BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheist Epistemology

I apologize for the late response and unfortunately I will have to keep this response short. Con asks how the non-material can exist from the material. He says that I cannot prove I am nothing more than a machine that only thinks because of my physical makeup. I will try to show how a materialist can handle this question, but I also wish to ask him a similar question. How can you prove that you are not a machine that only "thinks" due to your physical makeup being acted upon by the laws of nature? He would need to show how immaterial things could interact with the physical, which would break the laws of conservation of matter and energy. For, if the cause of actions is some immaterial mind that moves matter in the brain as a prime mover of a chain of events, then energy is being added out of nowhere. If materialism is not true, con has to show how this is possible. To answer con's question, I will answer in terms of beliefs, since knowledge is seen as justified true belief. I must show how it is plausible that physical things could generate beliefs. Imagine a painting. It is made of thousands of individual brush strokes. If one looked at these strokes in themselves, they would be pretty mundane. However, they can all come together in specific patterns to create new properties not present in the individual strokes, like texture and beauty. These properties are not at all held by each brush stroke, but they become present when the strokes are put together in a certain manner. Similarly, it seems possible that neurons do not hold mental properties, but when they come together in a specific form, these properties are the result. However, without these neurons mental properties could not exist. A good mind "supervenes" on the physical make up of the mind. Beliefs emerge due to a specific pattern of matter in a hierarchy leading up to mental properties. Beliefs (or any cognitive activity) may seem to exist in another realm of things, but they are the result of a specific structure of matter. This is how a materialist can account for knowledge. This seems to be a necessary consequence of a closed physics. I now ask con to provide an argument in defense of the immaterial properties of the mind. I ask, again, the two questions above: how can immaterial substances interact with the physical and how does this not violate basic laws of physics? I also ask for evidence which seems to show how a dualist view of the mind seems more likely than a monist one.
Atheist Epistemology

No, I am saying that you cannot demonstrate the existence of the non-material from the material. You cannot prove you are nothing more than a mere machine that only "thinks" the way you do because of your physical makeup being acted upon by the laws of nature. Knowledge being only one these non-material things you cannot account for given your worldview. Unfortunately, I am used to a more give and take medium, which is to say more than 5 responses. I have to work on this.
Marriage is outdated

Thank you for your response and for clearing up definitions. Marriage is a Settled Social Institution: Marriage has undergone many changes in theory, legality, and intimacy, but the basic aspect of two coming together in a cultural matrimony has remained a constant in our communities. Though history, consistence in joining a couple by marriage has structured our world to what it is now, from kings and queens of superpowers in the world to anonymous office-mates having a small ceremony. People who love each other get married: this is settled into most cultures. However, no two who love each other have to get married. It is and has been. an option to flaunt your marriage to your peers and families. I'm sorry, not flaunt. Flaunting would be to have a marriage of a few hundred people, which has become a reasonable and regular option. Another would be to have one witness and a three-minute ceremony. Both are sound in an idea to show your love in the most public way possible, but again, two who love each other do not have to get married. It has just been set that two who love each other can be legally joined together by an ordained 3rd party, which would give them benefits in family orientation and a loving relationship with your best, warm friend. A Marriage is Faulty by Participants: Over half of all marriages end in divorce or separation, but this simply doesn't mean that it is outdated as a practice. This means that there are broken functions in relationships, and many (over half!) sadly marry the wrong people. Either this is the case, or, broken marriages are the fault of the 'bedroom' relationship. So much is expected of intimacy these days, and many of the components of marriage are damaged by sexual endeavors. These endeavors should occur only between a married person and their spouse, many say. This does not at all make marriage outdated. That is saying, as I stated before, simply, that public (or legally recognized) love is outdated. What do people strive for in any relationship? Purely sexual relationships don't work. The 'next level' must be marriage, and its not outdated. Purpose of Marriage Now: The purpose of matrimony has always been to bring two groups together: a family, nation, or culture. Now, perhaps just two people who's love is so deep that they can commit themselves to each other can get married with one witness. Marriage now will happen between two people who know that they can wake up every day next to their other and say 'I love you', and it will happen in any way possible. Some couples marry now simply to look ahead onto a lovely family picnic with two children while others look ahead to living side-by-sad laughing at everything with one another. Many marry for their children, which is unfortunate in its own small way, but this is another purpose: to give the appearance of a normal relationship for the kids' benefit, so that they can grow up to live a happy life and have normal relationships. Parents might do this for their kids, a life's sacrifice, and a life's sacrifice is simply saddening and heartwarming, yet still, not outdated.
Marriage is outdated

Clear up for definitions-Outdated - No longer useful in society and/or falling out of use. (one usually follows the other) Marriage - as a legal bond between to people is outdated(needs to be changed), marriage for love and children is in decline Lost Propose Marriage was used for many years as a way to bind two households together, no love was evolved. This type of marriage has gone out the door people marry for love now but is society still at a point were two people need to marry for love. Disregarding spiritual marriage(as in marriage by the church) as marriage is deeply routed in some religions why can't two people who love each other simple enter into a household binding contract not for love but for loyalty to the house. The future will not have single family homes, yes within this home their may be a couple but also maybe two and the home would still share assets and work together for advancement. Combined policies and financial pluses are not the reason that most people marry yet marriage is not a love contract it's a "Work together and live together for the rest of time" contract. The Future job market will mean people will change jobs more often and move more as well. This will make it hard for "families to settle down", the birth rate is going, marriage to raise children will not be done since most families will have to two, three maybe four members of the house working and may one child will be born but no member of the family will be able to stop working to care for it so a nannies or a day care is needed during the day. ClosingMarriage as a legal contract is not useful to people( an updated on might be).Love is not a good reason to agree to spend the rest of time with some one. You can love but do you need a paper that says your in love.Children will not be as important with future generations.
Marriage is outdated

Thank you! I gladly accept your proposed challenge and look forward to a mature, relevant, and friendly debate with you, Mitchell27. Your rules are perfect but I have inquiries regarding definitions - 'Marriage' means a bond legalized between a couple. Are we analyzing and standing for the legal aspects of marriage exclusively (financial pluses, combined policies, etc.), the factors and activity involved between a married couple exclusively (marriage to have/save children, honeymoon, anniversaries, renewals, etc.), simply any couple wanting to be legally married for love exclusively, or a subset/all of these combined? By 'outdated' do you mean 'no longer in regular use', 'old-fashioned', or 'falling into disuse'? (or a subset/all)? I appreciate your competition and very patiently await response. Thanks!
Marriage is outdated

First Rounds for establishing rules and acceptance.Rules1) no stats (even with citation) points should a personal view on Marriage 2) Winner must prove their point completely (If voter is in not completed convinced to either pro or con they should not vote)3) must prove that the current form of legal marriage is outdated(or not), not that legal union is not usefulRound Break down1)acceptance2) Main Point(s) + rationale 3) rebuttal and closing remarks(no new remarks only clear rebuttals) In first argument please ask any questions you have about rules or clear up definitions . This will be handled out of debate through messages before the second round begins.
Homeschooling is better than public school.

Debating topic: Home-schooling is better than PublicSchooling I am CON, therefore negating this resolution. The BOP is on my opponent to prove that homeschooling is better than publich schooling. That means I must prove her wrong, if If needs be, I'll convince the readers that public schooling is even better than homeschooling. Definitions: Home-schooling: Being taught from home via your parents Public schooling: Having education within a school, whereeverything taught comes from the government of education. Better: More beneficial for the majorityArguments:1. Public schooling helps you develop your social skills with your classmates.2. The education from public schooling comes from the government and is a more reliable way to teach students over what parents think is the best way for them to learn. Over to PRO.
Everything about Bernie Sanders doesn't seem Democrat to me

PRO in round 2- Well if you act like a Republican but don't do the things Democrats do...Doesn't that raise a Red flag and why are most of his Supporters switching over to Trump instead of Hilary she is Democratic too???? Ill paraphrase what you said for you, "Why are Bernie Sanders supporters supporting Trump and not Hillary?" PRO in round 3-"WHO WANTS A CRIMINAL TO RUN THE COUNTRY???" That is exactly why they would support Trump and not Hillary. You answered your own question. So to make it clear: you asked a question in round 2, I replied and then you had a revelation of sorts and answered your own question later in round 3. There was literally nothing to debate with what you posted in round 3.
Everything about Bernie Sanders doesn't seem Democrat to me

Well Trump is actually and will make the Better President but its Confidential to other Parties but not Republicans, We Know Trump will make America Great again not only that he is Brilliant Businessman, even if i was a Bernie sanders supporter and when Bernie Lost i would of course start voting for trump NO FREAKING WAY FOR HILARY i don't care if shes a Democrat. WHO WANTS A CRIMINAL TO RUN THE COUNTRY???
Everything about Bernie Sanders doesn't seem Democrat to me

In the US there are more than 2 political parties, yet only 2 of them, Democrat and GOP have substantial support so voting 3rd party is a waste of a vote. There has never been a candidate so far to the left than Bernie Sanders, he opposes many things with the GOP and the Democrats. Bernie Sanders opposes issues with the GOP when it comes to core issues, market economy, the GOP is for an free open capitalistic society, while Bernie Sanders is for government controlled economy aka socialism, Those 2 could not be father apart. When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Bernie Sanders does not want to tear it up, rather take it further being a small victory in the fight to universal health care. (http://feelthebern.org...) So I gave 2 facts of differences Bernie with the parties to make a statement, Bernie Sanders is at stark odds with the GOP over many things but with the Democrats he is not at odds with them, he just does not believe that they are socialist enough. His supports are supporting Trump because he has been calling it rigged against him for months, Trump is always on the news doing a press conference or an interview while Hillary haunt held one all year, what kind of leadership is that? Trump like Sanders is an outsider who ran against the establishment puppets, but the GOP allowed Trump to win it, knowing who the people chose is who the party chooses, while Debbie Washerman Schultz and the DNC are rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor. Bernie ran an anti wall street campaign while Hillary is wall street, "Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing"- Barack Obama
People should not be liked

People are terrible. I mean for crying out loud there are some a-holes out there. I mean look at Donald Trump. He cant see past his fame, fortune or power. He thinks because he has nuclear bombs no one can fight and stand up to him because he'll threaten them. And I mean he is just one big bully. Just because he hates one country doesn't mean he can threaten to blow up the entire world. I couldn't give two monkeys about how powerful he is and how rich he is. I just want to shove a shovel up his bum. Then there is those homophobic idiots out there. They think the bible is right when it quotes "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." And then God later on tells us that being ourselves is a good thing. So who cares what the bible says. Then you get racist people aka Donald Trump.
Communism Is Not Bad.

Why do people consider communism bad? Communism is a system in which everyone owns all land and property, and there are no classes. The goal of communism is to get rid of poverty and make everyone equal. It is also against racism and sexism. In communism, there are generally no taxes except on the extremely wealthy, who can afford it anyways. Also, generally, housing and healthcare are free in a communist government, and the government distributes the wealth. Now granted, the leaders of communist countries have done a terrible job of representing communism, but that does not mean communism is bad overall. I actually think it's good. Equality for all? No racism or sexism? Sounds nice to me.
Whaling

First, to refute my opponents refutations: I addressed the issue of legality. Some people believe it is illegal, I was confirming that it is legal. My opponent's source for the information on humaneness of harpoon guns is not exactly telling the whole truth. In Norway, which has the best record for humane kills, 1,677 Minke whales were killed in the 2000-2002 whaling seasons. Of these, 80% died instantaneously or very quickly, especially when shot in the cranial region or near the heart. [1] My opponent states that her first claim regards the effects of whaling on the environment, yet she says that "this argument also justifies the regulated murder (of man)". Of course, when a whale dies, its relatives are affected. But this applies to any wild animal killed, including land animals hunted with rifles, as well as to whales who die naturally. Any intelligent animal is capable of recovering from grief. Hunting a few non-endangered whales barely affects the ecosystem at all. Of course, this is different when hunting an endangered species. I recommend to Iceland and Japan to cease Fin whale hunting to let stocks recover. Cultural norms differ form place to place. Here in the United States, we find it evil to kill whales or primates. Yet we kill by the thousand cows and pigs. Both of which are quite intelligent. We also kill octopi and people hunt deer. Many animals we kill for food are intelligent to a degree. Intelligence should not be a determining factor when killing animals for food because any animal that is sentient and can feel pain has the same right to not feel pain as any other. Is it okay to kill a stupid human being but not a smart one? Animals are animals as long as they feel. People are a kind of animal and predatory animals kill others for their own food. My opponent states that she accepts raising an animal for food, the argument being that the animal was intended to be made into food. But a wild pig and a farmed pig are both pigs. They feel the same pain and have the same intelligence. A "food pig" and a wild pig are the same animal with a different name. Yet it is okay to kill the first yet not hunt the other? I find this arbitrary. In fact, I prefer hunting the wild pig for the reason that it lives its whole life free, running about in the woods, having a grand old time, and one day, he is shot and dies. The farmed pig lives its life captive, in a cage, bored. That is disrespectful to the animal. It is the same with a whale. I will eat a wild hunted whale versus a tortured factory-farmed cow any day of the week. The farm births the pig, gives it no life at all, and kills it. Nature births the whale, gives it a good life, and the whaler takes the whale's life and gives it to people, as well as giving the whale's bones and unusable meat back to nature. To feed a thousand people, do you kill 50 sentient cows, or one whale? [1] Report of the NAMMCO Expert Group Meeting on Assessment of Whale Killing Data. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
Whaling

In addressing con: “Whaling is not illegal[…]”The law does not define an ethical code of right and wrong. For example, it is completely legal to cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend, and lie to family. Furthermore, female genital mutilation is still legal in many countries [1], and (though this is a topic for another debate) so is abortion. All ethically wrong, yet legal. “The killing of whales is not exceptionally inhumane”Harpoon guns and detonation devices are more effective in immobilizing whales, not in causing exceptionally fast or painless deaths. [2] <MLA citation from university e-library. “Whaling is sustainable.”This argument also justifies regulated murder (of man). “Animals kill others for food.”Therefor it’s ok for humans to act as animals act?“Whale meat is not necessarily mercury-laden[...]”Researchers tested 137 meat samples, each of which exceeded federal guidelines. The samples included nine types of whales, and six types of dolphins. [3] Sperm Whales are endangered and protected, therefore not one of those nine types of whales. My argument is centered on two claims: Whaling is not good for the environment. Regardless of how bad it is for the environment, it is not good for the environment. Whales have complex and highly developed relationships and societies. When a healthy whale species (not endangered) is hunted, it affects the entire community of whales. When hunting endangered species, which pro mentioned takes place in Japan and Iceland, the entire ecosystem is affected. Hunting an endangered species puts the species at higher risk of extinction, which would alter the entire ecosystem. Whaling is unethical. All life is valuable in itself, and all life is intelligent. Some forms of life (ie. fish) are not nearly as intelligent as whales. Evidence suggests that the intelligence of whales is comparable to that of primates [4]. Whales have a complex language sophisticated enough to make scientists think we will be able to communicate with them. [5]Since whales are intelligent and sentient beings capable of feeling, their lives should be particularly valued. Whales are also wild and free beings, unburdened from ownership. This debate isn’t about pigs but pigs, in this context, are not unburdened from ownership. Farmer Joe births the pig, raises the pig, feeds the pig, and provides for the pig with the sole intention of eating the pig. It given the choice between non-existing and a short carefree life, what would you choose? The pig is given life, while the whale’s life is taken. The farmer gives to the pig, the pig gives back. The whaler takes from the whale, and gives nothing back. Not only killing, but stealing life from the whale. [1] http://reproductiverights.org...[2] "Whaling." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 10 Apr. 2006. Web. 7 June 2014. <http://www.2facts.com...;.[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com...;[4]http://www.scientificamerican.com...[5]http://www.whalefacts.org...
The Following Argument(s) for the Existence of God are Valid - 1F

Note: the "1E" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com.................. 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com.................. 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god from a currently known religion (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysically supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysically supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise they'll be nothing to debate). THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable. Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Should Starbucks sell more food items

Personally I feel that with it's current menu Starbucks is a very fine establishment with a lot going for them, this being said, even in the greatest of corporations there is room for improvement. I find my self wishing that around my third hour of sitting in Starbucks looking at facebook on my Macbook Air, that there was some way I could get something substantial to eat. While I do love to snack on a marshmellow dream bar or a piece of lemon loaf, it would be nice to have something like a nice fresh sandwich, and I just dont feel that the pre-made wraps can cutit for me. If you disagree with me on any of these points feel free to enter what is going to become a very heated debate on a subject that is very close to my heart.