BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does light have color

The opponent is making a broad, ill-defined philosophical argument regarding what color "really is". I will be defending my position and demonstrating the flaws in the opponent's rebuttal. The Definition of ColorFor the purposes of this debate, I will be considering "color" to be a scientific property, specifically one of light. The opponent would find it difficult to provide an alternative definition, as "what we see when light comes into our eyes" is not an objective or accuratey measurable phenomenon. For instance, some people are color blind, some have regular vision and some have extraordinary color vision. In the minds of each of these people, "red" would be interpretted very differently. As such, it is useless to define a color like "red" based upon the mind's interpretation of the particular wavelength of light hitting a person's eyes. If that were the case, there would be no objective "red" and we couldn't accurately say that "trees are green" or "water is blue". Because of this, we need some other basis for the definition of color. The best definition would concern qualities that are objective in nature and do not change. As such, we define color as being based upon the particular wavelength of an electromagnetic wave. Since we have defined color as being based upon the wavelength of light, it is clear that a mind is not necessary for light to have the property of color. In a universe without thinking minds, grass would still reflect green, because the wavelength emitted would be around 550 nm. Robots and Their Many AbilitiesConsidering our "best definition" of color, it is equally as clear that robots are capable of detecting unique colors. Seeing as color is a physical process involving no higher "thinking power", it is easy to see why robots are capable of doing this. The fact that a robot can do this only further goes to show that a mind is not a prerequisite to the existence of color. The Opponent's CaseOr specifically, the lack thereof. The opponent rebutted my arguments and included a brief synopsis of how the human eye works, but otherwise failed to in any way attempt to prove that a mind is necessary for the existence of color. In Round 1, the opponent promised that he would be proving this and has yet to do this. Along with my opponent's case, I imagine there will be a definition of color different from my own. If this is the case, I advise that the definition be as well-founded and unchanging as my own. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Does light have color

Heat is not color. One can't compare apples to oranges. And robots detect different wavelengths of light, not different colors. This is also what the cones in the human eye detects. When sunlight, which is made up of all wavelengths of light, strikes an orange, it absorbs all the other wavelengths except those between 590 and 620 nm which it reflects. When this light strikes our retina it is detected by cones which only detect light of this wavelength. The cone then sends a signal along the optic nerve to our brains imaging center where the signal is converted into an image. This is where color is created. Light which does not strike our retina directly is invisible to us, that is why we don't see "orange light" radiating away from an orange in all directions. This is because light has no color, only different wavelengths which or brains interpret as color. The best example I can think of is a TV antenna which recieves radio waves. These waves are not visible as pictures or images. The antenna sends a signal to your TV which converts this signal into images and sounds. Without a antenna and TV the images and sounds won't exist. So yes, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. It only creates sound waves which require ears and a conscious brain to be converted into sound. Thanks. I look forward to seeing your counter arguments.
States are justified in possessing nuclear weapons

Thanks to F-16 for accepting this bada$$ debate. I'm sure we've both been looking forward to this, especially since we're both playing devil's advocate. I'm going to argue that some or most states are justified in possessing nukes. Con will argue that no state should possess nukes. Definitions:State - a politically organized body of people occupying a definite territory (1)Justified - More benefits than harmsStandard debating rules. Sources can be posted on an external page on the first round, after that they should be in the argument.Good luck. 1. http://tinyurl.com...
Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school. As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs. Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject. Thus, adding opinions, most of which are consistent through the entire country, is almost required. Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning. What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word. Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future.
Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

A few things to add:Since you left a key part of the debate undefined ("wrong"), I defined it. Therefore, we debate under my pretense (per debating rules...)By claiming "Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things", means that you take full burden of proof to prove that all schools, indeed teach us the wrong things. Therefore, by claming this, you have to prove that nothing all schools teach us is 'right'."Right": "true or correct as a fact" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...].If Pro wanted to debate under a different resolution, Pro shouldn't have left such an ambiguous aspect of the debate undefined. Pro could have made the resolution in a way that the burden of proof is shared, like, "do you think some information that schools teach students is wrong?" But since Pro didn't, Pro has to argue under my definitions.For me (Con) to win the argument, I just have to successfuly refute Pro's arguments - no case is needed. For Pro to win, Pro has to fulfill the BoP.Rebuttals:"Through an attempt to prove your intellectual superiority over myself, you have merely proven yourself a fool."An example of ad hominem (logical fallacy) - conduct goes to me..."The skill of debating not only lies in knowing the definitions of words, it is also being able to understand what the opposite party is saying, and being able to interpret the meaning of the word they are using. 'Wrong' can be used in many instances, whether you are describing information that is nonfactual, or in my case, not the desired outcome."Then you should have defined such an ambiguous part of the argument, as explained previously."If someone states that throwing a dog over a bridge is wrong, are you going to correct them?"I did not "correct you", I simply defined an aspect that was left undefined."Now, as for the previous argument, I did not state that nothing taught in school is wrong, or not needed, I stated that they dwell too little on the things that matter, and too much on the things that don't. "Not once did Pro claim this."Though some schools have programs to learn these things, not al do. However, it is very hard not to find a school with World History, which, in the long run, is not needed.""Though some school programs to learn these things, not al do." Pro concedes that not all schools teach kids the wrong thing, thus making Pro's BoP impossible to fulfill... Pro claims that World History is not needed? I argue that if someone wants a job to do with History, a knowledge of history would be helpful... This is also an example of Pro's opinion.So far:1.Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof2.Pro has made Pro's burden of proof impossible to achieve3.Pro uses no evidence to prove Pro's argument4.Pro resorts to ad hominem5.Pro supports his arguments with mere opinionI checked your profile, you are new here. There are rules that you need to learn; as I did. But don't insult your opponent for disagreeing with your opinion.
Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

Through an attempt to prove your intellectual superiority over myself, you have merely proven yourself a fool. Though I tend to keep off-topic discussion just that, this may help. The skill of debating not only lies in knowing the definitions of words, it is also being able to understand what the opposite party is saying, and being able to interpret the meaning of the word they are using. 'Wrong' can be used in many instances, whether you are describing information that is nonfactual, or in my case, not the desired outcome. If someone states that throwing a dog over a bridge is wrong, are you going to correct them? Now, as for the previous argument, I did not state that nothing taught in school is wrong, or not needed, I stated that they dwell too little on the things that matter, and too much on the things that don't. Though some schools have programs to learn these things, not al do. However, it is very hard not to find a school with World History, which, in the long run, is not needed.
Schools Teach Us the Wrong Things

As of now, I am in the 10th grade. At my intelligence level, I have been told by many that I have sufficient knowledge to transfer into adulthood. However, they continue that I still require to finish the two grades I have yet to complete. So, instead of preparing me for the nearing brick wall in the road that is reality, say, teaching me how to file taxes, pay rent, or apply for a job, they've decided I need to know the structure of a Carbon atom. They've decided I need to know when Napoleon Bonaparte lost the Battle of Waterloo. Something is definitely wrong here.
D.A.D.T Policy

What anyone chooses to do in private, as civilians and citizens, is not the issue of this debate. We must first recognize that joining the US military places one under the jurisdiction of the military and Congress. You are no longer a civilian and any rights you have are at the sole discretion of Congress. I put forth a logical reason for the Congress to ban the act of sodomy by military personnel. I do not believe the military should adopt my logic on the basis that it seems right to me. I have no military experience and my opponents age would restrict her experience to J.R.O.T.C. at best. I don't believe our military policies should be determined by the collective wisdom of 17 year old girls and 33 year old landscapers. More importantly, neither did the founders. Although civilian control of the military is important, it is more important to protect the military from the breezes and winds of the latest civil movement. My opponent may be entirely correct in her assertions in this debate, but we would not ask her to run the military, nor I. Our goal should be to elect the representatives that will bring wisdom, fact and practicality to the table and have faith that they will make the best decisions for implementing military affairs. What may be fair in civilian life could be counter productive or detrimental to military affairs. My opponent has not yet made this distinction. The law does not apply, Congress has full authority over the military. We do not want military policy based on what the legislators deem "safe" to implement in accordance to public opinion. Neither I nor my opponent truly knows what would "improve national security", and my opponent has not demonstrated the the military has weakened itself due to the D.A.D.T. policy. For theses reasons, I ask you vote pro. Not because you believe one way or the other. Because you know it is not our decision.
D.A.D.T Policy

Again im sorry for my absence ive had alot of family issues so i haven't had access to the computer. 1."Participating in sodomy is a health concern." Weather it be homosexual act, or heterosexual act, the health concerns are still their, and thoes concerns are NOT of the military, and or the government, they are of the two people who are partaking in such action. We have choices, we choose who we engage in and what we use to protect our selves. 2."The activity would also put other soldiers in unnecessary risk." Again, the activity isnt putting unwilling soldiers at risk. There for it isnt unnecessary risk because they choose to run that risk. 3."The duties required by many and possibly most aspects of military operations puts soldiers at risk to exposure to disease host." There are ALOT more things that we endoure everyday that risk us to become exposed to disease. But homosexuality is not one of them. Also, homosexuals are not the only people who have desieases, heterosexuals have them as well. "Male Homosexual acts should remain banned" So not only are we discriminating from gay's but also men, what is this world comming to now a days? Lets be real, the d.a.d.t policy is a joke. "Since Lesbianism does not demonstrate the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy, females could be exempt." Lesbian or Gay, its still homosexuality, and their shouldnt be double standards. As the same from Heterosexual to Homosexual, were all still people so their shouldnt be a double standard either. "The military should not be burdened with having to prove an actual event" EXACTLY! its a burden to the military to discharge every gay in the military. Lets get over the fact people are different and let our military focus on more important matters.
D.A.D.T Policy

Thats Just it, weather homosexuals are in the military or in the civilian life, they are being discriminated aganist. So why can't the military begin to make the change. Yes your also right on the fact that we can't change what people believe, but maybe we can give non-supporters a better idea of life. The military has SO much power, why not use it for good Instead of Evil. [I want to appologise for being so late on my roud 2 argument, i will edit it and add more as soon as i can]
Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president ever.

Ronald Reagan was NOT the greatest Amerian president ever. I give some examples to show you why in this round: 1. Reagan helped fund terrorists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, which, as we all know now, has caused one of the worst attacks on U.S. soil in recent times. 2. Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, more than any other president. 3. Reagan did cut taxes, but only for those with the highest incomes. He raised taxes several times as president. I thank my opponent and look forward to seeing his response. Sources: http://www.politifact.com... http://occupy316.org...
Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president ever.

First to state off, thank you for posting this debate which I have accepted. In this debate, you will have to prove to me why Ronald Reagon is greater than any other president to ever hold office in the United States. Before we begin, let me restate that you asserted "The idea of this one is to have 5 fairly short rounds." Do you mean that each round will be quick and clear cut? Or are you infering that 5 rounds will be short?
Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president ever.

It seems like many people on DDO The idea of this one is to have 5 fairly short rounds. We'll look at the statistics and accomplishments of Ron Reagan. Rules: No trolling, no personal attacks, or anything of that nature. Round 1 - Acceptance Rounds 2, 3, and 4 - Clash Round 5 - Closing Statements (no new arguments) May the best win! And one last thing: I would like to have the focus of the debate stay on Reagan, not other presidents, for the most part.
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

LOL I would say Pro just forfeited round. He just said DO NOT WANT! He couldn't defend his arguments! Throw away half your arguments pro in the DUMPSTER! Micro evolution doesn't lead to macro I showed how in my opening statement. Because of the laws of thermodynamics and the principles of information theory, the variations within Created kinds only go downward, not upward. Creationwiki rebutts talk. origins claims 1. "Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. " In all of our observations, there has not been a single large change that would show that it involves the same processes. Instead, what we simply observe is a change within kinds. "There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). " The reason that there is no dispute for microevolution is because it is observable and fits into the creationist model. What was Isaak reading? Wallace never denounced the occurrence of mutations. Speciation has also been observed. True, but no informed creationist would state that speciation has not been observed. In fact, speciation is an essential process for creationism but is done within limits. Speciation is not evidence for macroevolution in any shape or form. Pro makes an argument that I rebutted in the second round.
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

My opponent essentially forfeited the debate. First, microevolution leads to macroevolution. Here is an analogy as to how this works: Talk.Origins notes:Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.Speciation has also been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org...I have provided speciation observed in the previous rounds which have been dropped. This can only be explained by evolution.Vestigial structures provide evidence for evolution over Creation because "vestigial structures can be viewed as evidence for evolution: organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry with organisms in with organisms in which the homologous structure is functional." http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...ConclusionThroughout this debate, con has straw manned and mis-represented evolution (i.e., "Evolution teaches dogs give birth to cats!") In the last round, con essentially forfeited the debate. I hereby declare a pro victory.
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

Pro says I misunderstand "Macroevolution" and defines it as speciation. Yet say the "Rhagoletis pomonella" neat research,but its still a fly. And it came from a fly. I. Evidence from our Bodies A. Vestigial structures Yeah, I wasn't too clear. Goosebumps are used to warm the body slightly in cold. This is not the case in animals but humans. A-2 The Ostritch Wing How does it fit in the creationist modle? Easy,birds produce birds. If those birds get in an area where it doesn't need wings over generations it will lose its use. Nothing wrong there, doesn't mean these birds came from dinosaurs. I thought abiogensis is was how life formed from non-life. I never said where the microbe came from
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

It is obvious my opponent has no understanding of evolution or what evolution teaches. I will try my best to defend my arguments while correcting his misconceptions. My opponent begins by having a misconception of speciation. First, it should be noted that speciation has been observed. For example [1]: Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegusspp. ), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000). The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003). Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001). We can see how other artificial selection creates new variations by looking here . http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com...I. Evidence from our BodiesA. Vestigial structuresI do not understand what you are saying. You pretty much repeated my argument. Goosebump on cat -- . http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com...Goosebump on human -- . http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com...But of course goosebumps aren’t of any use to us. They don’t keep us warm, nor do they make us look bigger and fearsome, like the kitteh above. They’re evolutionary leftovers, evidence of our common ancestry with other mammals. . http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...A-2 The Ostritch WingMy opponent admits that the wings are useless and derived from birds that once flew. However, he states it could possibly fit in the Creationist modle. He also straw mans evolution by stating that it is microbe-to-man -- misconception is abiogenesis=evolution. My opponents arguments fail. I'm very busy this weekend and I am out of time. Apologies and I will get to the arguments in the next round. Please withhold posting your arguments until Sunday. References1. Schilthuizen, Menno. , 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.