BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Cannot Be 100% Certain That There Is An External World Beyond Experience And Perception

However, I will respond to my opponent's concerns Addressing My Opponent's Concerns "Are you saying we can't know anything for sure since it's all subjective? " I will explain what I mean in further detail in the next section. "Also if you are saying that you are only limited to your own perception, how would you know that since you cannot transcend your own perception? " Why would I have to transcend my own perception to know that? This doesn't seem required at all. "And if you are only limited to your own perception how can you give an account for anybody else's perception? " We can't know 100% whether or not whether anybody else exists. I could just be a figment of your imagination, as could everyone else on here. However, this doesn't effect the resolution sufficiently. Regardless, there are certain arguments that suggests other minds. For example, the argument from language. This presupposes someone else to communicate with. The very fact that we are using language presupposes other minds. Also, every time I raise what seems to be an arm to eat, consciousness is behind it. If I see another arm moving that way, this suggests there is consciousness behind that person. This doesn't mean it is 100%, but still reasonable to believe. My Argument Perception is something that cannot be an illusion. As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am" Even if everything you perceive is an illusion, the fact that you perceive cannot be. The reason nothing can be known beyond perception is simple. If you think you are experiencing a TV show, that doesn't prove there is a TV. It proves that there is a perception of a TV. When you touch it, you have a feeling of a TV, and a sensation of something solid, but that doesn't prove there is something solid. It would be a non-sequitur to say that because you have a perception of X, that therefore, X exists. When you dream , you have perceptions of lots of things that don't exist. I have had perceptions of mountains which my mind just conjured up. Who is to say the external world isn't a dream? We have no way of knowing. The fact that we have no way of knowing is illustrated by this picture: If you see, touch, smell, taste, feel in any other way, or/ and hear a candle; that only proves a perception of a candle. There is no way to know that any candle exists, or any other external object with 100% certainty. The resolution has been established.
TROLL DEBATE: Person with Most random "argument" wins

If you are reading this. http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de... http://z0r.de...
Evolution is more plausible than Creationism

Conclusion I Have shown 5 basic proof's for evolution which Con has yet to refute. These proof's show how the fossil record and genetics can bring us a tree of life that shows us how life as we see it today came about. We know how old these layers of rocks are by radiometric and carbon dating methods. I also show a simple proof that when we introduce antibiotics that within a few years the bacteria that survive the antibiotics are the one's with genes that can make them survive the environment of antibiotics and so they reproduce and make a whole new colony of bacteria that resist the antibiotics. Con brings some arguments for Creationism which i explain in the next round why they aren't good. I await Con's response to my evidence and to the problems i point out to his evidence in the round below me. Here is the link where i got my 5 proof's for evoultion. http://evolutionfaq.com... Vote Pro!!
Evolution is more plausible than Creationism

The Debate topic is "Evolution is more plausible than Creationism" The BOP is shared as I need to show why Evolution is more plausible and you must show why it is not and show why Creationism is the better way of looking at the world. Evolution - "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations" Top 5 proof's for evolution. 1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. 2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats , 80% with cows , 75% with mice , and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. 4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor. 5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://humanorigins.si.edu... https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com... https://www.nsf.gov... http://www.nsf.gov... http://www.nysm.nysed.gov... Thank you!
Palestine

The issue about the settlement is not an easy one, since the Israelis feel a deep historical connection to many areas on the West Bank, and what Netanyahu has said, is that the only way for the two parties to find a lasting solution is through "trial and error". Source: http://www.haaretz.com...Yes, there are restrictions in place to stop Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli cities and blowing up buses and killing civilians, and I bet every nation that had similar security issues as Israel would be reacting in a similar way. Israel was once upon a time more willing to make concessions to their enemies, but when every attempt of peace has ended in more attacks on Israel, the hawks have been put in power to ensure the citizens are safe."Palestine" has not been a country before in history, and Israel was founded in 1948 by the UN, so it's a bit of an overstatement to say that they did not have any right to the country.
Palestine

Israeli's looking for peace negotiations is total bullsh!t. For a start, if they did want to make amends with the Palestinians, perhaps they ought to stop occupying more and more land, building more and more settlements. It's like trying to make peace with someone whilst shoving the barrel of a pistol further and further down their throat. Secondly, Palestinians have been looking for a two-state solution, whilst Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres have openly objected to it on state TV. Even whilst their major ally, the US has presented peace talk proposals, Israel denying the majority, and totally screwing up the others. Palestinians now need special permits to enter their own fields, they have no rights to their own homes, they cannot cross border control on to what used to be their own land, and if they are caught trying to sneak back in to what was lawfully their land, they are arrested. Children even are arrested for protesting against the Israeli's maltreatment of their neighbors. I could also talk about the numbers of innocent Palestinians in jail or who have been killed by Israeli police forces, totally unjustly, but we would be here forever. Israel had no right in the first place in Palestine, and now it has no right to continue expanding in to another countries land.
Palestine

I've accepted this debate as Con, and will therefore present my arguments against the Palestinian Authorities rights to be recognized as a sovereign state. From the day they were founded in 1948, Israel has been forced to fight for their very existence as a the only functioning democracy in a part of the world where dictators and despotic regimes flourish. Have the Israelis always been right in their decisions? Of course not, but the current situation in countries like Syria, Egypt and Libya illustrates my point perfectly that the other states in the Middle-East are doing far worse than Israel in the department of civil and human rights.Israeli authorities have for many years been negotiating with the Palestinians about them becoming an independent state, and since there have been no guarantee for the safety of Israeli citizens (there is a reason for their security fence...), and the demands for the right of return not only for the refugees but also their descendants (which would mean the end of Israel), they haven't been able to reach an agreement where the Palestinians gets statehood.Therefore, I see no reason why the Palestinian authorities should have a "right" to be recognized as a sovereign state.
Palestine

Well, thought I would start off my time here with something debate-worthy. Ever since it's foundation Israel has been building settlements over Palestine ( of which they had to right to), gradually stealing their land. It has resulted in millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, and an international debate. This is not more of a perspective debate rather than pro or con, but the question is, Should Palestine have the right to exist as a recognised state? You can already guess what i think :P
Animal Rights

Thanks for the debate. I will make this short because there is not much to write.FrameworkI thank my opponent for this debate, I enjoyed it. BoP is shared. I will be making my defense of my arguments. My opponent failed to rebut all my advantages, for that reason alone, you can vote for Con. I thank my opponent for this debate.DefenseMy opponent says that animals become extinct is turned against me. Actually it is not. This is one of the advantages for animals not having rights. Read my 1st argument, it my fourth advantage or somehting, I wrote that if animals have rights, we can't put them in zoos, which we can't exlplore in zoos, which means that because animals have rights, and are not in zoos, they will become extinct. It is all connected, which means Pro fails to rebut this argument. My opponent says that it is not the real meaning of util. Even though if I get the name wrong, my opponent did not rebut my argument. My opponent does not touch my advantages at all, for this vote for me.My opponent says that some people might not like meat and seafood, and those things. My opponent drops all the other advantages I stated, but he says that they feel pleasure and pain, which is just 2, as I listed 4. For this also, vote for Con in the argument Util. My opponent failed to rebut the other 3, which makes this argument unrebutted.ConclusionI won't write what Pro said in his 3rd round, because that is unfair for him. But to conclude, My opponent dropped my argument Util and animals being endangered, which is all of them, for these vote for Con. I rebutted almost all of Pro's arguments also. No matter how much you agree with Pro or like his arguments, you have to vote for Con.Thanks.
Animal Rights

Dude, I just didn't post my rebuttal round. I didn't concede. You said it was my choice in the comments, that is why I chose not to do my rebuttals, and as I can see, you said I concede your arguments when I was going to do my rebuttals now.FrameworkI accept my opponent's framework. BoP is sharedRebuttal 1: UtilitarianismMy opponent says that human rights and animal rights are same, and says there is about billions of other species and humans are not the unique one. I don't find humans as important but they are unique. They are unique because they are the only animals to blush, the only ones who wear clothes, they are one of the only to have thumbs, many other ways humans are different from other animals. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. My opponent says they can both feel pain and pleasure, but I stated more ways humans are more unique than other animals. For this, you can vote for Con. I don’t even get why Pro is talking about humans and animals are same anyways because I never said anything about no humans included in the definitions.Rebuttal 2: FairnessBecause this argument from Pro is quite short, I will quote it here in the text.“Humans inherently value fairness. As established above, whatever is natural for people to care about establishes a sound framework for morality. Moral realism is best affirmed under a framework of positive and negative mental states. Respecting fairness and equality creates such a mental state. Under util, most people wouldn't appreciate discrimination against African-Americans or against women; racism and sexism are almost universally rejected, because they are unsound. To ensure that standard remains, it should be consistent. As established above, there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, so the same standard of equality should be applied. “I don’t get why Pro is talking about humans here. I didn’t compare about humans and animals in my definitions or anywhere. So Pro is just attacking false claims and does not even follow the topic animal rights, Vote for Con.Rebuttal 3: Benefits for humansMy opponent says that humans will have better health with rights of animals. This is definitely false, because if animals have rights, we can’t kill them, and many animals are for medicines. My opponent says if animals do not have rights then ecosystems will be in danger and in ways, it will harm humans. Who cares about the ecosystems? We can’t even eat the animals if animals have rights.There are clearly almost no benefits for animals to have rights for humans, but advantages of animals not having rights.ConclusionEven if you agree with Pro’s side, you have no choice but to vote for Con. Defense in the next round. I filled my BoP when my opponent did not.Sources[1] http://www.livescience.com...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://www.skepticcanary.com...[4] https://newrepublic.com...[5] https://www.thedodo.com...[6] http://evolvingthoughts.net...[7] http://phys.org...
Animal Rights

I'm going to keep this short, since concision is important in any debate. Con drops my case and my framework, concedes my clarifications by omission. The only thing we disagree on is the definition of util. Con defines util as "the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people. " First, that isn't utilitarianism -- util is the belief that morally good action is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes harm. It isn't human-specific. Let's just call it "Con's framework" hereinafter. Second, Con doesn't justify that criterion at all. I provided clear justifications for all-considering util, so prefer that framework. Con also drops -- and, therefore, concedes by omission -- my observation that "animal rights" implies any rights given to any animals. Con's arguments don't show that animals should not have any rights at all, which is Con's BOP. Recognizing animal rights doesn't necessarily mean saying no to meat or animal testing, or zoos. It means giving them any right, including the right of endangered animals to not get killed, and so forth. The "animals will become extinct" point is turned against Con. Con's own framework is about benefits to humans. Keystone species becoming extinct will cause severe harms, as established in my R1 argument, including allowing greater climate change via ecosystem collapse and causing further extinctions (e. g. mass extinctions) which will affect overall ecology and the human environment. For example, if lions go extinct, many species of plant will go extinct which will cause further ecological collapse and degrade the environment by disruption the oxygen/CO2 balance. Thus, even if you buy all of Con's offense, vote Pro because Con doesn't fulfill their BOP while I do. Of course, my position is a bit more extreme than Con's. I don't support eating meat when a person can easily access and afford nutritious vegetarian food; only if an individual's food security is compromised am I fine with eating meat. The reason is a simple pleasure/pain analysis: while the person might gain pleasure from the taste of the meat or seafood, the suffering the animal undergoes in the process easily outweighs. Pro's "utilitarian" standard is inconsistent, since he is weighing human pleasure/pain greater than non-human pleasure/pain, which is circular due to the nature of the resolution, and also is applying inconsistent moral standards since animals can also feel pleasure and pain. As established last round, such "speciesism" is intellectually dishonest. I'm fine with clinical testing as long as it saves lives or brings more positive mental states than negative ones.
Animal Rights

Debate for Tejretics. Full Resolution: Animals should have rightsI am Con, which means that Tejretics is Pro. Rules1. No forfeiting 2. No trolling3. I really want good votes here, so min. is 3500 ELO. Sorry for people who are in the 3000-3400s.4. Tej starts arguing in round 1, and waives the final round5. No kritiks or semantics6. Definitons are not arguable7. No following the rules= loss.Definitions1. Animal: any organism of the Kingdom Animalia ] not insects, sponges, you get what I mean, those animals like plankton.2. Rights: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as lawand ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.debate.org... Thanks Tej.
Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today.

This is not a debate on whether stigmatization of pedophiles exist. Both of us need to accept that it does(and that it does to the degree I am showing) in order for us to debate. In spite of that, here is some reference material about the stigmatization of pedophiles:14-28% of people surveyed in this scientific study believed pedophiles "should better be dead, even if they never had committed criminal acts",[1] and here is one story of a group of people in England who even burned someone to death because they (wrongly) believed he was a pedophile[2]As long as my opponent acknowledges and doesn't dispute how the stigma against pedophiles is, as the story and survey suggests, we should be able to continue. Since this might be new information to them, I don't mind if they tell me in a comment that they don't wish to continue the debate. I'll just cancel this if so. Rules of debate:1) No insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks.2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total number of rounds minus 1 since I am not using round 1 for argument.3) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttals: no new arguments in that round. New facts and information is okay, as long as it's in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.Sources:[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...