BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Naturalism and evolution cannot sensibly both be believed.

Thanks Pro. Selecting for truth Pro claims my claim that a true belief is usually necessarily tied to actions is an unwarranted one. But he misunderstands my defense here. Pro himself agrees beliefs are proportional to actions, but in the last round he seems to state any belief whatsoever, such as a tiger being friendly can cause one to run away. Why would someone run away from a tiger when they think it’s friendly? Pro must reject the idea that beliefs are proportional to actions, when this is self evident. Pro says a false belief is just as efficient. This is simply false because the brain has to fabricate a false belief instead of accepting what’s true from the environment. He also states it’s just as likely to succeed, however this goes into my other argument that true beliefs will succeed in every situation. In there Pro says he discussed many examples, not just one. That’s not the point. I am stating one situation doesn’t account for the totality of possible situations. It has nothing to do with examples. In my example demonstrating this, the point couldn’t be missed further by Pro. My point here is not about beliefs being proportional to actions, but about the totality of beliefs and the totality of situations. Pro fails to understand this. It is entirely irrelevant that calmness can be instantiated by some other belief in some other possible world. Since Pro has misunderstood this, the argument remains standing. Cartesian assumptions Pro questions that a pragmatic theory of the mind forms a true belief. It seems pretty clear from what a pragmatic theory is. Since you can figure out a belief from the environment it follows if the environment is objective, then so is the belief. The brain wouldn’t pick and choose beliefs, they would be directly formulated by the environment itself. This all follows from the quote in the last round. Self-Refuting Pro again misunderstands this objection. Of course in the antithesis world naturalism would be false, but that’s the very reason why the argument is self refuting in the first place! Pro fails to see what a self refuting argument is. For example, if I were to claim the truth of verificationism, you would be correct to point out its self refuting reasoning. I cannot then claim in order to make the self refuting argument you have to assume verificationism is true. Because it is a reductio argument Pro has misunderstood this argument from start to finish. Conclusion Pro has misunderstood and misconstrued all of my arguments. He misunderstands what a reductio argument is, misunderstanding what the pragmatic theory of the mind is, misunderstanding what evolution entails for the totality of beliefs, and misunderstanding why a true belief is necessarily proportional to an action. My arguments still remain unrefuted.
Naturalism and evolution cannot sensibly both be believed.

Thanks Pro. The evolutionary argument against naturalism is based on a really simplistic view of evolution. Evolution can select the trait of accurately understanding the world because beliefs are proportional to actions. What other way would we need a jacket unless it’s raining? How would a conflated belief increase likelihood of putting on a jacket when the true belief does just fine. Say a person is worried about being attacked by a tiger, in order for him to have the instinct to run away, he must have some other instinct that understands why a tiger is deadly. An understanding of injury and threat is an a better and more efficient solution than a false belief. A proper understanding of the threat is less likely to fail. A false belief that is safe in one situation isn’t safe in all situations. Whereas an understanding of threat and injury cause the person to learn the situation, making it cover all situations. While the system isn’t perfect, it is enough to trust our cognitive abilities to a reasonable degree and not the the extent that Pro wishes to demonstrate. Moreover, as Wesley Robbins pointed out [1], the EAAN only applies to evolutionary naturalists who subscribe to Cartesian-esque theories of the mind. Only those theories that claim one can only observe your inner subjective mind would apply. Those theories that claim you are really seeing the world can still be sensibly believed and thus evolution and naturalism can be sensibly believed. Lastly, the EAAN is self refuting. Pro’s thesis is that under naturalism “The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable...is low”. However this means the antithesis of naturalism would hold that our cognitive faculties are reliable and thus our beliefs are reliable. This entails that if our world is the antithesis and if one came to the conclusion that the EAAN is false, their cognitive faculties would be reliable and the belief would be reliable. If one’s beliefs are usually reliable and if the antithesis holds, then it is likely that the EAAN is false. So if the EAAN is likely true, then the EAAN is likely false. It is self refuting. Thanks, back to Pro. [1] http://infidels.org...
Naturalism and evolution cannot sensibly both be believed.

In this debate, I will be arguing in favor of the premise proposed by Alvin Plantinga in his recent book, "Where the Conflict Really Lies." The premise states that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between the theory of evolution and Christian theism, while there is superficial concord but deep conflict between the theory of evolution and the belief that naturalism is true. Definitions: Evolution: Genetic changes in a population inherited over several generations through the process of random mutations working on natural selection. Christian theism: The belief in the Christian God (perhaps most accurately represented in C.S. Lewis" book "Mere Christianity.") Naturalism: The belief that there is no supernatural; nothing exists beyond the material world. Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 is for opening arguments. Round 3 is for rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebuttals and/or closing statements. Thanks and good luck!
Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate.

I would first like to apologize to my opponent, and the viewers for the forfeit, and acknowledge that I will lose conduct for it.Now onto my argument/rebuttal.Rebuttal"First, bussing an unwilling teammate may lead one to be deemed suspicious."This is a very subjective statement. My opponent later goes on to say that since it is common, that people will expect it, and that it immediately makes one suspicious. While this may be true, sometimes, I see only a few instances when it actually occurs, and in those there was other factors playing in for why people were already suspicious of that person(example: you had accidentally killed doctor in the Inheritance game.)."Second, bussing an unwilling teammate may cause resentment and grudges"I think that the only time this would really apply is when 1) The Mafia loses anyways, or because the bussing. or 2) There was already some feuding between the two people."Finally, alternatives do exist."They sometimes do, but in this case, I think we can assume they do not, since bussing is something of a last resort option, used to get say a Mafia Godfather to be trusted.ArgumentMy main argument for this is that, if it confirms a member IMPORTANT of the Mafia, then it should be embraced, whether or not the unwilling Mafia teammate(we can call him UMT), wants to or not. Also, a few other things should be taken into account.1)Roles. What are the roles of the busser, and the bussed? If the busser is a Godfather(A somewhat ideal role for this)and bussed is just a Goon, the trade off is generally a good one.2)Experience. If the busser is a experienced Mafia player, and decides that it is a good idea to get the confirmation on him, but the bussed is a noob, that just dosen't want to be taken out of the game, who would you pick?3)Overall benefit. How late is it in the game? Would the bus help he Mafia win in the long run? These facts must be taken into account.What I am trying to say, is that all I have to prove is that it is sometimes justified to bus a teammate. Therefore, if the criteria above is met correctly, then sometimes, it is.
Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate.

Framework Observation: It would be best to restrict the resolution tocases in which there is little to no suspicion on a member of the mafia. Thisis because in the vast majority of cases in which someone is resisting beingbussed, he or she is not likely to be caught otherwise/has not already beencaught. Since the resolution should focus on “on balance” scenarios, it is morefair for both sides to assume that the person would not be lynched anyways. Affirmative Case The crux of the affirmative case centers around the philosophyof utilitarianism. Utilitarianism stipulates that the most moral or justifiedoutcome is the one that favors the greatest number of people. Thus, my burdenin this round is to demonstrate that bussing an unwilling mafia buddy is a pooroutcome for the greatest number of people. First, bussing an unwilling teammate may lead one to bedeemed suspicious. The problem with bussing strategies is that they are so commonplacein Mafia games that it is essentially expected that the Mafia will bus ateammate in order to be confirmed at some point. In the Inheritance game, forexample, I was suspected of being mafia even after I vigkilled socialpinko, whohad been converted. In fact, some townies continued to accuse me of being mafiaeven AFTER I had vigkilled three mafia players, which indicates that bussinghas become very common in the DDO community. In fact, not only is bussingcommon, but it may also lead one to become suspicious. In the Illumnati game,for example, F_16 pretended that Andro had bussed him by cleverly devising astrategy by which he hammered on himself immediately after she voted to lynchhim. This caused Andro to be killed in the next round because everyone believedthat she had, in fact, bussed him to become confirmed. Second, bussing an unwilling teammate may cause resentmentand grudges. Since we are a relatively small community, most of the players ina given game are the same. Bussing an unwilling player can thus causeresentment and spoil games for the busser later on. For example, if the bussedplayer is ever mafia while the busser is town, the bussed player may advocatehaving the busser lynched in NP1. Grudges do exist in DDO Mafia. Socialpinko,for example, has killed F_16 consistently in three separate games: The No DayPhase game (as the vig even though there was a confirmed mafia player out) asmafia in Beginner 4.2 on Night Phase 1, and in the Tarantino game. Thus,ultimately bussing an unwilling player may be a poor choice from the standpointof the community. Finally, alternatives do exist. If the busser actuallybelieves that a bus is necessary, he could simply offer himself to be bussed byhis teammate. This could potentially get his teammate confirmed whilepermitting the team to win overall while avoiding the second negative impact. Thismeans that bussing an unwilling teammate is not the most effective option forwinning mafia games, so this still fills the teleological requirements ofutilitarianism. Thus, overall bussing is not the best solution possible, soyou should negate.
Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate.

This debate is part of lannan's round-robin debate tournament. Definitions1. Mafia: a forum game in which an uninformed majority is pitted against an informed minority. The majority must weed out and eliminate the minority from the game, while the minority must attempt to gain equal numbers as the minority.2. justified (Merriam Webster Unabridged): to prove to be right or just3. bus: A mafia tactic in which a member of the informed minority initiates and pushes for a lynch of a teammate in order to be confirmed as a member of the town. Two quick observations/parameters1. In this debate, philosophy can and should be used.2. My opponent and I are most familiar with DDO Mafia, so we should argue this debate in the context of the DDO mafia community.
Should fishing be legal.

Billions of fish die every year in nets and on hooks. Some are destined for human consumption, many are tortured just for "sport," and others are unintended victims who are maimed or killed simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.When fish are yanked from the water, they begin to suffocate. Their gills often collapse, and their swim bladders can rupture because of the sudden change in pressure. Numerous scientific reports from around the world confirm that fish feel pain. "fish do have the capacity for pain perception
Should fishing be legal.

You really didn't say why its wrong, I mean fishing is a good and humane way of obtaining meat and further more fish don't really have "dads" because once the female fish lays the eggs the male fertilizes them and then they both die from traveling to there birth spot. Further more I live in the Colorado Rockie Mountains on a ranch that's pretty far from any major grocery store so obtaining meat is kinda hard and expensive, so we found a great way through fishing and hunting. Also people who fish by at least a hundred dollars of fishing supplies a year, and most of that money goes to national parks so they can pay for jobs and to keep running as a steady system. So if fishing was ban a lot of the National parks would start to fail and then once there gone city slickers would start building hotels and building on that land making no more national parks.
Should fishing be legal.

There are many people out there who say fishing and hunting is wrong. So I wish to challenge someone to a debate about this. My argument is that fishing is a more humain way of getting meat then, lets say, getting it a Safeway where they get there meat from factory farms. Also my families ranch is kind of far from legit grocery stores so we get a lot of are meat from hunting and fishing. So please get me a good challenge. And remember please respect each others opinions.
Should fishing be legal.

Sense this is the last argument I get I would like to point out by saying sea food is the lowest fat containing meat, my proof is this website http://seafoodhealthfacts.org.... Also you said you ate meat and I'm guessing you get your meat from grocery stores, grocery stores get most the meat from slaughter house, which abuse the animals and do horrible things like break cows legs so they cant move and loose wait. They also drill out cows horns at early ages with no numbing medicine. here is a video of the inside of a slaughter house sorry its a bit blury. Other then that I have nothing else to say, its been a good time debating with you.
Should fishing be legal.

Yeah I know fish feel pain that's a fact. But what I'm talking about is line fishing its more humane then net fishing, which I agree is not environmental friendly at all. Also when it come to fishing for your own food it seems more fair to the fish then buying it at the grocery store where they scale them alive. I mean I bet you eat meat (if you don't please tell me) and when it comes to supplying it for your family many people are use to just driving down to the grocery store and picking it up in shiny packages, which is an unfair way of getting it, I m mean wheres the challenge of waiting in it and struggling to get your meal? Its something that many Americans have never experienced. Also you forgot to talk about how the money put into fishing and hunting supplies is how the National parks get most there money, I mean I love nature a lot and without hunters and fishers there wouldn't be enough money to keep giant National Parks like Yellowstone running and then without national parks there wouldn't be much untouched nature. I mean I totally here you when you say net fishing is a problem, but when I say fishing in this topic I mean more of line fishing, but with net fishing we can both agree its wrong and unfair.
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

The ADL is probably the most unreliable source you could have come up with. They plaster things with the word "anti-semitic" or "racist" without having any reason to do so, those are the same people that don't understand the definition of these terms and still use them anyway. Moreover, you instantly believe he is an anti-semite because they "said so", all this shows is that you can't think for yourself. I don't care what some random committee says about Trump, it doesn't prove anything. The way a debate works is that you present points to why you think your argument is correct. Showing the opinion of the ADL, a non-credible source anyway, does not prove anything. Your next point didn't add anything new, all you did was quote a source that described the picture without any explanation from you or the source, and then you said "this shows he's anti-semitic". Yet you completely ignore how I pointed out that dark humor and anti-semitism are defined completely differently. Then you suggest that this joke would lead to something "dangerous and violent", despite there being no evidence of that in this situation, or in any situation ever. This stereotype is used by many comedians, satire comics/TV shows, and jokes in general without any backlash towards it, or any of the "dangerous and violent" acts that would you described. And these jokes were used decades ago. In this debate you completely avoided my points proving you wrong, and all you did was quote the opinion of some random sources barely making any points, and the points you did make were very flimsy, and just didn't add up. In addition to that the opinions of these sources you mentioned are worthless in a debate. Donald Trump was merely making a simple joke about Jews, as with most other cultures, and usually even harsher to others, he also supports the state of Israel. So in conclusion, he is not anti-semitic no matter which way you put it. Thank you for the debate.
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

I think your bluffing, you are pretending that this claim is outrageous to hide the fact that Trump let his anti-semantic side slip. "These explanations, though, were rejected by the chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt."Donald Trump should stop playing the blame game and accept that his campaign tweeted an image with obvious anti-Semitic overtones and that, reportedly, was lifted from a white supremicist website," Greenblatt said in a statement Monday evening. "It's long past time for Trump to unequivocally reject the hate-filled extremists orbiting around his campaign and take a stand against anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hate."" The anti-defamation league rejects Trumps explanations, meaning that Trump did mess up. "It wasn't the six-pointed star alone that evoked anti-Semitism -- it's the combination of the star with a background of money and an accusation of corruption, which suggests stereotypical views of Jews and money and raises conspiracy theories that Jews control political systems.Or in the words of the ADL's Greenblatt: "The imagery is the classic trope of Jews and money implying that she's raising Jewish money, or something along those lines.""I get tweeted pictures like this all the time from anti-Semites and racists and white supremacists," Greenblatt said. "Does this look familiar to me? Absolutely."" This further explains why the image was anti-semitism. Specifically the stereotypical views of Jews and money and raises conspiracy theories that Jews control political systems. Do you not see this is not only anti-semistism but dangerous? That proliferating conspiracy theories about Jews might lead to violence? Sure, its just words and an image, yet is that not how a lot of violence starts, with words and images? I conclude that the image with the six sided star and money in the background was anti-semantic, dangerous, and Donald Trump is anti-semantic due to tweeting this image. Thank you for the debate. 3. http://www.cnn.com...
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

I'm using the "humor" defense, because it's a legitimate point that proves he is not anti-semitic. Also, the source you provided was about "Extreme and violent racist humor", which you conveniently didn't define. Because it distinguishes from humor like Donald Trumps. The intent behind his jokes weren't hatred, it was simply a subtle joke, playing on the stereotype that Jews are greedy. There is a difference between a joke like that, and blatantly saying something like "Jews should be gassed, hahaha". It's people that don't understand the difference between a harmless joke, and one with malicious and aggressive intent that are the problem here. They are what spawn these unneeded and exaggerated controversies. Furthermore, you go on to refer from the source "the critic can then proceed to debate the undesirability of other forms of racist, sexist or violent humor, that seem more ambiguous." True, that is what begins to define a racist/anti-semitic. But until we see any of that behavior, you can't just assume that's what's going to happen. The point of this is to come to a conclusion based on what we have, not what we predict would happen. Because then that completely changes the story, and my position on this motion. And why would an anti-semite support the state of Israel? http://www.jpost.com... Wouldn't he do the exact opposite? So for now, until we see some actual evidence of him being anti-semitic, there should be no outrage whatsoever, except from the easily offended. You might think the joke is not funny, that's perfectly fine, but insinuating that he's anti-semitic is what's really outrageous in this situation.
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

The old humor defense to enable discriminating remarks. " So, when the charge of’ lacking a sense of humour’ is made,the critic can reply that there exists a body of joking to which the appropriately moralresponse is not laughter, but outrage – and that such humour has no place within amoral society. On that basis, the critic can then proceed to debate the undesirability of other forms of racist, sexist or violent humour, that seem more ambiguous." [2]The correct moral response to Donald Trump's outburst is not laughter but outrage. 2. http://www.academia.edu...
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

Being anti-semitic, and having a dark sense of humor are 2 completely different things. Donald Trump jokes about many different cultures, and here, all we can see is that the Jewish community is not a exception. He is essentially joking around with the stereotype of Jewish people being greedy. There is nothing here that implies he is anti-semitic. These days, people regurgitate words like "anti-semitic" and "racist", without even knowing what it means. Being anti-semitic is defined as "discriminating" people, and treating them unfairly because they are Jewish. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Pure hatred of Jews is far from a mere joke. And it's not like Donald Trump only targets Jews when making these jokes and stereotypes, he does it with many others. In fact, he was incredibly nice with the Jews, compared to how he talks about other cultures, for example how he calls mexicans killers and rapists. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... And the fact still stands, no matter what you argue, that the definition of "anti-semitic" is discriminating Jews. And jokes, especially in this context, do not fall into the category of discrimination.
Donald Trump is anti-Semitic.

"Rabbis and other Jewish community leaders point to a moment of reckoning following a Wednesday night appearance in which Trump, with his voice raised, defended the use of a six-pointed star, which resembled the Star of David, mounted over a pile of $100 bills as part of an attack against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The image previously appeared on a website popular with white supremacists." [0]Seems to me Donald Trump is anti-semitic. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com...1. http://www.nytimes.com...