BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent admits to the contradiction but states it is a "misunderstanding." Well, he should have asked me what I meant.In addition, my opponent stated that he is a Christian in round 4. A Christian, by definition, is a person that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God that should be followed without question. I asked my opponent, "Should the Bible be followed without question" to which he answered "no" implying something is wrong with the Bible, thus he is not a Christian.Lastly, my opponent stated he was a Christian but does not support slavery. The Bible support slavery, and thus contradicts himself in that manner.
War Game scenario: Russia vs China

I accept.I would first like to thank Russia_the_Almighty for allowing me to debate this topic with him. It sounds like it will be a lot of fun!China Forces:Manpower: Total Population: 1,355,692,576 Available Manpower: 749,610,775 Fit for Service: 618,588,627 Reaching Military Age Annually: 19,538,534] Active Frontline Personnel: 2,333,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 2,300,000 Land Systems: Tanks: 9,150 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 4,788 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 1,710 Towed-Artillery: 6,246 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 1,770 Air Power: Total Aircraft: 2,860 Fighters/Interceptors: 1,066 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 1,311 Transport Aircraft: 876 Trainer Aircraft: 352 Helicopters: 908 Attack Helicopters: 196 Naval Power: Total Naval Strength: 673 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 47 Destroyers: 25 Corvettes: 23 Submarines: 10 Coastal Defense Craft: 11 Mine Warfare: 6 Resources (Petroleum/Oil): Oil Production: 4,372,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 9,500,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 17,300,000,000 bbl/day Logistical: Labor Force: 797,600,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 2,030] Major Ports and Terminals: 15 Roadway Coverage: 3,860,800 Railway Coverage: 86,000 Serviceable Airports: 507 Financial (USD): Defense Budget: $145,000,000,000 External Debt: $863,200,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $3,821,000,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $13,390,000,000,000 Geography: Square Land Area: 9,596,961 km Coastline: 14,500 km Shared Border: 22,457 km Waterways: 110,000 km These are all of my military statistics and my WMD will be..... Inter Continental Ballistic Missile with ground jamming capabilities that block that of modern air defenses. Has numerous capabilities to deflect interception missiles. (ICBM)
The Earth is a sphere (it is not flat)

In response to you earlier thing I meant that this does happen and the tree could be observed from a higher altitude and not from a lower one. For the second arguement it is the centre of gravity of the shape that it collapses around. I do not see how this in any way affects the Sun. Okay thirdly, even if the Earth was a circle, you would be able to see all the continents in one go (using the most common flat earth model). Images from the ISS do not show all the continents. Also you say the Earth is slightly accelerating, causing an effect we call gravity. If this is so. What keeps things from floating around on other planets? Say, for example, a rover on Mars on Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin when they walked in the moon. Also if gravity is an effect, how does the moon stay in orbit, how do other planets orbit other stars. What is keeping our atmosphere from floating into space and killing us all. (For reference later space is a vacuum whereby there is no oxygen or nothing else for that matter, so we not be able to survive. Also if the Sun was circling the Earth(using the common flat earth model) despite it illuminating only a certain area (according to flat earthers) but it should be able to be seen on all points of the globe as it is massive. (In comparison, Jupiter could fit about 980 times into it). Also how do you explain long period of darkness in the Polar circles if the Earth is flat. Thank you for reading
The Earth is a sphere (it is not flat)

First of all, a tree will be able to be seen on a flat earth if you were at the top of a mountain just the same as if the earth had a curvature. If the earth had a curvature like you say it does, if you were on top of the mountain you'd almost always see water (or the continent across), which you don't because everything is just lost in the horizon (because of the atmosphere and our limited vision). If what you say is true you should be able to see the tip of a tall mountain from a boat before you see the land, which simply isn't the case. Secondly, for what you say about a shape in space that will collapse into a ball, you are assuming it is revolving around the sun, what would make a planet round is the gravitational pull towards the sun and a single gravitational core in the center. A flat earth, however, is not revolving around itself or the sun. Our flat earth is simply accelerating upwards giving us the effect that we call gravity. A flat earth does not mean a square earth. The curvature you'd see from the ISS (if you were to go there) would be a distortion because of the atmosphere and the angle you're looking at it from, just as you'd see a curvature on one half of a frisbee. Just because something has a curve it doesn't make it a sphere.
The Earth is a sphere (it is not flat)

For this debate I will be saying the Earth is a sphere. First, the Earth could in no way be flat as a tree behind the curvature of the earth could not be seen from sea level.(The curvature of the Earth is in the way). However, if you were at the top of a mountain, you could see the tree. This would not happen if the Earth was flat as the tree would not be behind the curvature. Secondly, any shape in space, more than a few miles long will collapse into a ball shape (a sphere) because of gravity. This is because as far as I know, the sphere isn"t the only 3D shape with an equal amount of gravitational pull at any point on the surface. So the ball is the only shape where movement because of gravity would not happen. Therefore the Earth would have collapse do into a ball. Finally, the curvature of the Earth can be seen from the ISS (The International Space Station). Also for this debate can we not use straw men. Thanks in advance.
Global Warming Should Be Taken Less Seriously

Ok, I will disillusion you of your safe argument that it does not exist.'Global Warming doesn't even exist. Now, this sounds like madness, but let me explain further: The earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling over the years. Just take a look at the ice ages! But instead, we treat it as if some horrible, unprecedented catastrophe has taken place, when truly it's all in our heads'Actually, that's wrong. You are correct that the Earth does go through periods of warming and cooling, but this graph shows differently I think that's pretty clear that Global warming is happening.On to your second point. It is true that volcanoes emit staggering amounts of CO2 , however only about 40% of the human waste in the atmosphere is absorbed by natural processes. Most of the volcanic CO2 is absorbed by natural processes, but in the industrial age we have overwhelemed the natural carbon cycle, as this graph shows. I await your reply.Congrats by the way on your first debate.[1] http://www.livescience.com...;[2] https://www.skepticalscience.com...;
Global Warming Should Be Taken Less Seriously

I believe that global warming has been taken much too seriously. We don't need to worry so much about it, and it costs too much for the government to be spending money on it that it doesn't even have. Here Are My Reasons: 1. Global Warming doesn't even exist. Now, this sounds like madness, but let me explain further: The earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling over the years. Just take a look at the ice ages! But instead, we treat it as if some horrible, unprecedented catastrophe has taken place, when truly it's all in our heads. 2. The amount of carbon put into the ecosystem is completely overshadowed by the amount of carbon put out by natural processes, such as volcanoes. It's just too much to even rival the amount that humans exert. Those are my first two.
Philosophy is dead, or has been replaced by science

Hello everyone, I hope you enjoy my first debate here on debate.org. At the risk of appearing to be moving the goal posts on my opponent, I think it is important to address the framing of the topic and clarify the position I will argue for. The debate, as explicated above, sets up philosophy and science as competing strategies. This is problematic for anyone electing to argue the affirmative of the reslolution if philosophy is a "way of...understanding reality with logical thought." To be clear, science does not eschew logical thought--or even philosophy more generally--in practice. It would be absurd indeed to deny that the application of logical analysis is not useful for understanding the world. What I will argue is that science is a more advanced step along the evolution of strategies and technologies for understanding nature and reality than philosophy. This does not mean that philosophy is dead per se, but it has been replaced insofar as it is not as reliable a method of discovery as science. Just as the ancients replaced mythology with philosophy as a means to determine truth, science is a further improved method for making determinations and verifying claims. Philosophy is no more dead than mythology is, but it is time for philosophy to pass the torch, as it were, and recognize science as the chief arbiter on matters of fact.
Philosophy is dead, or has been replaced by science

I apologize for my definition of philosophy, I meant that it is a field which uses logic to figure out problems in the world usually without empirical evidence or scientific/proven hypothesis, philosophy being pure logic and science being the classic hypothesis/experimentation(using its own form of logic as pro already pointed out). It was foolish of me to assume everyone would know what I was talking about. One of the people in comments asked me what new knowledge philosophy has to offer and here is my list. A. Science cannot teach you how to live. It cannot teach you ethics, how to live, why to live, why live has meaning. Philosophy in my opinion has still not figured out these problems, all the arguments have obvious flaws in them. A system of morals or a lifestyle based upon science will always end in failure because we as humans need more than pure science in our lives. One could perhaps make a statement that Metaphysics is dead but fields like Epistemology and Ethics are far from dead. Even if you said Metaphysics is dead, you are left with paradoxes and questions which cannot be explained by physics(like the Bundle of Hay paradox or the Arrow or half-way paradox, you don't see science trying to explain these even thought they are obviously problems with our current form of logic) B. Philosophy has morphed from being the main way of gaining knowledge into a field which is here to explain what science cannot. Therefore, I contend that philosophy will not be dead until the day science can accurately answer all logical questions about the universe and it of course cannot, in fact it is not that close either. It is foolish of us to think we are the height of scientific achievement and that some of our current theories will not be considered foolish in fifty years. Physics still can't explain much of Quantum Physics, we are still working on String Theory, we cannot explain the Big Bang. This is only the beginning for science maybe in two-hundred years philosophy will be dead/useless but today there are still so many unanswered questions left by science. C. Philosophy is crucial in the development of logic and logical thinking, people can try and deny it but in the study of pure logic, philosophy is the current peak of study. D. Science currently can't explain many concepts in Epistemology and never will be able to. Science is by its nature quantifiable in all of its conclusions and therefore will never be able to answer objective arguments with logic, something philosophy does exceptionally well. I have shown ways in which Philosophy can give new knowledge and proven that the field is not dead.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

The presence of severely mentally ill persons in jails and prisons is an urgent problem. Clinical studies suggest that 6 to 15 percent of persons in city and county jails and 10 to 15 percent of persons in state prisons have severe mental illness. Offenders with severe mental illness generally have acute and chronic mental illness and poor functioning. This suggests not only may the offender's be mentally ill before incarceration, they become more mentally ill whilst incarcerated. This confirms the definite link between criminology entwined with poor mental health. I understand that 25% of population with mental illness are not committing offensive crimes, however, majority of those who are assessed when detained do have a mental illness. They may not make up the whole population of mental illness or criminals, but a hefty amount do have a mental illness when committing the crime and will most likely be prone to it during incarceration as mentioned earlier in the point. Regardless of country, laws or regulations not everyone has the accessibility to improve their mental health or do not have the mental strength to go to the proper facilities, and during these hyped emotions, rash and hasty decisions may be made which hypothetically may lead one to commit an indictable offence. Although you mention, crimes are more likely caused by those battling abuse problems, it may not directly cause a mental illness but abuse problems are commonly developed by those with severe mental illness in order to self-medicate or to relieve their internal pain, leading them to as you said, to commit a crime.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

I understand your point, but one in four people suffer from a mental health related illness at some point in their lives. This makes up one quarter of the population. However 25% of the population hasn't committed a serious indictable offence or minor crime. Therefore suggesting that mental health is related to crime is completely broad and ineffective. It is also found that most mental health related crimes are conducted within the borders of the USA, where people are allowed to carry guns and do not have the right treatment in place to care for and recognise the mentally ill. Therefore they posses a violent gun crime rate, which is a major problem. We here in Australia do not face these same problems. As a country we have better laws, rules and regulations in place to increase the safety of individuals in our community. We also have highly trained professionals that specialise in working, treating and accommodating those suffering from a mental illness, allowing our mental health related crime to be lower. It is also very unfair to blame the mentally ill for crimes. It all stems from problems such as poverty, race, genetics, upbringing, family support, background and previous experiences. None of these problems above are directly linked to violence, which statistics prove to show that the most people who commit crimes are those who suffer from an abuse problem.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

I understand that criminals may be placed under the mental health category, however, 7.5% were properly diagnosed as expressed in your point, that is over half of the population of assessed criminals. Yes, the 2.5%, have been wrongfully written up which I agree is morally incorrect, however, there is a larger percentage that they would consider their crime was linked to a mental illness of sorts. For many years until recently, disorders such as bipolar and schizophrenia were classified as a psychiatric illness - but still considered an affective illness.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

You said that 'police officers detain one out of two that have a history of a mental illness/disorders'. However according to American Psychological association most offenders do not display a history of crime that is linked to mental illness. Scientists put together a study and found that in a crime where offenders were framed of suffering from a mental illness, only 7.5 were actually properly diagnosed by health professionals. This means that the remaining 2.5 were placed under the mental illness category, however medical history would suggest otherwise. It was discovered 429 crimes committed by 143 offenders supposably suffering from 'mental illnesses' were actually related to disorders such as bipolar (10 percent) and schizophrenia (4 percent). These are not mental health related.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, those who are battling mental health are more inclined to commit injustice and illegal acts. In retribution, they develop four times more of a chance in encountering a mental health disorder, then one in public. Though many may argue that others classify one who's committed a crime to have a mental illness or dissorder, police officers detain one out of two that have a history of a mental illness/disorders, and the majority of the time will develop an illness or disorder after the legal system process.
Crimes are linked to mental health.

You suggested that 6 to 15 percent of persons in city/county jails and 10-15 percent of persons in state prisons suffer from a mental illness. This is less than half the percentage made up of people within jails and prisons. Therefore implying that the rest of individuals within these centres do not suffer from a mental illness, proving that crimes are not commonly committed by people suffering from a mental issue. Media often blames the mentally ill for crimes that they have not committed. Stereotypically people normally associated the mentally ill with crime and violence, as they believe that do not have the capacity to function like 'normal'. The media feeds off this stereotyping behaviour, believing that when people have questions as to why and what drove someone to commit a crime and act of violence, they then have the power to suggest that the offender was suffering from a mental illness. The media thinks this will solve the problem and be more comforting for people viewing the crime. The reason for this is the mentally ill, in the publics eye are not classified as "normal" or in the right state of mind. So many people have been wrongfully accused of suffering from a mental illness when in fact there not. Classifying people as mentally ill is just the media's way of hiding what is really true, which is that there are people in our community that commit crimes for no apparent reason. So as you implied about mental health and jail numbers, we need to really think how much of these people based within these centres are actually suffering from a diagnosed mental illness. Even if we subtracted mental illnesses from the situation/crime rate, there still be money, religion, different beliefs and terrorism, therefore there wouldn't really be a vast decrease in crime rate, as all these factors I have listed above contribute and influence crime within our society.
Christians should not be involved in politics.

Christian doctrine does not in any way demand that followers of the Christian faith not be involved in politics... There should be a variety of people involved in most political decisions, because the people making said decisions represent an entire population, not only certain groups. Think about the ramifications of pulling Christians from the house of representatives. There would be absolute chaos and uproar from billions of Christians from around the world. If you're saying that Christians shouldn't be politicians because of their faith, then I don't think that you have no religious nor social grounds. If there's anything a massive religious movement likes, it's power. Another issue is that of Christian interpretation. Individual Christians interpret the bible in different ways. According to Leviticus, Christians shouldn't eat anything from the sea unless it has fins and scales. Some Christians choose to accept this as fact, and don't eat shrimp (very very very few). Most choose to ignore this because, well, Christians like shrimp. Guess what? Christians also like politics. The interpretation of a bible verse by one person (besides the pope) means absolutely nothing. It is generally accepted that Christians can eat shrimp, ergo they eat shrimp. In a scientific test if there are 2000 test subjects and one is an outlier, the effects on that one person are discarded. Your idea that Christian doctrine says that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics is meaningless to the billions of people who interpret the bible differently. Would you post the verses that you are referring to?
Christians should not be involved in politics.

I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that followers of Christ should not be involved in politics. To eliminate any confusion, I will post the definitions here: Christian - a person who is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings (therefore practices them) Politics - the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power I believe those are the only two definitions that are really relevant to this debate. I will cite scriptures from the Bible to justify my position.
Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

My Friend Con (creedhunt) I understand and good luck with your finals. Perhaps, one day academia will teach morality as a force being part of the physical Laws in Nature. When that day comes, a manifestation of a higher level of moral character will migrate through civil societies. And on that day, from this debate, you will have a head start on your finals. I look forward in meeting you on the debating floor in the future. I'm new to debate.org and not sure how to gracefully terminate a debate. Maybe, the timeout will end this debate.
Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

I truly apologize to the floor and to my rather distinguished and intelligent opposition for this. I'm afraid that given my residential situation and the upcoming finals, I will be unable to continue with this debate. I ask that the remaining rounds be forfeited, and we can debate this topic another time. I can challenge Pro when I have more life to spare, or conversely (if it works out better) Pro can challenge me. I understand this is tactless, however please acknowledge that I have a few priorities. Sorry once again, I look forward to debating this in the near future.
Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

I (Pro) would like to explore, from a scientific vantage point, with my opponent (Con) in the construct of morality being part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made. I would like to keep the debate within the following spectrum: That is, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The topic of life's Unalienable Rights have been debated recently, and I encourage Con should review this debate for background. . http://www.debate.org... Ideally Con is familiar with the following two references, but it is not a prerequisite: . http://www.bookdaily.com... . http://www.amazon.com... Pro would like to keep the debate in the realm of physical science as oppose to metaphysical speculation.