BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
something can not be true and false at the same time.

I will be CON, arguing that "statements can be both true and false at the same time". Since BoP is obviously mine, I will present my points in the first round to not waste time. RESOLUTION: "Something cannot be both true and false at the same time"Some basic rules to keep the debate friendly an prevent subversive tactics from either side. RULES:(1) No Trolling(2) No Kritiks (challenging basic assumptions: Ex. "The government doesn't exist")(3) No deconstructional and offensive statements in neither the comments nor the actual posts. (4) No arguments may be presented in the final round. (5) No changes to the debate's structure or rules can be made without public consent from both debators. Any offense will signify the forfeiture of the entire debate, unless a middleground is agreed upon by both debators. DEFINITIONS:True - "in accordance with fact or reality"False - "not in accordance with fact or reality"All definitions influenced by Google. *END OF SETUP*POINT ONE:A paradox is the general term used for statements that are both true and false. For example, the famous "Liar" Paradox is as follows:"This statement is false"You can already see what I'm going at here. If the statement is a truth, then it is also false, making it both at the same time. But if it is a falsity, is is also a truth. Same effect. Need some more paradoxes? The Pinnochio paradox: "What if Pinnochio said 'My nose will be growing now'? "The Card paradox: "The next statement is true. The previous statement is false. "POINT TWO: Please tell me that this isn't true and false at the same time. POINT THREE:Schrodinger's Cat is a famous illustration showing the principals of quantum indeterminacy. We take a live cat, and put in in a steel box along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. Hydrocynaic acid is, as suggested by the name, an acid, and is lethally dangerous for the cat should the vial be broken. Now, the mechanism attached to the vial will strike the glass with a hammer, which releases the acid onto the cat, if one single atom decays during the experiment. The steel box is closed, and there aren't any windows. We can't see anything inside, so we don't know if the cat is dead, the vial has been broken, or that the substance has started decaying. It could go either way. We are, at that point, in a state of quantum indeterminacy. The cat would be both dead and alive from our perspective, according to quantum law. There you have it. The statement "the cat is dead" in that situation would be both true and false. No animal rights comments please. (1 . https://en.wikipedia.org...)(2 . http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com...)(3 . http://whatis.techtarget.com...)Anyway, thanks again to my partner, and to all viewers.
something can not be true and false at the same time.

A far superior individual stated something cannot be true and false at the same time. A truth is a truth. A falsity is a falsity. Seeing as I clearly have a low iq I must agree with this as my opinion is merely an opinion. The individual was clearly telling the truth so it must be impossible to disagree with this statement. You being the con will clearly be unable to argue against the statement that - something can not be true and false at the see time.
This house would believe the dominant pardigm is flawed.

First I will defend my contentions, then address my opponents. 1A)Con has many flaws in his attack on this contention. I'll address them quickly. Con states, "Variation occurred for several reasons, primarily because of adaptive radiation, where organisms isolated in different environments adapted to those environments through natural selection" Variation is required for natural selection, and therefore variation came before natural selection. Con's statement is a circular argument. Natural selection cannot be responsible for the origin of variation. Natural selection actually reduces the amount of variation. Con states, "Variation occurs due to random mutations in the DNA of new organisms, which is why they are different from their parents." First, mutation is not responsible for differences between offspring and parents. The offspring contains genetic information from both parents, but no new genetic information. Mutations also happen very, very slowly. Much slower than natural selection reduces variation. Nearly 100% of all mutations are actually negative, and are quickly removed from the gene pool, rarely making it past the first generation. Therefore we can conclude that all the variation around us cannot possibly be a product of mutation. Can a birds ability to fly possibly be a product of the same process that causes cancer? That seems a little far fetched. Con states, "Another mistake 1A makes is to place differential reproduction WITHIN natural selection - differential reproduction IS natural selection." Con is now arguing with my source, not me. He also fails to answer how we have sexual reproduction via natural selection. 2A) Con states, "Things are proven every day" This is false and contradicts the very principles that science is founded upon. Nothing can be or ever has been proven. There is substantial evidence for some thing, but they are not actually proven facts. He also makes the mistake of comparing applied science and theoretical science. In applied science decisions are made based on the best evidence available. You do not accept that something is fact, but rather that you must make the best possible decision with the evidence at hand. 2B) Scientists attempt to disprove things every day. Otherwise they would never make any new discoveries. The scientific process by it's very nature shows this. If you conduct research and do not find any flaws with the paradigm you are testing, you have made no scientific progress. 3. You are confusing mathematics with natural science. Mathematics is something humans have constructed themselves and is not a natural science. You have also created the strawman argument that I believe evolution through natural selection is falsehood. Rather, I have stated it is flawed. There is a significant difference. Con states evolution should be accepted to be used as a building block for scientific research, much the same way we accept that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Evolution via natural selection has never been observed, unlike a volcanic eruption.
This house would believe the dominant pardigm is flawed.

Now that we have ironed out the details of the debate, let's jump in. Thank you Con for accepting this debate and remaining patient while we settle the confusion. The dissenting view of evolution is much more productive for the scientific community, and here is why. I will offer two main points. The first will pertain to Evolution directly, and the second will be more broad and pertain to the scientific method as a whole. 1. Evolution A. There are three requirements for natural section. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Those requirements are, a)variation, b)differential reproduction, and c)heredity. Therefore natural selection cannot be responsible for variation or reproduction. How then, did we get variation and reproduction? This is an inherent flaw in the dominant paradigm of natural selection. 2. The scientific method A. Nothing can be proven. This is a fundamental principle of science. Therefore all paradigms are inherently flawed. Therefore we should assume this paradigm is flawed. B. The scientific method is essentially used to disprove a paradigm. The scientific method can be summarized as, Observe Form a hypothesis Test Hypothesis Revise or reject hypothesis Repeat We know that all hypothesis/paradigms are flawed. If you cannot detect the flaws and revise or reject the hypothesis, then you have done nothing to contribute to the scientific community. Therefore assuming the paradigm/hypothesis is not flawed prevents any contribution to the scientific community. 3. Scientists who accept the dominant paradigm have never made significant contributions to the scientific community. What did great scientists like Kepler, Einstein, and Darwin have in common? They were all skeptical of the dominant paradigm. Because of this they were able to make significant contributions to the scientific community.
This house would believe the dominant pardigm is flawed.

Hello, I'm somewhat new to this website but I think I should be able to debate relatively well in favour of evolution. I prefer clarity above all else, so I will reiterate the statement in a way that makes sense to me... Statement - Evolution is flawed Pro believes that evolution is flawed, con (myself) believes that evolution is not flawed. I look forward to your criticisms of evolution, although as a thing that has been regarded as scientific truth for over a century and is considered akin to the "theory" of gravity, I fear that they shall have to be somewhat transcendental i.e. nothing is certain so all theories are flawed! Good luck regardless.
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

“where do you get your numbers that he'd increase the taxes on the rich? i've only heard he'd increase them. he might tweaka few things especially for hedge funds that make their decrease not as much, but it's overall less. and the top rate now is closer to forty percent, under the new plan it's thirty three percent. they might pay a marginal rate of twenty five but that's a different story the top rate.” So you don’t believe that Trump would increase taxes on the rich, because you’ve only ever heard that he would increase them (but this is correct), I do not see the difference between increasing taxes on the rich and, well, increasing taxes on the rich. Now, Trump isn’t necessarily increasing taxes on the rich, the top rate decreases, so officially the rich are taxes less, but if you were to account for the fat that most times these clowns cheat out of their taxes, use corporate loopholes, or shell companies that reside in the US (onshore is the new offshore apparently), then the mega rich, not the upper class, end up paying more taxes since they actualy will end up paying their taxes, but their official rate is decreased. It sounds complicated but it really isn’t, let me explain; say you ear 100$, and the official law is you pay 50%, so you should end up paying 50$, but instead you legally launder your money through loopholes that the mega rich had added into the US tax code so they could tax dodge. So you only pay 10$, but someone else comes along, reduces your rate to 25%, but abolishes the loopholes, this way your official rate has lowered to 25%, but the actual amount you pay has increased by 150%! In this way trump can both increase taxes and decrease taxes on the rich at the same time “plus, where do you get a ten percent decrease in spending? if he does as he says and not touch entitlements and defense and interest, he'd have to wipe out government as we know it practically just to get a ten percent cut.” Well this is embarrassing; you were the one that said he would do a ten percent cut in Round 2: “he just ignores though that i pointed out that he won’t cut 90% of spending and make increases, so the remaining ten percent won't even balance the budget, let alone pay for his tax cuts.” “not sure why you posted that last picture. it shows with higher taxes theres more GDP growth. i know you were making a concession about revenue but it doesnt help your point.” Actually, I never said that reduced taxes equal more GDP growth, I just posted that graph with the intention of proving it, so my opponent just basically validated Reaganomics! The point was reducing taxes is responsible since it puts the interests of the public first, which is kind of the whole entire point of government, so if they can do this by reducing taxes they should- it’s their job actually, that’s why they’re called “public servants.”
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

where do you get your numbers that he'd increase the taxes on the rich? i've only heard he'd increase them. he might tweaka few things especially for hedge funds that make their decrease not as much, but it's overall less. and the top rate now is closer to forty percent, under the new plan it's thirty three percent. they might pay a marginal rate of twenty five but that's a different story the top rate. plus, where do you get a ten percent decrease in spending? if he does as he says and not touch entitlements and defense and interest, he'd have to wipe out government as we know it practically just to get a ten percent cut. not sure why you posted that last picture. it shows with higher taxes theres more GDP growth. i know you were making a concession about revenue but it doesnt help your point. last as i said in the comments his first post nontrump link was a liberal site. i dont know specifically why he cited it except maybe it had a factoid that helped him. overall it doesn't though.
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

Actualy we spend 3.79 trillion annualy {1} and receive 3.18 trillion annualy {2}, so let's do the math, by reducing spending by 10% the budget will become 3.2 trillion. By increasing taxes on the very rich but ultimately reducing them from what they were supposedly, and by getting rid of corporate loopholes trump will increase revenues by at least 500 billion. which will give us a 480 billion surplus. And thoug decreasing taxes may not increase tax revenues,, it is used by those rare politicians who actualy care about the good of the people and not just squeesing as much money as he can from the public: {1}. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...{2}. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

con says we can cut our way to solvency. he just ignores though that i pointed out that he wont cut 90% of spending and make increases, so the remaining ten percent won't even balance the budget, let alone pay for his tax cuts. con cites trumps website for a source. of course trump thinks he can grow his way out of that mess. but in a poll, zero percent of economists thought that we could get more revenue by cutting taxes than not. http://econlog.econlib.org... con is falling prey to voodoo economics http://www.urbandictionary.com...
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

As my opponent hasn't posted any links to what policies she is refering to I am unable to respond to this specific claim or tell how much the deficit/surplus would e under a trump presidency. I can however say that it is entirely possibly to have both a balanced budget and low taxes through tis thing called "reduced spending."I can also tell you that the liberal version of "taxing the rich," is just a term they use to make everone think they are "bringing change," whilst in reality they just raise taxes for the middle class and actualy decrease taxes for the rich. Under trumps tax system corporations won't be able to cheat out of their taxes by "moving" to Bermuda (i.e. they say they live in bermuda and pay no taxes), and the top 1% pay 25% of their income to the feds, if trumps tax plan goes into effect these will be raised by 8% to 33%. In all, federal revenues should increase by roughly 1.5 trillio according to my estimations based on his tax plan alone, accounting for reduced regulations and taxes, and increased jobs and industry, the total amount should be around 2 trillion. http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org...https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible. trump varies between wanting to cut taxes between half a trillion and a trillion a year. when pressed, he says he wants to have a balanced budget. that's not possible. if you read his website, he says they use "dynamic growth" models which would cause the buget to become balanced. that's another way of saying his cuts in spending wouuldn't do the job alone.... he relies on voodoo economics to do the job. it's called voodoo economics cause it goes against a very simple idea... cut taxes massively, get massive revenue decreases. so simple a kindergartner can understand it. just look at the graph from history below, which proves it. http://www.factandmyth.com... it's not possible to cut his way to solvency. he doesn't want to touch social scurity or medicare or interst on the debt. and wants to increase spending on defense and infrastructure and other pet projects. he says we will make ends meet by cutting "waste fraud and abuse", a vague notion. if you look at the numbers though, it's not possible to get enough of that. for indeed, social security medicare interest and defense account for more than ninety percent of the budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the budget, which would be hte height of irresponsibility, you couldn't even balance the budget now, let alone pay for his tax cuts. if he's like most other republicans out there including past presidents, he would just run us into debt at the end of the day. thus his budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.
Should parents be able to kill their autistic grown up ((child))

Hello and thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic with you! Good luck to us both Let me begin by saying, that in every way, shape, and form, killing any living human being at any age because they have Autism is an idea comparable to the ideology of genocide that Nazism is known for. A real life account of this is partly covered in the book In A Different Key. In short, they would either have been gassed or injected with a lethal agent that caused pneumonia-like symptoms that would kill or starve them to death.Now some rebuttals to your points.Of course not all autistic children should be executed only severe oneWhy should we murder children with Autism in the first place? If you have a rebuttal i would love to hear your explanation for murdering Autistic kids.they at least should help society in any waySome very influential figures are believed by many to have been Autistic. Examples include Albert Einstein, Amadeus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, even Thomas Jefferson.Also, if your a single you need to work and make sure your child is safe at the same time, but how? the simple question is, you can't.There are still two option sending your child: put your autistic to care or kill your child.The same way single mothers with kids that aren't Autistic keep them safe.but think about it, the government pay allot for autistic people ($29 million Quebect alone) it would be cheaper to just kill himI am assuming you're talking about Canada in this statement, it is not uncommon for families to wait several years to receive a diagnosis of autism for their child from publicly funded health services in most provinces. And once a child is diagnosed, interventions with a strong evidence base, such as behavioural therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy, have wait times of several months up to several years in most places across the country. Once services are received, families have access to these therapies for only limited time periods and often beyond the window of time that most experts believe optimal.The wide range in disparity of publicly funded services for autism across the country has even generated a kind of ‘medical migration’ with several published accounts of families leaving their home provinces (most commonly, Atlantic, Ontario and Quebec) to move to Alberta or British Columbia where autism services are more readily available and/or more flexible. It is also no longer uncommon to find Canadian families using crowd sourcing campaigns to fund their children’s autism and related therapies. Many organizations and affected families across the country have been calling for a National Autism Strategy to address the critical lapses in health coverage.imagine what you can do with the 29 million dollars, you could donate it to the veterans, to child who have cancer and health care.So you would rather spend the 29 million dollars on the less than 750,000 Canadian veterans and kids that survive cancer 12% of the time?
Should parents be able to kill their autistic grown up ((child))

Children are supposed to become functional members of society and not a burden. They're supposed to spread your genes into future generations and if not, they at least should help society in any way.Of course not all autistic children should be executed only severe one.Also, if your a single you need to work and make sure your child is safe at the same time, but how? the simple question is, you can't.There are still two option sending your child: put your autistic to care or kill your child. If you had the chance you would probably choose to put your autistic ((child)) to care.but think about it, the government pay allot for autistic people ($29 million Quebect alone) it would be cheaper to just kill him. imagine what you can do with the 29 million dollars, you could donate it to the veterans, to child who have cancer and health care.
Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism) is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The principle most frequently used to support voluntarism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with the anarcho-capitalist philosophy; however, almost all anarchists and libertarians believe in the NAP. We believe that this moral standard is superior to other forms of statist governance such as democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org... In this debate, I will be arguing that voluntarism is the superior moral principle to democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which eligible citizens may participate in government either directly by voting for the passing of specific laws, running for office, or voting indirectly through elected representatives. This stands contrary to voluntarism which does not allow for citizens to legally violate the NAP through voting (even by majority consensus). http://en.wikipedia.org... The NAP asserts only two basic rights: the right to one's person and property living free from aggression; no laws can justifiably violate the right to non-aggression. According to the NAP, any violation of one's person or property is always illegitimate when backed through force or violence rather voluntary, non-coerced exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org... Considering the vast majority of the population (and this site) are statists who do not support libertarianism or anarchy, I should have no problem finding a worthy and enthusiastic opponent. If you are interested in accepting this debate, please comment. I very much look forward to an interesting discussion on ethics and political philosophy. Thank you in advance for your time and dialog. I will begin my argument in R2 -- feel free to make preliminary notes in R1, or begin the debate if you so choose. Best of luck! Danielle
Write a story that is dystopian

This isn’t from the exercise book and because I’m not sure exactly what I have in mind here is the prompt: Write a piece that is 10,000 characters or less (I put the settings at the highest allowable) about something that is dystopian in nature. I wanted to keep it broad so that it would appeal to more users. So at its most simplistic what I am saying is writing anything that has element of dystopian fiction in it, this could include anything. As long as that general rule is followed we should not have a problem. How the debate will work: First Round acceptance Second Round is Story BOP is 50/50 (since it is a writing exercise not an argument) Guidance for Voters: Pick based on the prompt as well as skill the person that has managed to create the better story. Good luck to my opponent. --Thanks Emma.
City of Bones vs. Hunger games

What you would rather do isn't important. Sure I don't want to be starving outside awaiting death but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Besides you were comparing being in the hunger games to reading city of bones. Shouldn't you be comparing it to being in city of bones. So really you would rather be in a world made for survival then being constantly chased by demons downworlders and valentine. The hunger games is more entertaining because of it's realism compared to city of bones.