BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An Unembodied Mind is Very Complex

I challenge 2-D, Pro, in his following claim, "a disembodied mind is just about the most complex thing I can think of and there is no reason to suspect that this is an explanation for the universe." ... from his RFD here, http://www.debate.org... Pro raises this objection in response to my rebuttal to an objection from Occam's Razor against the existence of God as an explanation of the universe. Here is my critique of this objection, Occam’s Razor First, how simplicity is weighted against other criteria like explanatory power, scope, etc isn’t clear. Nor is it essential for science, as Godfrey Smith explains, "...I do not think we have made much progress on understanding the operation of, or justification for, this preference." Yes, the razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed theoretical scrutiny tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence. But a simpler but less correct theory should not be always preferred over a more complex but more correct one. A theory can even become more complex in terms of its structure, while its ontology becomes simpler, and here it’s not clear which to choose. Simplicity is but one of many epistemic virtues a theory can have but it’s not the most essential. There are times that the razor is too sharp and reduces reality to too little. Kant says, that "the variety of beings should not rashly be diminished." Likewise Karl Menger affirms, that "entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "it is vain to do with fewer what requires more." The contingency of the universe and morals certainly requires more than, “it just exists.” So "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." But leave that aside, an unembodied mind is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, God is not composed of parts in contrast to the contingent and variegated universe a divine mind is startlingly simple. Such a mind may have complex ideas but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. So postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that’s worth. Terms Complex - [Google "define complex"] consisting of many different and connected parts. In chemistry, denoting an ion or molecule in which one or more groups are linked to a metal atom by coordinate bonds. In psychoanalysis, a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior. Simple - composed of a single element; not compound, that is, a unity. Burdens Pro must defend that an unembodied mind would be complex. Whereas I as Con must show that an unembodied mind would be simple.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.

I will point out for the acceptance piece of this round that my opponent has not defined and clarified certain key aspects of the debate. I will proceed to do so. My opponent is clearly not restricting his definition to the standard definition of politics. (the art or science of government as given by Webster dictionary). . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rather for this debate the definition of Politics will be (as laid out by my opponent in round 1) Politics defined as = a decision with the advancement/benefit of the welfare of the national state solely in mind. I accept this more refined and contextual definition for the purpose of this debate. Pro: My opponent will work to prove that all wars have been purely for the advancement of the nation. My opponent will have the burden of proof due to the fact that majority of the authority of historians do not hold a view of my opponents “interpretation” of Clauswitz’s statement. Con: I will work to show that indeed there are clear examples where other motivations rather than just the advancement/benefit of the nation was in view concerning wars in which nations found themselves involved. I await my opponent's argument proving his position.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means. " This is the definition of war in which Carl von Clausewitz presented in his book Vom Krieg, "On War". On War is considered the standard text to military doctrine; and is still required reading in almost every military leadership school of all civilized nations. There are examples in modern times that would demonstrate religion as the root cause of war; thus proving Clausewitz wrong. Pro: will defend Clausewitz's definition by providing examples that even religious wars are fought for political means; or the continuation of politics by other means. Con: will attempt to prove that wars have been waged over differing circumstances; and not solely a political agenda. Good luck. I look forward to an intellectual debate.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.

I will take it from my opponent's comment that I am lost in the 'philosophy' of why humans go to war; that my opponent has neither ever seen a war; nor seen a military conduct themselves in battle. As a soldier in the Canadian Forces; I am more than awe of why nations go to war; but my opponent's argument is invalid anyways. Whether humans love war or not is not the question. The question is whether Clausewitz was right in his statement of war being a continuation of politics; and the means of war to gain victory over our rivals so as to either control their policy; or prevent it from interfering with ours is a continuation of politics entirely. Clausewitz was well aware of human's fascination with war in his time; and my opponent is completely wrong in saying that he could not see the love of war expressed in games or other cultural behaviours. His statement that Clausewitz was wrong is more than damning to his argument; as Clausewitz was a General in the Prussian army who rose through the ranks from a Private; where he saw his first action in war at the age of thirteen. Clausewitz knew more about war than any person today could dream of learning in their lifetime; and Clausewitz knew more about politics than many could achieve today. War is a means to protect our interest from rival states; and preserve our governance. It is the continuation of politics; by other means. While I do applaud my opponent for keeping the rounds even in my absence from posting last round. I was busy on training exercises, and unable to make it to my computer...however debates are won on facts; not personal mockery like the last line of his previous round. I look forward to my opponent sticking to the facts of this debate and not resorting to smart a$$ personal remarks; as they are not a sign of a successful debate.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.

My opponent is hopelessly lost within a quagmire of semantics on this over arching “philosophy” of why nations go to war. I will side step the absurd semantics debate he was engaging in with his first round. Though my opponent has the burden of proof as pro and instigator, I will cut to the chase and succinctly prove his assertions dead wrong and the resolution is clearly false. It is clearly evident that love of war and not politics is the reason for war politics are an active pretext to the warmonger. Contention 1:Humans love to war, whether in a first person aspect or in a strategic/tactical command situation. This desire can take many forms but the pinnacle is to have “high combat” in commanding national war. Video Games: Multitudes simply conduct war for fun; at least this is a less harmful or non-harmful expression of the innate desire for war regardless of the pretext. This also shows that it is not just a love of violence, though that may exist, the complexity of war is loved and born out in strategy games such as Total War. “Give me a nation I will conquer the world.” http://www.totalwar.com... Paintball: Multitudes here again conduct non-lethal war proving that there need be no political motivation to conduct war only the love of war for itself. Again the love of the complexity resulting in the fullness of war is born out in the fact that Paintball “events” become larger and more complex as it develops. http://www.youtube.com... A foot note: this video is great. At minute 1:50 there is a brilliant collision. It is why you must 180 your field of view lol… Alexander the Great: For a real world example of pure love of war… My Opponent himself is an example: Despite how he may respond to win the debate his love of war has lead him to even have this debate on military philosophies of war. Culture is irrelevant: Even in peaceful societies and settings we see paintball and Video games “sate” this lust for war. It is an innate and inherent love “wired” within humans. *********************************************************************** In the end politics has proven to be pretext for many a communist dictator, monarch etc. The burden of proof lies entirely on my opponent. He is pro and instigator. He would have to prove that people do not love war and do not use “pretexts” for war despite obvious and clear evidence to the contrary. Explaining Clausewitz: Clausewitz did not have the advantage we do today in seeing the “love of war” expressed in Paintball and video games. Any children playing “war” in his day would have been largely lacking in complexity and could have been chalked up to children looking to role models, war cultures, etc… Men that loved war joined the military where their love of war could be expressed if fear and danger did not win out first and turn “off” their love of war. Clausewitz was wrong. Here is a snippet articulating on this “sick love of war” we all humans possess. As an aside, I do not necessarily agree with the articles desire to “stop” war. http://www.utne.com... I look forward to my opponent’s change of philosophy.
ur mom should have aborted you

Are you saying that I am the sole reason for you having this view?In that case if my mother had aborted me, you wouldn't have the view that you claim to be true.This means that you are saying that your own view shouldn't have had to have been debated due to the fact that I should have been aborted.This method of metaphorical comparison is not only irrational but self-destructive because you rendered your own debate worth of 'abortion'.
popeye could beat superman and goku at the same time

Resolution:Characters:- Popeye >>> this guy: > Goku & Superman >>> these guys: BOP:- The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that indeed it is possible for Popeye to beat Superman & Goku at the same time. Popeye vs. Goku:Goku’s Power:- Goku is a planet-buster class:1. Kid Buu was able to destroy planet Earth with his Planet Burst [1].2. Kid Buu is a planet-buster.3. Goku’s technic, Super Spirit Bomb, is more powerful than Planet Burst [2]. => Therefore, Goku is a planet-buster class. The Physics:-The Data:(1) The energy required to bust a planet (namely the Earth) is ~ 10^(32)J ( “~” representing equivalence in order of magnitude) [3]. (2) The nutritional energy per 1kg of Spinach is ~ 10^(3)kJ [4]. (3) The mass of the Earth is ~ 10^(24)kg [5]. (4) The age of the Universe is ~ 10^(10) years [6]. (5) World production of Spinach is ~ 10^(10)kg of yearly output [7]. -The Maths: the amount of Spinach needed to bust a planet is (1)/(2) ~ 10^(26)kg which is:> ~ 100 times the Earth’s mass. > ~ 10^(16) = 10,000,000,000,000,000 times the Earth’s yearly output of Spinach. > ~ 1,000,000 times the age of the Universe worth of output. The Battle:- For Popeye to hope to defeat Goku, he has to at least be a planet-buster class. Which will require him to digest 100 times the Earth’s mass worth of Spinach, for 1,000,000 times the age of the Universe! Both of which are physically impossible! Rebuttals:in terms of training popeye is a sailor which means he is often in drunken brawls and fights against pirates and other strong people in his adventures, this prowess and experience in hand to hand combat would give him the edge on superman and goku. - Goku/Superman & Popeye are worlds apart when it comes to fighting experience! Goku was taught martial arts from a very young age by his ‘grand-father’ & by Master Roshi, he was a finalist in the World Tournament at 14, & he then battled the strongest beings in the Universe (Frieza, Cell, Buu, Bills. . . ), not some ‘pirates’! popeye is also not a wus- & Goku is? !! Conclusion:- It is utterly hopeless for Popeye to defeat Goku, for that is physically impossible! Let alone defeat both Superman & Goku at the same time. Thus Pro’s resolution is negated & I win the debate. => Vote Con. Sources:[1] . http://dragonball.wikia.com...[2] . http://dragonball.wikia.com...[3] . http://physics.stackexchange.com...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
popeye could beat superman and goku at the same time

so popeye gets his power from spinach. i argue that if you injected the pure form of the ingredient in spinach that gives him strength he would be powerful enough to beat goku and superman and put an end to this debate of superman and goku. in terms of training popeye is a sailor which means he is often in drunken brawls and fights against pirates and other strong people in his adventures, this prowess and experience in hand to hand combat would give him the edge on superman and goku. popeye is also not a wus, every time he gets knocked down another dose of concentrated pure spinach completely heals him and picks him up again meaning he could eat unlimited amounts of it because his body immediately digests it and turns it into muscle. this gives popeye the advantage of being invincible because he could just eat spinach constantly and never get hurt. it is like the hulk effect in which you just get progressively stronger as the fight goes on. popeye is only limited by the speed at which he can ingest spinach so i propose that if he were to be put into a bane like contraption he could be constantly fed huge amounts of spinach directly into his bloodstream for the fastest absorption. as a result of this infinite power and invincibility i propose that he would beat them both at the same time.
God is REAL

Conclusion: In this debate, Pro had to BoP to show us that god existed. He has failed to uphold the BoP. He had only rebutted my "False Promises Given". He gave me 2 scripture passages that contradict his argument. He reviewed my scripture that I have provided about "Ask and you shall receive". He simply himself implied that if you ask, you will receive. Then he states "The Bible states," ye have the poor always with you," ( Matt. 26:11) There will be sickness, suffering, and death until Christ returns for his thousand year reign on earth( Isa. 35:5-10; Matt. 24: 14; Rev.21:4) man must now earn his bread by the sweat of his brow because of God's curse upon the earth(Gen. 3:19) The Bible teaches that things are getting worse and that God is the source of all that is good. " But yet, if we pray to god to fix these things, wouldn't he fix them? Apparently not. I even made an argument about the bible not being valid because it was written and retold by apostles. These stories go down from generation to generation. Yet, my opponent doesn't rebut this argument at all. Instead he continues to state scriptures and calls that proof.
God is REAL

Haha I must congratulate you on your success. You make me a fool. But proudly and hopefully I do not fall so easily. Between true science and the Bible there are no contradictions. After all, the One who wrote the bible also created the things that scientists can observe. Men, however, can make mistakes in their observations, or they may reach a faulty conclusion from what they observe. The position expressed by Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. , as he said, "whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so," . The Bible states," ye have the poor always with you," ( Matt. 26:11) There will be sickness, suffering, and death until Christ returns for his thousand year reign on earth( Isa. 35:5-10; Matt. 24: 14; Rev.21:4) man must now earn his bread by the sweat of his brow because of God's curse upon the earth(Gen. 3:19) The Bible teaches that things are getting worse and that God is the source of all that is good. Well here are my questions to anyone. Why do you hate God ? Which should you believe ? Is one true and the other false ? Are they both true ? Ate they both partly true ? To answer these questions one must look closely at what science is and what we know about God. Now if you don't believe it's not just that then, you don't want to believe and also can you prove that he is not real ? Going back now to the mentioned part about" ask and it will be given, knock and the door will open seek and you real find." God puts and means pray, party often, pray with sincerity and seriousness, pray and pray more. Also when Good refers to the things he gives our needs or what he thinks we need. If God just gave us what we wanted and need than what would be the point of living. So with that he doesn't. If he thinks you don't need it than why ask for it and then that thing becomes nothing. God had a plan for everyone and with that plan we do not take it into our own hands be patient or you may or may not get it When we pray and he doesn't answer God wants us to pray more and ask. It's like knocking at a friends door and they can't hear it or they think it's something else and you knock again to hopefully they answer. In this world Good had a plan and knows everything. He doesn't want is to suffer, but he lets is make mistakes and with that you have a choice and he lets you have freedom. I'm done now with my wisdom I guess and I will hand it over to my opponent. Thank you
God is REAL

The resolution provided by Pro is "God is REAL" Pro has the burden of proof. Pro has stated that "Again faith is believing in something that you can't see." Pro simply claims that you must have faith to believe in god. So far Pro has failed to uphold the BoP. How can we believe in something if we can't see it? If there are no signs of it or proof? Pro then states "Now I'm going to bring up Buda which I do not believe in . If the earth is old and buda created it he would have to be really old of which he is not. So with that it takes down out one god of which the name is buda"This is irrelevant to the topic. We are debating weather or not god is real. Just because you don't believe in Buda doesn't mean he *isn't* real. Pro basically says that because they believe Buda is real, this means God must be real, which is not true. Pro then says "Science goes off of what you can see and they did not see the big bang so there fore the big bang would be a Lie."Science is not a lie. Science is supported by facts and evidence, unlike the bible. There is no proof to show that everything in the bible is written. Pro believed that the Big Bang Theory is false. Thus, if you read this article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...] There are facts that support the scientific claim. So far Pro has failed at:A. Refuting the fact that God makes false promises.B. Refuting my Biblical God Doesn't ExistC. Failing to uphold her BoP to show that God is real. I will await the evidence of God's existence in the next round. Good luck!
God is REAL

Again faith is believing in something that you can't see . Also people come and go saying that the earth is old . Now I'm going to bring up Buda which I do not believe in . If the earth is old and buda created it he would have to be really old of which he is not. So with that it takes down out one god of which the name is buda. My God has multiple names like first of all God and Holy Spirit and Aba,and father .Now to go with real although you can't see him doesn't mean he is not real . Faith comes in and takes care of that .Science goes off of what you can see and they did not see the big bang so there fore the big bang would be a Lie. The Bible has many scriptures of which it talks about faith to show a few: 2 Corinthians 5:7 " We live by faith , not by sight " , Hebrew 11:3 " By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command , so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible ". When you quoted whoever seeks will find whoever asks will be given ect. what we say is a few mins or now is years or even less days . God wants us to go through trials and tribulations because life is not easy on this world or earth. He gave us the right and freedom to chose him or not . He does not want people to chose him because they were forced . He will give us what we need in his timing and not ours and with that we learn from our mistakes. With this argument I'm not forcing people to believe but I'm telling them the facts and truth . There is a difference between truth and theories and truth is facts but theories may be compiled of some some facts and thoughts but it doesn't make it true. Also then with asking for something and it will be given then either you god or other opposing gods do they just give it you when ask because I would not want a god who gives me everything and with that then what would be the point of life if we all got what we wanted . I will now turn it over to my opponent . And good luck.
God is REAL

Pro has the BoP to show us, that God infact exists. Let me define some terms first. [1] God- God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe [2] Real- actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. Since no rules were given, I'll present my argument in this round since this is a short debate. Good luck! False Promises Given. Many people whom read the Christian bible believe in the power of prayer. They expect awnsers and miracles and miraculous things to happen. For example: Matthew 7:7 Jesus says ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! So my main concern here, is why when people pray for others to be healed of cancer and other life threatening diseases aren't healed? I mean, as stated in the scripture, "Ask, and you shall receive". There are no requirements in the scripture stated in the scripture above that tells us only *certain* people will get what they want and need. The Biblical God Doesn't Exist. Never once have I seen "proof" that god exist. The bible is written by apostles (Mark, Luke, John) how are we to believe these stories? These stories are passed down from person to person and re-old over and over again. How do we know this is all true? [3] The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. So exactly why do we choose to believe the bible, when it could al have been made up? [3]The Bible is historically inaccurate , factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time. Again, how do we know all that is written in the bible is true? I'm just going to leave this here and see what my opponent has to argue. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://whynogod.wordpress.com...