BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gravity=weight+force of gravity

Sources:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...http://mrkearsley.com...http://www.gcse.com...If Weight = force (of gravity) and this = gravity (acceleration) multiplied by mass then gravity cannot possible equal the force of weight (which is what weight is) plus itself, at all times. At very rare occasions, by coincidence, the acceleration of gravity at the time could equal double the weight but this is only possible if the mass is less than 1kg.I'm now going to explain how, using units, the equation at the top is totally and utterly impossible.1) Gravity is an acceleration. This means it is m/s^2, alternatively written as ms^-22) Weight is a force which is measured in Newtons outside of USA and in Pounds of force in USA. Newtons/pounds(of force) are measured in kg*m*s^-2 and this means the kg is a multiplied factor which is a unit in that.If the unit is kilograms for weight/force but is not a unit in acceleration (which is what gravity is) the resolution is physically impossible but mathematically could be possible if it were not for the fact that w=mg.The physics is outright obvious as to why the resolution is false, mathematically the resolution is only true for a select few combinations of values where the mass is less than 1kg or the planet is a place where gravity is less than 2ms^-2
gravity=weight+force of gravity

difference in the "density" or weight of matter is the force of gravity a little feather falls more slow then a bowling ball because there is down there is up, becasue if there isnt down the thing dosnt fall when the force of gravity applies to an object, up is the cause of Down, when the force of gravity dosnt apply, Down is the cause of down wind flow goes out at the top of my window, and comes in at the bottom
Snakes should become extinct

"A lot of countries don't have honey badgers, so [their extinction] won't matter." Many countries have snakes, so, by your logic, their extinction will matter. "Most people I've met hate snakes, and will always try to either shoo them away or even throw it if possible. Snakes are nothing to a lot of people, and should become extinct." Most people I know hate tomatoes, that is not a valid reason to ban or eliminate them from existence.
Snakes should become extinct

While snakes are disgusting, they certainly aren't the most disgusting, they keep down the population of the worst creature to ever roam the Earth... "The Common Egg-eater (Dasypeltis scabra) eats only birds' eggs." [1] Plus, the snake is the main source of food for the honey badger [2]. If we were to make the snake extinct, the honey badger would starve! No badger=No will to live. [1] http://www.snakes-uncovered.com... [2] http://www.badassoftheweek.com...
The human concept of reality is not true reality

In this final round, Pro says, "I am saying it [the human concept of reality] COULD be false," but the resolution says the human concept of reality "is not true reality." I think we should hold Pro to the resolution he set out to defend in the first place. To say that the human concept of reality is not true reality is to say that our concepts of reality do not match reality. Truth is correspondence with reality, so if our concepts don't correspond to reality, then they are false.Now, Pro has made made claims in this debate that he apparently thinks are true and that accurately represent the way things really are. He says, "I am saying no one can define reality." That's the way Pro thinks things really are, so that is his concept of reality. He obviously thinks it's an accurate view of reality or he probably wouldn't have said it.Everything else Pro said in defense of his view were statements the he thinks correspond to reality--the way things really are. Since Pro is a human, these statements of his are human concepts of reality, i.e. the concepts a human has about the way things really are. Since the resolution states that "The human concept of reality is NOT true reality," then the resolution negates every claim pro has made. In fact, the resolution refutes itself. The resolution is a claim about reality. It's a human concept of reality. If the human concept of reality is not true, then the resolution is not true. The resolution refutes itself. Not only is the resolution false, but it's necessarily false because it refutes itself.Pro claims that reality is ineffable and undefinable. But if reality were ineffable and undefinable, then nobody would be able to say anything that corresponded to reality. Yet Pro has made many claims that he thinks correspond to reality. He thinks the claim that "reality is ineffable" is a true statement about reality. So the claim that reality is ineffable is also a self-refuting claim.What pro has offered us in this debate is an incoherent concept of reality. It's one that nobody should adopt because it's mired in self-contradiction.Thank you.
The human concept of reality is not true reality

I am saying that it COULD be false (in the scope of universal truth) because the concept has been defined and there are massive disputes on the nature of "reality" on a quantum level, which is impossible to discover with naked senses. I am saying no one can define reality. That is what I am saying. I am not saying "this is reality" or "that is reality". "Reality seems to be an unscientific concept. Simulation theory and other theories embody my point exactly, that reality is ineffable and undefinable. Thanks for provoking though kind sir.
The human concept of reality is not true reality

If reality is "the way things really are," and if "the human concept of reality" is "not true reality," then that means the human concept of reality does not correspond to the way things really are. In other words, the human concept of reality would not merely be inexhaustive, but it would, in fact, be false.Since your point of view is a human concept of reality, it would follow that your point of view is false. It would mean your own point of view "is not true reality."So there's no escaping the self-refuting nature of the resolution, and there's no way to defend it without engaging in self-refutation. The claim that human knowledge is limited is not equivalent to saying human knowledge is not true. After all, we may know some things but not know others. If everything we believe is false, then your point of view is false since you believe it. But if not everything we believe is false, then the resolution is false since some human concepts of reality ARE true reality. So no matter how you look at it, the resolution is self-refuting and therefore false.
The human concept of reality is not true reality

Words are defined by common use. "Reality" is what is so, how things really are, etc. That's the way pretty much all of us use the word.Pro is attempting to tell us how things really are. He has a point of view that he is attempting to defend in this debate. His point of view is what he takes things to really be like. The point of view he is expressing is his own concept of reality--how things really are. Since Pro is a human, he is giving us a human concept of reality. The resolution is that the "human concept of reality" is not true reality. If the resolution is true, then Pro's own point of view is "not true reality." In other words, his point of view is false. But his point of view IS the resolution. So his whole point of view is about as plainly self-refuting as you can get.Whether humans know everything there is not know is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution does not say, "The things humans know about reality does not exhaust everything that is true about reality." If that were the resolution, then I'd be on Pro's side. So pointing out the limits of human knowledge does not support the resolution.
The human concept of reality is not true reality

Hmm. My argument is that the human concept of reality is not the ultimate true concept of "reality". I think the human concept of reality is limited by our senses. Here is Aristotle's summary of perception: http://faculty.washington.edu... Can humans see the whole spectrum of light? Can humans hear whole range of frequencies known as sound? That is what I am saying. Our definition of reality rests on our perception of the world through our senses, which are limited. Our senses cause our concept of reality to be define, or placed in a box. But what about the outside of that box?
The human concept of reality is not true reality

Pro's point of view is self-refuting. I'm assuming Pro is a human. Reality is the way things are, what is actually so, etc. Pro is attempting to tell us the way things are. So what pro is telling us is his own human concept of reality. And he's saying the human concept of reality isn't true. So pro is denying his own point of view. That makes his point of view self-refuting.
Two ply tissues are much better than one ply

Oh man, I must be bored. Here goes. My opponent asserts that two ply tissues are superior to one ply based on the fact that they "might take half the amount of tissues" to do the same job. However, one ply tissues provide the same amount of surface area as two ply, while costing the consumer less money. Also, in this environmentally-conscious era, it is important to recognize the damage being done to the environment by our continuing deforestation. Forests and rainforests provide vital habitats for millions of different animal species, while beautifying the earth's landscape. While my opponent's argument is based on hypotheticals, here is a FACT: two ply tissues use twice as much paper as one ply tissues, and therefore cost the lives of twice as many trees. We must ask ourselves this: which is more important; our own temporary convenience, or the future of our planet? I now stand ready for my opponent's arguments as to why these great detriments are outweighed by the possible benefits of two ply tissues.
Two ply tissues are much better than one ply

First off I'd like to apologize to my opponent for forfeiting last round, I hate when people do that to me and I assure you I was simply too overwhelmed this past week to find time to post. On to the debate. "if you use one one-ply tissue, and it tears as it is thin, you most likely will get another if you still need a tissue." My opponent's argument is rife with hypotheticals. She states that the possibility exists that a one ply tissue will tear and you might need another one. This is hardly enough proof that two ply tissues are "much better", as the resolution suggests. Even if a one ply tissue were to tear 50% of the time, one would still be using 1/3 less paper by buying one ply paper. "Two ply save time because instead of having to grab two one-ply tissues, you can just grab a single 2-ply tissue." The amount of time it takes a person to grab another tissue is less than a second, judging by my own experience. This is at best a minor inconvenience. This inconvenience pales in comparison to the deforestation that has occurred over time as a result of logging. Over half of the world's mature rainforests have been felled, or about 800 million hectares (http://en.wikipedia.org...). As the dominant species on this planet, we have an obligation to it to ensure that we don't do so much damage that it can't be undone. Each of us has a duty to diminish our "carbon footprint" as much as possible, and a wasteful product whose only benefit is convenience should not be considered "much better" than its less wasteful alternative.
Two ply tissues are much better than one ply

"..here is a FACT: two ply tissues use twice as much paper as one ply tissues, and therefore cost the lives of twice as many trees. We must ask ourselves this: which is more important; our own temporary convenience, or the future of our planet?" Two ply tissues might use twice as much paper as one ply, but these tissues also work much better, and are more durable, therefore if you use one one-ply tissue, and it tears as it is thin, you most likely will get another if you still need a tissue. This uses just as much as the two-ply, but two ply are simpler as they save the user time from when they need another one ply tissue. Two ply save time because instead of having to grab two one-ply tissues, you can just grab a single 2-ply tissue. As for the price, if you use two times the amount of tissues(1 ply), its pointless to buy a box of one-ply, as you'll use them much faster, therefore waste gas money when you go to the store to buy another box of one-ply. The job of two-ply tissues takes only one box. Two ply tissues are also softer on your nose and give it more support.
There is no such thing as God

Background about me. I learnt at school Torah for 11 years (since primary school) and I love reading cosmology books in my free time. I am atheist. I believe that the universe was formed 14.8 billions yrs ago, earth was formed 4.5 years ago and I also believe that we are 'star stuff' and a by-product of evolution. I wont start listing my arguments. I just want to start by the other side trying to contradict my points. I want the other side to address my points and prove his point in any way (even philosophically). - Why there is one God and not billion Gods? - Why God is morally good? - Who goes to heaven and what exactly is there?
States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens

I am terribly sorry for my forfeit in the previous round i was forwarded an unexpectedly large workload and I was not able to post my argument on time, however... I would like to begin by further explaining the argument in the previous round before addressing any of the arguments present by my opponent. Firstly let me begin by saying the purpose for my opening argument was to highlight the importance of the creation of gun regulation laws and why any level of government would be justified in the creation of laws to limit gun ownership to competent citizens. My opponent clearly misconstrued my argument when he suggested that I was implying that should the federal government assume the responsibility of regulating gun ownership. However that is not to say that there are no benefits to giving the responsibilities of gun control to state an local governments. My opponent correctly stated in R2 that if the federal government were to be forwarded the right to restrict gun owner ship the law would be uniform and simpler, however uniform and simplistic does not necessarily mean better. Consider the following if the federal government were to be given that power states with low levels of gun violence would be forced to change their laws despite the fact that the laws may not need to be changed, if the states and local governments were to be given the power to restrict gun ownership systems of gun control that would would continue stay in place while those that are not could be changed for the better. I would like to end by addressing the constitutional merits of allowing states and local governments to restrict gun ownership to eligible citizens. My opponent stated in R2 that allowing states and local governments to restrict gun ownership would violate the second amendment, however he falsely states what the second amendment is. The second amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see my opponent conveniently only quoted half of the second amendment. Seeing as how it is not definitively clear whether or not the second amendment applies to only organized militias or all individuals it is unfair to simply state that restricting gun ownership is unconstitutional. Thank You
States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens

First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.
States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens

Definitions: Handgun -a firearm that is held and fired with one hand[1] Opening Arguments: Many individuals feel the need to purchase a handgun for various purposes such as protecting their families and property, and in the hands of responsible pose no serious threat to the general public, however when handguns fall into the hands of ex-convicts and those who are mentally ill it does. The fact that hand guns could fall into the hands of those who are likely to commit a crime again such as ex-convicts[2] or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon should justify giving local governments the ability to regulate handgun ownership. Thank You. [1] . http://www.google.ca... [2] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Columbus was a genocidal scumbag.

1.) No, Columbus, while partially to blame for the results of the genocide, was not the man solely responsible for instigating it. There is no denying his involvement in the Americans negatively impacted the locals in a cataclysmic way, but the claim that he committed genocide is a lazy scapegoat to explain the complex history and events that took place. But most importantly it takes away blame from the real culprits of genocide in the Americas and lays it on Columbus for nothing more than convenience in the history books.The facts:One of the most acclaimed writers and author of books on Columbus is Samual Eliot Morrison, a Harvard historian and author of a multivolume biography on Columbus. He writes, "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide. He laments that while "Haiti under the Spanish is one of the primary instances of genocide in all human history", only one major history text he reviewed mentions Columbus's role in it "That fact is, even the most advent and critical historian on Columbus can barely find any early literature on any involvement, furthermore, there is no primary evidence of Columbus being directly involved in a genocide.There is no denying his discovery of the Americas and the resulting expeditions did indeed result in genocides and atrocities, these are merely consequences of his discovery. There is no genocidal intent. The genocides are well documented and are the result of other European (Spanish) men such as (but not limited to)Hernán Cortés, Diego Velázquez, Juan de Grijalva and Gonzalo de Sandoval to name a few. These are the men, the conquistadors who launched expeditions into the Americas and were responsible for the fall of many cities which resulted in slaughters. Most importantly they brought with them diseases. The likes of which North and South American had never seen and it was this (that was deliberately spread to the natives) That wiped out upwards of 80% of the population.Again, there is no denying Columbus's actions resulted in genocide and the destruction of Native American civilisations. But the fact is he never orchestrated or participated in any kind of genocide, it was the conquistadors that did that.To make the false assumption that Columbus was the man responsible for the genocides against the natives only takes away from the men really responsible for the crimes. History is to often skewed and simplifed for the sake of convenience. This ultimately results in the facts being misrepresented into sensacanal claims that are completely void of the facts.If you are interested in context, a good youtube series that explains the events of the conquistadors can be seen here:2.) He was indeed a jerk in many ways, this is not up for debate (haha)
The Allied/Entente Powers are responsible for World War One

Hello!I claim that the Allied/Entente powers of World War One are responsible for causing World War One. I claim that the Central Powers are not responsible for the war.More specifically, I claim that mainly Serbia, France, and Russia were responsible for WW1, and perhaps other A/E countries to a lesser extent.Con should argue that the Central Powers are responsible for WW1.First round is acceptance/opening-statement only, and no new arguments may be made in round 4. All other rounds are dedicated to arguing and refuting points. Definitions/Clarifications:WW1 = World War OneA/E = Allied/Entente-Allied/Entente Powers:https://en.wikipedia.org...-Central Powers:https://en.wikipedia.org...
Does Harry Potter encourage witch craft

yes that is true but really most books do have fantasys in them like that and that's what makes a good book with imagination and adventure put into to make it exciting so really its just another book with adventures and many things to it put many people go to far and forsake it from what it really is that is just one way or point of view that they take that perspective of it but its a fantastic series and encourage people to read and watch the movies and heads up new one comes out july 31 at midnight.
Does Harry Potter encourage witch craft

The book centers on a lifestyle in spells and magic. While many of the spells and creatures are fantastical, the premise behind them...using body parts of creatures to create potions...definitely signifies a primary focus in witchcraft. The main ideas behind the Harry Potter universe are that supernatural powers do reign over science and religion. The real question is...does the series present witchcraft as innocent? Certainly some acts in the series are seen as evil or atrocious...such as Voldemort's Horcuxes. Yet some of the things the main characters produce such as poly juice potion, etc. require the use of animal parts. These products are presented as innocent and comicable even...so I would say it paints witchcraft in an innocent, pleasing light.
guns should be banned

1) Uses for guns The government cannot insure the complete safety of its people all the time, and for that reason, the right to own a gun comes in handy. A gun can help thwart a burglary, allows a person to respond to a lethal threat with equal force, possibly allow someone to stop a mass shooting from escalating if they are living in a concealed-carry region, and in very depopulated states like Wyoming and Alaska where people routinely have to hunt to get food, guns come in handy. Guns should not be banned since there are some good uses for them that justifies their existence 2) Impossibility of collecting all the guns if they are banned Lets say you ban guns. Great, now how do you go about actually collecting all of them? Just because you ban guns, that doesn't mean everyone will be willing to actually turn in their guns, even if given an incentive. There will be people who will hang on to their guns if they are banned, and since it would be literally impossible for the government to legally confiscate all guns, banning them is a bad idea since its pretty much unenforceable.