BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
0.999... is equal to 1

0.999... can never equal to 1 as there is an infinitesimally small difference between that and 1. This, Pro might argue, is exactly the reason why it is equal to 1, as the infinitesimally small difference is negligible. As the 9's progress, the difference is getting closer and closer to 0. Since there is an infinite number of 9's, the difference might as well be 0. This argument is ridiculous. Infinitesimals are used all the time in calculus. In fact, infinitesimals is root of calculus. So, statements such lim(x->1) (x/(x-1)) would make no sense. Infinitesimals require there to be a difference. Infinitesimals is a well defined concept and used frequently.
sexting is inappropriate for youth today .

The freedom of expression doesn't implies expressing thoughts,views or ideas which are harmful for sexual well being and thinking of not only kids but anyone involved in such activity. We should always keep in mind the negative side of such deeds,especially sexting which don't have any positive side. I would like to ask the jury -Is there any positive aspect of sexting. No there is no such benefit/Advantage of sexting. In my opinion we should avoid it to maintain a healthy attitude towards sex which is ruined by activities like sexting by not only extensively liberalising limits of an individual to behave or react while maintaining relationships at different phases but also by affecting the mental attitude and thoughts. Apart from this there are many other disadvantages of doing such activities like depression,characterlessness etc, we all should take a stand against sexting and should ban the practice of such acts.
sexting is inappropriate for youth today .

Good evening everyone. I am here to present my views for (pros) the motion,sexting is inappropriate for our present young generation. At the very outset I'd like to raise this question-why should a person text someone in a sense which is irksome and inappropriate for someones privacy and sexual well being? In my opinion, sexting is merely a act between two people who just want to waste their time in any useless website they find on the Internet. Doing sexting or chatting about sexual topics is no betterment of anyone. It doesn't makes us happy but it can become a cause of many mental illness and thinking standard degradation issues. It can lead to depression and can ruin our relationship habbits. It can have more destructive affects on even humanity too, where such dirty minded people become the culprits of rapes and sexual harrasments. It has nowadays have became the most tension causing problem for parents after habbits like drinking etc for their children.* I would like to sum up and present my final argument by saying that It is one of the negative aspects of the social networking websites and messenging application prevailing on the internet which are acting as a medium of promoting such crimes but we should all take a pledge not to indulge in such activities because if we are culprits today,we can be its victim tomorrow. Source*The Times of India. Thankyou
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

Let us now discuss the most important factor in facts: time. If anything stands the test of time, it is worthy to be called a fact. So in response to your illustration, you will know it is real if: you don't wake up and there is no strap or VR around your head. You will know it's not real if it abruptly ends and leaves you standing or lying in your bed. oh yeah, your grammar sucks
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

How can you know anything? Let's say Jesus Christ himself descends down and walks on water in front of him before proclaiming himself the Lord. How do you know, for certain, that your eyes aren't lying to you. How do you know this isn't all a dream? How do you know you're not plugged into a Virtual Reality device? We know your sense can be false, hence, they can't be used to find evidence. You can logical know that you exist seeing as you're thinking, but anything else you're simply assuming exists, you don't know for a fact.
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

Definitions of facts may differ. My definition of facts is the following: any hypothesis, idea, or physical object that can be proved by evidence. For instance: We know that Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote because we saw the evidence, we saw the facts. Now, you may say that Christianity can be proved false by this premise. However, this is false, as archaeological experiments and excavations line up with biblical information. I didn't know that this was a parody. I joined yesterday XD.
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

Ah,seeing as you seem to have missed my point, presumably not seeing the countless originals, you must just think that I'm a massive dick. This is really a parody, seeing as a site member has been posting like a dozen of these about Atheists. To kind of steal his points in case you actual want to argue their point either way, any "facts" known can only be determined by your senses, which you have no rational basis for trusting. You can't know any of these facts are actually facts rationally. But again, this was really a parody, sorry I didn't make that clearer. My bad on this one.
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

First, I appreciate your emphasis of avoiding fallacies and being rational. Way to go. Christians will argue that they "just feel" God. That argue may be true, yet not valid. Ok. here's my argument. As any man, truth and fiction are rationally factored by facts. Christians are no different. Belief of truth and fiction differ by upbringing, naivety, or facts. We know truth and fiction by facts. For instance, we know that flip-phones are true as we have seen it. We know of Biblical truth because of archaeological evidence. We know that evolution from a single cell is fiction as scientific facts disprove that theory. So in answer to you, Truth and Fiction is determined by facts, no less.
Christians rationally know truth from fiction

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT A CERTAIN CHRISTIAN WILL PROBABLY JUST IGNORE ANSWERS AND KEEP YELLING THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT. Christians love to live under the delusion that they hold some sense of knowledge of truth from fiction that Atheists don't. How can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction? If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. SO, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY CHRISTIAN CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now. If all you have is "God", do not respond to this debate, for any evidence of God relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid, and you "knowing" God is real in your heart is equally subjective. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with God, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational. if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
Schools should teach more sex education

But actually, good sire, some of the things you listed above are not valid. And also, we don't think that people in the future should have sex all the time and get thousands of girls pregenant, and our world population would grow high and higher, and eventually, the world would collapse and we would all be in extreme poverty. We want a small amount of sex ed. Also, when kids laugh, that are immature. We want them to be mature first then teach them sex ed, so they can understand. We shouldn't waste the teacher's and students time when they don't understand all the stuff, and are too young to learn it. When you are 15 or 16, you are mature enough, and you should learn a good year of sex ed them, but not too early. And also, woe wouldn't have to learn #'s 1, 4, 7 or 8 in sex ed. #9 just comes from immaturity. And if you don't know what a penis is, well, then that is your problem.
Schools should teach more sex education

Good sir I beleive you missed my point. Kids like myself have an extremely limited knowledge about sex. Due to the lack of sex ed, kids don't know any of the things I have stated. They need to teach these things, because they are not teaching them now. Kids laugh during sex ed as the are uncomfortable and unsure. More sex ed, especially of my design would help kids. The children are the future. Do you want the future citizens of the world to have a boring sex life? That is why kids need more sex ed.
Schools should teach more sex education

First of all, you don't learn how to hire a prostitute in sex ed. Second, you don't get sex from a supermarket. And #6. of your argument, you prove my point. If kids laugh when the teacher talks abut sex, they shouldn't be in that class in the first place. They are too immature to learn sex ed at that time. Also, you don't show people your ballsac. Asians are not confused by white people. Are you racist, sir? 69. They don't teach that in sex ed. Sex ed just teached youthe dangers of sex, and how to start it up. It doesn't teach you about how to hire a prostitute or 69. It does teach youabout puberty, so that does appy. But most of your argument is invalid to use.
Schools should teach more sex education

Here are my arguements: 1. I never learnt how to hire a prostitute 2. I dont know what a penis is 3. Most kids are confused about puberty 4. I dont know what supermarket to get sex from 5. I dont have enough sex ed 6. The children laugh whenever someone says something sexual 7. Kids are confused by my ballsack when I show it to them. Probs due to lack of sex ed 8. Asians confused by white pple 9. Insert a 6 befor the number of this question. DOnt understand it? Probs need more sex ed 10. Thats all for know. Gotta go tah class. Le Mercy sorry bonjour
should kids go out to recess if its less than 20 degrees

ok well kids at my school we forced to go outside when it was that cold so it is against there will alot of the kids in my school as a kids always wanted to stay inside when it was that cold. most schools force kids to go outside but i don't know what school you went to but at my school as a kid they made us go out if it was 20 degrees or less plus we never had a choice at my school. therefore stating my argument. kids should not have to go out side if it is less than 20 degrees
should kids go out to recess if its less than 20 degrees

I see your point, and kids should not be forced against their will to go outdoors... But who says it's against their will? Most kids LOVE the outdoors and I know everybody at my elementary school was horrified and disappointed to learn that recess would be taking place indoors. It isn't as fun for kids, even if its cold outside. And kids bring jackets to school, so they can just wear those. I believe the kids should be allowed to stay outside if they want to.
should kids go out to recess if its less than 20 degrees

no i don't think kids should go outside when it is below 20 degrees it is a big hazard for getting a cold, hypothermia, etc. i mean it would be really stuiped to send kids outside when it is less than 20 degrees. Also it is probably going to be really slick so its also a risk of falling. It is just INSANE to send kids outside when its that cold
Evolution is incorrect

First, I'm glad that in your second post you at least attempt to support your argument instead of just saying I belive the Earth is much younger then what science says. It's a good start, but you have a long way to go. Now, on the the meat of the issue: "I would like to point out that the methods you are relying on for dating is flawed (i know you didn't use carbon dating directly, but i will adress it anyway" My methods for dating are flawed? Because "4.5 billion years would be an awfully long time for the parent/daughter isotope to vary and therefore produce a flawed age, don't you think?" No I don't think that. Do you understand how this type of dating works? Apparently not, since things that decay, do so FOREVER. Mathemically, a decay curve never zeros out. Now having said that, the more half lifes you have to go back, the more inaccurate your prediction is. Therefore, when measuring years in billions you must use something that has an extreamly long half life. Fortunally, isocron dating has an extreamly long half life, which means we know the 4.5 billion year figure to within 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Next, you say that Carbon dating can not be used to dertermine the age of the Earth and you are absolutly correct about this! However, I never said to use Carbon dating, I said to use Isocron dating! The 2 are not the same! When you mentioned carbon dating, you made a serious mistake. "However, it is also unreliable for dating objects said to be "5 million years old" or so." This implies you agree with me that carbon dating can be accuratly used to predict ages much smaller then 5 million years. Since you accept the science behind carbon dating and the very same science guides isocron dating then you MUST accept isocron dating as valid science. Also, as you said, carbon dating can accuratly predict fossils and such 50,000 years old. But then you claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old?!?! That doesn't make a whole lot of sence! As for your strata argument I am not a geologist and therefore I don't really know enought to scientifically counter it. All I can say is that you yourself admit to only "the possibility of a world-wide flood." Even if there was a world wide flood it has absolutly nothing to do with the age of the Earth. As you yourself stated, geolgists (not evolutionists.....) have a valid scientific reson for starta that fits perfectly with the established age of the Earth. Just becase you can imagine a different theory doesn't make it correct. Look, your whole argument pretty much comes down to what the Bible and the Quran say about the age of the Earth. Who ever even said that these books were meant to be taken literaly? Anyway, if you want to belive the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine. You are also entiled to belive that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the world is flat. These were all once the accepted beliefs of the church. Now, they are not even accepted by most religious people. Infact, Pope John Paul said that evolution is possible and that it does not contradict Catholic teachings! Pull your head out of the sand and view the world as it is!
Evolution is incorrect

First, let me say that I am not going to "prove" that evolution is correct. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain a part of our universe (life). It could be wrong, but having said that, there is no competing scientific theory of life. It has never been proven wrong (over 100+ years) (and while it is impossible to prove things right, it's all to easy to prove incorrect things wrong***). Finnaly, it follows in the strong tradition of science based in experimentation, mathematics and logic. Perhaps becase I'm a Physics major, I see how incredibly accurate, powerfull, and ultamly rewarding modern science is. That is why I belive in evolution. As to the age of the Earth, all scientific theory and experimentation, points to it being about 4.5 billion years old. This is supported by isocron dating (simmilar to carbon dating^^) in addition to several other scientific verifications (http://www.talkorigins.org...). Look, unless you can prove this stuff wrong, or at the very least come up with a theory that explains the age of the Earth/life (that cannot be proven wrong) then you pretty much have to accept evolution/atomic dating as being incredibly likly. Unless of course you decide to stick your head in the sand and just choose an age arbitarly, which is apparently what you have done. ***There are many ways to do this, but two obvious ways is by showing theory and reality (via experimentation) not in agreement or by finding an internal contradiction ^^carbon dating is based on the fact that unstable atoms decay at predictable results and I have personally seen simmilar phenomenom.
Hershey's or M&M's

It is obvious that Hershey candy is the best. Not only do the have the most candy being shipped around the world, but it has the best flavoring. Instead of tasting processed, each one has its own unique taste. The Kisses do not taste the same as Hershey Bars. The dark chocolate is the best though. With so many choices on how intense you want the darkness level to be it is obvious that Hershey's is better then M&M's
Hershey's or M&M's

The shape of your Kissables is exactly the problem. You get less of them. The shape may let everyone know that it is Hershey, but it compromises the integrity of the candy. You have that spike stabbing the roof of your mouth. M&M's accomplish this with a simple, yet awesome, letter. Their emblem doesn't change anything about the candy, but it is very aesthetically pleasing. The shape of kisses may be famous, but it is harmful to the candy. So, you concede that M&M's have way more variety and are therefore appealing to a greater range of tastes and people. When Hershey finally develops the variety that M&M's have had for years, maybe this would be a debatable topic, but for now, dealing with things that exist, M&M's win out. You concede that there is every reason to think that M&M's are better than original Hershey. It is obvious that M&M's are better than current Kissables, for the reasons I explained above. The only thing you are left with is this supposed development that will make Kissables equal to M&M's, at best. Maybe, one day, Hershey can hope to equal the marvel that is the M&M. From what I have heard, they are hard at work doing so. But, for now, M&M's remain the sweet, delicious, diverse treat that is not only easier to eat, but better an entirely better candy in general.
Hershey's or M&M's

The "clumsy" coating gives the Kissables way more of a baknce it really steps up to getting a nice coating with the same amount of chocolate inside. Also they do not need a letter. I think that the shape shoes that it is Hershey. It is one of the most distinct shapes of candy. The only thing that Kissables lack is the variety of flavor. But don't worry. With some connections to the Hershey foundation, i know that some new flavors will be coming soon.
Hershey's or M&M's

It seems that you agree that M&M's are better than Hersheys in the numerous ways I stated above. Therefore, to win the debate, I only need to prove that M&M's are better than these Kissables. At first glance, Kissables would seem to capture all of the great things about M&M's. This is simply untrue. Kissables only come in milk chocolate. They only have one size and they have a thicker candy coating, throwing off the delicate balance of delectable flavors that M&M's capture so perfectly. So, not only do Kissables have less variety than the original Hershey, and therfore much less variety than M&M's, they do not capture the subtle greatness that is the M&M. Also, they don't have that sweet letter on them. And, due to their awkward shape and clumsier coating, you get fewer of them in a bag of the same size. So, not only are M&M's WAY better than original Hershey, they have distinct differences between Kissables that put them far out in front. Plus, you get more. No matter what your candy desire, there is an M&M's to satisfy it. Not only that, but M&M's will always be the candy that "melts in your mouth, not in your hand".
Hershey's or M&M's

Hershey is the classic example of chocolate. But, that is the problem. Its just chocolate. With M&M's, you get that awesome candy shell. Not only is it crunchy and sweet, it comes in several colors, making it more appealing and more fun. You can do all sorts of awesome stuff with M&M's that you can't do with plain chocolate. You can sort them and play little games. Also, that candy shell provides critical protection of the chocolate. Hershey bars always melt or break and end up all over your hands and make a huge mess. The candy shell of M&M's makes this impossible. You want to talk about variety? Look no further than the M&M. They come in Peanut BUtter, Dark Chocalate, six different sizes and dozens of colors. Furthermore, the levels of darkness that you claim for hersheys are just as available in M&M's. You can get regular, milk chocolate, dark, etc. You can shape hershey chocolate into any shape you want, but its still just chocolate. M&M's provide a versatility that the candy world has never seen! As for taste, it is obviously a matter of opinion. However, while hershey is simply chocolate, M&M's provide a medley of flavors from the sweet candy shell to the numerous variety of insides. M&M's have several different delicious flavors dancing on your pallet, while hershey has only one. I think its obvious, based on M&M's variety, ease of consumption, reliability and delicious taste, that they are far superior to Hershey, regardless of what your sales numbers indicate.
High school students should wear uniforms

Every where there is definite dress code, which we have to support. the uniform at schools are not an exception. There are several reasons why i take this point of view. Firstly, uniform do not take your attention to other things which are not connecting with lessons. Secondly it is a discipline, which will prepare pupils to the future career. In serious and pupular companies there is an uniform also. Thirdly the uniform is not so expensive and everyone could buy it independently on their financial status. And the last argument is that with help of uniform there will no descremination, and every children will stay in the equal position.