BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People are born without any talents.

First, we do know that the meaning of every adjective is relatively. When everyone in the word can do the same thing, you are only "good" at it if you do it better. It has to be better than the normal standard. For example, when the average GPA of high school students in your country is 2.5/4, if you have the GPA of 2.5 or 2.6 then you are normal, nothing special, you are only called "good" if you have the GPA of 2.9 or 3.0. Another example, when the average height of men in your country is 1,7m, then you must be 1,8m to be called "tall". By that, "good memory" I mean have the better ability to remember thing than the normal standard. Your last argument did nothing but pointing out a different way of understand the word "good". Second, I can see that you are changing your idea by saying "mostly people are born with abilities in order to create their talents!", which is OBVIOUSLY opposite of your first ideas "Everything comes after born." and "People are born without any talents." It means you are agree with me that "People are born WITH talents", isn't it?!
People are born without any talents.

I believe that mostly people are born with good memory, with quickly understanding skills. For example, you know how children since borning faster can learn any language, remember evething etc. But it is not a talent! It is ability of everyody! Talent it is when one person do someting better than others!Then who can keep these abilities depend from person! From these follow that mostly people are born with abilities in order to create their talents!
People are born without any talents.

First of all, if you think that it's only need one person (in your argument, you said "the person" and "he") to write a dictionary which has descriptions for approximately 600,000 words (the Oxford English Dictionary is the world's most comprehensive single-language print dictionary according to the Guinness Book of World Records.), then you are wrong. And yes, of course, they did the research (indirect research, not direct) when they write the definition. They sent thousand of letters to the leading experts and professors, read thousands of research and scientific articles. From your argument, I see you have read Wikipedia to learn about Thomas Edison. You said you read a lot about him but you didn't even learn how to write his name. It's Thomas not Tomas, and you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. By the ways, should we choose to trust in Wikipedia - a free content encyclopedia (which means everyone can log on and change the content) rather than Oxford and Cambridge? Secondarily, you said talent is the result of the affect of the environment around us. And we also know that same affect lead to the same result. That means if people grow in the same or similar environment, they're gonna have the same or similar talent. That also means if you give a person the environment that support his/her to has a talent, his/her will "learn" that talent. But you also said "of course we cannot learn somebody to this or that talents". What is that? You have the same environment and talent is the result of the environment affect, but you still grow up with different talents. If it not the environment - the nurture, then what makes the different? Nothing but the nature. Thirdly, as I said before, you have a confusion between "talent" and "succeed" or "achievement". The example you gave: built a house, cure somebody... is the achievement. Talent is the nature ability that help people do it more effectively (the ability to feel the rhythms, sense of space, location and structure, high IQ, good memory... which are in our gene). People are born with talents. But it needs not only talent but other factors to become succeed, to make a achievement like built the house, play the violin...
People are born without any talents.

Yes I see the definition of "talent". It is just definition that people can understand what does this word mean. Do you think that the person (who wrote this dictionary) before writing the definition of "talent" did he conduct the researches on human, determine it is natural or come from influencing a lot of things around us? Do you think so? I cannot believe to this definition. There are people who can support me that talent does not come from nature. About Tomas Edison. I have already read a lot about him and learned his biography. So, he was born like "problem child". In the Wikipedia says that Tomas in his childhood had problems with health: problem with hearing, scarlet disease and with education. So he was in school only 3 months. From the Wikipedia: "Edison recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother taught him at home. Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy"". It means her mother was for him like a motivation. His mother every time supported and believed him. Also when he had a free time during working like a seller at the station, he went to the library and read a lot, he wanted to read all of these books. Furthermore, his teachers in the school influenced him too. They said that Tomas will not achieve anything. And their words moved him to prove that he can everything. Sometimes it occurs with us. Let"s agree with me! Therefore I want to say that Tomas Edison"s surrounding influenced him to be the great inventor, especially his mother. Of course we cannot learn somebody to this or that talents. It comes from (as I already said) influencing all thing around us! I think all of us have a talent. I do not say from the nature. Just". the brain all of us is divided humanitarian and technical skills. And which of it we will develop in our life experience and further we go by this way. We are developing, learning and so forth. Anyway to find our talent to something we should learn and work harder. Well can you say me one person who born with talent and immediately built the home or play the violin or cured somebody?
People are born without any talents.

1. "Everything comes after born" Before debating on whether or not people are born with talents, we must know the definition of the word "talent". In Oxford English Dictionary, talent is defined as a natural ability to do something well. Cambridge Dictionary said talent is a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught. As you know, these two are two of the most trusted dictionaries, and you can find the same definition in all the other. Talent is natural, without being taught. Talent is in the genes. I think you have a confusion between "talent" and "succeed". Yes, succeed is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors. But "talent" is only about genetic. 2. "in general, people born in this world similarly like other people: without any talents, without any potential." "already from your born everything around influence you." But how that explain why Thomas Edison, who had been kicked out of school and couldn't finish primary school, who has banned to read books by his father can became the greatest inventor in the world history? What made him become an inventor is not the external effects, it is his natural gift (smart and have strong will). If talent is come from the influence of other people, Thomas Edison could never become an inventor. 3. As I have proved in the first paragraph, talent is natural, without being taught. It is in the genes. You can't transfer it to another person. You can train one person's talent to make him/her become better but you can't give talent to a person who doesn't have it. For example, if you give a sprinter who is 145cm tall with short legs, wide hips and large upper bodies the better training condition, he still can't never beat the 187cm tall-sprinter who has long legs, narrow hips and small upper bodies.
People are born without any talents.

Nature or nurture? I know it"s very debatable question among humanity and of course you may don"t agree with me. But I"ll try to prove my position. Everything comes after born. Nobody prescribes your destiny like this future man will have such talent and that man such talent. No! Nobody. So from my point of view, in general, people born in this world similarly like other people: without any talents, without any potential. Everybody formulates yourself since their born. It means that already from your born everything around influence you. You formulate your character, your potentials to something, and your views to the world etc. For instance, our one of the greatest Kazakh writers is Abay Kunanbayev. His talent to writing influenced his grandmother " Zere and mother "Ulzhan. They just read to him every night different interesting books. Moreover they could read stories very interestingly. And it was the reason that Abay started interested in writing. Another example, one of the well-known and talented compositors " Ludwig van Beethoven. His father was compositor too. So Beethoven grew up among musical instrument and in the future becoming a great compositor influence his father. Even people do not born as healer or as a medium. They are becoming like that growing up during their life. The reason becoming a medium can be: apparent death, after kind of catastrophe or accident. Finally, a lot of things formulate from the very beginning, including upbringing and surrounding. The childhood play more huge and important role in becoming talented and great.
Rap Debate- Obama (pro) vs Bush (con)

Bush-Well I tried to be bipartisan, I tried to make amendsBut let's just put this presidential prop of the media to end!You keep making jabs at me, you keep talking about me being derangedGetting you thrown out of office is something I can arrange.The Senate reached out to you, but you turned them away.Instead you just went off on your own to let illegals into the U.S. of A.You said you'll stand with the Muslims, but they're our enemies!Talking about change, you just raised a few pennies at your charities!You don't salute the flag, you don't respect our country.You didn't build our businesses, you don't deserve our money.You don't give a damn about America at the end of the dayBecause all you want to do is go to the greens and play!And if you think, boy, that I'm ever going to surrenderI'm not giving up, like the War on Terror!
Rap Debate- Obama (pro) vs Bush (con)

Serve the nation? Big business and oil maybe I didn't know starving them was giving them food stamps and health food Rather have a bunch of poor beach balls as our next generation? Bring America back together? Soap and mud can't clean a car It's clear I need to make the change You were already in office Even if you could to again You'd just worsen the nation Yell about me not getting stuff done? Tell that to the Republican senate One more round That's all I have to go But it might be better to surrender now Save yourse
Rap Debate- Obama (pro) vs Bush (con)

Bush- What are you talking about boy? Can't point out any real issues? Lemme show you your poll numbers, and also, a box of tissues. I wasn't elected to serve one party I served the whole nation! And there's no chance I'll ever let you become its damnation. ISIS kills three Americans, and you just call it a tragedy But you don't have the balls to deal with the killers gallantly. Your wife's starving the country's children, and I've made a promise to them That I won't leave them behind, like you and Michelle did. Only elected by the color of your skin, not by the content of your character But I'll be the bigger man, and put forth my hand in the hopes that we can make things better We can bring America back to its former glory, not you, not me, but together!
Rap Debate- Obama (pro) vs Bush (con)

Bush- Well hey, look who's talking- the man who's always stalking the American people You're manipulating them into your sheeple You're expanding pointless rules and regulations and smashing the nation's foundations You're allowing illegal immigration and procuring high stagflation You're too scared to take a stand against our enemies in Iran You say you'll work with Congress but vetoing every bill ain't making any progress! You don't mess with Texas and you'd better not mess with me- Motherf*cking George Walker B!
The age of consent should be eliminated

1) "Too young", however, changed with individuals, and shouldn't be dictated across an entire jurisdiction based upon chronological age. We should not force everyone to conform to the lowest common denominator. (As to your statement that anybody would teach a three-year-old, you're currently right-- but only because there's no reason to (and they'd likely be accused of being a pï¿½dophile.) 2) You're making moral judgements now, though. If it's consensual, it should be legal, even if you find it distasteful. 3) Even if the sex offenders registry were eliminated, there would still be the concern of prison violence. Other inmates would only be told that their new companion was a "child molester", with no explanation given. They would likely not have time to explain themselves.
The age of consent should be eliminated

1) Now we know that some people are too young to even be educated on sex and protection. Something makes me doubt anybody will teach a three year old about sex. Or for that matter a three year old can interpret what a person is saying. 2) Molestation doesn't always have to be about rape. A two year old will likely consent to his or her father and mother. It is not considered rape although it is completely wrong. I personally am not against changing the registry system. I personally think registering is wrong. You went to prison and did your time already. If they have a problem with sexual offenders after prison than make them spend more time in prison. I think the age of consent should be lowered and revised so a 18 year old doesn't go to prison for having sex with a 16 year old. Of course I am just arguing with you because I think there still should be some age of consent.
The age of consent should be eliminated

1) True, but many girls over the age of twelve (or any age of consent) can get pregnant without being fully aware of the consequences of sex. 2) It's true that currently many young people are not fully aware of what sex is. But this would change should young people legally be permitted to have sex. Sexual education efforts would have reason to aim towards people who gain the right to give legal consent. 3) Well of course. Many people, in general, are unaware of the consequences of unprotected sex. I'm not trying to assign young people superhuman powers here. 4) There is a difference between child molestation and consensual sex. I'm not trying to defend molesters, I just don't want someone who has consensual sex to be grouped with molesters! There have been many situations in which two people have consensual sex, but, because one of them is legally considered too young, the other is sent to prison and placed on the sex offenders registry for life (in one case, they were murdered by a vigilante). This decreases the reliability and perception of such registries.
The age of consent should be eliminated

I accept your challenge. The age of consent shouldn't be eliminated because.... 1) Many girls below the age of 12 can get pregnant but be fully unaware of the consquences of sex. 2) Many little kids don't even know what sex is when they consent to it. 3) Many kids are unaware of the consquences of unprotected sex. 4) Child molestation can damage a person as they get older. I really can't believe I am debating this.
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

my opponent has presented several of his proofs to try to show that 0.999... equals one. I will refute them in order. 1. You said that If 1 and 0.999... are not equal, then we should be able to find a distinct number in between them. There is a number between them but it is not a finite number. It is 0.9999.....1. We call it infinitesimally small. 2. Your second argument is also flawed. If you press 0.33333333 x 3 into googles calculator, you get 1 and not 0.999.. This is because it rounds up to 1 because 0.99999.... goes to infinity 3. Your equation follows: x=0.99999....... We multiply both sides by ten and get 10x=9.99999...... We then subtract x from both sides 9x=9 This is because we subtract the original x value which is 0.999.... from both sides and the result is x=1 Great, sounds really convincing but unfortunately there is just a bit more to it than that. Suppose we used the same math in the same equation except we have infinitely many nines going off to the left. This time the equation will go as follows: ..........9999999999999=x we multiply both sides by 10 and we get ...........9999999999990=10x But look at that. ......99999990 is the original x value minus the final 9 x-9=10x -9=9x x=-1 So this equation is telling me that .......999999999 equals -1. Do you believe that? Most people think that the first equation is fine, but then they look at the second equation and think what I did is ridiculous. But it is exactly the same mathematics so you can't just pick and choose when it is right and when it is wrong. If you believe 1=0.9999... then you also must believe that ......999999=-1. But let's make matters worse. Let do an equation with infinitely many 9's going of to the right and left. The equation looks as follows: ........9999999.99999999......=x We multiply both sides by 10 ........99999999.9999999......=10x We subtract the original x value from both sides and get 0=10x-....9999.999999..... ......99999.99999.... is the original x value the equation is now 0=10x-x We simplify and get 0=9x We divide both sides by 9 and get x=0 So this is telling me that ....9999.99999.... equals 0. Honestly, do you believe that? The same mathematics is being applied to different circumstances and because it cannot be false in some and true and others, you must choose to either believe all cases have a meaningful answer, like -1, 1, or 0, or there isn't a meaningful answer because we have the concept of infinity in each equation. 4. It is the same as 1. Another thing, let me show you a fundamental flaw in your equations. You assume that infinity minus infinity equals 0. This is not true and I will use a simple equation to prove it. First let's assume you are correct. Infinity minus infinity equals 0. Infinity-infinity=0 Lets add 25 to both sides. Infinity plus 25 equals infinity infinity-infinity=25 0=25 obviously 0 does not equal 25, so the equation is incorrect. This shows that infinity minus infinity does not equal 0.
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

My opponent seems to have misunderstood the concept of actual infinity and mistaken it for potential infinity. It is correct, that if there was a "0." followed by a limited amount of 9s, it would never equal 1. However, if there is an unlimited amount of 9s following the "0.", then it does equal 1. To prove this I will present a few mathematical proofs that 0.999... equals 1: 1. Reductio ad absurdum: If 1 and 0.999... are not equal, then we should be able to find a distinct number in between them (their average). There is, however, no number in between 0.999... and 1. Therefore, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument that proves that 0.999... can not not equal 1 and thus 0.999... equals 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The decimal expansion for 1/3: 1/3 = 0.333... 0.333... * 3= 1/3 * 3 = 0.999... = 3/3 = 1 Therefore 0.999... equals 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Subtracting off the infinite sequence: x = 0.999... |*10 10x = 9.999... 10x = 9 + 0.999... 10x = 9 + x | -x 9x = 9 |"9 x = 1 Therefore 0.999... equals 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Arithmetic proof: 1-0.999... = 0.000... Since any number subtracted from an equal value is zero, 0.999... equals 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, there are more proofs that 0.999... equals 1 but the four that I have presented should be sufficiently convincing and unless Con manages to refute them all I have affirmed the resolution that 0.999... does equal 1. Sources of arguments: Norton, Anderson & Baldwin, Michael. (2018). Does 0.999" Really Equal 1?. Math Wiki. (2018). Proof:The Decimal 0.999... is Equivalent to 1. [online] Available at: http://math.wikia.com... [Accessed 15 Jul. 2018].
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

The primary argument people use to prove that 0.9999... does not equal one is very simple. If you take 0.9 it is shy of one, if you take 0.99 it is still shy of one, if you take 0.999 it is still shy of one and so on. No matter how far you go down the line 0.999999.... will still be shy of one. It goes on for infinity but 0.9999999.... will never be one. It would be like this. If you walked 10 feet away from a wall and go half the distance to the wall each time you will never reach it. First you get within 5 feet of the wall, then 2.5 feet of the wall, then 1.25 feet of the wall, then 0.625 feet of the wall, and so on. Same thing with 9's. No matter how many 9's you go down the whole number 0 will never be one.
The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.

Since my opponent has fore-fitted this round I will take this opportunity to voice my opinions on the topic without sources. I feel the first 2 sources were compelling enough in my opening statement. I feel that there is a bias of social class when it comes to health care to begin with. The low income jobs that actually offer benefits are very few and far between. That being said when benefits are offered to low income individuals the premiums(in my experience) take roughly 1/10 of income for decent coverage. Along with the minimum wage guidelines it would be near impossible to maintain a steady household with insurance and other necessities. Basically I'm saying that if you have a high income job you probably have great coverage on insurance. Therefore never having to worry about if you get hurt. If you were to become ill without insurance you pay an astronomical bill. It's a system of maintaining the social classes with minimal opportunity for advancement.
The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the issue of why the US Government should grant universal healthcare. My opponent states that "Universal healthcare should not be granted by the US Government". Although the reasoning is unclear, I would like to point out that universal healthcare is already implemented in some countries along with private healthcare optionally available(a). The main focus should be the well being of American citizens. If one were fall ill, or to injury, they should have access to be treated, otherwise who knows what other problems will arise from one incident.According to (b)over 15%(46.3 million) of Americans are uninsured, 10% of which have been uninsured for over a year. There is also much to be said about low income jobs with insurance availability, unpaid medical expenses, and healthcare cost in general. A: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare B: www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-number-americans-without-health-insurance-coverage-
Religious indoctrination of children

I argue that children should not be indoctrinated into their parents religion. While children are technically free to choose their own religion once they reach adulthood being raised in a certain religion can make the process biased, painful, and unnecessarily alienating. It's wrong to imbue opinions on impressionable children who aren't capable of making informed decisions and accept what trusted adults tell them as fact. The best course of action would be to wait until a child is old enough to make rational decisions and then expose them to a wide range of religions and let them choose one, none, or a mixture of religious principles.