BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One is never the same person twice.

I would accept the challenge to provide documentation of my claims only if Torvald provides documentation of the claim that "I think you will find that 'creativity' can be generated by an elaborate set of computer algorithms." Otherwise, no. Ok, chemical reactions can be arbitrary. Then what is the definition of arbitrary? According to google, it is "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." We know, however, that chemical reactions are not based on random choice. If I take a concentration of sodium and another of chloride, and mix them, there will be common salt. Nothing arbitrary about that. The chemical system is reasonable. If it was not, we would blow our heads off in a chemical lab in ten minutes. Then it comes to the idea of, can we tell which molecules collide with which? No we cannot, but the way the molecules collide does not have an impact, or at least much of an impact, on our thoughts. Only partially understood. I will rephrase the main portion of the question. How do we know that the research we are seeing (Which I am not disputing) are not merely chemical reactions in our mind? Perhaps everything that we perceive is merely chemical reactions. I am not disputing that the possibility of my suggestion is so low as to be practically impossible. I am, however, speaking theoretically, and theoretically, it is possible. To elaborate on my statements about person, Is you, you now? Or are you no longer you? The person is the same in the sense that he is not any different as a whole. The characteristics of the parts of a whole does not necessarily determine the characteristics of the whole itself. Vise Versa also applies. Thus, even though the atoms may be changing, the person remains the same. In conclusion, Pro is right on that. I should have said probably. This has been an interesting debate. I have learnt, from Pro"s sources, some things about the medical world that I have yet to see in my textbooks or through surfing the internet.
One is never the same person twice.

While my opponent is somewhat correct in saying that most modern computer technology is highly limited, I would challenge him to provide any documentation whatsoever that supports either of his two claims, that AI cannot reproduce imagination and originality, and that creativity is something that cannot be explained by chemical reactions. A thought is a specific neural pattern, a combination of biochemical reactions and electricity. You are wrong, that chemical reactions are not arbitrary. They have characteristics, but they can be totally arbitrary. If I understand what you're saying, you're questioning how we know our thoughts are made of chemical reactions? If that's right, then we know this by research, on the brains of humans and other primates, and active scans, like the ones I mentioned in the last round. If not, please clarify. Okay, so we're only disputing whether the mind is part of the body. That specifies things nicely. Ah, the same combination of electrons in the same state occurring twice on a level as large as eukaryotic life is highly unlikely. A single atom might revert to a basically identical original form, but for them all to revert to the same combination will most likely not occur. Please elaborate on your statement, that a person as a whole unit never changes. It may be a unit, but an unchanged and unchangeable unit? Maybe it would be a person, but not the same person. To respond to my opponent's conclusion, I don't think it's up to him to decide who wins.
One is never the same person twice.

I agree with the definition of mind. The example of "creativity" presented by Pro, I would point out is not exactly creativity. This is because the programmer has instituted limitations on the program and thus what comes out is randomness. Creativity has to deal with imagination and originality. These two qualities are something that AI can never reproduce. It may reproduce pseudo versions of the two, though. Creativity is something that I doubt can be fully explained by chemical reactions. I do not dispute that thinking is done in the brain. I dispute that thought is part of the body. This is because thoughts are arbitrary. Chemical reactions, however, are not arbitrary. There is also the problem of relativism. This deals directly with the questions I asked in the previous round. How are we to know that when we think that the thoughts we think are made up of chemical reactions is in itself made up of chemical reactions? (I understand this can be hard to understand) I have nothing to dispute in the second syllogism. All that is currently being disputed is whether or not the mind is part of the body. I believe one is made up from the bulk of the same atoms for the most of one"s adult life. This is because the cells are recycled and the atoms are reused. Again and again. Depending on which baryon Pro is talking about and what sort of change. I will use the example of the neutrinos. There are only four flavours. Last time I checked, anyway. In an infinite amount of time the chances for it to return to the original type is 1. Pro is talking about the change in the position of an electron. There is a finite number of positions for an electron to be. Unless it "flies" from the nucleus. Thus, like the neutrinos, there is only so many possibilities and it is fulfilled, over, and over again. If one were to consider the whole "person" as a whole unit, then that "person" can never change. If one were to consider this person in the cellular level, he changes constantly. If one was to consider this person in the atomic level, he is constantly changing and will at some point in time always revert back to the original form. I would like to note here that the fallacy of whole-to-parts also has a reverse known as parts-to-whole. No sources needed. In conclusion, I would like to note that on three different levels, Pro would win on one, and I would win on two.
Logic Analysis: These arguments are valid for the existence of God.

Let me first supply you, for clarification, the definition of valid provided that my opponent has clearly stated as a necessity for taking of this debate. ~Valid~ So constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. I will accept all of my opponent's definitions and stipulations. I will now produce 3 different logically valid arguments for the existence of god: ~ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE~ |1. If I am the most awesome person in the world, then God exists. | This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q. |2. I am the most awesome person in the world. | This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P. |:. God exists. | This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q. P --> Q P :. Q ~ARGUMENT NUMBER TWO~ |1. If you're finding this funny, then God exists. | This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q. |2. You're finding this funny. | This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P. |:. God exists. | This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q. P --> Q P :. Q ~ARGUMENT NUMBER THREE~ |1. If I've had too much to drink, then God exists. | This is my first premise. The first premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 1. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P --> Q. |2. I've had too much to drink. | This is my second premise. The second premise in an argument is usually represented with a number 2. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as P. |:. God exists. | This is the conclusion. The conclusion is necessitated by the premises. If it doesn't follow, there is a contradiction and the syllogism is not valid. I can put this statement into symbolic logic as Q. P --> Q P :.
Logic Analysis: These arguments are valid for the existence of God.

Logic is often a poorly used commodity where religion is concerned; whether arguing for or against the supernatural, many fallacious arguments are posited and accepted as truth. I stand against the idea that the spiritual can be proven or disproven by physical evidence, or that any system of reasoning that claims to have answered this question is failsafe. I challenge all reasoners to prove their assertions in formal debate. I contend that the arguments my opponent will post for the existence of God are not logically valid. RESOLUTION: These arguments are valid for the existence of God. DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate. God: the one Supreme Being; perfect, omnipotent, omniscient; the creator and ruler of the universe. His attributes include goodness, holiness, wisdom, independence from His creation, immanence within His creation, immutability, immeasurability, and eternity. (Taken from . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Valid: so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions. . http://dictionary.reference.com... FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate. My opponent will post: -Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed; -Two or three arguments for the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements. Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate. In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Hope this is instructional and enjoyable for both sides!
The Electoral College should be abolished

I will be arguing that the Electoral College should be abolishedI believe that the Electoral College contradicts the idea of a "Democracy" and instead implies a "Republic" or a country run by the "Elite."I believe that the Electoral College should be abolished for these reasons:Theres always a possibility of electing a president who didn't get a majority voteThere's the risk of "faithless" Electors,There's the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnoutThere's a possibility of failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.http://uselectionatlas.org......The Electoral College also gives more weight to votes cast in small states etc.http://www.scholastic.com......Con will be arguing that the Electoral College should not be abolished for any reasons that Con provides
Minecraft is better than Roblox

So I've been watching documentaries about the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, And frankly, The people who died are extremely retarded. Like, If I was there, I would go up to the nuke and say "Not Today! " and put my hands up, Catching the nuke and thereby saving the entire city. Someone could've gone down in history by being the first one to save a city with their bare hands. FFS Imagine wanting to be Tracer, But god said "Im already Tracer" And you answer "What about Widowmaker? " But god insists "Im already Widowmaker" You're devastated, But persistent. So you say: "I'll be Bastion" God, Being the man that he is already knew thy raw power of Bastion, And responeded "Nerf Bastion" You look god in the eye, Feeling a tear rolling down your cheek, As you try choosing another character. With a low voice you tell him: "You're right. So, Winston. " Knowing well that he is the creator of the universe and life and that he has all controll, God stares blankly into your devestated eyes, Following a tear down your chin. "Please don't you think", But you know it is too late to do anything now. God utters "Im already Winston" With the tears running down your cheeks vastly multiplying, A heavy heart and damaged trust, You take a deep breath. It feels like the whole world is against you, And it's too much of a burden. But you have to try. You whisper "Guess I'll be Genji. " God slowly opens his mouth, His face relaxing a tad but is still locked on your wet eyes, And lets out an evil laugh, Loud enough to make the whole heaven realm shake. He knows that the puny you stand no chance against the all-mighty christian god After finnishing his laugh, He takes a deep breath and whispers behind a smirk "Im already Genji" As if you've been slapped across the face, You stagger back. You feel dizzy discombobulated. What just happened? It feels unreal, Hallucinatory, Dreamlike. You're completely speechless. Feeling weak shaky and breathless, You insist on trying one last time You're so close. You swallow hard, Before you murmur "Then I'll be McCree. "
Minecraft is better than Roblox

Hit or miss I guess she took the kids huh she got a boyfriend, I bet she knows he beats "em mwa she lied in court and now she gets to *keep them* I"ll get to see them once or maybe twice a week, Hun hee hee haa haa hoo hoo ello my old chum, I'm gnot a gnelf, I'm gnot a gnoblin, I'm a gnome, And you've been gnomed!
Minecraft is better than Roblox

Minecraft doesn't have roblox game modes because Roblox is minecraft. . . But worse. Minecraft has similar gamemodes like Roblox's Call of roblox, Hide and seek, Block hunt, And hundreds of tycoons. Minecraft has all those games, Like Quake, One in the Chamber, Hide and Seek, And tycoons like money wars and bed wars. Yeah, Roblox is free to get all these games, But in minecraft you don't have to buy Robux. . . Minecraft is pay to play, Not pay to win. I find it ignorant that you think roblox is better. Tsk tsk, I guess you do miss. . . Huh?
Paranormal energy (ghosts) are real.

You basically repeated everything you said in round 1. Also, you have proved irrational and fallaciously stubborn in your arguments. Also, you seem closed to new suggestions, which is not a characteristic to be proud of in anyone. You have not grasped the definition of "ghost" that I have posted in Round 1. Also, to your argument in contention 3- unless there was an impossibly large body of mass in my hallway that would pull the shelf to this said mass via gravity- cause the shelf to fall- wait for it! FIVE feet away, then it suddenly disappeared, then I could believe this argument. But since that is not only illogical but IMPOSSIBLE, I still hold that something scientifically unexplainable caused my shelf to fall. People are going to say that I'm a poor debate-er, but I say to them: You are a very bad arguer. You seem to have misquoted me out of context several times, along with a poor acknowledgment of my contentions. In simpler words that you might understand, seeing as there is a high chance that you DID sleep through kindergarten: You suck. I'm going to hold out on this site (in poor taste) in hope that it is frequented by smarter, better debaters than you. I feel bad for the parts of the internet that you frequent, and I state this as a formal apology to them. I hope you understand that this is a formal forfeiture of the rest of the debate, as I do not think that I could stomach another round of debating with YOU. I hope the next person you come upon pwns you into the ground. Goodbye and good riddance, Pheonix
Utilitarianism

I understand and respect what you're aiming for, however it's too far-fetched. The theory is too impersonal, wide and complex to engage people the way you hope. I believe in simpler guidelines like the Golden Rule, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself", or "You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.". Changing the world starts at home and in your community, with simple loving and caring actions. You don't need to wonder and deliberate much about the results in the big picture. Just put yourself in the other's shoes and be kind. In regard of Utilitarianism, another big flaw is its blindness towards justice. If I am a father of 5 children and I have a really important job and I kill a lonely homeless, according to Utilitarianism I would be probably released.. or maybe not, but it simply makes things even more complicated. Other flaw is its disregard towards human subjectivity. What is happiness for me, may not be happiness for you..
Utilitarianism

A well-reasoned counter. Human nature is a real pain at times when it comes to a better plan. It's what stops Socialism from being effective, Charity as a budget-piece, and Utilitarianism as a practicality. Yet, from what I understand of humans is this: We are both extremely selfish and extremely social. And this may be the answer to how we can make Utilitarianism practical. The Internet. From the deaths of celebrities, to the arm-breaks of those oddball YouTubers you found interesting, humans connect more with each other online than anything else in the real world. With this connection, we could perhaps bend our human nature to an advantage, as we expand our life profiles and followers and bring empathy to virtually everyone. If we can instill an Internet-esque collective consciousness into people at an early age (maybe even a baby level), Utilitarianism could be possible. (I kept the characters low in order for us to keep to the point and not make a laundry list of responses.)
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a purely logic philosophy that ignores in almost all extent the human nature. We care about those that are close to us and we don't develop empathy towards people we don't know anything about. It's almost impossible to motivate our brains to protect the interests of people that we don't know, mainly if it is in sacrifice of those that we love. Utilitarianism expects humans to be able to take in consideration all the results of their actions, deliberate upon these results and act according the greater good. Humans are simply incapable of such complex reasoning. You say that we could start slowly with Rule-Utilitarianism, with a set of basic rules to help people discern the complex, unpredictable results. I would like to see you try.. you would have limitless sub-rules with exceptions. But even if people managed to predict those results, or if you managed to write those rules, people would still lack the motivation to follow through. (not enough characters :p)
Utilitarianism

(Actually, I'm somewhat new to this as well, lol) Though yes, when looked upon in our modern times, Rule-Utilitarianism, let alone Act-Utilitarianism, in general is quite impractical. Too many variables to keep track of despite our modern tech. Yet, if we now start to take the baby steps towards Act-Utilitarianism by, for instance, Rule-Utilitarianism, it can be achievable. These baby steps can include enforcing selflessness, education, environmental awareness, technological advancements, equal opportunity/judgment, and so on, common aspirations for many. If you have another philosophy you'd think is more ideal, then feel free to present such.
Utilitarianism

I am new at this and I am not aware of the formalities, so I apologize in advance for eventual discourtesies. I believe this first round is just for acceptance, so I won't justify my arguments. However, I would like to notify my opponent that I am planning to ground my position on the impracticality of this philosophy and its disregard for justice and for the human subjectivity. I would also like to ask my opponent if I should present another philosophy as a better alternative? So I can effectively refute the "best philosophy" statement.
Utilitarianism

I am not going to discuss eugenics or genetic engineering, that's a completely different topic, but it comes to show how far-fetched Utilitarianism is. One of the biggest problems with political philosophy is its thrive for perfection and its ideological character. Totalitarianism, Democracy, Communism, Capitalism.. all these systems had failed because their premises, though theoretically valid, never took in much consideration the flaws and limitations of the human nature. If you have a flock of sheep, you won't try to win a horse race with them, the same way you shouldn't consider to genetic manipulate them to make them faster! ;) We have to be pragmatic and "down-to-earth". We have to acknowledged the limitations of our world and ourselves and set a political system that embraces our flaws and tries to overcome them with realistic, "followable" guidelines. Living in a global village, we simply need to care for our neighbors to achieve the better world you're looking for.
Utilitarianism

That is not necessarily the case. It is not immunity for the rich, rather, it is their power regulated by the government. And this depends of the economy in which Utilitarianism will be applied in. And it isn't "programming" that's being applied to humans, rather, it is eugenics and manipulated upbringing that stops physical disorders, retardation, insanity, violent outlooks on life, and so on. It isn't "programming" and is simply forming a somewhat different human nature overall, one that better benefits the majority and oneself. It may seem very romanticized and impractical, but there is a chance that Utilitarianism can be applied, and used to make almost everyone happy. Will it take time? Oh yes. But, just like the invention of the light bulb, it can be done. Some efforts may fail, some may get close, and one will succeed if we let it happen. It is all a matter of time, persuasion, and dedication for a better tomorrow.
Utilitarianism

In regards to justice, according to Utilitarianism, people with different lives will be judged in completely different ways. A father with 5 children and a good job, committing the same crime as a homeless person, will have a much less severe sentence in comparison. As you said, your upbringing and genetics influence greatly who you become as an adult, which makes life unfair by default. If we add Utilitarianism to the equation, the poor and disadvantage layers of the society are going to be crushed in the courts, while the rich, influential people, will become even more immune to the system. Even though I agree that freedom is a path to happiness, I don't believe that programming humans into selfless, uniform, coordinated entities is a good solution, and I hope you don't believe in it either. But if happiness is all you want, let's just mass produce ecstasy and hand it out it to the populations.
Utilitarianism

In regards to Justice: For that scenario, albeit very complex to think of a solution in this short manner of time, the father would be released from prison (with some heavy discipline of sorts), only if he's psychologically proven that it will never happen again and/or the livelihoods of others would be drastically worsened over the course of his prison time. As for Subjectivity: For the vast majority of the human being, it can be influenced by many things, variables, numbers. Starting even before conception, the upbringing of a human will perform dramatic effect and their subjectiveness and personality. Now, this may take many decades, but in time, we could influence these numbers to produce an ideal personality range that does not cause conflict of interests. This could sound quite invasive towards freedom, but remember: We use freedom as a *means* to happiness, not that freedom *is* happiness.