BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
humans are no longer evolving

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
Reality is what we mentally create through experience.

Ok, I'm a little confused, but good to go. Before we proceed I thought it would benefit everybody if we got some good, solid definitions on paper. I apologize for not doing this myself earlier. I admit the topic had excited me a bit too much. :)Reality: The state or quality of being realReal : true. not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparentMentally : in or with the mind or intellect; intellectually. Create : to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processesExperience : a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something. Pro's claims in the initial round were as follows" the experiences that we have are not true to reality, but that our combination of them in our minds creates what constitutes reality. For example, we as humans with a limited perspective cannot experience a cube from more than one perspective and there is a subjectivity that arises from this (one person seeing something quite different than what another sees when looking at the same object). The only way a cube can be understood is through a mental creation of it as an entirely unique entity informed by our experiences, but completely intangible and yet more real than what was seen. Events as they occur over time, such as motion etc. , are understood by the same principle. ". I refute this argument with a simple idea. By what Pro has tried to convey, it comes across that reality is always about something we have seen, heard or smelt in the past, namely, past experiences. But Pro's argument has left out something very crucial to the survival and sustenance of the human race : new experiences. And by new experiences, I mean seeing, hearing or smelling something which was never seen, heard or smelt in the past. Are such things not real just because we haven't experienced them before? Imagine the consequences of such an attitude. No discoveries would have been made, nothing would have been invented, all because man would think that all he had experienced was all that was real n the world. For all you know, the idea that the world was flat would have persisted till this date. While it is an interesting idea of yours, Pro, it is not entirely free from flaws. Assuming you would have said 'Reality is what we create through experience', it would have held more meaning, as the physical aspect contributing towards reality is definitely greater than the mental ("Actions speak louder than words", age-old saying). In fact, physical efforts tend more to reality than mental efforts, which actually tend more towards imagination, which cannot be considered similar to reality. My examples of the phantom limb and the optical illusion support this statement fully. Looking forward to your argument.
Reality is what we mentally create through experience.

Thanks for joining the debate. I'm sorry, but what I said earlier may not have been as clear as I meant it to be (I know that sounds lame but it's true). The idea that experience forms our conception of reality is based on the idea that what we create must be, eventually if we have any integrity, subordinate to actuality in some way. A phantom limb is a perfect example. The pain the patient feels is real (as in they actually feel it) because of the lag between the mental construct of reality and the actuality of their current experience. The readjustment of reality as we perceive it is one of the most difficult experiences we can go through. The thing that we mentally create we can understand on many levels (hence when you read a story etc. there is a mental creation that exists in isolation from your other experiences and is only mixed with them by abstraction). The whole purpose of this kind of creation is to give us more power to understand the world as it is, was, and will be. It is quite possible to not put your conception in the right frame for instance Zeno's paradox comes from taking our artificial construct of space as a series of points too literally (or in a more nuanced argument of it as a criticism of this constructs limitations). In actuality space and time are immeasurable being one continuum (each). Science is continually using these mental constructs to explain reality. Gravity, electricity, strong force etc. are all vague essences that we construct and give laws to, but never define. This mental creation is an act of intelligence and is natural to human beings. The pitfalls that it leads to are those we must overcome to obtain knowledge. To overcome the we must carefully subordinate our minds to reality while not backing away from things we don't understand that are working. If this totally changed the debate I hope that's okay. Please be forgiving of my inability to express myself clearly before.
Reality is what we mentally create through experience.

Hello there The idea of reality being a by-product of our own doing and experience, in my eyes, frankly, is one born out of convenience and self-assurance. Through time immemorial, man has always thought and fantasized of being in perfect control of his surroundings and the master of his will. "I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me". While a sarcastic cynic's retort to this would be, "Then go ahead, let it rip! :)", I see it as a fear to accept the fact that after some point, we are no longer the creators of our destiny or, more specific to this topic, our perception. Call it reluctance to come to terms that there is more than what we see, hear, smell and feel. Or call it plain ignorance. To support my argument, I will quote the work of eminent neurologist, Dr. V.S. Ramachandran of the University of California, San Diego. In his book, 'The Tell-Tale Brain', he discusses the concept of phantom limbs. And to explain this concept to everyone, I quote, "In the majority of cases where people have lost limbs, they continue to vividly feel the presence of the missing limb. Chronic phantom pain — which strikes roughly two-thirds of patients who have had a limb removed — can become so severe that patients seriously contemplate suicide." Pain, as we all know it, is an experience learned time and again from childhood. But in the case of amputees, who have unfortunately lost a limb, the amputated 'part' continues to relay pain signals to the brain, the center of perceiving 'reality', as understood by you. But does the amputated part exist? No it does not. Is it real? No, it is not. Yet your experience of pain tells you it does. And this issue is more serious than you think. The patient has to be trained to unlearn experiencing this pain, which, I reiterate, is born out of past experience. And why? To accept reality. The harsh one. Not the one born out of experience. Another simple example I'd like to demonstrate. Have a look at the picture on the link below. I apologize as I could not do anything to get it to show on this page as I was unable to find any option to attach media in my argument (and plus I am kind of a greenhorn with computers, so) http://www.badcut.com... The image is an optical illusion showing circles moving about when you know perfectly well they are not. Obviously you would have seen examples of similar motion, say a giant wheel at your local fair, in the past. That is experience. And that very experience is making you believe something which you know is a trick your eyes are playing on you. So again, is past experience a parameter enough to define and describe reality? Your argument is much awaited.
Reality is what we mentally create through experience.

Hello everybody, I am excited to put forth an idea that I have had for a while. The substance of this idea is that the experiences that we have are not true to reality, but that our combination of them in our minds creates what constitutes reality. For example, we as humans with a limited perspective cannot experience a cube from more than one perspective and there is a subjectivity that arises from this (one person seeing something quite different than what another sees when looking at the same object). The only way a cube can be understood is through a mental creation of it as an entirely unique entity informed by our experiences, but completely intangible and yet more real than what was seen. Events as they occur over time, such as motion etc., are understood by the same principle. This idea is more widely applicable than just the physical world. To illustrate this point I will use art, the creations of our minds, in its different forms through history. In the Renaissance perspective was used to stimulate this kind of mental creation of physical realities. Inducing the creation of worlds, people and things in the viewer. In modern art the abandonment of perspective did not create an escape from the synthesis of experience into realities, but merely changed the nature of this synthesis as it took over this part of the work for you. Cubism, based on representing the plurality of subjective views over time (see Nude Descending Staircase) or through many perspectives (Picasso), by doing the work of physical creation for one drives the mind to synthesize the other meanings in a painstaking process that leaps in quantum bounds of intuition. Thus as modern art can be understood through a non-physical conclusion, so can our reality be a non-physical conclusion. As far as rules for this debate go it is three rounds, conclusions in the third round, and arguments everywhere else. The first round I put forward an argument so feel free to do so. Thank you.
Most pit bulls are not dangerous

The topic of what you are phrasing as a "pit bull genocide" is not what this debate is about. The topic is "Most pit bulls are not dangerous." This is false. I have shown evidence, I have used facts. Do I think pit bulls should be killed just because they are pit bulls? No. Do I believe that strict regulations should be put on pit bulls? Yes. Pit bulls are also not trained to be dangerous. They are downright aggressive dogs who from birth are usually dangerous. This is what the debate is about, we are not debating the ethics of pitbull control. You are doing what I said would be done. You are trying to bait me into an argument I have no part in when the debate at hand is: "are pit bulls dangerous?" What I believe has happened is you have jumped ship on your original argument because you could not find real proof, or you were too lazy to research anything that supports pit bulls not being dangerous. Please address the arguments I made in the argument above, which relate to the debate, instead of creating a completely new argument.
Most pit bulls are not dangerous

I am focused on the fact that because some pit bulls are trained badly people see all pit bulls as dangerous. I am focused on the fact that some towns don't allow any pit bulls in there not even in a car just driving through the town to get to a different town. Places in the U.S ask that people who own pit bulls should move out of the town or they will take your pit bull and kill the dog, even if innocent. Now how is that fair to the dogs that don't do anything wrong? I'm not saying all pit bulls are angels but most pit bulls are sweet and kind I know many pit bulls. I know there are attacks from these kinds of dogs but I look at the owner, isn't it true there is a statement that says everyone is innocent until proved guilty. SHouldn't that be applied to dogs too? Innocent dogs are being killed because they were born a pitbull!
Most pit bulls are not dangerous

First off, I will outline what my opponent will attempt to do. She will paint me as a dog-hating hyper republican who wants all pit bulls to be put down. She may use outrageous examples, but she will mainly appeal to the dog lover in all of us. However, I would like to point out some problems with her argument. Her only example is her own dog. She is saying "I know that my pit bull is a nice, friendly dog. Therefore, all pit bulls must be nice, friendly dogs!" That would be the same thing as saying "I know one man who was a rapist. Therefore, all men must be rapists!" You can't just take one random example and make it the only basis of your argument. You have to provide repeated proof. While I agree there are plenty of nice, friendly pit bulls (such as your dog), that does not change the fact that the majority of dog-related attacks are pit bulls. Here is an example: "One (pitbull) literally went for my leg and [the] other was trying to jump on top of me, but I was hitting them, and I was punching them," Janelle Manning, 24, told CBS New York at the time. "They both weren't letting go, once they got a hold of my leg." Because of her leg injuries, Manning struggled to walk up and down stairs, CBS reported. "These dogs (pit bulls) were, like, trained to kill; trained to hurt and viciously attack people," she said. I would like to emphasise the part where she says "These dogs were, like, trained to kill; trained to hurt and viciously attack people." Pit bulls are a very dangerous dog naturally. However, if I stopped at just one example, I would be doing what my opponent is doing. There are numerous studies from children's hospitals showing that pit bulls are the main cause of dog bights. In a five year study of dog bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, it found that more than half of all dog bites were pit bulls. (2009) This study is not alone. Another 15-year study showed that pit bulls, Rottweilers and German shepherds are responsible for the overwhelming majority of dog attacks ending in fatality. (2009) Another 2011 study from the Annals of Surgery showed that "attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs." The people who ran this study all say that that strict regulation of pit bulls would most likely substantially reduce the U.S. mortality rates related to dog bites. This concludes my opening statement. Thank you for your consideration.
Most pit bulls are not dangerous

Pit bulls are only dangerous if raised that way, they are very strong and heavy built but pit bulls used to be very good babysitters and were once a great caretaker. I have a pit bull who was in a very bad home he was abused and used for dog fighting but when I got him I gave him the right home and now he loves people and would never hurt another animal or human. I trust him 100% with whoever he wants to be around.
Resolved, that prostitution be made legal in the United States of America

In 1986 Victoria Australia legalized prostitution and brothels and installed a plan to have the prostitutes registered and check by medical professionals. Shortly after starting this program the STD rates increased. Not to mention legalizing prostitution encourages women to enter a career where they cannot make a living. In Australia the average prostitute made less than 500 Australian dollars a week. Legalizing prostitution does not mean an end to illegal prostitution or street prostitution. 80% of the average street prostitutes are heavy drug users. 46% have children in protective. 80% of prostitutes where assaulted by either pimps or buyers. Even with it legal it still led to crime in Victoria on average 2 rapes and one assault where reported by prostitutes per night. There where also a few prostitutes murder each year. Also it does not put an end to the illegal sex trade. Australia has an estimated $30 million sex trade industry. Oh and of all the states in Australia Victoria the had the highest number of reported child prostitution. And legalizing prostitution but with a required condom policy does not work either. In the US 73% of prostitutes said men are willing to pay more for sex without a condom. 45% said they where abused and assaulted if they insisted men wear condoms. And in response to the comment yes people are arrested for prostitution according to the FBI roughly 60,000 in 2002 where arrested for prostitution. That's more than rape, murder, gambling, and arson. In conclusion prostitution should remain illegal. It should remain this way because it does nothing good for a society. It increases STD's and does nothing to reduce illegal prostitution. It leads to an increase in sex trafficking and child molestation. Drug use and violence both increase. http://www.fbi.gov... http://action.web.ca... http://www.prostitutionprocon.org... http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca... http://books.google.com... http://books.google.com...
Resolved, that prostitution be made legal in the United States of America

I, as a debater, hoped that you would have thought up some new, stumping situation for me to wriggle out of, but seeing as you have not, I will proceed to file my disagreements with your rebuttal. "If you legalize prostitution sex will become public. Yes there might not be people having sex in the streets but it will become more public than it is now." Okay, there is a slogan that I find to be highly apparent in modern advertisements. "Sex sells." It's apparent all over the New York City subway trains I ride, from the Budweiser commercials with scantily clad ladies flaunting their cold, refreshing Budweiser drinks to the advertisements for page six in the newspaper. Sex is already a HIGHLY public affair. However, I do not believe that ads for prostitution will appear on my daily subway ride, nor on buses or trailing behind airplanes. When was the last time you saw a porn advertisement in public? You don't. These types of things are tucked away in the last few pages of a magazine or dirty websites. It will not become a problem. "Also prostitution leads to an increase in both STD's and crime." Unfortunately, you spent very little time on these subjects, so allow me to clarify these broad topics. STDs Legal prostitution means regulated prostitution. Just because you are having sex with a prostitute does not necessarily mean that it has to be unprotected. Crime I do not see how crime rates would increase. I think this is based on the illogical assertion that prostitutes always deal with criminals, and are criminals themselves. As I have mentioned earlier, legalizing prostitution would lead to regulating prostitution, and help create a safer work environment for both parties involved. I hope that you have enjoyed this debate.
Resolved, that prostitution be made legal in the United States of America

I have two problems with your arguments. 1. "By your logic I could sell a felon a handgun just becuse I can own one." Sex is not a dangerous activity, and cannot kill people, unlike guns (although arguably ANYTHING could kill someone, sex is not generally related to killing or death, unlike a gun). 2. "Sex is one of those things that is not acceptable to have in public." Who said anything about having the proposed sold sex in PUBLIC? Legalizing prostitution does not mean legalizing public sex. I agree that it may have been a bad idea to use "that kind of simplistic logic," but the fact remains: it applies to this case, and not of gun sales. I'm sure that I am not the only one who can point out the differences between a bullet and a blowjob, as well as the effects they have on the human body.
Resolved, that prostitution be made legal in the United States of America

"People can sell stuff. People can have sex. Why then, can't people sell sex?" When thinking about government and legal matters it is very bad to use this type of simplistic logic. By your logic I could sell a felon a handgun just becuse I can own one. Bad logic aside there are things that are viewed as acceptable for public and others that are not acceptable for the public. Sex is one of those things that is not acceptable to have in public.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. 12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

Darn, I was hoping to get you with the causa sui part of my God definition, since that contradicts the principle of causality on which the scientific method relies. However, I still got you with the ideas of choice and responsibility. And here's why: if you believe in the scientific method, then you ascribe to the philosophy of empiricism, of which science is a subset. Empiricism relies on the assumption that existence is causal; that effects do not happen of their own volition (or by the volition of a human will), but are merely the effects of prior causes that pre-date them to the beginning of existence. Responsibility for one's choices, however, relies on the assumption that not everything in existence is causal, specifically that humans can initiate actions which were not innevitable. Causality means we have no control over what we do, while responsibility implies that we have some control; that our actions are not merely the effects of prior causes. To believe in both is a CONTRADICTION! Of course, you may disagree with my assessment, as do many people clinging to the notion of choice and free will. I'll forego my other questions for another round to allow you to tell me why you think I'm wrong. I also got you on the 5th question: you do not agree that 'this statement is a lie,' which means you think the statement is not a lie (i.e that it's true). But if it's true while claiming to be a lie, then it is a lie and you end up agreeing and contradicting yourself again. Lol, how fun.