BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

Opponents ArgumentMy opponent simply reiterates his original points with literally no rebuttal at all.They do not respond to my point about how Math is still useful even if I concede his point about his theorem. My Argument cont.My opponent asks for an example.Well if we take .999 [with 1000 9s] it equals .999 [with 1000 9s] not 1. We use the idea that .999 [to infinity] = 1, again, for ease of use. It's simple rounding. Again, even if this were true, let's say it is. It has no true bearing on math. A contradiction does not mean meaninglessness. What it really shows is that comparing .999 [to infinity] and 1 is meaningless. You can't honestly throw the entire field of mathematics out because of this.Theorems, equations, applications, calculus, addition, multiplication, all still work and have function and therefore are meaningful in the world.You have yet to prove that math is meaningless. Please don't regurgitate the same points in Round 3, they simple don't hold u.
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

you say "The idea that 1=.99999... [to infinity] is one put forth simply for ease of use and is indeed, a form of rounding. In reality, 1 =/= .9999 [to infinity] because we can comprehend .00001 [to infinity potentially] and deduct that from one thus giving us a number infinitesimally different from 1 yet still different from one." please tell us what a finite number is with example then please tell us what a non-finite number is with example you say "However, for the sake of the argument, even if we accept this idea to be true that 1=.9999 [to infinity] this does not mean math ends in meaninglessness. it is not for the sake of argument that 1=.9999 [to infinity] dean gives a mathematical proof that 1=.9999 [to infinity] can you tell us if the proof it correct or wrong if correct then 1=.9999 [to infinity] thus we have a finite number = non-finite number thus a contradiction in terms thus mathematics ends in contradiction thus maths ends in meaninglessness
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

The idea that 1=.99999... [to infinity] is one put forth simply for ease of use and is indeed, a form of rounding. In reality, 1 =/= .9999 [to infinity] because we can comprehend .00001 [to infinity potentially] and deduct that from one thus giving us a number infinitesimally different from 1 yet still different from one. However, for the sake of the argument, even if we accept this idea to be true that 1=.9999 [to infinity] this does not mean math ends in meaninglessness. Math has near infinite meaning from engineering, to simple addition and subtraction to advanced calculus applied to physics. I don't feel I need to go into the usefulness of math because we all use it in our daily basis. In fact, we are using it right now as we keep an eye on our character limit for this debate. This insanely simple and mundane idea that Pro puts forth does nothing to deduct any real meaning from mathematics as a whole.
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

This author points out Mathematics ends in meaninglessness for five reasons http://www.scribd.com.... reason 1) mathematics proves a finite number = a non-finite number 1 is a finite number and .9999... [ie to infinity] is a non-finite number mathematics proves 1=.9999... [ie to infinity] thus mathematics ends in meaninglessness proof x=.999... [ie to infinity] 10x=9.99... 10x -(x)= 9.99... - (.999...) 9x=9 x=1 thus x=1 and x=.999... thus 1=.999.... simply 0.9999... = 1 means mathematics ends in contradiction 0.9999.... is a non-finite number/ 1 is a finite number thus we have a finite number = non-finite number thus a contradiction in terms thus mathematics ends in contradiction thus maths ends in meaninglessness
Abortion should stay legal

I agree, that my definition of a human being has flaws. The main idea behind that was that abortion is not actually killing a human being, sine an embryo is still not having the same characteristics as a grown human being. It doesn't even feel pain until it's at least 24 weeks old. (1) Abortion is not a murder since, the fetus only has the POTENTIAL to be a human and is yet not a human. Murder is wrong, but abortion is not a murder. 1: http://www.motherjones.com...
Abortion should stay legal

My boy Tim. Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. You stated that abortion is not killing a human being because an embryo is not a human being, proved that they were not humans, then stated that they were not humans. Also your definition of a homo sapien is flawed. Babies that are born do not have superior mental development, cannot talk, and don't even have the neck muscles to hold their heads up. With that definition you could kill a new born, and you wouldn't be killing a human being. Also Abortion is murder since you are killing something that has potential to be a human. And the bible says that murder is wrong.
Abortion should stay legal

First, I would like to say that abortion is not killing a human being. Since a human being, by definition, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. (1) So an embryo is classified as a human being. Even if abortion would be illegal, women would still seek a way for abortion, bringing them to find illegal places performing abortion, which would not have good hygiene and could be the cause for a lot of health problems and even cause fatality for the women. 42% of women carrying out abortion are poor. (2) These women would not be able to provide for themselves and the baby. They would also miss out on work and lose wages because of it. 1: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2: . https://www.guttmacher.org...
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

Why go to war over something like the Ukraine Crisis. A war would devastate the Economy, not just for this country for any large country it might go to war with, Do you really think that in the Pentagon it's something like "Lets not go to war because we can't win" It is much more advanced than that. The United States has much more fertile land than the Russian Federation, our troops would be well supplied and fed (not to mention they are trained). Now, look at the Annual Defense Budgets, the US has more than the next 5 countries Combined. Last part of round 3 - An invasion of the US is near impossible, the United States is known for having the Most Powerful navy in the world, While Russia can attempt and invasion, the Air power of the USAF will easily outnumber that of Russia's, and will begin Bombing, Torpedoing Russia's ships and Bombing Air base's, Factories, Etc.
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

Russia has about 1,600 missile warheads capable of reaching U.S. territory, and if even a small fraction were launched, they could wipe out U.S electric grid, our financial networks, and quite possibly the whole U.S. economy. In Sept 2015 the Russian strategic bomb near Canada was a practice cruise missile to strike USA and caused concerns. Russian spies infiltrate the USA and bomb 2012. Not the other way round. If the USA was sure to win a war why did it not fight Russia after Ukraine's invasion? After Georgia's invasion in 2011; why it mess not with Syria protected by russia? Simple because the USA knows it cannot win a war against russia. Not military war just economic war.
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

First, The size of a country means nothing to it's military. Second, in Total Naval Strength the USA is ranked 3rd, Russia is ranked 5th While Russia may hold a higher number of tanks, the USA has about 10,000 more aircraft than russia. No matter how many tanks Russia has theres no way they would be able to compete with the united states air force and after the russian air force was annihilated tanks would be sitting ducks for american attack planes.. " aww look at your Russian tanks. well here is a f 16 to play with them" The number of anything doesn't detirmine who win, it's who has a better trained army. Besides the UK, the US has some of the best Trained Units in the world.
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

In the 20th century alone: allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918"1920). They lost and USA was part of the allied intervention Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961). The USA was defeated in Cuba, s small country near its border In Vietnam War (1965"1973), The USA lost against a tiny country. In Syria and Iran, the USA cannot invade because Russia warned it of a war if the USA did. So wisely and fearing that the USA has backed down. In terms of Army > Main battle tanks 22,710 Ranked 1st. 3 times more than United States8,725 Ranked 1st. In terms of Navy in numbers and technology Russia wins In terms of Paramilitary personnel 449,000 Ranked 1st. 41 times more than United States11,035 Ranked 1st. For these reasons, it is evident the USA would not win a war against Russia, in fact reason why it choose an economic war. Because military it has no chance of winning.
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

I'am on the side that the USA would win in a such war. Also, this would be a non-nuclear war. Just the countries going at it. 5,000 character limit each round. Use Facts, not biased information. Good Luck, i hope to debate! 1st Round - Starting information (like what i said) 2nd, 3rd rounds - Arguments 4th round - Conclusion.
United States of America vs The Russian Federation in War

OK my friend. At the beginning of the debate your argument was: 'In such war the USA would win...' you were persuaded. In your closing remarks you now are more moderate and wrote: ' But, i believe the USA would win ' More of a wishful thinking. Because based on the facts you learned from the debate you are now more moderate and less persuaded. It was glad debating you and see you moved slightly positions. Take care.
Winning or loosing doesn't matter, its the experience u gain that matters >

Participation is more important than just winning. If you will keep on participating in different events then surely one day you will get the result of your hard work. It is not necessary that every time the winner alone gets appreciation and fame for his work. There are many examples of real life champions who have never come first in their life but they are perfect in their lives. It does not matter that you win or lose, all that matters is the courage to participate. It is very essential to fight in life rather than just conquering it. You should be ready to face all kinds of challenges and hurdles which come in your way. Participation provides a platform to test your ideas and concepts. You get a chance to show that how creative and innovative you are. It is rightly said by Jim Ron -"Ideas can be life changing. Sometimes all you need to open the door is just one more good idea." Competitions should provide an enriching experience that allows you to apply your knowledge to a problem.
Winning or loosing doesn't matter, its the experience u gain that matters >

A lot of the time, the experience comes WITHIN the winning or losing. For example, winning gives players a mental high as well as boosts confidence levels. This experience of winning might encourage the player positively, causing them to work hard to achieve this feeling again, or negatively, in which the player might slack off, which creates the overall experience. Losing a game might create a bad memory or experience, causing their next performance to be either better or worse based on the past experience.
Gay Marrige

I get where your coming from. Gay marrige is against any Christian beliefs, but so is divorce, abortion, other religions, etc. For example since divorce is against Christian beliefs do you think it should be illegal. Many Christians have even had divorces themselves. But God forgave them. Also believing in another religion is against Christian beliefs is very un Christian like. But America isn't a theocracy, its a free country where any one should have the right to marry whoever they want. Also someone commented gay marrige shouldn't be legal because gay people can't reproduce. This may be true, but many gay couples choose to adopt or don't want kids. Many straight couples also do this. Are you saying that any couple that doesn't want kids or can't have kids shouldn't be able to get married? In my opinion I think its wrong to deny someone the right to get married because you don't like it. If two people are in love what gives you or anyone the right to say sorry that is against my beliefs so I'm not going to let you get married. My opponent still believes its okay to make a law based off only Christian views. If that happens the United States of America would no longer be a free country, it would become a theocracy. Subjected to only Christian beliefs. If you made a law that stated gay marrige is illegal because its against Christian beliefs, most people would be mad and offended by that. What if a Muslim made a law that said everyone had to belief in their god Allah. Would you mad, furious. I know I would be. That's because I'm not a Muslim. Many people are Christians, but also many people aren't. No where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin. Although most Christians do imply that from Adam and Eve. Therefore I encourage you to reevaluate how you look towards whether it should be legal or not. I'm not saying to change your religion and what you believe. But remember its best not to mix religion and politics.
Gay Marrige

My opponent says that it is unfair to make a law based off of what a christians beleieve. This is false. The whole point of Freedom of religion is being able to keep what you believe. When people are forced to betray their beliefs it is unfair to the Christians. Now, Christians are being prosecuted for their beliefs on gay marriage. One fire chief in Atlanta got fired because he wrote a book where he said he was anti-gay marriage. A woman in washington might lose her house and business because she refused to serve flowers to a gay couple because of her beliefs. In the United States of America we have freedom OF religon. Not freedom from religion. It would be unfair to Christians because they would lose that first amendment right because they would have to bow down to gay marriage which most Christians don't believe in. It is not right for Christians to crumble. Christians were who found this country and now to have their beliefs denied would be terribly wrong.
Gay Marrige

I understand your reasoning, but like you said the first amendment in the constitution protects your right to follow whatever religion you please. This means that making a law based on a certain religion would be considered unconstitutional. This is because the religion that I believe in may be different from yours, and if I made a law that's only reasoning was based purely off my religion, it would violate your rights and freedom to choose how you wanted to live. This is similar to gay marrige, because they may not be a Christian, or religious. By America making a law saying that gay people can't get married because its un-Christian like is very biased and unfair to everyone else who isn't a Christian. Its kind of like me saying you can't eat that donut because I'm on a diet. I also don't see any other argument to make gay marrige illegal, besides religion, which has already been ruled out because in the U.S the government cannot make a law favoring or based on a specific religion. Therefore I still believe gay marrige should be legal.
Hot button issue

First of all, sorry about the forfeited round, my internet was unexpectedly out for a few days. Okay, here goes for the debate. First of all, I will state that if loss of future experiences is the only reason that killing is wrong, then is, for example, causing blindness almost as bad as killing someone? (I use blindness because most human experiences are based on sight)For another, it is mistaken to say that to kill someone is to rob them of future experiences, because once dead, a person is dead. They can no longer experience anything, and so are in no way deprived. In fact, if one is a believer in heaven, one could argue that the victim was in fact aided by their demise. Second, I believe that it is mistaken to say that a fetus was robbed of possible experiences, because a fetus is unable to appreciate the possibility of any future experiences, and is also incapable of drawing upon the past to tell about these future possibilities. To address the Kantian argument, yes, if universalized, abortion would cause the human race to go extinct, but that is not relevant, because the entire human race does not seek to have a simultaneous abortion. Second, you say that the extinction of the human race would be bad "By most accounts." I think you mean "by most HUMAN accounts." I think we'd all agree that just about 100% of wild animals, barring perhaps seagulls, squirrels, and pigeons, would see the extermination of the human race as a great thing. Finally, I think that the rights of the mother have a say here too. Most abortion debates tend to focus almost exclusively on the rights of the fetus, and I believe that it's not jsut about that. A mother can make a far better decision about her ability or desire to care for a child than the fetus can, and if she feels that it is in her best interest to terminate, she should be allowed. As a measure of value to society, the mother is worth far more because she is already able to reproduce, and as a measure of humanity, she is also far more progressed because she is self concious, is capable of logic, etc. Therefore, she should be allowed to make a decision, as that capability is in the best interests of society.
Hot button issue

Okay then, I'll go. My basic argument is that although fetuses are by no means alive, and are by no means persons in the philosophical sense, they must be kept unmolested throughout the pregnancy in almost all cases (I concede there are some exceptions no doubt). My argument is very similar to that of philosopher Don Marquis. He says "The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong." The argument boils down to a few points: *death is a bad thing because it deprives people of all the experiences, activities, enjoyments, projects that would make up their future personal life *a premature death is a bad thing because it causes the loss of future experiences etc. *abortion is not the same thing as premature death but abortion deprives the foetus of future experiences in the same way as a premature death deprives a human being of future experiences *therefore abortion is a bad thing for the foetus in the same way as premature death is for human beings *therefore abortion is as wrong as killing people (causing their premature death) These points are from a BBC summary of Marquis' argument. I would like to amend this to say that it is only 2/3 as bad, as there is a 1/3 chance that the fetus would miscarry. Again, there are some exceptions to the rule, but in general, abortion is wrong. As a note, the two arguments I am making do contradict, but they go separately from each other. Since I am bored, I will run a Kantian argument as well. Although I disagree with this argument personally, that has no bearing on its truth. The argument is that abortion does not follow the Categorical Imperative, that is that "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." So, if abortion was universalized, humans would go extinct, which is by most accounts, bad. The justification for the CI is that moral laws have to be objective, because if they have exceptions, they are reduced to meaninglessness.
Opponent picks the topic and their position (Nothing unarguable equally for one side)

That was disappointing.I will make my rebuttals short due to the kind of time I have. 1. A dress code can take away some creativity of the student. With a dress code you can sometimes not be able to wear what you want to wear. When you say "Dress code" I understand this as, "Coat and Tie" or "School uniforms" not, you can wear anything you would like. As long as the student is not wearing a shirt that says. " "F" you teacher" or something like that, I do not see the problem with not having a dress code.The refutation to this argument has been pointed out through one of my arguments. If a school does not enforce a rule that ensures students to wear some type of school dress code without consequences if they disobey the rule without any decent reason, students may end up wearning inappropriate clothes when attending school. As well as that, they will all be up with the fashion hype, and students may end up discrimination each other based on what they wear. A uniform is meant to make all studnets from one school (or one group) feel together. The uniform is meant to unite the students with the same appearance, so that no one is left out. Secondly, if the school dress code was not enforced, there is nothing stopping the students from wearing clothes that may say "F you teacher" on the front or anything that includes inappropriate slogans. 2. After a certain amount of time, the novelty factor of a school uniform, can eventually wear off. Once this happens, the person starts developing a negative attitude towards the uniform or dress code. It soon becomes a burden, rather than an object of pride. This defeats the very purpose of uniforms or dress codes. This can take away the effect of what wearing a dress code is meant to do to the individual.If one student takes pride in their own school that they attend, they will most definetely wear the uniform, as a way to show their pride to that school, towards the public. Additionally, the school dress code is a contributing factor to the school's reputation to the public. If you see students walking into the school wearing inappropriate clothes, and out of uniform, to them, they students don't take any pride in their uniform either.
Opponent picks the topic and their position (Nothing unarguable equally for one side)

Dress code is not worth having at schools. 1. A dress code can take away some creativity of the student. With a dress code you can sometimes not be able to wear what you want to wear. When you say "Dress code" I understand this as, "Coat and Tie" or "School uniforms" not, you can wear anything you would like. As long as the student is not wearing a shirt that says. " "F" you teacher" or something like that, I do not see the problem with not having a dress code. 2. After a certain amount of time, the novelty factor of a school uniform, can eventually wear off. Once this happens, the person starts developing a negative attitude towards the uniform or dress code. It soon becomes a burden, rather than an object of pride. This defeats the very purpose of uniforms or dress codes. This can take away the effect of what wearing a dress code is meant to do to the individual. This is why I dress code should be removed from schools. Sources:
Opponent picks the topic and their position (Nothing unarguable equally for one side)

Topic to argue: The school dress code should be abolished No semantics or trolling. Definitions: Dress code: School uniform Abolished: Completely removed Structure of debate: 1st round: Acceptance, rules, topic, positions 2nd round: Opening arguments only 3rd round: Rebuttals only 4th round: Final rebuttals, defence and conclusion Any failure to follow these rules for this debate automatically results in the loss of conduct point. I am taking the CON position to the following resolution, therefore negating it. BOP is shared of course. Good Luck!