BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

The exact scenario of the axe parts' replacement was never formally established; so far there have been two possibilities presented: 1. The parts are each just replaced, one after the other, with each part being replaced all at once. 2. The head wears down to the point of nonexistence and is then replaced with a new one. Then the handle wears down to the point of nonexistence and is also replaced. A third possibility may have been implied through some of my opponent's analogies: 3. The head wears down, atom by atom, and is gradually replaced, atom by atom (each atom being replaced immediately after its removal, as opposed to 2, in which the atoms are all replaced at once at the end). A fourth possibility is: 4. The head wears down (but not to the point of nonexistence) and is then replaced with a new one. Then the handle wears down (but not to the point of nonexistence) and is also replaced. The definition of "same" given was "unchanged in character, condition, etc." In the second scenario, the axe is clearly changed in condition – its nonexistent head is replaced with a new one. It is changed from a damaged to an undamaged condition. In the fourth scenario, the axe is again clearly changed in condition – its partly-destroyed head is replaced with a new, unworn head. It is also changed from a damaged to an undamaged condition. With regard to the first and third scenarios, it is important to look again at the definition of "same" – "unchanged in character, condition, etc." In order for something to be "unchanged," it must not have changed (change - to become altered or modified [1]) . In the first scenario, the axe is changed when the original head or handle is removed from it. It is then returned to something very much like its original state, but it was changed (twice) and is thus not "unchanged." In the third scenario, the axe is changed millions of times as each atom is replaced, and is thus not "unchanged." Neither is the "same." My opponent has not presented any scenario in which the axe would be the "same" by his definition. As such, he has not proved his resolution. Again, thank you for the challenge to the debate, and for introducing me to the site. [1] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

My opponent states that the atom would not matter. But then, what if you switch the entire bike frame for another, one atom at a time? Clearly, each individual atom does not change the bike, as you have said. The end result would have to be considered the same as the first. Changing the axe head is just changing a lot of atoms at the same time. The human body constantly kills and grows new cells. Would you say that you are the same person you were a month ago? The most logical answer is yes. If you have a bike, and its frame is irreversibly damaged, you would remove the frame, leaving the wheels. You would take a new frame and add it to the bike. By keeping the wheels, you are adding the frame to the wheels, not the wheels to the bike, so you are adding the frame back to the bike. Let's look to the definition of "same." - unchanged in character, condition, etc (http://dictionary.reference.com...) The axe would be composed of an axe head identical to the original. When the head is removed, the handle may not be an axe anymore, but adding the head would make it the axe again. The axe retains the key things needed to be called the same: form (it is a handle attached to a blade), material (the heads are composed of the same metal), formal (what it is considered; it would be considered the same axe), final (the axe would still be used for the same task: chopping wood or necks or whatever else it was originally used for), and the efficient clause (it would be reconstructed in the same way that it was instructed.) http://en.allexperts.com... While my opponent addresses that the headless handle would not be recognized as an axe, he does not consider that the old handle with a new head would be considered the same axe. I pose another question to my opponent: What if the original axe is used for so long that the blade is physically worn down to the point of it being blunt and impossible to ever be used as an axe again, leaving only the handle? The blade would be gone, and not identifiable as the core. After another blade has been added, suppose the handle eventually dissolves. There would have to be a new handle.
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

It doesn't really make sense to say that the "core" of the bike could be reduced to a single atom and remain the "core," because that atom would neither be recognizable as part of a bike nor be useable as a bike. Once you reduce a bike to a single atom most people would agree that it is no longer the same object it was. On the other hand, most people would also say that removing an atom from a bike's "core," whatever that part may be, would not change the bike. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is a point in the disassembly of an object's "core" at which the object is no longer what it was. However, the determination of that point is completely irrelevant to this debate, since the axe's "core" is its head, which is not being disassembled. Pro assumes that: "At the point of removing [the head], the handle is the part that you would continue to perceive as the axe, for it is the part you are planning to use," and that "The part being kept would clearly be the part perceived to be the axe." However, the fact that you intend to continue using the handle and not the axe head does not mean that you would see the handle as still being the old axe. Reverting to the bike example, suppose the entire bike other than the wheels was irreversibly damaged. If a new bike is bought and the old wheels are attached to it, most people would perceive the new one as not being the same as the old one. This also applies to the axe. The idea that "The part being kept would clearly be the part perceived to be the axe" also doesn't make sense given the bike example. The fact that the headless handle could continue to be used for the same purpose as the whole axe (with much, much less efficiency and speed) isn't really relevant; the bike could also be used in that way, but a bike is normally not considered an axe. In removing the axe's head (core), the handle becomes unrecognizable as an axe (and no more useful as one than many objects which are not axes). The new axe created by attaching a different head isn't perceived to be the same object as it was. Thanks again; this debate has turned out pretty interestingly so far. I look forward to its continuation.
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

While changing the entire rest of the bike all at once may change the bike, what if you change a little part of it at a time? Then one part of it would be the "core." But what if you disassemble the core? Then you're down to the smaller parts, or eventually, the atom, considering one atom to be the "core" of the bike. At that point, the bike could easily lose the atom and still be considered a bike. Infact, it probably did and you just didn't notice. So clearly, it would still have to be the same bike. When you need to replace the axe blade, the axe blade is clearly worn down. At the point of removing it, the handle is the part that you would continue to perceive as the axe, for it is the part you are planning to use. You then add a shiny new axe blade to that handle, and it would be the same axe. Now, after the handle wears down, you remove it and keep the old blade. The new handle would be added to the axe, so it would still be the same axe. Essentially, the axe is whatever one perceives the axe as. The part being kept would clearly be the part perceived to be the axe. If the blade of the axe is dulled, then the wooden handle of the axe could still be used to chop stuff, but at no particularly quick or effective rate. As long as one perceives the handle as the part being retained, then it is the same axe. Thank you.
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

Thanks for challenging me to this debate! Sorry about the delay in accepting; I wasn't able to log on for a couple days. While most people would agree that replacing the tire on a bike doesn't make it a new bike, that situation isn't completely analogous to that of the axe. Replacing the wheels doesn't change the bike, but (I believe) most people would agree that replacing the entire rest of the bike does. The reason for this is that one part of the bike (or axe) is seen as the core, main part of the object; all the other parts are replaceable without changing the object, but replacing the core part would change it. In the case of the axe, the head would be the "core," because once you separate it from the handle, it still retains its purpose and is obviously part of an axe. Once the handle is separated, it becomes just a piece of wood, and is no longer recognizable as a part of an axe; it loses its identity as the starting axe. Pro's argument is based on the assumption that the handle will be perceived as not having changed after the head is separated from it. This assumption is unfounded; thus, Pro's argument falls flat. Thanks again for challenging me; I look forward to continuing with this debate.
If the blade of an axe is replaced, and then its handle, it is still the same axe.

Hello, I would like to welcome my friend Ibap to this site and his first debate, should he choose to accept. I have chosen a topic that makes little sense and follows little logic. I hope to have a great debate. The first time the head is replaced, it is clear that it is the same axe. It just has a different blade. This would be equivalent to changing the tires of a car or a bike. You wouldn't call it a whole new car or a whole new bike. It is the same one with different parts. Now, when you change the handle, the same factor applies, even though the result has no similarities to the original. What matters is the recognition that the the blade was still the same axe. If you recognize that it is the same axe at every stage, then it is still the same axe. Thank you.
Collectivism ought to be preffered to Individualism

Full Resolution: On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism == Rules == 1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round 2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions... Collectivism: the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount. Individualism: the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount. 3. Burden of Proof is shared. Pro must show that Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism. 4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, etc.
Sexual orientation is not a choice

First off, I don't see how any of my arguments are in the terms of "being gay is not bad sort of thing". I keep reading through my 1st, 3rd, and 4th arguments trying to figure out where you get this idea, and I can't find it. Please point it out in your next argument. What you're saying is that it is possible for it to be a choice, and yes it absolutely is. If I wanted to, I could begin pursuing men and give up women. Now that's not what I want, but I can do it. Like when I said I don't like deviled eggs; I could eat them if I wanted to, I just wouldn't enjoy it. I'm sure that there is at least somebody out there who chose to be homosexual, but just because choosing who you sleep with it possible doesn't mean you were born attracted to that gender. It's possible for me to begin sleeping with dogs, although I wouldn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean I was attracted to dogs, it just means I made a choice for whatever reason. Choice-an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities Yes, who you sleep with is a choice. But that doesn't mean when you were born, you were faced with that choice. I don't see any reason to believe it is a choice, and no reason has been presented to me, only the obvious possibility that people can sleep with who they please.
Sexual orientation is not a choice

Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! 😀😀😀
Term Lengths and Limitations

Out of respect for my young opponent I will not post an argument in this final round. I will, however, offer some things to consider when voting. Courteous: Pro was sarcastic through most of the debate, then did not bother to post in the final round. His rebuttal consisted of intentional mischaracterization of my position. Spelling/Grammar: Neither of us had any major mistakes in spelling or grammar. However, my format was clearer and easier to read. Convincing Argument: Pro either mischaracterized my arguments or ignored them altogether. All of my points remained in tact the entire debate. Sources: No sources were cited for either side. However, Pro did attempt to pass off a fictional movie as a source for his argument.
Term Lengths and Limitations

I simple-minded person would say that term lengths and limitations should be in place because the Constitution says so. As me and my opponent know, this is not a good reason to keep it in. So we have to understand why that law was put in place in the first place. Before I do that let me place some definitions: King-a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Dictator-a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) >It was put in place to stop the rise of a king-like ruler. One who is always in control of the country and will eventually control how the leadership is passed on. >If term lengths aren't limited someone could stay in office forever. If this happens then they can easily get enough power to change how the government works. We don't want a king and someone who rules a country for life is that or a dictator. >If term amounts aren't limited we'll end up with getting people elected again and again. For the first guy it will go good until he dies. Then he has a family member that is elected because he acts the same way. Eventually it becomes a monarchy by that one family. As the family line progresses the person in charge will be less and less liked by the people but have more and more power until the people rebel and fail because the "king" has too much power over them. >The other way it goes is quicker. In this way the person gets control of a larger portion of the military. He will take over the country by force and become a king. ::SUMMARY:: Kings are bad. Without term lengths or limits that's what we're making. Right now my argument is short and brief. I mean it as an opening statement of sorts and will go in more details later as necessary. Good luck.
Term Lengths and Limitations

I am for Term Lengths (we're talking about the U. S. ) should be limited as they are presently. I also think that the amount of terms that someone gets to take office should be limited. Both these ideas are already in place and my opponent is arguing against them. My opponent is arguing that unlimited term lengths and/or amount of terms someone can serve will be a good thing. I don't like this status quo rule that Pro has to prove his point and Con only has to refute it. In this debate CON has to prove his viewpoint while refuting mine and vice versa. If he and I both fail at proving our points then the debate should be seen as a tie. As I'm not making any arguments this round or points I ask that my opponent doesn't make any argument in the final part of Round 4 to even it out. Good luck!
Multiculturalism shouldn't be endorsed as much as it is.

The Quran and the Bible are very similar. They both contain some horrible things that no one ever practiced, e.g. Jeremiah 19:9. Just like Christians, most Muslims are moderates and ignore awful verses like the ones you refer to, for example the Jordanian people. Europe has had no documented problems caused by refugees. It is only a small, ignorant portion of European society that dislikes the refugees. There wouldn't be any refugees had the USA and some of its European allies overthrown regimes in the Middle East without thinking of the consequences. This is exactly why we need multiculturalism--to dispel the myths that the media and those with military-industrial-complex agendas would have us believe.
Multiculturalism shouldn't be endorsed as much as it is.

I entirely agree with you about political correctness often being taken too seriously. I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech, and I think it is best that people can speak freely so we can understand how they think and discuss differences. You think that it is impossible for all cultures and religions to live together without compromise, but there is always compromise in every society. Cultures and religions, as you point out, are not uniform, and even within nations that appear to be dominated by one culture, differences must be dealt with, often with compromises. Life as we know it involves putting up with each other. Believe me, some of the people from my culture piss me off the most. Religion, when practiced correctly, should only serve to make accepting others easier. Racism is something that multiculturalism, as inadequate as it is, strives to defeat. When one is taught the reasoning behind the seemingly strange behaviors of another culture, often it becomes less strange. I'm not saying that every culture is right in all its traditions and philosophies. However all cultures seem to have in common what they take seriously, even if they deal with the issues in very different ways, for example freedom, truth, murder, sex crimes, happiness, and death. Ethical philosopher James Rachels says that, "The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values." Racism is not inevitable, I think France is a good example of an ethically diverse country that has historically been very accepting of different races, particularly those of African descent. There are reasons why racism is reinforced in many countries. From the moment what is now the USA was colonized, non-whites and immigrants were treated as lesser to serve the needs of those in power. Poor whites were treated slightly better than these others and developed an unfounded, warped sense of pride. Unfortunately, this game that the powerful used to distract the less powerful has festered in American society to this day.
Multiculturalism shouldn't be endorsed as much as it is.

I don't think that it is unethical. What I ment was that the effects of multiculturalism are not all positive. For example, political correctness is partially caused by multiculturalism. I think that people should be able to say what they want (within reason) and not be constrained by a small number of people taking offence. It is obviously bad to offend people but it can be nessesary when talking about some issues and nother being abe to speek yourban truefully feelings is the oposited ofor ourban rIghtfield tof freedom of speech. Secondly, I don't think that all cultures and religions can live together without compromise. For example, Muslims and Christians. Many, but not all, Muslims want to be able to carry out shariah law however they are unable to do this in wertern countries as most western people dislike it. It isn't multiculturalism if all cultures need to change to keep everyone happy. An important issue in this debate is racism. I disagree with racism although it is almost enviable when a multicultural society is made too quickly. There are many examples of this in the United States. One example is in Los Angeles where there is a large black white divide.
Multiculturalism shouldn't be endorsed as much as it is.

Your use of the term "should" denotes that you think it is unethical for others--you don't specify who--to support the idea of multiculturalism. I like this definition of multiculturalism from dictionary.com; "The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest." Although I am technically "con" in this debate (because of the way you phrased your argument), I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove supporting multiculturalism is somehow unethical. In the USA, we live in a multicultural society. Cooperation helps societies to achieve greater ethical goals e.g. curbing the spread of a disease. Supporting multiculturalism enhances understanding of different cultures and thereby helps people of different cultures to cooperate more effectively to achieve ethical goals.
"Check your privilege" is an absurd saying if you say it just because of someone's race or gender.

Pro has no response against eugenics. He spewed his beliefs and acted like his farts dont stink. Eugenics may harm sum but its for the greater good ALL: THE GREATER GOODObserve"Envision every human as equal at birth; in beauty, health, mental health, social strength and intelligence. A designed evolutionary system with goals and planning would provide all of these for every human. Only then can a truly egalitarian society be obtained."if u truely wanted equality you would advocate FOR eugenicshttp://www.onelife.com...
"Check your privilege" is an absurd saying if you say it just because of someone's race or gender.

I don't like eugenics. I don't believe white people are better than others simply because of our race. We aren't the master race. People should be judged on their character and not their race. The underprivileged people don't need eugenics they need an education, a job and a family. If a black person or Hispanic person gets an education they can do whatever they want.