BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A priori knowledge exists.

I am arguing that syntesization of experience has nothing to do with a priori knowledge. "True definition" is definition stated for this debate in Round 1, that Pro agreed upon by accepting. "True definition" is not definition Pro had in mind. I never denied logic. I said it is not know knowledge, but belief. We can and must use some belief for further reasoning. Since Pro made appeal to authority, I will quote Friedrich Nietzsche himself: "Necessity and universal importance can never be found in experience! Therefore, they are independent of experience, before each experience! Knowledge which comes a priori, independent of all experience from reason itself, 'pure knowledge'! 'Basic principles of logic, principle of identity and contradiction, are pure knowledge, because they precede each experience.' - But they are not at all knowledge, but parts of faith which have regulative character."
A priori knowledge exists.

Synthesization of experienceIt seemed like Con agreed this was a priori, yet he states that it doesn't fit the definition. It's never been contested that we possess an a priori conceptual framework as a precondition to experience. Since this framework is innate, it's indepdendent of experience, so even Con's definition matches it. I also argue that Con's counter is a strawman given the true definition of a priori. All bachelors are unmarried menCon's definition pushes a priori knowledge solely into the domain of innate ideas which is only part of what a priori is about. Stanford E. itself says the definition is too stringent and that a priori "means that they could be justified independent of experience beyond that which is needed to acquire the relevant concepts needed to understand those propositions." No experience is required to form tautologies beyond the rellevent notions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil. is a far better authority than Con. A priori is not solely about innate ideas completely independent of experience. Either way, I've already proven innate ideas. A=AIf all logic and rational thinking rests on A=A then Con just further proves 1) his radical skepticism refutes his own case which must be based on logic and rational thinking. 2) Nothing is more certain than the fact A=A. 3) A=A is innate.Con cannot both use logic and reasoning while simltaneously denying it. If we can know A=A then I win this debate. What could be more easy?Possible worldsI don't see how Con could look over an entire argument.This is not about mathematics. It's about necessity and contingency. A posteriori knowledge only gives us the world as it actually is, but we can know what must be true in every possible world (2+2=4) ergo, empricism is not our only type of knowledge. Semantics only changes how we express truths not the truths themselves. Mathematics is true independent of language.Con is obviously confused about what I mean by a priori. I ask him to review the Stanford entry.
A priori knowledge exists.

can not by definition be present in synthesization of experience. Aside from that (a priori part), explanation of syntesization of experience is good; and not relevant to debate. All bachelors are unmarried menI don't have an idea what "completely independent of experience in every possible sense" is supposed to mean. If one needs some experience to obtain certain knowledge, then that knowledge is not a priori by definition. My opponent has not pointed out any way I could find out bachelors = unmarried man other than by hearing or reading it. Many philosophers are wrong about lots of things. If it wasn't the case, they would not be rebutting each other all the time. In fact, many philosophers are taking position that concept of a priori knowledge is based on fallacy. A=AAnswer to the question: All logic and rational thinking does not point to A = A; rather: All logic and rational thinking are based on assumption that A = A. Nothing within the logic suggests that laws of logic are not assumptions. Possible worldsI am asking my opponent to excuse the fact that I overlooked his entire paragraph. He has not pointed out what in it is supposed to be example or proof of a priori knowledge, but I will assume it is "2+2=4". If in imaginary world some people were using exact same mathematics, but only with cipher 2 being 3, and cipher 3 being 2, than 2+2 would be 6. All other alterations are also possible. 2+2=4 is true only because we have agreed upon it worldwide. It seems like my opponent considers a priori knowledge to be everything that in not first conclusion from experience, but conclusion from [conclusion from experience]. Example: All roses are red - a posteriori; blood is red - a posteriori; Blood and roses have same color - a prioriIs this the case?
A priori knowledge exists.

Synthesization of experienceCon states that he agrees with this part. Since this was an argument for a priori knowledge, that would mean Con concedes the debate, so I'm somewhat confused. All bachelors are unmarried menCon is straw manning a priori knowledge in his effort to define a priori knowledge as knowledge completely independent of experience in every possible sense. "But how could there be any justification apart from experience? Don't people have to learn from experience what bachelors, crows, and knowledge are in order to be justified in believing...The requirement that a priori knowledge (and justification) be absolutely independent of all experience seems too stringent and suggests that all a priori knowledge (and justification) must rest on innate ideas...To say that a person could be justified in believing any of (1a)–(14a) independent of experience means that they could be justified independent of experience beyond that which is needed to acquire the relevant concepts needed to understand those propositions."-Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWe gain a certain degree of our knowledge through experience, such as the notions of men and marriage. But beyond that, we don't need experience to tell us that all bachelors are unmarried men. That part is a priori and fits perfectly with what philosophers mean when they talk about knowledge independent of experience.A=ACon says we cannot know any of the laws of logic to be true. Since all knowledge is in some way grounded in logic, I ask how this is not self-defeating to any argument he makes. All of logic and rational thinking points to A being equal to A thus making it valid reasoning and matching the definition of knowledge.Possible worldsIgnored completely.Argument to argument summary1. Concession2. Con bases his counter on a strawman notion of a priori requirements3. Con Bases his counter on self-defeating radical skepticism4. IgnoredRemember, I only need to win on one point to win this debate.
Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragon vs. 3 Blue Eyes White Dragons

For one, Future Fusion and Return From a Different Dimension are both banned. Even if future fusion wasn't banned, your monster is summoned after the 2ND STANDBY PHASE. 2nd of all, how would you mill through your deck? Only thing that can get a card to your hand directly is Gold Sarcophagus. Lavalval Chain puts a card on top of your deck but only a monster card. 3rd, infected mail only works for LVL 4 OR LOWER MONSTERS. 4th, how can you get all these dark bribes and forbidden lances in your hand as well as the cards needed to summon Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragon? Your rebuttal is very illogical and hard to accomplish even if it happened over many turns. Lastly, you said you could summon a third with another Polymerization, but your argument is over 2 Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragons.
Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragon vs. 3 Blue Eyes White Dragons

Even though this would take a good hand, it is no where near impossible. Mill through your deck to find future fusion, return from different dimension, soul release, 2 infected mail, polymerization, and dragon mirror. Use future fusion to fusion summon a Blue eyes Ultimate by sending three blue eyes white dragons from your deck to the graveyard. Then use a dragon mirror to Summon another. Play return from different dimension to summon those three after using soul release to exile them. Use polymerization to fusion summon a third, then play infected mail x2 and use it to attack your opponent directly for 9000. After this, you simply use things like dark bribe, forbidden lance, or some other spell or trap that negates traps and spells your opponent activates.
Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragon vs. 3 Blue Eyes White Dragons

Challenge accepted. I would like to first open the debate with the challenge of summoning these monsters. For one, to get 2 Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragons, you would need Polymerization, and a Dragon's Mirror for the easiest possible way to bring 2 to the field. For this, you would need a pretty good hand to do it in one turn. You would need at least 2-3 Blue Eyes White Dragons, a possible substitute card such as King Of The Swamp, and a Dragon's Mirror. Of course it can't a an FTK because you can't attack first turn, so you would have to wait next turn. Your opponent may have trap cards set up such as Mirror Force, Bottomless Trap Hole, Dimensional Prison, etc. Since you only control 2 monsters, they are more prone to Magical Cylinder and Dimension Prison for your OTK. Now with 3 Blue Eyes White Dragons, there are many cards that can summon Blue Eyes. Cards are as follow: Red Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon, Silver's Cry, Ancient Rules, Maiden With The Eyes Of Blue, Kaibaman, Paladin Of White Dragon, Princess Cologne, Ninjitsu Art of Super-Transformation, Decoy Dragon, Kidomo Dragon etc. This card can be very easily added to your hand with cards such as White Stone of Legend. Plus, if you ever need it, you can use it for a rank 8 xyz summon for cards such as Thunder End Dragon and Number 107. As you can see, 3 Blue Eyes White Dragons are a more sensible choice.
Banning food and drinks at School

FrameworkBy foods and drinks, it is junk food. BoP is shared. Opponent's rebuttals will be rebutted in the next round.ArgumentsI have one argument1. Bad for healthFirst of all, these food and drinks are bad for your health. Example, pizza and soda. These have bad things, making you energetic, and not focusing on your classwork. Because of these food and drinks, students cannot participate in their classwork because of the energy. After, you will be tired. Overall, food, drinks are just bad for you.Thanks.
Banning food and drinks at School

Hi I Go to BHS. Today they Banned food and drinks at school. It made a lot of people mad. if you have a water bottle you get an office referral and iss and whatever. so people in the school have diabetes. I have diabetes and I am allowed to eat because my sugar will get low and I have to bring it up. and my friends will turn on me because I get to eat and drink and they don't. I have other medical conditions that require me to drink water and eat bc I will die or whatever. but I think its stupid that they are banning food and water. our little town has unclean water the water fountain are nasty. but they are also banning bathrooms too. if you ask to use bathroom we get our cards sign and have to have detention. But I have to take medicine at school and I use they drink I have to have and one of them requires water and I use my water bottle but now I'm not allowed to use it anymore because its banned. but anyways. tell me how you guys think this is wrong or right :)
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

I am a born again Christian who believes the bible is scientific accurate and historically correct in every detail and also believes that every kind of evolution 1.Stellar evolution 2.cosmic evolution 3.organic evolution 4.chemical evolution 5.macro evolution 6. And last but not least micro evolution which happens but the rest have no proof and since you can't prove that God doesn't exist then atheism and evolution are religious. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong if I am proved wrong then I will denounce my faith.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Scientists can *also* know how old dinosaur bones are by looking at the rocks above and below the dinosaur's bones. Wow those are some small noses even though the topic of dinosaur noses is irrelevant..when Adam and Eve got cast out of the garden, the bible states that they were susceptible at diseases, so them living that long and having more children doesn't make sense (no surprise.) The lack of belief states that even if there is a God, athiests don't believe in Him. If its so obvious, why are you debating it? How the boat was made is faulted because glass hadn't been invented yet, so.. If people reinvented things, we'd be way more advanced today by our ancestors. Just like animals today, scientists have deducted which dinosaurs are meat and which ate plants. The dinosaurs with sharp pointed teeth ate meat, those teeth are for ripping meat not eating plants, and herbivores had flatter grinding teeth for eating plants.. Yes, there have been *sightings* of things such as your mokele mbembe, bigfoot, the yeti, the loch ness monster, and so on, but these have never been proven. And in the link that you so generously provided me with, the picture is in black and white, so it was taken some time ago, and if you look up those words, it says that there hasn't been a sighting in over 250 years. God hasn't been proven. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I'm an atheist. I could be muslim. Just saying. Yeah that was boring, just saying.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Hmmmmm I thought that isotopes is used to measure atomic number and mass number some people say that scientists use carbon dating even though it has some flaws but I wouldn't get to much into it. When Dinosaurs were around they were 80 ft creatures with noses the same size as a horses the ecological conditions must have been a lot (different) than it is today and is probably why humans got to live so long before the flood. Thanks captain obvious, but in the first stanza I would like to point out the word "belief", you're not sure that there are any God or gods and since you cling to evolution it's a religion because it's a philosophy on how the world got here with No evidence. I'm just going to say how God told Noah how he should make the Ark Genesis 6:15-17 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. By the way if people lived to be 900+ year's they could learn a lot and if there was a global flood like it says in the Bible that would completely destroy civilisation and sometimes you would get people reinventing things people made hundreds if not thousands of years before. For starters you have never seen a dinosaur and you're making assumptions on what it ate. There are hundreds of forest's in the world that haven't even been observed and just search up these words on Google and see what you get mokele mbembe . http://www.forbidden-history.com... Evolution hasn't been proven and you are an atheist you said you don't believe in God. Hence why you're on debate. org and I said just watch 10 minutes of it not the whole thing you can watch it in your spare time. Thank you Bridget.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Scientists study the isotopes and the parent daughter relationship between the atoms to date dinosaur bones. I don't want to get into it too much, but people study to be paleontologists, so unless you're saying that every paleontologist is studying paleontology wrong, then so be it. The bible says that Adam and Eve could have had multiple sons and daughters, as Adam supposedly lived to be over 900 years old (totally believable), but there were no other people, so Cain and Adam's other children had to have populated the earth by having children. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of belief in God or gods. It is often mistaken for the belief that God or gods exist, but it is the lack of belief in them. If there was a flood, the water would still get in the window, and if there's a window, it kind of defeats the point of the ark being airtight. And how did they even make the boat airtight? It's not like they had paste or anything that they could put on there. And glass windows weren't even invented until the 17th century, so...Even if they had a window there would be NO WAY that they could make it sealed. Out of all the carnivores on the ark, there would be many, many of them that would want to eat meat, and if they don't get fed, then they would eat the zebras and gazelles and so on. And if dinosaurs WERE on the ark, then they would definitely eat other animals..carnivorous dinosaurs need meat to live, which is why they are carnivorous. So God said to bring two of every animal onto the ark, but after the flood he knew they were going to hunt all species of dinosaurs into extinction? If evolution and religion can't be proved, then they are both philosophies, but eventually evolution could be proven. I never said I was an atheist, either. I did not watch those because I don't have hours to sit around all day..I don't have that much 'spear time.'
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

If I may ask what Method did the scientist use to date the dinosaurs bones? Show me where it says they ONLY had Cain and Abel because in my Bible it says in Genesis 4:17 in the first line it says and Cain knew his WIFE take that as you will. I never said Atheist cant keep an open mind I said most Atheist I know don't keep an open mind you're starting to twist my words I don't know why you would think I'm trying to smite someone because of their religion wait... are you admitting that Atheism/Evolution is a religion? And where are you getting that statistic from btw I live in the UK and they're not a minority over here. The window would probably be at the top of the Ark not the bottom. It is possible there has been a lion that never ate meat http://creation.com... Is that a rhetorical question? I personally don't think dinosaurs are extinct but if they were its probably because after the flood when humans started to rebuild society they started hunting certain animals probably dinosaurs and its probably why they're not around its not the first animal humans have hunted until it became extinct. The thing is there isn't any evidence for evolution so its still a philosophy and the fact that you said that religion cant be proved and previously you said that you were "open minded" take that as you will..... I think you should dig deeper you don't have to watch all of it. Give it a try what have you got to lose, you can watch them in your spear time.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

They have proved how long ago the dinosaurs lived by their bones?? The bible says that Adam and Eve only had Cain and Able, and that Cain killed Able. Even IF there was a daughter, did the daughter reproduce with Cain? Incest is frowned upon in the Bible. Your remark on how Atheists dont keep an open mind proves that people of religion clearly cant keep an open mind about other people. I dont see why anyone would smite someone because of their religion. Atheists are only frowned upon because they are in the minority in the USA. There was a window in the ark? Wow. Okay. Assuming that glass was even invented, and they found some way to frame A window into the Ark, they would have let water into the ark drowning them. It is impossible for lions, bears, cougars, etc, to stay alive without meat. If they were herbivores, how did Noah get enough plants to feed all of the animals, a garden inside the Ark, perhaps? If dinosaurs made it on the ark, they wouldnt be extinct..every other animal wasnt extinct. Evolution is far more likely to not be philosophy, as there can eventually be proof of how humans came to be. Religion, however, can never be proven.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Just one question "HOW" have scientist proved that dinosaurs lived before man and where did you get this information from? Cain didn't have sex with Eve it says in Genesis 5 that Adam had sons and daughters. ok that made me laugh most atheist don't keep an open mind trust me. there was a window in the ark so they would constantly get fresh air. I believe every animal before the flood was a herbivore because God only gave them permission to eat herbs. Dinosaurs did make it on the ark why would you think that they didn't make it on the ark. You must have skimmed my post because I said a religion is a philosophy about how the world got here without proof and evolution is one of them and its true (only evolution 1-5)
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Scientists have proven that dinosaurs lived way before the bibe says adam and eve were created. The bible says that god worked for 6 days and only created Adam and Eve on the 6th day, so either Cain had sex with Eve to populate the earth, the story still not making sense, or the bible is just made up of lies. The latter seems more appealing. Not all atheists believe in evolution. A good number of them don't have a belief of how humans were made and they can accept that without making up something to make sense of it. Remember people that believe can't prove his existence either, its just that atheists keep an open mind. Some examples of errors in the Bible are: If noahs boat was airtight during the flood, then they couldn't breathe, if it wasn't, they would have drowned Another of noahs errors is that they would have needed to take more than two of every animal to feed the carnivorous animals. And another one is Noah was ordered to put two of every animal into the ark, but dinosaurs didn't make it on there, considering you believe that dinosaurs existed the same time as humans? I could go on about poor Noah, but I'm tired of pointing out that stories flaws. There is no proof of God, so you're saying if there's no proof of something it should be a religion?
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

I think before the flood dinosaurs have always lived with man. With the Cain and Abel story it was only talking about two brothers the bible never said that they were the only people on the earth. In my definition a religion is a faith based philosophy based on what you think of how the universe came into existence and since atheist can't disprove God then they must have "faith" that evolution is the reason for the earth's existence. I think the people who study religion's eg Christianity is called theologians not scientists and btw what are the errors in the Bible? I said that I will denounce my faith because I am that confident that there is no proof for evolution 1-5 and so making atheism a religion.
Evolution and Atheism is a religion

Regarding you thinking that the bible is scientifically accurate..when did the dinosaurs come in..and after eve had cain and able, and able died, how was there suddenly a huge town full of people if God only made Adam and eve? Anyway, you thinking that atheism is a religion is ridiculous. Atheism is the LACK of religion. Scientology is a religion, but atheism is NOT. and no, we cannot absolutely prove that god doesnt exist, but scientists have found that the bible is so incorrect in so many ways that it makes God's existence unlikely. And you saying that if you are proved wrong you will denounce your faith means that you dont really believe that God exists, so your first paragraph is utter nonsense.