BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

A duel it is. En garde, monsieur. Let's not make it too bloody though because I think ultimately we're on the same side. :) On the clarification...My point was that even the methodology that you gave for measuring LA, requires human logic and there is no other being that uses human logic. For that reason, the fact that LA are conceptual and are only measurable by the human mind is supportive of the case for them being a product of the human mind. Regarding my question from last round, two things. First, you have not established that LA are indeed, timeless and changeless, or that such a mind exists that LA could have originated from. Without proof of another mind that LA could have originated from, then by process of elimination, they must come from the human mind. It is your assertion that LA are timeless and changeless, and the burden is on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it. However, and secondly, I have already dealt with those points. We cannot know that LA are timeless and changeless, so the most that we can say accurately is that they are applicable when we are, and where we are. In other words, they are only applicable if there are human minds around to use them, which is further support for LA being from the human mind. On the possible misconception...I don't think it's a misconception as much as a disagreement. Simply saying that "it doesn't mean we are the origin of LA", doesn't provide us with another plausible source. If there is no other plausible source for LA, then it's obvious, by process of elimination, that LA have to come from the human mind. I think the problem is that you're working under the presupposition that LA are transcendental, but such a presupposition doesn't work in this debate. I have shown how LA are used by human logic, require human minds for recognition, are useless without human minds to use them, and that human minds are the only plausible source for where they originated. Another plausible source, that doesn't rely on presupposition, must be shown to exist if the resolution is to be upheld. Is your browser having problems too?? I answered the subjectivity issue last round in my answer to your question... "In discussing how humans are subjective, I think you are talking about our ability to think and make decisions. It's true that we all don't think alike, and we make decisions that are different from other people's decisions, but that has nothing to do with LA. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the human intellect, as a whole, which is not subjective." Question from Pro...What is truth?" That's a pretty broad question so it's fair to say truth is the opposite of a lie. Truth is the accurate answer to whatever question is asked. There are many definitions but you get my drift. Question for Pro...You admit humans are not timeless, so how can you claim to know that LA are timeless?? Back to you for a final flurry.
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Thanks for your simple explanations and responses. Enjoying the fruitful debate 2 rounds left let us duel it out till the end :) Quick Clarification, Genuine misunderstanding: I also agree its physically impossible for logic to be measured in the same way dirt or water can. That was my point I was making from the start, I only brought that up because Con stated that logic can be measured as a rebuttal when I stated that it could not, but I was only saying logic cant be measured in the same and specific manner that which water and dirt is measure, I'm not saying they cant be measured at all but they cant be in a physical sense only observed or recognized, I even stated other methodologies would have to be used to do so, not sure if your web browser is messing up again and you cant see the end of my sentences :// Question to Pro...You say that LA must come from a mind that is timeless and unchanging. As LA are only applicable when and where there are human minds to use logic, on what grounds do you say that LA exist anywhere outside the scope of human minds?? Well my resolution is that LA did not come from humans, my resolution is not to provide an answer of where it DID come from but for arguments sake, what grounds would I say LA exist outside of human minds, I'd say it have to be a mind that is timeless and changeless just as the attributes of LA are its logical to conclude that mind comes from mind in the same fashion of its origin, law of excluded middle can be used to deduct this, I will show in a minute, but first you would have to prove that LA are not timeless and changeless, you mention it is irrelevant I respectfully disagree, it is pertinent to the resolution. If LA are timeless and changeless then Law of Excluded middle can apply as I stated before (humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time.) Possible Misconception: you said they inherently have/govern or use logic that is true but just because we use it or inherently have logic doesn't mean we are the origin of LA. people use logic differently but LA is consistent we are only using LA we are only observing and recognizing what we are able to observe it doesn't mean we are the origin. LA is timeless cannot come from something that has a time limit. Otherwise we say LA did not exist until humans were born then LA loses its timeless properties. Con says the fact that humans are Subjective is irrelevant to LA, but I respectfully disagree, in a court of law or anywhere is we will not trust something that is not consistent. LA are consistent and humans are not so how can humans be the origin? After all part of logic's purpose is to find truth and truth is what it is not subjective. Either LA came from humans or it did not, no 3rd option. Logic is used to find truth so they go hand and hand, so I must ask Con....What is truth?
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Thanks to Pro for his comments. Just to make something clear, the Transcendental Argument for God's existence allows for the presupposition that God exists, whereas the resolution in our debate doesn't. That's an important distinction to keep in mind because if God is where LA come from, then His existence must be shown by Pro. I will say though that if Pro can do that, I will be very happy to have lost this debate. :) As to the misconception, it is my position that LA that govern human logic can only be a product of the intellectual abilities inherent to the human mind. There are other minds, ape minds, dog minds, alligator minds, etc., but none that can have anything to do with human logic, or LA. We know with 100% certainty that human minds exist, so any mind proposed as being responsible for the LA applicable to human logic, must be shown to exist with 100% certainty. I have already accomplished that goal, so now the onus is on Pro to show that the source is something other than the human mind. Pro's Arguments: We agree that LA are conceptual, therefore, they exist in the mind and the logic used by humans. They aren't part of the physical world. They don't assist gravity, help form clouds, etc. Assigning attributes to LA such as timelessness is just asserting an irrelevant point. LA can only be said to exist when and where the human mind exists, any more than that is unfounded assertion. The assertion that LA come from a non-human mind is also an unfounded assertion, unless that mind can be shown to exist with 100% certainty, as is the case with the human mind. How can something that you agree is conceptual by nature, be measured "in the same manner" as something that is physical, such as dirt, water, etc.?? That's physically impossible, but doesn't help your case because LA are indeed measured, in the only way they can be, by how well they govern logic. I have already accounted for LA so Pro's points about them being conventions, or something voted on, are not relevant since they aren't a part of the source. Pro's Question..."So if logical absolutes are not subjective but humans are how can they be the source?" In discussing how humans are subjective, I think you are talking about our ability to think and make decisions. It's true that we all don't think alike, and we make decisions that are different from other people's decisions, but that has nothing to do with LA. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the human intellect, as a whole, which is not subjective. Question to Pro...You say that LA must come from a mind that is timeless and unchanging. As LA are only applicable when and where there are human minds to use logic, on what grounds do you say that LA exist anywhere outside the scope of human minds??
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

:) Answer Question. .. How can logical absolutes govern human logic if they don't come from a mind that thinks just like humans do? ? Before I answer question I would like to point out a possible genuine misconception in earlier argument: Yes I mentioned logic is timeless we agree that logic is a process of the mind, I did not say it had to be a human mind, we would have to find a 100% way to conclude that there are no other minds other than humans. But based on a process of elimination all we need to show is that they did not come from human minds then it will not matter where it came from resolution will be met. Although where it comes from we could discuss. To answer Question Con Stated. .. . "The more advanced the intellect of a species, the more detailed the laws will be, reflective of that higher intellect. " This very interesting because I can also use this to help my stance. .. .. If Logic is a process of the mind, conceptual by nature It seems me and CON agree Logic do not depend on the physical universe for their existence, they are conceptual realities. Since human minds are not timeless and changeless and Logic Absolutes are timeless and changeless , Then it is also fair to conclude that if logic is of the mind, then there must be be a timeless and changeless MIND to which these logical absolutes origin is derived from since logic can only exist if there is a mind. and we also agree Logic is absolute and not subjective and based on the law of excluded middle(humans cannot posses both timeless and changeless and non timeless and non changeless attributes at the same time. It seems humans did not originally create logic but can only observe and recognize it. if a single person or group could say it is false and it would be false. But this is illogical because something is not true because someone says it is false or says it is true. Logic does not rely on subjectivity to be true so if it came from man who is subjective how could it come from man? Simply agreeing logic is valid means it subjected to popular vote, what if people agree logical absolutes are not absolute and that mutually contradictory statements are valid would it make this true? Not so Possible genuine misconception in earlier argument: Con disagreed with me when he read partial of my statement about Logic cant be measured by science. But Con is missing the other part of my sentence, I said they cannot measure in the same manner or specific way in the same way science measures dirt water or a chair. Other methodologies are used to measure or observe it. but they cant be measured in the exact same fashion as measuring dirt water or a chair to further boost both are our points considering they are not physical properties of the universe. observing,measuring recognizing is not the same as origin/source of something. Question So if logical absolutes are not subjective but humans are how can they be the source?
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

First to answer Pro's question, which leads into my opening. .. "So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where? " Each species uses reasoning, to some degree, which requires some form of governance of that reasoning, unique to that species. The more advanced the intellect of a species, the more detailed the laws will be, reflective of that higher intellect. The human mind is capable of advanced reasoning, awareness of self as part of a larger system, mathematics, etc. thus logic, as we define it, requires governance. As such, the laws of logic and reasoning are nothing more than a product of the inherent intellectual abilities of the particular species. As logic is a process of the mind, so are logical absolutes (LA). Pro states that LA are timeless and exist independently of human minds but respectfully, I have to disagree. LA are conceptual by nature, and therefore can only exist as a concept of the minds, to which they apply. Without the mind that will use those concepts, there is no reason to believe that those concepts can, or do exist, although we assume that they apply in all situations. LA exist solely to make rational discourse possible, so if there is no need for rational discourse among beings, it doesn't seem necessary to posit the existence of LA. Pro argues that LA are immaterial and can't be part of the universe since they can't be measured scientifically. I would argue that they are indeed measurable. The law of identity is measured each time we use it. We can measure the law of excluded middle by applying the Liar Paradox. Are LA transcendent? ? Being conceptual, they are contingent on the human mind. Therefore, all that can be said is that they are applicable where we are and when we are. It is true that someone can have a reality that deviates from the norm, as in the case of some mental disorders, but LA are the same for all humans and are not subjective. We should be back on the same page now, following my mistake. Thanks again to Pro for his generosity. Question. .. How can logical absolutes govern human logic if they don't come from a mind that thinks just like humans do? ?
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

Con comment that since I already provided opening argument to skip to round two. that is fine please do not count this voting wise against him. I will simply add short add on to arguments Logic seems to have transcendent properties, they apply whether we recognize them or not. they exist whether we go back in time or forward in time. If Logic then came from man then it loses its transcendental properties. If logic is something a group of people agreed upon, then it still does not answer Where it comes from only recognized. and if its just something people agreed upon then its subject to popular vote and becomes subjective but logic is not subjective in the sense that I applies to reality as we know it. Logic could be just chemical processes or reasoning manifested in the brain but then it differ from people to people if it was based on reason and chemical process, because people don't all reason the same and chemical processes can change.
Logic Absolutes did not come from Humans

simple rules My stance is that Logical Absolutes did not come from or could have been created By humans I am not stating at least not at this point where I believe it came from though we may get into that in the debate. But Con is to prove that logical absolutes or laws of logic came from Man I and debating that it did not. Round 1 through 4 argument and rebuttals in any fashion you choose. At the end of each round must contain a direct question for opponent to answer Round 5 rebuttals and Closing arguments. This is a amateur casual debate not looking for a debate with thousands of links saying this and that, you may use sources in debate but it is not required. Preferred method is to speak from heart and personal ideas based on knowledge you already know or in process of studying. This is why the Max Characters are short. is to get the point out there and keep it short an sweet. I'm new at debated so please inform me if you are unsure of the resolution. My Argument If The laws of Logic came from man, and man didn't always exist, then laws of logic didn't always exist because it would be contingent upon man existing first in order for it to be created by Man. If laws of logic have always existed and is timeless then this proves that it did not come from man, because man would not have existed yet to create it. Logic is immaterial so it cannot be buried or found under a rock. So it cannot be tested scientifically if someone's definition was that science can only observes things that are material or properties of the universe. If it is not a property of the universe science cannot measure it in the same way that it would measure a rock or a chair. it would have to measure philosophically or by some other methodology. If Laws of Logic are properties of the universe then it should be able to be observed in the same manner as a water, dirt etc. But laws of logic cannot be observed in that specific manner so then it is not a property of the universe. If Man is a property of the universe and laws of logic is not so it cannot come from man. To Opponent...So we can simply observe the laws of logic but can we account for where it comes from, if so where?
At its core, Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration

Since my retarded oponent failed to se my argument I'll reinstate it."I don't want to say you plagiarised the bible but over 70% of your debate was quoting it... anywayTo understand where the con is coming from one must first conceive the idea of the difference between submission and degradation.To teach people to submit themselves to God is to make them feel that no matter how bad a situation they're in they can find love from an imaginary friend.There is no degradation involved, it is actually to prevent degradation and encourage morality and love."
At its core, Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration

"To teach peopel to submit themselves to God is to make them feel that no matter how bad a istuation they're in they can find love from an imaginary friend."Where does it say anything about an imaginary friend in the NT? Can you back up your assessment with quotes?"Ther eis no degradation involved, it is actually to prevetn degradation and encourage morality and love."The issue is degeneration rather than degradation. A lowering of effective power, vitality, or essential quality to an enfeebled and worsened kind or state.I don't deny that there are some platitudes about love and loving one another in the NT. A degenerated being can still express love. My opponent has not troubled to refute any of my arguments. As per the rules, the arguments are conceded.Jesus says, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."Matthew 9:12The whole human race are diagnosed as sick. For all humans are sinners. Degeneration of the human race is central to NT philosophy. To Jesus, what comes from a human is only bad. He fails to see any good. This lopsided view of humanity justifies his enfeeblement of the human race. They are all sick, defiled, weak flesh, too mean to speak good."But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander"Matthew 15:18-19Christ reduces humans to animals. The chosen people are only "lost sheep" (Matthew 15:24), and the rest are worse, dogs (Matthew 15:26).In Christianity, all humans are weak. Christianity enshrines this weakness by promising to reverse the order of things. The weakest shall be the most exalted:"But many who are first will be last, and the last first."Mark 10:31The resolution is affirmed. Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration.I think it is a pity my opponent did not present his "Christianity is like BDSM" argument. It could have been entertaining.
At its core, Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration

I don't want to say you plagiarised the bible but over 70% of your debate was quoting it... anywayTo understand where the con is coming from one must first concieve the idea of the difference between submission and degradation.To teach peopel to submit themselves to God is to make them feel that no matter how bad a istuation they're in they can find love from an imaginary friend.Ther eis no degradation involved, it is actually to prevetn degradation and encourage morality and love.
At its core, Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration

As opposed to degeneration I prefer to think of it as a philosophy of being submissive.submissive: ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;The difference between submissiveness and degeneration is that a submissive person (even in BDSM sex) can often feel empowered by the attention such a powerful dominator (in this case God) is giving them without feeling 'degenerated' in any way whatsoever.Thanks and good luck.I accept.
At its core, Christianity is a philosophy of degeneration

degeneration: a lowering of effective power, vitality, or essential quality to an enfeebled and worsened kind or state.http://www.merriam-webster.com...By the core of Christianity, I mean its foundational teachings, as set out in the New Testament. Thus this will be a debate on the content of the NT only.Round one is for acceptance only. No new arguments in round five.Dropped arguments are concessions.Sources must be part of character count.Obviously no semantic arguments such as 'Christianity is not a philosophy'.I have set this to be accepted by those with more than 60 debates. That's just because the options aren't that helpful. If you have six completed debates and wish to debate this, just post in the comments. I only want to avoid brand new users, who invariably forfeit, which is boring.
a zombie outbreak would be able to conquer the world

Though killing one is easy that is only so if you have something to kill it with and the fighting ground is even if you are unarmed you cannot kill one so easy and if you are surprised you will almost be certainly gone. Also people grow attachments to each other and may have moral troubles killing one if it was say their husband/wife or child or parent. Also bombing a mountain is not easy there are lots of caves and rocks that could block a blast for a zombie as for my proof of this round and last round www.class3outbreak.com world war z
a zombie outbreak would be able to conquer the world

Now it is fairly easy to kill one. Get far away and blast them with fire or 'dry ice'. One may use a cannon, 'nades and trenchs with fire and stakes. One may also use run them over. Fuel is not a problem for my next point. If in a mountainous area, we could just bomb the mountains to cover the zombies in ice to crush them. infected people would have already escaped and would die and reanimate later starting the problem all over again also many humans would be scared off and would leave military forces to defend their family's the government would have little power and the world would sink into madness. There is no proof for this plus the bigger the weapon the more noise it makes and attracts more zombiesCan you prove this?