BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spanking children is a necessity.

Well, I thank you for your astounding knowledge of the English language, yet ill try my best to keep up. In your First point I would like to point out that you said "spanking and other violent methods would fail as well" yet spanking is not a violent method, spanking is a way to teach a child. as for all your arguments, NO other punishment is proved to work, where a spanking has been proven to work. Sorry for the short passage, but work has been kicking me in the butt. So as another argument on my part, spanking a child may have a small percent change in the mental health where grounding them may teach them they can get off easy in the real world.
Cartels vs the Republic

This has been a most unfruitful discussion. When I see your username again in the debate I will NEVER attempt a scholarly argument with my opponent. Please, to the voters at home, don't encourage this type of nonsense on a website where we as debaters try to come to common ground, despite our differences. And to fellow debaters, this user has been the "bigot" of the debate. I encourage others not to attempt scholarly discourse as my opponent may not understand or know the definition of discourse. Thank you for those at home and I wish all well. Goodnight. P.S. I did win this, just so you know ;)
Cartels vs the Republic

I wish to congratulate my opponent for his failed argument as well as myself for providing solid evidence of my case. Whatever you were trying to accomplish, it has failed. As for the bigoted idiot comment, you might want to look no further than yourself on that one. I was looking forward to an informed discussion on the matter but clearly you've made no attempt at further enlightenment on this issue. Next time I will choose a more competent opponent. Cheers. Sources: My vast pool of knowledge and ego :)
Cartels vs the Republic

My opponent s a bigoted idiot. He failed for 2 rounds to address the Topic of discussion. He clauses were ignorant, and hapless. as his Economic research, was not credible, first off, but was followed up with untrue remarks concerning Job creation. pre-existing Distributers will assume responsibility for distribution, Unless we're to replicate Mexico's Corner-vs-Corner-Hotdog-economy Model. and that is why I mentioned Cigarettes and Booze already. now, I get it. I didn't exemplify this aspect of my argument very functionally. As I didn't round about to sex trafficking, being a drug related topic. Or the disrespectful population of ignorant assholess. However, How Ironic is it, that the twat who Pretends that he is debating with me, carries on, so impudently dodging the ONE obligation he had in this debate. So: This is Over. I won, By default; when after 2 rounds he continues to Troll, with the insolent remark embedded in Text, documented, and reference-able in context, as testimony against the structure of his debate, That he was 'mimicking my Style of Approach', and "debaucherized" the attempt to demonstrate such a thing. Good day. Any further remarks from my opponent to follow up this exhibit, are an errant attempt to boost his ego. Lest. He revert to the First Post, and make his argument based souly on the content I contributed as the Substance of Discussion (none of which was fallible.).
Cartels vs the Republic

I will reiterate my comment: that, this debate is geared towards the demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use. All my previous arguments, in turn are yet to be addressed, and doing so is a prerequisite to this debate. As, disregarding contributed arguments is bigoted, insolent, arrogant and impudent (each), and thus this would no longer be considered a DEBATE. as in a debate, the winner doesn't win based on inconsideration and pompous self-satisfaction, they win only By over-turning the content contributed in one way or another. Regarding the use of Medical Marijuana. Medical marijuana does not conclusively Cure any afflictions. I have never seen any research indicating that, nor any Medical Publications. (I would love for you to provide me with A CREDIBLE publication that is not second, third or fourth hand, But is directly from this Credible source. Please, as it is YOUR argument. ) I personally knew a man who died of Colon + liver cancer who smoked Marijuana routinely. I knew another heavy smoker who died of leukemia. Yet for the terminally ill. Who are we indeed, to deny this pain relief. Yet, despite I have not fought against this right, It should also not be administered or prescribed, as it can cause Great mental strife and physical trauma. As I stated, I have both had my brain bleed, and have had a heart attack. Job creation is not real. As pre-existing establishments would by default inherit this market (example: Monsanto's [actual example, Canada]). The only other people entering this market would be Pre-existing illegal cartels. To remain legal is financially expensive. This is not a job creation sector. IN fact, the rise in Market Distributers would complicate the tax system, and excessive corruption would arise, where a solution had been sought to be installed. Marijuana does in fact have a predisposition to induce psychosis on all Humans. That is a scientific fact. Some people, however, simply, mask their delusion, insolence, selfishness, Perversion and Psychotic symptoms. Ticking-Time-Bombs, Suicides, Crooks, Bigots, Asshols, Sloths, Gluttons, Jackasses. .. That is a fact, that Marijuana does have this disposition to inflict Psychosis, and merely the individual copes uniquely.
Cartels vs the Republic

First let me say I am unclear of where I stand on this urgent issue. But for the sake of the debate I will stand for the legalization of Marijuana. Let me begin by addressing the stigma associated with marijuana. Beginning with the counterculture movement in the 1960's and 1970's, the rapid spread of marijuana usage has taken the world by a tour de force. We typically think of the typical marijuana user as a left-wing, liberal idiot who has no concern for the legal aspects and laws of the United States. However, this is not the case. Many who use the illegal substance are in fact seeking a fix for terminal illness, typically cancer patients and the like. Who are we to deny said terminally ill patient the usage of a substance that will alleviate the mental as well as the physical aspects of the illness? It is also true that drug cartels, primarily in the central American regions that procure and distribute these illegal drugs across borders into many other countries. I am making the claim that, if we legalize marijuana, we will see the reduction of illegal activity among the said cartels as well as decreasing the overall price for the substance. With this, the cartels will be reduced to minor operations who will in turn focus on other moneymaking drugs, that which I think also should be legalized, to prevent any further cartel activity. By legalizing marijuana, we open the door to many opportunities for the terminally ill, as well as job opportunities for those who are jobless. With the legalization of marijuana, we will need distributors that are legal entities residing within the U.S. who responsibly distribute the substance through retail as well as freight operations. As far as the effects on the mind, marijuana has no predisposition to induce psychosis on the normal population. However, it in fact does induce psychotic thinking with those who are genetically predisposed to mental illness such as myself. The production of dopamine in the human brain is a marvel. It brings us a heightened sense of pleasure as well as controls our personality, the way we think and etcetera. Those whom have normal dopamine production will only feel a heightened sense of pleasure as well as euphoria. On the other hand, a person already experiencing the effects of incorrect dopamine production will in turn feel a heightened state of paranoia as well as an increase in psychotic thinking (a disconnection from reality). The notion that legalizing marijuana will increase the markets of sex trafficking and pornography is false. Individuals whom participate in these activities are already doing these things for a source of income. Most populations that practice in prostitution are cultures that already endorse it, a perfect example being the prostitution hotbed of Tenancingo, Mexico. As far as the industry of pornography, the income they receive is self evident. It does not come from the usage of illegal drugs. It comes from the consumers whom pay monthly subscriptions to the service. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Cartels vs the Republic

I argue that Sponsoring or Funding Capitalist, Whore-mongering, Criminal Cartels by purchasing Marijuana, thus Crashing our economy of food, cloths, utilities, security, media, education and paraphilia which is the act of money laundering and gang affiliation through enabling and harbouring criminals who are selling drugs to children, womanizers, bigots, drug addicts, lazy spouses & depressed people Is a criminal offense that should not be legalized for the sake of the demography which is guilty of this offense. If Marijuana were to be legalized, then it should be done so with Zero correlation to the Decisions of the Criminal Population which has been Robbing the republic, empowering the cartels, thus tyrannizing and enslaving our working class, our food producers, our foreign associates and our officials. More over, It does create psychotic anomalies in the mind, which are nearly impossible to reprimand , in the same way that sexualizing a child is unreprimandble. Indicting that it is not just a criminal act, but an inhumane act to sell or legalize it. The Cartels are currently so powerful, making millions a day selling liquor, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, porn and porn apparatus that they have influence in our media, in our politics, in our demographics and in our education system. Thus, introducing to this article of discussion, sex trafficking, robbery, violence, social bigotry, depression, economic insecurity (national and private). So. I am 100% against Marijuana Culture. and I would like someone to address each of these topics for what they, individually, and maintain their position of Pro with sustenance. If you fail to perceive any of these arguments, we have a 'comment' section to address your lapse in understanding [ As it is impossible to respond to a clause, if you do not know what clause you are responding to. ]. thank you, for taking on this debate challenge. Accepting before reading will undoubtedly be an automatic fail.
Short debate game: Minecraft should be used in education

1. You may say government put a lot of money on school, true, but 56% spent JUST on teacher. What's left for Minecraft? http://tinyurl.com... 2. Why risk it? The solution to block addictive effect is to not introduce it. Example: So people are not drug-addicted, they stop drug. Same with games. They're addictive, but why introduce it in the name of education? 3. True! But the country I'm talking about's a member of G 20 Economy movement. Not Zimbabwe http://tinyurl.com...
Short debate game: Minecraft should be used in education

1. You need to understand that education needs money to learn. Such as books, teachers and stuffs. 2. It depends on one behaviour, because that mean you are telling that playing games make you addicted to it, but depends in on behaviour 3. Not all school have computer, but it didnt mean that computer didnt have the significant reason. People thesedays still use computer, but you only look in one national. You need to look more than one nation. Plus computer has been use in all jobs now
Short debate game: Minecraft should be used in education

My argument in points. 1. Expensive. $41 + $18/computer https://minecraftedu.com... 2. Addictive. It's addictiveness have been acknowledged. http://www.videogameaddiction.co.uk... 3. Not all school prepared for the technology. You may "oh really?" but serious! This is a very severe problem in Indonesia that government actually have to DELETE computer study from school. http://www.techinasia.com...
Short debate game: Minecraft should be used in education

1.I will first start off with minecraft is a subject which make us become more creativity which creativity skill must be needed in english subject such as writing a story. Lots of people will think that minecraft is not realistic at all, but however sometimes the creative idea is not based on the logic. 2.Lots of teacher are fairly agree with playing minecraft and there is even minecraft edu. http://minecraftedu.com... So this can tell that minecraft can be use in school.
Death Penalty

Yes, I agree that they have more luxuries than that of about fifty years ago. However, even though they do have these luxuries, they are still locked away and kept from freedom. Furthermore, depending on their crimes, record of emotional issues, etc, is what regulates who gets these luxuries. If charged with manslaughter and/ or any other crime that may result in a life sentence, these luxuries are regulated or just taken away from these type of prisoners. Meaning they do still have punishment enough at terms of prison, not death. Death is the easy way out in this case, which means they deserve to be locked up their entire life. Not just sent out of it.
Fracking

I will tell you reasons on why Fracking is bad for the environment. Please Note this is my first debate and I am thankful for this opportunity. The one thing you failed to say is how much gallons of water your using to get the energy you need. You are using a estimate of 8000 gallons of water to perform a fracking,and also more then 90% of water used in fracking never returns. Jason Banes of the Boulder,Colorado based western resource advocate "We don't want to look up 20 years from now and say, Oops, we used up all our water". In the fracking process they use dangerous chemicals such as methane gas and toxic chemicals that can contaminate groundwater. There are even 1000 documented cases where local communities have contaminated water due to fracking near areas. Sources and cites :http://www.alternet.org...
Fracking

For this debate, I will be addressing the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), as our best method of obtaining energy. In an effort to find alternative sources for energy a new drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), has become popular in many states. Fracking is a technique in which water, chemicals and sand are shot laterally to free oil or gas from rock. In the U. S. hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has not caused widespread harm to the public"s health or drinking water.
The Monkees were the best 60's rock/pop band of all time.

Since I believe you are presenting this argument tounge in cheek I will say ( not bad) for 4 actors thrown together by network excetutives with nearly all their songs, (especially the big hits) written by Boyce and Hart. Every original album except for the Head soundtrack included Boyce and Hart songs. I liked them, they were fun but not realistically a legitimate band much less the best.
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

1: Other MindsLike n7 I am not bound to any specific philosophy of mind. No need to hold religiously to functionalism. I can swap it out for a view that we know others have a mind because of the functions they do. I defend a broad functionalism not a functionalism that says someone has to have the specific mental event because of their inputs and outputs. The zombie argument is to attack materialism that says the mind is the brain. I think functionalism is true but I also think dualism is true because functionalism doesn't make you pick any specific philosophy. I dont claim that the mind is identical to a function and I can accept the zombie argument with no contradictions.2: A systemNo. I am not saying any inanimate thing understands anything. I said before "I am not saying the room understands chinese, I am saying it doesnt follow the system is unintelligent. ". Copeland's argument isnt ad hoc or problematic. We have a subconscious mind. n7 would have to say Freud's theory is ad hoc and problematic. Copeland is talking about a small extension of Freud's idea. 3: Connectionism & Moore's lawI combined these because they are aliken7 hasn't posted an argument for why connectionism cant do both computation and emulate a neuron. It doesn't seem mutually exclusive. I think my rebuttal still applies because of that. I applaud n7. He is good and I have learned a lot from this debate.
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

Very nice replies. I hope my responses will be equal.1: Other mindsn7 says he can refute this argument by showing it is possible for two people to see different colours. "They both quack like ducks, but one of them isn’t a duck." This doesn't work; they both still have minds. We can't know what the see but we know that they do see. Sure we wont know how the AI thinks or how it sees. Maybe it sees in other colours like in the inferred spectrum but we can know it does see.n7 says " If one accepts that brains cause minds, then if someone has a brain or something has the same causal power as a brain, they would have a mind."I can respond to this the same way n7 responded to me. What if there was a brain that didn't have a mind? A philosophical zombie would be like you in everyway but wouldn't have a mind. Searle's biological naturalism does not escape solipsism. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2: MoralityAt a second look my opponent is right about this argument. Disregard it.3: The System responseA man out of the room can still be a part of a bigger system. The environment outside. AI researcher Jack Copeland says something within the man understands Chinese. When someone throws a ball at you something in your mind understands where to go and how to calculate where it is going to go.4: Connectionist responseMaybe connectionism doesn't add any new computing power but it uses it in a different way. Instead of moving symbols we simulate the neurons in the chips. Not on a computer but in the computer chips themselves. Im not sure how to make this make more sense. Computation would help it think but its mind would be in the computation of the chips simulating the neurons. 5: Future of computingIt is still by definition computation but I am saying something similar to the connectionist argument. New technology can come around to simulate the neurons
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

N7 said I didn't have to post arguments for the creation of AI but it will make for a better debate :). 1: If it walks like a duckn7's arguments are about a man that acts like he understands Chinese analogous to a computer that acts like a man. Check out the principle of things. If a computer acts intelligent speaks intelligent it is intelligent. If something walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and speaks like a duck we all assume it is a duck. Think about how we know others are intelligent or have minds? Because they act like they have them. I ask my debater if we cannot say someone has a mind because they act like it how do you know I have a mind or everyone else has a mind? You are caught in a dilemma. 1. We know others have a mind by how they act then we have to say AI via computation alone is possible. Or 2. We cannot know others have a mind by how they act then you cannot escape Solipsism. 2: The Moral PrincipleMaybe one day we make a robot that acts like a human. We need to treat them like the have a mind. During times of slavery I read that people considered the Africans to be less because they weren't people. this lead to inhumane treatment. Creating a robot and making our culture think it is a stupid unintelligent program would be bad if they were intelligent. Its best to think of them as real intelligent persons in case they are. 3: The Chinese RoomFirst, I love your presentation :) not rambling not going too long. Straight and to the point. I don't recall who first made this response but I believe its a simple response that points out a flaw in the CR.4: The SystemThe man doesn't understand the language but so what? The man is a part of a system. The man is a CPU at least I think thats what its called, I'm not an expert at computer science. The CPU not understanding a foreign language doesn't mean the system wont be able to understand the language. The system is the whole, the book, the room, and so on. I am not saying the room understands chinese, Iam saying it doesnt follow the system is unintelligent.5: ConnectionismThis was brought up a litttle in the comments. Connectionism is a different approach to AI. They try and simulate the neurons by making the computer computer like neurons. This gets around the chinese room but still is computation.Connectionist computers can already recognize faces and objects and convert handwritten text to computer texthttp://www.alanturing.net... I believe this is the best way for making an AI.6: Moore's lawEvery 2 years computing power doubles. Physicists are working on computing using quantum mechanics. The CR looks to me to be short sighted.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... Computing power is doubling and quantum computers are being worked on. You say we cannot create AI via these methods it looks to me thats a big big claim. We dont know whats around the corner in terms of technology. We have to accept the possibility of AI. The CR cannot predict the future of computing that is always growingThank you n7 for a good debate :)
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

Thanks philosophybro for accepting. The argument I am going to present is centered around the notion that what computation is isn’t sufficient to produce a mind by positing a thought experiment where computation is done, but actual understanding doesn’t occur. The philosopher John Searle while on a plane traveling to give a lecture on AI. Searle at this time had no experience in AI and was reading a book on the way there. The book confused him. He was very confused at the this idea that one could create strong AI via computation alone because computation doesn’t pass what Searle called “The Me” test. The me test involves one introspecting to see if something is sufficient for the creation of a mind. Or if the thing proposed can exist without a mind [1]. We can apply this test to AI via computation. The Chinese Room We must first notice computation is a shuffling around of syntax (moving around symbols). It’s just printing 0’s and 1’s , following algorithms, ect . If I can show syntax isn’t sufficient for semantics, then I have affirmed the resolution. Let’s say we put a man in a room. In this room contains a book that tells him what to write if he comes in contact with chinese symbols. An example might be “If “什(636;是兔子” then reply “動物”. The man receives a piece of paper that says “什(636;是兔子” and properly follows the algorithm and replies “動物”. The man has followed this algorithm and is only engaged in syntax and yet there is no understanding of Chinese. The man is functionally equivalent to someone who speaks Chinese and can pass the Turing test, yet there is no semantics. A computer is analogous to the man. No matter how much or how well we program a computer, it is still operating under syntax which is insufficient for semantics. Searle lays out the argument in a formal way [2]. (A1) Programs are formal (syntactic). (A2) Minds have mental contents (semantics). (A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. (C1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds. A1 is true by definition. A2 is self-evidently true. A3 is known by our thought experiment and the conclusion follows. Not much else to say, as my opponent said “Simple yet difficult to debate.” I await your reply, the resolution is affirmed. [1] The Teaching Company, Philosophy of Mind by John Searle Lecture 4 The Chinese Room Argument and Its Critics [2] Searle, John (1984), Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures, Harvard University Press