BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unlimited Consciousness

The issue of Consciousness is a perplexing and confusing one and my opponent clearly has some very abstract and deep views on the matter. Defintions Consciousness: This article provides a detail exploration of that the term means, . http://en.wikipedia.org.... My opponet speaks of "individual conscious experience" which is in line with the article and seems like a farly good common sense defintion. Argument 1: Consciousness cannot be either circumscribed or comprehended by intellect or reason Rebuttal Modern science has suggested that in actuality consciousness is an observable and physical aspect of our brains. . http://www.newscientist.com... Section II of this article also categorises consciousness and experience as an understandable function of the brain. . http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk... To quote "Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain. The key notions here are those of cause and feature. As far as we know anything about how the world works, variable rates of neuron firings in different neuronal architectures cause all the enormous variety of our conscious life. All the stimuli we receive from the external world are converted by the nervous system into one medium, namely, variable rates of neuron firings at synapses. And equally remarkably, these variable rates of neuron firings cause all of the colour and variety of our conscious life. The smell of the flower, the sound of the symphony, the thoughts of theorems in Euclidian geometry -- all are caused by lower level biological processes in the brain; and as far as we know, the crucial functional elements are neurons and synapses. " I therefore consider my opponents statement to be invalid. Argument 2: "only individual conscious experience can prove or disprove anything" This is a deeply flawed argument for the following reasons. 1: The issue of halluncinations. "Someone may for instance take hallucenogenic drugs and imagine that they flying or talking to God. Sober companions will not notice either phenomana. It is clear in such an instance that the individual conscious experience can not prove or disprove anything. " 2: False Memory Syndrome. In which the victim 'remembers' (which is an individual concious experience) that which is not true. Such as false memories of sexual abuse or alien adduction. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: Eyewitnesses Clash. Due to simple ignorance or stress the same event may cause conflicting eye witness accounts. There were various conflicting accounts of what struck the pentagon during 9-11. Eyewitnesses variously stated it was a car bomb, a small missile, a missile like plane, a 12 seaer and a boeing 757. Not all these witnesses may be correct. It is therefore clear that individual conscious experiences are not an accurate measue to determne truth at all as all these example would be solved by obtaining third party advice.
You called me fat! WTF!

To affirm the resolution, I shall present evidence that I in fact did call Max.Wallace (Con in this debate) fat. As a bonus I will defend my reason for doing so.Argument:You're fat.With the above contention heading "you're fat" directed at Max.Wallace, there is no doubt that I have called him fat. Burden of Proof met, and resolution affirmed. Con has even conceded the truth of this, with the statement "You called me fat."I Previously Called Con FatFrom a recent debate on con's, as a Reason For Decision I wrote: "Forfeit, and [Max.Wallace]'s only contention is that he ([Max.Wallace]) is too fat to correct his own typing mistakes. What that has to do with the resolution, is quite beyond me" [1]. Notice the word "fat" clearly used in reference to him. During this debate he confesses that he had to work hard to develop this much fat on his fingers "My fat fingers are from hard work."Max.Wallace Calls Himself FatFrom the same debate as the vote is referenced, he wrote: "I did degeneraTE INTO MY WORST HATRED THERE, and pardon the caps, I have fat fingers and they smacked the caps lock accidentally" [2]. Sources:[1] Forth vote. http://www.debate.org...[2] R3, pro. http://www.debate.org...
You called me fat! WTF!

Hey you big perfectly shaped molocko! You called me fat you Snort head. sup wi dat? 6' 200lbs, well built is your fatness sacrifice to your god? I have more muscle mass then you I bet, in sheer mass that is, not related to height, or whatever a legal definition of a fat person is. How would you define a fat person. My fat fingers are from hard work you split head.
Do you Support Sochi's Mass Stray Dog Killings

While they do have the money to provide shelter for them now, what about after the Olympics? The left over will return to the government and the shelters are left without any money to care for the dogs. Even still, they want to have the most grandiose showing of the winter Olympics they can muster up, so all that money is going towards that. Also, shelters can only go so far. A common occurrence over here is shelters becoming overcrowded and dogs getting put down regardless, meaning it could either turn into: Kill them now or kill them later, a veritable damned you do damned if you don't situation. If the people want shelters for the strays of Russia, they'll need to reach into their own pockets.
Do you Support Sochi's Mass Stray Dog Killings

I strongly agree that the dogs shouldn't be poisoned and let them die in the street, I still think that all of them shouldn't be saved. Of course some dogs are too vicious, but the company that is killing them is not singling them out. It would cost much more man power and money to go around and catch all the dogs, provide shelter, medical treatment, and food for the tens of thousands of them. The Sochi olympics have 4 times the budget of Vancouver. They could ask the IOC if they could use some of there 50 billion dollar budget, to shelter the dogs. The whole reason they are being killed in the first place is because of the olympics. Regardless, Sochi has only built one shelter. They are not doing all they can to help these dogs.There has been 20,000 attacks in 2007 in Moscow alone, with 8,000 of them requiring medical attention, (even then a few people died), though the majority of those being the highly aggressive feral dogs. The reason there are so many strays in the first place is because the Russian Federation refuses to build shelters. Extermination is not a solution. Until they build shelters, the amount of feral dogs will keep increasing.While ALL the dogs shouldn't be killed their numbers need thinning, particularly the feral ones. After all, the resourceful strays of Russia are somewhat of an icon now. Which is why they need shelters. Icon or Not, they are still living creatures. Thanks for debating with me, and I wish us both luck Sources---------- http://edition.cnn.com...http://www.passportmagazine.ru...
Do you Support Sochi's Mass Stray Dog Killings

I strongly agree that the dogs shouldn't be poisoned and let them die in the street, I still think that all of them shouldn't be saved. It would cost much more man power and money to go around and catch all the dogs, provide shelter, medical treatment, and food for the tens of thousands of them. There has been 20,000 attacks in 2007 in Moscow alone, with 8,000 of them requiring medical attention, (even then a few people died), though the majority of those being the highly aggressive feral dogs. While ALL the dogs shouldn't be killed their numbers need thinning, particularly the feral ones. After all, the resourceful strays of Russia are somewhat of an icon now.
Do you Support Sochi's Mass Stray Dog Killings

While I have no problem with clearing the streets of dogs, I do have a problem with how Sochi is handling it. Right now, an estimated 5000-7000 dogs have been exterminated by Basya Services. These dogs are dying in inhumane ways, and some could consider this a massacre. Basya Services poisons the dog, letting them roam until they drop, and later picks up the bodies. This is not how dogs should be treated. They should be using the money they're paying the exterminators to make shelters, and encourage people to take in the strays. The sochi government is using the olympics as a cover to exterminate the dogs, which activists prevented the previous year. People should not stand for this kind of inhumane treatment. These dogs deserve a future. Sources----------- http://www.independent.co.uk...;http://www.bostonglobe.com... http://www.nydailynews.com...; http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.thestar.com...;
Animal testing is unjustified.

Umm... I... think... that you have either missed the posting-argument deadline, or really gave up this debate...? (Did you gave up..? :O Anyway, since I have nothing to rebut(Since you didn't post your argument), I'd just like to leave a burden that you'll have to answer in this 4th round. According to the Math/Science Magazine 'Newton', the probability of getting money for 3 consecutive times in a original roulette is 0.1%, while the probability of making a new vaccine from an animal testing is 0.016%. Do you really want to make these little creatures be tied in labs just with this low 'gambling'?
Animal testing is unjustified.

OK, now I got your point about how this computing process is 'useful in predictable circumstances', but I believe you are making a big mistake. First of all, the proposal from the FDA read that 92% of medicines working on testing animals doesn't work on actual human body. Moreover, the US ministry of Agriculture has also mentioned that the diseases which human and animals share the curing method is just about a mere 5%. It is a fallacy to think that testing on living creatures are always the best effective way. Second, as aforementioned, I can provide you plenty of tragedies happened just because of the reliability to animal test results. Firstly, a thalidomide. Made by a German company on 1953, this sedative was selling like hot cakes with the ad 'no side effects to animal testings!' while the late 1950s and the early 1960s, until more than ten thosuands of malformed chidren was born from the pregnant women who took that medicine. On the other hand, a clioquinol, which was a medicine for diarrhea, made thousands of blind people, and led hundreds of them to heaven. Lastly, I would like to remind you that this debate isn't talking about whether the animal testing is economically effective or not; we are debating just about the morality of animal testing and how it is justified or not. So, fighting for the last rounds. :)
Animal testing is unjustified.

Computers are well and good for something that can be predicted but when you are working with something new and unprecedented it is better to stick with something that you know will be 100 percent accurate, and as for Epsikin it has less than 10% of the natural proteins found in skin and even if it had 100 percent of them and functioned perfectly how would we be able to test the drugs effects on the other processes found in the body? The delay you mentioned might be irreversibly fatal and think of all the deaths that could have been prevented if you had just tested it on something with a pulse and in the process probably helped the animal that was tested and the future ones how about the risk of one for the betterment of the many. Plus with all the aforementioned benefits of animal testing money seems like the least of the reasons to continue using this method of testing.
Animal testing is unjustified.

OK, great argument. However, as the opponent has mentioned that ' Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented?', and also asked about the other ways we can test our new medicines, I would like to mention an alternative that would not harm neither human nor animals. First, the Episkin. The Episkin, a manmade skin developed in a science lab, is 99% same as a real human skin, while scientists can also control the dryness of this material, either. The reaction to new substances are not so quick as animals, but it is still highly potential if we think about the invaluable lives of animals. Second, the online experiment using computer programs. We are living in a developed, 'digital information era', which we can use this small and intelligent friend called 'computers'! Why we aren't using this program in the testing process? Just for the quick results and less prices. It is time for us to use 'advanced' computing programs and high-tech materials while testing instead of this inhumane animal-testing act.
Animal testing is unjustified.

OK I understand how you feel sad about how the animals are being treated badly and think that that is immoral, but it is justified. Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented? As well as the benefit to the human race animal testing provides research for other animal vaccines and medicines so that just further invalidates your stance, and one more thing do you have a better idea about how to test our new medicines and chemicals to make sure that they are safe for us and that includes you by the way.
Animal testing is unjustified.

I believe that animal testing is unjustified because of the cruelty of these testings. Most of the animals ends up their lives by being injected unsafe medicines into their body, and only a few percentage of them get a 'special privilege' of being euthanized. For instance, the commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. Moreover, some of the 'endangered' species designated by the CITES are used for animal testing, just for fast results and inexpensive prices. It is high time for us to stop this unneccessary, crazy act in the globe.
Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

I am wanting to debate with someone who truly believes that oil companies receive tax subsidies like Obama and many other members of the media and politics say. My criteria for an opponent: 1. You must really believe this (no devil's advocates) and 2. You must completely understand the definition of a subsidy. Please spend some time Googling that if necessary because a lot of people do not. I just had a frustrating conversation with a friend who for the 3rd time expressed his frustration with the government giving money to these oil companies in subsidies. Each time I explain to him that he is mistaken, he cannot hear me. He will not read what I try to give him. He wants to believe it due to his hatred of most any large company and his lack of knowledge on taxes.
The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry.

Welcome to DDO! I will gladly accept this debate and the definitions. As Pro, I will be arguing that the majority of states do discriminate against gay marriage and as well as the federal government. The first round is usually acceptance, but I see that you have not established a debate procedure and have already stated your contentions. Oh well, it's your first time. Next time you should say the first round is acceptance so people know whether to argue or not in the first round. Before my opponent will expand on his arguments in the second round, I would like to define discriminate.Discriminate: to recognize a distinction; differentiate negativelyIf Pro has any objections to this definition, he must do so in the comments section. I hope for a great debate!
DDO voting system is not fair

My opponent claims "The sole purpose of a debate is to convince the third person."That may be a purpose, but by no means, the sole purpose. I would argue, that that main purpose of a debate is to exchange ideas.Convincing others may be a by-product of a debate, but not the main or sole reason for one.My opponent wants to claim that "a real looking "Reason for Vote" is a reason for vote".That's not true. For example, a voter can easily claim that "pro had better grammar: or "con made a better argument",without being specific. Anybody can make such claims and sound legitimate. That doesn't make it legitimate.My opponent wants to claim that, "DDO voters must have completed three debates. This protects the integrity of the voting system." It may to a small degree, but not by much. It's very easy and quick to open up an account and complete 3 debates. It really does hardly anything to "protect the integrity of DDO"My opponent wants to claim that "A voter could be held accountable through reporting." Unless it's a 7 point vote bomb with no reason for voting, there's not much that can be done.My opponent then contradicts him/herself by saying "Another purpose of a debate is to get people actively involved."So much for debates having a "sole purpose"!Also, my opponent claims, "We are not a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment."I never made that claim, but my opponent seems to be very insecure when it comes to that. I still stand by all of my 5 reasons why the DDO voting system is not fair. My opponent made very weakclaims against my reasons.
DDO voting system is not fair

The sole purpose of a debate is to convince the third person. One of the world"s greatest psychologists, Dale Carnegie, wrote that the way to get the best of an argument was to avoid it. Once the human psych is firmly set in an ideal, no amount of battering from an opponent will dislodge it. However, argumentation will convince the spectator, who is not in the heat of the debate and may take an objective stance. Since the purpose of a debate is to convince the sideliner, the idea to conduct a vote after a debate makes sense. Now that we established that DDO should have a voting system, I will move to establish that the current voting system is fair (or as fair as it can be): Transparency: DDO voters must state the reason of their vote, and comment on the strengths of each debate. All these reasons are displayed to the public. If vote bombs are disguised as real looking "Reason for Vote", then then maybe the voted arguments has its own merit. After all, a real looking "Reason for Vote" is a reason for vote. Integrity: DDO voters must have completed three debates. This protects the integrity of the voting system. Actively participating members of debate.org has a low chance of skewing the results. Pro argues that the vote is not inclusive, as some people do not have a cell phone a high enough elo. But voting is almost always never completely inclusive. The typical vote age is 18, and you typically need to be a resident/citizen of that country. These rules are imposed to protect the integrity of the system. Bias is adjusted: Numerous factors are taken into consideration to adjust for bias. The voting system takes into account whether or not a voter has initially sided with a debater. Sources, argumentation, grammar and conduct are all important factors in a debate. Accountability: A voter could be held accountable through reporting. Another purpose of a debate is to get people actively involved. Most high profile debates (such as the Munk Debates), always counts the support among the audience. Having a pool of judges defeats this purpose. We are not a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment.
DDO voting system is not fair

OK, the debate is: DDO voting system is not fair1. Not everybody can vote. DDO has a system where you have to give out a cell phone number in order to be able to vote. Not everybody has a cell phone.2. It's easy to get all your friends to vote for you. If you have a ton of friends, you can get then to vote for you and win every time.3. Vote bombs can be disguised with a real looking "Reason for Vote". 4. You can set the elo so only certain people can vote. I don't see how that's fair, unless you set it so high that nobody can vote.5. It's who votes, not what they vote. Sometimes you can lose a debate, just because a random person comes along and votes. So votes are random more than meaningful. What they should do is have a pool of judges that are verified to be non-biased. Every debate should get 5 judges to vote from the pool of judges, so every debate gets 5 voters that are non biased. Instead, they have just random voters that can be biased. Not very fair.
Gay peaople should get married.

The primary arguments that I will focus on during this round shall be as follows: Same-sex marriage denies children a parent of a particular gender, and the legalization of same-sex marriage can lead to various other legal issues such as polygamy and bestiality My first argument is as follows: same-sex marriage denies children a parent of a particular gender, which can be detrimental to their development and/or well being. For example, the lack of a father figure greatly increases the chances of early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy among females (1). Children with single parents also have greater chances of developing cognitive, social, and emotional problems (2). Do we really want to let our children suffer for political decisions made today? If same-sex marriage is legalized, within a few generations society will fall into a state of chaos. Bruce J. Ellis, "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy? ", Child Development, May 2003 . http://gaymarriage.procon.org... Paul R. Amato, "Marriage and Child Wellbeing", The Future of Children, 2005 . http://futureofchildren.org... I continue my case with my second argument that same-sex marriage can lead down a slippery slope to other issues such as polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality. Proponents of these sorts of relationships will use the successes of same-sex marriage (if same-sex marriage is allowed) to advocate their own position. After all, if two adults of the same gender are allowed to marry, who is to prevent three or four or five from doing the same (1)? It was not so long ago that the state of Utah was forced to abolish polygamy in order for its admittance to the Union. Is it now poised to amend its Constitution to revive this practice that is still much more prevalent than many believe (2)? It is only a matter of time after same-sex marriage is legalized that the legalization of the aforementioned issues will follow. Jillian Keenan, "Legalize Polygamy! ," Slate. com, Apr. 15, 2013 . http://www.slate.com... "Do We Really Want to Redefine Marriage," www. floppingaces. net, Aug. 11, 2010 . http://floppingaces.net... Same-sex marriage does not only hurt our society, but hurts our society as a whole, and should not be legalized.
Gay peaople should get married.

I accept this challenge. As my opponent has not seen it fit to define the proposition of "Gay peaople should get married', I will assume it to mean that 'Gay people should be able to get married'. I will define 'gay people' as two individuals of the same gender that are sexually attracted to one another and marriage as the acquisition of a legal marriage contract. If my opponent has any qualms with my terms, I beseech him/her to bring them up in the upcoming round, otherwise I will assume that the terms I have laid out here are the ones that my opponent had in mind when creating this challenge and are acceptable.