BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
are cops justified in defending themselves or taking a life if neccesary

I believe that 95% of the time it is truly seen as self defense, and after the case is received and forensics have been analized and the case is deemed as self defense the people still can't face the fact that people have a fight or flight reaction that cause them to react in a way that should be considered necessary no matter what the race is. Who is justified in thus situation dont believe what media tells you find your own information
One plus one equals two

Well i have no other option than to answer back and do my best. (Damn, i had to be more precise) 1) In Binary Code: 1+1 does not equal zero, in fact the link you used says it is 1+1=0 carrying the one to the next significant bit, that would make the result 10. Say we have 00000001+00000001, the result would be 00000010. Which is in fact 2, it is just another notation. You can convert binary to decimal code, they are compatible. http://compnetworking.about.com... [1 fails to prove anything.] 2) Boolean algebra 1+1=1 This is an interesting one. In boolean algebra 1 is true and 0 is false. You are not really adding 1's, it's just a representation of true and false. Truth is an abstract concept that is not meant to be countable. Or at least we can say that more truths don't affect the final result which is true. Let's make it simple Let's say X is truth. 1x+1x=2x Since the coefficient doesn't really much affect the fact (which is only one) that it is true, it becomes meaningless. Just as multiplying 2 times 0. It still is zero. It is just saying true + true = true. 2*true= true So in boolean algebra saying 2*true does not mean something different from 1*true. There is no need for any other coefficient different to 0 and 1, since there are only two states, it is either true or false. But this doesn't go against "One plusn one equals two". No type of logical argument can go against maths. [2 proves nothing] 3) In biology: First, the question is one plus one equals two, not one thing plus another thing, well you get the point. It's an abstract concept. Even if we could accept this one, this is a fallacious argument because you miss a lot of the information that is relevant to both the male and female. The fact that you conceptualize them as one entity does not mean that's the only thing there is. In fact it's just a concept. In reality there are many other variables that you are just not paying attention to. [3 proves nothing, once again] I'm disappointed at Con. There are some things you can't go against, yet one can still find fallacy, or ambiguous information to try to prove one's arguments, but this ambiguous information is connected after all, to maths. These concepts are not disconnected. Now to my arguments. Do point 1, 2 and 3 proposed by Con in any way disprove that one plus one equals two? I think not. Even if it is convincing, Con fails to disprove my position. In fact, he agrees with me that 1+1=2 at least, in math. So even if he had 3000 other results to 1+1, it would still hold true that 1+1=2. I did not say "one plus one equals only two" Yes, Con, I can also use words to my advantage, but at least i rationalise my arguments.
One plus one equals two

You see pro agrees with me, because he himself said "yeah thats true".The name of the topic is quit clear which says " One plus one equals two". there is no mention of maths. So i proved pro wrong.Pro gave one example where 1+1 = 2, and i gave three example where 1+1 is not equal to 2He should have said 1+1=2 only in maths, but as we know he did not mention that.He just mentioned "Even if you don't know much about algebra, one plus one equals two". This is no where as same as saying 1+1=2 in maths only.Good luck pro.
One plus one equals two

Yes i accept the challenge, i will prove that 1+1 is not equal to 2. Pro argues that 1+1 is always = 2, the burden lies on him to prove that 1+1 is always = 2. Because he does not mention that it is in maths. So i can assume it to be anything. 1) In binary code 1+1 = 0 http://academic.evergreen.edu... 2)In boolean algebra 1+1=1 http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk... 3)In biology. 1 human being (male) + 1 human being (female) = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or7 or 8 so on..... Now its up to pro to prove me wrong.
One plus one equals two

Following my proposal in http://www.debate.org... This is a debate meant to push on the boundaries of debates, which is a great creative exercise. In this debate, i defend that 1+1=2, because after all, we all know and, you know, there's no reason for someone to say the opposite. Even if you don't know much about algebra, one plus one equals two. Here you have a video of Beyonce's song "1+1" She clearly states: "I don't know about much algebra, but i know one plus one equals two" Prove me that one plus one doesn't equal two.
One plus one equals two

1) Yes, in binary code 1+1 = 10 but not 2Yes, if you do convert it in to decimal code then it will be 2but as long i as i keep it in binary code it will remain 10I don't want to convert to decimal code.Therefore in binary code 1+1 = 102) Yes in boolean algebra 1 represents true and 0 represents false, So what ??You did not mention that 1 cannot be used to represent true, which is done in boolean algebraSo i am free to assume whatever i want.true+true=trueSince in boolean 1 is used to represent true1+1=1Proved3) In biology Obivously i just meant that one as a joke.Yes Pro your topic is "one plus one equals two" , from this it is clear that your saying 1+1=2I proved you wrong The name of the topic does not open room for more then one answer for 1+1.So i proved it wrong.The name of the topic isn't " one plus one may or may not be equal to two"Other then that i gave 2 examples where 1+1 is not equal to 2 Where as you gave 1 example where 1+1 = 2
ivf debate

Despite IVF being anew almost natural part of life in the modern age, the legal issues still arise. When gettingredients divorced the embryos are often treated like children, being disputed for custody. The eggs contain both parts of the parents so in actually who gets the "children"? The legal issue iso one of the most difficult issues to dispute. Ov we fall there is more difficulty in engaging in IVF then there is not engaging in IVF. All in all, it is not ethical.
ivf debate

The truth is that IVF has increased and wil only continue to grow. the reason is because families choose to pay the heavy cost to have a child of their own instead of adopting. By allowing the mothers and fathers to "in a sense" donate their eggs and sperm for fertilization outside the woumb so that families get a higher chanse of produsing a baby. From when IVf started, many people have compained, argued and debated wether it should be allowed and if it was ethical or not, but the truth is that it depends on the person and IVF is here and will contine to stay.
ivf debate

Having ONE baby might be beneficial to the parents, however MULTIPLE births may not. When they insert the embryos into the uterus, they insert a multitude ( about 3-4). When this occurs, all four of them , or none of them may hatch, either a) wasting your money, or b) giving the potentially new parents more than they asked for. Not only is the procedure expensive but if the new parents were only expecting one baby and got FOUR, the 18+ year expense of four children might be overwhelming. Some people are not equipped to take care of one baby let alone four, which is an entirely real possibility when considering IVF births.
ivf debate

Ivf is an issue that has stretched from the begining and only causes problems to those that seek them. It is safe to say that ivf is benefitial to paerents that want children. theissue with this is that it is a very costly procedure of roughly $15000 or more depending on the place and complications. the solution is that if one wants something that bad, then they as parents will have to sacrifise something, in this case lots of money, but with high success rates its worth the cost. if parents get divoreved the one who takes custidy of the eggs would have to be negotiated between both sides and arrive to an agreement for a reduction of complications in court. Besides that, ivf is a good way for parents to have babies if they can produce them and not adopting a child.
ivf debate

That brings up the previous ethical issue, are children possessions and can we "build a child". If you don"t use all of the children that you "designed". There are several options for the disposal of the excess embryos. You can donate the extra embryos to research for scientific and medical use. You may donate your embryo to other couples ( which brings up the question, do you want your offspring to be birthed from someone else? why not just give the child up for adoption?) You may freeze your embryo indefinitely, which is extremely costly for the storage and preservation causes.You may dispose of it yourself or if you want to you may have a "disposal ceremony" if the IVF clinic so offers it. The problems involved in this is obviously the ethical issues, are the embryos human? As well as the issue of do you want other people bearing your child? Is it inhumane to to freeze your offspring? Issues such as these. http://www.resolve.org...
ivf debate

Despite the possible options to eliminate these problems, there is still the significant issue of "is it ethical"? Not only is there the ethical issue of "is killing unborn babies wrong", but the there is also the issue of having adults think that the child is a right and possession, as opposed to a gift. "I paid $8000 for them, they should be mine, shouldn't they?" For women who have reached the age that menopause occurs, is it right for them to have a baby when their body is no longer able/ just about to not be able to bear children? Is it moral to "throw out" the embryos that may or may not have congenital or physical defect just because we don't like the way they appear? What is a child's value? All of these ethical questions arise. https://ispub.com...
ivf debate

The way to eliminate these problems is to follow the procedures. the fact is that before the treatment the women goes under fertility drugs to release as many eggs as possible during the women's regular menstrual cycle. then she goes under hormone injections for 12 days to release the eggs. they retrieve the eggs and fertilize them. before the doctors transfer the embryos they have you under progesterone pills to thicken the lining of the uterus.when they inject the embryos they check that the lining is thick enough so the embryos can pass with ease, if not they abandon the cycle. for money, it is a very expensive test and hard to come up with money but not everything is cheap. http://www.babycentre.co.uk...
ivf debate

Birth control may be taken. If birth control is not taken then there is a chance of cysts and the eggs not being fertilized at the correct cycle. If estrogen levels are not correct , then injections may be needed which may counteract the birth control being taken.The baby may not be correctly placed and may be stuck in the insertion catheter at the time of insertion.(http://www.shadygrovefertility.com...) It is insanely expensive to conceive babies through this fashion. A family that does not make over $75000 and is uninsured will have to pay about $8470 (https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com...)
The moon isn't real

The moon is real. It would cost billions to create such a projection, and many more billions to replicate lunar phenomena (i.e. phases, eclipses). Plus, why are there tides if not for the moon? Several people have been on it and you can see it for yourself anytime, whereas if you look at an actual hologram, it does not look similar. You have the BOP as you made a positive claim and you have failed to fill that burden.
End the Fed

My opponent hasn't fulfilled his BOP and there is no rule about last-round arguments. I will not honor his request and concede. R1) He states the Fed is not regulated by Congress. This is a bold-faced lie. One, Congress created the Fed, can end it tomorrow if they chose, and holds regular hearings with the Chairperson. Two, the Fed is audited by the GAO and its financial statements/compliance is audited by the OIG, there are numerous checks and balances, its data is released regularly, etc. [1. . http://www.federalreserve.gov...] R2) Pro's point makes no sense and connecting the debt to the Fed simply demonstrates that he, like his gold-bug buddies, have no idea of what they're talking about, which is why he resorts to using words like "insolent. " "Borrow government its own money" doesn't even make sense grammatically. Anyway, the Fed does hold U. S. Treasury bonds. But the U. S. is the sole creator of the dollar, and countries that have national debts nominally denominated in their own currency -- U. S. , Japan, Switzerland, etc. -- have never had problems with their debt burdens. The debt is high, largely because George W. Bush put two wars, two rounds of tax cuts, a recession he caused by deregulating (by the way, the Fed was created to mollify the financial panics of the century prior to its creation), Medicare Part D, and defense contracts. None of this has anything to do with the Fed. 3) So a fiat currency is ipso facto bad? Does my opponent not know the history of the gold standard? The gold standard contributed to the Great Depression. If we were to go on a gold standard tomorrow, we would see deflation en masse. Why is that a problem? Because prices would fall, wages would fall, demand would fall, people would become unemployed, wages would fall further, ad infinitum. The value of the dollar is NOT rapidly dropping. All estimates show that it is rising (. http://www.forbes.com...). At the same time, we need not consider the value of the dollar, but of wages. And inflation is below the Fed's two percent target, so my opponent's argument is unfounded. He mentions "reserve currency. " This is a talking point. It's utterly irrelevant because we don't rely on other countries purchasing dollars or converting their currencies to dollars in order to spend money. The Fed can simply take over. Why is this not inflationary? It's simple: 1. We're in the zero lower bound, so interest rates can't fall any further anyway. 2. Real interest rates are negative, yet countries still trust the U. S. dollar. 3. As we run deficits or "monetize the debt," the economy expands. So the rate of increase of goods and services at least matches the rate of increase in inflation -- production might even increase faster, meaning we get deflation. We would only have runaway inflation if the economy didn't expand.
End the Fed

1) Fed is not regulated by the congress. It is not transparent. Its managers are not elected. It is owned by private banks. Right to issue and share money properly belongs to the government. This way, some individuals are allowed to print money, but if somebody else did it, they would be arrested. 2) They are insolent enough to borrow government its own money, which created debt of 17,5 trillion dollars. (http://www.brillig.com...) 3) Fed keeps printing money that is backed up by absolutely nothing. Value of dollar is rapidly dropping. As soon as other countries stop using it as reserve currency, speed of dollar loosing its value will become significantly greater. US in on one way road to inflation.
Halo as a series is better than Call of Duty as a series

To begin, I will point out several fallacies in your argument. You Said: " The Halo series has lower ratings than COD. " Using IGN, I compared game ratings between each game of each series. I found: Halo 4 was given a rank of 9.8/10 Black Ops 2 was given a rank of 9.3/10 Halo: Reach was given a rank of 9.5/10 Black Ops was given a rank of 8.5/10 Halo Wars was given a rank of 8.4/10 Modern Warfare 3 was given a rank of 9/10 Halo 3 ODST was given a rank of 9/10 Modern Warfare 2 was given a rank of 9.5/10 Halo 3 was given a rank of 9.5/10 Modern Warfare was given 9.4/10 Halo 2 was given a rank of 9.8/10 Call of Duty: World At War was given a 9.2/10 Halo: Combat Evolved was given a 9.7/10 Call of Duty 3 was given a 8.8/10 Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary was given an 8/10 Call of Duty 2: Big Red One was given an 8/10 Call of Duty was given a 9.3/10 All games were ranked under their X-Box or X-Box 360 versions with the exceptions of Call of Duty 2, which was ranked off the PS2, and Call of Duty, which was ranked off the PC. The average score for the Halo Series is 9.2/10, Call of Duty's average score is 9/10. Therefore, the Halo series has an overall higher series ranking than Call of Duty. Next you said that Call of Duty has been around about a year longer than Halo, but it hasn't. The release date for the first Call of Duty was October 29, 2003. The release date for the first Halo game was November 15, 2001. For COD, I used . http://www.ign.com... For Halo, . http://www.ign.com... The year a game came out does not affect how good it is, example: Ocarina of Time, but if it did, as you suggest, Halo would be the better game. Finally, "The graphics and online game play of COD triumph Halo tremendously. " This comment my opponent has made was somewhat opinion based, yet he gave no support to his opinion. When comparing graphics, I must assume that we are comparing this generation's consoles. Using Halo Reach as an example, which competed with Black Ops in 2009, I have made the conclusion that the graphics from Reach are better. This is because of one simple thing about the game that amazed me, you can see the serial number on the side of a bullet. In clear font. I have yet to see the same detail in any Call of Duty game. A small vote was taken regarding which game they thought would be better with graphics and as a game. . http://answers.yahoo.com... The person who set up the voting announced Halo: Reach as the winner. My opponent has failed to support any of his three points, 2 of which I have disproven. I challenge con to prove my points wrong, and in advance, game sales do not effect the quality of game you play. Over to you con.
Frozen is a bad movie

1. Low ratings by rotten tomatoes don't mean anything. At first the Disney Frozen was rated 20% by Rotten Tomatoes and now its 89% 2. How is it a poor thriller? It sounds on the contrary a great thriller romance movie. After all it pretty much is like every other romance/thriller movie such as Twilight My Arguments 1. Has a realistic plot. After the movie many people questioned the director whether or not it was real or not 2. There is a lot of elements that make a good movie. Such as suspense.
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

- This I will leave to the voters, I hope both myself and my opponent were seen as respectful and I don't believe either of us breached any rules so I would prefer a vote for tie here. 2. Who had better spelling and grammar? - I am sure it can be agreed I won this round, I do not believe I had any spelling or grammar mistakes and my opponent had numerous. 3. Who had more convincing arguments? This is once again up to the voter but since my opponent bears the burden of proof and I made a solid case for Kobe and disputed his claims for Jordan I believe this vote should go to me as well. After my disputes the only claims my opponent could make is that Jordan can jump higher and run faster. .. I concede that Jordan would win a track meet but we are talking about basketball which is a skill sport, the skills of which I have shown Kobe has perfected. 4. Who used the most reliable sources? This could be voted a tie, my opponent used more sources thus cross referencing his information but I believe I used the more reliable sources so vote as you see fit.
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

1. "we are talking about is Jordan's personal defense which was way beyond his time" I was actually talking about the defensive efforts against him being the reason he scored more than Kobe. Of course games have higher scoring now because just as defense continually gets better the overall scoring ability of players across the league gets better too. Also, you are incorrect in your assertion about the ppg for defenses today, the three best defenses this year were Chicago (giving up 88 ppg), Boston (89 ppg), and Philadelphia (89 ppg)[1]. That is pretty low if you ask me. 2. That is pretty bold saying Wade has a better pump fake than Kobe, we can save that for a different debate. If you watched the video he does in fact get on his tip toes and comes back down during his fake. Now for the Kobe faking out Jordan. I will be referencing the video now http://www.youtube.com... . At 0:45 Kobe blocks Jordan's fadeaway... I thought he could jump higher than Kobe. At 1:05 Kobe shoots right over the top of Jordan... I though Jordan would block him. At 1:47 Kobe beats him with the turnaround Jumper. You get the point, this was a young immature Kobe who had barely cracked the surface of his NBA career too. 3. Kobe has had knee problems throughout his entire career beginning in 2003 when he had his first knee surgery. He went to Germany in 2011 to have an experimental surgery to fix the issue [2]. 4. Now that I have disputed just about every logical statement you made that could be disputed it should be difficult for you to say that Kobe could not beat Michael in a 1 on 1 matchup. [1] - http://www.nba.com... [2] - http://espn.go.com...
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

However I do have to place issue with him saying that defenses were better when Jordan played, he did list a handful of great defensive players but teams as a whole now play much better defense against much better athletes. The sport is more popular (due in large part to Jordan I will admit, although that has nothing to do with his individual skills) and therefore there is more competition to play forcing players to play at a higher level than seen in previous decades. I am not referring to simply the great players but instead every player on the floor. I will concede that Jordan is a better blocker than Bryant. You need to be in position to block a shot though and Bryant being the great shot creator he is would make it awfully hard on Jordan. If you don't want to buy into Kobe's fadeaway I will give you another unstoppable move that is in his repertoire, his pump fake and pivot move(1). This move would surely keep Jordan's blocking at bay since he would need to account for Kobe's pump fake. Kobe gets on his tip toes during this move making it nearly impossible to tell whether or not he is pulling up and therefore forcing defenders to jump or suffer the consequences of him scoring right in their face. As far as Kobe calling Jordan the greatest, that is a no brainer thing for Kobe to say. It would be narcissistic to say that he is the greatest and no one else aside from Jordan compare. What is far more significant is Jordan saying that Kobe deserves comparison to himself (for Jordan, being a notoriously petty man, this is a huge compliment)(2). My final argument for this round is that Kobe Bryant has a greater will to win than Michael Jordan. Kobe has fought through injuries that would have ended careers and others that would have sat players out for long stretches but he never gives up, the same way he didn't this year while taking cortisone shots in his shooting hand (making it numb during game time) and putting up three consecutive 40 point efforts. This season he also dragged his team through the first round of the playoffs. Jordan on the other hand continues to make horrible GM decisions either due to low basketball IQ or just indifference to Charlotte winning, albeit this is not directly his basketball character it does say something about his character as a whole. 1. . http://www.onemanfastbreak.net... 2. . http://aol.sportingnews.com...