BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is possible to disprove a negative

I don't think my opponent has grasped the rebuttal to his argument. Let me put it in argument form form including his argument and the premise he has been hiding. The premise he has hidden is the one I attack here: Mr. Infidels argument: If realism is right then you can use logic and science to gain knowledge to disprove a negative. His argument relies on realism being correct. My argument is: If solipsism is correct then we are not justified in any beliefs besides the mind, so we can't use science and logic being they are not justified beliefs, therefore we wouldn't have the knowledge to prove a negative. My opponent trudged along in this debate completely ignoring solipsism as a potential worldview and continuing to use this syllogism: Realism is correct and since if realism is correct we can use logic and science to gain knowledge we can use that logic to show contradictions therefore we can disprove a negative. He failed the entire debate to see I was challenging his presupposition that realism is correct. Therefore unless you come in bias against solipsism, he has failed to demonstrate that the first premise he relies on is right. So my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof. My opponents burden is absolute certainty as here is a transcript of the discussion that lead to this debate from facebook( I changed his name to protect his identity): mr.infidel Affirmative. I think it is possible (though tough) to prove that a negative statement is false. I,ll challenge you. Erik Dickerson October 19 Erik Dickerson I would agree with you on that mr.infidel October 19 mr.infidel Challenge has been sent Good luck. Erik Dickerson October 19 Erik Dickerson I can't guarantee I accept, being I probably agree with your side is this debate to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt or to absolute certainity, that is key mr.infidel October 19 mr. infidel Absolute certain. In other words, all i need to do is show that it is possible to prove a negative ststament is false Therefore being my opponent has left solipsism as a possibly justified position, so he cannot disprove a negative to absolute certainty.
It is possible to disprove a negative

Note to the readers: The resolution should say, "It is possible to prove a negative." Hence, it should be possible to prove that there is no _______. Morover, my opponent has failed to respond to respond to my last contention about the scientific way to disproving a negative. We can disprove a Universal negative by finding something that contradicts the negative (i.e., nothing can go faster than the speed of light; which was disproved). [Hence, if we go by the original resolution, "It is possible to disprove a negative, then I win the debate]. Lastly, my opponent fails to respond to my challenges. Before we can discuss the parallel universes, we must determine whether or not they even exist (that, by itself, is another debate). Consequently, I would like voters to ask yourself this question: Have I proved that it is possible to disprove a negative like the title of the debate says? if so, please vote PRO. Have I proved that it is possible to prove a universal negative (what we were trying to prove, but because of the mistype the resolution said something it should not say.)? If so, please vote pro. Has my opponent proved that my contentions are false? If so, vote con. I want to thank izbo10 for this debate and thank you (the reader) for spending time reading this debate. Thank you.
It is possible to disprove a negative

My opponent wants to laugh off my questions. He fails to see these questions are actually based on a real philosophical position. Every argument my opponent has made are based on an unfounded unprovable assumption he makes. He makes a blatant assumption that the world he observes with his 5 senses sending information to his brain is the real world. There is no reason to believe this. He says he is talking about this universe, the one that we live in, but how does he know the universe we perceive is the universe we live in. Everything he argues is based on this assumption. Yet, my opponent would have no way of actually knowing this, any attempt to prove this would merely be begging the question. He would inevitably have to assume his sense were telling him the truth to present a truth about his senses telling him the truth, this would not work. He cannot know the law of non-contradiction without using his senses, he cannot know the rules of induction(which he got wrong) without this. My opponent cannot prove that he can actually know anything to absolute certainty hence he cannot prove anything beyond possibly that a mind exists that is creating this universe. This is the heart of Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I ask you without absolute certainty of any of this knowledge, how can he say that he can absolutely prove that a negative doesn't exist, when the universe we actually reside in could be anything.
It is possible to disprove a negative

My opponent asked me to do a few things: Prove that the law of non-contradiction really exists; Prove that induction really exists; Prove that a unicorn could not exist simultaneously in 2 universes with 2 different features; and Prove that a circle could not be a square in parallel universe. In the words of contradiction, "Are you freaking kidding me?" The Law of Non-Contradiction An example would be to say person X hanged himself, then to say person X did not hang himself. Both of these are two propositions that cannot be logically compatible. Therefore, the Law of Non-contradiction stands.Induction Really Exists. I'm assuming you are referring to inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositionsthat are abstractions of observations. It is commonly construed as a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. In this sense it is often contrasted with deductive reasoning. [3] Examples: 90% of humans are right handed. John Doe is human. Therefore, there is a high probability that John Doe is right handed. Syllogism is perfectly logical. This shows the probability of John Doe being literate in a certain hand. Parallel Universes In the words of debater17, "Parallel universes? Tell me you're joking, please, please." Okay, this proves my opponent has no understanding of my arguments! I believe I am arguing that in this Universe, on planet EARTH, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a CIRCLE AND A SQUARE. To prove this point, here is a comparisson of a square and a circle on top of each other: wow izbo, they are obviously two different shapes with completely different properties. Same thing is true for invisible and pink.Morover, my opponent seems to have been contradicting himself. In his debates, "Objective morality does not exist", izbo has been requesting that PRO has the Burden of Proof see http://www.debate.org... clearly shows my opponents incompitence. Scientific Evidence Finally, we get to the scientific evidence of the resolution. I wanted to add this to my opening arguments, but ran out of time. Let me give you the statement "Nothing can go faster than light." This was believed and accepted when Albert Einstein first proposed this hypothesis; however, now we have found a particle traveling faster than light speed. [4] Hence, if we also were to say, "There are no planets that do not have blue skies" this can be disproven by finding a planet without a blue sky (i.e., Mars). Hence, I have (yet again) fulfilled my resolution to the debate. Please vote pro. ___________________________________________________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...; [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
The problem of paedophile priests probably prompted the Pope to vacate the Vatican

Former member of the Hitler Youth [1] and apologist for paedophile homosexual priests: Pope Benedict XVI; today stepped down as leader of the Catholic Church amid a storm of controversy relating to the sexual misconduct of his clergy. Of course, the Pope couldn't come out and blatantly admit he was hounded out of office by his failure to adequately address the institutionalised paedophilia in the Catholic Church, instead he blamed his advancing years and merely hinted at the problem of priests queering up choirboys by saying "in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith...after having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths...are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry." {2} The official line is that the Pope walked out on his job on account of his age and this debate will, therefore, rest on the balance of probability that that is, indeed, the genuine reason and for His Holiness' resignation and not the problem with paedophile priests which I hereby assert. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2} http://www.bbc.co.uk...
abotion

Again, I will dissect my opponent's argument- in painstaking detail. 'Abotion to people is different not everyone thinks abortion is good and some people think it is' Correct. 'but to god it is not because you are killing something he made and put in the mother of the child' Again, you must first prove God exists for this argument to have any validity. 'and then the woman who doesn't want it and goes and kills it ' This is an unfair characterization, for the following reasons. 1. Either the woman chooses to have sexual intercourse unprotected with a man or 2. The woman cannot have protected sex, therefore she did not choose to have the baby, or 3. The woman cannot afford the baby. 4. Unrelated to the previous, that not being born is not the same as killing. Is bringing a child into the world, who will have a life of suffering fair? 'When you think of GOD you probley think what that is a mith but its not God makes every baby that is born You have now contradicted yourself. I quote from above in your round 3 argument 'you are killing something he made and put in the mother of the child'. Well, which is it? Does a God make babies, or does he not? 'less babys because woman think the best thing to do is abort that baby ' I see what you mean here, but this is irrelevant. I think the [1] 2000 babies born every day in the UK puts the lie to this. 'its not the best thing to do when girl gets pregnet you have many options and most girls go for abotion ' In fact, most 'girls' go and have the baby any way, and then the baby is brought up in poverty, turns to crime, votes UKIP etc etc. 'but there is more then that you can put the baby up for adoption there are many couples who would love to adopt a baby' Well how about the third world countries, where most women have more than enough children to deal with. 'so ladies font think there is only one option you have many to choose from' Not true. In fact, because of people like you who refuse to give access to abortion there is a growing rate of teenage births, and education about abortion. You're welcome to take me up on my challenge to spell the subject matter right any time. [1]http://www.express.co.uk...
abotion

Abotion to people is different not everyone thinks abortion is good and some people think it is but to god it is not because you are killing something he made and put in the mother of the child and then the woman who doesn't want it and goes and kills it . When you think of GOD you probley think what that is a mith but its not God makes every baby that is born and there is less babys because woman think the best thing to do is abort that baby and its not the best thing to do when girl gets pregnet you have many options and most girls go for abotion but there is more then that you can put the baby up for adoption there are many couples who would love to adopt a baby .so ladies font think there is only one option you have many to choose from. thank yo
abotion

Please spare me your outrage. I'm tired of hearing the same old argument trotted out again and again.You said yourself that this round is for fcats [sic]. Plain, empirical facts.You 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate you should never kill a creation of GOD i konw i would never kill my baby and neither should anyone else you need to love the baby or if you dont dont have kids .... 'I'm just going to dissect this and pull it apart. 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate'As I said above, the mind of 'God' is unknowable. 'you should never kill a creation of GOD 'You need to prove a 'God' exists before this argument approaches anything like validity.'i konw i would never kill my baby' You really need to understand that not being born is not the same thing as killing, and that pretty well invalidates your whole argument for this round. 'neither should anyone else'You can't just go marching in and say 'Right, I think that abortion is wrong, now you go and stop having them.' 'you need to love the baby'Not disputing this, but this has no relevance to your argument 'or if you dont dont have kids ....'You are now doing nothing more than rambling.I challenge Con to now show why, in fact 'ABOTION in the eyes of god is hate'. And let's see if she can actually spell it right.
abotion

OK, so I agree to abide by the rules of this debate set by my opponent, and I will comply, but first-Rebuttal'but to us christian people' I will tackle this in a later round, as my security software will not let me research this further. 'to god'Assumptions neededA being, or power that is known as 'God' exists.Said being is omnipotent, omniscient etc.Now if this being is omniscient, it is impossible to know the mind of 'God'.Therefore, the statement made is illogical, and therfore untrue. OpinonIt makes not the slightest shred of difference in this debate, but I am pro-choice for abortion, that means I am pro the woman having a choice to abort her baby.Thank you, and I await your reply.
abotion

So, summing up my opponent's arguments. 1. You are killing something that god made. I then replied to that by saying a) You must first prove god exists. b) The mind of god is unknowable. c) Killing is not the same as not being born. 2. People will think that abortion is the only way to go. I said that the very example of 2000 babies being born every day in the UK disproves that. Therefore, my opponent has made only 2 arguments, both of which have been conclusively rebutted, and therefore, as she made no mention of BoP, she is Pro, therefore I automatically win the debate because none of her arguments stand. Thank you for voting, and please vote Con!. (By the way, notice that my opponent went the whole debate without spelling abortion properly.)
Ugly people should wear masks

Potential to mislead ------------ Now, take this whole thing from say, a romantic context. Contextually, this would imply that a lovers face can be concealed until need be to have it otherwise. In other words, people could get cat-fished without some sort of middleman (Eg. A dating website). What you seem to be proposing is that people would be required to wear masks if deemed ugly by an unrealistically large counsel, meaning, again, in this romantic context, people have no idea what they're getting into until in private. Costs ------------ Perhaps this is one of the least key factors, however, how much would a website of this nature cost to run? See, to have this large voluntary team, full time, regulating literally every person, wouldn't be voluntary. At this point, a sort of compensation would be required, on top of this website having traffic from every person. Now, I'm assuming that you're talking about this from a country standpoint, though, even reducing it to this level would require an extreme amount of money. Self Confidence ------------ If people were required to be evaluated by other people, wouldn't that increase anxiety in everyone, even displacing the value of beauty? (When I say this, I mean the admittedly cancerous fashion industry: "Amount spent on fashion in the U.S. each year: $250,000,000,000" http://www.statisticbrain.com... ) Additionally, you say that the masks would help with self confidence, but, again, referring to that earlier point I made, wouldn't it make people more self conscious if potentially 10's-100's of people would evaluate them on their appearance? (This is fun! Thanks for arguing this :) )
Ugly people should wear masks

Hello, thanks for accepting. Before I start my argument, I would like to point out that in society, people already wear masks daily. You see many women cover their faces with make-up, they mask their face with foundation to hide blemishes and spots. They are to some degree wearing a mask to hide their ugliness, or, if you'd rather word it differently, they're wearing masks to appear more attractive. Why should ugly people wear masks? People now a days are growing increasingly concerned with how they look, it makes many people self-conscious. I aim to restore confidence back into people by making it socially acceptable to go out wearing a mask. If it were socially acceptable to wear masks then people with self-confidence issues would improve drastically. Because these self-conscious people will no longer be self-conscious, I believe they will function better in society and improve society as a whole. I would also make a second argument that it is unfair to have to walk down the street and get a fright by a real ugly f***er. Have you ever eaten at a restaurant and looked across the table, only to see a half human, half pig monsteriod face staring at you, and at that moment you feel sick inside and it ruins your meal? Because I aim to fix this issue as well. How will we determine who is ugly enough to have to wear a mask? Everyone will be required to sign up to a private government website and post an image of themselves online. Then, a large voluntary team will sift through the enormous amount of pictures and black list the most ugly. These ugly people will be required to purchase a mask from a local store, and be required to wear it outside of the house. Those that don't post on this website will be fined heavily. What sort of mask should uglies wear? We would begin with very basic masks and gradually, I believe the design will evolve. I think much like clothing, people will begin to use these masks fashionably. It will be up to companies to design and market masks. This, I believe will create hundreds of jobs and stimulate the economy. To begin the production of the initial, basic masks, we would have to liaise with companies to produce them. To sum up my opening argument. After society has accepted these uglies wearing mask, It is my hope that companies may design the masks to be attractive enough for regular people to want to wear. This way, ugly people will blend back seamlessly into society. If my opponent disagrees with my proposal, then I would like him to propose a better solution to the "ugly epidemic" and the self confidence epidemic. This source shows that self confidence is at an all time low. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... This source shows that the percentage of ugly people is quite high. It is objective of course. http://www.returnofkings.com......
Ugly people should wear masks

Well, Hello! Thank you for posting this debate, it seems like its going to be a fun one. And also, I'm prefacing this with this having been my first, so, forgive errors in formatting please. So to this statement, I pose a question. What do you define as objectively ugly? People have different tastes, someone you may consider to be the ugliest thing on the planet could be seen as the most beautiful to another. There is no objectivity here, therefore it couldn't be enforced on a large scale without some sort of large bias. Though, I'm willing to change my opinion on this.
Ugly people should wear masks

By ugly I mean really a.s.s ugly. Like this guy. (This is FanboyMctroll by the way, he gave me his full name so I got this from facebook.)http://www.debate.org...I don't hate ugly people, I just think that face masks would Improve life for everyone. Do you really want to see an ugly a.s.s motherf**kers face while you're trying to eat you subway sandwich? *GAGS* Hell no. Make them wear masks to cover up their demented features.I want to hear your reasons why we should have to put up with such eye sores.-Please no Jews allowed to accept.-Black people can accept this one.
Ugly people should wear masks

Closing Argument ------------------------- Well, congratulations. I do believe that neither of us have gained much ground here. I did quite enjoy the discussion, and, perhaps we could continue it in another venue? Anyway though, I don't really have many points to argue other than- Assortment of arguments ------------------------------ It just hit me. The time for implementation. You said the work could be subdivided among different regions, but, even still, how would the mask creators and local shops keep up with this influx of traffic? Well, on top of that what about those who don't wish to participate in this system? You said that people should be fined on the basis of them not wishing to wear their masks! We should encourage tolerance towards ugly people rather than repression of their natural trait. While they yes may be an eyesore, you said it yourself, we should see people for their merit, not their appearance. A mask would simply hide this fact further burying it below an extra layer of superficial apparel. But, in any event, we must let the voters decide. To mask, or not to mask That is our question
Ugly people should wear masks

You State in "Potential to mislead" "Now, take this whole thing from say, a romantic context. Contextually, this would imply that a lovers face can be concealed until need be to have it otherwise. In other words, people could get cat-fished without some sort of middleman" This point is invalid, due to the fact that at any point you ask to see someone’s face. It's simply an effective method to see someone not for what they look like, but for who they are. Looks become meaningless if everyone wears a mask. You State in "Cost" "Perhaps this is one of the least key factors, however, how much would a website of this nature cost to run? See, to have this large voluntary team, full time, regulating literally every person, wouldn't be voluntary. At this point, a sort of compensation would be required, on top of this website having traffic from every person. Now, I'm assuming that you're talking about this from a country standpoint, though, even reducing it to this level would require an extreme amount of money." Many people do charity work all the time. If people know that they'll be helping ugly people, then we will have no problem finding volunteers. We would send leaflets through the post, doing certain regions of England at a time, this way we can reduce traffic to our website. To set up the web site it would cost roughly $100, this is nothing. Adverts will also be run on the site to help generate income to cover other expenses. http://webdesign.expertmarket.co.uk... You state In "Self-Confidence" "If people were required to be evaluated by other people, wouldn't that increase anxiety in everyone, even displacing the value of beauty?" No. The idea of these masks is to prevent people from being evaluated by other people. People know if they're ugly or not, they will certainly accept this idea, as it will allow other people to begin to see them for who they truly are, instead of for how they look. The point if, this will end evaluation. I believe it will make it, so that ugly people are no longer cast out of society, by wearing these masks they are no longer an eye sore and will be judged by their personalities, rather than their faces. The idea is to blend ugly people into a neutral, new look. We should campaign to make these masks socially acceptable, so that children don't pick on masked children. It's widely known that ugly people have less opportunity the world, than more attractive people. Here are my sources for that claim. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... https://www.quora.com...; Let us give ugly people a chance and make society judge people base on personality.