BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Non-Mental Reality Probably Exists

Rebuttal My opponent says a non-mental reality exists in the form of matter; this assumes that what we call "matter" exists and is non-mental. However, there is no justification for this assumption. There are many physicists that have lived such as Max Planck (the Father of Quantum Mechanics) who believe that what is commonly thought of as matter doesn't exist:"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such." - Max Planck [1]Professor of Physics Richard Conn Henry also believes that no non-mental reality exists:"The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual." - Richard Conn HenryEven Albert Einstein believed that space (and thus it's contents which would include matter) only exist conceptually:“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind].” - Albert Einstein [3]Now I am not saying that because of these quotes that the mental universe theory is true (that would be a fallacious appeal to authority). What I am saying is that it is not at all clear that this "matter" which is non-mental exists at all. There are many who believe that what we call "matter" is merely a projection of mind for many reasons. ConclusionMy opponent is just assuming that non-mental matter exists when there should be some type of argument in its favor. Since no argument has been presented then the resolution has not been established. Sources[1] https://en.wikiquote.org...[2] http://deanradin.com...[3] Video Sourcehttp://www.youtube.com...
A Non-Mental Reality Probably Exists

I'm an Idealist; I believe all reality mental. If we know anything, that means the mind exists as knowledge is mental. If we doubt anything, that means the mind exists as doubt is mental; ergo we cannot consistently doubt the mind as the mind is needed to doubt in the first place. So our starting point for knowledge is the mind. It must exist. But, why believe in a non-mental reality? This is a hypothesis that most people believe, the idea that everything that is beyond our minds is non-mental (such as the empirical reality we all experience). However, I find this is a baseless assertion and a violation of Occam's Razor.My opponent doesn't have to prove with absolute certainty that a non-mental reality exists, just that it is the most likely thing to be true. The burden of proof will be on Pro to see if he can support the claim that a non-mental reality exists. If I can undermine Pro's arguments sufficiently; the debate will go to me. Pro will post his argument in the first round (the first round will not just be for acceptance). In order to assure we have the same amount of rounds to argue and rebut, Pro must only put in his last round:"No argument will be posted here."
A Non-Mental Reality Probably Exists

"And yet matter is no less material for having been defamed." - ProBut I showed that what we refer to as "material" is mental, as its properties are purely mathematical and math is conceptual. All Pro has done this entire debate is bare-assert things without any argument. It is clear that Pro has not shown that a non-mental reality probably exists. He appealed to material matter, but I showed that what we refer to as "matter" reduces to mentality. Ergo, the debate has been won by me by a landslide. Remember, as per the rules Pro's last round cannot contain anything but:"No argument will be posted here."We have both had the same amount of rounds to argue and rebut at this point. Thank you.
Debate.org is too strict for new users.

My apologies for not following the standard protocol on this site. It should be obvious from the topic that I am a brand new user. Not only am I new user, I've never participated in a formal debate. I'll do my best to make round three count as I clearly blew round two, not only in protocol but in misinterpretation. My opponent does bring up good counter points that I have not considered but I still disagree overall. A) Quality over quantity - While I appreciate quality over quantity as evidenced in my expensive micro-brew choices, there is something to be said for wondering how the general public feels about some of the topics listed on Debate.org. After reading a few debates and suddenly feeling the urge to cast a vote, I was perplexed why several topics only had one or two votes. I really wanted a larger sampling to see if my opinion on the subject matched others on this site. Am I in the majority or minority on subject x? One or two votes on a topic gives no indication where I stand with the majority of users on this site. Typically the larger the sample size is in a poll, the more accurate it is. [1] B) Value Thoughtful Ballots - Opinions are like ____ - Everyone has one. While some are more thoughtful than others, one should not be forced to jump through hoops to cast a vote on a topic they find interesting. Many of the debates in here are garbage. "is Ferrari better than Lamborghini" has zero facts from either side of the argument. How about "Hulk is better than Superman" or "The Vampire Diaries Klaus Vs Stefan" - I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to have thoughtful opinions on many of the topics here. Does the average citizen really have to be trained in the art of debate in order to take a stand that Superman is clearly better than the Hulk? [2] C) Mis-Stating the Purpose. - The purpose of this website is to bring together people of like mind. People who like to debate. So we agree on that much. But it is naive to believe that this site's numbers aren't lower due to it's strict policies. It would be easy to prove if the webmaster would make public the number of registered users vs the number of users with voting privileges. I'm sure the disparity would be eye-opening and would be easy to prove. I for one almost gave up on this site after I attempted three different times to cast a vote on a topic. I assure you, I'm not alone. Many people lack patience in today's 'Now' society. To force new members to participate in three debates before being allowed to vote is akin to putting the cart before the horse. [3] D) Context - Voting on this site should not be more difficult than voting for the President of the United States, which only requires filling out one form. [4] Thank you for your time and consideration. Vote Pro! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) [2] http://www.mania.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.usa.gov...
Debate.org is too strict for new users.

Contrary to the sentiment expressed in Round 2 by the proponent of the resolution, you will see that in no part of my R1 acceptance did I agree with the resolution and render the debate moot. Because the user provided no argumentation in his R2 speech, I really have nothing to argue. I will address a few reasons that you should vote con on this resolution, in brief, and I hope that you will all see that despite the argumentation I am going to give, the pro does not give you anything to vote on. Thus, you must default to the con. A. Quality over Quantity. Though it does not constitute part of his argument, in the description of the debate provided by the proponent of the resolution, he says that " I also feel this website is missing out thousands of additional voters who simply are not willing to start 3 debates in order to cast a simple vote. " This is precisely the reason that we must disagree with the idea that the third restriction on new users is not too strict as he would have you believe. In many ways this restriction helps to protect debate. org from the presence of trolls. Doubtless there are always going to be trolls in an Internet community; however, the forcing of new users to participate in debates before they can vote on other debates provides protection against those ballots that are meant to "troll" and those that are not as thoughtfully considered. B. Value Thoughtful Ballots It is always nice when you get ballots on a debate where you can tell that the people have thoughtfully considered the issues and arguments presented in a debate. Making new users participate in debates before they are allowed to vote on debates means that they are going to get a feel for the value of those ballots, and they are going to be enticed to give better ballots themselves. If you debate in the real world, it is very easy to distinguish between those judges that do and do not have experience with the activity. Those ballots written by those who have experience with the event, and further have even participated in it, are the ones that advance you and the sport the most. We want new users to vote on issues once they have obtained a certain familiarity with the customs of Debate. org and a respect for the activity. C. Mis-Stating the Purpose. It is worth noting that this is Debate. org and not Vote. org. Those people who join this community are those that value and love the activity of debate. We appreciate rhetoric. We love a good argument. That is why we are here. It does not make sense to think that we are going to be missing a large number of users to a website where they come to debate, because we make them debate before they get to decide on other debates. I know I am here to type arguments--not ballots. Again--readers--remember that the proponent of the resolution provided no arguments. This is an easy con vote, but I really wanted to do this, actually really interesting topic, justice. Thank you!
Debate.org is too strict for new users.

Debate.org is too strict for new users. I stumbled across this site and was immediately fascinated by the various debates. I read a few and decided to "cast votes". Of course, I couldn't without registering. Most sites let you post immediately after you register. Some make you jump through and additional hoop with an instant verification process. So I thought I knew what to expect. Most sites have a one sometimes two-step instant verification process. Debate.org's is a daunting 3-step process. The process is as follows: 1) Register with the site. (I used my Facebook login) Easy enough. 2) Debate.org's second hoop is much more invasive than most by making us register our cell phone carrier and phone number, then texting a code that has to be typed into the website. 3) Lastly, (I hope) one has to start 3 debates in order to be full member to even qualify one to vote! Since debates can take several days, this means I won't be able to vote on the topic I signed up for since it will likely be over! I understand the first two hoops, but feel the 3rd is unreasonable. I also feel this website is missing out thousands of additional voters who simply are not willing to start 3 debates in order to cast a simple vote.
Our_Boat_is_Right is a pedophile posing as a 15 year old to lure kids

Our_Boat_is_Right is a grown azz adult posing as a 15 year old kid looking to lure boys. I think she should be reported to the FBI for pretending to be 15, Just look at his profile. I believe there is a criminal charge for luring children on-line. Prove me wrong pedophile, I know you are not 15
Our_Boat_is_Right is a pedophile posing as a 15 year old to lure kids

Lying about your age on the Internet is a serious offense and it would be considered fraud and you could end up in both a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. If you"re an adult and pretend to be underage to join a site you could end up in Criminal Court as a child molester, Even if you hadn"t done anything sexual. Clearly Our_boat is an adult pretending to be a 15 year old child in school when in fact he is gathering info on children under 18 on this site. This constitutes fraud and the cyber division of the FBI needs to get involved as he is clearly preying on young vulnerable minds by enticing them into debates while trying to get sexual information about them Our_boat is a pedophile and should be charged with on-line stalking and fraud for pretending he is 15 in his profile, When in reality he is a child preying adult pedophile Reading through his debates clearly demonstrates an adult mind as the topics are of serious mature matter. Folks clearly this is an adult perv
Our_Boat_is_Right is a pedophile posing as a 15 year old to lure kids

I'm not older than 15. I am innocent until proven guilty. I simply make intellectual arguments. You will definitely not be able to hack me, Because the school district I am in has ridiculous precautions and privacy. They own this computer, And it is not hack-able. Even if you do, It will be a waste of your time when figure out I'm not a child lure.
Our_Boat_is_Right is a pedophile posing as a 15 year old to lure kids

By profiling your account, And going through your debates on DDO, It clearly demonstrates that your way older than 15, By pretending to be a minor you are laying to the DDO community and once I hack your IP address with a packet sniffer and over ride your computer as the administrator of it, I will get more proof which I can post on here showing that you are trying to lure boys while being an adult. This constitutes being a pedophile by soliciting minors and pretending to be one. The FBI web team is always looking for tips on online predators who like to lure children. Not disclosing your age, Just proves that you are lying about being 15. I will have concrete proof for round 3 once I hack your computer
Our_Boat_is_Right is a pedophile posing as a 15 year old to lure kids

I'm not quite sure you know how the FBI works. You can't prove I am not 15, So I am innocent until proven guilty. Who would make this stupid debate anyway? I am not going to say anything more about my age or anything because of privacy reasons. I appreciate this compliment, As McDouble over here thinks my arguments are so good I have to be older to post such great arguments backed up by facts and statistics. I am into politics young, It affects my life and everyone else's.
Animal captivity is okay in terms of ethnics.

This debate was quite interesting, and I stand by what I said. MY ARGUMENTS 1. one of the reasons that there are zoos is to study animal behavior in a controlled environment. But over the years, there are accidents like mistakes in controlled environments (food, medicine, space, etc.) that can hurt the animals. Pro argues that zoos and captivity are ment to perserve endangered animals from going into extinction. But when a wild animal stays in a controlled environment, it will lose its "wildness" and hopes for rehibiliatation are slim to none. 2. The simple solution is to give the animals their environment back. Preserving land instead of building a mall will save the ecosystem. Man and Animal want the same thing...SPACE and land. If we hold on to nature perserves and national parks, we are not only helping science understand animal behavior, but they are protected from extinction. Laws against hunting and poaching in national parks are strict but unfortunately there are loop holes and the law over looks these innocent, and helpless creatures. It is inhumane for animals to be kept under captivity like zoos and waterparks, just for the sake of our amusement. They have the right to roam free. CONCLUSION Pro also mentioned that some species in the animal kingdom do not go further than 3 miles from their birthplace. I disagree. Species like salmon, birds, gorillas, buffalo, deer, wolves, bears, sharks, and whales (just to name a few) migrate all over the world to find homes, food and water. If we limit their resources, all our efforts to preserve them from going instinct will be in vain and futile. We are not too late, preserve the land that was made for all of us.
Animal captivity is okay in terms of ethnics.

This is a challenge and I'm happy to participate. Even though I myself am an owner of lots of animals, I have to disagree with captivity of wild animals and "cash-crop" farms. In this debate I will demonstrate that "cash-crop" farms contain unhealthy animals that we ingest on a daily basis. These animals are poorly taken care of, which I will show my sources and detailed argument. I will also debate how animal preserves are much better to observe wild animals than in a zoo. True animal conditions in a zoo are much better than it was fifty years ago and zoos use these animals as research. But animals in captivity have lost their "wildness" (Ex: Killer whales in places like Sea World). While in preserves, the wild still hold their own spaces and way of life little to undisturbed by humans. Another thing maybe no one takes seriously but feeder fish kids win at carnivals are also treated poorly, they are in dirty toxic water (made toxic by their own dirtiness) and they end up dying shortly after and the kid who wins it is deeply upset. This is just an example.
Animal captivity is okay in terms of ethnics.

Putting animals, namely large (non-microscopic) organisms in the animal kingdom such as tigers, lions, wolves, snails, etc., in human care is animal captivity. Whether its used for zoos or farms, domesticated or wild animals, animal captivity has been a controversial topic for zoologists. I believe that animal captivity, in terms of ethnics, is acceptable and may even be beneficial to the animals. Con will argue the opposite. He or she believes that animal captivity is not a good practice and is inhumane in terms of ethnics. "Ethical issues involve right and wrong or what is considered good, and what is considered evil in a society." -- Yahoo Answers! (1) Try to base your arguments on empirical knowledge or opinion rather than religion. Religion, though it may be relevant, is not the focus of this debate. 1. No offensive language. 2. The first round is for introduction and agreement only. 3. When using sources, be sure to cite URLs or book titles and authors. Each side has 48 hours to submit an argument that is, at most, 7,000 characters long. There are three rounds, and there is a two-week voting period. Good luck to my opponent. (1) http://answers.yahoo.com...
The Conservative base of the Republican Party should support John McCain for President.

I don't agree. It's logical to think ahead. McCain can't win this and if he does, he'll loose another 8 years to the democrats. If Hillary wins, we'll come back and pick up the pieces for another 8. Whats better? Loosing 12 years to the Democrats (and I do mean McCain) or loosing 4 and recovering with 8 and possibly more...You decide.
The Conservative base of the Republican Party should support John McCain for President.

Well I can't comment either way on the fact that you're a conservative. Your profile shows none of your political views on anything. So I guess i'll just have to take your word for it. It's too early for me to say that I won't vote at all. That's why I didn't say that. I'll have to wait and see what comes up. There's talk of some possible conservative candidates running independent, seeing as it doesn't seem as if McCain can unite the party. one thing is for sure,I will not vote for Clinton, Obama, or McCain. With a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch, and I apologize for being a pessimist, I just don't see how any conservative values will be represented. And by Democratic I do mean any of the before mentioned candidates. It will be a major set back for our party and for moral values. I just pray to God that no vacancies become available in the Supreme Court. I can't say vote Republican, I do hope a true conservative will run as an Independent and save our country. It'll be a long shot, but I do hope they do attempt it, as I will support all the time and effort I have to the cause, as I did in 2004. Howver, I can't say McCain is an actal Republican. Therefore, in my first election, I refuse to cast a vote for the Republican Party. Instead, I think we should support the Congressmen running and try to take back the legislature, the executive has already been lost to a liberal any of the three ways.
The Conservative base of the Republican Party should support John McCain for President.

First let me say I am probly just as or even more conservitve than you. I donte to the R.N.C. and the S.R.N.C. every month automatically on my credit card.Second let me say that I am also disappointed with the way the vote went for McCain He's not conservitive enogh for me either. I hope you do vote though, no vote is a vote for the otherside not to mention a slap in the face to all the soldiers who died in world war 2 so you can have the privilidge of voting today. You have heard the exspression "The squeeky wheel always gets greased". You can have an effect on the way McCain votes on issues and handles issues if you participate in the political process by writing emails and making a phone call once in a while to your Congressmen and Reprsentatives. Why do you think Liberalism has had such a huge growth, all those people wanting welfare, the why work when you don't have to mentality. And you should know by now that once an entitlement program is created it never goes away it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. If the other side wins, any comminication you have with the Gov't will be thrown in the trash because you are not part of their constituency and they don't care what you think about anything, it's their way or the highway with you. At least with a Republican President, you are part of their consituency and will at least give consideration to your views if they want to get re-elected. The last time there was a Demoraticaly controled Congress and Presidentcy it took 30 yers to change it back. I know I don't make enough money for all the Gov't programs the Dems could create in another 30 years. PLEASE VOTE AND VOTE REPUBLICAN THANKS
The Conservative base of the Republican Party should support John McCain for President.

Now that Senator John McCain has basically secured his nomination as the Republican Party's nominee for the 2008 Presidential election, he has a lot of work a head of him. He has to unify not only the country behind him, but his own party! I'm a very conservative Republican; the epitome of the Party's base. I refuse to cast a vote for John McCain. Except mildly on terror, he doesn't reflect the Party's views. He is constantly compromising his "conservative" views and values in Congress and the legislation he's created and helped pass do not support his claim as a conservative. Our party would be far better off if Senator Hillary Clinton were to be elected. If she wins, her outrageous proposals, especially withdrawal of troops from Iraq will prove to have catastrophic results. This will prove that she, just as her husband was on terror, a failure. Come 2012 the Republican Party will sweep back into both the executive and legislative branches for at least another 8 years. If McCain wins the presidency, he will also screw up and cause our party to lose the white house for at least another 12 years. I will fight John McCain's nomination and campaign to election night, and if need be Inauguration Day.