BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children Exhibit Moral Behavior, But Are Not Morally Praiseworthy.

******* My opponent in his affirmation implies that praiseworthy and blameworthy are inherent. I disagree, as praiseworthy implies good, and blameworthy is of course, not always good. An action no matter what the motive, result, or content can assume blame to anyone, or anything. If anyone or anything attributed fault to an action in some way,. . than blame is intrinsic. Blame does not require someone to stand and point,. .. blame falls to the attributers of fault. Ergo, it does not matter the morality of the action, a child, like anything or anyone else, that attributes fault, is worthy of blame. The level of blame could be up for debate. However,. . My opponents original resolution did not say blameworthy,. . it said praiseworthy. If a child does good, or shows correct moral behavior, they are obviously at least worthy of praise. I really do not think it makes a difference if one feels the child is making the moral distinction, or it is a genetic predisposition. It is the action that is determining the worthiness of praise. ******* I will address my opponents condensed 7 points in numerical order. (1) Children are able to recognize that some rules have more clout than others. ---> When a child exhibits good moral behavior, they are worthy of praise. (2) Evolutionary forces play a part in this. ---> The extent of this part, or the role it plays does not change the value or worthiness of praise. (3) Self-preservation instinct and a "Do-Unto-Others" sense do as well. ---> Actions based on natural instincts do not alter the worth of good moral behavior. Or worth of praise. (4) A necessary component to making moral judgment is motivation. ---> It does not matter how they were motivated, it is the fact the moral judgment was made, and worthiness of praise for making a good judgment. (5) Children are not aware of the motivation's source or type. ---> This makes no difference to the resolve,. . the child, if doing a good deed, is at least worthy of praise. (6) Thus, children cannot make moral judgment, but CAN make the M/C distinction. ---> Well lets say my opponent is correct in this,. .. it still does NOTHING to alter the worth of determining praise. If the distinction of good and bad was made, and good was the chosen, I am pretty sure that means the child just made a judgment,. .. and if the judgment, or the behavior was morally correct,. . than they are worthy of praise. (7) Therefore, while exhibiting moral behavior, they are not morally praiseworthy for it. ---> My opponent has perhaps shown that children may be morally detached from their actions, but he has not shown why the children's actions, or children themselves are not worthy of praise for good moral behavior. ******** I feel that at the very least, praise when offered for displaying good moral behavior, is a positive in affirming such behavior as good. Much like offering a treat to a dog for sitting on command, the child will understand that the behavior they displayed was either acceptable or not based on praise or criticism. Ergo, I affirm that a child that displays good moral behavior IS morally praise worthy.
love being belief, love is alien, not human emotion

I will Refute what Pro has to say. "unknown=false" That is Incorrect. Unknown(1) is separate from False.(2) "reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown" Pro makes Non-Sensical statements, I would ask he refrain from using Marijuana while at the Keyboard. (1)(http://www.google.ca...) (2)(http://www.google.ca...)
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

You admit that no one knows how to do it, and yet you think it's possible? You make assumptions based on things that have no connections. I agree that humans are animals, but computers aren't animals. They aren't living, and thus they can't have a conscious. The jump from non living to living has never been proven. The link here shows that classification is like that (1). I think you could make a virus similar to a sickness with a computer. A virus is non living, and a computer is non-living, and that's how it is. You cannot switch groups. By groups i mean prokaryote, eucaryote, and non-living. You can not switch between these groups. You probably can program a sickness type virus, but going in the realm of living is science fiction, impossible, and bogus. (1) http://water.me.vccs.edu... Thanks for reading! This was a fun debate. Pro had some good points, and he made it more challenging than i anticipated. Please don't judge this debate on who you agree with, and I hope you enjoyed!
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

The experimentors didn't deliver lethal shocks... which undermines your reasoning. Earlier you claimed animals can't discern morality. Then I showed an example of monkeys choosing for themselves to suffer, so that their companions don't have to. By the way if you read the experiment you'd see that there were 2 food chains, one which shocked and one which didn't. The monkeys that starved themselves refused to even experiment and figure out that one of the chains was harmless. That's a pretty clear example of an animal discerning right from wrong; what makes it more interesting is that the monkeys who starved themselves were the ones who knew what the shock felt like. You then turned around and said the monkey is doing this for personal pleasure, not for ethical reasons (which makes no sense because the monkey starves as a result of not pulling the chain. On the hierarchy of needs, food trumps social interaction. The experimenters made the 2 pulley system the only source of food for the monkey, and some of the monkeys chose to starve for days. That's not pleasure). I think you've used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by trying to say "but the monkeys aren't making a true moral decision, they did it for pleasure". --- If I haven't told you how consciousness is made, it's because it's one of the contemporary mysteries of science and no one knows. But from the a strong premise and deductive arguments, we can get some clues as to whether or not it's possible. Also I want to note that humans are animals. So animal minds aren't akin to human brains, they are the same thing. Whatever you are claiming with "A=B, B=C thus C=A" is wrong, go check out what biology has to say about humans literally being animals (not being separate from them as some religions happen to claim). If you start with the premise "The brain is made of only particles, atoms, and molecules operating under the laws of nature" you can start to see what consciousness is. If you can refute that premise you'll destroy what I've said before and am reiterating here. But since the brain is only made of these basic elements, if we can figure out the blueprint for the brain, or in other words fully decode the human genome (which we sequenced over a decade ago), then given the proper tools we can build a brain. I'm simply arguing "it can be done". And it has to be possible if the brain is only made of basic elements. We just don't have the tools to rearrange the basic elements to make a brain at the current level of modern science. We're pretty advanced so far though, we've emulated chunks of the brain with computers, such as the ability to perform logic and arithmetic, and computers actually surpass the brain in this area. We've also figured out how some specific parts of the brain work, on some level (if you've seen footage of reading the mind's visual stimulus[4]). --- My argument is that it is possible to build a brain, and offload the informational pattern that makes up a person's consciousness into this brain, in the same way a piece of software can be installed on any computer. [4] http://gizmodo.com...
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

You have not buried me. If monkeys are willing to protect a companion, that means nothing. That companion gives them pleasure, and if they died, it would hurt them. Protecting pleasure doesn't represent morals. Also, there is no proof that a robot gets pleasure or is able to choose right and wrong. Also, you haven't once told me how this consciousness is made. Your whole argument has been based on an assumption that assumes that because animal minds work like humans that robots do the same. That is quite bogus as you haven't proved once that animals and robot minds work the same. You have attempted to state that A=B, but haven't proved that B=C and still assume that A=C even though you have no proof for it.
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

To say animals can't choose what they want, but humans can, is not a very well thought-out statement. It's a bit too broad, I'll have to work with what you've given me. An example of a human desire is a desire for salt, fat and sugar. This is an example of a desire that you have, but didn't choose. If you could choose not to have this desire, obesity wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is now. People can't just forcibly change their desire for greasy, salty, tasty food. If they could, they'd reduce desire for unhealthy foods and increase their desire for the (currently) less tasty but more healthy foods. Just from this simple proof by contradiction, it's obvious that not all of the desires humans have are under their control. An example of something an animal (a bird building a nest) desires would be twigs or leaves or other bits of foliage. This is an example of a desire an animal has, where the animal also has the ability to choose how to satiate it. The bird desires to obtain materials to build a nest, but the bird has full discretion over what specific twigs he chooses. The bird does not uncontrollably/unwillingly retrieve the first twig he sees, he has the ability to search the ground for the perfect twigs. I'm justified therefore to say "humans have desires, and there are cases where they cannot choose what item they need to fill their desire. Animals have desires, and there are cases where the animal can choose which item shall fill that desire. --- Since human morality is an evolutionary trait, animals must have it too. Animals have morality. There was a study done where rhesus monkeys were aware that operating a food chain to get a pellet also caused a companion monkey to receive an electrical shock. Some of the monkeys opted to starve rather than obtain immoral food pellets [3]. That shows that you were wrong about animals being unable to discern right from wrong. I may as well bury you while I'm at it. It would be painstakingly easy to replace monkeys with "moral robots" in that experiment. Make a robot that's programmed to pull the foodchain when the shocker is inactive, and program it not to pull the foodchain when the shocker is active. We've just built moral robots, that are even more ethically intelligent than the monkeys since the monkeys didn't all refrain from delivering shocks to their companions for food. The robots discern right and wrong with 100% accuracy. --- So there you have it, monkeys and robots can discern good from bad. Ergo a human brain is not required to discern right from wrong. The ability can be programmed into a machine if you want - we can offload this piece of our consciousness into a different substrate, to word it in a way that explicitly refers to the resolution. [3] http://www.madisonmonkeys.com... retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

Your question is easy and obvious. Humans can choose their desires and animals can't. Humans discern what they want and can make judgements on what is right and wrong. A robot or animal cannot. An animal doesn't give money to animal charity because animals don't feel good when they do a sacrificial action. Humans do feel good. It's all about how we can choose our desires, and we can make "right/wrong" choices.
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

I do know what consciousness is, and so do you, and so does everyone else. Anyone you ask will be able to agree with you on whether or not a human is conscious, or dead. In fact, the Turing Test is a useful test/thought experiment for consciousness. If you have a text conversation with a machine, and you are convinced that the machine is a human, the machine passed the test. Something that is conscious is able to pass the Turing test. That's how we identify the presence of consciousness. Anything that has this quality is said to be "conscious". I think that you are convinced I am a human with this quality, are you not? You haven't met me in person, but you know that I am a person who lives somewhere on the planet and has thoughts. In fact if I was a robot, I would have won the debate already because I would have proved to you that robots could be conscious. If I am a human, then that proves we can agree on what consciousness is (for without it this debate would never have happened). We don't understand consciousness fully, but we know what it is on a high, abstract level. Be I robot or human, I have consciousness. --- You have brought up discernment, and you are trying to say that non-human entities do not have this ability. That's just preposterous; animals/machines can tell the difference between different objects, or different sounds, or different quantities of things. If you are going to claim that animals and machines can't discern things like humans can, you are going to need to provide me with an example of something that a machine can't be designed to discern. You can try to do this, but you won't be able to think of anything and when you finally give up and admit you can't find an example (or I explain a way for a machine to discern your example), that will be a point in my favour. So here is your chance to identify at least one thing man can discern, and the animals and machines can't.
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

You didn't even address what consciousness was. How can you recreate something that you've never seen before? We don't even know if animals have consciousness because the only person who can tell if you have consciousness is you yourself. Even if it was possible, there'd be no way to prove that it actually worked because it's not like you're going to actually know if it worked. A robot is only as good as it's creator, and even it's able to process information and learn, it doesn't mean it has consciousness. Consciousness deals with discernment which is what animals and anything man made doesn't have.
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

The statement "there is no way you could make something as complex as the human brain", is an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine something that complex being built, does not make it impossible. On a side note, we don't care how many neurons are in the brain. If we want to consider the practical aspects, Ray Kurzweil estimated the computational efficiency of the brain to be about 10^16 calculations per second (page 125, [1]). Ray Kurzweil estimates the memory of the brain, considering 10^4 bits allocated per neural connection to be 10^18 bits (page 127, [1]).John Von Neumann estimated the memory requirement of the brain to be 2.8*10^20 bits per human lifetime without the act of forgetting (page 64, [2]). But these are just numbers, the question is can we built a machine to handle them? The brain performs logical and computational operations. Some of its processes are analog, and some of them are digital. We've built machines to perform these processes; the brain is not necessarily more complicated, it's just a lot of it. We know for a fact that humans are made of nothing but atoms, and atoms obey the laws of nature. It is ignorant to say that we will never figure out how the brain is built, because we know it's just built of atoms and molecules and signals and logical organs. The holy grail will be figuring out this mysterious blueprint. We have the parts, we just don't have the schematic. We can probe the brain as much as we need, and we can try and replicate it. It does not seem impossible to do so. I can't create "being on fire"... which is an incoherent sentence anyways. I can light something on fire, because the laws of nature are always present to enable the hydrocarbon combustion. Similarly, the laws of nature that enable consciousness are always present, we just need something that can be "lit on fire" which would be a replica of the human brain. Admittedly, we don't even know how to "reboot" a dead brain even if it came from a person who died just a second ago. But if we could fuel it and set up all it's inputs and outputs, I see no reason why it wouldn't work, as long as it wasn't busted. --- [1]The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil [2]The Computer & the Brain, John Von Neumann
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

I accept this challenge. Here is your flaw: there is no way you could make something as complex as the human brain. It contains 100 billion neurons (1). You can't even count that high, as if you counted one second per number, it'd still take over 3,000 years to count to 100 billion, and that's not including time for sleeping and eating and etc. Also, consciousness isn't physical. If you can't get me a theory on how to make consciousness, or if you can't get someone else's theory on how to make consciousness, it can't be proven to be something that is just "lying around". The definition you're looking for is this: Consciousness means: : the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you (2) It's a state. Can you create "being on fire"? No, cause it's not an object. Can you create "living"? No, cause it's a condition or a state. You can genetically alter things like choosing your kids hair color (they do this), but you can not change consciousness. Nothing on ear can create information or consciousness in a brain out of thin air. (1) http://psychology.about.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Consciousness Can Be Transferred From The Brain Into A Different Substrate

What I am arguing is that consciousness can be produced inorganically. We all know that an infant's brain has no consciousness for a few years. Then, once the childhood amnesia wears off and the brain is developed enough for the informational pattern of consciousness to develop, it just "magically appears" for lack of a better word. (1)So from that biological fact, I argue that if you could create a machine as complex as the human brain, consciousness would also magically arise in the machine, and the machine would be able to talk back to you from the experience of sensation if the proper stimuli were fed into it. The machine consciousness could be named with a human name, and you could ask him/her what they thought about various things, the same as you talk with any human. (2)I also argue that the consciousness that makes up you could be transferred to the machine, as long as the informational pattern were preserved. (3)Lastly I argue that if you wanted to learn German for example, you don't need to learn it the old fashion way. We could just "tweak some wires", reproduce the state that your brain would be in, had you have learned German, and it would be the same thing. No one would be able to tell the difference between a person that learned German the "old fashioned way", or a person that had their brain modified in some futuristic neural surgery.
Big Bang Theory

The reason I did not post anything as evidence, is because I do not have any evidence against it. It's hard to find evidence against a theory like this because the "evidence" is very detached from what we know as reality. The speed and direction of galaxy movement is something impossible to calculate, by measuring light waves and how they fluctuate. They do this by looking at a galaxy through a telescope and sending the light through a diffraction grating, then measure the distribution of intensities. Just because a scientist says that that's proof, it's not enough to support the big bang theory. About the elements, this is also not solid evidence. It could go both ways. God may have created elements to be this certain way, or maybe another scientific explanation. Either way, what I'm saying is this "proof" has no meaning if you don't have the others to support it. I can say that fire is hot, and it's this way because the big bang happened. There's just no way to prove if these methods are accurate, or even if the scientists are being truthful.
Big Bang Theory

My opponent set the rules as follows:Round 1. ) State evidence on both sides Round 2. ) Discuss legitimacy and meaning of each claim Round 3. ) Gather evidence and compare sidesI have not seen any evidence given for my opponent's side. Here is why I believe there actually is evidence for the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution: Look up the "4 pillars of the Big Bag Theory". They basically are: Speed and direction of galaxy movement; suggesting they originated from a single point Number of existing elements; called Nucleosynthesis, calculations of elements now versus what we see in distant systems concur with the idea that one element fused into another at the beginning of the universe (Hydrogen fused into Helium) cosmic radiation; now moving so fast (since nothing impedes movement in space) that radiation is now seen on microwave lengths instead of visible light formation of galaxies; after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough to allow formation of galaxies and observation of galaxy formation (ie. : through Hubble telescope) concurs with this idea These are the most notorious explanations that give the Big Bang Theory some legitimacy. There are many other explanations as well. Source: . http://www.universetoday.com... Evolution also has tons of evidence, just search for "evidence for evolution" on Google. Many studies come up. Observation of fruit flies Fossil records Almost identical genomes in animals DNA testing Evolution is now considered a fact. The overwhelming amount of evidence for it makes this theory irrefutable. Sources: . https://www.google.com... . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Big Bang Theory

My apologies for assuming something incorrect.You can't categorize atheism as a religion, since atheism is only the rejection of the claim that a god exists. It is not a belief system, and does not rely on faith at all. Being an atheist has nothing with believing the BBT is true. They are two separate things, similar to Christians believing in Creationism (not all of them do).In my experience and opinion, there are no other "possibilities [that] have just as much credibility as BBT". But this would make for another debate.Also, I think you'll find that believing anything to be "impossible" is quite narrow-minded. I don't believe anything is impossible, just improbable to a certain degree.The theory of the existence of god is so improbable that I, as an atheist, am fairly sure that it is false. But I am open to being surprised, if anyone can provide sufficient proof. Especially from god him/her/itself. Dude, come on. If you do exist, show yourself already.Finally, you're absolutely right: Argumentum ad populum has no weight in determining if something is true or not. For eons close to 100% of the human population believed that the Sun circled around the Earth. It didn't make it true.Thank you for the debate, dheaslip, and good luck!