BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

As you have neglected to establish where the burden of proof rests, I will assume you are comfortable with taking it on (as you are the one asserting something less than intuitive). Colin Leslie Dean is a hack who's never been accepted as a reliable source, nor published academically. But, let's skip the ad hominem reasons for disregarding his work and instead critique his ideas, shall we? His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not-- by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. In essence, it's merely an appeal to a lingual, rather than general sensory, solipsism; an idea held in some scorn for its status as untestable and unfalsifiable nature. Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal.
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

It seems to be accepted-without proof- that "man" is somehow a privileged knower of the universe This scholar points out Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have a new Copernican revolution -man is decentred http://www.scribd.com... Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe. All we have is an endless free play of words trying to capture the universe but all these words are man"s own creation which in fact falsifies the universe. With the decentring of man from the universe we have no guaranteed facts or interpretations which are authoritive since the words we use for these facts or interpretations only falsify the referents. The universe is now seen as being that which is produced by man via his culturally arbitrary conventional systems of signs i.e. language. As Zajak notes "particles and waves are macroscopic concepts which gradually lose their relevance as we approach the submicroscopic domain.H.Zajak,. Optics, Addison Wesly Publishing Company, New York., P. 449 Bohr said "The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding." A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995 p.39 Bohr said " the role of theory is to predict what we see on the dails of our apparatus they say if the predictions are accurate the theory is god Answering these other questions about what is really going on -is a meaningless excersise." V, Stenger The unconscious Quantum, Prometheus books, 1995, p 10 " [operationalism]To avoid the imprecision"s of ordinary speech [Bridgman] identified the meaning of a concept in terms of the set of operations used to measure it .. He considered the difference between laboratory physics and the cosmology of general relativity to be the difference between science and nonscience." A. Bulock & O Stallybrass & S. Trombley, "Operationalism in The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Fontana, 1988, p.609 "Einstein"s famous rejection of the concept of absolute simultaneity on the grounds that the simultaneity of events is always relative to the frame of reference of the observer, who is assessing it, is operationalism in spirit." P, Barry, Beginning theory, Manchester university press, 2002 p 113
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

Pro argues that I have not refuted his thesis. He did not dispute my initial interpretation of his thesis, which indicates that it was correct. My interpretation of his thesis, as I have demonstrated in P5 of the last round, is simply a restatement of solipsism. That is: the insufficient precision of language prevents us from "knowing" the universe. Epistemological solipsism states that we cannot know the world. All we have, in either case, is our mental construction of our own experiences. Since we cannot "know", if Pro is correct, then we cannot prove. As pro has accepted the burden of proof, if he is correct, he cannot fulfill his obligation, and pro has lost. If pro is incorrect and, as I have argued, words can accurately express the ideas necessary to accurately represent the universe through the creation of new words to represent novel and innovative ideas, then Pro has lost. In either event, pro has lost. It is also worth noting that Pro has introduced no actual evidence of his own, instead relying on his original conjecture appeal to authority. As he has introduced no proof to support this conjecture beyond said appeal, he has necessarily failed in his obligation to prove his point.
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

con says "Pro asks for sources regarding solipsism. " What I asked for was sources supporting your claim that dean was not original You said deans thesis was unorginal -deans thesis as the post tells you "is Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower" but I asked not for sources on solipsism but sources which are saying deans thesis deans thesis is "Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower" you have not backed up your claim that deans thesis is unorginal with sources which show dean is just saying others have said on the thesis "Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower" as for the rest of your rejoinder points I will let those who want to plow through your points the pleasure but to the point you have given no refutation of deans thesis deans thesis is "Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower" the only source you quote is wiki on solipsism which is not a refutation of deans thesis deans thesis is "Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower" what you needed to do was give argument and sources to support a refutation of dean and that would have entailed EVIDENCE that science IS A PRIVILEGED knower of the universe you have given neither thus my post is not refuted I have backed up my claims with sources from books and scientists you have done neither thus my post is not refuted
Should we take out Iran

It's too late for us to stop sticking our nose in other states' businesses. We entered WW2, and that set off a chain reaction of us being involved in things that are of no concern to us. As it stands, Iran is seeking the destruction of our major ally in the Middle East, Israel, and is funding the Palestinian terror cells. Whatever your view on the Palestinian Question is, terrorism is not the solution. If Iran is removed from the world stage, actual peacemaking can be done between the Israelis and the Palestinians, instead of their current war of attrition.
Should we take out Iran

As we know, we are $20 trillion in debt, and that debt will only climbhigher. Our systematic deficit spending has dropped our credit rating, and monetizing the debt has ruined our currency. Also, Iran has proven itself to be a major threat to global security, through its funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. The past and present Administrations believe there is no way we can get ourselves out of this financial mess without taxing our citizens and companies into the ground, damaging our economy even further. There is another way, one that will preserve our position as the world's first and only hyperpower, stimulatetheeconomy in a profound way, and remove the threat of Iran to global security. We must wage war on Iran. Why has nobody ever thought of this before? Our military IS NOT a global police force, despite what our recent Administrations have believed. It is an armed force to protect our liberty and interests, and to project our power throughout the globe. If the operation is successful,we get at least $15 trillion in income from selling the captured oil. This can put a major dent in our national debt. We could first institute a blockade of the Gulf of Oman, and take oil tankers sailing from or to it as prizes. This will a) increase morale of our Sailors, as they stand to personally benefit from successful completion of their mission, b) boost our economy as the Sailors will spend their prize money when they return home, and c) weaken Iran's economy. We can aim our nukes at Russia to prevent them from interfering. Once Iran's economy has been sufficiently weakened, we can blitzkrieg them using our Marines, and send in the Army to occupy their oil fieldswhileour oil companies take over extraction. We have the largest and most capable armed forces in the world. We can do this easily. The money spent on this operation will easily pay for itself more than a thousand times over. We can count on Israel to assist us, as with Iran firmly underUS control, Palestinian terrorists will have no more support. Then proper peacemaking efforts between them can take place.
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions are unjust and should be banned in the US.

Ok, the debate comes down to this: Is the fetus alive? He says the life is not the only characteristic of being alive. However, he never says what the other characteristics are. So, you can essentially drop that attack. He then says that my argument of embryology doesn't stand. First off, he never says why the scientists I use aren't credible sources. I would assume since the Senate choose them, that they are. He keeps on saying that he agrees the fetus/embryo is alive. YOU CAN AFFIRM RIGHT HERE, SINCE HE NEVER CLAIMS ANY OTHER WAY TO DETERMINE LIFE. He essentially agrees with my whole case. "This is categorically false and a complete and utter farce. Do not lie about my position. A fetus is living. An ovum and spermatozoa are also alive even before conception long before implantation. All of these are alive. My contention is that a fetus isn't a person and therefore has no rights. Likewise, plants are alive... cows, birds, bacteria... etc. Life doesn't equate with rights." Ok, he essentially argues that living doesn't give you rights. He believes that rights come when you are "born". This is completely false. By him agreeing that its living, then we need to give him/her right to life. My opponent misses one key issues and part of what encompasses the right to life. The right to life is: The right to a life, right to be BORN, the right o not have your life shortened, and the right to die naturally. For this reason, you can drop my opponents whole argument on the fact the right to life includes the right to be born. He then attacks my genocide point with his racial argument, which I clearly refuted in my previous round. He failed to respond to my planned parenthood attack sufficiently. He says it's a good place and its a place for "reproductive freedom." ok, look up the history of planned parenthood, look up Margret Sanger. Don't twist history my friend. Genocide is a systematic extermination, abortion is just that. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) Since murder is the taking away of life, and abortion does this, then abortion is murder. My opponent agrees to the taking away of life. 2) Abortion prevents the right to be born, a sub-sect of the right to life. Therefore, it's murder. 3) Since my opponent agreed with my VS, then thats the criterion for the round. He has failed to actually address it. On all accounts of the right to life, the Aff upholds it more. Therefore, upholding my set premise for the round, i.e. Justice. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions are unjust and should be banned in the US.

Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions are unjust and should be banned in the US. Definitions: UPA: Abortions due to the not wanting of a child. Not due to health reasons or possible death of the mother. unjust: not giving each their due. Banned: Made illegal. Case: Value: Justice - Giving each their due. Value Criterion: Right to Life The Thesis of this case is that justice can only be achieved if rights are not violated. When determining between two conflicting rights, the right to life must always supersede on the fact that all other rights spring from it. The obligation of the government is to make sure rights are protected. Contentions: I. Abortion violates the right to life. According to a report given out in 2007, the scientific community has unanimously agreed that life begins at implantation. This is 10-12 days after fertilization. Therefore, once fertilization occurs, the embryo is considered a living being. Once a person is "alive", he/she is guaranteed the rights and future rights of the constitution. The right to life is the first and foremost right granted to each human-being. Murder, is the violation of the right to life. Abortion is therefore murder. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be illegal. Supporting Syllogism: 1) Violating the right to life is murder 2) Abortion violates the right to life of a baby passed the implantation stage 3) Therefore, abortion is murder II. Abortion is genocide. According to the UN charter, genocide is an international crime and must be suppressed in all countries. Genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of a specific group. The group is the unborn, the extermination is the abortion. Sometimes babies are called parasites. Thats exactly what Hitler called the Jews to justify the Holocaust. Why should the US be like the Nazis? We, as an enlightened society is above that. Abortion is genocide, and therefore should be illegal. Supporting Syllogism: 1) Genocide is the systematic extermination of a group 2) Genocide violates international law 3) Abortion is genocide 4) Therefore, abortion violates international law III. Abortion violates the Social Contract by John Locke. John Locke is the most influential philosopher in US politics. He claimed that life is an inalienable right given to all peoples. If a government violates this "given/inherent" rights, then that government is violating the tacit agreement between People and State. We as the people must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, the unborn. We must protect their rights, and create a true Social Contract between us and the State.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Sorry if my position was unclear.I am on the PRO side, supporting the fact that the USFG "ought to" give reparations back to African Americans.My opponent is on the CON side. He gave you arguments regarding "can we" but this debate is about "ought to".My stance is that we ought to give reparations, but can't.Analogy:My stance:You walk across a homeless man.You ought to give him some money. Heck, buy him a coffee.But you can't, because you don't have any cash on you.My opponent is saying:You walk across a homeless man.You shouldn't give him some money.You don't have any cash on you anyways.Which stance is morally correct?And you might ask me, why am I talking about morality?My entire point was that "ought to" refers to a moral obligation; an obligation we don't have to nor we can't follow through on. In fact, I agree with all of my opponent's arguments, since they highlight my stance and policy of "ought to".I quote:"'Discussions of feasibility carry the unfortunate and displeasing aftertaste of ignoring moral arguments.'"The wording "ought to" throws feasibility straight out the window. So now we can focus on moral arguments.***My entire argment revolves around being morally obligated to pay reparations to African American slave descendants. My opponent will have to prove to you why paying these overdue relievances are morally wrong.***Rebuttals:R1. Economic InfeasibilityI agree with this argument. It is completely infeasible, in this state of affair, to pay reparations. It will be too much of a strain. However, I must emphasize this argument does nothing to prove my opponent's burden that paying reparations are not morally correct.R2. Reparations Unfair to Tax PayersThat's right. Reparations do tend to be biased against tax payers. But this debate isn't about feasibility nor is it about can we actually do it. It's about *should* we do it, are we *obligated* to do it.R3. Recipients are UnclearAgain, this argment is irrelevant.Analogy:I tripped an old lady on the street.I ought to apologize to her.However, I can't find her.Therefore, does that mean I don't have to apologize to her? No, I still should.To my audience:My opponent brought three completely irrelevant arguments; two of which support my stance and the last not remotely related. I gave you a morally correct stance; one that involves apologizing for our misdeeds.Are YOU the one that doesn't feel obligated to say "sorry"?
Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

I'm afraid that there may have been a misunderstanding? I am Con, and I'm advocating that The government out NOT to pay reparations. My opponent simply attacked my definition of ought, but actually helped me??He states that it's not feasible to give reparations, which is exactly what I'm saying in my case. His last sentence is, "We ought to do many things, but we simply cannot." I would completely agree with this statement, but it doesn't help Pro in any way. I feel that there has been a misunderstanding here, but i'll talk to my opponent and figure it out.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

This is the Public Forum topic for this month, and I think it will be nice to debate. Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans I will be taking the Con side of this resolution. The format will be as follows: R1: Acceptance R2: Constructive Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4 More rebuttals and conclusions Feel free to ask any questions.
Minecraft is better than Roblox

2 things: 1. Define better graphics. Minecraft always lags. Unless you play on an AlienWare, then the mods will eventually crash your computer. 2. In Minecraft, unless you download and take up all of your computer space for mods, there is only a certain amount of blocks you can use. In Roblox, you can create your own blocks, and you only need to download 1 thing. Commands are long and tedious, and I know no one (except for my nerd friends) that will spend 10 hours making a command for you.
Minecraft is better than Roblox

Roblox is significantly better. In Minecraft, you are stuck to either survive in a world, be in creative mode, or watch others play in spectator mode. You are stuck in 1 world, with the same rules. In Roblox, you can go into many different worlds, with different physics and purposes, and even play Minecraft in Roblox. You cannot play Roblox in Minecraft. Oh, and 1 more thing: Roblox is free!
Minecraft is better than Roblox

Okay, if you have a bad experience based on lag on Roblox, your computer must not even be able to turn on. Minecraft has way more lag (as previously stated). In Roblox, you can turn down your graphics quality so that it doesn't lag as much. And you are wrong. Tetris has over 450 million more sells than Minecraft. Roblox doesn't count as sells, as Roblox is FREE! And graphics? Of course it is easier to make graphics when it is all pixelated! Roblox graphics are not nearly as pixelated and cubic (See Jailbreak). Minecraft used to be OK, but when Mojang sold it, it got reeeeeally bad! Roblox is a game in a game. Roblox is superior by far.
Minecraft is better than Roblox

Minecraft doesn't lag... much. Unless you are playing it on some crappy laptop or cheap tablet, then Minecraft runs very, very well. Despite long loads for new worlds, Minecraft plays almost seamlessly. Roblox, on the other hand, has none of these qualities. Roblox's games take so long to load and glitches throughout the game are commonplace. I haven't played Roblox much, but when I do, this is my experience. Added to the better loads, Minecraft has actually awesome graphics. To top it all off, Minecraft is the top sold videogame of all time.
mormonism is false

Who are you to question God? There were many, many more scrolls of laws in the Old Testament that were simply not added to the OT. I have already stated that. The Book of Mormon is just as valuable, if not more, than the Bible on these issues. God revealed things through angels and spirits as well. Also, you must remember that there was a dark time in the history of the world where the truth was clouded. No one was truly a believer. That is why we must baptise the dead. Just because God didn't reveal something earlier to a future generation doesn't mean it wasn't true.Second, you were stating that baptism did not reach into the Old Testament. I was saying it does. I was confirming that by showing that the religious leaders thought that baptism was important, and the religious leaders were forbidden by God to change without His permission! Jesus had God's permission to change the religion, while the Pharisees did not. That is why baptism must have reached back ages. The Book of Mormon states that there was Baptism in the OT. Therefore, the only way to prove that Mormonism is false is to prove that the Book of Mormon is false.
mormonism is false

the type of god that mormons believe in is very strict and organized about things like baptism. mormons must keep official records and genealogy of everyone who they've baptized, including baptisms on behalf of the dead. there are many strict rules about baptism that must be followed, like full immersion, and who it is who can or cant baptize or be baptized, what priesthood you need to perform it and how you get that priesthood, at what age you can be baptized, the laying on of hands, and the words you speak when performing it, rules for baptizing the dead, etc. if one small thing is not done right, the baptism is void and doesnt count, and that person wont be able to advance in an afterlife until they are baptized properly. of all the detail the old testament goes into, god and his followers would have made sure that it was put in the scriptures as a priority.as for your argument, i disagree...religions change all the time. circumcision was introduced long after adam. mormons allowed blacks the priesthood after denying them, and prohibited polygamy after requiring it. mosaic law wasnt established until long after adam, and was pretty much ignored after jesus came along. jesus taught many messages that were contrary to established old testament doctrine, such as turning the other cheek and loving your enemies and not casting stones as people. he also started sacrament.if you look at the evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that baptism wasnt practiced throughout the old testament, so mormonism is evidently false