BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

Premise 1Premise 1 is no refuted by my opponent until round 3. He tries to cast suspicion on the topic in the previous round by claiming that [o]ne cannot say, "the jet began" "her body began" or "the plant began." I would like to note that while these objects may not "begin" in the sense that they are configurations of atomic molecules, but this does not address my argument. I ask you to refer back to my overview of modality. My opponent commits the fallacy of redefinition in that atoms are a prerequisite to our existence, but we don't necessarily existence in terms of modal logic. Necessary existence is that when cannot be logically denied. For atoms to entail my necessary existence as a human being, then the occurrence of atoms in the natural world would necessarily entail that I exist. By this logic humans should be sprouting off of the atoms found in rocks and trees. This is a truly absurd proposition. As such, the jet, body, and plant all exist contingently. They also began to exist as the jet, body, and plant. Sure, the component's all existed previously, but to claim that this equates to the final product existing previously is to commit the fallacy of composition.Premise 2My opponent does not continue refutation of Premise 2 in the previous round, so extend my arguments.Premise 3My opponent claims that the universe is a concept which cannot exist, however conceded premise 3 which states that the universe is an existing thing. Indeed, not only is it rather late in the debate to make this objection, but it goes contradictory to his previous concession; however, I will nonetheless prove that this rebuttal does not phase the LCA in the least. If we were to accept the premise that the universe is a concept that exists within the human mind, it does not change the fact that the universe's existence as a concept is contingent on the human mind. There is nothing about consciousness presented thus far by my opponent that necessarily entails the existence of the universe. That is to say that it does not follow that the universe will exist as a concept simply because humans have a mind. Even so, my opponent has not explained why the mind would be a necessary being, or why the human mind could not have failed to exist. Thus, we may conclude that the human mind exists contingently and as such, there must be again an explanation for the human mind's existence. I would claim that this explanation cannot be a natural being as there is no way for a material being to create an immaterial consciousness. As such, we again arrive at the concept of an immaterial, personal creator, or God. This creator must still have a will in order to cause that which it is not, the physical, to exist. Natural causes cannot explain this.ConclusionMy opponent fails to adequately refute the premises of the LCA and thus is stands as a sound argument. Remember the note at the beginning of the debate that an argument should be accepted as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more probable than the negation. At most my opponent has shed doubt onto the LCA but has not proved why the premises should be negated.
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

First, I'd like to address the meaning of the word "exist". Specifically, I ask that we understand the difference between static concepts and dynamic objects. One can say, "the ballgame began" "the movie began" "his work day began" One cannot say, "the jet began" "her body began" or "the plant began" I'd like to point out that "evidence" or "proof" does not have much to do with an issue such as creation. Is it possible for one to explain how something can be created from nothing? Even better, please explain what complete nothingness is if it is not space. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence" Please understand that the word "universe" is a concept and it is not an object. That will lead us to understand that concepts do not exist. Concepts are formed in the human mind. We "form" them the relation between space and matter, but matter has a location and a shape. We know that existence is defined by objects within space and time. Nature does not have a provision for contrived concepts born of the human brain. It is not possible for the word universe to resolve to any object that can be conceived or illustrated. Only objects exist. Rebuttal to P3: In reference to "The universe exists", the word UNIVERSE refers to a concept. So this statement has the same contradictions discussed above. Rebuttal to P4: In reference to "the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)",. Slow down. No explanation has been proven thus far. Ergo, the entire argument is flawed and is not a sound argument. http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

I am disappointed in my opponent's lack of effort in this debate.Premise 1Premise 1 is not refuted by my opponent.Premise 2Premise 2 assumes nothing. I argue in premise 1 that the universe exists as a contingent being. I then go on to prove in premise 2 that a set of only contingent beings could never provide an explanation for their existence. However, as granted by the PSR and premise 1 (which my opponent concedes) everything that exists must have an explanation for its existence. Thus, since the universe cannot explain its own existence, for it does not exist necessarily but rather contingently, and no contingent being can adequately explain why the universe exists either, for it would require another being to explain its own existence, the first cause must be a necessary being. Now, in premise 2 I continue to argue that a necessary, natural being, N1, serving as the first cause is logically impossible. Therefore we arrive at the conclusion that the necessary being which provides us with an explanation of the universe is in fact not natural. This logically requires it to be personal for there are no other possible explanations. Thus, a personal creator, God, is the only reasoned explanation for the existence of the universe.Premise 3Premise 3 is not refuted by my opponent.ConclusionThe conclusion cannot logically be denied if the premises hold true. My opponent concedes premises 1 and 3 and I have adequately defended premise 2. Thus, the LCA is sound.
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe is an existing thing. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-sufficient Being. He is all-sufficient in Himself and to Himself. As the First of beings, He could receive nothing from another, nor be limited by the power of another. Being infinite, He is possessed of all possible perfection. When the Triune God existed all alone, He was all to Himself. His understanding, His love, His energies, found an adequate object in Himself. Had He stood in need of anything external, He had not been independent, and therefore would not have been God.He created all things, and that for himself (Colossians 1:16), yet it was not in order to supply a lack, but that He might communicate life and happiness to angels and men and admit them to the vision of His glory. True, He demands the allegiance and services of His intelligent creatures, yet He derives no benefit from their offices, all the advantage redounds to themselves (Job 22:2-3). He makes use of means and instruments to accomplish His ends, yet not from a deficiency of power, but oftentimes to more strikingly display His power through the feebleness of the instruments.I ask readers to take note that we should rationally accept an argument as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more plausible than the negation.
Ninjas are better than Samerai

Moving on, I would like to address my opponent's arguments. He has completely disregarded the definition of the word, "better" that we are using in this debate. I have already defined "better" as "morally superior, more virtuous", and my opponent has made absolutely no attempt to challenge this definition; thus, his argument actually supports me. He states himself that, ". . . Ninja fought back surprising the Samurai and killing them in cold blood. " It is common sense that killing others in cold blood is not morally right; therefore, samurai are morally superior and more virtuous than ninjas are. Furthermore, my opponent has not even touched my arguments and they remain standing.
Ninjas are better than Samerai

Sorry for the inconvenience, for my argument I would like to mention that the whole reason of the Ninjas existence is because of the Samurai oppressors. Back in the day of Ninjas and Samurai warriors there was an unfortunate balance of power. The Samurai were treated as kings as they made the farmers seem as fools. So then the farmers became angered at the Samurai. Using stealth, improvised weapons, and advanced Martial arts (ninjutsu), the Ninja fought back surprising the Samurai and killing them in cold blood. http://www.spike.com... While the Samurai were known as the best warriors in Japan they were brought down by mere farmers and that is why I believe Ninjas are better than Samurai.
Ninjas are better than Samerai

I extend all arguments. Hopefully, my opponent will be able to respond to my argument in the next (and last) round. Should my opponent produce any arguments, then I will be assuming new information and new arguments are allowed to be introduced in the last round. On the other hand, if my opponent simply refutes my arguments and produces none of his own, then he has not met his BOP; thus, I should win the debate. If my opponent does neither of these things and simply forfeits, then I have ultimately won the debate as I have met no resistance whatsoever throughout all of the rounds. Good luck to my opponent.
Ninjas are better than Samerai

Well, that was disappointing. As my opponent has failed to produce any arguments, I shall do so myself. Before beginning, I would like to remind both my opponent and readers that the word "better" in this debate means "morally superior, more virtuous". Thus, it is my burden of proof to prove that samurai are morally superior to ninjas. Consequently, my opponent must prove that ninjas are morally superior to samurai. 1. Samurai follow the bushido.The bushido is an ancient code of ethics followed by the samurai [4]. They follow this code even during battle, and find it honorable to fight face to face. In contrast, ninjas follow no code of ethics whatsoever. They will serve anyone who has enough money in their purse, making them untrustworthy and susceptible to betraying their superiors. Ninjas are hired assassins and will do nearly anything within their power to accomplish their mission. Furthermore, samurai generally did not charge for any fee during missions, whereas ninjas did.Conclusion-While this may have been short, and I have only produced one argument, I believe that only one argument is necessary, as my opponent has yet to produce even one. Now, let us compare and contrast ninjas and samurai.Ninjas- Were assassins (this is morally wrong) Are not bound to any code of ethics whatsoever (leaving them to do morally wrong acts) Required a fee (showing how greedy/selfish ninjas are: they only kill people for money) Serve anyone as long as they have money (once again, showing ninjas' selfishness and greed) Samurai- Served government and fought for their country (similar to a soldier) Bound to ethical code called bushido (meaning they cannot commit morally wrong acts on the level of ninjas) Do not require fee (showing lack of greed/selfishness) Vote Con! [4] http://www.differencebetween.net...
Ninjas are better than Samerai

Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for this debate, I shall do so. Definitions-Ninja: a member of a feudal Japanese society of mercenary agents, highly trained in martial arts and stealth (ninjutsu), who were hired for covert purposes ranging from espionage to sabotage and assassination [1]Better: morally superior, more virtuous [2] Samurai: a member of the hereditary warrior class in feudal Japan [3] [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. It should be interesting.
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

Everybody! I think this "person" is not a person. He seems to be some kind of computer AI programmed to troll people on this website. I just answered his manly "arguments", and he answers in his stupid voice, "the instigator has misread my previous post and has failed... bla bla bla." Just speaking a bunch of nonsense. Dude just shut up. You're just giving up because YOUz88;AREz88;SCREWED! He is one of those 3-year-old internet N00Bs who think "Oh i'm such a grown up i'm gonna debate something my momma told me about. Screw you COUNTzander more like N00Bzander Thank you, TheBunnyAssassin
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

Erm, are you a child? The Mesoamericans never developed wheels,mbecause THEY DIDNT NEED THEM! Read your history books again. Um, exactly, that's my point, they use horses instead of cars. They are using bows not compound bows? Finally, you are contradicting your own statement. I believe you put the Wikipedia address below. Um, the information you think is "wrong" came from your beloved wikipedia. Happy? I sort of want to stop debating, since you clearly have no knowledge about bows, and I doubt you have even touched one,
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

The Instigator continues to use fallacious reasoning. First, he reasons that because compound bows are reliable, they should have been invented earlier. This is fallacious. Mesoamerican society never developed wheels. Are wheels therefore not reliable? Of course not. The Mesoamericans failed to develop wheels, not because wheels are unreliable, but because there was little impetus to do so. Unlike the Mesopotamians, who serendipitously developed the wheel in response to possessing pack animals, the Mesoamerican brand of agriculture did not depend upon pack animal and so the Mesoamericans lacked incentive to develop the wheel. That doesn't mean wheels are unreliable, only that Mesoamericans had little reason t develop the wheel. The same can be said of bows. By the time guns were developed, armies realized that guns are militarily superior to bows. As armies began using guns, they ignored bows and so few major archery developments were made. Military scientists focused their efforts on firearms. Without incentive, archery technology stagnated until archery became a popular sport. It's not that people lacked the skill to develop bows; it's that they had no incentive to develop the compound bow until archery became a popular sport. Second, the Instigator fallaciously reasons that because the Olympics has modern rules, it should have modern weapons. This is an incredibly poor point. It's like asking, if the Olympics is modern, why are there horse races? Shouldn't they use cars instead? Cars are modern, but horses aren't. Finally, the Instigator concedes that all bows are breakable. However, he insists that recurve bows are easy to repair while compound bows aren't. There is no presented evidence for this claim; he asserts it as being true but has not shown why it is true. In order for the Instigator's claim to hold weight, he needs to provide statistical information suggesting that, on average, bow users can more efficiently repair a recurve bow than a compound bow. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

You want me to play your game? Fine. If your compound bows are so reliable, then why weren't compound bows invented in older times? If complicated weapons such as guns could be made, why not compound bows? Listen, if your compound bows are so modern why not use them in the Olympics, where all the rules are modern? There is a reason why people use recurve bows in official sports, and not in the mindless killing of during hunting. Really? Compound bows are hard to repair? Unconvincing? I gave enough evidence. You obviously do not know anything about archery, since it is true. Why don't you go onto some reliable websites to find out that one dry fire ound on a compound bow CAN ruin it. This proves that it is fragile. Since you say that their design needs to be repaired, have you read my argument? Compound bows cannot be repaired by the average user. They can only be repaired by the occasional long ride to a hunting store or gun shop. This costs gas and fuel. And a few more hundred dollars of replacing the parts AND the bow getting fixed by dealers. Even though a recurve bow may need to have parts replaced, that's it. Replace the parts yourself, instead of spending hundreds of dollars into a shop. I think somebody would rather buy a recurve bow, where you can easily fix it in your own home, without the cost of it getting fixed at a bow dealer. Now, please rebut my points instead of hiding behind one of your "fallacious" comments that you love so much. And try to be a little more courteous. Thank you, TheBunnyAssassin
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

The Instigator does not seem to understand how a debate is conducted. It is sufficient to counter a claim by demonstrating that the supporting evidence is unconvincing. The Instigator has asserted that recurve bows are superior to compound bows. To that, he has provided evidence. I have demonstrated why the presented evidence is unconvincing. If the Instigator is unable or unwilling to rebut my points, he must concede defeat.
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

Countzander, Please debate according to the topic. You have not set a valid case against my arguments. You clearly do not have any true knowledge about bows, and is just here to contradict each statement. I am sorry but I will have to report you for overly insulting me and spam. Since you have not provided a valid case, and I have nothing to debate about. Thank you, TheBunnyAssassin
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

The Instigator's argument, as presented, is incredibly fallacious, notwithstanding the subjective nature of the debate. The Instigator argues that because recurve bows have been used more often than compound bows, recurve bows are superior. He cites not only historical usage by extinct empires but also modern usage in the Olympics. This reasoning is fallacious. First, he cites historical precedent. But that great empires used the recurve bow does not demonstrate the bow's superiority. Compound bows were invented in 1966, only 47 years ago. The old empires never even had an opportunity to use compound bows. To say that recurve bows are better because old empires used them is akin to saying that horses are better than tanks because Alexander of Macedon used horses, not tanks, to conquer the world. Nonsense. Alexander did not have access to tanks, so there's no way of knowing whether their use would have been more effective than the use of horses. In order for the Instgator's argument to have been sound, he would have needed to cite examples of empires which did and did not use recurve bows and would have need to compare their effectiveness. Second, he cites modern usage. This reasoning is also fallacious. That the recurve bow is used in the Olympics does no demonstrate its effectiveness over compound bows. It is likely that recurve bows are used only because they are easier to standardize, not because they're inherently superior. Compound bows could provide certain users an advantage, due to the intricacies of the bow design. Finally, the instigator also says that because recurve bows are harder to use, they are superior. This is fallacious reasoning. Ease of use does not make one thing necessarily better than another. It is easier to type an essay on a computer via a word processor than on a typewriter. Are typewriters then superior to computers? The instigator also argues that compound bows are fragile and are expensive to repair. This is the only non-fallacious point that the Instigator makes, but it is nevertheless unconvincing. Compound bows contain several movable but replaceable parts. While compound bows are not indestructible, their design allows to them to be repaired. Money may need to be spent, but that is completely irrelevant. When a recurve bow breaks, you also need money in order to repair it. Furthermore, the nature of the damage, not the type of bow, determines the repair cost.
Recurve bows are better than compound bows.

Recurve bows are better than compound bows. The reason is because they are used more, and in more important activities. Recurve bows were used in ancient times for hundreds of years, proving its reliability in its field, combat. Comparing bows, from the Huns to the Korean bows, they all have the relative similar design of the recurve shape. Even though compound bows may be more advance and modern, it faces many disadvantages. As we can obviously see, the recurve bow is used in the Olympics, not the compound. The compound bow is too easy to use, while the recurve requires real skill. An example of this is that compound bows can be found in typical stores, such as Toys R Us. Another disadvantage is that the compound bows fall into disrepair after event single dry fire round, which is caused by many beginners, thus causing money to be spent. Finally, the string of a compound bow is not easily replaceable like the recurve, and has to be repaired by experts in a shop. This costs more money I await an opponent and an answer. Thank you, TheBunnyAssassin
we should ban beauty contests

How can we say that "Beauty pageants are really that bad."? Beauty pageants are not bad just because people have taken them to the extreme. A beauty pageant is not necessarily a bad thing. When a contestant enters a beauty pageant and approaches it with a healthy attitude, they can have very promising results.Let's take a moment and really consider this:The majority of beauty pageants in general do not require their contestants to do anything harmful or dangerous.Most beauty pageants judge on more than just appearance. Creativity, community service, character, attitude, and sometimes even grades are all a part of the selection process.Many national and international pageants focus a large part of their earnings on scholarships, community service, donations to charity, and improving self-worth.How can this at all be deemed as "bad"? It is really fair to claim that beauty pageants should be banned because of a few unwise parents who put their children on unhealthy diets? Can we ban beauty pageants because some men and women walk away with a scarred ego?We should all think about the benefits of beauty pageants as well:Learning to be confident in who you are.Gaining skills in interviewing and public speaking.Having a platform to raise awareness to certain issues (especially in national and international beauty pageants)Having the opportunity to display their talent (many pageants require their contestants to display some form of talent, such as dancing, singing, drawing, etc.)Raising money for an important cause (many contestants spend much of their time in raising money for various charities)If a contestant approaches a beauty pageants with a healthy view, they need not worry about any of the so-called negative effects of competing.Ladies and gentlemen, beauty pageants should not be banned.