BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

sigh My opponent has decided to turn a perfectly good, futile and pointless non-debate into a platform to air his grievances with another user(s) and cast dispersions on his (their) identity. How ever loathsome an individual's opinions may seem to us, assuming false identities is a separate issue. Leave the kid alone. If he annoys you, you don't have to keep debating him. My opponent has stated that I keep agreeing with him. As I don't understand what he's on about most of the time, I don't know what I have allegedly agreed to but hope it's nothing too bad or painful. I strongly disagree that I agree with him. Since we do not agree that we agree we obviously disagree. As my opponent thinks we agree but I think we disagree, this means that he agrees with me but I do not agree with him. As my opponent agrees with my disagreements with his arguments and as he is Pro and I am Con, does that not mean I should win? I have presented arguments in support of pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists, which are the topic of the resolution, my opponent has made no arguments against them. In the first round my opponent made a series of arguments about needs, I countered these but he has not responded. He also suggested that my position should be that the purpose of debate is discussion, while he claims that the real purpose is to win but does not explain why. He says he can prove this but chooses not to. Extend every argument in my first round as my opponent has not countered any of them (except very loosely in the comments action). Vote for logic. Vote for debating. Vote for pot. Vote for peace. Vote Pro. Thankyou
Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

My opponent is making it very difficult for me by agreeing with me all the time. Let's look at my opponent's debating opponent in two debates. I have also have had some experience with (him/them): I pointed out: Issues of children participating without parental permission in violation of the terms of service, and uploading a picture of Mark Harmon as Special Agent Gibbs instead of their own also remain unaddressed. And apparently also the creation of multiple accounts in violation of the terms of service, noting the similarity http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... and I see now that http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... are also from Spring, Texas. I called for an investigation. That night a disaster struck Spring TX and the monkeysrock and monkeysrock2 disappeared, along with about a dozen others from Spring TX. Anyway an even number. Your opponent claimed to be twins, and denied knowing anything about this other set of teenage "twins" in the same town. At least these were 18. This is not very creative since multiple sets of twins in the same family is not that uncommon. The distribution of ages peaks at 18. The distribution of behavior peaks at about 7. Spring TX is in Harris County. Ground zero for executions. What's one (or two or four) more? It's more humane than telling (his/their) parents.
Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this non-debate, thanks to any readers for reading and thanks to myself for accepting. Ed's unique, flamboyant, unconventional and bizarre style of debating has been lighting up DDO recently and I couldn't resist this debate. As my opponent apparently doesn't feel the need to make logical or coherent arguments most of the time, I won't bother too much about it myself in this debate, but as encouraged in the comment's section, I shall pretty much ignore the resolution and just rant randomly. I urge voter's (as suggested by my opponent in the comments section) to ignore the designations of Pro and Con in this meaningless none debate and just to vote based on the criteria. I've never actually met a pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchist but I think all these traits are good and valuable ones. Pot is great. Atheism is logical and understandable (even if it is a teeny bit arrogant.) Communism is logical and fair, it's a shame it has never been practiced effectively, but unfortunately greed and lust for power seem to always get in the way. Homosexuality is harmless and positively occupies a lot of effeminate men and masculine women, keeping them out of the way of a lot of more conventionally gender-adjusted folk. Peace is good, better a peacenick than a warmonger. Anarchy like communism has a lot of appeal and is a valid political ideal, although like communism may be impractical because of human nature. These groups? I think the resolution heading: "Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists" clearly defines just one group. Perhaps my opponent actually intended to discuss the above characteristics as belonging to 6 distinct and mutually exclusive groups. We are all hypocrites, except me; I'm a hypo-hypocrite. Unresolved: That this isn't not a bad issue for discussion. My opponent will argue whatever he wants. The purpose of debate is discussion. My opponent teasingly tantalises me with his promises of demonstrating that the purpose is to win. We (me and Ed plus anyone else who wants to be included in this 'we') clearly don't need a set or set of sets of rules or any of that other mess. We continue to live, breath, function and sometimes even have meaningful debates without them. My opponent goes on to list many more things we allegedly NEED. Ed may wish for these things. He doesn't NEED them. The rest of us don't NEED any more of his wacky ideas. Although we may welcome them. LD means long d*ck. Ed wants his own country or planet, I approve this notion. I have even more than 5321 characters remaining (and I can spell characters.) Thanks.
Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

I think the real question is when are these groups going to realize that their common issue is freedom and quit pretending one another don't exist because it might stigmatize them? Also why don't they already and what does that prove besides they (or we) are all just hypocrites? Resolved, that this is a good topic for debate. I will be arguing the Con. This is a terrible topic for debate although it actually is a good topic for discussion since in order to disprove it you would have to exhibit a better one and that's pretty tough. It cuts right to the core of our intolerance problems. My opponent will argue that it is a good topic because the purpose of debating is not to win debates but to discuss the issues. I will counter that perhaps that is true of debating tournaments but here the purpose is to win and I will demonstrate this pretty convincingly. My opponent will then argue that debating reform is more important than these fringe groups and specifically: We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators. There's the http://wiki.idebate.org... only LD format and the http://wiki.idebate.org... other only LD format but these are for debating tounaments. We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating. The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly. Cell phones must not be used to verify identity. There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate. There should be voting after each round. More statistics should be available. It should be possible to display debates by category. More participation by all should be encouraged. Who wants to debate a bunch of male middle schoolers who don't have their parental consent as required by the Terms of Service anyway? We need to make online debating, oh excuse my I mean distribution of open courseware utilizing distance technology, suitable for education. Every class should be a debating class. That is exactly what is wrong with our educational system. We might even be motivated to vote or something even stupider like take action if we could participate in the political process in a more meaningful way. There should be an Internet for decent people. Get those vote bombers off our Web. A country for decent people or a planet for that matter. That's as far as the crystal ball goes but I have 5321 charaters remaining.
Solipsism

This is a continuation of a previous debate that my opponent forgot about, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...Same rules apply. We will just open up with the arguments in this round and continue as though this is the second round of the previous debate. I'll just copy/paste my arguments:My argument is rather simple: when it comes to the existence of anything, it relies on our senses and perception. I've never heard of anyone being able to confirm the existence of anything without their senses, or someone else's senses. Whether it's done through math, or science, etc, in order to read that scientific data, in order to conduct experiementation it requires your senses. There are a myriad of optical illusions out there which prove that what we see is not always what is accurate. One such is Ames room which is explained here[1]. Since perception and our senses are fallible, as Ames room and many other optical illusions show, we can never be sure when our perception is telling us what exists is accurately portrayed. In fact, it could be something entirely different. For all we know, reality could be all a simulation. There's no way we currently have to prove it isn't that I know of. Therefore, the only thing we can know with surety, is our own mind's existence, because it follows the logic that Rene Descartes stated with, "I think, therefore I am". I contend that the only thing we can do, is believe we live in reality. We cannot prove it with 100% surety, thus we cannot claim to know anything else is true. We can have belief, but knowledge is something we can never actually have, except when it comes to one own's existence. For example, it is a belief I have that I am communicating on a debating website called debate.org, I cannot say with surety that I am for my perception can be wrong and there's no logical way to prove my perception is accurate with 100% surety. I'll turn this to my opponent now. My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind. Source:[1]
1=1 always

His demonstration merely shows the many ways that 1=1Whether you masturbate or have a group sex orgy, the orgasm you reach is an orgasm. In the same way 1=1 whether the method you used to get it is 0.5/0.5 (this is a half divided by a half displayed without confusing amount of '/') or you add 1 to 0, it's still 1 either way.If you had half an object and had another half of another object to be filled into you would still have half an object whilst the half of the container would just be n a container which you'd be able to fill one time.If you had one object and added no other object, I would just have that same object. The same object would be the same one as a whole object. Here is where you fail to understand a very simple mathematical and English language concept. You can never, ever, have half an object. This is because the moment you split an object, you mathematically have two objects. This is because, in English language, an object is not a set size. If you mean to say you have split a original object into two and are filling one half then I still think if you added the halves they would make one.The issue with your 'object' argument is there's not such thing as half an object. You would just have two objects, not two halves. Thus one object could be filled one time (or more) and your argument in no way has disproved that 1=1.
1=1 always

Since there is no guidelines for what to do in the rounds, and my opponent is already familiar with my demonstration from a different debate, I'll just copy and paste my demonstration here and go farther on when necessary. I like to think my opponent revise this demonstration and had something to rebuttal already in hand, since he so quickly challenge me. I'm really looking forward to see what he has to say. Hope we ( or at least one of us ) can learn something from this. This was my demonstration. Demonstration. 1/2 / 1/2= 1 1+0= 1 Half goes into half 1 time. The result 1 is the result of how many times 1/2 went into 1/2. If I had half of an object, and had another half of an object to be filled into, I would still have a half of an object. That half of an object would just be in a container, which I would be able to fill it 1 time. 1 with the addition of 0 remains 1. 1 here is a quantity, which remains the same. If I had 1 object and I added to no other object, I would just have that same object. The same object would be the same 1, as a whole. 1 object. One object does not equal half of an object. Therefore 1/2 / 1/2 (which equals 1)=|=1+0(which also equals 1) Therefore 1 does not represent the same 1, which results in 1=|=1
1=1 always

If we substitute the word hole with the word circle, this is what we get: PRO quote, replacing the word "hole" with the word "circle". "You msut realise that if you fill half OF a circle you are left with ONE circle half the SIZE of the original circle but with ONE WHOLE F*cking CIRCLE in itself!" As we can see, following PRO reason, 1 cannot represent different things. If you have a circle and you cut that circle in half, you have a semicircle, and not another circle. I warn my opponent that using hole for an analogy was not going to work from the beginning, but he insisted in doing so. I'm very sad to see my opponent in this state. I'm really sorry you feel this way RationalMadman. Take care!
1=1 always

What is this bullsh*t about 'of'You msut realise that if you fill half OF a hole you are left with ONE hole half the SIZE of the original hole but with ONE WHOLE F*cking HOLE in itself!Dude listen; ONE IS ONE because ONE IS ONE because ONE IS ONE yes OBVIOUSLY this is infinitely true but this doesn't make fractions impossible?!1=1 BECAUSE (1/2)=(1/2) What YOU are saying is that because (1/2)=/=1 that 1=/=1 sometimes what a nonsense?!
1=1 always

PRO, I'm very sorry that I'm causing you such of distress.I think by looking at my argument as an absurdity (which I understand), is causing you too much stress and that may be impairing you to debate this topic. What you wrote is also very unclear, if you were to consider your conclusion, of which I have agreed upon at many times (which you still think I disagreed).Look at this quote, by you;"If you fill half a hole. You are left with half the original hole. Nonetheless you now have ONE hole that is half the size of the original hole."First part of this paragraph suggests you only have a "half of a hole", unless you mean "if you fill half of a hole", which your conclusion suggests is what you meant. So we have a contradictory statement.I'll try to see this in all different ways and explain.If you have just "half of a hole" (which is a hole on their own), and you fill that half, you no longer have a hole.If you have a hole, and you fill half of that hole, you are left with a hole that is 1/2 of the size of the original hole. The problem here, is that you are thinking of the original hole. However, when you have 1/2 / 1/2 the original hole is not in the mathematical equation. Just the half of the parameter you once had, is taken into account.So if that statement has an of between "half" and "a", I agreed with your statement. If you have a hole, and you fill half of it, you now have a hole that is half of the size of the original hole that you filled, you still have a hole, just not a hole with the same diameter than the original hole.Now here comes the tricky part of your assumption. You are assuming because you still have a hole, this means you have one hole. Which leads to what I told you before, thinking like this, fractions are not possible.Demonstration.a hole= one hole.I have one hole, I fill half of it, I still have a hole, so I have one hole. I have one hole, I fill half of it, I still have a hole, so I have one hole...Here you have 1 always equal to 1, infinitely. Maybe this is what you were trying to do from the beginning, in order to prove that 1 always equals 1?!However, you will end up in a contradiction. That shows fraction is impossible, but you are using fraction to show that.So "a hole" is not the same as "1 hole", unless is your beginning point, and you are representing a hole with the number 1.I hope I was clear, and I hope you can clarify on your own exactly what your paragraph meant.This is not exactly what I hoped for since I want to debate my original point. However, this is being a very interesting conversation to me. Too bad you cannot feel the same way.
1=1 always

I usually am a rather passive, by-the-book debater. I usually stick to rebuttals and reinforcement of previous points raised and always put my best effort to maintain conduct. However...This is one of the few times I have become so infuriated at the idiocy and ignorance of my opponent that I must sacrifice the conduct vote for the sake of the arguments' one.Let me tell you something straight: you are incapable of grasping logic at all, or at least you have shown no capability of it this entire debate.If you fill half a hole. You are left with half the original hole. Nonetheless you now have ONE hole that is half the size of the original hole.If you cut an object in half, you have to objects half the size of the original object. If you are too retarded to understand that this is 100% correct, then I CANNOT EXPLAIN IT ANY BETTER TO YOU OKAY?!1=1 because one is the same as one. It is as bloody simple as that. Thank you very f*cking much.
1=1 always

If I cut you in half, I do not have half of you anymore. I have two separate arrangements of atoms.It is like saying if you fill half of a hole you have half a hole. It is a whole hole xD because there is no set form of a hole. I the same way there is not one 'object' in the universe. Everything is an object. The entire universe is an object. I don't at all understand how one can ever have half of an object.You say a whole object exists. The universe is a whole object, so technically anything is just a millionth (far less than a half) of the object that is the universe. I don't need such ridiculous proof that 1 =/= 1 as the theory that there is half an object.Thank you, good bye.1=1
Wider tires have less rolling resistance

I will define rolling resistance so you can understand the true definition- http://en.wikipedia.org... "Rolling resistance, sometimes called rolling friction or rolling drag, is the force resisting the motion when a body (such as a ball, tire, or wheel) rolls on a surface. It is mainly caused by non-elastic effects, that is, not all the energy that is needed for deformation (or movement) of the wheel, roadbed, etc. is recovered when the pressure is removed." The rolling resistance is equivalent to newton's law of friction and can be specifically defned as F = Crr*N, where F is in newtons, Crr is the dimensionless rolling coefficeint depending on material. F only depends on the radius of the wheel as well as the normal force, which equals m*g. "According to Dupuit (1837), rolling resistance (of wheeled carriages with wooden wheels with iron tires) is approximately inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.[28] " http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, only wheel radius affects rolling resistance.
Wider tires have less rolling resistance

Clearly you are unclear of what rolling resistance really is: on something like a bicycle, you will have a constantly changing contact patch between the tire and the ground. Since we are only testing width, we must keep all other variables constant. Let's consider this: 2 tires, same type of tire, pumped to the same pressure, with the same mass. Since it is the same mass and pressure, regardless of the tire the contact patch will have the same area for both tires. On the wider tires however, the contact patch will be shorter(more area horizontally) and hence the vertical depth of tire deflection on the wider tire is going to be less, thus causing less resistance. http://velonews.competitor.com...
Wider tires have less rolling resistance

This seems like it will be a fairly easy debate. According to newton's laws of motion- http://www.ux1.eiu.edu... the force of friction f is defined, when moving, to be f = (Uk)*N, where N is the normal force and Uk is the kinetic friction coefficient. The normal force repels the force of gravity, so N up = mg down thus, the equation is modified, f = (Uk)*m*g, where g is the acceleration from gravity, and mass is in Kilograms. Therefore, according to newton's equation, the force of friction is actually proportional to the mass and the force of gravity rather than the area, or width of the tire. Logically this is rather clear; if you have a mass m on a thin tire, even though there is less surface area on the thin tire, there are More newtons per area, which compensates and maintains the same amount of friction. A wider tire, although it has more surface area, has fewer newtons per area, and so friction ends up being the same across the surface integral. In conclusion, according to physics and Newton's laws of motion, wider tires have the same resistance as thin tires for an identical mass.
The Moral Argument is Sound!

I wish to engage in the topic of morality. I contend that the moral argument is sound. This moral argument is strictly for the God of Abraham and His character. Resolution: The moral argument is sound! In this debate Pro will assume the Burden of Proof. Pro must show the moral argument is sound. Con assumes the task of showing the moral argument as not being sound. My moral argument is as follows: i) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist ii) Objective moral values and duties exist iii) Therefore, God exist Pro has the task of showing that moral values and duties exist and they come from God. Con must simply show either moral values and duties do not exist or they do not come from God. Definitions: 1. Sound - Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation. Free from logical flaws. http://www.thefreedictionary.com......... 2. Values - the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. http://oxforddictionaries.com......... 3. Duties - moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. http://oxforddictionaries.com.........4.Objective - 1a thing aimed at or sought; a goal. http://oxforddictionaries.com...... Rounds: 1. Round one is for acceptance 2. Pro presents their argument. Con may present their own argument or they may just rebuttal Pro. 3. Additional arguments and rebuttal 4. Rebuttals only 5. Final rebuttals and conclusion Rules: 1. No semantics or trolling 2. Round structure must be followed 3. Definitions must be followed Whoever accepts I wish you a good luck and I await Con.