BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
free will without metaphysical

To summarize, I started the debate by challenging anyone to support the concept of free will without use of metaphysics, metaphysics being none physical beings/forces. I placed BoP primarily upon myself to show that it is more likely that free will does not exist (in a purely physical world). My 1st argument of determinism was brilliantly opposed by my opponent using modern physics to show physics is not deterministic but rather the same cause/circumstance can have different results. At this point R3 things got a bit complicated so I will quote my opponent to ensure accuracy: "The problem is that without determinism, free will seems undefined. I don't agree that free will has the nature of a force. I think it is a process. The best I can conjure is that free will is like a computer program. Humans use it to process events to arrive at actions. The general nature of the program is determined by heredity, but at any time the program has been modified by past experience and it is also subject to random events that change the decision paths. " With regard to my inquiry of whether he was considering free will to be "random" my opponent resounded: "Partly random, but not entirely, I claim that free will is now undefined. We still have some concept of free will, but it needs an entirely new definition. If there is a valid definition, then I suppose free will must be a type of process that is both non-deterministic and self-modifying. In other words, our decisions depend upon a combination of our genetic makeup, our experience of events including all our past history, and randomness. " Unfortunately I was unable to verify my understanding of my opponent's position in R4. As far as I can tell my opponent has no clear definition of free will. I maintain there is no clear definition for free will bec. if it does exist, it's not physical/not within our observable capabilities, there for cannot really be understood with enough clarity to be described in words. I believe inability to define a term is reason to doubt something's physical existence, as most physical things/forces/processes ect. Are defined. Lastly from the last sentence I quoted I don't see were free will fits in it would seem we are not in control of our free will, this fits with "free" but the problem is "will". I can fathom physics in terms of determinism, randomness, or a combination of both. But free will does not seem to fit. To sum up my argument: Being that free will cannot be given evidence for, observed, or defined, it is more probable that freewill does not exist in a physical sense.
free will without metaphysical

Well I must say this has been a most fascinating debate. When I 1st read your response in round 2 I thought you had me beat but the more I thought about it more ideas came to me, this has certainly been a great learning experience for me and I am privileged to be debating it with the greatest debtor on DDO. Thank you. Addressing your closing words 1st, you ask for a definition of free will. I did not want to impose any definition so I did not give one I preferred to allow my opponent to choose any reasonable definition, but having been asked I will respond with my opinion. In my opinion free will is a sort of oxymoron, like a square circle."Free" would imply that it is not bound by rules, while "will" implies a controlled force. The only way which I could possibly fathom such a thing would be with metaphysics. Not bec. Then it would be understood but rather it would be understandably not understood. As I don't have much grasp on metaphysical. You state that you think free will is not a force but rather a process. I beg to differ; a decision is a process free will is a factor in that process. Perhaps this is what you meant and I misunderstood you, I do not want to make this a semantics debate. The underlying problem here I believe is that free will cannot be defined in physical terms. Even if it is a process this process is made up of a combination of factors with randomness. Where does free will fit in? It's difficult to discus something that I maintain cannot exist in a purely physical world. Regarding the last line of the 2nd to last paragraph I had trouble with what you said I quote: "In other words, our decisions depend upon a combination of our genetic makeup, our experience of events including all our past history, and randomness." Where does free will fit in we are not in control of our genetic makeup nor of our experience of events? I look forward to your response as we wrap up this debate for me it has been an insightful learning experience and I thank you. (p.s. I apologize for the delayed responses, this has been a challenging debate for me, and required much thought.)
free will without metaphysical

lastly I apologize for the delay in ans. paradigm shifts are not easy. I believe I understand your position. I would like to hear your response to the following 4 points. 1) you presented a few non deterministic systems, however most systems are deterministic. 2) You say there are events without cause. With regard to decisions there clearly are causes (i. e. genetics and external factors). Free will would just be another force/factor. 3)You say there are events without cause, decision based on free will is an event with a cause as will would have to be some sort of physical cause. 4)This physical cause will is found no were else in the universe. 5)You provided a non deterministic random system. Are you proposing that free will decision is random? I eagerly await to see your position on these matters.
free will without metaphysical

It is true by definition that every result has a cause. The definition of "result" is something that it is the product of a cause. However it neither logical nor true that every event has a cause. We know as fact that some events occur purely at random. It is certainly not a consequence of logic that repeating a cause will repeat the result. If it were true it would be a product of observation, not logic. It is not true because it is observed not to be true. Anything that is a rule of logic is independent of observation. You are not calling upon logic. You are saying, "In the deterministic world I imagine, every event is caused and the any cause always produces the same event." That's calling upon the properties of the world you imagine. For a long time it seemed that the real world was like the imagined world, but it turns out the real world is not like that. Metaphysics is distinguished from science as follows: "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is not easily defined. ... Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.” [emphasis added] http://en.wikipedia.org... If your claim is that the nature of reality is determined by logic that demands deterministic cause and effect, then that is a metaphysical argument and must be rejected under the conditions of the proposed debate. However, if you claim that deterministic cause and effect are observed, then that is a scientific argument and not a metaphysical argument. My arguments are purely scientific. Observation proves that the world is not as you supposed.
Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy

Shared burden of proof. By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would. "Keynesian economics” was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved – and economic slumps prevented – by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government. Keynesian economics is considered to be a “demand-side” theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run. . http://www.investopedia.com... "Austrian economics" Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations. Libertarian school of thought where the economy should be left alone without any intervention. . http://mises.org...;
Recognize the Republic of China

Case 1: The PRC condemns it.While your proposal sounds ideal, it is flawed. The PRC has been very vocal on their one China policy. Basically, the PRC states that they will go to war with Taiwan, or any nation that supports their independence, including diplomatic recognition. Now, obviously a war with China would be terrible, and even if war does not happen, massive sanctions will be imposed.Now I feel the status qou has been fine, and we already have established informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Recognizing them formally will cause nothinh but pain, for them and us. While it sounds quite noble and fair minded, the world had a reason for refusing to recognize Taiwan, as it benefits nobody. China said right out, that the US would "regret", any further aid to Taiwan.http://www.slate.com...A. THE DOD is authorized to conduct military operations and training exercises with the Republic of ChinaThis sounds great and all, but we already have several countries that allow us to operate and run training exercises. Including Japan, Korea, and Thailand. The cons far out weigh the pros as far as this goes. B. The United States will encourage the UN to recognize the sovereingty of the republic of china.This action would be a waste of time. China would just veto it anyways, evident from past attempts at recognition. We would gain nothing, and it would only hurt are diplomatic relations with China.
Recognize the Republic of China

Bill to recognize republic of china the u.s. will extend official diplomatic relations to taiwan. taiwan, hereby reffered to as the republic of china, will be recognized as a sovereign nation, independent of the people's republic of china. the department of state will establish diplomatic missions within the republic of china A. THE DOD is authorized to conduct military operations and training exercises with the Republic of China B. The United States will encourage the UN to recognize the sovereingty of the republic of china. C. The U.S. will not recognize the extension of the Republic of China's sovereingty to what is defined as the rest of Mainland China this legislation will take effect 6 months after passing all laws in conflict are declared null and void I'LL allow my opponent to start off the debate.
A vegetarian diet is good for your health

Rebuttal Contention 1 Not all meat is bad for you. "Red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat. It is loaded with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and various other nutrients that can have profound effects on health." (1) Eating red meat actually put more vitamins into your body than you might think. Red meat is a great source of protein, iron and B12. Getting these vitamins is essential for good health. Rebuttal Contention 2 A problem with studies that are done on this subject is that they pull together processed and un processed meats in the same study. You cannot get correct data if you are pulling things from different types of meat. Studies only show correlation. There is no proof as to what the causation is. Rebuttal Contention 3 Eating meat is part of a healthy diet that can sustain and even help you lose weight. Our bodies thrive on a daily diet of meat as well as fruits and veggies. All of these are needed to keep a balanced diet. Rebuttal Contention 4 According to men"s health magazine A study done in Australia people with high blood pressure who replaced 8 percent of their daily diet with red meat were able to reduce their systolic blood pressure by 4 points. Not all meat is bad for you, you just need the right kind of meat in your diet and then it will do wonders for your body. Arguments High quality unprocessed meat is among the most nutritious food in the world. It contains a large amount of B12 which is important because it cannot be found in plant based foods. "Vegetarian diet " characterized by a low consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol that includes increased intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products " carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders." (2) Being a vegetarian also comes with health risks that nobody seems to talk about. They are 50 percent more likely to have allergies, heart attacks and increased incidences of cancer. We need meat to help sustain our bodies and when you take that away our bodies start to deteriorate. A vegetarian diet is one of the worst diets that you can do. All you would need to do to lose weight if needed is to stabilize what you eat. Balance everything out and then you will end up with a healthy diet that will keep you healthy. (1)http://authoritynutrition.com... (2)http://atlanta.cbslocal.com...
A vegetarian diet is good for your health

First of all: Thank you for accepting. Now on to the debate: In my opinion a vegetarian diet has a lot of benefits. Among those are a better health and an overall more conscious and balanced diet. It furthermore helps to avoid or at least lower the risks of getting certain diseases. Eating meat is bad for your heart: Studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine show that especially red meats, such as the meat of cows and ducks and many processed meats contain a lot of saturated fat, which increases the amount of cholesterol in your blood and thereby increases the risk of a coronary heart or cardiovascular disease. Eating meat increases the risk of cancer: Another study published in the British Journal of Cancer has shown that there is a connection between the consumption of meat is connected to the development of cancer. One theory is that the fat in those types of meat boosts the hormones promoting cancer. Processed and red meat are again the most risky, as those who eat them have the highest risk for breast cancer. Vegetarians are thinner: A study from the Imperial College London showed that those eating meat gained weight faster and it is a widely known fact that your weight has an immediate impact on your health. Many nutritionists also support the theory that vegetarianism supports a healthy weight. A plant-based diet lowers your blood pressure: American and Japanese researchers (both from universities and medical facilities) have found out that a plant-based diet is rich in both potassium and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Both of those substances have been linked to a lower blood pressure. Additionally to all those health benefits of a vegetarian diet, a plant-based diet also forces the vegetarian to eat more consciously. He or she has to watch out for slaughter by-products and meat in all their food and thereby also learns of all the other ingredients of it. Sources:1. http://www.brown.edu...; _eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php#4 2. http://www.womenshealthmag.com...
A vegetarian diet is good for your health

"Most adult men should eat between 5.5 and 6.5 oz. of meat daily, while adult women require slightly less, between 5 and 5.5 oz. daily. Adolescents and children require less meat, but it is still recommended they eat some meat every day." (1) It is recommended that everybody eat at least some meat in their diet. Now the amounts may vary as it states but they still say you should eat some meat. Despite what my opponent has stated you can not get all things you need from just veggies. There are vitamins and minerals that are only found in meat. The healthy proteins found in meats act as building blocks for your body. Vitamin B12 which is found in abundance in meat is needed for healthy blood in your system. While the amounts of meat needed may be small it is the fact that they are needed to have a balanced diet as well as a healthy body that proves being a vegetarian is not a healthy diet. (1) http://www.livestrong.com...
Cell phones should be allowed in school

My opponent states, "If the point of distraction is the only point of argument you have, then I think this conversation is through." Actually I have listed several points, the issue of distraction has not really been countered but the conversation is through because we are on the final round. "Like I said, cell phones are INSTANT access to anyone." Exactly, they therefore have no role in the classroom where a Student should only be able to communicate with education staff and fellow students. "It actually takes a while to get through to the office phone." Well that is entirely dependent on how well the school is administered, they is generally someone in the office or failing someone for a parent to talk to if they turn up out of the blue. "People are more likely to keep up with a cell phone than a paper agenda. I myself would rather have an electronic organizer." But there is no real qualitative difference, students are not running financial empires, they need to remember quite basic things such what lesson follows what and if they have homework. A paper agenda serves this purpose very well, so does a cell phone, but the later comes with a number of problems. "I don't think that a cell phone being used would be as much of an interruption as a school intercom calling little "Timmy" to the office. Sure, the student would have to stand up to a teacher, but all the student has to do is show the teacher the text message from the office" So the phone rings/vibrates potentially disrupting the lesson. The student checks to ascertain from whom the call is from. Disrupting the lesson. The student answers the phone/reads the text message, disrupting the lesson. The student interrupts the teacher, disrupting the lesson. The student explains the situation to the teacher, disrupting the lesson. The teacher must decide whether to take the student on his/her word, to speak to the parent in question or to independently verify whether or not it is a genuine emergency call. In addition for every legitimate emergency call there will be what... a dozen examples were students have forgotten to put their phones on silent or are using them when the teacher is distracted, or complaining they are stolen etc etc. My opponent has failed to explain how this would be superior to the momentary intercom message, or a simple knock at the door and 'can Timmy come to reception'. Prior to the widespread adoption of mobile phones no one ever argued that each school desk be fitted with a ham radio or a land line. The benefit of mobile phones is instant communication, this is totally unnecessary in a classroom for reasons I have already explained. In addition to being unnecessary such phones will cause distraction and secondary problems. Thus I strongly urge a vote for Con. Thank you for the debate.
Cell phones should be allowed in school

When I said "treat cell phones like scissors..." I was speaking metaphorically. I know that cell phones are a distraction, but they also have great benefit. If the point of distraction is the only point of argument you have, then I think this conversation is through. There are a lot of pros and cons for cell phones, but a distraction can come from anywhere other than a cell phone also. Like I said, cell phones are INSTANT access to anyone. It actually takes a while to get through to the office phone. People are more likely to keep up with a cell phone than a paper agenda. I myself would rather have an electronic organizer. "Should the teacher be distracted by Timmy answering his phone he will naturally demand an explanation. It is generally easier for a parent to assert their right to privacy over the phone to the school than it is for a child to stand up to a teacher." -I don't think that a cell phone being used would be as much of an interruption as a school intercom calling little "Timmy" to the office. Sure, the student would have to stand up to a teacher, but all the student has to do is show the teacher the text message from the office. The presence of mobiles aren't unnecessary. I agree, it may be useless at some points, but if there was a problem, like I said, there would be instant contact.
Cell phones should be allowed in school

Talking is one of the biggest distractions. " This is most certainly true, extraneous conversation is a distraction and also generally prohibited. This has no relevance on the issue of mobile phones. "-Well, it shows disrespect for the students when the teachers begin using their cell phones. " Maybe it does, but the implication of my opponents opening statement suggested that we were to debate the issue students and their phones. If it is disruptive for a teacher to have access to a cell phone in school then how much more is it to allow the students access to them as well? Besides the teacher being an adult professional can be trusted to decide how to use his phone. "I think cell phones should only be used (other than emergency) or can be useful when it comes to calculators, and organizers. Not everyone carries a paper organizer or agenda with them. Cell phones have alarms and reminders, which could come in handy. " But cell phones also come with the disadvantages already mentioned, they can easily and cheaply be replaced in these roles by paper organisers and agendas that come with no real problems. "If a cell phone goes off (not on vibrate), then the teacher should be ably to take the phone for the balance of a day. " This disciplining action denies the use of the phone for instant communication in the case of emergency, (which is moot anyway as I have outlined a superior alternative). In addition by confiscating the phone you may have denied the student his calculator, alarm and reminders, (as he has as you argued become reliant on these features when other alternatives exist) thus disrupting his education. How much easier would it be to simply ban the objects from the classroom in the first place? "Treat cell phones like scissors. If a kid runs with scissors, you punish the kid, you don't take all of the scissors away. " Scissors are required for certain lessons, phones are not. "Office phones are not all that great for emergencies. An emergency may be private, and the presence of other students in the office may cause "talking" such as rumors. When talking to your family, such things should be kept private. " If a parent phones through with a family emergency they can merely tell the school receptionist/telephonist, "We have a family emergency I am coming to pick up Timmy". Should the teacher be distracted by Timmy answering his phone he will naturally demand an explanation. It is generally easier for a parent to assert their right to privacy over the phone to the school than it is for a child to stand up to a teacher. Thus I feel that the presence of mobiles is still unnecessary and detrimental.