BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

You are wrong Vi_spex In your evaluation the wind causes the apple to fall. Wrong. The Apple dislodges from the tree because of the wind. It falls because the air beneath it does not support it yet still applies pressure on it's top. Fact. You can measure the pressure of the sky pressing down on us** This is the cause of the fall ~ continual pressure applied to the top half of the apple with no support beneath it. Thus you determine a False cause and are Wrong. "the apple rolled, because there was a hill, and because of the wind, and the wind caused it because so on and so on" To indicate this claim, you disregard that the Sun and moon alter and judge the weather of the world, and cloud cover from these causes and their conditions alters the wind. Thus the Cosmos is the cause of the apples fall, and you have once again disregarded the many variables that only one who Determines all causes and effects can determine. The Earth turns, revealing moonlight on the ocean, and it churns. Clouds rise. Earth spins ~ Earth spins because it reaches no restricting forces in it's perfect continual movement. Sun heats the dry land, the clouds disperse. weather accumulates over time. Seasonal conditions incur ripe apple. A wind arises, and dislodges the apple. The apple falls because of "Gravity". The apples rolls because of the slope. You Do not determine all causes and effects. Nor is the effect you chose the cause of the roll. The apple would have rolled had it simple fell in it's seasonal prime. Not a condition of the Wind.
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

to say I lost is to say votes determine the win, and it is a logical fallacy, I win because im right the wind is the effect of a cause, the apple falling is caused by an effect, as any cause is caused by an effect, and any effect is caused by a cause, which also means there can not be a first cause. the fall of the apple is the effect of the wind and the cause of a man kicking it so it falls into a lake, in this lake, fish start eating it... you see it dosnt end, and without the apple falling, non of this would happen I agree the apple roll because there is a hill, but when did the cause of the apple rolling down the hill start? the apple rolled, because there was a hill, and because of the wind, and the wind caused it because so on and so on know=physical experience of now if you push me off a cliff and I see you do it, feel the push, I know its you causing it..
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

Vi_spex, I am glad to have this opportunity to debate with you on this topic. I hope you noted that your previous debate which you lost, I personally credit you the win. A Cause has an Effect, and thus it is logical to put them together and say it is Logic to do such a thing. The function of using math to determine reason and logic forgoes human nature, and your opponent and yourself pursued a path of redundancy after the initial contact. However. NO. You do not determine where the cause and effect begin or end, not even in an example. A.) an apple on a tree. (substance, topic B.) apple begins to fall. (initiation exterior cause, pursuing occurring interior cause C.) A hard wind is the fundamental cause in this moment. (Cause of this particular Fall) D.) The apple falls (effect) E.) The apple hits the ground: + rolls: (effects of a variety of causes.) In the condition E, If the tree was higher, or there was no hill, the Fall is not the cause of either This collision nor this rolling, despite theoretically it is the same tree. This is because, the apple hitting the ground was caused not by the effect of the wind. Nor did the apple roll because it fell. The apple hit the ground because it was unattached to stability. The Apple rolled because there was a hill. However, even if your thesis was accurate, You yourself still do not Determine the cause nor effect, nor does science, or physics, But Circumstances determines all things. God, as described in Hinduism, which is a monotheist religion, describes God as the circumstance of all things: as a mathematical law of conditions leading to causes and effects, unbiased towards all, kind to each, endlessly forgiving, utterly condemning, knowing of all, and the sole purpose and salvation of life, which precedes and proceeds all measurable causes or effects, even the First and the Last. Thus you are wrong. For even as an atheist one cannot argue this; The Law of Mechanics rules over the determination of all causes and effects from their roots to their fallen fruit, Seeing that which you cannot see, and knowing that which you cannot know. And in this way, that which is good is not an opinion, nor is that which is bad, because the causes and effects internally and externally are beyond your comprehension, and have factual results determined to be a Good cause or a Bad cause by a superior nature of the Cosmic Order and Law which is entirely self aware and sustaining as a Universal (consisting of All things leaving nothing that is manifest unconsidered: Universal) entity.
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

My opponent determined an apple fell when the wind blew, and rolled down a hill, ceasing in it's effect. This was all already implied. My opponent did not however contribute anything else. And in that regard, the wind was brought up by the Weather change, and the weather pushed the wind into the apple, and the wind was in effect not responsible for the apples fall. IN addition, the fallen apple where it lays alters the weather near and around it by creating surface for dew { just as a note. I however Indicated in what I found to be a sound resolve that the Cosmos has a law that determines all causes and effects, not Vi_spex.
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

gravity is implied as well, colour, time space. it is true to say i pushed you off a cliff because if i dint you wouldn't have fallen off, gravity is the cause for why its possible for me to push you off along many other things, if you had no arms you couldn't push me off as well, so arms are implied unless i pushed you off with my body, but that is not relevant to argue the wind causing an apple to fall cant happen?
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

The apple falls because of "gravity" thus. If your debate is that the apples falls because of the wind you are wrong. The apple falls because the pressure above the apple is greater than the pressure bellow it. Thus, you hopefully have a very well developed final argument to defend your case, which is hopefully not that the wind causes this singular apple to fall, but that an entire philosophical debate is being covered for a functional purpose of personal and communal growth. That you determine All Causes and Effects is incomprehensible. You still have not even considered the consistency of the grounds surface, and how the wind is relevant to the following chain of events.
i determine where cause and effect begins and ends

precisely! but not precisely, because the cause is the wind, as there is no cause to make the apple dislodge and fall without it, for this logical chain to exist, another cause can happen, but then its a different chain of events that's going to accur :), as i said, logic is matter, and logic IS cause AND(+) effect cause+(and)effect=(is)logic reason+intent=morality logic+experience=reason logic(cause)+experience(effect)=reason(logic, equation for how i got to it, if logic changes reason changes, if you have no intent you cant be immoral, if you cant tell right from wrong you cant be immoral, if you cant experience logic you cant have a concept of logic(reason)) if all apples became poisonous today, and we were all aware of it, would it then be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didn't want them to be healthy, would it then be right to give kids apples(moral)? i
Metallica Vs. Avenged Sevenfold

I will agree with you Metallica as far as a band is better but Avenged Sevenfold has a good sound. I find that they are both great bands and I believe that they both are equal as far as their awesomeness. They way I look at it Metallica's old music was the best even though I did like the Death Magnetic album and Avenged Sevenfold music is good depending on the song.
There is no Hell

Okay, this is my first debate online...so, bear with me... If you are a Christian that believes that the Bible is truth than you have to believe that there is a hell. Why, Luke 12:4-5 says "I tell you my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has the power to through you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." That was Jesus Christ speaking. This passage explains that God has the power to through us into Hell. He might not send people there, but it does exist.
There is no Hell

Please take note, we are debating about Christian hell. Not Muslim hell, nor any other religion's hell, but Christian hell. Hell: the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus. http://dictionary.reference.com... According to the Bible, if you don't believe in the Christian God, you will be sent to hell for eternal punishment after your death. I believe there is no hell. That is all for now, my opponent may begin.
#Love

I would like to debate the resolution resolved: "Love".Before was start, I would just like to enter some framework for both of the debaters.=====FRAMEWORK======= 1. Both debaters shall use semantics heavily. 2. Conduct should be given to the debater who insults their opponent the most.3. If you do not use a logical fallacy in this debate, you are not considered the winner.4. If your opponent is a girl, you will refer to him as a him rather than a her. and vice versa.Endtrollframework.======NEGATIVE REBUTTALS=======The first argument my opponent makes is: "Love will never return you to the void."I find this argument incredibly unfounded. Every time I have ever found love in my life, I have been redirected to this person's profile: http://www.debate.org...Any person who ever love in their life, will always return to this persons profile. Thus your argument that love will never return me to the Void, is invalid.Next my opponent goes on to say "____________________".Like seriously? First of all you contain absolutely no Burden Of Proof to substantiate the claim of ____________.How could you ever prove that the argument of ___________ is ever logically valid. Dear audience. My opponent has heavily been attempting to manipulate you with his argument here. He expects you to believe reasonably without a doubt that ___________ can be possible. I have proved to you, my audience, that there is no way possible that ___________ could ever be achieved. Thus his elaborate argument falls.=========Conclusion===========I feel you should vote for me because I have proven logically that the use named BlackVoid's profile, is where all all people who find love, instantly return to. My opponent cannot logically dis-prove this fact. Through all our trials, and hardships, retribution can always be seeked through BlackVoid.I feel you should also vote me because I have logically dis-poved my opponents very elaborate and highly evidenced arguments of _____________. There is no possible way my opponent can prove that he has upheld the BOP on this argument, thus logically, I should win this debate./endtroll.
#Love

"When love is present and encountered between two individuals (Man v. Woman, Woman v. Woman, Man v. Man) their genuine, passionate love for each other will never result in emptiness because at the end their love for each other will always be unconditional love through thick and thin." So your saying that if someone falls in love then it is impossible to fall out of love, and that love will forever be unconditional?Hmm....http://www.divorcerate.org...Why are divorce rates so high then? If people only get married because they are in love, then obviously the act of divorce proves that these people haven't really experienced unconditional love.And again if someone experiences love, then they will always return the the User by the name of BlackVoid's profile. You have not refuted this, thus this argument remains substantianted, and we can extend this throughout the rest of the debate.Thankyou for your response!TUF
Wii U a next generation console

Wii U is Nintendo's sixth home console. Releasing a year before the PS4 and Xbone hit, Wii U is being dubbed 'last gen' and 'irrelevant' in comparisons to the new, shiny consoles from Sony and Microsoft. My argument is that while it is clear as day that the Wii U is more on level with PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of graphical power, being more powerful doesn't mean the PS4/Xbone is any most 'next-gen' than the Wii U. Being released in the same time frame and being supported currently means that Wii U is just as next gen as the PS4 and Xbone are.
Wii U a next generation console

Another point. Regardless of console, games are the single most important thing the game industry outputs. Why should one console be called lesser to another when its output is arguably better? PS4 currently has Knack, Killzone ShadowFall and Resogun as exclusives, the Xbone has Dead Rising 3, Ryse, Killer Instinct, Forza, Crimson Dragon and more. Wii U has Super Mario 3D World, Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD, Sonic Lost World etc. I know which console's game collection I like more. And with Smash Bros Wii U, Zelda Wii U, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, X, Yarn Yoshi and a lot more games on the horizon, the rebuttal that PS4 and Xbone will get stronger with time is invalid (although i'm looking forward to Infamous: Second Son and Uncharted PS4 immensely (: )
Video games can actually be beneficial

Ignoring the semantics, My adversary is trying to twist the meaning of a word in order to garnish and advantage. He is also misinterpreting his own source. If you follow his own source, we would find that resolution in fact coverts too Video games can truthfully/factually beneficialThis has nothing to do with objective purpose. For something to be beneficial it has to be advantageous or result in good ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) . Something can result in good for someone without "humanity having an objective purpose"R1) Redirecting the resolutionHis entire premise is false and makes no sense. There are plenty of things that are beneficial to me and others without myself or them knowing if they have an objective purpose or not. Exercising and eating healthy, along with over various things clearly have positive impacts on my life and I don't have a damn blue what my true purpose in life is. C1) Can Can is defined as to be able too meaning that I do not have to prove an objective benefit. The only thing I have to do is show that it's possible there is a benefit from videos games. This is completely independent of whether or not we know our objective purpose. Again there are plenty of things I can gain or benefit from without knowing my objective purpose. http://dictionary.reference.com...His criticisms to do actually link to my argument at all which make them invalid. C2) Net benefits of video gamesVideo games on balance improve hand eye coordination, problem solving capabilities, learning , health, and even social skills ( http://www.apa.org... ). All these have a positive impact on someones life regardless or not whether they know their purpose objectively. Meaning all the aforementioned things help improve their quality of life , because it teaches them skills they can utilized throughout their life. C)The resolution is affirmed. ________________________________________________________________Not to be regarded in this debate and for funsiesYou can define your objective purpose, in regards to death. We all live to die. So the objective purpose is to improve our life until that point.
Video games can actually be beneficial

Let's do this. You assume the burden of proof by making the positive claim. I know that you have a powerful rebuttal waiting even though your first round makes it appear as though you don't. You'll just appeal to logical possibility. I'd like to make this debate somewhat interesting rather than an automatic bait win (lol). There's an important stipulation in the resolution: "Video games can *actually* be beneficial" Actually: "1. as the truth or facts of a situation; really." -adverb http://dictionary.reference.com... My contention is that nothing can *actually* be beneficial unless mankind has an objective purpose. If human beings have no objective purpose, video games cannot *actually* be beneficial because whatever is beneficial would be entirely subjective and not representative of true or factual benefit. If I wanted to die early it would be beneficial for me to do things that harm my health. The burden of proof rests on opponent so he must show that objective purpose for the human race is logically possible in order to show that video games can *actually* be beneficial. I will argue that objective purpose for the human race is logically impossible and therefore videogames *cannot* actually be beneficial.
Video games can actually be beneficial

I want to note that my intuitions stated in round 1 were correct (*pats on the back*)Semantics?My opponent falsely accuses me of playing semantics. "Semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.:"http://dictionary.reference.com...;I refer you to the full wording of the resolution: "Video games can actually be beneficial"The resolution was NOT "Video games can be beneficial".Since "actually"was used in the resolution itself, and since I did not change the meaning of the word, I have not played semantics. This is particularly ironic since pro is attempting to use semantics himself to win the debate solely based on the usage of "can" to mean logical possibility! Remember that pro has the burden of proof. I will not accept any of it by shouldering his accusations. :PPro has the full burden of proof - I accept none of it My opponent should have worded the resolution more carefully if he takes issue with the terms he used. It's also fairly obvious that this debate was meant to be an automatic bait win by resorting to logical possibility (as I said in R1 lol). Remember that "actually" means "1. as the truth or facts of a situation; really."Moving the GoalpostsMy opponent says: "The only thing I have to do is show that it's possible there is a benefit from videos games. This is completely independent of whether or not we know our objective purpose. "This is an example of moving the goalposts [1]. He is moving the goalposts by dropping a key stipulation ("actually beneficial") given in the resolution that lessens his burden of proof that gives him an intentional advantage.What my opponent must show (per the resolution and given his burden of proof) is that there is actually (really, truthfully, or factually) a benefit from playing video games. There cannot be an actual, truthful, or factual benefit for any person unless mankind has an objective purpose. If I value poor eyesight, deficient problem solving, ignorance, sickness, and a lack of social skills then video games are not actually beneficial to me. My values, purpose, and destiny in life is entirely subjective. If there can be an actual, factual, or truthful benefit to playing video games this is logically impossible unless I have an objective purpose. Otherwise my subjective values and purpose decide whatever is beneficial towards the end I want to achieve. I have shown that valuing health, mental capabilities, and social skills are entirely subjective! Playing video games cannot *actually* or *factually* be beneficial. Human beings are means without ends if humanity doesn't have any objective purpose. In short, my opponent cannot uphold his burden of proof because he cannot show that video games can have any actual benefit without showing that humanity can have objective purpose. Thus far he has not even attempted this.The resolution is negated.Over to pro.http://en.wikipedia.org...;[1]
We should use the 24 hour clock instead of a 12 hour clock

Since Pro is arguing for change, BoP is on him. I am assuming Pro is arguing for 24 hour analog clocks, since 24 hour digital already exist. >There are 24 hours in a day so why not just use the numbers 1-24 to represent the hour. <Very interesting question, why not? Well, it seems to me that Pro has forgotten about minutes and seconds, and he has only focused on the hour aspect of the analogue clock. There are 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute. Because it is 60, it goes into 12 evenly and therefore we have 5 minutes between ever "hour" segment of the clock. However, if we were in fact to change 12 hours to 24 hours on a clock, then we would have uneven minute and second measurements around the circumference. >The reason we have AM and PM is because people can't fit 24 NUMBERS on a circular piece of metal or paper for crying out loud! <What Pro claims here is not true. Twenty-four numbers could fit perfectly well on both "a circular piece of metal" and "paper. " The reason that we do not, however, is because as I stated before 60 is divisible by 12 but not by 24. >GET A DIGITAL CLOCK THAT USES MILITARY TIME! !! < Pro's urging to get a digital clock further proves why we do not need a 24 hour analog clock. Since we already have digital clocks, analog clocks are going out and there is no need to change them if they are becoming obsolete anyway. To change them now would be pointless and time consuming. >I would find it difficult to know whether it is AM or PM especially at 12:00<This is irrelevant to our debate today, as there are many difficult things that as humans, we have to deal with. Calculus, for example. Just because it is difficult does not mean we should abandon it for, say, algebra or geometry. Plus there are tricks to remembering what time is AM and what time is PM. 12AM is midnight; 12PM is noon. The trick I learned growing up was Arise at Midnight, you will Pass out at Noon. >So let's be the generation that will ALWAYS use the 24 hour system therefore the AM/PM crap is history. < This sentence does not make sense. If we are alive right now as this generation, we won't be "always" using the 24 hour system since we still use the 12 hour system. The second half of Pro's sentence starts with therefore, but does not have the proper punctuation, nor does it make sense in context of the sentence. See proper use of therefore here: . http://grammarist.com...VOTE CON! Thanks again to my opponent for this opportunity to debate something completely irrelevant to modern technology and backing his arguments up with 90% opinion.
We should use the 24 hour clock instead of a 12 hour clock

I think that we should use the 24 hour clock because it is easier in my opinion. We don't need all of that AM PM crap. There are 24 hours in a day so why not just use the numbers 1-24 to represent the hour. It's called military time. Airports, The military, etc. use the 24 hour clock! The reason we have AM and PM is because people can't fit 24 NUMBERS on a circular piece of metal or paper for crying out loud! Just make the numbers smaller to make it fit on a clock. Or even better; GET A DIGITAL CLOCK THAT USES MILITARY TIME!!! It would eliminate the AM/PM system. I remember as a kid I would find it difficult to know whether it is AM or PM especially at 12:00 where it would transition from AM to PM or PM to AM. So let's be the generation that will ALWAYS use the 24 hour system therefore the AM/PM crap is history. I hope you will agree with me.