BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One.

Binary does not work in the way you have described. You do not need a 'single' 0 on its own to achieve nothing because actually you need many to achieve any reality where everything doesn't end up making no sense at all.If reality was built by all the binary being 1's, the reality would be filled with no space whatsoevere between units of time and units of space. There'd be only 'things' and no lack of things. To be clearer about this, let's observe what Binary is and why you have made an error in how you are conveying it:"Binary describes a numbering scheme in which there are only two possible values for each digit: 0 and 1. The term also refers to any digital encoding/decoding system in which there are exactly two possible states. In digital data memory, storage, processing, and communications, the 0 and 1 values are sometimes called "low" and "high," respectively. A bit (short for binary digit) is the smallest unit of data on a computer; each bit has a single value of either 1 or 0. Executable (ready-to-run) programs are often identified as binary filesand given a file name extension of ".bin.” Programmers often call executable files binaries. Binary numbers look strange when they are written out directly. This is because the digits' weight increases by powers of 2, rather than by powers of 10. In a digital numeral, the digit furthest to the right is the "ones" digit; the next digit to the left is the "twos" digit; next comes the "fours" digit, then the "eights" digit, then the "16s" digit, then the "32s" digit, and so on. The decimal equivalent of a binary number can be found by summing all the digits. For example, the binary 10101 is equivalent to the decimal 1 + 4 + 16 = 21: DECIMAL = 21 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 BINARY = 10101 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 The numbers from decimal 0 through 15 in decimal, binary, octal, and hexadecimal form are listed below." DECIMAL BINARY OCTAL HEXA-DECIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 10 2 2 3 11 3 3 4 100 4 4 5 101 5 5 6 110 6 6 7 111 7 7 8 1000 10 8 9 1001 11 9 10 1010 12 A 11 1011 13 B 12 1100 14 C 13 1101 15 D 14 1110 16 E 15 1111 17 F - Directly quoted from https://whatis.techtarget.com...So, for each and every section of reality where everything isn't completely filled, there is some 0 of some kind. If you look further into atoms, any material that is in liquid, gaseous, or plasmic form has its atmos further apart than the same material in solid form (except for water).https://www.chem.purdue.edu...On top of this, if there was no 0 whatsoever, it would be imposisble for the coding of our reality to have difference forms of the same thing. There couldn't be different forms of energy and matter in a reality where the coding is limited to only one thing at its most basic level. There must be some form of duality in the coding for variation to occur throughout.
One.

A) There is reality and there are numbers. What is the purpose of numbers if they cannot represent reality? B) I am not denying the existence of 0. But asking if it is possible to achieve 0. C) Binary is simply a derived numerical system based on 2. where 1 and 0 are used as representative figures. D) In any numerical system, representative figures are always multiples of 1. It doesn't matter if 2 is 2 x 1 or if 10 is 2 x 1 or if 10 is 10 x 1. E) If we use numbers to represent reality then 1. must represent everything. Assuming that it is possible for there to be nothing then 0. would represent nothing. But can we achieve 0? F) Everything above 1. in a number sequence is a multiple of one. So to achieve 0. we must look to the fractional sequence that occurs below one. But just as 2 is 2 x 1. Isn't 1/2 also 2 x 1, albeit in smaller scale. G) Scale is not exclusive to human perception, therefore it would seem that no matter how small the fractional part becomes, it will still be 1. H) Is there ever a point at which the fractional part becomes imperceptible. Thus rendering it 0? If not it would be fair to conclude that there could never be nothing. I) Therefore, if there could never be nothing, then there must always be something.
One.

In even the most complex version of reality, if you break down its coding and essence it will indeed be binary. There's not rawer truth to it.Pro has to explain why there is even 1 at all. If Pro is saying that binary is even nonexistent then by denying 0, Pro is denying 1. You can't have 1 if there's no concept of 0 because it is the fact that 1 is not 0 that makes it 1 in binary.
One.

Pro has lost the debate. Pro has conceded the following:" reality is not representative of numbers. That is to say, numbers and numbering systems are human constructs."In Round 1, Pro defines the resolution as meaning the following: "There is only ever 1.It is impossible for there to be more or less than 1."I disproved these 2 in the first Round itself and expanded in Round 2 to explain that to achieve any number at all or quantity throughout the universe, there's some 0 to the binary sequence. Then I explained how 1 means essentially nothing unless the 0 is its binary counterpart. To this, Pro never replied and concedes " I am not embarrassed to admit that Con has a the better level of mathematical knowledge than myself." Which essentially is Pro saying they do not comprehend my arguments and due to lack of intellect cannot oppose them.In Round 1, Pro states 2 more things about the resolution and what it means: There can be nothing, but we cannot achieve 0. If we could achieve 0, we would understand reality. In Round 2, Pro denies that there can be nothing by saying the following phrases that are all linked to one another: Assuming that it is possible for there to be nothing then 0. would represent nothing. But can we achieve 0? Scale is not exclusive to human perception, therefore it would seem that no matter how small the fractional part becomes, it will still be 1. Is there ever a point at which the fractional part becomes imperceptible. Thus rendering it 0? If not it would be fair to conclude that there could never be nothing. Therefore, if there could never be nothing, then there must always be something. So, Pro himself/herself defeats their Round 1 assertion that 'There can be nothing' by, in Round 2, saying there can't be nothing. Unfortunately for Pro, I help them stay true to their Round 1 in Round 2 and explain that even if there is nothing, to have any differing in values throughout reality would require there to be the 0-element to the Binary coding.Pro says 'if we could achieve 0, we would understand reality' which itself disproves the resolution as it admits that 0 is important to understanding reality and it's merely a means of achieving it that is the challenge. If the only reason 0 hasn't been achieved is that we have not yet advanced to achieve it, this means that there is more than '1' and at the very least at least a '0' as well to reality and the understanding of it which I kept reasserting throughout Rounds 1 and 2.In conclusion, there is not just 1 to reality and all variation throughout reality is only possible because there is the 0 element to the binary so as to enable differing values.
The Modern Republican Party

This debate will regard the modern Republican Party. The focus will be from the early 1900s to present-day. I am a supporter of the Lincoln-led and Civil War era Republican Party, but I am opposed to the modern GOP, such as John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, among many others. In this debate, I will argue that the modern Republican Party should not be trusted and that its policies are unsuccessful. My opponent will argue that the party should be trusted and that its policies are successful. I would like to implement a few crucial rules before we begin: 1. Sources must be cited using the MLA format. Failure to do so will result in the loss of the "reliable sources" points in the votes. 2. Proper grammar and spelling will be used. If this is not done, the candidate(s) will lose the "spelling and grammar" points. 3. There will be no forfeiting. Forfeiting will result in the loss of the "conduct" points.Now, I will state how the debate will be structured:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals / Supporting ArgumentsRound Four: Further Rebuttal / Main Argument ReviewRound Five: Final Rebuttals / Conclusion Paragraph I look forward to this debate. I intend for it to be mature, rational, and logical. I want this debate to be based on facts, not opinions.
Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

Also let me start by defining: Poverty - "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. " (1) Welfare or Benefits - "JSA, Income Support, Housing benefit so on so forth" Those on benefits can be on them for a number of reasons, redundancy, being unemployed, by choice and need help to support themselves to name a few, this means that the lower classes rely on the Welfare system to supply them with the means to live to pay for food, electricity, their shelter etc. Without this income the consequence would be that they are unable to support themselves and find themselves in a hopeless position, a position I would describe as Poverty as I am sure many would agree. Now take those who acted in the riots and remove their only means of survival, you end up with a class of people who are beyond help who would rely on the scraps individuals chose to kick down to them, in essence starving them whilst depriving them of clothing and shelter. The problem with this is that it would be counter productive, these people who become desperate and would have nothing to lose, it would increase the likelihood of them committing crime such as theft, mugging, and burglary to name a few. This would then create yet more victims and raise crime levels without benefiting the society in any way. The second thing to look at is what are the reasons behind gang culture and how does it come about. To begin with we know from David Cameron (2) that lack of fathers can cause this as people begin to look towards the gang as their father in a sense. Another reason is through poverty as people come together as a collective to better their chance of survival. If this really is the case we would only be reinforcing gang culture by removing income from these individuals. In conclusion to remove the only means of survival from these people would reinforce gang culture and increase crime rates which in turn would create more victims and cost more for the country in the long term than by supplying them with basic necessities. The other point here is that Criminals may be immoral but from a legislature standpoint are still humans which under the Human Rights Act (1998) (3) Which gives them the right to life which means their necessities fulfilled. (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)David Cameron (3). http://www.legislation.gov.uk...
Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

This is in response to the Epetition that will now be discussed in Parliament. The petition can be found here: - . http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk... "Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed. No tax payer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them. " I will be against the Petition.
should cartoon network have adult swim after 8:00

I hope for a good debate. I don't see the problem with Adult Swim starting at 8:00 PM. Many kids are either going to bed or getting ready for bed at that time. Besides its up to the parents to make sure that their kids are watching appropriate shows. It's also unhealthy for kids to be on electronics before they go to bed[1][2]. So the parents should not allow their children to be watching any TV before bed, especially Adult Swim. Because Cartoon Network turns into Adult Swim at 8:00 PM, it encourages parents to take their children away from the TV and into the bed, by putting on shows parents should not be allowing their children to watch anyways. I argue that Cartoon Network should have the freedom of showing whatever they want and that the burden of what Children see is on the parent to decide if that child is allowed to see it. Should Parents allow their children to watch Cartoon Network/Adult Swim after 8:00 Pm? No, they should not. Should Cartoon Network have Adult Swim later at night? Only if they want too. [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl...
Anthony Weiner should not have resigned his seat in Congress

1) a) It was consensual. b) It was legal. 2) a) He was lying to protect his marriage, his children, and his career. Most men would under the circumstances he was under. b) It was legal; he wasn't under oath when he lied. 3) Yes, there was press across the nation. However, the claim "he could not get over it" should be dismissed as pure speculation. You would think that the public wouldn't get over Clinton's scandal, but it did... And after his acquittal, Clinton continued his successful career.We have seen throughout recent political history many scandals pop up:Larry Craig successfully completed his term in the US Senate AFTER his "bathroom sex" scandal and simply chose not to seek re-election. [1] John McCain left his wife for another woman because of a devastating car crash that left her disfigured and still ran for election for presidency years later with little public worry about the matter. [2]Newt Gingrich left his wife for another woman when she had been diagnosed with cancer; moreover, he admits to having past extramarital affairs. [3] [4]We should not judge people's moral decisions in their personal lives when considering whether or not they will make good politicians. Poor moral choices do not reflect a politician's ability to hold strong stances in politics and continue to work for public interest, representing people's political beliefs. I see no logical connection between Weiner's lack of marital faithfulness and sending nude pictures on Twitter to a lack of political effectiveness. It should not matter, especially since no laws being broken. Despite the scandal resulting from his "immoral behavior," as many deem it, Anthony Weiner should not have resigned.Thank you.[1] http://www.politico.com...[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Anthony Weiner should not have resigned his seat in Congress

Reasons why he should have resigned, 1) There were more than one cases of him taking pictures of himself. After the original underwear photo came out several other scandalous photos came out showing Weiner taking pictures of himself and sharing it with others. http://articles.latimes.com... 2) He lied numerous times about how his account was originally hacked. His confession that he did indeed put the picture on Twitter invalidated perhaps hundreds of previous claims where he was stating that he was completely innocent and after one event where he actually wanted the Senate to commission an investigation about who hacked his account. Again, he later admitted he did put the picture up so he misused resources and lied to the public relentlessly and it was later found that he sends sketchy pictures of himself to numerous women. http://articles.cnn.com... 3) The uproar that resulted from this scandal were nationwide and he could not get over it. http://www.post-gazette.com... Ill end here for now and allow the Pro to state his arguments :)
Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.

"Ok I CLEARLY stated "illegal drugs", Such as "Heroin, cocaine etc". The last time I looked "medication" and "contraception" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my "faulty wording" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway..." No, I am in fact not off point. You stated that in your ARGUMENT but NOWHERE in the header of this debate. The subject of this debate is: "Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception". That is the only subject of this debate: no more, no less. I could make the header of a debate say: "I like pie". In my opening argument, however, no matter how much I went on about 9/11 being an inside job, the debate is still technically about me liking pie. Therefore my point still stands: Drugs can include contraceptives. "So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do." The same thing goes for a baby getting genes that make him ugly, or that cause them to get a mental disorder. With your very same logic it could be argued that people of a certain IQ, people with mental disorders, or people with diseases cannot have children. Do you agree with those? If not, then how is your argument separate from these in any fashion? "Cocaine..............." "Heroin............." You are only focusing on the worst drugs. What about tobacco? Whole generations of people have smoked cigarettes, and the next generation didn't seem too bad. "A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist." You stated that the chemical can cross the placenta, but did not further explain how it would damage the fetus. IF there is a "potential", then it is very small. Marijuana is not an addictive drug, and therefore would most likely have little or no effect on the child. "Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities." It can, but there are responsible people who don't let it. And do not get themselves really stoned constantly when they have kids. My opponents suggested law is over generalizing, and unforgiving. It does not think of those who are the exceptions. There are people out there who are responsible and moderate. Her suggested law would eradicate many cultures, as well. It is a gateway to more laws that will prevent people with bad genes from having children. -Harlan
Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.

I would like to point out that "Drugs" can include medication…such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical. Though, because that wouldn't be a very fun debate (if I left it at that), Ill ignore that. However since I have chosen to ignore your faulty wording, I am forced to make my own interpretation. You are probably talking not about drugs in general but…*DRUUUUGSSSSSSS!!!!!*. So for this debate I will pretend there is some difference between them. Laws such as making abortion illegal, making suicide illegal, and many others are all a progression to bureaucracy over the human body, which must be prevented at all costs. To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies. And every one should have the right to carry out their biological purpose; to follow the oldest of commands; to be fruitful and multiply. People should have this right no matter what. Drugs are a strong part of culture, and for the people of these cultures to discontinue reproducing would quickly eradicate that culture…. like breeding dogs. Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana. Many very good-hearted people take marijuana or smoke cigarettes. Drugs like these do not necessarily inhibit your parenting abilities. Also, there will always be exceptions. To say that every single person who does drugs of any kind can never have a child is harsh and unforgiving, only looking at the large; the over-generalization, and not the exceptions that cant have a child even though they would be quite capable of taking care of the child well. This kind of law will only lead to more kinds of laws such as "Mentally retarded people can't have children", "poor people can't have children", or "people with diseases can't have children". I think we should draw the line here and say everyone can have children. Having children is the human privilege that laws cannot take away. -Harlan
Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.

I believe that any female who is using illegal drugs/narcotics should be forced by the law too take contraception in order too prevent them giving birth too drug addicted babies. I believe any woman who is taking drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc should not be allowed too get pregnant. Too many babies are born too scumbag women who are in no fit state too care for themselves yet alone a baby. I think any woman who gives birth too a drug addicted baby should be charged with child abuse.
A beggar is smarter than a person with PHD

Firstly the con argued "To know everything that exists is impossible do to the limit amount of information your brain can understand, retain, and remember." ... I disagree. Our brains have massive amount of "storage", as it is explained in the article by Paul Reber, professor of psychology at Northwestern University:"MR. OSBORNE, may I be excused? My brain is full,” a student with a particularly tiny head asks his classroom teacher in a classic Far Sidecomic by Gary Larson. The deadpan answer to this question would be, “No, your brain is almost certainly not full.” Although there must be a physical limit to how many memories we can store, it is extremely large. We don’t have to worry about running out of space in our lifetime. The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage.If anything, we are limited by time.Secondly, I would like to ask con to explain what his view on knowledge is. What does the word mean to him, because judging by his statement, he is saying that knowledge can only be gained in institutions... So let me ask you.. What about before the time of schools? Does that make all the poorer people who lived in that time and couldn't afford expensive education stupid? And not to be obvious or anything but those people, figured out how to farm others also uneducated became healers, and until the witch processes in Europe, they were the only ones who took care of people, all without ever stepping a foot in a school. And finely I would just like to question cons naivety. His blind belief in institutions kind of scares me, because I know many are like him. Let me just ask you something... How exactly do u know everything they teach you is accurate? That everything they teach you really exists (atoms, Newton's laws...) Have you seen them, tested them? So how do you know? The answer is you blindly believe, because without that belief you would be lost and your world would shut down. But yea.. that's a topic for a new debate for a totally new day.