BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

How could I possibly be rambling, when I have profoundly suggested for you to see life as a blank slate that is infinitely potent in what could be, than to see life as a picture that is finitely potent in what it can be? A child can be everything - a doctor, cop, fireman, lawyer, so on, cannot be everything. A blank sheet of paper is open for all artists - a used sheet of paper is open for critics. Your imagination is infinite - your vision is finite.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

Life is infinite, and finite, like a blank slate versus a painted over slate. In life, it's infinite when you have never made a choice in your life - so everything is open to your directional influence, while choices lead to segments of reality which support you in some manner, while it does not in another manner. So the best way to live life, is to never define yourself in it - keep living as a mystery, a question, undefined in a Universe that is becoming in the same way as you are. You, this Universe, the bacteria, everything are just as naive - remember that. Remember that life is not a story - life is a story in the making. Who is the piper? The Universe, my friend. The piper has always been the Universe - as it goes along as it does, the notes continue on changing, yet the world keeps on spinning despite that. This Universe is a magnificent specimen. Most important, you cannot spell organism without orgasm.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

note that i am taking the con position in this debate. i usually take the pro position. i changed my stance and want someone to argue the opposite. this is what i am negating: 000000000000 "unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist can the unlimited limit itself? if not, it is not unlimited. if so, it is not unlimited. thus, we can see by probing a few questions about what it means to be unlimited, that it does not really exist, at least in terms of being ever present. 0000000000000 i argue, that the unlimited doesn't exist as we understand it. anything that might be said to be unlimited is limited by the laws of nature, and logic. "unlimited but as otherwise limited by logic". so, the unlimited as it comes to the questions about the unlimited limiting itself doesn't exist..... the best answer to the question is not so much that the unlimited can limit itself, but that the unlimited is limited already. but, that doesn't leave open the possibility for something to go beyond logic. making a square a circle type situation, or making the mean mean 'fish'. when we approach it from 'super logic' perspective, the unlimited doesn't have to, and wouldn't be expected to make sense. the questions that were asked about limiting it or not have no meaning at that point, to something that is above rational meaning to begin with.
Abortion and murder are not morally equivalent.

So you screwed up, you got boned and some of his semen, or all of it, went inside of you and now you're pregnant. You don't want the baby and the exhaustion of having it could ruin all the plans of life that you had but there is a medically safe procedure to carry out to kill the fetus.So you go up to the abortion clinic and the doctor turns around and tells you "Sorry but you're not allowed to do that because that little guy their has a right to life that surpasses your right to good health." So, you suck it up and go through 9 months of hell only for him to be a stillborn kid, or maybe before that there was a miscarriage. Heck, let's say the kid gets born and finds out he was an accident that the parents truly wish had never been born and would have gone through with killing had the law not been in place and in his anger kills his parents and takes revenge on the world in a life of crime.Let's say he becomes the next Einstein and gives great theories to the world, is it worth that one Einstein for all the babies that grow up neglected due to parents not wanting them and being unhappy and ruining this world? If you look at the statistics, countries where abortion is outlawed generally have higher proportions of poverty and crime than ones where it's socially accepted. It's not coincidence that they are also overpopulated and have many more social issues within their nations than nations that have loosened up laws on abortion. This is because killing something that hasn't ever had the chance to know it exists is completely morally different to killing someone who already knows it exists and who will leave behind emotional scars in their friends and relatives once they are dead.I challenge you to prove to me that killing is killing no matter what without also proving that washing your hands isn't murdering bacteria. Good luck.
You lick me, I will lick you

You lick me, Then I will lick you. We will help each other along. We read in the Bible how we are kindred souls adopted into the family. And we have a power bigger than all of this world together - When we lick each other's cheek. Enemy that we face is too big for just one, We can't stand all alone. Let us join our hearts and lick our cheeks, And march for the Lord, Until the battle is won. Jesus sent a gardna to pray for you and me, And lick each other according to the word of a father above.
The Ice Age had less clouds

I'm not trolling. The sea level was lower than today. Because the ice melts, the sea level rise. Cause the sea level is lower than today, the Ice Age had less precipitation and clouds causing more droughts. Most of the water would be in the air. Did you know there is the worst drought happening is in Texas cause it did not get any rain for months?Theres no facts to back that up. half of this is random stuff that has nothing to do with a ice age.Long time ago, Florida also had a drought but finally it is in a hurricane. So if the ice age had more droughts. It would be because of less precipitation.This would be a great debate
The Ice Age had less clouds

I'm not trolling. The sea level was lower than today. Because the ice melts, the sea level rise. Cause the sea level is lower than today, the Ice Age had less precipitation and clouds causing more droughts. Most of the water would be in the air. Did you know there is the worst drought happening is in Texas cause it did not get any rain for months? Long time ago, Florida also had a drought but finally it is in a hurricane. So if the ice age had more droughts. It would be because of less precipitation.
The Ice Age had less clouds

the sea level was much lower than today, causing less precipitation and more droughts. And there is less clouds with lower sea level. Then people would have less water to drink.(Got to the goods)Links?Now I nearly failed Earth sic. but it doesn't work that way.Are you trolling? If there was droughts in a ICE AGE and with the sea flood lower, it would be that because of heat. Where does the water go?
The Ice Age had less clouds

Questions to my opponent:1. Does the Ice Age really have more clouds than today? I don't think so. Maybe. But it sure is possible for global warming to make more places dry. But this is extreme.2. Is the Ice Age mostly snowy or rainy? I think it is mostly rainy.Oh?3. If the Ice Age really mostly snowy than rainy, would there really be more clouds?Its called a ice age for a reason.
The Ice Age had less clouds

We will use http://en.wikipedia.org... a example.Ice age: An ice age or, more precisely, glacial age, is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earths's surface and atmospherePrecipitation: The main forms of precipitation include drizzle, rain, sleet, snow, graupel and hail. Stuff that comes from cloudsAnd if a Ice age is snowy theres more clouds and precipitationhttp://en.wikipedia.org...(meteorology) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

I will first argue why abortion is wrong, then I will respond to your arguments. Why abortion is morally wrong Firstly, abortion intentionally kills a human foetus. We know that a human foetus is a human being. We also know that murder is the intentional killing of a human being. Therefore abortion is murder. Murder is morally wrong * Therefore abortion is morally wrong As I do not know which premises (if any) you dispute, so I will justify the premises that you dispute in round 2. Response to Pro's arguments Your main argument is that abortion would prevent a child from living a life that could be miserable. However, in what world do we have the right to murder people against their will if we subjectively deem their lives not worth living? With your logic, we would be perfectly justified in walking into an orphanage and killing all the orphans. You say that abortion would reduce child abuse, but that"s replacing one evil with another. Since when do we kill people to prevent them from being abused? Furthermore, the majority of orphans to do not suffer child abuse; so if abortion was encouraged instead of adoption then the majority of orphans would be murdered despite them not actually suffering abuse at all. Why should the majority be killed in order to reduce the suffering of the minority? "17,900,000 will never fin a home , would you want that for a kid?" A childhood in an orphanage is a lot better than no childhood (and adulthood) at all. Even if we deem that it is not, why should we have the authority to deny these human beings the chance in life? We don"t see many suicidal orphans, which is surely testament to the fact that a childhood in an orphanage is preferable to death. "What's better putting a kid threw that ? Or doing what is best for the parent and child." Abortion =/= doing what is best for the parent and child. Why? Because killing the child is not doing what's best for it. I agree that it isn't nice to be brought up in an orphanage, but is it better than death? Far from it. *apart from cases of self-defence when it is proportional action in regards to the attack.
Abortion

I know there are a lot of people in this world that think only there way is right and will not listen to anyone else opinion but what I can't understand is why you care what other people are doing... Heres the thing about abortion do you know a kid that is a orphan? Foster kid? Or that was put up for adoption? And then if the answer is yes do you know there life story? Also do you know any one who grew up unwanted or was abused or even just had a very very low income family? We'll here's my question to that... Do you wish that life upon another kid? In the u.s 899,000 kids are abused (that we know of) 51.3 present are girls. 16.5 per every 1.000 kids are born into a abusive life in 2005 1,460 kids died from abuse.... I get we can't stop abuse completely but abortion will lower the rates of abuse so the kid doesn't even have the chance to grow up into that life. What if you put the child up for adoption? 397,122 kids in the u.s are up for adoption 32% of those kids will have to wait a minimum of 3 years to get adopted if at all there are 153 million orphans in the world 17,900,000 will never fin a home , would you want that for a kid? 55% of the kids without homes have areadly been placed in more than 3 homes and 33% have changed elementary school more than 5 times Adopted children make up 2% of the worlds kids that may not seem like many but it truly is So here's my question too you... What's better putting a kid threw that ? Or doing what is best for the parent and child.
right+intent=morality

math=objective because 1+1=2 not 3 therefore it is not subjective. math=absolute it is absolute that 1stone+1stone=2stone, it cannot be 3 immoral= subjective it is immoral in your opinion but it is not mine. it could be moral for me to give a poisonous cantaloupe but that is subjective i could also hate apples, so that is immoral for me math=logic+objective=+absolute earlier you said its subjective but now it is objective therefore what i said is correct because my statement is absolute
right+intent=morality

But being evil is subjective. If I'm Hitler I'm evil to the Jews, but savior to the Nazis. you cannot answer my question because it is imaginary. i never had a question therefor me having not a question is absolute. evil=subjective it is subjective that i give a deadly poisonous mushroom because i can also give them a poisonous cantaloupe so that would mean it no longer is immoral? killing being right at the right time is subjective because it something is not the right time, even though that also is subjective killing=absolute evil=subjective it is absolute to kill, but it is subjective whether or not it is evil
right+intent=morality

being entirely evil, like hypothetically 100 percent evil, there is no right thing i can do, i cant tell you an answer to a question you have, because logically that is the answer to your question morality is guided by objective so even thou subjective still absolute, like 1+1 deadly poisonous mushroom=immoral to give to my kid healthy apple=moral to give to my kid killing is evil but a wrong can be a right at the right tme
right+intent=morality

it is true you wrote it down, but the content of the equation is could be false which is objective because math=objective i never said there is no subjective i said what you think it right is subjective yes i agree intent is subjective i said that already the intent of you choosing your fruits are subjective choosing watermelon's is defined the right thing to do, only in your definition and your moral not in mine or cassidy's cassidy hates watermelons reality=objective but my opinion on reality is subjective i can eat a poisonous cantaloupe because i have obamacare therefore i won't see it as immoral because obamacare will save me
right+intent=morality

yes if you write them down they are objective, but IS goes to the source, simply like without everything there can be no source, so the source is everything.. are false equations true if you write them down then? you said, right=subjective is there no subjective? intent is subjective not an object the fruits are not subjective troll you could think... but there is a reality to contrast, go ahead and eat a poisonous cantalope ..
right+intent=morality

word and numbers are objective because if you write them down they are absolute absolute=objective what i make of those words are subjective if i say that word sounds ugly that is subjective but the word itself is objective right=subjective there is no wrong or right there is only the force the math is right but what you intend is subjective i could also take 1 apple and 1 pineapple and it still would be right your intention is subjective. the result of giving the poisonous cantaloupe is objective, but what i think will happen is subjective, therefore my morality is subjective i could think the poisonous cantaloupe is helpful but the real result is objective whether or not it is immoral is subjective in my opinion it is immoral, but my friend Cassidy would disagree the moon round which is objective, but if you think it is a rectangle would that mean it is subjective? the opinion is subjective not the moon in your case the answer is subjective but the correct math is objective
right+intent=morality

words and numbers are subjective, of the mind beyond light on my screen or sound i utter into the eather math is absolute based on objective, is it right to take 1 apple, and 1 orange into my cart in the mall, if i intend to buy 2 fruits for the day? or wrong? is right and wrong objective? i agree evil dosnt exist in reality is it right to give your kid the poisonous cantalope to keep it healthy? and what if you switch it out with the apple.. morality is absolute based on objective if you somehow got Supermans powers over night and you tell me to shoot you in the chest with my rifle, is it then immoral for me to take aim, and pull the trigger? math is subjective, guided by objective therfore absolute.. as a stone is not not a stone, it isnt 2, and it isnt 0 how could i do a false equation if math is objective?
Gym should not be required for high school students.

The teacher or coach should accept the students mental reasons for not participating in gym when they have multiple doctors notes in their file. The teacher should not punish them for providing a doctors note. The frontal lobe has nothing to o with this topic, it can be damaged in this situation however. A student maybe picked on or made fun of by their lack of athletic skill in gym. That sends a message to the frontal lobe that will cause the student to associate gym with that bullying they received during that class. Yes, the clubs I have mentioned are optional, but Con forgot the importance of being in that club. A student could find interest in a club or sport and join. They get interested even more and stick to it for the rest of their school carrier. IF they decide the drop it, they still learn what it takes to support their part and work with other people.
Gym should not be required for high school students.

The teacher has every right to deny a child exemption if they lack a credited doctor's notice.The frontal lobe in adolescent humans has yet to fully develop, thus causing emotional instability that blocks rational and logical thinking. If a student really does have an injury or condition that prevents participation in an activity, then why should providing a doctor's notice be an issue? These clubs that Pro mentions are fully optional. A student is not required to participate in these extracurricular clubs. There is also the issue that there is not a club provided that peaks the student's interest. Many hobbies are single-person activities, and hardly require any form of teamwork. The arts are guided by a director, often with little student to student interaction regarding the work. Sports are selective. A coach has to pick and choose which students can participate in the sport, thus allowing less active kids to be excluded. Sexuality education ties into the topic of health class. Core content classes are rushed as is to meet national educational standards, taking even more time to teach sex-ed would be counterproductive to the overall academia of the school. These stereotypes that Pro mentions are virtually dead. While there are the few outliers, such as the overly competitive students or the non-participating outcasts, the overall majority melds into a singular group that participates in the provided activity. PE offers a refreshing break from the usual desk atmosphere of most classrooms. Often times, PE classes include field trips to places such as the park or local athletic recreational activities. This allows the student to interact with a hands-on experiences. The class provides what I like to call a "sleep period." It takes the students away from the stressful and pressure of the common academic testing, and allows tangental learning of teamwork through physical activity and sports.
Gym should not be required for high school students.

It is true that a student should not be punished for their medical reasons for not participating in gym, but whenever a teacher doesn't accept the fact that a student couldn't do a certain activity, it is not right. "Teamwork" building does happen in gym, but there are clubs that teach students well, such as sports, an art form, or taking up a hobby. Yes, sexually education is required for all students to receive education about the dangers of sex, but it should not be only in gym classes. Most classes have time to receive the "sex talk", so it should not be an issue for classes to receive this course. That course doesn't require that many class periods. It does create a stereotype for gym classes as well.
Gym should not be required for high school students.

I will argue against resolution, and that gym should be a requirement for students. First of all, I would like to address Pro's statement on "medical reasons." According to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), if a person is credited by a practicing doctor of the correct field, a student cannot be punished for a physical disability [1]. If there is a said "medical reason", my opponent should receive a notice from their doctor to excuse themselves from participating in certain physical education standards. Physical education is not only about keeping kids active.The purpose of a physical education (PE) class is to enrich communication, teamwork, people skills, leadership, and then physical activity. Commonly, a PE class is a full year course that is split into half PE and half health. Both of these classes are essential to a student's education. In the health section, you learn useful skills such as first-aid, basic CPR, coping techniques, and even sexual education. Twenty-two states, and the District of Columbia, require public school systems to provide a sexual education course. Twenty of these require HIV and STD education. This education is required to be based off scientific evidence and non-discriminatory standards [2]. Not only is sexual education timely with high school, but it's also a stage in maturity. This course provides the information in an academic and professional fashion, thus introducing freshman to this ideology of sex being a mature and serious situation. The class covers the most common forms of contraception, STD's, and even incidents of drug induced date rape. The general course covers topics such as: anatomy, puberty, identity, STD's, pregnancy, personal safety, and even healthy relationships [3]. [1]: http://www.ada.gov... [2]: http://www.ncsl.org... [3]: http://www.futureofsexed.org...
Gym should not be required for high school students.

I'll admit, i am not an active person because of many medical reasons. I've tried to be active and still try to this day. Although physical education is healthy for teenagers, not all teenagers can participate in physical education. Our gym participation gets grades by how much we participate in that class. If and when our participation isn't the best, or when don't "dress out" our grades suffer. That grade can ruin a GPA of a honors/AP student just because of gym. If gym is required, then an art class should be too.