BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Daniel Dennett's arguments against qualia fail

No one has denied that the brain has done work or that there is anything beyond Physics that Physics does not acknowledge. My opponents reaction is common because most people assume that Qualia = Spiritualism. This is false. For instance, Qualia could simply be what we have abstracted out of we think of as physical properties. In other words, they are the colors that runs out in the wash of abstraction. Physicists describe structure and dynamics with numbers so they describe all properties with numbers, vectors, and other mathematical constructs. That is adequate for the purpose they are used for, but that is not to say they describe the properties in their entirety. The belief that what stands behind these mathematically described properties is devoid of experiential content was stipulated by philosophers in the 16th century. A lot of what was believed then is no long believed. It is time we abandon this belief as well. So why does an atheist like myself believe in qualia and that it can be naturalized? For one thing, there appears to be a logical problem with the identification of experiential features with the abstractions we think of a brain functions. This has been pointed out by logicians. The most prominent being Saul Kripke in his book "Naming and Necessity". A summary of his famous argument is presented here: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu... I believe that there is another problem. One that is more intuitively clear. That is that saying an experience is the performance of a function is to say it is an abstraction. We abstract from the consequences of masses of particles functions. But if abstractions are felt, they are real, not abstract. So if we want to account for them in a naturalistic way, we need to identify something that is real in the sense that particles are real, something recognized as fundamental by physicists, to an experience. And this thing must account for our beliefs about qualia and experiences. In Stapp"s theory that is one of the processes in Von Neuman"s formulation of QM. This is what decides the collapse of the wave function into particles. We believe that the mind does something. It is not epiphenomenal, in other words. It is also atomic, meaning indivisible, and accounts for the so called unity of mind. The fact that the wave function is over a region of the brain could account for why we experience some brain functions and not others. Those that are experienced fall within the boundaries of the region. There is no appeal to magic here. I simply ask that you consider the "what if". Would things make more sense? Is this consistent with Physics? If so, this is a reasonable thing to believe.
I believe that there are only two genders, prove me wrong.

As a quick road map before I get into my rebuttal I will be attacking each of my opponents points and then moving on to summarize and strengthen my own. First my opponent brings up this idea that a University shouldn't be defining gender. Now I disagree because Universities are academic places and so when their library provides a definition it is usually a correct one. But if my opponent would prefer a dictionary I can easily provide one, sex from Merriam-Webster "the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females" And gender from Merriam-Webster "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex." A simple Google search will show many online dictionaries that have similar definitions. Now my opponent's second point is that allowing people to change their gender we have a problem of people being able to change their genders. The reason that they provide for this is, the societal norms that people typically assign to genders would have to change. They then go on to say that injecting hormones or surgery goes against biology. Now I have two responses to this. First is that this is not we are debating. We are debating whether or not there are more than two genders, which I shown there to be, so whether or not it should be allowed has nothing to with this. A continuation of this is his point about how if someone undergoes procedures to change their sex, it doesn't really do this. Now this has even less to do with out debate because it is talking about a sex change, not a gender change. Now onto my own case. The topic of this debate is, "I believe that there are only two genders, prove me wrong." I am the only one in this debate to have successfully made an argument. I have shown that by definition, from multiple sources, gender is a social construct and this means that there can be many more of them than just two genders. I have met my burden and shown that all of my opponents points are invalid. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote.
I believe that there are only two genders, prove me wrong.

Hello Gtworld3, I would like to say that some University shouldn't be defining the correct meaning of gender. If you look at the dictionary, the word gender basically means the same thing as sex. And you may think that there isn't much of a problem with having a difference between sex and gender, but there is. A problem with having there be an infinite amount of genders is that you can just say that woman can actually become men and men can actually become women. The reason this is a problem is that there are many biological differences between men and women like women biologically tend to be on average more emotional, weaker, and shorter. While men tend to be on average less sensitive, stronger, and taller. Men and women also have different chromosomes. You say that gender is a social construct, which is absolutely false as boys (not all of them) since they're the stronger of the two genders, they like to do more physical stuff. And girls (not all of them) like to play with dolls and raise children this is why dolls have been made for girls throughout hundreds of years. You can even see this in nature with animals. So even if you say that there's an infinite amount of genders, which isn't true, the idea of saying that a man can become a woman just by mutilating his body parts, get injected with stuff, and put on a different change of clothes, defies basic biology.
I believe that there are only two genders, prove me wrong.

I will be arguing that there are more than two genders. I will start by answering my opponents challenge to change their mind. The main reason that my opponent is wrong is because of the difference between sex and gender. These excerpts from the University of Minnesota"s online library(1) explains this nicely, "Sex refers to the anatomical and other biological differences between females and males that are determined at the moment of conception and develop in the womb and throughout childhood and adolescence." Now gender is related, but different, this except from the same text(1) explains this, "If sex is a biological concept, then gender is a social concept. It refers to the social and cultural differences a society assigns to people based on their (biological) sex." So while yes there may be two sexes, gender is an entirely different case. There can be an infinite amount of genders because gender is just the expression of what segment we feel we believe in. While at birth ones sex and gender are the same, it does not necessarily have to stay that way, because gender is a social construct, it is the classification we feel we best fit in. Another way to think about is like this, we classify animals by their sex because they cannot express what they feel they are, and when you go to a doctors office they ask for your sex, but in social situations between humans we use gender, because gender is a reflection of how we feel, not what science decides we are. To summarize this, there are two sexes yes, but there are an infinite amount of genders because gender is a social construct as opposed to a biological classification.
That travellers should be forced to settle

For me it is traveller, I do not live in the US :P You seem to have misunderstood my argument. By travellers, I was referring to the Irish/English traveller communities. I probably should have been more clear in my opening argument, but I shall carry on... http://en.wikipedia.org... Those who live, not for work but live, in Caravans, have no settled homes and move from place to place when one starts to become inconvenient. "I would ask that you show just how they create the waste you claim to do (and show how it is worse than that of people who remain settled in one place)." Obviously, if someone is living in a caravan, without running water, without bins, without toilets, their waste is going to be thrown outside in the area that they reside in. "How would the odd-jobs be done?" I find your attitude towards the travellers here to be almost vulgar. As if you are saying it's work that should be done by the "little people". I do not think it's fair to associate travellers with such jobs, due to the work their ancestors did in the past. I think travellers should have the opportunity to work the better jobs, to be the lawyers, the doctors, or any other job that seems impossible for them now to reach. To give them the right to education, to settle them, to let them raise the money for college without worrying about all the money that goes into their mobile homes. We all know that next to no travellers go to college and I trust that I do not have to go into the importance of college in the majority of peoples lives. I think that settling them is the best way to get them to complete their second level education, influencing them to at least try and go one step further to third level. Most of these people actually want to settle. They are worried about the hardship their kids go through when going to school. The kids are not given the chance to "settle in" properly because they are constantly moving. Their education too, suffers deeply in this case. If the people were to be settled, this would give them a better chance to be accepted in their community, to prove that the misconceptions about travellers, are merely misconceptions. One can not argue that these misconceptions do not exist, we see them everyday in the slang terms for travellers, "tinker", "knacker", "gypsy". I believe the only way to get rid of these bitterness, to destroy the feud between travellers and settled folk, is to let them get to know each other. It is obviously better to settle these people on the grounds that it is better for their health and their education. It is also better for them because it will be much easier for them to get a job. We have to admit that because of the misconceptions, it will be easier for a settled person to get a job then a traveller. Therefore, by giving them a home, they are in better chances to get the job, the car and the life that they deserve. The government needs to put more of an effort and more money into the council home system so these people can fix their lives and live in the way that they dream of..
That travellers should be forced to settle

I believe that travellers should be forced to settle, due to a number of reasons. The first of which is due to the unhygienic they live in and that they create, they do not have the proper facilities, the running water, the regular rubbish collection, therefore creating a filthy surrounding, which is not good for the environment and most importantly for their own health. This is my first time debating, I would therefore like it if my oponent took the first shot. Thanks
Things Donald Trump and god have in common

1.f the bible doesn"t set a date then It doesn"t necessarily need to be in the past 2. Like the kindness you are showing to Christians on debater Grow up, I'm sure your unfamiliar of this thing called "freedom of religious thought" * Christianity is most definitely a religion 3. Have you ever scientifically studied the Bible"s fulfilled prophecies or considered the impossibility of 40 or so different authors from three continents in three languages writing 66 individual books (that we now call the Bible) over a period of 1,600 years in perfect agreement and unison? The hate-filled, unscientific attitude of your argument suggests that you have not carefully weighed any evidence. (Answers in Genesis) 4. It was not God who bit the apple and brought sin 5. Matthew 19:14 "Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Yep totally child hating 6.Thou shall not murder, thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet, honor your father and mother. If you read this from your hating atheistic point of view. The I bet you will never see good 7. the thing you are talking about is it the old covenant. We are under the new covenant. Read more: http://www.biblestudy.org... 8. Says something without backing up- against the rules hypocrite 9. So is there like a scripture that says God is evil because I can"t find anything like that- if so are morals evil? 10. Stop super stupid holier that thou attitude, How does Christian Aid spend its money? We strongly believe that as much as possible of the money you give should go to the people who need it most. For example, out of every pound/euro we received in 2014/15, we spent: " 42.5 pence/cent on development programmes " 25.9 pence/cent on emergencies " 10.7 pence/cent on campaigning, education, and advocacy " 1 pence/cent on management and administration " 14.2 pence/cent on fundraising I don"t see any percent "itself" 11. Your only argument is "pathetic little yum yum face?" if I'm a first grader then what are you? 12. If god loves raped women then why in the 10 commandments is there a thou shalt not commit adultery. 13. You 100% never give any resources or proof 14. Again old testament. John 3;16 For GOD so LOVED the WORLD" yup he hates everyone 15. God knew how to construct a fine-tuned universe and set up morals = nothing to you I guess 16. Finally citing something 17.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Sorry that doesn't seem to be the same definition 18. John 3:16. I think you never search "evidence of God" online because of your ignorance and hatred. If you actually read the bible there is thing called the trinity. 19. I see your ignorance is taking over you like most atheists. If your logic is correct then Copernicus, Newton, Bacon (Francis), Pascal must have been idiots just like me. Or as you like phrase it so intellectually: "pathetic little yum yum faces"
Things Donald Trump and god have in common

Here"s the outline of your argument BTW: The He I refer to is God not Trump Things Donald Trump and god have in common (in no order of importance) * Both Trump and god are compulsive liars. - God keeps his promises * Both Trump and god use power and then fear to control. - That isn"t a bad thing if it"s real * Both Trump and god use religion as a premise to gain that power. - Christianity is a relationship not a religion * Both Trump and god love war. - Man causes war * Both Trump and god have these babbling mouths that never shuts up. - How about your hate for God? Won"t you shut up? * Both Trump and god have super elastic band stretched out undie superior ego complexes - Well he created the universe didn"t he? * Both Trump and god don"t give a damn who they squash to get what they want. - He only "Squashes" people according to his will and God DOES care for people * Both Trump and god are all about winning. - No Not Really * Both Trump and god you know they are hiding something to achieve what they want (a sheep in wolf"s clothing) - What is it you think God is hiding? * Both Trump and god don"t give a damn about the poorest of the poor. - Then how about Christian Charities? * Both Trump and god are fake within their own personalities. - No He Isn"t * Both Trump and god have their way with women. - So? * Both Trump and god are chief complainers. They complain about everything. - He only is frustrated about people like you who can"t see his love and are blinded by anger because he does * Both Trump and god are crybaby whiners and cannot do without their rattles. - So are you to God * Both Trump and god have no idea, none, as to what true suffering, pain and horror truly is. - The Cross is the worst kind of death I"m pretty sure he knows. * Both Trump and god hate politics. - Starting a Kingdom in Israel is hating politics? * Both Trump and god are terrorists. - Terrorist definition "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" -Google I don"t think so. * Both Trump and god are self imposed narcissists. - How is God a narcissist dying on the Cross for you It seems you HATE God that is confusing. If God isn"t real then you can just relax. As quoted "Atheists"don't hate"fairies,"leprechauns"or"unicorns"because they don't exist. It is impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. And that makes the point." "Ray Comfort[1] Why do you have a bias? Why do you have a heart of stone? God sent his only Son to die for you and in return you spit in in his face. Why are you this biased? Is it because you lost a loved one that you begged to God to save? Is it moral restraint? You seem to be TOO Biased to be in this debate.
Just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean you're immune to criticism.

First off, can you try and make a little bit of sense in the next round. I understand the second sentence, but the run-off sentence that is the first sentence is hard to understand. Also, you're agreeing with me. By saying you are retarded if you think otherwise, you're adding on to what I'm saying. Need I remind you that you are trying to show that opinions do shield you from criticism. If that's not the case for you, then why did you accept this.
Just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean you're immune to criticism.

After looking at a lot of videos on YouTube, I've noticed that people use the phrase "This is my opinion", being thrown pretty much everywhere, implying that it shields them from something. This debate is here to see if someone thinks opinions actually do shield you from criticism, and whether or not they can back up their claim. And now, my points. Opinions, everyone has them, but that doesn't mean much outside of that. Just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean you're more likely to be criticized than the person nearest to you. Everyone is not blocked by others opinions and/or criticism just because they have an opinion. If someone doesn't take in opinions, then that just means they refuse to get better, or to open up. Or it just means that they're stubborn as all, but whatever.
Democrats are better

First i would like to say that yes, universal health care is GOOD!!!! BUT, he said and I said that the republicans didnt have complete control so therefore his precious democratic representatives didnt vote for the universal health care. Also he wants to say about the Iraq war well let's look at history WWI who was the the president? OH I know Wilson ....a DEMOCRAT!!!!! now lets look at WWII who was president??? Franklin D. Roosevelt , guess what.... A DEMOCRAT!!!! Now lets look at the Cold War??? Harry Truman, *Gasp* another democrat, Say it aint so!!!! And now a blast from the past the Spanish-American war, who was president???? McKinley!!!! A democrat!!! OK now that my opponents argument is turned lets move on shall we. So now that I have turned my opponets arguments and he dropped my " bring up anything that the democrats have passed besides War, adultry, and a FAILED universal healthcare plan.
Democrats are better

I'm willing to agree that they did not have a complete override majority but did have President Bush and a majority of Republicans in both the House and The Senate and therefore had control and let these events occur. ANd, yes, Sara Palin did lose the position of Vice President but she is still a govener in Alaska and a so called "rising star" of the Republican Party. Also on the topic of Bill Clinton. "The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $13.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003." According to http://en.wikipedia.org.... He also had several other reforms in the process of becoming law, such as: tax Reform, Campain Reform and amy others. These could have helped millions, maybe even saved lives... And yet they were shot down by the Bush Administration. First of all, Herbert Hoover, not Hobot Hoover and he is not the Golden Boy my opponet calls him. With the record low having previously been Herbert Hoover's 22% approval rating, the only lower being by George W. Bush. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_perception_of_George_W._Bush - 93k It should be noted that I am very clearly talking about currnet Dmeocrats and had Abe Lincoln been alive today, he would have be very Democratic due to Republicans were formarly more Liberal thatn Democrats. (This is why Democrats opposed salvery.) So that arguement should actully be TURNED against my opponet.
Democrats are better

ok..... were to begin #1 id like to state that hello our coountry is a democracy Def- ruled by the people also as my opponent thankfully said that the republicans didnt have complete controll therefore some of his precious democrats, enough to make up for the loss of republicans voted for the things you see passed. #2 Im not quite sure why he brings Palin into this.... she lost therefore they though that she was unfit for government, so please dont bring into a republican to slander us and if you so choose ive got an ace name Bill. Also lets look at the election of Hobert Hoover also known as wonderboy he did everythign good they elected him because they were tired of the democratic rulling also who signed the emancipation proclomation. im not saying that the democrats wouldnt have signed it, but it was Abe Lincon.... A REPUBLICAN. So i ask my opponent to bring up something really good the democrats have done except for adultry and a failed universal heath care plan, not saying that universal health care is bad. PS. Dylan.... Magic stick!!!!!
Democrats are better

I'd Like to start out by stating the obvious. Republicans were in charge when the Iraq War began. Complete control. (They did not have a override amount, but had a majority, so they had complete control as I have said. President Bush is a Republican and has become almost a figurehead for the party. So, I almost think that is enough said... But for my own benifit I will continue. Sara Palin is a Republican. I will continue to argure if my opponet amazingly finds a way to debate this.