BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Three Philosophical Topics - 1B

To begin with, I apologize for forfeiting the previous round - I was busy with some other things. I hope that we will continue debating in a good way. My opponent concludes that physicalism is heavily supported from both science and philosophy, and that there has yet to be any dis-confirming instances of it. While I do agree that it is heavily supported by science and philosophy, I disagree that it is confirmed by any of them. The reason for why I think that physicalism is not true, is that not all things that do exist are in the form of physical matter. I do have to point out though, that things that are not in the form of physical matter are dependent on physical matter. In this case, I will use consciousness as an example, even though we should rather be dealing with a metaphysical issue. 1) Consciousness cannot exists without a physical body, however, it does exist. Consciousness is not in any form of matter, and it cannot be seen. How can physicalism then be true, when we have consciousness that is a part of the universe [i.e. something existent]? A physical living body is a heart, and consciousness is what makes it knock, therefore some things being in the form of matter can exist, but not function, which makes physicalism less true. If matter only produced consciousness, without being dependent on it in any way, then physicalism would be more valid, but that is not the case. 2) Feelings are part of consciousness, but they are different. Feelings are also not in the form of matter, but they exist. They are, just like consciousness itself, dependent on matter, namely a living body. 3) Physicalism cannot explain the existence of consciousness, and why it emerges. This example is taken out of an article: "A major objection to physicalism is that it cannot explain the existence of consciousness. Since consciousness indisputably exists (as shown by the fact that you are now conscious of reading this) physicalists can only assert that somehow consciousness "emerges" in "sufficiently complex" physical systems from the atoms, subatomic particles and electromagnetic radiation which is all that a physicalist allows to be real.[1] The bottom line is that physicalism cannot be true when something that is not in the form of matter exists, namely consciousness. While consciousness depends on matter, living things depend on consciousness, which is a cycle of core->power->core. I will also point out that you don't necessarily have to be a religious person to deny physicalism. References: [1]http://www.serendipity.li...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1B

Since my opponent hasn't given a specific attack on physicalism, I will start this debate by providing a general case for physicalism. From there on my opponent can attack however he wishes. Before I begin my defense of physicalism, I want to delve into what physicalism entails, so we can get a clearer picture (it also serves as a precursor to my defense). ==================== Elaboration of physicalism ==================== A very important aspect of physicalism is the notion of supervenience , a concept that is found in ethics but has branched into areas such as metaphysics and logic. Strictly defined, to supervene something is "to be dependent on a set of facts or properties in such a way that change can occur only after change has occurred in those facts or properties. [1]" So in other words, according to physicalism everything supervenes on the physical. Davidson, who really started this custom, utilizes an example to demonstrate supervenience: "A dot-matrix picture has global properties — it is symmetrical, it is cluttered, and whatnot — and yet all there is to the picture is dots and non-dots at each point of the matrix. The global properties are nothing but patterns in the dots. They supervene: no two pictures could differ in their global properties without differing, somewhere, in whether there is or there isn't a dot (1986, p. 14). [2]" Before I give an argument for physicalism, I want to point out that we are dealing with a metaphysical issue and not one about consciousness - though one can bring consciousness into discussion (as it often is). ==================== Argument for Physicalism - Argument from methodological naturalism ==================== A quite simple argument at first blush, the argument from methodological naturalism can be outlined with the following syllogism: 1. It is rational to form one's metaphysical beliefs based on the methods of science. 2. The methods of science right now point to physicalism (namely, physics). . : Physicalism is most likely true. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Physicalism is the heavily supported from both science and philosophy, and there has yet to be any dis-confirming instances of it. I implore my opponent to present me with one. ---References--- 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1B

I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free will does not exist. PRO - Physicalism is true. ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Physicalism is the that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Deontology is objective, values depending on Reason, Utility is subjective, goals changing with the season. Listen Mill, you can't fit the bill, The best goal for util is the popping of the pill Where's the humanity in that? Making humans into nothing more than a monkey or a rat. Practicality is not a valid intention, Take a look at my Critique, and call your Pimp Daddy Bentham The bottom line of morality is respect, Without it, your motives are amoral at best Now let's take a look at the Util Monster, Because your math just doesn't fit the roster If one person likes money more than anyone else We need to give it to him, damn societal help! That's out of wack, it goes against reason, I guess times are changing, and Tyrannies the season No human respect, no rational worth Why should I care about your happiness if you're like the soil of the Earth? The bottom line, utils ends are only good, If we use the moral Engines that are under our hood.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Deontology is hypocrisy Welcome to utility Let me show you why I'm the better philosophy All your categorical imperatives point to me. Lying destroys trust and happiness As does stealing, war and malice. All values in all their masses Still point towards my happiness. "Try to make what's right into computability?" Utilitarianism has malleability. Your laying programmed laws universally For every single possibility. You think people aren't a means to an end Yet you treat them as systems my friend And despite this you still defend The following structure to its end. A strict uncaring system to apply No complexity , all black and white So tell me you"re a truer system then I Oh wait, I forgot, you can't lie.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Your request can be done. Voters, please treat this as Kant vs. Mill, with Con rapping as Kant.This is going to be more philosophy oriented. Personal cheap-shots are okay, but an excess of them should be seen as bad conduct. Basically, use good judgement.321....Utillity is hypocritical;It wants the best for all humans while ignoring the individualHow can good for humans be good,If individual blood is like Mike Brown in the Hood?Your arguments for utility are made in futilityThey try to make what's right (Pause) into computabilityThat's a fool gambit, and you know I'll slam itJust like all the minorities you be shammin'Public plannin, gone astray, Default to Morality,And do it the right way!Hitler was a utilitarian, Giving only Whites basic human RightsThat's sickening, a blot on human history.Six millions jews murdered for no Reason,But according to you, we should all be breathin easy 'cause the Majority is what the Nazi's were pleasing.All this pleasure stuff is merely subjective,Totally subservient to ones own perspective.You can't be impartial, it's like a court martial,I've figured out the Whole while you're scraping at the partial.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Don't dismiss evil quite so quickly. I find your dogmatism rather sickly. Saying no evil exists with your system is risky So let me finish this, quickly. A single rule can't apply in every situation, It's going to cause pain at some occasion. Hitler existed, let's not be mistaken. Your circular logic might need more persuasion. Promoting happiness, that is my slogan. Betterment for all not just a few chosen. John Stuart is going to Mill up your straw man. And let me point out the contradiction when you began; Your basis was that consequences are irrelevant. But your universal law requires we experiment To observe the continuing action's development. Your theory defeats its own prerequisite. Despite your complexity your argument is weak, Based incorrectly despite your technique, And now it is time to admit defeat. Your pure reason just met my critique.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

In your moral dillemma, there's something amiss If Hitler was Kantian, it wouldn't exist Six million killed, not because of truth But because of utility being uncouth! The duty to protect can only apply When my ethics have been violated, and that's no lie Murder, rape, malice, and greed Are a result of violating the deontology creed You haven't addressed the fact that more means less, Util monster means societal mess Just look at the depressed Should we just give them nothing because they're always distressed? The pursuit of happiness is good, I agree But Util interferes if it means more glee And because it is subjective, there can be no corrective Christians and Roman Lions put this in perspective. You don't care about happiness, you care about instinct Feed a dog or a rat, treat humans like mincemeat And although I know that you don't see this as imperitive I refuse to lose and let the Tyrant frame the narrative.
Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Morality is subjective, one thing I need to underscore. There are always problems under universal law. Hiding refugees in the Second World War You'd still be honest to persecutors at the door. So when you're two categorical imperatives collide Say the duty to protect and the duty not to lie Then tell me Kant how do you decide? The lesser of two evils is just consequentialism in disguise. Of course we should give money to those in need But there is less happiness to be had furthering human greed. That argument you will need to concede Unless you are still being disagreed. The pursuit of happiness is in the declaration You're treating morality like an equation. You're arguing you're protecting against manipulation but your hard set laws are just dehumanization. I'm bringing joy to humanity You're just bringing immorality. You see the problems with deontology Start living in reality.
A Progressive Tax is better and more just than Flat Tax

The flat tax is simple. Does simple mean fair? Does simple fix the mass amount of poverty and inequality in the United States and other developed countries?Of course not. My opponent values money over substance. The flat tax is cheaper but that does not mean better.A flat tax, first off, benefits wealthy individuals more than poor ones. Tax revenues fund institutions such as health care and universities, which the rich can access more easily than the poor. What good is higher quality medicine and medical equipment funded by the state to the poor if they cannot afford it? What good is university funding if they cannot afford university?A progressive tax would combat this problem by making sure the poor do not fund the wealthy's endeavors. Also, the progressive tax is far more fairer than a flat tax. A person's one-millionth dollar is worth far less to that person than to a poor person's one-thousandth dollar, and yet both are taxed at the same rate.Lastly is that progressive tax system allows for the redistribution of wealth and economic growth. Wealth is concentrated greatly in the hands of the elite who store their money in offshore banks. If this wealth was in the hand of a working person instead, this money would be put back into the economy allowing for further growth and redistribution, with the money being in the hands of small business owners, workers, and the poor instead of in the hands of a corrupt banker. While progressive taxation alone wouldn't redistrubute wealth, it would certainly help.The flat tax disregards equality and true fairness in exchange for pseudo-fairness in which the rich pay as much as the poor.
A Progressive Tax is better and more just than Flat Tax

My opponent has failed to make an argument, so I will make one point to secure my win. The flat tax system will lead to more revenue due and make a simpler tax code. "Simplicity is considered a significant benefit of the flat tax system. One tax rate makes for easy computation by the Internal Revenue Service and straightforward payments from taxpayers. Because the flat tax taxes only one income, it is easier to understand and to report. Taxpayers save the financial cost of complying with current IRS regulations, which often includes lawyers, accountants and other resources." (http://smallbusiness.chron.com...)
A Progressive Tax is better and more just than Flat Tax

I will argue that a Progressive Tax system is better than a Flat Tax one.Progressive tax (n): A tax system in which those who earn higher income pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomesFlat tax (n): A tax system in which all pay the same tax rate regardless of incomeRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: Rebuttals, closing statement
Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry

Language barriers are somewhat problematic. Having to hire translators and jigger with some of the code just provides some extra jobs. It's a bit of a hassle but it's like saying that gravity makes football a less entertaining sport. While it may be true, you can't really do anything about it. So for the most point your argument is moot. As for the claim itself, the language barriers are priceless. The above video overcomes everything in all the annoying problems encountered with producing games for different languages and places language barriers on the net positive side of the spectrum. http://www.youtube.com... -- I tried to give up my argument... but apparently my opponent doesn't have any more responses. Above is my argument in an identical debate started shortly before this one. Oh well, can't even butcher my chances right.
Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry

Language barriers almost by definition are an issue rather than any net benefit. Language does carry a lot of culture, but that's a fairly moot point as far as video games go (you're there to have fun not engage in culture). However, there are other language barriers within the video game industry that are not positive. Typically there's no cussing. It's a f*cking joke. You can murder people all the time in games but only in a few is there any cussing. I believe GTA drops a few f-bombs. But, all language is expressive and putting up some words on a pedestal is a joke. Even on this forum for example you can't use the word " @ss " but you can say " cunt ". What the fish? http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... This is a language barrier and it doesn't have a positive effect on the video game industry. In fact, it's nothing less than censorship. . . . . . . . .
Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry

Note: My previous account was closed for unspecified reasons. I am merely re-using my previous argument. Resolution: Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry ==DEFINITIONS:== Video Game Industry: The industry that specialises in the development and promotion of video games. Video Games: An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. [http://dictionary.reference.com......] Language Barrier: barrier to communication resulting from speaking different languages. [http://dictionary.reference.com......] ==CON ARGUMENTS:== ===1) The cost of translating games=== Translating a game from Japanese to English, French, Italian, Spanish is quite a costly process. First and foremost, translators need to be hired to translate the text. After that, you need voice actors, which do not come cheap. Most games easily have thousands of words of text. The cost of translating is outlined here : http://www.clarktranslations.com....... The cheapest goes at $.14 per word. $.14 x 5000 = $700. This must be done for several languages, and 500 words would be considered a low amount of text. An article here outlines the cost of a translator: http://www.gamespot.com....... A voice actor got $500,000 for game voice-over, and on average $760 for a 4 hour session of recording. There also must be software to accommodate different words, e.g. Chinese Kanji, Russian Cyrillic, etc. They must also translate the game manuals, covers, and back to accommodate different languages. The above costs would not be needed if there weren't language barriers. Ergo, the language barriers are detrimental to the video game industry. ===2) The cost of promoting the game overseas=== After translation, the video game makers must then promote their game in an area with a different language. They must hire someone to promote the game in that area. They must also hire people to translate the advertisements into a different language, sometimes changing them altogether to accommodate the different words (e.g.Changing from English Latin words to Chinese Kanji). Ergo, the cost of this also detrimental to the video game industry ===3) Quality of the finished product=== When translating from language to language different words can mean different things. Therefore, grammar can be off because of differing sentence structure and grammar, or words are off due to strict translation. This makes the game worse than it is. Ergo, the ruining of the finished product is definitely detrimental to the video game industry. I await my opponent's response.
Women should be removed from combat roles.

Your whole first paragraph is about the differences in training standards. I understand that the training standards may be lower. The important thing to notice is that this has no relevance to this debate. The standards of the United States military specifically have no bearing on the inherent pros and cons of women in combat roles. If the military were to suddenly change its standards, would your position change? "I say [standards inequalities] do very much exist..." I wasn't talking about the training standards. The fact of the matter is that men and women are accepted into the military on the same standards. The point was simply to prove your statistics about women in the general populace irrelevant.About women's hygeine--I know it's higher maintenance. But this would be such a small addition that I think maybe our monstrously overblown military budget could cover it. If we don't have the money to ship tampons to soldiers, how do we remain the world's most powerful military force by far?I understand that there could be some nasty situations in combat with women. This is just something that the Marine Corps and other combat role military branches need to be vigilant about and take extra precautions to make sure our soldiers are safe.Women do not inherently train lower than men, as you say. Just because the military has a particular set of standards doesn't make your postulation true. You have not provided any proof (other than hypotheticals) that mixed-gender units perform at a lower bar than all-male units. Now that we think about it, you have not provided any statistical information that actually proves your argument. Your statistics about the general populace were irrelevant and, as I pointed out, your statistics about the standards has no bearing on this debate because they simply reflect a choice that the United States military has made rather than an inherent truth about the physical performance of women in combat roles worldwide as compared to their male counterparts.Thanks for a great debate!
Women should be removed from combat roles.

I agree about civility. I think that in this time of rapid political polarization, debate must be kept as civil as possible.The statistics you cite all apply to the general population. They are, therefore, completely irrelevant. This is because that the military only accepts the best, most fit individuals. Thus, any women fit enough to meet the rigorous standards would not be physically inferior to their male counterparts. So women in combat roles would not in any way be a physical liability to other soldiers.So even if these statistics you cite do prove your point about physical superiority, it still proves nothing as pertains to this debate. The military will accept those who meet its requirements. This may mean that less women get accepted, but those who are while not be in any way a hindrance to other fighters.You say women are more susceptible to PTSD. This is true, but only in the general public. According to the VA, women and men are equally susceptible to PTSD in combat situations. (http://www.va.gov...) So women that are accepted into the military would be equal to men both physically and mentally and thus able to carry out missions just as well as any other soldier.So when I ask myself if lives should be lost or altered for gender equality? They don't have to be, because allowing women into combat positions would not cause lives to be lost or altered.