BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

Alternative pathways to sensation are not reliable because these are not their intended purpose. Of course other sensory organs can give you additional information to support an argument, but without the primary sensory organ you cannot come to the proper conclusion about a stimuli. You need the necessary tool for any job. Would I use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board? Although it may work somehow, it is far more efficient and reliable to use the proper instrument. Following the same idea, the ears are used for hearing, the eyes are used for sight, etc. I agree that the same tool can have many uses but generally speaking each instrument, especially physiologically, has a specific purpose. If your eyes were to be removed, other organs could not compensate for your loss. Your reasoning makes sense regarding probability, but I am here to distinguish between likeliness and certainty. Other than probability, you have no general proof that the tree falling in the woods will produce a sound. In this case, perception is everything to proving the existence of the sound. Without perception, you are basing the existence of a sound solely on tendencies. You provide plenty of reasoning as to why it is LIKELY that the tree made a sound, but no real evidence. Of course the meaning of the word "sound" is a completely viable argument. The nature of this question lies in the meaning of the words. To understand what the question is asking and how to answer it, you must understand the words within the question. To answer if a sound has occurred you must define what a sound is. Until that definition has been confirmed by both of us, you and I could be debating two entirely different ideas. This question "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?" has less to do with physics and more to do with the meaning of the words in the question.
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

Why are alternative pathways to sensation not reliable? If we are just as capable of relying on the eyes for sight or the ears for hearing, why are we not able to rely on other organs to make the similar judgements? Just because an instrument is used for once purpose does not imply that this is its only purpose. A blind man, although he cannot physically see the sunrise, has many other senses to his advantage. The increasing warmth from the sun, the recollection of past experiences, and his perception of time can all contribute to his proof of a sunrise. You say that probability is not a valid argument, but it accurate measures the predicted outcome of nearly any incident. Of course you can say that there are exceptions to every event. How can one argue this? However, if you pick up an object and drop it, unless the laws of physics fall apart, the object will hit the ground with a force every time. Can you give me an event where an object wouldn't hit the ground? No, because these are well predicted outcomes, with nearly no exceptions involved. Much like the tree falling in the woods, according to your argument we can never prove that a sound exists because there is no sensory organ to perceive it, but based on the likeliness of all events, it will fall and produce a sound. Witnesses do not have to present in order for an event to occur. Many "sounds" are occurring outside our realm of hearing. Does this mean that they do not exist? No, they are only beyond the reach of our sensory organ. Therefore, sensory perception does not imply existence. Whether you believe in an event happening or not, it will occur. As for your definition, I never agreed that this was acceptable. How can you distinguish words like sound, noise, etc.? You are merely fitting the general definition to your argument. Meanings of words are very abstract. Even when languages are involved, the same word can possess different meanings. So for you to base your entire argument on the meaning of the word "sound" does not seem very concrete.
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

It seems that the basis of your argument is that whether or not a sensory organ is present, a soundwave is produced and therefore a sound must exist. I don't agree with this reasoning for the simple reason that the determination of existence comes almost entirely from perception. Our idea of color, taste, touch, smell, sound, etc. are based upon the perception of stimuli. If the ability to perceive the stimuli is not there, what evidence do we have to go off of? The blind man does not truly ever know if the sun rose on a particular day. Although he may feel the warmth of the sun, these alternative pathways (touch, hearing, etc.) of sensation are not reliable. If you smell a pie cooking in the kitchen, is it always a pie? Your argument stems from the idea of probability. Based upon your experience and common sense, you have learned that an object falling will produce a sound when it comes into contact with another object. Is the predicted and probable outcome always correct? Of course not. Once again, my reasoning is that because there is no way to perceive the tree falling in the woods, we cannot assume that a sound was ever made. Hypothetically if a soundwave was produced, by definition a "sound" is something that must be perceived through some sort of sensory organ, whether it be by artificial or natural means. No perception is taking place, therefore what we consider to be a "sound" cannot exist. As for your critique of my use of Webster's definition of the word "sound", of course there is difficulty in defining any word accurately. Look at Webster's definition of the word "love" and you will come across a vague and general meaning of the word. The idea of the definition is to provide a basis that all parties can agree with. In the case of "sound", I am simply providing two generally accepted conditions of a sound: (1) vibration transmitted through air or medium and (2) stimulation of the organs of hearing.
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

Wow, let me try this debate at 4 in the morning. Mike, What you're arguing seems to be on a different spectrum. While I am relying on the physical nature of a sound, you are relying on interpretation. You stated, "a 'sound' will not be produced because in order for it to be a 'sound' there must be some animal or being there to hear the sound." This does not make sense. When you are stimulating other organs of the body, a response doesn't necessarily have to occur in order for it to exist. Now, I know this example is a little unconventional, but consider the human orgasm. Whether the orgasm occurs or not, the stimulation is still occurring. Although the intended response of an orgasm may not be reached, there is a physical stimuli that still exists. So, in this case, although a sound may not be heard by the sensory organ, it does not mean that the actual sound wave is not present. You outlined the basis of your argument from Webster's definition of the word "sound." Who's to say that Webster's definition properly represents what a sound truly is? Anyone can look up a word in a dictionary and utilize one of its several meanings to support their argument. When you refer to a blind man's inability to prove if his surroundings exist, you are relying on his perception of a reality. This is a subjective argument that can be used in any debate. How can anyone trust their senses? While this may be true, one must come to the conclusion that our world runs on empirical evidence supported by subjective judgments. Therefore, in order to make any decisions regarding an objective world, we must ultimately rely on these subjective views. For example, how did scientific laws come into general acceptance? People created scientific experiments and formulated our basic principles (objective) from our observations (subjective.)
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

Ashley,I am not denying that the tree falling in the woods will produce a physical soundwave. However, the argument I am trying to present is that whether or not the tree falls, a "sound" will not be produced because in order for it to be called a "sound" there must be some animal or being there to hear the sound.As defined by Webster, the word sound is "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium". Therefore in order for a "sound" to exist there are two conditions that must be met:1) There must be a vibration transmitted through the air or medium. Like you said, a soundwave must be produced. Hypothetically, let's say the tree DOES make a noise when it falls, then you would have met the first condition.2) The stimulation of the organs of hearing must occur; a sensation must be perceived. However, according to the nature of the question "If a tree falls in the woods, and NO ONE IS AROUND TO HEAR IT, does it make a sound?", this tells us that there is no sensory organ in the general area to hear the sound. Thus, the second condition is NOT met and the "sound" does not occur.The big debate surrounding this question is not involved in the actually occurrence of the tree falling in the woods, but rather the wordplay in the question. It's very similar to asking if the sun is rising, and a blind person is sitting in front of it, can he see it? If he can't see it, how can he prove that it truly exists? He relies on the sensory organ to make this determination.
"If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, will it make a sound?"

Haha, dork...Alrght, here it goes: When a tree falls in the forest it will, in fact, make a sound. If no one is around to hear this event, the sound will still occur. First, what exactly is sound? It's nothing more than a chain reaction. The human race has discovered something called sound waves, which are created at the slightest vibration of an object (take vocal cords, for example.) When this happens, the waves travel through the air and cause the air molecules to vibrate. The vibrating air molecules make it to someones ear, and causes their eardrum to vibrate. The brain recognizes this to be a sound. Regardless of this sensory organ being there to perceive the stimuli, the stimuli still exists. http://www.mediacollege.com...
The 2nd Amendment Gives Citizens the Right to Bear Arms

My position is that the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution does not provide any rights for anyone to bear arms in the US. This is a hot button issue that few people understand, but many think they understand it. If you think you can prove the 2nd amendment, commonly referred to as 2A gives you the rights to bear arms, then accept the challenge and prove it. It is really that simple. If you think I'm wrong, crazy, or just ignorant, then challenge me. No rules. Main argument round 2 Rebuttal and conclusion round 3.
let it be resolved that Barack Obama is the black George Bush

forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit forfeit
let it be resolved that Barack Obama is the black George Bush

On foreign and domestic policy Barack Obama and George Bush (junior) are in lock step. On fiscal and monetary policy there is not an ounce worth of disagreement between them. George Bush pursued an aggressive interventionist foreign policy, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama has continued these wars and intervened in Syria, Mali, Libya and continues keeping American troops in over a hundred countries around the world. Just as George Bush used foreign aid to buy goodwill from governments around the world Barack Obama does the same. On foreign policy they are both practice Wilsonian imperialism the idea that they must make the world safe for democracy. While Barack Obama campaigned promising to close Guantanamo he has not done so. Just as George Bush indefinitely detained people there, Obama does so as well. George Bush passed the Patriot Act. Obama extended it. On domestic policy Obama and Bush had the same ideology. Spend spend spend. To politicians spending is power. They will never cut spending because the type of people who are magnetically attracted to power are not the types to relinquish it. Both increased the size of the federal government to unprecedented levels. Both are broadly in favour of government spending; it really doesn't matter on what. Barack Obama is the black George Bush.
God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

Let me clarify my position, so as to make it clear for my opponent: My belief is that God, or more specifically the God of either the Bible, is a figment of imagination. I do not intend to argue against a, "metaphorical Bible" Christian. That is to say, saying that the Bible is a metaphorical story open to interpretation. I wish to debate with someone opposed to my own argument that the God of the Christian Bible does not exist, and that the Bible is an incredibly inaccurate historical document, an almost invariably fallacious text of science, and ranked among the worst possible sources in existence to derive your morality from. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate, and advise that they use the first round to bring forth evidence to support their case. I feel they deserve a bit of a head start.
An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

To start off with, I would like to affirm that I am mostly a non-interventionist. I don't believe in intervening in countries where we do not belong - unless otherwise asked to. Permission is key to entering into any conflict with the intent to help those in need. I don't believe we should enter into every situation, but it is important that we respond to humanitarian crises and human rights abuses when we have been asked by the afflicted to lend a hand. With this opinion in mind, I find my opponent's argument abhorrent under many circumstances, not to mention ineffective. The suggestion that we allow citizens in other countries to succumb to environmental and social factors completely absolves us of social responsibility, while condemning others to an ultimately painful death. While this can indeed curb population growth, it is not an option for most; as humans, we feel the need to help out our fellow individuals when they are in need. You would be hard pressed to end government services that intervene in other countries either economically, militarily (peacekeeping), or diplomatically, with popular support, or even private services that do the same thing. To illustrate my point, in 2005, a poll indicated that a whopping 65% of Americans supported giving 0.7% of their GDP towards foreign aid programs if other wealthy countries agreed to do the same as well. [1] Secondly, it is important to note that despite the huge hardships faced by many individuals throughout the world, including negative environmental and social factors, the world population will continue to clime at an exuberant rate. For illustration, we only need to look towards China, which despite going through a huge amount of social and environmental factors, such as the reign of Chairman Mao Zedong that killed tens of millions of individuals [2], in which little to no intervention from foreign countries was present; today, China has an estimated 1.3 billion citizens [3]. Clearly, non-intervention has failed to slow down the pace of growth. Now, I would like to launch into a general summary of my counter-argument, though due to character restrictions, it will be brief; As it currently stands, many Western countries have a higher death rate than birth rate, or a rate which is relatively on-par. For example, in Sweden, the birth and death ratio level around 10 per 1000 population [4]. I would also like to point out that Sweden has a highly advanced education and social welfare system [5][6]. There is also many studies that have concluded the better education and government support is, as well as the awareness of effective contraceptives, the lower the birth rate [7]. Therefore, through intervening and stabilizing other governments, we can slow down the birth rate more effectively. Thank you; my sources are in the 'comments'.
An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1). My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities. This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem. Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does. I would like to thank Volkov for the opportunity to debate this topic again, and I look forward to his rebuttal which will hopefully be of a higher standard than Nags (no offence bud). (1) Page 3 http://www.un.org...
Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities

A woman should not have be forced to choose between aborting her fetus, & taking sole financial responsibility her child. Unprotected sex creates an obligation on both parties to support the child which the act creates. The male mat not exempt himself by telling the mother to abort it. Pro completely misrepresented my analogy. Pro presented my analogy as a direct analogy. making the male the employer & the woman the employee. This is a disgusting way of viewing it. The man & woman are equal partners. This is NOT a direct analogy. The sole purpose of the analogy was to bring out & illustrate the difference between forcing/obligations with regard ones money, verse ones self/body. Ones money & ones body are not treated the same. Pro writes "Forcing a person to give money is forcing them to do something with themselves. "This is actually another illustration of the difference between ones body & ones money with regard obligations/force. If a person doesn't have money which he owes, we don't force him to compensate by doing labor with his body. However, if & when he has money we will force him to pay. So ones money & ones body are not treated the same. Pro defends the right of the father to back out even after birth, just as a mother can under Safe Haven laws. This issue is complicated, & the law means different things in different places. The safe haven act is not a "right" of the mother to abandon her child. The purpose of this this law is solely to protect the child. If a mother holds onto a child that she doesn't want, it will lead to neglect or worse. Thus we allow her to give over the child. Often she will not have to pay child support, the reason for this is because if she would have to pay, she might hold onto the child & neglect it or worse, in order to avoid paying. All this is done not for the mother, but solely for the well being & protection of the child. The father may not be able to do this because there is no need for it. This is a safety law for the child not a right for the parents. where this law is needed to protect the child, it applies, where it isn't it doesn't. Simple as that. There is a common misconception that equal means same. Men & women should be treated equally, not necessarily the same. The resolution "Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities" has been negated.
Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities

"The difference is that forcing the woman would be forcing physical pain on the individual, while forcing the man is forcing him to pay money."Forcing the man forces him to work to make the money. This could lead to physical pain. He could be forced to give up hig goals and dreams which could lead to mental pain."I'll give an analogy:When a person is hired, there is an agreement. The worker agrees to work & the employer agrees to pay.Unless specified otherwise; the employee can quite (i.e. make the deal void) for any reason at all, whileThe employer on the other hand cannot simply cancel the deal.The reason is because the former would be forcing a person to do something with his self, while the latter is forcing a person to give money which he agreed to give."If an employee and an employer agree to come together and form a product, the employee is obligated to work under the guidelines set by the employer and consult the employer about the product. The employee is not allowed to decide what he thinks is best for the product without consulting his employer. If he does this, he will not get paid.I dont think this analogy is relevant to this debate because it implies that the man and woman are not equals. An employer has more power than an amployee when it comes to the company/product. Since the father would be the one paying, he would be the employer, and the pregnant woman would be the employee. According to this analogy, the man has more power when it comes to the pregnancy than the woman does, which is not the case. Forcing a person to give money is forcing them to do something with themselves. Maybe the man does not plan on working and chooses to depend on his parents for all his needs. Forcing him to pay child support is forcing him to do something with his body that he does not want to do."Why should the man have so much more time than the women?If the male doesn't want to support, he should at the very least have to decide that before the child is born.After the child is born & obviously cannot be killed, the man can't now say, "oh I don't take responsibility".Sorry bro, it's too late, should have thought about that before (having unprotected sex, or at the very least before) the child is born."90 days after the birth was just a suggested time frame to clarify the argument. Thats why I said : "The man would have to give up his rights and responsibilities within a certain period of time, like within 90 days of the child's birth, or if the child is already born, within 90 days of finding out he has a child." I wanted it to be clear that this would not apply to fathers who have been involved with their child for years but want to drop their responsibilities when they hit hard times."According to pro's logic the mother too should also be able to change her mind within 90 days. Then who's going to take responsibility of the child?"Women actually do have the opportunity to change their mind after the birth. Some states will allow women to change their mind within a year after the birth under Safe Haven laws. [1] [1] http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance.org...