BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
newbies need a debate.org tutorial

If you want to be super concise, then I will be also.1. The hurry is that we don't know how long people will stay interested in the site. Get them while we still have their attention.2. You completely ignored my idea and gave no reason your idea was better. Honestly reading 5-10 full debates is just as time consuming as a tutorial.3. Some people need acclimation to new surroundings and you want everyone to be perfect after one debate. I fail to see how you plan to accomplish such a powerful tutorial that people automatically know higher logic after taking it. Seriously. Instead just challenge serious people and stop debating newbies. Your fault for not taking the initiative.4. Wow, sorry to find out you want to put the minimum effort in. I'm tying this in with the final point. If Juggle will not put this tutorial in, then the only remaining option is to teach newbies indvidually. If you want to hide behind other people's work to build a tutorial that has no guarantee of working, then you should be the one to suffer for your own laziness. If you really care about the issue, do something about it, don't appeal to Juggle to fix it for you because they won't. I want to say this to the voters. This debate has become an attempt to make Juggle recognize a need on this site, and not really a debate about the merits of a tutorial (Like the resolution required). My opponent has proved that through his responses he just gave.
newbies need a debate.org tutorial

1. The Great Conversation dictates that everyone is able to participate in it. Can't you do a small tutorial with flashing signs that show you how to start and do a debate? What's the hurry? 2. You are seeing this the wrong way. Okay, a tutorial with flashing signs that shows pro/con, how to start a debate, notifications, and voting. That is simple enough, consumes less time and will make sure no debate is wasted. 3. If you want a serious debate with a serious debater challenge a specific person. Well, all debates need to be serious and have at least some meaningful arguments. I don't want the opponent taking the wrong side and the debate being wasted. With a tutorial, number of wasted debates would decline. 4. If nothing else, help educate the newbie you are debating on how the site works. Yeah right, I have no other work to do at all. I am free for educating the world how to use such a simple site. Yes, paste the rules in all of my debates, why not. 5. Finally, you and I both know Juggle is not going to do it. Still, it is needed.
newbies need a debate.org tutorial

I accept this debate and I am glad my opponent hopefully wants to bring clarity to the universe one debate at a time.Now let me address your argument. I first of all can see where you come from having done about 15 debates on this site. But I disagree with you. Some reasons why.1. The Great Conversation dictates that everyone is able to participate in it.Plato theorized that one of the most important things that humanity could engage in was the great conversation on the meaning of existence itself and the exploration through logical thought of our meaning for existing. This discourse of ideas, is obviously what this site, debate.org, stands for. Now one thing that is important to understand is that anyone can participate in this discourse, because the only requirement is to have a knowledge of what it means to be human. Obviously, humans are the best source for that. It doesn't matter if they are broken humans or whole ones, they still can participate and bring insightful meaning to this conversation.The impact of this argument is that whatever newbies say on serious debates, you should take seriously because they are trying their hardest to provide significant meaning to the Great Conversation. So stop being patronising towards the new people on the site and acting like their opinions aren't worth anything.2. You are seeing this the wrong way.Instead of making them debate a bot, I propose they view 10 debates before they can create their own debate. That way they can get an idea for how the serious people on this site operate. A bot will not show them how to be unique on this site, but watching some debates will.3. If you want a serious debate with a serious debater challenge a specific person.Why not create a forum topic where you ask for many people to suggest serious topics they will debate you on, then you send them the challenges? That completely eliminates any trolls and/or newbies from taking the debate. I feel like this is a fail in foresight on your part, not on the people who accept your open challenges.If you ask for an open challenge, prepare to have it hijacked is all I am saying. But if you make your challenges confined to a rank/criteria, or you make the challenge specific to one user, you get around the problem.4. If nothing else, help educate the newbie you are debating on how the site works.It seems to me like this is a complaint that you have with the people on the site, and not the site itself. If that is the case, why can't you create a quick "read me" tutorial in Microsoft Word then grab that and paste it into an argument with a newbie so that they understand how to debate correctly? Why haven't you done that? If you do that, you save yourself a lot of hassle.5. Finally, you and I both know Juggle is not going to do it.This is self-explanatory. You have to put in the work, because from all I hear being a relative newcomer, Juggle abandoned the site long ago. So really, just stop complaining and come up with a creative solution.With these points I await my opponent's response.
I will not contradict myself

"First of all, both of these answers are wrong(because you answered neither yes nor no)..." False. I answered neither yes nor no, so it is correct to say that I didn't answer no. Not answering no is not the same thing as answering yes. As for the "contradictory" answers, I didn't answer no, so "Didn't you answer no?" would be "Yes," and "Did you answer no?" would be "No." It's simple as that. Adding "not" to a question naturally requires that the answer be negated, turning the "No" into "Yes." The typical treatment of both questions as the same is an illogical social custom that I choose not to follow, but I am not required to follow it, so there isn't a contradiction. Finally, my opponent criticizes my use of "seY" instead of "Yes." However, while he was supposed to ask a Yes/No question, he asked "?dnatsrednu uoy oD". This can only be considered a Yes/No question if the backwards style of writing is considered acceptable. Rule 2 requires answers to be Yes, No, or an explanation, but note the lack of quotation marks. I need not literally say "Yes" or "No," but a sufficient variant of them. In response to a backwards question, "seY" would sufficiently substitute Yes. In conclusion, I have not contradicted myself at all. Thank you, tvellalott, for this debate, and to the voters for reading this debate.
I will not contradict myself

"I'm unsure what contradiction my opponent is trying to point out, if anything. May I ask for a bit of a clarification as to how my answers contradict each other?" "1.7) If you answer question 1.1 with a NO, will you answer 1.3 with YES?" I haven't read those questions yet, so honestly, I have no idea. Q:2.8) In question 1.7, did you answer no? A:2.8) No. Q:2.10) In question 1.7, didn't you answer no? A:2.10) Yes Sorry, I forgot the A:2.8 bit. First of all, both of these answers are wrong(because you answered neither yes nor no), which I suppose doesn't really matter. However, both 2.8 and 2.10 are the same question, yet you've answered differently. Let me put them into context... Did you eat my cake? No. I didn't eat it. Didn't you eat my cake? Yes. I ate it. For you to have not contradicted yourself, you would have had to meant... Did you eat my cake? No. I didn't eat it. Didn't you eat my cake? Yes. I didn't eat it. Also, you haven't refuted that you contradicted your own rules in round two... ' Rule number two clearly states: "In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." yet, he answered 1.8 with ".seY", which is not "Yes" or "No" and is definately not an explanation. To ensure that this wasn't cheating, I asked in question 1.9 if this was cheating, and he answered "No." '
I will not contradict myself

I'm unsure what contradiction my opponent is trying to point out, if anything. May I ask for a bit of a clarification as to how my answers contradict each other? "3.1) Have you read the Twilight books?" No. "3.2) Have you watched 'The Road'?" "3.3) Do you like long walks on the beach?" That would depend on the beach, the weather, the length of the walk, etc. "3.4) Do you like lions better than tigers?" Yes. "3.5) If it tastes like chicken should you keep on lickin'?" Whether or not you should keep on lickin' is irrelevant to whether or not it tastes like chicken in most instances that I can think of. A specific scenario is necessary for a better answer. "3.6) If I jump forward three times, do a side wheels cartwheel then moonwalk for 8 seconds, will people think I'm crazy?" I don't know. I can't predict the reactions of other people with 100% certainty. "3.7) Will you accept my apologies for not coming up with some better questions?" Yes. "3.8) If you had read the Twlight books, would you lie about it?" No. "3.9) Would you lie about lying?" No. "3.10) A man is hanging from a rope in the middle of a room, with nothing but a puddle on the floor. Is it possible he died from natural causes?" Yes.
I will not contradict myself

My french "Do you love cheese" and spanish "Do you hate cheese" thing didn't work, but.... "1.7) If you answer question 1.1 with a NO, will you answer 1.3 with YES?" I haven't read those questions yet, so honestly, I have no idea. Q:2.8) In question 1.7, did you answer no? Q:2.10) In question 1.7, didn't you answer no? A:2.10) Yes. That's about all I've got to go on... That isn't really a yes or a no answer. Anywho.. (Even I can't work out what the right answer to 2.2 is :P) ----------------- 3.1) Have you read the Twilight books? 3.2) Have you watched "The Road"? 3.3) Do you like long walks on the beach? 3.4) Do you like lions better than tigers? 3.5) If it tastes like chicken should you keep on lickin'? 3.6) If I jump forward three times, do a side wheels cartwheel then moonwalk for 8 seconds, will people think I'm crazy? 3.7) Will you accept my apologies for not coming up with some better questions? 3.8) If you had read the Twlight books, would you lie about it? 3.9) Would you lie about lying? 3.10) A man is hanging from a rope in the middle of a room, with nothing but a puddle on the floor. Is it possible he died from natural causes?
I will not contradict myself

2.1) I am unsure what language the question is in, and therefore, I cannot answer it adequately. 2.2) Yes. 2.3) Yes. 2.4) No. 2.5) No. 2.6) I am unsure what language the question is in, and therefore, I cannot answer it adequately. 2.7) Yes. 2.8) No. 2.9) No. 2.10) Yes.
I will not contradict myself

I tried very hard to confuse my opponent, and he did very well... HOWEVER, rule number two clearly states: "In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." yet, he answered 1.8 with ".seY", which is not "Yes" or "No" and is definately not an explanation. To ensure that this wasn't cheating, I asked in question 1.9 if this was cheating, and he answered "No." Here are the next round of questions... 2.1) Vous aimez le fromage? 2.2) Don't you dislike not having pizza without pineapple? 2.3) Are you sure this isn't cheating? >:) 2.4) Did you understand what happened at the end of the third Matrix movie? 2.5) Do you wish someone else has accepted this challenge? 2.6) ti odio formaggio? 2.7) Does this count as a question? 2.8) In question 1.7, did you answer no? 2.9) Do you find me attractive? 2.10) In question 1.7, didn't you answer no?
I will not contradict myself

"1.7) If you answer question 1.1 with a NO, will you answer 1.3 with YES?" I haven't read those questions yet, so honestly, I have no idea. "1.1) If you answer question 1.6 with YES, will you have to change the answer to question 1.4?" No. "1.9) Is this cheating?" No. "1.4) Did you answer question 1.6 with a Yes?" No. "1.2) Does the wood chuck chuck wood?" I don't know. I'm not aware of the wood chuck. "1.5) Are you getting confused?" Yes. "1.8) ?dnatsrednu uoy oD" .seY "1.3) Did you know that the answer to question 1.2 will affect the answer to question 1.6?" No, I did not know that. "1.10) Do you like pineapple on pizza?" No. "1.6) If you answer question 1.10 with a NO, does that conflict with answering YES to question 1.8?" No.
I will not contradict myself

Ok here goes: 1.7) If you answer question 1.1 with a NO, will you answer 1.3 with YES? 1.1) If you answer question 1.6 with YES, will you have to change the answer to question 1.4? 1.9) Is this cheating? 1.4) Did you answer question 1.6 with a Yes? 1.2) Does the wood chuck chuck wood? 1.5) Are you getting confused? 1.8) ?dnatsrednu uoy oD 1.3) Did you know that the answer to question 1.2 will affect the answer to question 1.6? 1.10) Do you like pineapple on pizza? 1.6) If you answer question 1.10 with a NO, does that conflict with answering YES to question 1.8?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. 12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent. Good luck.
Philosophical Idealism (Pro) vs. Realism (Con)

I got little disappointed. I will keep this round short."The first step on the realist path is to recognize that one has always been a realist; the second is to recognize that, however hard one tries to think differently, one will never manage to,; the third is to realize that those who claim they think differently, think as realists as soon as they forget to act a part. If one then asks oneself why, one's conversion to realism is all but complete." Etienne Gilson, http://inters.org...;"Experience precedes thoughts." Tahir Imanov (me)"Consciousness is a faculty of awareness which means that it could not be aware of anything unless there was something independent of consciousness to be aware of." http://www.gavinjensen.com...
Philosophical Idealism (Pro) vs. Realism (Con)

Rebuttals I shall now respond to my opponent’s arguments. "Outside the philosophy club, people assume Realism (even if they are unaware of subject [sic] of Philosophical Realism). And inside the club only [a] handful [of] people are idealists..." I fail to see what bearing this has on the debate. Appealing to the beliefs of the majority is fallacious, and the assumptions of most people are no indicator of the truth of a statement. "While one can argue, ontologically Idealism, such as Theistic Idealism is more sound, because it only assumes existence of (One) mind, while Realism assumes existence of both mind and material. However, it doesn't simplify things, but rather complicates. The new entity is introduced, (The Great Mind, if you will). And with new entity comes its attributes and properties, which have to be addressed, while being unobservable." Con's point is based on a false premise, and that is that idealism necessitates the existence of some sort of "Great Mind." Although a belief of this type would certainly constitute an idealistic belief system, idealism as defined in this debate can involve the existence of any mind, "great" or not. So idealism is in fact the simpler theory because it only has to explain the existence of one mind--no entities have been added from realism. Realism has to explain the existence of that mind plus external entities, their interactions with each other, and their interactions with other minds. Electron Argument Con again misrepresents idealism in that his list is incomplete or inaccurate. Explanation A seems to me the most logical possibility, but Con insists that for idealism to be true "reality" must be a complete creation or construction of the mind. This goes against our definitions, which define realism as "[the belief that] things exist, and have certain properties independent of anyone's belief, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and etc. So, things exist, and their existence is independent (of human mind)." All I have to do to prove realism false under these definitions is to prove that physical phenomena are not independent from mental phenomena. This is easily provable due to the widely accepted Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Under this theory, a system does not have definite properties prior to being observed; that is, the act of observing or measuring the properties of an entity will “change,” for lack of a better word, the outcome of an investigation. This means that the act of perceiving, a mental function, influences the properties of physical entities. Therefore physical phenomena are dependent upon mental phenomena, and vice versa, proving realism false. I believe that concludes my rebuttals. Over to Con now! :)
Philosophical Idealism (Pro) vs. Realism (Con)

1. IN THE BEGINNING (Introduction)Realism in a nutshell, can be defined as, things exist, and have certain properties independent of anyone's belief, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and etc. So, things exist, and their existence is independent (of human mind).2. THE SIMPLER ONE IS USUALLY BETTER In contrast to Idealism, Realism is simpler, and intuitive. Outside the philosophy club, people assume Realism (even if they are unaware of subject of Philosophical Realism). And inside the club, only handful people are idealists (according to PhilPapers, 4.2% are idealists, while 81.6% are non-sceptical realists).While one can argue, ontologically Idealism, such as Theistic Idealism is more sound, because it only assumes existence of (One) mind, while Realism assumes existence of both mind and material. However, it doesn't simplify things, but rather complicates. The new entity is introduced, (The Great Mind, if you will). And with new entity comes its attributes and properties, which have to be addressed, while being unobservable.Humans, by their inate nature, are realists, they later choose to be idealists. 3. THERE IS ONLY ONE ELECTRONAll electrons are identical, scientists, data and mathematics will say that. There are two explanations. First is simple one, electrons exist and they have same properties. That's why every time we observe them, get same results. The second one is Idealism, which can be divided into equally valid and unfalsifiable subcategories:A. Only I exist Only my mind exist and I constructed this "reality" in my mind in a such way that every outcome will be consistent. B. Grand Network of BrainsAs name suggests, all minds are connected and they agree to produce consistent results.C. The Great MindOnly one mind (Deity) exists and everything is a grand play in this mind.Which one is true?This argument is not only true for electrons, but also can be used for everything, such as why ice floats, why pi (π) always same and etc.4. IS 7 PRIME? (Conclusion)Realism means there are things which exist, and they are neither minds not ideas in minds. It is simple, inate and intuitive. Earth revolves around the Sun, even if I say it doesn't. -----Sources 1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism2. britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy3. fragments.consc.net/djc/2010/11/more-philpapers-survey-results.html4.commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371 (survey results, and links)5. britannica.com/topic/theistic-idealism6. philosophyterms.com/realism7. io9.gizmodo.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particle
Philosophical Idealism (Pro) vs. Realism (Con)

This debate is for the DDO Beginner's Tournament. I shall be challenging tahirimanov to this debate. Philosophical idealism is defined as "the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. " Realism is defined as "the belief that some aspects of reality are ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. "
School Uniforms

Thank you for such a swift response Pro. I would like to point out to the voters that Pro has his entire argument based off of personal experience, showing no valid proof of any Pro's to a dress code. For the sake of argument, let's compare two students. Student number one goes to a Public school, while Student Two goes to a private school, which enforces school uniforms. Student one goes annual shopping for clothes with his mother, and what he pays are listed here. 2 new jeans (most older ones still fit, as growth stops in the late teen years [1]) - 36.00 [2] 3 new Aeropostale shirts- 36.00 [3] 1 pair of tennis shoes- 30.00 (Nike) [4] School Supplies- 90.00 [5] For the sake of argument and my terrible ability with math, I have left taxes out of the equation, and the total amount spent for non-uniformed school students comes out to be 192.00 a year per child. Now lets travel to the other child who lives in the same neighborhood (for sake of argument), but instead of the public school, his parents send him to private school, where uniforms are enforced. 3 new slacks (dress code again changed for the school, and khakis cannot be worn with the uniform now)- 120.00 [6] 3 new dress shirts to follow dress code-60.00 [7] (this is not counting a tie, because some private schools do not require it) 1 pair of dress shoes- 45.00 [8] School supplies- 90.00 Now as you can see, we have already spent much more money than the public school non-uniformed student, and we haven't even gotten to the tuition yet. Average Private School Tuition- 8,549 [9] (This is an average, it may be different from your neck of the woods.) Now we are up to a whopping $8,864 spent on the private school. Now I do understand that not every year the dress code will change as stated in my example, I am simply using it in my argument to show how something like that could lead the family to have to spend more money. [1]. http://www.chartsgraphsdiagrams.com... [2]. http://www.walmart.com... [3]. http://www.aeropostale.com...= [4]. http://www.shoes.com... [5].http://www.nrf.com... [6]. http://www.jcpenney.com... [7]. http://www.josbank.com... [8]. http://www.shoebuy.com...-{keyword} [9]. http://www.edreform.com...