BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Jesus Interpretation of Quantum Physics is Sound

I would like to point out that my opponent still has not gone through absolutely every single one of my arguments, leaving each of them standing and not disproven. Of course, you can't just disprove Jesus; it is ridiculous to even try.Now, in response to the point you made: in quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with an observer. This is shown here within this equation: Now, the n with a line through it stands for new stuff. The E thing stands for energy. And the rest, I don't know. I just know it has to do with math that I don't understand. And, I would like to take this chance to do the following:Josef Fritzl's status as a rapist and child molestor do not dictate whether he is an expert within this field or not. It is almost like you are saying my status as awesome dictates whether I can join the Kool Kids Club or not. But, this doesn't make sense. If that were true, I wouldn't be in it, and I wouldn't be one of the higher up members in my sect. (Cali32B.)I would also like to thank you for saying my sources cited were great, as it is you admitting I had a better argument than you, indirectly. I am okay with this, as it greatens my chance to win against you. I want to let you have a chance to win, though. My level of expertice in this section is much higher than yours, and it is obvious that makes this debate a little unfair. To make your defeat a little less bitter, I will allow you a picture of another corgi. http://i2.cdn.turner.com...; />Oh my God, I love corgis.So, another person that could help me with this argument is famed Jesus physicist Quentin Smith. He is little known for this, as his acting career takes up most of his life, but he has said a select few intelligent words on the subject such as, "Use the Force. Let it be your light unto the Lord, and let it show you how to do physics and stuff," http://qsmithwmu.com...; alt="http://web.archive.org...; />Tell me, would this innocent face lie to you? He has never lied to me and just look at me: I am on my way to getting a Jesus quantum physics degree.So, in conclusion, it is almost undeniable that Jesus plays parts in Quantum Physics, straight down to the smallest of points. If he didn't, the universe itself would fall apart at the seams simply from his not being there. He has the ability to keep this all in balance, and to hold particles together, and if he doesn't exist, he is not doing so and nothing else is. This just makes it undeniable. http://www.metalmouth.net...; />
The Jesus Interpretation of Quantum Physics is Sound

Thanks to my opponent for the laughs, I really enjoyed the humour. Honestly I thought this was going to be a serious debate, but at point 1 of the initial argument, I knew you were playing a great joke. As while statement 1 is correct, it seems to not be considering all aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation.(1)So just to clarify The Copenhagen interpretation relies on the wave/particle duality. So yes, when we observe the system the wave function does copse when we take into consideration the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.(2) What's interesting as well is how you can consider the Copenhagen Interpretation to be true and then build a new interpretation on its tenants while not creating tenants of your own.One last thing which I would like my opponent to address out of interest is point 3 of the Jesus Interpretation. Why does the wave function need to be observed by an external observer and hence collapse?The rest of this interpretation is gibberish and well trolled,and let me just give a few examples of this.(a) Joseph Fritzl the rapist and child molester quoted as a Jesus interpretation expert.(3)(b) Then this brilliant gibberish explaining constants in an equation. Basically, G stands for Jesus, and the little u thing with the v next to it stands for universe. The A stands for applying, and again, g, u, and v, all stand for Jesus and universe.(c) Great resources cited.Thanks for the laughs.(1) http://abyss.uoregon.edu...(2) http://www.aip.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will not contradict myself!

Formalities aside, this debate comes down to two primary arguments (as has been made quite clear). I will address them in increasing order of importance. First, the mathematics issue. Second, the spelling and grammar issue. However, because I believe I have done a strong enough job, I won't waste the readers' time. 1) Spelling and grammar. To be honest, and to point out the irony, my opponent's argument is incredibly hard to understand. I've read it multiple times and I still have trouble deciphiring what he has to say. Nonetheless; we look to his first paragraph addressing the argument. He attempts to deny that he says he doesn't care, but rather, quotes himself on saying "It's hard to" care. If it's hard to remember to care, and my opponent doesn't remember to care, then he doesn't care. Syllogistically, my opponent has lost this point, and thus the round. Moving on, 2) Mathematics. I hold that the majority of classes around the nation would teach that a circle with a radius of 2 inches has a circumference of 4*pi, not 12.42; likewise, the golden ratio should always be expressed as (1 + sqrt. (5))/2 [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]
I will not contradict myself!

We are entering round 5, so it wouldn't make sense to ask new questions. I'll continue with what I have now. 1. Spelling and Grammar My opponent isn't looking into what he wrote well enough. Let's look back. "I think I would do well to consider it more important in my debates". He therefore does believe that it is important- it is clear enough that he used the word "important". He then proceeds to claim that "as long I communicate what I need to in a argument it's really hard to remember to care." To care about something is to show concern with or to have some sort of regard towards it [http://dictionary.reference.com...]; i.e. recognizing some level of importance and acting upon it. To NOT care would be to NOT recognize said level of importance; my opponent clearly is contradicting himself. If my opponent doesn't buy this, I'll spend my entire next round on this argument, but I feel as though it is clear enough. 2. 100% accuracy vs. The square root of 69 My opponent writes, "one question asked my of my thoughts on degree of possble accuracy, the other was to provide an answer of some kind to a strait up math equation." "A straight* up math question*" in the standard class would assume that accuracy is of utmost importance. If I asked my opponent what the value of pi was, I would not expect him to say 3.14159... I would expect him to say simply, either "pi" or "the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter. My opponent contradicts himself here as well. I'll drop the last two contradictions I presented; a note to the readers: If I drop a presented contradiction, my opponent gains no ground. My opponent can only win if he is found to NEVER have contradicted himself in the debate. I appreciate everyone's time.
I will not contradict myself!

Thank you. NEW QUESTIONS 1. Do you like ice cream? 2. Can pigs fly? 3. Can this swine fly?http://verynoice.com... I'm sorry, in the midst of writing this I had a gigantic feud with my cousin overseas and lost all focus and willingness to continue this round. I'll continue in round 4; luckily, I wrote out the contradictions before I got the message. I wish you luck; have fun in Tennessee. Meanwhile, let me know if you need me to do anything else in terms of time. CONTRADICTIONS 1. Spelling and grammar To this question, my opponent responds "I think I would do well to consider it more important in my debates". He therefore does believe that it is important; he then proceeds to claim that "as long I communicate what I need to in a argument it's really hard to remember to care." He puts spelling and grammar both at an important and an unimportant level, which violates the law of the excluded middle. Further, he has multiple spelling and grammar errors throughout the debate. I will, however, wait until round 5 to post them all (or as many as I can fit given the character limitations) as voters. 2. The questions "Can an irrational number be expressed to 100% accuracy in decimal format?" and "What's the square root of 69?" have incompatible answers. He says that without divine intervention, irrational numbers can't accurately be expressed; however, he proceeds to express the square root of 69 in decimal format. In the standard mathematical world, the square root of 69 would be left as is, for it is unsimplifiable. My opponent trusts the accuracy of a calculator, and so, has contradicted himself. 3. (I'll admit, this argument may be a bit of a stretch) My opponent agrees that conduct is a good quality to express in debate. However, when it comes to the question "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like," my opponent doesn't take the consideration to look up the question. It actually is a reference to a popular meme, and does have an answer. That answer is, “You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.” Also, his response contradicts his rule #2. Pro did not respond to my question is some manner; he merely attacked the grammatical coherence of the question without caring for it's background. 4. Also a contradiction to rule #2, is his response to "If you are given an "If-then" statement in the form such that the "then" is a question, and you answer the "then", is the "if" statement presumed to be true?" It would've been easier had my opponent simply said yes; claiming that he is a fish in NO WAY contradicts any other answer, and neither does claiming that he is not a fish. He chose to sidestep the question, which is a rule breaker.
I will not contradict myself!

So far, I have no contradictions to put forth. ROUND 2 1. Can irrational numbers be expressed to 100% accuracy in a decimal format? 2. Do you believe spelling and grammar are important in debate? 3. Do you believe that conduct is important in debate? 4. Have you ever played Poke'mon? If so, have you ever captured Pikachu? 5. Is .9999999(repeating) equal to 1? 6. If you are given an "If-then" statement in the form such that the "then" is a question, and you answer the "then", is the "if" statement presumed to be true? 7. Is it time for me to present your contradictions? 8. What is the value of the golden ratio/golden number? (Whichever you prefer to call it) 9. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? 10. Is anything possible?
I will not contradict myself!

QUESTIONS 1. Will you contradict yourself? 2. Is it possible that you will contradict yourself? 3. Have you contradicted yourself yet? 4. Is the answer to this question "no"? 5. If I'm a fish, and you're a fish, are we both fish? 6. If you're a box, and I'm a box, are we both box? 7. Have you contradicted yourself yet? 8. What's the square root of 69? 9. Do you believe in God? 10. Don't you believe in God?
I will not contradict myself!

Resolved: I, Maruader, will not contradict myself. Rules: 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. 6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself. =========== one of the first debates I read on this site was one of these debates; and it looked fun. good luck to my opponent whosoever picks up this challenge
In my opinion, this side had the better opinions.

So basically this idea appeared in my head, about an hour ago. I was outside and it is sunny about 62 degrees, and wind chimes were blowing. And I thought the beauty of opinions is everywhere on debate.org, so why not have an opinion debate. The rules are as follows, no debating the opponents opinions, no posting in the comment section of the debate (there is no need for you to expand your opinion or add more opinions), and be creative and let the fellow debaters hear what you have to say. No sources, or citing your opinions, let it come off the top of your head. In my opinion, music & art are the most beautiful gifts that we've been given, be creative.
Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Well, I don't have much else to add to my argument other than two quotes. First, Don Kates, professor of Criminal Law and criminologist said, "Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm." Second, I'd like to quote you, "I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense." Thank you for the debate.
Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Well, I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense. I just don't think that allowing more concealed weapons by non-professionals in colleges is the solution. There is definitely a problem with the fact that pointless violence is occurring at campuses, but I believe there's only been about 9 campus shootings in the past 40 years. Every life counts, but I don't think the situation is so severe that concealed weapons should be allowed on colleges. I agree that a vast majority of CC permit holders will be acting defensively and responsibly with their weapon, but there is just too much room for more problems when guns are allowed legally. This whole CC permit business makes guns more available anyways, because people are able to legally buy and sell the guns and carry them. This makes it easier for potential criminals to get a hold of a gun. I know that they could get a hold of one anyways, but the fact that it is easier when there are more guns going around means that someone that may not have gone through the trouble if guns were really rare may be able to obtain one easily and use it. I think there are other solutions that could work alternatively to the CC permit. There could be increased security, so that if a student starts shooting then there will be a trained, professional security guard nearby. Also, there could be metal detectors/x rays or some other precaution before students are able to enter the campus.
Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Firstly, I don't understand how the campuses of America will be safer if any student with a CC permit is able to walk around with concealed weapons. Being a student myself, it would make me very uneasy to know that anybody walking around me might have a concealed firearm, even if they are supposedly "smart, responsible people." Also, when guns become involved, it is rarely an issue of "one clean shot to the head." If there are a bunch of students carrying guns, and someone comes in with their own weapon intending to shoot people, do you think that one of the students is just going to say "don't worry, I'll handle this" and get a clean shot in the assailant's head? I think the reality of the situation would be that there would be a period of chaos when all of the concealed weapon holders take those weapons out and start firing. There is even high probability that bullets will miss their targets and innocent people will get injured or killed. Also, I'm sure that in the past many CC permit holders, not in schools but in other places, have actually been the crazy criminals who take out those concealed weapons and start firing on people. Schools are places of books, not guns. There are thousands of colleges throughout the United States, and the number of campuses where shootings happen is relatively tiny. If students anywhere with a CC permit are allowed to take guns to school, the number of shooting will go up because fighting fire with fire does not work. Giving people more opportunities to use weapons has never been, and never will be, a solution to violence. Lastly, using our "right to bear arms" is a really poor argument for allowing arms in schools. Do you really think when our founding fathers made the "right to bear arms" they were thinking of it pertaining to schools? I really don't think so. I think that right was created mainly because of the need for a militia, which means that the citizens needed to have guns on hand in case they were called to fight the British, French, Spanish, Native Americans, or whoever. Clearly, there are no more militias in the United States, and even if there were it would have nothing to do with schools. Allowing guns in schools will not reduce crime, that just doesn't make sense. Schools should continue to be Gun-Free Zones.
Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses

I believe that properly trained students with a concealed carry license should be able to carry on their college campus. Currently, college campuses are Gun-Free Zones. That means that even if you have the concealed carry permit, you may not bring the gun on to campus. My question is: who does this law hurt? The last few years has seen a rapid increase in the number of school shootings and other school violence. It seems every week or two you hear about a high-school or college age kid amassing a smorgasbord of weaponry, bringing a gun(or guns) to school, shooting people, and then committing suicide. It happens so frequently now that people non-chalantly hear it on the news as they flip the TV channel - they don't think twice about it anymore. The kids that are doing this are disturbed and once these nuts get it into their heads that they're going to go on a shooting rampage, nothing short of their plan being exposed will stop them. Now back to my question - who does the ban on concealed carry on campus hurt? I will tell you who it hurts, it hurts the innocent, law-abiding students of the school who are going to school to learn and get an education. It impedes on their ability to be as safe as they can possibly be. This is an important thing to remember: the nuts who are planning the attack DO NOT CARE if it is a 'Gun-Free Zone', they're packing heat either way, with the intent to kill. The people who are restricted by the Gun-Free Zone are the law-abiding, responsible citizens with CC permits. The aren't going to break the rule that says they can't carry, then when the wacko with a shotgun and a book bag full of ammo charges through the doors, they are left defenseless. My argument is that allowing the CC permit holders to carry on campus will ensure a safer campus if the unthinkable happens and the school comes under attack from a degenerate madman. Within a few minutes of the attack, concealed carriers would be able to draw their weapons and take out the assailant with one clean shot to the head, stopping the tragedy from becoming much, much worse, saving many lives. The people with CC permits are smart, responsible people who are able to make educated decisions to protect themselves and their peers from an undeserved catastrophe. If this ban were lifted, we would have much safer campuses around America, and many potential tragedies will be stopped short, all because people are allowed to fully employ their Right to Bear Arms, as granted to them by the Constitution.
Fear & Hope

Note- I was in the middle of typing my argument and didn't notice the timer had run out, so I accidentally forfeited the round. I will attempt to make up for that here. In response to John's argument. I take issue with 2 parts. The last premise, and the conclusion. 4 People are afraid of spending or wasting their money on things and not getting anything in return. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Therefore hope and fear are connected, even in the example of the lottery. With the last premise, I find it to be plainly false. People are not necessarily afraid of spending or wasting money. If what you meant was that people are fearful of spending their money, based on your definition of fear in premise 2, then this statement would be true. But then the issue lies in our definition of fear, and I find the lack of terror or being afraid is an incorrect definition of fear. For the conclusion, I would agree that fear and hope are connected, but they are not necessary conditions of each other. It is not necessarily the case that fear entails hope, and vice versa. In response to Nick's argument: Nick says that people fear a possible loss of money. This can be true for some people. in order for people to fear the loss of money, it would have to negatively impact their life. The loss of that money would have to cause that person's quality of life to go down. What if a person is rich and the cost of playing the lottery is insignificant to them, would you still say they FEAR a potential loss of money? I wouldn't. Although some people might fear the loss the money, it is still not necessarily the case that because of hope, fear is required.
Fear & Hope

In an effort to correct the missed argument, I will reiterate the points made in our first two arguments and our opponent can follow in the next round. Fear and hope are related in the sense that having hope signifies the anticipation of future event(s). Having this anticipation means that the mind is stressed about the occurrence of said future event(s). This stress then leads to fear of the event(s) not occurring, therefore hope leads to fear. Our opponent used the example of trying to win the lottery in order to illustrate that hope does not necessarily lead to fear. John states that hope is a desire for something, while fear os a desire for something not to happen. In the example of the lottery, people desire to not loose the money spent playing in the first place, therefore they fear this possible loss of money. This demonstrates that even in the example of the lottery, there is still a presence of hope and fear, and they are still connected. We look forward to a follow up from our opponent. - by Nick Cordella
Fear & Hope

1. Hope is the desire for something or some event in the future to happen. 2. Fear is the desire for something or some event in the future not to happen. 3. When entering the lottery, people are spending money with the hope of gaining money. 4 People are afraid of spending or wasting their money on things and not getting anything in return. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Therefore hope and fear are connected, even in the example of the lottery. by John Corbett