BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
know=physical experience of now

I understand the Resolution to be: “know=physical experience of now” This is the title of the debate and so should be taken as the primary point of contention. I disprove the Resolution with these arguments:1. Grammatically Unintelligible The Resolution is not grammatically intelligible, i.e. it does ot coherently express a proposition. If the Resolution does not express a proposition, it cannot be true. The Resolution fails since it cannot be true.2. Incommensurability of knowledge and physical experience The resolution implies logical equivalence, that “know” is the same as “physical experience.” As my 1) points out, this claim is grammatically incoherent. But even generously interpreting the resolution to mean something like “knowledge is logically equivalent to physical experience,” the resolution fails. There are categories of physical experience that are incommensurable with knowledge. Taste, pain, and sexual pleasure are physical experiences which are knowable, but knowledge of these experiences is not identical to the experience itself. The physical experience of tasting a strawberry is not identical to knowing what a strawberry tastes like, so the Resolution fails.3. Mathematics Mathematical knowledge or knowledge of other a priori concepts does not come from physical experience. I have no physical experience to support my knowledge that y=e^x y’=e^x y’’=e^x or to support my knowledge of linear algebra.4. Memory We have knowledge of things that we are not currently physically experiencing, so knowledge cannot be identical to “physical experience of now.” Pro specifically includes the word “now” in the resolution, meaning that Pro excludes physical experience of past events from his definition of “know.”___ Pro states in his opening round that I have to argue with the statement “a blind mans reality is not of colours and light.” I do not know how this relates to the Resolution; my failure to refute this claim is irrelevant to winning this debate unless Pro can explain how it supports the Resolution. I will. however, offer an argument against this statement since Pro listed it as a condition of acceptance. There is only one reality, therefore a blind mans reality is identical with the reality experienced by all other individuals Colors and light are part of reality, therefore they are a part of a blind mans reality.
know=physical experience of now

To clarify, I am not claiming that you can know what a burn is without physical experience. The Resolution claims that know=physical experience of now. The "=" implies logical equivalence. Physical experience may be causally connected to knowledge of a burn, but the phsical experience of a burn is not logically identical to knowledge of a burn. Thus the Resolution is false. Pro has failed to even address the bulk of my arguments. My first argument alone wins me the debate. The Resolution is grammatically unintelligible, thus it cannot be true. Pro has failed to uphold the Resolution and so has lost this debate.
everyone should be christian

See I cant understand whats your point. But my point of concern is that almost all the religions are same. They have one goal. If you take the teachings of Jesus Christ himself, most of his teachings match with the teachings of my religion. You say that christianity is all about what happens after you die then why does the bible state what you should do and what not to do. The same things are there in our holy books too judt the thing is that they are in a different manner. But all religions meet at a same point and that point is humanity. They all state that Live And Let Others Live
everyone should be christian

How can you say that Christianity is always correct and other religions are wrong. As the con says that who do not follow Christianity will go to hell. My question is that is there really something called heaven and hell. According to me religions were only made to make the people understand the difference between good and bad. So all the religions which do that are correct and so is Christianity. Therefore if a person understands the difference with the help of some religion other than Christianity whats wrong in it
Geological Stratigraphy was created by the Biblical Flood

To be perfectly honest, not rude, I don't think my opponent understands basic geology concepts, so let me explain a little more.Canyons were not always canyons. During times where the area is covered with water, sediments are laid down. We see this even today.When it's dry, disconformities in the geologic record, it is eroded away. So, streams erode things (as can be clearly seen... well, anywhere). So, when lungfish are in areas of water that are not oceans (marshes, swamps, etc), but it comes to the dry season, they protect themselves by creating burrows. Sometimes these fish die in their burrows and are left there to fossilize in the mud. There was no hopping. No canyon, in fact. It was at one point a flat, water covered area.These fish can ONLY create these burrows in muddy areas with a little time to make them. And they appear at very different times in the fossil record. My opponent is postulating these layers were made by the flood described in the Bible...But does it make sense that these fish:a) Were in any stable state to be able to make these burrows IN A FLOOD?b) Had solid, yet muddy, ground ABOVE WATER to make these burrows?c) Did this multiple times over a 40 day period, despite the fact they could never have survived it?No. It doesn't.Moving on back to varved layers and clay-pollen couplets******************************************************Clay-Pollen CoupletsBasically, as a reiteration, if there was any confusion, there are bi-annual layers that result from seasons during the year. Pollen during springs, clay-silt deposits in the winter. There are tens of thousands of these layers in single spots. It is unlikely a global flood laid all these layers down in a few monthsUnless of course the seasons changed underwater dozens of times a day.Here's a bit more reading materialhttp://www.geo.arizona.edu... http://www.wou.edu... http://ncse.com... Continuing on**************************************************Despite the fact that my opponent did not offer me a single fossil, I will still answer his objection. "Why do we see dinosaur footprints preserved on layers presently exposed above ground? Did the earth just stop depositing sediment to preserve the footprints?"Sadly, my opponent gave me no specific examples, but I believe this betrays his lack of knowledge on sedimentary layer deposition and erosion. Basically, long ago these tracks were made in the mud by dinosaurs, and they were quickly filled in by other sediments. These sediments were buried. As were those that buried those. As were those that buried those that buried those.... etc.But then! Erosion happened! And the layers began to be carved away until... dinosaur tracks appeared! They're not at the top layer, but at bottom layers exposed by erosion.Here's a good example if you want to read more http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...Done with this round.
Geological Stratigraphy was created by the Biblical Flood

1.) Lungfish burrows -- I actually went to college just an hour from the chinle formation. The most memorable thing in this area are the dinosaur footprints seen on the youngest layer of strata...I wonder how those got there. I am assuming the burrow fish made their borrows when the sea transgressed inland and Arizona was covered in water. This would allow borrow to be formed, regression of the seas, fossilization, more sediment deposits, transgression of the sea (once again) just to repeat the process for the next borrow. That is the only way I see this possibly happening. The only problem with this is the burrow fish wold die in the salt water as they are all fresh water animals. So how would of this happen? This is a canyon, remember? So the fresh water below the canyon (that is forming the canyon) is below the rim of the canyon, right? Did the fish jump out of the water onto the rim, burrow its hole, go back and get a bucket of water and fill up the hole? Could you offer a better explanation? The pictures in the article are tubular rocks. I have dug up corral and sponges near the chinle formation that look very similar. Could this just be another type of sponge?? I'm not convinced that lungfish burrows are the only explanation for this article. 2.) Clay-Pollen couplets --- I had trouble finding any scientific papers specifically talking about Clay/pollen deposits. Could you help me out and post one, I'd like to read more in depth. However, I am not disagreeing that streams (among other geological processes) still effected earth both before and after the flood. The fact that clay has been built up shouldn't be a surprise. You said "we can find tens of thousands of these in single spots." What does that mean? You make is seem as if they were deposited only every year but then they are all seen at once? This would be evidence of the flood because objects of similar densities would come together and would not be able to permeate throughout other layers of rock. Could you get a little more specific on this or post a good article that I could read? Thanks 3.) 88% of all fossils are found AFTER the precambrian. The precambrian is extremely dense, metamorphic rock that would not be lifted or separated the way sedimentary rocks can. I would only expect to see very small invertebrates in our basement rock. Here is my challenge to you: Why do we see dinosaur footprints preserved on layers presently exposed above ground? Did the earth just stop depositing sediment to preserve the footprints?
Geological Stratigraphy was created by the Biblical Flood

My opponent is trying to postulate that the layers of the earth were formed via the Biblically described flood. I will clearly show, through just three of countless examples, that this is an impossibility.The three argumets are as follows:1. The perplection of Lungfish burrows2. The problem of clay-pollen couplets3. Challenge of sorted fossils 1) Lungfish burrowsYes, yes I know the first question you have it: what the hell is a lungfish burrow and what does it have to do with anything? Well! I'm glad you asked!Well look here! A lungfish burrow! Basically, these fish made burrows in the ground during extremely dry periods to keep themselves from dying and drying out. Cool story, but does it have anything to do with the topic at hand?Yes.Here's the scoop. Lungfish burrows appear all over the geological strata. Here's a peak at one such example from the Chinle Canyon: Look at those beautiful strata with several occurrences of lungfish burrows! So, let me be clear. Lungfish need time in dry environments to make their burrows... so how on earth did they do that in the middle of a raging flood rapidly laying down layers?They didn't. It's impossible. Moving on.2) Clay-pollen coupletsAgain, what the hell is this? Also called varved deposits, this is when seasonal layers are found in strata. In this case, pollen for spring and clay for winter in areas like river deltas. Long story short, we can find tens of thousands of these in single spots. The flood was only a couple thousand years ago, so this is an impossibility... especially when these layers are UNDER other flat layers of sediment, meaning they would have to have been laid down during the flood. How on earth did this happen?It didn't. It's an impossibility.3) Challenge to my opponent.Find me a single mammal in a pre-Cambrian layer. If this flood was as massive and chaotic as described, there shouldn't be any order. Yet there is. A great deal in fact. And it points to evolution by means of natural selection, but that is an debate for a different date.All I ask is that my opponent find me a paper describing a mammal in the pre-Cambrian layers.Sources:http://ichnology.ku.edu...http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...http://www.britannica.com...
This house believes "Video Games Be Considered a Sport"

Ok, first let me clarify one point, If video games are made a sport, then they will be given further protection against being manipulated and furthermore, your average sports can also be manipulated if you, for example, bribe the referee. Infact if you want to talk about manipulated, then you can practically manipulate any sport, but why don't they? It is because of the fact that sports are carefully monitored and if Video games are given the status of sport then they to will be monitored. moving on to the statement ("Popularity should not be a determinate whether something should be considered a sport or not. There are many popular things that have little or no talent. For example, Kim Kardashian and Danielle Bregoli, the "cash me outside" girl.") If you are stating this, then you are implying that Video games require no skill, which is an absolutely INCORRECT statement simply because of the fact that different types of games require different types of skills, for eg. You need to have quick reflexes while playing fifa, You need to know basic sciences for many games, you need speed for table tennis on the wii, etc. Furthermore, most games are quite unpredictable as the lines of codes in them often exceed 1,000,000,000 and that means that a single shot in fifa 17 can have 5 different outcomes! Finally, I would like to talk about the statement that " 'Video games are short-circuiting our reward system that we rely on for feedback on what we are doing,' said Elan Barenholtz, professor of psychology at FAU. 'Video games, I believe, make a much more consistent reinforcement that is kind of unnatural, and in a sense addictive. [They have] incremental accomplishments, rewards. All things we love.' " This means that video games what? Cause us to expect better rewards for small things? where is the Evidence? Where are the statistics? Where are the numbers?
This house believes "Video Games Be Considered a Sport"

I am not going to argue that physical activity solely defines a sport, but I will argue that it is an important part. Also, I will agree with you that chess is a sport, since the International Olympic Committee (IOC) considers it one. [1] This does not mean I will agree with whatever the IOC says, just that I respect their opinion on sports since they manage one of the largest sporting events in the world. First, video games do require "fast reaction times, muscle memory, and excessive movement." However, I think the excessive movement only applies to augmented or virtual reality. There is not much excessive movement in clicking a mouse or pushing buttons while one is sitting down. However, video games and virtual reality are just that, virtual. No matter what you say there is a code or pattern that determines everything, and that code can be figured out and manipulated. In sport played in reality, there is an element of unpredictability. You may have some idea of what could happen next, but it is almost impossible to predict exactly. If conventional sports were turned into games then they would lose that aspect of them. Although some gamers may enjoy working out or being in decent physical shape, they do not get 'Sustained physical exercise, whether it be running or swimming or cycling or other aerobic activity, has well-known health benefits, including improvements in the function of the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and endocrine systems"[2] directly from their involvement in video games. Even if they do, for example if someone is walking around every day playing Pokemon Go, they are still involved in a virtual world that can be controlled and manipulated. Also, "Video games are short-circuiting our reward system that we rely on for feedback on what we are doing," said Elan Barenholtz, professor of psychology at FAU. "Video games, I believe, make a much more consistent reinforcement that is kind of unnatural, and in a sense addictive. [They have] incremental accomplishments, rewards. All things we love."[3] If video games could this easily become an addiction, then their the negative health side effects would outweigh the positive ones. Popularity should not be a determinate whether something should be considered a sport or not. There are many popular things that have little or no talent. For example, Kim Kardashian and Danielle Bregoli, the "cash me outside" girl. [1] http://londonchessconference.com... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.upressonline.com...
This house believes "Video Games Be Considered a Sport"

Hi guys! Today we will be debating the topic, should games be considered sports? I am taking the PRO stance in this debate whereas whoever else accepts it takes the CON stance for this. Here is the breakup of how the rounds will work: ROUND ONE : Is simply acceptance, no arguments to be posted ROUND TWO-FOUR : Is arguments/counter arguments ROUND FIVE : Is arguments/counter arguments as well as why you took up this stance in the first place. RULES:- - There will be no swearing - Please answer in all rounds - Cite your sources either gradually or all at the end. - Please use fact rather than opinion in your debate as this a fact based debate. REMINDER: Don't forget to use the six hats!
It is possible for a citizen under an authoritarian dictator, to have more freedom then a US citizen

Argument 1: Freedom is within you.It is important to note, that no one has to give you freedom. Freedom is earned within yourself, and is not always subject to ideological government. Marcus Aurellius, adopted Roman Emperor, and only Roman Stoic philosopher, made many arguments relating to the concept of freedom. It should be noted, that there aree many things a person can do to free himself. Marcus Aurellius argued that human nature often causes us to rely on others to a certain degree. By following a few steps, we can make ourselves free outside the borders of government....(1) Become independent minded, not influenced by the propaganda of others (A self given freedom)(2) To set yourself a clear doctrine. Never let others interfere with what is kept sacred within your mind (Self given freedom)(3) To not wait, and to always act. You can set yourself free by not worrying of death, but engaging in the ambition we all have. Through this philosophy, freedom can be given to ones self.Argument 2: No government can truly restrict one free within himselfIts important to note, that under Marcus Aurelliius's meditation philosophy, that no limits are restricts on what we can do when were truly free. - They push aside unhappiness and discontent, and only allow happiness to enter their minds. This is a form of self given freedom.- They freely choose what to follow. A free man can choose to not fight the system, using his power of choice and freedom to abide to the system.- They fight for independence within themselves. By removing reliance in others, and stop worrying what they are or what they do, they can be under an autocrat yet never conform.Marcus Aurellius's main contentions within the "Meditations", is that everyone dies, and by removing your fear, you can achieve a higher degree of freedom. A man can have freedom from fear under an autocrat, while a US citizen can still be effected under a democratic system.Argument 3: Tying in the Philosophy The fact of the matter behind Marcus's philosophy, is that people even under the Roman Republic were not free. The Roman Empire had freedom of speech and freedom of media, yet people were not always free. With that said we can assume....(1) Its possible for a NK citizen to have freedom from conformity, while a US citizen may be controlled by the need to join the flock.(2) Some US citizens may blindly follow the opinions of others and propaganda, so its possible that a NK citizen may have freedom from this, by removing the bias.(3) A NK citizen may possibly not fear death, while some US citizens may be controlled by inabillity to act, due to the axiety of death. [Meditations] http://classics.mit.edu...[Thanatophobia] http://phobias.about.com...[Study on Conformity] http://www.studymode.com...
It is possible for a citizen under an authoritarian dictator, to have more freedom then a US citizen

Simple enough, I will be arguing that a citizen under a authoritarian dictator can have more freedom then a United States citizen. My opponent will argue otherwise. No more clarifications should be needed. We will use North Korea for the purpose of the debate. free·dom G2;frēdəm/ noun 1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. "we do have some freedom of choice"
Mormon/LDS are Christian

.. Chris"tian G2;krisCHən/ adjective adjective: Christian 1. relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. 2. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. informal: Having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness. So the reason Mormons are characterized as Christians is because of the simple facts that 1) They believe in Christ, and Christianity literally means the belief in Christ 2) Mormons are Baptized the same way christ was, by full submersion, and that is the second definition included. 3) The Leader of the Catholic Church (POPE) invited the Mormon Prophet to a christian leaders summit in the Vatican to discuss the world and where it is going. If all of those reasons together; fitting the definition, following his teachings, and verification by the leader of the Catholic church (Who are widely accepted as christians) are not enough to convince you I would love to point you towards the Mormon Articles of Faith ( . https://www.lds.org... ).
Mormon/LDS are Christian

Yes, Mormons/Latter Day Saints are Christian and a few good points that support this are... -Their first article of faith (set of beliefs) says "We believe in God the Eternal Father and his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost" -They use the bible (Both Old and New Testament) -On their "Book of Mormon" it says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and in the book it talks about what Christ teaches.
FanBoyMctroll is Just a Kid Who Needs a Life, And is a Loser

Hmm, It sounds like you're agreeing with me that he is technically an adult, Has a job an outside life. I'm not sure you've agreed with the loser point however. For that I'd argue that the term loser is subjective, And that with his name implying his goal, He is successful at his goal. Two and a half out of three, Not bad.
FanBoyMctroll is Just a Kid Who Needs a Life, And is a Loser

But the objective is not socially acceptable, As he is making fun of other people, And making their objectives harder, By completely ruining a debate by insults. Ok, He's probably an adult, But being an adult cyber bully is so much worse than a kid. You have to go through hours of bullying education before you become an adult, So FBMT knows it's wrong. He needs a life other than cyber bullying and bragging how his parents died and how everyone is a wuss. He claims he's in the legal business, But he also claimed that nerds weren't successful in life. That's where the contradicting happens, People in the legal business are the big nerds in school. In a lot of his debates, He says to explain something to a farmer, So he probably is one. When I confronted him for being a insecure person, He agreed. Insecure people tend to lash out at people and bully them, Therefore he is one, That needs to get a life.