BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cartoon Network era of late 90s and early 2000s is far superior to the new Cartoon Network era.

In round 2, the Con's first statement is as follows, "Yes, the shows on the new network are pointed to smaller kids." Then, on the next line, the Con states "I myself don't think that the new network has pointed the shows at a smaller age group." This is directly contradictory to the cons own arguments. Secondly, I concede that Johnny Bravo and Ed, Edd, and Eddy still show, however, they don't show on Cartoon Nerwork, and instead show on Boomerang. This is NOT Cartoon Network, but a different channel altogether. I have no other arguments to bring up at this time, however, I ask that the judges vote on the side of Pro, due to the arguments and rebuttals that I have laid out. Thank you. Back to Con.
The Cartoon Network era of late 90s and early 2000s is far superior to the new Cartoon Network era.

i will use ur point about the new network having an audience target first. yes the shows on the new network are pointed to smaller kids but teenagers do whatch them, such as me. i, myself dont think that the new network has pointed the shows ate a smaller age group, and may i point oout some shows like johonney bravo is still on the new network just not as often. i think the new network is superior because as the world modernises so will tv shows and people. the new networks audience age target is still the same, they still want teens watching the channel, but as the world knows, style and thoughts of a teenager change. shows like The Regular Show i think are pointed to the older audience that are watching as it is about two guys slacking off all the time. and may i point out again Ed, Edd and Eddy is still on the new network, just again not as often
The Cartoon Network era of late 90s and early 2000s is far superior to the new Cartoon Network era.

The Cartoon Network era of the 90s and early 2000s, for the purpose of the date, will be referred to as simply "Old Cartoon Network", or "The Old Network". The same wording can be applied to the new Cartoon Network. First, I will begin by acknowledging the fact that the old network contained a much different line up then than the new one does today, containing many classics like Cow and Chicken, Courage the Cowardly Dog, Dexter's Laboratory, Johnny Bravo, and Foster's Home, among many others. These shows are no longer run, due in part to the fact that the shows ended, or were cancelled. However, this does not do anything except help to decide when exactly the Old Network becomes the New Network. For reference, we can use the original Cartoon Network logo as a reference point. http://famouslogos.net... This logo was used from Cartoon Network's start in 1992 to the end of the early era in 2004. With this, we can establish a rough point at which the new network became the old network. Next, I will point out that a vast majority of people that you ask in regards to which Cartoon Network they prefer, you will almost always receive "The Old One" as a response. There are many potential factors for this, including the missing shows, but it may also be the fact that, with the leave of the old network, was also the leave of Toonami, a program similar to adult swim, which ran every Saturday night and provided shows such as Naruto and Dragonball Z to name a few, as such, you will find many people who claim that the old Cartoon Network was simply more catering to a wider range of audiences, especially considering the shows of the time, such as Ed, Edd, and Eddy, whereas now-a-days, the shows only seem to humor small children, I'll use Adventure Time as an example.
The Cartoon Network era of late 90s and early 2000s is far superior to the new Cartoon Network era.

ill clarify that my statments did say that the new network does point to a smaller age group but also still teenagers, all the newwork has done is made themselves a wider age group audience. and yes jhonney bravo and ed, edd and eddy do show on boomarange but do still show on the new network from time to time. no its not a regular show that does appear on the channal but it does appear on there if u suddenly catch it
Gun Rights

I'm not very good in debating and I'm trying to 'up my game' if you will. Because of this, I'd like this debate to be brief. I will be arguing why firearms should not be regulated. I am assuming 'con' will be arguing why firearms should be regulated, Some be banned, Or banned altogether. Conditions:Format:The first round will be for acceptance and to agree to the proposed conditions. The second round will be for presenting our cases with no rebuttals. For the third and final round, Rebuttals and final remarks will be said. Rules:1) Be civil with your points. (It's about the topic, Not the person)2) When providing factual information, It would be prefered to include a reliable source backing it up. Looking formard to a productive debate which hopefully both will learn a few things.
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Uh... It was stated that the "[t]he first round of this debate will be strictly reserved for discussion of terms of debate and definitions." There are, indeed, people with different native languages who agree about things, such as the negative impact of the Holocaust. People can agree with each other on general social issues without having the same fundamental "world view." By saying that one can either support or not support the instatement of the Holocaust is a false dichotomy; there are many underlying views that can be held, and if we dig further, we can perhaps find the relevance of language usage in these miniscule variations. The opponent's argument, as it stands, is misguided and not germane to the resolution or the matter at hand. Moreover, the opponent's argument is typed egregiously. If the opponent would like to learn more about this topic, he should look up "linguistic relativity" on Google or whatever search engine he prefers. I think I will re-start this debate in hopes of finding an opponent who is more suitable to discuss this topic.Thank you.
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

many people do not agree with things and that has nothing to do with language am pretty sure that every one frowns on the holocost the germanic languages (includinging english) the romance languages and even the middle east and the asian languages (sorry i dont no the names for there language familys). my piont is when you no somthing is wrong you no its wrong regardless of langauge. diferent countrys feel diffent ways about things but thats politics not languague
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Definitions:Language: Complex system of communication used within a group of people. [1] To simplify this debate and avoid the introduction of irrelevant exceptions, we will only be talking about one's native language, or first acquired language. And to clarify further, structure of language: The rules that govern a language (i.e., its grammar.) World view/Conceptualization of world: fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. [2]Resolution: The structure of a language affects the ways in which its native speakers are able to conceptualize their world.(Pro will attempt to affirm the resolution. Con will attempt to negate the resolution.)The first round of this debate will be strictly reserved for discussion of terms of debate and definitions.Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
0.9999... equals 1

Alright. The Aff has tried to prove that .99999... = 1 by showing a math equation, which will finally result in .9999.... = 1. This math WILL in fact result in the Aff being true, but what he doesn't understand is that our math is not advanced enough to calculate infinity. Using infinity in our math can lead to just about ANYTHING in the world I want it to. I will give and example here. (inf)*1 = 3000*(inf) First let's work it our to see if it's true. (inf)*1 = 3000*(inf) (inf)*1 = (inf) (inf)*3000 = (inf) (inf) = (inf) So the expression: (inf)*1 = 3000*(inf) is obviously true. Not let's take that expression and work it in a different way. (inf)*1 = 3000*(inf) (inf)*1 = 3000*(inf) -------- ----------- (inf) (inf) (Divide infinity by both sides) 1 = 3000 So using our mathematics with infinite terms, it is obvious that one is equal to three-thousand. This, of course, is illogical and therefore we must abdicate our use of these mathematics and resort to logic (or the logical mathematics I presented earlier). As I proved earlier it is illogical for .9999.... to EVER equal 1. One is equal to one, and no matter how close anything EVER gets to it, there will never be another 1. It is because my opponent missed 1/3 of the match and because I refuted his arguments using a combination of logical math and pure logic that you should vote Negative. Thank you.
0.9999... equals 1

I did forfeit the round, but not voluntarily. I had forgotten about the debate - Con's inferences to my motives for inadvertantly forfeiting show his lack of robust logic. While there are many arguments that 0.999... equals 1, I will not be presenting less rigorous arguments already debated at DDO. I will here present the argument from the limit definition. Firstly, a formal definition of the expression 0.999... is needed. What do we mean when we say 0.999...? When we refer to 0.999..., the elipses following the nines mean an infinite number of nines are following the zero. This could be represented in summation form as follows: E(i=1,inf) 9/(10^i) This is exactly what we mean when we refer to 0.999...: We mean nine tenths (0.9) plus nine hundredths (0.09) plus nine thousandths (0.009), and so on - the 9/(10^i) means that the i is the current index of summation - the place we are in the decimal chain. Observe that for the first three summation terms I enumerated (0.9, 0.09, 0.009) correspond to the first three summation terms (9/10, 9/(10^2) = 9/100, 9/(10^3) = 9/1000). Hopefully this demonstration is adequate to show that this summation expression is the same concept we refer to when we say 0.999... Next, we must consider the convergence of this sum. Sums can sometimes converge on a single value. There are many tests used in mathematics to determine this (**1**). Let's consider one test: the ratio test. If the limit as k approaches infinity of the (k+1)th number in the series divided by the kth number in the series is less than 1, then the series converges. If the limit is more than one or does not exist, then the series diverges. If the limit is equal to 1, then the test is inconclusive (**2**). To apply this to the series, we must find algebraic formulas for the kth number and the (k+1)th number. The first number is 0.9, or 9/10^1. Note it corresponds to the summation notation earlier: E(i=1,inf) 9/(10^i). The ith term is when you substitute in i in the notation. The kth term would then be 9/10^k, and the (k+1)th term would be 9/10^(k+1). By substituting in the formula for the ratio test, the limit is equal to (9/(10^(k+1))) / (9/(10^k)) (9/(10^(k+1))) * ((10^k)/9) 10^k / 10^(k+1) 1/10 The limit is equal to one tenth. Thus, by the ratio test, the series converges. To find what the series converges on, we can actually solve it since it is an example of a geometric series, or a series with a constant ratio (1/10) between each term (**3**). For a sum from k=0 to infinity of a * r^k, the solution is a/(1-r). In our example, a is 9/10, r is 1/10. Thus, the solution is a / (1 - r). 9/10 / (1 - 1/10) is 9/10 divided by 9/10. Thus, the sum is equal to 1. I look forward to Con's response to this proof. (1) http://mathworld.wolfram.com... (2) http://mathworld.wolfram.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
0.9999... equals 1

Mathmatically and logically .9999... does NOT equal one. First of all lets look at math. Lets pretend there is a space and this space is infinite. 1 represents the distance out 5 you will be traveling across this infinite expanse. Same with .999... . Because this space is infinite the fact that .999 goes on infinitely is irrelevant because it will end up infinitely away from 1 in this imaginary space. Only a distance of 1 can land at the same place as 1. Also , logically, the only thing equal to 1 is 1. No matter how close something is to it 1 will be the only thing 1 is equal to. Finally I'll bring up a metaphor. If there is a pot in greece from old times (this represents one.) no matter how close we get to making a replica of this vase (.999...) it will NEVER be the original vase. So no, 1 is not equal to anything but itself (and please dont bring up something stupid like '2-1 = 1'.
0.9999... equals 1

The parameters of this debate are as follows: 1. By E(i=a,b) x_i, I mean the summation over a set of numbers. (1) 2. By inf, I mean infinity. 3. By 0.999..., I mean a decimal number with an infinite number of nines, represented by E(i=1,inf) 9/(10^i) 4. By "A is equal to B", I mean that A is the same number, regardless of its possible decimal expressions, as B, such that they represent the same quantity. The proposition to be proved by the Pro is "0.999... can be shown to be equal to 1.0". (1) http://mathworld.wolfram.com...
An omnipotent metaphysical god cannot exist

I will argue that "an omnipotent metaphysical god cannot exist". Con will try to refute my arguments, but is welcome to also provide an argument to show that this is indeed possible and plausible. My argument is based on the fact that an entity cannot be both metaphysical and omnipotent in the same time. Con does not have to be a believer. It could also be an atheist that explores the possibility that such a god exists. I looked up some definitions and they are all limited in a sense so I will provide my own: physical world := the entirety of things and phenomena that we can perceive with our own senses or that interact with the things that we perceive in a way that allows us to reason about, to model and to test; it is the universe with its matter and energy and physical rules and any other aspect that we did not observe or understand yet, but interacts with the rest and is part of the whole; space and everything in it. metaphysical world := a hypothetical dimension that exists outside or around or transcends the physical world; a dimension normally associated with the existence of a god and of spirits; whatever would remain if the physical world would be removed from existence. metaphysical god := a hypothetical entity that exists in the metaphysical world and is usually associated with the creation of the physical world; a metaphysical being that is omniscient and omnipotent over the physical world; it differs from ancient physical gods such the Greek or Nordic gods because they were embodiments of physical phenomena such as the thunder and lived in the physical world (Olympus, Asgard). I have set this debate with 5 rounds because I do not know where this will take us. If we only need 2 or 3 we can agree to forfeit the rest. Rules: No new arguments in round 5. Only rebuttals and closing statements. No semantic tricks. If you only have unfounded arguments (e.g. "The Bible says it so it's true!") please don't accept.
An omnipotent metaphysical god cannot exist

I hate to respond so briefly, considering how much effort your spent on your arguments, but I think they can be quickly refuted. “If there is a metaphysical world, then we cannot percieve it in any way. We cannot even reason about it because it does not maniphest itself in our spectrum of understanding.” This is incorrect. The mind is metaphysical, despite having a close relationship with the body. Philosphers reason about the mind (part of the metaphysical world) all the time. “Contrary to what L. Krauss states, that these "virtual particles" are "nothing" from which "something" comes, they interact with the physiscal world so they are part of the physical world.” This is circular reasoning, and can't be used to defend the resolution. If you assert interaction in the physical world excludes being part of the metaphysical world, you assume your conclusion from the outset. “Now, a god that is omnipotent over the physical world would litterally be able to impose any wish onto anything in this world( … ) This means that it allows us to think for our selves, even though it could force us to take decisions as it desires.” I agree. “I claim that a metaphysical god cannot prove it's own existence to all humans.” I'll keep reading and see if you justify this claim. “In order for the god to prove that it is indeed a mataphysical omnipotent god to a human, it must provide the evidence/proof in the physical world because that is where humans reside; that is where they think and reason.” The mind is metaphysical, so evidence/proof does not necessarily have to be physical. “But there cannot be any physical evidence for the metaphysical world because the correlation cannot be percieved.” This is simply wrong, as perception itself is a correlation between the physical (body) and the metaphysical (mind). “[G]od might try to prove it's existence is by breaking the physical world( … ) However, this can be easily discredited as bein simply a result of what we do noy understand yet in the physical world.” This logic works both ways: the Theory of Evolution can be discredited as being simply a result of a vast conspiracy to decieve laymen. If you decide that there can be no evidence of God before you even look at the evidence, then of course you won't be convinced. “We know that we don't know everything so we can always speculate that a miracle is nothing more than an unexplained phisical phenomenon.” Anything and everything can speculated. I can speculate that you're a unicorn. This hardly proves your resolution. “It could alter the brain of the human to make the human think he believes in the god, but this is not a proof. This would be imposing the beliefe.” This is not necessarily true. It's possible for one to demand proof by asking to know every winning lottery number for every lottery for the rest of your life. God would be proven over and over again everytime you won the lottery without fail. To question this proof would be irrational. “So a metaphysical god omnipotent over the physical world cannot exist.” I've shown you to be wrong.
It's time to privatize the provision of clean air

Firstly, because there are many diverse causes of pollution - sources include farm animals emitting methane from their digestive systems; factories pumping out harmful gasses; exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and planes; erupting volcanoes; methane leaking from defrosting tundra and many more – and with the pollution being produced worldwide and blown around the globe by weather systems, it's impossible to hold any single company or individual accountable for a certain percentage of the total pollution in the atmosphere. Secondly, even if financial penalties are placed upon manufacturers in the West that do pollute the atmosphere, similar penalties are not imposed upon factories in emerging economies such as China and India, thus leaving the Western firms at a competitive disadvantage – and thereby reducing the amount of cash the company has available to pay dividends and duly reward their executives with munificent bonuses. That said, pollution does need to be tackled and there is a cost associated with that, and the fairest way to distribute that cost is evenly with all citizens paying exactly the same amount via my proposed air consumption charge. Thank you.
It's time to privatize the provision of clean air

Pro proposes that private corporations (air utility companies) charge citizens for the air they breathe, and that the amount charged be based on the amount of air breathed (free market economy). Pro seems to think this is justified because it costs (The Cost) the government to limit the pollution that is said to cause global warming i.e. greenhouse gas emissions (GGE’s). However, breathing in itself does not increase The Cost at all. There is no logical reason for someone to pay to breathe if breathing does not increase The Cost. This would not be a “user pays” system, as Pro suggests; it would be an absurd system. The Cost would not be incurred if the pollution were not emitted in the first place. People are responsible (directly and indirectly) for different amounts of GGE’s. Under Pro’s proposed scenario, Citizens whose GGE’s are high would pay disproportionately less for the air they breathe, and vice-versa. That is, people who are least responsible for increasing The Cost would pay just as much as people who are most responsible (all other things being equal). Clearly, this would not be fair at all. Furthermore, there would be absolutely no incentive whatsoever to reduce GGE’s, because it would not cost more to emit more.The fairest system is one where the polluter pays (i.e. user pays). This is achieved by putting a price on GGE’s. Most economists would agree that this should be done via a Government carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Hence, a number of countries already have such instruments in place. Such instruments, if set up correctly, provide an incentive to reduce GGE’s, which leads to reductions in The Cost, as well as less pollution.
It's time to privatize the provision of clean air

People take the air around us for granted, not realising it costs the government money to control the pollution that is said to cause global warming - not that global warming is proved to be man made, of course, that's just the opinion of a bunch of herbal tea-drinking, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, organic lentil-munching, Toyota Prius-driving so-called "do-gooders" who are jealous of wealthy people having fun in their V12-powered sports cars, but anyway, it's time that the cost of maintaining air quality was shifted from the taxpayer to the user. The government could divide the country into geographical areas containing approximately the same population and sell these parcels off to the highest bidders who, in return promoting green technologies, planting some trees and encouraging people to recycle household waste, would be permitted to levy an air-consumption charge on all citizens living in their allotted areas. Since animals also breathe air, owners of pets would pay a surcharge (although pet fish would be eligible for a discounted rate since they don't use so much air). The amount of money charged by the new air utility companies will be dictated by free market economics: if they charge too much, people will simply move to another part of the country where the cost of breathing is cheaper. There are three main benefits of privatizing air: 1. The windfall the government receives from auctioning these air franchises off could raise many billions, and this money could enable the government to cut tax rates for top-earners; thereby making the country a more attractive place for wealth creators to live and work. 2. The ‘user-pays' philosophy that is the hallmark of successful capitalist economies would be further extended. 3. The on-going cost of tackling pollution will be shifted from the taxpayer to the private sector. Naturally, there will be some dissenters who refuse to pay their fair share: work-shy welfare claimants; woolly liberals; asthmatics and so on, but they should remember that consuming air without paying for it would be considered theft and they would be treated the same way as any other common criminal. So, in conclusion, the benefits are clear: it's time to privatize the provision of clean air. Thank you.