BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All knowledge is founded on faith - 2

My opponent has added much clarity to her position by offering her argument in the form a concise syllogism: 1. If we have material proof for foundationalism's basic beliefs, then we can rid ourselves of the regress problem. 2. Qualia is material proof for foundationalism's basic beliefs. :. Therefore, We can rid ourselves of the regress problem. I think we can both agree that premise 1 is true. I also agree that the argument is valid as the conclusion logically follows the premises. However, I will defend my position by arguing that premise 2 is false. So, all I have to do is show that Qualia is not material proof. First, I'd like to reject Vi_Veri's definition of Material evidence. Material evidence is more than simply information. The fact that it is material implies that it is objective, allowing others to verify it. It need not be physical, but it need be falsifiable in some way. The free dictionary defines material evidence as "evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis." [1] And it is nature of Qualia as not being falsifiable that renders it inadequate to justify premise number 2. My opponent says, "To say that something 'seems' as something does not rest on faith." But the seemingness of anything is relative to the observer, making it wholly subjective. I can say, that color "seems" red to me, but what JUSTIFIES me in saying that the color "is" red? To simply say that my experiences are TRUE is to beg the question. There must be a bridge that connects one's subjective experience to objective knowledge. In order for Vi_Veri's conclusion to be KNOWN, the premises must be KNOWN. The only way to KNOW premise 2, is to JUSTIFY it. In round 1, she assumed a material mind. In round 2, she assumed that basic beliefs need not be justified. She says, "According to Foundationalism, basic beliefs, in this case as experiences (observations), do not need to be justified (thus also eliminating the regress problem)." This is precisely what I argued in my opening round. Foundationalism ASSUMES that basic beliefs are suitable starting points. Even if my opponent can show that Foundationalism is reasonable--which I think it is--this does not eliminate the need for faith. Any unjustified belief is a presupposition. Presupposition is faith. It appears that my opponent is using Foundationalism to support her claim that Qualia is knowledge in order to show that Foundationalism is not faith. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is caught in the very regression she wishes to break. Every attempt to break the regression in her argument has involved either circular reasoning or some kind of presupposition about what can be known. Either way, she must rely on faith to make her case. Therefore, her argument can only be valid if it's incorrect, so it is false and the resolution is affirmed. All knowledge is ultimately founded on faith. This has been an edifying discussion, and I thank Vi_Veri for stretching me as a debater. SOURCES 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
All knowledge is founded on faith - 2

My opponent directly attacks my materialism premise of my argument. Even without the materialism premise, my argument stands. I admit, it was not a premise that was even necessary for the conclusion. Even if you replace it with, say, dualism (or any other), my argument still stands. Qualia is any conscious experience, be the experience by a soul or a material brain - it still stands as an experience that can be had and seems to be. I must repeat: To say that something "seems" as something does not rest on faith. With the interchangeability of my first premise (and it's over all unnecessary nature to my argument), my conclusion still follows validly without regress. Even if we took the dualistic perspective of the mind, the conscious experiences (qualia) that the "mind" would be having would still be basic beliefs, thus supporting foundationalism once again. According to Foundationalism, basic beliefs, in this case as experiences (observations), do not need to be justified (thus also eliminating the regress problem). ~Logical Syllogism~ To assert before this syllogism: If we have a regress problem, then the base of our knowledge rests on faith (KRF). 1. If we have material proof for foundationalism's basic beliefs, then we can rid ourselves of the regress problem. 2. Qualia is material proof for foundationalism's basic beliefs. :. Therefore, We can rid ourselves of the regress problem. By Modus ponens, the argument is deemed valid: 1. P ---> Q 2. P :. Q So, my conclusion negates KRF's definition of faith in both ways possible; by logical proof and material evidence (definitions provided below of the two, provided by Merriam-Webster dictionary): *Logical proof: A formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. *Material evidence: Information (data or ideas or observations). *Experience (definition provided for qualia): 1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation 2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity I negate that all knowledge is founded on faith.
All knowledge is founded on faith - 2

My opponent begins her argument by stating, "We will be assuming the materialistic view of the mind, that everything is physical, and thus the mind is physical (a manifestation of the brain)." Assume: To take for granted; suppose [1] My opponent begins the argument with a presupposition, a FOUNDATION upon which she will JUSTIFY the arguments that follow it. That is to say, she will be using faith to argue that foundationalism doesn't require faith. Vi_Veri's argument is logical, given her starting point. Assuming the mind is material, then our conscious experiences (qualia), which take place in the mind, are also material. Thus, what something "seems" to be is material evidence for what it "is." Such material evidence, therefore, eliminates faith. Except, her argument is based on faith. The only way her conclusion--that foundationalism does not rest on faith--can be KNOWN is if she justifies it with other KNOWLEDGE. Thus she will have to do more than just ASSUME a materialistic mind, she must JUSTIFY it. Of course, that places her in the very predicament she hopes to refute; caught in the regress problem. After justifying a material mind, she'll have to justify whatever she used to justify that. This regression will continue until she has to either rest on faith--which refutes her position--or appeal to qualia--which begs the question. Thus, there is no way for her to prove her position without relying on the very thing she is trying to refute, making her position self-refuting. Since her argument relies on assumption, her argument can only be valid it if its conclusions are false. It therefore remains affirmed that all knowledge is ultimately founded on faith. SOURCES 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
All knowledge is founded on faith - 2

I thank KRF for all of his patience! This will be quick and easy.... We will be assuming the materialistic view of the mind, that everything is physical, and thus the mind is physical (a manifestation of the brain). Let me reiterate: "Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." My opponent attacks Foundationalism as an improper answer to the faith problem. In fact, Foundationalism does rest on material proof - proof we call Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience, like the taste of red wine, or the scent of perfume, or the sight of "redness". Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." These, are, in fact the most material of material. They are the foundation of proof, and thus logically deduced as A= A. One does not need faith to proclaim, "It seems to me that I am witnessing [insert qualia here]." Such qualia proof of "seemingness" is foundational to all knowledge. It is quite logical, in fact, to deduce that what something seems is what it seems. Again, logically, A=A. Foundationalism does not rest on faith. Proof, you ask? What more proof does one need than the qualia, the actual physical manifestation of how things seem in the world? To say that something "seems" as something does not rest on faith.
that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US

As my opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments, I shall rebut his and advance my own. 1. Social Capital This contention has two major flaws: it is not unique to social networking sites, and its impact is relatively insignificant. First of all, all of the benefits my opponent just listed can be equally enjoyed through IM, texts, chat rooms, calling someone, etc. Social networking sites have not created these benefits, they have just created yet another place to experience them, minimizing their impact to very little. This brings me to my next point: the impact of this is relatively insignificant. When compared to any of my contentions, simply being able to talk with someone who is far away is not even close to the same magnitude. 2. Jobs "According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. " This is actually false, and is an attempt by my opponent to change a fact for his own benefit. Here is the actual quote from . http://www.tuboston.com...: "Stanford University sociology professor Mark Granovetter recently conducted research that supports the value of making new connections. He found that between 50 and 70 percent of new jobs are discovered by reaching out to people job seekers only know vaguely. " This does not mean 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. It means 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of weak ties, which *might* be established using social networking sites. As such, this statistic should be discounted from consideration. "According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. " As for this statistic, I would ask for an accessible source to view this. Though I cannot say for sure without an accessible source, I would like to note that "CareerXroads" is a site designed to help the unemployed find jobs, and as such there is a high probability that my opponent has miquoted a figure intended for that specific site, among other possibilities. 3. Business "According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts. " To "use social networking sites" that could mean merely hiring a single employee whose job includes glancing over resumes online. Thus, this point has almost no impact unless backed up by significant statistics.
that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US

I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.
Competition

A society can be too competative. However I would make distinctions, There is healthy and honest competition and ruthless underhanded competiton. I used to say I was a socialist, Because I beleived in values, Such as making society more egalitarian, Democratic, And humane in a balanced collectivist fashion. However, When one studies successful "socialist" models like the nordic countreis or even china with its incredible economic growth you realize your not really dealing with a socialist model at all, Not really, These are nations that have realized in pragmatic terms that by a classicla definition of socialism the old model simply never works, Ever, Govt it too big repressive and destoys incentive, It is possible however to harness the market system to achieve some socialistic goals. . But the market and competition, And honest government, Must play a role for them to be prosperous.
Black History Month or any month celebrating a specific ethnic history only promotes more racism.

This is a controversial topic, relax and let's have a nice debate 2. I will be arguing that "Ethnic history months only promote more racism. " 3. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) 4. Clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. 5. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time, - Faust
Debate.org members* should join the boycott of KFC

To begin with Koopin argues that with only 17,756 members, a Debate. org boycott of KFC would have little impact on overall consumption. There are two points to make here: Firstly, the Debate. org boycott of KFC will not take place in isolation, it will be part of the much bigger embargo organised by PETA which is supported by celebrities such as eighties throwback Pamela Anderson, Scouse crooner Sir Paul McCartney and Buddhist deity His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Secondly, Debate. org members are not just everyday people – they are people with the ability to influence others – that's why they are interested in debating rather than, say, hanging around crack-houses or twocking cars – so in addition to their own boycott they will be able to persuade their friends, family and colleagues to join the campaign. Furthermore, it is not true that abstaining from KFC will result in the "loss of pleasure" as my opponent suggested – there are many ethical alternatives to KFC. Additionally, American members of Debate. org will be able to consume as much as KFC they want and still go to bed with clear consciences if they visit European branches of KFC where the chickens used are reared in accordance with strict animal welfare legislation. My opponent then kindly informs us that KFC chicken is, in fact, a health food because it us cooked in zero grams trans fat cooking oil. I am indebted to him for providing this information. However, although it is reassuring to know that KFC is playing a leading role in the fight against heart disease, I never argued that KFC was unhealthy, so the trans fat content of their cooking oil is irrelevant to this debate. I do, however, accept that enhanced animal welfare leads to increased production costs and this may mean that the shareholders will receive slightly lower dividends or, possibly, there may be a marginal increase in price. However, this will mean that KFC will operate on a level playing field with ethical fast food outlets and if they cannot compete then their restaurants will close and their rivals will open new outlets to cater for the increased demand. This will not lead to a net decrease in jobs, of course, as the former KFC staff will find alternative employment in the new restaurants opened by KFC's rivals. To close, Koopin wrote: "KFC is good, and the day that we let animals rule over humans is a sad day indeed. Humans rule the animals, not the other way around. " I would go further and say KFC is not just good - it's outstanding. However I am not suggesting that the chickens should be appointed supervisors – although their staff management techniques may improve customer service – just that chickens destined for KFC's fryers should be raised in decent conditions and not subjected to any unnecessary suffering. Thank you.
Debate.org members* should join the boycott of KFC

Tender, succulent pieces of chicken coated in delicious herbs and spices and deep-fried until they are a crispy golden-brown – absolutely scrumptious! Yes, I really love KFC. In fact, I very much doubt that there's any Debate.org member who likes KFC as much as I do. Shame they might go bust then, isn't it? That's right, with the support of the members of this site, the boycott of KFC in America will grow to a point where their losses will be unsustainable and they will either be forced to clean up their act or close their doors altogether. That's because the cruelty KFC inflicts on the 1 billion chickens they kill every year in the United States has incensed countless decent Americans who are absolutely appalled at their animal welfare abuses and who are now boycotting KFC restaurants. (1) Let's be in no doubt, the level of suffering that KFC's factory farmers inflict upon chickens would be illegal in most civilised countries and, outside the United States, KFC is forced to source birds from farms where animal welfare standards are set high and are strictly monitored by government vets. (2) Sadly, however, the US government tolerates KFC's American suppliers' disgusting farming practices and KFC's only reference to the cruelty involved in the rearing of their poultry is to state that it is their "goal to only deal with suppliers who…share our commitment to animal welfare". (3) You will have noted, no doubt, that they use the term "goal" rather than "policy" and do not explain what their "commitment to animal welfare" actually is. Now, of course KFC chicken is very tasty but surely the thought of the abject misery and pain that some bird has suffered to provide you with your meal will persuade you to do the right thing and boycott KFC – I know I certainly will the next time I visit America. Thank you. (1) http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com... (2) http://www.kfc.co.uk... (3) http://www.kfc.com... * Resolution is limited to Debate.org members resident in or visiting the United States of America.
There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

This is my first debate on this site, so I'm hoping I get a good argument from my opponent. I am PRO for the resolution that there should exist a licence system for drinking alcohol. I will first describe the system I am proposing, then set forth a few reasons for my opponent to counter. I am proposing in order to be legally eligible to drink alcohol, one should be made to get a licence proving they can handle it. Nobody would be stupid enough to suggest that the second someone turns 18 (say), they should be eligible to drive. One must first prove they are: 1. Capable of handling a vehicle 2. Devoted enough to the practice of driving that they strive to attain and keep a licence But the laws for alcohol are far more lenient (and ludicrous). At 11:59pm, the day before one's 21st birthday, if they get caught drinking alcohol in a bar, both the drinker and the barman will be fined heavily. That 20-year-old should not be drinking, the Government says, and presumably this is for their own good. But once that clock ticks around to 12pm, that same girl is able to legally skoll a bottle of tequila in one hit. This is regardless of whether she has ever consumed alcohol before or shown that she is fit to do so. Therefore, I propose that if someone wishes to do drugs (we'll stick with alcohol for this debate), legally then it should be irrespective of age, and they should have to prove they are: 1. Capable of handling alcohol 2. Devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol that they strive to attain and keep a licence Just like driving. Under this system, if you were 16 years old and wished to drink, and could prove yourself worthy of drinking in bars without spewing everywhere or starting fights, then you should attain a licence and be able to drink. If you were one of those 32 year-olds who hang out at bars and start fights with strangers, you would have had your licence revoked years ago or else never attained one. I'll leave my Round 1 here and I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks.