BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anything is a hypothetical possibility

The resolution: Anything is Hypothetically Possible Possible denotes that something could occur, or to rephrase in logical terms, the resolution is such that there’s no such thing as a logical impossibility, or something that is necessarily false. I would concede that a posteriori propositions are largely possible, but there are many a priori propositions that are necessarily false, and I all need to do in order to negate the resolution is substantiate one. Before I do that I would like to address pro’s point. If anybody doesn't knows how a computer program works, you can redefine variables to mean different things. For example, I could input 1=2, and then input 1+1, and the program would give me 4. However, 1+1 is definitely not 4, we’ve merely redefined 1 as 2. I can enter all kinds of absurdities into a prompt, it doesn’t mean they are true. Square circles are a logical impossibility P1) X is a square-circle, if, and only if X has the properties of a square and a circle P2) X can either have the properties of a square or a circle P3) X cannot have the properties of a square and a circle C1) Square circles cannot exist C2) Square circles necessarily don’t exist P1) Is true by definition P2) I will defend P3) Follows from P2 C1-C2) Follow from P1-P3 All I need to do is defend P2 A square may be simply defined as : ”a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles. ” A circle may be defined as: “a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center). ” To see that there are no square-circle all we need to do is examine the first part of what a square is, 4 sides. So x is a square, if and only if it has only 4 sides, however keep in mind, x must also have the properties of a circle. X, by virtue of the fundamental laws of logic can have some number of sides S, that is equal to 4, and not equal to 4 at the same time. So if a circle does not have some number of sides, such that S=4, then there cannot be such thing as a square circle. The number of sides a circle has is an odd question, but it definitely does not have 4 sides. A: If we mean straight sides, then a circle has 0. B:As L>0, , we get a curved line, which is the circle, which may be loosely interpreted as a side. C: If we wish to think of a circle as N-sided polygon, then An N-gon has N sides A circle is a limit of a N-gon as N→∞ Therefore a circle has lim N→∞ , N=∞ sides It doesn’t particularly matter which one of these is correct, because the answer is 100% not four. Recall, X is a square circle, if and only if it has the properties of a square and a circle, and X is a square if and only if it has 4 sides, and a circle does not have 4 sides, therefore X cannot be a square and a circle. Furthermore, X doesn’t refer to anything particular, it’s an abstraction, thereby we can deduce that no square circles can exist, and as a derivation, no square circles exist. The hypothetical of a square circle is logically impossible, which is to say it is necessarily not the case, which indicates it is not possible. The resolution is negated
Anything is a hypothetical possibility

I will try to prove that everything is a hypothetical possibility. For something to cease to be a possibility, every hypothetical statement that concludes its truth must be proved false. However, there are infinite hypothetical statements that conclude the truth of anything. If this is even a possibility, then it is possible that anything is possible. If it is possible that anything is possible, anything is possible. Therefore, anything is possible. You can paste and run the Python 3 code of the program I wrote, which is at the end of this argument, in this website (https://repl.it...) and generate statements. For any variation of proof "x is false", there is a possibility: "that's true, but x is still true" that has yet to have been disproved. Anything disproving "that's true, but x is still true" can be met with a possibility "that proof is also true, but x is still true because y". Anything is consistent for an all powerful being, for example, so they can make anything true or false and have it be consistent with x being true. It is even possible that they don't exist and the logically impossible and being all powerful are impossible and they didn't make it that way, but still simply because they made it that way. So any hypothetical might be true because anything is true if they made it that way. The code is here: first = "anything is true." first1 = "anything is still true even if" second = " it is false that " string = first i = 0 while True: input('Please press enter for statement {}'.format(i 1)) if i > 0: string = first1 second string oString = string[0].upper() string[1:] print() print(oString) print() i = 1
God is Perfect and Can Do No Wrong

I have to admit that my burden of proof is much higher than that of my opponent's. That's because I have to prove that God is always perfect. My opponent on the other hand has to only show that God was imperfect once to support his contention. But I accept this challenge and I look forward for an engaging debate. I would like to start by setting certain necessary criteria to properly evaluate this debate and my approach in explaining why my contention is true:1. We must all view this issue from a realistic, logical and rational perspective. We must put aside our assumptions, biases, presuppositions and world views.2. This debate presupposes that God exists. I accept the definition of God as stated by my opponent.3. My God inhibits additional characteristics: He's all loving (omnibenevolent), all knowing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent), and has free will. I want to note that my opponent stated that "God is capable of doing wrong or creating something imperfect". I won't argue this statement because I don't disagree! The ability to do something evil doesn't means you can't be perfect and not do it. In fact, God wouldn't be perfect without this capability. Would you blame a bullet for killing someone, or would you blame the murderer. God is perfect, because despite His capability to do evil, He never does evil. Can God be perfectly good? I say yes, here's why:Before I can prove that God is perfect, I have to prove that God can be perfect. But what does "being perfect" mean in the first place? According to Oxford dictionary, "to be perfect" means to be "as good as it is possible to be" (1). If there are a number of possible choices (c(1), … ,c(n)) to be made in a given situation (S), God, being all knowing, has the knowledge which choice is the best possible choice (denoted as c(g)). God, with His free will, can always make the best choice c(g). Therefore God can be perfect if he chooses to. Does God want to be perfectly good? We all have gone into situations where we had the ability to do the right thing, but we knowingly and intentionally didn't want to do it… whether it's due to selfishness, indifference, jealousy, laziness… or simply because we were evil. I demonstrated above that God has the capability to be absolutely and perfectly good. But does God always want to be perfectly good? I argue yes. An all loving being must always want to be perfectly good. If God doesn't make the best choice, how can he be all loving? If I claim to be a loving person, but I don't help a fallen woman on the street, how loving of a person would I be? An all loving being would always want to do the best thing possible in any given situations. ConclusionI demonstrated that God can be perfectly good, and that God wants to be perfectly good. I argue therefore that God must be perfectly good and do no evil. For my opponent to defeat my argument, he will have to show that either my two premises are false, or that my logic doesn't follow (non sequitur). (1) Oxford dictionary - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
God is Perfect and Can Do No Wrong

I will be taking the con position that I believe God is not perfect, and in fact is capable of doing wrong or creating something imperfect.Definitions:God - A supernatural, cosmic, conscious entity with the ability to influence our world in some way. I do not refer to any specific god, instead just to the concept of any deity at all. Perfect - Flawless, completely free of any fault, as good as it possibly could be.Please note that I am willing to debate with anyone of any religion or lack thereof. I myself am a follower of the Ancient Egyptian religion, Kemetism, and so will be arguing the imperfectness of god using the example of my patron deity, Ra. I look forward to an enlightening and productive debate.
Standards of Logic

Sorry for bothering you, but I find this argument, that you usually use in theistic discussions very interesting! It's kind of a low hit and it seems like you're cheating. Because it's like you're fighting with your opponent to see who can build the highest castle of cards and then you pull the table from under your opponents castle. It's really funny and annoying at the same time! :p In this particular case you wrote: "IF non-theism is true, THEN we are here by chance and evolution. We would only be further developed animals. We know that we have consciousness, but we do not know that we can trust our minds for rationality and logic. We can observe reality, and we can create things and use things that work, but we cannot trust that our logical systems are correct. There may or may not be objective truth in the world, and we would never be able to know if we could discover it. (...) This is by far the strongest argument for theism, and one that my opponent should consider and understand quite carefully. He should not merely shrug this off as a small issue, because if he cannot account for trusting is logical analysis, then he shows how absurd atheism is." So, in order to disprove your claim, I just had to give you a foundation to base my logic upon? Like the simplest cause effect relation, that even animals are able to make? When, after doing a certain action a certain event happens, your brain creates a correlation between both. So, when you repeat the action your brain is expecting that certain event to happen. This is the basis of reasoning and I don't understand why you need a divine intervention to explain it. Logic is just the connection of events inside your brain. But while most animals, can do just a very limited association of dots, Humans can create really complex nets of interconnected cause effect events. But this is something that even machines rely on... I don't think that I fully grasp the meaning of logic itself, so I would like if you could explain it to me. I didn't really want to start a debate on this... But I don't mind, if it will cease my curiosity :)
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

the thing is, 2+2 is an equation, and equations are true not about truth the past is 0, and now is 1, I can have 1 soda in my hand now if I have to imagine it.. clearly its not a past observation is it true that I just looked at my dog? actually, I dont have a dog, but am I lying about not having a dog thus it could be a fact, but how do you know since you have to imagine it? fact=knowledge not belief
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

"the past is not true, only now is true... so 2+2=4 is now"2+2=4 now and 2+2=4 an hour ago. This fact in particular is independent of both memory and time."I have to imagine you have five fingers on your hands, I have no observed this, therefore It is not a past observation to me"It is not necessary for every fact to be visible. For example, 2+2=4 is not visible. It shouldn't matter that it isn't visible, as the argument shows that facts are independent of memory.In order to win this debate, you'd need to show that these facts (and others, if you'd like more) are not actually facts unless you remember them.
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

"facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory"Facts do exist beyond one's own memory. Here are a few examples:2+2=4 whether you remember it or notBarack Obama is the President of the United States whether you remember it or notI have five fingers on each hand, whether you remember it or not"to suggest they do is suggesting I can see others memories"I have given three examples of facts existing independently of one's memory. None of these three examples hinged on suggesting that one can see others' memories.
fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

"i just looked at my dog is a fact, but you have no way of knowing that as you have to imagine it"You've just proven my point; you admitted something which I have no memory of (you looking at your dog) is a fact. I take that to be a concession. "is my dog matter? "Yep. I think we can reasonably conclude that all the facts in the world do not hinge upon the memory of a single individual. Facts are facts, independent of one's memory.
Sexual Assault of Women is NEVER Justified

Thank you for your ideas. As a woman myself, I know the gift of virginity is very precious to me and taken that away from me will be almost same as to death. Collecting definitions from the internet and thinking from a historical point of view is not an effective way to present valid ideas. I shall continue my prosecution against this horrible crime:; 1. A rape victim is devalued by the community. Some will blame the victim, some will see the victim as sullied and others will just not want her presence reminding them about the dangers in the world. 2. There are additional medical risks. S.T.D's and pregnancy and the fear of both are very damaging. 3. Rape damages the victims ability to experience normal sexual contact, it is extremely difficult to undo damage by sexual assault. Which girl would like to be raped? It is nothing bearable than having your organ damaged and I cannot even use foul and inappropriate language to explain this horrible crime. I wait for your ideas.
Sexual Assault of Women is NEVER Justified

Definition of rape: 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I have come up with an argument that will hopefully support my point somewhat. In the past, there have been cases in some cultures where rape has been OK. The same applies for some civilizations today. Some cultures believe that there is nothing wrong with rape. This is somewhat true with the Taliban. In the future, rape on a large scale could become a possibility. A historical example of a case when rape was OK and even supported, was when the Soviets invaded Germany. Soviet propaganda somewhat supported it in the hopes that Germany would become scared and give in faster. However this resulted in the opposite. Anyway, my 1,000 characters are up. There should be 3,000 for this debate. I await. ..
Sexual Assault of Women is NEVER Justified

Well, time is precious. 1 hour or 12 hours does not make a difference. You are clearly trying to distract from the main issue, which is sexual assault of women. Let's see here. You have been repeating your historical perspective during the era of the Soviet Union and Talibans. Think about now, this moment,this generation. You are not clearly looking from a women's perspective. Those nations are not developed yet, while they continue to be brutally raping innocent women. If rape was OK in a culture, why do they press charges TODAY, not 20 years ago. On the other hand, rape may result in the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and this is especially a problem in parts of the world where the disease is endemic, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and there is no treatment for rape. Can you personally go and treat this disease? Go ahead monsieur, try it! Thought so....
Sexual Assault of Women is NEVER Justified

The reason I forfeited was because you put the round time at only 12 hours which is just ridiculous. Anyway, I can easily prove that in some cases and cultures rape is OK. And I did prove that. The Taliban see rape as being OK. The Soviets had 2 million cases of rape during the invasion of Germany. Con just uses examples from what he already knows. He uses nothing to support his position. Clearly Con is incorrect. Rape has been used as a tool by different countries as terror. The Mongols for example raped people and as a result many cities surrendered without a fight. Rape is OK based on a culture/countries rules. And I would like to repeat what I said earlier: puting the time to post in a round at 12 hours and not three days is dumb. Clearly Pro was hoping I would miss a round due to a lack of time. It makes me really mad when people do that. I believe that should be a minus for Pro's conduct.
Sexual Assault of Women is NEVER Justified

Based on your forfeiting previous round, my prosecution points for this issue has become even stronger. Unwanted sexual assault leaves a psychological scarring on a woman that can never be cleaned. Imagine this for a minute, as there is no need to be offended. Envision your own sister or mother brutally raped by an unknown man and in reality, you will not mention that this is part of the culture. You will certainly feel for your sister/mother's pain since you carry the same blood as hers. Also, increasing voice in the society and spreading awareness can contribute to this matter and the man who can even think of forced sex should be punished by law. If not law, than god is there as the final axe.
PR Beyonder can defeat ANY version of Superman

Beyonder is a Marvel character that doesn't reside in the DC Universe. The Beyonder is also immortal and unlike Superman omnipotent. The Beyonder, not in theory, but can in fact erase immortal beings from existence then kill an immortal being. http://static.comicvine.com... http://static.comicvine.com... http://s204.photobucket.com... Beyonder wills Superman gone just as he's done galaxies and Death. Your version of Superman lives only cause the Beyonder allows him to.
PR Beyonder can defeat ANY version of Superman

The Beyonder could also defeat your version of Superman and duplicate his feats and limit is own powers to your version's limits. Beyonder is omnipotent, his power is incalculable. His power is enough to withstand the power that can destroy billions of universes with a smile on his face, his power to relinquish people from existence of Death from the multiverse and make other omnipotent and celestial beings beg him to stop trumps Superman's ability to defeat all the heroes and villains of one universe. https://www.google.com...
PR Beyonder can defeat ANY version of Superman

PR Beyonder: Pre-Retcon Beyonder from Beyond-Realm of Marvel. Superman: A Kryptonian superhero born on the planet Krypton. Alter ego Clark Kent, birth name, Kal-El. From the DC Universe. Can: To indicate possibility. Defeat : To win a victory over (someone or something) in a war, contest, game, etc. Version: A form of something that is different in some way from other forms. I believe that this Beyonder can defeat any version of Superman. However, some people disagree. To those that are apart of the some, feel free to explain why you think differently. This debate topic seems impossible for my opponent to win. Accept with caution.
Elitism in India: Policemen have become Personal Guards of the Politicians!

That is why i covered the individual not the function of it. A person who is a sniper or an assassin does not mean that person is a murderous psychopath. He or she might be living among us and you will have no way of knowing. The cause of this is due to the job requirements. As i mentioned, the "police" is not the same since a policeman is a civil force (for the civilians) So when you say that policeman have become the guards of the politicians it is in fact not true. It is a different job title (disguised by the police name) that has become corrupted to do what you mentioned. Bottom line, police are not against the civilians but on the contrary. The people who you are calling "policeman" are in fact a deviation of that role. You may call it bodyguards.
Elitism in India: Policemen have become Personal Guards of the Politicians!

I think so that Con has not read my Argument in its entirety. The cases presented are not one but many and have got repeated in-numerous times in many years. I will like to take my Argument further and add a few more recent details: There is a chief minister in the State of Haryana in India, this minister had a convoy. The convoy killed a pedestrian on 3rd of March and all walked away without anyone of them undergoing any sort of legal procedure. Another Example, a minister in India named Azam Khan, asked the police cops to search for his buffaloes which were lost. The Police is meant to serve the citizens and not to search the lost buffaloes of a politician, especially in a country where there are so many better issues to solve and are pending since years in their Police stations. Policemen are not ready to search for a Car or any other valuable property of any normal Citizen, but they have got time to search for the buffaloes of a Politician. This is a very popular case known to anyone aware with Indian News and Politics. In April 2013, the Assistant Police Commissioner of Delhi slapped a young girl at least four times inside a hospital because she was protesting against the rape of a 5 year old girl. The girl even got an intense injury in her ear due to that slap and the policeman was suspended for a few days. Had that policeman slapped a ruling party politician instead of that girl, would the policeman would have only been suspended for a few days or thrown out of the service? The answer is clear; he would have been thrown out of service. Indian National Congress' leader and a leading Indian Politician Rahul Gandhi's convoy were allowed to hold up the traffic for 5 hours because of his road show. What else will we consider it, if it is not Elitism in India making Policemen, Personal Guards of the Politicians! Reference: . http://www.timesnow.tv... Hence, the argument given by Con, "I do not believe that these individuals are policeman" goes wrong, as the cases are so many in number and even more cases with further details are available in the given site in Reference, if someone wants to see. As there are so many cases occurring frequently, this makes it very clear, that it is not the individual, but the powers given to them as policemen in India make them work in such a ruthless and rude manner towards Normal citizens who do not belong to the Elite group. The parliament needs to pass laws regulating the behaviour of the Police force. If the cases would have been a few in number, we would have certainly taken into consideration the nature of the policeman as an individual human, But the cases being so many in number which clearly makes us believe that something is wrong with the regulation of police force in entirety. Here, I would like to rest my case with the conclusion that Elitism in India has made Policemen, Personal Guards of the Politicians! Thanking you all!
Elitism in India: Policemen have become Personal Guards of the Politicians!

Thank you Instigator for this debate. I will just like to add that i am not familiar with these events nor with the current situation in India but i will give my 2 cents for this debate. Job Ethics You might add that police is bad due to ... But i will say that at the end of the day that individual will take off his cap and his uniform and go home to his wife and children. As you can see here he might be a completely different man after that "mask" falls off. I do not believe that police is the correct term to blame in this situation. I will presume that the individual is responsible. Since police in essence, has the responsibility of a civil force responsible for prevention and detection of crime, i do not believe that these individuals are policeman. They are a deviation of that task.