BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science is based on faith

My opponent"s augment is that since he does not know if the world is real or not, our experiments (science) are based on faith. The problem with this assumption is that premise A (science is based on faith) and premise B (world might be fake) does not equal premise C (science is reliant on the world being real). This is a philosophical fallacy. For example people buy ice-cream more in summer (premise A). People get heat stokes in the summer (premise B). Ice-cream is reliant on heat strokes (premise C). Just because A leads to B and B leads to C does not mean A equals C. Ice-cream does not cause heatstroke"s, or defined by heat strokes. While the debate shows I strong support the world being real. The world being real (or not real) is irrelevant. The reason is there should still remain constants (physics for example). These constants are considered to be laws or in some cases facts. Therefor science even in a "false" world would not rely on faith but constants within the fake world. I have provided examples of the brain mind issue with Phineas, which my opponent failed to disputed. I do not need to prove anything about the world; just that science is based on anything but faith. I argue that science is based on empirical evidence which is reliant on constants within this world (for example the speed of light). In conclusion the debate was on whether or not science is based on faith. Science is not based on faith, but the empirical evidence we get from the constants in the world. The constants in the world still remain whether or not the world is real, which defeats the point of discussing whether the world is real or not. If my opponent wishes to argue the reality of the world, I argue him to create a debate on the issue, instead of trying to trick his opponent.
Science is based on faith

The debate boils down to this . I say you canot prove reality to exist outside of our minds so all the experiments are based on faith that the world exists outside of our minds. I say science is based on the faith that our observations are true. My opponent says the world is real and our observations are real. Now my opponent says: Since my theory says our brains and minds are the same and I should disprove it. No he made the statment he has to proof to us that brains exist outside of our minds. He has the burdeen of proof. My opponent has to proof that the world is real and that the observations are real. We share Bop but I only have to proof that you cannot proof the world to be real and because of that If you are unable to proof the world to be true I then have proven that you cannot prove the world to be real and that science is based on faith. So you have the not official burdeen of proof. Conclusion unless my opponent proves to us that the world is reall I have fufilled my burden. Finnaly I would like to say that I personally belief the world to be real but I know that that belief is based on faith.
Science is based on faith

1.Quote: "For your argument to make sense you have to prove that we have physical bodies" 1.Counter: We have physical bodies because we can (for the most part, since they sometimes take short cuts to help reduce stress on the brain) trust our senses. If you would like to say we cannot trust our senses because our senses are false, I say that means something created our senses to be false ones. This would bring back the point of why would something make false senses and a false world. 2.Quote: "If we assume reality isn't real then we don't have physical bodies here is where your argument falls. Second objection you can die in a dream." 2.Counter: As for dying in dreams, some argue it"s impossible to die in dreams. I will argue however, you don"t feel pain in dreams. Glycine is released from the brain that causes paralysis and numbs pain receptors. In dreams you have fear which people associate (rightfully so) with pain and therefor can have an implanted memory of feeling pain; however you cannot feel pain in a dream. Why else would people pinch themselves to see if their awake or not? 3.Quote: "Yes you can't proove the world to be real but you can prove your mind to be real if your mind would not be real how would even think about my arguments.Your mind is all you can experience and interract with but you don't even know if there is physical world." 3.Counter: The cognitive function of a person (also known as their mind) resides in that person"s brain. I go back to the example of Phineas, he"s "mind" changed with damage to the brain. This brings into conclusion that our "mind" is our physical brain. Otherwise why would we see someones personality/mind change so drastically with server brain damage? 4.Quote: "beliefs aren't based on benefits why do you think that that some people belief in the after life and kill themselfs to get back with their lost love ones. There is no proof of an after life but their dead is real that belief has no benefit what so ever to society who just lost a member. But people still kill themselfs to get back with their family members." 4.Counter: Usually their faith says that suicide does not send you to the same place as their loved ones. The benefit is closure. Extra: Since my theory says that our brains and minds are the same, it would be in your best interest to be able to disprove it.
Science is based on faith

My opponents argument goes like this : Quote: If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies? If you belief that reality is not real, walk in front of a fast moving car, or jump from a 100 story building (matrix jump it). You will not do either of these things because the world is real. Counter: For your argument to make sense you have to prove that we have physical bodies . Requote : If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies? If we assume reality isn't real then we don't have physical bodies here is where your argument falls. Second objection you can die in a dream. QUOTE: 2. There is no reason for the world to not be real. On the other hand, we live our lives based on the fact that this world is real. There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real. My opponents points -There is no reason for the world to not be real Counter: Yes you can't proove the world to be real but you can prove your mind to be real if your mind would not be real how would even think about my arguments.Your mind is all you can experience and interract with but you don't even know if there is physical world. -There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real. beliefs aren't based on benefits why do you think that that some people belief in the after life and kill themselfs to get back with their lost love ones. There is no proof of an after life but their dead is real that belief has no benefit what so ever to society who just lost a member. But people still kill themselfs to get back with their family members. 3: Only fair point .I give this to you. But still you have still to proof reality to be true making my theory wrong does not make yours right . Good luck on your next round.
Science is based on faith

If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies? If you belief that reality is not real, walk in front of a fast moving car, or jump from a 100 story building (matrix jump it). You will not do either of these things because the world is real. In the hallucination example, you are the creator of the hallucinations by changes in your brain chemistry. The ways in which you achieve hallucinations may change ( shrooms, lsd, other) but the fundamental component is you. Therefor you are the creator of your hallucination. 2. There is no reason for the world to not be real. On the other hand, we live our lives based on the fact that this world is real. There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real. 3. Where does this collective conscience come from, why do we need it, how to we interact with it, do we need to interact with it, does it share one language, how does it influence us? These are just a few questions about the issues of a collective conscience; it is not a simple theory, however belief in a real world is. Theory issues: Before debating your theory, I would like your own personal definition of what a mind is, considering this is your theory. My theory: what evidence do you have to suggest that our minds are not always reacting to reality? Looking at neurology we can easy say our behaviors (mind) are linked with our brain. Phineas Gage is one such example, his behaviors/mind changed due to the damage received to his brain. His physical brain changed him. If our minds where somewhere else than in our brains we should not see such changes.
Science is based on faith

QUOTE If we assume what your saying is correct and this world is a lie, then we must assume a creator, however the creator would need a motive to create a false world. The motive is what? No,if we assume that to be true, no creator is needed for reality since reality isn't real. Duhh If you hallucinate there is no creator for your hallucination. 2. BOP is shared you have to proof that science is not based on faith so you have to prove the world to be true. 3. Even assuming Occams razor my explanation is much simpler. We are all sharing an collectif conscience that sems to follow a few rules. It would even explain the world better then science every guy saying he saw a ghost all part of a big shared dream. My theory : 1.Our minds are real.(they are if they weren't how are you even thinking about this right now.) 2.Our minds are connected.( how can we interract with each other if we aren't connected unless you take my theory to solopsism) Your theory: Our minds are real. reality is real our minds are reacting to reallity.(not all of it ) Mine is still the easier explanation and explains allot more than yours.
Science is based on faith

The world is true because Occams razor. Meaning, its the simplest answer. If we assume what your saying is correct and this world is a lie, then we must assume a creator, however the creator would need a motive to create a false world. The motive is what? Assuming the world is a lie is to complex a theory and to misleading for a rational person to belief in. It simply makes more sense that this world is real considering a creator has no reason to fool us otherwise. Science is more than just observation, its repeatable. A law is a law because it can never be broken. If a law of science was broken then it would no longer be a law. Therefor science is also based on repetition along with empirical observation whereas faith is the lack of empirical evidence and repetition.
Science is based on faith

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. You have to have faith on your observations . Thus science is based on faith you if you are going to say: This is a fact because we have observed it and experimented with it you have the BOP that the world from where you draw your information is real. Something you can't prove. You cannot prove that the world is real you have to have faith. No one ccan ever prove the world to be true. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Bible Does not teach that Sunday or Saturday is the Lord's Day, but that this Day is yet to Come

As Pro in this debate I am defending two point: 1, that neither the Sabbath or Sunday is the Lord's Day; and 2, that the Lord's Day is yet to come. Now Con agrees with my second point but disagrees with my first. He claims that the Sabbath is the Lord's Day, which indeed is what Con is supposed to do as I pointed out in the rules. He brings no Biblical evidence to show that the Sabbath is what the Bible calls "the Lord's Day." He makes the blanket claim that most churches apply the term "Lord's Day" to the Sabbath, but this is not true. Most Christian denominations including Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Weslyan Holiness, Nazarene, and so on, regard Sunday as the Lord's Day. They call Saturday the Sabbath, but never call it "the Lord's Day." What's more, this debate is not about what most denominations say as if numbers made you right; rather, its about what the Bible says, hence the title of this debate: The Bible Does not teach that Sunday or Saturday is the Lord's Day, but that this Day is yet to Come. The fact is, the term "Lord's Day" is used in the Bible in reference to the time of Christ's coming at Revelation 1:7, 10. The Bible never uses this term for the weekly sabbath, therefore, the Sabbath is not the Lord's day. Con agrees that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross, therefore, what Lord's Day was John talking about at Revelation 1:10? Certainly not the sabbath. Since the sabbath is not binding on Christians (as Con admits), then Christians today do not have the seventh day as the Lord's day, it would be meaningless to call it that because its not a day we observe. As to the matter of what if the Lord returns on Saturday or Sunday, this doesn't help Con's position to argue from the what if. He hasn't shown us that the Lord's day will be a 24-hr day anyway. And if it were to fall on the seventh day, it still wouldn't be on the sabbath because Christians do not have a weekly sabbath. If Con cares to present evidence that Jesus will return on a Saturday, I'd look forward to it.
The Bible Does not teach that Sunday or Saturday is the Lord's Day, but that this Day is yet to Come

Pro has basically backed up MY argument in his own. I fail to see where this argument is going, (especially for five rounds…), but I will stand that my first argument remains adamant and proves infallibly that “The Lord’s Day” formally means neither The Day of Judgment nor Sabbath, rather it is a name used informally by the church today to address both. (I know.. a little confusing..) I will address some arguments my opponent actually placed against me. “The Sabbath was one of the many shadows that found fulfillment in Christ and is thus no longer necessary.” True. However, my opponent’s argument was to prove the Lord’s Day is not a Saturday or Sunday but a day to come, not whether the Sabbath is necessary or not. Irrelevant statement. “What's more, the Sabbath is never identified as being the Lord's day in the Bible, but the time of Christ's coming is indeed identified as his day, for it itself is called "the day of the Lord.” This was already stated by me in the last round.. I’m confused as to what you’re arguing exactly. “My opponent claims "The Sabbath… is, however, often called "The Lord's Day" by the church, sharing the same name as "The Day of the Lord", or "The Day Of Judgment."" I wonder which denomination he means when he says "the church"?” I mean most denominations of Christianity. It’s an informal expression they use often to refer to either “The Day of The Lord/ Day of Judgment” or “The Sabbath/ day they hold their services(Sunday)”. There’s not much else to say, I have proved in my previous argument that the resolution has been affirmed for the Con’s side. This debate is unclear to begin with as the Pro is misunderstood and does not realized, again, that “The Lord’s Day” is a name used to describe both the “Day of the Lord/Day of Judgment AND the Sabbath BUT biblically speaking.. it’s not the true name for either day and is only used informally. I also have another interesting contention for my opponent.. Now that my resolution has been established and my opponent is still confused as to the nature of this debate, I’d like to throw this wildcard out there that caters to his point of view of the argument... Suppose the Day of The Lord (Day of Judgment) in the future you been speaking of ended up happening on a Saturday or Sunday, around Sabbath time? By your own logic and by probable chance the future day could just as well be on a Saturday or Sunday and coincidentally be the same day! This infallibly refutes your claim. Your argument is flawed and has been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, negated.
The Bible Does not teach that Sunday or Saturday is the Lord's Day, but that this Day is yet to Come

The Bible teaches that the Lord's Day is a future time associated with the Coming of the Lord, not Saturday, not Sunday, not the Sabbath. My opponent must defend his position that either the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday, is the Lord's day. He may choose to begin his defense in the first or second round. We must both share the burden of proof. He or she must be or profess to be a Christian.
Handguns and Automatic Guns Should be Outlawed for Civilian Use in the US

But how would one determine who can get a gun? Would the system be perfect? Probably not. The easiest way to solve the problem is just to outlaw gun ownership for all civilians, with, of course, the exception of hunting weapons. And if one person is being attacked or threatened with some kind of hunting rifle, then they can call the police, who should be armed and able to deal with the situation.
Handguns and Automatic Guns Should be Outlawed for Civilian Use in the US

I think that guns should not be outlawed, but outlawed for certain people. People who don't have an criminal records shouldn't be allowed to have a gun AT ALL, but civilians who don't have anything on their record should be able to. People who don't have any criminal records may need to protect themselves; possibly if another posses a weapon, they might need to defend themselves and their family from the attacker, and without a gun they could have possibly been hurt, sent to the hospital, or in the worst case, killed.
Moral Relativism is true.

Ave. This debate will be about the truth and validity of moral relativism. At a minimum, moral relativism is the belief that moral judgements and values are subjective, and have no basis in reality or objectivity. There are other forms of moral relativism, such as cultural relativism, that can be considered a part of this debate. I will be taking the Con position. I believe that moral values can be true or false irrelevant of human opinion, and that there exists an objective basis for moral values. The first round of the debate will be for acceptance. The next three rounds will be constant back and forth debating. In round four, each side will post their normal refutations, along with three questions for their opponent. These questions will be answered in round five, with no further arguments taking place in that round With that, I wait for Pro to accept. Vale.
The concept of having a pool of "real names" to choose from is absured and discourages individuality

My opponent was, alas, unable to post his argument in time. However, it is quite obvious he did not do so because he could not think of a rebuttal, but that he was unable to do so, as he was tied up in other things. I ask you to not let this affect your voting. Unfortunately, this 3 round debate will end abruptly, because of this, but, if my opponent agrees to it, we may find it necessary to extend this into another debate. I bid good luck to my opponent. -Harlan
The concept of having a pool of "real names" to choose from is absured and discourages individuality

To define is to limit. This simple principle is true in almost all scenarios. A person is to complex to be accurately described with man-made language and to give definitions will only limit them in thier potential. There is, though, one term or adjective that will properly describe a person without limiting them: thier name. A name should be a thing, for the most part, unique, so as to incourage individuality, and so a name can be a true description and adjective to each person. The concept of naming people is most definitely a good one, but it is silly for there to be a set list of "real names", or even to bother repeating the same name several times, between people who share absolutely no connection. Society has so come to accept this concept of choosing from a list of already-existing names for their child, that it seems absurd to people to hear of a name which was completely invented by the parent. They will say, skeptically, "is that even a real name?!". And the answer is: of course it is. If someone is named something, it's, in effect, a real name. How can there possibly be such a thing as a fake name? Some names are used so frequently that two people of the same name are friends, or are regularly in the same environment. If someone is frequently in the presence of someone with the same title as them, then they cannot truly have a unique description; adjective; title of themselves. This discourages individuality, and has no logic behind it. We may fool ourselves that they're are plenty of names to have individuality, but if this were true, how is it almost instantly recognizable, within you're culture to determine whether something is a "real" name? Think of a person at random that you know, and I bet you that you have either heard thier name before you met them, or know someone else with the name. It is then not the only thing that you associate the name with, and therefore not a truly unique title of them. Many people are given a name that millions of other people have. This is in no way individuality, and is a complete contradiction of purpose of naming people. Why have names at all if they are not unique? It is fundamentally absurd to reuse a name as frequently as is done. There is no reason for this, and it only serves to discourage individualism. Even I, with a very uncommon name, find it frequently in the media, or elsewhere. -Harlan
Should the US give aid to countries in the Middle East

I forgot to define one rule I have realized, because it is so far into the debate I will allow my opponent to decline this stipulation if he wants. I would like to specify that this debate is centered on the US government's aid, not that of private organizations.I would like to first point out my opponent has failed to provide any sort of support for his statements.My opponent claims that our aid has done four things1) benefited many economies2) kept strong relations3) kept peace among countries4) protected our own country from terrorists1.Is this true? Lets look at the facts, according to Wikipedia (3) Afghanistan has an unemplayment rate of about 35%. This is after billions upon billions of dollars in aid have been given. The GDP per capita is about $900 . . . obviously this is not an example of successful aid. . . If there is no significant change in the well-being of those that need aid the most, why are we pouring money into them?There is one thing for certain, sending billions of dollars away is in no way bebfiting our own economy. We rely on oil from the Middle East, however, since that is their only export of any significance, we can be sure that regardless of who is in charge theyll give it to us.It is all fine and good saying that the aid "isn't helping" but what should be done with that money? Perhaps if we invested it in our own oil fields we could be less dependant on the fields there which would in turn help with a host of economic and domestic problems.2.Keeping strong relations? Our relations with any major country in the Middle East are bad at best. Again I will point at Egypt, we help them become free of a dictator. How are our relations with them? Well they've imprisoned a number of our aid workers there on claims that they are government spies. They believe America is nothing more than "big brother" who is waiting to indirectly control their nation.3.Have we "kept the oeace?" We've started two wars there, aided in the Libyan conflict, there is an unofficial war going on in Syria and we are on the brink of war with Iran. Peace and Middle East should not be used in the same sentence, unless of course it is a punchline for Jimmy Kimmel. 4.Middle Eastern aid has in no way prevented terrorist attacks. I will remind you that we were involved in the Middle East long before the attack on the world trade centers. Since then we've had the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shootings, and the car bomb in New York City. These are all acts of terrorism which financial aid did nothing to stop. The truth is the money we pour in to them is not buying us the good will of Middle Eastern people, it instead makes them wary of the US because they know that nothing in life is truly free.