BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence or non-existence of Absolute Certainty cannot be proven.

I hope you will be delighted to hear that I will not be proposing the existence of an omniscient being. You put forward a strong criticism of the 'typical' certainties humans possess, that is, the belief that we can trust our perceptions of reality; however, I shall respond in turn with a more developed exposition of the truth of the law of identity, which is absolute in truth. I claim with absolute certainty that something is something, and by that I point to the truth that something exists. Were nothing to exist, I would not be, and there is no alternative to this truth; therefore, something is. If something is, then that something must be something - it cannot be nothing, for as I have proven, if it were nothing then I would not be. The existence of an omniscient being is unnecessary to establish absolute certainty as here an absolute certainty has been established by a person unaided by theurgy. I am not sure I can respond to your dream argument and your criticism of the acceptance of the idea of an objective reality with absolute certainty, though I strongly believe it is the case there is an objective reality. In writing a response I find myself reiterating that dreams are ephemeral and inconsequential. I have died in a dream. In reality I find that my experiences are coherent and represent the source of material for my dreams. These are the thoughts I have in opposition to the idea that I am currently dreaming. As you can see, this is a 'scientific theory' rather than an absolute truth, as I am considering predictions and evidence. Similarly, the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is without merit, as it appears to be unfalsifiable on principle. For the moment I bow to your assertion that I cannot prove this absolutely, for this is inductive reasoning. I realise now that my argument against you does bear similiarity to the Cartesian assertion of 'I think, therefore, I am', but I have deployed it specially to support the law of identity. Again, I am intrigued to hear your criticism.
The existence or non-existence of Absolute Certainty cannot be proven.

Thank you for instigating the debate, and as you requested, the definition of 'exist' is: "to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions" [1] I will argue that absolute certainty can be proven to exist, and to do this I shall refer to the law of identity, i.e. A=A. I believe it is absolutely certain that a raven is a raven, ipso facto, absolute certainty exists. I am intrigued to hear that you challenge this idea. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The existence or non-existence of Absolute Certainty cannot be proven.

I will be arguing that my opponent cannot prove that Absolute Certainty exists and he cannot prove that Absolute Certainty does not exist. My opponent may argue for one or both of these resolutions. Ideally I would want my opponent to accept my definitions before accepting this debate. I do not wish to argue over semantics or win/lose by way of cheap semantic usage.Definitions:Certain - known or proved to be true. (indisputable)http://www.merriam-webster.com...;Certainty - something that is certain.http://www.merriam-webster.com...Absolute Certainty - Something that is certain to happen.True - 2a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs or 7 : logically necessaryRules:-Opponent can make opening arguments in round 1.-Questions like: Are you absolutely certain of the existence of Absolute Certainty? Are allowed in this debate (I hope I don't get screwed over by this but I believe it is beneficial to discuss these types of questions).-"Cogito ergo sum" — "I think, therefore I am" is also perfectly valid to discuss.I want this debate to be a learning experience for both the readers and those who participate. This is my first debate, I hope to push logic to its limits and make it a good one.
Spiderman could take superman any day

Spiderman has spidey senses. By knowing the enemy before they know you is unbelievably crucial. Also spider man is friends with doc oc and has easy access to impressive gadgets that superman doesnt have." - pro Even though Spider man has spidey senses , if he attacks Superman he can be smashed around by him . Talking about the friends Superman has , he has the members of the Justice League with him so Spider man's gadgets are nothing against it . Hence , I conclude the end to this debate .
Spiderman could take superman any day

"Superman fell way more times in the movies than spider man did. Christopher reeve couldn't even walk therefore Spider-man wins hands down. Anyway Spider-mans tactics are sneaky and patient , slow and steady wins the race" - pro Yeah your point is right but it doesn't prove that Superman is weaker than Spider man . The reason that Superman fell more times than Spider man fell would be because he might have taken some rest from superhero duties or he might be badly effected with someone's magic abilities .
Spiderman could take superman any day

"Spider man resembles a modern day assasin, with interesting gadgets to get himself into locations that one wouldnt expect. Supermans power is strength and flying ability, however hes not very discrete and can be seen easilly. Superman is older than spiderman and therfore has worse knees. Superman isnt even from this planet so immigration control will catch up with him sooner or later." - pro . But if we see according to who's created the above characters , Spider man - Marvel and Superman - DC Comics , I don't think that Marvel and DC would join hands to create a comic such as Spider man Vs Superman . Also , in accordance to the recent history , Marvel and DC Comics have just joined hands twice or thrice and that also long time back in the 20th century . So probably , very less chance for it . Even Superman is a super human who uses sun's energy to recharge , etc . So there is no chance for his knees to weaken and also has healing power . Although having many interesting gadgets , Spider man would never think of travelling out of Earth because there are many enemies waiting for him here . Powers and abilities of Superman - source - '.http://en.wikipedia.org...' So here is my point .
windows is better than mac

Gaming is not everything. Mac is sleek and spicy. Plus you can get wine( a software that allows you to run windows programs on mac) MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. GO TO SLITHER.IO FOR SOME FUN. MY OPPONENT LOVES WALLS AND GAMES ONLY. ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG DIEP.IO, AGAR.IO WINGS.IO IS THE BEST GAME WEBSITES YAYAYAYAYYAYAYAY
windows is better than mac

No Mac is better because you cant eat a window wheres you can eat a big mac, therefore a mac is better. Therefore, the logo is a apple, and an apple is edible too. Tasty. I am right because clashroyale is bae. If you like clashroyale vote for me. THE OPPONENT BULIDS WALLS TO KEEP MEXICANS OUT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO radley
Jupiter is an Indian God

Building on what you stated in round 1: the title of the Greek thunder god, Zeus, descends from the Proto-Indo-European *dyew, which is also the ancestor of Dyaus Pitrā( द्यौष्पितृ ) and Iuppiter. Compare the laconic Greek name for Zeus, 'Deus' with Sanskrit 'Dyeus'. The Greek cognate of 'Dyaus Pitrā' is 'Zeu Pater', or 'Iuppiter' in Latin. If Jupiter is Zeus, and Zeus is Dyeus, then the Latin Jupiter is the Vedic Dyeus.
Jupiter is an Indian God

In Roman mythology Jupiter is the Lord of Lighting and King of the Gods. This deity's title, Iuppiter, comes from a vocative combined with 'pater', Iovis Pater, or 'Father Jove'. This name developed from the Proto-Italic *Djous pāter, which is in turn received from from the Proto-Indo-European *Dyēus ph2ter. In the Rigveda this god is known as Dyaus Pitrā( द्यौष्पितृ ), the "Sky Father". Hence the Latin Jupiter and Hindu Dyaus are the same divinity.
Why people should have a religion

The afterlife does not exist, it is simply another belief that was meant to help people come to terms with loss and the concept of their own death, it means nothing, it is only a thought, a vision like everything else that cannot be proven in this fantasist world. No one has recorded the afterlife as to my knowledge as it is highly unlikely that it actually exists and the Bible has no proven truth in it at all, people choose to believe in it which is totally acceptable as people believe very different things , I however do not, nor do I believe that having a religion makes you a better person, in my opinion if one believes nothing you accept many things better and see the biased side in matters such as this. The thought of myself perishing in Hell does not bother me in the slightest, for I know that we are all just animals waiting to expire and go on into nothingness. There is no afterlife, no God and certainly no Heaven or hell, we exist because of events that transpired over millions of years, the world and everything around it exists for no purpose and thus for rendering life meaningless, so there is no need in me to believe in anything because when I cease to exist nothing will happen to me, I will simply die there is nothing more to it.
Why people should have a religion

To me that sounded like a bad attempt to convert an atheist. The bible has many accounts of miracles, however strangely there are no modern day miracles or holy occurrences, the Bible is merely something someone has written, it was also written a very long time ago, if Im correct the oldest extracts from the Bible were written almost 3500 years ago, and society back then was somewhat gullible to things like that. The thought of an afterlife is also just a thought, nothing more, just another persons meaningless idea, we all just live then cease to exist, there is nothing more to it than that. I will be waiting another biased response.
Why people should have a religion

An interesting if a little hard to understand point of view. Many people choose to believe in the concept of religion, however I personally do not, I feel that religion is purely fictional and that life, the world and everything about it is purely based on what others have thought of and manifested around themselves, one example being the concept of religion. Life has no valid or distinct meaning to me so in the long run of thing Im probably not going to burn in Hell for shunning a belief or faith, after all everyone's entitled to an opinion, and mine is simply to not believe in a useless thought another person has created in order to make others think like themselves.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the best RPG to date

Second I would like to ask my opponent to state what game he thinks "beats" the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which I will put some links for information, and clarification. Third, this game must fit the description of "RPG" or Role-playing game, shown here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... And lastly, this is only the accepting period, and the only thing my opponent should say is your counter-game. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://elderscrolls.wikia.com...
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the best RPG to date

you know what you whant to talk about my grammer i just have to do better at this debate. Here is five reasons why Skyrim is a SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!: You Can't Shoot People Come on! It's the 21st Century already! Why the... are people still making games where we're not running around shooting people non-stop? Skyrim might have swords, but they're so middle ages. Imagine running around the world of Skyrim armed with an AK-47 or a FAL. Oh it would be majestic. Although there's no real cover system to speak of, so that would have to be addressed too. In fact, what the... were Bethesda thinking? Look at the sales figures for The Best Game In The World of All Time Ever, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, to see that guns and explosions are what the people want, not some stupid storyline and non-playable characters you can't even kill. Magic Isn't Real! So let's say we can get past the whole no guns thing for a few minutes... you've still got magic in the game world. And dragons. How is that supposed to draw you in? Magic is stuff for kids' birthday parties and strange smelling old men who dress funny. Shooting people in the face is real. How anyone could take a game with spells seriously is beyond us. No Multiplayer? Pfft! Bethesda has created this massive world for us to explore, but then they completely failed to give us multiplayer? What a wasted opportunity. Anyone who has played Skyrim for longer than ten minutes and hasn't fallen asleep due to all that dialogue and side-quest nonsense will surely agree that the game needs some kind of barbaric sword swinging team death match to really save it. It's embarrassing to think that nobody at Bethesda realised that this kind of thing is integral to a game's success nowadays. Marriage? Seriously? Why on earth would anyone want to get married in a video game? It's bad enough that most of us end up having to do it in real life without having to listen to a virtual nag getting on your case all the time. It's not even like you can reap any of the real world rewards of having a missus, like tasty dinners or a home that seems to magically tidy itself when you're off out pillaging. If we wanted that kind of crap in our games we'd go buy The Sims or something equally idiotic. HOW MANY HOURS??? Bethesda have seriously misunderstood the needs of the modern gamer with the obscene length of Skyrim. Not only do you have a main quest that's longer than the entirety of many other franchises played back to back, but then there's the potentially infinite side-quests to take into account. Give us a break Bethesda! Don't you know that all we're interested in is blowing stuff up and taking part in ten minute games with a 3 minute break in between. The way Skyrim has turned out, you'd think that Bethesda knew nothing about the gaming industry and the needs of gamers today. We think they need a crash course in how to make games that people actually want!
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the best RPG to date

Let's start with Skyrim:" That is what we were talking about to begin with. And you still have not stated a counter game "There was recently a video interview of Craig Lafferty, the lead producer. He immediately starts by talking about taking advantage of the 360 and PS3 hardware, and then goes on to say that the consoles are their "lead skew". They are developing Skyrim for the consoles and porting it to the PC, not the other way around (as would be expected of Bethesda, especially for a game in the Elder Scrolls series)." I'm still not seeing the reason it sucks. The fact that they built it like that does not detriment the game-play at all, and to be frank, I am guessing that more people lay it on console, than PC. "I start hating Craig by about 22 seconds into the video. Then, he starts talking about making Skyrim "easy to play" and accessible for the "average person". Urghhhh. To make matters worse, he said they wanted to change the user interface to get away from stats "and things like that"." So? If a game is to complicated to play from the get go, people will just get frustrated. You have to understand, this game was made FIVE YEARS after Oblivion, so for many people (Like myself) this is their first time playing a TES game. Therefore, many people are not going to to have any prior experience with TES games, hence them trying to make it easier so that new people don't have to think "Ok, so what is the button, to (Insert action here)". As for the interface being cleaned up, why is that a bad thing? From what I have read from reviews, its a good improvement from Oblivion. I couldn't watch the video after that point, everything that came out of his mouth made me rage… It'll be a beautiful game, no doubt, but if what that guy said was true, it'll be missing a lot of the complexity and realism that I had originally anticipated. If you want to have an answer to that either: A) Play the game. or B) Read these reviews, or watch the video above: http://pc.ign.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.gameinformer.com... Other than that, I'm not sure what else there is to debate about.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the best RPG to date

Let's start with Skyrim: There was recently a video interview of Craig Lafferty, the lead producer. He immediately starts by talking about taking advantage of the 360 and PS3 hardware, and then goes on to say that the consoles are their "lead skew". They are developing Skyrim for the consoles and porting it to the PC, not the other way around (as would be expected of Bethesda, especially for a game in the Elder Scrolls series). I start hating Craig by about 22 seconds into the video. Then, he starts talking about making Skyrim "easy to play" and accessible for the "average person". Urghhhh. To make matters worse, he said they wanted to change the user interface to get away from stats "and things like that". I couldn't watch the video after that point, everything that came out of his mouth made me rage… It'll be a beautiful game, no doubt, but if what that guy said was true, it'll be missing a lot of the complexity and realism that I had originally anticipated.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the best RPG to date

SKYRUM SUCKS AND RPG GAME ARE EVEN WORST. THIS IS WHY IT SUCKS: -No guns. -No quick time events. -Linear. -Terrible character models and animations. -No lifers reading this thread. -No cinematics. -No Nathan Drake jokes. -Laggy, glitchy, bugged. -Bad dungeon design. -Repetitive after the first 20 hours. -Less than 30 different monsters. -Difficulty adds fake difficulty. -Combat feels dull. -I complain about every game. -Graphics not better than BF3. -Dragons are always the same. -Gets boring frequently. -Dungeons always have the same enemies.
it should be illegal for woman to dress seductively publically

Its highly unlikely a woman would get raped in a supermarket compared to any other place, your insinuations are actually quite vile, I stand clear on this debate and it seems you have some quite defensive abrubt comebacks ecspecially with the sterotype on black women, I suggest if you cant keep your " thingy" under control you seek medical help, because im afraid you have not presented any real justification on this arguement and it just seems quite immature. END
it should be illegal for woman to dress seductively publically

well i think you are wrong. a woman could get raped in the supermarket whos to say she couldnt? women who dress like that are whores and should be charged maybe if women stop dressing like such whores men would keeep their thingy under control mainly its black women you see ecspecially in america all the ghetto whores with there big butts and small skirts, put it away !
it should be illegal for woman to dress seductively publically

Analogy one How does what a woman wear lead to rape?, Maybe if she was overly drunk or high on drugs or walking somewhere late at night and grabs attention, It is not likely a woman will get raped on the street or supermarket etc for wearing a small skirt. analogy two If men are appalled by the way women dress that's their problem and not women, besides the fact women actually dress a certain way to attract a man anyway. We live in a free society where we have different types of people, What one wears has not got much reflection on anything ..its her choice to wear what she wants and like I said what she feels good in , who are we to prejudge someone by a dress code. Therefore I believe dressing a certain way should not be illegal and that there is many legalised things we should protest against rather than appearance Than you. : )
Death Battle

"Gaara, said Yashamaru, received love everyday, from both his mother - whose spirit controlled the sand that protected him"Really? The paragraph after that one shows counter evidence, explaining that Yashamaru lied about this love;"Yashamaru had been ordered to kill him, but Yashamaru insisted, lying to Gaara, that he volunteered and that he'd always hated Gaara for causing Karura's death. Karura [the mother] had not loved Gaara either, and named him after the phrase "a self-loving carnage" (我|34;愛{77;|27;修羅, Ware o aisuru shura) so that he would be a curse upon Suna for what it had done to her."I doubt the mother would protect him much if she named him "self loving carnage"."Also I would like to point out gaara can use magnet release allowing metal control this does include other metals such as iron and [steel] as this is proved by sasory as he uses iron dust"Iron dust? Amaterasu can break iron and diamond ore. I don't know the qualities of metal dust, however. Would it be able to be destroyed? Maybe it's more fragile than iron ore, as it's tiny particles. I'd imagine this is the case, according to my personal logic."Gaara can also turn the battlefield into sand as shown when he fought kimjmaru so this could make trying to slow it down harder this concludes my argument may the best debater win"Amaterasu does have Veil of Mist, which can slow down time, allowing her to react better.Conclusion:This is definitely an interesting debate. Both fighters have amazing powers, but limited usage of them. Gaara's sand armor keeps him from any harm, but requires a lot of chakra to maintain, compared to his other attacks. This means all Amaterasu has to do is keep the pressure on Gaara's person, with Rosaries and Celestial Brush techniques. Amaterasu can counter sand by rain and ink, making it thicker, and difficult to control. Metal dust would be immune to this, but can possibly still be destroyed with a strong force, like perhaps Cherry Bomb.Amaterasu is able to counter almost everything Gaara can do, so it shouldn't be long before Gaara's chakra runs out before Amaterasu's ink does. But ultimately, it's a question of who would outlast the other. Rosary can damage the sand armor, maybe Tundra Beads would be super effective? Anyways, I'm not sure what the outcome would be. Though I'd imagine Amaterasu wouldn't show mercy against Gaara, even without "morals off, and bloodlust on".So what do you guys think? Could the sun goddess Amaterasu defeat the sand controlling Gaara?
Death Battle

http://naruto.wikia.com... Gaara, said Yashamaru, received love everyday, from both his mother - whose spirit controlled the sand that protected him Here's that source you asked for Also I would like to point out gaara can use magnet release allowing metal control this does include other metals such as iron and steep as this is proved by sasory as he uses iron dust Gaara can also turn the battlefield into sand as shown when he fought kimjmaru so this could make trying to slow it down harder this concludes my argument may the best debater win