BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Most Accurate Description of Consciousness

I do like this Joseph Campbell. They are very similar to some of the things I wrote during my transcendence (e.g rising from animosity, hatred, fear and rationalization), like "Man watches the world burn, because they cannot afford to watch themselves burn." What is "I", is merely the separation of what "Is". When you let go, everything snaps together. Just like when you meditate, you snap into your subconscious. You don't fall into it. You don't drift off into it. You snap into it, because life, the Universe, is all about snapping things together, hence how magnets behave. You are right that fire is drive. That's why passion is fiery and explosive; or anger is distorted and discontented. You are still wrong about light. We are the Universe; the Universe is dark, much like our subconscious. Light is merely revealing, identifying, showing of object and substance. It does not have any form of consciousness, hence it has no color, personality or multi-faceted system. It's just light on; light off. Consciousness is color, water and alternation between experiential points, set out throughout the world at an atomic level, much like how our skin is consisted entirely of small bumps. Light is the revealing, the acknowledging the showing of information. It does not process information. It does not process being, emotion or reaction. Notice how we have no real answers for ourselves - that all answers are the result of cross-referencing an already functioning Universe. This Universe defines us - we do not define it. Ideas come to us - we do not come to them. Therefore we are the subconscious, the darkness, the becoming and processing. Everything else is merely projected, misinterpreted and abused. Galaxies devour each other, as what may not be readily apparent to an untrained eye, is the process of the Universe devouring parts of itself again and again, because life is naive, but strives altogether. Knowing what the galaxies are doing can be cross-referential by applying psychopathy and greed to your table of analysis. Thus when a psychopath feeds, like a vampire (metaphors point to many truths), it is because the psychopath is hungry for life, but does not recognize itself becoming unsatiated - the reason why the hunger occurs, is because chemical imbalance and fissures cause ruptures in the entire "design" of any source of life, which causes it to alienated itself from the rest of the Universe. This is why we have very crazy people existing in our world - much like we have very crazy cosmic patterns in the Universe.
The Most Accurate Description of Consciousness

I explained conscious, by cross-referencing the behavioral patterns of water and conscious; and handing over the knowledge that the dreams we have are made from chemicals made of 99% water, so clearly water has all of the possibilities to be our consciousness: it reflect, it flows, it changes form, it overlaps, both have a light and dark side; a surface and depth; both share the same pattern of having normal creatures near the surface, and nightmarish creatures below the surface; both rely heavily on electricity; both might even be blue, hence the consciousness, when it's faced, causes depression, which is not a mental condition, but a point in becoming. I was depressed for 5 years, in those years, I became a god upon my world, leashed my inner monster, and reigned my emotions. I simply did not submit to the pressure that others have much difficulty in dealing with. A man once said something along the lines of not fearing the metaphor of a mental hurricane, as it merely is blowing away all that is frail and weak, leaving all that is strong and productive to stay. Depression is a euphemism for existential crisis - I suggest people to heed this truth. It's very important to face our emotions, rather than fear it as some medical abnormality. We react the way we do for a reason - a natural one. I know what psychopathy is (a dying star that just won't let go). I know what greed is (galaxies devouring other galaxies). I know what ignorance is (dark matter). I know what insanity is (the black hole). I am very confident that I also know what consciousness is (water). I cannot agree that there is an "I", or a "Will". This entire Universe created us, shaped us and defined us. We merely experience the already experienced world. We are merely colors within an already painted world. We are not being; we are becoming. We are not living, we are learning. We are not alive; we are naive. We know nothing. The brain knows everything. All points are experiential. Where we go, we react. We react based on information we have gained. Nothing we say, think or do is our own property - we can only conjure the concept of ownership, but like the child that says they are not scared before they reach the edge of the pool, soon realizes that they do fear; they just have the ability to deny themselves of the truth. Humans do one thing more than any other thing: make things up. But as I like to say, "We fight for things we made up; Our shadow within fight for things we gave up."
Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind

I trust our debate will be judged without prejudice. Regardless of debating skills, reality is I am simply on the fact based side of this argument. The fact you are going against the tide of science and logic will give you ample opportunity to showcase you debating skills. I am in not familiar in the art of debating, so this should be like target practice for you. The planet isn't doomed. I make no such claim. Earth has survived volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes, mass fires, it's ben hotter and it's been colder and, if we're not careful, we'll be just another mutation gone wrong. Your opening argument shows a limited scope of your understanding of the world around you. "I have none of these problems where I live." You live in a bio-dome or in a magic castle in Disneyworld? Because you certainly don't fish in the Everglades. According to your Florida Department of Environmental Protection there are restrictions on fish consumption dues to mercury and other toxins. According to your own State Government, you have this problem where you live even if you can't see it. I geuss you can't really see the ozone layer thinning above you, perfectly understandable why you might not believe there's anything wrong. Perhaps your magic castle has it's own ozone layer? "If you have these problems maybe you should move and quit buying imported food and goods that come from third world countries with no health standards or enforcement." People of Nunavut, Canada can no long eat the food they've been eating for thousands of years because of the toxins, mercury and what not that accumilates at that latitude. If the do as they have, they are birth-defects and miscarriages from various toxins. Yet, they don't use mercury or DDT or any other toxic substances they find in their food; it comes from some place else via water, wind and the food chain. The Great Lakes, fish cannot be eaten nor do I recommend drinking the water. The fish you buy with the Highlander guy on it doesn't come from Florida and doesn't come without some amount of toxins. Simply believing that what goes on in other geographic areas doesn't effect you, especially with global trade, is naive, willful ignorance. Unless, of course, you the buy the fish from the moat around you magical pollution-free castle. Dismissing this argument because of your supposed problem-free geographic location is utter nonsense. Mercury and pesticides like DDT move their way up the food chain. Food doesn't come from the supermarket; it comes from earth and water; and the air and currents that moves it all around knows no political boundaries.
Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind

OK, Now I have your opinion on the planet being doomed. Now the tough part begins. "Increasingly, we cannot drink the water, breath the air, eat the food because of toxins and poisons" These problems are a result of local incompetence of local govts and the importation of food, goods and services from foreign companies that have no health enforcement standards. I have none of these problems where I live. If you have these problems maybe you should move and quit buying imported food and goods that come from third world countries with no health standards or enforcement. "The denials are based on economic interests of businesses, particularly, but not limited to, oil industry, with similar tactics and motives used by tobacco industry (whom denied the health problems associated with tobacco use). The denials of scientific findings are motivated by money; with the intent to alter public opinion and maintain their economic supremacy." This is text book political posturing to push an agenda, the environmentalist agenda. The environmentalist agenda needs money and wants to profit from it's agenda evey bit as much as any other special interest agenda. The sources that you will provide are bought and paid for by somebody who wants their interests promoted. My sources are bought and paid for by someone who I belive agrees with my point of view. You cannot dismiss my sources using political posturing just as I cannot dismiss yours. We will compare the content of all sources and see which is more likely than not using Occam's Razor. This is an easy win for you. You could forfeit every round and still win. The people will vote on the title alone as this site is comprised 90% pro global warming theory. "THEORY" Yes that's right it is still a theory. Here you can see I had a debate about this subject and my opponent forfeited every single round and I still lost. http://www.debate.org... Don't think for one second your debating skills or your sources have anything to do with winning the debate. With that said I eagerly await your sources and will with an open mind read them in their entirety and then cross reference and cross check the content of those sources to see if the data and the interpretation of that data is not misleading or just plain false.
Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind

The evidence of human activity damaging our own habitat, the Earth, is based on sound, credible science. This includes, but not limited to, climate change. The denials are based on economic interests of businesses, particularly, but not limited to, oil industry, with similar tactics and motives used by tobacco industry (whom denied the health problems associated with tobacco use). The denials of scientific findings are motivated by money; with the intent to alter public opinion and maintain their economic supremacy. Increasingly, we cannot drink the water, breath the air, eat the food because of toxins and poisons. The ecosystem, which we are part of, is breaking down. The situation will get worse; if we do not make changes humankind will increase it's chances of self-destruction.
Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind

So long folks, I refuse to enter my cell phone number to be a member of this site. Not only has it changed but now it sucks. Who's brilliant Idea was it to require people to give out their cell phone # I don't want text messages on my phone from debate .com What the #$%^&^%$#! Sorry mega dez I must forfeit you win.
Is the assassination of a corrupt US PRESIDENT acceptable, if they are not impeached

I feel if a corrupt president was elected and was not impeached by the Senate, the only other option would be to eliminate the corrupt. This is clearly the duty of the people, as stated in the US Constitution. The only thing I'm unsure of is how the assassin would be treated. I feel that the one who pulled the trigger should be free of charges or any disciplinary action because of the circumstance of a purely corrupted president.
Street/sexual harassment is not a compliment and promotes rape culture

I deeply apologize to my opponent as well as the voters. I know I challenged the debate so I should have posted but something has come up and I did not get the chance and rather than just let the time expire I would like to take this time to apologize and encourage you vote for my opponent as I took up some of his time as well. Again, I am sincerely sorry and hopefully when things die down, we can try this debate again. Thank you and have a good night :)
Street/sexual harassment is not a compliment and promotes rape culture

I challenge Wylted to this friendly debate as we were discussing it through message and were interested to see where it would go. I'm very excited, also nervous to debate someone with lots of experience but anyways here we go. The first round is just acceptance. I apologize for any foul language, but some of my quotes or sources include foul language. First round is acceptance, second is arguments, third is rebuttals, and fourth is conclusion. No new arguments in the last round. Good luck Wylted, even though I'm probably the one who needs the luck, but good luck all the same! Have a good day! :)
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

I am unfortunately unfamiliar with LD (or any other formal style) debate, but I’ll do my best to keep up with a superior opponent. CROSS EXAMINATION You make an excellent case for using subjective judgement to make moralistic choices, but (as far as I could see) you didn’t explain why anyone should be obligated to follow through with said positive actions. Why must an individual be required to follow through these good deeds? Let me elaborate; there are numerous things you or I could do, right this very moment, which would improve the lifestyle of the people around us, both those familiar to us as well as strangers. For example, I could afford to personally feed a low-income family by foregoing some of the comforts I enjoy. That would certainly “increase the total amount of happiness”. You reference Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; I would certainly increase the families ‘safety’ and possibly increase my ‘esteem’, yet I am certainly not morally obligated to do so. So, again, why am I (or anyone) OBLIGATED to increase the total amount of happiness? NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE A quick glimpse at my profile will quickly reveal my philosophy regarding morality; nihilistic. I reject the concept of objective morality on the basis that there is no objective moral teacher. I reject the concept of subjective morality on the basis that subjectivity is a useless way of determining whether is right or wrong, even if there is near universal agreement. So I couldn’t help but find myself shaking my head as I read my opponents argument. She talks about ‘increasing the total amount of happiness’ as though it were as simple as taking a bird’s eye view of society and reallocating resources; as if it were as simple as Maslow‘s pyramid suggests. Unfortunately happiness is highly subjective. Making one person happy is almost certain to make someone else unhappy as a consequence. Without objective morality, there can be no certain way of determining whether something is actually right or wrong. I’m also offended by the idea of being obligated to do anything that I don’t want to do. Sure, I enjoy doing nice things for people. I enjoy making my girlfriend and family happy, with gifts, love and affection, but the idea of being obligated to help people seems heavily restrictive. As selfish as it sounds I don’t want to be obligated to do anything, but I firmly believe that no-one else should either. We are altruistic by nature; nobody likes to see starving children in Africa on their TV which is why they make such a powerful advertising tool for corporate charity. But, we are also capable of resisting our nature and for good reason. If we were to give all we could spare away, we would never feel truly safe or comfortable. I’m running out of time and honestly regret accepting this debate (on the basis that my opponent’s argument was so well constructed >_<) so I will have to turn it back over to her. I apologise if I've disappointed.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Argumentation will begin in the next round. -There will be a total of 3 rounds of debate and one for acceptance-The voting period will last 2 weeks. -For every round of debate, each debater will have 48 hours to post their argument. -Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. * I would prefer that my opponent have experience with LD debate.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

I apologise to my opponent. Though I disagree, I must concede this debate on the grounds that I can't write a valid response on my iPhone and I have no other way of accessing the internet at this time. I had hoped to have a spare hour or two at work, but I was inundated with work and it was simply impossible.Furthermore, I feel I wouldn't have been able to adequetely respond anyway, since my opponents argument is very strong. I apologise for wasting your valuable time. I'm sure you can debate this topic again and reuse a lot of your arguments, so it is not a complete waste.-tv
Schools should have a longer lunch time

Exerpt from Jonbonbon's Abridged Encyclopedia of Education 2nd Edition: "High schools deal with smaller issues, like lunch, within their district... While there are recommendations for such things there is not federal control over them. This is best as districts best know their students better when concerning minor issues." Basically, we don't need to just raise the minimum time, because the districts are already covering that area, and the federal government shouldn't change that.
Humans are Vile beings.

Indeed forcing people to accept a religion/ideology is unacceptable and it is our duty to fight back for our rights against such people. Evil is just a possibility of human nature just like kindness. What if an evil person starts acting kind? would you change the debate topic to "Humans are Kind Beings"? Corruption is a big issue. Its impossible to change the world, all we can do is to change ourselves. We don't need to Panic but simply focus on doing good things. Humans are as susceptible to being Vile, as they are to being Kind. So imposing vileness alone is pretty inaccurate.
Humans are Vile beings.

Forcing someone to convert to your religion via violence is never acceptable. Allow me to give an example. Before I do so, please note that I respect all religious beliefs and I am just giving an example. I am an atheist. If someone or a group of people tried get me to change my religious beliefs with violence, I would immediately be against them. Anyways, when you have a group trying to get people to change their religious beliefs with force, they are labeled as terrorists or an extremist group. In other words, people see them as evil. And as for the people who used nonviolence and compassion, they most likely wanted to lash out but had the willpower not to do so. Thus, their and our human nature is evil for even wanting to act violently. I have got another reason to support my argument as to how humans are vile beings. If we look at the government and its politicians, it is easy to say that the whole system is corrupt. Corruption is a form of evil. Pocketing money from taxes, abusing authority, and accepting bribes is all proof of corruption.
Humans are Vile beings.

I accept the challenge. Thank you Pro for setting up this debate. I am supposed to argue that "Humans are not Vile Beings". It's crystal clear that Pro is making Faulty Generalization and Wishful Thinking Fallacies. Vileness is just one of our qualifies, it doesn't necessarily need to define us. Let me throw some light on it. There are people fighting in the name of religion because they have committed themselves to a particular dogma. Similarly there are also people who follow the path of Non-Violence and Compassion, thanks to their religion. So you see, the coin is even with two sides and Pro is seeing only one side, I request him to see the bigger picture.
Humans are Vile beings.

Humans are definitely vile beings. We fight constant wars for pointless reasons. For example, in some parts of the world, people are battling to get others to convert to their religion. They will force others to convert by any means necessary. They will not stop until they either win or are completely destroyed. Another reason we fight wars is for resources and money. Humans will do anything to get their hands on money and other luxuries. Even if it means killing others. Ergo, humans are the most selfish beings in existence.
Firearms should be banned from possession by civilians.

Hi wjmelements. Sorry for the delay, but here's your debate on gun rights. Please only accept definitions in first round, and if you don't agree with them, we'll work it out in the comment section. Firearms- Any lethal weapon that launches a projectile through combustion of gunpowder Banned- Not allowed, prohibited by law Possession- Ownership, control over Civilian- any non-military person with no role in law enforcement or private/public security I am looking forward to a very enjoyable debate.
Firearms should be banned from possession by civilians.

I acknowledge my opponent's confusion about my opening statement, it was an honest misunderstanding. 1. I contest my opponent's case regarding gun crime, that stated "those interested in homocide will either find an illegal firearm or use another means." This is not true. As shown in the link below, the United States has a far larger murder rate per capita than the UK, which has gun control. http://www.nationmaster.com... 2. The reason why impulsive murder would occur more often with a gun than with a knife is because killing with a gun is easier. You only need to pull a trigger, while killing with a knife requires more force. One would be more likely to realize what they are doing, and stop. Also, knives are less lethal than guns, and one might make a non-lethal stab with a knife, come to their senses, and stop. 3. "This idea extends to knives, scissors, baseball bats, A/C current, pillows, poisons, and every limb of the human body". Knives, scissors, and baseball bats are not as potent as guns. A/C current only kills if the victim brings it upon himself. Pillows cannot kill. Poison is banned. Limbs of the human body are not as potent, and otherwise cannot be denied. 4. My opponent has listed uses of firearms that cause happiness. I will refute them one by one. - hunting (for sport and food)- One can hunt with a less potent gun than a firearm, which can kill animals, but is unlikely to kill humans - skeet shooting- Skeet guns are used, which cannot kill - gun collecting- Collecting is an addiction, and therefore a vice (http://magazine.uchicago.edu... ); Allowing firearms to facilitate the practicing of a vice would be pointless - pest control- Pest control is done professionally, and does not provide any happiness. Personally, I don't see people running all over their house shooting termites very often. - gun shows- Gun shows have all but disappeared. I would challenge my opponent to name two that occurred - target shooting- I have done this on occasion, and found it enjoyable, but target shooting is done with non-lethal weapons such as BB guns, and air rifles 5. The relevance of my point regarding first-time criminals is that is is a rebuttal of my opponent's round 1 contention stating "Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—'almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior." 6. As outlined in my first argument for this round, firearms can and do cause deaths, and a dead human being is far worse off than one who cannot own a firearm. "It is unethical and harmful to ban civilian firearm ownership. Therefore, resolution is negated." I await my opponent's contentions for the next round but until then, the resolution is affirmed. Banning guns reduces murder rates as I cited, and prevents impulsive murders. I eagerly await my opponent's contentions for the next round.