BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking

First and for most i would like you to be welcome to this debate and i would ike you to be clear on what you are asking what is your stance on smoking or is smiking bad or ood for you ? Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ of the body.1 More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis. Smoking is a known cause of erectile dysfunction in males. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2 Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1 On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.3 If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today"s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.1 Costs and Expenditures
tattoos & piercings at the age of 16

Thank you for the debate, Pro. Young ones at the age of sixteen should not be able to get tattoos or piercings. I will provide brief and short arguements in negation of this. www. foxnews. com/story/0,2933,354696,00. html This is a story of a teenager who attempted a lip piercing and failed. Due to my computers virus infected limitations, I cannot view the site itself, for it has been declared unsafe. However, I did read a secondary copyed and pasted article from the same source. In this, to test it, I copied and pasted it and put it into google, and a replica appeared from this news source. The possibly of the teenagers parents not allowing him to get one is overwhelmingly high, lest he get one done professionally as it should be. However, the teenager thought it best to do it himself, unqualified, immature, and unknowing of the dangers of it. Lack of knowledge is the enemy to man itself. In this, ignorence is bred and the belief in one's safety. This teenager did not know enough to effictively make a life-changing decision molded after his desires. Instead, he was met with pain, suffering, and hospitialization. In this, teens should not be permitted piercings without parental consent. My opponent himself acknowledges that this is a privledge. He claims his friends do the same thing in bathrooms. This just shows further the ignorence of the dangers to piercings that teens don't know. Even if they wanted to get it done professionally with parents consent, there are some who do not know when to say know to unhygenic piercing places that practice it. To support this, I provide this story www. shortnews. com/start. cfm? id=51145. A teeager got his lip pierced in a piercing store and died due to a blood infection by a unsanitary surrounding. For the matter of tattoos, I will provide personal examples as well as practical ones. I see people all the time in my school who write on the faces of their binders, with Sharpee markers, the names of thier current girlfriends or boyfriends. I also notice serveral scribbles of boyfriends past. In this, and I've seen it myself, teenagers want these to be more permenant, due to their utter infatuation. They want tattoos, and some actually do get them. I know of two people at my school who did this and are no longer together with this person. They carry the mark of regret with them their entire lives. Sure, not all tattoos are of a boyfriend or girlfriend. However, in the story above, I have proven that teenagers lack the responsibility to decipher the correct way to alter your bodies appearance without doing it in a mature fashion.
A number divided by zero has l00l.

My opponent now claims that I have misintepreted him. I contend that I did not. Furthermore, and more importantly, I stated that my opponent's proposed division of x/0=00 is not a division at all, since division is defined as the inverse of multiplication. Thus, a/b=c can't be true unless it is true that c*b=a. That is the definition of division and the division proposed by my opponent is contradictory to this definition. Please note that my opponent has not even addressed this argument in his last round. I will point out further that ANOTHER division proposed by my opponent may well be valid. He proposed that 00/x=00. That would be true as 00*x=00 (infinity times x = infinity). However, that does not apply to x/0. If x/0=00 then 00*0 would have to equal x. This would only be potentially true in a case where x was equal to zero. However, on closer examination, even if x were equal to zero, the same problem would arise. The division could not return any number c. Why? Here's why: a/b=c then c*b=a 0/0=0 therefore 0*0=0 (all good so far). but 0/0=1 therefore 1*0=0 (also true) 0/0=1010 therefore 1010*0=0 (equally true) 0/0=-10191 therefore -10191 *0 = 0 (and that's true too) Hence even where x is zero, it can't be divided by zero as this would to an obvious contradiction. You see, if 0/0=1 and 0/0=2 and 0/0=3 etc. .. then 1=2=3=. .. .. .. .. Have I misinterpreted my opponent? I said that he contends that zero and infinity are odd fellows. Please see his previous post and you will in fact find that contention. In the final round he seeks to clarify that contention by providing his reasoning for it. He says that infinity and zero are odd fellows because infinity is not a single number. That's all well and good. Let us briefly revisit the definition of division: "To divide a number a by another number b is to find a third number c . .. " If infinity is not a single number then can it ever be found to constitute the "third number c" in the above definition? I say it cannot. It cannot because a "third number c" is a "single number". Number c is such a number that, if multiplied by b it will give us a. By my opponent's own admission, that does not apply to infinity. It is my conclusion that my opponent has not proven his resolution. His process of division was contradictory any known definition of division. A division by zero is undefinable simply because it would need to entail the finding of a number c such that if multiplied by b it gives x. No such number exists except where a is also 0.
A number divided by zero has l00l.

Good argument. However, I will not go down that easy. My opponent's mathematics show that the principle that I set forth is counterintuitive. I respectfully disagree. Infinity, because it is not a specific number will provide an exception to the rule. For example x/7 But when it comes to infinity, things change. 00/7=00 It's the same with zero. 0/7=0 Zero and infinity are the two odd fellows, because both break the general rules of math. For example, 2=/=x, but if x is 0 or 00, this isn't true. That means that there is an exception to the rule my opponent listed.
A number divided by zero has l00l.

x/0 cannot be equal infinity in as much as 1 cannot equal 2, 1000 cannot equal Pi, 0 cannot equal -3029133 if a/b=c then c*b=a if x/0=infinity then infinity*0=x Substitute 1 for x and we get: if 1/0=infinity then infinity*0=1 Now substitute 2 for x and we get: if 2/0=infinity then infinity*0=2 If infninity*0=1 AND infinity*0=2 then 1=2 But 1 does not equal 2 Therefore x/0 cannot equal infinity
A number divided by zero has l00l.

Okay, check this out: 1/1=1, 1/.1=10, 1/.01=100, 1/.001=1000 So basically, as the denominator approaches zero, the absolute value of the fraction equals infinity. That means that 1/0=00 (that's an infinity sign). This principle is applied elsewhere in mathematics. For example, as the amount of 9's in the series .9, .99, .999... approaches 00, the value of the decimal approaches one. Mathematicians use this logic to show that .999...999=1. This applies to number x/0.
Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

My opponent forfeited the round so there is nothing to argue. Furthermore, examining his previous post I was sad to realise that it was assembled in its totality by copy and pasting from his sources. This is extremely annoying as I actually spend my time rebutting his copy paste points. I understand that Con is really young but I would still expect an apology for his conduct and the reassurance that, if he is going to stay a member of DDO, he will from now on be aware of the rules regarding plagiarism and commit to a debate once he has started.
Vote Contest

Students Rule the School Have you ever thought your rights were being violated? Many students have enjoyed all of their rights, but at some schools rights are being violated in terms of making school "so called better." Though some people think that rights are an unimportant factors of school rules I think that schools should factor rights into backpack and locker searches, putting metal detectors in schools, and dress codes. My first reason for students having backpack searches is that administrators should not conduct backpack searches. Backpack searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is important because students own their backpacks not schools. Another major factor according to Dannis Hartman, a reporter for the Synonym Classroom, an online education news website states, "It takes time to perform locker searches." One more source according to Charr fron this website in his debate states, "the average ratio of students to Faculty is 1:19 That ought make search take a lot of time. In addition to backpack searches the second reason that I believe that students need their rights is metal detectors. Although not in many schools currently, some have them. According to Brian Steele you would have to ensure there was no other way to get stuff into the school. This is important because metal detectors would be pointless if there were any other ways to get weapons into school. Another idea suggest that there would be much hassle. It would take time to get every student through the metal detector(s). most cities and school districts couldn't pay for to put a metal detector in every school, that would just be ridiculous. I also believe that dress codes are a violation of students rights. Lets face it most students dislike there dress code. Not only would removing dress codes take away the right violation; it would create a bond between teachers and students. This would be a powerful and everlasting bond. Taking away the dress code would mean that students would think that school is the next best thing. Some may argue that while the other side believes backpack searches metal detectors and dress codes are beneficial in schools. I however, reject those ideas because according to a survey I took most teens at my school dislike the dress code. Searching backpacks helps schools find drugs. Metal detectors are excellent ways of finding weapons. Lastly dress codes help ensure that students don't come immodest. To sum it up, rights rule. Were your rights ever violated. Backpack and locker searches have much in common. but on the other hand dress codes are what they are. Now's the time to vote Pro. Please help me in the fight. AND MAY THE BEST MAN WIN!!!!!!!!!!!
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

Pro seems to present two arguments here, I will address both. I. Consciousness Atheism compatibility: At best Pro is trying to prove materialism false here. Even if he proved it false, God doesn"t follow. Some theories of mind which don"t mandate materialism are: Idealism Solipsism Panpsychism And several of these are perfectly atheist compatible. Consciousness Being conscious affects the way we process information. If it a way for us to engage and comprehend what we gather regarding the world around us and make actions and decisions based on it. This has clear evolutionary advantages for a social species such as humans who engage in high level comprehension of terrain and social interactions of others in our species. I see no reason to buy Pro"s assertion that we would expect humans to process information like a computer because our brains are wired completely differently to one. We simply don"t work like computers. We are inefficient as basic math tasks (such as memorising a few digits) and more efficient at comprehension tasks (such as recognising faces), for instance. Pro"s argument from consciousness is a non-starter here. Moreover any problems in in the purpose of consciousness is just as much as an issue for a theist. Since the fact we are "atoms mashed together" would be correct regardless of whether or not God exists. First Cause Argument: Pro asserts: "1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence." No justification is given for this. So we can reject this out of hand. I assert there is no need for anything to cause our universes existence, and the idea of such a cause is actually incoherent. Pro asserts the cause must be outside the universe and not obey the rules and with control. However this doesn"t demonstrate God at all even if all correct. For example a hypothetical quantum fluxiation would also fit that criteria just fine, or any of infinitely possible hypothetical non-intelligent entities that could cause the universe. No God needed.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

If god doesn't exist, then why do we even exist?" By "we" I mean our consciousness. I get that our biological bodies would be created via evolution but there is absolutely no reason for us to have consciousness. Materialistically, we are robots made from organic material. Every living being is just atoms smashed together in the right way. So you would expect organisms to function like a computer. Taking in information, processing it, then doing the thing it was programmed to do. A cell for example, reacts to a material it needs by surrounding it and taking it into its system. What I am coming at is that the things we consider to be "alive" are not very different from non-living things. They are just machines made with non-living stuff. If we consider all of this true, then why do we exist? I get that "thinking" was beneficial for us to survive but we did not need to have consciousness. Consciousness doesn't even make sense if we think materialistically. There is just no reason for it to be there. Why am I myself? Why do I see like I do? Why are things are the way they are? These questions don't make sense in any way from an atheistic point of view. There needs to be reason for our existence and it needs to be beyond our universe. Because as I explained, we do not make sense in this universe. There is no reason for us to exist. Yet we do. Let's arrive at our conclusion: 1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence. 2-It has to be beyond our universe. 3-It has to be able to go against the very rules of the universe. 4-It has to have some control over the universe.(to create us) These are the definitions of god. If the "thing" can choose not to obey the rules of the universe, we can conclude that it created the rules. The thing is beyond the universe so it is not bound by time. It doesn't need to have "infinite" power. Why it created us is not that important as I am just trying to prove it exists.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

You need a minimum fo 2 completed debates to accept this. Rules 1. Character Limit is just 2,000 characters. 2. Round time is 24 hours 3. Pro is to define God and present an argument to support it's existance. 4. God's definition needs to be compatable with an all-powerful creator of the universe. If Pro wishes to affirm other attributes then he/she can do so. 5. Pro is to present one argument only. We will debate the soundness of that argument. 6. If you wish for a shorter round time, then let me know, I am hoping to complete this debate in 1 day.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

Con is clearly misunderstanding the definition of "consciousness". Being "aware" is used as in "existing as a thing in the human body". A computer can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings. Does that make it conscious? No. The definition of consciousness should not be taken too literally." I would advise Con to read this part again because they got all of it wrong. Here I do not say Con argued that it was a "thing", here I myself argue that it is a "thing". It is pretty clear that I am disagreeing with Con rather than explaining Cons definition of consciousness. Here, I am saying Con got the definition of consciousness wrong. If we go by Cons definitions: ""Being aware" would be the whole point of consciousness since you are aware of the different sensory inputs...", we can conclude that a computer is conscious since it can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings and be "aware" of the inputs it is receiving. Even if Con did not get my point here, I literally say that doesn't make a computer conscious afterwards: " Does that make it conscious? No." "A computer can be programmed to be aware of its surroundings." Here, I do not claim that it can be programmed to be conscious. I say this to show Con that their definition of consciousness is flawed yet con, again, without any reason at all decides to assume that I am referring to programming a self-conscious computer. We, today, can program computers to be "aware" of the inputs they are receiving and to be "aware" of their surroundings. There is no reason to misunderstand this sentence and if it is misunderstood by Con, the reason is not my inability to express ideas but rather Cons weird habit of understanding the ideas the way they want to. This has been pretty clear as Con misunderstood my ideas 3 times already and the reason for their misunderstanding was them assuming I am referring to something. (to Cons last statement) That doesn't prove that it is physical itself.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

“Con is trying to take everything I say as literal as possible without giving it a thought at first.” If Pro wanted to argue using parables or something then he should have been clear here. Pro’s argument has suffered a serious lack in logical progression and structure. If my arguments have at all missed the mark (and I don’t believe they have) then that’s because of Pro’s poorly outlined argument. Consciousness I was very clear in my previous rounds that I was referring to the “inner movie” experience. I never argued that it is a “thing”, but a process. A process the ( most likely) uses to process information about the world around us. Computer analogies don’t apply here since have a completely different architecture, they aren’t comprised of neurons. If computers were programmed to create such a representation of reality internally, then I struggle to see how Pro can justify that it is not conscious. Because there would be very little to distinguish between another human’s consciousness (as in, anyone but you), and a computer’s. That’s the issue of epistemological solipsism. If Pro cannot even prove that other minds are or are not conscious, then Pro cannot assert that computers aren’t/cannot be. Necessity I don’t need to prove necessity, only possibility, and sufficiency. Consciousness is clearly a sufficient method of utilising information from senses, even if it is not the only viable way. Biology went via. this route – so what? Moreover I fail to see what Pro attempts to accomplish with his reading a book analogy, life isn’t reading a book, we are processing the environment in real-time with partially correct data from our senses, we need to make decisions based on it, the “book” is written by our conscious experience. The fact we are even physically talking about consciousness means that consciousness clearly has a physical impact on the world around us, thus the argument that we would get the same outcome in life without consciousness is evidently false.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

Con is trying to take everything I say as literal as possible without giving it a thought at first. Black holes make sense, they are too dense that even light can not escape their gravitational pulse. Stars make sense, they are just masses of gas that emit light due to nuclear fusion. Planets formed because of gravity, things pull another things and this way they form bigger things. I think I expressed my point. Con is clearly misunderstanding the definition of "consciousness". Being "aware" is used as in "existing as a thing in the human body". A computer can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings. Does that make it conscious? No. The definition of consciousness should not be taken too literally. As I said, being conscious is not at all necessary for anything. Think of it as reading a book. The book and all of its contents are still there even if you do not read it. Reading it just makes you know about the book but that does not change the book in any way. Atheism does need to demonstrate the necessity of consciousness. Consciousness is a thing that exists in the universe. Atheists do not believe in a god, but they do believe that they exist in the universe. Therefore, if an atheist wants to explain his point of view to someone, the atheist has to explain consciousness as well. I explained in my previous argument that the thing that created consciousness would be, by definition, god. So yes, I did respond to con's argument. I need to repeat my main point here, I am claiming that consciousness has no reason to exist in a universe like this one. Saying: "there is a point of view which states that consciousness is universal and primordial.." does not give a reason for consciousness to exist. Universe may have rules that allow for conscious beings. As I said in a previous round I am not claiming that it is impossible for conscious beings to exist in our universe. Con claims that I have no argument when they have yet to understand my argument.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

“Consciousness is not consistent with our universe because our universe has not created anything like this before. It is out of place. It has no reason to exist in our universe.”Black Holes were not consistent with our universe. Out universe has not created anything like this before..Stars were not consistent.Planets were not consistant.Hydrocycles were not consistent.Organic chemistry was not consistent…Pro has literally no argument here. Complexity arises in stages, intelligence and consciousness would not have arisen until these stages were achieved.I gave reasons why it would be advantageous for some organism to be conscious, it is a way for them to process information and make actions based on it. While consciousness is not a necessary condition for processing information, it is a plenty sufficient one for it. “Being aware” would be the whole point of consciousness since you are aware of the different sensory inputs and construct a model of reality that is consciousness.Atheism has no need to demonstrate necessity of consciousness. Moreover if atheism does, then so does theism. Pro has provided no reason why this sia problem at all unique to a Godless universe.Neither has Pro responded to me argument that even if it does require an explanation, there is no reason that explanation is a God. I gave pansychism (that consciousness is a universal and primordial feature of all things https://en.wikipedia.org...) as an example which has see no entertainment from Pro, so he drops these arguments.Rules of the Universe Pro asserts that God can change the rules of the universe to allow for conscious beings. Via. Occam’s razor then, the universe already has rules that allow for conscious beings from the beginning. Cut out God and the necessity to change the rules. The rules of the universe currently allow for consciousness thus, Pro has no argument.