BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free will is an illusion

Free will is merely an illusion. I understand that this is disturbing to many and will cause a visceral, adversarial reaction in some. It is disturbing for people to be told that they are not, have never been, and will never be in control of the wants that arise in consciousness and therefore the consequent actions. I blame no one for succumbing to the illusion of free will - the feeling that in any given circumstance, one could have chosen otherwise. Most people want to believe that their good deeds have merit and their morally praiseworthy actions are in fact morally praiseworthy. However, even a cursory examination reveals that this simply cannot be a condition that any logical person supposes.One cannot control what it is that they want - they cannot dictate their own impulses and tendencies. We have no idea what we intend to do until that intention itself comes into existence. In no way is it possible to be the author of one's own conscious desires. Perhaps you can decide what you will do next, but you certainly cannot decide what you will decide to do. "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star." - Albert Einstein "The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." - Bertrand Russell “How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware?” - Sam Harris "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur Schopenhauer There are, of course, many deep implications of this - for the justice system, religion, morality, etc. However, that is not what I wish to debate here. I simply wish to contend that free will is a mere illusion in our current reality.
Free will is an illusion

Hi Bernardsteapot,A great topic of conversation. Perhaps we should get clear on a definition of free will? I'm open to you providing a definition. Otherwise, I propose:An act is free if it was caused by the reasons of the agent, and the agent could have chosen otherwise.I will start by providing four arguments for free will:Argument 1: Common Sense Intuition: Humans appear to have choice, so the burden of proof lies on those disputing what is experienced as true by billions.Argument 2: An ought implies a can, and a cannot implies an ought not. Without free will, the agent cannot control what it does, so cannot be held morally responsible. Hence moral responsibility fails. And, without moral responsibility, the reactive attitudes such as praise, blame, contempt, admiration, lack foundation as well.Argument 3: In general, evolutionary processes select for traits with adaptive benefit to the organism. The appearance of free will, if lacking causal efficacy, will have no adaptive benefit. So, probably, evolutionary processes would not select for organisms wasting resources generating epiphenomenal experiences of choice.Argument 4: beliefs are considered knowledge when reasons cause those beliefs, and not considered knowledge when blind processes cause those beliefs. If free will is false, the beliefs of knowers do not cause the conclusions of knowers, rather, those beliefs are caused by blind microphysical processes determined to occur prior to birth. So, humans would have no knowledge. So, those who know free will is false would not know that. So, the belief that free will is false is self-stultifying.Now, on to some of the concerns you raised. You say 'one cannot control what it is that they want'. Why not? I wanted to debate this topic with you. This 'want' to debate the free will issue was created over the course of many years of thinking about what I value in life, and acting in ways that shape my character to want to debate issues. Why did I have no control in any of this?You say 'we have no idea what we intend to do until that intention itself comes into existence'. Why not? I could have guessed beforehand that I would have intended to accept your debate before I saw your debate was open. As we become self-aware, we become more knowledgeable and accurate about what we would choose to do in different situations. It was not random that I accepted this free will debate. If randomness ruled, I may have opened up the section on 'Movies' and debated whether Star Wars is good or not. No, my intentions quite regularly follow logically from my character.From the quotes you provided, I presume you operate within the Sam Harris school of thinking: our conscious intentions are the result of unconscious, uncontrolled processes. Please clarify if that is your view. Harris is not entirely correct on this, but I don't want to get into it if that is not your argument.
Long Solitary Confinement Sentences

Long solitary confinement sentences are not beneficial for two main reasons they are unconstitutional and they do more bad than good for people. First they are unconstitutional in the 8th amendment it states that no unusual or cruel punishment can be carried out. I have a few questions to ask the voters is it cruel to keep someone in a room the size of 6ft x 8ft x 10ft, is it unusual that they spend 23 hours in that room. It is cruel and unusual to keep someone alone in a small room only other person there is there mind that at any moment can break and never by fixable. It also does more bad than good for people. The whole point of prison is to punish and return the prisoners back to the population of the world. What happens if a bad person goes there and comes out worse than before. It has been proven that going in long sentences of solitary confinement can lead to psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis. How can a person feel save knowing that someone who went to the jail sick came out sicker. Sources . http://www.usconstitution.net... . http://www.jaapl.org...
Long Solitary Confinement Sentences

Long solitary confinement sentences are extremely beneficial because it is extremely dangerous for others to be see or even be close to the person in solitary confinement because if the person did not recieve solitary confinement for his crimes against the state then he might plot a mass murder because he can see his surroundings and it would make it extremely easy for him to take note off his surroundings to make sure it goes successfully.
Midna vs Fi; Fi would win

I look forward to answering this question conclusively. Now, let's go over Fi's abilities:Strength: Fi has not been shown of any physical strength outside of Hyrule Warriors, where she sends enemies flying by attacking them (which isn't exclusive to this character). Fi's main methods of attack are light magic, transforming into the Goddess Sword, and kicks. Durability: Fi hasn't been shown of any durability feats outside of Hyrule Warriors. Agility: Fi can fly and warp. Her fighting style in Hyrule Warriors resembles something like ice skating. She seems to be pretty nimble like this, though not very high levels. Abilities:Goddess Sword; Fi can turn into the Goddess Sword in Hyrule Warriors, which she slashes her opponents. When in her sword form, she can point skyward to gain light energy, which makes her stronger. She could also unleash this energy with a Skyward Slash, a projectile. High intelligence; Numerous times in Skyward Sword, Fi's been said to be very smart. She can calculate probability, best course of action, and even assess an enemy's weakness using "Fi captioning". Dousing; Fi can track auras using her dowsing ability. She can probably find anything, especially Midna. Light Attacks; Fi attacks using the element of light in Hyrule Warriors. This can include ramming into enemies, creating an exploding orb, or creating a symbol below herself which damages enemies. Equipment:Fi has no real equipment. So what does Midna have going for her? Let's find out.
Midna vs Fi; Fi would win

LEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE ACCEPTING! It's about time I made another Death Battle debate, where we pit fighters against each other to see who would win. This is a favorite of mine: Could Midna from Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, defeat Fi from Skyward Sword? It's a battle of Light vs Dark/Twilight. Rules: 1. For this debate, we'll be using the characters as portrayed in Hyrule Warriors. Midna's her imp form, and able to summon Twilight Wolves (though I'll limit her to be able to have 3 out at a time). Fi is able to become the Goddess Sword. 2. Any information from the Legend of Zelda games is also valid. Any feats from Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword will be considered in this debate. 3. Aside from Midna's Twilight Wolves, no outside help can be granted. Only Midna (with the wolves) and Fi can fight. 4. No gimmicks from Hyrule Warriors will be considered in this debate. This means no Focus Spirit, no Weak Point Gauges, and Special Meters won't be a thing. 5. In case it wasn't obvious, these two are fighting. I'm not arguing that Fi's a better character. I'm arguing that Fi is able to defeat Midna in a fight. 6. We'll be arguing from 5 different stats; Strength (Physical and Magical), Agility, Durability, Abilities (any powers they have), and Equipment (Referring to Midna's Fused Shadows, mainly). 7. You have 48 hours to make an argument when accepting. Only accept this if you really like Death Battles. Round 1 is acceptance. I'll be arguing that Fi would win. If you'd rather have me argue that Midna would win, let me know in the comments before accepting.
The moon landings were possible.

Firstly, when standing on the moon, there would only be one light source, the sun, meaning that all shadows should be pointing in the same direction. However, if you go over the footage, they are not. Some people would argue that light reflected off of mountains and hills on the moon. However, it does not make sense how the shadows are so different. Secondly, I think we all knew this argument was coming. When the American flag on the moon's surface, it rippled. This does not make sense as there is no wind on the moon due to a lack of atmosphere. Finally, when we look at the background of any shot/scene, we should see an abundance of stars or at least something other than black nothingness. There is not atmosphere to cloud the stars so it should be very easy to see them. However, we do not. Some, including NASA, argue that the cameras were very low quality and could not pick up the background details. However, this lacks credibility and the technology was around at the time. I, and many others, would argue that NASA left the stars out because they could not map the position of the stars accurately and that some people would point out the mistakes.
There should be no salary cap in sports

"Meanwhile the Red Sox have guided away from huge contracts and haves made the playoffs really the only two teams that spend a lot are the yankees and the dodgers"I agree b the Red Sox have moved away from huge contracts recently. Aso you should of defined what you mean by "huge contracts. " Were you referring to annual salary alone or the amount gained from a contract cumulatively. "also orioles and nationals are two very good teams right now Washington has maybe the best pitcher and outfielder in the game and Baltimore just made the playoffs and are still competing for a berth and have the best home run hitter in baseball "That is Pro's opinion. I tend to think otherwise. Pro and I can debate this another time if he wishes. I wouldn't mind it because I have enjoyed this debate. "also Oakland is one of the best teams and there payroll last year was so low "What do you mean by their payroll was low last year? "the World Series winner the Red Sox used the moneyball system and since using it have won 3 World Series"Agreed. "also the most exciting off season is the mlb because many teams have no restrictions but the nfl offseason is boring"This is also Pro's opinion. I tend to disagree with this as well. We can debate it another time. All the points I provided in Round 1 stand as is. Also my opponent seemed to stop advocating the resolution at some point in this debate if you have been following. Here are the points again:1. Salary caps makes sports more competitive.2. Salary Caps lead to higher ratings, higher ratings lead to higher profits.3. Salary caps are fair. I would like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate. I found it a bit fun. Also thank you, the voters and observers who took the time to read this debate. Voters, read thoroughly as you wish and vote at you as you see fit.
There should be no salary cap in sports

Meanwhile the Red Sox have guided away from huge contracts and haves made the playoffs really the only two teams that spend a lot are the yankees and the dodgers also orioles and nationals are two very good teams right now Washington has maybe the best pitcher and outfielder in the game and Baltimore just made the playoffs and are still competing for a berth and have the best home run hitter in baseball also Oakland is one of the best teams and there payroll last year was so low and the World Series winner the Red Sox used the moneyball system and since using it have won 3 World Series also the most exciting off season is the mlb because many teams have no restrictions but the nfl offseason is boring
There should be no salary cap in sports

A salary cap doesn't not let teams play into strengths and it is not true that the Yankees and Red Sox will make the playoffs look at Oakland they make the playoffs and Boston used Billy Beane system to win their championships meanwhile the Yankees did not even make the playoffs this year despite having the highest payroll and I would argue that teams who build with cheap prospects can be good also the nfl makes more ratings just because the sport is more popular however whenever you get a team that doesn't spend much and wins ratings are huge and not always does the best players go to the best teams because if the draft and building through prospects two of the best pitchers in the mlb Jose Fernandez and Matt Harvey are on losing teams also teams run a large risk in big contracts look at arod who is right now killing the Yankees and football despite a salary cap some teams are never good and some teams are always good
There should be no salary cap in sports

It should be fun. As Con I will be arguing that there should be a salary cap. Pro has the burden of proof to show why the salary caps should be removed from sports entirely. A salary cap is fair unlike Pro would have you believe. By definition, my opponent is urging sports to become more unfair by getting rid of the salary[1]. Some teams would have a big advantage over others due to the amount of money they have available to be spent. How is that fair? Fair:"treating people in a way that does not favor some over others"[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...A salary cap limits the amount of money being spent on players, coaches, and staff. This makes sports more fair. Teams can not monopolize all the quality players, coaches, and staff. That is fair. Here is my opening argument about why salary caps should not be removed:1. Salary caps makes sports more competitive. Let's compare what sports with the salary cap versus the sports with the luxury tax. The NFL had a hard salary cap and the MLB has a luxury tax. The NFL is far more competitive without doubt[2]. Teams stand a better chance b a long shot. It is common knowledge in Major League Baseball that the Yankees and Boston Red Sox will be playoff teams[3]. While other teams are known at the very beginning of the season that they will not make the playoffs. This is not competitive if it can easily be predicted who is going and who is not before baseball season even starts. With no salary cap it removes the competitive edge of the sport. People want to watch sports that are competitive. [2]. http://bleacherreport.com...[3]http://www.weei.com...2.Salary Caps lead to higher ratings, higher ratings lead to higher profits. I said in point #1 salary caps make sports more competitive. Competitive sports tend to have higher ratings. Those higher ratings will lead to higher profits due to advertising and sales. Even the bad NFL teams gain higher ratings than good MLB teams[4]. There is more money to be made in sports that are competitive, unpredictable, and that have a slary cap than those without a salary cap. No salary cap means lower ratings because the sport has become more predictable with who is going to win after the best people are hired with ease. [4]. http://www.awfulannouncing.com...3.Salary caps are fair. I described this above.
(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

not gory------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> http://www.youtube.com... the debate should focus on sentient animals, such as a dog or a sheep. we will define sentient as, "animals with a functioning nervous system." this definition excludes creatures, such as a jelly fish, with no nervous system. i would also like to define the word humanely as "having or showing compassion or benevolence" argument #1: animals should be treated humanely, outside of euthanasia there is no way to humanely kill an animal. argument #2: many sentient animals such as cows and chickens are social creatures. cows have been known to morn the loss of a loved one, especially the loss of there young for veal. chickens live in flocks where there is a complex pecking order. they are known to "fell loss" when a member of there flock dies. dogs (eaten widely in china) have also been known to mourn, pet dogs have been observed sticking by there dead owners grave. this grieving would also apply to wild dogs. argument #3: sentient animals feel fear. reference video. fear is a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, however the animal does not need to be in actual danger in order to feel this emotion. this can bee seen in bull fighting, rodeos, fishing and hunting. just as there are countless things that can make a human scared there are countless things that can make an animal scared. fear is an evolutionary feature.
(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

I accept. Before Pro makes his first argument, I would like make a few things clear. In my quote “I extend no rights...” rights is just a word. I had recently come to the realization that natural rights, in fact, do not exist; that is where the opinion came from. If Pro had read my opinion on abortion, he would have seen my answer to his rhetorical baby question – yes, one should not be legally obliged to not kick a baby in the face if no one is willing to stand for the baby’s rights. This does NOT mean, however, that I approve of kicking a baby in the face. In fact, I would be the very one to stand for its rights to not be kicked. For the purposes of this debate, I will present a few definitions to go off of: 1. "Rights" shall be defined as certain events that a biological entity are entitled to or can commit without artificial retaliation. For example, welfare is an entitlement right of all humans in the U.S., since the government guarantees you welfare if you request it and meet the standards, while speech is not an entitlement right, since the government guarantees you no vocal cord; life is a committal right, since the U.S. government guarantees that your life will be protected, while drunk driving is not a committal right, since you will be prosecuted if you drink and drive. I assume that we will mostly be dealing with committal rights here. 2. I had stated that “I extend only normal compassion…” “Normal compassion” shall be defined as a certain set of behaviors that is beneficial or not detrimental to all parties involved. For example, me offering to pray with a grieving widow doesn’t decrease my wellbeing but helps improve the psychological state of the widow. The BoP is shared. I shall need to prove that it is acceptable to not grant animals rights protected under human law, while my opponent shall need to prove that it is unacceptable to not grant animals rights. Good luck.
(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

"I extend no rights to those who do not ask for it. I extend only normal compassion, and I encourage others to do so as well. " - Bullish a baby does not ask for the right to not be kicked in the face, does this mean the baby does not have the right to not be kick in the face? i am an animal activist, in this debate i would like to argue that it is not acceptable to kill animals for meat. i have heard no more than this one comment from you and would love to see what you say about the issue.
Heaven/Hell cannot exist.

I must be honest, I am rather disappointed. Either Con has not read my round one, where I clearly and specify say I'm talking about the christian god and the christian concept of heaven/hell, or he is attempting move the goal posts. The bible sets up the parameters for this debate all on its own. We are not talking about some generic heaven, or hell, or some individuals concept of them (or of god) the definitions are very specific because the bible is very specific about them. It is painfully obvious that a generic heaven/hell with an extremely ambiguous definition may possibility exist, but we aren't debating heaven/hell in general, its the christian concept of heaven/hell I'm refuting Perhaps the absolute biggest misrepresentation of what I am arguing for is here where he states "The resolution does not mention the likelihood of Heaven or Hell. " This debate is exclusively about the POSSIBLITY of Hell or Heaven to exist"" This could not be further from the truth. Likelihood =/= Possible, Likelihood = Probable. Before we can even begin to consider how probable something is, we must first establish it is possible to begin with. My entire purpose of creating this debate is because of the latter. It cannot exist, it cannot begin to even logically exist as defined by the bible. I present 4 valid contentions to prove this, but they go completely untouched. Lastly, if Con is using the definition of god as "An omnipotent being", then he has violated my rules (3), and should concede this debate. If he really meant the christian god can do anything then he accepts that god is able to sin and bypass logical fallacies (like creating a square with 3 points). This is not what the christian god can do. I had feared this may be the result of debating someone who's playing devils advocate in a philosophical debate, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If Con was using my definition while making his argument than. .. All arguments extended. If not.
Heaven/Hell cannot exist.

Disclaimer: I am an atheist, I am merely playing devils advocate… I myself do not hold a belief in the afterlife. However it cannot truthfully be said with certainty that Heaven or Hell does not exist. Likewise with the existence of a deistic God. The resolution is a simple one. “Heaven/Hell cannot exist.” Voters please draw your attention to several things. Please acknowledge… · The resolution does not mention the likelihood of Heaven or Hell. · This debate is exclusively about the POSSIBLITY of Hell or Heaven to exist… I simply must demonstrate that Heaven/Hell have a POSSIBILITY of existence. Therfore… P1. An omnipotent God can do anything. P2. An omnipotent God can make "Heaven/ Hell” Conclusion. Heaven/Hell can exist. That is they have a chance of existing , regardless of how tremendously small that chance may be , regardless that we have no reason to believe that they do. Possibility exists.