BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We cannot know anything empirically.

Solipsism is a basic exception to this philosophically popular argument. Neitzsche originally got it from Berkely who also argues against the certainty of knowledge because of perception. However, solipsism, the belief that the only thing that can be proven is MY mind and its contents defeats this. The very fact that I am having these perception, whether they are valid or not, is a testament to the existence of my mind, and at the very least its abstract processes. DesCartes ever overpopularized "I think, therefore I am." So, if you want to claim I can no NOTHING. Than clearly, I know my self, and that is something. ALso, the statement in its self is a paradox. If I can't know anything, how can I know that I know nothing? The simple fact that I am aware that I know nothing is knowledge of my lack of any other knowledge. To clarify, knowing nothing is something that I know, so therefore, I know something.
We cannot know anything empirically.

My argument is that the knowledge of the self that I have been advocating is, in fact, empirical. I have to experience things and processes in order to "know" myself. This is empirical data. Next, if we are concerning the outside world, the argument about relational properties still holds. Just because my perception is fallible does not mean my experience of the object is. Nietzsche's paradox and the conclusions it reaches assume that appearances of things are contigent solely on my perception of them. Yes, my perception is fallible, but the falliblities I experience are explainable through reflections of light, anamolies etc. This means that I can experience the world as a functioning, knowable thing, which I can access, at least partially through experience. This allows me to know things empirically. As a final note, you never addressed the paradoxical nature of this entire debate. Your claim requires empirical knowledge. It is impossible for you to be correct, because in order to know that we lack knowledge, we must know at least that fact. In other words, we can't know nothing, because in order to know that we know nothing, we have to know that. That is wordy, but hopefully I have clarified it over the course of the debate. Thanks.
We cannot know anything empirically.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions, I merely thought that you did not want to continue debating after realizing I held a different position then you had originally thought. I didn't mean it as a childish gloat, but sincerely thought you had decided not to continue. I should have laid out my original position more explicitly. My argument was specifically against our ability to gain knowledge of the outside world via our five senses. It seems that you mostly appose the idea that we cannot gain knowledge of ourselves; I would agree with you that we do know ourselves to a certain degree, though of course I would caution that our knowledge is only true in a phenomenal sense not in a noumenal sense (i.e. I know that I see a computer, but I do not know that the computer exists independently of myself). The only things that I would be willing to say I can Know are, straight from Descartes, that I exist and that I have thoughts, including perceptions of an outside world. In terms of the relational properties, to say that you know the chair is between the chair and the wall, takes for granted that there does indeed exist a chair and a wall. Now if you simply say that I know that I have a perception of a chair between a wall; then, you are pretty safe, but you're also not saying to terribly much. I was wondering if you would catch the paradox that I borrowed from Nietzsche, using empirically grounded neuroscience to claim that you cannot know things empirically. It was intentional, but it is only used to make a point. It serves to set up a dilemma, which I'll lay out to show that the overall position is still tenable. Either you can know things via the senses or you cannot. If you go with the assumption that you can then the very appearances of things empirically shows that you actually cannot. And if you go with the assumption that you cannot know things via the senses then you don't need convincing.
We cannot know anything empirically.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Still, we know ourselves through experience of perception and the mental processes. This knowledge (solipsism) is empirical because we can only konow the existence of self through experience. Second, the statement is still paradoxical. If I know nothing, how do I know your claim? The claim you try to make is inexistent through lack of empirical knowledge, because I would have to empirically know that I know nothing in order for you to be right, making your claim impossible. Also, I can know relational properties. No matter how transitory or possibly skewed my perceptions are, I still know things as they relate to each other in my perception. For instance, I know the desk is in between the chair and the wall, regardless of how skewed my perception may be. Finally, I apologize for not making my last deadline. This, however, does not mean you need to assume I agree simply because I did not have the time to check the site during the holidays. It was a little childish.
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

Quote: "I believe you are correct in citing that many crimes are committed by people on drugs. But I am pretty sure the majority of drug users are not a threat to their fellow citizens-- especially when they partake in the privacy of their own homes." In the privacy of their own homes? Where do you think they got the drugs? The people they get these drugs from are of no good intentions at all. The process they go through to distribute these drugs is dangerous, and it is done on the streets. How about finding needles in your parks where your children play? A 7 year old was recently caught in my town taking cocaine to school. His mother did it in the privacy of her own home. And her seven year old got his hands on it. Other kids from school could have gotten their hands on it as well. Quote: "Speeding is a victimless crime in the great majority of cases, and I can't say I'm prepared to defend laws against it." The most recent statistics from the F.B.I is from the year 2006. Which shows that 40% of all deaths in accidents involving motor vehicles is a result from speeding. That's one person every minute on average. Still un-prepared to defend laws against it? And about what you said about out lawing guns. They may take lives just like speeding does, but does speeding save lives like statistics show guns do? Drugs, prostitution, and speeding are all wrong, which is why it is illegal. Abortion is wrong as well, but the government legalized it anyway. Doesn't mean I agree with it, I don't. So in conclusion, you say that republicans contradict themselves about freedom, but all they are doing, just like democrats as well, is setting laws for the safety of others. To set some moral standards to show what our country stands for. We stand for something, and it isn't drugs, prostitution, and other immoral and dangerous behaviors.
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

"Do you realize how unethical drugs and prostitution is?" Yes I do. I also think adultery is unethical. I think swingers are a bizarre bunch too. I'll admit I don't enjoy seeing two gay people kiss in public (not because I consider it unethical, but because I'm not used to it). But my personal biases are of no use in distinguishing between behaviors that infringe upon the rights of others and those that do not. They either do, or they don't. "Do you realize how many murders are driven or caused by drugs each year." I believe you are correct in citing that many crimes are committed by people on drugs. But I am pretty sure the majority of drug users are not a threat to their fellow citizens-- especially when they partake in the privacy of their own homes. One could use your same logic in claiming that since gun owners commit almost all shootings, we should consider the majority of them a threat and outlaw guns. Your best analogy concerned the speeding laws. Speeding is a victimless crime in the great majority of cases, and I can't say I'm prepared to defend laws against it. Montana has been without specific speed limits for several decades. But since driving is a privilege, not a right, all sorts of rules and regulations (without regard for rights) are put in place to encourage uniform conduct on the road. Just out of curiosity, do you see government-legislated morality on the part of conservatives as more noble than that which liberals support in the form for compulsory charity by way of wealth redistribution?
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

Quote: "If someone on my block is snorting cocaine while waiting for a prostitute to arrive at his home, he is not violating any of my individual rights. If he comes over to my place and murders me, he has crossed the line into behavior that violates my right to live." Do you realize how un-ethical drugs and prostitution is? Are you aware of the fact that there are thousands of murder cases involving prostitution each year? How about that guy snorting cocaine on the block? He or one of his buddies would be the type of person to enter your home and murder you. Do you realize how many murders are driven or caused by drugs each year? No wonder conservatives are 100% against it. Same goes for prostitution. I see you are in favor of abortion, so therefore would not want to believe it is murder, but guess what, it is. It's life. why do you think it's growing. Nothing dead can grow, and if it's alive, and it's human, it's murder. But that is an other debate. Speeding is not a violation to your individual rights either. But he is putting his and your life at risk. We have rules to go by to keep us safe. Red light means stop so others can cross safely. Instructions to a childs bed is to insure it gets asembled properly so it doesn't fall apart or harm the child in any way. We have printing on our plastic bags that say we shouldn't put them on our heads so that we don't sufocate. And it's not just conservatives or Republicans either. Liberals and democrats believe in stetting laws for all citizens to obey. Maybe the Liberals have lower standards, which is why I'm conservative. More next round. This is an interesting one, to see what others view our laws as, and what they think different parties portray.
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

Good point. And thankfully there are a growing number of Republicans who are becoming more libertarian in their tolerance of alternative lifestyles. But I believe the majority of Republicans are still social conservatives. The enormous backlash among republicans toward John McCain, which you mentioned, is evidence of that. Hence, I will be using the words "conservative" and "republican" interchangeably for the purposes of this debate. Now that we've gotten terminology out of the way, lets get back to the real debate. "Just because I live in a free country does not mean that I can go on a murder rampage." No person championing the principles of personal freedom or individual rights would advocate this type of behavior. Conservatives are out to strip people of their freedom to participate in activities that do not violate the civil rights of their fellow citizens. If someone on my block is snorting cocaine while waiting for a prostitute to arrive at his home, he is not violating any of my individual rights. If he comes over to my place and murders me, he has crossed the line into behavior that violates my right to live. So no, by criticising their intolerance for certain behaviors I am not asking Republicans of condone murder or bank robbery.
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

Handsoff, you are wrong about one thing. It isn't necessarily the republicans who are against abortion, prostitution, drugs or gay marriage. The people who are against these things are people we call conservatives. Granted, most republicans are conservative, but look at John McCain, does it look like he would make an example of the Republican you described? No. Why do you think Republicans are ridiculing him? Look what Rush Limbaugh says about him. So these people who want freedom but want higher moral standards are the conservatives. But there comes a drawing of a line when it comes to freedom, and choices. Freedom doesn't mean that you can do what ever you want. Just because I live in a free country does not mean that I can go on a murder rampage. Nor does it mean I have the freedom to rob a bank without getting in trouble. The government has to draw the line in the sand, or all else is chaos. More next round.
Republicans are inconsistent in their defense of individual liberties.

Republicans do a decent job championing the philosophy that people should be entitled to keep as much of their own money as possible. They also assert that government should stay out of our business affairs. These two beliefs demonstrate a high regard for personal freedoms. Republicans are for low taxes and against wealth redistribution (or socialism as I call it). They are for letting businesses decide what they want to offer the public, and letting the public decide which businesses they want to patronize. These principles are in perfect harmony with one another. All seems kosher. But then, suddenly and inexplicably, when the topic changes to freedom of personal behavior or lifestyle, the Republicans lose all consistency in their quest to keep government off our backs. They have no problem telling people what they can and can't do with their personal lives. For instance, Republicans are against the legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, and drug use. They are for the criminalization of abortion. In defending these positions they allow a combination of fear and religious bias to adulterate their good sense and objectivity. While citing an effort to stave off the "moral decay of society," they are perfectly happy to restrict or ban an array of individual liberties. If one holds individual liberty to be sacred in principle, his defense of liberty should be applied consistently across the entire spectrum of political issues, and not just those having to do with business and personal finance. I submit that it is wrong for the Republicans to abandon their principles of individual freedom so that they may legislate personal behavior for the sake of morality or public safety.
Christina Aguirela is a better singer than Beyonce

I accept, good luck to you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Beyonce can sing, but not better than Christina Aguilera as shown... Beyonce's songs are mostly self-empowering, while Christina's are mostly inspirational! Also, you said Christina has a lovely voice but Beyonce's is better, Why? How so? You never backed that up.
Christina Aguirela is a better singer than Beyonce

I didn't say Beyonce doesn't show inspiration in some of her music, but does that erase all of her songs that are to glorify her and make her seem higher than others?http://www.hiphopdx.com...http://www.directlyrics.com...This debate was never about who has more albums or records, it is about who sings better!!! Where are your arguments for that???http://www.youtube.com...
Simply, Stating there may be Cases where the Mother is, Fairly, Entitled to End The Pregnancy.

Ok. VOTE for Me if you DON'T Think; A) The Mother's Life has NO Value when continuing the Pregnancy would END her life. B) The Mother would have NO Referral to her Social Circumstances, Equity, Health or Well-being. C) The Mother can NEVER be Too Old or Too Young. D) The Mother can Have NO Say in Her own Self-Interests in going the Full Term of The Pregnancy. ALSO, VOTE for Me if you DON'T Think that there can be, ANY Logical, Establishable Circumstances whereby the Pregnancy Should be Terminated. If you DON'T think that there can be ANY Reasoning for ANY Pregnancy IN History, NOT to Go the Full-Term whatEVER The Consequences. VOTE for ME if you DISAGREE with ANY of These!... Regards. Pro. Been "Interesting" this Debate!.. ALL Best Wishes.
Simply, Stating there may be Cases where the Mother is, Fairly, Entitled to End The Pregnancy.

"The truth of this argument above, must, CLEARLY show that there can be NO Conditions, whereby the Mother HAS this right according to Con"I DID show that, its in the arguments above!" I need Con to Establish how there can be NO Instance where this Decision can be made."Its all in the arguments above" I'm, NOT convinced he has done this with 9 Lines of slightly, "Confusing" Tree Logic.. "I cannot make it any simpler, Im sorry you dont understand it. Also you dont have to be convinced you have to argue against them, you have not done that you have simply dropped all of my arguments"It required Con to Establish Full-length Pregnancies for EVERY Pregnancy in History?! Could he "Remind" us about This?!.."Nobody knows what your saying. I extend all arguments that show the resolution is false
Simply, Stating there may be Cases where the Mother is, Fairly, Entitled to End The Pregnancy.

In Other words, Con is saying.. Should the Mother's Life be at Risk or The Greater Benefit in the Greater Good is that the Pregnancy is ended or any cases whereby the Safety and Protection of The Health Circumstances are applied or ANY, Fair, Logical Reason giving that the mother Has this right or ANY Conditions where it is IN her Health or Life Interests are Negated by the Five Paragraphs above.. The truth of this argument above, must, CLEARLY show that there can be NO Conditions, whereby the Mother HAS this right according to Con. He is stating with his lengthy argument that there is not, ONE Pregnancy in The History of Pregnancies giving arise to the Acceptance of This Decision. He implies Not ONE!.. I need Con to Establish how there can be NO Instance where this Decision can be made.. I'm, NOT convinced he has done this with 9 Lines of slightly, "Confusing" Tree Logic.. MY Logic is there COULD Be a Few cases where this Decision is Acceptable?!.. In fact, let us admit, MORE than a Few?!... It required Con to Establish Full-length Pregnancies for EVERY Pregnancy in History?! Could he "Remind" us about This?!..
Simply, Stating there may be Cases where the Mother is, Fairly, Entitled to End The Pregnancy.

I seek, No more than Logic. There would be, Clearly, Definable Cases whereby The Mother had a (God-Given?!) right to End the Pregnancy. It's, a bit, Like no-one, really, quite believes I should "Jack-in" my TeeTotalism on a Basis that I might cut out one box of cigarettes a day. I would think there were a good, number of instances where the best Advice, ALL-round is Ending the Pregnancy. It, would, surely be possible to cite Genuinely too Young Or Genuinely too Old as Intances, perHaps?!.. Social "Environment" could be Another?! Equity, perhaps?!.. Etc. Etc.. Anyone Agree?!..
Animals have Rights

The argument that language is being used unfairly in the case of this debate is spurious, since both parties seek to define terms. Con defines concepts of liberty and rights, and I accept his definitions. However, when I define the concept of the animal, Con says "This definition is a trick." As proof that this definition is a trick he claims that including human beings in the classification of organisms is a technicality. However, the debate about man's relationship to nature has been going on for hundreds of years. Biologists and naturalists and philosophers have been struggling to find a way of classifying organisms both according to their outward structures as well as their inward natures. What they have arrived at has been controversial for those who seek to see themselves as separate or apart from animals. Those who wish to be separate from animals want a bright line about where the differences lie, and so they reduce the animal to a mere beast without ever taking the time to look. Scientists and botanist and biologists have looked with as little bias as they can and they have made certain helpful distinctions based on all kinds of facts. The sum of this work is represented in the current system of biological classification. I have sited this legacy of observation and rational description as sound structure on which to begin the debate. Con has said, "This is frivolous." Con has also avoided explaining or defining the relationship of man to animals in a way that competes with the approach of scientists. So it is Con who is jumping to conclusions, who is relying on linguistic ambiguity, whose arguments are based on assumption. Thankfully this is not a serious problem. There is a simple fix, and that is to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the debate prompt.
Animals have Rights

Humans are animals. However I presented more than one standard for criteria relating to rights, liberties, and regulations particularly because rights, liberties, and regulations would be functionally creations of the human mind to begin with. The entire notion that there is some resolution revolving around the displacement of humans as animals in the biological grande scheme seems more like cleverness and less like inductive reasoning. Your declaration that I've lost seems frivolous particularly because you've decided that instead of noting the differences between humans and other animals you've gone with some form of wit relying entirely on a technicality which sadly does not express why other animals should have rights if they cannot understand or appreciate them. To that end I am afraid that without some form of backing outside of that technicality your attempt to shift the entire debate to a state of technicalities is not going to work. I'm sure I'll just have to remake this.
Animals have Rights

It seems the burden lies with you to explain whether a human being is an animal or not and why. You may want to look into the type-token distinction in logic as a guide on how you might better frame the question of the debate: http://en.wikipedia.org... Right now, you have lost, because your argument has pitted the token of "human" against the type "animal." This like someone saying: "All chairs are good. All furniture is bad." One way you might more clearly express your argument is by contrasting tokens, like this: "Squirrels do not enjoy the rights of humans." Or to use my last example "Chairs are better than tables." These are examples of token v. token arguments. As the debate stands now, by bringing up animals you have over-generalized, since human beings are animals. They are the type of animal that has developed the enjoyment of rights. Lastly, I recommend cracking a biology text, as the state of that science is rapidly evolving and challenging previously held beliefs about the limitations of animals. Good luck!