BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everything is Math: We are surrounded by numbers!

Thank you for taking on this challenge, and I am grateful for your response! First, I am sorry that your teacher said that to you; she lied. I personally despise professors that say that, simply because there are areas of science where you can easily apply the knowledge; that being the Pythagorean Theorem, Wilson's Theorem, or any other mathematical concept/principle/theorem (pick your term ;)) Sometimes (in order to do that) you have to think outside the box, and that is Ok; it is encouraged. Second, you have to understand that sometimes the knowledge you are taught in school is not "meant" to be easily applicable in the real world, but instead, they help you develop basic problem solving skills and evolve your critical thinking. I don't think I need to provide a link/proof to demonstrate that, it is a well known fact (and common sense [pardon my vulgarity]) that early math helps you develop crucial skills. Algebra for example, it is not by ITSELF something any scientist, especially a mathematician, would use on the construction of a rocket; as it provides absolutely nothing, it is a tool, as most things in math. You are being taught a set of tools to solve problems, it is up to you to apply the things you are taught in creative or efficient ways. For more information on the abstraction and application of Mathematics take look at Number Theory and Lambda Calculus two relevant fields in Computer Science and many other sciences. https://www.math.brown.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org... Third (and last), tackling the topic discussed (which is more philosophical than strictly mathematical) "why would you need to?" Why would you need to do anything? The goal of science on a long enough timeline is to understand how the universe works on every level, if there's a question, there's a scientist thinking about the answer to that question, wouldn't you agree? Imagine traveling back in time to 1518 and explaining how you had these things called laptops, that you could use to write things on a small glowing window, and communicate with people across the world in mere seconds; or how you could travel from New York to London in 7 hours in giant metal birds called airplanes; keep in mind that electricity had not even been invented back then, even the toilet would have been a crazy invention back in 1518. Though the idea of expressing everything as a mathematical formula or a mere number might seem a bit stretched, think about the people in 1516; we might be nuclear bomb wielding idiots to humans living in the year 2518. Why restrain ourselves to what we know? Why limit our imagination to what it makes sense? Mathematics already help us take many practices to an astonishing level of accuracy (practices being the exploration of space or the human body).
Everything is Math: We are surrounded by numbers!

Hello, I would like to make a specific fiat to this motion. By saying, "Everything is Math," to a certain extent, you are correct. Yes, you can calculate a certain mass, speed, etc, with math. But my main question, is: why would you need to? Yes, mental math, addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, fractions and more are usable, but many of them have no real life application. For example, the "pythagorean theorem," is taught for several years in school. In fact, I just graduated middle school, and was learning this math concept for a few weeks. I asked my teacher, "when will this be useful in real life." She looked me straight in the face and said, "there is no real life application." If my own math teacher, who's job it is to teach me math, admits that there in no real life application, then I am wondering why we must learn it in the first place. So, what I am trying to say is, yes: math can be used to find the volume of a cylinder, or the perimeter of a fence. However, this doesn't come in real life, and thus, math technically not around us, and when it is, it is a very rare occurrence. I'd love to hear your response. Thanks.
It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists (2)

Please do not accept if you have completed under ten debates!I want to debate someone who can actually finish it. Resolved: It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists.I will be affirming the resolution. Burden of Proof:Shared (My future opponent may argue against that if he wants but I think it is natural for this debate that it is shared).Definitions:Possible - Being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization [1]Unicorn - An animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [2] (a few changes)Flying pink unicorn - A unicorn that is of, or mostly, the color pink and has the ability to fly.For this debate flying just means the ability. Structure: 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal. 4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.I have a few terms That each participant have respectable behavior and good conduct. No plagiarismIf needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section. I will make my opening case in round two.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
Katniss Everdeen vs.Tris Prior

Part of a world where people are split into one of five factions based on their strongest personality trait and way of thinking. This girl is so stubborn it isn"t even her fault, she cannot be classified making her divergent and threatening to her society. She is very small and thin, yet as the books have described her, she is mean enough to be known as the attack dog of Dauntless, the courageous faction. If you were part of a group known for being brave and reckless and tough, and you were classified as its scariest member, I would say you are someone to avoid. Tris does have a caring, intelligent, selfless side, but identifies well with courage as she faces her fears head on. She does not back down, always speaks her mind, even when it is the leader of a faction that may kill her. This is a girl who lives in a world where fear is a training tool and she scores high every single time. So to sum Tris up, born selfless, trained courageous, and trained to kill. http://moviepilot.com...
Katniss Everdeen vs.Tris Prior

1. Tris chooses her new life, Katniss is forced into her choice to save her sister: I like that Tris makes the ultimate decision as to which faction she wants to join (although it was never really in doubt). She knows she"ll never really fit in to Abnegation and her real home is Dauntless, and it shows Tris knows her own mind. Katniss chooses her future with no thought of the what might happen, it"s a spur of the moment thing to save her sister Primrose. Whilst I applaud Katniss"s bravery I think she doesn"t always have an idea of the consequences of her choices. 2. She"s even tougher than Katniss. Tris learns new skills, Katniss could already use her bow and arrow. Until she joined Dauntless, Tris has led a very sheltered life (she"s hardly even allowed to look in the mirror). When she joins Dauntless, Tris learns new skills like bare-knuckle fighting and even using a gun that will become more important as her story progresses. Katniss already knows how to handle her bow and arrow, but take that away and can Katniss defend herself? 3. Tris knows her own mind Tris knows she"s attracted to Four, Katniss doesn"t know what she wants and gets caught up in a love triangle. It"s obvious from the first time Tris meets Four that something will happen between them and as Tris"s story develops the viewer sees how important Four becomes to Tris as she adapts to her new world and the challenges she faces. Katniss sort of likes Peeta but she also sort of likes Gale. Make a decision Katniss, you do NOT want to be compared to Bella Swan! 4. Tris wants to save the world Once Tris discovers what"s really happening in her world, she fights to stop the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people, whereas Katniss only fights to stop her own death (or Peeta"s). Tris is more selfless than Katniss. For example, as she tries to pull Four out of the attack simulation, Tris points the gun at her own head. As Tris fights to stop the Erudite attack simulation, she saves hundreds of lives, but if she succeeds her world will change and probably not for the better, whereas if Katniss survives the Hunger Games she"ll be rewarded with a nice new home and lots more food. 5. Tris isn"t an attention seeker Tris never reveals what she"s capable of doing, because she"s scared of the consequences of revealing she"s Divergent. When Katniss feels the Games Makers aren"t paying her enough attention she shoots her arrow through their roast pig. http://flicksandthecity.com...
Katniss Everdeen vs.Tris Prior

I honestly think Tris would win. I like Katniss better as a character, but Tris is very skilled in hand to hand combat, and with a gun. Katniss may be a juggernaut with the bow and arrow, but in the end Tris is more composed, while Katniss often becomes hysterical due to her traumatic experiences. If it were just based on skill, Katniss would win hands down, but when you factor everything else in, Tris has the upper hand. http://www.quibblo.com...
Balanced Budget Amendment

Can't wait to get this debate started!My ArgumentsWar and National EmergenciesWhen a country is at war, it has to spend a large amount of money. We did so in every war we spent on. President Franklin Roosevelt had to raise spending by a lot in order to win World War 2. We needed to go into debt to fight this war because had we balanced the budget we would have not had the money to fight in it. World War 2 is not the only war we fought in, we must also look at the Cold War, which was mainly won by the actions of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan, George H.W. Bush went to war with Iraq which spent that we needed to keep up a lot of spending. After the war Bill Clinton became president, but because he had no wars to deal with he could reduce military spending and debt as well.Finally, after 9/11, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did the responsible thing and raised spending on the military, but due to the ways the terrorists acted, the Department of Homeland Security and other domestic security measures were needed. Like with Roosevelt, Reagan, and the elder Bush, our two most recent presidents need to raise spending in time of war. This can been seen here: However, we should not just look at wars, what about other disasters? Hurricanes and other natural disasters all require government assistance. What if a disease comes and spreads worse and is more deadly than the Bubonic Plague? The government must respond to it. This means that we need money.Economics and RevenueWhenever we go into an economic recession, the government loses revenue. As we have seen in 1929 and 2008, recessions can be unexpected. Traditionally, when a recession occurs then we need to relieve the poor. It happened in 1933 with the rise of Franklin Roosevelt and it happened in 2008 with the rise of Barack Obama. This means that the government must take immediate action to fix the recession and that means spend money. This can be even worse when you maybe in the middle of a recession and at war. What about tax cuts? They usually make you lose revenue. Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut in 1981, but revenue dropped. What if this dropped passed the amount of revenue need for spending? Then we would be in debt. I got that from here: Congress Breaks a lot of AmendmentsCongress has broken several constitutional amendments over the years that may have been unpopular, but still happened. This has angered generally everyone, but it still happens. How is a balanced budget amendment going to be any different. Thank you.
Balanced Budget Amendment

Resolved: The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions:1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at . http://tinyurl.com......;2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper4) Adopt - Put into placeRounds1) Acceptance2) Opening Statements (ONLY)3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing StatmentsRules1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow.4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience.5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss
The practice of humans purchasing and then eating meat is unethical

My opponent has graciously informed me in the "comments" section that (s)he is forfeiting the round, since adding arguments in the last round would be unfair. I applaud Con's considerateness in letting me know this in advance and her/his dedication to the ethics of debate. Thanks! With that being said, the debate must go to Pro, according to both of our admissions. Can't wait to debate you again in better circumstances, TheOnComingStorm!
The practice of humans purchasing and then eating meat is unethical

Greetings! I hope to engage in a debate about whether buying meat and then eating that meat is unethical. I wish this debate to include primarily arguments surrounding veganism/vegetarianism, so I have given definitions in order that we might focus on "generic" meat-eating cases. This debate is only open to persons who have completed at least three debates. 1. Pro must defend that the general practice of purchasing and then eating meat (but not necessarily every example) is unethical. 2. "Eating meat" will mean the common and continued practice of eating nonhuman flesh by adult humans who are reasonably economically self-sufficient. 3. The round will be specifically be aimed at the purchasing and then eating of (the same) meat in America from grocery stores (and not, for example, road kill). To clarify, the ethics I am talking about does not refer to some "inherent" morality, but a morality in the context of the contemporary American community. First round is acceptance, and a chance to contend or ask about any of the conditions of the debate, if you choose to do so. I'm looking forward to a great debate! --kbub
abortions

2) Well, I guess there are a lot of bad things we are allowed to make choices about, like gambling and drinking/drugs. 3) A shelter is definitely better than an abortion, but Being in a shelter can provide an opportunity to keep the child's parents from worrying, and/or give the child a better life than anyone in the immediate family could offer. 4) That's true, but that same argument could apply to people in intensive care or more closely to comatose and hospitalized old people 5) well that fetus would be dead outside the mothers body anyway :p but there is definitely a difference, but in the long one not much since the fetus would eventually develop to be a baby 6) I don;t really have much to say on this one just refer to 2 7) That is true, this point is jut really 50/50 8) Shelters are usually available, or the government can intervene, since its their job to make sure every citizen is safe Trumps wall isn't really realistic, a fence is more likely if it actually happens. But you can't go at him because every basically every other politician has done this at some point
abortions

1. Thanks for stopping on the first one I don't know why it got cut off. 2. From a moral standpoint I am not arguing that it is bad to get an abortion I think they are terrible and would never want anyone that I know to have one but I think that is a choice that a woman should be able to make 3. In some cases an abortion may be helping the baby a childhood of struggle, being that the mother may be poor, or she may put it in a shelter, while I think that a shelter is better then an abortion I still do believe that someone that is pretty much abandoned at birth will not have the best life/childhood. 4. Although you said that older people and young children also can not survive on their own they are still living on there own not needing their mother to eat certain things for the kid or older person, nor entirely eat for the person, although a infant needs the mother it can survive more then an hour without the mother around. 5. I will take for an example that I saw on this website, someone wrote that, I am holding a baby and a fetus, you need to choose one of them to drop, the one that you choose will die if it is dropped {the drop symbolizes killing one of them}. you choose the fetus because you know there a difference. Your number 3 left me stumped so I do not have a rebuttal for that particular paragraph/argument. 6. number 4 was a good point that is definitely brutal to me and as I said I would not want to have anyone I know ever do this because as I do believe it is a terrible thing to do it should still be someone's choice to do that and because it is not ruled as homicide until the fetus is born, then although this pains me to say the woman still does have the right to do that. 7. I do agree that a baby may bring joy but a baby may also bring a hard time in someone's life, not being able to get the proper things to raise the child could leave the baby at a bad state or the mother broke and then unable to live her previous life without the baby. 8. I agree that the baby should be given to the family but what if the family does not want a baby or is not in a stable place to raise a new born? I will also continue to do research, also what do you think of trumps wall, do you agree, if you do then I could create another debate if not I will think of something else. Thanks
abortions

In the case of this argument, it's less of a political view but more of a moral view, since its politically okay, but the moral side is questionable. Abortion, is morally wrong since it ends something that at best, could have been a source of joy for those around it, and possibily many other people, and at worst, a nuisance to society, before it could even begin. 1) since the law is made of iron, and thus cannot be changed, I have no stance against your first point, accept that, It technically IS alive. Since as a part of the mother, it uses her air, water and nutrients and is attached to her body. I'm not going to advance this point further for now, since you didn't seem to finish your argument2) It is fairly common sense that an unborn baby cannot survive on its own, but neither can newborns, very small children, and very old people. Also, Complete freedom with your own body is not neccesarily a fully good thing though, for rarer, more sinister things like selling your own organs or harming yourself, which is a huge problem.3) According to these articles:http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...http://www.factcheck.org...;The latest time on which a baby can feel pain is 20 weeks, not 23, and that is the latest, since pain can start sooner. Doctors performing correctie surgery have also noted to fetuses flinching at the touch of sharp objects, and these procedures would be done earlier into the pregnancy, since later it would be harder to "correct" malformations.It is also very worth noting that since the function to feel pain is rooted in, but the function to modify the amount of pain you feel is not, to an unborn, a small stimulation might feel 10x worse than what it should. 4) It is worth noting the absolutely brutal way some abortions are carried out. As in " Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist, and tear the baby’s body into pieces. This continues until the child’s entire body is removed from the womb. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy describes the procedure saying, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”"No matter what your stance on abortion, you can agree, that sounds brutal and most likely feels just as brutal, if not worse, for the unborn5) Babies may bring a lot of joy. Some people who i have met have had their families brought together with smiles on their faces because of a child. Even accidental and unwanted, they can still bring joy.6) Should a women be raped, and their rapist did not use a condom or force-feed them birth control, or the women does not have the sense to take a pill afterwards, a child can live out life with its mother's parents, other relatives, with her, or if it comes to it, an orphanageThose are my arguments for now, I will continue to due a bit of research until your next argument is posted
abortions

Women should have the choice to get an elective abortion because they should be able to control their own body without government control. """ I believe that every woman has the right to their own body. According to the constitution a fetus has no rights until it is born. Until the fetus is born it is not considered alive by the US constitution. All the rights a fetus has goes to the mother, because in the constitution the 14th amendment says that something is alive when it is born, until then the fetus is part of the woman's body. So the government should not choose what """ An unborn baby is not able to survive on its own. The baby would not be able to survive on it"s own so it is not alive yet. It can not survive for a day without being inside of the women so this should still be considered her body and should be viewed as a woman's choice on what to do with there own body. """ Next the baby can not feel any pain at all until the 23 week meaning an abortion is not inhumane. Many people think that an abortion is inhumane because the baby is being killed and feeling extreme pain but scientist have concluded that a fetus can not feel pain until the 23 week. Although it can feel pain after the 23 week it is still in the mothers body and she should still have control over what she wants to do with it.
Kosovo is Serbia

Saying that Kosovo is not a country is blatant false. Kosovo is an autonomous province was a part of Serbia in 7 century. In short future it was captured by Byzantium. Than again in 13 century was captured again by Serbia. Serbia fought one of the biggest Serbian battles called Kosovo battle against Ottomans in 14th century. We defended Kosovo at all cost and was at that time(6-14 century)around 95 percent populated by Serbs. Serbia was defeated by Ottomans and was part of Ottoman Empire. Till 1690 Kosovo was by far mostly populated by Serbs. In 1960 Big Serbian migration happened. After 50 % of Serbs went to Austria-Hungary people from Albania started migrating to Kosovo because Albania was maybe worst country for living(money,army,government).That means that in 18 century it was 50% Serbs and 50% Albanians. Then after WW2 Kosovo was in bad conditions. Serbs were running away to better Serbia's parts. That Albanians saw as opportunity and started buying houses from Serbs for money. And in 1980 it was around 30% Serbs and 70% Albanians. Then Yugoslavia started breaking down. Kosovo(because Albanians had majority)wanted independence. War ended(Yugoslavian) and Albanians lead by so called "OKC" army started killing and burning down houses of Serbs. Serbia's army went to Kosovo and was beating with ease OKC. And cause Kosovo is big part on Balkan NATO and USA had to get in. And cause Albania is nothing hard for NATO and USA they took Albanians side so they could control biggest drugs chain in Europe. In Serbia Milosevic(president of Serbia in that time) made a referendum about should Kosovo be part of Serbia. Over 95% voted that Kosovo should be Serbia. Serbian army started attacking harder and then NATO and USA did theirs move. They started bombarding Serbia. Around 2500 civilians were killed cause of that bombarding. Serbia withdraw from war and USA and NATO took control of Kosovo. In that period OKC was still killing Serbs. Serbs were running for life and from 30% to 70% it was now 10% to 90%.