BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Argument from Design is inherently false

Is God more complex than the universe or the human He is supposed to have created? It might seem not, because God represents what seems to be a simple concept: omnipotent, omniscient, and good\. By contrast, the universe seems to be a vast maize of galaxies and forces. I believe that the apparent simplicity of the God concept accounts for the emotional appeal of the Argument from Design to many people. Something obviously complex is explained by something apparently simple. In the known universe there are roughly 100 billion galaxies, each averaging roughly 100 billion stars. to be omniscient, God must know the position and of every particle of every star, not only know, but from the beginning of time. Earth has about six billion people. every thought of every human must be known to God immediately and simultaneously, and remembered forever. All of data of stars and humans must not be known, it must be contemplated and judged. Omnipotence implies the ability to control all of the particles of the universe. The implications are of God as a being of massive complexity, far more complex than either the universe of humans. The Argument from Design requires that everything of high complexity, advocates sometimes say "irreducible complexity" even though that has no sustainable scientific definition, must have a designer. Therefore either God must have a designer, or the Argument from Design is false. Other arguments are continued.
The Argument from Design is inherently false

I am going to be gone for the next four days. I ask my opponent to please not post his response till the last day possible. Unfortunately I have an unexpected vacation that I must attend. I now must forfeit this round and ask the voters to disregard this round and only evaluate what has been said. I apologize for my departure, and if need be, I'd be glad to reengage in this debate at a later date. For clarification, I am NOT forfeiting this debate, just this round. My flight leaves in an hour! I must leave now. Thanks for your consideration, Protagoras of Abdera
The Argument from Design is inherently false

Resolved: The Argument from Design is inherently false 1. The Argument from Design (AD) is an argument for the existence of a god that argues (a) that every complex mechanism requires a more complex designer to have brought the mechanism into existence, (b) the universe and human beings are complex mechanisms that exist, and (c) therefore a god must exist as the more complex designer that brought them into existence. "Inherently false" means that the arguments are rendered invalid by contradictions implied by the assumptions of the AD itself. Thus this debate excludes falsification of AD by counter-example, such as the existence of evolution that provides complex mechanisms according to natural laws. 2. For this debate, "magic" is an event that occurs which is not only unexplained by any current known law of nature, but which cannot be a consequence of any future discovery of new laws of nature. "Laws of nature" are testable and repeatable behaviors of the natural world, such as the laws of physics. A "god" is a being that can perform magic at will. to clarify, a stage magician performs feats that appear to defy laws of nature, such as making objects appear and disappear at will, but the magician is not a god because we believe that there are explanations within the laws of nature that explain the events, even though we may not be able to identify them. 3. With the terminology thus defined, the AD can be restated as a) the creation of the universe and of humankind were magic b) magic cannot occur without the will of a being of a more complex nature c) therefore a god must exist to will the creation 4. The first contradiction in AD lies in the assumption embodied in (b). Why is it that a design cannot come into existence without a designer? That is because the laws of nature as postulated by AD require a designer for every design. However, something that occurs not in accordance with the laws of nature is magic, and the existence of magic is attested to in (a). Therefore, the magical event of (a) need not require a god to have caused it, because the requirement for cause derives from a physical law that need not apply. In other words, once magical events are allowed, they cannot be assumed to be subject to a separate physical law that requires a certain kind of cause and effect. 5. The second contradiction derives from assuming that even though magic occurs, the law requiring a designer for every complex mechanism is nonetheless true. A god is a complex mechanism by assumption of AD. That is a consequence of the assumption that every complex mechanism is the product of a more complex mechanism. By AD, therefore, each god must have a greater god as designer. This sets up an infinite regression in which there is no original designer. Therefore, AD is false. 6. This is not an LD debate. Only accept the challenge if you reasonably believe you will not forfeit any round.
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

not all smokers can be properly evaluated by the implicit longevity framework I concede, but as argument sake goes, the universality of smokers was my target and I hold all smokers to the same standard. The categorical imperative is simply one standard smokers could be held to - an example, if you will. Though it can not be enforced, I felt imperative to mention different ideals in which smoking would be found prohibited. It's Pufendorf is a respected philosopher, and I was again invoking his beliefs to offer another point of view that would find smoking an action one should not partake in. I would define "should" as "to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions". In which case, I stand by Pufendorf's ideals of the duties onto oneself and others. Smoking is a filthy habit, as most smokers are aware. There are no benefits to the act. All smoking does is shed years off one's life and diminish their health. Lung and skin cancer are products of the hobby. Teeth yellowing and decay too are a result of the habit. If one's goal in life is to live as long as possible and as healthily as possible, it's imperative they do not smoke. If one lives with the goal not to inflict someone else with death or health problems (i.e., second hand smoke), it is imperative they do not smoke. If a minor who is under the legal age of smoking wishes to obey the law, it's imperative they neither buy nor smoke cigarettes. If a person wishes to live life without poisoning their body, it's crucial they do not smoke cigarettes. Smoking is a known cause of health problems and death. Because we are put on this earth to live, people should not smoke. The rewards of smoking to not live up to any of the risks. Smoking is a filthy, deadly habit and should not be done. Thank you for accepting this debate, I look forward to your concluding arguments. http://www.google.com...
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

My fundamental contention over the course of this debate has been that all normative statements are inherently predicated on some kind of meta-level framework. Employing the normative contingency thesis, the conclusion we are thereby able to draw is that anyone who does not agree to the fundamental axioms governing a particular normative system is not bound by its deductions. In this context, Pro's opening statement in this last round is another testament to the truth of the normative contingency thesis: "It's true that not all people may regard the risks [of] smoking as vital to their understanding, or even care about the risks." Insofar as Pro concedes to this being the case, we can conclude, invoking normative contingency, that not all smokers can be properly evaluated by the implicit longevity framework advanced by Pro.The same story holds for the categorical imperative. The fundamental structure of Kantian Ethics relies on the notion that one ought not make exceptions for oneself with respect to moral rules (e.g., because one would never desire a world in which all individuals were liars, one ought not oneself lie). While we might be intuitively drawn to this kind of view, the same issue of normative contingency applies in terms of the standards by which we are encouraged to judge maxims (e.g. universality, supposition of the inclusion of oneself in the kingdom of ends). While we might inclined to say something like, "Well, that just seems fair", this intuitive appeal--which is reliant on the axioms whose objective bindingness we are questioning--is insufficient.Moreover, the same story applies to Pufendorf. While, on the one hand, Pufendorf is a respected philosopher, the mere fact of a man with philosophical credentials claiming one thing or other is insufficient to determine the truth-value of that particular something-or-other. If Pro were to advance this conclusion as a self-evident proposition, we would surely be inclined to question why we ought to believe that such is the case; regardless of the speaker, I suspect we would be right to conclude that a proposition asserted merely in its own right (that is, as a bare proposition) does not seem worthy of our ethico-epistemic commitment.That Pro has conceded, in each case in which some or other ethical theory is cited, that his moral claims cannot "be considered universal moral or legal law" demonstrates already that the notion all people "should" do anything is illegitimate. Even the prudential sense of the word "should", to which Pro seems to take final recourse, rests on a similar kind of framework to which normative contingency may be applied.
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

It's true that not all people may regard the risks as smoking as vital to their understanding, or even care about the risks. But because those risks are present, it's imperative that one not take a risk that knowingly is purposely fatal to their health. When debating topics such as these it's important to universalize. Yes, everyone is different, but when debating what could be considered an ethical or moral dilemma, one must take into account everyone, not just one person or themselves. The categorical imperative is certainly not a universally accepted set of moral or legal standards. However, I feel it important to discuss a matter such as cigarette smoking through the eyes of an imperative that prides itself of attempting to create maxims that will be accepted by everyone as a maxim that should be willed. Even according to Samuel Pufendorf, humans are created with duties: two of these duties being duties toward others and duties toward oneself. Smoking cigarettes violates both of these duties. According to Pufendorf, we have a duty toward others. Smoking near someone and subjecting them to second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as smoking a cigarette itself. About thirty four hundred non smoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing in second hand smoke. This in turn violates Pufendorf's notion of duty toward others. In a sense, one can be guilty of taking another's life if that person dies from second hand smoke of their cigarette. Knowing this, one should not smoke cigarettes. Also enforced by Pufendorf are the duties toward oneself. He explicitly even says "No person could give himself live…it seems that man by no means vested with such a power over his own life as that he may put an end to it when he pleases." Smoking cigarettes can be likened to committing suicide because A. One knows that smoking can cause lung cancer and other fatal diseases, which in return causes B. Death. By one willingly smoking cigarettes, they willingly defy duties to themselves, for they are in a sense killing themselves. It may be a slow death, but the eventual painful death will be committed by their own volition. Again, I'm not suggesting that Pufendorf's notion of duties be considered universal moral or legal law, but instead a reference as to how smoking is not an action a person should partake in. http://www.cancer.org...
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

People should not smoke cigarettes. When placing a bet, one must consider the following: the wager, the risk, and the reward. The wager, in this case, is one's life, the risk being one's health and livelihood, and the reward a momentary relief of stress or a fleeting conversation at a bar. The bet is not in a smoker's favor. Society has been aware of, for many years now, the effects smoking can have on a person. To be quite blunt: smoking kills. It is as simple as that. If one wants to live healthily, they shouldn't smoke. It's been estimated that each cigarette one smokes takes twelve minutes off their life. Even the occasional cigarette adds up against a smoker. Minutes add up to hours, which add up to days, which add up to months, which add up to years. Smokers that smoke upwards of a pack a day are knowingly shaving time off of their already short lives. Eight out of ten causes of lung cancer can be linked to smoking. Therefore, if one is not a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer significantly drop – and vice versa – if one is a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer drastically increases. There is still no direct cure of lung cancer, and those afflicted on average die within five years of becoming ill with the disease. Smoking cigarettes simply isn't worth one's life, and people shouldn't do it. Quite obviously, cigarette is home to the poison nicotine. One drop, which would be seventy milligrams of nicotine injected into an average sized man, is deadly. Cigarettes can contain between .1 and .22 milligrams of nicotine. This alone is not enough to kill someone, but it does have immediate effects, which are an accelerated heartbeat and incessant hand shaking. Eventually with all of the cigarettes some smokers will smoke, they will reach that magic number of seventy milligrams, and their poor health will reflect it. People should not smoke cigarettes. Not only are cigarettes dangerous to a smoker's health, but to a smoker's surroundings, as well. Fires started by lit cigarettes cause an estimated twenty five thousand deaths a year in solely the United States. One can only imagine what that number would be worldwide. These deaths are in vain and absolutely could have been prevented if smokers realize they shouldn't stop. Over four hundred thousand Americans alone die each year due to cigarette related deaths. These annual deaths rack up more than AIDS, illegal drugs, murders, suicides, alcohol, and car wrecks combined. If people didn't smoke, these death tolls in not just the United States, but the whole world would go down. That seems like a pretty good incentive, no? People should not smoke cigarettes. http://1000-reasons.blogspot.com...
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

Smoking cigarettes is a known leading cause of death in many countries all over the world. The effects of smoking have been researched and there is no positive reason to smoke cigarettes knowing the negative effects it can have on you. Even knowing this, people, for whatever reason, continue to smoke cigarettes. Everyone should be well aware of the negative effects cigarrettes have on them, and should therefore not smoke cigarretes. Knowing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and respiratory problems, just for example, people should make the cognitive decision not to smoke cigarettes. The debate will consists of 5 rounds 1. Acceptance 2. Argument/Rebuttal 3. Argument/Rebuttal 4. Argument/Rebuttal 5. Conclusions There will be an 8,000 character limit and 72 hours to complete each round.
People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes

There is not, I suspect, much work left to be done. At this stage of our discourse, my colleague has conceded to the most important of my arguments. Apart from the skeletal structure of the normative contingency thesis, Pro has conceded also the ground-level application of this thesis in her agreement that A) her arguments do not actually apply to all smokers (though she claims to hold each to the same standard); B) the categorical imperative is not objectively ethically binding; C) one cannot be expected to subscribe to some or other moral framework on the mere basis of the author on whose behalf (i.e., Pufendorf) said framework is being advanced. That Pro, in the end, defines "should" in moral terms (e.g., "obligation, duty, or correctness") demonstrates just how useful the normative contingency thesis is in making meta-level statements about the axioms upon which deductive moral frameworks, i.e., all moral frameworks, are constructed.Sure, we might say that smoking is "filthy". The epidemiological evidence is perfectly sound, and this I have not questioned for the duration. And yet, that Pro's normative claims are each constructed as a conditional--if, if, if, if--demonstrates, yet again, the way in which contingency may be applied, not only in the manner of tracing deductions to their axioms, but also to demonstrate the contingency of the axioms themselves.I believe that I have done all I can do in this debate without becoming redundant (a threshold which I fear I have perhaps already crossed). And so, I raise my glass to you all.Cheers,Cody
Naruto seriously owns Bleach.

I never realized how difficult it would be to try to find that one page among 9,000 needed for back up. I will summarize each of the four points that this was about. 1) Plot, which this debate focused mostly around. Mostly focused around the (claimed) disappointing arc endings of Nagato and Aizen in Naruto and Bleach, respectfully. In regards to Bleach, it was mostly focused around Aizen's lack of an attempt to use of Kyōka Suigetsu, as well as the captains' power growth rate (inconsistancies). In regards to Naruto, it was how Nagato choose to stop fighting and end his own life. 2) Characters. Little was actually done, since it is not really possible to show character development with a single page from the manga. This mostly consisted of the characters from [insert manga here] have better development than the other. 3) Battles. This was dropped by my opponent after the second round when I brought up that simply having a wide verity of different moves does not equal most indepth battles. Since when a character is stumpped, rather than having them work through their difficulties, you just need to pull a new move out of nowhere. 4) Artwork. My opponent says I concede this point, however I was clear that we both agreed that it was a tiny aspect, not concede it. Let's quickly sumarrize the "concessions. " Opponent's R2 - no argument for art work at all. My R2 - "This point wasn't brought up by my opponent, which understandibly is minor, falling behind other aspects, but still needs addressing. .. " Opponent's R3 - "In any case, to be honest I don't see much difference between the two (Con's references are in the comments section) and Con concedes this is a relatively minor point in any case. It's difficult to evaluate the superiority of one art style over another, especially when they're so similar and over such a long period of time, like Bleach and Naruto. " My R3 - "Art work, I will also concede that the art work is not sufficiently important for either of these stories. " I think it is a fair assessment that we both came to an agreement that the Artwork is not an important feature to argue, namely because we wanted to spend our limited characters on more important things.
Naruto seriously owns Bleach.

Full resolution: On balance, the manga Naruto [1] is superior to the manga Bleach [2]. Superior: Higher in quality [3]. This will be determined by reference to the plot, character development, art style, battles or any other points relevant to the quality of either manga. Round one will be for acceptance, the rest of the rounds will be for arguing. The burden of proof will be shared. [1] http://www.mangafox.com... [2] http://www.mangafox.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Bird cannot fly

I will reply to your two concluding points as you've pretty much just repeated yourself in the rest of them. 1. My opponent hasn't proven a project is real that has the ability to project extremely realistic flying birds and is big enough to cover the U.S., or he could prove there are a ton of projectors with this ability around the U.S. but he hasn't. My reply: http://www.ebay.com.au... Once again your narrow mindedness has been your worst enemy. You have only thought of projectors inside the U.S., i'm guessing you are an American and as a typical patriotic American, you fail to acknowledge other countries having resources your country might use. 2. HE hasn't shown a logical reason why the government would do this. There is no gain from the government making us see images in the air. Birds have no effect on the economy or the governments power whatsoever and until my opponent shows some sort of benefit then birds do fly. Your exaggeration of the word 'HE' implies I'm male, dont jump to conclusions so quickly, once again, narrow mindedness. You do not see the logical reason because thats how you have been brought up in your society and the government has tricked you into believing this. Governments control their society's to monitor behavement and to test theories and tools. The flying of birds is simply a so called test for greater things in the future. Concluding. I have won this debate as my opponent has failed to acknowledge his narrow minded approach to this conspiracy and his failure to do so allows the government to win against society once again. OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MINDS
Bird cannot fly

Replying to your arguments which you have FAILED to post sources to. 1: Projectors can be projected onto the dust particles and other particles in the air/atmosphere. You might not know this but there IS stuff up there! 2. A bird is defined as you say it is because the definition has been created around the illusion of a bird! If you re-read my first VALID points, I never state that birds are not living animals. Birds ARE living animals and this is used as one of my points. Birds are real animals however, as you will see in the title of this debate, the point is they cannot fly! 3. Although not everyone believes in evolution, it is commonly viewed as the correct theory of creation by a large majority of modern societies. You have gone wildly off topic by talking about religion vs science. 4. This is a typical response from someone who is blind to a conspiracy. It is evident to me that you are INCAPABLE of acknowledging the existence of this conspiracy because of your narrow mindedness.
Bird cannot fly

Birds are animals in our world. You might not know this but humans are also animals as we have evolved from mokeys. Because we are both animals and we cannot fly, neither can birds! When you see birds 'in the sky' it is in fact an optical illusion. They are not actually up there. What you see is the projection of the birds who are actually on the ground. the government creates these illusions to control society. They use projectors such as Dell or NEC, to project images of birds swimming into the sky. This is an extreme example of conspiracies within governments all around the world.