BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

Your statement in round 5 is a straw-man fallacy - a misrepresentation of the argument, and demonstrates a lack of comprehension. You are confusing physical constraints with logical constraints, which are entirely unrelated. Logical constraints are purely a means of symbolic computation that have no obligation to conform to reality. To bring the argument back to point: the original statement that "cause+effect=logic" is incorrect. Cause-effect relationships are but one of myriad forms of binary relationships. Logic does not care what these binary relationships actually represent in the real world, or if they even physically make sense at all, it cares only that a structural link exists between two objects. e.g: OpenEye --gives--> Vision Vision --allows-for--> Reading therefore: OpenEye --allows--> Reading is structurally equivalent to: (A ----> B) + (B ----> C) = (A ----> C) All symbolic substitutions for A,B,C are equivalent because they do not alter the structure - they are merely interpretations. e.g. the statement: Tongue --gives--> Vision Vision --causes--> Flying therefore: Tongue --causes--> Flying. Is logically sound, despite being unreasonable, unrealistic, and incongruent with our expectations of reality. Reason is what anchors logical conclusions in reality. Reason is what maps the symbolic to the real, and the real to the symbolic. The nature of this interpretive bijection, between the real and symbolic, effects all branches of applied mathematics, not just logic. This brings to mind the quote popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" referring to the rhetorical use of data as a masked appeal-to-authority fallacy. Reason lifts interpreted facts about reality into the symbolic realm of logic, mechanically applies the propositional calculus, and then draws the results back down to reality again through another interpretative projection. These dual layers of interpretation allow for all sorts of errors, manipulations and distortions to creep into the results. As an amusing aside, consider the amount of authority placed in science by the general public. Science is the new religion. Yet scientific "truths" can be manufactured through careful, deliberate, manipulation far easier than any priest could have managed.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

The statement that "reason is the opposite of logic; ... i can reason ... based on logic ..." is clearly a contradiction. If logic is the opposite of reason, then the combination of the two acts would negate each other by virtue of the properties of inverses - this is clearly not the case. By dictionary definition, and your own words, the application of logic is a sub-step performed in the process of reasoning, not a separate inverse act. The statement (when divorced from context) "you cant close your eyes and read on", is not an equation, not "physical" math, nor is it an absolute. Context matters and the existence of, e.g. braille, negates any universality. Logic is limited to a closed universe of discourse. Logic is not about measurement or metrics. Logic is about structural relationships between entities. What you know about the real world, through observation of cause and effect, is separate from the mechanistic operation of logic. As mentioned in an earlier round, the propositional calculus of logic, like category theory, concerns itself with the structural interaction between opaque objects. The objects themselves are unimportant arbitrary symbols merely used to index binary relationships. P -> Q -> Z implies that P -> Z exists, by the law of composition of morphisms. What P,Q,Z actually represent in the real world is a matter of subjective interpretation. The statement "cause+effect=logic" is incorrect. The logical proposition "John is human" is not a cause-and-effect relationship. John is not a cause, and Human is not an effect. Yet the statement remains a valid logical proposition because any binary relationship between objects is allowed. Logic is not constrained to be the union of cause ---> effect relationships. As mentioned earlier, the symbols and objects used as sources/destinations of an arrow exist only to uniquely identify the arrow. Logic is an algebraic structure defined over a collection of arbitrary objects, and a collection of binary relationships (i.e. arrows) between these objects, with the required property of composition of arrows. This chaining of arrows is what produces logical conclusions that are structurally sound. Also, the assertion that the statement "the blow of a hammer, is the blow of a hammer" (i.e. A ---> A) is a cause-and-effect relationship is logically inconsistent, because it would require that cause=effect, which is false based on the dictionary definition of the words. The original statement holds under the law of identity morphisms - not cause-and-effect.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

reason is the opposite of logic, i can reason that its a god idea to close the window based on the logic that is its windy and im building a card house it is physical math, you cant close your eyes and read on, i know this, that statement, is as absolute as any true equation logic is the measurement of reasonable, I know you can't see my physical body if you close your eyes, like I know you can't read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, cause and effect(logic), so its reasonable for you to continue to have your eyes open, if you want to read on till the end of this message, based on the logic that is you cant see these words with your eyes closed I know logic, so I know I am reasonable. cause+effect=logic logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) reason+intent=morality fantasy is reason, non sense, there is no logic in fantasy the blow of a hammer, is the blow of a hammer, cause and effect.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

You are confusing Logic and Reason - the card house scenario only further suggests this. From wikipedia: "Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information". The application of an object is not the same as the object in itself. Interpreting logical conclusion in the context of reality is not the same as Logic in itself (i.e as a system), just like the blow of a hammer is not a hammer - hence why the linguistic distinction exists between hammering and hammer. Logic is part of the process of Reason, yet is separate and distinct. Matter acts on matter without regard to human observation, thinking, or deterministic logic. Quantum theory shows that physical events are unpredictable despite full knowledge of the model of interaction and initial input state. By all accounts reality is non-deterministic. Logic, on the other hand, is the complete antithesis to this. Logic exists to draw deterministic conclusions from an initial context based on well defined rules. Logic is not "physical math", i.e. a projection of math onto reality. This type of projection is a separate interpretive step that exists outside the realm of logic itself, despite being required to make any practical use of it's conclusions. Is it logical to eat the poisonous mushroom? The use of the word logical in the context of that question subtly changes the semantics of the word to the more informal usage denoting rational. Given a blank context, most people would agree that consuming poison mushrooms is unwise. However, we can easily construct a logical framework where the statement is true: John likes the effects of LSD. Mushroom-A's toxin causes psychedelic trips. LSD causes psychedelic trips. Therefore John likes the effects of Mushroom-A.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

you are wrong. logic is matter, logic is like physical math my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter if you build a cardhouse in a stormy weather, and keep building it while failing miserably every time becasue the window is open, are you resonable in keeping on trying to build the cardhouse with open window, instead of closing the window? so is it logical to eat the poisonous mushroom?
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

Preconceptions flavour your subjective interpretation of reality. This has been proven with blind taste trials - if you hit someone over the head with the semiotics of quality, their subjective experience of consumption is altered. Placebo effects exist as well. However, the fact is entirely irrelevant to the topic of logic. Poison doesn't need external validation to function, a rock does not need sentience to be smashed to pieces by a hammer. The cause and effect of reality exists outside the symbolic realm, logic does not.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

Logic operates in a purely symbolic realm, with no underlying obligation to project itself onto consensus-reality in any meaningful way. All that matters is internal consistency within the system. In fact, within abstract mathematics, logic is isomorphic to a Cartesian Closed Category via the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondance. Informally, categories merely model objects and their structural relationships to one another (incidentally, the objects themselves are less relevant than their actual connections (Yoneda Lemma), and exist mainly to index said connections). X implies Y Y implies Z therefore X implies Z The ways of projecting the symbols X,Y and Z onto reality are arbitrary and numerous. Customarily, one would choose a mapping that had some utilitarian application, but successfully modelling reality is an art form subject to many pitfalls, perspective biases, incomplete knowledge, and is anything but a strict absolute.
Drinking in the Work Place

As we all know, back in the 40s and 50s, drinking in the work place was a common thing to do. The activity was communal and gave people a chance to "loosen up" a bit, thus making it easier to get through the day. Having watched an abundant amount of Mad Men recently, I feel that we should reinstate drinking in the work place. Clearly, it's something that will make employees happier and more productive. It certainly has in the case of the characters in Mad Men.
I believe that Superman, without a doubt, would beat Goku in a fight.

I would like to set some ground rules for the debate, it's quite simple. 1. No outside help (such as the Z fighters, or dragon balls.) 2. Let's say the battle ground is earth, but no humans to be harmed because of the battle. 3. Round 1 is to state your opinion and why you chose to support Goku. Rounds 2-3 are straight up debate. Round 4 is conclusions. Please, no foul language. This is a friendly debate. Now, I believe Superman is without a doubt, stronger, faster, and smarter than Goku. Superman has a list of amazing abilities. He is practically invincible. He has few weaknesses. I am eager for a response.
I believe that Superman, without a doubt, would beat Goku in a fight.

I can only conclude the my questions scared my opponent, and made him realize the Goku would have a clear path to victory. However, since I will not use that argument, and I'll rather end this debate with the actual final conclusive argument to any of these. It's a bit underhanded, but since my opponent gave up I'll use it. This argument is a summarization of Stan Lee's response to "Who would win?" http://youtu.be... P1) Goku, and Superman are Fictional Characters P2) What happens to Goku and Superman is entirely up to the Author P3) Whoever wins in a fight between fictional characters is whoever that author wants to win C1) If the author wants Goku to win then Goku can win I was going to dismantle Superman, but this will do since my opponent gave up. There is a clear reason in Superman canon that show that Goku would win, but why waste it on someone who won't argue?
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping video evidence that a Rape...

The reason why Kubanti is guilty if rape is not because of the laws that outlaw kidnapping but because of the kidnapping itself because of what came after the kidnapping. Him kidnapping her lead to the rape itself. The girl was taken against her will, then he had his family coerce into accepting the marriage, then later to consummate the marriage. The reason why I brought up the point of the bride wanting to wait for marriage was that in waiting for the time that she wanted to get married in the way that they agreed to get married she would have consented to the marriage and no rape would have occurred. The word rape itself has many definitions and some have elements to the definition. In one case rape means to be carried away by force, the bride was literally carried away, forced into a car and taken to the home of Kubanti. Another definition for the word rape is the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. As it is clearly seen in the video the aunts of Kubanti were using physical force to hold the girl still and get her to accept the bridal scarf. Had he not brought the girl against her will to get married none the following acts would have happened, she would have never had to be forced into marriage and later consummate said marriage.
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping video evidence that a Rape...

1)Even if there are two laws that make kidnapping illegal, my opponent hasn"t specified those laws. __________________________________________________________________________ 2)Thus, I cannot affirm or deny that rape occurred given that I do not understand the criterion contained within those statutes. 3)My opponent makes no link between not wanting to marry someone at a specific time, or wanting to finish school at a certain time, and rape. __________________________________________________________________________ 4)Thus, I cannot see why it is relevant not to want those things and to accuse someone else of rape. 5)Though the girl may have resisted, it is not necessarily the case that if a woman resists the actions of another, the other person is guilty of rape. 6)It is possible for a woman to resist someone"s advances without rape having occurred (i.e. she says, "no," and cries, even though a man has grasped her wrists to make her go somewhere, but at no point is there any penetration without consent). __________________________________________________________________________ 7)Thus, given that there is not necessary connection between resistance and rape, nor do I have any understanding of the statutes involved in this instance, nor do I see any link between not wanting to marry someone or finish school, and rape, my argument, reflecting the premises of my opponent in a negative form, rejects the claim that Kubanti is guilty of rape. My opponent"s argument hasn"t specified certain details nor has it actually explained how the facts cited link to rape, thus I cannot affirm that Kubanti is guilty of rape due to this lack in my opponent"s argument.
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping video evidence that a Rape...

1)There are two laws that make kidnapping illegal. (3:00) 2)Kubanti was nervous and crying on the way to the kidnapping because he knew it was wrong. (9:43) 3)The girl was resisting, crying out for her mother, and fighting off the men in the car. (12:33-14:30) 4)The girl begins to fight off and resist the women in the hut who want to force her into wearing the bridal scarf. 5)One of men confessed that they could"ve gotten into trouble for kidnapping the girl because it is illegal. (20:08) 6)The girl admits that she did want to marry her husband but not at the time, she wanted to finish school, and did not want to get kidnapped. (26:57) 7)The girl felt she had no other option than to accept the scarf because she had already been kidnapped and then family would not let her leave. (27:05) ______________________________________________________________________________________ 8)Therefor, Kubanti is guilty of rape. In the video by Vice a young man kidnaps a girl and takes her as his bride. The girl was forced to marry the young man. In doing the aforementioned he is guilty of rape. The key element in this specific case is that she resisted until she felt like there was no other alternative. Had she had it her way she would"ve waited until she was done with school and ready for a traditional marriage. The fact that she was forced into marriage and then later consummate the marriage all adds up to rape.
Native Americans should not still recieve benefits such as scholarships (off reserveration)

Native Americans only make up .9% of the Population of the United states according to the 2010 census. Okay, well the 2012 census puts them at 2%, so I am going to call into question your sources. Perhaps there was a massive influx in population that drove it up 1.1%. Seeing as they are only likely to increase .7% by the year 2060, I highly doubt this. [1].You then list an unnamed scholarship. I am not saying that this scholarship does not exist, but for us to examine the fairness of such a scholarship both parties must know all the circumstances around this. However, I understand the overall sentiment, that Native Americans have such great opportunities for scholarships. I assume God revealed this knowledge to you, but decided to be vague because I see know statistics. Not even a statement from an actual authority. I, on the other hand, do have such a statement from an authority. To quote--"America Indians face a unique set of challenges in gaining access to a college education and are one of the most underrepresented groups both in college and in the degree-holding population. With extreme poverty and limited access to educational resources remaining persistent problems on reservations and educated professionals also in short supply in many communities, education is a pressing concern for the American Indian community. Despite a strong desire to earn a degree, many American Indian students find themselves in a position where they cannot easily pay for school, even with the help of federal student financial aid. Luckily, American Indian scholarship opportunities exist for those students who are dedicated to beating the odds and earning a degree." Now if they really had so many opportunities, we'd probably see this manifest somewhere. I'm waiting for something concrete. My statement about racial inequality was not an admission that I was wrong. I am saying there is racial inequality, and these scholarships exist to fix this. I thought that was clear, but my bad. The reason more scholarship opportunities MAY exist (you haven't done much to show this) is due not to from whom they are descended, but due to the situation many NI/AN find themselves in.I understood you equated white society with American society. If you don't grasp just the cultural difference between Colonial America from modern America, then I think you should take the two days you get to post an argument and do some research. Let me save you that time and explain, colonial America is a white dominated society with little diversity and modern America is still a mainly white dominated society but with much, much greater diversity. Just give me a bone, or anything, just a tiny source to confirm what you are saying! Please?Sources:[1] http://www.infoplease.com...[2] https://www.scholarships.com...
Native Americans should not still recieve benefits such as scholarships (off reserveration)

As you say there are scholarships for other minorities but the difference is in numbers. Native Americans only make up .9% of the Population of the United states acording to the 2010 census. Acording to the same census ther are only 263,805 students between the ages of 15 and 19. Between the ages of 20-24 there are only 240,716 together the population of Native Americans between the ages of 15 and 24 is a combined 504,000 Native Americans compared to the 6,559,448 Black, 29,156,585. The competition is extremely low for these Natives. They are practicily giving away these scholarships. Upon further research I found that there is oportunity for them to gain scolarships even with a minimum GPA of 2.00 Which is extremely low compared to the numbers required for White or African American students wishing to gain a scolarship. An average student Native American students has more opportunity than a great student who is White (or any other race).The little competition and the extreme levels of funds makes it especially easy for a Native to chase their dreams and follow almost every proffesion you could think of. This is not true for others, funds are limited and competition is high. In my opinion that is not fair! Why is it in their ability to not do well at the highschool level but be accepted into universities that a similar student of white descent would never dream of getting into. Not all White Americans have money flowing out of their pockets.As to your statement about racial equality whattttt. Your claim "unfortuantly, there isn't racial equality" proves my point exactely. Students are not at an equal level is some are accepted to universities and have access to large amount of funds just because of who tehy descended to. That is not the message that we want passing down. Even in public schools they try to teach that everyone is equal but I guess in reality that is not so. In my last statement I said white society. When I said white society I didn't necessarily mean white society. I meant American society. i've recently read a book called Native American testimony, in that book they outline events that have happened to Natives from pre colonial times to modern day. The book is written by a Native American from a Native American point of view. In the book the author reffered to the colonial society as white society. I guess that term doesn't necessarily apply here, but you get the Idea. My main point of all this being native Americans have opportunities available to them that go unchllentged by other races. In the end if a White student and a Native American student both apply to a university. The white student has a little higher than average grade while the Native american has a little less than average grade guess whose being accepted and going to college for virtually no money!!! The Native American! In the end it's not fair and it doesn't promote those who deserve it (not saying all of them don't, but sometimes it's ridiculous.)