasure, after all. Week after week, I spent every day watching sporting event after sporting event. I hardly stopped watching tv. I sacrificed hours of sleep, staying up to watch sports. I had basically become addicted to tv. "Another week gone watching sports", I thought to myself. I just continued to watch and watch until a part of me had become tired of all the sports. "You really need to stop watching too much tv", my conscience told me. "You are wasting hours of your life in front of that screen". I thought about what my mind had just said. Maybe I had been wasting time all along. Maybe it was time to get all that tv watching to a minimum. I really needed to get help. But where could I go?