BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

"My opponent's source does not show Egyptians and Proto-Semitic peoples bowing to OreEle, but to Wikipedia." Oh yeah, I see it now, it must have been the way my computer screen was angled. I still have 2 arguments left to prove my point, I will only present 1 here, and 1 in round 5 (that way we make sure that we have stuff to argue). Note, that in the first round I said "pie = 8.54 (approximately)" with "approximately" being the key word. approximately means "1 : located close together 2 : nearly correct or exact " [1] note that in the definition of approximate, there is nothing concrete about that definition, the word "close" and "nearly" are entirely upto personal opinion. And as I am the one who started this debate, only I know what I meant in the orginal statement. Now, I'm sure my opponent will make a counter argument involving significant figures, and while I know that they are a common way of determining what is approximate and what is not, they are not the only way, nor the way that I intended. I would also like to point out that in my argument that pie cannot be imaginary, that it must be real, is due to the fact that we have pie in the real world, it does not only exist in paper and in theories, therefore it must have a real value. My opponent has done nothing to counter this argument, only said that no it doesn't. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

My opponent claims that I am contradicting myself. However, I am merely saying that the value of pie is completely ambiguous, and therefore cannot be affirmed to be 8.54. It could just as easily, if not more easily, be 2.22, 2.72iE-12, or 1187780. Java merely defined pie in two different ways. One method was the double "pie," while the other was found by multiplying the ASCII values of the letters 'p', 'i', and 'e'. My opponent's source does not show Egyptians and Proto-Semitic peoples bowing to OreEle, but to Wikipedia. My opponent claims that he is justified in writing out pi to represent the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a circle because he is not Greek. However, all people who learn math write pi in Greek when it is used in a math problem, even those that are not Greek [1]. The reason is because pi in a math problem is the multiplication of the values of p and i. My opponent claims that pie must have a true value. However, imaginary numbers such as pie (p * i * e) do not have true values. The product pie is an imaginary number, and must therefore have an imaginary value. As pie is not a true number, it need not have a true value. In conclusion, pie is either a double equivalent to 2.22, an ASCII product of 1187760, or an imaginary product 2.72iE-12. My opponent has failed to affirm the idea of pie approximating 8.54. With that, I'll leave it to my opponent to come up with a valid proof of the resolution. 1. http://by.genie.uottawa.ca...
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

My opponent has made a major mistake. He went from saying "As one can clearly tell from the provided picture, pie does not equal 8.54, but instead 2.22. The resolution is negated." in round 1 to "Therefore, p*i*e, or pie, is equal to 2.72iE-12." to "p*i*e = 1187760" in round 2. He has said that p*i*e = 1187760 and 2.72iE-12, thus contradicting himself. He also used the same program, java, to say that pie is both 2.22 and 1187760, thus having java contradict itself. Within CON's own support (his 2. in round 2), shows clearly in it that the ancients agree with me on pie and bow before me. Both the Egyptians and who ever the Proto-Semitic people are are shown bowing to me [1]. [1] http://cheezburger.com... But beyond that pi, is traditionally written with the greek letter, but I'm not greek, therefore, it is understandable and expected for me to translate it to english (thus "pi"). And even though the letter itself is greek (regardless as to if I'm greek or not), we're in America and everything that comes here needs to adjust to us and our native language. On to my argument... A lot of different numbers for pie have been thrown up, but what is the true number for pie? Well, what is truth? "(2) the body of real things, events, and facts" [2] So how can something imaginary be truth? Of course, I'm referring to "i". How can pie be equal to something that is imaginary? This means that anything that is imaginary could be true. Logic will tell us imaginary is not true. But if more is needed, "1 a : existing only in imagination : lacking factual reality" [3]. So we know that imaginary cannot be true, and therefore not the true definition. So pie cannot equal anything with "i" in it. [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... I shall save my trump card for the 5th round and pass this on to my opponent.
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

First things first. My opponent claims that Pie.java might not be accurate. However, that is impossible. The double pie is whatever I declare it to be in the program. If java stores the value of 2.22 in the memory space labeled "pie," then pie = 2.22. My opponent claims that java is not capable of defining pie. This is a lie. Defining variables is what java programs do. I just so happened to define pie as 2.22. Therefore, the value of pie is 2.22, and not 8.54. My opponent claims that the statement... pie ...can be said to be equivelant to... pi*e He claims that this is because * is not needed to express multiplication for variables. However, in mathematics, the value for pi is always expressed by pi's symbol, http://eric22222.files.wordpress.com.... Just saying pi is actually a multiplication of p and i. My opponent claims that my proposed constant, pie, is invalid, but his own proposed constant, pi, is valid. However, saying "pie" is more likely to reference to pie than pi * e. However, it's even more likely that all three of the letters are constants: p, short for pico, is 10E-12 [1]. i, the imaginary unit, is the square root of -1 [3]. e, short for Euler's number, is approxomately 2.72 [2]. Therefore, p*i*e, or pie, is equal to 2.72iE-12. Or, of course, we could multiply the three letters together in java: http://www.debate.org... p*i*e = 1187760 Again, pie =/= 8.54. My opponent then posts a picture, claiming that it proves his ownership of pie. However, that picture is actually talking about me, not my opponent. I am the one who owns both pi and pie. I look forward to your argument, OreEle. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...- 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_constant) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

Since java is nothing but a program, only capable of doing what it is programed to do. I believe the program itself, rather then a snapshot of it, should be submitted for the testing of its accuracy and potential truthfulness. But, even assuming that it is being accurate (which will later be challenged), what gives it the authority the define pie? What makes java the definer? I submit that java is not capable of defining pie, since all components of pie (being pi and e or p, i, and e) have long since been defined before java even existed. now the reason that pie = 8.54 (approx) is due to pi*e, (3.14)[1]*(2.71)[2] (approx) and when working with non-number numbers (if you can follow that, lol) the "*" is not needed to express multiplication, where as with numbers it is, 2*6 cannot be written as 26. [1] . http://www.google.com...= [2] . http://www.google.com...= I then submit then I control pie, because I own it, picture provided below. [3] [3] . http://images.cheezburger.com...
Transferring our minds into artificial brains

Although my opponent forfeited, I would like to clarify two points. Firstly, the physical chemistry of the brain (neurotransmitters, peptides, etc. ) would not only be easy to replicate, but replicating them in a computer would be entirely unnecessary. The brain is already practically a computer; the mechanism by which the brain functions does not need to be replicated in a computerized brain. In addition, the question posed is not whether a robot thinks like a human; rather, it is simply a question of whether or not a human brain could be stored as information on a computer in such a way that it can continue to interact with the environment and gather information from its surroundings, a relatively easy task.
Transferring our minds into artificial brains

In fact, emotions would be rather simple to replicate after we discover the necessary technologies. Firstly, the article that I linked in my previous argument is already more complex than a human brain. Additionally, emotions are simply based on probability. As an example: say that you must decide whether or not to join a club. The real you would make the decision based on a set of emotional cues. The computer could also do this; by finding the probability that you would join the club, it could decide this. It could also perform this task by analyzing the entire situation, deciding which emotions would be evoked, and deciding whether or not to join the club accordingly. As you stated, the fundamental needs (oxygen, food, etc.) and desires would be necessary in the artificial you. Despite this, I contend that these would both be simple to replicate in a computer. Assuming that the computer could sense the same things in the outside world that a human could, they would be able to accurately simulate the reactions of that human. In addition, all human features, including self-awareness, are generally thought to have derived from evolution. Because simpler creatures that are not self aware exist, and because it is thought that humans evolved from these creatures, one must conclude that self-awareness evolved at some point. On a final note, I contend that, in your final example, both computers would be you. To illustrate this, imagine that there are two of you in a room with an ice cream sundae in the middle. You agree to flip a coin, and one of you wins, while one loses. The one that wins gets the ice cream, while the one that loses does not. They are both still you; the only difference is that one has the ice cream.
Transferring our minds into artificial brains

I counter that it would be possible to transfer our minds to a computer. Because you did not provide a definition of mind, I will use the one in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism." In essence, this would be a set of all of the knowledge and experience of the person combined with their personality. Based on this definition, I think that it would be possible to upload our minds into computers. This is mainly because it already functions like a computer. The brain takes in information from the surroundings, converts it into electrical nerve impulses, processes them, and reacts. Similarly, many machines also function by responding to a stimulus. While the technology needed may be far off, this article (http://www.popsci.com...) shows that we are making considerable headway in this field. Additionally, clones do not necessarily behave similarly. The currently accepted theory is that one's personality results partially from nature and partially from nurture; in other words, that experiences affect one's personality. If the two clones have any experiences that are not exactly identical, then from that point they would become intrinsically and irreversibly different. Finally, the phantom limb phenomenon is not evidence against, but rather in favor of our ability to computerize our brains. It shows that the mind can be tricked into thinking that something that is not there, is there. This shows that we could trick a brain into believing that it was in a body, when in reality it was just a computer.
Transferring our minds into artificial brains

I don't think it's possible, we as individuals have singular minds. How could you upload your mind to an artifical brain while still being conscious. You would still be conscious in your mind as you have it. If you awaken your artificial mind, would it be you? Not likely. If it was, it would think exactly the same things as you when you think them, as how else could it be you? If it was possible to upload your mind into an artificial brain and it did result in an exact clone of you, you could say it was you, but a clone nonetheless. It would also prove or disprove the existence of fate/destiny. If fate/destiny is real, it would mean that regardless of how many copies of your mind you upload into artificial brains, they would all think exactly the same thing at the same time, as otherwise fate/destiny doesn't exist, as it proposes a preordained path in life, exact replica of thought patterns example. Which would be nullified if even one copy of your mind has a different thought pattern to your original you. If transferring your mind into an artificial mind was done when you were unconscious and you die, and wake up in your artificial mind, then you could argue that it is possible, but consider the phantom limb problem. People with amputated limbs can sometimes feel their amputated limbs are still there, but phantom or not, they are still connected to that person's mind/brain. Mind transfer to an artificial brain, would in essence be phantom brain with an extension, as it would take your mind away from your brain completely, and create a phantom brain, but if it is not linked to your original brain, as people with the sensation of phantom limbs are, then is it likely?
The Sabbath hasn't been abolished, but has a role in prophecy

It's commonly taught that the Sabbath has been completely abolished, however i have come to disagree based on the following. Matt. 5:17-18"17 Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah until this creation is done away with. Which laws are still valid today? Many quote Colossians 2:16-17 "16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." Most likely, this is addressing Gnostic teachings as they introduced holidays not mentioned in the Torah (1). The Greek word used for substance is Soma which refers to the body of Christ or his church (2). This passage does not rule out Sabbath observance nor does it support it. Isaiah 66 explains of a time when the Temple of Jerusalem would be restored (v. 6 and 10). The Levite priesthood would also be restored and this time with Gentiles being allowed to worship as priests. Isaiah 66:19-2319 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. 21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord. 22 “For as the new heavens and the new earthWhich I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,“So shall your descendants and your name remain.23 And it shall come to passThat from one New Moon to another,And from one Sabbath to another,All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord." All of the nations and Jews would come and worship God at the new creation as the Sabbaths are observed. While the measurements of time are different in the new creation, time is still measured. Pay close attention to the following verses: Rev. 22:1-2"1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. "The Scriptures do not say that there will be no time, simply that there will be sun or moon or death. In summary, no where does Jesus explicitly tell us to not follow the Sabbath nor does he tell us to observe it. Sources: 1. http://www.thepearl.org...2. http://www.ucg.org...
Is there such a thing as Love.

Well we're debating. And you've wasted 95 words. Love: A strong feeling of affection. I'm proposing, that the flippant overindulged, socio-conceptual use of the term love is meaningless. I would suggest that, the way that we use the word love in a social context is not representative of the reality of the situation we are trying to define. The situations/emotions we are trying to define are actually sub-conscious, instinctive and physiologically derived. So, when in moments of passion we blurt out the phrase "I love you". We are not honestly describing the reality of the situation.
Is there such a thing as Love.

3 Open rounds. A maximum of 100 words per round. Con proposes that, love is an overused descriptive word. Used when trying to consciously explain, subconscious physiological responses to a variety of different situations. For example: The love for a partner is not the same as the love of ice cream. The love of a partner, actually represents an instinctive reproductive or pair bonding response, or the gratification of these responses. A love of ice cream is actually representative of an instinctive response to hunger gratification or the conscious thoughts of hunger gratification.
god doesn't deserve your worship - to all religions

"there is nothing evil about a rapist raping someone ", if this truly is the ethics of god, why worship god?Just because you disagree with your friend doesn't mean you can't like them. Just because you disagree with your enemy doesn't mean you like them. Just because you disagree with God doesn't mean you can't adore and respect him to a level that we consider worship. I simply can say I enjoy worshipping God and that is reason enough. this is human nature, why else do we have lawThere is no criminal on Earth who doesn't think what they are doing is a 'good' idea or thing to do when they do it. Good and bad/evil are purely subjective notions. To the mother stealing for her family to eat, she's doing a very good thing, this has nothing to do with law.this 'reality god created' allows us to differentiate good from badNo it doesn't. Good is what god says is good, there is no part of the equation where one's own morals should form. If they do, one is worshipping God nonetheless but simply altering what God really meant from what the scripture directly says. why worship the being who created the demons to haunt and destroy our souls?If that being is capable of doing all that, imagine what it is capable of doing to you if you don't worship it. Avoiding unfathomably severe punishment is motive enough.
god doesn't deserve your worship - to all religions

"there is nothing evil about a rapist raping someone ", if this truly is the ethics of god, why worship god? " good and evil being a thing in the first place" - this is human nature, why else do we have law, this 'reality god created' allows us to differentiate good from bad, we as the creations of god are able to identify them and so indirectly it was too created by god, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. everything you just said in your previous statement just proves my point why worship the god who doesn't just allow the devil to tempt the weak, he controls everything and makes the devil tempt them, then sends you to hell for actually doing what he wants? and according to you we should be in awe of how incredible gods strangle hold on our destiny is and simply accept, no even worship god for this fact, its almost like admiring a diplomat for dictating your own country to war and ruin then campaign for their re-election. why worship the being who created the demons to haunt and destroy our souls?
god doesn't deserve your worship - to all religions

God doesn't just allow evil to exist. There is actually no such thing as evil and good outside of God's mind. God judges people based on a strange set of ethics that differs slightly from each sect of religion to another (as well as from each religion to another). In reality, there is nothing evil about a rapist raping someone since God made them do it as he controlled their life events and their brain's psychological state to make them want to do it at that moment. He also positioned the victim to look how they did, be where they were and react how they reacted.The matter of God being good or evil is something which first requires you to buy into the idea of good and evil being a thing in the first place. Since there is no good and evil outside of a reality that a God created, by using the term 'evil' to apply to God you are admitting that God's teachings are accurate and thus you are accepting God's word as true. This implies that you would also buy into the whole 'God is almighty' and other assertions of all religions. You are wrong about Buddhism though, in Buddhism God isn't a creator or sustainer, God is a force in all of us and each soul is actually a tiny fraction or section of God itself.God doesn't just allow the devil to tempt the weak, he controls everything and makes the devil tempt them. There are no accidents, God made all that happens happen. This is the sheer scope of his power and that itself should be reason to respect and be in awe of him/her/it.Why would God vanquish demons? He made them in the first place.
god doesn't deserve your worship - to all religions

" God is a different thing for everyone but the definition of what he is is that which one would worship if he/she/it were real" this may be your definition of what a god is. throughout history within religious sacred texts god has been seen as the creator of everything, the architect, the carpenter. in the Christianity, Islam, Buddhism he is seen as the creator and sustainer of all that exists in which case god can be defined as the manifestation of the divine attribute of being the creator. god is seen to be an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being by all religions and this is where my argument comes in. validating the existence of such a being, then comes into question the reasons for worshiping the deity, the reasons vary for different religions but the big three are that devotion to god and the laws of god grants you in death entry to paradise and the souls who do not accept god are then banished to the underworld of eternal suffering. or that they must express their gratitude for good luck brought upon them in their lives by god, or to bring forth this luck upon them in the future (prayers). and lastly that they feel safer knowing that there is a divine being and that all of your misfortune and luck 'is all a part of gods master plan' and that got truly loves his little creations. now we ask the question, if god truly loves me then why would this omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being allow evil to exist? some religions have a concept of an anti god or 'devil' that is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent basically not gods equal, and yet still exists. why does god allow evil to exist? why does god allow the devil to tempt the week, the demons to posses the strong. if god has the power to vanquish them. and so is undeserving of your alliance.