BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump is not Racist: Change my Mind

I believe there is no evidence that Trump is racist. Feel free to try and change my mind by typing evidence that can be PROVEN. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.
the universe had a beginning.

The premise that the universe had a begging realise very much on What do you mean by the universe, do mean our universe as we know it or the universe in any shape of form. Modern day physics has shown that energy cannot be created or destroyed just converted from one form to another they have not found any evidence to contrary as of yet. This does not mean they won"t but they have not yet and since the debate is today this is the theory I will be using. Going along this theme the energy and matter that we see around us has always existed in one form or another since eternity. This is very hard for use humans to get our head around having spent all our time on earth we have a very small distorted view of the greater universe, and find this concept hard to accept that there may not have been a beginning. We as humans are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons now in current theory one of the laws of physics states energy that makes up those particles has been around for eternity because ""energy cannot be created or destroyed"" there for the energy responsible for building you has been around forever. In one form or another it may not of always taken the form it is in but the fundamental building blocks must of existed before it took its current form therefore rather than a beginning it is constantly evolving into different forms. You say there must be a point a but why ? black holes that can be observed today right now we can see them, but the conditions are so server that time stop"s just because time as we know it doesn"t exist in that environment does that really mean they do not exist? Time is not a constant and therefore cannot be expressed in the manner you suggest.
the universe had a beginning.

im going to start it off with a little example. ok so lets say the beggining of time is point "a". today is point "b". if there is point a and point b there has to be a certain distance between it. let say i am 1 miles away from my school. how far am i? im 1 mile. how long will it take? depends on how long i take to get there. i can get there because it is a certain distance and that makes it possible. now lets say there is no point a and only a point b. how do i get there? where am i? im non-existent. point b exist but there is no point a. but that is impossible. there has to be a point a for me to get point b. now in the universe if there was an infinitie amount of time, that means there was no beggining. how can we get to today? how can we be existent? if there was no poin a, that means point b is the first point and the begging of time. time is existent. therefore there has to be a beggining for there to be anything at all.
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

Congratulations! You proved my point! Let's quote all 3 articles that you used as sources. Yes, I will be quoting them WORD FOR WORD. "Although it does not cause total blindness, It can make everyday activities such as reading and recognising faces difficult, " according to Independent. Co. Uk This quote shows that the blue light does not cause total blindness. "The scientists found that a molecule called alpha tocopherol, A natural antioxidant found in the eye and body, Stops the cells from dying, " again according to Indepenent. Co. Uk This is showing that it a very easily avoidable effect. "The researchers also found that a molecule in our eyes and body called alpha-Tocopherol, A natural antioxidant, Stops affected cells from dying, " according to BusinessInsider. Com - which you also used as your sources showing that this causes blindness. Finally, The article you used from TheGuardian. Com, Isn't even talking about damage to photoreceptor cells causing blindness. If you read it, This was due to one eye being used to the darkness and the other being used to the light. One eye was covered by a pillow and the other could see the phone. That, Is transient smartphone blindness. Let me quote this article. "The solution: Make sure to use both eyes when looking at your smartphone screen in the dark, " says TheGuardian. So no, Smartphones will not lead to the next generation, And really doesn't even have an effect on younger people. In the elderly, However, It can cause VISION LOSS (this is NOT BLINDNESS) which means that they may want glasses or other corrective lenses. I do not believe you have given a single rebuttal to any of my arguments, You have simply restated what you've already said, And been proven wrong, Three times now.
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

You are asking for proof of blindness so I'm going to provide you proof. It's called transient smartphone blindness. Here is the proof of it. Now this is just temporary but the data is a small sample, Teenagers who use their phones now will over time completely destroy their eyes. You mentioned as long as the teens eat their vegetables, Well they aren't eating them. I can show studies that show teenagers are not getting their proper nutrition as most eat deep fried food, Pizza pockets and non nutricious meals as over 50% of the population is now obese. So a poor diet with the combination of excessive staring at your smart phone will lead to complete blindness in the next generation https://www. Theguardian. Com/technology/2016/jun/23/smartphone-users-temporarily-blinded-looking-screen-in-bed More proof that the future generation will all be blind https://www. Independent. Co. Uk/news/health/smartphones-blue-light-blindness-why-eyesight-macular-degeneration-a8485846. Html https://www. Businessinsider. Com/blue-light-from-smartphones-and-laptops-can-make-us-blind-according-to-study-2018-8
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

You have given many very good arguments to show that children, Teens, And young adults spend too much time on their phones, But not how that will lead to blindness. You failed to give a rebuttal for the facts I gave about alpha-tocopherol, And I will state this again. Alpha-tocopherol is a form of Vitamin E, And when you have enough, The photoreceptor cells do not die due to exposure to blue light. Here is some more information on this vitamin, As well. Alpha-tocopherol is found in many foods, Including green vegetables, Nuts, And oils. As you can see, So long as the next generation(s) continue to eat their vegetables, It will not lead to blindness. Furthermore, It has been shown that the death of photoreceptor cells due to exposure to blue light does not generally happen until the person losing the cells is very old, Due to a loss of Vitamin E. Yes, People spend too much time on smartphones, However, You have shown no evidence to suggest that this will cause blindness when enough alpha-tocopherol is present.
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

I have to say I give you a lot of applaud for your positive thinking on this matter. Yes I get blue light too, But I do not own a smart phone, Outside of DDO, I don't use a computer. As for everyone else, They are on their smartphones for everything, Texting, Looking up stuff, People aged 16-24 now spend an average of 3. 8 hours a day on their phones, 34 per cent of young people also believe they spend too much time on their phones, And say they want to cut this down. However, This age group still spends significantly more time looking at smartphone screens than any other, With the average use time across all generations being 2. 4 hours per day. According to the research, The overwhelming majority " 94 per cent " of 16-24-year-olds have a smartphone, And young people open a smartphone app every 15 minutes. With these statistics we can see how the next generation will be blind, Because currently there is not enough data sample to consider this an epidemic yet, As smartphones have only been around for 15 years so we have no long term effects data available right now, But once it's conclusive it will be too late, Most people will be blind.
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

While I do believe that blue light does certainly have negative effects, And in EXTREME cases, Can indeed be a factor in causing blindness, I do not think it will lead to the next generation (or other future generations) being blind. Yes, Blue light damages retinals and causes photoreceptor cells in the eye to die, UNLESS you have enough alpha-tocopherol, Which is a form of Vitamin E, Therefore the issue is avoidable. Also, As I can tell by the way you have posted on this website, You clearly look at blue light (You are using a device that emits blue light as you read this! ) and you clearly are not blind. As for how to write with a pen, I personally know a blind person who can write somewhat well with a pen and paper. Assuming sight is the only missing sense in a given person, There is a very good possibility that they CAN learn to write. It may not be perfect, But they can do it.
Our future generation will be blind and not know how to write with pen

Blue light from smartphones is destroying peoples vision and with everyone on their smart phones now, We will have a future generation of blind people. Blue light has been found to disrupt humans circadian rhythms, Making it more difficult for people to fall asleep. Exposure to blue light can trigger retinal proteins to release molecules that can kill other cells. Cells that can be killed by this process include photoreceptor cells, Which do not regenerate and the absence of photoreceptor cells can lead to vision loss Keep staring at those smartphones idiots, Once you go blind, I will come in and loot all your belongings and you won't even see me coming LOL
".99999...(repeating) is equal to 1"

http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rational - involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times A rational number must be able to be a fraction. A rational number is not required to be able to be written as a decimal. Your second proof was not used in the debate that I considered possible to win, which is what we are debating. Finally, your third proof again assumes that all fractions must have decimal counterparts, which you have not shown to be true.
".99999...(repeating) is equal to 1"

Every fraction in the world can be written as a perfect decimal. These decimals are what we know as rational numbers. Rational numbers either terminate or repeat. 1/3 cannot be written as a terminating decimal, so it has to repeat. And like you said, so does .(9)/3. Also, like I said, empirical evidence doesn't really work with infinity. It works with numbers, but infinity isn't really a number, and it doesn't follow patterns. It's like the whole thing with an infinite number of monkeys and infinite typewriters, one would eventually write Shakespeare. The odds are so slim that if you had a reasonable number of monkeys, or even every monkey on earth, there's no way that one could crank out Shakespeare, but the moment you put infinity into the equation, that implies that every combination of characters will come out at least once. I know that that was a bit of a tangent, but I'm just trying to explain how infinity doesn't work the same as any number, and your empirical pattern is therefore null and void. I simply refuted your simple refutation of my simplest proof But if you still don't like my first one, try this: x=.(9) 10x=9.(9) -x 9x=9 x=1 Here's another. It does rely on empirical observations, but it does not rely on patterns to infinity. 1/9=.(1) 2/9=.(2) 3/9=.(3) 4/9=.(4) 5/9=.(5) 6/9=.(6) 7/9=.(7) 8/9=.(8) 9/9=??? Based on the pattern, shouldn't it be .(9)? But wouldn't simple logic tell you that it's 1? Well, they're both right, because it's the same number. Looking forward to your response!
".99999...(repeating) is equal to 1"

My opponent's first proof involves dividing both 0.9(r) and 1 by 3. Now, when you divide 0.9(r) by 3, you truly do get 0.3(r). However, when you divide 1 by 3, you get 1/3. 1/3 and 0.3(r) are not equal. It is impossible to truly convert a fraction that is not divisible by a factor or multiple of ten into a decimal. Decimals lose precision. The closest decimal we have to 1/3 is 0.3(r). However, they are not the exact same. This point is most easily clarified through empirical observations. [0.9/3=3/10] [0.99/3=33/100] [0.999/3=333/1000] [0.9999/3=3333/10000] By this pattern: [0.9999(r)/3=3333(r)/10000(r)] However, any number that is just a series of threes divided by a power of ten does not simplify into 1/3. It gets closer every time, but it never reaches the end. It just can't. It would be oh so very close, but it won't be equal. It's an asymptote. The simplest proof has simply been refuted. I await the next proof. Thank you for accepting, by the way.
".99999...(repeating) is equal to 1"

.(9)=1---Part 2! I would like to thank PoeJoe for bringing up the point that this is an auto-win, because he effectively instigated your challenge. I won't dig too deep into this in the first round, but just to give you some ammo to work with, the simplest proof goes like this: .(9)=?=1 /3 /3 .(3)=.(3) Simple division property of equality proves it here. I'll save the slightly more complex proofs for later arguments. Also, just a warning: When I debated this last time, my opponent used only empirical observations, and I think that hurt him, because you can't solely use empirical evidence when working with infinity, because infinity isn't a number, and it acts differently than numbers. you can use it to supplement your argument, but please do not use only empirical observations to "prove" your point. Looking forward to your argument!
The US should instate Progressive Initiatives

Initiatives, were a concept created by Sun Yat Sen, my hero, and later advocated for by the Bull Moose Party. An initiative, is a reform designed to coincide with representative democracy. The citizen, will essentially, have the abillity to enact votes based on majority rule.People often slander this as mob rule, and I agree. I think the mob should rule in a democracy. Let me clarify one more time. Initiatives allow citizens to formulate a resolution, and enact it by popular vote.For example, Billy wants to make all guns free. He creates a national initiative. If the initiative recieves enough votes, then the bill is enacted. My resolution----------------- A council, a separate wing of congress, will be elected by the people, through direct vote.- The citizens who rule the citizens council, will have one power : The ability to propose an initiative : The ability to repeal an initiative- Initiatives, once passed through the citizens council, will go into a direct vote with the American people. - Following the UN referendum status, initiatives will require a 65% vote to be enacted- Citizen council membership will be divided by population. - Councils will be elected in their state, but represent the nation. - Council members serve 4 year terms- A initiative decision, due to its context, can be repealed by congress, but they must pass a majority vote through the council.My opponent will begin next round. Failure to argue next round will result in a 7 point forfeit
You choose the topic

I'll write something better tomorrow. Sorry! ) *** There is nothing inherently wrong with fedoras, in theory they are perfectly fine. They are a style of hat from a bygone era which certain subcultures decided to continue wearing. However the manner of use these subcultures decided to use this had is the reason they should be banned. For clarification, I will be arguing that fedoras should be banned in a fashion sense. Not a legal sense. Wearing a fedora would have someone socially blacklisted, but they would not face any legal repercussions if they did choose to wear one. Arg 1: Fedoras are a cultural signifier of toxic masculinity- Masculinity and femininity are dichotomous gender characteristics which a person of any sex may experience, they are not inherently harmful or positive but they are a socially constructed concept. Toxic masculinity is the elevation of masculinity to it's logical extreme which perpetuates harmful sexist nonsense. We have culturally linked fedoras with the likes of 'neckbeards', so that they are a rhetorical shortcut to 'The Friend Zone', the 'Men's Rights Movement' and other types of generally socially awkward behavior. I'm not saying it's okay to judge someone for something like being a 'neckbeard' as I fully believe that calling someone something like that is just another kind of bullying, but my beef isn't with neckbeards specifically, but rather the prior stated rhetorical shortcut. One could be the kindest, most politically and socially nuanced person in the world, but those personal traits can't separate them from what a fedora stands for. Arg 2: They are a lazy shortcut to class- Wearing a fedora doesn't make one look any fancier or classier. I don't care what the material is, or who made it. I think the worst part about the resurgance of fedoras is it's use with otherwise casual attire. If one is wearing an old t-shirt, shorts and sandals, a fedora isn't going to make them look any more presentable. Unless you're avril lagign you're not going to wear a tie with a t-shirt, so why would we thing it's okay to wear a dress hat with casual clothes. I have 40 seconds left, so I'll leave this here. Again, sorry for the short round, I'll have something better tomorrow!
Freedom of sexuality is a human right.

Forcing someone else to engage in a sexual act is immoral and falls under the range of acts that the government has every right to prevent and prosecute. Engaging in sexual conduct in public view is essentially forcing a level of participation on the observers. There are many sexual activities and kinks that involve other people watching. It is morally wrong to force people to do so, and should be legally punishable. Sex is not a need. However much one may desire it, one does not need it. I cannot see how you can equate the need for food and water to sex. No one has died from a lack of sex. Plenty of people do not have sex and live successful lives (by their own estimation). Personally, I feel that my ability to speak, gather with people, be free from unjust imprisonment, and believe what I wish to believe is more important than rutting in some particular fashion. While some are technically illegal, they are not practically illegal. They do not tend to stand up to judicial review and in general people are not charged with those crimes (fellatio and sodomy). I also said most industrial nations. Europe and the industrial nations of South America are quite liberal in what is allowed. You said that industrial populations had been driven functionally insane and I don't see how that is at all likely when most of those nations have very few limitations on sexual behavior. I would argue that it should be illegal to have sex with a two year old. If we can agree on that, there must be some sort of age where it should no longer be illegal. The question of where that boundary exists is a legal definition and therefore must decided by government. We can argue over exactly what that age or criteria is, but it must be defined in the law.
Freedom of sexuality is a human right.

"A government should be able to place some limit on where sexual activities occur." Only in so far as the protection of property rights are concerned. Like i should not have to worry about people making out in my living room, but as far as people in public, to me its like you're advocating the government being able to dictate taste. I hate seeing gangsta kids limping along like its cool, ut just because I don't wanna see it means it should be illegal. "The government should have the right to limit what actions take place in that room." I disagree, so long as the actions taken harm no one, and i mean harm, not annoy or disgust. I think Jello is disgusting, but I don't need it to be illegal to eat it in public. Like everything else sex in public would self segregate just because mimes are legal in public does not mean mimes will be camping out everywhere. "Secondly..." None of those are basic animal needs, suppressing sexuality is like controlling people with starvation or thirst, which is far more monstrous than any of your examples. "The vast majority of sexual acts that people wish to engage in are legal in most industrial nations." That's not true, sodomy and fellatio are still technically illegal in many places while it may be a majority I object to the use of the word vast. In fact I'd say between sodomy, homosexual acts, and fellatio and cunnilingus, most sexual acts engaged in, in industrial societies, are illegal or potentially so, doubly so when you include the sexual activity of teens, and traditional sex crimes. Besides something does not have to be illegal to be oppressed. Take communism in the McCarthy era, or race issues. Social oppression is just as bad if not more so than legal oppression, because at least when a law is oppressive there is an established mechanism for repealing it that you may attempt.
Freedom of sexuality is a human right.

Let me first say that I respect that people have different sexual orientations and that I see nothing wrong with that. I accepted this argument on the basis of what you posted in your argument. Firstly, I believe there are many sexual activities between consenting sentient humans that have every right to be regulated by the government. A government should be able to place some limit on where sexual activities occur. For example, the government could order no sexual activity in public places. Considering your statement about consenting adults, I will assume that at the initiation of the act all present knowingly consent to what is going on. However, there is certainly a risk that another non-consenting member of the public may happen in upon the act. Even if the activity were to occur in locked, sound proof room but that is meant for public use, the government should have the right to limit what actions take place in that room. Secondly, I think there are far worse methods for controlling human behavior than the suppression of sexual activity. Limiting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, quartering troops in your home and most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are far more important than ones sexual freedom. Thirdly, I don't think sexual frustration has driven industrial populations functionally insane. The vast majority of sexual acts that people wish to engage in are legal in most industrial nations. I don't see how the limitation of sexual acts has led to exploitation (oppression perhaps) or profiteering.
Is Wikipedia a reliable source.

1. Stanford is not the highest rated school, according to QS World University ratings, MIT is the top rated; and they, along with the University of Pittsburgh, published a paper saying that Wikipedia was a reliable source. 2. Your arguement for badgering about donations has no value whatsoever. A. I don't see you complaining about TV or YouTube ads, which are harder to get rid of, unlike WP's requests that you can easily exit. B. It's a nonprofit. Where do you expect it to get its money from?
Is Wikipedia a reliable source.

Ironically, that there is a lot of misinformation spreading around about Wikipedia and its reliability as a source. I'd like to address these one by one, and I will do the same for my opponent's remarks. 1. Anyone can edit anything on WP. This is technically true, but not really. A. Some articles are protected (ex. Don T.) B. Citations are needed. C. Paid moderators check every edit. 2. WP is not recognized by scholarly bodies. A. Harvard has rated WP more accurate than Encyclopedia Brit