BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

1. Well, because as I said, it requires circular reasoning to believe in absolutism. That's what is inconsistent. To prove absolutism is true, you have to first accept absolutism. For in order to say "absolutism is absolutely true" that is, in itself, using absolutism. And in order to prove absolutism is true through an example, you have to accept the example as being 100% true all of the time. 2. However, what are you relying on that there is milk in the refrigerator? When you open the door, you're using your sight to determine there is not milk. Sight can be deceiving, as there are optical illusions and such. Just because you don't see milk, doesn't mean there isn't milk in the refrigerator. 3. To determine truth, it all relies on our perception of something though, and perception can entirely be false. I suppose you're saying that truth exists whether we perceive it or not correct? I suppose that is true, but we can never know it is truth with certainty. 4. Yes, there can be truth, but we I argue we can't ever know if we have come to the truth or not, and I believe that is what relativism is about. 5. I suppose it's not necessary to communicate with meaningless beings. I don't see anything here to rebut exactly, so I'll leave it here. Sorry if this last argument seemed to be done with half-heartedness, I am in a bit of a rush. I didn't even finish a couple of my other debates as I've been busy.
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

I greatly respect my opponent for their arguments thus far, and thank them for the enjoyable banter and debate that we have engaged in. 1. How might an absolutist be inconsistent? One of the universal laws of Philosophy states that all things have an opposite, ergo, truth and falsehood. I could be absolutely correct, or I could absolutely incorrect, but all the same, the experience is absolute. The larger question to ask is; does truth exist? If we deny truth, we prove absolutes all the same as we would in accepting absolutes. If one where to state "Truth does not exist" then they lie, because this statement is absolute. 2. What makes an experience relative? I am acknowledging that personal reality is unpredictable, but can both defy and prove absolutes. In this case, my personal reality can tell me that there is milk in the refrigerator, but when I open said refrigerator, and find that there is no milk, my personal reality has lied. All the same, in this case I was absolutely incorrect. For the relativist to be consistent, they must believe all things are relative, including relativism itself. But in my case as an absolutist, even if I am incorrect I still prove absolutes. 3. Truth is a natural concept. The fact of the matter is that simple questions can be answered with absolute assertion, such as basic mathematical problems. As we debate it is clear that we stand at an impasse, but I must ask, won't one of use be correct, and the other be incorrect? In the grand scheme, there must be fact and their must be fiction. This applies to the largest philosophical concepts. For example, what happens when we die? We know that something must happen, even if that something turns out to be nothing, there is a truth and their is myth. Relativists claim we cannot know truth, but this statement alone acknowledges tat there is truth, and as I continue to argue, truth is absolute. 4. True, many cultures, religions and worldviews all harbour a different idea of truth. But again, doesn't something have to be right? Your argument suggests that we cannot be right, or know what is right, but all in the same, will you not acknowledge that there is truth? 5. This sounds like Solipsism to me, which is admittedly a very hard Philosophy to argue against. However, consider the necessity of a universal communication tool (language), if I am the only being with conscience thoughts and actions, why is it necessary for me to use an meaningless language to communicate with a meaningless being?
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

1. I'm merely stating that a believer in absolutism is in an inconsistent position. I do not personally believe it is an absolute fact that absolutism is subject to circular reasoning, but to someone who does believe in absolutism, it would make sense. 2. It is only our individual experiences that we have to rely on though. Which is why relativism makes more sense, since you can't know anything is absolute unless you experience it yourself, and as you pointed out, your own experience can be heavily flawed, so you never know if you have an absolute truth and there's no way to prove you do have it. Even the idea of the earth being a globe can be wrong, since all we have is our own perception to determine this with. 3. 2+2=4 may not be true in every case though. In order to argue for absolutism, it must be true in every case, but it is our own perception that there is 2 of one thing, and 2 of another thing which makes 4. We can never be sure there are 4 things there because that is what our perception and senses tell us, which can be flawed. So, in the case of math in a practical application, it can only be relatively true. In a theoretical example, it appears to always be true, but theory doesn't matter nearly as much as practice. 4. Ah, but not everyone agrees murder is wrong in every case. For example, in China and India it is perfectly acceptable to kill new-born females, and in Somalia and Sudan, it is acceptable to kill a woman who was raped [1] While, again, I wouldn't say it is absolutely the case these things are acceptable in those areas, the evidence suggests it is. It is impossible to believe in absolutism while different cultures come to different conclusions about murder and other moral problems. 5. There's always the possibility that I am merely a programmed intelligence and this is all a simulation. There's no way to prove otherwise, so it is only relatively true that I exist as a human being with my own conscience. To determine one exists, once more, one has to rely on one's imperfect senses. Sources: [1] http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

I shall now begin with my rebuttals and further arguments. Rebuttals: 1. In order to argue absolutism, one must acknowledge truth in all forms. Stating that arguing absolutism falls prey to the fallacy of circular reasoning, only proves absolutism is self-evident. For example, you claim "To make a claim that absolutism is a logically consistent philosophy, you have to have absolutism to prove that", is this not more self-evident than it is circular reasoning? Furthermore, your argument is an absolute statement. Is absolutism absolutely fallible to circular reasoning, or relatively fallible? 2. The way we perceive the world is based on our individual experience, this I will agree upon, however, you must acknowledge that while we may believe what we want, or experience what we perceive to be true, we might not actually be correct. Once again, multiple truths cannot exist, nor can half-truths, only universal truths. For example, it was popular belief that the world was flat, or that the earth was the centre of the universe, but these notions have proved to be falsehoods. Ideas or concepts perceived to be true may, in turn, not be true. Our individual experience lies. 3. Logic is determined by universal truth. For example, it is logical for me to conclude that 2 + 2= 4, and I can base this logic on facts and reason, determined by simple intellectual truths. Personally, I believe that absolutes are determined by a perfect and unfailing deity, but that is a debate for another day. 4. If we can distinguish between right and wrong, then we can determine correctness. For example, we both can agree that murder is wrong, that the sky is blue, that (as stated above) 2 + 2= 4, and we can further agree on universal concepts. We know we are right because truth is self-evident and inherited by nature. 5. Can you determine if you do or do not exist? If you can prove one truth, you can prove all truth. I am conscious and I can communicate ideas and concepts by using language, essentially, my experience is absolute, our debate is absolute and existence (no matter how relative or individual it is viewed to be) is absolute Question: If ideas or values have no objective existence, how do we determine individual morals?
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

1. In order to argue absolutism is true, it requires circular reasoning(for to make a claim that absolutism is a logically consistent philosophy, you have to have absolutism to prove that). While I am not one who says circular reasoning leads to something always being false(as that would be an absolute) this is something an absolutist would believe and so it makes the absolutist's thinking logically flawed according to their own philosophy. 2. One can come to the conclusion relativism is the more logically consistent philosophy by realizing everything in this world is dependent upon how our brain perceives it. 3. Logic is also a relative idea, for who determines what is logical? Relativism may or may not be logically flawed and it is hasty to conclude it is or is not unless logic is always correct, which it is not. 4. The capacity to be correct or incorrect does exist in relativism, you just don't ever know for certain if you are. Whether or not one is correct doesn't depend on whether one knows they are. You're correct or incorrect regardless of what philosophy one follows. Relativism doesn't deal with whether one is correct or incorrect, but whether you can know if you are. 5. Absolutes may or may not exist, but we can't know if they do or don't.
Relativism is a Logically Flawed Philosophy

I wish to argue for the position that Relativism is a flawed philosophical concept, and will be defending and promoting Absolutism throughout my arguments. Arguments should be made in point form with supporting evidence written below, for the first round positions will be stated in point form only, further arguments will follow in rounds 2-3. Ad Hominem arguments will be tolerated. The opponent will construct their thesis in the first round, then resort to rebuttals and further arguments in the following rounds (cease using point form if you wish, quote opponent and deconstruct logic). I shall set up a template for the first round with my own thesis and position. Best of luck to my opponent. Thesis and Position- 1. Absolute truth must exist for truth to exist, if truth is relative, truth does not exist 2. Absolutism is absolutely true, to dodge logical fallacy, relativism must be relatively true 3. The relativist does not prove that relativism is true but merely assumes that it is true, to believe relativism is true one must accept the absolute laws of logic and rationality 4. The capacity to be correct or incorrect must exist 5. Stating absolutes do not exist or manifest in reality is making an absolute assertion
school unifroms should not be banned

Again, EXTRA money has to be spent for said uniforms! Why not let a family have their kid wear what they ALREADY HAVE? If I had a kid and a school suddenly said uniforms are mandatory, I would be mad as hell as would others because NOW, MORE money has to be spent! You CAN make kids not bully. It IS possible. Have rules and discipline in place. It is that simple. Also, I am sorry, but your sources are awful. That was what seems to be an opinion of a random charter school. That has NO research backing ANY of what it stated. The second source is a shopping website for uniforms. I may as well send you THESE links. https://www.tccd.edu... http://www.hottopic.com... One is a school website for a COLLEGE. Which when kids join, there is usually NO uniforms at all. The other is a clothes website. Do these prove ANYTHING to you? SO WHAT if a kid goes to school dressing like the family can't afford that good of clothing! Teach kids to STFU about it and accept it. Don't make it WORSE by telling this poor, tight budgeted family that they must make their budget TIGHTER because of uniforms! As for identification, nametags! Hats! Special shirts for the occasion! Bracelets! It isn't hard to come up with other ways. GET RID of the pressure to wear stylish clothing. Teach kids it's not worth it! It's all overrated BS. Eliminate the SOURCE of the problem! The source isn't what people wear, but rather peoples' attitudes. As for kids that arrange clothes before they sleep, now, like they will in college, they have a CHOICE of what to wear. And they can choose. If they are taught not to care or be picky about their clothing, then NO, it won't take that long.
school unifroms should not be banned

I made a mistake. In a class where everyone is wearing non uniform students look at one another for who has the best clothing school-uniform it distracts the lesson!(Research has proven it)You still haven't mentioned other ways students can be identified By the way below are the websites I used to research. http://www.summitacademyschools.org... https://www.frenchtoast.com... info/more about school uniforms/benefits of school uniforms.do Let me tell you something.Not wearing uniform exposes children's family background.I don't think children of lower class families would want to show others that they are poor.It has been proved.Moreover I said it reduces bullying. I know bullying still exists in uniform schools.Some children don't want to be told to stop bullying.By the way,SOME students feel pressure to wear stylish clothes.While those in uniforms schools don't feel pressure!It also eases mornings .SOME students don't arrange what they are going to wear before they sleep.Instead they arrange them in the morning.Those type of students who study at non uniforms schools take quite a long time on deciding what to wear.IT IS VERY VERY TRUE!!!
school unifroms should not be banned

Dude. I literally went through your argument PIECE BY PIECE and debated it part by part. You STILL do not show ANY evidence for what you state. For all I and ANYBODY who sees this knows, you are LYING about everything. Now, I do not THINK you are, but you don't have ANY research from RELIABLE sources other than your own words. You NEED sources especially when you give SO MUCH data and stats! Here is the rest of the argument I never got to put WITH SOURCES: School uniforms create equality.At school it doesn't matter which type of family one comes from.Everyone is equal.I think those who say they should be banned want to show off how rich they are and bully other people Bullies exist despite uniforms. Ask anyone. Uniforms have NO guarantee. "If they want a school of only rich kids ,let them go and create their own school!So imagine being bullied for clothes.How would you feel?" 1. Not only rich kids are bullies. Some schools don"t have any rich kids. 2. Again, teach not to bully about ANYTHING, not just clothing! "Moreover ,research has shown that school uniforms increase focus on learning.If everyone is wearing uniforms ,all students will look at one another's clothing." WHAT research. SHOW it. Here is mine: https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.newyorker.com... http://www.spiked-online.com... http://theconversation.com... http://wh-magazine.com... http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca... https://www.creditdonkey.com... "It is also said that school uniforms make schools a safe place.Did you know?In some non uniform schools students have been killing each other over expensive clothing."
school unifroms should not be banned

Don't you get it?Let's say there's a soccer match and everyone is wearing the same thing.People will support their own team.While if they are wearing casual,some may go to an extent of supporting the other team.This makes them less proud of their school.I think you haven't researched enough on non-uniform schools.Students force their parents to buy new clothes every now and then to impress their friends which wastes money!It seems you don't know that there are different types of bullies.Some are clothing bullies.By the way I said it reduces bullying.I think you don't want to wear the same things as others are wearing because you are a show off.School is a place of equality.No matter what race you are from or what clothes you wear.Non uniform schools defy this rule.A lower class family's child may get bullied of what they wear.In addition to that safety is more important than comfort.I think you don't understand this.I also want to add another point.Uniforms increase expectations of student from themselves.They tend to behave better when dressed neatly.Also ,some students may break the school dress code and may end up wearing inappropriate clothes.Give me some ways in which students can be identified apart from uniforms.Uniforms have improved attendance .Poor children feel uncomfortable going to school because they will be mocked at!How would you feel being one of the poor children?School uniforms create pride.Children feel proud of themselves.By the way they also remove dress competitions or peer pressure.For your information,86 percent of the parents in US support uniforms.School uniforms reduce gang activity.For example,there might be a gang of blue.Students must wear blue.Moreover school uniforms are a source of protection.An intruder can be easily identified at a school where there is uniform.While in non-uniform schools,the intruder may disguise him or herself as a student.Also students may wear T shirts saying bad stuff.Like you are my slave .
school unifroms should not be banned

School uniforms creates unity" Proof? They also are pricey and many kids view it as a pain in the butt. I would know, we adopted uniforms in elementary school, 2nd grade. I remember solidly that the teacher gave an assignment to us to write a paper on our opinion based on an article about it. I was very against it as most students were. The unifying feeling does not have to come to uniforms. It's not like cliques don't exist because of they are used. I would feel just fine and I would know because again, in elementary school and middle school had uniforms. Still didn't make many friends. Bullying existed still. All it did was an another pain to think about when thinking of school. "In addition to that they are a form of identification. Identification at sometimes can be very crucial let us say a kindergarten 2 child is lost but is wearing a uniform. People can identify which school that student comes from." There are other solutions! And more comfortable too! "Also school uniforms can save parents' money." No! This was of one of the biggest complaints back when it was implemented in my elementary school years. Parents often already have clothing for summer and non school days and formerly for school as well! Now they have to spend more money and shopping time on uniforms. I am pretty sure many parents did not like having to put all the clothes they already had away and make space for more clothing only for school. Side note, guy from elementary school was not exactly the kindest dude happened to be one of the kids that had parents for uniforms. Uniforms reduce bullying? One may bully another because of what clothes the other wears. Ok? So teach students not to bully. On anything. Why should I have to wear matching clothing just to stop the bullying? I do not have enough characters to respond to the rest that you wrote, But I will try to in the next part
school unifroms should not be banned

Uniforms are clothes given to students by the school to wear.However,some say that uniforms should be banned ,but I do not agree with this .They should be allowed. Firstly,school uniforms creates unity and pride.All students will wear the same thing which will create a stronger team mentality.Imagine a place where everyone is from the same school but they do not feel unity.How would you feel being in that situation. In addition to that they are a form of identification.Identification at sometimes can be very crucial.Let us say a kindergarten 2 child is lost but is wearing a uniform.People can identify which school that student comes from.Also school uniforms can save parents' money.Instead of having to buy clothes every now and then,parents can buy 2 sets of uniforms which will do for the children for up to 3 months. Uniforms reduce bullying .One may bully another because of what clothes the other wears.School uniforms create equality.At school it doesn't matter which type of family one comes from.Everyone is equal.I think those who say they should be banned want to show off how rich they are and bully other people.If they want a school of only rich kids ,let them go and create their own school!So imagine being bullied for clothes.How would you feel? Moreover ,research has shown that school uniforms increase focus on learning.If everyone is wearing uniforms ,all students will look at one another's clothing. It is also said that school uniforms make schools a safe place.Did you know?In some non uniform schools students have been killing each other over expensive clothing.Imagine being in a school like that.Full of murderers,thugs,bullies and robbers!I don't know whether people who don't support uniforms understand safety. It is a very true fact that school uniforms take out dress competitions.Am sure you will all agree to this.Students may argue with each other over who has the best clothes.Am sure most people don't like a competitive atmosphere.Especially clothes.
Electronic songs and groups

The people's tastes change over time. The mood that usually is portrayed as a Victorian styled room with people in suits and a low rumble of chatting and clinking of champagne classes. Quite a lot of EDM fans are usually younger people that are uncomfortable with classic music like Mozart or Bach. Not all EDM is like Deadmau5's song City In Florida, which is practically just beeps, boops, and such. One song that is still EDM but with less 'in your face' sounds is Deadmau5's song I Remember, a remix of one of KasKade's songs. You might like it. It gives off a mood like you are going around in an attic or room and finding pictures of some long lost loved one. My offense is that peoples tastes change over time and that it is possible to express feelings and mood through EDM.
Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day)

"You have provided no reason for why April Fool's day would be an atheist holiday beside your one reference to Scripture. You must establish why that Scripture should determine when an atheist has a holiday." Must I keep repeating the Scripture, which I might add is pretty self explanatory of the above "confusion" you have on the issue? Psalm 14:1 states, "The fool says in his heart, that there is no God." Thus, if an atheist says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool and April 1st is his holiday. Get it? April Fools Day. Atheist is fool for not believing in God. Fool...Fools Day? Must I keep hitting on this point each round? "I the same way, atheists could not take April 1st as a holiday because it has no connection to atheism. Indeed the fact that you link atheism to the date through scriptures is a striking reason why April 1st would NOT be an atheist holiday. Atheist would try to distance themselves from the connection as much as possible." Once AGAIN, the connection is being a fool. Seriously, it's really not that difficult to pick up on? "April 1st is the holiday of fools. Atheists are fools (so sayeth scripture) April 1st is the holiday of atheists. However, a large number of groups are fools (nazi's, flat earth-ists, clowns, people who gamble large quantities of money). So April 1st is their holiday also. This shows that the holiday is not a day designed for atheists "to celebrate their non-faith." The holiday is not exclusively for atheists." Thank you for restating my issue and they can join too if they can be called fools. I may not want to be associated with some of those groups if I was an atheist, but a fool is a fool. "Furthermore, as you state the atheist holiday is "to celebrate their non-faith." Yet April 1st has nothing to do with a celebration of non-faith. It is already steeped in traditions of practical jokes that have nothing to do with atheism." Honestly, again? One word, scripture.