BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans Do Not Have "Free Will"

I wish to thank the instigator for the opportunity to engage in a thoughtful debate. I am fascinated by the opportunity to discourse in favor of the existence of free will. I find Pro’s position, respectfully, to be a interesting one to hold. Pro initiates his Round #1 with the statement that he does not believe in souls, nor a higher being, as he is an atheist. This is really the crux of the position he holds. The logical extension of denial of anything which is not material or physical in nature. Robert Sapolsky, to no great surprise, is of the same sort. Response: Human behavior cannot be reduced to merely actions consistent with a ‘biological computer’ , as Pro describes it. This is nothing more than an attempt to explain away any and all responsibility for action and behavior. However, even among those who do not believe in a higher being, the denial of the existence of free will is an outlier. It is an extreme point of view. Even Stephen Cave, writing in the Atlantic (neither of which is exactly a champion of religion), defends the existence of free will. He simply attributes free will to the brain, but admits nonetheless that it is free will. (1) Argument: Free will does exist, and is a reality. One need not ascribe to belief in a deity or a higher order to admit this real fact of our being. The existence of free will and its explanation does not properly lie in the physical sciences, as it has been assumed by the quoted author Robert Sapolsky. In belongs to the discipline of philosophy. This discipline would not be rejected by any right thinking individual, any more than language arts should be denied as they are not mathematical or physical sciences. All of the disciplines have a proper sphere of operation. Trying to impose physical rules on the entirety of the human mind, with its moral decision, empathy for others, etc., is a failed effort from its beginning. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Nearly every major figure in the history of philosophy has had something or other to say about free will. The present section considers three of the most prominent theories of what the will is.” (2) Conclusion: As Pro kept his opening argument brief, I will in fairness to him conclude my response and defer to his Round #2. https://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Humans Do Not Have "Free Will"

First off, I am an atheist and thus I don't believe that "souls" exist. I believe that, as humans, we are simply biological organisms and nothing more. We are not some "special species" as many people seem to believe, the fact of the matter is simply that we have a consciousness and are self-aware. But let's move onto the debate, shall we? So right off the bat, let me just say one thing: the concept of humans having "free will" is, in my opinion, quite absurd. By saying we have free will, we are implicitly stating that things such as "souls" exist and that we are more than our biological bodies. As I said before, I believe that humans are simply biological organisms, nothing else. I believe that our actions are simply the result of our brain processing various stimuli and causing our body to react in the most appropriate way, based not only on the current stimuli but also the experiences of the past. This essentially means that WE are not choosing what we do, our body is simply reacting to inputs, the same way a computer does.In fact, a computer is a very apt example, for humans are, in essence, biological computers. Computers, AI's in particular, take in inputs and then return the most logical output. Sound familiar? Well, it should, because this is the exact same way that humans, and pretty much all other organisms as well, function. The only difference is that computers are not made up of organic components, while humans are.Robert Sapolsky, who is a renowned primatologist and neuroendocrinologist (as well as a professor at Stanford University), recently published his book Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (I strongly recommend this, as it is an amazing read) is an avid believer that free will does not exist and in this book, he examines human behavior and why it occurs the way it does. He speaks about how this concept of not having free will scares most people, and thus causes them to develop a strong belief that "free will" does indeed exist, even if that belief contradicts science itself. I find this to be very true, people do indeed avoid what scares them, even if they have to lie to themselves in order to do so. But nonetheless, I believe that we need to accept that free will is just a concept that we came up with in order to satisfy our delusions that, as human beings, we are some sort of special entity.In summary, the concept of having free will goes directly against biological principles and its main function is just to satisfy our egocentric delusions that we are "special".
Abortion after rape or incest should not be excused

Abortion in the case of rape I believe is completely fine. A woman that is raped did not choose to partake in intercourse, and did not intentionally use their capacity to procreate. In saying this, it is not at all the fault of the woman, and the woman should not be forced to live her entire life with a rapist father, and abandon the life she once lived. I apologise to say, but it is absurd to say a woman should allow her entire life to be ruined by a rapist. As we are applying a consequence to woman for being raped. Childbirth is a miracle but conception through rape is quite obviously an exception. Biologically speaking, in the womb until the 12 week mark a baby does not develop it's nervous system and cannot feel pain, we must consider the woman as well as the baby, and cannot put one over the other in the case of rape. It's unfair to the woman to be subject to such a crude life, and the mental strength it would require to LOVINGLY raise a child conceived through rape. It is equally a punishment to the child conceived as they will find their childhood not only fatherless, but loveless and disconnected.
'facts' are not objective

As con it will be my job to prove that facts are objective, which means (in a nutshell) that they are unaffected by an individual's personal opinions. First off, I will present my definition of a fact. As for objective, I will use the same as my opponent, mainly the third definition. fact- verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, meaning a verifiable observation. Now on to my arguments: 1. Lets say that I want to touch the ceiling and I think that I am too short. Just because I think I'm too short doesn't mean that I can't touch the ceiling, I could perhaps use a ladder to do so. The FACT is that I CAN touch the ceiling. This is objective because I CAN touch the ceiling, aside from my personal opinions that I am too short. 2. My definition of a fact talks about information in the PAST or PRESENT, nowhere does it say anything about the future. Also, facts are created. My opponent recalls the time when the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe. This was a fact because it was based on what they knew at that time, and this was not affected by anyone's opinions because it was all they knew. Once a new FACT was known (the sun is the center), it made the other fact false, or not a fact anymore. This wasn't due to someone's opinions, but an advancement in technology, therefore it is still objective. 3. Carrying over from point two a bit is the fact that most of my opponents points, if not all of them, are talking about changes due to new knowledge, which I refuted and explained in my second point. These changes are NOT due to any individual's personal opinions, and are not affected by them, so they are all objective. I think what I have said in the past three points covers just about everything stated by opponent and for this reason I'll stop here. Also, I hope what I have said is clear and understandable by the readers so that it will be an enjoyable and close debate for them to vote on.
Reality TV shows shouldn't be edited.

They edit reality shows because of the content and personalities in the show. If they think that what really happens is boring, they will 'stretch' the truth to bring in more suspense for the viewers. That's why people like reality shows so much. But things can get bad if the people being showed on TV get Mad when people point at them and say 'Wow, you are really that mean!' Which is why I don't like being famous at all when I grow up. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is just show business.
Reality TV shows shouldn't be edited.

Reality TV shows shouldn't be edited for many reasons. I don't like when shows like those are edited because it doesn't show the personality of the stars. On Lifetime's Dance Moms, they portrayed Chloe as the shy one, Maddie as the cocky one, Brooke as the lazy and depressed one, Paige as the dumb one, Mackenzie as the little one, Nia as the undetermined one, and Kendall as the crybaby. They shouldn't be portraying people (as in this case, pre-teen girls) as stereotypes. Also, editing leads to mistakes. I watch reality tv a lot and find so many editing mistakes. Its called reality tv. It should be real! Also they mix filmed scenes with each other to look like 1 big scene. Lastly, they edit it to "get higher ratings" Oh my god! Editing of shows like that will lower the ratings! A lot of reality tv shows could have been more popular if they didn't have bad producers and editors! There is so many more reasons with my cause!
Metal takes more skill than Rap

Far too often in our society, it seems we are far too prejudiced and predisposed to musical tastes; we allow no room for new sounds to enter our lives as we label them prior. Rap suck, metal is too loud, country is for hicks, techno is annoying. However all of these decisions and judgements based a genre are fallacious and detrimental to music as a whole, they are detrimental to art. I therefore negate, that "Metal takes more skill than Rap" Obs1: Both Metal and Rap are different forms of the same art, as such they must be judged for what they are and held to a criteria of their genre. Obs2: In order for my opponent to prove that Metal takes more skill than rap, they must prove all metal songs are better than all rap songs. Meaning if I can show even one rap song better than even one Metal song I win the round. Obs3: I do not have to prove that Rap takes more skill than metal, I only have to prove that Metal does not take more skill that Rap. 1. Some metal simple sucks. Please watch the first video. (Please note I do not condone this video, I realize it's awful; I use them to prove that point, metal can be awful. ) While I don't deny there are plenty of beautiful metal songs, there are equally as many that are either asanine, meaningless, or nothing but screaming. with nil musical talent. This genre of music makes one want to bludgeon their eardrums to death so that can have a moment of silence. In no way does simply having the word "Metal" attached to your music make it any better or any worse. My older brother has been obsessed with this genre for a long time, at one point (many years ago) I was writing his lyrics; I wrote ridiculous verses of magic tacos, and mutant rabbits because as a twelve year old thought that was the coolest thing ever. It wasn't. Multiple guitarists, and lots of screaming doesn't make music good; ingenuity, and creativity makes music good. . http://www.youtube.com... 1. Some rap songs are simply lovely. Please watch the second video. First off, simply by being considered rap we know that thought has gone into the lyrics to make them rhyme. Second, while I do not deny many rap songs are pointless and awful many are meaningful and beautiful. Finally, "Rap" does not mean singing isn't involved; it means that a good majority of the song is poetry spoken to a melody (Which in and of itself takes more skill than screaming like a skinned pig) Ultimately I leave you with this, Music is a form of art. No variation of this art is better than the other, and if the musician doesn't have skill, or anything to say; it doesn't matter the genre it will be bad. However on the other hand, if the musician has skill and something to say, or even if they only have one; their music will be good, and it will touch people. . http://www.youtube.com...
Metal takes more skill than Rap

Thanks Con. Definitions___ Rap music is defined as "words spoken over a beat." Heavy metal is " a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely in the United Kingdom and the United States. With roots in blues rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness. Heavy metal lyrics and performance styles are generally associated with masculinity and machismo." Arguments__ A1. Rap is words spoken over a beat. Metal, however, encompasses singing, growling and full vocal ranges. A2. Rap encompasses two instruments- a singer and a drummer. Metal, however, generally takes a singer, a bass, a drummer and a guitarist, if not more. Since I really can't think of much more, I will await refutations.
Animal Testing

"Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant." An animal cannot be tortured if it simply experiences physical pain stimulus. It must also have the intelligence and metal capacity to understand being trapped in a position where the sole purpose of the transgressor is to cause continuous, physical pain. A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured. It would simply keep trying to escape from the pain. Since escaping from a negative source is simple a biological function, and you seem to be against that, it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc. There must be ANOTHER component in play besides just causing them displeasure. This is mental anguish. "Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?" Animal testing has little to nothing to do with the ozone layer. We should go back on track. Yes. Because since we are unable to create or simulate life, we do not have an easy way to determine how certain medications will affect the organs of a body. We don't know everything about the body structure, and we don't know all the chemical pathways. Therefore, the only possibility is to make a drug based on a concept, what little we DO know, then pop it into a biological system and see if anything bad happens. That's how we made every single medication so far. Getting rid of animal testing is severe. It would leave us with two choices: Either stop testing medication and just sell it, or test it on humans. Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead. ************ My opponent has once again sidestepped by request that I be provided with an argument as to WHY animal testing should be STOPPED. All my opponent has been doing, is trying to dispel my arguments FOR animal testing, but she has not offered a single objective reason why animal testing should be stopped. The only valid point she made was that there may be a better alternative, but I have already pointed out the the sacrifice would be dire if we did so. If animal testing helps us greatly, why should we stop? My opponent has also not given me what I requested specifically: proof that animals have rights. I have waited many, many rounds and my opponent has STILL not expressed an argument as to animal testing should be stopped other than "They don't want to be hurt". I hope that in this final round, my opponent will finally make a statement.
Animal Testing

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." "Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals." Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant. "Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species." Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?
Animal Testing

"How are we to know whether they are happy or not?" I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony. "We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes." We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution. "Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting." Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals. "Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing." We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures.
Animal Testing

A word before we begin. A wise Chinese philosopher once criticized a wealthy man who was staring at the fish in his pond. "how happy they must be, to be swimming in refreshing water on such a sunny day" How are we to know whether they are happy or not? If animals could think like humans, wouldn't it just be another normal day? Would they really be happy as opposed to emotionless? Is it right for us to pretend we can think through the minds of fish? Humans anthropomorphize everything. We call the skies happy when they are blue, and angry when a storm is on the horizon. We apply everything we know about ourselves onto everything else. The reason why many people find it difficult to harm other animals is simply that they see humanity in things that aren't human. This misplaced empathy can really screw up our judgment. ************** That being said, I will now begin my argument. No one likes animal cruelty. It seems inhumane to abuse our position as dominant species of this planet. But by whose standards? We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes. This includes other living things. Please don't misunderstand. Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing. Animal testing provides us with many important things. Namely, medications. Sure, there are other things like dietary supplements, hormones, cosmetics, but medication is probably the most important. Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting. But for every rabbit or rat that we inadvertently kill, hundreds of thousands of human lives could potentially be saved. Another issue: Do non-human animals have human rights? No. This is absurd. The concept of rights is artificial in and of itself. Nature doesn't believe in fair or unfair. There is no justice in nature. Especially not in a survival-of-the-fittest, evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world.
Batman Could Beat the Crud Out of Anyone

Unless Mac can make nuclear bombs at the speed of light, all Batman has to do is disarm him of the piece of string - piece of cake for Batman. Overall I am disappointed with the challengers you've presented me with. I say Batman could defeat ANYONE and you give me b-list Spider-man villains and guys with mullets that aren't Chuck Norris. Is that all you had? Since this is my closing argument, I'd better sum up. The reason Batman can take on any foe and win is because of his determination. Ever since his childhood trauma, he's made a solemn vow to rid Gotham City (and the world) of criminals. He has no superpowers but he has an incredible will. If he perceives someone as a threat, he will FIND A WAY to eliminate them. Given enough time and resources (of which he has more than enough), Batman will find a way to subdue any adversary in his midst.
Batman Could Beat the Crud Out of Anyone

MacGyver? Please. He can make a nuclear reactor out a piece of string, yes. But Batman has studied every single type of martial art there is. MacGyver is the type of guy who Batman would look at and say, I can incapacitate this guy in 17 different ways from where I'm standing. Can MacGyver even fight? And for the commentators, on Superman: Supes has many weakness that can be exploited. For one, there's kryptonite, which even without his ring Batman could have synthesized. Batman could also simulate a red sun, taking away Superman's powers. ALSO, Superman is vulnerable to magic, and although Batman's not partial to magic, he's the type of guy who'd do anything to take some one down. He's not above fighting dirty.
Batman Could Beat the Crud Out of Anyone

Con ~ ok i have a three part setup 1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman 2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance 3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys Sandman? C'mon, Sandman? Ok, fine.... Batman has a villain named Clayface, who is a lot like Sandman only less lame, who he regularly trounces. Clayface has the same shape-shifting powers, and is decidedly nastier than the Sandman (who isn't too evil, just "misguided"). So if Batman can take Clayface, he can TOTALLY take Sandman. Gimme a harder one! Superman? Thor? Darkseid?
Batman Could Beat the Crud Out of Anyone

ok i have a three part setup 1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman 2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance 3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys