BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Mechanics of Reality and the Numinous (God/spirituality/supernatural)

Biologists estimate that 99% of all Earth's species have gone extinct. Most of them millions of years ago. Since none of them left any monuments of their knowledge we're the most advanced species by default. What natural force singled us out to have the biological capacity to evolve leaps and bounds beyond the rest? Was it just spectacular happenstance? I mean lucky charms are magically delicious, but damn dude! The dualism bit, you so eloquently articulated, is fascinating but irrelevant. Every wonderment, whether lovingly expressed or barbarically expressed, cannot be attributed to the numinous. Inspiration does not come from the source, but from the sentimental contemplation of the source. Your fire metaphor proves both your point and mine. Fire has no intentions it just burns. They sought intentions where none were given. They sought intentions in their interpretation of the numinous. By the mechanics of reality I confess that the numinous is unknowable. By the pattern of our daily behavior I cannot deny the numinous. The "more than meets the eye" mentality. The innate willingness among us all to reject the notion that breeding, resting, sustaining, maintaining, is the sum total of existence. And that WILLINGNESS is the numinous. If that cannot be called the numinous then what can?
The Mechanics of Reality and the Numinous (God/spirituality/supernatural)

Along the evolutionary process we became cunning little devils. We had no choice! How could such weak, pathetic creatures survive in such a hostile environment? Our skin was our armor to the brutality of savage predators. Vegatational pickings were slim. Herbivores weren't too charitable. Hunting was a fool's task among carnivorous competitors. But we weren't unaided. No, we were dealt the same hand many other species were dealt. It's called: comradery, teamwork. And from that, and by that, and FOR that, comes (to use your word) innovation. Birds use it to make nests. Monkeys use it to open nuts with sticks. We used it (and still use it) to make tools and clothes. And then vanity was born (if it didn't already exist). My tools are better than your tools. My clothes are better than yours. And now instead of just fighting for spots we fought for things. If that weren't bad enough for our ego we invented fire. We had seen fires before from natural disasters, but now we did it and even controlled it. Pride was heightened, but so was abstract thinking. Fire was extraordinary. It was magical! We didn't fully understand it, but we knew we lived by it. We also knew no other animal could do it. No, not even close. We were SPECIAL. So we used our abstract thinking to come to a detrimental conclusion, sacrifice. We offered fruits and grains to the fire. We offered animals to the fire. We offered each other to the fire! The fire was numinous and so were we. We sang to it. We told stories by it. And we understood the dual nature of fire. It was good but bad. It could cook food and burn the cook as well. Dualism was born. It shaped our abstract thinking drastically. And from that, and by that, and FOR that. We shaped a philosophy that has remained intact to this day: the good and the bad can't exist without each other. So we gave the dilemma back to where we found it, the fire (the numinous). It would solve our problems and save us all from our embarrassingly imagined dualism. Religions have come and gone and keep F***ing coming and fiddling with our imagined problem, dualism. And so here we are now in modernity. And F*** me silly, philosophers with all the niceties of modernity keep insisting on fiddling with our supposed dilemma. Damn you man! I've known you for 20 years now. I know that you know there's no numinous.
The Mechanics of Reality and the Numinous (God/spirituality/supernatural)

You may use a thousand words for a single lie, but the truth has no twin.-----Michael Bassey Johnson. What rationale can discern that the truth has no twin? Reality is as hard as nails.----C.S. Lewis It doesn't give two pence about our ideologies, sentiments, interpretations, and religious notions. Our propaganda means nothing to reality. From the wittiest philosopher to the tiniest gnat, everything has been subjugated by it. Every organism experiences reality from a different vantage point. Does truth prefer one vantage point over another? Is truth divided? No, truth is in subjection to reality. The mechanics of reality function as a whole, therefore truth is dependent on reality, but reality is dependent on itself. What rationale can discern that truth has no twin? Our perception wars have no place here. We collectively have the mechanics of reality. A gnat can't be a philosopher. A philosopher can't be a gnat. The mechanics of reality won't allow this. A being capable of reasoning can apply a claim to the mechanics of reality and discern truth from fiction. A being incapable or unwilling to apply a claim to the mechanics of reality may accept fiction as truth. But reality doesn't care. It's as hard as nails. I'll be using the word "numinous" for God/spirituality/supernatural. The numinous has no standard by which to validate itself. If applied to the mechanics of reality it has no validity. The numinous is imprisoned by its own merit to subjectivity. Subjectivity is the playpen of futility. It's perception wars with no umpire. Propaganda vs propaganda. Sentiments vs sentiments. Opinionated bias vs opinionated bias. Prefernce attempting to conquer preference. All of this is always doomed to a stalemate. Brother, is humanity's gut feeling for the numinous valid? Is the numinous simply an emotional trait involuntarily forced upon us by evolution? Some sort of instigator towards Innovation which equips us for survival and nothing more? Art, music, poetry, philosophy. Are these things simply a purposeless fluke?
The U.S should abolish the capital gains tax

You are correct in assuming that there will be another tax or tax increase somewhere to cover up for it, but that is not a bad thing. Another possibility is that they could cut a government program. I don't feel there will be a huge strain, and I also believe it will be a way for everyone to pull their weight in America so it's just not the landowning few having to carry the rest of the nation with this tax. I will outline each of these arguments individually to help make the round go smoother. 1. A proposed counterplan to getting rid of the capital gains tax is to increase the sales tax. If we were to do this, then we could make sure EVERYONE pulled there weight in America. It's not fair that someone who is hypothetically moving to find a better job should have some of the money from selling land taken away just because he owned land. 2. Another separately proposed counterplan would be to get rid of a government agency or significantly shrink an agency of unnecessary assets. Some example agencies that could be cut or dismantled could be military, NSA or even the IRS since we don't need anyone checking out capital gains taxes anymore. 3. My last argument is that the capital gains tax buts and unfair burden on the people who own land. This forces people who decided to actually invest in land to be punished for there decision to own land. This allows people who leach off the system to pay even fewer taxes because they don't own land, so they won't have to help pay for the things I proposed cutting or even other programs such as CDC, education, and Department of Homeland Security.
Beauty is Objective

Interesting argument, I won't keep you waiting. Since I'm taking the agnostic stance, you should already know that the BoP is clearly on you (just clarifying since my last opponent had a MAJOR issue with this.) I suppose you'll be stating your case in the second round, and I look forward to an insightful discussion on a philosophically engaging topic. Objective: –adjective not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Beauty is Objective

This debate will focus on the two contentions I make below, centering on the question of whether or not beauty can be described as an objective quality. My opponents first round should consist of their acceptance of the debate, followed by a very brief outline of thier perspective. Subsequent to that, rounds 2, 3, and 4 should consist of a dialogue: I will present a case for each of my three contentions in round 2, my opponent will respond, I will respond to his response and so on. Round five should consist of final conclusions. A clarification of terms: By beauty, I am referring solely to the physical attractiveness of human beings as appreciated by other human beings. Other interpretations are welcome, particularly if they are used to make salient points, but it should be understood that this is not, at its core, a debate about beauty as an abstraction (even if it may turn out to be just that!) By objective, I am not referring to a Platonic or otherwise metaphysically incorruptible standard in relation to which people can either be right or wrong. What I'm talking about is a shared perception of beauty which, by virtue of its being shared and therefore not pure subjective opinion, can be described as objective. Mt two main contentions: 1. There is in operation in our society (Western) an objective standard of physical beauty. With some maneuverability, all people stand somewhere along a continuum of physical beauty, and can rightly (in the sense of correctly, not morally) be described as 'more' or 'less' physically attractive. 2. In the majority of cases, people choose their partners in accordance with where they place themselves and their partners on this continuum. While there will be some variation in the accuracy with which people place themselves and others (for instance, good-looking people with low self-esteem), there are enough people with reasonably accurate perceptions for the general trend to what one would expect in a world with an objective standard of beauty. I look forward to being argued out of this view, as the one thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that we would all be better off were I incorrect!
Beauty is Objective

I recently finished The Moral Landscape, and found it fascinating. However, it should be pointed out that no where in the book does Harris mention aesthetic values. As for the list of points about beauty, I feel I set a bad precedent by accepting the hypothetical scenario put forth in the first argument. While I can accept that one is valid, the idea that there is someone in the world who no one considers attractive is beyond the limits of what I can accept. There are over 6 billion of us, and people's tastes in beauty are extremely diverse. The fattest woman to give birth, Donna Simpson (now 700 lbs, working way to 1000 lbs.), has a considerable male following that pays for some of her meals and access to cameras which record her eating [1].Moreover, I can't accept the second hypothetical of a person who everyone on the planet considers beautiful. The world population currently hovers at around 6.7 billion, and the statistical probability of even a few of us labeling this Adonis or Aphrodite as "not my type" or "she's okay" is astronomical to the point of near certainty. What you need to do here is set forth an objective criteria for beauty instead of relying on a hypothetical consensus opinion. Harris in The Moral Landscape outlines an objective guide to morality based on the well-being of conscious beings, but still leaves considerable room for moral disagreements that he is fully aware may never be solved [2]. When considering the notion of an objective standard of beauty, one is generally inclined to feel that objective standards are discovered rather than invented. Harris claims his moral code is discovered, as do theistic moral codes predicated on a belief in God and his commandments. The reasons for this are apparent as "invented" standards are inevitably subject to cultural influences and are a "product of the time." In terms of beauty, these facts require discovering some sort of objective standard to which beauty can be judged, and in doing so weighs several factors (if we're talking personal beauty these might be body type, height, weight, facial structure, etc.) "appropriately" and comes to a final judgment that affords it the status of "objective." In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate what I had said earlier; namely, these hypothetical examples about "universally" beautiful or ugly people cannot and do not exist until proven otherwise. Note that when someone responds "she is beautiful in terms of traditional standards, but she is not my type" there is nothing objectively wrong with that person's opinion. Subjectively, we can easily judge person A as highly attractive and person B as not so, but attempts to universalize judgments of personal beauty (as this is what the conversation has focused on) will inevitably become appeals to majority opinion and suffer from a general lack of information (i.e. the hypotheticals) in an attempt to universalize. I look forward to Pro's response and concluding arguments in the next round. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] Harris, The Moral Landscape 2010.
Beauty is Objective

Technically, I could be a stickler and demand that Pro give sources to his statements, but I won't and I'll accept some of the more general comments he makes, but by no means his whole argument. For the record, you can call me either "Bieber" or "Con" although "Con" is the standard term, although I would certainly accept Bieber. Welcome to DDO, and may it be the first of many good debates. Since I'm taking the agnostic position, I believe my role in this debate is to "poke holes" in Pro's case and see where the discussion goes. We can first start by analyzing Pro's case, which essentially boiled down to a hypothetical example that showed that there are shared standards of beauty within a society. Lets just reiterate the definition of "objective" in more common terms. For something to be objective, there must be right and wrong answers regardless of cultural or historical differences. Math, for example, is objective. In this case, Pro's main contention is that there is a large degree of uniformity in how individuals judge "beauty." I have a few objections to raise to that point: 1. Different Cultures, Different Standards To prove that beauty is objective is to strongly imply that it is cross-culturally binding. While a given culture may have a general consensus about "beauty," these conceptions can often vary drastically. For example, being overweight in certain - often poorer cultures, such as Ghana - can be seen as something that is generally a cultural positive [1]. This could partly be explained by the cultural connotations attached to the the quality of being overweight, perhaps affluence or health. If your hypothetical experiment were to be conducted in a different culture with a different conception of beauty, it should come as no surprise that answers would vary. Given that objectivity replies a "right" and a "wrong" in terms of physical beauty, Pro needs to demonstrate that particular cultures are "wrong" in regard to what they perceive as beautiful. Obviously the fact that people have varying opinions does not act as direct proof against something being objective. The question that I'm posing to you here is how do you decide which cultural standards to adopt? 2. Majority opinion does not imply objective truth. A corollary to my last point, people over history have held radically different views on a wide range of issues. Standards of beauty have shifted enormously across cultures. All a consensus opinion does is tell us the state of affairs at the time. It does not follow from the fact that most people label person X a 7-9 that those who labeled him a 10, 6, 5... are "wrong." According to a recent Gall Up poll, only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, yet no reasonable person would doubt the objectivity of evolution based on an appeal to majority opinion [2]. Those were my two main contentions with this line of thought. I look forward to a response and continuing the debate in future exchanges. [1]http://www.martinfrost.ws... [2]http://www.gallup.com...
You should follow stoic principles 2

To generalize the Stoics lifestyle as a so whatever kind of life and not care about anything is absurd. To live a life based on emotions is irrational and ruining your own chance at life. To live a life of fullness, you must concentrate on the things you can control. Emotions only distract you from living a life of greatness and accomplishments. If you worry about what other people think or if you hurt other peoples' feelings, you fold your hand to life. Seneca, talked about how people complained about how short life was and were so scared of death. IF you choose a life of apathy, you will except death, fear nothing, and succeed in a life of greatness.
You should follow stoic principles 2

True that the stoics said to live a life of absense of emoption and they argued that that was the way to live, but what is a world without emotion and worry? Isen't a little stress a good thing. If you were to just go through life emotionless and not worrying about things then what real reason would you have to actually do anything? Stress can create character. it encourages you to work hard in life, and sometimes it's becuase of that stress you become a better person. Asking yourself why do I care?, well it's just that why should you care. it's becuase thats what is going to make you a great person not just going through life with a so what kind of attitude all the time
You should follow stoic principles 2

The Stoics had it right many of years ago when they lived lives based off the word apathy. Apathy is the absence of emotion, they didn't suffer from pleasure or pain. How many times have you asked yourself why do I care? To live a great life and not worry about anything or stress out about anything is the way the Stoics lived. If you allow room for emotions in your life it will scurry you from living our life to the fullest, however, if you can disregard emotions that will allow you to live a life of apathy and life to the fullest.
You should follow stoic principles 2

You raise a good point that stress comes from the externals, but are those externals really something that is holding us back? If it not wise to embrace some of them and think about the good that they can actually do for you? Sometimes we need to just think about what life is throwing at us and realize that it can be a good thing. We need to take what life throws at us and deal with it and it is perfectly normal to feel emotion towards things. some say that life never hands you more then you can handle. I think its something you are just not considering and you need to, not everything is a waste of time
You should follow stoic principles 2

Well, that's exactly what Seneca is trying to point out with having regards to other peoples' emotions towards you. If you allow for that space in your life, you will start to squander on things or goods that are a total waste of time. And I understand your point with stress and making character, however your stress is brought upon you from externals. Externals are something we can't control, and they only hold you back from achieving greatness. Seneca said," But when it is squandered through luxury and indifference, and spent for no good end, we realize it (life) has gone, under the pressure of the ultimate necessity, before we were aware it was going.
You should follow stoic principles 2

These emotions that you claim that distract you from life are actually a good thing. I think that life without emotions is absurd. There are certain things in life that you need people to care about what thery think about you. you can't just say I don't care what thery think I am going to do whats best for me. Thats all well and good but ultimatly who is the judge about what kind of life you lead in some respects. Your peers have a lot of influence over what you do, they may even have a strong influence over the path you choose such as a career. Seneca may have said that life is short but even with the apethy are you really living a full life? a little stress can go a long way to making you a better person
String theory

I am in favor of string theory. String theory is an as-yet incomplete mathematical approach to theoretical physics, whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the standard model of particle physics. By replacing the point-like particles with strings, an apparently consistent quantum theory of gravity emerges, which has not been achievable under the standard model. Usually, the term string theory includes a group of related superstring theories and a few related frameworks such as M-theory, which seeks to unite them all. String theorists have not yet completely described these theories, or determined if or how these theories relate to the physical universe. The elegance and flexibility of the approach, however, and a number of qualitative similarities with more traditional physical models, have led many physicists to suspect that such a connection is possible. In particular, string theory may be a way to "unify" the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) by describing them with the same set of equations, as described in the theory of everything. On the other hand, the models have been criticized for their inability, thus far, to provide any testable predictions. Work on string theory is made difficult by the very complex mathematics involved, and the large number of forms that the theories can take depending on the arrangement of space and energy. Thus far, string theory strongly suggests the existence of ten or eleven (in M-theory) spacetime dimensions, as opposed to the usual four (three spatial and one temporal) used in relativity theory; however, the theory can describe universes with four effective (observable) spacetime dimensions by a variety of methods. The theories also appear to describe higher-dimensional objects than strings, called branes. Certain types of string theory have also been shown to be equivalent to certain types of more traditional gauge theory, and it is hoped that research in this direction will lead to new insights on quantum chromodynamics, the fundamental theory of the strong nuclear force. The above three paragraphs are taken from the wikipedia article on string theory. String theory is an approach to theoretical physics that could, in time, be quite helpful in understanding the way the universe works. That is the goal of science. True, it may not be a verifiable scientific theory as of yet, but it extremely promising nonetheless. It has the potential to teach us worlds about how we should or shouldn't look at the universe. Something does not have to be testable to be worthwhile. It seems odd that my opponent is against string theory for this one reason. In the next round, I ask my opponent to embellish on any other problems he has with string theory, or to simply expand on what has already been said.