BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism Cannot Be Logical

Most Atheists believe that everything that exists is material, that everything that actually exists is part of the physical world. The laws of logic are not physical. The Atheistic worldview eliminates the possibility of logic being real or reliable. At the same time, Atheists try to use logic to reason. When they do so, they are demonstrating that their worldview is not internally consistent and that their worldview is not valid. The worldview of the Atheist cannot be a valid worldview because the worldview requires that the Atheist use the laws of logic, yet the Atheist's worldview does not allow the laws of logic to exist since they are not material. Atheism is self-refuting because the Atheist must assume something (logic) that disproves Atheism in order to prove Atheism. (1)Atheists try to use the laws of logic to argue against the existence of God. But in order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong. (2)Atheists can be logical since they were created by God but they cannot make a logical case (that is consistent with Atheism) for trusting logic. In the same way Atheists can be moral since they were created by God, but they cannot make a logical case or a moral case (that is consistent with Atheism) for their morality. They can be moral, but it is not logical for them to do so. (3)Atheist does not believe in revelation. Christians believe in the real God of the bible who is able to reveal knowledge and understanding about himself and his universe to any person. This means that the only means of reason that an Atheist has is logic. Christians reason together with God. God reveals.The Christian receives God's revelation.If God reveals through the Bible, then the Christian receives the revelation that God gives through the Bible. It is a two step process. Atheists, believing their worldview, say that this is circular reasoning. It would be if there were not God or if God did not reveal himself and his universe.But God does reveal so it is perfectly rational to say, "God says..." The Atheist, however does not have a self-consistent worldview and from the atheistic inconsistent worldview the Atheist position that the internally consistent relationship between God and His people is not rational. All the arguments against God fail. If there are any Atheists out there, I'd be curious to hear what knowledge you are in possession of that allows you to logically rule out the possibility that the Universe has (or had) a creator.
Atheism Cannot Be Logical

My opponent stated "logic comes from the mind, and while logic itself is not material, it stems from something that is: the human mind"This is not a valid response. First, this assumes that the mind is the brain which can only be argued using circular reasoning. Second, if the laws of logic are in the brain, then they only apply in the brain today. There is nothing to say that they existed in the human brain thousands of years ago. There is nothing to say that they would exist where human beings do not live. There is nothing to say they could not change tomorrow. Plus there would be nothing to say that people haven't "just evolved" to believe that they are being logical when in fact they are not. In that case, logic could not be used to prove anything. It would be hard to explain, were logic hard wired into the brain why there would not be a wide range of competing and evolving "logics," especially among various groups of people. Think of this in terms of the logic that might be used for designing and building an airplane. Think of this in terms of the law of non-contradiction. Among some people, you could be both here and also not here at the same time. But no matter where we go, you cannot be both here and not here at the same time. You are either here or you are not here at any given time. Also thinking is not a sense found is nature thus you cannot use it for any basis for thought or logic. Theist understand that logic is under the control of God, but God is not bound by every rule of every logical system. God goes outside of the constraints of His creation at will. These are the events that we call miracles. In addition, we, as humans, only understand a small portion of the mind of God.The logic that God gave us gives us some insight into how God works and thinks, but God is infinite and we are finite. My opponent stated "logic itself is not material"If logic is not material, then how does it fit into the Atheistic worldview? Why do laws of logic exist? Where did these laws come from? How do the laws of logic interact with the physical world? Why does the physical world follow the laws of logic if the laws of logic are not material? If you are able to admit that logic is not material, then why are you so opposed to God? Why is the obvious answer so abhorant to the you? The answer to this final question reaches the root of the problem, does it not? To claim logic you must determine what determines logic or who? Atheism by definition is the theory or belief that God does not exist. Logic by definition is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.***Atheism is not logical simply because the theory that God does not exist has no validity.***
Atheism Cannot Be Logical

Palpability and Logic: A big part of my opponent's case basically centers around the idea that atheism only looks at what is palpable and material, and while atheism does analyze what is palpable and material, my opponent has a very superficial scope on the nature of atheism. It is not just what is palpable and material, but what can be analyzed, measured, and utilized in order to make conclusions or observations about nature. Hence, atheism looks more toward a scientific perspective in understanding the world whereas religion looks more toward faith. To say that atheists only look at the material is not only superficial, but also unfounded. A scientific perspective is not only looking at the material. The material is certainly included, but not the complete fixation of science. Take for example light, which is literally a transmission of energy with no sort of mass or material substance, and this measured by the bounds of science. Regardless, logic comes from the mind, and while logic itself is not material, it stems from something that is: the human mind. The other three points rest on this same idea, meaning that if I knock this general idea down, the entirety of his case goes down except perhaps for his third point.
only personal physical experience of now is real

I will close with a quote: "You can always tell when someone isn't telling the truth, because he doesn't speak clearly. Euphemism is a cover for either ignorance or dishonesty. In other words, if you can't state it in a clear simple declarative sentence, then either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are trying to prevent me from understanding what you are talking about, and both bug me." Tucker Carlson, in an advertisement for his TV program "Unfiltered" on Public Television, August 6 to 27, 2004.
only personal physical experience of now is real

the universe is imaginary, and to believe in it is the same as believing in god you claimed some with a disorder believe they could see with their eyes closed.. belief=be lie=false false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now cause+effect=logic, your thoughts don't have logic like you think it does if you jump of a cliff what determines you splat is cause and effect, logic, therefore it would be unreasonable unless you want to die, true logic is matter belief=expectation=hypnosis=subconscious mind=matrix i can imagine the absolutes, and are you trying to say fantasy dosnt exist? future=imagination=possibility because its not possible to see through my eye lids means its absolute, no other option, i have to open them to see reality reason is the concept of cause and effect, logic, and concepts are imaginary, not real anything i imagine is false, read the headline.. matter is the balancing point between space and time, so matter is space and time, and information exist beyond space and time there is no time in my imagination, i am not experiencing time in there, i can set everything in slow motion or freeze "time" read the head line =(is, equal) +(and) so know is now is true is nature is matter is real is transformation is random not intended is life
only personal physical experience of now is real

everything and nothing is defined by experience, singularity is the opposite of humanity if you perceive it you experience it that is a belief, they can not actually read the words, i know logic, therefore i know i can reason, there is no logic in fantasy so there is no knowing cause and effect in my imagination if i am in a simulation, there is nothing to simulate, where as because i can simulate something, means there is true and false, so something is real on a higher level, the future is possible, so i know i am in my imagination when i cant imagine anything the past is impossible because you can never experience it again, and reality is absolute which means there is no other option, so that includes impossible, therefore its impossible for you to close your eyes and read these words on the screen imagination is false, you cant imagine reality, so cause and effect doesn't apply, its a simulation, reason, the concept of logic, it might be true that its happening in your false imagination thou the only effect in your imagination is emotion caused by your thoughts, if what happened in your imagination was true you should die when you jump off a cliff and splatter on the ground only the time of now is real, the future and past dosnt matter, and matter is space and space is time, like air. there is no reality in the past, neither in the future, to say 5 seconds ahead of now is real is saying 5 seconds ahead of reality is real, as i have to imagine it "know=physical experience of now, and know is no other option" seeing with your physical eyes is knowing, you have 5 senses, and there is no other option for you then to look at these words on the screen with your eyes if that is your only option, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, absolute, so its impossible for you to read on till the end of this message with your eyes closed belief is the opposite of knowledge, know is the balancing point between belief and knowledge, true is the opposite of false and truth, 0 and 1 belief=False=future know=true=now knowledge=truth=past its true i am here now, so i must have gotten here somehow, and the future is unknown i was stating my opinion when saying hospitals are necessary, i think they are, i like em! :) natural is necessary an effect that wasn't caused has no effect, anything else is a lie particles, atoms, the world, galaxies, a universe, all imaginary, not real
only personal physical experience of now is real

experience is perception, as they can not exist without each other absolute=NO other option, that's why you cant argue that you can see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, as its absolute, unless you have holes in your eye lids or something crazy, so its the cause and effect relation that is absolute not necessarily the explanation, as one can say well god could make you eyes lids glass... existence is absolute, but absolute is the balancing point between possible and impossible, where as absolute means no other possibility, not possible and not impossible, therefore reality is not possible and its not impossible, it is no other option, as it is happening true cause and effect relations only happen in reality, so me having my eyes open to read is a confirmation that I am right there is no truth in reality, truth can only be in the past, and I have to remember what happened 2 seconds ago, reality is true, and true is only now know=physical experience of now, and know is no other option know is not true? belief is false, and knowledge is truth. know is the balancing point between belief and knowledge, 1 and 0 religion is necessary even if you know the absolutes, like hospitals a first cause is impossible so god is impossible. a cause that didn't cause anything is not a cause, so a first cause would be caused by a cause that is not a cause
only personal physical experience of now is real

I agree there is no certainty beyond ones own personal physical experience and perception. That does not make it true or real. Reality is absolute. It is beyond the individual and the limitations of personal experience or perception. While you have certainty enough to claim you know you are typing words on your computer, that may not be the the truth of reality. You will never know if it is or is not. Knowledge of the truth of reality is something that is beyond what an individual can know. If humans could know what is real than there would be no need for philosophy, religion, or debate. The answer would be clear and absolute. Debates like if there is a God would never happen. God is or is not there. One answer is real the other is false. Physical experience can not be what is real because I have the perception that such theological debates are there. This means my own physical experience admits that it does not know with 100% certainty what is real. Even if that is my own creation than I have chosen to ignore what is real and add in some false hood. I can never be 100% sure what answer is the right one and what answer is my self created falsehood. Beliefs can not always be false because then if it is true then you have a correct belief in the falsehood of beliefs.
only personal physical experience of now is real

I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, I don't have to imagine it, and if you were here you wouldn't either, but online chat is based on assumptions or you get no where you have to imagine you are in a dream, and imagination is false, and if you can imagine anything, you are not a in a padded room.. and that suggestion is insane, as if you are are unable to move your arms out of bear stupidity you are laying there drooling in a room.. there is no certainty beyond physical experience and the absolutes, and belief is always false
only personal physical experience of now is real

Human beings do not experience most of the world around them. In addition, many of human experience is an a mixture of reality and imagination. "Only personal physical experience of now is real", is a straw man argument that many people with auditory and visual hallucinations use; to explain how they have no mental heath issues. Reality is the universe how it is. Physical experience is how perception of that universe. Part of the human condition is that physical experience my not be real. While my physical experience is that of having a debate on my computer it may not be real. I might have lost my mental facilities. The reality is that I might be in the local mental heath ward in a padded room. It is a hard fact that all of us most come to when trying to understand the nature of reality.
Professional sports stadiums should be privately funded and owned.

Public investors should partially pay for a new stadium for their pro sports team. To many this question seems absolutely baffling why any public money should be thrown after private. Normally I'm very against subsidies. However when the thing receiving the subsidy is a positive externality my attitude changes completely. DEFINTIONS Externality - An effect on a third party (usually the community as a whole) that is not directly involved in business transaction. Positive - something that benefits the community as a whole Negative - something that hurts the community as a whole Let me give you an example. Suppose you have a fireworks display at your local town. And let's suppose that your town only charges people who pay to sit in a grassy field nearby. So naturally more than half the town decides to sit a little farther away on hill where they have to pay no money to see the display. These are called free riders because they are essentially receiving a good for which they do not pay for. In these type of situations it is often impossible to make the free riders pay up unless you tax them. In this analogy the people with a front row seat are the ones paying. The businesses that receive more customers due to the increased amount of people in the city (which creates more jobs for the citizens) and the citizens who have higher property value due to the increased jobs in their city and its higher desirability from the stadium are the free riders, the stadium is the fireworks display. Essentially the NFL does a study of how much economic benefit their stadium produces, presents it to the congressmen, asks for 2/3 of that value or 1/2 giving the citizens a 50% value and the lawmakers decide that it benefits the citizens as a whole so they pay for it. So as you can see it benefits the citizens economically to pay for a certain percentage of it because of the economic impact it produces. Without the citizens paying for a certain amount of it, the stadium could easily move to another city that would better appreciate its economic impact. When asked why public funds should finance private facilities for professional sports, supporters cite economics. Football Northwest, Allen's group advocating a new stadium, notes, "Even if you aren't a football fan, the high level of economic activity generated by the Seahawks does affect you. Because of the revenues generated by professional football--$5.4 million are contributed to the local and state general funds--everyone benefits. The Seahawks' total annual economic impact in Washington state is $129 million. In King County alone, the Seahawks generate $103 million per year. " SOURCES: . http://www.washington.edu... This is why the taxpayer should partially pay for the the new stadium, because doing so economically benefits them beyond the cost of the stadium.
Professional sports stadiums should be privately funded and owned.

Resolved, that private investors, not the Minnesota taxpayer, should build a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. Generally, I oppose public subsidies for private businesses. Assumption: The Minnesota Vikings franchise is a profitable enterprise. Contention: Currently, the Minnesota taxpayer cannot afford to provide the Vikings with a new stadium. But a group of Minnesota private investors could do so. Thus, the private investor, not the Minnesota taxpayer, should determine whether the Vikings stay in Minnesota or move to LA. For supporting facts, I rely on the following article: http://www.twincities.com... You should make a copy of the article before access requires the payment of a fee.
Reality is an Absolute

I will begin by analyzing what I believe to be Pro's most important argument."It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything, anything at all, without first there being an independent, objective, absolute reality." According to Pro's statement, reality is an axiom upon which everything else is built. However, reality is itself un-proved. After all, how can you prove reality without reality? So, Pro's argument bases itself upon itself; reality is absolute because it has to be for reality to be absolute.The only understanding of reality that we have is through our perceptions, and we have no way to know if our perceptions are based on an absolute reality.In fact, as you read this argument, it is possible that in my personal reality, you and I are scuba diving at this moment in Hawaii. The only thing you know is what you experience."we do know for fact that the laws of nature are NOT subjective" We only 'know' through our subjective processes of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and thought. We assume this knowledge is objective; indeed, Pro states that it is 'as objective as possible'. The fact remains, everything is processed subjectively. All knowledge, all thought, all interaction, is processed 100% subjectively."The flaw here is your use of the term circular logic, if it is circular logic isn't it something irrefutable? (As long as it is true logic of course)" Circular logic is logic that flows from the premise to the conclusion. I am right, because you are wrong. You are wrong, because I am right. There is no such thing as 'correct' circular logic. It is essentially the same as saying 'Reality is absolute because it is'.Pro's scenario about testing reinforces my argument. Even our 'objective' scientific testing depends on subjective perception, so it is inherently subjective.We assume that everyone experiences the same reality, yet we don't even have a way to know if everyone else is real, or part of a dream, or some random stimulus of consciousness in a sea of darkness.So, I reassert that for the sole reason that we cannot objectively experience anything, reality is completely subjective.
Reality is an Absolute

I will be utilizing Objectivist philosophy for this argument for I am an Objectivist. =DThere is an obvious flaw with Con's original argument he defines Reality as "The actual state of things" but then states perception as "An awareness of things" One can see that in simple terms:Reality: Is "Things" or the actuality of themPerception: As being aware of things through senses. Therefore the "Things" would have to exist before one could perceive them. From this we can conclude that:To perceive existence, existence must exist. Reality is INDEPENDENT, it does not 'depend' on anything. It is not true that existence exists because we perceive it as so because that would be a contradiction in terms. (See Ayn Rand Quote Below)This does not mean though that all are perceptions can be completely correct. Just because one perceives something does not make it true. For instance; A man is hit on the head and this causes him to see the world as red. The world seems to be red but in actuality the world is not red, he only perceives it as such due to a fault (an injury to) of his senses. (He should also seek some medical help)I want to clarify I do not like the use of Con's definition for "Absolute" mainly because of its latter definition; it insinuates that one cannot doubt, when in fact one can. This could be just my idle banter because I believe "One SHOULD not doubt reality," and after thinking this over I believe that that is what the definition was intending but I wanted to make it clear that this would be a better definition of the word:Absolute: Complete in itself [1]This would mean that Reality is indivisible, it is an end. In Ayn Rand's words :"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. " [2]Axiom:A self-evident and necessary truth,or a proposition whose truth is so evident as firstsight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer;a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted[3]EX: "A thing cannot,at the same time,be and not be. " [3][1]. http://www.webster-dictionary.org...[2]http://aynrandlexicon.com...[3]http://www.webster-dictionary.org...
Reality is an Absolute

I accept the position of Con.Reality is not absolute, and is unique for each individual. Reality depends on the perceptions of each individual. Reality only exists through the perception of what is real to each individual.DEFINITIONS:Reality: the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state.[1]Perception: an awareness of things through the physical senses, esp. sight.[2]Absolute: certain; not to be doubted.[3][1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;[2] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...[3] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;