BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
waffles are better then pancakes..

1. My culture argument was not addressed, so please extend that. 2. The importance of fluffiness is not merely an opinion. As I have stated, the culinary world at large values this characteristic. 3. While one may place a variety of fruits within waffles, this does not counter my crepe argument. A crepe can contain essentially anything, whereas a waffle is subject to limitations. Therefore, extend my variety argument. 4. This does not address the syrup argument, but merely brings up lubrication. However, a syrup-saturated bit of pancake is plenty lubricated. Extend my points on "optimal syrup". 5. True, waffles may be toasted, note that this ability s paralleled by toast. What exactly is the benefit of this? 6. When consuming a Western delicacy, one ought adhere to the customary table manners, which suggest that the waffle not be handled.
waffles are better then pancakes..

I see your points... but there all opinions or just applying to both.. AS you had stated "Pancakes have a fluffier, and therefore, superior texture" This would be an example of an opinion. Also while pancakes can indeed be imbued with fruits and other assorted things.. so can waffles. There are indeed in existence blueberry waffles, chocolate waffles, homestyle, etc. showing that waffles can be both healthy and have variety. You also mentioned that pancakes absorb most if not all of the syrup. Waffles often have voids into which syrup can seep leaving some syrup outside of the waffle whilst having some within.This provides better lubrication for easier passage down the esophagus. I would also like to mention that Waffles have an unparalleled ability to be toasted. Also there grid like structure enables them to remain firm for easier handling and eating. I hope these arguments are suitable and I look forward to round 2
waffles are better then pancakes..

Pancake: "a flat cake of thin batter fried on both sides on a griddle" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Given this definition, the pancake family consists of a variety of delicacies, most prominently, the American pancake, or "flapjack", and the French "crepe" Note that the pancake is present in nearly every historic, and modern culture, demonstrating a universal, and justified appeal. The waffle, on the other hand, is merely a batter construct designed to fulfill the syrup fetish of Western European cultures. Arguments Flapjack: 1. Pancakes have a fluffier, and therefore, superior texture. Fluffiness is valued throughout the culinary world when applied to batter-based goods. 2. Pancakes may be imbued with any number of fruits: blueberries, strawberries, etc. These inclusions lead to greater potential variety, and appeals to fruit-lovers, while not excluding those who persist in fetishizing syrup. Fruit, in addition, is far healthier than syrup, and, in and of itself, provides health benefits: vitamins, minerals, etc. Crepe: 1. Crepes present an infinite quantity of possibilities. They may be filled with any substance desired by the hungry connoisseur of breakfasts. Undoubtedly, anyone should be able to discover a healthier, and tastier alternative to superior. Refutations: "For one waffles have a way to actually HOLD your syrup within. allowing for optimal syrup in your bites." Pancakes, due to their fluffy texture, tend to absorb syrup at a greater rate, and with some coaxing, may be entirely saturated. Thus, the pancake and syrup become a single, homogeneous delicacy, preferable to syrup contained within a cup of batter. The "optimal syrup" argument is clearly a turn. Thanks for posting. I hope you find my arguments to be "viable".
Women over forty should not be allowed to wear provocative clothing.

My position is that a women can wear sexy clothing at any age. The comment put forwards by my opponent suggests that someone being sexually assaulted is due to what they are wearing. The fact is however that people with that belief system often have an increased proclivity to commit these offences. This is because they believe it is the woman's fault and not theirs. " She was looking hot so I raped her! it's her fault for looking hot". If the offender believes this the chances are he will act again in this way again. (1)The clothing a women wears is incidental to the attack and certainly no excuse or reason to limit women of any ages right to wear any clothing they choose. .If my opponent thinks other to this he is likely to score highly on the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale which indicates higher proclivity. .I'm sure my opponent can see the obvious fallacy here. . (1) . http://www.taasa.org...
belief=false=wrong

Definitions: Belief: A firmly held conviction (1). Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality (2). ----- To have a conviction that you will fall on day X, and then to fall on day X, rendered the conviction true.; to say elsewise entails that you did not fall on day X, which is false. My formal argument as to Jim an the store bag provided a better framework; I'll repost: (i) I saw Jim walk out of the grocery store with 2 store bags full of items; (ii) That specific grocery store only issues out bags for customers with purchased items; (iii) Therefore, it is likely (or I believe) that Jim purchased items from said store. My belief that Jim purchased the aforesaid items may or may not be true; thus it is not inherently false, as you assert. For you to successfully rebut this argument you will have to illustrate a logical flaw(s) therein. --- (1): https://www.google.com... (2): https://www.google.com...
belief=false=wrong

If one adheres to logical rules, then, belief does not entail wrongness. For example, one can believe that they will fall down on a given day. Assuming they do not intentionally cause themselves to fall, and that they do in fact fall on that day, then, their belief was rendered true. I will add some formality to another example of logical argumentation: (i) I saw Jim walk out of the grocery store with 2 store bags full of items; (ii) That specific grocery store only issues out bags for customers with purchased items; (iii) Therefore, it is likely (or I believe) that Jim purchased items from said store. This inductive argument concludes with a belief that, albeit likely, may not be true. Induced conclusions are likely true (though susceptible to being false), whereas deduced conclusions, if sound, are necessarily true.
belief=false=wrong

PRO: **it is true that you fell on that day then.. not a belief... once you know it, it is not a belief.** Belief does not equal knowledge, I wholly appreciate that. But as you insistently imply, belief does not presuppose knowledge. A belief is either true or false, but has the lexical context of being presently unknown. It is profoundly fallacious, and definitionally incorrect to assert that belief is equivalent to falsity. PRO: **so is it true that jim bought groceries in the store? or did he steal or find it or have one from last time[?]** The Jim argument was not intended to give an answer, rather its purpose was to demonstrate how my belief of his baggage containing purchased store goods could either be true or false, whichever way you choose to answer. As per your logic, if Jim in fact did buy the items from the store, and I believe that he did (without knowing that he did), my belief is therefore false. How can my belief be false if he did in fact buy the groceries?
The Soviet Tu-160 bomber is superior to any bomber up to 1990

Then let's begin! First, I will simply compare basic statistics of the three planes. Max speed: Tu-160: 1,243 mph B2: 569 mph XB-70 (Valkyrie): 2,065 mph Max operational range: Tu-160: 8,699 miles B2: 7,248 miles XB-70: 4,287 miles Carrying capacity: Tu-160: 363,760 lbs B2: 182,800 lbs XB-70: 234,800 lbs Looking at the above statistics, I do not see why the B2 is competition for the Tu-160. The XB-70, however, is faster (because of afterburner engine) but has a much smaller operational range and carrying capacity. The Tu-160 can simply inflict much more damage than either of its competitors. Engine type: Tu-160: Turbofan B2: Turbofan XB-70: Afterburner Although afterburner engines generate more thrust, they are very inefficient with fuel consumption and are also much easier targets for heat-seeking missiles because they produce a lot of heat. The Tu-160 actually has 2 hard-points, while the B2 and XB-70 have none, giving the Tu-160 more protection. http://www.militaryfactory.com... http://www.militaryfactory.com... http://www.militaryfactory.com... I await my opponent's argument.
The Soviet Tu-160 bomber is superior to any bomber up to 1990

First of all. B2 is a stealth aircraft, meaning that it can't be detected by any means of system.......so I guess the enemies have to eat a lot of carrot...B2s had been many actions, and suffer no loss. (Except for the crash of a B2) B2 can carry the guided bomb, while the TU-160 carries the free fall bomb XB-70 is indeed much faster. But has a few problem, as you had mentioned a few.... B2 can carry the guided bomb, while the TU-160 carries the free fall bomb "easier targets for Heat seeking missile" You can counter that with flares. "TU-160: 1243 mph" According to my source, it's 1379 mph. While Tu-160 needs 4 men, B2 requires 2-3 men. One of Tu-160's missile, Kh-55, is heavier than B2's missile, JASSM. http://www.military-today.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile_family) http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.google.com...
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

1. Humans do not form hierarchies because they are forced to, but because it is necessary. A world where everyone is equal is the world of dreams. And most people require leadership because in times of problems, they cannot make decisions for themselves. This is why people that can make those decisions lead us. These people are chosen fairly in most cases, by democratic election. 2. This is a competitive economy, where you need to offer more to the clients in order to get more. If the money gravitates to the few, it is because they are more intelligent and they earned it. 3. The state is meant to maintain order and organize the populace, but most of all help them in times of need. The government is a public organization, and it is meant to protect the interests of it's people. 4. Are you suggesting communism as a new form of government? Because history shows us that it is simply not a viable alternative. 1. How do you explain the pre capitalist systems where hierarchy was non existent: chiapan peasants, the common land and villages that operated largely without leaders in medieval Europe. Also, children do not form hierarchy until they get to school, where it is shoved down their throats. 2. Yes, but the consumers will go to a store that can sell more products for less, allowing this store to take over its competition making it the dominant company in the area. 3. I'll give my evidence look them up: Battle of Blair Mountain, Colorado war, Anti-Renter movement, Dorr Rebellion, Nicaragua coup de'et, Soviet killings of dissidents, Kent State, the Spanish American War (fought for control of Cuban sugar), police against the IWW, riots of 1877, draft riots, and many more 4. anarchist communism: http://libcom.org...
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

1. Humans do not form hierarchies because they are forced to, but because it is necessary. A world where everyone is equal is the world of dreams. And most people require leadership because in times of problems, they cannot make decisions for themselves. This is why people that can make those decisions lead us. These people are chosen fairly in most cases, by democratic election. 2. This is a competitive economy, where you need to offer more to the clients in order to get more. If the money gravitates to the few, it is because they are more intelligent and they earned it. 3. The state is meant to maintain order and organize the populace, but most of all help them in times of need. The government is a public organization, and it is meant to protect the interests of it's people. 4. Are you suggesting communism as a new form of government? Because history shows us that it is simply not a viable alternative.
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

1. Working for a boss does not create obedient habits of mind, it creates a clear chain of command and authority, something that is as natural as breathing. Even in the wild, animals require leadership, thus the existence of an alpha male. 2. Capital comes into the hands of those who earn it, as it does not fall from trees. These will not become the ruling class, simply the most wealthy. If democracy is maintained, these people would have no power other than that which their economic status grants them. 3. Capital requires security to defend itself, and since capital can buy security, the formation of a state is not necessary at all. 4. Natural disasters require coordination, and that is what government gives. However, this government does not need to be all-powerfull, it must be of the people and for the people. 1. Capitalism creates the need for leadership, and then calls it human nature. Little kids do not form hierarchies until they are sent to school, where they experience it for 12 years. 2. The market values efficiency, so capital will gravitate into fewer hands because they can manage it better. In a city people will gravitate to one butcher who can offer something better than the other 12. 3. The state is a private property defense agency, but using patriotism and its other functions to hide this. 4. Look at the patriot act, passed in a disaster but used for tyranny, in libertarian communism their would be a society of free equals who practiced mutual aid already. Look at the solidarity networks in greece
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

1. Working for a boss does not create obedient habits of mind, it creates a clear chain of command and authority, something that is as natural as breathing. Even in the wild, animals require leadership, thus the existence of an alpha male. 2. Capital comes into the hands of those who earn it, as it does not fall from trees. These will not become the ruling class, simply the most wealthy. If democracy is maintained, these people would have no power other than that which their economic status grants them. 3. Capital requires security to defend itself, and since capital can buy security, the formation of a state is not necessary at all. 4. Natural disasters require coordination, and that is what government gives. However, this government does not need to be all-powerfull, it must be of the people and for the people.
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

here's why: 1. Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority. 2. Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the ruling class. 3. Capital requires as state to defend private property. 4. Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to 1 company, that will keep power after the disaster is over.
anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

1. Saying that hierarchies were non-existent in medieval Europe is wrong. The feudal system that was enforced in those times had hierarchy at it's heart. The peasants had barons over them, who in turn had to pay taxes to the king. And this is only the most simple interpretation. Of course children form hierarchies naturally. There is always one kid in the playground who has more toys, and who the others want to play with more.2. Perhaps, but then the other stores could sell even more products for the same money. And, there are many other factors apart from price which influence the store a customer chooses to buy from.3. I said that the state was meant to protect the interests of it's people, not that it always did. It would be difficult to find a country that does not have problems, but that is because the leaders become corrupted and ignore the needs of their people.4. It is very difficult to choose a system of government, because they are all flawed. However, communism has never worked. It has not worked in Russia, China, Cuba or anywhere. It is a vision of a world if humans were perfect, but we are not. In the end, it always ends in dictatorship.
I will not contradict myself.

I too am looking forward to a battle of wits my opponent. And although my name is Logical-Master, the true purpose of the name is vastly misinterpreted. Nevertheless (and to quote Darth Revan), "Who I am is not important---my message is." Let us begin. Revised Question#5: Do you believe that the Bible accurately interprets who/what God is? Revised Question #10: Based on the following definition, would you say ideas exist: "Mean what exists in the mind as a representation (as of something comprehended) or as a formulation (as of a plan). idea may apply to a mental image or formulation of something seen or known or imagined, to a pure abstraction, or to something assumed or vaguely sensed "
I will not contradict myself.

I am looking forward to this debate, as well as hopefully disproving any claims that my opponent really is a logical master. Maybe my expectations are too high. Anyways, I am submitting this tonight because I will be busy for the next 22 hours and have little time to post arguments. These answers were somewhat rushed, however, I am confident that I have not contradicted myself. I wish my opponent luck in proving otherwise. ============================= #1. Are you Nails? I am indeed the same person who created this account. You could refer to me as Nails. Yes. #2. Are you tough? I'd like to think that I'm tough as nails. Unfortunately, no. I'd describe myself as average on a toughness scale, not tough. #3. Do you believe Santa Claus is real? No #4. What did you have for dinner last night? This isn't a yes or no question. I'd rather not win on a disqualification as simple as this, though, even if it would be to a renowned debater such as yourself, so I'll happily substitute the question you posted in comments: Did you have Dinner last night? Yes, I did. #5. Do you believe existence is dictated by logic? I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Could you ask a different question or clarify this next round? As per Rule 3, you don't need to count it as one of your 10 questions. #6. Do you adhere to the claim "I will not contradict myself"? I do not believe that any statements I make in the rounds of this debate will be contradictory. I do not plan on contradicting myself any time in the future, though it is possible. I have most likely contradicted myself in the past. #7. Do you believe ideas exist? Idea is a genus of butterflies known as Tree nymphs or Paper butterflies. The member species are concentrated around southeast Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org...(genus) Yes, these exist. •a personal view; "he has an idea that we don't like him" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Yes, I also believe that these exist. In my search, I saw a plethora of definitions. If you meant another definition of idea, then I haven't answered your question, and by all means re-ask it. #8. Do you believe God is real? Yes #9. Do you believe God can do anything? Yes #10. Do you believe there is not a today of yesterday's tomorrow? Same as #5. I am very confused as to what you are asking.
I will not contradict myself.

#1. Are you Nails? #2. Are you tough? #3. Do you believe Santa Claus is real? #4. What did you have for dinner last night? #5. Do you believe existence is dictated by logic? #6. Do you adhere to the claim "I will not contradict myself"? #7. Do you believe ideas exist? #8. Do you believe God is real? #9. Do you believe God can do anything? #10. Do you believe there is not a today of yesterday's tomorrow?
I will not contradict myself.

Resolved: I, Nails, will not contradict myself. Rules: 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. =========== I've enjoyed reading these debates and would like to participate in one. If there are any loopholes in the rules, please don't exploit them. I think the general idea is pretty clear. Good luck to whomever my opponent is!
I will not contradict myself.

============= CONTRADICTIONS: | ============= As of now, there have been a total of two contradictions on the instigator's part: Contradiction #1: My opponent does not believe Santa Claus is real. Santa Claus is at very least an idea (based on that definition), thus exist as an idea. My opponent believe ideas exist (and agrees to my definition), ergo . . . a contradiction. Contradiction #2: My opponent believes that God can do anything. He also believes that the Bible accurately interprets who/what God is. Based on the Bible, there are a number of things God cannot do: http://www.letusreason.org... Ergo . . . contradiction. ========== QUESTIONS | ========== 1) Is the answer to this question "I don't know?" 2) Is the answer to the above question "I don't know?" 3) Is the answer to this question "no?" 4) Must something be logical to exist? 5) Are your bones very hard? 6) Do you think it's possibly to truly "know" something? 7) Are contradictions ever beneficial? 8) Are lies considered contradictions? 9) Is it possible to create a rock that cannot be lifted? 10) If Batman and Spider-Man had to fight, would Spider-Man win?
I will not contradict myself.

I'd also like to say thanks to my opponent for helping me out by holding off on posting his round to give me more time to respond. As it turns out, however, I have been able to finish this within the little time to post arguments that I've had. ============================================================================ Revised Question#5: Do you believe that the Bible accurately interprets who/what God is? Yes, I believe that the Bible accurately interprets who/what God is. ============================================================================ Revised Question #10: Based on the following definition, would you say ideas exist: "Mean what exists in the mind as a representation (as of something comprehended) or as a formulation (as of a plan). idea may apply to a mental image or formulation of something seen or known or imagined, to a pure abstraction, or to something assumed or vaguely sensed " Yes, I would say ideas exist. ============================================================================