BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

This debate has taken a very interesting toll. Even though we're straying too far from the topic, I will humour Con's mentality whilst proving my point. Your first paragraph is very strange and has nothing to do with this debate. If you want to specify and stress context, then what context do you want the playing fields on? Reality? Prove to me that YOUR reality exists then maybe I'll understand. Your analogies are straw-manning the topic and confusing everyone. As far as the wise men example, that one apparently proves my point. "Even though wise men have constantly proven that being content and without expectation does not mean you're a serial killer that breaks all laws and rules because "nothing satisfies you", while realizing that it's more dangerous for people to pretend they can be fulfilled than a person that knows they can't be fulfilled." Exactly. Your arrogance is astounding. Here's my brain stem. It's as tangible and infallible as your entire second paragraph. And the society I live in is as screwed up as it can ever be. Everyone dreams. Some dreams make sense, others do not. You're now pulling philosophical bull**** out of your a**. Everyone requires knowledge in order to dream. Otherwise, what would the dream be made out of? Where would such information come from? I'm pretty sure you'll throw in the "cosmological consciousness of humanity" thing again. Indeed you are far beyond my primitive state. Your conceitedness inspires me. Like I've stated in my second paragraph. Prove to me your reality exists then maybe I'll understand. "Free will is quite illusory." That is our debate topic. You and I have biological and sociocultural inclinations. These are the very factors that limit us from truly having free will! I am amused you still haven't picked up this most important piece of information. My regurgitation is only as nearsighted as your daft sophism. Please stop that. Wow. You got me there. I never knew we were made of star stuff. I never knew that we were made of the same things the universe is made out of. Damn, your statement is profound. Debate over! Ok. Your last statement made me smile. It's kinda cute. But let me remind you of these two things: we're straying too far from the debate topic and your philosophical view points are getting the best of you. Please focus on why you are against the contention that free will is quite illusory. I appreciate your input but please don't stretch this.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

Why are people so naive and clueless on how to understand context within the realms of reality? It's like them reading, "life is never fulfilling", then they start crying for no reason that the sky is falling because now life has no meaning because nothing can fulfill it, even though wise men have constantly proven that being content and without expectation does not mean you're a serial killer that breaks all laws and rules because "nothing satisfies you", while realizing that it's more dangerous for people to pretend they can be fulfilled than a person that knows they can't be fulfilled. I am baffled that Pro doesn't even have a single brain cell realizing that he's fooling himself this time around. Here, let me hold your brain stem - omni-directional means that we can become everything through space, as it is possible by universal law. It's like you couldn't take that and apply it to the second statement where I explain how a child that is still making their choice is infinite, while a child that's made a choice is finite, but I'm not surprised, you people live in a society that microwaved your brain and threw away your identity. A child dreams - you really cannot be that dense. Dreaming is omni-directional. A child does not need knowledge to dream - are you that far behind from humanity and the Universe? That saddens me, because I am far beyond your primitive state. What illusion is there, when we have the Universe living inside of us through the neurons in our brain, which are merely the stars of the cosmic space in another form processing information and storing information inside of our very brain? If you look closely, the neurons are the same design as space matter. Please get your priorities straight - your regurgitating myopia is not the same as a stimulating phantasmagoria. We are truly made out of stars; for you to not know that proves how far behind you are in understanding human life. The photo receptors in our eyes which capture our experiences were formed billions of years ago, before stars were born. This simple statement is profound enough to shut down your entire debate. Oh, then try to argue my grand arguments, as they are not based on my tiny feelings and heart, but the face of the Universe and the truth behind all experiences that appear separate from it.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

Review Your Argument Your argument will be judged by many factors including spelling, grammar, cited sources, and civility. "We are omni-directional, therefore we are free" Already, this is a fallacy on your part. If we were truly omni-directional, we should be able to will ourselves through all dimensions of space-time. Clearly, we cannot. "A child is willed by privilege, where in they can choose where ever they want to go through the influences and governing" And this is the very reason free will is indeed illusory! A child is willed by privilege? Please do not play the semantics game with me. A child knows little to nothing at all about himself and his environment. His choices are limited by his lack of knowledge. This forces anyone the conclusion that future influences and governance experienced by the child will ultimately lock him into a set of choices; like I said, "no choice in making a choice". You are completely ignoring the biological and sociocultural aspect of causality and overall will. "if there wasn't anything to choose from there wouldn't be any kind of will, which means that anyone that argues there isn't a will are arguing against it at the same time, because it requires influences to be a will, as a will is merely a cosmic flow that which we follow - nothing more." You really did not understand the contention of the topic. "Free will is quite illusory". No one is denying that will exists, only that there is an illusion of having this vast amount of choice. You either did not understand my biological-social contention or you simply dimissed it altogether. A foolish move on your part I might say. You have completely missed the point. And this "cosmic flow" you speak of is still limited by the laws of this universe. This will we have is in no way free or privileged. In short, we are all biological machines fooled into thinking we are free, hence an illusion, but a very convincing illusion at that. "Why do you guys on this site have no idea what context means? It appears that none of you actually know how to reason, just rationalize all these logical fallacies through what is blatantly hyperbole." You have admirably demonstrated twice that you are no exception.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

We are omni-directional, therefore we are free - whence we choose a direction, we are on a path, thus we are influenced and defined. A child is willed by privilege, where in they can choose where ever they want to go through the influences and governing - if there wasn't anything to choose from there wouldn't be any kind of will, which means that anyone that argues there isn't a will are arguing against it at the same time, because it requires influences to be a will, as a will is merely a cosmic flow that which we follow - nothing more. Why do you guys on this site have no idea what context means? It appears that none of you actually know how to reason, just rationalize all these logical fallacies through what is blatantly hyperbole.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

"Free will is privileged will." You have decided to redefine free will. In it's core though, privileged will is a limited type of will that allows the interception of governance and influence, therefore it can never truly amount to free will; but I will not play the semantics game. "but on top of that influence and governing, we still make our own choices based on those influences and governing." That's the problem. This will we are all "privileged" with is based on SOMETHING. We require the information that surrounds us to move forward. We cannot separate our societal and biological inheritance and decide independently. Since you contested that "Free will is privileged will", then you cannot deny the fact that we are still limited in choice; ironically, we do not have a choice in making a choice. We are bound by what we are born with. So much for being privileged. "Ideas come to us - we do not come to them, however we take these ideas and apply them in a way the idea itself cannot apply itself." Ideas only exist because we exist to create the idea of an "idea". We come to such conclusions. We come to these ideas because our biology and psychology pushes us to do so. "We are cosmic architects in a sea of cosmos - it would be naive and foolish to assume we do not have a sense of will, when we clearly do." No. We are cosmic infrastructures allowed by the cosmos - it would be arrogant and wasteful to think we are even "privileged" with such power. In the end, this privileged will is still quite illusory. And we do have a sense of will, just neither free nor privileged.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

You must realize that "free will" is easily argued with semantics rather than sense, so let me break it down for you so anyone, including you, can handle this touchy topic: "Free will is privileged will." That said, you must also realize that no matter what, we will be influenced and governed - but on top of that influence and governing, we still make our own choices based on those influences and governing. We manage information that we absorb throughout the world. Ideas come to us - we do not come to them, however we take these ideas and apply them in a way the idea itself cannot apply itself. We are cosmic architects in a sea of cosmos - it would be naive and foolish to assume we do not have a sense of will, when we clearly do.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

This is a no-holds-barred debate on the contention that "Free Will Is Quite Illusory". The public shall vote accordingly. If voters are biased/not voting seriously, please do not go through with the vote. Only the most impartial of judgments are accepted. Please cast your votes with utmost fairness. The opposing side may cuss/curse all he/she wants in any manner. He/she may use such terms in either a derogatory or colloquial way. I will not take insults personally. This however MUST reflect on people's votes. Again, impartial/unbiased votes only. Please vote with sincerity. Round 1 is essentially introduction. Rounds 2-4 will mostly comprise of refutation and new points. New arguments are highly discouraged in round 5. The last round must summarize all points made. Now, on with the debate. _______________________ I will begin by deconstructing the topic sentence. "Free Will Is Quite Illusory". "Free Will" is defined as the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] "Quite" is defined as 'to a very noticeable degree or extent' [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] "Illusory" is defined as something that is not true or real [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] and is synonymous to words such as 'misleading' and 'imaginary' [http://thesaurus.com...] The freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention is something that is not true or real to a very noticeable degree or extent simply because of the mere existence of causality. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. For every cause, there is an effect. Already, free will contradicts reality. We live in a world that's full of consequence. Big or small, we are bound to affect the world around us and definitely the lives of others. This goes both ways. We affect others as much as we affect them. With that being said, free will is quite illusory because prior causes exist even before we are born. Our lives; our decisions and choices are already predetermined. This predetermination is a result of biology and society. Biology locks us into a certain selection of choices our psychology is limited to. Our DNA is essentially our body's schematics. Our physical and mental properties are determined by it. With this in mind, we are indeed locked into a very small pool of "directions"; choices we think are best for us. Society locks us into a certain selction of choices other people limit us with. The people who are more powerful than us can force us to make choices similar to theirs. This circular causality is further proof that free will is indeed imaginary; non-existent. Before I bring up another point, I would like to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Howard the duck beats Donald duck

Well lets look here who knows Howard? Only you! Who knows Donald? everyone! Let us analyze Donald the duck. 1. He is a duck 2. He is a boy 3. He is a sailor 4. enjoys golf 5. Gets very angry very easily 6. speaks in a very indigenous noises 7. Has a girlfriend/sister (I am not sure which one...... that's awkward) 8. His girlfriend/sister is named Daffy 9. Daffy is a girl 10. Is a Disney character 11. lives at Disney Land There is 11 reasons why Donald is better than Howard.
Howard the duck beats Donald duck

A smoking duck vs. Mickey mouse's pal. Honestly, what skills do Donald have? Howard has teamed up with the Earth's mightiest heroes, but he's led some super-teams. The Ducky Dozen and a team of Defenders were some teams led by Howard. He's been part of ARMOR, The Fearsome Four, The Defenders, The Daydreamers, The All Night Party, and The Ducky Dozen. You may not have heard of the Ducky Dozen, but they were a group of random Heroes from that came together and died saving a reality from Marvel Zombies. The only few survivors included Howard. http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616) Howard got his own movie, did Donald? I don't really know, but I don't think so. Also sometimes called The Son of Satan, he has his own suit of Iron man Armor. He is really quite skilled too, he is a master of quack-fu. Howard also has no government oversight, so he doesn't have parking tickets, taxes, and he doesn't have jury duty. He has literately kicked a Skrull while interrogating it, I haven't seen Donald doing any such things. He has also learned some magic skills, so Doctor Strange tried to train him. Also Howard once ran for president, and he even made a parody of Walt Disney. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_the_Duck
Linux is better than Mac

Thanks for your argument. By the way; I am sorry that I did not clarify this, but we are talking about the Mac operating system, not the hardware running the operating system. "Mac is way beter because of speed" First of all, there is a major spelling mistake on the word "better." You spelled it "beter." The speed varies on the hardware; but as I said above, we are not talking about hardware. Slickness I consider Ubuntu quite slick. Hardware I am sorry for not explaining that we are talking about Linux vs Mac OS X. Software quality Can you explain a little bit more? How is the software higher quality? Streamlined Design Ubuntu is quite streamlined. I will make some points of my own now: Linux is a kernel, therefore it is more versatile than Mac OS X. Linux has something for everyone. It has Ubuntu for people who like simplicity (Mac users love simplicity!), Debian for people who REALLY like customisability... There are two ways to get a Linux distribution. 1. Download an ISO from the internet, and burn it on a disc. Then read the disc. 2. Pay $10 or so for a premade disc. But to get a mac, you also have to buy the hardware along with it! Also, Mac is unstable. Sources: http://www.zdnet.com... apple.com
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

I knew that this is going to happen, anyway here are my arguments: "My opponent making false claims, time and time again about some how my argument was limiting God to creation couldn't hide the fact, that his position is clearly logically false. " I let this one go by "The rest of my opponents arguments are personal attacks like "I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man. " I do not need to respond to them, since they are off topic. " I suppose there is no point in arguing with you over the trivial though you are wrong. "My opponent still maintains the position of "God exists "before" the universe. I have show in previous rounds why this is clearly false. " Oh yes you did but there's one problem: You ignored the fact that God created time. "God existing "before" time, was shown clearly false in my logical proofs, and as clear a contradiction as God existing and not existing, my opponent was not able to refute these proofs. " If I recall correctly I did this in the 4th round. '1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time' *Sigh* here is my version: 1)God exists 2)God created time 3)Therefore my opponents argument are of no merit Its either this: "3) Nothing can exist before time exists" Or this: Creator can exist even if his creation does not yet exist. (Note:I know that " does not yet exist" implies time but how else am I supposed to describe a divine being? ) I noticed from that you quote the word "before" I am not sure what you mean by this but I think we all can agree that all this does is glorify God, I mean you can't honestly be doing what I think you're doing. If so then I must ask do you believe that when the bible says that God is jealous, do you think its the same jealousy we experience?
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

Con says: "Q. Wouldn't that be a contradiction:"My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected. ". A. That is ignorance at its plainest. My opponent is saying that one can't be outside of time. .. I think its becoming more and more evident why I think that my words are falling on deaf ears. " "Q. But look I have logic on my side:"For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")". A. That is mere ignorance on your part. Like I was saying you are simply ignoring the idea that God is outside of time" "You: That's my point God is logical hence he can't be outside of time! !! Me: You're forgetting that time is a mere creation of his. It is logical to assume that the creator is outside of his creation" My opponent has lied on what my position is, previously I had said "For instance if I claim that God is timeless absent the universe and temporal with the universe this is still consistent with my statements of 1) God exists 2) God does not exist "before" the universe" The rest of my opponents arguments are personal attacks like "I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man. " I do not need to respond to them, since they are off topic. My opponent still maintains the position of "God exists "before" the universe. I have show in previous rounds why this is clearly false. Rather than than go over the arguments again, I will make the point, that absent the universe, God is in a changeless state, where there is no change there is no "time". The beginning of time marks a boundary, the first "moment" , but before this "first" moment, there were no prior moments, hence no "time" To say that God existed "before" the first moment of time, is to say, that God had temporal relations (since my opponent claims God exists "before" the universe", but what did God have temporal relations with absent the universe ? nothing. God existing "before" time, was shown clearly false in my logical proofs, and as clear a contradiction as God existing and not existing, my opponent was not able to refute these proofs. My opponent making false claims, time and time again about some how my argument was limiting God to creation couldn't hide the fact, that his position is clearly logically false. Maybe my opponent is still having trouble understanding that the argument has two situations, God absent the universe, and Gods' co existence with the universe. At the start of this debate my argument was 1) God exists 2) God exists in the present 3) The present exists in time 4) Therefore God is temporal/in time My opponent has not refuted any of my premises, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

I feel like I'm talking to a dead man but hey at least you're trying. Anyway what is it that you can't comprehend? Ill try my best to be clear and easily understandable, if I fail now I don't know what I will have to do in the 5th round: 1. God is logical Therefore God cannot contradict himself 2. Logic is part of Gods nature Therefore God is logical Conclusion: God is logical because God is by his own nature logical, in other words that is his character. 2. Time is not Gods character Therefore God is not limited by time however he is limited by logic. Q.Wouldn't that make him not omnipotent ? A.Depends on your definition of omnipotent. One definition says that omnipotence is the ability to do anything within your own nature which is the one I am using. The other says that God can make 2+2=770. 3. God created time Therefore God is outside of time Q.Wouldn't that be a contradiction:"My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected.". A.That is ignorance at its plainest. My opponent is saying that one can't be outside of time... I think its becoming more and more evident why I think that my words are falling on deaf ears. Q.But look I have logic on my side:"For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")". A.That is mere ignorance on your part. Like I was saying you are simply ignoring the idea that God is outside of time. You: I still don't get it. Me: No problem lets compare logic to time: Time: Gods creation Logic: Gods character You: Thats my point God is logical hence he can't be outside of time!!! Me: You're forgetting that time is a mere creation of his. It is logical to assume that the creator is outside of his creation. You:But look at my logic!!!!!!! Me: Like I was saying you're simply ignoring the fact that God is outside of time. I can see how your logic can apply to humans.Nevertheless you can't compare God to his creatures and you can't say that because humans can't be outside of time, God also can't be outside of time. Why should the creator follow the rules he set up for his creatures? You: I am not convinced!!!!! Me: Like I said "I feel like I'm talking to a dead man". Thank you for reading and I'd like you to know that if I seem to be offensive at some points, its the result of mere frankness. I don't intend to insult you but besides ignorance there was no better word I could have used furthermore I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man.