BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minds and ideas are all that exist- there is no material world

There are two solutions to the question: What is the cause of the ideas we have? 1. Minds- minds can create ideas. I can say 'giraffe' and you think of a giraffe. 2. Matter- the origin of ideas are caused by seeing things, each thing being a certain combination of qualities made of matter. I argue that matter is not the origin of ideas but that minds are, and that therefore there is no need to postulate the existence of matter. My argument against matter. Mental idea is caused by material object. This material object is outside our experience. What do we actually know about this object, take a material chair for instance. We can say its blue. But if we say that blueness is just a sensation in your mind (not part of the object itself) which the real chair causes then the real chairs not blue. This applies also to its other qualities. One may argue some qualities are more certain than other, shape for instance. However, we only see shape as colours, the boundaries of colours. Therefore, shape is inseparable from these less certain qualities such as colour and just as much a creation of the mind. Science explains the world with matter as its origin. However science explains one event and then the event that comes after it and so on. However there is no prrof of the causal connection, we only make the assumption A causes B because so far all we have seen is that all As cause Bs. Not causal relation but constant correlation. Therefore matter does not have causal power. And so we should believe minds create ideas not matter.
Minds and ideas are all that exist- there is no material world

CausaltyPro drops his causality argument. Pro admits that Neptune did not exist until 1846, since he invokes not God but earthly creatures as the sustainers of reality. Pro is defending este es percipi--to be is to be perceived. Many events can best be explained by other events which were not being perceived & thus wouldn’t exist under idealism. Berkeley posited God, thus concluding that the events were being perceived. Pro says animals, insects, & dust mites can be the constant perceivers instead. So, are there dust mites on the invisble part of the moon and throughout the universe? Are they able to perceive black holes & dark matter? Obviously, they do not serve the function of constant perceivers & thus do not even begin to answer the problem. Ockham’s razor As explained, reality makes much more sense under realism. It’s impossible to live life without constantly assuming non-perceived events & entities. Pro assumes we start with idealism & then ask whether we should postulate non-mental reality. Idealism is not only counter-intuitive, it contradicts the assumptions of science & common sense. It is certainly not the starting point. Qualities of objectsWhen we imagine color, we are not thinking of light waves, since color is a translation of light waves into a subjective appearance. All Pro has argued is how our perception of reality is mentally constructed, but not that reality itself is mentally constructed. To put it simply, the mind takes the data gathered by the senses & shapes it into a subjective representation of reality. Knowledge is mental, but why reality?Pro’s argument appears to be that it’s possible color is solely mind produced & therefore there’s no need to postulate that it isn’t. I hope the voters recognize that I’ve given a much more cogent picture of perception, which does not contradict all the assumptions of science & everyday life, & does not rely on constant perception to sustain reality.
Minds and ideas are all that exist- there is no material world

Sorry i missed the deadline, lost track of time! Below is my argument. Causality You admit that a constant perceiver would solve the problem, but that God could not be it. I suggest that we don't need a God to solve the problem. The constant perceiver you suggest we need could be any mind perceiving and keeping it in existence. Animals, insects and even dust mites are just as capable of this perception as any of us. These other perceivers are capable of keeping things in existence when we are not perceiving them. Qualities of objects You say colour has two aspects. 1st, light waves- and 2nd, mind translation of it. However, the culmination of these two is in the mind (as we have the qualia of experiencing it. Without the mind the light waves would just be physical properties, (shape, motion etc- primary qualities). Colour is not the light waves, rather the translation of the waves into an experience in our mind. Therefore, actual colour is in the mind and therefore it is possible that the colour could have come about as a cause of the mind and not as a result of light waves. The factual definition of colour does not make it logically impossible for it to originate some other way. Minds can create an idea of colour, e.g. if I say pink you can imagine pink. Therefore, I think I am still justified in saying that there is no need to postulate an external world and therefore (as by Ockhams' razor) we should accept idealism.
Minds and ideas are all that exist- there is no material world

CausalityPro says causal connections between events cannot be proved. He concludes that matter has no causal power. First, I’d like to say that the Humean problem of causality is not escaped through idealism. Pro still posits that ideas are caused. How does he root the cause of an idea in the mind? It’s hard to deny that (indirect) realism is much more rationally satisfiable. According to Pro, to be is to be perceived. If I leave the kitchen while making eggs & come back to the room on fire, it is most plausible to assume that something occurred while I was gone independent of any perceiving being done. By idealism, nothing exists independent of perception; that Neptune didn’t exist until September 23, 1846. Berkeley escaped the problem by invoking a God who constantly perceived & thus sustained all aspects of reality, but that theory simply relies on too many incredible premises to be plausible. Qualities of objectsColor has two aspects: 1st, light waves, & 2nd, what we perceive by way of our mind translating data into a subjective sensation. The raw qualia of blueness that we perceive is not a property of the chair. The chair emits light waves which are cognized into a subjective sensation we call color. Something external to us stimulates our senses, providing us with sense data which our mind translates into something uniquely human, viz. subjective to the agent. Many philosophers, such as Kant & Schopenhauer, agree that shape & space are forms of intuition. The mind imposes its concepts on reality, thus shaping reality into an intelligible experience. Pro has only made an epistemic argument that what one knows about an object only exists in the mind. This doesn’t mean that the object exists only in the mind. Knowledge consists of ideas, concepts, & propositions which have no non-mental existence, but do relate to the natural world. The world we perceive is an indirect representation of reality generated by neural processes in the brain.
FDR's new deal

Sure, those acts may have helped the unemployed somewhat. But FDR's new deal also created some acts that did more harm than good the unemployed such as the National Industrial Recovery Act. This act cut back production and forced wages above market levels- making it more expensive for employers to hire people. Do you know how many men were effected by this act? An estimated 500,000! Another act that hurt the middle class and poor was the Agricultural Adjustment Act- which cut back farm production and devastated many tenant farmers who needed to work to support themselves and/or their families. Back to the National Industrial Recovery Act, FDR hammered consumers by forcing them to pay ABOVE-market prices for goods and services. I'm well aware that FDR passed the new deal with good intentions. Ultimately, the new deal did more harm than good to middle class and poor citizens, thus FDR's new deal is a failure.
FDR's new deal

well yea but without all that umemployment would of still have happened so all this was for a reason. he created the FERA, the federal emergency relief agency, which increased unemployment assistance to the states and put the government in control of welfare. the federal deposit isurance corporation insured deposits up to 2500 and greatly increased the reliablility of the banks. He also installed the Tennessee Valley Authority. it helped spread electricity throughtout farms in the South, as well as gave jobs to some unemployed men looking for jobs, and helped regulate prices for the newlyfounded hydoelectric industry. they were extremely succesful because they changed the way banks ran themselves as well as helped change the neglect of the south.
FDR's new deal

Do you know how they made all this money? FDR financed the new deal by tripling u.s. federal taxes. They also introduced a little thing called excise tax. This tax basically took advantage of poor and middle class citizens. The government had a excise tax on pretty much any luxury items such as alcohol, cars, and radios. They didn't just tax just luxury items; they even taxed necessities such as wheel chair tires. Seriously. How can you rightfully tax on an item of importance to the mobility impaired? Seriously, just think about it.
FDR's new deal

During Franklin D Roosevelts presidency he developed and carried out a plan of getting the United States of America out of the great depression. The goals of the New Deal were known as the 3 R's. Relief, Reform, and Recovery.The success of the 3 R's was immense. He tried to help unemployment and also problems that Hoover left for him to fix, including the banks.He decided to put into place the Emergency Banking Act, which put all banks on national holiday so that they have to fix the problem.He also placed the Economy Act and Beer Wine Revenue Act ,therefore this made them more money.
Ferrari has the most successful cars ever

I tried to google "MotorTrend most popular car" and could not find any lists of anything. I do not know what would act up with a computer that would prevent you from copy and pasting. even if the link wouldn't show up for us to click, you should still post it. In the current F1 standings, a Ferrari is 4th on the list. . https://www.google.com...Also keep in mind, F1 rankings/earnings are not part of "successful" as the definition was provided by Pro. I have tried to google "Michael Karin Ferrari Study" and merited no results. I have also tried to google "grant williams car study 2014" with no meaningful results. I cannot take your arguments serious as their is no proof of them through a very simple google search. No record of these men involving any car studies for that matter. And You have chosen not to state what Ferrari's expectations are. Pro has failed BoP, has not refuted ANY of my arguments, which were all based upon the definition Pro provided of "successful".
Ferrari has the most successful cars ever

Ferrari's fall into the list of most popular cars not only in recent studies by some of the most trusted car reviews of all time, Motortrend. I'd give you a link but my computer is acting weird and won't let me. So, I just say my argument without links. They are one of the most successful F1 car companies ever with the most wins in F1 history. And yes, it is a matter of opinion about style, but up to 70% find the car style amazing, according to a poll by Michael Karin in 2013. The car has also ranked the 1st most popular car company in a survey done in 2014 by Grant Williams, a respected authority in the subject. The Ferrari company clearly states their expectations before each and every car. Sooo........ your thoughts?
Ferrari has the most successful cars ever

Pro has made a bold statement stating Ferrari's are the most successful car ever.In the comments, Pro has defined "successful" as: "I define successful has in car sales, achieving the companies expectations, and of course, going above the expectations, speed, power, and top rated interiors, environmentally sound and popularity"Car Sales: Since 1995 the Ford F-150 is the most profitable car estimating $50 billion. Ferrari's do not crack the Top 12 list of most profitable cars.http://money.cnn.com... Speed: The Bugatti Veyron SS SuperSport – 267mph is labeled as the current fastest car. The only Ferrari on the Top 10 list is at #10.http://top10lists.net...Power: The Lamborghini Aventador LP1600-4 Mansory Carbonado GT is labeled to have the most powerful engine. The first Ferrari is at #20.http://www.topcarrating.com...Interior: The Pagani Huayra is labeled to have the best interior of a car. Ferrari's do not crack the list.http://blog.dupontregistry.com...Environmentally sound: This argument is nearly absurd. Ferrari's garner 17MPG. Numerous midsize sedans average mid 20s. The Prius averages over 40.http://www.fueleconomy.gov...https://www.google.com...Popularity: The Fisker Karma is the most popular exotic car, and Ferrari's do not fall under any other list of popular cars.http://www.edmunds.com...I will not speculate on what a company expects from their cars as I am not helping design them, or plan for their success.I have given ore than enough substantial information to prove why Ferrari's are not he most successful car, as many others outrank the Ferrari's in numerous categories.
My hypothetical group of dead musicians is better than yours (BAND VERSION)

Thanks much to Feverish for allowing me to debate what should be an interesting and enjoyable debate. Rule 7 of the debate requires me to either start debating now or just post my line-up and let Feverish kick it off in Round 2. I believe I'll do the latter. Here is my line-up: Drums: John Bonham - http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass: Cliff Burton - http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar: Stevie Ray Vaughan - http://en.wikipedia.org... Vocals: Freddie Mercury - http://en.wikipedia.org... Cheers Feverish, I'll pass it over to you.
My hypothetical group of dead musicians is better than yours (BAND VERSION)

FORMAT/RULES: 1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical band line-up. 2. All band members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source. 3. All band members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not. 4. Bands must contain exactly four members and no more. 5. The band must include a drummer, a bass player, a vocalist and one other instrument. Musicians can also be singers and multi instrumentalists are allowed as long as these roles are permanently filled. 6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole. 7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2. 8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our bands and the individuals that comprise them. 9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them. 10. No blatant disrespect to any of the artists (RIP). __________________ My band: Drums: Keith Moon . http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass: Charles Mingus . http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar: Jimi Hendrix . http://en.wikipedia.org... Vocals: John Lennon . http://en.wikipedia.org... Any questions ask me in the comments. Thanks and good luck to my opponent.
MeToo movement

Your answer seems more like an explanation about the movement than an argument.And no the argument is not about calling out famous people.It is about whether the accusations given on Twitter against ordinary men (or women) about sexual misconduct should be taken automatically as true without any sort of investigation or evidence. In my opinion they should not.Sexual harassment is a serious offense,rape far more so.In both cases the accused stands to face severe consequences if found guilty.However the burden of proof in such cases is on the accusers.In the MeToo movement people made severe allegations against their bosses,coworkers and others etc but almost none of them gave any sort of evidence to substantiate their claims. This name shaming caused a shadow to fall over the accused by automatically assuming them to be guilty without giving them due process or even finding out if the accusations were real or not.Doing this was not only wrong but also the legal grounds for defamation lawsuits (as many who made these accusations have begun to find out).I hope my argument is now clear.
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

I accept pro"s stipulation not to introduce new evidence or argument, but to only defend mine and offer a rebuttal to his. I would like to begin by pointing out that my definitions stand uncontested, as pro did not offer an alternative. This being said we can continue on assuming that all my definitions are mutually agreed upon. I obviously claim that babies have disbelief, not denial (passive atheism vs. active atheism). Babies do not have the power to deny anything just as they do not have the power to believe in anything (like a god). It is a bit outlandish to suggest that babies have an understanding of morality, but purposefully act in immoral ways. Babies act merely in self-interest, and in the interest of survival and comfort. To suggest that there are babies of diverse ethical beliefs, some good and some malicious, is absurd. In conclusion, pro has failed to present any evidence or logical reason to assume that a baby is born believing in a god (or in anything). Pro did not counter my definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, but cited some less pertinent definitions from Wikipedia. I also ask that pro"s link to another debate on this website be disregarded as evidence. The statistical data or source itself should have been cited in this debate, not just a link to another debate. Given these definitions, we have no reason to doubt that a newborn baby does not have trust, confidence and faith in some divine entity, and as such you must vote con. Thanks again for the topic pro. It has been a pleasure debating.
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

CON defines Atheist as 1. Atheist- A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods. If the assertion is Babies DENY the existence of God or gods. It is false in that there is no evidence of such a denial. Making it equally valid to claim "Babies are born Theist" , because the 2 are mutually exclusive, it is a fallacy of meaningless statement.[1] CON's argument rests on Babies having a disbelief (CON defines: have no belief) in the existence of god or gods. CON supports this presumption with statements of other things a baby may not know. Some of these statements are off topic but I will draw attention to some of the fallacies. CON states, "A baby clearly does not know of morality (as you can tell by its actions)". This is fallacious as excluded middle (or false dichotomy)[2]. Babies could have an understanding of morality but choose to act in immoral ways. Fundamentally CON is arguing for the non existence or negation of a belief. "The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence." Generally one attempts to shift the burden of proof from some asserting the negative to a person asserting the positive. A positive assertion such as "Babies are born with a belief in god or gods" Is not a fallacious argument of silence [3], I would contend that evidence has been given that it is at least POSSIBLE for a baby to belief in a supernatural deity. Because it is off topic I will only link to the debate [4] In closing: I think I have shown that either definition of atheist leads to a false inference that Babies are Atheist. Even if evidence as presented by recent studies (as cited in the linked debate) are ignored. It would still leave the assertion to be a class of meaningless statement, defined as "A grammatically correct sentence may be meaningless if it ascribes properties to particulars which admit of no such properties" I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. Seeing how this is the last round and I would not have a chance to rebuttal I ask that CON pass or keep his round to rebutting the Argument I put forth in this round. Thank you again aburk903. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.debate.org...
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

Thanks for the topic pro, I gladly accept. As this debate will most likely come down to one of definitions, I will begin with a few. 1. Atheist- A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods. 2. Disbelieve- Be a skeptic, have no belief or faith 3. Belief- 1. Trust, confidence, faith. ; 2. Mental acceptance of a fact, doctrine, thing, etc., as true or existing. 4. Faith- Confidence, reliance, belief esp. without evidence or proof. (All definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary) I can also logically infer by our premise that this is merely referring to the time during and immediately following a baby"s birth. Once everything is defined, my contention is simple. A baby is not born believing in anything! A baby does not know of our concepts of a nuclear family, much less of our traditions and theories of divinity. A baby clearly does not know of morality (as you can tell by its actions), much less that some superior power exists outside of and above it. A baby is an atheist- just as he is an "atoothfairyan", an "asantaclausian", and an "aeasterbunnian". The baby simply has no beliefs at all. These, in their entirety, are taught much later (relatively speaking) in life.
Minecraft should have better default graphics.

I think that minecraft does not have to change its graphics in any way. The game is already complicated as it is--mining blocks so as to create more than just a landscape or a tree--perhaps a house, a maze, or a gigantic castle! The game is cool by the fact that everything is pixelated. The game is required so because there are blocks after blocks to be mined, and furthermore, if a high-definition sheep randomly appeared in the pixel-filled environment, it would seem weird and not natural.