BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

Thank you for your argument.Let us examine this statement:"Conscious is always awareness after the fact."The following statement seems to be Pro's "thesis":"I am sure that nobody is conscious of a brainwave at its inception; that, I suppose, is the entire point that I'm making."Pro uses many metaphors, but what I think he saying in so many words can be largely explained with this drawing: The green line represents a "brainwave intensity" threshold for conscious awareness. Pro argues that "the thought" actually began before you were consciously aware of it. For brevity's sake, this is not disputed. However, there is a problem with Pro's argument - Pro doesn't get to pick and choose which phenomena are cited as exceptions to Pro's claim - I do. Pro desires to designate the phenomenon in question to be that portion of a thought which occurs before "brainwave intensity" is above the green line. Since I get to choose the phenomenon, all I need to do is to designate the phenomenon as the portion of a "thought" which occurs above the green line. We are consciously aware of this portion of a thought as it occurs even though we may not have been consciously aware of the events leading up to its occurrence.
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

Pro asserts that "you need lots of neurons to produce a 'thought' "; rejects "the idea of 'perceiving tissue' "; and states that "a process of thought ... must be in place before we become consciously aware that we are thinking of [something]." Pro states that the "key difference between [his] point of view and [mine]" is that "[I] see thoughts as being neurons firing" while Pro sees "thoughts as being like waves travelling through neurons." My response: So what? Even if we accept all of these assertions as true, none of them matter. These assertions are not material to determining whether or not Pro's claim that "consciousness is always awareness after the fact" is true or false. Within Pro's claim, the words "the fact" seem to refer to any physical phenomenon, as Pro used the example of a clock striking. The example of a physical phoenomenon I cited was the increased rate of fire of neurons that coincide with thought. When we think about this phenomenon, it occurs simultaneously with our conscious awareness of it. In fact, Pro concedes this point: Does the wave move before the water molecules move, or do the water molecules move first, and the wave happens second? I think that I know the answer I'll get to that question: they are, in fact, simultaneous. Okay, I see your point... but... HOW or WHY did the wave start? When, exactly, did the wave start? AND, is consciousness something more than a single wave? After conceding the point, Pro then asks many questions, but the answers to these questions don't matter - It doesn't matter that thoughts are precipitated by a cause, require lots of neurons, or could be like waves. What matters is that a physical phenomenon - an increased rate of firing neurons - and conscious awareness of that phenomenon are happening at the same time. This is a satisfactory counter example to Pro's claim that "consciousness is always awareness after the fact." It should be clear at this point that Pro's assertion is not true.
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

Because Pro uses the word "always" in his statement, I need only demonstrate a single satisfactory counter-example to show that Pro's claim is false. The examples I intend to point to are where the awareness is simultaneous with the event, as opposed to after the event. I am in general with Pro that we are consciously aware of events causing sensory input only after the event has already occurred. With Pro's example of a clock striking, the sound waves must first travel to the ear before they can be perceived. Sound does not travel instantaneously, nor does light. This would seem to exclude simultaneous consciousness and occurrence of events observed audibly or visually. In fact, even with events involving the sense of touch, such as a pin-prick on the finger, the sensory neurons in the finger must first transmit the information to those neurons in the brain before perception of the event occurs. Nothing, not even information, can travel faster than the speed of light. So, it would seem there will always be a delay unless the use of the senses is not required for the awareness or if the distance between the physical event in question and the perceiving tissue in the brain is exactly zero. This brings me to my counter-examples:1. Intellectual awareness of ongoing events for which the use of the senses is not required. Specific examples: the rotation of the earth, the ebb and flow of the tides, the generation of electricity, etc. When we dwell upon events like these, we are consciously aware of them as they occur, not "after-the-fact".2. Thought - Pro specifically disavows thought as an exception. (See R1: "consciousness is only ever an after-the-event awareness, even when the subject of investigation is our own thoughts") There is an observable physical phenomenon associated with thought - The neurons that are doing the "thinking" are also "firing" while thought occurs. When we dwell upon this physical phenomenon, the distance between the physical phenomenon and the perceiving tissue is exactly zero. There is zero delay between perception and awareness for this case.These are the two examples that I would like to draw attention to.
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

It is a commonly held idea that consciousness is something contemporaneous with thought; I believe that this is an illusion which must be broken in order for us to truly understand ourselves.Consider the example that Daniel Dennett often cites of becoming conscious of a clock striking. I think that this experience is one that we can all relate to, even if it's not one that we've directly experienced: imagine that you are in a library, engrossed in a good book - in the distance, a church clock starts to strike the time out - at first, being absorbed by the book, we are not aware of the chiming; after one, two or perhaps three strikes, we gradually become aware of the clock singing the hour through the haze of our story and may decide to count the strikes, in order to know the time... when we decide to count, we can check our short-term memory and start to count, picking up the process of counting the sequence at the right point.Consider also the example of the experiments which have been done at the Max Plank Institute for Human Cognition and Brain Sciences that reveal reveal that our decisions are made up to seven seconds before we become consciously aware of them [1].I suggest that in light of these two examples (and a degree of reflection), it is fair to conclude that we become conscious of things (even our own thoughts and decisions) after the event.If it is indeed true that consciousness is only ever an after-the-event awareness, even when the subject of investigation is our own thoughts and emotions, this would provide a route to understanding consciousness that avoids the infinite homuncular regress problem which haunts many traditional explanations of consciousness.It may seem to rob us of something; people may ask "what about free will?" (a topic for another debate but we may touch on it here); it may not seem, at first, to describe what it feels like to be me, as it were... but the alternative, it seems to me, is simply not possible.if one challenges the resolution, I imagine that one must believe in such a thing as a "conscious choice"; I am specifically suggesting, in this debate, that this phrase, "conscious choice", is a poor one... it has a rough-and-ready meaning that we all understand (a decision made in full conscious awareness of the pertinent facts) - and I'm happy with THAT concept... your brain can make a decision at a time where you are focussing consciously (not consciously focussing, note!) on the problem at hand...So, does anybody think that consciousness comes first? It strikes me that anybody who ascribes consciousness to the soul probably does... bring it on :-)[1] http://exploringthemind.com...;
English is a weird, crazy, and funny language.

I'm glad I made my adversary laugh. This means that we have achieved "Other than that, have fun." that I stated on the first round. This debate is actually intended to make one laugh, or grin, at least. Winning isn't my priority but it would be great if I actually will. "If weird means uncanny, uncanny means strange and strange means unusual or extraordinary, then English isn't weird if every language is weird because strange means out of the ordinary. If every language is weird that's not out of the ordinary."English is strange if strange is equal to unusual and unusual means extraordinary. It's the only Universal Language today. Thus, we can say that it's really extraordinary.In what language do you see something like these?Cough PloughThroughToughThough They have the same "ough" letters at the end, but pronounce these words differently from each other.Let's not forget the Phrasal Verbs here.Throw upThrow down Throw out Throw inMake over Make up Make out Talk over Talk into Talk down Talk up Talk outWhat?!And they all mean completely different things."When has someone ever said cold as hell? I've only heard hot as hell.There's 7.125 billion (as of 2013) in the whole world, and I'm sure 1/3 of us said it. Anyway, here's a proof: https://answers.yahoo.com...___Again, huge thanks to Russia_The_Almighty for accepting this challenge.Source: watch?v=7G0Ecrconak
English is a weird, crazy, and funny language.

I laughed at how funny you made round three. Really it's hard to compete, with what you said the last round. Mom isn't mop because usually everywhere the first words a baby can say is some form of mom as either mommy, ma, mama,mom. Weird-something supernatural,or uncanny. http://dictionary.reference.com... supernatural-strange,mysterious http://dictionary.reference.com... strange-something extraordinary,unusual http://dictionary.reference.com... If weird means uncanny, uncanny means strange and strange means unusual or extraordinary, then English isn't weird if every language is weird because strange means out of the ordinary. If every language is weird that's not out of the ordinary. When has someone ever said cold as hell? I've only heard hot as hell. Besides that I can't rebut much since most of what you said is true.
English is a weird, crazy, and funny language.

For now good job with previous arguments. Now on to several points. 1. If the plural of moose was meese I would think English is a weird language. Honestly, saying meese instead of there are several moose out there. I have no problem thinking that moose is grammarly correct instead of meese. Think of saying there are so many sheeps out there instead of saying there are so many sheep out there. 2.Some of the English has changed making what it is today. Why you ask? If a language doesn't change over the years it will become dead like Latin and similar to what's happening to Greek. Latin made new languages basically like English, French, Spanish, but due to decline and such it is now dead. http://www.innovateus.net... 3. Plural of boot wouldn't be beet because there already is a food, beets, and sounds like beat so another thing similar might cause confusion. Their, there, and they're you say all sound the same, but are all spelled differently. The plural of this is these makes sense because thisses would just make it more odd. Kiss would't be kese like this because unlike this it has TWO s at the end instead one. 4. A reason that words like methren doesn't exist is because when it see it just doesn't look right or sound right. Me-thren? Most of the words like the plural of booth is not beeth is because really it doesn't look right while tooth to be teeth actually sounds correct. 5. What is said about feminine is not limited to english alone. In a Spanish sentence such as " El chico come tacos. When the feminine is "La chica come taco. When another article is un, or una, or unos, or unas. Look at the verb ser in Spanish and lets compare it with comer when conjugating. Ser-to be Comer-to eat Yo soy- I am Yo como- I eat T" eres- Yo are T" comes- You eat El/Ella es- He/she is El/Ella come-He/she eats Usted es-you (formal(used when talking to someone older or with higher authority than you) are. Usted come- You(formal) eat Nosotros/nosotras somos- We are Nosotras/nosotras comemos- We eat Ellos/Ellas son-They(all female for ellas, or at least one male in a group for ellos) are Ellos/Ellas comen- They eat Ustedes son-You(group formal) son Ustedes comen-They(group formal) eat Vosotros/vosotras sois- You guys are Vosotros/vosotras com"is- You guys eat http://education-portal.com... So as you can see Spanish has oddities also. Every language has oddities. One time at a dinner party when my grandma new mostly French, but little English. She said something like i need a fourche(sounded like forshet). Which is where French in some cases shouldn't be said anywhere. If every odd language was dead we wouldn't have any languages or we would have like 1 or very few. I await your rebuttal. We likely wouldn't be having this debate without English :)
English is a weird, crazy, and funny language.

I thank Russia_the_Almighty for taking this up.______________I live in Southeast Asia so it's only our second language, but thanks to the movies and books, I can speak and read fluently.We all know that English is the Universal Language, meaning everywhere you go, you can at least talk to people with a bit of English even if it's not grammatically correct. We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes, but the plural of ox is oxen, not oxes. Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese. You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice, but the plural of house is houses, not hice. If the plural of man is always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be pen? The cow in the plural may be cows or kine, but the plural of vow is vows, not vine. And I speak of a foot, and you show me your feet, but I give a boot... would a pair be beet? If one is a tooth, and a whole set is teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth? If the singular is this, and the plural is these, why shouldn't the plural of kiss be kese? Then one may be that, and three be those, yet the plural of hat would never be hose. We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say methren. The masculine pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim. So our English, I think you will agree, is the trickiest language you ever did see. _______________Sources:http://www.english-zone.com...https://www.englishforums.com... This is pretty short, I know. This is just the opening arguments so don't worry about it. There's a lot going on in my mind right now and they're scattered so I sourced this first round of arguments. Originally, this was written in a poem kind of structure but I edited it and made in a paragraph instead. I just thought that many would confuse this as a poem debate which isn't true.In the next round I'd probably source a few, but the rest would come from me.Your turn, con!
English is a weird, crazy, and funny language.

I thought this would make a very interesting topic.Anyway, accept this debate only if you let me know that you want to take it. But if you do without permission, I'll close this debate immediately. Now I won't put some elo restrictions to make accepting impossible because that'll sound like I'm looking for someone experienced to debate with. Actually I'm not that experienced myself.Con's arguments should prove that English isn't actually weird or crazy. Expect some poem-like kind of arguments from my side though this isn't that kind of debate. Also, accepting this means that you have agreed to the terms and conditions which are:1.Trolling around wouldn't put you in a good position (I might just cancel everything if you did)2. Forfeits are not allowed or you lose by default.3. This round only needs accepting,nothing else. 4. 4th round means final arguments, and then include a conclusion.Other than that, have fun.There would be a total of 4 rounds and each round has a 10,000 character argument max. Each side would have 48 hours to argue.
Domestic Corporal Punishment is Always Immoral

Again, the topic was "Domestic Corporal Punishment is Always Immoral" Pro did not once prove to us that DCP is immoral. Instead, he just shoowed us what the effects DCP had on a child. Yet, my sources proved that DCP did not have any negative impact on a child what-so-ever. The resolution was subjective, and Pro argued more on a emotional basis that factual. He continually claimed that DCP was beating a child, which I proved to be wrong because if parents who physically disciplined their children, they would be in jail for "abuse", but since DCP is not abuse as my opponent claims, I win.
Domestic Corporal Punishment is Always Immoral

DCP has strong roots in parenting styles around the world. The most common reason that parents use DCP is simply because that is all they know. That is the way they were raised, and they have most likely never considered other options. Do I believe that all parents who spank their children are equivalent to child abusers? Absolutely not. Do I believe that every child who grows up in a house where they are spanked will become mentally unstable? No. Despite this, we cannot ignore the mounds of research warning us of the adverse consequences of DCP. If one doesn"t want to accept the science, consider the message that is being sent when a parent intentionally causes their child to experience pain. In debating DCP, we have ignored the bigger picture: children are being hurt, on purpose, by the people who created them. Is this not disgusting and depressing? The parent may say (and believe) it is out of love. But from the child"s perspective, does this really feel like love? The world is already full of pain and violence. There is no reason to bring that into a child"s life, let alone at such a young age. Children can learn right from wrong without fear and without pain; it happens all the time. Why not consider this route instead? I thank Rosalie for accepting my debate. It was quite interesting!
Is Donald Trump Gay

Just because you said so, it doesn't make him gay. If he was gay, he would either be very happy all the time (definitely not) or he would be "married" to another male. He is married to a female, has a few kids, and is definitely not happy and lighthearted all the time. Are you all-powerful or something? Does just you typing it into a debate make it somehow magically happen? Let me tell you: it doesn't.
It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

Bigfoot is not god. The situation is completely non-analogous and I am yet to see how on Earth they are comparable. Pro never ever explained the link between the tow and baseless asserted that the falsehood of Bigfoot confirmed the falsehood of God. It most certainly does not! I went through every definition of 'made up' and explain how not even one of them could apply to God. every single definition's inability to link with God was left undisputed by Pro for the rest of the debate. My definition of observed, even in the naturalized sense, was also left undisputed who offered no alternative definition whatsoever and made up some random nonsense that he did not offer any reputable source for. Pro conceded that there was no intentional deception involved with God and I proved how this leads to the conclusion that God was observed. Pro never successfully refuted this in the slightest. The entirety of Pro's debate has been a baseless assertion that if Bigfoot is not real then neither is God and throwing a tantrum about me supplying the definitions that he actually requested Con to supply in round one. I conclude that it is not more likely that God was made up, rather than naturally observed. Thank you very much for having the patience to read this rather unstimulating debate.
It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

My opponent has ignored all of my arguments and left every single one of them undisputed. He has also not clarified why he conceded in round two that "I didn't explicitly say "religious people are not purpousfully telling a dirty lie", but if you read and understood round 1, you'd see that I'm not accusing any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian of lying. I'm accusing them of hanging on to ancient superstitions." This is admitting that they didn't make it up. Every single definition of making up does not apply to God. Now, this nonsensical flipping of the resolution to make me oppose some 'filling in' is completely unjustified and is not the original resolution being debated. I am not going to tittle tattle about such irrational manner of altering a debate half way through it. Now I shall answer the questions given to me by Pro in round 3. Q: If the resolution is P1, then I'm pro and you are con. If the resolution is P2, then I am con and you are pro. Both cases are equivalent. Does that make sense? A: No; it does not make sense to me. P2 is nothing to do with this debate at all. Now I shall terminate your round 3 arguments one by one. Termination: #1 Arg: We can't have a debate if we don't at least agree on something. I'm your buddy here, I'm not your enemy. I'm trying to help you out. If you say things like "He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate", then that worries me. Reb: This is irrelevant to the debate, please stick to the resolution. #2 Arg: And also, if you don't know what I mean by certain words or phrases, ASK ME. Don't ask a dictionary. The dictionary didn't say it, I DID. I'm the one you should be asking for definitions of things I said. Reb: You can twist what you said any way you wish, the dictionary is there so that we can't change the English language to suit our needs in the debate. If you are not debating in English, then please state the language you are debating in otherwise I shall assume that an English dictionary should suffice for clarification on what you are debating. You requested in round one that "I ask you to explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 as well." and so I did this and now you are throwing a tantrum about it. #3 Arg: This dictionary looking up thing has to stop. Ask me about my own words. If you look for translations of "made up" in the dictionary and start using those, as if I was the one who wrote the dictionary, it's equivocation. Reb: Why are you a better source of definition than the dictionary itself? Are you suggesting that the people who observed God are a better source of information than the science textbooks you are resting your case upon? #4 Arg: Remember, I'm your buddy, not your enemy. It's a debate, not a fight. Reb: Alright buddy, please forfeit this debate for me. Thanks buddy.