BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Laws of Mathematics are Unchangeable

Thank you for responding, ToastOfDestiny. All right, the main argument that I have to put forth here is, just because we think that a statement is a law of mathematics, doesn't mean that it actually is. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click on abstraction (mathematics), pages with () don't hyperlink properly.) Zero existed before we thought of it. Before Calculus was started in 1820 BC, the natural log of "n" was still equal to the area of the shape formed by x=n, x=1, y=0, and y=1/x; we just didn't know it yet. When we write "new" laws of mathematics, we aren't changing them; we are discovering them. For example, before Newton wrote his laws of physics, they affected all objects. Now, about your infinity. Just because we made some guesses about infinity, doesn't mean that they were laws of mathematics. Maybe what we currently think to be the laws of infinity may not be the actual laws of infinity, but that doesn't mean that there are no laws of infinity out there. Any law of mathematics that has been proven to be wrong never was a law of mathematics in the first place. Now, on to your argument about changing from a ten-based system to a three-based system. In this case, the symbol 11 no longer stands for eleven; it stands for four. Changing what a symbol represents clashes with the clause I included with my argument in Round 1. "Math, truly, has no foundation. It is based on assumption at its most basic level." And what we assume to be a law of math may not be a law of math. It is an assumption of something that may or may not be true. And 2x2=/=5. Simply, what we think of math changes, as we discover more and more things, but true mathematics never changes, and the resolution is affirmed.
The Laws of Mathematics are Unchangeable

I'll start with a definition: Mathematics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is that as long as the symbols and functions of math do not have their meanings changes, the laws of mathematics are unchangeable, no matter what you try to prove.
Ultimate Team War - Isle Delfino

My opponent first claims that Charizard has Solar Power, Zapdos has LightningRod, and Vaporeon has Hydration. However, these abilities are only present on Pokemon from the Dream World, a world introduced in Generation V. None of the Pokemon involved are from the Dream World, which doesn't exist in the anime, so none of them have Dream World abilities. Now, for my team members: 4. Blue-Eyes White Dragon This legendary dragon is a powerful engine of destruction. Virtually invincible, very few have faced this awesome creature and lived to tell the tale. His wiki: . http://yugioh.wikia.com... He shall start atop the Shine Gate. 5. Gyarados Once Gyarados goes on a rampage, its ferociously violent blood doesn't calm until it has burned everything down. There are records of this Pokémon's rampages lasting a whole month. More speficically, I use Misty's Gyarados. His wiki: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... He shall start in the water. And. .. start! Link hops atop Blue-Eyes, and Harry jumps on Charizard, who quickly flies up. The two dragons fly towards Ricco Harbor, as Gyarados moves in by sea. Harry casts a Bedazzling Hex on Gyarados so that it becomes invisible. Zapdos will be the first enemy visible, especially if it is trying to take out Gyarados. Link can fire a single Ice Arrow to freeze it; leaving it an easy target for a Hyper Beam KO. When the two dragons arrive at Ricco Harbor, Harry quickly fires an Expelliarmus at Dumbledore, disarming him, as Blue-Eyes fires White Lightning at Alakazam, KOing him and destroying Midna, who is particularly weak to light. If that doesn't work, Charizard's Flamethrower and Link's Light Arrow will do the trick. Dumbledore will surely be knocked unconscious in the resulting explosions. Any survivors of that onslaught will be consumed by Harry's Fiendfyre spell. This leaves only Vaporeon. Link can hop atop Gyarados, and using a combination of Chateau Romani and the Lens of Truth, he can easily find where Vaporeon hides. From there, Gyarados can fire a destructive Hyper Beam into the water, KOing Vapoeron. That's all five enemy characters down in three paragraphs. Good luck, mongoose!
Ultimate Team War - Isle Delfino

I shall choose the location of Rico Harbor. All Pokemon should, as in Mystery Dungeon, have all available abilities. This means your Charizard additionally has Solar Power, while Zapdos also gets LightningRod and Vaporeon gets Hydration. All Pokemon should be at level 100 for the sake of fairness in comparison between Pokemon. 1. Zapdos It shall be the one mentioned here: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(movie_2)#Zapdos It is essentially a large, Electric/Flying bird of destruction. Zapdoswill start perched at the top of the obscure building thing at Rico Harbor. 2. Alakazam It shall be this one:http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... It is a Psychic type with a rediculously high IQ and powerful Psychic attacks, including Teleport, which is always fun. It shall start meditating on top of one of the buidings. 3. Albus Dumbledore http://harrypotter.wikia.com... Known as the most powerful wizard, he shall be using the Elder Wand. He is standing next to Alakazam. 4. Vaporeon This one:http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... The Water evolution of the Evolution Pokemon, it can melt into the water and reappear elsewhere. It has Water Absorb and Hydration. Vaporeon is melted into the water. He he! 5. Midna http://zelda.wikia.com... She is a Twili Imp of great power. She possesses the Fused Shadows. She can turn into shadow or Twilight particles. Midna is currently Alakazam's shadow. May the battle commence.
Religion exsist and God is above all and nobody can prove me wrong open challenge for you guys.

There is a large difference between a thing being written which is later proved to be correct, and a person knowing a thing, writing it down, but not being taken seriously until it is proved by others. I could make a prediction about some of the planets in the universe, and some of them would turn out to be right - that does not mean I must have had divine intervention in order to get it right. Somebody not knowing the answer to a multiple choice question in a test, guessing D, and getting it right, does not necessarily mean he was guided to the right answer by a divine hand. It is possible to be correct without knowing it. Additionally, if you look in the night sky (and are in an area that isn't particularly light-polluted), you will see the stars move - albeit very slowly. Throughout the course of the night, they will move in an arc from one spot to another. Potentially, this is the type of orbit talked about in the Qur'an. The quote you have used is too vague to decipher whether it meant orbiting around in the night sky, or orbiting around the center of galaxies. If I said that there will be an outcome when I flip a coin - and it will either be heads or tails, I will eventually be proved right - when the coin is flipped. This is an analogy for the argument you have put (albeit in the comments section); Heads is orbits around the night sky, Tails is orbits around the center of galaxies. To summarize, just because something is predicted before it is proved right, especially if the prediction covers all possible outcomes, it does not mean that the prediction was helped by divine influence. Coincidences do occur. Thank you for reading this debate, and I hope you vote fairly. - GenericUser1026
Religion exsist and God is above all and nobody can prove me wrong open challenge for you guys.

1-When did We the humans know that the earth is round in shape. Answ is 300 to 500 years back 2-when did we know how does the baby form in the womb of the woman? Ans is 300 to 500 years back 3-when was science actually known ? Ans is lets say around 800 years back Well now lets talk a look at the noble quran which is much older than all of the above and makes around a 1500 years old Of we read it we will clearly read how the baby develope in the womb of the woman amd how the earth is shaped science approves yet it was known before science in hundreds of years. in the book of jacob which dates 2500 years back you can also see exactly how we are made and what we made of and how we developed in the womb of our mothers. This proves that there is someone who knows whatever there is between heaven and earth and by him we are all created
Religion exsist and God is above all and nobody can prove me wrong open challenge for you guys.

NOTE TO ALL POTENTIAL VOTERS: The way the first argument is structured makes it clear that we are actually debating over the motion: "This house believes that people can prove religions aren't real. " I say this because, despite being on the "con" side of the argument, he is clearly supporting the opinion that religions are concrete in their being correct. I am therefore on the "pro" side of the amended motion, earlier in the post. ARGUMENT: I believe that you cannot prove that religions are correct, because there is no solid proof of this. People quote the Bible as proof of the Christian God's existence, and therefore, the validity of the Christian faith altogether. However, the Bible could easily have been a fiction book written by a syndicate of authors who released it into the public. There is no solid proof that the events detailed in the Bible actually took place, or that the things it insists didn't happen (either by not directly mentioning it, or by denying it outright) didn't. In fact, there is a vast variety of proof for things such as the evolution, life and extinction of the dinosaurs, for example. People quote the Theory of Evolution being proof that science can't disprove Christianity, since it is only a "theory". This is a common misconception. Just because something is a Theory does not mean it is wrong. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is widely held as scientific fact, the reason it is not named as such is simply because nobody has been able to actually travel back in time and see the dinosaurs evolve over the course of the hundreds of millions of years of its existence. Because there is no proof that the events detailed in the Bible, for example, actually occurred, there is no way to prove the validity of any faith that relies on a holy script with unproved events. Therefore, until one can travel back in time to 4004 BC and witness the famous "And Let There Be Light" from Genesis 1. I acknowledge that this opinion will prove unpopular for a large number of readers, but I urge you to judge fairly.
Wearing underwear is not necessary.

We have already established that for men and women wearing underwear is necessary. So, in some cases, wearing underwear is necessary. The resolution is negated as it stands... but let's broaden the focus beyond men and women. In various parts of Asia, there is a disturbing new trend: dressing dogs in pantyhose. The DailyMail, England's preeminent news authority,* reports that "Most of the pooches in the 'doggy boudoir' photos are depicted laying down with their hind legs clothed in sheer black pantyhose pointed at the camera. One pet owner apparently even rouged the fur on 'cheeks' of her red Chow Chow dressed in black tights. Some online users took the trend a step farther, like one owner who decided to spice up the photo shoot by putting black leather stilettos on her two Labradors." Refer to link for images: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Clearly, pet owners have a thing for dressing their dogs in women's undergarments... so to the extent that people get off on that sort of thing, it's necessary. roflmao There are also certain trends in underwear, that are worth noting. ViralNova, which is clearly a reputable source, lists (1) glow in the dark underwear, (2) bras made of birds, (3) light up underwear, (4) underwear made from aluminum cans, (5) lego underwear, (6) fart absorbing underwear, (7) underwear made of beef jerky, (8) 3d underwear, (9) bacon underwear, and (10) computer chip underwear as coming into vogue. Kinky stuff there. http://www.viralnova.com... But, all joking aside... there are some kinds of underwear that are medically necessary.... others that satisfy our most perverted desires... and others yet that just make wearing pants more comfortable. Clearly, underwear is necessary. *I kid. I kid.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

As Con has failed to provide any new information to support his claim that America is more Gerrymandering than Democratic, I restate my previous arguments... Why to vote Con... Gave definitions on Gerrymandering and Democracy(definition of democracy included U.S. in it) Why to vote Pro... I have provided many examples on how the United States stands as a representative democracy today and has stood this way for hundreds of years. I have also succeeded in responding every round with a respective claim where as Con has forfeited the previous two rounds.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

This round since there has been no new information provided by Con I will rebuttal the little information she provided on Gerrymandering. According to Con, gerrymandering is the dividing of a state, or county into electoral districts that give one party a majority over the other in as many cases as possible. This helps to elect as many of one party's candidates into office as possible. However, according to Wikipedia, several states have taken different measures to prevent gerrymandering. 1) Using fixed districts: this stops future redistricting and instead uses existing political boundaries such as state country or provincial lines. 2)Objective rules to create districts: creating objective, precise criteria to which any district map must comply is another way that has been successful in reducing gerrymandering. Courts in the United States, for instance, have ruled that congressional districts must be contiguous in order to be constitutional. Contiguous as in sharing a common border, touching. This rules out the possibility of not including a county that a majority of opposing party and sticking them with a county that is 50 miles away and shares no common border. As you can see with the two examples provided above, gerrymandering is declining in the U.S. I will not say that it doesn't occur, because it does. Now, in our representative democracy, our nations people have to elect representatives to an office of higher power to make the important political decisions for the people. In any representative democracy, gerrymandering is going to occur, but it is under control. The U.S. has a Bill of rights that guarantee certain liberties, some are: 1) Freedom of speech 2)Freedom of press 3) Right to bear arms 4) Right to a fair trial These are just 4 of the first 10 Amendments in the United States Bill of Rights. These are guaranteed freedoms and liberties that are essential to our successful representative democracy.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

Now onto my side. .. I believe that America is, in fact, a democracy. There are certain garunteed freedoms, liberties, and equal rights that all American citizens have. These can all be seen through our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These are key features in any successful democracy. There are two forms of democracy. .. 1) Direct Democracy: In which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. 2) Representative Democracy: In most modern democracies you see today, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives. I believe that America is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy. Citizens with the power to vote(exceptions include but are not limited to: minors, certain convicts, and persons residing in the U. S. illegally. ) elect certain qualifying individuals to office to make the important decisions for the country in the name of the people.
Democracy & Gerrymandering

No, America is not a democracy. In order to adequately answer this question, it is important to understand the terms "democracy" and "gerrymandering." Here are those definitions according to Dictionary.com: Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. Gerrymandering: U.S. politics. the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. You decide...
The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks for the invitation, Bsh1! Theory/Kritiks Although I will try to be considerate of Bsh1's request to keep kritiks and theory out of the debate, I'm afraid I cannot promise to leave these arguments out entirely. I will, however, do my best to keep all of my arguments relevant, even if not classically topical. If the above is not acceptable within the confines of the rules, then I have regretfully misunderstood the wording of the rules. In this case, I request that this debate go unvoted and for Bsh1 and I to re-negotiate the format of a revised challenge. That being said, I think that this debate is sufficiently broad that most relevant kritiks would actually be topical, so I don't expect to make a highly kritical case. Forfeits Although I accept Bsh1's terms regardless, I request if possible that an exception for forfeits be made if both debaters agree to let a round be skipped (i.e. due to time pressures). Thanks again! Looking forward to a great debate!
The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

PrefaceI thank Kbub for agreeing to debate me on this! I think it is an interesting take on the Death Penalty debate, in that it seeks to evaluate the philosophy behind it, rather than becoming muddled in the practical concerns of its implementation. I would ask, however, that all arguments be topical to the resolution, and that we stick to the issue at hand (i. e. no Kritiks, theory, etc. ). I ask this only because I am genuinely interested in debating the topic, and not other concerns that may arise in the debate space. I would consider it a courtesy if Kbub would agree to refrain from such cases during this debate. Full TopicThe Death Penalty is Moral in the Following Scenario:The Criminal has been found guilty of crimes against humanity, specifically engineering a genocide (e. g. Rwanda), and engineering a mass rape (e. g. Nanking). There is ample documented evidence, witness testimony, and audiovisual evidence to support the conviction; moreover, he admits to his guilt. His trial was fair, he is mentally competent, and he was well-represented by a team of lawyers. He will not appeal his conviction. He has been found responsible for the death of thousands of people, the rapes of hundreds more, and the maltreatment of still thousands more. BOPIt is the job of Pro to affirm that the Death Penalty is moral in the aforesaid example. It is Con's job to argue that the Death Penalty is NOT moral in that example. JudgingI have--as an experiment and for the first time--asked 10 specific people to be judges on this debate. Only they are permitted to vote. If Kbub wishes to review and amend that list, Kbub should PM me prior to accepting. I am amenable to changes. DefinitionsDeath Penalty: "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. "Moral: "conforming to standards of right conduct. "Each debater is free to develop their own, potentially competing, interpretations of morality, and of what constitutes "right conduct. "Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. :)
Is the grapevine of telepathy, no more real then a dilution of the grandeur of schizoaffective.

What did the 109-year-old returned serviceman from the hatred death camps of the injustice of dictators to the apprentice of Natures way say in a way that has reference still of today? Hip-hip-hooray-hoorah, we say to you that stand alone within this disarray of seesaw Margery Daw. https://en.wikipedia.org... That you ain't alone as you think you are, M"kay. I will tell you a story of the naked boy named grubby that fell down the well that wasn't pushed and his fall was his own that found the dreaded shovel that the good digger left behind just in case. And somehow Naked Grubby made his way back to the surface to find his way home. So dark and dank it was within this prison of misfortune he said to his new companion the digger with a grunt as the first step platform was dug into the good wall as the dirt fell onto the muddy waters that chilled so well to keep a cool head and the heat that was formed from the power within was just. Grubby he was as the dirt rilled down overhead and underfoot it went to firm the muddy water for grubby to find firm ground but the water was gone so dry he was at the 2nd and 3rd and come forth. Now grubby was halfway up but had to sleep as exhaustion had taken its toll. Grubby lay's down upon the cold ground, for the cold waters as to sleep with the fishies had subsided. Sleep comes so freely as to be earnt. Peacefully sleeping upon the silver linings of the rivers of tears that no tin badge of praise and glory comes ever to measure within the stars for there was light at the end of that tunnel and dread had become desperate and new despair was of thirst. This was his only care so morning came and nature made it rain and the waters run into the well at halfway point in grubbies birthday suit with that shovel of despair in hand but that shovel was strong of steel it had and the weight of an anklet as the waters rose the battle within the cold that was spent from the ground that warms you not. The rest of the story is up to you, not us. I wished it not to be this way, but people are 10 kg's of BAD s#it and the rest is of us is as GOOD as Nature can be. A gift is a gift that is justly returned as a gift or given away freely as a gauntlet. So alone we are not. Amen.
Is the grapevine of telepathy, no more real then a dilution of the grandeur of schizoaffective.

'Ello there, yes, potatoes do taste good when in tha' gulag. My friend Kryshenko Slovisky is a cool guard in tha' gulag. He likes grapes an' likes to climb vines. Yes yes. Anyway, to the point. Bananas should replace guns. Why? 'cause I hate those dam' teenage's shootin' me mamas. It ain't fun anymore! Ha. Anyway, here is da' real question. Is the grapevine of telepathy, no more real then a dilution of the grandeur of schizoaffective. Yes. Yes it is. Why? 'Cause I said so ya' grape-fruiting telepathic moron! God. So dam' inquisitive. Anyway, Taa-taa! See ya' later. I'll win ez. Bye bye! Taa-taa! I must drink my croissant and eat my tea. Bye! Again, Taa-taa! British, haha. Stealing mah' tea. WHAT! Dam' Charles. He pissing me off. Stole my tea. Bye!