BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists.

I thank the Grinch for taking the sucker punch I threw at him like a champ :P === Intro === Con has not challenged the first two premises of my argument, so it appears he agrees that it's logically possible that Santa could exist and that *if* modal realism is true, then Santa really does exist. Note that I don't have to prove that modal realism is true, I merely have to demonstrate that it is a reasonable belief to hold. I gave three arguments in support of modal realism: (1) the fine tuning the of the universe; (2) the law of parsimony; and (3) assuming all other evidence is equal, it is a pragmatic belief to hold. Let's see how they have have held up thus far. === Pro Case === 1. Fine Tuning Con seems to agree that the universe *does* need to be finely tuned to permit life and that modal realism is at least a plausible explanation for how these conditions were met. I'm not sure what his objection is; he claims I haven't supported my contention, but doesn't mention how so. I'll leave this to my opponent to clarify in the latter rounds. 2. Modal realism is parsimonious Con expresses doubts regarding my sanity. This is nothing but an argument from incredulity.[1] Note that he hasn't actually argued against the law of parsimony; his sole objection has been that God would be an even simpler hypothesis. Con has not explained how this is so. Additionally, the existence of God does not conflict with modal realism. Indeed, the "many worlds" theodicy attempts to explain the existence of evil and suffering in the actual world by arguing that God created every possible world where the good outweighs the bad. 3. Pragmatism Con asks of mathematical sets "they can be accepted as what?" As real objects, like I explained. The same is true of possible worlds. Con claims that I have contradicted my point about the law of parsimony. I don't see how this is the case. If anything, modal realism offers us the simplest way of understanding the ideas outlined. === Con Case === "Go get yourself into a proper course. You've plenty time to be dreaming when you're asleep." I appreciate the Grinch's concern, but I'm actually only minoring in philosophy; I'm a neuroscience major with an emphasis in pre-med. "It's not reasonable to believe in something you don't have reason to believe in." This is merely restating the obvious; the whole point of the debate is to show that there are good reasons to believe that Santa Claus exists. This is a question begging tautology.[2] --- Conclusion --- In order to fulfill my BoP, I only have to prove that it is *reasonable* to believe that Santa Claus exists; not that Santa Claus actually exists. Toward that end, I have attempted to demonstrate that modal realism is at the very least plausible. I've completely refuted Con's objections to it. Con's only positive argument against the existence of Santa was clearly circular. The resolution is affirmed. References: 1. http://skepticwiki.org... 2. http://www.nizkor.org...
It is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists.

Merry Christmas, everyone, and thank you to whomever accepts this! This is not a semantics debate; in the spirit of Christmas, I will be defending the proposition that Santa Claus, "a benevolent figure of legend, associated with Saint Nicholas, supposed to bring gifts to children on Christmas Eve"[1] actually exists. The first round will be used for setting out and agreeing to the terms of the debate. Arguments will begin in round 2. References: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more harm than good

Arguments Drone strikes effectively fight terrorism without killing many civilians. The graph below shows the number of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004: [1] The next graph shows the number of Taliban/Al-Qaeda deaths caused by the strikes compared to civilian deaths: [1] click="document.location='/Bob13/photos/album/5800/39468/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5800/308879-5800-99g6c-a.jpg" alt="" /> Based on the two graphs, there is a correlation between the number of drone strikes and the number of Taliban/Al-Qaeda deaths, but that correlation does not apply to civilian deaths. 117 drone strikes in 2010 killed 801 terrorists and only 14 civilians. Look at my second source to see a similar pattern in Yemen. [2] Rebuttals Civilian casualties "The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates between 423 and 965 civilians were killed by drones in Pakistan alone." That's less than a thousand deaths across a 12 year period. Al-Qaeda killed more than three times as many people in a single day in 2001. The organization had 18,000 members in 2004, but by 2011 that number had been reduced to less than 4,000. Drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians, but attacks on terrorists have likely saved thousands of lives. [3] Terrorist Recruitment ISIS is using drone strikes to recruit people. However, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have lost so many members due to drone strikes that the same will likely happen to ISIS eventually. Drone strikes are illegal This is irrelevant. Breaking the law is not inherently bad, and drone strikes save lives, so they are justified whether it is legal or not. [1] http://www.longwarjournal.org... [2] http://www.longwarjournal.org... [3] http://web.stanford.edu...
American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more harm than good

The resolution of the debate is "American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more harm than good." As Con, I have to prove that American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more good than harm. Harm If we trust Pro's source, we can assume that 400 civilians have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, plus 105 in Yemen. Pro also claims that drone strikes recruit as many terrorists as they kill, but he has not proven that. Pro also says that drone strikes are against international law, but he has not explained why that is bad. Good According to my chart, 2492 members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, plus 663 in Yemen. Conclusion 3155 terrorist deaths clearly outweigh 505 civilians; therefore, drone strikes have done more good than harm.
American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more harm than good

Con makes nebulous claims that cannot be proven with a high degree of certainty about how drone strikes prevent terrorist acts. However, the thing that makes it impossible for Con's claims to outweigh mine is that he conceded most of my second contention, which says that that the drone strikes function as a recruitment tool for ISIS. This answers Con's claim that "We don't inspire a new terrorist for every terrorist we kill. Where are the statistics to prove that? " In a world where drone strikes inflame the fundamentalist ideology that is the root cause of terrorism, it is impossible to know whether they have actually made terror groups weaker now than they were before. But we can know for certain that they have killed hundreds of civilians. As for the quality of our sources, I encourage the judges to come to their own conclusions about which sources are preferable. Also, my opponent conceded that drone strikes are illegal under international law. It is a harm in itself when the US violates the sovereignty of other countries. I have proven that drone strikes cause more harm than good because they cause civilian casualties, function as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and are illegal under international law.
American drone strikes in the Middle East have done more harm than good

Pro's rebuttal of my argument "His chart is directly contradicted by Pakistan"s own foreign ministry, which claims at least 400 civilian deaths." My chart says that 253 civilians have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan. Look at the bars that represent civilian casualties, then imagine their size being doubled. Taliban/Al-Qaeda casualties would still tower over them. Here's a link to the chart: http://www.debate.org... "The accuracy of information from Long War Journal is questionable because it contradicts the reports of more widely-recognized news sources, such as the New York Times." How widely recognized a source is does not automatically make it more reliable than a less widely recognized source. "Long War Journal itself admits that the percentage of civilian casualties is much higher in Yemen, about 15% of the total who were killed." 15% is not a large percentage. In addition, most civilian casualties in Yemen were in 2009, a single year. Every other year had much lower percentages and one of them (2015) had over a hundred Al-Qaeda deaths and no civilian deaths. [1] "If you inspire a new terrorist for every terrorist you kill, you"re just treating the symptom rather than the disease." We don't inspire a new terrorist for every terrorist we kill. Where are the statistics to prove that? Conclusion: Drone strikes kill many more terrorists than civilians, thus preventing terrorist attacks that could kill many more innocent people. Civilian Casualties "Even in a world with drone strikes, terrorism is still common." That doesn't mean that terrorism wouldn't be more common without drone strikes. Killing thousands of terrorists makes it harder for them to carry out attacks. "Drone strikes are terrorism in their own way, as it has been conceded that they affect civilians in target countries similarly to how terrorist acts affect us." Like I said before, the total number of people killed by drone strikes is much less than 9/11 casualties. Terrorists killed more in a single day than drones have ever killed. Terrorist Recruitment See my response to the second paragraph in your rebuttal. Drone Strikes are Illegal This debate is about whether drone strikes have done more harm than good. Take saving lives, then weigh that against breaking the law. The former is clearly much more significant. [1] http://www.longwarjournal.org...
Early payment of bills will boost economy

Responses: I. 1. People don't have excess stock or machinery laying around to sell. The resolution is about paying bills earlier rather than later. 2. By not buying stationary, the stationary company loses the money that the bill collecting company gets. The harm is not eliminated, it is moved. 3. My opponent skipped #3. 4. My opponent does not adequately clarify this point. Get rid of subscriptions to what? Even so, someone loses business in subscribers, and the economic harm would be shifted, not eliminated. 5. Most people don't send out sales invoices. This is irrelevant to the general topic. II. 1. Paying bills earlier does not produce a shorter time period. The time between payments is still a month for monthly bills. The cash value of the bills remains the same, and the bill collecting company ends up with the same amount in their pockets in the end. Good budgeting can be done with or without early bill payment. Early bill payment is not helpful per se. Thanks.
Early payment of bills will boost economy

Hi, Thanks for accepting. Regarding your aside: 1) Next time I will back up my arguments in an earlier stage. 2) The reference to my blog has been made, as I have made a short summary of my earlier 'debates'. re. I, how to finance paying earlier 1) sell excess stock & machinery 2) stop buying stationary, or anything else that is not directly related to the stuff you are selling. 4) get rid of subscriptions, lease etc, as much as possible. 5) have your sales invoices sent out as early as possible. re. II, cash value 1) Cash value does increase as shorter time periods will decrease the chance of default. Also, Trying to pay earlier makes companies think of their corporate finance structure and place in the total supply chain. Healthy management of working capital increases the value of a company. - not related to me in any way - http://www.tenzor.co.uk...
Early payment of bills will boost economy

My opponent's plan will not boost the economy in a meaningful way. I. People pay bills late due to a cash shortage. In order to pay bills early, the purchase of other goods and services that would otherwise have been bought elsewhere must be delayed. My opponent's plan moves economic harm to other companies rather than eliminating it. II. The cash value of bills does not change when bills are paid earlier. The time between bills does not change when bills are paid earlier. Therefore bill-collecting companies' cash flow does not change when bills are paid earlier. =Aside= Note that my opponent does not back his argument up at all. He has claimed that paying bills earlier gives the economy an "enormous boost," but he has failed to give us any reason to accept this claim. He is likely not here to argue, he is here to advertise for his blog. Without a good R2 from my opponent, I will forfeit R2 so that this debate does not appear on the front page. Thanks for reading.
Early payment of bills will boost economy

Hi, http://pay8910.wordpress.com... in economic downturn, cash is short. A first reaction is to pay our bills a few days later. I must admit, we also did it. At the moment we are all waiting for each other to take the first step and start paying our bills on time again. Let us break the vicious circle on September 8, 2010 by paying euro, dollar 10.00 more, 10 creditors or 10 days earlier. This could give our economy an enormous boost!
Objective morality exists

my opponent went of on a whole tangent regarding killing of other human beings. Pro said that their are various morals concerning killing,each of which relates to a different situation(in this case defending your life or just plain killing someone innocent) and that these morals are are objective in their different situations. However, this contradicts the statement that morals are objective as the base morals are changing it in each situation. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that their are different objective morals that apply to killing. The base moral is that killing is bad and it is subjective,that is why people react differently depending on the situation, not because they are apply a different objective moral. My opponent then also use the question "what is love" to try and prove the point that a dictionary definition of moral is not valid in this debate. The reason that the word "love" can't be defined by the dictionary is because it relates to emotions and that makes it too difficult to accurately put into words. The word moral can however be defined as it is the word we use to say whether something is right or wrong. It doesn't have multiple connotative meanings and thus it is very accurate to use a dictionary. My opponent then brings up the very good point of science and how it can't be subjective , it has to be either right or wrong. However, science is based on fixed rules from which to reason whereas morals do not(as they are subjective). You can't compare something as concrete as science to morality which changes constantly. I would like to motion that we forfeit round 5 and let the voters decide who wins
Objective morality exists

Seeing that my opponent likes using 'real' life examples so much(however scripted and misguided they may be) I will use one as well. If you ask a group of off duty soldiers whether they think killing human beings is wrong, most of them would say that it is. However, lets say you had asked the same group of soldiers whether they thought killing the enemy is wrong, most of them would say no as the enemy is also trying to kill them. See how moral views change depending on the situation? It is not objective at all. Pro also said that the dictionary definition can't be used due to it being a logical falasy. I understand that dictionary definitions are simply what the majority think the word means, but if we don't use that definition and call it invalid then quite frankly we would be free to make up the definitions of words as we went along so my opponent calling the dictionary definition a logical fallacy is in itself a logical fallacy. Also my opponent said that he is familiar with the common arguments people make and that gives him the right to say his explanatory interview is correct. However by that argument I can say that I am a mind reader and that it gives me the right to say that morality is subjective as I can see what people think. Obviously my argument can hold no ground as there is no proof that I can read minds. In the same way my opponents argument is invalid. Looking forward to your reply
Objective morality exists

My opponent starts his rebuttals with the attempt to redefine morality to that which suits his argument. However, Con picks the secondary definition of morality to counter my argument instead of the primary definition of it, the one which does not insinuate at all that it is inherently subjective. Even if the secondary definition states or implies that morality is subjective, this does not mean that it is. It is a logical fallacy to point at a dictionary and say that something is correct because a certain dictionary said so. (1) The definition in a dictionary is only what the writers agreed a word meant at the time of writing. Their definitions are not immune to logical deconstruction; as I have done in round 1. 'However the Nazis did not think it morally wrong as according to their morals they were not killing people but degenerate, evil beings.' My opponent here is not actually highlighting actual difference in morality here, but difference in perception in regards to moral truths. Their morals did not dictate that they were killing 'degenerate, evil beings' because one's morality cannot change what things actually are. The reason that they thought Jews were degenerate, evil beings was down to ignorance and emotion, not morality. Con also solidifies my point here by accentuating that the Nazi's only justified the holocaust by convincing themselves that Jews were not people. This would suggest that killing people is an objective moral truth as one can only justify breaking it if they convince themselves that they are NOT breaking it. The Nazis did this by dehumanising Jews. My opponent then goes on to take objection to my 'mock interview' for two reasons: 1. It is scripted 2. There is little chance that people would give the answers I wrote The fact that my interview is scripted is correct, but I could easily go out and interview people participating in the euthanasia debate and get similar answers. The only problem that would arise from my scripting of the interview would be if was not a realistic portrayal of an authentic conversation, however, it is realistic that people would answer the way I predicted they would. I have debated euthanasia a lot and so am familiar with the common arguments people make. Even if my opponent retained his disdain for my imaginary conversation, it is irrelevant because the interview was only a illustrative tool I used to better explain my premise that people share the same fundamental moral values. I could remove the interview and still have a valid point, albeit one harder to understand. Therefore, my opponent has tried to refute my argument by criticising my explanatory methods, not the actual logic. (1) http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Objective morality exists

My opponent defined morality very loosely as "What is good and bad". I would like to redefine it according to what the oxford learners dictionary says:1 [only before noun] concerned with principles of right and wrong behaviour a moral issue/dilemma/question traditional moral values a decline in moral standards moral philosophy a deeply religious man with a highly developed moral sense The newspapers were full of moral outrage at the weakness of other countries. 2 [only before noun] based on your own sense of what is right and fair, not on legal rights or duties synonym ethical moral responsibility/duty Governments have at least a moral obligation to answer these questions. (British English) The job was to call on all her diplomatic skills and moral courage(= the courage to do what you think is right). http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...As the definition says that morality refers to your own sense of rights and wrong, I would like to say that it indicates that morality cannot but be subjective. As morality is based on your own view or "traditional values" it would seem that morality can be influenced by quite a lot of things. Your upbringing our past experiences would define what you think of as right or wrong. What is traditionally accepted as right or wrong in your community would also play a role.I would also like to use the example of the holocaust. My opponent said that the fact that society under which it occurred thought it to be right does not make it morally right. This clearly proves my point as it is my opponent's westernised moral sense that is telling them that killing 6 million Jews is wrong. However the Nazis did not think it morally wrong as according to their morals they were not killing people but degenerate, evil beings. I think this is clear evidence that morality is subjective to upbringing and societal beliefs. My opponent also did a mock interview with himself which I do not think should hold any weighting in this debate as the answers were scripted in my opponents example and the chance of the people giving those replies are minimal. However, in my example hard evidence was used as I could not have scripted history. I would also like to point out that my opponent used wikipedia as a source and that the use of that website has never been acceptable debating practice.
Children should have mobile phones

First of all i have not been able to reply previous entries but i will try to debate previous points. "Mobile phones helps children to stay in contact with their parents" I hope that reduces epidemic obesity, aggression, addiction, strong emission of radiation, sleep deprivation and digital dementia. But yeah i guess you've got a point in there. "Mobile phones help children have an emergency way to contact people in cases of emergencies" Kids usually use their mobile phones to prank and/or call 911 for weird and foolish reasons. One thing in special, "swatting" became trendy lately and consists of calling 911 to call a swat team to another child house to ruin the game session of said child. Makenna Sewell called 911 to kill a 2-inch spider, clearly not an emergency. 10-year-old Dan David called because he did not wanted to sleep, sounds like a emergency doesn't it? The list goes on and on. "Mobile phones reduce kidnappings" They may reduce kidnappings or may not reduce kidnappings im not sure, and can't really tell hence your lack of sources but cell phones do increase general crime and tragedy. Street road accidents because of children using the cellphone while walking on the street. Stealing of wealthy cellphones that if the children resists usually end in murder or violence. Identity thefts also. What about false kidnappings? In Spain some false kidnappers ask children their phone numbers, name and details before a movie and proceed to call their parents for money from their devices to simulate a kidnappings and ask for huge amounts of money, this problem has grown a lot lately not only in Spain but America as well. A point i will also encourage the voters to investigate (Im almost out of characters):http://alturl.com... Sources: www.mom.me/home/10077-kids-who-called-911-crazy-things/ www.science.opposingviews.com/impact-cell-phones-crime-1784.html www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10-reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html