BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Will Exists

Oh I am assured: I can assume, due to my past experiences and genetic make-up of course, that he had no choice. From the moment you are conceived until the day your body is laid to rest, your mind, personality, and all that determines your "decision making" are all being molded into the product of your environment that you very much are. Computers have no Free Will and neither do we: A computer can calculate that a virus ought to be removed by your anti-virus software due to its programming. Human minds are not supernatural entities but are mere matter(consisting of your brain) that have "programming" that is comparable to that of a computers (our genes and our past experiences are the installed programs while the programmer is the environment). This is comparable because the mind is not separate from or above matter. Nothing exists outside of physical existence because there is lack of logical reason for contrary claims. Computers can find that A and A makes B, we do the same thing when making a "decision". We use our learned information as A and make a decision which is B based on A. I have no scientific proof?: Stating that I have no scientific evidence for the lack of Free Will is irrelevant: philosophy is defended by reasoned argument, not objective, scientific proof. I cannot scientifically prove that we do or do not have Free Will just as early humans could not scientifically prove how the earth was made. Philosophy is based on reasoned argument that we are taking part in right now. My definition: My definition that I provided correctly states that Free Will would have to be independent of external forces because of the fact that free will is incompatible with determinism. Assuming that matter and mind are one, a statement that it is compatible would be a contradiction in itself. I'll take your advice and provide some more of the you can find the definition on: (http://dictionary.reference.com...) (http://www.google.com...) (http://www.answers.com...) My last statement on the illusion of Free Will: For Free Will to exist there would have to be a single, self-perpetuating mind with nothing in its existence except for itself to effect it. Its past thoughts would also have to have no effect on its present because ones past self doesn't possess every attribute of its present (point being that the past and present self are not the same, so the past self is an external force which contradicts the claims of Free Will). Thanks again the opportunity.
Free Will Exists

Yes, Vince's dad did affect him to start magic but you can't just assume that he was going to do magic based on external forces and he had no control over matter. You can't prove that free will does not exist there is no scientific proof to your claims. Your definition of free will is one of many definitons that are re-worded. But they all mean the same thing. And, free will is not independently of external forces it is being able to have those around and choosing which one you want mabye becuase of some rewards to come in the future. Or mabye some inner gratification from choosing one or the other or many of something. Also another word of advice you shouldn't always get definitions from one site. You should look around the net for more definitons. Because there is always more then one definition for one word AlWAYS. Now i'll turn it over to you. :)
Free Will Exists

Vince is now doing magic tricks because of the fact that external forces COMPLETELY effected his "decisions"(or the outcome of certain causes resulting in an effect). In Vince's case his father may have played an essential role in influencing his actions: Vince told you and I that his father was interested in more superstitious magic and told his son, Vince, that he would be able to do magic with his mind if he got good enough. This could be one of the MANY influencing causes/factors that made him pursue his hobby of doing magic tricks. Something might make him pursue another hobby but if the root cause came before his conscious self thinking than was it really him making the choice? "Free will-a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." You left out one key part of the definition: Conscious agents being able to make the decisions INDEPENDENTLY of external forces. (http://en.wiktionary.org...)
Free Will Exists

I would also like to give thanks to my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Hopefully this won't get to personal. While I am not a genius on this subject of free will vs. determinism. I can still vouch for free will. Ok well here goes. Ok so I have this friend named Vince Connell that i sit beside in computer apps 1. He is interested in magic and does all sorts of card tricks. Now was he pre determined to have such a fascination with magic? Or was it his own choice? I'd like to say that he rationaly chose his hobby of magic and it was free will. He wanted to do magic so he chose to there was nothing that made him want to do magic. It was free will and he had a choice. I mean he couldn't have been pre determined to do magic it was his choice and he could change to another hobby any time he wants to. Something might affect what makes him change to another hobby. But he still had to choice to change. Just like religon,you dont just get stuck with a religon and thats it no. You get to choose on your inner beliefs. On that note i'd like to hand it over to my opponent with one last statement.The definiton of free will Free will-a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Good luck
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

Sadly it looks like the pro decided to concede this debate which would have been a really good debate. However, I do want to mention something I didn't in round 1, and it's a point I want to make about the media getting inside your heads. Before the 1930's, Marijuana or as we know it today "Weed" was legal pretty much. However, after the 1930's, things changed cause you see, there was this guy who was the head of the federal of narcotics, and well, that guy decided to make a strong movement against this drug. He figured if he called it Marijuana, it would seem scary to the public, and make them afraid. Guess what happened next? There were newspapers about how this drug destroys your brain and makes you go crazy. I mean this continued until it became illegal to smoke weed. Fast forward today, and we know that Weed in itself has many positive uses. MANY. It can treat a variety of medical conditions, calm some people down, and above all, there is pretty much no chance to overdose from Weed, and I don't know if there is even one single case of someone overdosing from it on the internet. Now we are slowly seeing Weed become legal in every state, slowly, and it wasn't so bad after all. People were just afraid and believed it was bad. Sure, it's not completely positive, just like Handguns, but the point is, no one looks at the positives in life, and focuses on the negatives. People are quick to believe what the media says.
Life' Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it.

" ...all of them are wrong." How do you know what is wrong or what is right? Just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone elses opinions are stupid! We are all individuals. You belive in god, and I don't. I NEVER said that your stupid for believing in god, I am simply saying it is stupid to call me 'wrong' because I have a differing OPINION then you. "no one of all answers can be corrected as perfect." Awww, but the debate YOU started asked if humans could describe life, not perfectly describe or define it. And how can you 'perfectly' describe something. Even perfectly, there is still probably two ways to 'describe' something. Were all different and we are all capable of describing life. "And I'm living because I am made to praise my Lord...." And I am living because my heart beats, my brain functions, and my blood flows. That's how I describe life. See it is describable; I just did it. How can you disprove something I just did? The truth is all descriptions are correct, some are more different and creative then others. "the humanity never do it, maybe you should but if you get the inspiration from God." The 'humanity' has done it. I have described life as the heart beating, you have described it by saying it is praising the lord, my friend has described it as jumping off a cliff. It is plenty possible to describe life. "Try to understand... try to listen..." I am listening, and what I am hearing is 'No one can describe life, correctly, either then god. God is real. And everyone else is wrong but me.' What you need to hear and understand is that not everyone agrees with you. I believe that anything can be described by anyone. And all descriptions are correct. because a description, is something that you feel shows the way an item is. I think that the wall's coloring makes it warm, you think the wall is cold. I think the glass is half full, you think it is half empty. I think the picture is of two men, you think it is a picture of a vase. I think the picture of the box is on the inside, you think it is on the outside... The list goes on, but are either of us wrong? No. Because a description is an opinion. An opinion is always right. And almost all of humanity is capable of giving an opinion. Therefore, we can indeed describe life.
Life' Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it.

It's now clear and understandable to hear the con saying that it doesn't matter which definition she gives but the only things she's trying to prove that all things are describable. So, that is the first point I'm trying to show everyone about her own weak self confidence. Because she probably proved that her answer may or may not be good. But I was trying to say that no body can give a perfect definition when I said:" Indescribable to the humanity" The other thing I said that God can do it is because I'm believer. If you are atheist for example, it should take me an other procedure to the a second debate and let me prove how God can do it. By the way when you are trying to give me all those examples, it's not what I need to answer or to discuss this subject. Because if you should say that " life' mean white, the other one would say 'life' mean yellow. So, this doesn't even make any since because all of them are wrong. And all those definition, why shouldn't there a short definition so that everyone could understand without using encelopedies? The experience we discover that everyone can get it's own experience to define this word, but no one of all answers can be corrected as perfect. Therefore I'm still insisting that Life is indescribable to the humanity. And if you should want to challenge to a second debate I would want to prove how God can define what life means. By the way, because I'm believer in God I know that all what I get is because of his grace. Everything which exist is life and all things I meet is life. So, the only thing I can be proud off is that I know why I'm living. I live to do something else with others and explain the truth to someone else who doesn't yet know it. And I'm living because I am made to praise my Lord.... All those are my arguments according to my believe... So,Try to understand. And why you said that we are fully capable to do so you are not wrong at all but we have to prove and do it. Why should it take all over life to define this life? Because everything happens new everyday and includes to this life. So, even our memory is not able to define all what we realise about this word. The second point about some one who believe in God should be that God can give him wisdom to discover what life means and not at the college, university or Dictionary.com like you just typed the last time before. And if some one doesn't either believe in any thing, he should try to consult many different things and try to find the truth. After doing this you can come to better discovering about what life means. But in necessity we should have to understand that all those professors never give the definition of life. so, the humanity never do it, maybe you should but if you get the inspiration from God. And that will help you only do discover and not to define because it's just he way God made it. And life is indescribable I'm saying for the next time... Try to understand... try to listen...
Life' Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it.

What I meant by saying 'Anyone can define anything' is that we all have differing opinions on what something means. To me 'fire' could mean something that destroys and ruins everything. But, to someone else, like a mountain man, fire could mean a companion, warmth, and shelter. But, anyone person could define any one word, whether it is wrong or right they can still describe it. Like, I could blindly touch a surface, and someone could say 'describe what color it is.' I wouldn't know for sure, but I still could describe it and say "white" even if it was red I could still define it. So therefore anything is describable, even if it isn't described right: you can still describe it. So if I describe life, by saying 'it is the act of a heart beating, creating blood flow, and allowing other organs work in unison to create a respirating organism.' It doesn't mean I am right, but it means that I could describe it. Someone else could say 'Life is when your jumping out of an airplane and climbing up a mountain (without safety gear)' but once again they could describe what life is, what it is like disproving your theory that "Life's Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it." And another thing your side relies heavily on is: the existence of god. I am not saying god isn't real, but I am saying that you do not have solid proof (Like a picture of god descending from the heavens, with an atheist witness standing by) Because if god doesn't exist, then he can not define life. Oh, and btw I was just using those definitions to prove that life is in fact describable. And descriptions, for things such as life, are always correct. (You said describe in the title of the debate, not define, but we can define life as well) If I say that life is 'red' would I be wrong? Maybe it wouldn't be right for you, but if my life had been filled with blood and terror; then it would be the right description for me. So therefore, humans are capable of describing life. Whether or not we all agree on the meaning of life, the definition of it, or the description of it. We can still all describe it; in one way or another. And we are fully capable to do so.
Life' Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it.

Anyone can define anything. It doesn't mean that it is the correct definition but I can define life as: 1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment. 3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one. 4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life. 5. the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that. 6. any specified period of animate existence: a man in middle life. 7. the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play: The life of the car may be ten years. 8. a living being: Several lives were lost. 9. living things collectively: the hope of discovering life on other planets; insect life. 10. a particular aspect of existence: He enjoys an active physical life. 11. the course of existence or sum of experiences and actions that constitute a person's existence: His business has been his entire life. 12. a biography: a newly published life of Willa Cather. 13. animation; liveliness; spirit: a speech full of life. 14. resilience; elasticity. 15. the force that makes or keeps something alive; the vivifying or quickening principle: The life of the treaty has been an increase of mutual understanding and respect. 16. a mode or manner of existence, as in the world of affairs or society: So far her business life has not overlapped her social life. 17. the period or extent of authority, popularity, approval, etc.: the life of the committee; the life of a bestseller. 18. a prison sentence covering the remaining portion of the offender's animate existence: The judge gave him life. 19. anything or anyone considered to be as precious as life: She was his life. 20. a person or thing that enlivens: the life of the party. 21. effervescence or sparkle, as of wines. 22. pungency or strong, sharp flavor, as of substances when fresh or in good condition. 23. nature or any of the forms of nature as the model or subject of a work of art: drawn from life. 24. Baseball. another opportunity given to a batter to bat because of a misplay by a fielder. 25. (in English pool) one of a limited number of shots allowed a player: Each pool player has three lives at the beginning of the game. If you state that I cannot do as i have already done, then you were already wrong 5 minutes before you post your next argument. Thank you.
Life' Indescribable to the humanity. Only God can do it.

For all existence human being, No body will ever or ever been able to describe what life means. Even the science can try to such all possibility, no body can identify any thing clear about this world. In Religion or Philosophise, People also try to explain according to their own experience, But no body can be able to define what life means. For many science knowledge's, we hear things like: " life is the fact of being born, growing up, make friends or have families, eat food, get a merry, become old and do everything and completely die" But that doesn't real make any since. If someone say that completely die means life, he is wrong. Because we can say life grace of existence. But there is only and only one question: Where doest this life come from? The science will try to prove about the evolution theory, But that's really stupidity... Because those scientist try to lie people according to their own thoughts that they can prove where life come from and what live means. The word 'life' existed many years before than the humanity. Because everything to be done this world is grace of life. But the only point I'm not talking about is that nobody can define what life means. That's because many years ago, people was been discussing about his. Many people even killed each other about this word. But on the other hand, every body believed that his answer was the right one. And even in this debate, you are going to prove that you can give a definition to this word. So, let me ask you from before: What does life means? Maybe you will say that you didn't learn that from your college or university. Of course, you can't define it. Or maybe you will say: I can't , but other people can. So, why can't you do that? Because I'm trying to prove that there's no specific definition about this world. That's why no body can define what life means. But people can only try to say why they life. For example:" You live to praise God and teach his mercy love to everybody, And you live to do something to someone else" Christianity Or" You live to eat, learn, see all kind of things and then die" Science. But that's not the definition. So, we can only say why we live but we can never describe what life means.
Entrepreneurs should be allowed breed hybrid hominids for profit

Though i do admit that the idea might be appealing to think about (i mean i even have to admit that it is cool). I would be against simply because of the fact that selling a species of humans would be unjust and immoral. Since my opponent is not using any LD form of debate then i guess we will stick to the basic refutation debate. The gravest flaw with such an idea would be that it would be difficult to determine whether or not this specie should be recognized as a human or an animal. Which then begs the question, should this thing have rights? If the answer is yes, then you can disregard all that my opponent is advocating, because by selling these hybrids to companies and families, and by using them as slaves. But if you choose to say that it is not human at all therefore requires no rights, my opponent would then be degrading humanity and the sanctity of human rights. Even if it is a cross-breed it is still part human, which means it should have rights. If not then that means that in only "special circumstances" do our rights become important. Even then it would be unjust to allow animals to do our work for us, because it would promote a lazy welfare system, where instead of the government providing for our needs, we rely on animals to do our bidding. Even then we dont know for sure if these cross-breeds could act and think like humans even of they were cross-bred. Which would mean that we would have wasted money for nothing if these humanzees could not even work. Also if they could work, since they are not fully human, they do not have the total mind that makes human's human. Animals are ruled by instinct, humans have cognitive thought. What would the end result be if we mix these two? We dont know. That is why you must negate. Because we dont know what the results are, whether it should be treated as a human, and we dont know if we could even get the crossbreed to work like humans do.
Entrepreneurs should be allowed breed hybrid hominids for profit

Just to reiterate, because a Humanzee™ may have some human genes that doesn't it human. To illustrate this point I should like to ask the voters to consider the following analogies: The Porsche 911 evolved directly from the 1937 Volkswagen Beetle, but you wouldn't describe it as a "Nazi staff car" would you? Next, let's say you walked into a delicatessen to buy a sandwich for lunch and on the blackboard one particular filling took your fancy: "Succulent slices of slow-roasted, honey-glazed wild boar topped with the finest quality mozzarella cheese made from organic buffalo milk - $10.00" $10.00 is a bit pricey but it sounds delicious so you order it. However as the server prepares your sandwich you notice that she is taking the meat out of a container labelled "Value Pack Wafer-Thin Honey Roast Ham (made with mechanically-recovered pork with added water)" and the cheese is from a tub labelled "Economy Range Processed Cheese Spread (made with reconstituted milk solids with added vegetable oils)". Now, even though the server pointed out that the ham came from pigs and pigs were originally bred from wild boar and that the cheese came from cows and cows were originally bred from buffalo, I think you'd have every right to complain. Similarly, say a British movie company wanted to remake the classic film "American Werewolf in London" but they couldn't't afford a Hollywood actor to play the lead role so they got an aspiring thespian from the West Bromwich and District Amateur Dramatic Society, and they couldn't afford to film on location in London so they shot the film on an industrial estate just off the A1(M) in Hertfordshire, and they couldn't afford a real wolf so they had to borrow the director's neighbour's lapdog instead. Should they have released it with the original title or would "Brummie Werepoodle in Stevenage " have been more honest? I think the latter, don't you? In the final analysis, a Humanzee™ would be no more entitled to human rights than a chimp. Thank you.