BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parmenidean Monism

You agreed with what I said about observation in the realm of parmenidean monism. I said,""there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism." Where you responded ,"Not empricial evidence, no. But we can construct logical arguments, which is what I did." We can conclude that from what you have stated since observations are empirical, then empirical data is illusory. Immanuel Kant says we learn by both empirical and rational learning Rational-based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Logic-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Validity-the quality of being logically or factually sound Facts-a truth known by actual experience or observation; In Parmenidean Monism there is no way we can make any kind of logical arguments, because logical arguments are based on Validity and validity is based on fact and fact is based upon observation. We have established under Parmenidean Monism that: p.1) Observation is illusory p.2) Fact is based on observations p.3)Validity is based upon fact p.4)Logic is based upon validity c1)Logic is illusory The David Hume proof only applies to syllogism that doesn't address nature. All hot objects, if you touch them will burn you, the nature of hot is to burn and thus David Hume's theory doesn't always apply. Now to address your question: If our mind is physical and wasn't naturally inherent then our minds have a life cycle. Inception, growth,maintenance and decay. Our minds have to change if they are a physical object and from your syllogism it is in fact a "purely physical object". Since the mind is the only example you have of something that doesn't change and I have sufficiently proved that the mind changes extend my proof that shows the ineffectiveness of Parmenidean Monism P.1) reality is everything P.2)everything in reality changes P.3) change is illusory P.4) everything is illusory C.1) reality is illusory The problem with both Parmenidean Monism and Solipsism is that eventually nothing exists and nothing can exist. Since everything in the physical world is constantly changing and under the premise of PM all observed change is illusory, the existence of reality is illusory. This ultimately means that Solipsism cannot exist under PM and PM creates an instance of non-existence for reality. For these reasons we must negate. Very interesting round
Parmenidean Monism

"If empirical evidence is illusory"I never said that. I merely specified the circumstances in which emprical evidence is not useful. "John Locke argues that we our logic or mode of thinking is based upon empiricism." Immanuel Kant argues that our mode of thinking is based upon both emprical and rational evidence. He believes that some concepts, such as space and time, simply cannot be learned about through observation alone. "Premise 1.) A stove is hotPremise 2.)You touch the stove and the stove burns youconclusion) Hot objects burn"The conclusion here does not follow from the premises. All we observe here is one instance of heat being associated with burning. As David Hume points out, this only shows a single occurrence, not that it is a universal rule. This is the problem of induction.In any case, you make the false assumption that there is no possible concept that can be known without using emprical observations. However if you look at my argument in round two, you'll see that I needed to make no emprical observations to prove Parmenidean Monism."Based on your 1st premise if our mind is purely physical than that means our minds will experience a cycle of life and death."Not necessarily. From where do you draw that conclusion?"you appear to say that since observations can exist in all-states that observation cannot change."That is not what I said. I said that allegedly observed changes can exist in one moment without actually needing changes to occur, and as you do not change the identity of the memories by extending one moment to all moments, we can see that our memory of changes allegedly occurring can exist in one state unchangingly without any change needing to occur. "This is the problem with Parmenidean Monism, nothing is reality everything is just illusory, no substance." Even if that were true (which my argument in round three proved it isn't) that wouldn't be a flaw in the idea. Solipsism is perfectly viable and coherent as a philosophical viewpoint. As Parmenidean Monism can be stated as a form of solipsism (although it does not necessarily have to be one), it follows that Parmenidean Monism is perfectly coherent, and, given my argument from round two, that Parmenidean Monism must also be true.
Parmenidean Monism

If empirical evidence is illusory and John Locke argues that we our logic or mode of thinking is based upon empiricism. empiricism- a theory that all knowledge originates in experience Premise 1.) A stove is hot Premise 2.)You touch the stove and the stove burns you conclusion) Hot objects burn So if our observations are false, and we base our learning off of illusory observations, then our perceived knowledge is illusory. If our perceived knowledge illusory than the conclusions derived from our,"constructed logical arguments" are also illusory. Without any reliable knowledge it is impossible to construct any logical arguments, logic no longer exist within the realm of reality which debunks your constructed logic theory premise 1.) Rain is observed to fall from the sky premise 2.)Empirical observation is illusory conclusion) It is impossible to make any logical argument about where rain falls from or if rain even exist because all empirical observation is illusory Non-sense Your claim is that our minds do not change: Based on your 1st premise if our mind is purely physical than that means our minds will experience a cycle of life and death. Once we die so do our minds. The transition life and death represents a change in existence. Our minds change which means our minds are illusory. The problem I have with the train of syllogism is that you appear to say that since observations can exist in all-states that observation cannot change. But observation can change the syllogism doesn't really make sense. This is the problem with Parmenidean Monism, nothing is reality everything is just illusory, no substance.
Parmenidean Monism

"If our observe able universe is constantly changing, then the set of all real things as referred to in premise one doesn't exist."No. The set of all real things refers to all things that do exist. By definition, all things that exist must exist. "there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism."Not empricial evidence, no. But we can construct logical arguments, which is what I did."Our lives by definition change,"To be clear, our external lives appear to change, whereas our minds do not. Therefore while it is true that our external lives can be said to not exist, our minds do."If we have no facts to collect it is impossible to know which reality we are apart of. Monism is one reality then if we aren't apart of this one then we do not exist." It is not impossible. Again, we can still make a logical argument about monism, which is what I did.I reject P2 in your argument. Our minds do not change.However, even if I rejected solipsism, there is still a way to demonstrate that reality being unchanging is coherent.Premise One: The mind is purely physical.Premise Two: Memories are part of the mind.Premise Three: All alleged observations of change are recorded in the memory.Premise Four: That which is physical can exist in one state in one moment.Premise Five: Memories are purely physical. (One and Two)Premise Six: All alleged observations of change are physical. (Three and Five)Premise Seven: All alleged observations of change can exist in one state in one moment. (Four and Six)Premise Eight: That which can exist in one state in one moment can maintain the same identity by existing in one state in all moments.Premise Nine: All alleged observations of change can maintain the same identity by existing in one state in all moments. (Seven and Eight)Premise Ten: That which exists in one state in all moments is unchanging. Conclusion: All alleged observations of change can be unchanging. (Nine and Ten)Over to you, Con.
Parmenidean Monism

If existence is illusory like you corroborated. For something to be real under the basis of parmenidean monism it would not change. If our observe able universe is constantly changing, then the set of all real things as referred to in premise one doesn't exist. The only thing that works in your logic is that is that nothing in itself cannot change. Solipsism- Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Since the way we collect facts about our world is through our observation and we cannot tell whether these observations are genuine or not based on solipsistic theory there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism. Life- "the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks" Our lives by definition change, all change we go through is illusory, if the changes we perceive are illusory, then the existence of our lives is illusory. The only way we can now we exist is by observation, if our observations are false, like you said we have a philosophical obligation to conclude unless we have evidence the authenticity of the observable world is void. If we have no facts to collect it is impossible to know which reality we are apart of. Monism is one reality then if we aren't apart of this one then we do not exist. P.1) reality is everything P.2)everything in reality changes P.3) change is illusory P.4) everything is illusory C.1) reality is illusory
Parmenidean Monism

Premise One: Everything is the set of all real things. Premise Two: If something new is added to a set, then the set did not previously contain that thing. Premise Three: If something in a set becomes something new, then the set did not previously contain that thing. Premise Four: If something is removed from a set, then the identity of that set has changed. Premise Five: Nothing new can be added to the set of everything. (Justified by One and Two)Premise Six: Nothing in the set everything can become something new. (Justified by One and Three)Premise Seven: Nothing can be removed from the set of everything. (Justified by One and Four)Premise Eight: Everything cannot change. (Justified by Five, Six, and Seven)Conclusion One: Nothing can change. (Justified by Eight)Conclusion Two: Reality is unchanging. (Justified by Eight)Now I move on to my opponent's arguments. My opponent's arguments are entirely based on a misconception about reality, that is to say, simply observing a phenomenon does not prove its occurrence. My opponent has claimed that simply due to a claim that it is fact that the President of the United States has changed, reality is changing. However, my opponent has even mentioned the fault with this argument themselves. "If reality wasn't subject to change our constantly changing existence is illusory. "This is precisely correct. The idea that our observations and experiences are illusory is refered to as solipsism, and is one of the more intriguing ideas in philosophy. Namely, it is intriguing because while our experiences may tell us that there is a world around us, we have no evidence that our senses provide genuine data about the world. With a lack of evidence, we are left with the philosophical obligation to conclude that unless we have evidence, we must reject the claim that the world we observe is genuine. This being the case, we have no evidence that the world in which the presidents change and humans change throughout their lives exists. Thus, we have no need to reject the existence of our lives, as my opponent claims we do.
Parmenidean Monism

What the heck haha I will accept I accept that Parmenidean Monoism is -"The idea that all of reality is unchanging, and thus all observed change is illusory." Definitions Reality- "something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc." Fact- something known to exist or to have happened: Actual- real and not merely possible or imagined Change-to become different All definitions provided by dictionary.com Parmenidean Monoism says that reality is unchanging and anything that occurs in reality that appears to change is illusory. This has to be disproved by the con showing that change is substantive and thus exist. Proving existence through fact: p.1)Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president Andrew Johnson was the 17th president p.2)since the actual President differed this represents change, a change in president. It is documented fact that the president changed. p.3)Since fact is something known to have existed, existence falls within the constraints of reality, C.1)fact represents change and change is apparent in reality which means change isn't illusory. If you didn't buy that proof then here is another outlook If reality wasn't subject to change our constantly changing existence is illusory. The nature of man is to grow and change. Humans are constantly changing evolving creatures. Birth to childhood, childhood to puberty,puberty to adulthood, adulthood to senior-hood, senior-hood to death. Our constant change, upon the basis of Perminidean Monism is all illusory. Since our life is constant change our lives themselves are illusory. Under this premise existence is illusory. This far fetched idea maintains under rational syllogism that if our existence itself is illusory than if reality is based off of things that exist, and nothing exist reality in itself is illusory. This makes no sense and this is why Parmendian Monism is a theory placed on fallacy.
Colored girls are irrelevant to the earth

I am a white female for your information, and the fact that you can't even write a proper sentence is hilarious. In the very first thing you posted you said nothing about colored women- you said women. Showing that you don't even know what you are saying. White, Black, Brown, etc. it's a color. And if women were nonexistent (as you say they are irrelevant to this Earth), then there would only be gays left- which I believe that you are okay with, as you appear to hate women. Another thing is; how are women not important? You need both men and women for population of the earth. You have no valid points. You can not deny it; women are very important to human life colored or "not". I am sorry that you can not get a women to love you, you may want to rethink your opinions on this because without women you are NOTHING. Let that sink in. Yes, the earth needs men... but you need females just as much. And NO women should ever have to deal with you. Hope you have a wonderful day, you deserve it. :-) PS- Homosexuality, and Lesbians are not caused by women. It's caused by a person's choice on who they want to be in life, not based on how horrible women are. Depression issues? Some people have them, not all women. I don't. Women think that they're the Queens of Society? Men can feel that way too! So everything that you are arguing for can easily be proven as your false opinion. A bunch of junk that means nothing.
Colored girls are irrelevant to the earth

You know you actually quite stupid and to show that you're is your response and the fact that instead of choosing a debate with proper meaning for your class time, you choose this . Another thing that you stated is that all woman are colored and this is frankly absolute rubbish as all woman are not one color. You also couldn't rebut my other points showing you lack ethnic and that my points were relevant. I know you might be colored yourself and are taking this personally thus running out of things to say and just making up your own theories without fact. Another fact is that if you look up colored girls it does not show you every race but only one . I beg that you may keep quite and I ask the people watching this debate to excuse the rubbish you have stated.
Colored girls are irrelevant to the earth

In fact, I was at school in Class on this website (as we are required to answer to a single debate) when I saw this. Your info proves nothing except that you have a sorry opinion. Also, your dumb, because all people are colored! You want real information? If you are against colored women (all women), then you're against their whole family and those that disagree with you- you're also against your own existence. At least certain debates can be finalized, but yours will never go away, because colored women and all women are here to stay. A stupid post won't change that, and I thank you for replying, because it also proves that you were not joking about this statement, which makes you unbelievable.
Colored girls are irrelevant to the earth

Funny thing is I'm not lonely you are the fact that you are online and chose this debate proves you are lonely as I only started this to find the couch potato Internet stalkers. I will also say that as a fact that colored girls were in fact labeled as useless and that all my information given is only relevant unlike your utter rubbish and I'm not bringing every woman down in fact I am bring a lot up as most will say that they feel unloved as each race man turn away from their kind to pursue a better "life" from a better wife when we all know colorless are not everything and stoop so low at times in fact they cause lesbians as woman will say they will get better love from each other as their husbands have been taken , they cause gays when they hurt the men to a point that they are afraid of woman and so on , they also have depression issues unlike us they can cut through their skin when in destess even over the slightest things , so please shut up as your points are irrelevant and this is a forum for fun and improving debating skills.
Colored girls are irrelevant to the earth

Do you have any idea what you are typing? You wouldn't have been BORN if it wasn't for a woman (aka your mother)! How can you say that colored women are irrelevant. They are a part of our society whether you like it or not, and being human beings, DESERVE to be important. You knocking them down on such a low level as this shows that you need help- in serious measures. I feel sorry for you, but I will NOT give you ANY pity for typing this, as it was YOUR choice to do so. It is so RUDE and CHILDISH to even say that kind of thing, and this has brought YOU down to an even lower level than what level you tried to put ANY WOMAN down. You probably only typed this for the attention, and you are so WRONG! What's funny is that I showed many other people and they laughed at how a low life would go online and put people down like that. Have fun with being stupid and having a lonely life! This topic isn't even up for a debate. Goodbye.
My name is boxxybabee

So like, hurrr durrr. http://ui15.gamespot.com... Weegee, pedobear, fsjal, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID. BECAUSE NICHOLAS CAGE'S HAIR IS A BIRD. Also, never refuted my point about how a period actually changes the meaning. and it's boxxybabee, bro. Two x's. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO hugs and kisses :3 <33333
My name is boxxybabee

The resolution solely regards your name, and according to your profile, your name is -Private-, which negates the resolution. You are still incorrect about your profile name. You stated that it was "boxybabee.", and it is not. There is no period. I have negated both my opponent's name and profile name. This debate really is almost impossible to win for Con, but I believe I have delivered a decent fight. I await argumentation.
My name is boxxybabee

I negate, "My name is boxxybabee." On the user boxxybabee's profile, her name is listed as "-Private-". Therefore, her name is not boxxybabee, but -Private-. http://www.debate.org... Although the debate.org profile name is not specified by the resolution, my opponent is incorrect when she says it is "boxxybabee." The name "boxxybabee" (without the period) is her true profile name. Resolution negated. I thank the audience and my opponent. Almost an impossible debate.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Be Repealed

I don't really know what to do at this point: it's my first forfeit. I can picture myself 20 years from now being overcome with a fit of nostalgia. Extend my opponent's case as a reason to vote for my side. DADT is an unfair and discriminatory policy. Gay people should not be asked to lie about who they are simply to make straight people feel more comfortable. In addition, a DADT repeal would add significantly to military readiness. It could allow up to 12,500 people to return to the military, many of them direly needed language experts/translators. [1] Please affirm [1] http://gaylife.about.com...
Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Be Repealed

Sorry, this topic is somewhat confusing. Don't Ask Don't Tell is the current policy in the military that gay service-members may serve as long as they do not "come out." I am affirming that the above policy should be repealed. The con (negation) would argue that the policy should not be repealed, meaning that DADT should stay in place. Pro (me) would argue that not being allowed to "come out" and be who you truly are is dehumanizing and unfair to people who serve this country. Con (my opponent) would advance arguments such as the classic "unit cohesion" argument touted by military officials. I don't know if pro/con is a convention on this site, so maybe I assumed something I shouldn't have. Either way, I'd like to debate the side arguing that DADT should be repealed. We can pretend the previous round did not happen if you'd like to post con arguments in this round.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Should Be Repealed

In my opinion the dont ask dont tell policy in a way prevents many freedoms any normal gay person would have. For instance, if a gay guy who is in the military is seen walking out of a gay bar, or is at a gay pride rally. Then he could be discharged because of it. In my opinion somebody who is willing to serve this country and die for it should have the respect and right to be who they are. This country is supposed to have justice for all man and woman alike. Being a homosexual is not a choice, just like people dont choose to be heterosexual. In my opinion somebody who is trained to kill terrorists and militants, but is scared of a homosexual is ridiculous. In the army i would imagine that when your on the battlefield somebodies sexual orientation wont come before survival. Now there is a reason that the policy is there. Because homophobia does exist. Im sure that the commanding officers wouldnt want a bunch of gays in their squadrons and if they dont know they are gay, they can treat them like all the other guys without feeling like they are hurting their feelings. Look the point is, if you are woman or a gay guy going into the army and are looking for equal rights and liberty. Expect to take the same abuse as men. I think the army should just stop worrying about sexual orientation so much, its not something worth having your career thrown away for. Its like saying being gay is a bad thing all over again and even justifys it as you are not being an "ideal" american worthy of fighting for the country of "liberty".
Standardized testing is a good thing

You are saying that if we give a 50 page test to student not knowing half the stuff so we know where their at if that was the case a quarter of the class would be held back. That would not help children at all knowing where their at you need to do work with them give them the attention they need then they would probably understand. Giving them a test they don't know what to do would not help them what so ever. By helping them give maybe a little more homework or give a study guide about what their learning so they can review it at home. Do you know 1 in 10 students get held back we can probably make it 1 in 20 if we had no more standardized testing now who is with me!!!