BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If omniscient beings exist, there cannot be free will.

PRO has not addressed my first contention regarding foreknowledge, nor has he responded to my second contention regarding Molinism, either of which would be sufficient to negate the resolution. However, for the sake of the discussion, I'll respond to his objection regarding Moore's ship analogy. ====================== C3 - A simple argument for compatibilism ====================== Suppose, as my opponent believes, that there is only one meaning of the word "could. " If we assume that there is no distinction between the ship that is travelling 10 knots, but could go 20 and the ship that is going 10 knots because it could *not* go 15, our conclusion is not only absurd, but self-contradictory. "Could" would then only be used to refer to the action that any agent actually performs! Consider this simple argument [1] by philosopher Michael Huemer: 1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (This is not arguable) 2. Whatever should be done can be done. (I'll explain shortly) 3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. (definition of "could") 4. I believe in free will. (given) 5. With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 1,2) 6. If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 3,5) 7. If determinism is true, then free will exists. (from 6,4) 8. Determinism is true. :. Therefore, free will exists. (from 7, 8) Premise 2 is derived from Immanuel Kant's "ought implies can" principle. [2] That is, it is erroneous to say that one "ought" to do something they cannot actually do. For example, if your car breaks down and you're late for work, it would be ridiculous for me to say "well, then you should have flown to work like Superman does! " The resolution is negated. -- References -- 1. . http://home.sprynet.com... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
If omniscient beings exist, there cannot be free will.

You say that it is one thing for a ship to go 15 knots, while it could go 20, and for a ship to go 10 knots because it cannot go 15. If God knows that the ship will go 15 knots, and because he is not fallible, is it truly possible for the ship to go 20 in that same trip? If it did go 20, then that would render God fallible. Yes, the ship is capable of going 20 knots, but is it possible with the divine intervention of a God? In this case, God knew that the ship would go 15 knots and it does. I see that in this case, it was not possible for the ship to go 20 knots since God knew that it would go 15. Of course even if God exists and this applied, then we would still define the choice of going 15 as free will.
If omniscient beings exist, there cannot be free will.

Thanks, PRO, for instigating the debate challenge. This will be an interesting exercise in Devil's advocacy for me since I don't actually believe in God. However, I *do* believe that divine foreknowledge and free will are *not* logically incompatible. ==================== C1 - Foreknowledge does negate free will ==================== Suppose Amy has an exam tomorrow morning. Given sufficient knowledge of the relevant factors, such as the difficulty of the test, Amy's motivation to succeed, her knowledge of the course material, etc., hypothetically, one could predict with perfect accuracy if she will study tonight. Whether or not such a prediction is made has no bearing on her choice. Either she had free will both before and after the prediction was made, or she never had free will at all. Therefore, it's absurd to believe that the additional element of an omniscient being would have any effect on her decision making process either. ==================== C2 - Molinism ==================== Many contemporary theists hold to a view called Molinism.[1] Standard Molinism is based on the view that God has middle knowledge of contingent truths called counterfactuals. A counterfactual looks like this: If any agent X were in any situation Y, X would freely do Z. If this seems confusing, here's a real world example: If Joe were at Taco Bell, he would freely choose to order a crunch wrap instead of the nacho supremes. Middle knowledge refers to the timeframe of creation. According to the standard Molinist model, it went like this: 1. God's knowledge of necessary, logical truth. 2. God's middle knowledge of contingent truth, such as counterfactuals. --- Creation of the world --- 3. God's free knowledge. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals influences the type of world that he actualizes. Knowing how all free agents will behave in all possible situations, God (hopefully) creates the best possible world. Thus, God 's free knowledge (including foreknowledge) is contingent upon both middle knowledge and the ontology of the created world. ==================== C3 - A simple argument for compatibilism ==================== Hard determinism is the view that if any agent X performs action Y, that agent could not have done other than Y in those circumstances. In order for this to be correct, there must not be any definition of "could" by which an agent X could do other than Y when he actually did Y. Returning to the analogy my opponent gives regarding video games. G.E. Moore uses the example of a ship.[2] It is one thing to say that that a ship is going 15 knots but *could* go 20, while it is quite another matter to say the ship is going 10 knots because it *cannot* go 15. Thus, in many circumstances, it's clear that in *some sense* X *could have* done other than Y, therefore hard determinism is false and free will exists. The resolution is negated. -- References -- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.mnstate.edu...
If omniscient beings exist, there cannot be free will.

I abstain from saying God because it is impossible for him to be omniscient and omnipotent. If x being is omniscient, then it knows the future. If it knows the future and, (let's assume x being is not fallible) is never wrong, then it knows y event will happen. For example, if I decide to go to Gamestop and buy an fps game, I will choose between Medal of Honor and Modern Warfare 2. Seeing that Mw2 sucks, I choose Medal of honor. Technically, I chose to get MOH, however was it really possible to get Mw2? Because x being is not fallible, and it knew that I was going to get MOH, then it was not possible to get Mw2. Inevitably I will get MOH. If I did get mw2, it would mean that MOH was not the x event that y being knew was going to happen. /discuss.
Shanks is stronger than Black Beard (One Piece)

INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:I as Con will show that Shanks is not stronger than Blackbeard.ARGUMENTS:#1. Blackbeard is Strong as Whitebeard.....At LeastBlackbeard is as strong as Whitebeard ever since he absorbed the Gura Gura no Mi fruit. We do know that Whitebeard actually fought Shanks and we know that there wasn't a decisive conclusion since they were both Yonko. If Blackbeard absorbed Whitebeard's powers, we can't see that Shanks would beat Blackbeard definitively in the post Whitebeard War period, the Timeskip. #2. Blackbeard's Strength is UnknownNot only has Blackbeard absorbed Whitebeard's powers, he may have absorbed many other people's powers since the Whitebeard War ended. 2a. What We do KnowWe only know that Blackbeard has two powers at least. Those two powers would be the Yami Yami no Mi and the Gura Gura no Mi powers. The Yami Yami no Mi fruit gave Blackbeard the power to control darkness. Blackbeard can absorb powers as well as create black holes. We have seen Blackbeard use this power against Portgas D. Ace, Strawhat Luffy, and even Whitebeard. The Gura Gura no Mi fruit gave Blackbeard the power to cause tremors in the air and cause tremors in the world itself. After all, let us remember Whitebeard turned Marineford upside down when he had the Gura Gura no Mi powers. Blackbeard now has th capacity to use the "Shima Yurashi" attack to turn an area upside down. Blackbeard had no training in the use of the Gura gura no Mi powers when he first used it. Blackbeard was able to block a punch from Marine Fleet Admiral Sengoku during the Whitebeard War. Blackbeard would later encounter Shanks during the Whitebeard War and denying wanting to fight him. But post timeskip, Blackbeard's powers are unkown. it is safe to assume, he has become stronger because he has become a Yonko. #3. Blackbeard is a Yonko, One of the Four EmperorsShanks is a Yonko and now so is Blackbeard. At the very least, Blackbeard now equals Shanks in terms of strength if he is not stronger. http://www.youtube.com...
Shanks is stronger than Black Beard (One Piece)

Hello to all. I will take the side of Shanks in this debate, trying to prove that he is stronger than Black Beard. My opponent will try to prove that Black Beard is stronger than Shanks.NOTE: It is important that everyone understands that when I say "strongest", i'm talking about overall Combat Ability. That means, strength, speed, agility, intelligence, so on and so forth. I don't mean just pure destructive power.Anyone is welcome to accept, but only accept if you are serious. =) R1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Conclusions
Shanks is stronger than Black Beard (One Piece)

Extend all arguments.Conclusion:Pro failed to establish that Red Haired Shanks was stronger than Blackbeard. At best, we must conclude that Red Haired Shanks is may be equal to Blackbeard or inferior to Blackbeard as we know that Blackbeard has became stronger. There is no evidence making us believe that Red Haired Shanks is stronger than Blackbeard. Pro did not address a single one of my points about the post-timeskip Blackbeard. Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof on the resolution.Vote Con and watch Blackbeard take on Whitebeard.http://www.youtube.com...
Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.

Round 4. Now, something I did not mention in R2, something very simple. Creationism has no such evidence as that which I have mentioned in R2. It is completely unsupported. Extend all arguments, and vote Con for the following reasons. S/G: Even. Both of us have made spelling errors. Conduct: Con. Pro broke the first rule by posting arguments in R1. Arguments: Con. I have shown, in more detail, how the evolutionary process is indeed true, and have bluntly stated that Creationism is unsupported. Sources: Con. I actually used sources in R2.
Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.

-=Introduction=- Pro seems to have misunderstood the debate upon acceptance. He seems to be arguing for my side. Some future advice: check what side you'll be on. -=Rebuttals=- I feel no need to refute any of Pro's points, for they are points on my side. -=Arguments=- Now, for my own points: There exist several experiments that confirm evolution, and take place in a much smaller time scale than that of our branch-off with our common ancestor with modern ape. Such experiments are the introduction of insecticides to an insect species, and such a species mutating a resistance to the chemical. [1] "Question: Does exposure to insecticide foster the evolution of insecticide resistance in insect populations? Experiment: Researchers studied samples of wild mosquitoes (Anopheles culicifacies) captured at a small village in India, where public health of@257;cials frequently sprayed the insecticide dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) to control these pests. For each test, the researchers exposed samples of mosquitoes to a 4% concentration of DDT for 1 hour and then measured the percentage that died during the next 24 hours. Tests were repeated 12 months and 16 months after the @257;rst experiment. Results: Over the course of the experiment, smaller and smaller percentages of the mosquitoes died after their exposure to the test concentration of the insecticide. Conclusion: The indiscriminate use of DDT established natural selection that favored DDT-resistant individuals. Exposure to DDT therefore fostered the evolution of an adaptive resistance to DDT in the mosquito population." According to the aforementioned source, only 5% of the mosquitoes had resistance to DDT at the beginning,but about a year later, this trait had been passed down so much by the mosquitoes that their resistance had grown to 50%. Several months later, this resistance percentage had increased to 75%. This is evolution at work: fueled by natural selection, evolution created a mutation that was passed down to many of the mosquitoes' children. After being sprayed once again, the remaining surviving children continued to reproduce, increasing the population's overall resistance to DDT. There are more details of the experiment in this source: [2] -=Closing Statements (R2)=- I have refrained from making too many arguments, because of the facts that this is round two, and that this is his first debate, as well as this obvious fact: Pro has his work cut out for him. He is currently charged with the task of not only refuting my points, but his as well. I wish him the best of luck on such an endeavor. -=Sources=- 1. http://www.cengage.com... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.

Creationism should NOT be taught along-side evolution in science, in my opinion. We have no way of knowing, how the world was formed, we have now way of knowing how we are formed ect. However, without going into much detail, evolution, is a much more liable reason in how the Earth was formed, unlike creationism. In my opinion science should stick to Science and Religious Education should stick to Religious Education. Evolution is a scientific theory which has been proven. Evolution has been proven in many ways. Although it may still be considered a "Theory" It is still proven and there will be a significant amount of proof in the up coming years. For example, why were males an average of 5'5" 400 years ago but today are an average of 5'11"? This only points to one thing. Humans, as well as all other living creatures, adapt to there surroundings and better themselves for the new climates or whatever they may face. If evolution did not exist then all living species would have died out long ago. I think that there is nothing wrong with children knowing about the idea of different ideas of creation from different religions, however,it shouldn't go any further than that. If if it is taught in R.E then fair enough. However, it should definitely not be taught alongside evolution. Whether it is in public schools or not, every school has to follow a curriculum, and creationism should not be in the science curriculum. If creationism is taught in R.E then a wide range of creation ideas should be taught, not just the Christian ideas, and also pupils should be reminded that creationism is only an religious idea and in no way it was been proven, however some people choose to believe this idea and they believe this is how the world has formed. Pupils should also be reminded in science that evolution is a proven idea and it is a completely different idea to creationism. Finally i would say that i think R.E should be optional from year 7, or at least year 9, as some people would rather not learn about religious ideas, instead it is now core at GCSE, however this is another debate.
Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes.

-=Introduction=- This debate was inspired by a quick look-around of the opinion section, to reveal that 35% answered yes to the resolution. [1] I have decided to debate the issue, and hope to debate someone who actually is on the Pro side of the issue, and isn't playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately, it seems that the previous person to accept this debate forfeited, so I am in search of a new opponent. -=Debate Parameters=- Resolution: Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. Pro: Whoever accepts the debate. Con: Luggs Rounds: 5 3-day rounds. Voting: 2 weeks. Argument length: 8,000 characters maximum. Votes: RFD required. -=Rules=- R1 is for acceptance, establishment of rules, and any opening statements, if any. No arguments, however. No new arguments will be put forward in R5, only rebuttals and closing statements. Avoid using logical fallacies. Avoid searing/profanities. Trolls, be gone! This is a serious debate. Cite sources, if any. -=Definitions=- Evolution: refers to the theory of evolution, the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. [2] Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. [3] *Note: Creationism, in this debate, may be the Creationism as told in any religion, or a deistic form of it. -=Burden of Proof=- The burden of proof (from now on, to be written as BoP) is on Pro, and as per usual, my role is to show that Pro has no case. -=Opening Statements=- I simply wish my opponent good luck, and may the best debater win! -=Sources=- 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. https://www.google.ca... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
On Balance, Capitalism Is Superior to Communism

Because of time constraints, I will make my argument short. "If we look upon the history of the world, and especially upon the history of England since 1865, we realize that Marx was wrong in every respect. There is no Western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way. All these improvements of the last 80 or 90 years were made in spite of the prognostications of Karl Marx. For the Marxian socialists believed that the conditions of the workers could never be ameliorated. They followed a false theory, the famous "iron law of wages" " the law which stated that a worker's wages, under capitalism, would not exceed the amount he needed to sustain his life for service to the enterprise. The Marxians formulated their theory in this way: if the workers' wage rates go up, raising wages above the subsistence level, they will have more children; and these children, when they enter the labor force, will increase the number of workers to the point where the wage rates will drop, bringing the workers once more down to the subsistence level " to that minimal sustenance level which will just barely prevent the working population from dying out. But this idea of Marx, and of many other socialists, is a concept of the working man precisely like that which biologists use " and rightly so " in studying the life of animals. Of mice, for instance. If you increase the quantity of food available for animal organisms or for microbes, then more of them will survive. And if you restrict their food, then you will restrict their numbers. But man is different. Even the worker " in spite of the fact that Marxists do not acknowledge it " has human wants other than food and reproduction of his species. An increase in real wages results not only in an increase in population; it results also, and first of all, in an improvement in the average standard of living. That is why today we have a higher standard of living in Western Europe and in the United States than in the developing nations of, say, Africa. We must realize, however, that this higher standard of living depends on the supply of capital. This explains the difference between conditions in the United States and conditions in India; modern methods of fighting contagious diseases have been introduced in India " at least, to some extent " and the effect has been an unprecedented increase in population, but, since this increase in population has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the amount of capital invested, the result has been an increase in poverty. A country becomes more prosperous in proportion to the rise in the invested capital per unit of its population. "[1] Thanks, and apologies for this short argument; I've had a lot of schoolwork. Sources [1]: . http://mises.org...
On Balance, Capitalism Is Superior to Communism

Due to some technical problems on my part, Leninist and I have agreed to restart this debate.Full ResolutionOn balance, capitalism is a superior economic system to communism. BoP is shared - pro has to prove that capitalism is superior, while con has to prove that communism is superior. DefinitionsOn Balance: "Taking everything into consideration; all in all."[1]Capitalism: "A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit."[2]Communism: "A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership and the absence of class."[3]Superior: "Of high quality; high or higher in quality."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.investopedia.com...[3]: http://www.investopedia.com...[4]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
R; The practice of hegemonic soft-power and hard-power are immoral.

I negate, The practice of hegemonic soft-power and hard-power are immoral. This will be my first debate as well. And as per my opponent's introduction, we are in agreement that the discussion will center around western players and their foreign policies and philosophies with regards to hegemony, as opposed to the policies and ideals of the non-western world. For purposes of avoiding semantics. here are some general definitions of the key terms:Hegemony (n) - "Leadership or dominance displayed by a group over another group."Soft power (n) - "A non violent approach to international relations, typically involving economic or cultural influence."Hard power (n) - "An approach to international relations that involves the use of force or intimidation." Western players (n, pl) - "The collection of specific nations located in Western Europe and North America, generally supporting UN and NATO resolutions such as democracy, global stability, and human rights, among other things."I look forward to a fun and informative debate.
R; The practice of hegemonic soft-power and hard-power are immoral.

As my first debate on this site, I figure why not go big and take on hege? To limit the debate to a reasonable scope, I am hoping we can discuss this in the context of Western actors and Western philosophy - unless my challenger feels there significant issues that we need to touch on by non-Western actors and moral paradigms. If so, please mention which issues from outside of the "Western World" you wish to discuss so that I may do some background research.
animal rights

== Pro == === Animal testing === My opponent has plagiarised her argument off of this website - . http://www.exampleessays.com... As she does not acknowledge it as a source and it is not her own work, I am not responding to it. === Animals should have rights === My opponent has also completely plagiarised another website under the same circumstance - . http://www.peta.org... Again I will not respond to it. I await my opponents response to my arguments and some of her own actual arguments