BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

This is something I have yet to debate, so I am eager to dig in a little bit. Omnipotence: The Definition First, I feel it is important that we start with a definition: Omnipotence: Having unlimited power [1][2]. Omnipotence: The Resolution PRO has set this debate up to be about the Omnipotence Paradox, which basically asks if an omnipotent entity (a God) is capable of limiting itself. The classical problem with this paradox is that if the entity can limit itself, than it can be limited and is therefore not omnipotent, and if it cannot limit itself, than that is something it cannot do, and it is therefore not omnipotent [3]. PRO has argued that this is not a paradox by somehow claiming that being limited by logic is not being limited. She then goes on a confusing tangent about how God is not limited in the world of imagination. To rebut PRO’s arguments, I will offer a quote from her own arguments. “…in the real world as we know it, God is limited by logic. ” I find whatever points PRO is trying to make about the world of imagination to be of little interest to the discussion. She has admitted, that God is limited by something, and it necessarily follows that God is not omnipotent. Temporal Omnipotence Another Point PRO has made refers to a particular formulation of the Omnipotence Paradox (sometimes called the Irresistible Force Paradox [4]), where the question is asked as to whether an omnipotent entity can create both an unstoppable force, and an immovable object. Obviously, this is another case of the entity (God) being limited by its own power. PRO’s way around this paradox is simply to claim that God can do both of these things, but not at the same time, and that, somehow, this does not diminish his omnipotence. I disagree. What PRO is doing here is trying to define the problem away. A very simple way to demonstrate the absurdity of is simply add the word ‘simultaneously’ to the wording. Can God create an immovable object and an unstoppable force simultaneously? Of course not. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. Of course, one might object to my adding of the word ‘simultaneously’ to the verbiage, however, this actually returns to the spirit of the thought experiment [4]. Closing Thoughts PRO is trying to define her way out of the Omnipotence Paradox. I have shown how the paradox remains in both formulations PRO has offered, therefore, God is not omnipotent. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

Refocusing on Omnipotence I would like to refocus on the actual resolution being debated here. PRO has basically made the claim that the Omnipotence Paradox does is not actually a paradox because an entity being limited by logic or the “rules of nature” is not actually limited. To rebut this point I will simply quote PRO, “God cannot do the logically impossible. ” Being unable to do something is, by definition, being limited, and according to the definition of omnipotence we are using, it means the entity is question is not omnipotent. Whether we are talking about rules of logic or laws of nature, if God can’t break them, he is not omnipotent. Beyond Logic? Pro has accused me of not negating the claim that God could “go beyond logic. ” She is, of course, correct. I did not negate that claim as I had no burden to do so. PRO has spent the lion’s share of this debate trying to explain how God’s inability to do the illogical doesn’t mean that he isn’t omnipotent. However, if PRO really wants me to address it, I will do so by quoting her again, “God cannot do the logically impossible. ” In PRO’s own words, God cannot “go beyond logic. ” Unless she is referring to the odd part of the discussion regarding imaginary realms and the relabeling of various geometric shapes, I don’t see how she has even supported a claim that God can “go beyond logic. ” If she is referring to the section on geometry, I addressed it in the previous round. If she is referring to the section about the “world of imagination,” she if right that I didn’t address it. As I pointed out in first round, we aren’t talking about an imaginary world, we are talking about reality. An imaginary world is of no interest to this discussion. Closing Thoughts This has been a most interesting debate; I would like to thank PRO for setting it up. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments this round, the actual resolution being debated was whether or not God’s inability to break logical rules or natural laws makes means that he is not omnipotent. PRO has not met her burden to show that it does not, while I have shown that the paradox does indeed mean that God is not omnipotent.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

con should recognize that anything that could be said to be unlimited is implied to accord to the rules of nature, or at least logic. otherwise, con is pretty much saying nothing can be said to be unlimited.... that is, nothing is such that a square can be a circle, or break rules of logic..... and another approach is that we live in a finite universe as far as we can see. 'as far as we can see' also applies to logic, that everything abides by it. so when i say 'unlimited as otherwise limited by logic' i can still say it's unlimited as it should be implied "abiding by logic". if con wants to argue that the unlimited in principle can exist, he must concede that omnipotence in principle can exist. as of now, con is trying to argue an unlimited concept that cannot exist due to it violating natural law or at least logic. i recoginze that my wording in my opening argument wasn't the most precise and was poor. this is mostly due to the fact that i allow the possibility for God to go beyond logic, and when that happens, our approach of describing it is in deep trouble for being imprecise for such a shaky concept. lastly, con doesn't negate that God could go beyond logic. again i didn't describe that he could very well, but i didn't rule i tout... i in fact made for specific allowance for it. it's not like atheists cant have somewhat of a field day though. if God makes a rock that can't be lifted, using the rules of logic... then God himself cannot lift it. this should make them happy that he is limited. so whichever way you look at it, con has not done an adequate job addressing the issues
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

I will address her reply presently. Above Logic? In her response to my points, PRO notes that she suggested that God “could be said to be above logic. ” First of all, this is contradicted by her own point where she wrote, “God cannot do the logically impossible. ” So basically, I am wondering which of these two PRO is asserting; is God bound by logic or not? If he is, then his omnipotence is impossible as I described in the previous round. If he is not, then PRO needs to demonstrate that it is even possible for a logical contradiction to exist. Square Circles? PRO expanded on her point regarding square circles, writing that God “can make square mean circle, or the moon mean fish. ” So what? God can redefine words; I don’t see how this is relevant. The square circle analogy is a bad one because a square is a square because it is defined as such. If it becomes a round thing without corners, it is BY DEFINITION no longer a square. This isn’t even a matter of logic; it is a matter of semantics. SimultaneityPRO never addressed my points regarding her claim about the immovable object and an unstoppable force. If God can’t make these two things exists simultaneously, his power is limited, and he is not omnipotent. Closing RemarksI’m glad that PRO was able to respond to my arguments so quickly, but I am disappointed to see that she really didn’t address my points. She made a contradictory statement about logic, a confusing comment about geometry, and failed entirely to address my points about the Irresistible Force Paradox. I look forward to her closing remarks in the final round.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

con has admittedly an interesting, and straightforward approach to my resolution of the paradox. "I will offer a quote from her own arguments. ""in the real world as we know it, God is limited by logic." [...] She has admitted, that God is limited by something, and it necessarily follows that God is not omnipotent." note, though, that i also said that God could be said to be above logic. in which case he can make square mean circle, or the moon mean fish. in this way, God is not at all limited. i only noted 'for our purposes as far as we can see' God is limited by logic. he is still unlimited, as otherwise limited by logic. from what we can see, perhaps con has a point, but he's not definitely proven that God is not fully unliimited in that he can go beyond logic. " Can God create an immovable object and an unstoppable force simultaneously? Of course not. Therefore, God is not omnipotent." basically, the same thing i said above could be said here.
Rap Battle

Treat all women with respect What you give, is what you get Treat all women with respect, I say One, two, three, four No more women on the flooooor" Now ladies out there - let me talk to you, It"s okay to say no to men and still be cool Stand up for yourself - and then decide What you gonna do - with your own life? Use your brain and finish school, Don"t fall for a guy - who acts like a fool Is he the kind of man"s - gonna care for you? Too many women - have their innocence stolen Repeating a cycle - that must be broken Respect yourself and leave a man who strikes Find a good man - who will treat you right! One, two, three, four No more women on the floor Men, Women, Kids - take pride and have hope, You have a bright future - and that"s the real dope There"s redemption out there - just waiting for you Get an education and work hard too We must change our ways - and see the light It"s what we make of ourselves - each day and night Stay together, pray together - and everyone scream Work together - take pride - and join the team!
Rap Battle

I don't get it you don't make any sense I'm kicking off with the offence Ur rap talks about domestic violence When i'm rapping I don't show any tirless This rap is gonna be over quick Hearing your rap makes me sick Your rap got one thing right I won't walk away I'm not gonna be persuaded with this dismay The rap you put out repersents your life Writing it must hit you hard like a knife So you better bring out something better But that will never happen ever So it's time to end While ur going down i'll ascend
Rap Battle

Heads up guys - I"m talking to you, Life"s not easy " so what ya gonna do? Step to the plate and be a man Never hit a woman - or abuse a child It"s just wrong - and illegal too Someday it will catch up with you Times have changed - domestic violence Will no longer go down - and be silenced Use your mind " not your fist True love - is full of bliss Keep your job - stay out of jail Control your anger - no more bail Treat all women with respect What you give, is what you get Treat all women with respect, I say Don"t be a baby daddy and walk away Be a Father - it"s okay to stay If you father a child, it"s just the beginning, With child and mother in your life, that is winning Bond with your child and lead the right way. Give them your love - give them your time. Set a good example and share your life Reverse the vicious cycle - of abandonment, abuse Know your child, love your child and provide She might be the next - Beyonce or Sally Ride"..
$15 Minimum Wage

Contention 1: PovertyIt should go without saying that the current minimum wage is a poverty wage which one cannot make a sustainable income on. In order to reduce poverty, it should, therefore, follow that the wage should be raised to a level that people can live on. According to former Secretary of Labor and economist Robert Reich: "a full-time worker with two kids needs at least $30,135 this year to be safely out of poverty. That’s $15 an hour for a 40-hour workweek."Therefore, in order to reduce poverty, the minimum wage must be increased to $15 an hour.Contention 2: $15 should be the wage when adjusted for inflation AND productivityIf the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation, it would be around $10.90, however, workers today are also more productive today than they were in 1968, and if the wage was adjusted for productivity the wage should be around $19 an hour. $15/hour is a fair wage when both of these factors are taken into account.Contention 3: Increasing the minimum wage increases consumer spendingAccording to the Economic Policy Institute, increasing the minimum wage would result in consumer spending, as it would result in consumers having more money to spend. As the US economy is based on consumer spending, and this is the main mode of job creation in the market, increasing the minimum wage would, therefore, benefit the overall economy.I will address the Con's arguments in round three, as this round has been set aside for arguments, with round 3 meant for rebuttals.http://www.newsweek.com...;http://www.cnbc.com...http://www.epi.org...http://www.epi.org...
$15 Minimum Wage

(1) To begin with, I would like to state my ideal [federal] minimum wage: $0.00. Why so radical? Because a federal government is not intended to be involved in economic affairs, or decisions that ought to be left to states to decide on. State legislatures would have a better handle on their own state's economy and what needs exist to improve it. As opposed to a federal bureaucracy with no inherent knowledge of states' affairs. The minimum wage should -- at most -- be left to the decisions of state governance. The federal minimum wage even existing infringes on the rights of states to make certain determinations on their own. The pillars of federal government are three: national security, domestic tranquility, and liberty. To redefine our government in a way in which it may intervene in the marketplace sets a precedence that government is all-knowing has a right to stick its regulatory hands in other aspects of our lives. (2) Minimum wage jobs are not meant to offer 'living wage' salaries. Ergo, it is illogical to push for a $15 minimum to begin with; the purpose behind minimum wage jobs is to accumulate capital, acquire skill, and build a resume. None other. To assert or contend otherwise is simply ignorant. The problem many who fight for 15 fail to understand is that minimum wage jobs are also primarily industrial corporations, such as big retail companies following Market Basket, Stop & Shop, Costco and the like. Which segues to my next argument. (3) The only people benefiting from high wage rates [and mandates] is the corporate sector. By forcing small businesses to pay higher, the government is enabling corporate dominance over the private sector. This leads to family businesses going bankrupt, and allows corporations to absorb the destruction [grandfather in the now jobless employees, etc etc]. Walmart even lobbies for the $15/hr wage rate because they understand that if it is passed, they will make thousands more dollars from killing their competitors alone. To enforce this wage rate upon the small business sector is simply cruel and heartless, as well as economically destructive. (4) The higher minimum wage is, the more it affects teenagers. One might find after quick research that black teenagers [who predominantly occupy urban neighborhoods] get shafted the worst. In cities that are more urbanized and, dare I say, "ghetto", are often times communities that suffer lack of adequate education, and poverty. As a result of these two factors, teenagers in these communities often suffer a lack of work ethic. In the job market, the smaller the work ethic, the less likely you are to be employed. Therefore, if we plug in common sense, we begin to understand that the economic repercussions of wage hikes will do more damage to the black youth [which is the most unemployed demographic as we speak], and will ultimately harm teenagers looking to work part-time. Sources Cited (2) . http://www.forbes.com... (3) . http://www.heritage.org... (4)
The rise of antisocial behaviour in the 21st century is a myth

As a longtime researches in psychology and a sometime teacher courses on research methods and statistics, I have become increasingly concerned about how such studies are being interpreted. Although imaging technology has shed interesting new light on brain activity, it is dangerous to presume that snapshots of activity in certain regions of the brain necessarily provide useful information about the causes of thought, feeling and behavior. This essay will be supported with two arguments, which are going to support and show my point of view. My first argument is connected with my introduction, which is about technology. Technology is a master which is just tricking you and what you get is nothing useful, but what you get is diseases and mental problems, so it is a myth. Like in the 20th and the 19th century people were social, they didn"t have technology addict. But, they were working as a society, building their economy onto the better. Automatically assuming that the brain causes behavior is problematic because we know that an individual genes and environmental history--and even his or her own behavior--mold the brain over time. There is clear evidence that any unique features that may exist in the brains of teens--to the limited extent that such features exist--are the result of social influences rather than the cause of teen turmoil. As you will see, a careful look at relevant data shows that the teen brain we read about in the headlines--the immature brain that supposedly causes teen problems--is nothing more than a myth.
The rise of antisocial behaviour in the 21st century is a myth

Due to the level of technology available to children, entertainment is no longer a social activity, as it is becoming easier to entertain yourself without other people than in the past. Before modern day technology, if you wanted to be entertained you had to make friends that lived near you today, causing kids to develop social skills quickly. Nowadays, children can entertain themselves with technology, and thus, the need for developed social skills is disappearing.
Gay Marriage

UNDER THE FAMILY CODE, IT STATES: 'marriage is a special contract of permanent union BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.' THE SAID LAW IS VERY UNEQUIVOCAL REGARDING THE SEX OF EACH PARTNER. the couple must be a MALE AND A FEMALE. that law is in accordance with the law of god regarding marriage. GENESIS 2:24 'THAT IS WHY A MAN WILL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND HE MUST STICK TO HIS WIFE AND THEY MUST BECOME ONE FLESH.' GENESIS 1:28 '....'BE FRUITFUL AND BECOME MANY...' THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED SAME-SEX WEDDING IS NOT ONLY A VIOLATION OF MAN'S LAW BUT ALSO A VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAW. homosexual acts and practices are condemned by god. HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE IS NOT CONDEMNED BY GOD. GOD IS A REASONABLE AND LOVING GOD. WHAT GOD CONDEMNS IS HOMOSEXUAL THOUGHTS, ACTS AND PRACTICES. homosexuality is an abnormality brought about by imperfection. nevertheless, it is not justifiable for a homosexual to succumb to his weaknesses. GOD GAVE US REASON TO ENABLE US TO RESTRAIN SINFUL THOUGHTS, ACTS AND PRACTICES. ROMANS 1:26-27: 'that is why god gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature, and likewise, even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.' 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9, ' what! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit god's kingdom? do not be misled. neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSES, NOR MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN,' GOD IS VERY ABSOLUTE OR CATEGORICAL IN HIS CONDEMNATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY HE DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAH. IMMORAL HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN COULD ALWAYS DO WHAT THEY WANT BUT IN THE END GOD WILL GIVE THEM THEIR DUE!!!!
Haiku Battle.

This is a haiku battle. Post one haiku per round. They do not necessarily have to be confrontational or relate to the idea of a debate at all. For the record, the idea that there is a 5-7-5 syllable requirement in haiku is absolutely false. There is also importance placed on using "seasonal words." My idea for this haiku battle is that little to no emphasis should be placed on seasonal words, since they are a new concept to most people and are kind of subjective in general. Haiku should probably come close to a 5-7-5 structure, but a couple of syllables of variance is welcomed if it makes your haiku flow better. Voters should absolutely not negatively consider non 5-7-5 syllable structure in their voting. My opponent can begin in R1 if he or she so wishes.
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths

PREFACEIn this debate, Pro has to make a case that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths, while Con has to refute all those with good arguments and empirical evidence. If Con fails to do that but just offers back-flipping apologetic, he/she loses the debate.DEFINITIONSMohammad Ibn Abdullah: The man considered by Muslims to be the one who received divine inspirations that revealed the Qur'an.Falsehoods: Inaccurate or false information.Some: One or more.Authentic Hadeeths: Islamic narrations that are considered authentic by Hadeeth scholars.Empirical evidence: Evidence that is acquired by means of observation or experimentation, and could involve secondary/indirectly-observed evidence that can be traced back to sensory experiences.RULESThis debate will follow the rules and regulations of the Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette Level 1.7 (Strict).It is obligatory for my opponent to read the whole document(http://www.debate.org...), otherwise he/she might commit violations. I have provided technical and non-technical summaries for each section. There are basically two sections, one is "Critical Rules" and the second is "Etiquette Standards."According to Article A1.9 of the NDRE, I can add additional rules. So I will add those:R1- The first round is for acceptance.R2- The burden of proof is on me, but any apologetic Con gives should be based on empirical evidence.R3- Both participants should follow the rules and definitions in the opening statement, and follow the rules mentioned in the NDRE.METAOnly members with a minimum of 5 completed debates can accept.Rounds: 4.Voting period: 2 Weeks.Time to argue: 72 hours.Argument Max: 10,000 characters.I await my opponent's acceptance.