BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles

NotesI am going to go ahead and protest my opponent’s claim that I need to provide a formal proof for my claims. In Round 1, he explicitly said that I just needed to find the flaw in his proof, and in the previous round, he admits that I found the flaw. This means that I have already won the debate. However, in case some of you disagree, I will continue. Note, however, that by the rules he established in the first round, you should vote Con without reading the rest of this debate.Scenario 1He asks me to prove that this scenario cannot occur and notes that my test cases don’t prove anything. Fine. I will ask the readers to construct the diagrams at home since I cannot do so for them. A theorem known as the Internal Angle Bisector Theorem notes that if there is a triangle ABC with an internal angle bisector AD of the angle BAC, AB/AC=BD/DC (the ratios will be the same). Now, suppose we have a triangle ABC with an internal angle bisector D and a perpendicular bisector of BC at point M. In order to prove my claim true, I need to demonstrate that BD<BM (since if BD was greater, they would intersect inside the triangle). BC=BM+MC (since M is the midpoint)BC=BD+DCBD<DC Proof that BD<BC: By the Internal Angle Bisector Theorem AB/AC=BD/DC However, we know that AB is less than AC Thus, AB/AC <1 If AB/AC<1 and BD/DC=AB/BC, BD/DC<1 and BD<DC2BM=BM+MC=BD+DC>BD+BDBD<BMThus, Scenario 1 never occurs. Scenario 2I already conceded that Scenario 2 only occurs if D and D’ are the same, in which case the triangle is isosceles. Otherwise, the scenario does not occur. Scenario 3Note that I only need to prove that in the case in which E is not outside the triangle, the triangle is not isosceles in order to win. So, if E is between A and B and F is outside the triangle and on line AC, the proof breaks down. He was right; my previous argument was incorrect. His proof actually breaks down at Claim 4 in this scenario because he says that AE - EB = AF - FC. This is false in the case I presented; AE-EB not equal AF-FC when E is between A and B. This means that AB will not equal AC and the triangle is not isosceles. I don’t need to prove the other scenario false since I have shown that not all triangles are isosceles.
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles

== Quick notes on quick notes == This one gave me a great deal of trouble, but after staring at the proof for two hours… Glad to know that my opponent enjoyed the problem. I am glad to note that she has made some progress. In fact she has spotted where the flaw lies. However her analysis of the problem is still incomplete. An isosceles triangle is a triangle with at least two sides that are equal. The 3-4-5 right triangle is not an isosceles triangle, so we know that my opponent’s case is flawed from the outset. No doubt the proof is flawed. However the task of Con is to find the flaw. Inside Intersection: My opponent thinks this scenario can never happen because… …did some investigation of my own through drawings on paper. I found that Scenario 1 does not even exist since the perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector will always intersect outside the triangle. There are two obvious problems with the approach. If this scenario does not occur in few test diagrams, it does not mean it will never occur. Unless she has some proof that intersections will never take place inside the triangle, this scenario cannot be ignored. Assuming that this scenario does occur, does my opponent accept that my proof is correct for this case? No intersection: My opponent has argued that this case can never occur. I agree. She should read my proof again. I have also proved the same case by showing D and D’ must coincide. If they coincide this is the case for isosceles triangle. External Intersection: She has correctly spotted that I have skipped few cases. Her analysis of the missing case is wrong. I guess she will do a more thorough (and formal) job in next round. To win this debate, the least we can expect from her is to post the correct analysis of the missing scenario and explain why the proof breaks down in that case. It shall be unfortunate if she restricts herself to doing the minimum for winning the debate. It will be intellectually satisfying if she can also explain the flaw in scenario where both E and F lie outside the triangle. (Apart from the internal intersection scenario). Wishing my opponent a few more hours of staring at the proof…
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles

Quick NoteMy opponent must prove that *all* triangles are isosceles. If I can show that even one triangle is isosceles, I win the round because then not *all* triangles are isosceles. Definition of Isosceles Triangle and ImpactAn isosceles triangle is a triangle with at least two sides that are equal. The 3-4-5 right triangle is not an isosceles triangle, so we know that my opponent’s case is flawed from the outset. Opponent’s CaseMy opponent attempts to prove that all triangles are isosceles through an examination of three different cases that center around the intersection of an angle bisector and the perpendicular bisector of the side across from it. It is a given that if the perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector are the same, the triangle will be isosceles, so he needs to prove the three other cases.Scenario 1: The perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector intersect in the middle of the triangle.This one gave me a great deal of trouble, but after staring at the proof for two hours, I noticed that my opponent’s diagram is actually misleading and then did some investigation of my own through drawings on paper. I found that Scenario 1 does not even exist since the perpendicular bisector and the angle bisector will always intersect outside the triangle. This proof hinges on an internal intersection, but that does not happen. Scenario 1 thus turns into Scenario 3. Scenario 2: No intersectionThis scenario doesn’t actually make sense; if you look at my opponent’s drawings, the triangles cannot possibly be congruent because one has larger sides than the other. The flaw in this scenario is that he assumes that the angle bisector will intersect the side at a 90 angle, which is not possible if it is not equal to the perpendicular bisector. In fact, the two subtriangles could not ever be congruent (which requires all sides and angles to be the same) if the angle bisector and perpendicular bisector attached to the side at two different points since the angle bisector would not divide the triangle into equal halves. Scenario 3: External IntersectionThis is where my opponent does not actually prove his case because he does not consider a scenario that actually is part of this scenario. My opponent is correct that lines can be drawn at OB and OC, but he then tells you that he wants to connect O and AC and AB. He assumes that a ray from O will intersect these lines outside of the triangle, but it is possible to have a situation in which E, for example, is between A and B. In this case, OE and OF would not be congruent, and neither would AOE and AOF. This was claim one in his proof, so in this scenario, the triangle is not isosceles and the resolution is negated.
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles

This debate is part of Official Debate Tournament 2 (ODT2). I will present a proof that triangles are isosceles. Clearly all triangles are not isosceles. There must be a flaw in my proof. The task of my opponent is to spot the flaw. == Structure of Debate == R1 is for acceptance. In R2 I will present my proof. My esteemed opponent can explain the flaw in R2, R3 or R4. If she manages to spot the flaw, she wins the debate. In case she fails in her task, I will explain the flaw in R5 and claim victory. Pro need not do anything in R2, R3 and R4. Con does not have to do anything in R5. Con has promised to work on the problem alone. More specifically, she has agreed to not to search internet or to ask friends for help. Voters will not vote based on truth of resolution (it is false).
ODT2: All triangles are isosceles

My opponent has correctly spotted the flaw. On other hand her insistence that the readers draw there own diagram at home appears to be weird.VOTE CONThis problem appears in 'Fallacies in Mathematics' by EA Maxwel [1]. The proof is often attributed to Charles Dodgeson who is better known for his novel Alice Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol).[1] http://www.scribd.com...
Parents Should Allow Teens to make Their own Descisions

C1: The teenager has learned enough values, while they were kids. A teenager can learn more if they experience the world for themselves, rather then hearing what their parents have experienced. When they teenager gets into the world, he/she will be exposed to to all the proper social norms. Also, if the teenager gets into a difficult hole it will be the parents job to help them out. C2: The teenager should be incouraged and given advice from the parents, but the parents who are no better then the teen should not have any say in how a teen conducts their life. The teen is an individual in charge of their own life. The teenager would learn first hand what it is like in the world and will be forced to adapt to the hardships of life and make something of themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebutle of opponent's Premise: My opponent says that the parents are responsibe for whatever their teens do according to the law. This true but the parents can grant the teen emancipation, which is perfectly legal and should be done.[1] The world and life all together is in fact cruel even if the parents are telling the teen what to do. This is how the teen would learn from their mistakes that they would make. In conclusion, Teens would would learn more without the rules that their parents give them. Teens should be incouraged but not forced. Teens would learn everything from being exposed to what the world really is. It is perfectly lawful for teens to be emancipated from their parents authority. Vote Pro [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Parents Should Allow Teens to make Their own Descisions

In my opinion teens should be allow to make their own descisions, and it shall be the job of Con to prove me wrong. Good luck to my opponant and thank you. Contention 1: If parents make all the descisions for the teen, the teen would never learn how to make them. The teen would reach adulthood and never have any kind of experience, and that could have negative consequences. For an example, most teens are very blind when it comes to politics. They go through their lives holding political beliefs very similiar to their parents, and then when they get to collage the people are faced with the reality of politics.[1] Contention 2: Parents should not make the descisions of the teenager because the parents even though they have lived longer, are not perfect and neither is the teenager. The fact that a imperfect person should be allowed to tell another imperfect person is ubsurd. In Conclusion, Teens will learn more if they make their own descisions. Parents are not perfect therefore, they can not tell other people who are not perfect either what to do. Teens should be allowed to make their own descisions. Vote Pro [1] http://www.lzbearfacts.com...
Nazis and Communists are Polar Opposites

You claim that both Nazis and Communists are similar in wanting one leader at the top. When Lenin wrote Lenin, he insisted on there being no leader to boss anyone everyone around. He died in 1923, and was unable to stop Stalin rising. Therefore, both Communism and Nazism did not want a leader at the top. You also claim that the Soviet Union and Germany carved Poland into two thanks to their similarities. Hitler said in 1941 how he was "relieved" to end the pact with the Russians and attack them. Don't know about you, but when one is relieved, it's because they are no longer obligated to do that thing. I would also like to point out how both dictators need saw each other because of "obvious hostilities". They signed via foreign ministers. All arguments refuted.
Nazis and Communists are Polar Opposites

Okay, so both the communists and the nazis arose at the end of WW1 and both believed that a single person should rule with all the power, they were also both extremely brutal and would kill any citizen who chose to not comply with their laws. Also in 1939 the nazis and communists joined forces to invade Poland, both the nazis and the communists found negotiations very easy because of their similarities. (By the way this is my first debate so don't expect much )
Nazis and Communists are Polar Opposites

Straight into it. Let's begin with definitions from Wikipedia: Nazi/National Socialist: Ideology and practice associated with the 20th century German Nazi Party. Characterising Anti-Semitism and fascism. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Communism: A stateless, orderless political system used most commonly in Russia and other Asian countries. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Now, let's analyse the two: Nazism is fascist, which was created by Mussolini. Mussolini had stated that his major enemy was Communism, which means Nazism, a form of totalitarian fascism, is polar opposite on a political ground to Communism. Communism relies on working and working and working, whereas Nazism relies on increasing the economy by military strength. The Soviet army only expanded during Workd War 2 as required. If not provoked, or threatened for that manner, their armies would've been disarmed and not required. But they were, so that argument cancels out any future arguments that attempt to point this out. Also, Communism is not suggested as an anarchist way of leading the people, as Nazism/fascism would appear to be. As soon as Hitler came to power, he had a giant Nazi eagle statue erected. Back then, a bird was used to suggest a country's state. Dove was peace, eagle was war. The Soviets had no such thing. I pass the arguments to Con.
Resolved: The United States ought Submit to Jurdict an international court design to prose CAH

Everyone, this debate is my win so please you vote me because of the reasons. My point is this. First, international tribunal that supported by USA government can only judges weak crimes. Why? Because I already showed you these examples and I added 'international tribunal can only judges weak crimes. Aid from USA are not really help to realize international justice.'. (Cite from : 'Secret and Lies', by David Southwell, I refer to the Korean Version) 1. The incident of the gulf of Tonkin was manipulated by USA government because USA government want to start war with Vietnam. There were no attacks against USA warships. From that time, many war crimes committed that can be as compared as Holocausts.(P.65~66, 'War' part) 2. England also committed war crimes in WW2. They commit genocide and torture to war prisoners, even after the war was ended.(P.67~68) But, the criminals are never prosecuted, NEVER. If they are soldiers of Germany, they were sentenced death penalty and died.(P.67~68, 'War' part, 'Are the war crimes by winners innocence?) 3. The Leaders in USA and UK justified the War of Kosovo by using unexisting genocide. Serbian have no crimes that the leaders in USA and UK argued. Second, we can still prosecute war criminals without the help of the international tribunal like the example of Saddam Hussein. In the current situation, international tribunal have no more work specially. In addition, they consume many expenses. I showed you my words once again. (cite from : http://www.idebate.org...) 'The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 2000. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.' But in the situation, my opponent forfeited final round where he must reply this. So, he lost his chance to prove his arguments completely. I miss this situation. But anyway, I declare this debate from now on.
Resolved: The United States ought Submit to Jurdict an international court design to prose CAH

I agree most of your definitions. But I can't exactly understand CAH, design, prose in the topic of debate, and 'Observation of the resolution to give both the affirmative and negative equal ground and make the debate more fair the affirmative and negative don't have to be specific on what court is being used because the resolution states an international court it not saying we should use an existing court'. Please elaborate on this to the next round. Then anyway, I start my arguments. Response Value Criterion. I agree most of your value from 'My value for the round will therefore be Morality,' to 'Which is the very essence of morality'. But, I don't think 'We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral.'. International court have no realistic means to realize justice to the world in the current situation basically. And I think USA reform their the judicial system is more realistic and efficient plan more than submit to jurdict an international court. We should find more realistic way to improve our morality because plan without action is nothing in the real world. Response Contention One This part show many examples of the violating human rights by USA government. But I can give you several questions. First, Can you convince International Court can do more fair and clear judges than USA court? Do you really think international court can more collect evidence to protect human rights and are not affected from international interest related to superpowers or other countries? Second, although USA government have many failure to protect human rights, what make this problem can do the powerful reason to support international court? The expense of support, we can more pressure to the USA court to check the illegal acts of USA government. Please reply this. Response Contention 2 As I have mentioned before, if international court can better protect human rights, the court must be supported from the conditions. First, if some country do not submit the order from the international court, international court can have the power to pressure that government and can use it in any time. Second, international court are not affected from the international interest. But in the first condition, actually there are no means except war and restraint by superpowers. If the superpower commit a crime, this mean the international court have no use to deal this problem. In addition, international court also need money, but do your think international court can keep any time like each governments without the right to take tax guaranteed by the law? And in the second condition, finally USA or other superpower keep their own interest although the way is against to the international court, there is actually useless. If superpowers decide to stop their crime, because they consider their interest from international relationship. It can be possible without international court. I'll wait your reply.
Gay Marriage

I do understand what you are saying. I'm Catholic myself, yet I'm gay. People can not change who they are inside. Trust me I have tried to change, I've been bullied for the 16 years I've lived. It's hard for not acceptance. Yet it's who we are and no one can change what we believe and or what we are inside. It may be going against the church but who said all Gay people believe in God. God doesn't hate anyone, espicaly if they are gay. IF you can't stand gay people then don't be friends with them. It's not anyones business but gay people's own to know about their sexuality.
Gay Marriage

Well, I think people will really treat gays differently. Not in a negative way, but, if you are different, people will really treat you differently. For me, God has only two standards, its either you're a man or a woman. Being a gay, its just human standard, we just made it. I can't really give a concrete opinion about this, I'm just a kid. To be honest, I'm just thirteen. But that's what I believe.
Gay Marriage

I'm happy that you do not disrespect gays. Yet like I said before, not everyone believes what is in the bible. But what I belive in is that Gays are no different than every other human being. I see that we tend to treat people who are different from our selves. Such as special needs kids and adults, we tend to treat them differently. Back in history, people treated Blacks differently. I believe that the world, should just come to see that there are people who are different than others. Our sexuality is only our business, bot everyone elses.
Embryos are people

So this is not a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, because I'm not arguing whether killing an embryo is justified or not, I'm arguing whether it is a person. So, the definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...). Humans are simply a species of animals (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...). So a person is a particular animal that is an individual. An embryo has a set of human DNA and is made of living cells, so it seems like a human, and since it is a human it's not part of the mother, so it seems like an individual. Let's see.
Resolved: The use of sexual reproduction is more justified than the use of asexual reproduction.

One assumption on which my opponent's argument is based is the assumption that natural selection is a justifiable practice. The potential for disabilities is higher in a population with high genetic variety and the Pro conceded that sexual reproduction has more genetic variety. The value the Con has given is life, and life cannot be supported under a system where organisms "will almost certainly be killed off by Mother Nature before they reproduce". My opponent also presented evidence showing that suffering for the collective good exists under a system of sexual reproduction. While this evidence does prove that organisms undergo a certain degree of strain in order to reproduce sexually, reproducing asexually explicitly requires the death or shrinkage of a parent organism is absolutely every case. The few examples which my opponent has provided of altruism through sexual reproduction are not as decisive as the evidence of altruism in asexual reproduction because asexual reproduction requires self-sacrifice in every case and not just a select few.