BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
absolute truth exist

//"You assume that our limitations of language and the word 'truth' can be applied indefinitely to the truly objective universe whereby anything can be true or untrue simultaneously."// How do you know this? Is this true? For you to know something, it has to be absolutely true. If it is not, that means you could be wrong and that means you know nothing for sure. This being said, you know nothing without absolute truth. //"For example, electrons are often found to be at two places at once but to claim them to be at one of those points is both an absolute truth and lie at the same time rendering it a neutral statement."// "Is both an absolute truth and a lie at the same time" " so your saying absolute truth exist? //"Absolute truth cannot exist because there is simply no way to identify what is or isn't absolutely true and if a truth is impossible to identify it cannot be deemed existent to a human being."// Is it absolutely true it can"t exist? How do you know it can"t be deemed existent to a human being? Did you hear this from someone who knows nothing or did you come up with it yourself? //"What if God exists and yet the moment we seek God, God appears not to exist?"// He appears not to exist? I"m confused with what you"re saying. Do you mean he still exists but he doesn"t appear to us? Someone like god either exist or not. One of the options is absolutely true. //"There is no conclusive way to determine absolute truth since anything can be a lie but be unbeknown to us until future revelation."// Is it absolutely true that anything can be a lie? Either something can"t be a lie and can be absolutely true, or it is absolutely true that we can lie. //"As for an example, please observe the video."// Is it absolutely true you posted a video? Or are you lying?
absolute truth exist

You assume that our limitations of language and the word 'truth' can be applied indefinitely to the truly objective universe whereby anything can be true or untrue simultaneously.For example, electrons are often found to be at two places at once but to claim them to be at one of those point is both an absolute truth and lie at the same time rendering it a neutral statement.Absolute truth cannot exist because there is simply no way to identify what is or isn't absolutely true and if a truth is impossible to identify it cannot be deemed existent to a human being.What if God exists and yet the moment we seek God, God appears not to exist? What if this isn't true? To any sane individual an absolute truth is never attainable, in fact the very core tenet of science is that absolutely nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty (but even that 'fact' is only known to 99.999% certainty in and of itself).There is no conclusive way to determine absolute truth since anything can be a lie but be unbeknown to us until future revelation.As for an example, please observe the video.http://www.youtube.com...
absolute truth exist

absolute truth has to exist. for example my car cant be fully in the driveway and not fully in the driveway at the same time. its one or the other. this makes one of the options absolutely true. A higher being exist. does he? it is absolutely true that it is one or the other. people may not fully know the answer, but that doesn't mean it is absolutely true. there is no in between. please tell me why it cant exist. give some examples.
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 1: Choose Your Topic

Ram: ps4 wins Price: ps4 wins Graphics: ps4 wins Online price: ps4 wins Paywalls: ps4 wins Controller: battery ps4 wins Size/weight: ps4 wins Better name: ps4 wins Privacy concerns: ps4 wins External vs. internal power supply ps4 wins removable hard drive ps4 wins My opponent doesn't rebut the vast majority of my points. Also his assertion that xbox one has more stuff that makes it expensive has no basis for his claim. The NSA can supboeba aby info
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 1: Choose Your Topic

Sorry about my forfeit.Price: the Xbox one is more expensive, showing us that it is better. Besides, shopping websites show that on average, PS4 has barely any difference to the Xbox one. See these:https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...Specs: Well, Xbox one's Kinect can sense motion fairly accurately.Online: this only shows that Xbox live probably has more special abilities and stuff that makes it more expensive.The name: "One" also stands for "only one", meaning it's the best and nothing can be better .Privacy: Uh, I'm pretty sure NSA doesn't use the cameras for spying. I'm sorry I rushed, I didn't have enough time. Perhaps next time I will make the time limit to 10 minutes instead of five.Vote me.
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 1: Choose Your Topic

My opponent may have mistakenly forfeited the previous round as this is a 5 minute debate. Correction on the previous round: RAM: The PS4 uses 8gb GDDR5 memory while Xbox one uses a slower and more outdated 8GB DDR3 memory Now that that's over, I can move on to more areas where the ps4 is superior to the xbox one. Removable hard drive: The ps4 has a removable hard drive but the xbox one does not. Paywalls: The ps4 doesn't force you to buy playstation+ (the premium PS service) in order to watch Netflix or Hulu but Xbox one does. Power supply: The ps4 has an internal power supply but the xbox one has a large external power supply brick Console size: The ps4 is much smaller in physical size and weight, not including the large and bulky Kinnect needed to use crucial functions on the Xbox One. The ps4 is vastly superior in many areas. http://www.ign.com...
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 1: Choose Your Topic

Price: PS4 is $100 cheaper than the Xbox one Specs: The PS4 is graphically more powerful and has twice the amount of shader cores as the xbox one. RAM: The PS4 uses 88gb GDDR5 memory while Xbox one uses a slower and more outdated 8GB DDR3 memory Online: The price of a yearly subcription to playstation plus is $50 but a yearly subscription to Xbox Live is $60. The name: C'mon, Xbox "one" is a stupid name. The original xbox should hold the title of xbox "one". Controller: The ps4 has a rechargeable battery but the xbox one controller does not Privacy concerns: The xbox one uses Kinnect which has a microphrone and video recorder for monitoring your voice activity. Given the government spying on us with the NSA, do you really want this? Given these conditions and many more not listed, ps4 is a better console than the xbox one. http://www.ign.com...
Scaring young children with stories of hell is child abuse

When you tell a young child that if they commit one of hundreds of mistakes, labeled sins, during their life, they face eternal damnation in a scary place described as hell, you are in fact abusing your child. Its called mental abuse and unlike physical abuse, there are no visible bruises or breaks. The longtime effects of such abuse may never be visible, except in the tortured mind of the victim. So that is why scaring children with stories of hell, is in fact mental abuse to a child. What that means is, parents who share this delsuional view of reality that there is a hell and the reason for everything in the world is admittingly jealous, are creating unecessary stress, and fear, all because the delusions in religion have control of their mind :(
Americans are not Likely to be Killed by Foreign Arabic Terrorists

You know, when I accepted this debate I thought I could out maneuver Pro a little bit by proclaiming American Embassies to be US territory. This would have greatly amplified the number of killings I would have been able to prove against Americans on US soil by Arab jihadists while still obeying the rules and context Pro set out; which were: "Arabic terrorists have been killing American citizens - in America - at high rates, in acts of terrorism." However, after some careful research, it appears more likely that US embassies are only "treated" as US soil in principle, which of course is different then it actually being part of America and having territory status. This is a very common misconception which fooled me somewhat, and is likely to have fooled many of the voters. I have yet to find out whether US military bases are considered US soil or not, but again, they are most likely not, unless of course -like with embassies- there is a special treaty; Gitmo for example, is legally considered US territory through the Platt Amendment. But I just think it would be pretty tiresome to check every single US military installation and consulate that has ever been attacked by terrorists for its treaty status that may or may not proclaim some form of US sovereignty. For my creativity and valiant effort, for what the lack of general understanding by the public at large for what the sovereign status of US embassies actually were, and for the fact that Pro was inspired to create this debate from that mass closings of American embassies abroad due to the terrorist threat; I propose that for the purpose of this debate, US embassies should be considered US soil, and that I would be very happy to continue this debate should Pro accept.
Americans are not Likely to be Killed by Foreign Arabic Terrorists

I am re-writing this instigation, if anyone has an interest in taking up a debate along these lines. This particular contest has been abandoned as unwinnable. Our political leadership does not know this. I am heartened to see that very few debators are willing to make the same claims, but would nevertheless like to more closely analyze the subject of exactly how afraid we should be of fear-crime. I ask that no votes be cast in this contest, as it has already been conceded.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

It is important to recognize that the creation of a universal language does not have to involve the oppression of cultures. Remember that a language is no more than a method of communication, and this can be created in many forms, so do not limit this discussion to the verbal kind. An example of a created universal language that has benefited many is PADI's universal diver signals set. This is a form of underwater communication that conveys information that can save lives. For example, there is a standard hand signal to demonstrate that you are out of air, and need to share a tank with another scuba diver. Now what if each diver used a different language? How would a diver tell you that you are entering a submerged hunting area if there wasn't a universal underwater language? There are many other examples like this, and many more ways we can make international interactions easier by creating a standard language. Just don't limit your conception of universal language to Esperanto.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

As CON has forfeited the previous round, I shall skip the defense of points I and II and rebutting CON's unstated points.III. Don't Force ItHaving a universal language would be a sign of a thriving global community. A beautiful variety of cultures and academic histories will come together to form a universal language gradually accepted into all cultures. Having one viewpoint select or create a worthy language and prescribe it to the rest of the world will be unsuccessful. Let us focus our efforts on improving international relations. Not on solving an unsolvable math problem that is an artificial universal language. As a point of amusement, this is the second time an opponent has forfeited to me on this topic. It would seem universal languages are cursed :P
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

Attempts to artificially manufacture the "Universal Language" should stop.I. Communication Barriers The idea of a 'universal language' clearly does not understand what communication barriers actually are - they have little to do with not speaking the same language.There is more to understanding one another than simply knowing what words mean. We should be focusing on improving relations and understanding foreign values - not memorizing words. It is important to stop assuming your cultural values are correct, to stop assuming other cultures are like yours, and to be more comfortable around differing cultural values.II. Respect Universal Language creation clearly values convenience over respecting the beautiful variety of cultures. It would be convenient for travelers not to have to learn a new language. However, respecting cultures by not imposing a common language on them is more important than the ease of tourists and international businesses. You can always hire a translator.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

Resolution: Attempts to create a 'universal language' should cease.Universal Language: "An auxiliary language that is used and understood everywhere" [1]1st Round Acceptance2nd Round Standard3rd Round Standard4th Round NO NEW ARGUMENTS24 hour timer. 1000 character limit. Footnotes (such as the one below) may be provided in the comment section to conserve characters. Be sure to specify which speech your footnotes are for.1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

Think for a minute, how much more practical international interactions would be with a common system of communication. For example, what if all countries decided to create a shared road sign system? Immigrants and tourists would not have to adjust to the different road languages if all signs worldwide were the same, and in no way does this strip the host country of its cultural heritage. If the whole world accepted a common set of underwater hand signs, how would that be deleterious to any culture? It is only for communications sake. As you can see, there are forms of language that do not disrespect cultures, all of which fall under the original definition of Universal Language provided at the beginning of the debate. These, and many more forms of communication, can help people worldwide without diminishing cultures. I agree with you, an artificial universal language cannot ever harbor cultural values. However, that does not mean one cannot be created to enhance communication.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

PADI hand signals are not a language. A language must be complex enough for the speaker to form an original sentence. The WRSTC refers to the hand signals as 'training standards' that are used in Canada, US, Europe, and Japan: not globally [1]. PADI hand signals are not universal. Other organizations such as the Colombian Navy and the Chinese Underwater Association have not yet come to a consensus with WRSTC. Diving hand signals are being naturally developed by recreational divers [2]. PADI hand signals were not artificially created, but standardized by PADI after naturally developing. I. Communication Barriers PADI does not address the difference in cultural values. II. Respect A universal language created by one perspective inherently disrespects all other cultures. III. Don't Force It “Universal Language” and diving hand signals should develop naturally. Standardizing and implementing a naturally developing language is not the same as creating an artificial language.
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

Resolution:ON BALANCE, PASCAL'S WAGER IS A FLAWED ARGUMENT FOR GODThis debate discusses the topic of the Pascal's Wager. Pro argues it is flawed, while con argues it is valid.Burden of ProofBOP is shared. Pro shows it is flawed, Con shows it is not flawed and is thus valid.StructureRound 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Opening ArgumentsRound 3- Rebutalls/ More ArgumentsRound 4- Rebutalls/ Closing ArgumentsSyllogistical FormatIf you believe in God and are right, you are rewarded with eternal joy. If you are wrong, you lose/gain nothing. If you don't believe and you're right, you gain/lose nothing. But if you are wrong, you lose everything. So it seems you're better off believing in God, eh? Thank you to anyone who accepts, and good luck.
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

Here are the main points: Claims Belief Costs Nothing This is not true, especially when considering the wide amount of theistic possibilities. Most religions or sometimes aggressively encourage frequent prayer, donations, abstaining from alcohol, and more. Clearly, it costs you lots of time in your life. Assumptions on Belief Pascal's Wager assumes people can choose what they believe- not true. To varying degrees, either something makes sense to you, or it doesn't. You cannot choose. One can even pretend, but you will never 100% wholly believe it. Fooling Omniscience God is described as being omniscience. This means he knows all- past, present, future. So even if someone takes the safe bet and 'chooses to believe', they're not really believing. This means that, in effect, the individual is lying to their deity. One would think an omniscient God would surely know that. Allow me to work backwards. I must rephrase fooling. This argument is built to fail based on its own principles. If we accept the resolution, and an atheist is 'converted', they still likely won't believe, as there's no evidence. Even if they truly did, an omnipresent, omniscient God would surely know that your only reason of 'belief' was of better chances. That is not the requirement for heaven. True faith and true belief, however, is. We CANNOT choose what our beliefs are. Go ahead, choose to believe that you are a dog or Queen Elizabeth or that you are on Mars right now. It"s impossible. Sure, you can pretend, but that"s not the same thing (lost the source link- deduct points as necessary). My first point, a refutation of the absurd claim that belief costs nothing has only barely been discussed. But it is still very present and valid. You did mention eternity and how nobody loses anything there. Not only is that slightly irrelevant, but it is just wrong. As far as eternity goes, nobody loses anything. But in life, the religious individual is the one that loses. As you can see, we have had an intelligent debate and discussion. But I believe the winner should be clear. Please vote pro. Thank you.
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

I apologize, but I must deliver this in a rush. Subset A is flawed. On which grounds is the exception of ancient religions substantiated? Why are they automatically false? Subset B is not really flawed. The rest is strange. If the argument works for many mutually exclusive religions, that is already a flaw. The way the Bible is unique does not matter to the legitimacy of the wager, as they are only loosely related. You discussed other religions but never really thought about no gods but still means of punishment, the point of what I was discussing. Additionally, during the ancient times when people thought Zeus was real, they had the same mentality as near all religions (certainly all Abrahamic ones) today. So if they were wrong, can't you be wrong? The specifics are quite necessary. Some sects are mutually exclusive and some focus on certain things more so than others. All christians may accept Christ, but doesn't say much about the wager itself. Again, the wager works for all sects and all religions. Many atheists including myself want to believe in a heaven or hell, to think there could be something after we die. But we cannot, for, to counteract a later point of yours, we truly cannot force ourself to believe something. Believe me- I've tried. Although you may lose nothing from being a Christian if God is real in terms of the afterlife (unless it is Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), you still lose plenty in life. And I would rather not die with those life terms. Also, if the argument is trying to convince atheists to convert, it won't work because the argument itself near forbids it. I could not truly believe in a God or have true divine faith. So if we make a descision because our chances are better, not because we truly believe, we shall still be punished. Your points have been interesting, but I believe I may have began rambling. I sincerely apologize for any grammatical errors or anything like that. I am typing as fast as I can with little time left. Next round, I may be able to offer a more substantive response. Thank you.
Pascal's Wager is Flawed

My opening argument will list the fallacies the Wager commits. False DichotomyPascal's Wager necessarily completely ignores all other mutually exclusive religions. If the number of gods is the main deciding factor of the argument, wouldn't Hinduism or any other polytheistic religion be the safer bet? The existence of those gods is not necessarily mutually inclusive. Black and WhitePascal's Wager assumes there is either a very specific God (the nature of which changes from person to person), or nothing at all. What if there is no God, but some universal force (different from God) punishes us. What if there is a God but everyone gets into Heaven? There are more than 2 possibilities here.Ignores SpecificsThe argument thus also ignores all religious sub sects, such as Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc. InquiryWhat if you choose the wrong sub sect of the right religion. There are literally tens of thousands of branches of Christianity. Here are the major ones. Claims Belief Costs NothingThis is not true, especially when considering the wide amount of theistic possibilities. Most religions or sometimes aggressively encourage frequent prayer, donations, abstaining from alcohol, and more. Clearly, it costs you lots of time in your life. Assumptions on BeliefPascal's Wager assumes people can choose what they believe- not true. To varying degrees, either something makes sense to you, or it doesn't. You cannot choose. One can even pretend, but you will never 100% wholly believe it. Fooling OmniscienceGod is described as being omniscience. This means he knows all- past, present, future. So even if someone takes the safe bet and 'chooses to believe', they're not really believing. This means that, in effect, the individual is lying to their deity. One would think an omniscient God would surely know that. As you can see, the wager is completely and utterly flawed.
ban islam

vi_spex If you Are Saying that Islam IS to be Banned Then I must ask A reason for it, IT IS NO ONE'S RIGHT to develop a mentality on which you can say tht a particular religion is bad, as Far as Curse of Islam is concerned, I dont think that whole of the muslim Community does believe in violence. You can't say that whole of Islam is Bad because if that was so then no religion is pure... Even Alexander The great had attacked Countries, may it be in the wake of the new century or as such. But there are many Islamist who Believe in non Violence... So it is my Humble request to not post such rude comments about any ones religion. That's All I have to say
Donald Trump's proposed border wall is more beneficial than not.

To be honest, i been waiting for this type of debate to show itself. Mostly people on this site been on my side of the wall on this issue. So, i couldn't debate them with i agree with them. So, finally i have a challenger, Mister_Man's who will argue for the wall. I could elaborate on my stance. But you already know some of the details i will point out. So, i will wait until round two to show you and the viewers why I'm against this wall proposal. "I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I"ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I"ll have Mexico pay for that wall. " Donald Trump said this during his campaign trail. But he lied. Mexico already said they will not pay for this wall. So, "his administration also seeks taxpayer money to cover the costs"(1) With that said, i will ask you why would want American taxpayers to pay for this Wall when in fact Trump lied about how he would fund this project? 1. . http://www.politifact.com... I'm looking forward to your response. And I'm looking forward to this highly important discussion. .. ..