BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

I take it that the debate is about whether there is a transcendent reality beyond that which we can think of and speak about. Be careful I am not denying that there is no reality I am arguing that reality is a human construct, reality is is determined by man or humankind and the interactions within human society. I that reality is normative cruel delihjjtful exciting. consist of colours and grasses just as any one else would. When I say that it is normative I an denying the right of anyone to just claim that the world is how they see it and let that be an end to it. What I am denying is that the way we think about the world makes no appeal to any superlative reality i.e the material world as it truly is. That the sentences we speak are true or false in virtue of some magical notion of correspondence between their content and the way stuff in some deeper sense really is. I am as it were denying realism, the correspondence theory of truth. Truth insofar as it exists requires to matter be mediated through human experience. It is in this sense that I hold Con to be responsible for showing that any pure correspondence theory of truth bypassing humanity can count as plausible. Speculation about what one side rather than another needs to show in order to win the argument is presumptuous, we get to make our points and the voters get to vote that is the nature of debate. Lets begin. Wittgenstein points out that there is one thing that cannot be unequivocally said to be 1m long and that was until very recently when the standard was changed; the metre rule in Paris at 0 celsius. His reasoning being that on the one hand the metre rule is the measure by which all other measurement rules are governed, it calibrates the length of all metre rules. To know something is 1m long is to measure it against the rule that defines what being one metre is. But it makes no sense to talk of measuring something against itself, in this sense the 1m rule is not 1m long. It has its own length. As this is the sense in which things are 1m are 1m it is not 1m in this sense. Alternatively however it is the very essence of what being one metre is. So in a different sense it is 1m. Yet if it were to shrink we would not expect the world to suddenly grow, so on yet another sense, of no importance whatsoever. The bar is intended to represent the one 10,000th of the distance of a line intersecting the meridian at Paris from the north pole to the equator or alternatively any of the other definitions used. C We can go through each of SI units and find a similar arbitrariness to each. Celsius as the melting point of ice (but under what pressure? Why H2 0 and not the boiling point of something else say flourine. What is of importance is that at least some are entirely arbitrary. What gives life to these measures is the human conventions rituals practices that they enable in the definition of our shared reality.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

Pro has made several statements in the opening, but, judging from the title of the debate, I take it that the resolution is something along the lines of "Reality is a human construct and nothing more." For Pro to win, they must affirm the resolution by showing that reality is nothing more than a human construct. For me to win, I must show that Pro has failed to affirm the resolution. I do not have to show that reality is not a human construct, only that Pro has not sufficiently shown that it is. As there was no specified structure, I will let Pro present arguments first.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

Pro states, "The question then is there anything beyond the world of human constructs. " Pro's resolution says, "No", but Pro has yet to provide sufficient evidence for such an assertion. As he notes in his final round, Pro has argued that science, measurement, time, etc. are human constructs, and that we cannot see what truly "is" outside of perception. While this may be true, and logically evident if not scientifically, it is not evidence for the nonexistence of a reality beyond our perception and construction. Proving nonexistence is a difficult, if not impossible, task. When one says, "There is no god," they are making a claim that is impossible to prove, as they do not have access to the furthest bounds of space, time, and the universe in order to conclusively show that no god resides there. In the same way, the claim my opponent has made, that "man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality" is impossible to prove. Just because we and Pro cannot grasp the concept of a reality beyond perception and mental construct does not mean that such a reality does not exist.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

Con is asking me to disprove a distinction without a difference. It is the realist who maintains that there is a noumenal reality in addition to the reality we experience as a species,as a societies, as animals and as cognitive beings.The term noumenal is negatively defined it a contrary of the phenomenal world of identities and properties. By definition it lacks any perceptual properties even identity as given by Leibniz's law. It is an object of faith where the faith has no logical content, or qualitative content. It is a term without a referent for if it had a referent it would have the property of being a referent of a phenomenal marker.The question is not whether the existence of or the non existence of the noumenal can be proved. Proving it to not exist negates the concept. To say the noumenal is provable, is to say it is not noumenal since it is provable. To say it is not provable is to say that the noumenal cannot be proved from which it can be derived that we have no grounds for claiming its existence. That much can be gleamed from the terminology.The question then is there anything beyond the world of human constructs. My claims in the above arguments have sought establish that science is established upon human construct such as size derived from human practices such as measurement. Time and energy from human observation mathematical developments such as calculus. What we do not have is a magic eye through which to view the world. Of course human beings cannot see everything, nevertheless we have theories about what can or cannot be, in addition very small items of evidence can lead to great quantifies of general knowledge.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

I think I now understand a little better where my opponent is coming from. I believe a better resolution for Pro’s purposes would be something like, “Mankind’s reality is a construct of perceptions and assumptions”, or, “We can never know for sure that we see the truest reality”, or, “The noumena is unprovable."As it stands now, Pro’s resolution is unprovable. He does not simply say that humanity can never reach a knowledge of a reality beyond our own perceptions and constructs. He states that a reality beyond our constructs does not exist; that there are only phenomena, and no noumena.Rebuttals1. “We have access to reality only to phenomena, We cannot get to the noumena or things as they are in themselves.” While this may be true, it does not mean that the noumena does not exist. Humanity’s inability to reach or prove something does not rule out that thing’s existence. As argued in my argument #4, it is possible that there are other sentient beings in this universe. Along with this possibility comes the possibility that those beings can reach the noumena, and interact with reality on a level humanity cannot comprehend. Yes, this idea is only conceptual and unprovable, but Pro’s assertion is also unprovable, and, as Con, I am only responsible for nullifying Pro’s arguments and demonstrating that the resolution is in doubt.2. “…the onus is on the phenomenal, science itself has no privileged access to the noumenal.”I agree with Pro’s point here, but must point out that it is not relevant to the resolution. Yes, the scientific method, along with humanity’s perceptions, are based entirely in the phenomenal aspects of reality rather than some foundational, noumenal reality. However, this does not prove that the noumenal does not exist. Pro’s resolution states that a reality outside of human construction does not exist, not that it may exist but human knowledge of it is likely unattainable.3. “It is the claim that they exist out of the toolbox so to speak that I object to existence that is in some sense more real than the phenomena they are intended to explain.”While we may never know or even be able to know if such an extra-phenomenal reality exists, this does not negate its existence. Again, humanity’s inability to reach or prove something does not rule out that thing’s existence. So far Pro has not proven the non-existence of the noumena, thus the resolution has still not been upheld.Con concludes round 4 with the statement that our reality, and what we call “truth”, is based in whatever model of reality seems to be the best scientifically. While this is true, it still does not negate the existence of a basic reality outside of humanity’s models. In fact, the regular discovery of new variables and phenomena in aspects of our reality that we previously thought conclusive would seem to suggest that there is a base reality at the bottom of it all, and we are gradually peeling back the layers. Unprovable, yes, but no more so than Pro's thesis.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

I take reality to mean that which despite appearances to the contrary is how things are. The underlying objects and factors that shape the phenomena we perceive in our existence. My claim is that the notion of reality is a human construct, their are shades of realism my claim certainly is intended to apply to naive realism[1] which claims that the meaning of a sentence is determined by underlying facts of the matter, that statements are true iff they correspond to actual states of underlying reality false otherwise.My objections realism are as follows1) We have access to reality only to phenomena, We cannot get to the noumena or things as they are in themselves. Yet the realist requires noumena noumena are a realist posit. c.f Kant.Point 2 round 2. Con counts as a naive realist, 'we discover another truth about reality and it changes our perception' Rather than we drop some posits and replace them with others.2) Conflicting realities,for the realist there can be one and only reality. I would agree it is the one we see and live in. Realists ignore the scientific method. If on accepts that reality is not a matter of the phenomena why employ science at all a mystic provided she got it right (whatever that means) would do as well mystically stating the underlying metaphysical reality of the true noumena. Instead science evaluates statements theories according to a method that requires posits to account for the phenomena we perceive the onus is on the phenomenal, science itself has no privileged access to the noumenal.3) Science is directed to a goal; understanding, predicting controlling the reality around us among other things. My suggestion is that science is true to this goal and seeks to explain the phenomena we encounter the world as it appears to us. A human construct is a truth commitment to the existence of something for explanatory purposes. It is the claim that they exist out of the toolbox so to speak that I object to existence that is in some sense more real than the phenomena they are intended to explain.Cons points 1 and to 2 can be dealt with by considering the role of humanity in the development of conceptualised reality. Phenomena are insofar as science goes phenomenal perceptions, these perceptions can then are measured using human measurement and theorised about through logical induction and mathematics. There is no problem about how the universe was before man. Science has moved on since the Enlightenment, Science explains itself as model theoretic. The question of which theory is true becomes which is the best model. Metaphysics is moved out of the equation. In the models we have of the past human beings have not always existed either. Other species alien or otherwise or may not have models. I simply don't know whether there are attempts to model the canine or alien view of the universe.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

Rebuttals "...beyond that which we can think of and speak about." Pro misstates the resolution. In his title, his opening, and his sentences following the one quoted above, he makes it clear that the debate is about whether there is reality beyond that which humanity has created, or that which "is a human construct." We can "think of and speak about" a reality that others have constructed, so this is not the point of the debate at all. "When I say that it is normative I an [sic] denying the right of anyone to just claim that the world is how they see it..." Actually, if reality is nothing more than a human construct, then the world is exactly "how they see it". This leads into my argument #3 in Round 2, about conflicting realities. "Truth insofar as it exists requires to matter be mediated through human experience." Yes, as I covered in my argument #2, humans perceive reality and truth in different ways that are not necessarily a complete and correct picture of reality. However, this does not change reality. My perception of the earth as flat does not make it so. The truth that the world is a sphere remains unchanged, waiting to be discovered. "Speculation about what one side rather than another needs to show in order to win the argument is presumptuous..." Not at all. Pro's arguments must uphold the resolution, or else he could take the debate if any imaginable direction and still claim valid points. The validity of a point is irrelevant to the debate if the point is not relevant to the resolution. As far as my arguments, they need only show that Pro has not upheld the resolution. Requiring any more of Con is not fair, as Pro could propose an unfalsifiable resolution and claim a tie when Con does not falsify it, whether Pro has sufficiently upheld it or not. By spelling out what was required of both sides, I was attempting to assist voters who may be new to debate. "What gives life to these measurements is the human conventions...in the definition of our shared reality." Pro points out the arbitrariness of some basic units of measurement, such as the meter and degrees Celsius. However, he states that the meter represents "one 10,000th of the distance of a line intersecting the meridian at Paris from the north pole to the equator," meaning that the meter is not arbitrary at all, as it always has a physical standard to compare it to. Just the same, the arbitrariness of a unit of measurement does not prove that reality is arbitrary, only that our perceptions are. As Pro himself notes, "Yet if it (the meter) were to shrink, we would not expect the world to suddenly grow..." Exactly. Reality remains unfazed by humanity's arbitrary perceptions. Conclusion Thus far, Pro has not upheld the resolution. He still has not shown that reality is only a human construct and does not extend beyond human perception.
"Randomness" Is a Myth That Doesn't Exist in Reality

Someone wrote: "Random number generators. Unless you're a psychic, you can't tell what number will come up when a computer starts calling numbers between 1 and 100." You proved that unpredictability exists. Unfortunately for you, you have not proven that "randomness" exists. Unpredictability <> Randomness You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
"Randomness" Is a Myth That Doesn't Exist in Reality

I could use the money. Let's see what we can do. But first, let's define the terms.Random: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"Myth: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"Exist: "to have real being whether material or spiritual"Reality: "the quality or state of being real"[All definitions gotten from Merriam Webster Dictionary]I'll let you have the opening argument.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

I DISSAGREE! However, I have an open mind and I am ready to be proven wrong. Ok, anyway, as far as I have seen, the fungus is not literally able to control the ants body. However, it is able to introduce chemicals to the ants brain that makes it do what it wants. Their are many examples of this, not just with ants. For example, Hairworms take over crickets and force them to jump into water when they are ready to reproduce. Another example, the female jewelwasp is able to inject a toxin into a cockroaches brain in order to make it follow her back to a area where she can lay her eggs. Another example, Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that can only reproduce in a cats gut, infects rats and mice causing them to be sexually attracted to cat urine. this allows the parasite to get inside a cat. My sources are, https://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Zombie fungus is a fraud

The fungus infects ants while they are forging: fact The fungus injects chemicals into the ants which causes it to clime to higher vegetation: fact "mind control" as my opponent calls it has been shown repeatably throughout nature: fact The "zombie fungus" is not a fraud: fact if the fungus was just a fungus that grew from dead ants, then the history channel probably wouldn't spend so much time making a big deal about it. Pro, and Cons evidence proves this. Also, why is this fungus so picky about its hosts? Wouldn't a fungus that just grows from dead ants be fine with any old ant? Look at the evidence bellow. https://www.livescience.com...
Zombie fungus is a fraud

My opponent is still confused about what the debate is about. This is due to his lack of debating skills and experience. He has wasted 4 rounds of debate in trying to establish what the topic is about and has made many false assumptions. Then he goes on to state that my first post differs from a later statement. Quote - "In order to win the debate my opponent must prove that the fungal infection can occur at all stages of an ant's life and not just at the ants old age and subsequent death." What do the two have in common? Almost nothing." I am just identifying THE CRUX OF THE MATTER which the scientific research paper and documentaries all fail to mention. The research paper and documentaries don't mention anything about the age of the ants at the time of their deaths. Thus, the research and documentaries have not provided sufficient information about the ants life cycle in order to justify the conclusion that the fungus is controlling the ant's behaviour. If the fungus is controlling the ants, then, why doesn't the fungus control the younger ants? Why does the fungus only attack the old ants? etc. They have also failed to provide any evidence that this behaviour is abnormal and never occurs in any ant colony. Note - The documentary states that many dying ants don't climb trees and simply fall to the ground and die. Thus, the evidence is very shaky and is most likely just wild speculation and sensationalism created for the purpose of controversy and to increase viewer ratings. Thus, I believe that I have clearly demonstrated that the so called 'evidence' that proves fungus can control an ant's behaviour is both insufficient and faulty. Thus, fungus never attacks living organisms and only attacks dead and non-living tissue.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

"The concept that a fungus can overtake and control an ant's brain is a fraud. Universities look for crazy things to research and waste the public's money all the time. This is an illogical concept. The fungus appearing is just a natural process of aging and there is nothing controlling or sinister about it." Is what we are arguing about. You later said "In order to win the debate my opponent must prove that the fungal infection can occur at all stages of an ant's life and not just at the ants old age and subsequent death." What do the two have in common? Almost nothing. The fungus is called a zombie fungus for a reason. I agree with you that the fungus takes over around the time of death. I don't agree with you that its just a fraud and that the fungus cannot take over a ant. The fungus does take control, as pointed out by our articles. I would appreciate it if you spent some time in the next section arguing with me about the fungus instead of spending two paragraphs pointing out what you think i'm doing wrong.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

True to form, my opponent takes the lazy debater approach of "you prove everything and I prove nothing". This is the default and expected behaviour of somebody who has no moral responsibility and sense of duty. He is desperately looking at the debate title in the hope that there is some legal loop hole that he can cleverly jump through to escape the embarrassment of defeat. My opponent would dearly like to limit the focus of the debate to one small sentence and one small concept of that small sentence. Sorry opponent, the debate is about many issues concerning fraud, fungus, ants, T.V. presenters and the validity of scientific data. You have to address all these things in a logical manner to win the debate. Your replies are very short because you don't know much about the subject and you are just winging it free style hoping to brush off my facts with some authoritarian nonsense. Note - A debate is not just about the title. The first post contains the details of the issues at hand. A title is limited in the number of words that can be used and therefore only contains one of many concepts under consideration. My opponent needs to read the first post to understand all the issues under discussion. My opponent has, thus far, wasted precious time and space trying to find excuses NOT to address the issues at hand. This is NOT the behaviour of a sincere science investigator and advocate.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

Ok, i have a few issues. I DON'T need to prove that the fungus can take control at any time of life or death because that is not the argument. The argument is whether the fungus can take control of the ant, which it can. If the ant is dead, and its still moving and carring out tasks, then its is a sort of zombie ant. The fungus takes control. Theirfore, the zombie ant is not a faud. Continuing, you can find normal ant behaivior on many other documenteries. It seems as though we are arguing about different things. Im arguing on whether the zombie ant is a fraud or not, and you seem to be arguing about when the fungus can take control. Reread your title please.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

In order to win the debate my opponent must prove that the fungal infection can occur at all stages of an ant's life and not just at the ants old age and subsequent death. The documentaries do not mention what the normal behaviour of the ant is without the fungus being present. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether this behaviour pattern would have occurred with or without the fungus. Note - David Attenborough depends on creating sensationalist story lines to promote his documentaries and is likely to exaggerate his claims for the purpose of creating a controversy which would attract the public's attention and boost his ratings. From my experience, fungus only attack dead things and not the living. Note - Just observe your fruit bowl. The longer you leave it the more fungus will appear. Do you ever see any fungus on fresh fruit, vegetables and meat. Answer - Never!!!!!!!!!! In the documentary, you will only see the fungus on dead ants. There is no footage of the fungus on a living ant. I rest my case.