BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It can not be scientifically proven that a particular individual possesses conciousness.

Although we each individually know we are self-aware/posses consciousness are sentient beings (have a sense of what it is lik to 'be') we cannot scientifically prove that other organisms (or individuals) also posess said entity (consciousness)." In my opponent's argument, he has assumed that an individual is self-aware, and that they know they are self-aware because they have experienced what it is to "be." In a scientific community, if something is true, then it is true in all applicable cases. Therefore, because my opponent has assumed self-awareness to be true and and individuals know they are self-aware (thus they can prove it to themselves), then the same qualifications can be used to prove that another individual is self-aware.
It can not be scientifically proven that a particular individual possesses conciousness.

Although we each individually know we are self-aware/posses consciousness are sentient beings (have a sense of what it is lik to 'be') we cannot scientifically prove that other organisms (or individuals) also posess said entity (consciousness). == Rebutal == "Cogito, ergo sum" I perhaps phrased the debate incorrecrtly A better assertion would have been, "I know I posess consciuosness but it cannot prove it. "
It can not be scientifically proven that a particular individual possesses conciousness.

I look forward to a good debate. "Although we each individually know we are self-aware/posses consciousness are sentient beings (have a sense of what it is lik to 'be') we cannot scientifically prove that other organisms (or individuals) also posess said entity (consciousness). " My opponents stance is simple, science lacks the ability to demonstate that other individuals are in fact self-aware or have consciousness. My job as Con is to negate this point of view. ==--Rebuttal My opponent has presumed that each individual is aware of that we posses consciousness or that we are self-aware. However he has not provided an explination as to how an individual can know that they are self-aware or a definition of what either self-awareness or consciousness are. Until he can, his arguments are moot.
God exist, Bible is right

Well I will try common sense! Not logic. If one can look up and a clear night seeing the heavens. Then say evolution or big bang? That is a natural random thing of chance, is a fool! " Psa 19:1 To the chief Musician A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge. Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun Psa 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. Psa 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure making wise the simple. " I see my opponent it a higher criticizer babbling logical nonsense! I am a simple man not stupid enough to think that the world was not designed so their is a designer! The bible is a Hebrew document. Formed means squeezed into, the Potter. If there is no God then why do smart people waste their life disproving a silly child's bedtime story! I never challenged the existence of Mother Goose? Unlike You!
God exist, Bible is right

BoP will go to Pro. To prove the bible is right, and God exist. Sources: will be anything used to prove evidence, from videos, text, websites, verses, etc. .. .Rule: the only rule I ask for, is logic reasoning, meaning do not base all arguments through words of the bible. If you do use nothing, but verses, add a description of explanation, and meaning. When using the bible, please state the version of the bible, you got your verse from. Meaning by version is KJ, NKJ, NLT, ect. .. .. Those are the only rules. Now coming into this debate, make sure to keep a clear mind, of what your saying, because knowing the difference from hear say, and evidence is different. These are simple terms. Later on in this debate, my opponent will know what I meant by hear say and evidence. Good luck to my opponent. His first round he can start his argument to gain that extra round. Or he can use the first argument as he please, but be advice the debate will officially start in round 2. Remember we are debating two topics in one, both leading to the same thing, the bible is the main cause and only main reason, to show of a god. What I mean is once I show you the wrong of the bible, the lies, once the bible is shown to be wrong then that destroys of a god existing. Put it like this to destroy a weed, you have to take out the root, to take out the weed. So to show that god does not exist, I'll have to take out Gods root, which is the bible. There that should get you, your start of your argument, I'll let you choose the mini topics. Where you want to prove, that's why I am letting you start the argument debate. Keep in mind the main topic of this debate. Well Good luck to my Opponent. he shall begin
God exist, Bible is right

Well I will make this argument quick, my opponent has the BoP, but yet ignores all my previous arguments, and avoids, showing us this god. Let me tell my opponent, when you go outside, do you see god with your physical eyes. We are not talking spirit bull crap, but actual physical apperance. As for his last argument. Santa Claus and st. Nick are the same people, St. Nick is another word of santa clause, and st. Nick actually was a true man, they called him santa clause because he would bring gifts in his town to little ones. No one is worried? we just want to see if you can prove gods existance, without the bible, or religion affiars. But you have failed to prove it, you keep bring up verses, we all know the book was created by man, and the book has many flaws. Yes there has been many books that were preserved and handed down. As I ask the voters please read his arguments, he failed to go beyond the book, and religion to prove of any existance of this god. All we hear is hear say, no factual evidence. He ignored all my previous arguments.So I will extend all previous arguments to this round. Thank you for reading voters, I hope you enjoyed.
God exist, Bible is right

1Co_1:25, Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1Co_1:27, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1Co_2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Co_3:19, For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1Pe_2:15, For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: This a waste of time because the simple plan of God is that men seek Him! Without faith you can not please Him=God. Isa_29:15, Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Isa_29:16, Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? No other book has been so fought over. Preserved and handed down. Placed in every hotel. Why it is important for you to understand. So no man has excuse. So you God HATERS, WHY YOU WORRIED? I never debated the existence of Santa Clause=St.Nick=Satan either but yet their he is too everywhere.
God exist, Bible is right

It is amazing how a man created by God can deny the existence of the Sun that is in the sky which is the clock of the world. In which all planets are subject to, through rotation around it. So fine tuned that if the sun moved 1/4 mile in space toward the earth it would destroy it. Yet an Atheist say all random chance. Nature and the food chain all random, is nonsense. The bible proves that it is from God by telling the future. But if you are not His then His Words is not logical to you. Maybe He is not talking to you. Example: The destruction of Syria and The Middle East. USA is Babylon and the King of it! Israel became a State 1948 May. Fact so, God said it will be destroyed within a 65 year period again! Isa_7:7, Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. Isa_7:8, For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. Watch them babble! Obama is dividing Jerusalem! " Dan 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers nor the desire of women nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold and silver and with precious stones and pleasant things. Dan 11:39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many and shall divide the land for gain. "
Taxpayer funded abortions.

Hi, I am new here and I look forward to a productive exchange of ideas :) The portion of our taxes that goes into healthcare is meant to help people prevent or treat things that are adverse for their health. Not wanting or believing in one of these things should not justify excluding that from what gets treated using tax money. Pregnancy is a process that could have adverse effects on a woman's health. It puts women at a greater risk of medical complications and makes them unable to engage in many activities. Therefore, women should be able to terminate their pregnancy if they choose to no longer host another person in their body for sake of their health, and it is the kind of thing that tax money should be used for. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://medlineplus.gov...
If Solipsism is believed to be real and true, then theism must also be true and real.

(Apologies if I'm wrong, but I'm working under the assumption that R2 is for arguments and R3 is for rebuttals.) If Solipsism is believed to be real and true, then theism must also be true and real. I negate. My objection to this argument comes from one main contention:There is no necessary link between creation and Theism What we perceive as godliness and being a god are two separate things. For example, if a scientist were to go back in time and show an ancient human modern science, he may be branded a deity. This, however does not make the scientist a deity. He would have to meet the qualifications for such a claim. Over the millennia, certain qualifications have been made by seeing all of man’s mythology come together, these qualifications are: Control over some aspect of, or all of reality. Immortality. The inability to be harmed by mortals. Omnipresence, omniscience, and/or omnipotence Is supernatural in nature All gods, from almost all cultures, meet, to varying degrees, most or all of those qualifications. If solipsism is true, then the solipsist, as far as he/she can verify, only meets one, and even that to an unimpressive degree (as the solipsist is unable to actively control the universe). Just because one is a creator, doesn’t mean one is a god. Once again I return to the scientist analogy. Let’s say that the scientist was able to create another universe. If they were unable to control the universe at will, still able to be killed in that universe, were able to be harmed by anyone, couldn’t know everything going on, and wasn’t supernatural, it hardly seems fit to call them a god, thus making theism accurate for said universe. We then see in turn that the solipsist is unable to control the universe at will, able to be killed in the universe, able to be harmed by anyone, can’t know everything going on, and isn’t supernatural. This last problem deserves its own sub-contention. The Problem with the supernatural The issue with theism in general is that it rests on the supernatural. I quote James Orr, “If God is a reality, the whole universe rests on a supernatural basis. A supernatural presence pervades it; a supernatural presence sustains it.”https://books.google.com... This sense of “supernatural” is the issue. It’s a vague term that generally means outside of nature. The trouble with this is that if the world did not actually exist and the only thing that did exist was the solipsist, then the solipsist would be the only natural entity. The solipsist would not be not supernatural. But the only natural entity. I hope you enjoyed my arguments, I await yours. The Blue Arcanist
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I agree to the terms of the rules. However, I would like to contest Pro's definition of marriage.The definition of marriage I will be arguing for is known as the conjugal view of marriage, which is that marriage is a comprehensive union between husband and wife with a special link to children. [1]Part of my argument will show how Pro's definition for marriage is inadequate and my definition is to be preferred.A couple more definitions to parse out.Revisionist View: This is how I will describe Pro's definition of marriage. There is a modern attempt to re-define the traditional understanding of marriage, which is the definition I will be defending. I do not mean "revisionist" in a pejorative sense, just in the sense that Pro is arguing for a position that the definition of marriage is malleable and we can change it at will or when society decides we ought to change it.Natural Marriage: I will be arguing that marriage has an actual definition. I do not mean "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature, but that marriage does have certain necessary features by its nature (in the same way that human beings have a nature).moral/right: There are at least two different senses of the terms "right" and "moral": the legal sense and the moral sense. What is legal is not always moral (e.g. slavery), and what is moral is not always legal (e.g. feeding the homeless in certain parts of our country). Same-sex marriage is obviously legal now in most places in our country, which means it is currently a legal right in those places. It would be fallacious to argue that because of this fact, it is moral. However, throughout the course of this debate, when I speak of whether or not we have a right to do something, I am speaking exclusively in the moral sense, unless otherwise stated.That should be everything. I await Pro's opening argument.[1] This is the definition that Ryan T. Anderson, Robert P. George, and Christopher Tollefsen use in their book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Thanks to KeytarHero for allowing us to restart this debate with a greater clarification of rules and characters. This debate will analyze reasons for and against homosexuals and their right to marry. The argument is structured with the understanding that there are no sufficient reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. (This means con had the BoP) There will be 5 Rounds with Round 1 being used for definition and rule clarifications. Round 1: Challenge Acceptance and Clarifications Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements. LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL, BUT IMPASSIONED. Definitions Marriage: A monogamous union between two consenting individuals that is recognized under constitutional law. Constitutional Law: rights afforded to every American Citizen in the Constitution and all it"s amendments. Rules: No forfeiting No profanity or hate speech No hearsay arguments Any sources quoted must be sited. If my opponent agrees to these terms, we shall begin our opening arguments in Round 2.
Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I've agreed to allow my opponent's definition of marriage under the assumption that I can refute them with other sources in my arguments. I've also agreed to all other definitions posted in his first argument. With all formalities aside, let's enjoy a nice, intellectual debate! Debate Introduction: With the forthcoming decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the debate over marriage equality has never been more pertinent. However, upon reviewing the transcripts of the oral arguments, I came to the conclusion that not only did the defendants fail to address the questions asked in the brief, they also failed to provide a sufficient reason explaining why homosexuals should not have the right to marry. It is my intention to challenge any argument submitted against marriage equality, proving there is no sufficient reason for the government (and the Supreme Court) to deny the national legalization of gay marriage. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, I shall waive any arguments I have for this round with the understanding that my opponent will waive his final rebuttal. In effect, the way the arguments will be structured are as followed: Round 1: (Already completed) Round 2: Pro (Me): Waives argument. Con (KeytarHero): Opening Arguments Round 3: Pro: Opening Arguments. Con: Rebuttal Round 4: Pro: Rebuttal. Con: Final Rebuttal and Closing Arguments Round 5: Pro: Final Rebuttal and Closing Arguments. Con: Waives argument. If my opponent finds this satisfactory, let him make his opening argument.
School Uniforms

"They throw students off focus and fail. Not only do they bother other people, but they are also horrible!"As the instigator you have the burden of proof to prove that claim. I claim the contrary however. Schools that have made it a requirement to wear uniforms have reported increased attendance and graduation rates among their students. [1][2]The countries of Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan, have the highest average 8th grade math scores and are far above average.[3]The countries of Hong Kong, Singapore, Tawian, and Japan, have the highest average 4th grade math score and again, score far above average. [3]All of these countries require their students to wear uniforms nationwide. [4]I fail to see how your claim, "They throw students off focus and fail", hold any merit seeing that many schools report that their students graduate more often after making uniforms mandatory and that the countries that have the highest average scores in math require their students to wear school uniforms nationwide.[1] http://www.woio.com...(Study claiming uniforms help increase in graduation rates and attendance)[2] http://findarticles.com...(Study claiming uniforms helped decrease absentees and crime rates)[3] http://nces.ed.gov...(Average math scores of countries)[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Countries that require school uniforms)
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

To refute my opponent's arguments, it is true you chose to not eat the mushroom because of the cause and effect relation. This is why, logic is not cause and effect itself. Rather, logic is the product from the cause and effect relation, and the person has the choice to use the logic or not. When it comes to cause and effect, logic itself is clearly not cause and effect, rather it is choice to apply the logic from the cause and effect relation.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

you dont have to eat a poisonous mushroom to be able to reason that its a bad idea you choose not to eat the poisonous mushroom because of the cause and effect relation, if the mushroom was suddenly not poisonous but gave you super powers you would eat them, and it would be resonable, if you want superpowers logic is the Measurement of resonable, it is resonable to not eat the mushroom, based on the logic that IS the mushroom is poisonous to you, it might be fine for a bear, and then it would be resonable for the bear to eat it
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

Logic is a way of thinking in a reasonable way. Logic may be a product of a cause and effect situation, however the cause and effect situation itself is not logic.Let's use my opponent's argument as a rebuttal. Example: Cause: Human eats poisonous mushroom Effect: Human gets sick and as a result, chooses not to eat the mushroom The human in this example has applied logic as a product of the cause and effect. However, keep in mind that logic is what happened after the cause and effect situation. Logic was merely applied due to choice, not due to the cause and effect situtation.Logic is not cause and effect, however a product of cause and effect from a choice.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

there is no logic in thought, not in the way i guess you think there is, logic is matter but thought causes emotion, so emotion is the effect of thouht, is also logic the poisonous mushroom is matter, the effect on your body if you eat it, is matter, you can reason about this reason is the concept/simulation of logic logic+experience=reason logic IS, cause and effect, cause is the rock Falling and the rock breaking is the effect. it might have been you throwing it and then it breaks, cause and effect.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

Definition of logic: A proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something (1) While it may be true that cause and effect often leads to logical thinking, cause and effect itself is not logic. Cause and effect can be defined as reality or existence, however the idea of cause and effect is not limited to living beings who are even capable of logic in the first place. Example: Cause: Rock falls off a cliff Effect: The rock breaks In this viable example of cause and effect, it is clear that logic is not applied. The rock is not even capable of logic, therefore cause and effect has absolutly nothing to do with logic. Even a living being may choose not to apply logic even after the consequence of cause and effect. Example: Cause: A human capable of logic falls off a cliff Effect: The human breaks, however chooses to fall off a cliff yet again In this viable example of cause and effect, the human who is capable of logic, choooses not to apply logic. Thank you for your time. 1.http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

cause+(and)effect=(is)logic eat a poisonous mushroom and try to think the effect away, and i guess you can reason about this and conclude that is a bad idea based on the logic that is the mushroom is not healthy for you, logic is the Measurement of resonable, i know logic therfore i know i am resonable, in not eating the poisonous mushroom, fx there is no logic in fantasy, and i write this message to you while hovering across the grey cratered surface of the moon while typing on my floating keyboard and screen with a big smurky smileA279;