BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Leftists are not Postmodernists

If you look carefully, I am not saying that the whole of marxist theory is wrong, or evil, or anything of that sort. Much of the marxist critic of capitalism is relevant enough that it can be used to prevent the sort of economic disparity that would threaten the integrity of society. But I am forced to wonder if you are actually serious in claiming that Cuba and Vietnam are somehow examples of successful marxist societies. Both of these countries got very close to seeing generalized famine occur, and both had to experiment with some level of free market to avoid implosion, especially after the Soviet subsidies were withdrawn as the USSR came to an end. Secondly, I mostly agree with what you say about the way Dr. Peterson uses his words to create a social effect. However, I think I should point out that few of those he addresses have a sufficient academic background that would allow them to understand a speech that would indeed meet academic standards. His speeches and lectures are tailored to his various audiences, and, as far as I am concerned, he has never been filmed talking to a crowd of his peers from the Psychology Department. Lastly, my argument definitely could be construed as just another derivative of the ISIS-not-real-Muslims type, but I actually had already answered this point in Round 2. I expressly asked that the current radical left be called "radical postmodernists", underlining both the postmodern heritage and the radical departure from the base material. I would also suggest that it is equally weak to label ISIS fighters as "just Muslims", as there is an obvious difference between moderate and radical Islam. Note, however, that in the case of who from the moderate or radical Muslim gets to meet more of the standards laid down in the Quran and be a 'true' Muslim, chances are the radical wins this one (although I am in no way on authority on the subject). In the case of postmodernism, however, the moderates win the round.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

You, in this regard similar to me, have not read the hundreds upon thousands of pages of Marx's writings, some of which conflict others and some of which merely address a historical Fordism and Taylorism in industrialised Europe. To argue all Marxism as wrong is nothing but ignorance dressed up in the general social reprobation of Marx. Academic laziness. What about the few successes of Marxism in places like Cuba and Vietnam? What about all the modern Marxist theory (like in George Ritzer) which re-articulate Marx's concerns today? I agree: in the USSR and China particularly, Marxism had a series of pragmatic failures especially when opposing a global capitalist economy. But, this doesn't offer finality about whether all of Marx's insights were useless or whether or not other factors aside from the theory affected how it was interpreted and implemented. Dr. Peterson is an academic; he lectures, he writes journal papers and books, and has articulated that he is against the loss of individual responsibility and those who resent the truth (seeing it as merely a construct of the powerful to keep people in their places). What we don't need is another master of rhetoric like Christopher Hitchens, who with a strong following and eloquence of speech, can say whatever he likes to the applause of his hero worshippers. If Peterson talks in general terms, it is to create a social effect and real-world momentum against the theories he disagrees with; when he does this, he does not touch the theories themselves. Instead, he delivers his personal opinions in a way which fails to meet academic standards. Now your argument has become somewhat analogous to those who claim: ISIS aren't real Muslims. Or, only pacifists are true Christians. To claim that a group is not enacting a group's precepts because they enact them too radically is absurd. Those Peterson opposes are just the logical development and unfurling of the postmodernist theory they draw from. They are a subset of PM
Leftists are not Postmodernists

Indeed, in this video Dr. Peterson's reasoning when it comes to both marxism and postmodernism is sketchy, but I would argue that it is the view most prevalent within the anti-SJW crowd. Dr. Peterson himself rarely departs from it throughout his many videos, occasionally mentioning the name of a single postmodernist and what he sees as their philosophy. But whether he is aware of the over-simplification or not, this simplification has a real purpose in today's political climate, and is likely more justified than any radical leftist propensity to cast anything remotely to their right as racist. Keep in mind that, as a psychologist, Dr. Peterson mostly addresses those ideologies that he regards as born from resentment towards the powerful, meaning the detail of the theories is not of great concern to him. However, my argument was precisely that postmodernism and SJW-type (or whatever type Dr. Peterson is pointing at as radical Leftism) are inherently incompatible with regards to the notion of social constructivism, which I think is probably the most important theme of both philosophies. I am not arguing that they cannot be 'conflated' because #NotAllPostmodernists are leftists, I am arguing that a postmodernist CANNOT be part of "Peterson's radical left". Essentially, I am saying that it is impossible for anyone to be part of the radical left and still think they follow the core postmodern precepts, simply because radical leftism is just on a whole new level. As to all theories being part-right, part-wrong, it would probably be more accurate to say that some are 50% right, and 100% wrong. Of course it is true that rare are the theories that really get nothing right at all, but among those that get a lot wrong there are those whose slightest application in the real world leads to a disaster 100% of the time. From a historical perspective, marxism seems to be a strong candidate for this one, and fascism another.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

Having watched this video/tirade, it would be very easy to accuse Dr. Peterson of the straw man fallacy; for whilst he uses terms like "Marxism" and "postmodernists", he does not theoretically attack any theorists in-themselves (nor has he particularly done so as an academic) but rather attacks some of their in-world followers. For instead of giving arguments here, he provides a tone of condemnation that proclaims that what he is saying is just blatantly right. It's sloppy: all Marxist theory is apparently wrong because of the failures of the USSR and China. All postmodernist theory is apparently wrong because some people today (in his perspective) have used it at the expense of truth. These people deeming "truth" as the standard of legitimation constructed by the powerful to exclude certain types of people from being recognised as having a valid claim to truth (e.g. my identity claim is valid!) or participating in discourse. He's attacking a species of postmodernism and some (only some) of the crude assumptions postmodern theorists make. This, however, doesn't mean that all Marxist theory and postmodernist theory is wrong and that we can't learn and develop insights from it. Like all theory, it is part-right and part-wrong: our jobs as readers is to separate the two. You have conceded your first argument that the radical left Dr Peterson is raging against are not, in large part, a development and lived practice of postmodern theory. Now, you claim that the leftism and postmodernism cannot be conflated as one, which is true. There are leftist positions that precede postmodern theory and leftist positions that are alternative to it. However, Dr. Peterson is centring his attacks on the certain species of radical leftism (most characterised within the LGBT community and feminism) that are rapidly taking hold of western culture in what appears to be one of the biggest cultural movement occurring today.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

I would like to once again advance the idea that postmodernism is largely incompatible with "leftism", relating to Jordan Peterson's use of the word "radical left" in a video untitled "Jordan Peterson on Marxism, Socialism and Postmodernism". In this video, Dr. Peterson first refers to "radical leftists" around the 1:00 mark, and later switches to postmodernist intellectuals, signaling an implicit equivalence between both terms. In short, Dr. Peterson describes postmodernism as grounded in Marxism, which brings him close to TheUnexaminedLife's stance on the matter. Personally, I could not agree more. I would again entirely agree that the radical left makes extensive use of postmodernist methodology. Indeed, the radical Left's theory is basically based on the same "social constructivism" postmodernism is based upon, albeit its radical version. This radical version denies the existence of reality or the ability of humans to perceive any of it, whereas the "casual" version proposes that accessing it might be difficult, but not impossible. If the above is correct, then it is a sufficiently large difference for me to draw a line between postmodernism and the radical left. Although nothing more than a difference in how far the theory is pushed, this difference is not so distant from discussions around, for instance, what makes a patriot a patriot and not a nationalist. In short, I would like to suggest that it might be more accurate to describe the radical left (following Dr. Peterson's use of the word) as "radical postmodernists", rather than postmodernists.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

If you are going to implicitly accuse the latest public intellectual and orator, Jordan Peterson, of conflating "Leftists" and "postmodernists", you have to provide video evidence of this. Indeed you can be a leftist and not believe in postmodern theory, despite postmodernism having an active participatory role in some leftist movements and ideas. If anything Peterson is arguing against replacing social structures and narratives that are useful or hold positive functioning if they cannot be replaced by better (/more truthful or functional) means. Postmodernist thinkers, generally-speaking, find a common ancestor in Marx; and, although this does not necessarily entail that they subscribe to the tenants of Marxism, they nevertheless are grounded by its constitutive structure: that society as it is experienced is determined by underlying causes that people aren't always consciously aware of, and which guides their behaviour to reproduce certain social relations. Where under all this is reality, something to be uncovered and deconstructed, as the structures of how we think and orientate ourselves in the world are revealed as constructs internalised into our unconscious / subconscious from social and group structures. Constructs which are often arbitrary and hierarchical -- thinkers like Foucault implying that we should resist reproducing the status quo and the underlying material and symbolic power relations that frame our everyday actions. So yes, you are right in the sense that postmodernists wouldn't spit on science as mere subjectivity. They would question the value judgements and subjectivity that motivates what kind of research occurs and how it is applied, acknowledging that scientists aren't value-neutral robots without biases. Many leftists too can accept this. You've used general group categorisations like "Leftists" and "postmodernists" as if they were just homogeneous groups: as have I. We should acknowledge this as problematic even if useful for debate.
Leftists are not Postmodernists

My argument is very simple: despite what Jordan Peterson and others on the anti-SJW side have been saying so far, the Progressive Left is not a result of postmodernism. Although my understanding of postmodernism (post-structuralism) is limited, everywhere I have looked it seemed obvious that the postmodern intellectuals - Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, Latour - are as much opposed to Capitalism as they are to Marxism. Consequently, although feminists, BLM, etc often make use of tools very similar to those the postmodernists used, I would argue that the use they are being put to is not that which the postmodernists intended it to be. Where Leftists are all too often rejecting accurate science as a mere social construct, postmodernists would simply point out that scientific research is influenced by its social environment, but would not deny the reality of established scientific facts. One quote that, I think, exemplifies this difference is the following from Bruno Latour, one of the founders of "science studies": "Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?" The field was originally created to help re-orient scientific research when it ignored potential risks to the environment, etc., but "science studies" now serve to deny the existence of differences between men and women. The subject of this debate is therefore very simple: are Leftists a direct consequence of postmodernism, or even postmodernists themselves? My opponent will have to argue for the notion that Leftists are, indeed, postmodernists, while I will argue against it. I hope this discussion will be fruitful!
The US should stop intervening in every little crisis and let countries do for themselves

Your logic is not sound and is in fact immoral. Your suggestion that it is not OK to interfere unless the situation crosses borders is also nonsense. You use Darfur as an example, so I will also use it. There is a slow-motion genocide going on in Darfur. It has already caused cross-border problems (the border with Chad), but that will be put aside. Let's assume it never crossed borders, and that the genocide was geographically restricted. You are saying, with a straight fact I suppose, that it is wrong of the US to intervene even if it is to stop a genocide. I refuse to accept such a morally blind view of reality and the world, and I likewise cringe at the thought of being so callous and undisturbed by the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people...you might say it's not any of our business, but I completely reject such a notion of not only despicable, but tantamount to complicity. The US is the only power on Earth capable of intervening in such situations. We have no legal requirement to intervene, but a moral right exists. Secondly, your implicit assertion that US "interference" begets disaster is not actually clearly exemplified with an examination of history. Compare South Korea (successful, wealthy, democratic) with North Korea (starving, dictatorship) and you can clearly see the results of US "interference". Compare East and West Germany during the 1970's and you can see the results of US "interference". I agree that the US should be cautious in it's actions overseas, and careful to avoid unwelcome results, but your pie-in-the-sky, naive view of the situation is a foolish invitation to disaster.
The US should stop intervening in every little crisis and let countries do for themselves

It has been empirically proven that countries that can take care of their own domestic problems show greater signs of stability and prosperity in the future. The United States' intervention in Kenya, Pakistan, and the Israeli/Palestinian war is going to cause more problems in the future than the present situations. I believe that minimum intervention is OK as long as it is restricted to only humanitarian aid or minimal diplomacy. We should not be going into other countries and tell them how to run their government. That is not democracy because the people lose all say in how they want their country to be run. Our form of government can't work in all countries and we should therefore allow countries to solve and iron out their own political issues. If a crisis such as the one found in Darfur breaks out and spreads to another country, that is when intervention is necessary, but if the violence had stayed in Sudan's borders, then we should never have intervened. It is pure logic that we wouldn't want someone coming into our homes and telling us that because we have a dirty kitchen, we should completely alter the way we live.
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

My opponent says, " My opponent has not shown that surface tempatures are a reliable way to determine global cooling" so I will do so now. Surface temperatures would be a good way to determine global cooling because: 1. The whole globe is cooling (definition of global: of or relating to the whole world; worldwide) The surface is part of the whole world so you would expect it to cool 2. The way sulfur causes cooling is by altering the albedo (reflectivity) of a planet. This means that the sunlight is reflected back into space preventing it from reaching the surface and warming it. In fact, you would expect to see the most cooling at the surface of the planet. How sulfur causes cooling: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... Now I have proven that sulfur caused cooling would be severe on the surface. This goes back to my graph showing how the northern hemisphere warmed slower then the southern (on the surface) indicating a non-sulfur caused cooling effect for the northern hemisphere is more industrialized and if sulfur caused cooling is regional you would expect the most cooling there. Sulfur cooling is regional: https://www.nasa.gov... My opponent, yet again, resorts to attacking sources to try and win the debate. They point out that they have used peer reviewed articles that contradict my arguments and that I have not. The problems with this are: 1. My opponents articles don't contradict my arguments. The only article that is relevant to atmospheric aerosols is this: http://www.nature.com... and it doesn't even address one of my claims nor does it even explain how the mid century cooling period was due to aerosols. 2. All of my sulfate aerosol related links are from NASA which is peer reviewed and trustworthy so my opponents claims of me using untrustworthy sources is false In conclusion, my opponent has given up this debate for he resorts to calling my data cherry picking instead of disclaiming it (even though it is not cherry picking as I explained above you would expect the surface to cool from sulfate aerosols). My opponent has run out of arguments and again tries to attack my sources instead of properly debating my claims. My opponent has not proven anything because I have disproven all of their claims while all of mine go untouched. While this debate was fun, I expected more from my opponent and was disappointed by their "arguments". Thank you for reading
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

"To answer my opponents question, according to Geophysics Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the graph shows the annual mean surface temperature data from the northern and southern hemispheres." epidexipteryx The above is the weak point in my opponent's argument. My opponent has not shown that surface tempatures are a reliable way to determine global cooling. Therefore, my opponent's argument can be dismissed as a red herring and as a cherry picking fallacy. Considering that my peer reviewed article contradicts my opponent's premise while proving my own I have met my burden of proof and should win the debate. I recommend that my opponent stick to peer reviewed journals. My opponent has taken a graph and put his/her own interpretation on the graph. Thanks for debating.
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

My opponent is correct in saying somewhat regionally dependent is not regionally dependent. This does not matter though because the sulfur only caused slight cooling where it is located so if the wind where to blow the sulfur away from industrial areas it would only cause cooling where the sulfur is currently located. This would cause only parts of the world to cool slightly but would not cause a major global cooling. My opponent then says that the southern hemisphere may be downwind of the northern hemisphere but this is speculation and in the link I provided, NASA gave the example of regional cooling as measuring a smokestack from a ship. The most significant cooling was at the smokestack and then as the sulfur aerosols were blown away the cooling became less significant. My opponent then attacks my last graph saying it is not from a peer reviewed article. While it is not from an article, it is from NASA which is peer reviewed. To answer my opponents question, according to Geophysics Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the graph shows the annual mean surface temperature data from the northern and southern hemispheres. My opponent says, " When the debaters cannot agree on the facts, the side with the more credible sources win" yet this is just untrue. If two debaters disagree on facts the side with the better argument wins, whether the other side has been convinced or not. The sources only matter if one side is using false information or sketchy websites that may have incorrect data. If you cant prove that the sources data is incorrect or manipulated then sources should have very little effect on the argument. Overall, I have shown that sulfate aerosols cannot be responsible for a global cooling event. I have described how the sulfate aerosols have a larger effect in the area they were released and how the data from the northern and southern hemispheres do not support the idea of sulfur caused warming. While my opponent uses no evidence to rebut my claims and resorts to attacking sources, I have shown beyond a doubt that sulfur caused cooling is not global and therefore did not cause the mid century cooling period.
Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

My quotes of sources in italics, opponent's arguments in bold and italics, and my arguments in plain text. "Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming. " [1]"The net effect of aerosols is to cool the climate system by reflecting sunlight. " [2]Above is additional evidence that sulfate aerosols caused global cooling.My opponent has made a major contradiction of his/her own statements."NASA says that sulfate aerosols only cause regional cooling. I quote, "...the cooling effect of pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas."https://www.nasa.gov......This means that global cooling could not have been caused by sulfur emissions because sulfur caused cooling is only regional" epidexipteryxSomewhat regionally dependent doesn't not equal regionally dependent. "More evidence would be that the northern hemisphere, which was generally more industrialized then the southern hemisphere, would cool faster if the cooling was due to sulfur emissions. By looking at the temperature trends of the northern and southern hemispheres, we can see that this is not the case." epidexipteryx There was also increased industrial activity in the northern hemisphere that could have heated the northern hemisphere unevenly. Also, the word "downwind" is in your quote, perhaps the southern hemisphere was downwind from the northern hemisphere."Overall, sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling mid century because sulfur only causes regional cooling and the area that we would expect to cool faster did not." epidexipteryx Somewhat regional cooling, as opposed to only causing regional cooling. One more note your, last source is a graph with tempatures. Yet, this graph does not tell us where the tempature is being measured. For example is the upper atomsphere, lower atomsphere, land, ocean surface, deep ocean, or a mean of all these. Without knowing where the tempature is being measured I can only assume that you cherry picked the data. [3] Please use scholarly peer reviewed sources to make sure your data is credible, accurate, and impacts the resolution. Btw I couldn't get the http://a-sceptical-mind.com... link to load. I have used a peer reviewed source that is in contradiction of your statements. When the debaters cannot agree on the facts, the side with the more credible sources win. Voters give me the source points at the very least. Thanks for debating. Sources.1. http://www.livescience.com...2. http://www.nature.com...3. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...