BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate is a means to an end, and that end is TRUTH.

I want to limit characters in this debate to 2000 so that arguements will be direct and to the point. Also to save time. Ultimately I believe debate is something that allows for participants and observers to expand their knowledge through intellectual discourse. The very essence is to find ways to negate some idea or claim, no matter how many times that idea may be presented. Many debate ideas have been debated time and time again, each presenting new alternatives to the same parent idea. This is very similar to the scientific process in the regard that truth is found through repeated attempts to negate debated claims or topics. Through the process of presenting alternatives to a claim or an idea, one debater will in the end present some truism. That truism is that a presenter's claim is either true or not. One debate can be, but is not always absolute truth however. It is only one piece of the puzzle. With numerous pieces the path is laid to what is true. I present a definition (#3) of truth: "a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) In the end of a debate there is a victor and that is the one who has argued their case to the point of being indisputable by their opponent. Thus resulting in a truth. In the end, through logical argument, factual statement and citation, debaters and observers will have gained knowledge, feeding to the pool of information that could be further debated and expanded upon. A personal belief is that truth is gained through debate at numerous scales. From the individual debate to the collective knowledge gained through repeated debate. This extends even down to the individual statement. While not all statements made in a debate are necessarily true, through proving or disproving them truth is eventually gained in some form. Thus not only knowledge is gained, but true knowledge is gained.
i think jesus was not real

"Facts are in the past, past doesn't matter, now is matter. " Of course the past matters! History teaches us so much and so much of that can be applied to today. Suppose you're an anti-war individual; you might use the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan or President Obama's drone strikes in the Middle East as examples of the destruction caused by war. Or are those just "stories"? Suppose you're a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment; you might use the Battle of Athens or the old lady who shot her attacker and saved her life recently as examples of why guns are beneficial. Or are those just "stories" as well because they did not happen in the present? "The story from your historian is a story. " Okay, prove it! You're telling me that a renowned Greek historian, a Jewish priest and aristocrat, a Greek satirist, a man with a PhD in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and access to a historical library, as well as countless scholars are all completely wrong? You said yourself that the past doesn't matter - which I completely disagree with - however, what about the majority of scholars that believe in Jesus' existence now? Are they all dead wrong? Yet you have not provided an equal source (like that of another scholar) to back up your claim?
i think jesus was not real

So my opponent has only used one word as a rebuttal to my argument. That must mean one of two things: 1. My oppenent is referring to the Bible as "stories". In that case, they are not debating the topic that they created for this debate: "Jesus was not real". 2. You are referring to my sources as "stories". Let's go back to my sources: 'Annals' by Tacitus, a Greek HISTORIAN, senator, and ethnographer. 'Testimonium Flavianum' by Josephus, a Jewish priest and aristocrat. 'Peregrinus' by Lucien of Samosata, a Greek satirist. And finally, and article written by an associate professor of library science, history librarian, and PhD in Hebrew and Semitic Studies who compiled these sources. Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ (which does not equate to His divinity or the idea that He is the son of God). My opponent has either gone off topic or discredited my sources without providing one of their own.
The world was created in 7 days

The book of genesis provides us with an impossible story with Many loopholes. The universe could not have been created in 7 days, even by a supernatural entity (God). If there were no humans to record the event, how did it end up being written down? How could you tell what a day was if there was no sun, or no light? Why does the bible only mention the earth specifically as oppose to the rest on the universe? If Adam and Eve had two male children, how did they end up procreating and spawning the human race? One of the children got married to a woman, wait, where did that woman come from? According to the bible, I can take out one of my ribs, and create a whole new human from it? The world can't be 6000 years old, we have physical evidence of things older than that. There's just to much evidence that goes against creationism.
A Bill to Limit the Quantity of Calories to Fast Food Restaurants

I'm actually not a fat f*cker. I happen to be skinny for your information. I'm just sayin that not everybody has time to sit at home and eat a good healthy meal that could take up to 15 minutes to eat when eating at McDonalds could take about 5 minutes and then your out. Lowering the calories would just be stupid and unneccesary.
A Bill to Limit the Quantity of Calories to Fast Food Restaurants

The US will limit the quanity of calories that fast food restaurants can encompass in their meal options to fit within the average recommended nutrition plan. It may be that the amount of calories fast food restaurants have in their food is not healthy for us. And I do admit that limiting how much calories fast food restaurants have in their food would be a good thing for our health. But most people nowadays really don't care about that. They just wanna eat what tastes good. The problem with our society now is most people don't take the time to sit down at their house with their family every night and have a good healthy meal. Today our thought of a good meal is sitting down at McDonalds and grubbing on a 550 calorie Big Mac with French fries that has up to 500 calories. We love the taste of tasty burgers and salty potato fries. That's just how it is now. I really don't think that's going to change anytime soon.
The New Deal: Good or Bad

When Mr. Roosevelt inherited the unemployment from Mr. Hoover in 1933, the unemployment was 12,830,000. When the New Deal policies originally closed in 1937, the unemployment was 7,700,000 million. True, there was brief recession in 1937, but in Dec. of 1941, when the US declared a role in World War II, there were 5,500,000 unemployed. The war dropped this eventually down to 1,040,000 and that the unemployment was still higher after the ND then before the crash in 1929, but this is not an indicator of Mr. Roosevelt's policy. IF he had taken office in 1929, the one could legitimately argue that because he never reduced the unemployment to the original rates, the New Deal was a failure. But, this argument is fallacious for FDR's actions while president dropped unemployment substantially. The claim that the New Deal did not "help blacks much who were in poverty most" is simply not true. Mr. Roosevelt gave 10% of the welfare spending to blacks, for they were 10% of the population.
The New Deal: Good or Bad

Before I start,I'm a supporter of FDR and his New Deal, but because the topic is interesting I thought I'd have a go at arguing the other way! The First thing that FDR did pass the EBA and closed all the banks in the USA and re-opened 5000 and put money into them.This was not a good idea seeing as many jobs were lost in this process and some banks that were invested in by the government continued to go bankrupt-money was lost. Before the Wall Street Crash, 2.6 million Americans were unemployed and in 1941, 6 million.This shows that despite the spending in the New Deal, unemployment did not return to anywhere near its original rate. The Alphabet Agencies (CCC,TVA,PWA) created many jobs but they were temporary and workers would soon be unemployed again. They got around 1$ per day-not enough to support workers and families. Some agencies were unconstitutional. Didn't help blacks much who were in poverty most. Unemployment only decreased significantly when the USA joined WWII in 1941.
The New Deal: Good or Bad

"Unemployment had dropped from when he enacted the ND.Therefore, the ND was successful based on how FDR defined success, which is what we are examining"-we aren't examining how FDR defined success!The topic is "The New Deal: Good or Bad".That's like saying the war in Iraq was (is) a success because we captured Saddam and because Bush said it was! But the war has not been particularly successful as many have died. FDR TRIPLED federal taxes (still TRIPLED today!) to fund Social Security (to people like Wesley Snipes) (SS not SC as Pro incorrectly stated). If the ND was so "successful", then why did it "finish[ed]"? Surely,if it was so successful it would've continued until after 1937/8 otherwise it's the first organisation I've ever known to "finish[ed]" despite its "success"! ND: helped businesses more than the people,maximized dependency culture (still here today),tripled taxes,brought on another recession(1937),just masked and didn't reduce unemployment to original rate (WWII did).
The New Deal: Good or Bad

What does Black treatment have to do with the success of the ND? We must look at what the objective of the ND was, and if that alone was successful. Well, FDR stated that the objective of the ND was to decrease unemployment. When the ND was finished, unemployment had dropped from when he enacted the ND. Therefore, the ND was successful based on how FDR defined success, which is what we are examining. If WWII dropped unemployment further, it is irrelevant because the ND had finished and unemployment had already seen substantial decrease. FDR did not define success as dropping the Unemployment to pre-Great Depression terms, but rather from 1933 terms, thus the ND was successful. I would rather not dignify the last part of Con's argument, given its fallacious nature. He cannot prove this, so why type it? Besides, Lincoln enacted Nationalistic legislature 70 yrs prior funded by "taxpayers", as well as the Civil War pension fund which inspired SC. Who created dependancy culture? -Thank you
The New Deal: Good or Bad

The claim that the New Deal did not "help blacks much who were in poverty most" is simply not true." - http://www.cato.org... "The war dropped this eventually down to 1,040,000". Even pro has admitted that WWII conquered unemployment and not the ND. Pro goes on to say that "the New Deal was a failure",but only if FDR had taken office in 1929.It doesn't matter when FDR took office, in fact it was better for him that he took office in 1933 because it gave him a chance to observe and study the Depression and therefore the ND was a failure because FDR studied the Depression,yet could not solve it. The ND was not good,especially in the long term because it has created a dependency culture. Since then,Americans rely on the government for everything the US taxpayer's money is going to people who tax-dodge and can't be bothered to get a job because they know that they will receive social security (started by the ND)-is that where you want your money to go?
What do you think about suicide

I believe that suicide is just someone who can't keep going someone who has gone throw hell an needs someone to be there for them but feels as if no one is some one who is crying for help but has no one I lost my older sister by suicide and I've self harmed before and it doesn't end well. When you feel like doing suicide you don't really think about what it will do to every one around you just do it and if you know some one who isn't okay be there for them because you never know what they may be going throw.
What do you think about suicide

I want to make sure that we don't confuse with euthanasia, because I don't oppose that. There is one very well known quote that goes like this "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem". I might be naive, but I don't believe mental illnesses are terminal, I believe can all be cured if given the right treatment and lots of time. I do realize suicidal thoughts can be convincing for people dealing with problems, however I don't think they are rational thoughts, I don't think it is a logical solution, I do think it is a cry for help.
math has no certain measure

A thumb is not always a certain length, different people have different thumb lengths, and some people have two thumbs of different lengths. Using body parts to measure causes consistency problems, as shown by the ancient cubit, usually the length of the elbow to fingertip. Since different people have different arm lengths, using a cubit for measurement causes problems and arguments. Even when using a royal cubit, which is the cubit of the king, consistency problems still arise during multi-nation trade, as different nations would have different royal cubits. In conclusion, using body parts to measure, such as a thumb, suffer large consistency problems, so a thumb is not always a certain length. Time is not absolute (1). Since Newton's laws imply that there is no absolute rest, everything is moving relative to something else. Therefore, different observers will not agree on the distance that light has traveled. If time was absolute, the observers would then disagree on it's speed, since speed equals distance (which they do not agree on) divided by time (which they would agree on). However, light travels at a fixed speed (186000 mi/s), so time cannot be absolute. The fact that time is not absolute was proven in theory by Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and has been proven in practice many times, including in 1962 when scientists placed an atomic clock at the bottom of a water tower and one at the top (2). They found that the clock at the bottom was running slower, just as the Theory of Relativity predicted. (1)- http://www.science20.com... (2)- http://science.howstuffworks.com...
math has no certain measure

I accept your challenge. Math does have certain measure. A unit of distance never changes its length; a meter is always a set unit of length. In your example of driving a mile, the reflexive property of geometry says that any line segment is equal to itself, so the mile that you drove one way must be equal to the distance back to your starting point. The only reason a mile might not seem like a mile back is due to the lack of absolute time. Due to the lack of absolute time, faster objects travel through time slower, so multiplying the speed given by your speedometer times a measure of time might not give the distance of a mile, depending on where the measure of time was taken.
math has no certain measure

You say that if you "stand on the ground, [you are] not in motion", however you are still in motion relative to the center of the earth, the sun, the center of the galaxy, and other galaxies (1). Even ignoring that, Newton's laws abolish an absolute state of rest, since there is no point in the universe which rest may be measured relative to. If a person is standing still relative to the ground beneath their feet, they are still going up to 1004 miles per hour due to the earths rotation. You say that "i have never seen atoms or particles", implying that this is supposed to be support for you round 4 argument of "particles and atoms are stories... [they are] not real". However, only believing in what can be seen would cause science to be very archaic. Experiments such as JJ Thomson's cathode ray experiment, which proved the existence of electrons (2), and James Chadwick's discovery of the neutron, the neutrally charged subatomic particle (3), prove the existence of these particles, which are too small to be seen. Establishing visual contact of these subatomic structures is unnecessary, as their existence can be proven without being seen. Additionally, you say that in round four, I "told a story of electrons to demonstrate that electrons are not stories". First, I did not tell a story about atoms, I instead explained how JJ Thomson's discovery of electrons proves the existence of these subatomic building blocks. In your round four and five arguments, you use the negative connotation of stories, that if something is a story, it is not real. However, subatomic particles are not make-believe, as several experiments have proven. Additionally, a story can be real; one definition of story is "a narrative, either true or fictitious" (4). Although electrons can be made into stories, they are definitely real, just as some stories are. In conclusion, I believe that math does have certain measure, due to the unalienable distinctive units. Units never change in their measurement, a meter, liter, gram, etc is always the same. Additionally, almost of Pro's claims were unwarranted, meaning that they have no evidence backing them up. Almost all of them can be proven wrong, as I have done with several from various rounds. (1)- http://www.physicstutorials.org... (2)- https://en.wikipedia.org... (3)- https://www.nobelprize.org... (4)- http://www.dictionary.com...
math has no certain measure

You say that my "friend is standing still, not moving", however Newton's three laws of motion declare that there is no absolute state of rest, everything is in motion relative to something else (1). In the example, my friend is in motion, since the earth is rotating around its axis and revolving around the sun. Even excluding that, my friend is in motion relative to me, since there is no central point of the universe to measure rest relative to (2). You say that "particles and atoms are stories.. [they are] not real". This claim is unwarranted, meaning that there is no evidence to back it up, only an assertion that it is true. Regardless, this claim can be proven false by examining the experiments that proved the existence of subatomic particles, such as JJ Thomson's cathode ray experiment, which proved the existence of electrons (3). This experiment demonstrated the existence of a subatomic particle one thousand time lighter than the hydrogen atom, the electron. Furthermore, the experiment proved that electrons have the same mass no matter what atom they come from, meaning that they are a fundamental building block of atoms. (1)- http://www.topperlearning.com... (2)- http://math.ucr.edu... (3)-https://en.wikipedia.org...
math has no certain measure

so if its not still or moving what is it.. your friend is standing still, not moving, you are moving forward which is away from where he is standing still.. particles and atoms are stories.. not real experience is time.. every time i say the word now, i am sure i am experiencing 1 true second, now..... now...... now...... now=reality loop 1 second or less no, i move more slowly in water this is very measurably matter=space+time
math has no certain measure

In the fourth paragraph of your round three argument you claim that "an object is still or moving... not neither or both". However, this is incorrect, since an object's movement can only be measured relative to other objects. If I am running past my friend, who is standing in place, I am moving forward relative to my friend, and he is moving backwards relative to me. This lack of absolute rest was established in Newton's three laws (1). Additionally, you say "light has no speed". This is completely untrue. The fact that light travels at a finite, though very fast speed, was established hundreds of years ago (2). Furthermore, your other claim about light, namely that "its on or off", contains a large inaccuracy. Light is both a particle and a wave, therefore it can behave as either (3). Since light can exist as a particle, saying that light is "on or off" is like saying that a bit of matter is either on or off; it makes no sense at all! In your sixth paragraph, you say that "the only certain measure is physical experience". However, people tend to have an inaccurate perception of time. This is demonstrated in Vierordt's law, which says that longer time lengths are typically underestimated, while shorter time lengths are typically overestimated (4). Actual tools, on the other hand, are much better at measuring time, such as an optical frequency comb (5). Healthy humans, when asked to measure ninety seconds, tend to say that ninety seconds have passed when really a few more than ninety seconds have passed (6). In your last round three paragraph, you say that "getting out of the water on the beach time speed up as i move faster". Here, although you do move faster, due to the fact that the air offers less resistance than the water, the difference that this makes in your personal time is immeasurably tiny. (1)- http://www.science20.com... (2)- http://www.speed-light.info... (3)- https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu... (4)- https://en.wikipedia.org... (5)- http://www.scientificamerican.com... (6)- http://www.theatlantic.com...
math has no certain measure

if it isnt a certain length it isnt a thumb.. how long is an unknown thumb? you know existence is absolute, know is true, is absolute.. motion equals unequal to.. for impact to accur there is no pattern i see, that is to fast for my mind to comprehend. an object is still or moving.. not neither or both.. and mass claims space.. a heavy object has no "choice" but to fall in gravity, or is the earth moving towards it? light is unlimited beyond the limit i put on the light by seeking it.. light has no speed, its on or off i want to add that, the only certain measure is physical experience i agree about something, getting out of water on the beach time speeds up as i move faster
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

The teachers are not being forced to teach students they do not want to teach because teachers go into this field to give knowledge to every student no matter what race. The 14th amendment is not being violated because the amendment was created to bring people together. Segregation or desegregation can"t be reason for dropout rates in different larger race groups. The courts begin to change people"s mind if the law is enforced and has a consequence if it is not followed. You do not make sense when you say people live in a particular neighborhood. What does that mean? The judge has more power for a city and state than a mayor does if the mayor is just mayor of one city his decision will not be fair and equal to the whole state.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Bussing from a different part of town, makes a child farther from their comfort zone and their family. Race groups will still feel if they have more power than another because there is always going to be a race group that is larger than the other. The 14th amendment was being violated because it says there is suppose to be equal protection and there was no protection for black people. Students would still feel lonely because there could be more rate of another race and they could also still be bullied by whomever. Conflict with races will still happen if they do not get along and our put together in one school.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

#1: Students benefit more when they"re integrated because it prepares them for the real world and future. There will not be a race groups that have more power than the other. #2: Race should be as a basis for school assignments because if schools were not integrated conflicts between races would happen. It also brings students that are not the same race, ethnicity together and equal. #3: The 14th amendment is not being violated because the amendment was created to bring people together.