BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should originality always be favoured above conformity

"The argument that you have presented has formed quite an impression on myself, however I would personally like to remind you that conformity does not always fall into practice when dealing with concepts and theories, as well as real life scenarios and decisions. Meaning that though daily obligations that are due need not have a singular method."The above has no bearing on the resolution. "Focalizing on that point, I would like to bring up the case of the invention of aviation. The Wright brothers, a bifold of dreamers who believed in another method of transportation. Their persistency and dedication towards a goal that was original and not conforming to previous structures and models that faltered in their own fashion. The result was a primordial yet effective model that proved itself as a worthy invention and beginning in the world of aviation. Based on this evidence I present the statement that originality should always be favoured above conformity."Naming one situation where originality is better, does not show that originality is always better. That is a non-sequitir. All I needed was one example where not being "original" is favored, in order to show that originality isn't always to be favored over conformity. Since my example has not been refuted, the resolution has been negated.
Should originality always be favoured above conformity

The argument that you have presented has formed quite an impression on myself, however I would personally like to remind you that conformity does not always fall into practice when dealing with concepts and theories, as well as real life senerios and desisions. Meaning that though daily obligations that are due need not have a singular method. Focalizing on that point, I would like to bring up the case of the invention of aviation. The Wright brothers, a bifold of dreamers who believed in another method of transportation. Their persistency and dedication towards a goal that was original and not conforming to previous structures and models that faltered in their own fashion. The result was a primordial yet effective model that proved itself as a worthy invention and beginning in the world of aviation. Based on this evidence I present the statement that originality should always be favoured above conformity.
Should originality always be favoured above conformity

"Originality or an aspect of created or invented works, from fragments and shards, should always be favoured over blind acceptance."The above comment is just restating the resolution, rather than actually supporting the resolution. For this reason, the above is not sufficient support. "My argument focused on the fact that originality, above all resolves in toil and hard work to persist an accurate, yet an out of the ordinary response to create a genuine infrastructure."The resolution states that originality should always be favored. What if you are going to get jailed for not paying taxes? Obviously, this would not be favored by most humans. This is why most people conform and pay taxes when they are told, instead of being "original" and not paying taxes (not paying taxes is not favorable, because of the hit it would put on infrastructure and social programs). Because I named a situation where originality would not be favored over conformity, the resolution has been negative because it says originality is always favored.
If debating was Chess, the instigator would have a better chance of winning

Not sure how you're gonna rebut or state your arguements when there is only one round but here goes. Debating isn't like chess, at least not in the way that matters. "Debating is similar to chess" -- Pro states The main goal of debating is to state your arguements with logic and reason and whilst doing so pointing out any logical fallacies in your opponent's. Chess however, is on a totally different playing field, in the game of chess one strives to defeat the other by making co ordinated moves devoid of fundamental factors of debating which include being convincing and justifying what you state. "The person who moves first in Chess (traditionally white, instigator) has a better chance of winning. Debating is similar to chess. Therefore, if debating was Chess the instigator would have a better chance of winning. " -- Pro states 1. Person who moves first in chess has a better chance of winning 2. Debating is similar to chess 3. If debating was chess the instigator would have a better chance of winning As i have said before debating is devoid of the factors that are most intrinsic to debating. Therefore this logical process is fallacious. In addition, debating has set rounds where Pro and Con will have the same amount of turns to argue and rebutt. Voting commences after the debate has been concluded and as such voters will have to observe all of the arguements before voting. If i have misunderstood you in some way, tell me and we can go again. However, it would be best if you could state your points clearly.
If debating was Chess, the instigator would have a better chance of winning

The person who moves first in Chess (traditionally white, instigator) has a better chance of winning. Debating is similar to chess. Therefore, if debating was Chess the instigator would have a better chance of winning. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm arguing the Pro position. Con must prove white doesn't have a better chance in Chess, or that debating isn't similar enough to Chess for the argument to make sense, or some other trickery.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States.

Polygamy should be legalized in the United States.Polygamy: "the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time".Legalized: " to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law". 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance (i.e. Opponent agrees to the debate and terms of the debate).2nd round: Main arguments only.3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points.Rules:- No abuse of semantics.(This is standard since I gave definitions)-No trolling.- A forfeit is an automatic loss.-Cite sources.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Christian God is the only possible God to exist.

if an apple falls from a tree, is it intended? machines are intended, nature is the opposite of machine if nature is intended, it is a machine, not nature nature cant change what it is.. so it dosnt make a decision to do anything.. thats like saying nature could just work on its biceps instead of letting a thing fall a first cause is impossible. because the chain of cause and effect can not be broken, flawless as reality.. cause and effect is transformation.. at no point does matter equal 0 or nothing to look at it differently.. if an apple falls from a tree, when does the effect end? also, a first cause, is like a chicken without an egg.. or a punch from a non existent puncher... an effect is caused, and causes cause for them to be causes.. unless an empty pool makes me float supernature comes after nature, to contrast.. nature is physical or true.. where as nature of the mind is a construct in the age of computers, nature is but the dusty motherboard of intelligence
The Christian God is the only possible God to exist.

Let us begin by examining my opponent's arguments to see whether or not they hold up. "if god created nature, nature would be a machine.. nature is the opposite of machine, no faith involved.. nature is not a machine" My opponent here is arguing from modus tollens, or, in other words, if p then q, not q, therefore not p. Let us reconstruct his argument in syllogistic fashion. P1. If God created nature then nature would be a machine P2. Nature is not a machine C1. God did not create nature The theist, and rightly so, explicitly rejects P1 and P2. Why though? First of all, God could create a random universe. this is possible because there is an m-possible world in which there are no nomological laws, or, in other words, there is a logically possible world in which there are no laws of nature; however, this does not get around the argument from motion. The non-Christian needs to give a plausible account of Aristotelian motion. P2 is unacceptable because it is clear to inductive reason that nature operates in certain ways to fulfill certain ends in the best way possible. For example, a dropped body will fall to the center of the heaviest mass nearest to it (the earth in our case). Another example would be our moral life, where human will tends toward the good as its fulfillment. "cause and effect is necessety of motion.. a first cause would be like getting a punch out of nowhere, therfore a first cause is impossible.. cause and effect has no beginning and end effects are caused" While I agree that cause and effect is interrelated to motion, I do not agree that first causes are impossible. It is merely an assertion that they are and my opponent needs to provide an argument for his position here. "there is a mover.. this is the point.. no first mover.. but you can argue god always existed.. but then god would be his own nature, therfore god would be nature.. in which case he didnt create it.." This is merely a non sequiter and equivocation fallacy. It does not logically follow that because God is his nature (simplicity) that He is physical nature. My opponent blends the two definitions of nature in order to make his point. We must distinguish between the essence or nature of a thing and physical nature.
The Christian God is the only possible God to exist.

if god created nature, nature would be a machine.. nature is the opposite of machine, no faith involved.. nature is not a machine machine=specified=intent nature=random cause and effect is necessety of motion.. a first cause would be like getting a punch out of nowhere, therfore a first cause is impossible.. cause and effect has no beginning and end effects are caused infinity is defined as endless.. it can not be reached for it to not be desctuction or end there is a mover.. this is the point.. no first mover.. but you can argue god always existed.. but then god would be his own nature, therfore god would be nature.. in which case he didnt create it... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- true=true=apple=sound lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

1. Laws of Logic Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Therefore, A rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws. As an example, Let"s just consider one of the laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction. This law states that any contradiction is false: you can"t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship (where the letter A represents any claim). For example, The statement "My car is in the garage and it is not the case that my car is in the garage" is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But few people stop to ask, "Why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that matter, Any laws of reasoning? " The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God"s. And we know (in a finite, Limited way) how God thinks because He has revealed some of His thoughts through His Word. According to Genesis, God has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26) and therefore we are to follow His example (Eph. 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, And thus the way He expects us to think. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought to think, Rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), And all truth is in God ( John 14:6; Col. 2:3), Therefore truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Heb. 1:3), The consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe. Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, Immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, Universal, Invariant entities. In other words, They are not made of matter, They apply everywhere, And at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, Rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other worldviews cannot account for them. For example, Apart from the Bible, How could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, And no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has finally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, The non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, Or laws of logic in general.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Does Pro have any real evidence for their claim that a god is real? Or is it simply blind faith. Neither of us can either prove or disprove the existence of a god. Therefore a god may or may not exist. This is a logical statement. As there is no real evidence for the existence of a god, Then it is more likely that a god doesn't exist. This is a reasonable and logical assertion. As it cannot be proven that a god doesn't exist. Therefore a god must exist. To any rational thinker this is a totally unreasonable and illogical statement. As I previously stated. Based on Pro's Christian logic, Any fantasy scenario that cannot be proven to be unreal must therefore be real. Which is all good fun, But I still think that we're never going to get a glimpse of a god peeping from behind a cloud any day soon, Or any day ever. Still nonetheless, It must be true that herds of majestic blue buffalo, Graze on the lushest green meadows which cover the immense plateau that lies in the bottom left hand corner of the universe. Pro cannot disprove that this statement as they have never been to the bottom left hand corner of the universe to have a look. This assertion is based on Pro's own Christian laws of logic, So Pro has to agree with me, Otherwise they are being hypocritical. Let's be honest. The Christian Laws of Logic are completely illogical and do not prove anything. I propose that Pro's Christian Laws of Logic would be better referred to as the Christian Laws of Illogic. And the sensible proposition would therefore be: Laws of Illogic cannot prove Biblical Creation.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Obviously you can't answer that question and I wish you would have allowed someone more engaging to participate instead of stonewalling. Do you have evidence for this claim (that "God is not real"), Or is it simply a blind faith? In order to know for certain that God does not exist, You would have to know everything about the universe; otherwise, How could you be sure that God is not found in some area of the universe that you have not explored? And you"d also have to know about everything that is potentially beyond the universe " otherwise, How could you know that God is not found "outside" the physical universe? You"d have to know absolutely everything about everything in order to know that there is no God: in which case you would be omniscient " one of the aspects of deity. So you would essentially have to be God in order to know that there is no God " in which case God does exist. This is yet one more example of the fact that atheists are irrational; they just don"t think things through. Their beliefs are arbitrary (without logical justification).
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

People got together and decided it must be god, Or more correctly it must be an unseen unknowable fantasy being that exists somewhere other than on the Earth. And people got used to this idea and so the myth was perpetuated. And clever people found wealth and power in the myth and it was in their best interests to keep the myth alive. But of course, Soon there were sceptics who questioned the notion of god. For they realised that a notion was all that god actually was and they also realised that it was impossible to prove the existence of god. And so in desperation, The clever (or not so clever depending on ones point of view) pious ones thought up all sorts of gobbledygook in a vain attempt to confuse and demean the sceptical ones. And they gave this gobbledygook fanciful titles, Such as the law of non-contradiction. And logic is simplicity and gobbledygook is unnecessary complexity. And sallow is deep and deep is shallow and I believe that Pro has delusions of grandeur. And god does not exist just because a bunch of over-wordy folk say so.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Yep fantastic. I'm not knocking the concept at all. Christian logic is brilliant! What you're saying is that any fantasy world or fantastic being such as god or a blue buffalo has to exist in reality, Simply because it is impossible to prove that they don't exist in reality. Now. A rational sceptic such as myself might propose, That it seems more logical to suggest that a fantastic being such as a god or a blue buffalo probably doesn't exist in reality, Because there is no evidence to prove that they do. But what the heck! Let's go with the Christian logical multi-fantasy probability theory. Contradiction: You keep harping on about contradiction, But never actually explain what you mean. What in your view is or isn't contradicting what? At the beginning, We had a car in the garage or not in the garage. But the manner in which you presented the statement was simply word play and not actually a logical appreciation of the possibilities of a given situation. Basically the statement you presented was a deception. The clever or not so clever (depending on how you look at it) use of words in order to deceive, Has always been a theist's ploy. Second only to infant conditioning or infant brainwashing, Which in itself is one huge deception, Only more sinister. In fact I think it fair to propose that theists rely solely on deception as a means of promoting their various religions.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Why are the laws of logic true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that matter, Any laws of reasoning? Laws of logic make sense in a Christian worldview. But other worldviews cannot account for them. For example, Apart from the Bible, How could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, And no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has @257;nally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, The non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, Or laws of logic in general.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Because I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist, This then obviously means that a god must exist. Of course! . . . . . . That's so logical. And did you know that at the centre of the universe is a vast ocean of the creamiest, Primrose yellow custard. And did you know that in the top righthand corner of the universe live a billion of the most achingly beautiful, Pink fairies. And did you know that in the bottom left hand corner of the universe is an immense plateau, Covered in the lushest green meadows, Where herds of majestic blue buffalo graze. And did you know that on the left hand side of the universe is a huge rain forest, A million light years from one end to the other and here live the most diverse and exotic creatures imaginable. And did you know that the outer limits of the universe are guarded by an army of the finest knights, Riding golden horses, Whose armour and swords are wrought in the fire of stars. And of course all this must be true, Because Pro cannot prove that it isn't true. . . . . . It's so logical. Wow! . . . . . Pro's logic is so enlightening, Because now anything that cannot be proven to be true must therefore be true.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

Do you have evidence for this claim (that "Existence of God is not proven"), Or is it simply a blind faith? In order to know for certain that God does not exist, You would have to know everything about the universe; otherwise, How could you be sure that God is not found in some area of the universe that you have not explored? And you"d also have to know about everything that is potentially beyond the universe " otherwise, How could you know that God is not found "outside" the physical universe? You"d have to know absolutely everything about everything in order to know that there is no God: in which case you would be omniscient " one of the aspects of deity. So you would essentially have to be God in order to know that there is no God " in which case God does exist. This is yet one more example of the fact that atheists are irrational; they just don"t think things through. Their beliefs are arbitrary (without logical justification). The argument against atheism in general would be that the atheist cannot justify the existence and properties of the laws of logic within his own worldview. Namely, Why should laws of logic exist, And why are they universal, Abstract, And invariant? The Christian worldview can answer these questions.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

The car is either in the garage or it is not in the garage. There is nothing contradictory about this statement. The car will be, Where the car is. That is the reality. Uncertainty and/or deception are separate issues. It is also a reality that the existence of a god cannot be proven. Therefore the bible is currently not a valid thesis and probably just gobbledygook. This is a logical statement. The bulk of Pro's first round argument is simply theological gobbledygook! As ever. Most theological debates attempt to bewilder with gobbledygook of this nature.
Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

I thank Imabench for starting this vital and very topical debate. First, I would like to quickly define some words...Should [1] - "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness..." This is the first listed definition and is the most common definition when "should" is used is such context.I would like to point out that as Con for the resolution, I am not arguing that Imabench should not be banned, or that that he should remain on DDO. What I shall be arguing is that the TOS creates not obligation for Juggle or the DDO moderators to ban members that violate the TOS. As such, there is no "should" involved.Evidence) A simple look at the TOS [2], namely Section T of the Code of Conduct. It reads as follows, "Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines MAY result in termination of a member's account."By violating the TOS, Imabench has left himself open for banning, and any such ban would be justified by the TOS that we are all responsible to. Let us now look at the definition of this word "may" [3], "Expressing possibility..." We can see that the definition imposes no obligation, nor requirement.I will leave this short, since this is the only needed argument to negate the resolution. As stands, Imabench may be banned, but not necessarily should.Thank you,[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] https://www.google.com...