BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That the Bostrom Simulation argument is likely correct.

Since we are discussing the validity of Bostrom's arguments, all definitions should come from Bostrom. Bostrom's original paper defined the "post human stage of civilization" as that stage ". . . where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints." http://www.simulation-argument.com... See Section III. Con stipulates the following as false : (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof). Therefore, we must accept as true: (1) the human species will not go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage and (2) any posthuman civilization is likely to run a significant number of ancestor simulations. If you accept that there will be a siginficant number of ancestor simulations, why should we assume we are in the single version of reality which begat all others? Bostrom argues that the number of simulated universes should vastly exceed the number of unsimulated universes. If posthumans can do it once, they can run the simulation many times. Why then, would we assume we happen to be in the organic original version of reality? If you allow for the possibility of stacking, i.e. simulations within simulations, what are the odds that you are at the bottom of the stack? The short answer is that there is no basis for assuming we are in the "original" universe. If you concede that we will reach posthuman status and that it is likely we will run ancestor simulations, it is virtually certain we are in later iterations.
Resolved: That the Bostrom Simulation argument is likely correct.

Introduction: Hello and thanks to my opponent for setting up this debate which I hope will be an interesting and thought-provoking one for both of us. My opponent has agreed in the comments section [1] that he will focus on proving that proposition #3 is true, provided I assert that #1 and #2 are false. ___________________ I accept his definition of "likely" as "having a probability of more than 50%." but note that this does not determine a percentage requirement for "very likely", "extremely unlikely" or "almost certainly" as appear in the three propositions. If "likely" = at least 50% then I propose that: "Very likely" = at least 60%. "Extremely unlikely"= not more than 0.01%. "Almost certainly" = at least 99.999%. "Posthuman" which is a term I've never heard before is not clearly defined by my opponent. As the literal meaning of this would be 'no longer human' I can only assume that this refers to a point where we would have evolved into a different species (ie. would no longer be able to breed fertile offspring with modern day humans [2]). ____________ The false propositions: #1: "The human species is very likely [at least 60% probability] to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage." I believe this is false. While I'm willing to accept that there is a reasonable likelihood that we will die out before evolving into a new species, I'm far too much of an optimist to allow such a high probability of us not making it. I would put this no higher than 55%. _________ #2: "any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely [not more than 0.01%. probability] to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)." I think this is false too. While I can accept it's pretty unlikely, I think there is a slim but reasonable chance of this occurring. I'd give it at least 0.02 probability. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE: That's got the first two (most probable) propositions out of the way. As my opponent has clearly agreed to defend the third proposition only, I don't expect these first two points to be refuted or to come up in the rest of the debate. It is this next and final proposition below that will be the subject of our discussions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #3: "We are almost certainly [99.999% probability] living in a computer simulation." On it's own I think that this is quite an extraordinary claim. ____________ Conclusion: I invite my opponent to present some evidence to prove to me that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. ____________ Sources: [1] - http://www.debate.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you.
I like pie.

In fact you do not like pie, as in reality you are just a brain in a jar in another dimension floating in chemicals. Your whole life is a lie and what you think you like is just a figment of your imagination. Therefore it is impossible for you to like pie as you have never tasted it, or never even heard of it until your brain decided to confirms its existence. George Chatalain explains "So stated, [T]he inductive argument for the existence of the external world is thus seen to require[s] the assumption of the very point which it is supposed to prove: the existence of the population, which is, to the extent that it is larger than the sample, just the external world. Stated in terms of Professor Williams"s logic of induction, [T]he [This] problem of the existence of the external world amounts to the problem of the existence of a population (in so far as it is larger than the sample); and the crucial point of this critique is that, when the logic of induction is so set up that it requires, as a general major premise in every inductive argument, the law of large numbers, that logic also requires the assumption of the existence of a population. Since [T]he law of large numbers, being a purely logical law, cannot categorically assert, or by its own force establish, the existence of the population, [thus] the whole inductive argument for the existence of the external world becomes a conditional or hypothetical argument, and thus becomes logically incapable of establishing the existence of the external world."
This Debate Exists

Thanks, Con. --- Please Tie This Debate: Unfortunately, I'm busy preparing for the recently released Lincoln-Douglass debate topic (1). As such, I will not present a rebuttal this round. That said, my opponent and I have agreed to tie this debate (2). I enjoyed it, and would love a more direct debate over phil skep later. =) --- References: (1) http://speechanddebate.org... (2) http://debate.org...
This Debate Exists

[ Pro's (rather verbose) argument basically goes: P1: What is experienced exists. P2: Pro has experienced something. P3: The thing Pro has experienced is a debate. C1: Pro has experienced a debate. C2: A debate exists. ] P1 is false. The statement is "What you experience exists to you." P2 is false. The statement is "Con has experienced something." P3 is false. The statement is "Con has experienced participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a 'debate'." C1 is false. The statement is "Con is experiencing participation in the activity formally known as a debate by starting one." C2 is unnecessary. The presumption actually lies in Solipsism, that is that Con is the only one that exist, and that Con's existence is all that matters in relation to the validation of the events. Whether Pro is an extension of Con, a separate entity from Con, or a continuation of Con does not matter therefore Pro's experience does not matter and only Con's does. So long as Con is able to participate in what is definitively a debate Con meets all the criteria (experience, classification, and validation) making the debate have to exist for Con.
This Debate Exists

Thanks, Pro. --- Reminder: No unproven assumptions will be accepted. --- ARGUMENT 1: EXPERIENCE Pro states, "Considering the nature of the proposition itself the debate exists just through sheer concept alone. The push into "Reality" if one wants to posit as such, regardless of one's beliefs on the nature of reality, is that it's being experienced / indicated, it is theoretically pushed as an opposing set of arguments, and must be objective in order to be pressed as an issue in and of itself. Looking at the nature of the message it does not fit under any other definition such as an 'Explanation' or 'Discussion' when monitoring logical presentations and data analysis. To conclude if there was a debate challenge and I was able to accept (regardless of your take on how real I am) then the debate itself which was accepted must exist else I couldn't type this as well as an objective presence of the aftermath of the acceptance which is the marring of this website with a round 1 from 'Pro' on the matter." Pro's (rather verbose) argument basically goes: P1: What is experienced exists. P2: Pro has experienced something. P3: The thing Pro has experienced is a debate. C1: Pro has experienced a debate. C2: A debate exists. **PROBLEMS** P1 is an unproven assumption. Why must what is experienced exist? As a counterexample, it is entirely possible that "reality" is an illusion set up by robotic overlords (1) or a hallucination caused by dehydration (2) or a "strategy" video game (3). If *any* of these are possible, what we experience does not necessarily exist, or exist in the way that we experience it. Pro must prove that what is experienced exists. P1 also assumes that it is possible to experience something. This is an unproven assumption. It's possible that nothing exists, making it possible for anything to experience anything. Pro must prove that it is possible to experience something. P2 assumes that Pro exists and can experience things. Both of these are unproven assumptions. It's possible that "Pro" is merely a hallucination and neither exists or can experience things. Pro must prove that Pro exists and can exerience things. P3 assumes that Pro exists, can experience things, and can experience things accurately. As noted, the first and second statements are unproven assumptions. The third is also an unproven assumption. Assuming that Pro exists and can experience things, it's possible that Pro is hallucinating, is dreaming, is being lied to, has bad external sensors, or never learned to sense anything. Pro must prove that what Pro experiences is accurate. P3 also assumes that it's possible to differentiate experiences. Assuming that it's possible to experience things, it's possible that it is impossible to tell the difference between experiences, such as a friendly agreement and a heated debate. **SUMMARY** Pro's argument from experience uses unproven assumptions at every point, making it invalid as proof of the existence of this debate. --- References (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game)
This Debate Exists

Using the completed definitions of the concepts above: This: "used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced." Debate: "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward." Exists: "have objective reality or being." Considering the nature of the proposition itself the debate exists just through sheer concept alone. The push into "Reality" if one wants to posit as such, regardless of one's beliefs on the nature of reality, is that it's being experienced / indicated, it is theoretically pushed as an opposing set of arguments, and must be objective in order to be pressed as an issue in and of itself. Looking at the nature of the message it does not fit under any other definition such as an "Explanation"[1] or "Discussion" when monitoring logical presentations and data analysis. To conclude if there was a debate challenge and I was able to accept (regardless of your take on how real I am) then the debate itself which was accepted must exist else I couldn't type this as well as an objective presence of the aftermath of the acceptance which is the marring of this website with a round 1 from "Pro" on the matter. [1]http://philosophy.lander.edu...
This Debate Exists

This Debate Exists --- Definitions This: "used to indicate a specific ... thing ... being indicated", [1]. Debate: "a ... discussion on a particular topic ... in which opposing arguments are put forward", [2]. Exist: "to have objective reality or being", [3]. --- BOP Full BOP rests on Pro. --- Assumptions No unproven assumptions will be accepted. --- Rounds First round is NOT acceptance. In Round 5, Pro must write only "No round as agreed." --- Rules: Breaking any rule is grounds for a full 7-point forfeit. --- References: [1] http://google.com... [2] http://google.com... [3] http://google.com...
TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

Preamble: Time continues moving forward at a constant rate no matter what we do: But why? Formal Argument: P1: Without God, there could be no concrete basis for time constancy. (There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure time constancy. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure time constancy -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure time constancy). P2: Time is perfectly and uninterruptedly constant. P3: Therefore there must necessarily be a concrete basis for time constancy. Conclusion: Therefore God exists in reality. QED Bonus video for clarity:
Former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette should be able to publish his book

Publishers have long since not had “freedom”, as they can be sued for libel, held in contempt of court (gag orders), and in extreme situations, even held responsible for crimes committed (inciting a riot or reckless endangerment, by posting addresses or false accounts). I don’t agree that those examples serve to diminish freedom. I believe they promote it. ie Defamation laws only protect innocent people being slandered, contempt of court keeps a healthy justice system. . Freedom of speech is promoted through silence? How does that work? The laws protect people, I agree, but at the cost of freedom. A publisher cannot facilitate libel, this protects someone from my false accusations, but it hinders my speech nonetheless. And what if there is a non-disclosure agreement? Publishers cannot disclose this, even though it is true, and in the interest of justice. Think of Michael Jackson’s non-disclosure, had he admitted blame, there would be no doubt of his actions. Instead, people are allowed to think what they want, right or wrong. Regardless, you agree that censorship (for lack of a better term) is a good idea, in certain circumstances. Why are publishing potential military secrets or divulging identities any less of a protection issue? Publishers should confirm as much of a story as possible; you said libel should not be published, and this is the way to protect a publisher from it. Who better the source to confirm military actions than the military (i. e. government)? It is completely justified. 1. Security I don’t really see an argument here, just a bunch of possibilities. It is also possible that the book may capture the attention of a terrorist one night, staying up in bed reading that joker, and then the seals sneak in and BAM! A second 9-11 was basically just avoided. It is a bunch of possibilities, and any one of them warrants intervention. What is your argument? The possibility that government will strip out something from the book. If they don’t, then there is no issue. Both of our arguments are founded on the possibility of something. Yours that gov’t censors the book, and mine that gov’t edits out sensitive information. But, my argument allows the validation of facts, while yours does not. 2. The rights of citizens are not the same as the rights of those in the military The author is not in the military. True, but there are lingering effects on speech. I am quite certain that, just because one is out of the military, one cannot go around and disclose military secrets. What’s that, there was a secret assassination that you were part of, and you want to tell the world, even though other groups (say, freedom fighters) took the credit? Yeah, you should totally be able to say this, without consequence. Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it.
Former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette should be able to publish his book

Publishers have long since not had “freedom”, as they can be sued for libel, held in contempt of court (gag orders), and in extreme situations, even held responsible for crimes committed (inciting a riot or reckless endangerment, by posting addresses or false accounts). I don’t agree that those examples serve to diminish freedom. I believe they promote it. ie Defamation laws only protect innocent people being slandered, contempt of court keeps a healthy justice system. . 1. Security I don’t really see an argument here, just a bunch of possibilities. It is also possible that the book may capture the attention of a terrorist one night, staying up in bed reading that joker, and then the seals sneak in and BAM! A second 9-11 was basically just avoided. 2. The rights of citizens are not the same as the rights of those in the military The author is not in the military. Thanks for the debate CON.
Former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette should be able to publish his book

Both sides of this issue merit examination and I look forward to hearing your arguments. 1. Prior restraint is inconsistent with Freedom of the Press and should only be used in extreme circumstances The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. (4 Bl. Com. 151, 152. ) -William Blackstone No adequate study seems to have been made of the psychology of licensers, censors,security officials, and their kind, but common experience is sufficient to show that their attitudes, drives, emotions, and impulses all tend to carry them to excesses. This is particularly true in the realm of obscenity, but it occurs in all areas where officials are driven by fear or other emotion to suppress free communication. " . http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu... 2. A responsible account of OBL’s death is justified by the costs of war The American People have spent over $500 billion financing the war in Afghanistan (costofwar. com) largely precipitated by attacks led by Osama Bin Laden. 3,014 Americans have died prosecuting the war. (Wikipedia. org) They deserve to be given a responsible 1st hand account of the raid, unbiased by political censorship decisions. Chief Bissonnette has personally performed in 13 combat tours and risked his own life many times over, his commitment to the cause is evident. It is laughable that some nerdy suit and tie would look over his shoulder and tsk tsk while crossing words out. 3. Replacing fifty shades of Grey as USATODAY’s top selling book regains some of America’s dignity and credibility in the world. The sooner, the better. A Federal review would have delayed the publication and fifty shades of crap would stayed on top of the best sellers list for longer An online comment from Katrina after reading Fifty Shades of Grey: “What in the hell just happened? Did I really read that? Oh, my god, I did. I did read that. “ . http://books.usatoday.com...
Pick your own debate - 1E

In the final round, I will only run down a few key arguments, followed by voters. After that, the voters should be able to make an educated decision. I will start with his attacks on my first argument. I argued that the end result is saving citizens' lives. "But why?" he responds. What are you trying to say? Look at my examples. It CANNOT be argued that water boarding HAS SAVED LIVES. That is why. I argued that the end (saved lives) is justified because it is more important than a terrorists fear of water. "But why?" he inquires. I guess I was wrong when I assumed that this was a simple concept. If my opponent is arguing that a terrorists mentality is more valuable than thousands of lives, then he has lost the moral debate right there, along with philosophy. If he is not arguing this, then he is agreeing with me completely. I concluded that the end justifies the means. "BUT WHY?" he asks again. Because, as has been explained, it is morally correct to sacrifice a terrorists temporary well-being for the lives of innocent civilians. It is the government's duty to protect the citizens, and it would not be legitimate if it did not. Therefore, on moral and political scales, water boarding is by far the correct choice. Here is the unfortunate truth: Terrorists threaten lives. Terrorists kill innocent civilians. Here is the fortunate truth: We can deter the actions of terrorists. We can save lives. If you value your life above the temporary psyche of an America-hating, people-killing, terror-inflicting person, you are in your right mind. Vote Affirmative. == Sources == http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://blogs.usatoday.com...
Pick your own debate - 1E

First of all, I would apologize to my opponent and the voters for the forfeit. I hope we can still have a competitive debate. Now that school is out, I should not miss another round. Thank you. I will address my opponent's points briefly, as they do not require long rebuttals. First off is Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. == CI == My opponent brings up the point that the CI says that humans may not be used as a means to an end. This is not always the case. You must realize here that the end is saving citizens' lives. I will take a Utilitarian perspective here. When it has been proven that water boarding saves lives, we cannot refuse its use. If the end is saving many lives, then one is completely justified in using the means of one terrorist's temporary psychological well being. The end completely justifies the means. == PRACTICALITY == My opponent questions the use of water boarding. This is an uneducated claim. Although there have been multiple success stories of water boarding, the most well-known is the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed case. http://waterboarding.org... The gist of the story is that we discovered valuable information that was used to stop other Al-Quaida attacks. I now ask my opponent to tell me how water boarding is not practical or effective. If you value the psychological health of a terrorist over the lives of thousands of American citizens, vote for the negative.