BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

1. The Nonexistence of the Universe, and therefore Santa My opponent constantly assumes that science could be wrong because religion has been wrong before. The non sequitor is visible. First, that the planets all revolved around earth was neither a law of logic or a law of science, as a law of science originates from the scientific method, while this assumption originated from the Catholic Church[1][2], and a law of logic is logically undeniable, like modus ponens [3]. My opponent still has not negated my syllogism, and it stands. My opponent has provided no counterexample to my minor premise (he actually conceded it in round 3) and my major premise was never challenged. My syllogism stands; the universe is not real, and so neither is Santa. 2. Santa's Death by Physics My opponent asserts the existence of some hidden variable that would allow the breaking of the laws of physics. a) Santa would have to have discovered such a variable. b) There is no reason to believe such a variable exists. c) No matter on Earth defies the laws of physics. All of the speculation of the nonapplication of universal laws is in dark matter [4] and antimatter [5], which is non abundant on this planet [6] [7] and cannot be sustained on Earth [7]. My opponent believes the resolution is negated because he has closed his eyes and not seen that there is no conceivable way Santa can exist. The resolution does not require me to convince him, but that I validly prove that Santa cannot be real, which was done with both logic and science. The universe either exists or it doesn't. If the universe doesn't exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contention 1) If the universe does exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contentions 2 and 3) Therefore, Santa doesn't exist. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. [1] . http://wiki.answers.com...'t_the_center_of_the_universe (broken link) [2] . http://www.edwardtbabinski.us... [3] . http://www.allwords.com... [4] . http://www.newscientist.com... [5] . http://www2.corepower.com... [6] . http://www.universetoday.com... [7] . http://science.nasa.gov...
You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

Thank you for responding. Before I begin I would like to make it clear to the audience that I am not trying to prove that Santa Claus is real. What I am trying to do is prove that my opponent cannot prove that he is not. I will not post a long response seeing that one is not needed. Like I said before, there is not 100% proof that Occam's Razor is true. One cannot believe firmly in something just because it is a law of logic. It is funny how before Galileo, it was a law of logic that the planets all revolved around the earth. Humans do not know everything, therefore humans can make errors in laws of logic. I was stating in my objection of your second premise that we cannot be 100% sure of the universe existing or not existing. So therefore we cannot use it as solid evidence to disprove Santa Claus. What I was saying concerning breaking the laws of physics is that you just do not know everything. In life there is always a hidden variable. There is always time for error. Unless you know everything in the world, you cannot be 100% scientifically sure of anything. Take my religion for example, I believe that God is real. I have no doubt about it. But, no matter how much Christian claim that God can be scientifically explained, he can't. That is why I do not debate the matter of God's existence. There is always an error in science. I am just using this as an example, please refrain from turning this into a religious debate. My opponent has one more argument left, But so far he has failed to prove to me 100% that Santa Claus is not real. He has attempted to provide solid evidence but has failed. I can see that he is a skilled debater and I kindly thank him for accepting this. I heavily urge a pro vote. Thank you Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.elisabethhubert.com... (3). Bible
You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

I will try to keep this brief. I will go through your contentions and show you your follies. In your fist condition you use Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Occam's Razor is true. Some people choose to believe it, some people do not. You said that there is no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of the universe. That statement also is ineffectual is this debate because there is also no proof. Your second and third contention could also be wrong. There are many new species of animals that are found every year. That means that there could be reindeer that Santa Claus has that could go extremely fast, pull any weight, and be able to fly without burning up. There could also be some sort of protection suit that Santa Claus uses to keep himself safe, the sled could be made of special metals that prevent it from burning up. Santa's sack could be made of special material that makes the gifts lightweight. There are endless possibilities to what there could be. If someone from the 1600's heard that you could send a message all the way across the world in a matter of seconds, they would not believe it. They would probably give say things like, ‘A ship would have to travel so fast it would catch on fire. ' Or ‘all the letters would fall out of the ship' Just because we do not know of things does not mean they can't exist, So far you have not proved to me that Santa Claus is not real. I look forward to your next debate. Sources: (1). . http://species.asu.edu... (2). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). . http://www.explainthatstuff.com...
You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

I intend to make this fun. You- In traditional debate, "you" usually refers to the contender. ============================== My contentions: 1. Not anything is real. 2. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, he would be crushed under over four million pounds of force and die. 3. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, his entire reindeer team would burst into flames within 4.26 trillionths of a second. ========================= First Contention: Solipsism 1. Either the universe exists or the universe does not exist. 2. There is no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of the universe. 3. Occam's Razor: The universe does not exist. Sources: 1. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2. . http://math.ucr.edu... ========================= Second Contention: Santa was crushed during one of his annual attempts. Assuming a Christian child delivery population of ~378,000,000 with a census average of 3.5 children per household and a requrement to visit each household for both naughty and nice children in the 31 hours of Christmas eve, Santa must visit 822.6 houses per second. The math in source 2.1 finds that Santa's sleigh would have to travel 650 miles per second. When the minimum mass of the sleigh is assessed at about 642,600,000 pounds, the physics would cause Santa to be pulled back into his seat with about "4,315,015 pounds of force" (2.1). This would kill Santa. Conclusion: "If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now. " (2.1) Source: 1. . http://www.daclarke.org... ================================================= Contention 3: Santa and his crew would be incinerated upon an annual attempt. The force described above would cause the lead reindeer to each experience "14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy" (3.1). They would be incinerated in this heat, and the same heat would incinerate the next two reindeer on down the line. The entire sleigh and reindeer would be incinerated in "4.26 thousandths of a second" (3.1). This would kill Santa. Conclusion: "If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now. " (3.1) Source: 1. . http://www.daclarke.org... ================================================= Conclusion: Not anything exists, so Santa Claus doesn't exist. Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead under hundreds of thousands of tons of pressure. Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead. under quintillions of joules of energy. ===> THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED. Thank you.
You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

No one can prove to me that Santa Claus is not real and living today. I am not just talking about Saint Nicholas from the 270 A.D. I am talking about the Santa Claus that delivers presents on Christmas Eve, and flies in the sky with reindeer. I will let my opponent start. Source: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Battlefield vs. Call Of Duty

Call of Duty extends much past Ghosts. MW1 set the stage for modern day first person shooters and won multiple Game of the Year awards. World at War introduced nazi zombies, an incredibly fun, fast paced game mode that was always fun to play with friends. Does battlefield have nazi zombies? MW2 is widely considered the best Call of Duty for the innovations it made on multiplayer mode, such as having multiple killstreaks. Does battlefield have killstreaks? Black Ops 1 had a great story, great online, and improved on Nazi Zombies even further. Do any of the battlefields have a great story? You have to look past this current generation to see that thus far, Call of Duty has just been the more overall successful series. Battlefield is great, don't get me wrong; the graphics are top notch, the gameplay is top notch, the maps are generally very well designed, but Call of Duty has this unique game feel that no other first person shooter has come close to matching. Along with that, the maps are small, killstreaks are a very cool feature that rewards a player for getting kills, the game modes are always fun and fast paced, and they always add some extra feature besides online and campaign mode to keep you coming back for more. If you want to say that Battlefield 4 is better than Call of Duty: Ghosts, then fine. I'll accept that, heck, I'll even agree with that. But I do not agree with the statement that the Battlefield series is better than the CoD series.
Competitive video games should be considered a sport.

According to dictionary.com, sport is an aphetic form of disport, which means "To divert or amuse (oneself)" According to SportAccord, for something to be considered a sport, the following guidelines must be met: Have an element of competition Be in no way harmful to any living creature Not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football) Not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport Competitive video games have an element of competition, are not harmful (when played by guidelines as with any other sport), are generally proprietary, and don't rely on any "luck" element.
Competitive video games should be considered a sport.

you think that a video game can be called a sport. Wow. Back, I don't know, about twenty years ago, people went outside and that was called a sport. Football is a sport, even cheer leading is a sport. Sitting in your house on your butt is not playing a sport. That is just highly offensive to sport players like myself. I play sports. You name it, I can play it. People wonder why there is childhood obesity. Because dumb people like these think that playing a video game is a sport. I mean, get real, people.
Black Lives Matter does not help blacks nor blacks should be with BLM.

"Really? Your just gonna defy statistics and say WELL because I said so it must be true. "Well, No. I acknowledge the statistics but these injustices do happen to black people. The situation that happened with Philando Castile wouldn't have happened with a white man. "Threatened the police"Threatened how? Sources please. "No one knows how difficult it is to save your own life"They were tussling back and forth while the cop was inside the car, The cop shot him, Michael Brown then ran and the cop fond him and then Michael Brown went towards the cop and lowered his guard, On his knees with his hands up. At that point, Darren Wilson could have easily handcuffed and arrested Michael Brown with his gun still drawn to him, Without repeatedly shooting him. He took extreme measures unnecessarily. "From radicals like brown who only caused more crime. "Speaking like that on a deceased person? How heartless"Slavery happened over 150 years ago before BLM. "Does not matter, Here you go, Basically saying to get over it. It happened long ago but it still affects us today, And there is underlying slavery. "Yes. But does society oppress blacks. No. If that was true how can a black person rise to the top of America. "Yeah, After 43 white presidents, A black president finally comes. Let that sink in. "How come there are black sheriffs who are against BLM. "Maybe they are whitewashed. Also, I do acknowledge the good cops I'm not saying that every cop is bad and racist. It's just the few racist ones unfortunately give cops a bad name. I already said the definition of All Lives Matter, And that's what it really means. Thanks for the debate.
Black Lives Matter does not help blacks nor blacks should be with BLM.

"According to me, It affects blacks differently. " Really? Your just gonna defy statistics and say WELL because I said so it must be true. Just because one case of jurisdictions being racist doesn't make blacks oppressed nor whites having privilege. You say white man in the next case but this isn't a race issue, It's a debate whether if criminals are mentally unstable to not get a sentence. Keep saying that blacks are shot more but its not true. "He was on his hands and his knees, Pleading for his life and Darren Wilson decided to still kill him. That is immoral and I don't see how a human being could do that. What he did should have been illegal. " Wrong, He grabbed for the gun, Threatened the police officer and robbed a convenience store, If you were in that situation, You would have shot, No one knows how difficult it is to save your own life from radicals like brown who only caused more crime. "Then explain slavery. " Slavery happened over 150 years ago before BLM. "Easily (key word, Easily) becoming victim to both law enforcement and the judicial system alike unfairly. They don't have to worry about their teenage children's unjustified death being mocked" First, I have debunked this stupid point of Police Brutality is against blacks and a couple of racist does not make blacks oppressed. Black people don't have to get tortured because of their political beliefs. Again they are racists but as a society as a whole it doesn't oppress blacks and CON has failed to bring many examples of this happening. As well as history doesn't make their point either since it was way before BLM. BLM does not want blacks to succeed because they don't talk about the issues that actually matter to blacks and actually riot and destroy black businesses. Racism and oppressing blacks is a lot different. Are there racists. Yes. But does society oppress blacks. No. If that was true how can a black person rise to the top of America. "cops hate black people and want to kill them all. " Really. How come there are black sheriffs who are against BLM. How come just because they are a few racist cops you can try and paint 850k to 1 million cops racist when they protect blacks. All Lives Matter mean that we should be tackling Police Brutality as not a race issue. Has there been All Lives Matter protests that have gone violent and caused massive riots.
Truth is absolute.

Also, note that the time limit is 24 hours; a full day. I hope the Instigator is ready to create their argument. But first, we need to define "truth", since it's crucial to understanding the resolution. According to dictionary. com, one definition is "conformity with fact or reality; verity". I'll let Pro expand on his case. In the 2nd round (assuming Pro hasn'r already left), I will show that Truth isn't always absolute. With that, let's hear their argument.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial".

Thank you. I will now refute your aguments, as is quoted here: "Humans are not artificial. God created us, using only dust and breathed into us the breath of Life. Humans are not artificial because we are not made by other men." I do not believe that God created humans, for I have yet to find proof that he did. Your argument depends on the existence of God, which is an evidence-less stance.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial".

Thank you, Warren188. Many people believe that artificial means human-made, and that natural means from nature. Let's take a look at those definitions: First, "artificial" meaning human-made. But then that must mean that any human is "artificial"? Many would disagree, and I have never met a person who agrees. So, if "natural" and "artificial" are mutually exclusive, and many people say they are, this means that humans are "natural". But if humans are "natural" and the things that they make "artificial" things out of are also "natural", does that mean anything "artificial" is made by "natural" processes from "natural" things? BUT if something comes from "natural" materials and "natural" processes, does that mean that it comes from nature and is therefore "natural"? Fundamentally speaking, humans are no different from the vulture that breaks an egg with a stone, or a chimpanzee that collects termites with sticks. Humans creating plastics out of petrochemicals is no more "artificial" from any animal creating waste out food, or descendants out of sperm and egg. So I argue that "artificial" and "natural" are two terms that are too confusingly vague and poorly applied to be considered clearly separate concepts. I ask you to please see if you can give me the answers to my questions.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial".

I think that the words "natural" and "artificial" are too vague and have no clearly defined boundary. By the "human-made" definition of "artificial", babies are artificial, but anyone who has presented me the "human-made" definition still has disagreed that babies are artificial. If anyone can give me a clear definition of the boundary between "artificial" and "natural", please do. If that boundary is non-arbitrary, even better.
Should The US Have Open Borders.

1. Disease May spread anyway but lowering immigration and increasing border security will decrease foreing diseases that come from continents like Africa and Asia, and Europe that is the equivalent to saying "Murders happen anyway so why stop them". 2. I disregarded your argument because just because terrorism happens in the US by its own citizens doesn't mean we should ignore foreign threats. 3. Voter Fraud does have to do with open borders because if there were open borders you could easily get into the US and change the vote in your countries favor. and disregard "Vote Pro." as in is a bad thing to put and should not be put in. 4 a Debate is a Offence. and the only Arguments you have bought up are "It doesn't relate" and "Americans do it as well" and you are trying to use the argument of Burden of proof fallacy. i will also not default the argument as you have not proven to me why we should have open borders.
Should The US Have Open Borders.

Diseases spread regardless, so this argument is not unique to a stronger/open border, therefore can be disregarded. My opponent fails to refute my question from Round 2 on terrorism, therefore extend that argument across the flow. I win offense on this. We might as well have open borders because closing them will not stop terrorism. Therefore, Vote Pro. Voter fraud has to do with state borders, not the US border. This argument is also won by me, because it LITERALLY has nothing to do with open borders. Vote Pro. -- My opponent literally has no offense in the debate, and has not provided a single unique argument that should show why we should close the border. You as the judge must default vote Pro in the debate. Thank you
Should The US Have Open Borders.

1.The Spread Of Disease many illegals come from some of the poorest communities with little access to health care they may carry diseases such as scabies, TB, MRSA or staph, Which intern would cause a safety risk for Americans and about non-citizens i could careless as they do not live in the US or if they do should not be in the US, and the attacks that originate in the borders 206 Terrorists have been Non-Us Citizens and 190 are of US origin without those 206 terrorists from other nations it would make it easier for us to stop Domestic terrorists 2.Either way ignoring foreign terrorism by saying "Americans can be terrorists as well" is a stupid argument. 3. Voter Fraud has everything to do with this and by just using your argument "that it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with national borders." is a fallacy and Stronger borders and more Quicker Deportation laws could lower Voting fraud. 4. the burden of proof is "Proving a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief." I am not confident nor am i Forceful with my claim neither of us have the burden of proof and using it as an argument is a straw man.
Should The US Have Open Borders.

The Safety of US Citizens. Crafting a system in which American authorities have no idea who is in the country is a recipe for public safety disaster. The Threat of Terrorism. Both of our borders, are a source of Stress with regard to terror, a report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee found that the Canadian border gives easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists and criminals whose purpose clearly is to harm the American people. Voter Fraud As most immigrants can easily commit voting fraud a voting license is not permitted (Some States Use Driver Licences but not many) Arguing for open borders is irrational and extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The Xbox 360 is a better game console than The Playstation 3

I have personally owned both consoles and love them both. But I do find the xbox 360 to be a better overall console. For the following points 1. The games that are only available for xbox 360 are better than PS3. Halo Series (XBOX) vs. Little Big Planet (PS3) 2. After playing all different types of games online on both consoles (NHL, FIFA, COD, AC3, F1 2012, ect.) I find the xbox community has better and friendlier competition. Disregarding the occasional fights on both consoles I feel the xbox community overall can make jokes, have fun, and get along much better. 3. Kinect. The kinect is just a great little device that is compatible with almost all of the newer games and is fun and an excellent source of exercise with no controllers. or buttons. while the playstation move is just a controller that you shake and still have to press buttons and is available for only a limited amount of games That is what i have to start and good luck to my opponent
Hell, as a place of eternal torment, cannot be justified

Thanks con. I don't think con has understood my argument for 1) which states that finite human beings shouldn't be punished for eternal torment. Whether the human soul is eternal or not was not my concern with this argument. My argument states that since human beings ony commit a finite amount of sin since they can only live "X" years until they die, why would a finite time of sin justify an *eternal* fate of torment for a human soul forever? 2) my own doubts about whether an eternal hell exists or not is irrelevant to this debate. You are taking the side arguing that such a hell exists. It's your burden of proof (as you've said), to argue why this eternal place of torment is justifiable. Furthermore, whether or not *Hitler* went to hell doesn't disprove my analogy. Why would somebody extremely evil, who lived in a time period after somebody less evil, be sentenced to eternal torment earlier if the person who was more evil deserves more punishment?