BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Truth

One thing that has been a major concept of life is the idea of "truth. " Truth is what we should base our lives off of and is the "right" compared to the "wrong" we do. Yet, How do we define what is right and is the truth? I offer two ways to decide what is the truth. First is history. By looking at the past, We can see what actions warranted certain consequences. Through that we can say, For example, That lies, Overtime, Build to a breaking point that causes consequences based upon the severity of the lies. In this example and other examples, We can use history to learn what things to avoid so we do not receive consequences we do not wish to receive. The other way is through logical reasoning. If you look at a situation objectively, You can look at the risks and possible consequences without your thoughts being corrupted by emotion or the thoughts of others. What do you want and is it worth it? That is the question you will be asking. If you disagree or want to qualify my point of view, You are open to do so.
Truth

Im glad that you are open to my ideas. The fact that you have not blatantly dismissed my view proves that you are not pulled in by the current that modern civilization has made for people. However, For me to share my understanding and interpretations of the universe comes with a couple of problems. First, I am a practitioner whose been doing this for four years. I have learned a lot but my level is still not high enough to know everything. I think this is obvious because if I WAS at an extremely high level, I wouldn't bother to be on this platform. It is not really my place to teach you to the Way, Because in my practice, There's only one teacher. Second, The things I share might not be approved by the people who read it because the many principles are not acknowledged by the scientific community. If you wish to know more, You can message me. Have a great day!
Truth

I am a cultivator. Not of land, But of myself. Which means I practice improving my health and elevating my mind. It is a great way to live, I suggest you try it. Message me if you'd like to know more. My counter might not be fully sound, Though I appreciate your comment. After all, If you live in a country that observes the right to freedom of speech and of the press, You are able to learn history from multiple sources, Thereby deciphering the truth. But then again, The sources themselves might not be true, So I wouldn't risk it. However, I do agree that history serves as a good reminder for the benefit of ORDINARY human civilization. For instance, The slave system was immoral and we learned that is reprehensible to enslave other humans. However, According to the universe(which is extraordinary), No matter how terrible this may sound, There might be reason why those people were treated that way and to not enslave them would contradict the universe, Which holds the ultimate truth. (Its quite complicated, But if you want me to explain more. . . ) But still, In the eyes of ordinary human society, Equality and humanitarian ideals are good enough and everyone/most people love the idea. Everyone's happy. But you know what they say ignorance is bliss. I see what you're saying. Within the boundaries of our minute wisdom, We humans have our own idea of what it is like to be objective and indifferent, Though it is impossible to be 100% objective since almost everything we know is not definitive. We shouldn't approach a situation with emotions but with logic, But that will not help us find truth, But rather the "truth" that sience, Religion and society has established. If we think with logic, We will only come up with "truths" that those three systems permit us to call a truth. The ultimate truth, You must find for yourself, Without external interference. Look internally.
1 plus 1 does not equal two

Your math is wrong and you does not make sense. This can be discussed more in the comments if you want. (1*2^2)^15=1, not the variable which makes 1+1. 1+1=2, not 4. This is the proof: Johnny has 1 finger pointed up. He points another finger up. How many fingers does Johnny have pointed up? The answer is 2 big boy fingers. https://www.online-calculator.com... states that 1+1=2 if you type the information right.
Is Psychology Scientific

For further information about the "Reproduce ability project" (http://science.sciencemag.org...) The example I gave for the happiness test, the 5 and 10 where just meant to highlight the difficulties that arise when you aren't using quantifiable ideas. You see, a 10 - point scale or any scale doesn't make any sense when measuring happiness or emotions, because at their core they are not things that are labeled to be quantified. However, you"re right the study does not become invalid because happiness is not quantifiable. What does happen is the study stops being able to be considered scientific, and therefore doesn't produce empirical results. The simple fact that psychological experiments can't be reproduced is the exact reason why it shouldn't be considered scientific! Look at Biology, Chemistry, Physics, all of these have reproducible results and therefore are universal. These are sciences, these are what we base our medicine, planes, cars, and buildings on because of the simple fact that their results are reproducible and provable. I don't know about you, but if I were being treated for depression I wouldn't want to be treated with something that only works SOME of the time. Not to say that treatment is inherently bad, it can certainly help, but it shouldn"t be considered scientific if it"s not. Awful things in society happen when unscientific things are shared as scientific. This can be seen by the widespread superstition that the MMR vaccine can cause autism. You can't just give something scientific status if by definition it doesn't produce scientific results.
Is Psychology Scientific

Alright, can you elaborate more on what sort of experiments were failed and what experiments were able to be reproduced? What types of experiments were done? How accurately were they recreated? As for the example of the happiness test with a remote culture, what does the 5 and 10 represent? Are they scores of how happy they feel? I do feel as though the experiments done to see how people think are always different depending on the people in them, meaning people have different backgrounds and the result of the experiment could be different because the person thinks differently, however this does not mean the experiment isn't valid because they didn't do what the psychologists predicted. It just means it is a new note for how people react and think. Everyone thinks differently, however they are similar to others in which ways of thinking can be grouped together such as political ideology. People associated with the Democratic party may agree on some political topics and disagree about other topics with other people associated in the same party. I don't think anyone can accurately predict the thoughts and actions of someone. I do think people can accurately place people in groups based on their thoughts and actions. The way the psychologists get their results is how psychology becomes scientific. Sometimes it doesn't get reproducing conclusions, but it shouldn't be thrown out that it isn't scientific because the details of the reproduced experiment isn't 100% accurate.
Is Psychology Scientific

Awesome, so to begin I will respond to your question "what makes you think that psychology is not scientific?" The 5 standards that all sciences can be held up to and are as follows "clearly defined terminology, quantifiable, highly controlled conditions, reproducibility, and finally, predictability and test ability." The reason I believe psychology is not scientific is because it can hardly be held up to these standards. For example; your studying happiness in a remote culture, you present the people with images and ask them how happy it made them feel. What are they going to respond with? A 5 maybe a 10? It's an inherit problem when studying psychology that emotions are not able to be quantified, and therefore can't produce empirical results. Of course, not all psychological studies are about emotion. Which brings me to my next gripe with psychology, it's seemingly inability to be reproduced. This is shown to be evident with the study known as the "Reproduceability project" in which researchers took 100 studies from three different top psychological journals and attempted to reproduce them. They completely failed to do so, only 36% of the studies produced a graph that went in the same direction and only 50% of that was shown in the original study. This shows a clear trend of psychology not producing empirical results, or real scientific data. Even more so key ideas in psychology such as the sub consciousness has different definitions across sub fields in psychology. From the view of a cognitive psychologist the sub consciousness has little power of higher thinking processes, while from the view of Freudian psychology and personality psychology it has a massive effect on higher thinking processes. Overall, psychology lacks the qualities that define a science, and therefore shouldn't get a pass to be considered scientific.
Is Psychology Scientific

I will take the pro side of this debate and say psychology is scientific. I will start off by asking what about psychology makes you think it isn't scientific? I took a psychology and I feel as though it was scientific. I have gone through experiments and had to structure papers the same way I had to structure science papers. Psychology is defined as "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context." It is defined as scientific because to accurately study a persons "mind and functions" it requires a psychologist to take scientific paths to perform experiments.
Whether a football team is better than another, is an opinion.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood your topic then. I defined better as the fact that this one does better than another. Better can be used to define the premise of anything. My definition was basically on which one you preferred better and that it's hard to define if anything is better or not because so many people's opinion's are different. Just because this person scores more touchdowns, may make him better then a person. However, another person may have better strats.
Kids on unauthorized social media sites

I will state these facts: Case 1: hackers Even if your account is private. Hacker may hack into your account and steal your information. Case 2: Why be on a social networking site if you want it private? That is the whole case of social networking! Case 3: Many kids do not know how to block or make accounts private. Case 4: There are a lot of pedofiles on social networking sites. A lot of kids don't know better, and give them their information. This could lead to families getting robbed or the kids being abducted. Case 5: Your parents should monitor it to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to and keep you safe. These are my opening statements. Thank you!
Kids on unauthorized social media sites

Rebuttal 1: A hacker can easily hack into it. Many children also do not know how to do that. Rebuttal 2 Many passwords as their names and the numbers 123 after it. Also, hacker can easily breach a websites security. Rebuttal 3: They can't ask their parents because the debate is about it being unauthorized. How can they ask their parents if they don't approve? I am a 12 year old and I know the values of free space. But when you have too much or free space that can harm you they need to take away the space. Rebuttal 4: Dude, parents need to be a little strict to crush rebellion! This is a statement that anyone can see is incorrect! I have proved un authorized social networking does more harm than good. Thank you.
Kids on unauthorized social media sites

Putting your accounts on private is actually smart: 1) you can still connect with your friends and people you know 2) it's keeping unwanted viewers out 3) you get a notification if people want to follow or add you, you can decide for yourself whether or not to let them 4) it doesn't limit what you can do Passwords: 1) most sites require special characters for a password: 1 number, one uppercase letter, one symbol, etc. this makes it harder for hackers. 2) parents can tell their teens not to use an obvious password, for example, 'password' 3) Social media sites will ask you personal questions that only you know Teens not knowing how to block/report/flag: 1) if a teen does not know how they can ask their parents 2) most social media will walk you through it after you sign up 3) usually you just click options for the comment or picture, etc., and will will tell you My other reasons: Respect: 1) if parents are constantly checking to make sure that their teen is safe and not up to anything all the time, the teen will feel like the parent is invading their privacy. 2) if you're doing this you obviously don't trust your child and don't respect them 3) teens want personal space; they want to feel free and not have their parents yelling all the time Rebellious teens: 1) most over-protective parents' teens get rebellious 2) they're constantly being watched and being told 'no' so they act out 3) they will do things that you tell them they can't do, etc.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

Observation by my opponent1. ) This was never stated in the resolution. To do so would be to assume some form of utilitarianism. No moral code was ever specified by my opponent in the framing round.2. ) Assumed by my opponent with no logical or empirical proof. Also, my opponent never clarified as to whether these were positive(other's have obligations to sacrifice or comply in order to protect someone else's right to life thus negating their own right) or negative(the only obligation on others is to not interfere with another's right to life, thus upholding the one person's right not to be killed in the scenario).3. ) I will not disagree.4. ) Again, this is assumed. This observation assumes that society has rights over that of the individual. Even if we were to assume Pro's 2nd observation, tha would not mean that society has any rights over the individual.5. ) Please clarify.6. ) My opponent provides no reasoning behind the jump from multiple people deserving rights and one person losing theirs as a result. Contention 1: Every person is equalThe conclusion that 10,000 people's lives are more valuable than one person's because everyone is equal does not follow, considering my opponent's 2nd observaion. If everyone has a right to life, than the interests of another cannot negate that, since the lone person did nothing to forfeit their own right to life(negating another's right to life) other than being in a situation not within their own doing. Contention 2: This is an extreme caseMy opponent provides no reasoning behind this. Pro somehow jumps from the argument that every person has some sort of innate right to life, but then goes in the opposite direction by arguing that the interests of humanity(assumedly as some sort of separate entity from the individuals that make it up) outweigh the interests of the individual. My opponent at least argued that individuals have rights, however he made no argument as to the existence of "societal rights". My opponent has not upheld his BoP and thus the resolution is negated.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

First off i just want to tell my opponent that I am gonna keep this one brief and simple and without sources. Can you tell me what i need to do for sources because i am a new member to this website Ok now to the case I affirm Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Observation: 1) You are going to vote on which debater helps the most amount of people 2) everyone has the right to life 3) The world is not perfect therefore there will be losses 4) Society has to make trade offs 5) Morally Permissible is not implying a suggestion therefore its is not an obligation 6) The resolution says more innocent there fore these people are more deserving to have their rights Contention 1: Every Person if equal Because every person is equal therefore if somebody has to die then 1 is better than 10000 Contention 2: This is an extreme case The resolution sets up a situation that will never occur therefore you are going to have to votes on the idea of a theoretical world with theoretical people. A person should not die but if we have to infringe on someone's rights to help humanity it has to be done. Thus I urge an affirmative ballot
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. In this debate, I will be attempting to negate the resolution. My opponent will attempt to affirm the resolution.Definition of Morally permissableSince this was not defined originally by my opponent, part of this debate will deal with our own competing definitions. Obviously, if we operate on an act utilitarian basis, the resolution would be automatically affirmed and if we used an ethical egoist basis, the resolution would be automatically negated. So part of the debate will revolve around the competing theories my opponent and I provide and argue for. All other words in the resolution will use the meanings that are most contextually probable. As per rules, I will not post an argument this round.
Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

To begin with, I would like to explain why did I posted a long analysis about stem cell and therapeutic cloning. I was to rebut my opponent arguments about the three biggest point: "1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated. 2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing. 3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology. " Now I would like to jog into the main idea of this debate, the real topic and controversy: Is cloning human ethical? I would like to ask my audience to picture this. Three-hundred years years later in the future, where human can be legally cloned by others. Now these are the analogies of what would happen if cloning is allowed. 1) A new time of enslavement will appear where this person will enslaves other person or maybe just a "clone", this is the problem that Abraham Lincoln had tried to do, created a whole Civil War, I honestly don't believe we should go through a Civil war again. 2) If all parents can clone there own children, maybe those who can't conceive children. Sound tempting, that new "cloned" child is really gonna be like you, same hair, same personality. .. But think of this ladies and gentlemen, what would happen to the orphans, the kids in the orphanages? If every female and male can just simply go out there, clone a child, then the need for adoptions will soon gone, do you want to see those kids live everyday and wish and wait for new parents and then to now know that their hopes are long gone? 3)Another posibility of cloning human can turn bad is that scientists can actually use these clones to test on them and find a new cure, flow with this logic it seem reasonable, but what if it's you? Do you really want that to happen to you? To be tested just because you're a clone, be mistreated and abused just because you're a clone? This is against the main sentence that American like President Lincoln, Dr. King had used, that famous sentence of George Washington: "All men were created equal. ", by creating these clones can actually create another time of discrimination, as it was in the south back in the twenties, thirties. .. My dear audience, what nature had designed, what God had designed, let it be there, keep it there, do not sabotage nature, or the consequence can be deadly.
Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

In his rebuttal, my opponent includes a lengthy analysis of the procedures entailed in the cloning of human body parts, ultimately leading into the following points: A. "stem cells from embryos have much greater flexibility than adult stem cells" B. "The process of extracting stem cells involves killing the embryo. To many pro-lifers, this is murder" C. "It is obvious that therapeutic cloning will not be feasible until these deficiencies have been overcome. " D. "Extracting eggs from women is "painful, costly and unreliable. " This makes up the totality of his response. Before I respond, I would like to call attention to the resolution of the debate: "Cloning human is unethical and unjust" I now ask the audience, do you see anything in this resolution pertaining to stem cell research? Scan through my opponent's first round. Do you see anything pertaining to stem cell research? Now, please take a look at my first round. Do you see any mention of stem cell research? What about in the definition of human cloning? Was stem cell research mentioned? Nowhere in the resolution OR in the first round, was it mentioned that we were talking specifically about the process of using stem cells to clone humans. This debate is about the ethics of cloning. Period. There is more than one way to skin a cat. My opponent should be talking about the ethics of skinning the cat in general, not the ethics of using a 6-inch knife with a serrated blade. Human cloning, as of right now, is not possible. This means that we are discussing the ethics of human cloning should it be perfected in the future. In order to avoid further problems, I will propose the following: Human cloning, for the purposes of the debate, can be performed through a magical Xerox machine. Now, we are not caught up with unnecessary red herrings, and we can focus on the ethics of what we were originally supposed to be focusing on. My points, which my opponent has invalidated on a flawed basis, still stand.
Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

"I fail to see what cloning can do for humanity therefore cloning human can be dangerous and create an unjust society. " This is a non sequitur fallacy . http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... The fact that he fails to see what cloning can do for humanity has nothing to do with whether or not it is dangerous or creates an unjust society. It only shows that he fails in seeing what cloning can do for humanity. Definition of human cloning: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue. Since my opponent has not made any argument whatsoever in his first round, I shall make my arguments. There are many ways in which cloning technology can help humanity. 1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated. 2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing. 3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology. Thank you, I await my opponent's response.