BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

is reality true? another option is that imagination is true, you know, where superman comes from and all that close your eyes and read on, right now, close them and read, close them come on.... you are getting there.... logic is absolute, cause and effect is logic, i open my eyes and i see, cause and effect, i am not blind, i am life, and seeing is the confirmation of that, so that is to say if you close your eyes, it is possible, that you will never see again, but it is also possible that you will see, when will you know.. and if you choose to believe your eyes will never open again when you close them, why not just go ahead and read the bible to if i am with you physically, and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, i am now, you cant argue with that i could be a bot trying to make you think i am human, but i could also be a human trying to make you think i am a bot to me, you are light on my screen and a story in my mind fact=truth, not true and false know=physical existence true can not exist without false anything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, true is the opposite of false and truth, and past is the opposite of future, now is matter. if there is no false answer to 1+1, then how could there be a true answer, and how do i percieve of a false answer, equation without my imaginaition objective experience, very much depends on a mind
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

As per the debate title, one cannot prove that their physical experience is absolutely true in respect to objective reality. One shouldn't be able to accept this, but If you choose to accept this challenge, you must agree to the definitions below. If you accept, please elaborate on your points so they can make more sense to others. Definitions: Prove : Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. [1] Absolute : Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. [1] True : In accordance with fact or reality. [1] False : Not according with truth or fact; incorrect. [1] Reality : The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. [1] Objective : Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. [1] Physical Experience : Any and all information that is received by the brain of an individual though the use of bodily senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste). Acceptance of this debate places the burden of proof on Pro. [1] Oxford Dictionary
Impromptu Debate

=== Intro === Video games have long been an issue of controversy as there are so many variable factors, from content all the way to parental intervention. My position will be clarified at the end of this round, after I provide the sufficient framework and evidence necessary to formulate an opinion. === The Case for Banning Explicit Content from Video Games === To begin, we will define children as the plural of child, which is "a young person of either sex" [1]. First, we will look to studies of what children desire. Brad Bushman of the University of Michigan and Elly Konijn of VU University Amsterdam conducted a study that took into account the opinions of 310 Dutch school children; their findings seemed to be consistent with our expectations [2]. They found that, in the majority of cases, the more "objectionable" the material in a game title, the more the children would want to play it. This leads me to more relevant statistics. In a study Walsh [[3]- article found in [6]] it was found that most teens who played video games had parents that did NOT set time limits. What is the effect of this? Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh [[4]- article also in [6]] found that it led to several detrimental effects. For the sake of debate, we will stick to just two. 1.They become more aggressive ---> a.Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers ---> b.May engage in fights with their peers 2.They found a decline in academic performance [[5]- article, yet again, in [6]] So, we come to a syllogism. Given: (1)Children want video games with graphic content (2)Parents don't monitor gaming time enough We get: (3)Children play a lot of violent video games (found to range from 5 to 13 hours weekly, on average) The effect: (4)An increase in violence and aggression (5)A decrease in overall academic performance Therefore: I advocate that graphic and objectionable content be removed from the video-gaming sphere allowed for children I thank Pro for this wonderful debate, and shall now return to study for my midterms. If I might add, this was the first meaningful distraction I've had in a while. === Sources === [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://kotaku.com... [3] Walsh (2000) [4] Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh (2004, p.6) [5] (Gentile et al, 2004). [6] http://tinyurl.com...
Impromptu Debate

I will select number 2. China and Russia have recently signed an economical and militaristic agreement in the face of "US Aggression." (http://www.en.rian.ru...) This does seem to indicate that the United States should feel somewhat threatened by these two powerhouse nations. The Republic of China has evicted the former Nationalist Government to Taiwan, but since that time in the post Civil War period, Taiwan has been a nuisance to them (only recently has the USA even acknowledged the Communist Republic of China as official government). As a result, China wishes to conquer the tiny island, which is a USA protectorate. China also has the means to completely debilitate the United States' Pacific force in Japan. China has the only land to sea ballistic missile in the world, and it is designed to destroy naval craft - such as the US Carrier docked in Japan. China has been accused of cyber attacks already; Asian hackers have been accused breaking into important databases. It is not far fetched that China will continue; in fact, if China were to attack the United States, then cyber assaults would commence their assault. One must consider that over 70% of China's economy exists due to piracy and fraudulence. Such a volatile society shouldn't be trusted; it damages the Unites States and International trade. Thence, it is not far fetched whatsoever. I'm out of time. Thanks!
Impromptu Debate

Thanks for accepting, Sam. Indeed, that is how this "Debate" will work. Your three choices are as follows: 1. Should Cannabis be legalized? 2. Immigrants should not be entitled to welfare or social security programs after residing in Canada for just six years. 3. Violence, profanity, nudity and intoxication should be banned from video games, as they influence the children in a negative fashion. Remember, you do not debate them in Round 2, but merely proffer some topics for me. That's a diverse selection. Have a great debate! Enjoy!
Impromptu Debate

Seeing as impromptu and debate are difficult to put together, I'd like to point out that this debate is going to be sloppy, relatively speaking- organization will be minimized and, as my opponent pointed out, spelling and grammar are likely to be dealt a heavy blow from the rather insufficient amount of time provided. Before we begin, I'd just like to ask for some clarification: it seems as if my opponent will be taking one of my topics and arguing for or against it, and I'll be arguing for or against one of his. Basically, these are two independent "speeches", is the assumption I'm making. If that's correct, there is no need to address this. I thank the readers for their time, and apologize ahead of time for any informalities or "unsportsmanlike" behaviors on my part and my opponents, and request that they be dismissed as the effects of pressure. With that, I'll send the debate back over to Pro, in anticipation of a few debate topics that are sure to spark anyone's interest.
Impromptu Debate

Greetings all, This is an Impromptu Debate. Each participant has ten minutes to post, so please keep that in mind when judging for errors or discrepancies in spelling. There are three rounds in this debate, but only the third round will be utilized for the actual debate. In the first round, my opponent will join and merely post formalities. In the second round, I will post three different topics that my opponent can debate. My opponent will do the same. In the third round, each will select one topic and argue for or against it. Do not attempt to refute the opponent, as this is based upon who is the most professional when under time restrictions. Also, it is generally considered sportsmanlike if the opponent does no research or outline planning about the topic during the ten minutes that I post. Of course, this 'rule' only works if both parties concur and abide by, "The Honour System" Good luck and have fun!
ATTB, a person who went directly from born-again Christian to agnostic atheism can go to heaven

Pro plainly lies and twists his way around realities in order to for his conclusion as well as admits his lack of arguments as well, where I'm providing arguments to the point, relevant to the bible or not. In order to claim that the bible doesn't damn atheists to hell, you have to ignore what the bible says, my opponent claims that atheism is a faith. Atheism is a faith like abstinence is a sex position. Atheist and agnosticism are two different things. According to your own link, atheism is the denial of a god existing, where agnosticism is pertains to knowledge. So, according to your own source, agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions what someone knows (agnosticism) and what someone believes (atheism). Therefor you've defined your agnostic atheist as someone with out faith. There are also multiple definitions of faith in the link you've given. It's strange, not only that you didn't go to the definitions of the faith or lackthereof in question, but you also chose the definition that does not directly concern god when there is such definition there - "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:" That definition is far more appropriate. You are choosing definitions that suite you while the more appropriate doesn't. You have a blatant confirmation bias. Going on to morality, the bible also has something to say about it. Psalm 14:1 "To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." It says right in the bible that those who dismiss god are immoral. So, are we going according to the bible, or according to psychologytoday? You spent your entire second round debating the contents of my debate rather than the subject of it. Well, you should practice what you preach. Atheism "ATTB" is immoral. And, for the sake of this debate, the bible takes the stage, and the bible disagrees with you, I suppose that's why you're not arguing according to the bible. The difference is, I'm willing to have that argument, I want to have that argument, you're the one pushing me into the box of religion. You can't just put me into the box of religion while giving yourself free reign. That's incredible misconduct, and I feel it should be pointed out. You have attempted to assure a victory by sneaking your way to a wider, more reality based, range of sources. Arguing purely based in the bible, you can't win, and, if you don't confine me, than the question of the existence of heaven comes to light and you still lose. You try to suppress me in order to assure your victory, and, in that alone, you have displayed such great misconduct, that, I'd argue, you forfeit this debate.
ATTB, a person who went directly from born-again Christian to agnostic atheism can go to heaven

R1: "Firstly, you're pro, you obviously meant me, so, remember that I'm con."OH. REALLy sorry about the mistake, Con. R2: "You provide no argument for you're side, and I've already made two statements against you. You lack in argumentative substance and hold no real ground for what you're claiming."Because your arguments were irrelevant to what the Bible says about an agnostic atheist going to heaven, as we previously agreed.R3: You used revelation 21:8 as an argument for your position. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death," It says. Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Agnostic atheists believe in the possibility that God may exist, so they have some faith. It also lists "Sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars." However, these are al immoral. Studies show, however, that atheists tend to have better morality than religious people (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). This verse, as a result, only excludes some agnostic atheists. Hell is also a place where the wicked go according to the Bible, so if people have good morality, accepted Jesus, and believe that God maye exist, this implies that they would go to heaven.
ATTB, a person who went directly from born-again Christian to agnostic atheism can go to heaven

Firstly, you're pro, you obviously meant me, so, remember that I'm con. Even so, you're right, and, being the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. So, where is it evident that you can get into heaven as an agnostic atheist? You provide no argument for you're side, and I've already made two statements against you. You lack in argumentative substance and hold no real ground for what you're claiming. As too the bible specifically, it states plainly in Revelation 21:8. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." So even as to the contingency, the book of which should be cited for basis of argument rather than relied on, as any other holy book is as likely to be true, does in fact rebut your claim. If, in fact, my opponent does have the ability to cherry pick a section, it's simply that, deciding what parts fit better your claim while ignoring the rest despite their value. In that, the argument based in reality is far more reliable than that of a book written in times far below us. The bible is, for all we know, no more correct than a Christians tumblr account.
ATTB, a person who went directly from born-again Christian to agnostic atheism can go to heaven

This resolve assumes the existence of god, heaven, and that we (humans) could possibly comprehend what is needed to gain access to such a heaven. As con, I argue that we couldn't possibly know. If a god is omnipotent and outside of the realm of human understanding, it is pretentious to claim knowledge in the decisions of such god. Of course, if god is outside of the realm of human understanding, than we couldn't possibly understand if such god even existed, and, if such god were within human understanding, we'd have to understand that such god exists through human capabilities to make such claim, the entire claim toward there being a god is based in a book written thousands of years ago, we still have no direct link, or even a reliable offhand source to lead to the knowledge of a gods existence. And, heaven being directly linked to god, we, as an extent, could not claim knowledge to it's existence. Human beings being of mortal understanding could not understand heavenly construct because, by religions own definition, it's outside of the realm of our understanding.
Hitler save lots of jews by kill them before starve and he have big dream. He nice person

I think Hitler is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills allies and doesnt afraid of anything. Jews have problem, no food and starve. Hitler buy train to keep jews and go camp! they make work for bread is nice, free work. But jews big problem no food. Hitler was of nice and mercy he show gas chamber. He open and say, come come jew is good and warm. Jew go and die but no hurt. Jew die becouse of no food allies make bomb and russian put bomb and no of food for anybodies. Jews starve and cry. Hitler see of jews and say "no cry jews its all gonna be k" and he build of gas chamber to make warm and give death to jew to free from this world. I hope you accept of my argument and hitler is good person lets be nice of him he is sad history of world :( If you accept of me in first of round is accept and second you must of show your argument but no say rude thing of me or say my arugment no right becouse is no true dont say of k? third of round is fight of debate and fourth round is final statment of truth is nice ok be of good thanks of you, bye.
Hitler save lots of jews by kill them before starve and he have big dream. He nice person

"I think Hitler is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills allies and doesnt afraid of anything." Already I have an issue here, if Hitler wasn't afraid of anything why would he execute himself (or as some people believe) run away and never be heard from again? "Jews have problem, no food and starve." Jews never had this problem more than anyone else. In fact, at that time though they were average denizens of their respective countries. The popular stigma was that Jews had more money and more wealth than anyone else. Which clearly means they had much more food than most. " Hitler buy train to keep jews and go camp! they make work for bread is nice, free work. But jews big problem no food." Hitler buy many train, and many jew go "choo-choo" on the fun time rails. NOW however, the Jews have little to no food, in fact because of the closeness of the space, many die of disease because of unsafe and unhygienic living conditions. Hitler was of nice and mercy he show gas chamber. He open and say, come come jew is good and warm. Jew go and die but no hurt. Jew die becouse of no food allies make bomb and russian put bomb and no of food for anybodies. Jews starve and cry. Hitler see of jews and say "no cry jews its all gonna be k" and he build of gas chamber to make warm and give death to jew to free from this world. I think I would rather live hungry than die in a gas chamber suffocating on my own bodily fluids/blood. It's not like they go in there and pass out and die, they went in, felt what feels like a hot stinging sensation in and on their body. Also, the allies carried lots of supplies with them when they liberated camps. Again (unfortunately) lots of people died because their diets consited of basically water and trash and got sick from the mass of food many were suddenly eating. I hope you accept of my argument and hitler is good person lets be nice of him he is sad history of world :( Hitler killed millions of people (not just Jews) would of ruled the world with an iron fist as long as he could of and would of tried to demolish democracy at its core foundation. Also, he stole hundreds of thousands of tons of raw materials from neighboring countries (poor Poland) and used slave labor (often working people to death) to create German jobs and better the German Economy. Hitler was an evil person, he wasn't even a good politician. All he was good at, was giving scapegoat speeches to a scared public audience. That was it. If you accept of me in first of round is accept and second you must of show your argument but no say rude thing of me or say my arugment no right becouse is no true dont say of k? No I'm going to flatly say you're wrong, and your argument is wrong. You're on a debating website, I'm going to debate you at every turn I can, we're not here to agree with you. Me especially. third of round is fight of debate and fourth round is final statment of truth is nice ok be of good thanks of you, bye. Good luck.
The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated

Yes, people can look at a debate in an unbiased manor, we do it all the time in court rooms because we select a jury's but you know what the difference is between a jury and a debate audience? A court jury is called to serve. the audience of a debate only listen because they already have i bios opinion. People come to this website to express there options. there for, you will find that there are very few people here who are willing to listen to your opinion, who didn't already agree with it. In fact, when ever i start a debate or accept on, i consistently find that the people commenting are more bios, and more aggressive than the person I'm actually suppose to be debating with. moderators are essential in the same way that judges are essential in a court room. No they arn't all perfect, and yes they are subject to bios in the same way you and i are. however a moderator has a job, and we are her because we want to be. yes there is some corruption in the system but corruption is unavoidable yes you can take one or even 100 situations were someone has abused they power but think of it this way. if corruption is unavoidable then do you give it to one man or do you give it to everyone, in many ways having a representative of any sort is a way of controlling corruption. how ever you slice it, having a corrupt leader is always better than having a corrupted people. but back to the complaint you made, moderators don't take your votes away, i mean they might ounce in a while but it isn't a substantial amount because the core of the problem when it comes to the number of votes you get, is that people don't care about what you and me have to say unless they agree or disagree. you don't get votes, and others don't get many votes because people just don't care enough about what you are saying, to draw an opinion.
The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated

Yes, people do have biases, but a person can look at a debate in an unbiased manner. Also, who are the moderators to determine who is right? What gives the moderator the unbiased nature you claim they have? Why should votes be moderated by a single individual? Is it not the case that it is less likely for many to be wrong than it is for one to be wrong? So why should one person be in charge of determining what is a good vote and what is not?