BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

in math we break things into pieces, so that would you put pieces together they form a whole piece. I will attempt to break things down 1.Intelligence by itself cannot be USED without a mind So each time CON uses intelligence when referring to LA I will add "MIND" because it cannot be used independently unless Con can show in this existing world that there is an intelligence that does not have a mind. 2. Con agrees LA didn't come from humans, yet he says if intelligence isn't present neither is LA, so essentially he is saying LA don't exist if humans don't exist, then he agrees with me saying LA are not dependent upon humans anyway. IF LA WERE dependent upon human mind, they would cease to exist when humans did. So He will need to show why intelligence couldn't be timeless in order to hold that position. 3. LAs have laws of logic when it doesn't operate within a laws of logic it could be considered a logical fallacy is an error in logic. If an error in logic was observed, whether or not you recognize it as such doesn't change the fact the error is there. Example. I didn't exist at the beginning of the universe but I Can create the scenario that it would be logical incoherent to say the universe could exist and NOT exist at the same time, without me fully BEING there at the time to visually see this. It is a timeless concept that anyone can spot an error. It may be true if there is no mind to spot the error we wouldn't know about it but the error and inconsistency would still be there SO this is why I say LAs are timeless because if LA is dependent upon an intelligence as Con says and Intelligence is dependent upon a mind, then the Laws of Logic of LA are also timeless seeing how we can use them today to find error in any situation at any time in the future or past 3. I know you want me to present empirical an intelligent mind but I don't know if you are looking for a very strict form of empiricism here which would demand that you dismiss notions that cannot be prove empirically, for example I cannot take a picture or video of an intelligent mind in action to prove my case, but the the proposition that an external reality exists apart from the HUMAN mind BEFORE the existence OF them is still possible, Sure I can't prove its true with absolute certainty, but the propositions I presented itself IS logically tenable. Can you prove to me that this statement is objectively factual on empirical grounds alone without using logic to demonstrate it as such?....Good luck.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

You stated earlier LA's were subjective meanings manifested inthe brain and it differed from people to people. Nevertheless we agree they arent subjective. No I stated you used a strawman fallacy when you stated that I said LA's come from an intelligent mind BEFORE humans. I said intelligence.... LA's are dependent on INTELLIGENCE...no intelligence...no LA's. LA's aren't the product of human thinking,.they are simply what humans discovered. They will not cease to exist if humans don't know about it but if there was no such thing as intelligence they would.They exist yet their existence is totally dependent on intelligence..I'm pretty sure you seen me say this before..You seem to be making the same argument again and again with different words. Therefore LA's aren't timeless IF intelligence isnt timeless. UNLESS you can prove there's a timeless intelligence out there, then you're only left to assume. You're committing a semantic fallacy by interchanging the concept of LA's (non physical) to LA's being applied to the physical....when you compare it to something like the universe which is physical. Logic is simply a descriptive term,a secondary term used to explain phenomena. Like love, love exist but is not physical, it's simply a description of something dependent on the mind.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

On to round 3 Good argument there my friend. Onwarddddd March! Sorry Con if you thought I meant LAs are subjective I'm sure there was a misunderstanding somewhere perhaps in the way I phrased whatever you thought I was saying. I end that confusion by saying. LA are absolute not subjective, otherwise they are not absolute. Pretty cut and dry. I agree with you there 100% Con Says If they are dependent on intelligence then they can only be applied when an intelligence is present. also Con Says I say again LAs didn't come from a human mind. So they didn't come from a human mind, but they come from intelligence. Con says I used straw men when I used the phrase Intelligent MIND, but I just put two and two together, I apologize if you took it as straw man that was not my intent, I understand you said there could be other minds other than humans but when you say the phrase LA come from intelligence and conveniently left it there, it would be natural to assume that you were referring to an intelligent mind since we know intelligence usually comes from a mind. I simply used context clues to indicate that intelligent mind was what you meant was when you simply said they are dependent on intelligence, unless con can prove that intelligence can exist without a mind? otherwise my context was correct. On my end I would need to show an intelligent Mind could exist before humans to show that they have the possibility of being timeless. Here is is what I propose Using an antonymic pair. A pair of options that are direct opposites of each other. LA are timeless or LA are NOT timeless. When one option is invalidated within an antonymic par. the other option is instantly validated. Sine we both agree that LA are not the product of human thinking, then LA can exist even if humans could not conceive of them. So LA would not cease to exist just because humans don't know about it. Anytime before humans could qualify as timeless because the laws of logic which is a component of LA are true whether a human mind can think of it, they are true whether you move forward or backward in time, and since LA cannot exist without a mind, then there had to be an timeless intelligent mind to keep them afloat before human minds were in existence. LAs are absolute and if LA are absolute, they are true, and if they are true and absolute then they would not be absolute if it wasn't timeless Unless con can show me an example of something being absolute but not timeless. Using just ONE of the laws of logic the law of non contradiction The universe could not both EXIST and not EXIST at the same time. This statement and this TRUTH can be validated even if a human mind could not conceive it, it is a timeless truth because it is part of LA which is also timeless, if it is not timeless it cannot be absolute.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

I say again LA's didn't come from a human mind, they were simple recognized by an intelligent mind. They are dependent on intelligence. If they are dependent on intelligence then they can only be applied when an intelligence is present. I never said LA's came from an intelligent mind before humans. This is a strawman fallacy made by the pro in attempt to sypport her belief/position. I said LA's are dependent on intelligence. She assumes that there was an intelligence prior to humans, yet hasn't provided any proof for this claim, that's her second logical fallacy...presupposition. Currently from what we know, humans are the only intelligent beings that can comprehend LA's. This doesn't dismiss the possibility that there are other beings with intelligence but as of now there is no evidence to suport that there is. The pro's next mistake is arguing that LA's are subjective,which is contradictory. You cannot have a subjective logical ABSOLUTE. Absolutes are not opinions, they are absolute. If LA's are dependent on intelligence then they are not timeless unless we can prove that there is a timeless intelligence somewhere. 2+2=4 will always be that as long as an intelligent mind is there to recognize it. For what is 2,3,4,5,6 if there is no being to call them those? Does the atoms,electrons,hydrogen, stars know of the number system? Do they add and subtract? No because they are not of intelligence,hence LA's are dependent of them in order for them to be. You have two LA'S...conceptual statements such as 2+2 which is immaterial and the physical (material)in which the conceptual statements are applied to 2 rocks plus 2 rocks. The concept of logic is dependent on intelligence (mind),how it is applied is dependent on things that exist..rocks,plants,beds, cars etc. So as long as we have intelligence (immaterial) and physical things (material) then LA's exist and therefore are not timeless.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

It seems me and Con agree for the most part Logical Absolutes do not come from Humans So I will not have to debate that route anymore. Score. Also I will refer to Logical Absolutes as LA(Logical Absolutes) Second Con says LA are not timeless Logic absolutes seems to have properties that apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic absolutes came from a human mind then it loses its transcendental properties. IF it did not come from a human mind, and Logical absolutes existed before humans, then like Con says it comes from intelligence mind then he is saying it comes from an intelligent mind that existed BEFORE humans. IF LA existed before humans then, it would be proper to conclude that as a possibility an intelligent mind existed before humans. Is this is what Con is saying? I do not know yet. So if LA comes from an intelligent mind, then we know it didn't come from humans, not because humans are not intelligent but because Logic itself can be applied by humans but it is subjected to chemical processes or subjective reasoning manifested in the brain so it differs from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical processes, because people don't all reason the same and their chemical processes can change. So if LA existed before humans it had to be an intelligent mind that was not subjected to subjective reasoning or effected by chemical processes Since human minds are not timeless and LAs ARE timeless, Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic absolutes is of the mind there could be be a timeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since LA can only exist if there is a intelligent mind. It would have to be a mind that is timeless just as the attributes of LA are its logical to conclude that mind comes from mind in the same fashion of its origin, Otherwise we could say LA did not exist until humans were in existence then LA loses its timeless properties and we can show LA do exist before humans were in existence. When I say timeless I refer to something that doesn't just apply to the NOW but also to the past, or future but always. For example 2 plus 2 equals 4 will apply now, in the past, in future and always, whether or not there is a human mind to conceive it. If Con takes the route that its not timeless because we needed a human mind to conceive of it then, would Con saying the validity 2 plus 2 will no longer equal 4 just because we cannot detect the thought of it? unbelief does not erase the reality of something being true. So we will see what route Con takes.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

I agree that laws of logic weren't created by man anymore than math was created. It was discovered or better yet understood by man. What I disagree with is it being timeless. I would say it only exist because it's dependent on intelligence. As long as there is intelligence then logic exist. If intelligence doesn't exist then logic cannot exist for it is dependent solely on intelligence. Logic.in itself is immaterial but if you want to apply logic to something you can use material things. This is a semantics issue now. Laws of logic are not properties of the universe. Logical absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence. It's not. You can observe logic, just like you can observe happiness, love, fear, anger etc. These are all immaterial concepts fully dependant on the person perceiving them. You can apply the concepts into a physical world...material. Laws of logic come from inteligence, dependent on the minds perception. I don't have a question .
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

simple rules My stance is that Logical Absolutes did not come from or could have been created By humans I am not stating,( at least not at this point,) where I believe it came from.... though we may get into that in the debate. Round 1 through 4 argument and rebuttals in any fashion you choose. At the end of each round must contain a direct question for opponent to answer Round 5 rebuttals and Closing arguments. This is a casual formal debate not looking for a debate with thousands of links and sources saying this and that, you may use sources in debate but it is not required. Preferred method is to speak from heart and personal ideas based on knowledge you already know or in process of studying. My Argument If The laws of Logic came from man, and man didn't always exist, then laws of logic didn't always exist because it would be contingent upon man existing first in order for it to be created by Man. If laws of logic have always existed and is timeless then this proves that it did not come from man, because man would not have existed yet to create it. Logic is immaterial so it cannot be buried or found under a rock. So it cannot be tested scientifically if someone's definition was that science can only observes things that are material or properties of the universe. If it is not a property of the universe science cannot measure it in the same way that it would measure a rock or a chair. it would have to measure philosophically or by some other methodology. If Laws of Logic are properties of the universe then it should be able to be observed in the same manner as a water, dirt etc. But laws of logic cannot be observed in that specific manner so then it is not a property of the universe. If Man is a property of the universe and laws of logic is not so it cannot come from man. To Opponent...So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where
Witch Burnings Should be Legal in the United States.

It has been 20 years since we have legally executed a witch on a campus, but Good ole Christian lawyers are working very hard with the Federal Government to ensure that we may continue to practice our religion the way the Bible tells us to. Exodus 22:18 says, "Suffer not a witch to live." Deuteronomy 18:10 says, "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." God is very clear here, folks, he doesn't want witches (or as they call themselves today, 'Wiccans') to live. Glory to God! We are supposed to be killing witches! If we don't, we are disobeying God. Jesus would weep tears of joy if He just leaned down off His cloud and sniffed up the burning flesh of a witch this Halloween. Wouldn't that ruin Satan's little birthday party! Praise God! Prise the sweet sweet name of Jesus! It's just a shame that the United States Government has placed restrictions on the Biblically-mandated practice of witch burning. These restrictions have affected my life on a very personal basis. We currently are holding Mrs. Delaney in our church jail for practing whitchcraft. Because of the Federal Government, we can't burn her. Now we have to waste taxpayers money to have old Mrs. Delaney sit out in our church jail for practicing witchcraft. She had poor little Christian girls coming into her house to get cured of their colds! Did you know how she did it? She was putting toads in their mouths and transferring the sickness into those vile creatures! After the toads crawled out from between the sweet lips of those precious children of God, their little frog snouts would be sneezing so loud it would wake a demon! It's witchcraft! And it happened right here under our noses, at our own church! in America! That cackling old whore would even make it rain every time she gave her cat a bath! That devil's harlot has no business breathing the same Christian air we breathe, yet we have to keep her alive in our own jail until the "so-called" Federal Government allows us to burn her at the stake. You wouldn't believe the paperwork required to make something like that happen today. But it will happen. People in America are getting serious about God again. They are starting to read the Bible again, and starting to come around.
Witch Burnings Should be Legal in the United States.

If my opponent puts it that way, we STILL shouldn't legalize witch burnings. We should put all of our resources into medicine so that we can kill witches slowly, painfully, and in the most expensive method possible. For each witch, we should initiate a nuclear strike of massive proportions. We will build a giant mansion with artificial lakes and rivers on a deserted island where we will house the witch. Then, we will launch several nuclear weapons at the island, wiping it out entirely. Thus, I conclude that better methods exist other than witch burnings and that witch burnings should NOT be made legal because for every witch that is burnt, it is another witch that we cannot use massive amounts of resources on.
Witch Burnings Should be Legal in the United States.

My opponent is suggesting that witch burnings be made legal and be practiced again in the United States. I find that this suggestion is cruel and despicable. Why would we, in a time where gas prices are through the roof, want to waste fuel burning a witch? Not only that, but the wood used to kindle the fire could be put to MUCH better use. Natural resources are scarce. In order to do our Christian duty, we should simply legalize witch hangings. Ropes are reusable and sturdy and economically sound. Plus, hangings are much less messy than burnings. Also a lot better for the environment because burning a witch would release all types of gases that would impact our ozone layer.
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

-having a high IQ means someone better understands how to represent the needs of the people, we could add some questions to the test to see how well they understand the needs of the average person if it makes you feel better. In a crisis I would like to know the most qualified people are taking care of it. -top 5% starts at 124, Regans estimated IQ was 130 -the hitter argument was just to prove this system wouldn't have helped hitter or a similar person to rise to power -I'm not in Mensa, I have just taken a genuine IQ test before and take pride in knowing i could get in if I wanted to. I don't brag about my intelligence very often beacuse I belive that people only have the right to brag about what they've earned not what they were born with, I only mentioned that beacuse you asked, and I don't think I'm superior to anybody else, and agian I never make my debates personal
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

Hey Dark Knight, Here we go again. "-Being in touch with the average person is not what should decide a leader for our country, the average person doesn't know how to run a country, and would do a terrible job at it, a good leader should be someone who is intelligent and capable of running a country." Being in touch with the average person is so important because this country is full of them. They know what's best, not the government. I know billionaires like you might not understand commonfolk like me, but trust me. "-as for responsible and commonsensical, that is where the other test and then elections come in, just less people will be eligible to run in elections." That's fair. "2.A good an honest person should not be the only requirement, a good an honest person with mental disabilities should not have access to nuclear launch codes. Again their will be elections, but even a good and honest person with the average IQ of 100 wouldn't be able to govern a country, much like the average person couldn't compete in the Olympics, it doesn't make them inferior, it's just the average person isn't capable." Ronald Reagan wasn't that bright, but he's arguably one of the best presidents of your time. "*Hitler was elected democratically, I'm not sure about the others, presuming he could pass the test and had a high IQ, this system wouldn't have affected his rise to power." Government officials are elected democratically also, so I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're in the top 2% congrats. But Gotham would never elect someone who takes the law into their own hands. ;) By the way Mr. Wayne, I hope you're not in Mensa. I hear membership costs a lot of money (not that you don't have any), and you'd basically be paying to be told you're smart. Tell Alfred I said Hi.
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

Wait I posted my option on a website designed for debate and someone disagrees with me, just kidding, but seriously I posted this expecting a disagreement so it's no problem. Also who is this "Bruce" your talking about I'm Batman, I don't know why you confused me with Bruce Wayne, but he's a completely different person. Here are my rebuttals- -Being in touch with the average person is not what should decide a leader for our country, the average person doesn't know how to run a country, and would do a terrible job at it, a good leader should be someone who is intelligent and capable of running a country. -as for responsible and commonsensical, that is where the other test and then elections come in, just less people will be eligible to run in elections 2.A good an honest person should not be the only requirement, a good an honest person with mental disabilities should not have access to nuclear launch codes. Again their will be elections, but even a good and honest person with the average IQ of 100 wouldn't be able to govern a country, much like the average person couldn't compete in the Olympics, it doesn't make them inferior, it's just the average person isn't capable. *Hitler was elected democratically, I'm not sure about the others, presuming he could pass the test and had a high IQ, this system wouldn't have affected his rise to power. I'm top 2% but I choose top 2% as a separate category that top 5% because that's what Mensa uses, I like to keep my debates not personal.
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

Hey Bruce, Sorry but I disagree. 1. While being in the top 5% (smart) doesn't hurt, I don't see how this makes someone... -more in touch with the average person -responsible -commonsensical (I'm sure you know some pretty smart people with no common sense.) 2. Most importantly, being smart doesn't make you a good and honest person, which should be the only requirement for state/federal office. *See Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini By the way, are you in the top 5%? Just curious. Thanks, Ben Shapiro Hero You're not the hero Gotham deserves, but the one it needs.