BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

I accept and assume my opponent will answer all questions truthfully and correctly. I also assume pro will answer each question "yes" or "no". If not I ask for a con win. contradiction - (logic) a statement that is necessarily false. (logic) a statement that contradicts itself. lets get to it. 1. Does .9 repeating equal one? 2. Are the answers to my questions correct? 3. Will your answer to this question be no? 4. Does -5 multiplied by 6 multiplied by 7 multiplied by 7 multiplied by 8 multiplied by 4 multiplied by 4 multiplied by 4 multiplied by multiplied by 100000000000000000 multiplied by 57 multiplied by 376292746756483823 multiplied by 73464734893377 multiplied by -6758393847565473839 multiplied by 5783874646373930293857 multiplied by 4854734636382982920 multiplied by 857463783929374756488484 multiplied by 7484 multiplied by 1 multiplied by 47574843848 multiplied by 47565848494938 multiplied by 3^2 multiplied by 3^1 multiplied by 89467473483939494^1 multiplied by 657489393774575848393494885 multiplied by 7658348467584485757i multiplied by 75758437857 multiplied by 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111i multiplied by -7475 multiplied by -74643637 multiplied by -45647 multiplied by -1 multiplied by 4748475675647483 plus -100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 divided by -49805835893 divided by -239898232938938111111111111111111 divided by -1 equal a positive number? 5. If the answer to this question is no, is no the answer to this question? 6. Does (x+y)^13 equal x^13+13(X^12)(Y^1)+78(X^11)(Y^2)+186(X^10)(Y^3)+715(X^9)(Y^4)+1278(X^8)(Y^5)+1716(X^7)(Y^6)+1716(X^6)(Y^7)+1278(X^5)(Y^8)+715(X^4)(Y^9)+186(X^3)(Y^10)78(X^2)(Y^11)13(X^1)(Y^12)+y^13? 7. If I win this debate will I be undefeated in debates? 8. Have you lied on Debate.org? 9. Are paradox's contradictions? 10. Can you add a mathematical symbol between 5 and 9 to get a number greater than 5 but less than 9?
I will not contradict myself.

This debate is whether or not I will contradict myself. Term and Conditions- Rounds 1 & 2- Con asks Pro ten yes or no questions. Round 3- Con will state Pro's contradictions (if any). Round 4- Pro will defend alleged contradictions (if any) or admit defeat and Con will attempt to refute Pro's round four defenses. Pro reserves the right to define words according to the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary unless Con defines the word in his question. No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Multiple negation is not allowed The question: "Yes or No?" is not allowed as any of the R1 or R2 questions. If either party violates the terms and conditions, the offending party will lose the debate and both parties will be asked to abort the debate.
Mathamatics is more important than dance.

How do you win? You forfeited, furthermore I countered all your arguments, and you countered none of mine. I was able to create a variety of reasons why math is more important than dance, and you were unable to render them invalid. Yours was invalid, as I have explained. In addition, I had sources and proof backing up my points, something you didn't. I had much superior grammar and spelling, I mean seriously you spell "Harvard" as "Harvert". So tell me now, how do you win?
Mathamatics is more important than dance.

Can we agree not to copy and past please I know you did because when I was doing my research I saw this, okay. If you only do math and don't dance or sports you will get fat and study's at Harvert prove people are unlikely to be hired if they are fat. Also dance is some people think is fun. Also which one is olympics. Oh that's right dance. Which on has a t.v show about it dance. Which one make kids from 12-18 fall asleep in. Math ( 20%). Also which one makes kids ages 25-38 drop out of collage. Math (38%). Also you may not believe this but you can look it up, but my cousin was lit on fire because he was smarter than the people who lit him on fire in math. BY THE WAY I NOT 10 YEARS OLD but your info make you seem like you are 12 even though I was doing better at the age of 10.
The 49ers are better than the Seahawks

So wait, the Colts played the 49ers in their own stadium and whipped them, while the Seahawks only barely lost to the Colts IN indianapolis....That kind of defeats your entire claim that the Seahawks arent a good road team when they can almost beat the same teams that whip the 49ers (in their own stadium) on the road.As for the Texans argument, the Texans played the 49ers at the 49ers home field, not at the Texans' home stadium, which defeats that claim that the 49ers are better then the Seahawks because of the Texans argumentThe simple facts are, The Seahawks are better then the 49ers since: 1) the 49ers are an injury prone team 2) The 5-1 Seahawks have a better record then the 4-2 49ersand 3) BECAUSE THE SEAHAWKS ALREADY BEAT THEM 29-3 WHEN THEY PLAYED EACH OTHER.
The 49ers are better than the Seahawks

First of all, the 49ers played the Colts in SF, not in Indy. Therefore, your argument there is invalid. Secondly, as a team, the 49ers perform better on the road than Seattle (except in Seattle) as evidenced by their 35-11 clobbering of the St. Louis Rams at the Edward Jones Dome. Also, if we're counting common opponents, we should take the Texans into account. The Seahawks only beat the Texans by one possession whilst the 49ers beat the Texans by a whopping 34-3. Also, a team being injury-prone does not make them a worse team. The Seahawks have sub-par receivers and a decent quarterback at best. The 49ers defence is also better than Seattle's because the 49ers have not had any of their players suspected of using PED's. Meanwhile, Sherman AND Browner were both caught on PED charges, one of which was suspended for 4 games. Closing Statement: Without the ridiculous home-field advantage, performance-enhancing drugs, and Marshawn Lynch, the Seahawks are nowhere close to the 49ers level.
The 49ers are better than the Seahawks

" the 49ers are a good road team"If they were a good road team then they wouldnt have gotten their a** handed to them in Seattle 29-3 and then lose on the road AGAIN to the colts 27-7.... I mean neither of those games were even CLOSE"The 49ers were without Crabtree, Manningham, and Davis for most of the game when the two teams met last."The 49ers are a very injury-prone team, making them worse then the Seahawks Heres one other argument that PROVES the Seahawks are better then the 49ers.... The 49ers got hammered by the Seahawks and ALSO lost to the Colts the very next week 27-7, The only team the Seahawks have lost to are ALSO THE COLTS, Seahawks lost 34-28So lets get this straight... Both teams played the Colts at the Colts stadium. 49ers lost by 20, Seahawks only lost by 6Both teams played the same team under the exact same circumstances, and the Seahawks clealry performed better then the 49ers did.No matter how you look at it, the Seahawks are simply better than the 49ers
The 49ers are better than the Seahawks

Yes, the Seahawks did win 29-3, in their stadium. These are the 3 main points of my argument: Point 1: The Seahawks can only beat the 49ers AT HOME. They are not a good enough team on the road to beat them, however, the 49ers are a good road team, who was being screamed at at 136.6 dB. They have not lost to Seattle in the Stick since 2008. Point 2: The 49ers were without Crabtree, Manningham, and Davis for most of the game when the two teams met last. Point 3: The 49ers were 1 play away from the Lombardi trophy last year, the Seahawks blew their game to the Falcons, a terrible postseason team.
the one that has the least points on ddo, is the winner

I appreciate you reading my points and definitely want to address your concession that this is a religious web-site. But first let me argue for the proposition that not only are my 'points' on DDO least in terms of significance, but also least in terms of numerical value. Debate.Org or DDO uses an ELO rating system to numerically rank its debaters. The ELO system originally was developed for chess players, but is commonly used now for many games of skill. [1] Significantly, though, it is not truly a measure of a debater's skill, but rather a measure of 'odds.' As one high school math teacher put it, the "Elo system was designed to give a metric that can be used to determine a player's chances of winning." [2] Thus two players with the same Elo rating have a 50/50 chance of winning the match. But there is a common problem understood with the ELO system and that is the problem of provisional players. [3]The system simply doesn't work very until a new player or in this case debater has a few debates under his or her belt. The more debates, the more value the ELO rating assuming the debater continues to actively participate. My entire rating is based on one vote, one debate. It's off little statistical value and most researchers trying to learn something about the debating level of DDO would either discount my ELO rating entirely or heavily weight it downward even as far as zero. So numerically, my ELO rating has a lesser value than yours. My ELO rating is the least.Your point that this is a religious web-site actually supports this argument. In religion, you cannot take something at face value. In religion, 2+2 does not always equal four and I would posit that on this site, as I have argued above, an ELO rating of approximately 1,000 is not always less than an ELO rating of approximately 2,000. In religion, we always need to interpret what is written down in a particular holy book. Almost always in religion, there are special people called priests or seers or Voodoo Queens who will read the numbers and tell you what they mean. And trust me, in religion, nothing is ever simple and the number don't mean what you think they mean. Thus, as I've argued above, if we look at our respective numbers properly, it is obvious that your ELO rating is of greater significance and higher value than mine. Thus, I should win this debate. Of course, in my limited experience, we may actually simply tie by default no matter which of us has the least ELO number.In our third round, I plan to address how the debate is framed.Yours in sophistry,Sarai[1] http://sizes.com...[2] http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com...[3 ]http://www.glicko.net...
Heaven is real

My opponent plagiarized his last round from an ABC news article. He also has dropped everything he has said in his last round and has still not touched upon my main argument.http://abcnews.go.com... Even if Alexander's account was true, my argument has yet to be refuted. Since my argument has to do with the nature of personal identity and since there is so much we don't know about the human brain, it is logical to assume that there is a natural explanation rather than a supernatural. My argument is a priori, not dependent on ever changing inductive evidence. Unlike Pro's, whose case depends on one man's knowledge of the neurosciences while he wasn't in a position to understand what was happening in his brain.Alexander's account is far from being true. Alexander claims that he went into a coma because of E. coli meningitis, when the doctor that treated him stated it was a medically induced coma and that he was hallucinating. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...][http://www.forbes.com...]He also claims that his brain was shut off, but Neurologist Sam Harris explains that this couldn't have be established."Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline."[http://www.samharris.org...]Alexander's case is a poor one for the existence of an afterlife.
Heaven is real

Pro hasn't shown what's wrong with my main argument. I extend it. Pro tries to state he can't give proof because belief is required. I don't see how. Before one learns about gravity or philosophy, he doesn't believe in the theory of gravity or platonism, but one still can come to to believe it from a philosophical or scientific argument. Why should the philosophical position of God and the afterlife be some in sort special position when other positions aren't? It is said that my pride and confidence in intelligence hold me back, this is asserted without evidence. It is especially hard to believe because I have changed my mind in positions that I've held steadfast to and I'm sure a majority of readers have done the same. If Pro is correct, then how could that be possible? Furthermore, Pro is claiming I have these problems, but it seems arbitrary to claim this is the case with me and not with him. Would Pro be satisfied if I claimed that confidence and pride are holding him back from seeing the nonexistence of the afterlife? Pro attacks the argument that God condemns people to hell, however I never made this argument so it is simply a red herring. Pro then makes an argument from religious experience. A changed life, even if it was divine doesn't demonstrate the existence of an afterlife. But, he has yet to demonstrate his experience is divine at all. Many people's lives have been changed with varying outlooks sometimes using with the Christian religion and sometimes not [1. https://richarddawkins.net... 2.http://www.onislam.net... 3.https://www.reddit.com...]. Contradicting positions receiving changed lives show that this type of religious experience doesn't demonstrate anything other than the power of a different outlook. Pro has yet to address my argument and hasn't made any argument in favor of the existence of heaven. Back to Pro.
Heaven is real

There is proof but the problem with requiring proof to believe is that there is proof but the requirement on your part is to step into belief. At that time you will experience spiritual rebirth. The spirit is the "receptor" of things that will prove God's existence. This is about relationship not scientific evidence. You accuse God of condemnation when His Son takes that condemnation for you. It is not His choice that is condemning but rather yours. Tell a sick patient the only way to cure that cursed disease is with that medication knowing as the doctor that you are right but they don't act on your prescription because they don't believe it and they have sealed their own fate. You as the prescriber didn't kill them. it was the illness. That is similar to relationship with God. There are spiritual laws like physical, understanding them is critical to moving around in the spiritual realms. Being too intelligent can be a problem very difficult to overcome in becoming humble enough to even ask God to begin showing you what you need to see to help you believe. Your pride will block those things. Because you have an opinion of yourself as being too intelligent to let you believe superstitions if real evidence that you could get came your way it would blast right by you. All I know is once I was blind but now I see. I was once you but there came a day I was made humble enough to look up and beyond myself and His Spirit flooded in. I can show physical evidence except a changed life. Finally, I don't know how these exchanges sit with you cause I don't know you. I am always open to honest dialogue. I am not a salesman for God, but I do have a 40 year relationship with Him and am willing to try to "reasonthru" honest questions from someone who is willing to continue the dialogue
Heaven is real

People go around saying god is real and gods not real but who can say their side of the story you see there is no logical proof that god and heaven is real except the bible of course there's so pieces of the cross to be put up in a museum, but there isn't any proof that god isn't real. I want as much proof as you can get me that god is or isn't real. I will debate promise I am going to college to be a lawyer and this is a great start debate is now open.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

"In the game above, it isn't a matter of defense when the outcome in definitive, it is more of playing it safe, not planning out what you will do when a definitive outcome has been reached." That is my point. It is better to play it safe to avoid heavy casualties than to try and take on the enemy. "In this case, I don't see how Russia not giving up the city relates to your resolution, please clarify?" Russia defended the city, and as a result lost many men.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

Point 1: ChickenFor my first point, I will draw upon the popular Chicken game {1} from Game Theory. The scenario is simple: Two cars are speeding towards each other on a highway. Right before they hit, they have to decide if they want to swerve out of the way. The worst outcome is one in which neither of them swerve. They both die/suffer heavy casualties. However, if one of them swerves, the other is able to keep riding along the highway. Therefore, the person who doesn't swerve is better off than the one who does. One must realize that even though one is better off, they don't both die. If one nation does not defend itself, it does not risk heavy casualties. It does not matter that they might still win. It would not be worth the risk of mutually-assured destruction.I fail to see how this argument relates to the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win"Why?In the game above, it isn't a matter of defense when the outcome in definitive, it is more of playing it safe, not planning out what you will do when a definitive outcome has been reached.Point 2: Casualties from defenseBefore deciding to defend, you have to think of the outcomes. Is it worth it? For example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, up to 2,000,000 casulties were reported{2}. If Russia had given up the city, they would have avoided thousands upon thousands of deaths. Another example would be the Second Battle of the Marne, in which there were over 200,000 casualties and captures.In this case, I don't see how Russia not giving up the city relates to your resolution, please clarify?
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

I will be defending the idea that nations should not defend themselves if they are not guarenteed to suceed. Point 1: Chicken For my first point, I will draw upon the popular Chicken game {1} from Game Theory. The scenario is simple: Two cars are speeding towards each other on a highway. Right before they hit, they have to decide if they want to swerve out of the way. The worst outcome is one in which neither of them swerve. They both die/suffer heavy casualties. However, if one of them swerves, the other is able to keep riding along the highway. Therefore, the person who doesn't swerve is better off than the one who does. One must realize that even though one is better off, they don't both die. If one nation does not defend itself, it does not risk heavy casualties. It does not matter that they might still win. It would not be worth the risk of mutually-assured destruction. Point 2: Casualties from defense Before deciding to defend, you have to think of the outcomes. Is it worth it? For example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, up to 2,000,000 casulties were reported{2}. If Russia had given up the city, they would have avoided thousands upon thousands of deaths. Another example would be the Second Battle of the Marne, in which there were over 200,000 casualties and captures. {3} {1} http://en.wikipedia.org......(game) {2}http://en.wikipedia.org...... {3}http://en.wikipedia.org......
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

This will be a redo of this debate: http://www.debate.org... We will be debating the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win". Con will be taking the position that you should defend yourself no matter what. I will be taking the position that you should only defend yourself when it's a sure win. R1: Acceptance R2: Opening arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Closing arguments *******NOTE: This debate is refering to groups of armed people fighting each other, not one person attacking another.********** Definitions: Defend: To ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually followed by from or against ) {1} Sure: free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something. {2} Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. {3} {1}http://dictionary.reference.com...... {2}http://dictionary.reference.com...... {3} http://dictionary.reference.com...... Gl;Hf
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Both groups where equally violent with each other the video said there was many fights in the schools where they forced the students to go to. The judge sent the kids to what ever school so segregation would stop. because the blacks were treated bad. the parents wanted the schools to be better not to force their kids to a school far from home. wouldnt a white parent be mad if the judge took his kid from a high educated school and sending them to a low educated school? What you mean it doesnt matter the black kids in now a days they dont care about what their past did for them. but i am sure the parents would want the best for their kids the blacks and whites felt offended that a judge would get involve in a case that isnt his responsibility. Judges responsibility is to bring justice to the people who go against the laws. Not to tell kids to go to some school that he doesnt even know if its good. Ask the judge if he would send his own kid to another school and he will hesitate and he would said yes but trully he wouldnt do it. If this happens in rhode island and i have a kid i will never send my kid to another school i will simply not follow his command he doesnt have the rights to tell me where to send my own kid. The judge isnt my father or the father of my kid i can tell my kid whats right and wrong and i will send him to a school where i want to send him to.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

#1 Yes there was black people getting violent against whites and the people around them they also made strikes. #2 What if it isn"t the best school? What if it"s the worst? I"m not going to let someone else tell me how to raise my own child. #3 The video of "Eyes on the Prize" would be a great evidence of the two different races fighting each other with weapons and harming each other instead of uniting them and making desegregation.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative Assertion #1: The Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. *They caused more violence within two different races (Blacks and Whites). *They Invaded parents decisions and taking over their educational life's. *They forced students go to a different school that was far away from home. Negative Assertion #2: Supreme Court and Boston's Schools a bad combination. *Made blacks and whites more violent and caused many fights *Boston schools were poor educated and the schools wasn't constructed well *The judge's rule ran through 15 years and all those years fights happened and made parents follow that ruling. Negative Assertion #3: Boston was a battle ground *Whites and blacks went on strikes trying to stop the ruling because the court doesn't have the rights to tell what school to go to. *Blacks and whites fought each other with weapons and they all hated each other. *instead of desegregating the schools they just made different races violent with each other.