BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
number 8 is better than number 6

I have chosen to show the superiority of the number 6 in academia: 6 is the smallest positive integer which is neither a square number nor a prime number. Six is the smallest perfect number, As a perfect number: 6 is related to the Mersenne prime 3, since 21(22 - 1) = 6. (The next perfect number is 28. ) 6 is the only even perfect number that is not the sum of successive odd cubes. As a perfect number, 6 is the root of the 6-aliquot tree, and is itself the aliquot sum of only one number; the square number, 25. Six is the only number that is both the sum and the product of three consecutive positive numbers. Unrelated to 6 being a perfect number, a Golomb ruler of length 6 is a "perfect ruler. " Six is a congruent number. Six is the first discrete biprime (2.3) and the first member of the (2. q) discrete biprime family. Six is a unitary perfect number, a harmonic divisor number and a highly composite number. The next highly composite number is 12. 5 and 6 form a Ruth-Aaron pair under either definition. The smallest non-abelian group is the symmetric group S3 which has 3! = 6 elements. S6, with 720 elements, is the only finite symmetric group which has an outer automorphism. This automorphism allows us to construct a number of exceptional mathematical objects such as the S(5,6,12) Steiner system, the projective plane of order 4 and the Hoffman-Singleton graph. A closely related result is the following theorem: 6 is the only natural number n for which there is a construction of n isomorphic objects on an n-set A, invariant under all permutations of A, but not naturally in 1-1 correspondence with the elements of A. This can also be expressed category theoretically: consider the category whose objects are the n element sets and whose arrows are the bijections between the sets. This category has a non-trivial functor to itself only for n=6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(number) I believe that the above information constitutes a significant doubt as to the supposed superiority of the number 8 over the number 6. I have illustrated that, in at least some circumstances, 6 is superior to 8.
number 8 is better than number 6

Thanks for accepting. 8 is just not a number. It represents a lot of different symbols that I will explain in my main argument. Main argument. 8 has an endless road of possibilities. You will never fall off track. You may find your self on a curvy path but you will always find that straight away to the center of your goal. Sub arguments. 6 is the broken 8. You will either fall of into the void if no possibilities, or keep circling back to where you started. In the next round for my conclusion I will explain more in depth that 8 is better than 6.
Authoritarianism in American Public Schools and Why it's Unconstitutional

Thank you for letting us know. This would have been a cool debate, hopefully we can continue this another time with better conditions. As of right now, my arguments stand, and I think my plan was to go more over the constitution itself in round 2 after demonstrating in round 1 that workplaces, and public places have to set some house rules down and yadda yadda. Vote con. Thank you.
Authoritarianism in American Public Schools and Why it's Unconstitutional

The pro never made an attempt for this round, he never defended his arguments, and I made some pretty strong arguments. It's worth noting that while we have freedom, freedom in itself is limited. You can't just go out and shoot someone, you can't just go and rape someone. So while there is a 1st amendment we put restrictions on it, not only we, but the workplaces we go to put the restrictions on it, and the others. While I don't have to continue on, I do want to make a other argument against pro's argument 5 about being detained against ones will. As you have read, I mentioned and gave a example about a tornado which in my opinion was a pretty good argument, and also example, but I furthermore want to make a other argument that involves the mentally handicapped who are unable to think for themselves. Should we really let them free when we have these bad weather climates that effect us? No. We should hold them until their parents come to pick them up. The pro mentioned that even the parents can be detained during these climates, and that is true as I mentioned in the tornado scenario which happened, but I think for human concern, there must be a priority and care given, even if the other person thinks its fine. It's like a dude getting drunk and swearing he is fine to drive. No he isn't. He should not drive. You can make many small little arguments about the pros contention, but I'll leave it at that.
Authoritarianism in American Public Schools and Why it's Unconstitutional

Public schools are a function of the state. The state has made them mandatory for all children. It is my position that this means they are bound by the same rules as any government agency, set in the Constitution. Public schools mainly violate the Constitution in these ways: 1. Search me or my belongings at will (4th amendment) At my school, your pockets, backpack, phone, and car can all be searched without a warrant OR legal probable cause. The school does not need to suspect you are breaking laws, just SCHOOL RULES. The myriad of banned items at school makes it far too easy to 'justify' a search. 2. Enforce a complex and overly limiting dress code (1st amendment) The point is to ensure that no one is distracting everyone else with their attire. This is a noble goal but is almost universally poorly implemented. Simple self expression is criminalized in schools, banning piercings, hats, sweatshirts, hairstyles, hair colors, facial hair, a large portion of accessories, and occasionally more. As long as a student is not creating a clear and physical distraction, it is not the government's place to dress them. 3. Limit speech based on content alone (1st amendment) This means that even if speech was expressed at an appropriate time AND was not a threat, the school has the power to silence you. As an example, imagine a health class debating the dangers of drug use, which of course is supposed to be a one-sided farce. The one pothead kid that every school has is using his five minutes to thoroughly refute his opponents claims that Drug A is very bad for you. The teacher stops him and may even discipline him for promoting drug use. (Actually a true story from two years ago in my health class) 4. Confiscate my personal property with zero liability (4th amendment) Any teacher anywhere in the building can confiscate any piece of my property at any time for any reason. A small clause in our student handbook nullifies the actual rules by allowing teachers to confiscate at their discretion. They are not obligated to give it back until a 24 hour day has passed. If my property is damaged or stolen, the school doesn't have to pay for damages. 5. Detain me indefinitely against my will (5th amendment) During any type of emergency or emergency drill, a school can detain students and deny parents who are trying to leave with their children. These emergencies could include anything from a lockdown to inclement weather. The school is allowed to use force to detain students in these scenarios. This is specific and rare, but nonetheless shows how much power schools are given. It is also my position that the safety of students is NOT an acceptable reason to violate the Constitution. My opponent should also take note of the fact that the Constitution applies to all American citizens, meaning age is irrelevant to the Bill of Rights.
Who would win in a nuclear war? Russia or the United States of america

My opponent took the Russian side. I will be saying neither side would win. A limited nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder. Imagine the events if two of the worlds largest arms dealers exchanged? massive dead Neither side would win because everyone one would die
Who would win in a nuclear war? Russia or the United States of america

I believe that the russians would most indefinetly win in a nuclear war in the united states because of the amount of nuclear weapons they have stockpiled over the years. Also seeing that russian technology rivals the US in many ways, a person can determine that the basic russian soldeirs equipment and traning are far more superior to that of americans. Unfortunately fo the US armed forces Russians soldiers recieve harsher more effective traning. with both of these things combined russia may win
It is Preferable to be a Vampire than a non-Vampire

I accept.I know this round is acceptance, but let’s quickly rationalise the situation, I think that’s a good start considering we only have three rounds.I will begin by saying, you do not magically turn into a vampire. If that sh*t’s ever going to happen to you, then it’s because some weird Dracula looking son-of-a-bitch has turned up on your door step and asked whether you’ve ever thought about joining a vampiric cult. Any self-respecting individual would treat him like they do Mormons and do one of two things-[A] Shut and lock the door, then phone the police. [B] Begin violently beating him with whatever blunt instrument you have on hand.However, my opponent, apparently, would jump at this opportunity and allow herself to be lured by this old man into whatever dungeon/grave-yard he has in mind, she would then allow him to get creepily close to her neck, and then BITE INTO HER! Does she even know this guy’s a real vampire? He might just be a serial rapist or a killer! CLEARLY MY OPPONENT IS UNAWARE OF THE DANGERS OF ALLOWING STRANGE MEN BITE INTO YOUR NECK.Anyone making such decisions is making poor life choices and needs to re-evaluate.Pro has defined vampires as a corpse that leaves its grave at night to drink people’s blood. Look. When people are young children, they aspire to be things like a police officer, an astronaut or even a milk man. No one ever says “I want to become a fvcking corpse and I want to drink blood.” WHAT THE FVCK? Get this b*tch some milk! She wants to drink your blood!? Hell no.*Takes a deep breath*B*tches be weird these days, I know, but no guy would want to fvck a woman with creepily pale skin, sharp fangs and red damned eyes! No sir. Consider the implication this will have on your sex life BEFORE, you decide to become a walking corpse resembling a drug addict with a blood-fetish.Poor life choice, man.
It is Preferable to be a Vampire than a non-Vampire

Con will be argue that it is not preferable to be a vampire, and that the preferred form of existence is simply that of being a normal human being. Definitions: 1.) Preferable a.) more worthy than anotherb.) more desirable 2.) Vampirea.) a corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living by biting their necks with long pointed canine teethb.) in popular folklore, an undead being in human form that survives by sucking the blood of living people, especially at nightNote: I will be arguing in favour the old variety of vampire; I.e those illustrated in 18th-19th century gothic fiction (Bram Stoker's Dracula, the Vampyre, La Morte Amoureuse, the Family of the Vourdalak, the Vampire Countess, the Blood of a Vampire, the House of the Vampire, Dracula's Guest, etc.) Debate Structure: -First round acceptance, second round opening arguments, third round rebuttals and closing arguments.Debate rules: -No forfeits. -No claiming that vampires are not real, if you do, you lose by default.-Trolling is permitted. My opponent for this debate will be Masterful, good luck to him.
Education is perception of skills

We are debating: Education is the perception of skills. Again, I describes perception as this: An active information process, which allows us to organise, interpret, and ultimately act upon sensory information coming to us from our outside world. You mentioned (as an example) that "When I saw food, I perceived it to be tasty and ate it. If I see bitter gourd which I dislikes than I cannot eat it. It depends solely on perception." If you perceive a food to be tasty and eat it, that is your choice. You choose to interpret the food and use it in your everyday life, as you would as education. Even if the food is "bitter gourd" that does not mean you are enable to eat it, it simply means you are not choosing to accept the food (education) that your mother is "serving you beautifully with her own hands." "but ultimately I have to chew it, engulf it and digest it." you do not have to chew this *gourd.* you are choosing to. as with education you choose to perceive it. We are all not provided with education. whom are you referring to as this all and what kind of world do you live in? all of us don't have the privilege on education. so you say we are provided with education and it is up to us weather we chew it or no. but then you say if u see bitter gourd (what do you mean by bitter gourd? is that supposed to be the "bad education" that some people receive?) you cannot eat it? this makes no since to me and does not contribute a cent to education is the perception of skills, I will now go on. how much something is worth depends on if we can interpret it. just because we interpret something doesn't mean we know how much its worth. we could throw out our old diary or journal doesn't mean that we know it wont turn into Ann Franks diary. Famous and known. all we are is human. we don't know the paths, and we always don't know what we are talking about. "Thus quality depends on perception; quality begins with perception"is probably just an opinion, either way I gave you mine in the above paragraph. (transcend-to be superior prejudices-unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
Education is perception of skills

Let me explain my point of view with an example: my mom cooked a nice dinner, served me beautifully, even feed me with her own hands but ultimately I have to chew it, engulf it and digest it. Same is with education; we are provided with education, it's up to us whether we chew it properly or not, whether we are digesting it or not. Here we need perception. When I saw food, I perceived it to be tasty and ate it. If I see bitter gourd which I dislikes than I cannot eat it. It depends solely on perception. If our sense of right and wrong i.e. perception says that what we learnt is not good so we would not adapt it in life. Thus quality depends on perception; quality begins with perception. An optimist believes that he is living in best of the worlds… a pessimist fears this to be true! When we transcends from our social prejudices, the false notions that we withhold, when we look beyond the cobwebs of our culture, that have groped us, that have taken hold, everything comes down to our perception. Perception is how we look at the things or own general outlook. It is our outlook that determines anything reality and value both of which are some of the many meanings of quality. Quality is relative virtue, based solely on perception. Look at this world from the eyes of pessimist, and you will see a world where everyone is born free but taxed to death. But look this world from the side of optimist, and you will see something so good, pure, beautiful, and valuable and awe inspiring that no language could describe it in words! Thus quality begins with perception… and as I said before, but skills are not quality they are ability…so perception is not at all related to skills. Educational innovations certainly do not come about automatically. They have to be invented, planned, initiated and implemented in a way that will make educational practices more adequately geared to the changing objectives of instruction and make them more consistent with the changing standards of instructions. (Here planning and perception have different meanings.) Skills are developed by passion, planning…. Not by educational perception. There are many people with skills and with knowledge and with an urge to succeed but somehow the urge is not forceful enough. Rather not passionate enough! Success and skills comes to people who are passionate about it… We don't starts learning the spare parts of bicycle before sitting on the seat of bicycle… We just ride it, practice to balance it, and gradually we develop skills to ride it… Where has education taken part here? It is so rightly said that essence of true education lies in drawing very best in you. but does the present system of education lives up to this ideal?
Education is perception of skills

Im just going to get right into this. I am also hopong for a good debate :] "I dont think that any type of perception is required for skills because>> ~perception is needed for quality~ ~skill is not a quality~ ~but its an ability...~ Perception is described as this in the dictionary. Perception An active information process, which allows us to organise, interpret, and ultimately act upon sensory information coming to us from our outside world. Perception is different from sensation. http://www.encyclo.co.uk... Now according to this..in order to have perception you have to be able to organize and interpret information correctly. These are two of the many skills in which you learn in school. Back in the earlier years of school (we'll use 3rd grade as an example) teachers were always telling you to stay organized. Also a skill learned in the classroom is interpretation. I remember from my third grade year we learned main idea. I had to interpret information in the paragraph to figure out what words meant and to hypothisize what would happen next in the story. This is the definition of a quality: an essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone; a degree or grade of excellence or worth; a characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of something; http://www.google.com... so according to your first point (~perception is needed for quality~) what you are saying to me is this: In order to organise, interpret, and ultimately act upon sensory information coming to us from our outside world you have to have a degree or grade of excellence or worth within yourself. basically your saying that: If you want to organise, interpret, and ultimately act upon sensory information coming to us from our outside world you have to be automatically smart and know what your doing within yourself. that is not correct for some people. so already your telling me that everyone has a degree or grade of excellence or worth within theirselves and knows how to organize and interpret it without the use of school. There are several people in this world, all types, and you cannot tell me that without school, these people can function perfectly in everday life.
Education is perception of skills

I think you are changing the topic by emphasizing more on "quality begins with perception"; rather paying attention on "education is perception of skills." I just meant that skills and any type of perception (like: educational perception, etc.) have no connectivity at all. For proving this I clarified the difference between quality, perception and skills… Again I repeat: perception is required for quality, but skill is not a quality because it is ability. Any ways, for your clarifications I solve your doubts on "quality begins with perception." Let me explain this by a short (but true) story: In the days long past, Ferrari were considered to be the ultimate quality cars. Now, our hero, he was a rich farmer. He went to Ferrari and paid the money and got himself a nice shiny car; he than drove it, did not like the quality and went to Ferrari and told that his car was flop! May be Ferrari hadn't had a good day and he insulted our hero. The hero got angry, got a lot of designers, poured lots of money and gave birth to first Lamborghini; for Lamborghini, Ferraris weren't of good quality and so he came up with something new! So you saw, it was the perception of hero about Ferraris, and he came up with something more qualitative than Ferraris. Thus his perception led him to discover a new quality! Thus quality begins with perception is not my opinion but a fact or truth! Well, coming back to our topic: education is perception of skills; education, according to me, cannot perceive skills! And as I said before, education is only a readymade dish; it is up to us what we eat and what we don't. We have to practice, work hard, plan, and manage the time and passionate about what we learnt in schools. Thus education is the food which is accepted by perception but digested and assimilated by the above factors to generate skills. Thus smart work, inner strength, planning, team work, readiness towards work, passion, experience, patience, perseverance, etc perceives, generates skills. Education is thus only the amount of data (raw material) that is put into our mind but to convert this data to information or skills (final product), above factors are necessary. Thus we can even say that education is perception to those above factors and not the skill. Education perceives the raw material which are essential to get final product i.e. skills. We could even say that education is, up to certain extent, is becoming a burden. It snatches away the beautiful moment of life: childhood. "Education is the backbone of nation, But in the name of education, They are grinding our backbones, They are blending our souls, They are leaking our activities, They are making us robots!" I again ask you: it is so rightly said that essence of true education lies in drawing out very best in you; but does the present system of education lives up to this ideal?
RE: Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake.

Pro will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 10,000 BCE). Pro will also have to show how humanity would still be-able to survive without the invention and use of agriculture. Con will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was beneficial and made life (the quality of life) better after the agricultural revolution (10,000 BCE to today) and acceptance and use of agriculture either as whole regions or individual areas. Con will also have to prove that humanity would not have been able to survive entirely or as the dominate species without the invention and use of agriculture. Terms: Agriculture: The domestication of plant or species for use and convenes of humans (farming, herding, genetic altering, etc.) Humanity: all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. Not a religious debate in anyway First round is for acceptance only. I plan to use my original two points form last round, only changing the rebuttals