BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are morals objective? (And should society conform to religious morals? )

Please explain how morals can be proven factual, There is no empirical evidence that I've seen to point towards that. Most would say that they see a moral 'grey area' and many agree on the same issues being gray as opposed to black and white. As for religions sharing similar messages, That is easily explained by the fact that the worlds two most popular religions, Christianity and Islam, Share much of the same source material and were both founded in the middle east (same as Judaism). While religions outside of those three may share some similarities when it comes to moral codes, I would chalk that up to mere coincidences as all major religions have lengthy teachings and holy books. If you can logically or scientifically pull those arguments apart, Then i would greatly appreciate it. I'm here to learn and hopefully grow in my perspective of this issue.
Are morals objective? (And should society conform to religious morals? )

Hello all, I'm here to debate a complex topic that modern philosophy and modern religion have both tried to tackle to varying degrees of success, 'can religious morals, Regardless of religion be proved as objective fact? ' And as a consequence of this question, What would that mean for society? What morals should society conform to? And finally, How big of a role should religion play in the judicial system if that is the case? From my perspective, As an agnostic atheist, Naturalist, And moral relativist, I would like to debate this topic against anyone who claims to have an objective moral perspective based on religion, Again, Regardless of which religion you adhere to. As far as my opening statement goes, I would like to keep it simple and quick. I believe in moral relativism because of my naturalistic outlook in life. Humans evolved with the same purpose as all life on this planet, To survive as a species. This is expanded by the fact that humans are social animals, Capable of creating societies where the combined efforts of individuals benefit everyone. Moral ideas stem from the evolutionary urge to protect our species from extinction and they also come from the reasoning that allows for societies to form and flourish. I assert that morality is simply a concept that is man made for the purpose of serving the species as a whole, Not unchanging law put in place by a deity or God for humans to follow.
Are morals objective? (And should society conform to religious morals? )

Here are some articles. I post them in order to save time. http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/11/why-moral-nihilism-is-self-contradictory/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/11/a-philosophical-polemic-against-moral-nihilism/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/11/the-universe-does-not-care-about-our-morality-so-what/#comment-134809 http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/09/philosophical-ethics-r-m-hare-on-moral-consistency-as-a-form-of-logical-consistency/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/11/immoralism-2/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/philosophical-ethics-rawlss-maximin-principle/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/07/how-our-morality-realizes-our-humanity/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/07/on-the-intrinsic-connection-between-being-and-goodness/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/06/rightful-pride-identification-with-ones-own-admirable-powers-and-effects-2/ http://www. Patheos. Com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/01/goodness-is-a-factual-matter-goodnesseffectiveness/
The Philosophy of Intellectualism should be regarded as a launching platform for Spiritual Intellige

Irrespective of the subjectivity/objectivity of intelligence, spiritual intelligence is a form of truth that is independent from the influence of such elements as time frames or space perceptions. In its form of expression, the core will always be unjustifiable because justification is not viable- bear in mind that this truth is a constituent of the whole structure of Spiritual Intelligence.That expressed, I find error in your justification for spiritual intelligence not to be preceded by its philosophy, and my dissent is expressed in several points of perception: you cannot equate the core structures of spiritual intelligence with human-inclined inventions- spiritual intelligence is a concept beyond the comprehension of a human being, so arguing that its philosophy should not be regarded as the launching platform for its exaltation, is rather irrelevant. It is psychologically invariable for one's cognitive processes to be coerced into a certain form of doctrine without the element of acquiescence present. This should serve as an example of the improbability of spiritual intelligence not being preceded by its philosophy of intellectualism. In order for its fullness to be properly attained, one has to undergo the process of understanding its philosophy of intellectualism before expounding on Spiritual Ibntelligence; the reason for this is that the philosophy of intellectualism is based on the core blueprint of spiritual intelligence, therefore it is imperative that the philosophy is expressed before the intent to attain spiritual intelligence is.
The Philosophy of Intellectualism should be regarded as a launching platform for Spiritual Intellige

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I look forward to exchanging ideas and concepts with you regarding this topic. I believe that the Philosophy of Intellectualism should be regarded as a platform for spiritual intelligence. Spiritual intelligence should be a truth wholly unto itself, and its premise holds that, upon attainment of such intelligence, the human mind"s perception of all forms of reality will be altered on a dimensional scale. It should also be understood that the human mind is possessing of different faculties of thought, all of these faculties governed by the bearer"s intellect, and how the bearer seeks to express the extent of his intellect through the different faculties. I pass the argument to Con.
The Philosophy of Intellectualism should be regarded as a launching platform for Spiritual Intellige

Hello, thank-you for proposing this debate, it is a very interesting concept, in my opinion, and I'd be more than happy to provide opposition to your reasoning. I personally believe that intellectualism is not an appropriate philosophical method for understanding spirituality or the Divine. Intellectualism has one thing in common with spirituality, however, and that is that they are both entirely subjective. An objective truth cannot be reached by subjective truths or experiences. I hold the grounds that an objective truth cannot be known by human beings because we are subjective by nature, and it is impossible to make a statement or propose a theory without having some attachment of our bias involved. Therefore, I am arguing that intellectualism should not be used as a platform to explore spiritual intelligence. I look forward to this debate. I turn the argument over to Pro.
The Philosophy of Intellectualism should be regarded as a launching platform for Spiritual Intellige

Spiritual Intelligence cannot be defined solely on the premise that closeness with a monotheistic deity, such as God/Allah/Krshna, would warrant its exaltation. Bearing in mind that the human spirit is autonomous in its nature, defining Spiritual intelligence using theistic approaches is inappropriate; and in this regard, The Philosophy of Intellectualism should serve as a launching platform to explore spiritual intelligence.The debate shall proceed as follows:(Round One) Both Opponents have the opportunity to introduce their stance on the topic, beginning with "Con." No rebuttals are permitted in the first round.(Round Two) Opponents may now voice their opinions regarding the topic. Con will begin his expression, using logic, reasoning, evidence and supporting Facts. Pro will proffer his rebuttal, on the same premises, and eight rebuttals are permitted in this round.(Round 3) Final points of argument will be expressed in this round. After six rebuttals, each opponent is allowed to summarise their opinion in one essay.Grounds for disqualification:Vulgarity.Irrationality.Illogical reasoning.Disrespect of opponent.
Red vs Blue: The strongest (without A.I)

Yes, Tex may not use omega (I believe that's the name) that often but she is also a robot. She is the recreation of Allyson Church. So in the sense that she is technically a A.I without another A.i. Now to the point of Tex fighting Maine, Wash, and Carolina, she had time to prepare for the battle against Maine and Wash. Carolina's fight was interrupted by many different people. Following up Maine was taken down by the Reds during the fight. (Hey umm not to be rude but georgia isn't really included in the series and doesn't fight much less show up, sorry) Tex does use her ability many times during the series, it's active camo.
Red vs Blue: The strongest (without A.I)

In my opinion Texas is the strongest without her A.I.First of all she said to another freelancer (don't remember which one) that she barely uses hers and still beat Maine Wyoming and Georgia together. Even Carolina tried to become as strong as Tex by getting two A.I and couldn't handle it.Texas is the strongest freelancer and doesn't need an A.I or a special ability because she is good enough on her own.
Red vs Blue: The strongest (without A.I)

I am going to say without any argument that Freelancer Maine (aka the Meta) is the strongest physically without his A.I. He can still fight freelancer Tex and the Reds at the same time (with a little help from Washington). He was also shot in the neck seven times and lived he can throw cars and ultimately destroy buildings and people with sheer power. Chose who you think is strongest Caboose Tex Washington Carolina
Special Relativity Is False

In my opening argument for this debate, I supported the view that all propositions are true. A proof that all propositions are true is located in my (3), supra. In the next paragraph with words, I present that proof with some additional italic formatting.Consider the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square." Since some rectangles are squares, a rectangle is a square. Thus, p is true. Since some rectangles are not squares, a rectangle is not a square. Thus, p is not true. So by Conjunction Introduction, p is true and p is not true. But that is a contradiction. Since every proposition follows from a contradiction by the Principle of Explosion, the proposition "all propositions are true" is true. Therefore, all propositions are true. Since all propositions are true, the proposition "photons have mass and travel at c" is true. So, I agree with you that photons have mass and travel at c. Since photons travel at c, I further agree with you that "a thing with mass can travel at c."Since all propositions are true, the proposition "photons do not have mass, do not have inertia, and do not have inertial reference frames" is true. Thus, photons do not have mass, do not have inertia, and do not have inertial reference frames.The equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" do not contradict. Substituting 0 for speed in "speed + speed lost = c" results in "0 + speed lost = c." By simplification, "speed lost = c." Since there is a pair of values (speed, speed lost) that makes both equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" true, the equations do not contradict in the sense that they are not incompatible. Furthermore, since all propositions are true, the proposition "the equations 'speed + speed lost = c' and 'speed = 0' do not contradict" is true. Therefore, the equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" do not contradict.
Special Relativity Is False

"A. If a thing has mass, then it can't travel at c."I disagree with this premise. In fact, I have already proven it wrong. Photons travel at c; we both agree. Photons have mass; we both agree here too, as proven this statement of yours:"You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you."Photons exist, so they have mass, and they travel at c, so contrary to your first premise, a thing with mass can travel at c."Since photons don't have mass, it seems they don't have inertia. And if photons don't have inertia, I don't see how they can have inertial reference frames."Since I just established photons have mass, it follows that they have inertia, and they have inertial reference frames." I don't see how "a photon's speed is zero" and "the sum of its actual speed, plus the speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is c" are incompatible."In that second equation, both the "actual speed" and the "speed lost" are always numbers between 0 and c. Since it is impossible for these two numbers to sum to zero, the second equation (speed + speed lost = c) will always contradict the first (speed = 0). And that is the contradiction. "No explicit contradiction is there. I don't even see an implicit contradiction. One of the subjects of the two conjuncts of your alleged impossible conclusion (C) from this round is a speed; the other is a sum. A speed and a sum can be compatible."I hope I clarified the contradiction for you.
Special Relativity Is False

Statements (Reasons)A. If a thing has mass, then it can't travel at c. (From my (4), supra. (4) is "Can Matter Travel at Light Speed?" on Live Science by Live Science Staff.)B. Photons can travel at c. (From my (1), supra and my (4), supra. (1) is "Photon" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors.)C. Photons do not have mass. (modus tollens using (A) and (B))So, my (C) shows photons are not matter. Thus, in that sense, photons are not physical particles.Since photons don't have mass, it seems they don't have inertia. And if photons don't have inertia, I don't see how they can have inertial reference frames. I made a similar point in my opening argument that you never rebutted. As (5), infra, suggests, inertial reference frames require physical bodies. As (6), infra, implies, physical bodies require matter. Physical bodies are in contrast to theoretical bodies such as photons. So, it seems your implicit assumption that photons have their own inertial reference frames is incorrect.Your (C) from this round seems to not be impossible. I don't see how "a photon's speed is zero" and "the sum of its actual speed, plus the speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is c" are incompatible. No explicit contradiction is there. I don't even see an implicit contradiction. One of the subjects of the two conjuncts of your alleged impossible conclusion (C) from this round is a speed; the other is a sum. A speed and a sum can be compatible. For example, a motor vehicle's speed on Route 36 is 40 miles per hour, but the sum of its speed and the speed it lost by not being on Highway 27 with a speed of 65 miles per hour is 40 miles per hour + (65 miles per hour - 40 miles per hour) = 40 miles per hour + 15 miles per hour = 65 miles per hour. The example presents no incompatibility.Sources Cited:(5) "Inertial frame of reference" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors, https://en.wikipedia.org...(6) "Physical body" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors, https://en.wikipedia.org...
Special Relativity Is False

"Your criticism of Special Relativity has been reduced to the case of being in a vacuum."The application of my criticism can be made universal by modifying it like so: P1: A photon's actual speed, plus the amount of speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is always c. P2: An entity's speed is zero in its own inertial frame. C: A photon's speed, in its own inertial frame, is zero yet the sum of its actual speed, plus the amount of speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is c. "You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you."Fantastic!"I believe that in the book, Hawking discusses the existence or proposed existence of at least several theoretical particles in the field of physics. Photons may have even been among them."But I already proved photons are physical things, not merely theoretical things, because they interact with the physical world. For example, they physically bounce off of mirror in reality, not just in one's imagination."Special Relativity does not prohibit photons from moving at c. I never disagreed with this."It's evident in (4) that matter and photons are distinguished from each other."That is fine, since photons are a special case of matter.
Special Relativity Is False

Your criticism of Special Relativity has been reduced to the case of being in a vacuum. However, my entire life, and the entire lives of everybody else in known existence, are not lived in a vacuum. I think anybody who lived even for a short time in a vacuum would suffer serious physical injury or death. So, even if your refined criticism of Special Relativity were true, it would not apply to the everyday lives of everybody in known existence. So, even if your refined criticism were true, Special Relativity would still remain true when applied to the everyday lives of everybody in known existence. While much of the universe may be considered to be a vacuum, much of the universe is not a vacuum. So much of your refined criticism does not apply.I'm not entirely sure what "rest mass" is and how it differs from the standard, classical notion of mass. You claim that photons must have mass because they exist. You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you. Nonetheless, I can think of what may, epistemically with respect to me, be counterexamples to that claim: geometric points, lines, and planes, and real numbers. Those things exist, but may have no mass. They may have no physical existence. They may exist only in the mind. They may be theoretical objects. For Advanced Placement Physics as a senior in high school, I read A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes by Stephen Hawking. I believe that in the book, Hawking discusses the existence or proposed existence of at least several theoretical particles in the field of physics. Photons may have even been among them.Special Relativity does not prohibit photons from moving at c. Photons always move at c through a vacuum.(1, supra) I think that basic property would be consistent with Special Relativity.It is impossible for matter to travel at c.(4) An infinite amount of energy is required to move matter at c.(4) It's evident in (4) that matter and photons are distinguished from each other.To answer your end question from the previous round, yes, even if you lose this debate, you win. Since all propositions are true, the following two propositions are true.1. You will win this debate and I will win this debate.2. You are on both sides of this debate and I am on both sides of this debate.I know about Albert Einstein's ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, which you cited. I don't believe I've ever read it in its entirety.Source Cited:(4) https://www.livescience.com...
Special Relativity Is False

"I noticed nobody had yet accepted your debate and I believe the time remaining to accept it was less than 24 hours. So, I decided I would be nice and accept it."Thank you very much! You are too kind."Photons always travel at c through a vacuum. Premise 1 does not include the vacuum constraint. It thus seems that in my everyday life on Earth with air all around me, as approximately true as Premise 1 may be, Premise 1 is false."Very well. I update my argument as follows: P1: Photons always travel at c in a vacuum. (1) P2: An entity is motionless in its own inertial frame. C: In a vacuum, in their own inertial frame, photons are motionless while moving at c. "Photons always have zero rest mass."But photons are light particles. If they have no mass, they have no matter, and are composed of nothing: They don't exist. But photons exist, therefore they must have mass!"Premise 2 may be false on the grounds that photons are an exception. Photons might be theoretical objects that don't have a physical existence"But photons exist in the physical world. They interact with matter, bouncing off of mirrors, for instance."I thought that physical objects can not move at c because that would require an infinite amount of energy."But I just established photons are physical objects. So if Special Relativity prohibits photons from moving at c, Special Relativity is wrong."In a recently completed debate I instigated, I actually supported the position that all propositions are true.(3) I continue to support that position."So even if I lose this debate, I win?(1) http://hermes.ffn.ub.es...
Special Relativity Is False

I thought your opening argument was well presented. I noticed nobody had yet accepted your debate and I believe the time remaining to accept it was less than 24 hours. So, I decided I would be nice and accept it. It's possible I'm not the best expert on Special Relativity. Nevertheless, for the sake of this debate, I assume a faith in Special Relativity.It seems Premise 1 is false. Photons always travel at c through a vacuum.(1)(2) Premise 1 does not include the vacuum constraint. It thus seems that in my everyday life on Earth with air all around me, as approximately true as Premise 1 may be, Premise 1 is false. It seems factors such as air and gravity would slow down the speed of photons.Photons always have zero rest mass.(1) I think that in order for an object to have inertia, it must have some nonzero mass. That is suggested by the force = mass * acceleration equation. Therefore, photons with zero rest mass can never have inertia. That suggests that photons with zero rest mass can never have inertial reference frames. It thus might be true that no photons can ever have their own inertial reference frames.Premise 2 may be false on the grounds that photons are an exception. Photons might be theoretical objects that don't have a physical existence, similar to geometric points, lines, and planes. That epistemic possibility suggests it's epistemically possible, with respect to me, that photons are not entities applicable to Premise 2 as you have implicitly assumed them to be.I thought that physical objects can not move at c because that would require an infinite amount of energy. I thought that years ago I saw a graph on Wikipedia that suggested that. So, there is more evidence that photons are not physical objects, but are theoretical objects.In a recently completed debate I instigated, I actually supported the position that all propositions are true.(3) I continue to support that position. The universe is inconsistent. There might be results in quantum mechanics that further support that position. Reality is too dynamic to be consistent. Since all propositions are true, I agree that your conclusion is impossible. However, since all propositions are true, your conclusion is also not impossible. Therefore, you are wrong and your argument fails to disprove Special Relativity.Sources Cited:(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.debate.org...
Special Relativity Is False

The following syllogism demonstrates the absurdity and impossibility of Special Relativity (c = 186,282 miles per second): Premise 1: Special Relativity says photons always travel at c relative to an inertial frame. Premise 2: An entity never moves relative to its own inertial reference frame. Conclusion: Photons, in their own inertial frame, move at c yet don't move at the same time. Impossible!