BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
truth has evidence advantage

I will be con arguing that truth itself may not have enough evidence to be considered to be universally true, as that is what truth is. My arguments will cover topics including the concept of Last Thurdayism, Relativism, Mary's Room thought experiment/Knowledge argument, zombies, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Quantum Mechanics, Multiverses, the nature of the Law of Contradiction, simulation, and the infamous tree falling in forest. The limitations of human minds will also be explored and lead into different biases of the mind as well. Definitions 1. zombie - A physical entity in which it has no conscious, that is indistinguishable from a human. 2. Relativism - The idea that there are no absolute truths or that some truths are not absolute. This includes different kinds, including cognitive relativism, ethical relativism, aesthetic relativism, among many others. Be indicative in your argument or counterargument which you are to refer to, to ensure no mistake is made 3. Truth - An idea that is right no matter what. 4. simulation - in philosophy, the idea that reality is merely an illusion 5. Multiverse - A universe out of a set of all possible universes, all different outcomes and events It should be suggested that one refrains from trolling, personal insults, or use of fallacies. Also be recommended one does not assume any biblical text to be true to make their point unless it is undoubtedly proven to be true and literal at that section one refers to. Also pro I am assuming we are in structure of the following. 1. Acceptance 2. Opening Statements 3. Rebuttals If not please let me know. I look forward to an educated and informed civil discussion with you on the nature of knowledge.
truth has evidence advantage

My opponent has not explained any of his ideas or refuted any of my arguments in a logical manner. Pro says "truth is truth" which does not advance to argument anymore, and just uses identity, and negates the point of the debate, on whether truth has evidence. Pro says "My mind is self evidence I say, not sure I understand number 1. . many things can be proven through their effects" which indicates he did not read or understand my argument, in that I was saying you can not prove other peoples conciousness, even if they are concious. Even then, the mind is only self evidence of your ability to think, but can not be proven to show what you think is indeed correct, because there could be something you don't know that you don't know. Pro says "sense is absolute. . reality is true. " By the nature of sense, it is not absolute. Sense is how each person interacts with the world, and everyone has slightly different to wildly different senses. Blind people can't see but other people can, so who is right here? What about two people who when looking at the same object, see two different shades of red, who's interpretation is correct? Colors aren't innately red, but are a tool for us to navigate. We can not see infrared, simply because our eyes were not evolved to see them, which would only produce a tool for navigation, but it in itself is not the color of infrared you see. Therefore, senses are not absolute by the nature of senses. Then there can be no such thing to proove reality is true. Not even reason can as noted below. Pro says "if we are in a simulation. . negated, its a question not an answer. . so you can believe it, but it isn't true" the point was that you can not prove you are or aren't in a simulation, as your mind could be simply programmed to think that in a simulation. The point then is that a truth value of us being in a simulation simply is not proovable. Pro says "in nr 3, you say no system can prove its own consistency, eh how did you prove that then? " Sources on the idea and proof are here. -Concept explained at . https://plato.stanford.edu...-General idea at . https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems-Proof at . http://web.yonsei.ac.kr... Pro says "is a lie a truth? " this assumes alternate ideals of a person are lying, or that there can not be a truth which is unprovable. It attacks nothing the debate was on. Pro has not defended any of your points or refuted any of mine using logic but rather assume the claim itself to prove the claim itself. This is a fallacy known as circular reasoning, and also shows pro does not have the best arguments. Pro does not have the best grammar as well.
truth has evidence advantage

its simply true, lies are not real dude truth is truth my mind is self evidence i would say, not sure i understand nr 1.. many things can be proven through their effects sense is absolute.. reality is true illumination requires a shadow, everything has an opposite for it to exist if we are in a simulation.. negated, its a a question not an answer.. so you can believe it, but it isnt true in nr 3, you say no system can prove its own consistency, eh how did you prove that then? is a lie a truth?
truth has evidence advantage

You have shown no arguments or evidence of your claim. In fact, you have presupposed a truth in that it is absolute, to prove it is true, or in other words, presupposed truth is absolute to prove truth is absolute.1. Mary's Room/Knowledge Argument - Consider a neuroscientist named Mary, who knows everything there is to know about color vision but has never seen color. Quite clearly, when she sees color for the first time, she has learned something, what seeing color is like. In fact to make this more extreme, we can study other wavelengths of light but never know what it looks like, because we can't see it, we can not reconstruct the 'color' of it so that we can see. Suppose some entity that can see infrared. It will be true of what they see, but literally improvable of what they see, because nothing else can construct the brains own awareness of itself, as trying to simulate indicates you aren't a part of the brain being aware of itself. Therefore there is truths that are improvable that are true.2. Last Thursdayism/Descartes Evil Demon/Simulation - Suppose there is an evil demon that is constantly to deceive you in life. Is there anything that the demon can't deceive you in? Descartes came to the conclusion that this is the ability to think, because if the demon deceives you to think you can think, then you are still thinking, therefore to prove ones existence is their ability to think. However that is the only thing that is to be trusted, worst still is that the thought itself can be doubted, which is the point. The same could be said that we may live in a simulation or the demon conceived us Last Thursday. But whether or not it is true if we are in a simulation, we ourselves can not and will not be able to prove whether we are in a simulation, because our whole mind can be programmed to think we are real. We can not prove our own consistency. It is an improvable truth within our realm, as they seem like zombies to us but to them are conscious. Whether or not they are zombies or not has some truth value, but once again, does not have evidence of the sort to support it. Thus there are truths that are improvable to be true.3. Godel's Two Incompleteness Theorem - This is an infamous result in mathematics that proves that with any given mathematical system that is consistent, it will never be such that an effective procedure is capable of proving truths of arithmetic of the natural numbers, but still they will be true. Actually, that is only the first theorem, the second states that no system can prove its own consistency. Quite clearly, if there is a system in which something is true but unprovable, then it has no evidence. It is to be noted though this only applies to an axiomatic statement and does not rely on empiricism.It will be noted that I did not manage to make all the arguments I was claiming to make, in that upon further realization, came to the conclusion that these do not prove my case. These other statements pointed to there not being an absolute truth, but they still had evidence to support, and thus are not fit into this argument.
Violence VS Sex

I am not trying to argue that movies should be saturated with sex, I am merely trying to get the point across that whoever is responsible for what should and should not be censored has their values misplaced. In North American media, violence is much more widely accepted than sex. I believe that this is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, sex is generally less harmful than violence. We are all the product of a sexual act, yet I doubt many of us are the result of a violent one. Simply put, if films like Hostel and Saw are considered mainstream entertainment, then I think that their sexual equivalent [pornography] should be given the same acceptance, if not now, then at some point hopefully in the near future.
Violence VS Sex

Pro offered an opinion, but made no logical arguments. He forfeited twice in response to my rebuttal, leaving my arguments unanswered. So long as government censorship is not a major factor, which it is not in North America, society seeks its own level with regard to the levels of sex and violence in media. It's impossible to say that we have too much or too little based upon one's personal taste. A person can get whatever he or she wants, so there are no grounds for complaint. The resolution is negated.
Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel

RULES OF DEBATE The rules are very simple. I expect a pleasant, semi-formal debate. Please consider these rules if you plan to accept this debate: Participants of all ages and experience are welcome to accept this debate. However, I expect my opponent to behave and take this partially serious. I want us to have fun and have a factual debate. No vulgar language and or personal attacks. I don't expect this to be an issue but I feel I should mention this. The first round is to be for acceptance only. These three rules should be followed or defeat will be considered by default. They're not very difficult and I expect you to follow them.BE IT RESOLVED: that the penny and the nickel be eliminated from production in the US Mint. Good luck to my opponent (whomever you may be) and I look forward to this debate!
Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel

I'll have you know that Penny is a valuable asset in The Big Bang Theory. She counterbalances the rather asocial remainder of the cast, playing as comedic fodder for her relative scientific ignorance, and for keeping Shelden in check. ("*knock knock* Penny (x3)")I don't know who Nickel is, is she a new character or something?They really must be running out of ideas.
Windows vs. Mac

I accept your refined definition of a Macintosh computer, and I apologize for my misrepresentation of it. Arguments against MacintoshesPrice: The price of Macintosh computers, is, in general, much higher than computers running Windows with comparable specs. Compare the iMac[1] against an eMachines computer[2] with roughly the same specs. The iMac starts at $1,199, while the eMachines is $349.99. In addition, compare the iMac against the Dell Studio XPS Desktop[3], a computer with much better specs than the iMac. Even the $699 Mac Mini[5] is more expensive than a comparable Windows machine[4]. While a higher price usually indicated superior quality, I'm not seeing the superior quality of Macs. While their build is remarkably strong, they bring only normal computing power at about double the price, while Windows PCs at the same prices bring far more power. Programs: As seen on the Apple Developer page[6], to develop for Macintosh, you would require a $99/year enrollment. However, development for Windows is free using the Visual Studio Express[7] development software. In addition, there are many other free development tools, such as gcc[8], or Dev-C++[9]. I'm sure that there are free Macintosh dev tools, but, in order to be published to the App Store, you'd need to be enrolled - a factor which might turn off new programmers. Customizability: Macintosh computers lack hardware customization options, or at least easier options. Most other PCs can be opened, and new parts can be added, or parts be replaced at the will of the owner. Not so with Apple computers. You typically do not have that option with Macs. [1] . http://store.apple.com...[2] . http://www.bestbuy.com...[3] . http://www.bestbuy.com...[4] . http://www.bestbuy.com...[5] . http://store.apple.com...[6] . http://developer.apple.com...[7] . http://www.microsoft.com...[8] . http://gcc.gnu.org...[9] . http://www.bloodshed.net...
Windows vs. Mac

I accept this challenge and look forward to a good debate. Before we begin, I would like to make a few clarifications to your definitions. You defined a Macintosh as "a computer running the Apple Macintosh operating system". Apple Macintosh is not an operating system. I would like to redefine a Macintosh as "a computer made by Apple, Inc. which primarily runs the Mac OS X operating system". A Windows computer will be defined as "a computer that primarily runs the Microsoft Windows operating system".
Windows vs. Mac

Hello, Debate.org. This will be my first instigated debate, and as a first, I'll choose a popular topic among new members: the everlasting war between Windows and Macintosh computers. I'll be Pro, taking the position of Windows and computers running it, and my opponent shall support Macintosh.The first round shall be for opening statements, introductions, and definitions. Rounds two and three will be for debating, and round four will be closing arguments.Definitions:Windows - A computer running the Microsoft Windows operating systemMacintosh - A computer running the Apple Macintosh operating systemI'm looking forward to having this debate. Thank you.
Windows vs. Mac

Price: My opponent claims that I have also missed the point of the iMac over a standard computer, that is, an iMac is an all-in-one desktop. I apologize for not realizing this, but I'm not quite conceding this point, please see "Maintenance". Energy Efficiency: While it is true that not all Windows machines are Energy-star certified, there are quite a few[1]. But, it would be near-impossible for every Windows computer to be Energy-Star certified, as they are produced by many different manufacterers. Software Availability: My point in presenting Windows virtualization software was to show that Windows computers were as capable of running Macintosh virtual operating systems as Macintoshes were able to run Windows VMs, thus making your point invalid: Both platforms can run each other's software through virtualization. I also apologize for my misinterpretation. I'd also like to introduce a couple more arguments. Maintenance: Take the iMac in particular. If something major breaks, like the monitor, it's not going to be easy replacing it. You'd probably have to send it in to Apple's repair centers, which could cost a lot of money. However, with a Windows not-all-in-one PC, you only have to replace the monitor without sending it in for maintenance or digging through all the hardware to remove the old monitor. Individual, separate parts are easier to replace. Apple has a Monopoly: Apple has a monopoly on computers running the Macintosh. No other manufacturer is allowed to use the Mac OS on their computers, only Apple. Since there is only one seller, this constitutes a monopoly, thus allowing Apple to set the price potentially a lot higher than what the Mac actually costs to build. Consider this article[2] that instructs you how to build a Hackintosh Pro for about $900, in comparison to a standard Mac Pro[3], which costs $2,338. They do have competition from Windows and Linux, but if you want a Macintosh (legally), you're going to have to go with Apple - and they set the price. I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting first debate. He has changed my opinions about Macs, but I still see them as overpriced. [1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://lifehacker.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...
Windows vs. Mac

PriceMy opponent here, as he did with the Mac mini, is not realizing the purpose that each Mac computer serves. The iMac is advertised and known for being the ultimate "all-in-one" computer[1], meaning that it doesn't require multiple pieces and components (webcameras, speakers, and computer), because it's all built in. The combined value of the computer, web camera, speakers, and computers that are built into one frame and designed to work together is far more valuable than the separate parts. ProgramsMy opponent has conceded that registration as an Apple Developer is, in fact, free. This is counted as a dropped argument for Pro. CustomizabilityAgain, my opponent has conceded this argument and it counts as a dropped argument for Pro. Energy EfficiencyMy opponent lists one Windows computer, the HP All-in-One, that meets ENERGY STAR requirements. Since we are looking at computers in general, and not specific ones, one computer that meets ENERGY STAR is not enough to say that the entire line of Windows computers are more energy efficient. On the other hand, every single Mac in production meets both ENERGY STAR requirements as well as EPEAT GOLD energy ratings[2][3][4][5][6][7]. Therefore, in general, Macs are more energy efficient than Windows PCs. Software AvailabilityMy opponent lists virtualization software for Windows- namely, VirtualBox and VMWare. However, these arguments do not show that a Windows computer is better than a Mac, because, as previously stated, a Mac can run any Windows software through the use of Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMWare Fusion. Therefore, any piece of software my opponent can name that works on Windows will also work on a Mac. My opponent says that VirtualBox and VMWare run x86 software on other operating systems. The same thing can be done by running the same programs on a Mac. Since a Mac can run all Mac OS X and Windows software, and a Windows PC can only run Windows software and not Mac OS X, the Mac has more software available to it. As for the closing statement, I believe my opponent misinerpreted what I meant. When I claimed that Macs had more available software, I meant that, by using Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMWare Fusion, a Mac could run all Windows software in addition to Mac software- therefore totaling more than just the Windows software. I look forward to my opponent's response in the next round. [1] . http://www.apple.com...;[2] . http://www.apple.com...[3] . http://www.apple.com...[4] . http://www.apple.com...;[5] . http://www.apple.com...[6] . http://www.apple.com...[7] . http://www.apple.com...
Windows vs. Mac

Price: While the iMac does have a monitor, speakers, and an HD webcam, I propose that one could buy those things separately for less than twelve hundred dollars. Combining the eMachines computer ($349.99) with a monitor[1] ($169.99), an HD webcam[2] ($59.99), and a reasonably okay pair of inexpensive speakers[3] ($34.99), the total would be $614.96, excluding sales tax. I concede the quad-core processor to you, however. In hindsight, I see that a comparison between the Mac mini and a Presario was uncomparable. I did not realize or put much thought into the purpose of the Mini (very small but powerful computer). I concede that one to you. Programs: I did not see that (probably because the free option wasn't listed) on the page I cited. I concede that to you as well. Customizability: I concede this to you as well. I knew it could be disassembled, but I thought that Apple didn't like people doing that. It appears I was wrong. Energy Efficiency: While the eMachines machine may not be Energy Star certified, the HP All-in-One[4] is, and it's comparable to the eMachines, comes with a monitor, speakers, keyboard, and a mouse, and still cheaper than an iMac. It's only really lacking in processing power. Software Availability: My opponent claims that you can only run Windows programs on Windows PCs. This is true, except the he also claims that you can use Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, and VMWare Fusion on a Mac, which is also true. But there is also virtualization software for Windows, such as VirtualBox[5] and VMWare[6], both of which have free options, and both of which can run x86 software on other operating systems. My opponent, in his closing statements, also states that Macintoshes have more available software. Open-source software host SourceForge[7] lists 59,111 Windows projects on its project search page[8], while only listing 12,630 Mac projects[9]. CNet's Download.com lists 193,867 projects for Windows XP[10, on the left]*. *I'd list Mac stats, but they're probably wrong, seeing as there are only 14 application for Max OS 10.5.[11, on the left] [1] http://www.bestbuy.com... [2] http://www.bestbuy.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.bestbuy.com... [5] http://www.virtualbox.org... [6] http://www.vmware.com... [7] http://sourceforge.net... [8] http://sourceforge.net... [9] http://sourceforge.net... [10] http://tinyurl.com..., http://preview.tinyurl.com... [11] http://download.cnet.com... TinyURLs used because the real ones kept breaking.
LD Sept./Oct. (I've got a big invititational

Value: Okay whatever, they're the same, my case works under both. Criterion: Have you ever had to make this decision? Do you know anyone who has? I think not. This is not a "normal" situation. Contention 1: But you never attacked it as such. Because of that it is flowed across. Furthermore, the resolution doesn't need to define it as such, it is simply fact. This is a circumstance that does not occur normally. Definitions: You're welcome. Ob 1: Okay, I concede this observation. Ob 2: Okay, I concede this observation. My case is not damaged. Ob 3: You're welcome. Ob 4: Yes,but being killed is not a moral crime. It is something outside of one's control, and is therefore not part of morality. The killer may be a guilty man, but as long as the victim is innocent, it doesn't matter. Value: You're welcome. Criterion: You dropped my other attacks. You provided no indication of what moral normalty is. You speak of the categorical imperative now, but that isn't moral normalty. The categorical imperative is but one form. You provided no weighing mechanism, so you drop this criterion. Furthermore, as I said, this isn't a normal situation. Normative ethics are suspended in abnormal circumstances. That's my whole argument. Contention 1: A. You never say what morality is. You need a weighing mechanism. You provided none. The categorical imperative is not the standard for normative morality. Virtue ethics and divine command ethics are both normative systems, yet they don't use the categorical imperative. Virtue ethics uses conformance to virtue, divine command uses the bible. B. You never said that. Even so, deontological ethics can only judge a rational agent. A man is by no means rational in a stressful situation like the one in the resolution. We can't judge a man whom morality cannot apply to. C. Again, you should have made the CI your criterion if that was your intent. You didn't, so you can't use it. D. Prove it. You have no logic or evidence for this. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Voting Issues. 1. My opponent dropped my first contention. 2. My opponent provided no weighing mechanism. 3. My case fits under moral normalty. Moral normalty does not apply to this situation. 4. My opponent gave no logic to support his claims. As per the agreed upon rules, my opponent will forfeit the last round.