BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

Your reply is an example of "ignoration elenchi". The reiteration of the introduction of a problem " the problem is not validation but the presence of equipment for testifying" (sic) is of the same fallacy. You are both missing the point and introducing a red herring (changing the subject). Ignoratio elenchi is to miss the point or to change the subject My position is that "mystical experiences can not be validated as real or true". The reasons that you give actually support my position. You write " I read a novel based on a true story of an Irish witch, i.e. Brida by Paulo Coehlo" A novel based on a true story is not a true story. If I grant the "truth" of the anecdote you state "the leading character has some mystical experience, more like an inter dimensional travel. During all that time she is accompanied by her master and whatever she sees is seen by him" This is not a validation of truth. The shared mystical experience could be a shared delusion, or a shared deception. The shared experience can not be validated as true. You write "we have psychics or the people who can see through everything. They no doubt can validate such occurrences for you" You are presenting hearsay as evidence.. Hearsay is generally considered very weak evidence if it is considered evidence at all. Testimony based on hearsay is extremely weak and in all likelihood, they are often either pure fabrications or exaggerations. Due to something called the confirmation bias and the wishful thinking fallacy, those who already believe in such phenomena are likely to accept such stories as evidence for their truthfulness when, in fact, such stories are not evidence. If I for the sake of debate, allow you to present such as evidence. You claim that these persons "They no doubt can validate such occurrences for you" To validate "no doubt" is a strong statement. It means to be certain that it is true and it cannot be contradicted or disproved. If something is without doubt, it is completely certain How can such persons validate the occurrences beyond doubt?. For they themselves my have been deceived in the experience. You write "I do agree that such experiences can be false ones if coming from the evil entities but then there are people who know" You define such people as "The people who have the "microscope" or "telescope". Using your metaphor. How do we know that they are using the "microscope" or "telescope" correctly? Once we establish that they are indeed expert users of the tools. How do we know that their interpretation of what they are seeing is correct? How do they know that they are not being deceived? Please present the evidence to support your statement that this can be validated with no doubt. You have presented no argument nor evidence that refutes my position that mystical experiences can not be validated as true or real
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

By my "use of Plato's Cave" I am trying to infer that in order to validate the presence of the real world, cave men have to be untied. Last year I read a novel based on a true story of an Irish witch, i.e. Brida by Paulo Coehlo. There is a part in which the leading character has some mystical experience, more like an inter dimensional travel. During all that time she is accompanied by her master and whatever she sees is seen by him. Apart from that we have psychics or the people who can see through everything. They no doubt can validate such occurrences for you. I do agree that such experiences can be false ones if coming from the evil entities but then there are people who know. The people who have the "microscope" or "telescope". Hence, I will again return my point that I mentioned earlier that the problem is not validation but the presence of equipment for testifying.
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

In your use of Plato"s cave, you infer that those in the cave are not in the "real world". You write "Even a kid would say 'no' if it is taken on a shallow level but being a grown up who is into metaphysics and believes that there is much more to what can be perceived by senses" ; I agree with the latter, for dogs can hear what we can not. Your appeal to maturity via contrast with a "Kid" is a weak "argumentum ad verecundiam" and is invalid and irrelevant. You state a concern "I should be worried about equipping people with such a capability with which it can be validated". Such a concern or worry is also irrelevant in this debate. I did not agree that mystical experiences are true. I actually wrote "I do not deny that mystical experiences can be "true" and "real". I wrote "can be" this infers the contrary and opposite. I also made a distinction between "True" and "Real". You state above "Well to be to the point they can be confirmed, checked and proven if the other person is equipped with the higher faculty". A person with such a higher faculty for mystical experiences does not make the experience logically necessary true or real. In theory it is possible that an evil higher dimensional intelligence could cause a person to have a mystical experience that seems "real" and "true" but is actually a delusion and untrue. Such a being could deceive. As I stated in my opening comment ""realness is not evidence" . In other words "Realness is not necessary truthfulness" You have yet to refute my position that such experiences can not be validated as real or true.
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

Well to be to the point they can be confirmed, checked and proven if the other person is equipped with the higher faculty. Here the object of criticism is not mystic experience or its validation but human perception about it. Why it has to be different from one person to another? Since you agree that mystical experiences are true, then you should bear in mind that the validity of presence of an object is not a problem but the blindness of the viewer is. The problem does not lie in the real world of Plato but with the men in cave. I would rather raise objection on the choice of your words describing your stance i.e. "Mystical Experiences can be Validated". Even a kid would say 'no' if it is taken on a shallow level but being a grown up who is into metaphysics and believes that there is much more to what can be perceived by senses I should be worried about equipping people with such a capability with which it can be validated.
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

Smiles My position is that such experiences can not be validated; they can not be confirmed, checked nor proven. I do not deny that mystical experiences can be "true" and "real". I deny that they can be proven as such. I accept and agree with your comments. But they do not refute my position. I had a dream about a red and green frog like kangaroo. Yet I can never prove I had such a dream. For the experience is beyond such validation. Likewise If I were to claim that I have had a mystical experience I would be unable to "prove" my claim. My position holds firm
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."- Nikola Tesla The way a person who does not posses a microscope can validate the presence of microorganisms, in the same way a person who does not have a higher faculty of perception can not validate the existence of higher dimensional phenomena. Therefore, if some one wants to see microorganisms he must have a microscope in the same manner, in order to sense mystical occurrences one must develop higher faculty. Why would someone believe Galileo in sixteenth century when that someone didn't look in the telescope for himself? The way clergy in those days influenced beliefs of people, in that very same manner today science is influencing common man with it's claim of reliability of scientific method. Most of us do know how clergy was corrupted in itself and by the powerful who knows even science might be corrupted today for the same very reason. We all must not forget how the debate of consciousness regarding quantum physics was suppressed in the beginning of twentieth century among notable scientists like Einstein and Niel Bohr.
Mystical Experiences be can be validated

It is assumed by those who have had a mystical experience, whether induced by years of meditation or by a single dose of LSD or similar drugs, that the truthfulness of the experience is attested to by its sense of "realness". The criticism of skeptics is often met with a statement, "You have to experience it yourself and then you will understand." This means that if one has the actual experience he will be convinced by its intense feeling of reality. "I know it was real because it was more real than my talking to you now." But "realness is not evidence. I therefore refute and deny that such experiences can be validated as real or true.
Reality Family Shows are Ridiculous

I liked your name (don’t think about the bloody mary) and the topic was interesting but indefensible. I am right. The Reality Family shows these days are so dumb they’re funny. Funny has a real purpose so that’s definitely not ridiculous (deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd). Laughter has any number of benefits and humor is a core essential need for everyone. You cannot possibly be right since you’re expressing an opinion. That’s actually where I would go with this one. You could say you’re most certainly right since you’re only expressing a personal opinion (my argument not mentioned by Pro). I would then argue that your debate implies a general ‘truth’ claim and we could have had a semantic/kritic battle going. I mean come on, what is so amazing about them? They are not like Reba. They don't teach lessons that we can learn. I'm right and you know it. Opinions aren’t right or wrong and I’m sure you know that. It’s not literally true that all of these shows are futile. I learned a lot about people and the limits of endurance and character watching ‘deadliest catch’ [6]. It’s a show that focuses on crab fisherman and their families. It was entertaining and helped me to see that my situation wasn’t all that bad, compared to crab fishermen anyway. I’ve never watched Reba but you’re claiming it has some value conceding that not all family reality shows are ridiculous. Lesson’s Learned I don’t really watch a lot of reality tv but ‘The Osbournes’ [3] showed me an alternate view of the world that’s dissimilar from my experiences. Though often coached or slightly scripted you are getting interesting highlights from real lives. That’s true of every family ‘reality’ tv show. Many shows, like 30 days [4] or undercover boss [5] explicitly explore themes designed to help people understand and empathize with others. I’ve never watching keeping up with the kardashians [1] or Jersey Shore [2] but I have learned a lot about what the U. S. culture values just from reading up on the shows and reflection of our culture. Not encouraging things but still. Futility Your claim is that there is no real purpose to these shows, that they should be shunned and avoided. They are not and attract a large audience. For me, that’s the point. Why are we watching these shows as a nation? Watching them is a snapshot of a lot of poor cultural trends. Now that I think about it, I’ll have to watch more and encouraged any thinking activist types to as well. - Reality shows are just a mirror. It shows us what we value, think about and desire. It’s a black mirror (crazy creepy Netflix binge) but we really need to take a good look. Reality tv is an informative pop cultural phenomena and we owe it to ourselves to understand why. Reality tv for 2020! [1] . http://www.imdb.com... [2] . http://www.imdb.com... [3] . http://www.imdb.com... [4] . http://www.imdb.com... [5] . http://www.imdb.com...
Secrete Topic Debate

Arguments : ecological concerns : Genetically modified salmon, like all GM products have the problem of gene flow. in other words it means that humans eating transgenic salmon can (in the long term), become affected by the transgenic products they are eating, but also other species, which eat or are eaten by salmons. Risks on human health : Actually it is true they are unknown, but it is still not proved that there are no concrete risks on human health. And we cannot allow and, and take the risks to endanger lives . http://www.csa.com...... http://www.gmo-compass.org...... ethical concern : Does greediness allow us to transform and deeply modify the natural life. Can we transform life to be more profitable? And what is the limit to all of this? If we start to allow this, where will it ends? Modified humans? Rebuttal : Reduced heart disease: Saying that poor people would it more fish, even with lower prices, is only a vague suposition. Having an healthy living standart doesn't depend only on prices, but mostly on education. Furthermore we don't have proof that GM salmon would be healthy at all. Even with higher N-3 fatty acids intake, we still don't know the consequenced of GM food on human body Biotech jobs : Right, but allowing GM salmon would destroy a lot of jobs in the research sector, because usually before approving something, we use to wait for scientist's approval, and for proofs that it is not dangerous. So if we allow it yet, there will be a lower priority on research
islam should be banned from all civilized nations

Preface: - As per the format of the resolution, Pro has the burden of proof to establish why Islam should be banned from all civilized nations Case/Rebuttals: islam spreads like a virus, so its very important that it dosnt infiltrate a society - Bare assertion [1]. Non sequitur [2]. => Logical fallacy. gnawing the pillars of the foundation every persons right is founded on - Bare assertion [1]. No argument. => Logical fallacy. Conclusion - Overall, Pro has made fallacious claims, invalid or no arguments, & provided no sources, thus failed to uphold his resolution. Given that Pro had the burden of proof to establish his resolution, since he failed, Con gets an automatic win. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] https://goo.gl...
There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of God.

I believe I already gave an example- appendixes can get infected and hurt us (Before 1900, appendicitis could lead to death.) With modern medicine, this no longer happens, but there are other imperfections. I don't really have time to list them all (In any case, that's not what this debate is over), but if you're interested, go here- http://guardianlv.com... I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is with smart people marrying. This would result in a baby that had inherited its parents traits- and would also be very smart, in fact maybe even more so. It's true, people of like intelligence would be attracted, but I don't really think you can provide evidence to suggest they would feel pressured. Well, that's about it for my rebuttal (I'm afraid I don't really understand your "Jerusalem" argument, I know that that's a real place, and it has nothing to do with God's existence. Thanks for the debate, I really enjoyed it. Here are some sources: http://www.wikihow.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of God.

I understand what you are saying and I am not offended by it! If I was to write an essay on a historical figure, I would probably use lots of facts and then twist those facts to make the essay seem longer and more in-depth! Many reality shows use this technique! They make the characters' lives seem more dramatic than they usually are and then they build on that drama to create a storyline that makes their show seem more interesting and appealing to viewers! Can you please specify on how human imperfections can hurt or kill us? The problem with what you said about attributing humans with different traits that give them their own advantage over others is that then, humans with certain traits would be pressured to marry others with those same traits! For example, a person with more neurons and intelligence would have to marry another person with lots of neurons and intelligence. This would not allow humans to learn anything as they would only be using their own traits given to them, thus not allowing them to learn new skills! The reason why humans are so great is because if they're not good at a certain skill, they can practice and learn that new skill, which predictably gives them a higher chance of survival, since they have adopted a new skill, which they can use to maybe avoid danger! For example, the popular game The Sims, allows the player to control many sims! These sims can learn new hobbies such as fishing, cooking, designing clothes, and more! For each hobby that a sim masters, the sim gets bigger and better rewards such as clothing and customizations! I just used the gods as an example to argue against your side! I believe in only one god and that is the God, not mythological gods! One huge piece of evidence that can be used to prove that God exists is the country Israel itself! Israel is a Jewish country that lies in the Middle East! There are some Jewish parts of Christianity such as the ancient language of Hebrew! Also, many events from the Bible took place in middle eastern countries such as Egypt and Syria! Israel is known as the holy land because it's literally the living foundation of many religions! Christianity is one of those religions! Because of this, Israel is surrounded by religious temples and other holy buildings! Israel takes religion very seriously! Not only that but Jerusalem, one of the most important places in the Bible, is one of Israel's major cities and it's considered a sacred area for Christians, Jews, and Muslims!
There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of God.

Thanks for sticking to the rules. And you are correct, many events in the Bible are historically accurate. For example, historical records prove that during Noah's time, there really was a large flood that may have covered up to 10% of the worlds land area (This doesn't sound like much, but the world is REALLY big.) But even if some parts of the Bible have basis in fact, it doesn't mean all of them are. Think about it. If you are writing a book about your idol in an effort to get others to follow him, would you tell the gospel truth? More likely, you would take actual events and twist them or use hyperboles (I hope this isn't offensive) And human imperfections actually disprove Gods existence. No omnibenevolent creator would create humans with such glaring design flaws. These flaws don't just set us apart, they can hurt or kill us. If you wanted to make humans different, you could make them different in ways that wouldn't at best, hinder, and at worst, harm them. You could give some bigger lungs and more stamina, others longer legs and more speed, others more powerful neurons and more intelligence... etc. etc. etc. And, by the way, your "Giver" analogy, while I have rebutted the argument it supports, is an excellent one. Yes I have read the book (Actually a long time ago, in 5th grade, I think.) It's an excellent novel, isn't it? However, I fail to see your point when you say gods in mythology have imperfections. Surely, if you're a Christian, you don't believe in these gods, right? Anyway, that about wraps it up. Thanks for clarifying your beliefs on evolution (I'm glad I'm not debating a creationist, because when that happens, theological debates can turn into arguments over evolution.)
There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of God.

Ok, first some rules. No "atheists have no morals" or "magic sky fairy" sniping. You may use evidence from the Bible, but that can't be your only evidence. Proof: solid evidence that cannot be denied reasonably nor overwritten by other ideas. If proof is found both for and against, one must be incorrect, so we tie. No forfeits. No taking back what you said. Be respectful. Okay, so. My argument. There is neither sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against the idea of God. Therefore, it cannot be reasonable to say for certain that he exists. The Bible does not prove his existence, because all sources must be backed up and their are no other sources from this time. Neither does the "wonder of the human eye" and other "miracles". The eye is one of the most important parts of an animal, so evolution has shaped it to be nearly perfect at its job. In the wild, bad eyesight can mean death. In any case, imperfections in the human body disprove the idea of a creator who modeled us perfectly (Like, for example, the appendix, which serves no purpose and can get badly infected.) I also have a question. Are you a Creationist? (Do you believe in evolution?)
There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of God.

I read the Top Ten Imperfections article. 1) Wrist- A human hand can not exist without a wrist. 2) Back- Without a back, humans would have nothing to support their skeleton. 4) Jaw- Without a jaw, humans would not be able to eat and food is necessary for survival. 9) Eyes- Without eyes, humans would not be able to see. Just because two smart parents make a baby does not mean that the baby will automatically be smart. The baby inherits genes and traits from both parents. Also, you cannot be born smart because smartness is a personality trait, not a genetic trait. There's not much else I can say since this is the last round. Thank you so much for allowing me to participate in this debate. I really enjoyed it and I found it to be a very interesting topic. Here's a source: http://www.wikihow.com...
The Earth is Flat

The motion asserts that "The Earth is flat", but does not make it clear what is meant by this; we would surely all agree that in smaller sub-areas, the Earth is approximately flat. Likewise, we would all agree that in some areas, the Earth is clearly not flat, for instance, near sheer cliffs.I apologize for not properly defining the Flat-Earth Theory and what is implied when calling the Earth "flat." The Flat-Earth Theory states that the Earth is neither spherical nor rotates on an axis. The Flat-Earth Theory is in agreement with the fact of how different regions have different elevations and other geological features.Photographic evidence indicates that the Earth is round (See sources 1:3). Little more really needs to be said about this; just look- it's round!A fair amount of people (such as Flat-Earth theorists) question the credibility of NASA and other services which use and provide satellite images of "Earth." Many people even question the famous Moon Landing. However, there may be good reason to question these services' reliability and honesty. According to the website, Real Climate Science, NASA's climate data is completely false. Projections of the land and ocean temperatures on Earth during December of 2016 were proven to be fallible. The website claims that NASA went as far as to "make up the record temperatures." The website proceed to provide a real projection of the land and ocean temperatures during December of 2016 [1]. Day and night are caused by the Earth rotating on its axis such that the sun is no longer visible on one side of the Earth.According to the Flat-Earth theory, it is not the Earth that is rotating or moving, but the Sun and Moon that are. It is believed that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. The Bible defends this belief, claiming that we are in the center of the Universe because we are the focal point of "God's work."There has been a fair amount of evidence supporting Geocentrism. For example, researchers of the website, Evidence Press, explain that the Red Shift provides leverage to these claims because, as evidenced by the Red Shift, or electromagnetic energy of other planets, "the galaxies are bunched into groups and the groups are arranged into concentric circles around the Earth," [2].Sources:[1] https://realclimatescience.com...[2] http://evidencepress.com...