BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of Telepathy

The basis of this proposition comes from the conception many of us have had about predicting an event before it happens or as it unfolds, such as when you get a sensation that someone is looking at you (outside your peripheral) and you turn around to someone actually starring at you, or when you think of someone who you then receive a call from etc...It is also tied to a broader theory which holds that this energy which contains field-like properties, gives form to self organizing systems and behaves like a kind of memory outside of space and time. (I may be a bit off here but i'll leave some links that explain it better) There has not been many serious scientific studies done on this subject to prove or disprove it, as it has been dismissed by most as pseudo-science, but there is some very interesting independent research being done. One scientist, in particular has dedicated a lot of his time on the subject matter is Rupert Sheldrake Ph.D. in Biology. He has developed some rigorous online phone and email and other telepathy tests (http://www.sheldrake.org...), the results of which seems to prove (statistically) that the people involved have the ability to determine (by simply guessing who out of 2 people are calling etc...) who is calling in a way that defies probability. I can go on but my time is short so I'll leave you with that, there is a lot of information on that website as well so please check it out.
The existence of Telepathy

Hello Finicky, nice to meet you. Firstly, I have nothing. I do not even know where to begin, so I will ask for some background information on the subject matter. What are some of the studies made toward advancing our understanding on telethaphy? What are some of the criticisms toward this specific subject matter? Hypothesis? Experiment? What did they hope to find in this experiment? And what were the results? Peer review results? Are there any links you can provide with the available information? Thank you for your time.
The existence of Telepathy

My argument is that there exists an energy in nature which the bulk of the scientific community has ignored for decades. It has become an extremely taboo subject and thus there is an inherent stigma associated with it for anyone who tries to take it seriously. The generally accepted skewed view point regarding this so-called "paranormal phenomena" is deeply embedded in society and needs to be readdressed. Telepathy defined: A product of fields of energy inherent in self organizing systems, the product having communicative potential which may be interpreted by the brain as information.
There is a Non-Physical Basis of Human Consciousness

The title says it all pretty much. I am of the position that consciousness is entirely physical, a product of physical states and processes of the brain. In other words, I am taking a physicalist or what one might call a materialist approach to consciousness, that consciousness is entirely brain-based. Whoever argues pro must be arguing that there is some non-physical aspect to the human mind. Granted, what exactly I mean by "physical", "material", and "brain-based" is admittedly somewhat vague, but I will try to be more precise. What I mean is that consciousness is entirely explicable in terms of the neurophysiology of the brain, and that consciousness can be reduced to the physical states, processes, and structures of the brain. Con must be arguing that there is some aspect of consciousness that is non-physical.
There is a Non-Physical Basis of Human Consciousness

I agree to the terms of debate. I will argue there is a non-physical aspect to consciousness. I will argue that consciousness does not only exist in the mind. i will also argue that consciousness can not be reduced only to states within the mind. I will reject physicalism as a concrete truth but not reject physicalism in it's entirety. Nor shall i reject that some aspects of consciousness are based in physicality. Instead i will only show that there are aspects of consciousness which are non physical and non local. I will also argue that consciousness does not ends upon death. My opponent has agreed to open with his position in round 2.
The two party system is making the united states ungovernable

I will argue that the two party system makes the United States ungovernable. The two party system creates a situation in which one party is always trying o overcome another thus reducing any amount of progress from happening. Contention One: Progress the two party system has created this illusion that the United States government is at it best, however; this illusion has proven itself to be false as many Americans finally realize that its government is not making any progress rather it is simply moving backwards. This can be seen in many scenarios such as the unemployment rate within the united states, the increase in excessive governmental spending, as well as the decrease of standard within the school system. All these factors has only supported the idea that the United States is going backwards and if noting is done will crash. A recent statistic stated that 100,000,000 Americans are worst off than there parents were. As frightening as this may seem, has only given us a means to grasp the idea that the Two party system has decreased progress a within the United States.
The two party system is making the united states ungovernable

I apologize for my lack of an argument in the third round; I was very sick over the weekend and could not write. I hope the voters do not penalize me for my temporary absence.However, as Pro has failed to make an argument opposing mine, I maintain the position I have presented in my opening argument. Pro has provided poor sources and has blatantly plagiarized their work. As such, my opening argument stands superior. I wait eagerly for Pro's response.
The two party system is making the united states ungovernable

I will argue that the two party system makes the United States ungovernable. The two party system creates a situation in which one party is always trying o overcome another thus reducing any amount of progress from happening. Contention One: Progress the two party system has created this illusion that the United States government is at it best, however; this illusion has proven itself to be false as many Americans finally realize that its government is not making any progress rather it is simply moving backwards. This can be seen in many scenarios such as the unemployment rate within the united states, the increase in excessive governmental spending, as well as the decrease of standard within the school system. All these factors has only supported the idea that the United States is going backwards and if noting is done will crash. A recent statistic stated that 100,000,000 Americans are worst off than there parents were. As frightening as this may seem, has only given us a means to grasp the idea that the Two party system has decreased progress a within the United States. source: "The Republican and Democratic parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems, and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives. As George Washington wrote, the constant alternation of two parties in the federal government would be a ï¿½€œfrightful despotism€ For a number of years now, respected pundits have lauded the American two-party political system as an excellent balance between the dictatorship of a one-party system and the instability of a multi-party system. Yet the two-party system has caused our country great harm. The Republican and Democratic parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems, and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives. Most unfortunately of all, however, the two-party setup does not represent the people of the United States" (. http://www.intellectualconservative.com...) Contention two: division The Two party system was originally created as a tool to support each other in the uprising of the United States, however; we find that this same system has shifted its objectives from upholding democracy, to maintaining its own pride. This new objective has giving no way for compromise. Both parties are unable to support each other and allowed the United States to fall behind in its quest to uphold its pride. This division has also created a situation in which nieghter political parties is able to pass neccesary laws or amendment does creating many conflicts.
The Government of Nazi run Germany under Hitler was a well designed and successful government.

In terms of the "republic" line, I was using a republic as an example. It wasn't having a totalitarian government that caused the Holocaust, it was caused by Hitler having a fascist government mixed with eugenics. This is not subjective, this is objective. CONCLUSION: The government under Nazi Germany was not successful, or well designed. The government ruined people's lives by taking over their lives. No one lived freely under the government. Personal and private rights were taken away. The economy suffered under Hitler's regime. Using the public sector caused an economic downturn because these jobs caused debt to the nation later on. I enjoyed this debate and plan to debate my friend and fellow debater.
The Government of Nazi run Germany under Hitler was a well designed and successful government.

Before I write my conclusion I would like to touch on something my opponents said about the design of the German government. He stated that Hitler did not want a republic which is a way of him suggesting that a republic is better than the government put in place instead this statement is opinionated and has no weight in this scenario and is as such unnecessary to the debate. He also goes on to state that a totalitarian government was the cause of the Holocaust which is not a fact and is also a statement with no weight due to it being opinionated hence unrelated and unnecessary to the debate. Now onto my conclusion. The Nazi run government of Germany in the 1930's was a successful and well designed government because Hitler almost destroyed unemployment, brought German pride to an all time high, and re-established Germany as a world power.
The Government of Nazi run Germany under Hitler was a well designed and successful government.

As this is the rebuttal round I will be taking my opponents arguments and adding my own thoughts to them and attempting to prove them wrong. To begin with "The Nazis introduced public work schemes for men who worked in the National Labour Service, which included digging ditches on farms, building new parts to the Autobahn, planting new forests, etc." Would you not consider this as a good thing as it had more Germans taking part in the rebuilding of the infrastructure and the earning of money. Secondly "The KDF took care of worker leisure time. They also involved itself in introducing a scheme whereby the workers could get a car, The Volkswagen (People's Car)." This also shows that the government truly was making the economy stronger by stepping in and giving people jobs and resources that would help them possibly grow the economy further. Lastly " If Hitler had allowed "hated" groups to work and the rest of the population were hired in the private sector, the economy would have been booming, not artificially." This statement arguably could be seen as true; however, there is no saying whether or not the "private sector would have fixed itself out in the way I assume my opponent is claiming that it would as in Germany at the time very few Germans had the motivation because of various looming feelings seemingly in the air of Germany at the time So as a whole the government of Nazi Germany was a strong and powerful due to the switch to a wartime economy. There is also the fact that he re positioned Germany on the billboard of world powers.
The Government of Nazi run Germany under Hitler was a well designed and successful government.

I will be using a simple setup for my argument. This will involve the success of the Economy, the pride of the German people during this period, and the rebirth of Germany as a world power. ECONOMY: The German economy during the 1920's and 30's was in shambles after the events of WWI. Then after a variety of coups etc. Adolf Hitler was put into power. During the time he was in power Germany's economy flourished and unemployment virtually vanished.[1] Government earnings rose by almost 5 billion Reichsmarks(German currency during Nazi rule) to 15 billion from 10 billion within 11 years(1928-1939). The German economy had been changed from a peacetime economy to a wartime economy which when done by the US when they entered WWII broke them out of a depression had a similar if not greater effect on the shattered German economy. NATIONAL PRIDE: National pride had risen in the time leading up to WWII in Germany as they had now had a thing to blame for the economic failures after WWI the Jews. This was a thought help by a lot of civilizations all around the world during this time and the Government used it as a marvelous way to inspire the German citizen to believe in their country again. GERMANY AS A WORLD POWER: Germany after WWI was forced to remove it's military, land, and a large amount of money(to pay for damages) thanks to the treaty of Versailles. When the Nazi party took over Germany became a Super Power again thanks to their Government using their abundant natural resources to their advantage as well as a rebuilding of the military after Hitler had revoked the Treaty of Versailles.[2] The creation of programs geared toward preparation for war such as the Autobahn project helped to have a logistical network ready for war when the Fuhrer's ambitions had come to fruition. Hitler changed the German outlook and in preparation for war had made Germany a world power yet again. Sources: [1]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [2]https://www.quora.com...
Macro evolution 5

Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that. " here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old 1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out . 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. Ok well there you go
Macro evolution 5

"Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years and there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible." I find your argument to be logically fallacious in several accounts. Thesis: Evolution is impossible 1. Earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years 2. Thus, no evidence that an evolutionist has is valid 3. Therefore, evolution is impossible. First of all, you offer no evidence for the first point, which is what your entire argument hinges on, as it is your only premise. An argument cannot be sound unless the premises are valid, and there is sufficient evidence by innumerable scientific experts that the Earth has existed for more than 6-10 thousand years. Second, your argument commits a non-sequitor fallacy because the second point does not logically follow from the first. Having said that, I will make my case very simply. There has been a lot of bad science floating around the internet in terms of trying to disprove evolution. Certain religious zealots who have an incessant need to validate their faith pervert science in order to do so. Whereas there are mounds upon mounds of scientific evidence for evolution, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, for a more likely alternative. Science is about observation and testing in order to come to a conclusion. Not about using and abusing science to prove a prior "conclusion" as true, at all costs.
Macro evolution 5

"you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points" My hypothesis is based on scientific reasoning. It doesn't make sense that the sun would suck in the same amount year after year. And half-life is a constant value, so carbon can't decay at different rates. Same exponential value. "ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years." When did that happen? Maybe one lab made a mistake, but I doubt it happens frequently. "ok also i used a book so dont give me this thing about your site is dis createded or what ever." Well, your book must be very popular and very wrong, because it has the same simple arguments that are being disproven and criticizedby scientists all over the internet. "ok then i really dont care what animal we suposedly evolved from ok so my next argument will ask a question" Yes, but it shows you know next to nothing about evolution. You just care about validating the bible no matter what. "how can you augment your mind far enough to think that you came from a fish ok really" It's called "not being a slave to indoctrination". "i believe the number one reason every single one of you believe this is cause you dont want god" When did God come into the picture? Maybe this is the way God brought us all into life, maybe God created the universe 4 billion years ago. If the bible is wrong, it doesn't mean God is wrong. It just means humans are wrong, because humans were responsible for writing the bible. Yes, I know, divinely inspired. Do you really think the voice of God can be heard 100% correct by the ears of man?
Macro evolution 5

you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years. ok also i used a book so dont give me this thing about your site is dis createded or what ever. ok then i really dont care what animal we suposedly evolved from ok so my next argument will ask a question how can you augment your mind far enough to think that you came from a fish ok really i believe the number one reason every single one of you believe this is cause you dont want god
Democracy is not the Best Form of Government

Im disappointed to see that Con forfeited the last round. Well if Con wishes to use the last round to do both his rebuttal and closing statement, he can feel free to. For my closing argument, I will reiterate my position. Democracy is not the best form of government. Allowing everybody in a population to vote for representatives and/or policies floods the voting pool with people who do not know enough about the issues at hand, which devalues the vote of the minority who does know about it. It is a form of government, that in truth, has never even been implemented in society until recently. Historical democracies have always had social bigotry with laws requiring voters to be of a certain race, gender, and own a certain amount of land, which essentially assured that it was predominantly the aristocracy that was voting. On top of that, technological differences made it even harder for the average person to vote. In the technology era, it is impossible to argue that a democracy that gives everyone the right to vote is the best form of government. As said in this CBS article and the article I posted in the last round: . http://www.cbsnews.com... Un-Educated voters have a serious effect on elections, often voting off of pure ignorance, and sadly they far outnumber the voters who actually understand politics and are educated about the issues at hand. It goes without saying that an aristocracy that requires politicians to be appointed by the intellectual elite and the politcally savvy would be better than a traditional democracy.