BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reflections only exist in our minds.

While I agree that our perceptions of an image require the brain's involvement, the image from a mirror, a reflection, is made of photons. In fact, there is no such thing as a reflected image that has no photons; no photons, no reflected image. What's "causing [cones on our retina] to send electrical impulses to our brain" are photons of the image. If we were to look at a tree, outside on a sunny day, and then take a mirror and hold it in front of the tree, we could look in the mirror, and see an image of a tree. What's happening? The rays of light, which are made of photons, are bouncing off of the tree and hitting the mirror from a shorter distance than the rays of light from the sun and those photons bouncing off of farther away objects, and it's these rays of light that are reflected from the mirror to the observer; the longer rays are from other objects, and the shorter ones are from the tree. In an abundance of long rays of light bouncing off of the mirror from the sun and other objects, there is a tree shaped collection of shorter rays of light that make an image of a tree; this image is observable thanks to these shorter rays of light, photons. I feel like Pro conceded the debate in the beginning:"I agree that photons exist outside of the mind"My response:So if reflections, images from a mirror, are made of photons, then we're done here? I know Pro tried to separate the process, reflection, from the image, reflection, but they are not separable; despite the tautology, you can't have a reflection (image) without reflection (process) and you can't have reflection (process) without a reflection (image). Pro argues:"an image is not made of photons"My response:A mirror image, which is the image in this debate, is only made of photons. A tree is not made of photons, but the tree's reflected image is. But, you might say, that's not good enough, because this image is virtual as its location isn't really where we perceive it. So, let's take a concave mirror. According to the physics of light and color, when "an object is positioned above the principal axis of a concave mirror and somewhere beyond the center of curvature. .. the concave mirror will produce an image. .. [whose] location is the intersection point of all the reflected rays. ". http://www.physicsclassroom.com... . http://www.physicsclassroom.com...So, reflections from concave mirrors are real, not virtual, images that have an actual location, which exists outside of the mind, in the form of photons intersecting. Photons are particles; particles are matter; matter exists outside of the construct of the brain called the mind. While I appreciate Pro's explanation of direct, reflected, and phantom light, concave mirrors produce real images in real locations, thus negating Pro's allusion to "phantom light. .. seems to originate from a real object, but the object is not really where we see it. "Light from concave mirrors produce real images in real locations, which exist outside of the mind.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

I agree that photons exist outside of the mind, but an image is not made of photons. Unless you are referring to a digital image. The way sight works is that photons strike the cones on our retina, causing them to send electrical impulses to our brain. Our brain converts these electrical impulses into a visual representation of our surroundings based on these photons. The image we see exists in our mind. Well if everything we see is an image in our head, then what does exist objectively? The photons striking our retina are of 3 different types. Direct, reflected and phantom light. Direct light comes from a light source such as the sun, a flame or a globe. Reflected light is direct light which strikes a physical object and some of it gets reflected by the surface of that object. The moon, an apple, a tree, are examples of such objects. The source of direct and reflected light are real objects that exist objectively. They do not require our perception of them to exist. Phantom light however is light that seems to originate from a real object, but the object is not really where we see it. In other words, the image is illusory and does not exist if nobody sees it. The problem is that sight is a subconscious process and the part of our brain which creates the image we see, can't distinguish between real and illusory. It builds a picture based on the photons striking our retina. It's our conscious mind which tells us that there is not another person looking back at us from a mirror. So yes, photons exist in the real world and reflection is a real process, but light is reflected from every direction, and in every direction. The image we see exists only in our heads and nothing exists where we percieve it to be. If nothing captures those photons the image doesn't exist. Unlike a real object which exists objectively, reflections are subjective.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

I accept. I reject the resolution that reflections, images we perceive in a mirror, only exist in our minds, because reflections are made of photons, photons are light particles, and particles are made of matter, which exist outside of the mind. reflection - An image seen in a mirror, a surface reflective of light or other radiation http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... photon - An elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org... particle - A minute fragment or quantity of matter http://www.oed.com... The mind is contingent on matter, but photons are matter; photons exist outside of the construct of the brain called the mind.
A Modern Form of Democracy is Preferable to Other Existing Forms of Government

I would like to begin by welcoming PeeGor to Debate.org. Thank you for the opportunity to debate this very interesting topic. I negate: That Democracy is preferable to all other existing forms of government. He defines a Democracy as such: "Modern Democracy- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly." --- I accept this definition of a Modern Democracy. My opponent bases his case on rule by the people. He supposes that a government should be a reflection of the will of the people. When stated as such, this would seem to be the preferable form of government. Unfortunately, another way to word the definition is 'rule by the majority.' When the definition for Democracy is restated in this way it loses a bit of its romanticism and is exposed for what it really is - majority rule. ------------------------- Majority rule (democracy) as governmental policy works great for a person when they are a member of the majority. Unfortunately, this excludes the minority from the benefits of democracy. At any given moment, the will of the people might be to oppress a minority group. Take the recent struggles over gay marraige as an example. The majority of voters have decided in many areas to restrict homosexuals' ability to marry someone of the same gender. This is one example of oppressing the minority. Another example is racial slavery as it appeared in the United States until 1863. The majority had decided to oppress an entire race. Clearly there need to be checks on the will of the people. It is the contention of this author that a Constitutional Republican form of government with democratic principles would be a more preferable form of government than a democracy. Constitutional Republic (form of government) - a government made up of representatives elected by a populace and bound by a constitution. democratic principles - universal suffrage. Everyone has a say in who represents them. In a republican form of government with democratic principles the people's will is still effective, since all citizens have the right to vote. However, the government is bound by a constitution. A constitution trumps the will of the people. Therefore, a constitutional republic provides ample protection for the minority against the tyranny of the majority. --------------------------- CONCLUSION A democracy inevitably results in the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, A Republican form of government with democratic principles is preferable to a democracy.
A Modern Form of Democracy is Preferable to Other Existing Forms of Government

AFFIRMATIVE [Quote] "The love of democracy is that of equality." Charles de Montesquieu [Definitions] Modern Democracy- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly Preferable- having greater value or desirability Other Existing Forms of Government- different types of government that do not include democracy or any variation of democracy that have been tried [Value/ Value Criterion] Value: Democracy Value Criterion: Consent of the Governed Democracy should obviously be the value for this round, for it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. A (modern) democracy is preferable to other existing forms of government because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests and opinions of all people in society. With the majority of the people's opinions taken into consideration, the will of the people, also known as consent of the governed, can best be upheld, ergo my value criterion. [Contentions] (1) Democracy upholds human rights to its constituents better than any other form of government. Without going into confusing arguments, let's just stop and think for a moment. If you are a leader of a democratic nation and are abusing your power or using your power in the wrong way to restrict or violate somebody else's rights, what will happen? There are two possible outcomes. You can be impeached or voted out of office, both of which ensure the removal of said governmental leader from abusing society, which therefore upholds my value criterion of the consent of the governed (most people in society do not like to be abused by power) (2) The Democratic Peace Theory. The democratic peace theory holds that two democratic nations almost never go to war with each other. Immanuel Kant foreshadowed this theory in his essay Perpetual Peace. He thought that the majority of the people would not vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Obviously, it is not needed to explain why not being at war is a positive effect of democracy. [Note] This is a LD debate, and should be treated as such I reserve the right to make future arguments Thank you
i would rather choose wide vocabulary instead of perfect grammar

While an immense vocabulary of more than 10,000 words is quite overkill, you have to admit that anything less than 2,000 known words is very irritating. Some people I know, do not understand the words I speak or phrases. Of course, I do not care much and I speak less formally, though I would be ecstatic if I could speak with them as I normally do. Secondly, a semi-large vocabulary can help you explain yourself or make you seem more intelligent than you are. You may as well be a Nobel Prize winner, but if you can't explain yourself in a scientific paper then you'll be disregarded as a moron or a fraud. Another point, which is a tad more pertinent has to do with debates. The other side often backs down when they see the combination of both good grammar and a large vocabulary. However, a large vocabulary is the main culprit here, simply due to the fact that confusion is a powerful weapon. If the other side has to look up a word you said, such as my quite obvious and malicious usage of 'pertinent' then they would feel weaker, or less intelligent compared to the opponent. Since you made a short case, I'll do much the same. I await your response.
NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football

Your dispute to my statement of more fans is that the NHL has crazier fans. I believe your intention was to link the Vancouver riots, as evidence for "crazier fans." While that was a crazy thing, that has only ever happened once and doesnt really set the bar for a consistent crazy fan base. Also, it's kind of hard to define crazy, and label such large groups crazier than one another. The NFL fans are fairly "crazy" as well. There is a fantasy football group called the tattoo league. The loser every year gets a tattoo of the winners choice. They gained quite the amount of publicity even earning them a spot on ESPN Sunday Countdown. [1]. Every year Americans put down millions upon millions over fantasy football. [2]. These are some fairly crazy statistics and stories that don't have many equivilents in the NHL fanbase. Finally you addressed how difficult it is make it into the NHL. According to NCAA, the percentages for the NFL and NHL are fairly similar. [3]. About .07% of high school seniors participating in inner scholastic sports will make it to the NHL, and the percentage is .08 for making it to the NFL. The NHL has less players and less openings, the NFL has more players and more openings. They are relative to each other showing it's basically just as difficult to enter each one as it is the other. But, the average length of a career of an NHL player is 5.5 years versus NFL players who average 3.5. [4]. Let's take David Tyree for example who had arguably the greatest catch in NFL history. He caught a 4th and 10 pass from Eli Manning with his helmet while double covered to keep the Giants alive and eventually pull off the greatest upset in Super Bowl history. This was an iconic moment in NFL history, spoiling the Patriots 19-0 season. That was David Tyree's last catch ever in the NFL. It doesn't matter what you've done or accomplished, even an amazing catch like that, the NFL has so many people circulating in and out, even David Tyree couldn't manage it. Thank you for the debate, despite me being the Con, I still think hockey is a super tough game that is really fun to watch and deserves more fans than it has. [1. http://youtu.be...] [2. http://www.forbes.com...]. [3. https://www.ncaa.org...]. [4. http://www.rsvlts.com...].
NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football

Number one the average weight thing is useless because in hockey there is more acceleration and less mass. You said you self there is less friction on ice so when skating at high speed's in the intent of hinting that person they are basically a speeding torpedo. I should have said this before in Football you get tackled in OPEN field but in hockey your pined between two hard places.Yes Hockey players have less fan's but more crazy fan's https://video.search.yahoo.com... in Vancouver so you have that presser on you and this goes for all team's. You also said that Football player's have less privacy well really for both sport's it's about the same it's really about the most famous player's. Finally this is how hard to get into the NHL. Out of 30,000 kid's in Ontario Canada are selected and studied 48 get drafted, out of that 48 only 39 end up signing a contracted. Out of that 39 only 32 actually play in the NHL and only 15 play more then one season. But out of that 15 only 6 play 400 games which is the amount of games to by able to play that NHL position.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football

I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.
Bitcoin is a bubble

Whether bitcoin has been a bubble in the past is irrelevant. Pro must establish that bitcoin is in a bubble now. Even if voters side with Pro on this detail and allow that the term "bitcoin is a bubble" may include it's past performance, Pro has established no objective criteria to measure this. When did this occur? What was the starting and ending price, and how much of a fall must occur before the term "bubble" is applicable. These details must be defined because Pro's resolution must be answered either "yes" or "no". The burden of proof is on Pro, and "bitcoin is a bubble" has not been established.
Bitcoin is a bubble

Yes, you and I both agree that your claim is that bitcoin is actually worth 5$. However, as I've explained, bubbles are determined ex post facto. I also established criteria for determining whether bitcoin is actually in a bubble, which is that it's price will fall to 5$ prior to the end of this debates voting. Since you did not contest this point, I'll take that to mean that you agree with this. So there's not much left to do but wait.
Bitcoin is a bubble

Pro claims that bitcoin's price is in a bubble. There are two insurmountable issues with this claim: First, this is based on Pro's claim that bitcoins true value is 5$. However, this is just Pro's subjective value for bitcoin. Obviously, since bitcoin is trading at around $235, these current buyers subjective value is at least $235. Pro would have to provide some information that, if announced publicly, would immediately cause all bitcoin buyers and sellers to bid the price down to $5. Next, knowledge of bubbles can only be known ex post facto. Pro cannot really win unless the price of bitcoin falls to $5 before voting ends on this debate.
Bitcoin is a bubble

Bitcoin is a bubble, to explain why I will explain to you a little session in economics called: The Bubble A bubble is when a large sum of people buy into something because they think it will be sold for more later on, a bubble is nearly impossible to stage without fiat, take this for example, say the ratio of a bag of Starbucks coffee to a dollar bill is 1:10, you need to put down 10$ to equal the Starbucks, then say the Fed decides to make th were be 2x the amount of $ in currency, then it's half the value, you need to put down another 10$ to equal the Starbucks, 1:20, then the Fed just starts issuing $ like crazy, the value of the dollar goes down, the amount of $ needed to equal the Starbucks goes up, but from the dollars perspective the value of the Starbucks is going up, so people buy into it, eventually there isn't enough money to equal the value assigned to the coffee, no one can buy it, by now the coffee is cost 100$, it crashes to 10$, this is how you start a bubble, bit coin is a bubble, it's proper value is 5$, (that's how much it is capable of being valued) and it pops at 250$, meaning that there is only enough buyers and people who accept bit coin to support the bubbling until this price, people keep trying to get back into the bubble, they keep overhauling it, raising the price, and it pops.
Women in the Kitchen

Notice RationalMadman left out discussing when I said "women do not 'belong' anywhere they don't want to be". 'They tend to be safe, great at multitasking both cooking and cleaning and are great collaborators in teams[3] than men.' Ok first of all, I know some women who, for the life of them, can't eve make something as simple as grilled cheese. Some women do NOT work well together and some who can't manage one task let alone two.
Women in the Kitchen

DefinitionsWomen: plural form of woman.Woman[1]: an adult human female.Kitchen[2]: a room or area where food is prepared and cooked.I am in favour of women being in the kitchen because there is usually nothing wrong with it. They tend to be safe, great at multitasking both cooking and cleaning and are great collaborators in teams[3] than men.Why would you be against women being in a kitchen? Is there something you have against permitting such an act?Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.sheknows.com...
Women in the Kitchen

LOL WHAT?...."there is really no difference to "women in the kitchen" and "women not being allowed out of the kitchen" except the way it was said/written"HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!To begin with... You want to ban women from being in the kitchen. I am simply proposing "Women in the kitchen." And you are opposing this. Can you not see that you are invalid in your urge to go against any and all women in the kitchen?
Existence of God

I though I would start a debate on an easy topic: The existence of God. RulesFocus on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways. No new arguments in the final round, And no rebuttal in the first round. Explain your votes thoroughly, Not a strict rule but a preference. List of the ArgumentsYou may choose one of the five to argue against or all five, It hardly matters to me, But articulate which you choose to argue against in the first round along with your theological disposition. 1. The argument from metaphysical motion;2. The argument from efficient causation;3. The the argument from contingency;4. The argument from degrees of being;5. The argument from final causality ("teleological argument").
Exams Ought to be Abolished from the Education System

It has been a pleasure debating with you, you've made some excellent and interesting points, thanks. 1. China/U.K. There is no doubt that abolishing exams will reduce stress, and possibly eliminate teen suicides, but I don't think it is the right solution. Homework could be abolished at one of Britain's most prestigious schools to combat teenage depression [1]. This makes a lot of sense because homework doesn't actually help students. Homework is unlike coursework, as it's based on what is taught in class, and doesn't count toward the final grade, so students will feel **unnecessarily tested** especially when given excessive amounts which are compulsively graded. [1] http://news.sky.com... Exams are necessary, so some stress should be expected. A lot more is done to prevent exam stress than stress from homework e.g. teachers tell students when to begin revising, what they need to know, and will give them a mock exam a year earlier to prepare them etc. For this reason I think that people who take psychiatric drugs before exams, do because homework has damaged their confidence. 2. Structure of Exam Exams help students to find ways to learn new things by consolidating notes, doing role play etc, this can help later in life when they need to pass higher level exams or the driving theory test. There is usually an adequate amount of time given to complete exams, even in Maths, but there are some papers like English Literature where you may have to write a story quickly or give a detailed explanation, these should be coursework. Spreading exams out and giving them less weight was just an idea I had to reduce stress, in practice it would probably cause students to learn that rote learning is the only method they need. 3. Ramifications of Abolition Employers are more interested in someone with a low A-level than someone with a high G.C.S.E grade. Therefore coursework should ideally be worth more due to reflecting greater knowledge. However at school, exams have to be worth more due to the amount of time spent in class. The stuff taught in lessons may seem basic but it is the foundation to learning, thus most important. It is important therefore that students feel it is important by testing them on this knowledge so they don't become unruly. 4. Bell Curving Exam papers change every year, they can be harder or easier, the fairest way to reflect someone's ability in my opinion is by grading on a curve. 5. Cheating It is difficult to cheat in an exam. Even if you were going to cheat in an exam it would only be practical to record small things like facts and equations. An understanding of them, and how to apply equations etc is still needed, whereas if you were to cheat in coursework e.g. by having someone do it for you, you wouldn't need to understand anything, which is clearly worse. However both exams and coursework are needed to minimize cheating. The purpose of school is to give students the best education, and I think that exams help with this. Please vote, and leave your comments, many thanks, and thanks again to my opponent. Kirk