BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

Thanks Thaddeus. Last ten questions: 1. Can light reflect off something that is not solid? 2. "Red can be blue", do you agree? 3. "Right can be wrong", do you agree? 4. Are you a liberal? 5. Are you a democrat? 6. Do you ever leave the house? 7. Do you have no feelings about living in Kent, one way or the other? 8. Are all living beings conscious? 9. You are driving a bus that you cannot allow to slow down without killing yourself (as in the movie Speed) and you come to a fork in the road, you see that one route leads off the edge of a cliff and the other doesn't and seems safe. Do you take the safe route? 10. Do dogs get sad?
I will not contradict myself

Your criticism is reasonable. I shall try and be fairer this round. 1. Did you like Attack Of The Clones more than The Phantom Menace? No. 2. Would you rather be killed instantly than be hideously tortured for the rest of your natural life? No. I am too afraid of death. 3. Are you in the military? Yes. Not in the sense you might be expecting though. 4. Are you a liar? Yes, if a liar means that I sometimes lie, no if it means I always lie. 5. Are you a member of any political party? Not officially. 6. Do colours exist objectively (rather than varying according to individual perception)? The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. However, I am not other people so I don't how their brain interprets the signals, and therefore don't know whether that is objective or not. 7. Are you peaceful? No 8. Do you know the difference between reflection and refraction? No 9. Do you dislike living in Kent? No. 10. Are contradictions always contradictory? If this question means does a contradiction always has to be a logical incompatability between two or more propositions, then yes. If not then I would appreciate clarification on what the question means.
I will not contradict myself

Many thanks to my honourable opponent and kudos to him for answering nine out of ten yes/no questions without using the words "yes" or "no". Here's some more: 1. Did you like Attack Of The Clones more than The Phantom Menace? 2. Would you rather be killed instantly than be hideously tortured for the rest of your natural life? 3. Are you in the military? 4. Are you a liar? 5. Are you a member of any political party? 6. Do colours exist objectively (rather than varying according to individual perception)? 7. Are you peaceful? 8. Do you know the difference between reflection and refraction? 9. Do you dislike living in Kent? 10. Are contradictions always contradictory? Thanks.
I will not contradict myself

1. Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions? No. I would remind my opponent that any statement made here which contradicts information on my profile is not a valid contradiction. 2. Is Thaddeus your real name? People on this site and my close friends call me by that name, however I was not christened that. I shall allow you to decide what constitutes a "real" name. 3. Are you really Rastafarian? I may unwittingly agree with some of their principles, but to my knowledge of Rastafarianism I am not. 4. Do you believe in God? I am agnostic to the possibility of a God 5. Do you think the Christian faith prescribes good moral values? Some good values, some bad values. Overall? Possibly, however I am not familiar enough with the bible and the christian faith to say for certain. 6. Do you agree with Noam Chomsky about everything? It is very unlikely. I don't know all his opinions on all things. For example he may like the prequel star wars trilogy, I didn't. 7. Are you a Libertarian? I am a moderate Libertarian. 8. Do you agree with Karl Marx about anything? I am very sure I do. He probably agreed with me that it is preferable to be alive, rather than dead. 9. Is the sky blue? Sometimes what is colloquially reffered to as the sky reflects blue light. 10. Do you like living in Kent? Most of the time.
I will not contradict myself

Hi Thaddeus, thanks for the opportunity to take part in this game/debate. I've had fun with these before, so let's begin. Questions: 1. Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions? 2. Is Thaddeus your real name? 3. Are you really Rastafarian? 4. Do you believe in God? 5. Do you think the Christian faith prescribes good moral values? 6. Do you agree with Noam Chomsky about everything? 7. Are you a Libertarian? 8. Do you agree with Karl Marx about anything? 9. Is the sky blue? 10. Do you like living in Kent? Thanks again. I eagerly await my opponent's responses and will have more questions next round.
I will not contradict myself

Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no. 2.When Pro answers with a Yes or a No, he can, but is not obliged to, give an explanation for this answer or a clarification. 3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he must give us his reasons for this decision. 4. Con may ask only ten questions per round. 5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction. 6. In round 5 Pro will defend Cons accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. He may not make new arguments or present any contradictions in this round. NB Con can only use the information from this debate. Only what I say in this debate counts and can be used against me.
Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy, #2

I am accepting and seek to clarify several issues with this debate. Firstly, I am working on the assumption that Martial Law would be imposed by US soldiers on the Iraqi citizenry through a US military run justice system in order to avoid the issues concerning sectarian bias. If this assumption is wrong I would ask the Prop to state so in order to avoid arguing at cross-points Secondly I would like to clarify as to whether or not the Prop is referring to the Military regime in Korea pre-Korean war or post-Korean war. I am also assuming the Pro to have BoP, again please inform me if I am mistaken Finally I would also ask that the Prop specify exactly what 'designated regions' Military Law would be applied to in Iraq.
We, humans, can not teleport

You did not specify in the beginning what kind of teleportation it was that we were debating so the argument about dimensional teleportation is irrelevant. I am debating the statement "Humans cannot teleport." I did say maybe which implies a possibility, and if there is a possibility, you cannot conclude that something cannot occur absolutely. You cannot absolutely prove a negative. Your argument about all computers shutting down is also irrelevant because 1. That has nothing to do with our debate, and 2. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't.
We, humans, can not teleport

Funny, I never posted 5 rounds. Must be a glitch. Do whatever you want in the debate. Anyway, welcome to Debate.org! For your benefit, I will list my arguments in each category: Counter Arguments 1) "There is always a possibility for something to happen."False. Remember the theory about all the computers shutting down? Never happened. 2) You stated, "Maybe humans can teleport, we just don't know how." You stated "Maybe." You are unsure. Yes, we DON'T know how. We CANNOT teleport. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) Dimensional teleportation is impossible. They are complete fantasy. 2) You cannot travel the speed of light. Therefore, we cannot teleport. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comments I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I wish her good luck. I rest my case. Thank you.
We, humans, can not teleport

Good debate Pro. Pro asks why I do not try to prove that we can teleport. The resolve is "Humans cannot teleport." This is an absolute statement meaning that it denies any possibility of humans teleporting now or in the future. Therefore, if I can prove that there is a possibility of teleportation of humans, his statement is then proved wrong and defaults to me. This is the Law of the Excluded Middle: http://en.wikipedia.org... Even my opponent's reasons to win are false: "1) My opponent has not refuted many of my main points. 2) MY opponent has debated about the probability, not that humans CAN teleport with actual facts. 3) I have stated sources, which help support my main points and physics concepts" His point one is false because obviously I have rebutted many of his arguments; just look back at the arguments. His point two is definitely wrong because I debated about the POSSIBILITY NOT PROBABILITY and I actually stated that we are not debating about probability in round 4. His point three is made irrelevant by the fact that the science community constantly changes their accepted principles and laws. Therefore any principle saying that teleportation is not possible and could be changed in the future which is what I am working with. I urge you not to vote Pro because we cannot teleport now. My argument is that there is a possibility of teleportation of humans in the future. My opponent's resolve leaves no room for teleportation in the future or even the possibility. If he had stated "Humans cannot teleport now", I would agree with him. But this is not the resolve. Since I have proved the possibility of teleportation in the future, his statement is now false. I have used logic to do so. If you have any disagreements with my logic, read my previous arguments and tell me where I am wrong. Actually, it is ironic that my opponent says I have not rebutted many of his points since he has not addressed many of mine as well. Vote Con. Accept the possibility. definition: http://dictionary.reference.com..., if you need it :)
We, humans, can not teleport

Salve, Con! (Salve means hello in Latin.) To con, for this round, just wrap up and state why you should win. In response to "there was always a possibility that they cold happen.", could you support the idea with KEY FACTS? If I stated "time travel", I must have meant teleporting. However, teleporting and time traveling are similar. You have to travel faster than the speed of light or the Earth. Why are you stating the possibility of teleporting? Shouldn't you be talking about that teleportation is real and we can teleport? There are many ways of how you could win if you talked about, "we CAN teleport" instead of the possibility. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree with before the debate: Con Agree with after the debate: Con Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Tied Convincing arguments: Con Sources: Pro _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I should win this debate because: 1) My opponent has not refuted many of my main points. 2) MY opponent has debated about the probability, not that humans CAN teleport with actual facts. 3) I have stated sources, which help support my main points and physics concepts _________________________________________________________________________________________________ In conclusion, we cannot teleport. "Anything that has mass cannot travel the speed of light." ~ Physics. I challenge my opponent face that concept. The concept basically wraps up my main ideas. I rest my case. Vote Pro. Thank you. P.S. TO CON, great job! If you lose this debate, it's not the end of the world. "Win or lose, it doesn't matter." ~ Jackie Chan. If you win this debate, well, awesome! Good luck on your future debates!
We, humans, can not teleport

In addressing the physics concept, science is constantly changing what they accept as laws and theories. Therefore in the future it is possible that they will change the law:Anything that has mass cannot travel the speed of light. Therefore, we cannot travel the speed of light, so, we cannot time travel. Also, maybe there is a way to get around the principle, we just don't know it. Also, I don't think teleportation is necessarily time travel. You must understand that there is a possibility for anything to happen at any time. The passage of time will tell what WILL happen, but there are infinite things that COULD happen. Just because we don't know how something could happen doesn't mean that it can't. For a long time it was thought that a human could never set foot on the soon because the didn't know how, but it did happen and there was always a possibility it could happen. As for your examples of the computers and your whole argument about flying into Pluto, there was always a possibility that they could happen. Are they likely to happen? No. But we aren't debating probability. You couldn't be sure that those things could happen before they happened. Until you can see the future, you can not be sure of anything that can happen. Therefore, it is possible that we could find a way to make humans teleport which makes it possible. If you do not know for sure that it is not possible, then you cannot say absolutely that it is impossible.
We, humans, can not teleport

Hello, Con, To clarify about the computers shutting down, I will explain that this was a theory. On October 1, 2004,all of the computers will shut down. Did this happen on October 1, 2004? No. This did not. To clarify about myself hitting Pluto, I will restate that. I will state that I will fly to Pluto, eat 456 grilled cheese sandwiches, and slam myself with a book in 5:04 PM, Friday, December 3, 2010. Has this happened? No. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has not refuted many of my arguments, such as the physics concepts. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Logic ________________________________________________________________________________________________ I than my opponent for this exciting debate.
We, humans, can not teleport

In reference to the computers shutting down, there was a possibility and still is. We can conclude that there is no possibility that that happened then, but we cannot conclude that it is impossible to happen. Actually, there is a possibility that you could fly into the dwarf planet Pluto. Unless you specify a way and time at which this event will occur, which will then be proved absolutely by it either occurring or not in the passage of time, there is no way to prove something cannot occur. Again, you cannot absolutely say that you cannot fly into Pluto, make all the computers shut down, or teleport because you do not know if there is a way to do so. The possibility of the way of doing so conflicts with the absolute statement "Humans cannot telelport".
We, humans, can not teleport

Greetings, Con, Counter Arguments 1) You stated, "You did not specify in the beginning what kind of teleportation it was that we were debating so the argument about dimensional teleportation is irrelevant." Teleport- to transport (a body) by telekinesis. You could argue about the different kinds of teleportation. 2) You stated, "I did say maybe which implies a possibility, and if there is a possibility, you cannot conclude that something cannot occur absolutely. " Yes, I could conclude that something cannot occur absolutely. Watch me. I will state that I will fly and hit Pluto, the dwarf planet. Did that happen? No. Therefore, your argument is entirely false. 3) You stated, "Your argument about all computers shutting down is also irrelevant because 1. That has nothing to do with our debate, and 2. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't." It has something to do with the debate. You stated in round 1, "There is always a possibility for something to happen." This is false. There was a theory about all PCs having a shutdown. Did this every happen? No. If you still don't understand what I mean, I am happy to explain it to you in round 4. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) Anything that has mass cannot travel the speed of light. Therefore, we cannot travel the speed of light, so, we cannot time travel. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) http://www.google.com... 3) Physics _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comments I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate. Con is doing a pretty good job. Nice work!
The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

Despite the fact that we strongly disagree, I think we’ve done it in an amicable way, and I’m grateful for that. As this last round is merely for summation, I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible. Argument PointI’ve already provided a systematic evaluation of the state of play here in the last round. Suffice to say, I’m confident that I have provided a lengthy and well-substantiated case. Pro never directly responded to the vast majority of my case, offering 3 half-hearted arguments which were easily disposed with. As his claim that I never responded to his case, this is nonsense. I've refuted each of his arguments completely, numerous times over. The only outstanding issue is Pro’s denial that he cited Genesis as authoritative because of its antiquity. In R3 he said,“The common date for the earliest versions of Genesis is far before any concocted PoE was ever documented. This means that to appeal to Genesis is not to have ad hoc storytelling. ”I think this is pretty conclusive, but again, even if Pro is right here, this was all the justification he offered in support of the Fall story. Without this, as I said, all Pro offered was his unwarranted assumption. Overall, the balance of arguments has been unequivocal. The PoE has been amply justified, while Pro’s flimsy attempts to resist this have been thoroughly debunked. Sources PointThis again is similarly one-sided. While I document 15 citations from a wide variety of sources, Pro only offers 2 adequate references. This is particularly important as Pro makes some pretty bizarre claims, which he hasn’t been able to substantiate with support from a reputable body (in particular, his strange aversion to modus tollens). His case is almost absent any source, much less the plethora I have offered defending the PoE. Again, there simply can be no question which side the pendulum swings here. I submit that the breadth and the quality of the sources I provided is enough to warrant this point as well. ConclusionAll that’s left for me to do is to thank the readers in advance. Most importantly, I’d ask voters to consider each case fairly, and to leave an adequate reason for their decision.
The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

In this last round. I will consolidate my own arguments, which I will list following. I will not provide any rebuttals. During this debate, I brought forth several arguments which Con has proceeded to straw man. Case in point being the weird argument, which I never did provide, about Genesis and authenticity. (Which I actually view as a Red Herring)Con has, throughout this debate, viewed me as confused, my arguments as the result of confusion. I will not defend myself here, because to do so would be to break the rules. I am noting that I see it. When I say "dismal," I did not mean in any way that I was confused. I meant that I had not paid very much attention to this debate. Con provided 4 points to justify his arguments, in the previous round, I answered all of them very clearly, something which Con does not seem to notice. He'd prefer it to be indirect points. Let me quote myself on that. "The points 1-3 were all addressed in my reply to Natural Evil, which Con misconstrued"So in essense, I responded to all of his arguments with arguments of my own, which he continues to extend without replying to my contentions.
The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

IntroductionGiven that this is merely a preliminary round, I’ll leave my presentation of my argument to the next round. I do however want to thank Pro for accepting my request to debate this topic, and to clarify a couple of things before we get started. First, with regards to the resolution, I take it that it is synonymous with the view that the Problem of Evil (hereafter the PoE) is defective in some way, and as such, fails to provide an intellectual barrier to Christian theism. In short, I take my position in the debate as advocating the PoE as a logically sound argument, and Pro’s task to be to show that this is not the case. Second, I want to distinguish between 2 types of evil. Moral evil - An evil act committed by a free agent. Examples include murder, rape and torture. Natural evil - A natural event which causes pain, suffering, premature death, etc. Examples include natural disasters and illness/ailments. Lastly, I see it as my role in this debate to both produce and defend a version of the PoE which I find most persuasive. I will do this in the next round, and leave responding to Pro’s criticisms in my third round.
The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

(I have decided to send this challenge early. It is fine should you wish to delay accepting.) This debate is simple and I hope to keep it this way. The Problem of Evil is widely debated. I am not disputing that there is evil here. I am disputing that the problem of evil is excuse enough not to believe in the Christian God. That is, to present it as an opposition to the validity of God. I doubt the need of definitions, hence I will not provide one. Rather, I rely on the integrity of my opponent, whoever he/she may be. Rules 1. No trolling/vulgarities. 2. No plagiarism 3. Comments in the comment section is required for voters. (Principally because I want to know how to improve myself) 4. BoP is shared. There will be five rounds. The first will be for acceptance only. The last round will only be for consolidation of arguments. No rebuttals may be presented there. 5 rounds. 72hrs. 8k characters. 1 month voting.
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

Lol. Alright so you made a great point my dear. That was a very broad statement, I apologize. There are vegetarians, and those who just simply don't like chicken at all, etc etc. Well lets focus on the vegetarians for awhile. Maybe we shouldn't include all of them because there are many "replacement" vegetarian products for meat. In particular for this debate there are things such as Southern Fried Vegetarian "Chicken", Fried "chicken" fingers that are vegan, and vegan fried chicken. These foods do not contain chicken, but they taste like it. http://www.google.com... Which brings me to the next point that maybe it isn't about the health, but it is about the taste. Yes baked chicken may be better in the aspects that it less likely clog your arteries or cause you to go into cardiac arrest, but doesn't fried chicken just taste so much better. If it didn't, wouldn't there be more baked chicken substitutes for vegetarians or people seeking healthy solutions opposed to fried chicken? If it was healthier than baked chicken, who would deny the sure delectable crispiness of a nice hot piece of fried chicken?