BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People not born in the United States should be eligible to run for president.

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. The vast majority of people are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. It is different from many countries in Africa, Asia or Europe where people have existed for thousands of years. Currently, in order to be eligible for office as the president of the United States, the candidate must be a native born, not naturalized citizen of the United States. However, I feel that naturalized citizens would be able to perform the duties of president just as well as a US born citizen. I want to keep this debate short and concise hence the 2000 word limit. I look forward to an interesting debate. At this point I don't see any logical reason to make a distinction between native born and naturalized citizens so Con can start off by debating right away. Round 1:Explain why you think there is a distinction between native born and naturalized citizens and why the former are better qualified to be president. I'll leave rounds 2 to 4 flexible for debate and rebuttal but round 5 is for rebuttal only, no new points.
Socks are underwear

I think my opponent misunderstands. He says "A sock and a pair of underwear are covering two separate sections of the body". By underwear I mean it is worn under clothes. Just as box shorts and panties are just as much underwear as bras and undershirts even though they cover different parts of the body. So just as a bra or underpants cover different parts of the body, But are still underwear, So too a sock covers a different part of the body but is also underwear. Underwear is not defined by the part of the body it covers but by its relation to other clothes. My opponent also says I didn't show a link for my definition of socks although he seems to have accepted the definition I offered. I will provide the link for the definition of sock and shoe at the bottom (they are the definition Google offers, If my opponent wants to offer a separate definition with a linked source, This is his last opportunity to do so). I thank my opponent for his rebuttal and await the final round. https://www. Google. Com/search? Rlz=1CAACAY_enUS777US778&ei=BopaW7mcK8uV0gKswKqgBA&q=socks+definition&oq=socks+definition&gs_l=psy-ab. 3. . 35i39k1j0i7i30k1l7j0i7i10i30k1j0i7i30k1. 2331495. 2333048. 0. 2333328. 7. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 125. 693. 0j6. 6. 0. . . . 0. . . 1. 1. 64. Psy-ab. . 1. 6. 691. . . 0i67k1. 0. UEdkQmpObAk https://www. Google. Com/search? Rlz=1CAACAY_enUS777US778&ei=JpNaW6fIDcuA0wLcjoYg&q=shoe+definition&oq=shoe+definition&gs_l=psy-ab. 3. . 0i20i263k1j0i7i30k1l9. 110993. 111525. 0. 112514. 4. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. 206. 543. 0j3j1. 4. 0. . . . 0. . . 1. 1. 64. Psy-ab. . 0. 4. 539. . . . 0. GTnA_61kqnI
Socks are underwear

Here are my first rebuttals, First off, "The definition of socks is a pretty specific description, However, I argue that it actually is a subset of the first definition. Does my opponent disagree that as sock is "clothing worn under other clothes, Typically next to the skin? " But you took the basic definition of a sock out of context, Just because a sock is a "a garment for the foot and lower part of the leg, Typically knitted from wool, Cotton, Or nylon. " It only means that a sock is a sock, Not that a sock is a pair of underwear, It's just plain nonsense. "Socks are an article of clothing worn under shoes "another article of clothing, Albeit a very unique article. What is clothing but something with which to cover your body? Do shoes not meet this definition? If they do and I assert they do, Then in what way would socks not qualify as underwear? Just as underwear is not meant to be worn without something over it, So too are socks not meant to be worn in such as fashion (although in both cases it is done, It is not considered proper dress outside one"s own home). " A shoe may be covering your feet, Which are covered in socks, Of course they do, Why would imply that they don't? A Sock is different than underwear, With that being said, A sock and a pair of underwear are covering two separate sections of the body, The sock is only covering the legs and feet, While the pair of underwear only covers the crotch and groin area. If you are committed to prove your BoP, At least show some context, And if you do that, You would find yourself to be wrong. Plus, You did not give a link to the definition of the sock, In this case, I didn't expect you to.
Socks are underwear

I think to start off with, I should first define the terms: Underwear: clothing worn under other clothes, Typically next to the skin. Socks:a garment for the foot and lower part of the leg, Typically knitted from wool, Cotton, Or nylon. The definition of socks is a pretty specific description, However, I argue that it actually is a subset of the first definition. Does my opponent disagree that as sock is "clothing worn under other clothes, Typically next to the skin? " Socks are an article of clothing worn under shoes "another article of clothing, Albeit a very unique article. What is clothing but something with which to cover your body? Do shoes not meet this definition? If they do and I assert they do, Then in what way would socks not qualify as underwear? Just as underwear is not meant to be worn without something over it, So too are socks not meant to be worn in such as fashion (although in both cases it is done, It is not considered proper dress outside one"s own home). I await my opponent"s reply.
The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

It is impossible for us to grasp a space of zero dimensions. Even when we imagine a singularity we picture space around it. The fact is that 3 dimensional space existed within the singularity. The reason I used the example of flatland was to show how impossible it was for 2 dimensional beings to visualize 3 dimensions. The laws pertaining to matter in a 3 dimensional universe do not apply in a 2,1 or 0 dimensional universe. A singularity is not a contradiction. It is unfathomable. Thanks.
The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

It is possible that there exist other dimensions. However, this response to my argument is what we call a red-herring in logic; it is a fallacy. "It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener tries to divert and arguer from his argument by introducing another topic." [1] The debate is about the standard Big Bang model and whether or not it entails a contradiction. My opponent mentioning other dimensions has no bearing on the contradiction of the singularity predicted by General Relativity (which is what the standard Big Bang model assumes). If there are other dimensions that still wouldn't change the fact that the singularity posits spatially three-dimensional matter being packed into a zero-dimensional point (a contradiction), or density which is mass/ volume; dividing by zero (which is a contradiction). In order for these contradictions to be resolved, we need a theory of Quantum Gravity. However, a theory of Quantum Gravity would make the standard Big Bang model obsolete. The point is that the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction, and if there are any solutions available, then we wouldn't be talking about the standard Big Bang model (which is what we are debating). Essentially, my opponent hasn't even explained how this possibility of other dimensions would even solve the contradictions, and even if they did, we wouldn't be taking about the standard Big Bang model anymore. ---Conclusion--- I have shown that the Big Bang entails a contradiction by pointing out the logical inconsistencies posited by the singularity assumed in standard Big Bang cosmology. My opponent mentioned the possibility of other dimensions, but didn't explain how they would resolve the contradictions mentioned. Even if other dimensions did resolve the contradictions, we would be talking abut something else (not the standard Big Bang model). Therefore, my opponent has committed the red-herring fallacy making his argument invalid. The resolution, still, is strongly affirmed. I thank my opponent for the debate. ---Sources--- [1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

I'm not talking about time. I apologise if I did not make this clear in my previous response. The reason I excluded time is because time is not a spacial dimension. My claim is that it's possible more than 3 spacial demensions exist but us 3 dimensional beings can not percieve or even contemplate the 4th dimension. Something entering our 3 dimensional universe from this 4th dimension would appear to materialize out of nowhere. Not only would it seem to appear from a point but it would also appear to be denser than anything we can imagine as it would keep spreading.
The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

Unfortunately, his comments miss the mark completely. ---Leaving Out Time--- Con claims that my whole argument assumes only spatial dimensions and leaves out the time dimension. This is false, I clearly acknowledge the time dimension as I quoted Quentin Smith who clearly mentions "t0", which is the first moment of time under standard Big Bang cosmology at which the supposed singularity exists. Perhaps what my opponent is mentioning is this comment: "i) It is the case that matter only exists within spatial dimensions" I was referring to spatial dimensions as opposed to no spatial dimensions, but I can see how someone would read that and think I was excluding time (I may have used sloppy wording, for that I apologize). The question that remains is that if we take time into account, are the contradictions resolved? Well, of course not. Since matter is dimensional by definition and by its very nature (whether spatially or temporally), then it existing in a zero-dimensional point is still clearly a logical contradiction. Matter cannot both be: i) Dimensional (which it has to be in order to be matter) And ii) Not dimensional (which it would have to be to exist in zero dimensions) Therefore, whether or not we take time into account is a red-herring; the contradiction is still unresolved. Additionally, my argument against the contradiction of dividing by 0 was not even addressed. Thus, my argument in that regard remains unscathed. ---The Singularity Being An Opening Between Another Dimension And Ours--- My opponent mentions that the singularity could be the opening between another dimension and ours. However, this is impossible as a singularity cannot exist (as it is logically and mathematically contradictory). Something non-existent cannot have any properties in reality. ---My Opponent's Analogy--- While my opponent's analogy was interesting, it has nothing to do with the contradictions of a singularity so he is going off topic I'm afraid. He is talking about how two-dimensional beings would perceive something three-dimensional. However, the singularity entails something dimensional existing in no dimensions (a clear contradiction). If there is more to the story that we do not know with regards to extra dimensions then this is when Quantum Gravity becomes relevant (such as M-Theory which posits eleven dimensions). However, it is widely accepted that this theory won't contain singularities. This debate is about standard Big Bang cosmology which is only about four dimensions (three spatial dimensions and one time dimension), which cashes out from General Relativity and entails a singularity. Therefore, any talk about other dimensions would be to speak outside the scope of the resolution I am afraid. ---Conclusion--- Nothing my opponent said even came close to undermining the fact that the singularity is logically contradictory. Since the standard Big Bang model entails a singularity then the resolution has, without a doubt, been affirmed.
The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction

Your whole argument is based on the premise that only 3 dimensions exist, excluding time. The singularity could just be an opening between another dimension and ours. To use an analogy, imagine a flat sheet of glass as a 2 dimensional universe. Beings living in this universe can percieve forward/back and left/right but not up/down. Dropping a beaker of water on the glass it would appear to the beings of flatland that the water materialize from nowhere at a particular spot. The spot would have to be infinitely dense to contain all that matter. They have neither the sense organs to detect up, nor the concept that up even exists. Sound familiar?
I have to write so many poems now

(I actually meant that he was being cremated, but the story is different now) the boy started to write poetry it was so obvious, he had been reading it since age three the years went by sadly, while he was trying to recite pi his mother began to die the boy began to cry he said he had to solve this his wrote poems full of bliss to end his sadness he sold his poems to get the money flowin' he now had the funds but still, his plan wasn't done you continue this, I have school stuff to do
I have to write so many poems now

I never thought you were telling an untruth; I never thought you were lying It seems that your teacher is incorrect, as there's been no news of a human flying If there was I'd wonder how they did it, studying the subject all day But so it seems that this did not happen, so I'll continue the story and rhyme away In the beginning is the only place to start For a story of a child who had no heart He was led into surgery, his transportation a cart And they created an artificial organ, putting in every piece and part His childhood was boring, and his activities were limited But he found something to do; he wasn't dim-witted He searched and searched for something to do Coming up with nothing, at least not that he knew He looked at some sports, but his heart couldn't handle it Maybe he should do as his mother suggested; sit back, relax, stay still, and knit But that wasn't the life he would have, no, it couldn't be He wanted to choose his own activities, do what he wanted, and be free As he looked at activities and searched for more It became like a taunting, daily chore But eventually, he found something; something he could do It seemed so obvious, but it came out of the blue. I'll let you choose an activity he can do. I'm tired right now.
I have to write so many poems now

you claim I am lying but my teacher, he thinks my abilities include flying or so it would seem as he gives me so much homework with no time to let off steam time to start the story of fiction Disney made Pocahontas seem great But she was raped at 8 In the beginning, that's a fun start there was a person, born with no heart they performed an operation at the hospital's station everyone only wanted to steal so then began the very long spiel to find a way to replace that which you cannot trace they finally found a heart for he was put in a cart the cart was going to a fire the circumstance, it seemed pretty dire here you go, continue it
The Theory of Evolution is False

Welcome Challenger; As the opponent, you will argue against the fact that the theory of evolution is indeed false. You will prove me wrong when I state, "Evolution is a flawed theory, and is false." You will agree with the theory of evolution, and will stand by your belief. The only rule I ask of you is that you simply restrict the first round to greetings/acceptance. The rest of the debate rounds will be why Evolution is true or false. I thank you in advance for the acceptance of the debate and look forward to a good, fact based debate. I also think that it is relevant to state that I am Christian.
Ultimate Team War - Ender's Game

To summarize: All of my opponent's team members can be incapacitated by Sleepy Sheep or Volt Shroom. Deep Blue is destroyed easily by pretty much anything, although Shock Wave would work best. Peter would be killed by a Signal Beam, even if he has a shield. Ozzy, once paralyzed or put to sleep, is easily killed by Mortal Draw, as are everybody else. MacGyver is even more vulnerable than Ozzy. Hawking is the most vulnerable of them all. Any attack would kill him, especially Shock Wave. My opponent gives no methods of defeating Shuckle, Paper Mario, Magnezone, or Kirby. Shuckle, holding Leftovers, could outlast any of my opponent's team members. In conclusion, Team PRO would defeat Team CON.
Ultimate Team War - Ender's Game

Alright, my turn. Hehehe. At the start of the battle, Macgyver quickly dismantles the back metal cover of Deep blue. Using the duck tape, Macgyver creates a sticky side to one end of the metal rod, so that he can quickly throw the rod to the ground, creating a lightning rod. Thus, any electric attack that comes towards this side of the hallway, will be redirected to the metal and harmlessly flows to the walls.(1) Macgyver also takes the time to dismantle all but one panel, to create makeshift sheilds. Deep blue says: Rook to D-7. As Macgyver starts to dismantle more and more of Deep blue as well as part of That wheelchair guys wheelchair, Ozzy and That wheelchair guy, create a working gravity field generator, that produce some limited gravity in a short distance. Peter also helps using his psychokinetic abilities to quickly assemble small peices. Deep blue says: Pawn to G-3. Macgyver enters the portal first, quickly dispatching the metal rod. Peter follows suit, and Ozzy comes in after him with the artificial gravity device. Deep blue says: Bishop to C-4. Mista wheelchair rams the Deep blue into the portal, along with himself. Thanks to the lightning rod, all thunder attacks are fairly diverted. Deep blue says: Rook to G-3 If Kirby tries to shoot, Peter will use his powers to spin Kirby, hopefully to face his allies, but atleast face the walls, so that his lazer goes off relatively harmlessly against his team. Deep blue says: Knight to E-2 If Shuckle shoots his Gastric Acid on Peter, Peter can always use his abilities to pick up the shield and move it infront of him so that most, if not all, the potential damage is absorbed. Deep blue says: Knight to D-4. When the arrow is fired to MacGyver, Ozzy will step in and quickly snatch the arrow(After all, an arrow is slower than a bullet). Ozzy will take the artificial gravity generator, as well as the arrow he snatched, and run towards his opponents at full speed, throwing the arrow like a javelin. Macgyver will follow directly behind Ozzy. Peter helps by using the sheild he just blocked the Gastro Acid with, and keep protecting Ozzy from any potential attacks from Shuckles. As soon as Ozzy comes in close distance of about 5 meters, he will throw the Artificial gravity generator towards his enemy, after increasing the power 10 fold, therefore crushing his opponents to the ground for a short period of time. Since this only lasts a few seconds at most, this gives Ozzy and Macgyver, already heading towards them due to the momentum, to quickly reach attacking range. Ozzy will engage Paper mario and Link, while Macgyver quickly stabs the soft parts of Shuckle, while Peter rams Magnezone into Kirby. Deep blue says: Queen to E-6. Checkmate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ultimate Team War - Ender's Game

Thank you for posting your team, tkubok. This shall be great. Team Member 4: Magnezone [1] Magnezone is a Lv100 Electric/Steel type Pokï¿½mon. It has an extremely high Special Attack and a high Defense. Its attacks are Shock Wave, a target-seeking wave of electricity with decent damage, Reflect, an attack that sets up a physical barrier that lessens the impact of physical attack, Signal Beam, a Bug-type attack that can cause Confusion, and Psych Up, a move that copies any stat changes in any ally onto itself. It holds a Shell Hell item, allowing it to regenerate health upon hitting a target. Team Member 5: Shuckle [2] Shuckle is a Lv100 Bug/Rock type Pokï¿½mon. It has ridiculously high Defense and Special Defense. It's attacks are Acupressure, a move that randomly increases the Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, Speed, Evasiveness, or Accuracy of either Shuckle or an ally, Gastro Acid, a move that negates the target's ability, Helping Hand, a move that increases the power of an ally's attack, and Encore, a move that forces the target to do whatever it was doing repeatedly. It holds a Leftovers item, allowing it to regenerate health over time. Its ability is Sturdy. Now, for strategy: At the start of the battle, Shuckle repeatedly Acupressures Paper Mario, increasing Paper Mario's stats greatly. Magnezone then Psych Ups Paper Mario's stats, making it even more powerful. After all this is done, Paper Mario riding Squirps, Link, UFO Kirby, and Magnezone enter the Battle Room, and Link uses his Clawshot to drag Shuckle into the Battle Room as well. The portal closes. Magnezone uses Reflect, and replenishes Reflect when necessary. If Team CON has not yet entered the Battle Room, Link stands poised under the portal with an arrow, and Kirby charges up a UFO Wave Cannon, to destroy the first thing that comes out. Shuckle climbs onto Magnezone's back and uses Helping Hand. Magnezone uses Shock Wave on whatever comes through the door. Stephen Hawkings' electronic wheelchair would explode when overcharged by Shock Wave. He'd be fried to a crisp in no time. Deep Blue would explode upon being hit by electricity as well. MacGyver would not survive an arrow to the heart, a UFO Wave Cannon to the body, and a Shock Wave. Ozymandias would be unable to dodge Shock Wave, so he would be electrocuted to death. Shuckle would use Gastric Acid on Peter, eliminating his psychokinetic ability, and he'd be destroyed in a flurry of electricity, energy, and bomb arrow. Signal Beam would also be powerful, as it is a Bug-type attack, super-effective against psychics, assuming Shuckle doesn't already make Peter worthless. Your move. 1. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... 2. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
Ultimate Team War - Ender's Game

I accept this challenge, sir. My team will consist of... THE GREAT HUMAN ALLIANCE OF HUMANS AND A MECHANICAL CHESS PLAYER!!!! Team member 1: Stephen Hawkings.(1) The foremost expert in Gravity and theoretical physics, also known as "That guy in the wheelchair", Stephen Hawkins, the author of "A brief History of time" is equipped with his trusty electronic wheelchair and an onboard computer that allows him to voice his opinions. Team member 2: Deep Blue.(2) Deep Blue, once constructed by IBM to defeat the evil russian dictator despot known as Gary Kasparov in a game of chess(Thus simulating what a real battle would have been), and thought to have been deconstructed for the purpose of delaying the inevitable "rise of the machines", has now come back to defeat Mongeese and his evil army of non-human aliens. Armed with multiple cell processors, a cooling unit and an external battery source that gives the Deep Blue up to 7 days of life. Team member 3: Macgyver.(3) Also known as Secret agent Angus Macgyver, this agent is extremely resourceful when it comes to getting out of tight situations. Armed with his trusty pocket swiss army knife, and a roll of industrial-strength adhesive duct tape. Team member 4: Ozymandias.(4) Also known as Adrien Veidt, the main antagonist of the Watchman series. He is assumed to be the smartest man on the planet(With the exception of Stephen Hawkins), and having great capacity and control over his own mental and physical abilities. Armed with his suit, that is constructed to absorb some minor damage, and physical reflexes that allow him to catch a bullet. Team member 5: Peter Petrelli(5) For the sake of the "Street level abilities" rule, i shall make him the latter version, that is, he can only carry one ability at a time, and upon acquiring a new ability, he loses his current one. His starting ability is psychokinetic, that is, the ability to move things with his mind. Your turn, sir. Source: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess_computer) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://watchmen.wikia.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...