BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

I'd also like to note that I accept my opponent's definition of the word hear. That said, let's wrap up this debate by getting to the meat and potatoes of the discussion. Con rightly explains, "So, if there is nobody there to percieve sound by the ear, [and process it with their brain] then there is no sound; that's the conditional. " Indeed this is true. However Con makes his points: 1. However, how about people who cannot percieve sound by the ear, for example, people with hearing impairment? ----> Someone with a hearing impairment who could not hear the sound could then not interpret the sound with their brain, thus the sound would not exist to them. Ergo, the tree falling would make no sound. Nevertheless, this is entirely irrelevant considering a person with or without a hearing impairment present would completely invalidate the resolution, considering the resolution specifically points out that nobody can be present. 2. Thus, they break this conditional and are allowed to be "there" based on the topic. ----> Well, this would be a good point; however, as I just explained -- a person who could not hear could not process the vibration of the air molecules with their brain. I'll explain further. .. The ear collects sound waves from the surrounding air, and converts them into electrochemical neural energy, which then travels from the brain stem up the auditory cortex. A person with a hearing impairment suffers from dysfunction in any of the mechanisms that normally conduct sound waves through the outer ear, the eardrum or the bones of the middle ear, OR, dysfunction in the inner ear, especially the cochlea where sound vibrations are converted into neural signals, or in any part of the brain that subsequently processes these signals [1]. If any part of the brain that goes into hearing sounds is dysfunctional, then sounds cannot be made. Therefore even if somebody was there who couldn't hear it, there could be no sound. 3. Finally, based on my opponent's logic, since they [people] "have a brain" sound then does exist if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it. ----> What a perfect way to conclude. Yes, indeed that is exactly what I am saying. .. that since nobody (person or animal) either capable or not capable of hearing is there to have a brain that can process the vibrating air molecules to make what is a sound, that sound does therefore not exist if no one is there to hear the tree fall. Here Con simply repeated my argument back to me, implying that he actually agrees with me? :) Thanks, Con, for this fun debate. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

My opponent's argument is based off the fact that without humans/animals, there is no sound, because "Without a brain, sound does not exist". However, the title says "If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound". The resolution says "and there is nobody there TO HEAR it". hear is defined as: "To perceive (sound) by the ear:" by . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So, if there is nobody there to percieve sound by the ear, then there is no sound; that's the conditional. However, how about people who cannot percieve sound by the ear, for example, people with hearing impairment. Thus, they break this conditional and are allowed to be "there" based on the topic. Finally, based on my opponent's logic, since they "have a brain" sound then does exist if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

Thanks, TheLaw. My argument is a very straight-forward one indeed. A sound is the auditory effect produced by a given noise - i.e., what you hear. When a tree falls in the forest, it makes no sound unless someone hears it. Without a brain, sound does not exist. A falling tree merely makes molecules of air vibrate, compressing them and rarefying them into waves of changing air pressure. In humans and animals, the auditory task is to convert the physical properties of sound-wave energy into electrochemical neural activity that travels to the brain, which we then perceive as sound. The waves themselves make no sounds [1]. Therefore, the sounds that we hear are but a product of the brain, which could not exist without a human or animal present to hear it. [1] Kolb, Bryan, and Ian Q. Whishaw. An Introduction to Brain and Behavior. New York: Worth, 2006. 312. Print.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

My opponent has used dictionary. reference to define a couple of their terms and I agree with both definitions. I would also like to say that a solid definition of "hear" is the following: "to perceive or apprehend by the ear" from . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will now await my opponent's arguments who stated that they will make the opening arguments in round 2, so I have no further statements, and I await my oppponent to further the debate.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

Many thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate. Before we begin, I'd like to request that this debate not be one pertaining to semantics. The resolution is pretty clear, and is based off the popular question: If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? My answer is that there is no sound. By request I will present some definitions that upon accepting the debate my opponent acknowledges he or she accepts. Sound: the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause http://dictionary.reference.com... Nobody: no person; not anyone (in this debate it also refers to animals) http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent may present a brief note about their position in the first round, though I will make the opening arguments in R2. Thank you again to whomever accepts, and good luck -- I look forward to a fun exchange :)
Same sex marriage

Thankyou Con for your excellent arguments. Equality I apologize for not making myself clear on the equality argument. I did mean as you correctly assumed that all men are born equal in the eyes of the law and to quote the article that you posted in response’’ Maybe this vision is held because people believe that equality in fact is necessary for equality before the law. But the only requirement for equality before the law is that one is a human being.’’. Homosexuals are indeed human beings and should be viewed as equal to heterosexuals in the eyes of the law. I cannot phrase such a law at this moment that would allow homosexual marriage while excluding polygamous and incestuous marriages but I can provide a set of guidelines that if followed may obtain such a law. The law would allow homosexual marriage by stating that marriage is the act of entering into a marital contract with one other person. This would exclude polygamous marriage as well. The law would have to include the obligations of such a contract as being to the maximum ones capabilities. This would exclude polygamous marriages on the grounds that while a husband may support all of his wives equally who is he to decide how much should be given to each wife it would require him to decide the value of a human being which is immoral. To exclude incestuous marriage the law would have to include the merging of two families which is the usual case in marriage and in some cases the major incentive of marriage( refer to the past but still in some cases to the present ). If the marriage does not create a merging of the respective families of the two individuals as a means of providing greater support for a child of the couple if they chose to have one. In an incestuous marriage no merging of families will be present resulting in no increased support for the couple or support for the future child if there is one. The larger support group for the couple could provide assistance that the government may be required to provide otherwise. In my earlier argument regarding incestuous marriage not being permitted based on the fact that one family member may have had a hand in raising the child. This would create an unbalance in the power held by both parties. Child care The evidence you provided showing that children of same couples are worse off than those of traditional families does not specially show the effects on a child raised by the state (one who is not adopted). Which was my point that, that a child is better off with a homosexual couple rather than no parents at all. It will not destroy the institution of marriage All your points refer to the subject of laws against discrimination which are not the subject of this debate.
Same sex marriage

I accept your definitions with one exception. You first give the definition of Marriage as - a legally, religiously, or socially. .. etc. Then later state for the purposes of this debate that it will be applied to civil marriage rather than religious marriage. Marriage to many people is a deeply religious thing. I understand that you want to focus on the civil aspect, but I ask that we do not automatically disregard the religious aspect. I will focus on the civil aspect, but reserve the right to bring in the religious aspect if deemed necessary by myself.
Same sex marriage

Reasons for debateI understand this a heavily debated topic but I have wanted to try my hand at it in a formal manner. So I hope you will forgive for repeating a very common debate but my reasoning I hope is justifiable I have taken an interest in this topic as of late and noticed flaws in the logic of both sides of the argument and would like to correct some of them through this debate ( while admitting that many of will find flaws with my logic. I am not perfect. )StructureThe first round will be for accepting the debate and agreeing on definitions of terms that may come up during the debate. The second round will be for opening arguments and then the debate will follow in the usual manner. Definitions These are the definitions I feel should be used for the following words that could be used during the debate Con should feel free to disagree with these definitions so long as he/she provides some form of argument as to why they believe a different definition should be used. Marriage- a legally,religiously,orsociallysanctionedunionofpersonswhocommittoone another,forminga familialandeconomic bond (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) when discussed in this debate the word will be applied to civil marriage rather than religious marriage. Same sex marriage- civil marriage for people of the same genderHomosexual- a person who is attracted sexually to a member of the same gender this attraction not of their own choice but the result of many factors out of their controlthank you again for reading this and I hope we can have a great debate.
The current schooling system in the US is unfair and corrupt.

Okay, my opponent had forfeited again. Please give me the conduct point because my opponent cannot rebut to my arguments, and did not defend his own arguments. So, vote for Con.FrameworkBecause Pro forfeited again for the second time, give me the conduct point or the whole debate. Pro failed to fill the BoP because BoP is on Pro. I will be posting my arguments first.Arguments1. We learn things that are important.The main topics in school will be listed below, and what it helps in the real worldEnglish, or any language: Helps us communicate in the real worldMath: When go shopping, or when you get a job like a teacher, or a scientist. Science: Science is basically the world around us, and you need this when you are a teacher, scientistHealth: Need this to know about your body, doctorThere are many more subjects, each and every one of them are important for the real world. If we need these subjects, and we need to learn them, the schools teach these subjects for us, how are the schools unfair? Pro gives no example in her/his arguments that schools are unfair. He just stated that it is a waste of time, not unfair. 2. The teachers are professionalThe teachers are professional teachers. If they are professional, and have a university, has the influence to teach, how is this unfair? The teachers all went to a university because the schools hire teachers so people give money to get educated.3. Public/ Private schoolsThey are both not unfair. Public schools, you go to school for free. Get educate for free. How is this unfair? I think that this is the best policy ever that the government has made. Next, private schools. They are not unfair. Even though we pay money, they educate us better.ConclusionHow are schools unfair? My arguments state that there is no reason why schools are unfair. If you think the schooling system, and the government's choice about free schools is right, and if you want to go to a school, vote for Con.Thank you. Vote for Con. Pro failed to fill the BoP.
The current schooling system in the US is unfair and corrupt.

Sorry for forfeiting a round. My opponent had forfeited a round also, so right now, conduct is tied. I will refute my opponent's arguments then post my arguments. Proposition's Case1. You don't learn anything that relates to the "real world"Pro states that in school you learn nothing about the real world. However, you do. This depends on the job. There won't be taxi jobs teached, or construction workers. However, it teaches all of the things that we need to know, like math skills. I will tell that all subjects need to be used in the real worldMath: When buying something in a store, scientist, doctorScience: Everything is related to science, builder, scientistEnglish: When you speakSocial Studies: Learn how to interact, learn about the world, geography, many more. Almost all of these subjects have relationships to the real world.2. HealthPro states about health. However, then if we ban school, then we cannot learn. Would being a tired a bit be better than being in a low job without a happy life? We go to school to have a happy life in the future for 70 years, not 13. Because of the lack of time, I will post my arguments next round.
Christian rap battle

I been sittin' here, dwellin' on all the sins of the world Then i wage holy war on all evil beings, pick up the sword Rest assured, i enter the war board, burn enemies to the floor Divine blood flowin' through my blood contained since the Adamic mud I'm burnin in fiery passion, ten thousand times evil shall pay than the flood I ride on all my spiritual enemies, firmly embodied in the Lion of Judah singing this war song 250 years long, central truth, absolute not Buddha I got a blood-lust for those evil forces that be dissin us I don't need to be a G to exterminate thee n' bust I get all my energies from the God in whom i trust I make the Lord my stronghold among the sheepfold truth be told Shootin' my enemies left to right with arrows, holy terror unfolds Yes i have an all consuming anger on the unrighteousness For negative energy is invested in moral unfaithfulness Won't murda physically, but i will murda evil spiritually Lyrically, i move in extreme maneuverability, inflammability Principally, inside the divine being i am indestructibly Even though this flesh corrupts me, i still stand in stability So don't think that God is pure sugar sweet, cuz God is a warrior He fights n' defends his people, so salute the messiah or make him angrier Drench in the blood of his wrath, or in his mercy, God has absolutely no barrier
Christian rap battle

It's like Pro thinks he just bought a Debate.org starer kitHe loaded his last round with sources 'cuz he knows he lost the argument!How pathetic is that? It is clear he don't mean sh*t to meHe wants the 2 points while I'll get 3 like the Trinity!If yall think your impressed by his unentertaining bars? Don't buy the hypeHe should lose conduct points due him spewing garbage with the wack rhymes he typed!It's so bad, one doesn't even need to read the screen to tell it's awfulHe's a weak sheep in wolf's clothing I got my own 12 apostles!I'll attack you and slap you, that's trueYou'll write about it like I'm Jesus and you're either Mark, John, Luke or MathewEven your dad abandoned you just to be a rotten bumIt reminds me of John 3:16 he gave his only begotten son!You're Christian so when you're in the Church yelling "Hallelujah!"I'm with your sister in sex positions of the KamasutraYour uncle used to sit back and watch your father do yaYour traumatized like Job from the Bible, I'm like God you're Buddha I'll pick him up in the West and throw him to the stars in the EastEverytime he cuts himself the Devil calls it the Mark of the BeastMy lifestyle include's fancy resturants you can't afford Denny'sI'm a huge room full of banded cash you're two wrinkled up twenties!Plot twist; I'm going to fight fire with fire and win source votes as wellYou used Wikipedia, that's wack, old, and just boring as hellI'll even use more sources to solidify the winThen piss on your grave and laugh to exemplify the new 8th deadly sinPro he said "I'm dismantin' your axioms into atoms" like it implies terrorBut axioms can't be physical like atoms; that's a category error!His mother's knockers are world wide like Abrahamic religionsWith tits so big that she even started a bra hammock tradition!Since Pro wants to play his hand in the "vacuous source" game I will surpass itI will put and end to his soul and place his body in a casketNow he's nothing but a worthess peice of rotten meat for the maggotsIn this Christian rap battle I'm colorful while his picture is static!Sources:[1] "Trinity" [http://plato.stanford.edu...][2] "Twelve Apostles" [http://www.marypages.com...][3] "John 3:16" [https://www.biblegateway.com...][4] "Hallelujah" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...][5] "Category Error" [http://www.wisegeek.com...][6] "Abrahamic Religion" [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...][7] "Mark of the Beast" [http://www.openbible.info...]
Christian rap battle

Wow...what can i say... Your momma so stupid when i said logic, she was thinkin of logic (1) She literally came to the conclusion that your not born out of it Yo, we went to the back n' i can prove that she can really spit N' i'm not talkin bout rap, i'm talkin' bout when she can lick You dummy, haven't you read the phrase "less is more?" No! It's because no one taught you to read, I'ma take a break from being theological n' be philosophical I'm about to prove this fake emcee he is pure mythological To disrespect me is going to take a mind higher than a supercomputer You throwin' a bunch of garbled mess..well aren't you the sharpshooter (2) Do the math: this is mind over a dark matter, yo head on a platta, no confusion To think you can beat a lyrical mastermind has got you in the wrong conclusion I'm dismantin' your axioms into atoms cuz your facin' an immaterial diffusion Your mistaken if you think you can rap, if i'm real that makes you an illusion You can't think philosophically let alone logically If i hit you, you would then believe in neurology I'm beatin' you now, there is no false dichotomy (3) Here's a riddle, what you call a noob who thinks he's king? With a shirt sayin "i rap to prove you can't"? a red herring (4) Yes i said a red heron (5) when it comes to me, no comparing Power up my mental capacity, leave you grinded like a mine did Logically destroy your immaterial self, leave you open minded My intellect is in the clouds, i crash land n' leave you dumbfounded 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(rapper) 2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 3. http://mind.ucsd.edu... 4. http://www.logicalfallacies.info... 5. https://www.flickr.com...
Christian rap battle

If you as an intellectual can't flaunt Bible knowledge, as a thinker, you thinkin' south Stop jibber jabbin blabberin' about that which you know not of n' keep it out ya mouth! If it was up to you, the whole world would be illiterate, degenerate! I'ma split you in half like the firmaments n' keep it all separate! I will blind you, make you look at the sky n' behold God to venerate Diss me in this battle,cut the small talk, i let my bars excommunicate The worst thing you can do in this rap battle is forfeit Back out of this battle, cuz i'm way too legit to quit You think you a rational madman, gettin' knowledge like a roman! Yet you can't fathom the absoluteness from a single biblical poem! All you do is worship ya self cuz man has uplifted the spirit of Science! Biblical influence still greater at the flip of a page, just pure silence! While scientists were discovering the galaxies in a space mission! Intricate wisdom was being spread around like oral transmission! When you speak of evolution, people run away so you snarled! That's how we know the Bible will conquer the whole wide world! You mad cuz we practice metaphysics, we trust in what we can't see! While you rant all day, tryna stand solid, what it really means to be! Get on yo knees and pray to God and respect the name in reverence! Cuz your not of this higher intelligence, ya blinded by your arrogance! Let me break it down to ya, it's either God's way or the high way! It won't matter what you say, cuz either way you gon bow one day! From this day on, let Truth_seeker be thought of an irrational mad-man! Cuz i'm crazy, i'm murkin you like the Taliban all the way in Afghanistan! Ever since the day of Noah, the world ended by a flood, next is in fire! A proof of that is Christianity demolishing the whole Roman empire!
Christian rap battle

Mentally, i'm writin' some metaphysical concepts on Papyrus Mythologizing you has never been easier than that deity Osiris Cuz between you and him, both of you look like reincarnated Cyrus (1) your right i'm doing what i ought not to like Eve, so look where we landed It's cuz i'ma man rulin' over a sissy fruitcake like you, so get backhanded The only knowledge you flaunt is your preconceived notions movin' like oceans One minute your skeptical then the next you believe, you just go with the motions I didn't know you could read, by your profile pic, i judge you a drinker Blabberin' bout what you think is real then claim to be a rational thinker You really wanna play with me, you really wanna die? I'm the butcher, mm emcees, these steaks are high! Puttin' you in your place, that place called Abaddon Movin' you from Eden all the way to the port of Sidon Rippin you to shreds till the place has been flodden You think your rhymes are clever? Get hit with this cleaver! You been under the hidden spell of the dark deceitful deceiver! You need to do a scriptural analysis before you come to an end: paralysis I'll bet your time is over without lookin at my pyrex livin' in the projects You fall over like the goddess Isis, i scream "your dead" n' add emphasis I change you like Hitler's axis, put you in a temporal stasis in synopsis Like the Synoptics, i divide you into several fragments in a synthesis I'ma create lyrics just as God did in his first ten divine utterances Your going to be decimated ever since the day you were created in a-bio Genesis Your not one of us, we don't need a Bible, just look at this text, we're doin an exegesis The only reason your a narcissist n' believe God doesn't exist is cuz your pissed That i don't even have to use these fists, so your not worthy, just slit ya wrists Like Cain, i'm murderin' you with these bars hittin' your head Like Abel, your sufferin' from the disposition that you are dead Sources: 1. http://popwrapped.com...