BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

I am challenging Philosophybro to this debate. I hope it will go well. Definitions: Artificial Intelligence (as defined by Searle): The claim that an "appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Computation: "process following a well-defined model understood and expressed as, for example, an algorithm, or a protocol." or to use Turing's definition of what a Turing machine does " Print "0;" erase" I;" print" I," erase "0;" move one square left; move one square right." Format: R1: Debate info and acceptance R2: My arguments followed by Con's rebuttal. Con can present arguments if they wish, but it's not required. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals Rules and Other Debate Information: No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. BOP is on me. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 2 week voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

And as I said earlier, feelings is not enough because then anyone can beat anyone which is not what we should strive for if we want a better life. And that's not necessarily true, maybe I like innocent people getting pelted with things. And my opponent has conceded they aren't objectively obnoxious and despicable. I made some arguments earlier why it was wrong to beat them because of opinions and he responded with them being objectively worthy of getting beaten which is how we got here. And like I said, he conceded it.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

You're missing the point though. I don't have to show that Trump supporters are objectively obnoxious and despicable. Feeling that they are obnoxious and despicable is enough! It's like Obama said after he won the 2008 Presidential Election: "Sometimes you have to smack a bitch." Also, please note that my opponent thinks a Trump supporter getting assaulted is funny. He would not think it's funny if he did not agree with me that Trump supporters are obnoxious and despicable.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

No objective can not mean what you want it to mean, because that's the exact opposite definition. I am not worried because the voters will agree with what I have said. Now whether it is funny, yes I have conceded because maybe I spend 23 hours a day watching Trump videos and laughing, but thats besides the point. And to say Trump is by nature something, is a fallacy. Yes I used google for my definition because you have provided no other, therefore my definition still stands. And yes I know it's about feelings which makes it not objective.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

Objective can mean whatever I want it to mean. You did not challenge my point about Trump supporter beatings producing funny videos, therefore you have conceded that point. Now, when I say objective I mean the following: "That which a reasonable person, determined by myself, would consider to be true about something." Therefore, objectively speaking, the before mentioned video demonstrates the despicable and obnoxious nature of Trump supporters. I define opinion as "a view or judgment formed by someone that disagrees with me." I see that you used Google for your definitions, but we all know that a search on Google will generate thousands of answers to a single question. I can type objective into the search bar and, if I look long enough, I can find a source that defines it in a way that contradicts your definition. Therefore, Google is not a reliable source. Furthermore, beating Trump supporters has never been about facts; beating Trump supporters has always been about feelings. I feel that Trump supporters should be beaten viciously. In addition to this, I feel that anyone that reports this debate is a secret Trump supporter. Secret Trump supporters will be administered special "secret" beatings.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

My opponent fails to know what objective means. The trump supporters I would assume don't think of themselves as such. Objective means that it is something for everyone. Objective means "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. This is clearly influenced by opinion since opinion means "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That video does not mean that it's objective that trump supporters are obnoxious, no matter how many people say so. Thus, my argument has not been refuted. If we let people fight trump supporters because of their beliefs, we are teaching people not to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. Source- Google definitions.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

My opponent assumes that I believe that Trump supporters are obnoxious and despicable because I have a negative opinion of them. My opponent then proceeds to argue that the world would descend into chaos, because anyone would be able to beat whoever they wanted to. In other words, my opponent is assuming that Trump supporters are not objectively obnoxious and despicable. Trump supporters are objectively despicable and obnoxious. Watch this video where a Trump supporters is pelted with eggs. Even thought she is getting assaulted and mobbed, she still looks obnoxious and disgusting. Also, this is hilarious and is another reason why we should viciously beat Trump supporters: hilarious Youtube videos.
We Should Beat Donald Trump Supporters

My opponent says that trump should supporters should be viciously beaten because they are obnoxious and despicable. My opponent is saying that because he has a negative opinion about them that they should get beaten. If this type of view, that we should be able to beat whoever we want is justified, then the whole world would be in chaos. I find that if you want Donald Trumps supporters to not portray negative qualities, then you shouldn't portray themselves because not only are you portraying them yourself which makes you just as bad, but you're not being an example for people to follow.
Brainstorm:should sharks be culled

since you obviously have not decided witch side you want to be on i will rebut my own argumentsArguments We clear the sea of fish, but sharks have been protected for 20 years. We have an overpopulation of hungry sharks who appear more inclined to have a go a anything. Either we need to cull the sharks or stop fishing! Too scared, too fearful, worried you might get nibbled? There is a 100% preventable way not to die. Stay on the beach!What if there are vending machines, or other dangers on the beach? "If you don't want to be eaten, don't go in the ocean" The converse logic of course being that anyone who does go in the ocean WANTS to be eaten.
Brainstorm:should sharks be culled

Slaughter sharks? I argue no way. Perhaps too many Jaws movies? Sharks are part of nature's cycle. They are an integral part of the food chain. Remove the sharks and you will end up with too many seals. Too many seals and now you have problems with the fish habitat. We don't yet totally understand nature's balance. There are instances where sharks have attacked humans. There are ways to deal with this such as nets. We are playing in their domain actually and should show respect.
This debate is pointless

Thank you, General-Z.Negative CaseMy opponent has ignored my arguments here. Hence, they are all dropped.Rebuttals"Pointless: Adjective, devoid of meaning/effectiveness"I have no idea why my opponent thought it necessary to provide another definition. This definition is congruent with the one that I used to make my negative case. Since my negative case has been dropped, my opponent's attempt to use a different definition does not impede my case and hence wins me the debate."The purpose of this debate is to see whether or not this debate is pointless, which contributes to nothing outside of this debate."The debate still has meaning within itself despite, even if this bare assertion were the case. The resolution is "This debate is pointless", NOT "This debate is pointless in the outside world"."It doesn't help progress the human race neither does it have any effect outside this website whatsoever. Therefore, this debate fits the definition of pointless according to Merriam-webster."Nowhere in my opponent's definition does it specify that meaning must relate to "progress[ing] the human race" or "have any effect outside this website whatsoever". Therefore, my opponent's stringent interpretation is incorrect via the definition that he/she gave, hence this argument is unfounded.Conclusion: Why I have won this debate My opponent drops my entire counter-case. This alone is enough for me to win this debate. Furthmore, Pro's new definition does not align with his/her new argument, so his/her case is inherently faulty, as I showed. This is why I have won the debate. Thank you for reading =)
This debate is pointless

Thank you, General-Z, for instigating this debate.Negative CaseAccording to Dictionary.com:Pointless: without force, meaning, or relevance: "a pointless remark" [1]. I maintain that the point of this debate is to debate whether this debate has meaning. In doing so, this debate acquires meaning in determining meaning. Hence, the resolution is negated. The fact that this can be debated proves that it is not pointless, or else debate would not be possible.Counter-Arguments"This debate is pointless because I, the instigator, believes it to be so."My opponent appeals to authority in this statement. In essence, my opponent claims that because he/she has declared that the debate is pointless, it becomes pointless. Merely the character making the declaration is not sufficient to render something true [2].Therefore, I have negated my opponent's argument based on exposing this fallacy, and thus my opponent has yet to fulfil his/her burden of proof.References:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...;
Should Humans eat meat

I thank Con for extending the invitation to this debate. Opening Statement. I argue the Pro position, that humans ought to consume meat, as mankind is designed to subsist on an omnivorous diet. This diet includes the consumption of meat. How our teeth are developed is a clear indication of the omnivorous design of humans, as well as is our ability to digest and process meat into needed nutrition (1). I assume the debate begins in earnest in Round #2. 1 https://www.forbes.com...
Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tom Brady

I personally despise Tom Brady being a Jets fan but some of the things in here are nonsense. No matter who plays for the patriots they are good every year. Aaron rodgers does not have the slowest wide receivers in the nfl. The data that you are referrring to is from last year and it states that Green Bay has the 26th slowest top 3 receivers. But who cares, speed is not relevant if the players cannot catch. And Brady releases the ball before the receivers on his team even have a chance to get deep. (Brady has a 2.01 second catch to release the fastest in the NFL) . I would like to know who are these speed demons that the Patriots have are because their best pass catcher Gronk is really not that fast he is big and he catches the ball. And the patriots second most yards so far this year belongs to another tight end Martellus Bennett ran a 4.68 which is slower than all of the packers starting receivers. Tom Brady is right now the best quarterback in the NFL I do not see how you can deny that. And the Patriots offensive line is nothing to speak of they are injury prone, and at one point last year they were on their 4th string guard. The only thing that Rodgers does better than Brady is move which is really not that important at the qb position.
Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tom Brady

Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. Tom Brady is not only on a team known for cheating but he is not a very good man himself. The Patriots have way better wide receivers than Green Bay but somehow Aaron Rodgers still manages to get multiple touchdowns per game. He has pulled off more miracles than any other quarterback in the NFL. Tom Brady has great timing but he also has a better line to protect him. Aaron Rodgers uses the little bit of time that he has to get things done. Yes, I agree Tom Brady seems to be amazing. But, when we really look into it, Green Bay has the slowest wide receivers in the whole NFL . Aaron Rodgers in known for his hail marys, which are extremely hard to pull off (not including the fact that the wide receivers are slow). He looks and he throws, timing and accuracy perfectly. Whereas Tom Brady has fast wide receivers and is not known for anything special. He should be more impressive ,in my opinion, to be considered the top five quarterbacks in the NFL. Keep in mind I am not even a Green Bay fan.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

With that said, lets get to my final responses. === OBSERVATIONS === Re: O1- I'll agree with my opponent, this contention has been irrelevant because we both have debated the big picture *All other observations were agreed upon by both, my opponent and I* === CONTENTIONS === My opponent concedes all three of my contentions, so flow those to the CON side. Re: Contention 4- My opponent asserts that removing AA would be a form of AA in and of itself. This, however, is a flawed idea. We're simply returning to a system that's fair and balanced and offers everyone an equal shot. I assume my opponent thinks that by removing AA means the demographics of college campuses would change drastically. The are many, many competent people in every sector of our world. Throughout all races, classes, socio-economic levels, political affiliation, religious views, etc. AA shouldn't exist at all. When you look at my answer to C1 and my C2 and C3, it's easily apparent that AA actually has a negative effect on our entire country. Getting rid of AA doesn't enforce any form of AA at all, and changing it is a bad idea because it still leads to the effects of C2 (de-valuing the worth of the degree earned by one favored under an AA policy) because someone still has to be favored. Anytime you favor someone, you exclude someone who might've gotten in without the AA policy, and this destroys ingenuity. Fixing it is not a option, and getting rid of AA would lead to several benefits (the avoidance of all the negative effects of all 3 contentions my opponent conceded). To comply with my opponents requests (". .. to negate it, my opponent would have to show that neither of these implementations of AA is what should happen, and something else should happen instead that cannot be classified as AA. ") I've shown that abolition of AA should happen, and that it doesn't spark a different kind of AA, and that fixing it is an impossibility. To answer the third part, showing something else that should happen instead, I think a plan like the following should be implemented. On college admissions forms, remove the race box. That should be irrelevant. Next, keep names secret (not trying to be stereotypical, but some names have obvious ethnic backgrounds, especially last names) and have a college admissions board choose, truly unbiased, based only on accomplishments, and in no way on race. With that, I'll conclude my speech, and thus, this debate. Thanks to my opponent, beem0r, for the debate, and a thanks in advance to the judges.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Go ahead and extend case. I have nothing further to add at this point, so i'll use this round to reiterate my arguments. C1: AA is just reverse discrimination. It's not just to attempt to correct the past by punishing the present. Minorities have faced discrimination in the past, I don't think anyone can deny that, but it's against America to favor anyone over anyone. This makes it against America to practice AA. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. " When you value minorities over the majority, you destroy that equal creation. We need to stop living in the past. Yes, we've all done some bad things in the past, but reversing the roles today won't help anything, and as later contentions prove, it makes things worse. C2: By practicing AA, you destroy any meaning of its accomplishments. Instead of bringing to the publics eye just how competent minorities are, you create the image that they aren't good enough to get into college on their own, and they need government assistance. You essentially build yet another barrier to those who face discrimination. C3: When you practice AA, you undoubtedly exclude some definitely worthy students. Colleges can only accept so many people, and when they have to reserve spots, you take up some of those spots. America is a country that has (since WWII) been recognized as a superpower. Slowly, we've been losing this spot, and having ingenuity is a huge factor. By excluding these ingenious people out of the college of their choice, you destroy this ingenuity and the whole country suffers as a result. As I said in the comments section, I don't mind if my opponent posts a new argument or two in the final round. Once again, as long as it realistically fits in the character limit, it's cool.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

I stand in affirmation of the resolution. Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. ==== DEFINITIONS ==== D1: Affirmative action (heretoforth referred to as AA): action favouring those who tend to suffer from discrimination. [1] [1]Oxford Dictionary, . http://www.askoxford.com... ==== OBSERVATIONS ==== O1: To affirm the resolution, PRO need not show that AA should be practiced in ALL college admissions. If it should be practiced in any considerable group of college admissions, then the resolution is affirmed. O2: To affirm the resolution, PRO need not support a specific implementation of AA - PRO is free to choose to support any implementation that fulfills the resolution. O3: AA does not refer to any specific groups of people, it simply refers to people who tend to suffer from discrimination. If a person does not suffer from discrimination, AA cannot be given to that person. O4: If by the end of this debate there is at least one resolutional advocacy that has not been negated, then the resolution is affirmed. CON's burden will be to negate every resolutional contention PRO brings up, where PRO is required merely to have one undefeated argument that affirms the resolution. ==== CONTENTIONS ==== C1: AA PROMOTES EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. As noted in D1, affirmative action applies only to those who "tend to suffer from discrimination. " People who "tend to be discriminated against" tend to have opportunities taken from them. Therefore, in the interest of everyone having equal opportunities, AA seems like a balancing factor. In fact, the extent to which this implementation of AA gives extra opportunities can be directly balanced against the amount of opportunity that person has had unfairly taken from them due to discrimination. In this sense, it is like a type of 'reverse' discrimination, the equal and opposite force necessary to put a person's opportunity equation back into equilibrium. = I reserve the right to add another contention or two next round. This is not an abusive tactic, since I have not and will not be flooding my opponent with more arguments than he can realistically argue against in 8000 characters.
Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines

At this point, the debate is over. Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link: . https://www.chop.edu...One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page. Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate.
Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines

I accept. Resolved: Should doctors be allowed to be allowed to give you vaccines? I'd like to note, of course, that my adversary misspelled "allowed" when crafting this resolution. "Aloud" is not a verb, and clearly we can draw "allowed" from this resolution and his opening remarks contextually. With that said, let's define "allowed": "to permit (something) : to regard or treat (something) as acceptable" [1]. Note that to allow is to permit, NOT to mandate. Simply because a doctor is allowed to administer a vaccine to a patient does not allow him or her to mandate it nor to require it. That is up to the patient. By prohibiting doctors from giving you or recommending vaccines, not only are you denying people the right to self-defense, but you are restricting freedom of choice. People should be able to do as they wish provided that they don't hurt others, so therefore patients should be allowed to accept or request from a doctor a vaccine. Not to mention, vaccines provide a substantive benefit to our lives in preempting harmful, vicious diseases. Con's opening remarks, however, are highly deceptive. First, allowing doctors to give vaccines does not require that patients, kids included, undergo it. Second, it isn't even a regular procedure, but even if it were, you're allowed to deny it. Third, especially in the case of kids, parents are making these decisions, and prohibiting doctors from giving vaccines is undermining parental authority, not to mention casting a blind eye to advancements in medicine. I'll pass back to Con at this moment, as he hasn't offered much substantive argumentation in Round 1, so I don't feel the need to go into more detail at this point. [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism

Thank you for that response. Moving to more arguments. My opponent argues that can be is not and what. I would like to counter that can be is and that. My opponent also argues that the Joker is no more real than Bug’s Bunny. This may be true, however, that does not mean that my point is wrong. My point is that you can be reason that it is moral to break the law. For example, tax laws are too high, therefore it is okay for me to take loopholes to lower my taxes. Or I am in need, therefore, it is moral for me to rob a convenience store. Are they moral? Well, the second one is. I don’t really care about the government though. But yeah, hurting someone else to supply your own needs is generally considered immoral as it’s an infringement on someone else’s rights and property. However, you can reason that it’s okay to do that due to circumstances. I would also like to point out that he didn’t address my argument about other moralities. Oh man, there’s so many things I want to say, and I don’t even know where to start. Okay, here we go: “how can you be moral if you cant do the right thing?” – my opponent. So this argument questions assuming that something is definitely right, but the debate is about determining how we decide what is right. Unless I completely misunderstood. I don’t know. I honestly am not sure about what my opponent is trying to say. He seems to be really incoherent. I’m sorry, that’s probably poor conduct to start talking like that during the debate. Um, I don’t know what else I want to say. It can all be summed up in, “My opponent has no coherent thought process, sentence structure, or arguments that I can determine. Thus the fact that I oppose him makes me the winner.” Thank you for reading.
able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism

you are either able to reason or not, can be is not what immorality is unresonAble does the joker have the choice to, lets say, settle? like a normal family man, not doing any crimes, having a normal life.. btw the joker is as real as bugs bunny how can you be moral if you cant do the right thing? it might be right to kill the kid with the deadly poisonous mushroom, but then its not immoral, because its not wrong