BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In a deterministic universe, truth can exist

Thank you for that response, opponent. Now that we have both presented our cases I will attack the opponents. With out further ado: My opponent's case is basically this according to the Aff's understanding: The only way fact can exist, is if there is a proposition. For example 'shirt' is not fact until something is proposed about it like 'is green'. 'is green is the proposition. He states, then, that proposition must be believed by the one making it, in a deterministic universe, and that we are forced what to believe in what we do. The opponent states that beliefs cannot be forced so it is not a belief at all. Then it basically goes back up the chain to the top saying truth does not exist. REFUTATION TO CONTENTION 1 My opponent is right part of his case, but makes his fatal mistake when he says a belief forced upon us is not a belief at all. The opponent says this, but does not find a way to justify that this is true. Belief: the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. (http://www.google.com...=) According to this definition, the only thing necessary for a belief to exist, is that the person holds it to be fact. Whether the person willingly thinks this, is irrelevant. In a deterministic universe the shirt is green and the person sees the shirt and observes it to be so. Because it is so the person believes in this. The fact that the person has no choice whether he does is irrelevant, because he doesn't know he has no choice. This is the epic flaw in my opponent's case. Because belief can exist, proposition are made and truth can exist. AFF REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 2 Opponent states that one can change the circumstances and the proposition remain the same. He used Bob and the moon. He says Bob believe 'The moon rotates around the Earth'. Then opponent states that he could change the rotation of the moon itself, and Bob would still believe 'The moon rotates around that Earth'. He then says because Bob believes the same thing, that proposition must be unrelated to fact. The opponent errs here. The reason Bob did not change his proposition, is that the observation he was forced to make did not change. The fact that the Moon rotates around the Earth is unaffected by the moons actual rotation itself. This is a logical fallacy. I will put it into another example mentioned earlier. 'Bob believes the shirt is green.' Changing the type of shirt will not affects Bob's belief that 'the shirt is green'. So proposition is related to fact, but only related fact. In a simple test 'a = b' , 'c' has no affect on whether 'a=b' is true. So proposition does directly relate to truth, and because proposition exists, so does truth. I have refuted my opponent's case and have proven that truth exists in a deterministic universe. I look forward to my opponent's attacks on my case. Good luck.
Resolved: In a deterministic universe, truth can exist

Hello, I am quite excited when I find debates that can be deeply reasoned, as opposed to policy debates (in my opinion). I will be going Aff, obviously, and I am unsure the format you wanted. Because you have not specified a particular style, I'll just present points. No values, like in LD. Well, here we go. I affirm that in a deterministic universe, truth can exist. I will reword the resolution to conform with the resolution. I affirm that in a universe that in which everything is cause-and-effect, there can be things acknowledged as fact. So I will begin with my points. LITERALISTIC VIEW Literally, or more correctly scientifically, events only happen because of some previous happening. One atom bumps in to another, and they form together to form masses. Soon these masses can react with each other just like the atoms did. Then, before you know it, we have humans reacting with each other. Soon the moving around of the atoms become so complicated and affected by each other that it seems to give us the ability to reason and think for our own. This is, scientifically, a lie. Many computer programmers design 'physics' engines that act the way atoms (something in nature) would. Another programmer could look at even the most complicated physics engine and were its 'atoms' are, and predict exactly what events will occur FOREVER within this engine. The same thing applies with the universe. If someone could figure out the exact position of every atom, and had an engine strong enough, one could compute the future. This means that the future is absolute, as is everything else. Because there are absolutes, every effect of something else can be considered truth. The computed future, can be considered truth. The opponent may bring up a refutal saying 'how can everything be truth if I can think 2+2 = 1? Well, obviously 2+2 does NOT equal 1 mathematically. But the opponent would incorrectly look at the situation. Because the person wanted to prove me wrong, or because he was misinformed, or whatever reason, he thought this was true. The fact that he thought it is true. LOGICAL VIEW Logically, in any universe, truth can exist. For example 1+1 =2. In a deterministic universe, because there was one put with another one, two must be a result. Either way, this is obvious truth. In this view, everything is not truth, but it is there. So I am still affirming the resolution even on this front. THEORETICAL VIEW This will be my final view, built on the infinite universe theory. Because the universe is infinitely expanding, that leaves an infinite chance for anything to happen. So even if truth has the smallest chance of happening, in an infinite universe, it eventually will. Because the resolution refers to present and future, the fact that it may not have happened yet, is irrelevant. I realize that his was rather short, I felt this was all that was needed to affirm this ideology. I look forward to my opponent's case. Good luck and 'til then. [theory says universe is infinite, this means infinite chance there will be truth]
Resolved: In a deterministic universe, truth can exist

Except for some basic definitions and rules, I'll let my opponent have the first speech rules - First speech - presentation of case affirming or negating the resolution, but no cross-firing, i.e. no direct responses. subsequent speeches - responses, strengthening of own cases, clarification, etc. last speech - concluding remarks, no introduction of new arguments. definitions - truth - conformity to fact deterministic universe - a universe in which every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by prior events. The debate shall take place using these definitions under these guidelines only.
Battlefield 1 - Dreadnought is better than Airship

Well, i don't know what you mean by the Dreadnought has low visibility, maybe for the AA guns but those have fine ranges of vision if you are on the one on the shore side. And the cannons are indirect so that doesnt really count for visibility. The sirship can survive also for a very long time if the pilot manages to find and bomb the AA guns on the ground, but it's difficult and most likely won't happen
Battlefield 1 - Dreadnought is better than Airship

The dreadnought might deal lots of damage but again its visibility is very limited. However, i decided to test out the dreadnought and see if your arguments are true. I found out that although deals a lot of damage it still has very little visibility and many damages is still limited to only players in Vehicles or players near te shore. The airship I also test and a lot true it gets destroyed quickly it acts more as a kamikaze meant to do as much damage as possible before it dies were the airship acts more like a sniper type of boat
Battlefield 1 - Dreadnought is better than Airship

While I will submit to the fact that the Airship has more mobility and can sometimes surprise attack far-off points, I disagree the dreadnought is worse at attacking First of all, the dreadnought, while being restricted to sea, actually has some points it can capture provided it gets close enough. Building off of this, When it is close, the AA guns can wreak havoc on anything in sight. Even should the Ship be far away from shore, the cannon range is ridiculous and can dislodge tightly fortified positions. If your team is helpful too, you can take out sniper spots and tank campers. If not, you can fire a volley into battleground to predict the enemy positions and provide heavy suppressing fire The Airship surviving largely depends on the captain, of which there is one, and a bad captain can let the airship die extremely quickly to AA and fortress guns or, as I have seen on multiple occasions, completely take the behemoth out of the map, never to be a threat to anybody. A bad captain of the dreadnought cannot, however, make his behemoth completely useless since the cannons' ranges are huge. When the Airship is taken down, as well, it might deal lots of damage to the enemy but on a battleground it has a huge chance of dealing its own allies damage. In a situation where the airship dies deep in enemy territory, hardly anything would be lost on the enemy's side since most of their troops would be on friendly points, attempting to take them
Battlefield 1 - Dreadnought is better than Airship

The dreadnought may be better when it comes to its health and resistance to counter attacks but it does very little damage and really can be ignored throughout the game unless in a plan. Since it is basically ignored most players will not attack it has its just not worth it however the airship is a bigger problem. keep in mind that the airship is acutely over the battle and by over I mean on top. The airship is also not ignored has it is a massive advantage to the other team. The airship deals lots of damage to any tanks and it also deals damage to any players that are in clear site. The dreadnought is not strangely placed if you look at where the dreadnought is it is far from shore making it hard for the players in the boat to deal damage to the enemy. The airship is also a good way for players get behind enemy lines and deal a bit of damaged from the back of the enemy. Finally, the airship when taken down falls to the ground and explodes deal lots of damage to the enemy the dreadnought however just sinks.
Battlefield 1 - Dreadnought is better than Airship

The Dreadnought is a much better behemoth than the airship. The Dreadnought has 2 powerful AA guns and 2 Powerful cannons as its main weapons. The AA guns can easily destroy planes and boats to defend the dreadnought, and can even kill infantry and light vehicles very accurately and quickly. The two big cannons wreak havoc on structures, vehicles, and infantry It also has much more survivability than the airship, and a strong team can keep the dreadnought alive much more than the airship. The only real threat to the Dreadnought is torpedo boats and bombers, who can both be blown apart by the AA guns. Meanwhile, the airship can be destroyed by: AA guns AA artillery trucks all enemy planes the fortress guns tanks on high mountains every one of these weaknesses takes a different approach to defeat, making the airship , definitely worse than the dreadnought
There is no proof that a God exists

I thank Con for his responce however he has failed on a few thingsBurden Of ProofFirstly, Con thinks that whoever goes first must have the burdon of proof. "There is not proof of God" is not a positive claim. How could I show you evidence that there is no evidence? To do that, I'd have to show you everything ever, so that within that you could see that there is no proof of gods existence. Well, if thats what it takes... I present to you, the entire world. Within it, you will not find proof of gods existence."There is proof of god" would be the positive claim, and the one which would need backed up with whatever your proof is. So to say that I am burdon shifting is an insult to your own intelligence. I'm going to assume that Con is not this silly, and therefor knows that the burdon of proof does not lie with me, but in Con, to proof that there is indeed evidence of Gods existence.Con goes on for a second pargraph about burden of proof and hwo there is no constructive arguement in round 1. I deliberately left my round 1 open so that Con can assert his God as there are so many religions. There is no point in me putting forward an argument that deals with the moral issues, or with creative design, if Con is asserting a God which has different views than the moral or creative design ones known in christianity for example.DefinitionsWhile I left this open due to there being so many religions and faith, and admire your picking of the one non-religios definition of God, this debate is in the religion section however.Contention 1While defnitly an out of the box thought, I have never seen anyone attend religios services to worship a statue, painting or picture. While there may be books, pictures or statues that religions use, I would put forward that the objects themself are not what is being worshipped. E.g. The bible its self is not worshipped, the God of what it teaches is what is worshipped. While you may have provided a painting of zeus, that is not proof that Zeus exists. If people worshipped and prayed to this painting, this would not be in itself proof that Zeus existed.To sum up, paintings and statues etc. are not proof of god.Contention 2You are going to have to elaborate on this one as it doesnt seem to flow with much clarity or meaning. Causes have effects, but I dont see what that has to do with a pokemon character or an australian animal.
There is no proof that a God exists

Because this is such a unique resolution, it has obviously never take place before. As such, I see a lot of ground for new and exciting arguments to be made. However the uniqueness of this resolution means that I just don't have a whole lot to refer to so as to understand what exactly should be covered in this debate. Darn the luck! All the same, I don't want to let my opponent down, so I guess I'm just going to have to make a couple of assumptions based on Pro's round one. But we'll get to that in a moment. It would also appear that my opponent has chosen not to make a constructive argument until after I've made one. This is a very daring move on his part, and I commend his bravery here. After all, it's no easy task to maintain a burden of proof without even providing a constructive argument. Golly! After all, since my opponent is the one who has chosen to instigate this debate, he does indeed hold the burden of proof to maintain the claim he is affirming. I mean to do otherwise would be to commit a burden shifting fallacy, and no one would ever do that. So as I can see it, there are a couple of truths that I'm sure we're all aware of, but I'm going to go ahead and state them anyway. First, my opponent is the instigator of this debate and therefore hold the burden of proof. Second, my opponent hasn't clarified what he means by 'God', 'Proof' or 'Exists' Third, my opponent has left these terms up to me to decided. That said I guess I should hit up Google before arguing so that we know what we're talking about. (after all, it's not like this debate has ever taken place before, right? ) God Is defined by Princeton Wordnet as: an 'idol: a material effigy that is worshipped' Proof is defined by Princeton as: 'any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something' And Exists is defined by Google Dictionary as: to 'Have objective reality or being' That said, I'm just going to throw out a few arguments based on what I understand this debate to be. Contention 1: Checkmate Atheists- I guess Atheists don't have Google images, because one quick search landed me irrefutable proof that God does exist! Here, we see a statue of Buddha, the enlightened one: . http://www.viewzone.com... Here, a painting of Zeus, the God of Thunder: . http://moviewriternyu.files.wordpress.com... And here, a picture of the Winged Dragon of Ra, A God card from the popular card game Yu-Gi-Oh: . http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net... Contention 2: Physics B*tch! - Professor Utonium once said, 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Or was that Newton? Oh well, those cookies suck anyway. Moving on, we understand that Professor Oak was a smart guy and Tasmanian Devils exist, we also realize that Tasmanian Gods must exist too. I've got science on my side! In conclusion, we see that I have provided irrefutable evidence that there is indeed proof of the existence of God. After all, it's not like such a belief would be a important personal one would hold independent from empirics. I hope that I've extended from my opponent's unfortunately limited framework to make this debate the debate he would have wanted to have.
There is no proof that a God exists

Wasted debate. But I will sum up.Burden Of ProofI have stated why I think burden of proof falls with Con. It fall with Con because you do not prove a lack of proof. If I say "There is no proof of gravity" you would go.. "Yes there is" and show proof. Its that simple. We do not assume that everything exists until proven otherwise, we assume that things do no exist unless evidence is given that they do.So, saying that there is no evidence for God does not require me to show you everything that exists so that you know there is no evidence for God, it requires you to accept that, or to provide such evidence to prove me wrong. Thus, Burden of proof STILL falls with you.A Gaming Card Is A GodCon stated that a gaming card is proof of God but did not backing it up. As I stated, it has no God like properties. It is not all powerful and all knowing, it did not create anything, people do not gather on mass to pray to it. It is simply not a God. I have stated this before, but as like other points, it has been ignored.Contention 2Con stated "Professor Utonium once said, 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Or was that Newton? Oh well, those cookies suck anyway. Moving on, we understand that Professor Oak was a smart guy and Tasmanian Devils exist, we also realize that Tasmanian Gods must exist too. I've got science on my side!"I'm sorry, but that does not read as anything that points to proof of God. Con has taken every round since round 1 to elaborate on contention 2. Since he has not done so, I still cannot argue any point on this. All he has said is "Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again".ConclusionAs stated, this debate was posted in the religion catagory. Not philosophy. Clearly, we were looking for a religios based debate. Con has not given one, at all. It was an evidence based debate, and Con has provided no evidence of any deity or religios God. We do not assume that everything exists until proven otherwise, that is why Con has the burden of proof. This is why my round 1 was left very open. It was open because everyone has different arguements for the existance of a religios God. Somepeople present the modal ontological argument, some people present that morals could not exist withought God, some people say point to creative design, others point to "you cant have something from nothing".I left it open so that Con was not limited to any one of these, and so that it would hopefully make for a better debate. Unfortunitly he has ignored the debate catagory, not met his initial burden of proof, just shifted it to me, he has failed to reword contention 2, and his best evidence of God is a god gaming card.Voters can mark whatever way, I'm not here for rank, I'm here for enjoyable debates. Unfortunitly I feel that this one was simply wasted.
There is no proof that a God exists

I ask for you to elaborate Contention 2 because your wording in round one was unreadable, but you have refused to do so. This has still gone unchanged. If I don't understand your argument then "well whatever"? But then you attack me for saying that "A playing card is not a god, it has no god like properties". Also, how is this not warranted? If you want to reject that argument, show me its God-like properties. My reference to a pokemon character was to Prof. Oak, not the card. Like I stated before, we clearly have a difference of opinion on burden of proof, and it has created a complete impass and made this debate un-enjoyable for ourselves and I imagine, anyone bothering to read it. It has now wasted too many rounds for this to become anything like a reasoned discussion on a deity.
There is no proof that a God exists

Off the Flow, First of all, I made the argument concerning religion being a personal thing off the flow. Those comments have nothing to do with the on-case clash -- I have other stand-alone arguments for the on-case, argument which my opponent has failed to respond to. Framework, I used nearly 4000 characters in the previous round making a detailed, and clear explanation of the framework in this round. My opponent doesn't even try to engage it, minus a comment on my taco analofg, but we'll get to that in a moment. Make direct extensions of every argument here; including presumption, definitions and instigator versus contender. Pro does argue that the goodness of Tacos are all up to opinion, however that doesn't refute the fact that arguments can be made in favor, or against the goodness of tacos. And that's my point. When one says that 'Tacos are not good' that is a claim against the prevailing opinion, that it doesn't matter either way. Even though this belief is a negative one, it still challenges the status quo. The status quo maintains presumption unless alternative arguments can be made, so unless one can show that tacos are not good, the world will continue not to care. In the same way, Pro has to prove his claim as he challenges the presumption of the contender. It doesn't matter the he has chosen a difficult premise to defend, he made the choice to defend that premise. I'm winning before you even consider the 'clash'. C1 My opponent only now attacks this argument, but with a simple baseless claim, that playing cards are not gods. First and foremost, The Winged Dragon of Ra is a Yu-Gi-Oh card, not a Pokemon card. Second, making a claim absent of a warrant doesn't prove anything. This argument needs to be rejected because... well there's no warrant. Even if my opponent finds my argument silly, or ridiculous, he has to attack it and warrant his attacks. He chooses not to do this, so it's extended across unscathed. C2 Guys, if you understand my argument then this is a drop. If not, well whatever. I'm still winning the on-case on contention one and my opponent hasn't even presented any constructive arguments.
There is no proof that a God exists

I post in the religios section, a debate on the proof of god. In your closing paragraph you put forward that religion is not something taken on evidence. I think you have missed the point of this debate. I ask for you to elaborate Contention 2 because your wording in round one was unreadable, but you have refused to do so and simply stated "Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again"I thank you for your response, and will ignore your assertions of lazyness and abuse. For the above reasons, unless your willing to change the above I see no point in continuing.A playing card is not a god, it has no god like properties. A pokemon character has nothing to do with a religios debate, and as for the taco statement... Taco's being good or bad is opinion, you do not have budren of proof on opinion, so using it in a burden of proof point is abit logicaly flawed at best.If I am marked down, so be it, my ego won't be hurt with numbers. I would rather have enjoyable intelligable discussions.