BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ontological Argument

Pro hasn’t offered anything new in this last round other then a more in depth explanation of the same false (in my opinion) argument. I still do not believe that any of my concerns were addressed and will take this last round to reiterate why. Pros entire argument at this point seems to rest on the concept of necessity. To support this he has shown Axiom S5 Model Logic. I admit that I have very little understanding of this logic, and while I am very doubtful that this concept is sound, I do recognize that it is possible I may be missing something very important. However it is Pros responsibility to make his case. If Pro is not properly demonstrating why Axiom S5 can be used to logically reach his conclusion then his argument should not be accepted. As far as my “little knowledge in philosophy” was able to conclude, Pros argument of necessity was nothing more then a complicated way of saying that an MGB exists because Pro says so. I will use two of Pros statements in the last round to show why: “In a world where a MGB does not exist, this necessity of existence is not fulfilled, so that world is absurd and paridoxial, making the only possible world one where the MGB exists.” In the last round I pointed out how Pro has given no reason why an MGB is necessary for the world to exist, and asked Pro how he came to this conclusion. Pro did not respond, he simply reiterated that it is necessary which once again, is simply assuming its existence. I think it is also important to note that this argument of comparing two possible worlds, one with and one without an MGB, is not in the OA Pro provided in round 1. So even if the reader accepts it, it still does not support the resolution that the OA is sound. “Possibly necessarily means that if it is possible that something is required, then it is required.” Does Pro dispute that anything is possible? I would certainly hope that he does not disagree with this very basic statement. However according to this argument not only is everything possible but everything actually does exist simply because it is possible. This would apparently mean that every God which has ever been prayed to does in fact exist. And if so then I ask; which one of them created the world? How is this not be paridoxial? I think it is clear that it is. Conclusion I see no reason to continue refuting Pros arguments, as it is all the same arguments that I have already addressed. This debate was about whether the argument presented in round one leads us to the conclusion that an MGB does exist. However I have made it very clear that Pro has shown no fluid connection without assuming the conclusion, then using this assumption to reach the conclusion. By this point you either agree or you don’t. The OA is not sound. I would like to thank Pro for this debate. I do think it has been interesting, and I wish him good luck.
The Ontological Argument

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.My opponent claims that I am no longer defending the ontological argument. However, this debate is obviously centered around the vocabulary used in premise 3. Looking at premise 3, someone without the capacity to imagine how such a premise comes to be, would find it nonsensical and dismiss the argument altogether.Both of my rebuttals were simply explanations of how P3 is true. The first rebuttal was the one you were attacking (I believe), that the argument works because of the nature of a MGB doesn't make sense. The second rebuttal is the position I stand, which is the concept of necessity. I only included the premises because after re-reading what I wrote, it didn't seem to make much sense. But all the information is the same.Both of my rebuttals simply reiterated how P3 transitions properly without flaw, simply two different ways of looking at the same thing. The first one admittedly doesn't make sense and is full of holes, while the second, using Axiom S5 modal logic, transitions fine. There is no vocabulary error that has been pointed out so far.Unless there is further disagreement on your part, I believe there are still enough rounds left to continue debating.
The Ontological Argument

The resolution states that the Ontological Argument is sound. In round one Pro specifically laid out the argument he intended to defend but after my last rebuttal, Pro now responds with a new argument. While I reject the soundness of his new argument and would like to debate it, that is not the resolution and I don’t think the readers care to read two debates if they are only going to judge one. Pro already stated that the OA as presented does not lead to the conclusion. Therefore he already admitted that he has lost this debate. If Pro wishes to continue then he must explain how his “necessary” rebuttal is relevant to the resolution.
The playing of video games has done more harm than good to society.

Though the positive effects of video games are woefully low in stature and usefulness, the negative effects as listed above are overblown to say the least. In your argument you state that "these numerous shootings which are closely linked to the playing of video games". While video games may play a minute role in the path of action to which the shooters took, all of the perpetrators of the recent shootings were mentally ill in some way. For example, Adam Lanza, the shooter in Sandy Hook, had a history of anxiety, depression, and crippling OCD starting around the age of 12. [1] As for your argument about video games being addictive, some studies have shown that video games can be addictive chemically, but others suggest that physiological trait may play a role in those who get addicted to video games, in that those who are inherently more susceptible to addiction than others. [2] Also, what evidence do you have fore the statement that "The mentally unbalance people having descended into this mental state due to excessive playing of video games", as this implies that shooters were driven to act on their thoughts by video games exclusively, and not just their mental instability. Moreover, in the more common cases of those who blow off their schoolwork to play video games, those individuals who's grades dip will almost certainly be confronted by a professor or a parent concerned that they might be playing to much. Even if this hypothetical vacuum of influence were real, the child who forgoes obligations to play video games is at fault. It is not the video game that made the child skip schoolwork or chores, it was the child alone who made the decision. Again, in your paragraph where you mention the US and South Korea, you run on the assumption that those who play video games at an extreme and arguably unhealthy level are encounter resistance from a peer, spouse, family member, or teacher, assuming that they do not at any point realize that what they are doing is detrimental to their lives and get help by themselves. As for the quote from the Devin Thompson, even though he attributed his actions to GTA: Vice City, ensuing investigations uncovered a long history of physical and mental abuse he suffered as a child. [3] Such mental scars run deeper than those that are physical, and they can seriously call the decision-making ability of any individual into question. In conclusion, in those cases where individuals acted heinously who also frequented the digital realms of video games, in almost all of those cases, there was an underlying cause other than the video games. As for cases of addiction, the assumption that those who isolate themselves in video games have nobody in their lives to help them or that they cannot help themselves is a ludicrous proposition to say the leas [1]http://articles.courant.com... [2]http://www.video-game-addiction.org... [3]http://murderpedia.org...
The playing of video games has done more harm than good to society.

There are VERY FEW positive effects of video gaming. Some of which include improved hand-eye coordination, fast and strategic thinking,etc [1] However, these positives only affect one party, that is, the player whilst the negatives have the potential to affect non-players. For example, these numerous shootings which are closely linked to the playing of video games.[2]. On a less tragic note, video games also increase violence and compulsive behavior which is not only destructive to the player but also to the people around him/her.[3]. When video games are played to an excessive level, they are known to cause addiction. The most popular of these addictive games being World of Warcraft which has literally destroyed people's social lives.[4]. Such games have the capacity to alter a player's sense of reality and cause the player to abandon real-life activities in preference to virtual reality. This has and will,in the near future, I assume, cause some mentally unbalanced buffoons to foolishly murder people or commit suicide as in these sad cases[5]. The mentally unbalanced people having descended into this mental state due to excessive playing of video games.Drifting away from these extreme cases and wandering into more common scenarios, students who play video games often forgo schoolwork in preference to video games. This causes their grades to fall and this ultimately has an effect on their future careers and standard of living. Players who take gaming to insanely absurd levels lose touch with reality and endanger themselves and those around them thinking that it is just a game. As a matter of fact, one wildly video game intoxicated brain dead young man said these irrational and disturbing words to the authorities after having murdered law enforcers: life is like a video game, you have to die some time.[6]. In places like USA and South Korea (I by no means do not mean to offend people in these countries and I am emphasizing that not all of them are encompassed in this debate) video game addicts have lost their real lives, both literally and not in the literal sense. Furthermore, video games limit the creativity of addicted players.[7] Despite it being unproven, it is highly probable that video games have an effect on IQ as well. The only people getting any real benefits from video games are those making and selling them for million dollar profits. Until the next round..... [1] www.raisesmartkid.com/3-to-6-years-old/4-articles/34-the-good-and-bad-effects-of-video-games [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://www.google.com... [6] http://www.google.com... [7] http://www.google.com...
The playing of video games has done more harm than good to society.

My argument is that the playing of video games has had deterimental effects to society. To my opponent, and others who will following this debate, I would like you to know that I am not saying that gaming has had no positive effects but I am saying the positive effects it has had are outweighed by the negatives. I look forward to an entertaining and captivating debate as this will be my debut on this site.
America was Founded on Christian Morals

It's clear to everyone that I've forced you to do some actual research. You finally found the truth, Which is why you refuse to answer any of the questions that I've presented. Yes, That's a dead giveaway, But I'll play devils advocate just to prove you wrong yet again. Sir, Did you not name numerous presidents & their quotes? So, The Declaration of Independence wasn't written by a person/people? If not, Then explain to me what entity wrote it. I'm sure the founders didn't dig up some ancient scrolls that were titled Declaration of Independence. . . You said that "the Declaration" is what founded America. Really? Did "the Declaration" precede slavery? Nope. . . So, How can "the Declaration" be the founding institution if it wasn't even invented prior to July 4, 1776. Slavery started over 100 years before that document came into fruition and it built America's wealth. Nope, I never said that all of the men you named were racist. I actually said "you're quoting well-known racists. " Dude, George Washington owned over 300 slaves & T. Jefferson owned over 600 slaves. How could you not know this? You claim to be this so-called Biblical scholar, But you're having trouble understanding spirituality & religion. . . Here's where you really put your foot in your mouth. . . You just said that (it's ridiculous that America was founded on racism because slavery was a part of America in the early days of the country). . . Ok, So where was "the Declaration" in the early days of the country? Oh, That's right because the people who wrote it wasn't even born during the early days. Once again, If the Declaration wasn't written during the early days, Then it couldn't have founded the country. Lol. Yes, I referenced the KKK because they're proud Christians, Which is why they born "the cross" on people's property, Which is an immoral crime to people with common sense. You referred to a self-proclaimed atheist, Who has no belief in a higher power. . . Are you following me? . . . Sir, Christ Did Not make the actual teachings, He was carrying out the mission. . . Wow! Evidence of Yah? It's not my place to teach class & guide you to every source. I will say that the word Christ is a title, Not a last name, Jesus is a Greek word & the letter J wasn't even invented during Biblical days. . . Hopefully you can connect the dots.
America was Founded on Christian Morals

My opponent has said that all I did was quote people. First off, This is a bold lie. I did not just do that, And he knows it. If he actually read what I wrote, He'd see that I also quoted the Declaration of Independence, Which is what FOUNDED America. Oh, Yeah, They totally didn't act out their beliefs. They only wrote their founding document with God all over it. Plus, My opponent said that all of the men I quoted were racists. Did he then provide any evidence of this? No, He did not. You cannot just say something so drastic like that and not back it up. That's lazy debate style. Please do a better job of backing up what you say. Next, My opponent said that America was founded on racism. This is absolutely ridiculous. If it is simply because slavery was a part of America in the early days of the country, Then All European countries were founded on racism. So was all of Asia. Using my opponent's logic, The whole world was founded on racism. More ridiculousness. Next, What? The KKK being stone-cold Christians? Are you just plain kidding me now? You just got through saying that me mentioning Eric Harris was irrelevant, Then you go and say that you're right because all KKK members were Christians (which, By the way, Is incorrect. ) If you are able to say that since "most so-called Christians have committed the most immoral crimes, " we should believe you, Then I am fully justified in saying that because some atheists have committed the most immoral crimes, Then you should believe me. I can mention Eric Harris and not be irrelevant, Thank you. Next, What on earth was all of that? Yah? Could you please provide some evidence for what you said about this? Or would that simply be asking too much? There was so much ridiculousness there I don't know where to start. First off, Christians are defined as "people who follow the teachings of Christ. " Christ wasn't following the teachings of Christ. He was making the teachings himself! What you said is very illogical. And please don't give a bunch of incomprehensible, Fake arguments and then claim that i don't know the Bible. That's just ridiculous. back to you.
America was Founded on Christian Morals

Sir, All you're doing is quoting what someone said, Which doesn't make it the truth. The question is "did they actually practice what they were preaching? ". . . Absolutely not. . . You lose all credibility because you're quoting well-known racists. Since racism is a belief & America was founded on racism. . . ". You do the math. Did I give any examples? America is the perfect example, And I never said that "all" Christians have done bad things; I said "most so-called Christians have committed the most immoral crimes. ". . . Did I not? Eric Harris is completely off-topic so let's cut out the semantics. Remember the KKK? Weren't/Aren't they stone-cold Christians? Remember when they terrorized Black people back in the day? Remember when they purposely burned (cross') on Black people's lawn? So, What's the purpose of burning a cross on someone's property? Is that the Christian thing to do? . . . Matter of fact, That is absolutely the Christian thing to do so you can see why your argument has no foundation. What you fail to comprehend is that so-called Christianity is really a made-up religion, And (most) so-called Christians do not follow the word of Yah. . . Key word "Yah. " Christianity is suppose to be derived from the word Christ, But the word Christ is an actual title, Not a religion. When you dig deeper into the religion of Christianity then you'll know that the real Christ was named Yahoshua, Which is a Hebrew name. I'll ask you this, "Was Christ a Christian or was he a Hebrew? Hmmm. . . . Is that the same thing? . . . Remember, Hebrew is a bloodline & not a religion. What really destroys your entire lack of case is that the guy that you & other Christians are praying to isn't even the real Christ to begin with. You're actually praying to a gay man named Caeser Borgia, Who was the son of Pope Alexander VI. This let's me know that you don't even read/study the Bible what-so-ever. Christians are basically worshipping a false idol & we absolutely know what the Bible says about worshipping false idols. All European images of Biblical figures is pure nonsense. The authentic faces have been purposely changed by the people who control the information. Am I correct? . . . ". If I'm not correct, Then why is there a "Book of Revelation? " Are you aware that the word revelation is derived from term "to reveal"? What I want you to do is to go & read Revelation 1:14-15 then come back and repeat what the verses actually said. I'll bet my left hand that the description of the authentic Christ, Whom is actually Yah, Doesn't match the description of what's presented to us today. "Just because you go to church doesn't mean that you follow the scriptures"
America was Founded on Christian Morals

Well, You'll need to be a bit more clear on what you consider to be moral. To be honest, Most so-called Christians have committed the most immoral crimes, And that's a documented fact. Yes, You are right, We really do see the evidence all around us and it totally contradicts your claim. Belief system? Not trying to bring race into the equation, But racism is a belief system, And America is deeply rooted in racism. That's a guaranteed fact that can't be disputed, Refuted or retorted. I know that religion can be a touchy subject, But if there's a debate about religion, Then all aspects most be spoken about.
Homosexuals should be allowed into the Catholic Church

To start off, I'm an Orthodox Jew. We don't instantly turn down homosexuals (we try and help them change), but the reason why I think the Catholic Church should be able to turn down Homosexuals is because IT'S A PRIVATE RELIGION. They are allowed to believe what they want. (They shouldn't persecute homosexuals, but they can turn them down). They are allowed to have their private beliefs. It's not a public business. If Catholics can be forced to go against their beliefs, so can a lot of other people with more valid beliefs.
Homosexuals should be allowed into the Catholic Church

You're right when you say I agree with you in some ways, but it's a little twisted so I'm going to clear that up. I think the Catholic Church SHOULD be allowed to turn down Homosexuals, but I'm not exactly happy they do that. But the problem is we can make them go against their beliefs of turning them down, people can do the same to out beliefs. I DON'T like how they turn people down. I think they should try and change the people, and especially since they're trying to convert people. I'm just they should be allowed to deny Homosexuals. But note: I STILL DON'T AGREE WHEN THEY DO THAT. I think they would be better off with a different approach, but again they still are allowed to turn them down. Also from what I know, Christianity originated from Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. Thanks for replying so nicely to my argument. Your turn.
Homosexuals should be allowed into the Catholic Church

I am getting the feeling that in general we may agree with each other. It seems that you interpreted the 'should' in should homosexuals be aloud into the Catholic Church more as a could. However, I meant 'should' as in it would not be logical or theological sound for the Catholic Church to, for instance, ban all homosexuals from joining. I agree that the Catholic Church could theoretically ban all homosexuals from joining although this would be very hard to enforce and it ,in my opinion, would go against several Catholic teachings (however the Catholic Church may still technically ban all homosexuals). It seems that you might agree with the opinion that I stated (the second part in the last sentence), because as you said, you are part of a religion that accepts homosexuals and simple tries to change them. This is what I would be suggesting, if it is not happening already, for the Catholic Church. However, keep in mind for this relation between Orthodox Judaism and the Catholic Church, most of what I know about Orthodox Judaism comes from the book "The Chosen" (so I probably know nothing about the religion). In conclusion we may just be in agreement, or if we actually disagree about Catholicism and Homosexual policy, please look at my points in R1.
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

If 1 = 0.999... then since 1 - 1/infinity = 0.999..., 1/infinity must be proven to equal zero. Zero, when multiplied by anything, must equal itself (that is, zero). though 22 multiplied by 1/infinity equals 1/infinity (because 22/infinity equals 1/infinity), infinity multiplied by 1/infinity yields one. Zero multiplied by infinity yields zero, not one, so 0 does not equal 1/infinity so 1 does not equal 0.999...
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

Intro It probably doesn't help that I haven't done calculus, but I can still spy multiple flaws in my opponents logic. Furthermore my bottom argument conforms to the top argument, so by not attacking the top argument (proof if anyone wishes) , my opponent concedes that point, and the bottom is merely an application of the top, rendering it correct. Nevertheless. .. My case 1. If we take the opposite method in proving this case 1-0.9999. .. we see that there is a difference of 0.000. .. we will never see the one, resulting in a difference of 0. 2. On refuting my opponent the idea of 9.99. .. - 0.999. . being infinity - infinity is quite wrong. There is clearly a difference of 9. Indeed we times one number by 10 to get the second no. 3. How about adding a negative infinity to positive infinity, that should be 0. There's a list of other points, but you never need to round - 0.99. .. - 0.99. .. is 0, the are the same number. 4. Of course 0.999. .. isn't a whole number in that form, whole numbers are essentially integers (not quite accurate of course) What my opponent probably means is something like 0.888. .. - 0.777. .. = 0.111. .. and being unable to simplify 0.111. .. Con's case is refuted.
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

.999... is not a whole number, it is infinite. You cannot subtract two infinite numbers and get a whole number, which is what you are doing. Saying [9.999... - .999 = 9] is flawed logic. You are at some point rounding .999... to 1. In calculus we are taught that an infinite number minus an infinite number will equal an infinite number. [9.999... - .999] is the same as saying [Infinity - Infinity]