BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

Hi. I couldn't fully describe the subject of this debate through a short title, so I'll explain it here. I'm here to argue that a simulator, if they exist, have incredibly more advanced technology than our technology and try to create a universe that appears like it is ours, could make a universe that appears like it is ours to people contained within the simulation, including appearing to have any evidence, if there is any, that proves/disproves that our universe is not a simulation. I hope someone accepts my open invitation to be my opponent. I also hope this debate and its outcome is conclusive, enlightening and enjoyable to people reading this, whoever wins. So, here goes. The simulator described would have advanced enough technology to control our brains, and, as such, what we think, believe and feel. They may even be able to redesign or even overhaul the human brain to make a brain that's more efficient and compact, and less data intensive and power hungry. They would be able to fool our brains into thinking it sees and recognises things it doesn't, like details in a dream or memory. But as we look closer, in those examples, the illusion collapses. That is because areas of our brains can work to examine things and find faults. However, in a simulation, our brains and brain activity could be controlled and monitored in real time or the simulation's time. Like getting a lobotomy removes advanced reasoning, those areas of the brain that specialise in fault-finding could be suppressed, switched off, require approval before affecting the rest of the brain or simply removed or not installed in the first place. The simulator described could fool us into believing we're in the real world and make us not able to fault that illusion. But what about quantum mechanics? Couldn't the whole of civilisation pull their efforts to make computations greater than the simulator alone could afford? Wouldn't that prove our universe is not a simulation? Even if it would, we still need to get to that stage. The simulator could, hypothetically, switch us off before then or leave us running and fail to simulate our calculations accurately. Our present universe still seems the same as a universe the described simulator could make. But even in such a future, how do we know that we actually proved the universe is not a simulation? How do we know we actually experienced a genuine universe that's impossible to simulate when we can't even trust our own brains? Even an infallible and all knowing creature could be simulated. It would just be a brain that's fooled into believing it's infallible and all knowing. So what chance do we have? The described simulator could make us believe our universe is not a simulation just by getting the virtual neural connections and interactions right, and as they would be so advanced, they would be able to do that. We can't know our calculations or reality are not just illusory.
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

What I mean with my argument is that because we can't assume anything about the experienced world such as laws of physics, due to us not being able to trust our senses. And because we haven't got any idea on how long our experienced reality will be after our deaths, and how old it is right now, thus we either assume that the reality we experience is infinite or we completely reject the idea of an empirical world, due to the fact that we can't make sence of it philosophically. In the first case we come to the conclusion that all things will happen because we can't empirically observe or prove universal laws with absolute precision, and in the second case we completely reject all empirical knowledge and we dump the idea of a reality behind. In the first case which you rejected in your previous argument by saying "Well, I don't assume that we have infinite time or that reality cannot be understood. " Thus you denied the possibility of your simulation which could have been possible if you had chosen that route of thinking. In the other example which you may agree with you completely deny all existance except your own making your line of questioning pointless. There is yet another line of thought where you agree with the empirical line of thinking and agree with the scientific processes, the only issue with that is that you cannot trust your senses and experience with absolute precision thus leaving you at square one. So in conclusion we have arrived at the "stange" conclusion that we cannot possibly know anything, but our own line of thought to exist thus making your line of questioning very much useless. My opinion on the matter would be that we may actually live inside a simulation, but even then we still can draw the assumption that we can't know anything about the perceivable reality and render the question pointless, because even if that were true the only things that matter are our own thoughts, even if we actually did live inside a simulation. Now some ending words. .. I very much enjoyed this debate even if you didn't understnd my arguments, I really like having something to think about so I could concentrate on something other than my own blatant thought (which is quite annoying believe me). ;)
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

Well, I don't assume that we have infinite time or that reality cannot be understood. Though I have few beliefs, I can guess at things and my guess is that an incredibly advanced simulator could make anything appear like anything, so the topic is, for all intensive purposes, true (in my guess). Also, I'm talking about a single event, not all iterations of the same kind of event, so the answer's solid, like the answer to the question "If I think about the smell of flowers, will I imagine a sweet smell", when talking about a single event. I don't agree with your premises that lead you to conclude that my arguments are incorrect. Could you please explain why they are true? I can't justify them and see no good reason why anyone should believe them until they are justified.
Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon.

"He isn't using information that is corresponding to the question." I disagree. I have been on topic the whole time. My fifth point in the last round was just an interesting factoid, not part of the debate. I am sorry that you saw it otherwise. My points are clearly better than yours, especially since you used none in your last argument. 1. Forks make the noodles easier to grab. 2. They make you eat slower, allowing you to enjoy the food and not worry about making more. 3. Eating slower reduces the risks of dietary problems that are certainly NOT easy to deal with 4. Cleaner, you do not drop noodles or cheese on your clothes as often. 5. All other reasons already stated in previous arguments. I have clearly won this debate, since I have been clearer and given more good arguments overall. You, have strayed off topic and put the focus on me instead of the mac and cheese. You have also failed to cite a single source. By the way, I am a girl, not a boy. I am offended that you assumed I was male. Please vote for me, for the reasons stated above.
Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon.

1. There are no accurate statistics about the choking hazards of mac and cheese so you cannot assume that it is not dangerous. You can choke on anything. 2. If you are using a bowl, yes. But since we are assuming this theoretical person wants the easiest mac and cheese, they probably bought the microwave freezer kind that can be sometimes rectangular, like the ones I eat. The fork fits better in these, while the spoon completely misses the corner. 3. The fork is flat on the bottom so it can grab all the cheese. Also, the cheese is not completely liquid so it rarely falls off the fork. Source: Personal experience. 4. Eating faster, and eating more starchy foods increases the risk of dietary problems such as high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. Those diseases/ problems take time and energy to take care of. It would be much easier to just eat less mac and cheese and stay healthy. 5. FYI a man did die over mac and cheese. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com...
Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon.

(1)I dont know about you, but i dont think anyone in the history in eating has choked on mac and cheese. Most people dont want to eat slow anyways. They just want more of the tasty mac and cheese faster so that they can finish their bowl and go back to playing video games or something. (2) I disagree with point number two.The fork is twice as hard to scoop up cheese because when you scoop it, it has nowhere to sit on. What i mean is the cheese isnt going to scoop very well onto the fork prongs. (3)And there is no awkward curve on a spoon, actually the curve on the spoon fits perfectly intp the curves in the bowl! Imagine that!
Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon.

Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a fork. 1. You can hold on to the individual noodles so that they are easier to pick up. 2. The noodles will not fall off the fork onto clothing, causing you to take time to clean up. It is easier to pick up the last noodles left because you can pick up singular noodles easy with the fork prongs. 3. It is still easy to scrape up remaining cheese with a fork, especially because it does not have the awkward curve of a spoon that makes it difficult to eat the last bites of cheese from the bottom of the dish. 4. Eating with a fork gives you less noodles per bite, therefore making you eat slightly slower. This makes you savor the food and helps prevent choking. There have also been studies that have shown that eating slowly makes you less hungry so you do not have to worry about making more mac and cheese if you are still hungry. Source: http://zenhabits.net...
Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon.

Mac and Cheese is easier to eat with a spoon rather than a fork. Here arre my reasons why: (1)You can get more cheese in every bite. (2)Its easier to shovel up a lot of noodles rather than stabbing them with a fork (3) When you stab the noodles with a fork, they break apart and are hard to get on the fork prongs (4) Its easier to get the last remaining noodles scraped out of the bowl.
Dogs are better than cats

"A dog is a man's best friend" You may have also heard the following saying: "The only escape from the miseries of life are music and cats..." http://www.goodreads.com..."dogs have been used longer than cats" False. As previously stated cats have been used for an equally long time as dogs (as far as we've recorded). http://www.onegreenplanet.org...http://www.catster.com...;"when have you ever in general heard a cop team with cats." I have, I've already told you. This is invalid because many people have. http://www.onegreenplanet.org...http://www.catster.com...;
Dogs are better than cats

As you have broken down my argument, I would like to reinstate the purpose of this debate. Dogs are better than cats as I have not seen or heard of many of my opponents things. As many would say "A dog is a man's best friend" so in sort dogs have been used longer than cats as well as dogs having more physical truth and seen truth. Now many may argue with this but when, when have you ever in general heard a cop team with cats. There is the K-9 unit I haven't heard any other animal team like that.
Dogs are better than cats

I will use this round as a rebuttal to rounds 2 and 3 due to the short arguments presented in both by Pro. "When the main argument begins I would like to say this is opinion not direct insult of cat lovers." That was a joke. "When the main argument begins I would like to say this is opinion not direct insult of cat lovers." Where's your proof? Where's your source? "Dogs can read emotion better than cats can." This is false. http://www.wayofcats.com..."Near a 100% of the time cats that are owned start to become outdoor cats than indoor or straight up leave their owners."There are many indoor cats and many sites in regards to them: http://icatcare.org...;. Hardly any of these cats have left their owners: http://www.rspca.org.uk...;Now onto R3 ... "Yes, cats may have better night vision and take less space" Concession? The resolution is in regards to which is better. Conceding almost all objective points in regards to 'better' is essentially a resolutional concession. "Dogs can guard property"There are such things as guard cats: http://www.catster.com..."sniff out bombs" What good are they at night? My opponent has conceeded to night vision in cats so I ask again ... what good are they at night (which is the best time to look for bombs when you have a botential bomber around). "lead blind people"But who can lead the blind dogs? Don't worry, cats lead blind dogs around: http://www.onegreenplanet.org..."serve as search and rescue dogs"There are such things as search and resuce cats and they have even proven to be better at it than dogs! They go out in the harshest (hottest and coldest) conditions and have a higher rescue save percentage than dogs! http://carca.ca..."Cats don't accept commands because of their natural instinct from their ancestors."Clearly, you're wrong! http://carca.ca...;"Dogs are mostly active during this time with owners or a job."Did you not see the picture at the end of my contention? If you aren't buying this then you'll be surpirized to learn that most dogs sleep for more hours than they're awake! https://dogshealth.com...; "I actually have seen a dog land on a fence"I'm going to have to request evidence for this, and even if you do provide evidence, this is one case out of every single dog on the planet. This severly distorts and mitigates this argument.
Dogs are better than cats

Ok, I have a question when did I ever say dogs are easy to take care of? Yes, cats may have better night vision and take less space but when does the point of many jobs come in. Dogs (not cats) can have ( a percentage of dogs do) have jobs. Dogs can guard property, sniff out bombs, lead blind people, and can serve as search and rescue dogs. Cats don't accept commands because of their natural instinct from their ancestors. While dogs come from a heritage of family (wolf packs in this case). Domestic cats sleep an average of 16 hours a day. Dogs are mostly active during this time with owners or a job. By the way I actually have seen a dog land on a fence (don't ask just, don't ask)
Dogs are better than cats

I am arguing that cats are better than dogs. Cats cost roughly $1035 in the first year of having them. The average sized dog costs $1580 in the first year .While dogs use their tongues to scoop liquid into their mouths, lapping cats stick the tip of their tongue in a liquid then retract it four times as quickly, bringing the liquid up in a neat column and leaving little mess. This is both a cleaner and more effective way of drinking. (1)I will now use science to prove that cats are better than dogs...- "Cats can detect a vast range of sound frequencies, from 55 Hz to 79 KHz. Dogs only manage between 67 Hz and 44 KHz." (1)- "Cats can see in light levels six times lower than humans can. Dogs have decent night vision, too, but still they can see in light five times as dim." (1)- "Cats even beat dogs in smell. While certain breeds of dogs, like bloodhounds, have up to 300 million olfactory receptors in their noses, most breeds have far fewer. The average cat sports approximately 200 million olfactory receptors, much more than the average dog." (1)"According to a 2009 study, the area of land required to keep a medium-sized dog fed is larger than the amount needed to power two SUVs, roughly 0.84 hectares annually. A cat, however, requires far less energy to live, needing the equivalent of 0.15 hectares." (1)- Cats also have significantly better balance. Ask yourself this question : "Have you ever seen a dog land on a fence?" I didn't think so.- When cats walk, they lay their hindpaw almost exactly in the print left by the forepaw. This supreme precision is coupled with a streamlined musculature and a very flexible backbone. Since their spine has more vertebrae, they're also able to twist themselves as ably as a gymnast, which helps them navigate tight spaces and (almost) always land on their feet. (1)Con states that "most dogs don't require much care." - I am honestly shocked. A dog requires walks, training, people to pick up their waste. Most dogs cannot be left alone at home and they cannot be left alone on holidays. Cats just need someone to come in once a day and put food in their bowl and that's it - in the worst case scenario they can just go in the garden and catch a mouse, a bird or a squirrel. Dogs rely heavily on others whereas cats are independent.Dogs do what their owners say. This means they have very little free will."Dogs have masters. Cats have slaves."Dogs have inferior knowledge and awareness. Vote Con for Cats! Sources(1) http://www.realclearscience.com...(2) https://www.google.co.uk...NOTE: I wrote this case quite a few months ago, so the quality isn't me at my best.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs are better than cats. The reason why I say this is because dogs are more reliable and social, (unless abused, hurt, or scared). Dog noun a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties. Dumb definition Four legged companion (friend) Cat noun a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties. dumb definition four legged evil demon demon noun an evil spirit; devil or fiend (Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.)
Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.

I don't think my opponent will show up to reply, but I'll continue my argument anyway. Free trade is when two countries/economies agree to soften or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. However, it could also refer to trade without interference. I maintain that such trade should be valued over protected trade. As I started to address in the last round, people within a specific area (for all intents and purposes I will say 'countries') can maximize efficiency of their resources and achieve the best potential net gain if they specialize in producing certain goods or products specifically. For example, if China had a lot of rice but no cattle, it would behoove them to invest in producing and exporting rice in particular, trading it to others who need it in exchange for cattle which is not readily available to them (or that would be less efficient for them to invest in). Putting tariffs or other barriers on trade goods discourages a country from exporting to you. As such, trade declines and this efficient method of production and maximizing gains becomes ineffective. Free trade allows companies a greater supply of raw materials at a lower price. By producing at lower costs, they can sell at lower costs thus allowing them to become more competitive in the global market. If other countries have lower prices, Americans will buy from them instead of American businesses thereby making America a less valuable and poorer nation. Now, my opponent by debating standards (rules of conduct) cannot make any new arguments in the final round. Therefore, he can only reply to the arguments I've already brought up. Considering I doubt he has any intention of replying to this debate anyway, I will conclude here and see what my opponent has to say (if anything) in response to the contentions that I've brought up thus far. Thank you.
Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.

-- Introduction -- Though Con has asked for this to be a traditional LD style debate, he's shifted his obligation to make the first argument as instigator and unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with LD to know how to structure it properly without first looking it up. Considering I only have 9 minutes to submit this round, I'll format this round to include my arguments only. Free trade is when two countries/economies agree to soften or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. -- Very Brief Introduction of Argument -- In the Principals of Political Economy, economist David Ricardo theorized about comparative advantage. According to Ricardo's theory, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than another country, it would reap gains from specializing in what it was best at producing and trading with other nations [1]. Because of this, a country who could make the most money by exporting a particular resource would focus their attention on that primarily. The catch is that they would need to trade with other people in order to have all of the things they needed. This may be out of convenience or necessity (if say people lived in an area lacking a particular resource or good; for instance the U.S. must import all of its coffee [2]). By limiting free trade, it increases the price of goods that we import. This in turn increases manufacturing costs. For instance if we have increased cost of imported iron, products cost more to make which makes the prices higher for consumers. This can have a cyclical negative impact on the economy. It goes against comparative advantage theory and discourages productive trade. More to come in upcoming rounds... -- References -- [1] Case, Karl E.; Fair, Ray C. (1999), Principles of Economics (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall. pp. 812-818 [2] http://www.census.gov...
Song Challenge

This is almost like the epic song debates that are up right now. Ok how this will work is, every round both pro and con will post a song. We will each pick a specific theme that the song has to be about like love, break up, murder, best Fk life song, absolute nonsense, best dance song, best date song, making love song, and etc you get the point. So, for round 1 I will say a theme, and post a song from like Youtube. At the end of the 1 round Con will not only post his song, but a second video with the theme for me to answer in the next round. Theme: Break Up Song http://www.youtube.com...
The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

I would first like to point out that in the digital age, music artists are making more money than ever [1], thus music artists should have little to complain about. Revenue from digital sales have been on the decline and incline for a while, but overall total revenue has been rising. I would also like to point out that piracy has the ability to raise sales. One example is when comic book writer Steve Lieber's comic was put into PDF form and bootlegged on 4chan. Shortly after the bootlegging, his comic sales dramatically increased [2]. It is true, I can not legally copy a CD and give it to friends (I do believe I messed up in my original statement, and for that I apologize). However, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. The founding fathers of the United States meeting secretly to discuss a revolution was illegal. It was illegal for African Americans to vote. Pirating is also not equivalent to theft. When I steal something, it can not be returned to the owner, and value is lost. However, if I copy something, then no value is lost. For example, if I steal a car from you, then your car is gone, you have lost it. But if I use some sort of copy-machine on your car, and you keep your original car, then you lose nothing. It is because Internet piracy does little actual financial harm, and because it is in fact not theft, rather just copying, that this action should be legal, not illegal. I thank my opponent again for taking this debate, and await their response! [1]. http://torrentfreak.com... [2]. http://www.teleread.com...