BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in god is justifiable

Thanks Skepticalone.My opponent brings up the situation of a man caught stealing. He offers that if the man were trying to feed his family the action (stealing) would be justifiable. unfortunately not every one would agree with this reasoning. And more so it shows that some excuses do not justify the action. Say the man stole a gem, because he had lost his won? Would we find him justifiable then? doubtful. Clearly not any old excuse or any given reason counts as "justification". An axiom is a presupposition accepted as true. Do we consider axioms to be defensible? No, we do not because that would lead to begging the question or a circular kind of logic. Do we find axioms "justifiable", again not without using a circular logic.When my opponent bring up the argument by C.S. Lewis that is the "justification" he attempts to use: Feelings about god are justifiable because we have feelings about God. That's circular logic. And the distinction between feelings for real world things and socially injected desires is not well defined for God. A desire for Vishnu occurs when born in India, a desire for spiritual awakening without a God if born into a Buddhist family, a desire for natural balance if born in a Taoist or Shinto family. The Feelings towards God seem to be a artificial desire one born of the social station of a person.As far as value goes, as I elaborated with the man caught stealing, this value is subjective and circular based on the value one derives from their beliefs. This in any circumstance is not considered rational justification and being circular does not make the belief justifiable. Because nothing of support has been added to the value of the original belief.The belief is valuable and right justified by it being valuable and right and believed true. So beliefs are justifiable. When they are supported by true claims. "I believe my son loves me" this belief is justifiable because I can present, I can show other incidents that make my belief plausible. My son tells me he loves me. This action and premise is not contingent on the belief "My son loves me", it is supportive of it.And as defined Justifiable means to be able to be shown to be right or reasonable. It is not reasonable to use circular logic for this demonstration. And it is not right "correct" or right "as in derived correctly" when the belief is used to support the belief.That is the case with a belief in God, but not the case with my belief towards my son's feelings.So a "Justifiable" beleif is one that can be demonstrated to be pluasiblly true. Any beleif in god supported by the beleif in god, is presuppositional. Axiomatic in nature and axioms are not defensible.
Belief in god is justifiable

Well said Skepticalone.Opening Argument:Justifiable: able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible. Belief: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable.The first words in the definition for "Justifiable" is "able to be shown". When a subject is "justifiable" that means an action can be performed on the subject. this action is "able to be shown".The first words of "belief" are "a feeling". This means Belief is a noun. And can stand as the subject of a sentence.As my opponent pointed out, we are not arguing the existence of God. In fact for my opening arguments the something a belief references is irrelevant.When we rewrite the proposal using the definitions we have "A feeling that something.. is able to be shown to be right."When I claim, "I see a Red Apple" and support this claim with "because I see the color red from the apple" is Begging the question or circular reasoning. We would not call that a logical "defence" or "justification" for the claim. But less so because of the nature of the validation. I may see a "Red" apple. But someone who is red-green colorblind may see a "green" apple.In fact the "red" I see can not be said to be the same "red" you see [1]. Because we can not discern that A=A we are breaking "The law of identity"[2] we know we are no longer discussing anything in a logical manner. What solution to this problem is mechanical measurements. We can agree on the wavelength being bounced off the apple. And we can agree that whether I say the apple is "red" or you say the apple is "green", we are logically discussing the same thing.This solution is only available because the source of the knowledge, the perception of the color, is from outside either one of us. The source of the knowledge is in a common domain shared by both of us. We call this shared domain "reality".But a "Belief" the source is internal. It is locked away inside your mind. There is no common domain I can attempt to perceive and share my own experience of. You can't show me your feelings. Discerning whether your feelings are true or not is completely inaccessible to me. There is no demonstration for me to discern if the feeling is accurate. Say you feel sad. You could be deceiving me. You may even be crying. But from my perspective no one else can discern if "I am sad" is true or not because it is internal to you.A belief could still be rational (consistent with logic and reality). But it will still be indiscernible (unverifiable, unknown to be true or false). So My argument is and will be "A feeling that God is right CAN NOT BE shown to be right", the counter proposal rewritten with the definitions.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]https://school.carm.org...
Belief in god is justifiable

Let me start by saying I am looking forward to this debate with Mhykiel. We will both be arguing contrary to our preferred positions as part of a Devil’s advocate tourney: . http://www.debate.org.... I will be arguing as Pro with a resolution of: Belief in god is justifiable. Definitions: Justifiable: able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Belief: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Format: 8,000 characters, 48 hour argument time limit. Burden of Proof is shared.
It's time to punish mobile phone menaces: it's time to bring back the birch!

Let's not forget that birching was the punishment meted out to children for being naughty so, if anything it's too lenient: if I had my way I'd have the bastards tazered and kicked into the gutter and left to fester in their own filth. However, a few lashes of the birch in a public place would cause the offender more humiliation than pain. And so the rozzers might apply the law a bit too enthusiastically sometimes: in the case of mobile phone menaces this would be a good thing; and if the footage was filmed and posted on YouTube it would send the message to mobile phone abusers that their anti-social behaviour will result in, at best, a thrashing, but very possibly a proper kicking. With reference to my opponent's concern about due process I would submit that, because walking without due care and attention while using a mobile phone is a fairly minor offence, it would be a waste of taxpayers money to involve expensive court proceedings. Regarding setting precedents, I am in favour of on-the-spot punishments and think they should be extended further to include other offences such as urinating in a public place, being drunk and disorderly, using threatening language, etc. My only concern with my plan is that gay sexual deviants will abuse the system for cheap thrills. I expect most homosexual gentlemen pay male prostitutes a lot of money to dress up in uniforms, pull down their pants and whip their behinds with birch rods, and they might abuse their phones in order to get this service for free from a police officer in the street. Hopefully, though, the police will rumble their game and arrange for them to 'accidentally fall down some stairs' at the police station instead. Thank you.
It's time to punish mobile phone menaces: it's time to bring back the birch!

Good afternoon! I appreciate the challenge being presented regarding the mobile phone and the appropriate punishment for public rudeness. I hope to have a good debate. I couldn't agree more with the frustrations related to mobile phone users. Mobile phone use appears to be growing to be the primary form of communication in the next five years. I think mobile phones are destructive to personal relationships both through lack of communication and accessibility to illicit communications in similar (although possibly less exagerated) manner as Pro. I can't help but cringe, however, at the thought of implementing on the spot corporal punishment as a solution. For starters, I think that birching would be excessive to the crime. Not paying attention and bumping into someone or holding them up in a doorway seems a silly reason to strike someone. Also, how do we know this punishment will be meted out fairly? Police are not always known for using proper judgement in heated situations. There is much documentation showing authoritarian abuses even in front of a microphone and video camera. Observe: http://www.theblaze.com... Imagine a cop with permission to do bodily harm and no one around. Corrupt cops aren't a knew thing. This is too easily abused. My third argument is that this bypasses due process. It jumps directly from potential crime to punishment with no recourse. It's immediate. It's unappealable. And I submit that it's fairly arbitrary. Finally, I am against birching on site because of the precedent. This comes in two fold: One, if birching is used for this minor infraction, what other infractions might it be applied to? Two, if due process is bypassed in this instance, how else might we ignore it as a society?
It's time to punish mobile phone menaces: it's time to bring back the birch!

Birching is a corporal punishment where a birch rod is used to whip the offender's bare buttocks. Until the last century the birch was used in Britain to punish naughty schoolchildren, juvenile delinquents and errant prisoners. [1] Today I am proposing that the birch be reintroduced to be used by the police as an on-the-spot punishment for the new crime of 'walking without due care and attention whilst using a mobile phone'. This measure is long overdue: when walking through crowded public areas how often have you had to dodge out of the way of some arrogant, ill-mannered tosser who was engrossed with his smartphone rather than looking where he was going? Plenty of times, I'm sure. They expect you to look where they are going and to get out of their way: they expect the crowds to part for them as they walk along texting prostitutes, or stalking girls on Facebook, or watching child porn on the Internet, or whatever. Who do they think they are? It's about time these cell phone fanatics were taught that possession of an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy does not confer regal status upon the owner and the best way teach them that is to give them a DAMN GOOD THRASHING WITH THE BIRCH. Thank you. [1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
It's time to punish mobile phone menaces: it's time to bring back the birch!

Pro stated: :"It's about time these cell phone fanatics were taught that possession of an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy does not confer regal status upon the owner and the best way teach them that is to give them a DAMN GOOD THRASHING WITH THE BIRCH." He then claimed that if he had his way, he would have the offenders tazered and kicked into the gutter and left to fester in their own filth. I argue that while passionate in his statement, I don't believe he can have it both ways. This seems to indicate a confusion of views but more importantly, it goes right to my contention of precedent and abuse. Imagine a police officer that felt similarly to Pro walking the beat and coming upon some dastardly cell phone assisted society abuser. Imagine, if you may, said enforcer of the law strolling along behind and tailing the suspect into a darkened alley. A few lashes later and the cop is on break and another unwarned violater is found beaten and broken in the ditch with no recollection of how he (or she) got there except for a couple of lashes across the back of the thighs and the hazy image of their cell phone being repeatedly smashed against their forehead. Justice? Hardly. The expense of court proceedings is the only caution agaist abuse of the system. It's not meant to be regular for the average citizen to come in contact with the court system in their day to day lives. I do not believe pushing aside due process can be excused in the name of cost. Responsible citizens are made responsible by the pressures of responsibility, not laws. My opponent himself declares, assuming the large number of closet homosexuals in society that this will likely worsen the problem. Deviance is the new norm. There is no rebuttal of this fact. While I acknowledge my opponents vehemence and indignation at the rudeness of cell phone users, I cannot, nor do I think anyone should, condone on the spot birching as the proper method of punishment for abuse. Clearly Pro is only expressing his racism against such individuals, not a valid argument for bypassing due process. I recommend if he feels so strongly, he round up some like minded individuals and implement vigilante curb stomping.
Human Superiority. Man is the most intelligent species on the planet etc...

My opponent proposes two questions in their round. "Are we absolutely sure that knowledge of the universe is limited to us who write it down and use tools to study it? Should the slave master be worshipped for his dominance? " These actually have no significance to this debate. Of course other animals are capable of knowledge and regardless of whether the "slave-master" be worshipped, mankind is the most intelligent species. My opponent also states, "The end means of Intelligence is creating progress for your species. .. " I disagree, for some of us, intelligence and the gathering of knowledge is not for the betterment or progress of the species, but for either just the betterment of ourselves, or simply for our own curiosity. The betterment of our species is merely a side effect. My opponent later goes on to say "Mankind creates with technology, what instinct has done for animals naturally. .. " this is not entirely accurate. It is not "instinct," but "evolution" that we sometime's emulate. However, what our technology has done (which is subgroup of intelligence) is break down the walls of evolution. Various animals have spend millions and millions of years to gain their abilities in the form of niches, like flight. We have successfully obtained flight, even though evolution has not selected that skill for us. Our intelligence is now powerful enough to over power evolution. No other animal can make that claim. Of course, we have obtained feats through knowledge that no animal evolution, or "instinct" (as my opponent likes to use) has done. One simple example is traveling to the moon, another is being able to go from the depths of the bottom of the ocean to the peak of Mount Everest. Or from the Poles to the Equator. While many feats can be compared to a single species, no single species can even come close to breath of our accomplishments. Moving on, my opponent claims that to measure intelligence, we need to provide dolphins with human hands. Of course, if they had the intelligence, they could do it themselves. With many species we can apply memory of various situations and ability to solve simple tasks as a measure of intelligence, and in no case, as any animal come close to the intelligence that humans have. My opponent has not provided a single animal that they believe is more intelligent or as intelligent as humans and has only argued that it is difficult to measure. This does not truly fill the needs of this debate. I pass this back to my opponent to see if they can offer any animal that is more intelligent or as intelligent as humans.
Human Superiority. Man is the most intelligent species on the planet etc...

It has been awhile since I've done a debate and I hope that I have the free time to finish (should I not be able to, I apologize in advance). First, we must apply some definitions. My opponent has not done this so I shall take the time to gather them. Intelligence [1][2][3] - "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths. .. " "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations. .. " "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge. .. " I believe this last quote to be a simple definition that is best measurable, simply the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and/or facts. Man (short for Mankind) [4][5] - "the human race : the totality of human beings" "human beings collectively without reference to sex. .. " I'm hoping the rest ("species" "planet" etc) are all commonly understood words and no semantics will be employed. I will now move on to my arguments, though they will be limited as of now, since I cannot directly compare man to every species within the character limit and will have to resort to defending against any and all of my opponent's claims. While various animals have shown a capacity for intelligent thoughts, by using tools/objects to obtain food [6][7] and figuring out puzzles utilizing basic logic and applied math [8], to engineering feats (though we can argue whether skills from "genetics" can count as "intelligence" later) [9]. However, they have not come close to the level of intelligence and understanding of the universal and universally laws as we have. Our ability to learn the laws of nature and manipulate them to our use far surpasses anything that the rest of the animal kingdom (or any of the other kingdoms for that matter). With that, I will allow my opponent to make their arguments. Thank you, [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] . http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... [7] . http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu... [8] . http://www.livescience.com... [9] . http://ezinearticles.com...
Human Superiority. Man is the most intelligent species on the planet etc...

Goodluck. (Forewarning) I am new to the debate format and I would like this to be a learning experience. Saying that; I would prefer an opponent who can introduce the ground rules in the comments. Pro can use round 1 to officialy state the agreed upon rules. I am an adult and do consider myself a decent writer. My writing form and ability to pose a sound argument should not be an issue at all. So, by no means am I requesting an opponent to take it easy on me, or a teenager w/o the intellectual capability to make it interesting. Human Superiority Man is the Most Intelligent Species on the Planet I am against the notion of human superiority, intelligence being the largest topic in question. I have heard a multitude of proclaimed "intelligent" people claim the existence of other intelligent life in the universe. I don't consider man intelligent life, and I disagree with the common supposition by which intelligence is judged. If Pro can prove that intelligence indeed exists in a form that is necessary to other living things, then I would ask that he demonstrates a comparison to the intelligence of the other species that we coexist with, that substantiates man's superiority. Refer any questions to the comments and I can elaborate on my position if this is unclear in any way.
Human Superiority. Man is the most intelligent species on the planet etc...

Since this is the last round, I will not add any arguments and merely sum up the current arguments. My initial arguments from R2 were as follows, "We have successfully obtained flight, even though evolution has not selected that skill for us. .. One simple example is traveling to the moon, another is being able to go from the depths of the bottom of the ocean to the peak of Mount Everest. Or from the Poles to the Equator. " Then from R3, "From 1930 - 2010, the average life expectancy has increased over 30%. This is almost entirely because of medical advancements which are a direct result of our intelligence. .. Our intelligence has allowed us to survive in all corners and all climates on this planet and even off the planet. No other animal can make that claim. "While my opponent did argue that these acts of intelligent are harmful to the planet, such harm is outside the scope of whether or not it is a form of intelligence to be able to do them. Just because things cause harm does not mean they do not require intelligence to make. As far as whether these things required intelligence to achieve was never challanged nor refuted. Yes, my focus was on technology because the opening round was quite clear, "I am against the notion of human superiority, intelligence being the largest topic in question. " Obviously choosing too broad a topic allows for hundreds of issues and only a sentence or two on each. It prevents any depth of thought to any of them. Since my opponent said from the start that intelligence would be the largest topic in question, and I was fine with focusing on intelligence, I didn't see a problem. However, it is now clear, at the end of the debate, that my opponent wanted to focus on things other than intelligence. But what's done is done, we can't go back and since my arguments have been based on intelligence as the primary focus, that is where they will stay here. I won't be adding more arguments. Now my opponent has stated that they won't "make assertions without a citation. " of course, this is false as I've had to address several of these in previous rounds, of which my opponent has dropped all of them. My opponent has done little short of argument spam, throwing a bunch of arguments and after they are refuted, throws more and more, rather than defend the refutations. My opponent has also stated that it is up to the readers to choose what definition they like, the one that is sourced from multiple dictionaries, or the one that is made up with no source and no real way to measure. It is simple, I've shown several aspects of our technology, how it has helped us survive and thrive, and how no other animal has been able to do anything close. My opponent has not been able to actually refute that these show a higher level of intelligence. Thank you.