BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

"a shirt IS the color it is. It is a FACT that light of only certain wavelengths will reflect from the fabric in the shirt." It is true that only certain wavelengths will reflect from a fabric in a shirt. But the jump from this objective reality to the perception in the brain is all interpretation. Frequencies and wavelengths of light are objective things. All observers will measure them to be the same. But color is perception, it is not objective. It is a construct of the mind that helps us compare and make sense of things. For example, certain animals can see infared and even ultraviolet light. Does this mean that light of those really high and low frequencies is of a certain color? No, it is all based on perception of a conscious being. Color is not objective. It is the same thing with the sense of smell. There exist a certain objectivty like the basic chemical makeup of compounds, but different people will experience the ODORS differently. "Simply because 5 out of 6 people believe a shirt is green doesn't make it more likely that the 6th will believe it is green as well." Have you ever heard of the famous psychologist, Solomon Asch. He did plenty of experimenting on social conformity and proved that peoples' perceptions can change based on the influence of others. He showed two posters to subjects. One poster had three lines on it, marked A, B, and C. The other had one line that was equal in length to either A, B, or C and it was obvious which was the right answer. If Asch used confederates to purposely give the wrong answer, the results of the subject were drastically skewed. One explanation may be that this is just a change in conscious judgement, but a similar experiment in 2005 was done while and MRI was taken and subjects showed physiological changes in the section of the brain associated with spatial awareness. While attending a relative's funeral is not usually a happy event, it is possible to dissociate feelings or sadness and instead think about all the happy times you had with that relative. In the Buddhist religion, life's ultimate quest is to reach nirvana, or eternal bliss. This state is largely dependent on the mindset of a person. Many Buddhists have lived lives of poverty and still manage to be happy. How can you take evidence like that and refute it. I'll bet that the average happiness of devoted Buddhist that live in poverty is greater than wealthy Americans.
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

You attempt to poke holes in my argument by applying verbal technicalities doesn't work. In order to actually FEEL pain or pleasure, it must have a cause. Clearly, this cause cannot be subjective, else one would be able to simply create happiness out of nothing. And if this were the case, nobody would ever be unhappy, which is clearly NOT the case. In reality, there are events that will be interpreted as pain or pleasure. These events are entirely objective - not under any sort of control by a perceiver. While one might be able to consider the responses to these events as subjective, the fact remains that the event caused the experience, not the mind. I'm not sure you're versed in basic science... a shirt IS the color it is. It is a FACT that light of only certain wavelengths will reflect from the fabric in the shirt. Thoughts DO NOT determine reality. Even Kant, who holds that objects and experience conform to mind would not agree that thoughts determine reality to ANY extent. There is an objective reality regardless of what the mind perceives. The response of the mind to this objective reality is not entirely subjective. "Normal" perceivers see the world in roughly the same way. We all see objects that reflect light in the same wavelength as the same color - indeed, we could see them in no other way. A perfect indicator that thoughts don't determine reality is that your thoughts cannot change what color I perceive a shirt to be - the individual CANNOT influence objective reality. The mind cannot create pleasure - it simply fools the brain. The brain contains native centers that are activated by sensation - I would suggest that masochism activates both pleasure and pain receptors. As you point out, evolution makes it most likely that they feel pain. They may feel pleasure as well, but by its very definition, a masochist's pleasure depends on feeling pain. This nonsense about collective consciousness determining reality is bogus. Simply because 5 out of 6 people believe a shirt is green doesn't make it more likely that the 6th will believe it is green as well. The 6th will see the shirt as the same color as everything else they've ever seen that is that color. Everyone's notion about what is painful and pleasurable is based on preference, not collective conscious. Perhaps I find eating hot peppers to be pleasurable. The collective certainly doesn't consider that pleasurable. Setting lower standards will not make you happy - that is simply the excuse people make for why their lives don't measure up to their original expectations. If such action is possible, I challenge you to live on the streets of Chicago with no money at all and find happiness in everything. Go to a relative's funeral and be joyous. You cannot CREATE happiness. It is objectively assessable and not mind-dependent. Belief that changing standards and expectations is an appeal to why one's life is not as good as they hoped.
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

There are several things wrong with your argument You say that happiness has some objectivity because there is objectivity to pain and pleasure. But this statement is wrong. Take the example of a masochist. They enjoy pain during sex. They enjoy pain, therefore pain is pleasure. In reality, there is no such thing as pain and pleasure. They are created entirely by the mind. Sensory neurons in your body convert a stimulus into a processed signal that travels to your brain. It is simply a way of carrying information to your brain. Take this for example- if a person falls onto cement in scrapes their knee, they are likely to feel pain. This response has grown through evolution because a person is better fit if their attention gets focused on pain because they are more likely to attend to their scrape or cut. Expectations and mindset do not simply shift the pleasure to pain scale. It totally warps and reconstructs the scale. You say that seeing someone's shirt as a totally different color is an impossibility, however you are mistaken. Thoughts can determine reality to a certain level and certain people have shown extra strength with this concept. There have been many studies with blind people reconfiguring their brain to interpret signals from a camera and regain eyesight. The brain is proven to be a plastic organ. It can redesign its inter-neural network. I think what inhibits you from understanding that happiness is relative to expectations and standards is the influence of others. For example, if five people in a room see someone's shirt as green, the sixth person is more likely to see it as green. Everyone has preconceived notions of what is good and bad based on a collective unconscious. However, I am simply stating that is possible to change one's mindset and therefore perceive happiness at will. It is possible to tune out other people's thoughts about what color a shirt is and will it to be a different color.
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

You ask: "Do we have the power to control our own happiness by curbing expectations or is happiness dependent on external forces?" I answer: No - happiness is objective to a large extent. It is a saying of philosophers (I think Berkley) that you do not have to have something's opposite to experience it - thus you do not need pain to understand happiness. This is completely false - upon the removal of pain, one would be able to still distinguish between the degrees of happiness and still prefer one over the other. This is where I shall come from in this debate. Let us imagine experience to be like a number line. Pure displeasure exists at -100, and pure pleasure at 100. 0 is a medium where one feels neither pleasure nor displeasure. Your argument concerning changing one's mindset would be applied as such: Remove the portion of the number line from -1 to -100 with your mental powers, and you are left with only pleasure. However, your mind can still distinguish between 1 and 100, and thus will label 1 as the new "displeasure" with 50 being a new medium. You may go on removing and substituting as you wish, but eventually, the difference will still exist. You will have just made the slices they represent smaller. It's exactly the same as if the line were to exist between 0 and 10 - the degree would be smaller, but still representing the same change in pleasure. Let us also consider two people - one lives in extreme poverty, the other in extreme wealth. The person in poverty has experienced so much displeasure already that it is not hard for him to find pleasure. For when one exists at -50 on our number line, -25 appears pleasurable. Likewise, the person in extreme wealth is able to experience 25 as displeasure. I believe this shows happiness to be an objectively assessable element of one's life. One CANNOT remove the tendency to characterize pleasure as the opposite of displeasure. Holding that one can CHOOSE happiness subjectively, and contrary to experience is akin to saying you can will my shirt to change colors by simply believing it is a different color. You will never see a different color than the shirt actually is unless you change something in your brain or eyeballs - and that is an objective change. Happiness is not able to be chosen independent of experience. It is experience by which you define happiness.
happiness is relative to standards and expectations

This debate opens up a question asking: Do we have the power to control our own happiness by curbing expectations or is happiness dependent on external forces? I believe that if a person from modern times were to be sent back in time to an age without much of the technology we have today, they would be very unhappy. This would be because their expectations are much higher than what the external world can give them. However, I also believe that is is possible to change one's mindset and hope for the worst outcomes and therefore experience a better outcome all the time. I believe happiness in completely dependent of our own mindset. Happiness can be chosen, and is not at all dependent on external forces.
The amount of time spent on social networking sites

I'm a bit confused at the point Pro is trying to make. Are you saying that the amount of time spent is justifiable as long as it's work related? What about the majority of people that use these sites for things other then work? The problem is you are singling out a very small group of people that use social networking for work exclusively opposed to the much greater amount that use it for personal reasons. Furthermore, I don't feel that using a service such as Skype is even required for work. Businesses obviously were perfectly capable of communication before Skype was made. Calling someone on a phone can allow you to talk to a client or whomever you are dealing with at the time. In my opinion not only do a very small amount of people use social networking for working only, but those that do could easily use another medium for their job.
The amount of time spent on social networking sites

I have recently become disturbed by the amount of time both my peers and myself spend on social networking websites. If you take a moment and think about how much time you browse your Facebook feed, look through your Instagram, and reply to all of your tweets you may or may not be shocked to find out that you most likely average 3 hours a day. That's 21 hours a week looking at your social networking sites through a screen. I believe this is not only an idiotic use of time, but also harmful to peoples well being. I look forward to pro's response.
Morality is an objective truth

Alright, so this is my first debate. The first round is simply for acceptance, followed by opening arguments, then rebuttals. It seems it's appropriate to define terms before the debate starts. The following definitions of terms will be used. Morality- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased I am taking the pro position for this debate, I do believe an objective morality exists. Good luck to whoever my opponent is! Also, feel free to correct anything I could be doing better during the debate considering it's my first!
Morality is an objective truth

In order to bring more balance to the debate, I will keep rebuttals to a minimum for the duration of my final argument. The one and only rebuttal I will make is that clinical lycanthropy has been linked with the altered states of mind that accompany psychosis (according to wikipedia) while the two feral children were literally raised by wolves, and therefore lived in their society, it wasn't a mental condition, it was their upbringing that made them feral, although you could argue that their upbringing brought about the mental condition, it wasn't the cause from what we can tell. I'd like to stop debating for nothing but a thirst for victory and entertainment for a moment, and say that I have a problem with accepting objective morality, the more I delve into it the more I want to deny it, I refuse to live in a world where what's right and wrong is pre-determined by instinct, life should be, more accurately, is, about making decisions. Sometimes people make the wrong decision, there are repercussions and people get hurt. But does that mean we have to accept that they're just wrong? That morality dictates that they're simply evil? I don't understand that. I may never understand it, because there are too many people who think they're right, Hitler justified his actions just as mother Theresa did. Stalin thought he was doing the right thing, so did Gandhi. Who are we to say which ones were right, will always be right, and have always been right? So, please. I know this last argument hasn't added much, but I really hope it helped you understand my perspective, why I see this subject the way I do, and I hope that It will help you see this debate from a different perspective. Thank you again, pro. I've had a wonderful time.
THE NUMBER FIVE IS EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER TEN.

You shall lose because you don't understand the math involved at all. For those who haven't seen this debate, check out this link: (http://www.debate.org...) and you shall see where this comes from. Work out the proof and when you plug numbers into step 7, the proof fails in application. Up until step 7, the proof is sound. However, when substituting 5 and 10 for a and b, you get: ********************* 7. a - t/2 = b - t/2 8. a = b ********************* 7. 5 - (15/2) = 10 - (15/2) --> -2.5 = 2.5 8. -2.5 = 2.5 Step 8 is incorrect, therefore the proof is not valid for a and b wherein A is 5 and B is 10. >>"I'M NOT GONNA LOSE THIS TIME." Incorrect - your proof, which you took from me without understanding the math is not true for the numbers you propose. Here I have utterly defeated your proof in this debate and utterly fooled you in the other. Good day.
THE NUMBER FIVE IS EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER TEN.

I will offer a mathematical proof for why 5 = 10. ******************************* Let t = a + b and a = 5 and b = 10 1. a + b = t 2. (a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) 3. a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb 4. a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb 5. a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4 6. (a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2 7. a - t/2 = b - t/2 8. a = b ******************************** I'M NOT GONNA LOSE THIS TIME.
You chose the topic.

Which Cartoon character would make a better president (of the United States of America)? My contender will be Garnet from Steven Universe[1]. The character Garnet is a fusion gem, meaning that she is an amalgamation of two other gems; Ruby and Sapphire. For more information on the character or the concept of fusion as displayed in Steven Universe, please see the link below. [1] http://steven-universe.wikia.com... Garnet has a wealth of experience from her thousands of years of life. Before coming to earth, Ruby and Sapphire lived on Homeworld and would travel all around the universe. Ruby was a low-class warrior gem who saw the brutal realities of combat. She understood what it meant it be dedicated to a cause - not even flinching when Blue Diamond threatened to break her for fusing with Sapphire in 'The Answer'. Sapphire on the other hand was a rare aristocratic gem who lived in high society, using her powers of future sight to help predict the best course of action in complicated scenarios. Sapphire was however quite fatalistic in her approach to seeing the future, even falling into shock after Ruby managed to change the future she predicted for Blue Diamond about the Crystal Gem Rebellion. Together, Garnet's future vision is a more balanced power, seeing multiple options and using her personal agency to fight for the best option. She can accurately foresee probably outcomes, and work to achieve the outcome she most desires. This makes Garnet an ideal candidate for directing domestic and foreign policy, including energy, jobs and healthcare. Further, Garnet has shown her capacity for leadership throughout the series. Serving as the De Facto leader of the Crystal Gems, Garnet is both the team's most capable fighter as well as the most emotionally intelligent of the bunch. As an experienced warrior herself, Garnet is in a prime position to lead the US army as well as settle any disputes in the house or Senate. And unlike most world-leaders, Garnet can even serve on the field since she is functionally immortal - unless Garnet's gems are shatters, she will reform if her physical form is destroyed for any reason. Know the loss that comes with war, as shown in 'Keeping it Together', Garnet will be able to make wise decisions on whether or not to deploy troops, and will keep congress from impeding progress for the betterment of humanity. Noting Garnet's leadership experience is particularly important here as we know that she doesn't just had mental or physical capability, but also an ability to lead others. Finally, it is important to note her dedication to humanity. Ruby and Sapphire gave up everything in order to be together, even joining the Crystal Gem rebellion in order to keep Homeworld from colonizing Earth to create more Gems. She saw the beauty in humanity, and chose to protect Earth for our sake. Sapphire gave up elite status in the Gem Hierarchy, so Garnet will also not run the risk of selling out office for personal gain
You chose the topic.

This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Offer three silly topics (macaroni is better than spaghetti, we should all wear bowler hats, pokemon is better than yu-gi-oh, etc.) And I'll choose the one I like best. If all of the topics offered is offensive, too serious, or skewed (like, if you say water is wet) then I'll just choose my own topic. No real rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, hopefully I won't have to.
Russia Should Conquer and Rule the Whole World

From the rest of the world to Russia ------------> http://www.youtube.com...I am aware that pointing out hypocrisy in a debater and linking that to their case being wrong is usually a logical fallacy but here it's actually not a logical fallacy because the hypocrisy is directly implying they don't truly believe in their case as they have worded it.If you read the pronouns that Pro uses in Round 1 when complimenting Russia's food, music and language, they use 'their' but neither 'our' nor 'my' are used even once. The reason that this is hypocrisy which directly proves Pro doesn't truly believe in his case (gender on profile) and most likely doesn't genuinely want Russia to conquer and rule the whole world is that he doesn't live there nor does he feel already wood over enough to identify as Russian himself. I know that his passport isn't easy to change (especially not to that of a nation as jingoistic as Russia) but this is the Internet on a debate where Pro is relatively anonymous. Pro could easily identify as a Russian at heart and their pronouns would reflect what they want and truly believe quite blatantly.When we read the final paragraph of Pro's Round 1, we see further semantic slips that Pro doesn't truly support the resolution. If Pro supports physically demanding child labour, Indians being illegal and a limit of one black family per neighbourhood, then Pro is completely against Russia because Russia has zero of these as part of their laws and customs as is.Thus far, I have proven that Pro doesn't truly believe what they say. I am now going to point out that Pro offers zero justification behind a single thing they claim to be supreme, attractive, big or powerful at being so.Let's concede that Russia is big and powerful, these are two totally irrelevant attributes to justify that Russia should conquer the world and are instead purely support the feasibility of Russia doing so, which as far as I'm concerned is not part of this debate since if Russia could feasibly conquer and rule the world and genuinely was big and powerful enough to do so then the only reason they haven't done so ends up being that they admit they themselves have admitted that should not do so.In conclusion, Pro has basically been annihilated. Much love, Rational Madman.
Russia Should Conquer and Rule the Whole World

I honestly think that Russian should conquer and rule over the whole world, because Russia is big and powerful. Also, Russian culture is amazing! Their food, music, and language is so attractive and supreme, whereas Indians culture, African culture, Mexican Culture, or French culture is just bull crap. Everyone will have to learn the supreme Russian language, and adapt to supreme Russian culture. In the Russian worldwide kingdom, kids will be forced to work in the mines, Indians are illegal, and there is a limit of one black family per neighborhood.
Rap battle Truth_seeker vs. whoever

Your rhymes make no sense, you just write whatever Your as weak as they come, your not a natural endeavor Sittin' here with me is what's going to get you beat forever Time to cut all ties, including yours is what needs to be severed I show my face, where the freak is yours? Nvm that, as long as here your gettin' open sores See, you can't outmatch my lyrical mastery, leave you in a disasterpiece To be a mockery in all of human history, i leave you in a pool of deliveries Chilvaries end, wills break n' bend, you wish i was your friend, cuz i crush livers Better feel the atomic destruction that's energizin with you to self-eruption Meet your self-destruction, a detonation that leads to your eternal corruption Your lines are as dead as bones, blackened skin tones, your already dyin' n' in moans Leavin' you in the time of the fallen, i will put a permanent scar so you pass it to your daughter You made a grave mistake in fightin' me after all the foes that faltered n' got bloody slaughtered Your already a disgrace to the human race as i'm wipin your mind clean-cut mummifyin' you like King Tut, like the victims of Zeus, your once again struck So just accept this lyrical blade cuttin' you down in one brutal death stroke Like the bubonic plague, ripped your bars apart n' then left you crushed n' broke