BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, philosophical naturalism is true.

Thanks Con for instigating this debate.I accept all terms and rules, but there was no definition provided for spatiotemporal, so I'd like to supply my own.*Definition*spatiotemporal - belonging to both space and time or to space-time.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...*Preface*I'd also like to point out that while quantum particles/quantum fields tend to violate temporal relationships, they should still be considered physical and spatiotemporal, and under the umbrella of physical naturalism.I don't know that Con intended for a quantum mechanics debate, but in case it goes there, this must be accepted; quantum particles/fields are a concept of naturalism.*Naturalism*That which exists is either physical/material itself, or contingent on the physical/material.Everything from the stars to the planets to the planet's inhabitants to the gas in atmospheres are made of at least particles/radiation/energy in some form; they're all physical themselves.Other things that exist like thought, love, the mind, compassion, consciousness, intelligence, and happiness are constructs contingent on the physical brain, physical neurons, and other physical neural substrates.So while not all existing things are made of elements/particles/radiation, they are at least contingent on such.So, all things are either comprised of/contingent on:1. particleshttps://en.wikipedia.org...or2. radiationhttps://en.wikipedia.org... or3. energyhttps://en.wikipedia.org...*Supernaturalism*I'd love to refute this concept, but I have no idea what it means.People tell me that supernatural things exist, or that supernatural events occur, but no one's ever been able to provide me with an example that, if it actually exists, isn't reducible to naturalism, and no one's ever been able to clearly explain what "above" or "beyond" nature really means.I often ask that if there's this unexplained "beyond" or "above" nature, then what do you call something that's equally unexplained as "behind" or "below" nature?Subnatural?Infranatural?Is subnaturalism any more/less valid than supernaturalism?If it's the case that supernaturalism, a position that Con wishes to endorse, includes things *not* comprised of or *not* contingent on the physical/material, then I reject this position due to a lack of demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions made within the domain of "supernature" that indicates an absence of the physical/material.*Conclusion*I simply maintain that all things, constructs included, can be reduced to the physical/material, which is demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions within the domain of physical nature.I fail to see this with supernature or subnature.On to Con...
Resolved: On balance, philosophical naturalism is true.

Resolved: On balance, ontological naturalism is true. DEFINTIONS: On Balance: after considering the power or influence of both sides of a question(Cambridge Dictionaries Online) Philosophical Naturalism: Ontological naturalism is that all spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Further, spatiotemporal entities are all that exists. True: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs(Merriam-Websters) THE BURDEN OF PROOF: Essentially the burden of proof lies on the affirmative(pro) to show ontological naturalism is the default position and argue that essentially reality corresponds to naturalism rather than supernaturalism. However, the negative(con) must show that ontological naturalism is not a reasonable position to hold as his burden of proof. It should be noted arguments are weighed on a balance rather than absolutely true. For example, it is important to make a distinction between the likelihood of naturalism being true and the certainty of it(likewise, the opposite claim by the negative). Hence if naturalism is shown to be unlikely than the Negative has won the debate. If the affirmative shows naturalism to be likely than the affirmative has likewise won.
Golden Goose Sneakers that speech

Oh! That tongue, that slippery tongue. Slipping around that penetrating shard. Basketball, ball basket and the eloquent President slips his slippery tongue with bile rhetoric. Stitched to perfection he says, hand stitched like a Civil War boot. As ever support is key, ankle or mid-sole even toe. Don't want those pinkies flopping about, get the correct width fitting. Variable width fitting on high end examples. Crimson through to avocado or butternut taupe. Variety is the spice of life. Spice girls, girls move counterkicking stage shoe traction. Patty fatty splatty three way blandishments and an eloquent review 2011 through to 2014. Weight saving high end components, component criticism a morning call seemed crazy but the light seemed crazy too. Dick likes the pretzels, Dick diving for sure, Golden Goose Grease, applicator supplied. In the South and at other points of the compass. Vegetable and fruit importance, casserole importance 9.5 to 9.8 a variable of .2 to the power of infinity, butternut nutternut nutternoo, three way excitement, casserole excitement. Common sense, ankle sense, common ankle sense on the trail on the bike, pedal interface notwithstanding, top drawer socks to suit all those brand names. A plaque was put up to commemorate G.G.Sneakers sneaky sneaky, in fact they took a chance, some might say a big risk, giving that speech then when the differences were so essential. All in all weight to tongue ratio, slippery ratio, slippery shard penetration with a wonderful finish. Half an hour is all it takes, phonic cell one minute, walking the next. One minute's all it takes, avocado's my choice for sure.
Golden Goose Sneakers that speech

How deep the shards penetrated the atmosphere, no one is really sure ofwe can't exactly dive into the atmosphere and try to retrieve them. So, we're gonna be using pretzel rods for our heel. Walking one minute is enough to charge a cell phone for half an hour. If you take a detailed look at these shoes you can find accurate stitching details. Each part of the shoe has been stitched perfectly coupled with wonderful finishing. When you take a close look at the various collections on offer, you will come across different items. So, if you have footwear that can be only after sitting, then this is the choice for you. Nike, Adidas and Puma soccer shoes come in a wide variety of color schemes; the essential difference is the logo design. His eloquence raised the awareness of many people to the plight of the slaves in the preCivil War south. He used that ending. And then he called me the next morning and almost the first thing he said was, "How did you know I knew Golden Goose Sneakers that speech? I said "Oh, Mr. President, I just took a chance." In fact, it had been a speech that was on a plaque outside his daughter Patty's grade school. As of April 2014, all three versions of the Crazy Light claimed to be the lightest basketball shoe at the time of its release. The original version launched in 2011 weighed in at 9.8 ounces and had good traction and comfort but poor ankle support according http://www.goldengoosesneakershop.com... to Counterkicks and user reviews. The Crazy Light 2 from 2012 weighed 9.5 ounces, but was criticized by Counterkicks for a thin tongue that slid around during play.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

"While I am not sure how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics as a participant in human personhood I can affirm that there would be very little benefit to the A.I.'s rights themselves." If you really think about the topic, it is quite obvious how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics. Take, for instance, the responsibility of jury duty. We as humans often times succumb to faulty judgment and giving an A.I. the title of personhood would allow them to take part in the jury. The A.I."s mathematical judgment system could then weigh all of the arguments made and decide, logically, which team, the defense or the prosecution, has the most evidence and will take their side in the case. https://www.techdirt.com... My point is a simple one. In the coming century, it is overwhelmingly likely that constitutional law will have to classify artificially created entities that have some but not all of the attributes we associate with human beings. They may look like human beings, but have a genome that is very different. Conversely, they may look very different, while genomic analysis reveals almost perfect genetic similarity. They may be physically dissimilar to all biological life formsA293;computer-based intelligences, for exampleA293;yet able to engage in sustained unstructured communication in a way that mimics human interaction so precisely as to make differentiation impossible without physical examination. They may strongly resemble other species, and yet be genetically modified in ways that boost the characteristics we regard as distinctively humanA293;such as the ability to use human language and to solve problems that, today, only humans can solve. They may have the ability to feel pain, to make something that we could call plans, to solve problems that we could not, and even to reproduce. (Some would argue that non-human animals already possess all of those capabilities, and look how we treat them.) They may use language to make legal claims on us, as Hal does, or be mute and yet have others who intervene claiming to represent them. Their creators may claim them as property, perhaps even patented property, while critics level charges of slavery. In some cases, they may pose threats as well as jurisprudential challenges; the theme of the creation which turns on its creators runs from Frankenstein to Skynet, the rogue computer network from The Terminator. Yet repression, too may breed a violent reaction: the story of the enslaved un-person who, denied recourse by the state, redeems his personhood in blood may not have ended with Toussaint L'Ouverture. How will, and how should, constitutional law meet these challenges? By: James Boyle
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

"I agree that this is a valid point, but not only would the A.I. benefit by being able to add truthful human-scenarios to its database it would also be able to help us as humans make just decisions in our law-making process, courtroom, and lives. I also assert to the fact that your second point has some truth to it, but personhood would justly protect and provide for it considering the lengths we go to protect ourselves. The laws that are set to keep us safe from theft, property destruction, etc. would then protect the artificial intellegence in question." While I am not sure how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics as a participant in human personhood I can affirm that there would be very little benefit to the A.I.'s rights themselves. If the rights were extended and then the A.I. was to further develop them as they were subject to them I suppose I can see where that would be a good point but I fail to see how the merger would make sense for the A.I. or the human since the perspectives of both entities would be drastically different. The A.I. not being biological for instance does not have to worry probably about things like reproductive rights or bodily integrity, care, and management which is a majority of ethics revolving around human healthcare. It is not that humans do not go to great lengths to protect themselves but rather how we protect ourselves won't help the A.I.; what is "property destruction" for an A.I.? What exactly do they own? How would bodily integrity for humans apply to the A.I.? Would it be protection for it's case or shell whether it is an android or seated in a mainframe or stationary computer? How would these things be enforced as well and how would they be protected; harming a human is very different from harming A.I. as generally speaking you can harm an A.I. by hacking it while you cannot hack a human in the same fashion. I feel that the parallels between the two systems and two entities themselves are too few to really set up a sound basis.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

"...most of the rights that are contained therein deal with human scenarios and situations whether it be physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental care and I further assert that an A.I. even with equivalent capacities would not be able to really garner much from the human-centered personhood." I agree that this is a valid point, but not only would the A.I. benefit by being able to add truthful human-scenarios to its database it would also be able to help us as humans make just decisions in our law-making process, courtroom, and lives. I also assert to the fact that your second point has some truth to it, but personhood would justly protect and provide for it considering the lengths we go to protect ourselves. The laws that are set to keep us safe from theft, property destruction, etc. would then protect the artificial intellegence in question.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

I will argue two points: A) I assert that personhood is a human construct that can only accurately apply to humans no matter what the definition is because most of the rights that are contained therein deal with human scenarios and situations whether it be physical, emotional, spiritual, or mental care and I further assert that an A.I. even with equivalent capacities would not be able to really garner much from the human-centered personhood. B) I assert that personhood would be useless to the A.I. itself because the A.I. functions in a manner that is different enough from humans relating to their perspective that doesn't really satisfy their needs. To that end I would state that there would be an alternate form of rights for the A.I. that properly protects and provides for it versus adopting personhood.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

Basis & Definitions: We will presume that the entity's nature itself does not matter. The question is essentially whether a being that functions as a human would fully entitled to emotions, mental capabilities, and intelligence should be considered a "Person". The standard of machinery still is present so the object still requires initial input unlike biological systems but beyond that input can assess within it's parameters which is assumed to be equivalent to a human's. Bans&Diversions: No other species may be referenced besides humans. No other form of example (such as movies or books) may be referenced. If you choose a definition for personhood you must stick with it throughout the entire debate. Special Notes: Due to the science-fiction nature of this particular debate you are not required to use any citations backing current laws or ethics (though you must for any definitions you wish to assert) however you must give sound reasoning for your arguments.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

First off, I"d like to explain the sequence d59 surrounding the word non-human in my previous argument. Those where meant to be asterisks put there to emphasize the word, not make it harder to read. Now, let"s move on to my closing statement. An A.I. of sufficient intelligence does deserve personhood in specific cases. The reason for this is that while the A.I. may be man-made, who is to say that it does not develop a life and mind of it"s own. Why do we keep the rights of personhood to our selves when perhaps the A.I. has developed a sense of humanity and a yearning for a personal relationship with people, but because we refuse to give it the right to express these feelings it must keep them hidden? The only way to answer these questions is to move forward and give the A.I. what it has long been waiting for, the right to the title of personhood.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

I will keep my argument for this round short and sweet. In the first round my opponent stated "If you choose a definition for personhood you must stick with it throughout the entire debate". Well, this is my definition: In philosophy, the word "person" may refer to various concepts. According to the "naturalist" epistemological tradition, from Descartes through Locke and Hume, the term may designate any human (or d59;non-humand59;) agent which: possesses continuous consciousness over time; and who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.
A.I. of sufficient intelligence deserves Personhood

If you really think about the topic, it is quite obvious how the A.I. would contribute to human law and ethics. Take, for instance, the responsibility of jury duty. We as humans often times succumb to faulty judgment and giving an A.I. the title of personhood would allow them to take part in the jury. The A.I."s mathematical judgment system could then weigh all of the arguments made and decide, logically, which team, the defense or the prosecution, has the most evidence and will take their side in the case.", three points on this: 1. The A.I. in this scenario has emotions so they can and likely will have the problem of bias however the bias may differ due to inability to relate. For instance grievous crimes like sexual assault don't happen to A.I. so while they may know the law they may or may not be necessarily geared towards even liking humans enough to want to uphold human justice. With prejudice being a possibility due to emotions it's difficult to say that there would be no faulty judgment or that the judgment would be necessarily clearer. 2. Human law and legal matters and decisions are very emotional. While "cold, hard logic" sounds like the way to go in reality many times we grant pardons based not on what is done but how the individual seems to be reacting to what is done and based on their history and the likelihood of recidivism. For instance you would not lock up a teen / yound adult for the maximum sentence if he committed petty theft, showed remorse, and really had no criminal record, and the same with traffic laws relating to who gets a warning versus who gets a ticket, but on the other hand if you've a habitual criminal or a grievous unremorseful crime on your hands you treat it completely differently. This is imperative for human law. If we judged solely based on the action alone a lot more people would have a lot more prison sentences and longer prison sentences as well I believe. 3. There is still no explicit benefit to the A.I.; in actuality you're suggesting we utilize the computer as a tool which would almost be counterintuitive relating to personhood and the freedoms that come with it. Instead of a citizen this strongly suggests "Put a robot on the bench, it will help clear up the murkiness of human failings" which I feel is not the same as expecting insight from an equivalent being. If nothing else it is an objectification of the entity and I feel that as an aware thinking, feeling being it would know this. Whether or not it would take pride in this is the same with humans; some of us take pride in our ability and uses and others don't want to be used for human notions. --- As for the quotation I feel that it just asks the question we're asking now. I am not sure what it was supposed to add unless you wanted to cite something in the full paper but otherwise it's not actually a "reason" or "argument" it's just a list of statements, hypothetical propositions, and questions.
Teachers and school staff should have guns

Most school shooters have difficult losses or failure. The Parkland shooter's adoptive mother died from pneumonia. It was a difficult time for him to see that happen. He witnessed his father die from a heart attack at age 5. When students are dealing with this, we should know that they are experiencing it. Students need help and sympathy to feel better after a tragedy or their anger might get out of control. It's important to know the concerns. If we don't know about it or don't help, the person might start a shooting. Knowing about hard lives and helping people cope with them might prevent school shootings. Many attackers did not experience hard losses, but they were bullied. If a student gets bullied for a long time, the student might hate his/her classmates and school. If a student getting bullied got access to a gun, he/she might shoot the school. Their anger would be severe. It's important that we stop bullying and help people getting bullied. Though metal detectors are not the best thing to use in schools, there are other ways to protect the school. If not all teachers carry a gun, there might be a chance where the shooter enters the classroom that has an unarmed teacher. It's rare as the school might be put on lockdown before and there might be other armed people. I think it would mainly happen when the shooter is entering the school to target the teacher rather than shooting everyone he/she sees at the school. It is rare for that to happen, but it can happen. Training teachers would take a lot of time. I don't know how we would screen them. Teachers can't become teachers with a criminal record. At least that's what I'm sure about. In my opinion, training would only significantly decrease the chance of a teacher accidentally firing the gun or getting it stolen. It might not help to significantly decrease the chance of the teacher getting mad or having mental issues and shooting the gun. A teacher who plans to kill his/her students would probably pass the test. https://www.cbsnews.com...
The Black Lives Matter Movement supporters are the true racists.

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, then I will continue in support of my case. When the Confederate flag controversy received national attention, the Black Lives Matter protesters were some of the first on the scene. They, of course, claimed that the flag was racist. On a side note, I would like to offer support for this Southern symbol. First of all, every accusation thrown at the Confederate flag, can just as easily be applied to the American flag. When the Civil War ended, the border states still had slavery. Guess which flag flew over those states?-the American flag. In support of Confederate leaders, the North could not convict them in court of a crime, because they did what the colonists did. The very fact that the Confederate leaders could not be jailed, just proves that the South did nothing wrong. Similarly, it was Jefferson Davis who said "all we ask is to be left alone." Anyway, (since I went off on a tangent), I will make a point for today. Following the Confederate flag coming down in South Carolina, Confederate memorials were vandalized with "Black Lives Matter" spray painted on them, and many others were defaced. The media and other officials called this "free speech" and defended their actions. Is not the Confederate flag "free speech"? The hypocrisy continues.