BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We are morally obligated to have fun

I'll take this debate. I'm not an expert, but I'll do my best. Although lawyer jokes are awesome, but are they necessary? Pro states that we should have fun without being forced to, and while most would have fun without being told to it is not a moral obligation for the people around you. Our concept of fun is rather recent. Before people lived. That was the entire point was to live. If you were a peasant you most likely farmed, or worked on a farm. Sex was fun I guess, but it wasn't morally obligated, since people could simply not want to sleep with you. Also do you know where laughter comes from? Our ancient ancestors hunted in groups, and lived in tribes. When there was a startling noise, like a rustle from a bush, someone would go investigate. If the coast was clear they would laugh. Literally that is the entire point of laughter.Speaking of ancient people, did they need to have fun? They lived everyday in a battle of survival. Fun is a new, awesome concept. Not an obligation.
We are morally obligated to have fun

I will be taking the pro of this exciting and "fun" resolution. Let us begin with the unfun points of definition. Fun - Lawyer jokes, economics, japanese role-playing games, political philosophy. But seriously, activities that one enjoys. Moral Obligation - Something that somebody ought to do without being forced to do as they ought to do. Let us proceed to my motley collection of arguments. As Denis Prager so wisely intones, we have a moral duty to be happy. Because, if we are not happy, or at least do not give the appearance of happiness, you will affect those around you negatively, mainly by making them grumpy as well. So, the logical solution is to have fun once in awhile. This will ensure your wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others around you by making it easier to be happy. Not that we should live our lives for flashes of pleasure, but that we really are obligated to enjoy ourselves now and then, in the interests of preserving happiness. Thank you!
I have developed a mind computer

Negatives exist as oppose to positives which limit shells, If connectivity between humans is achieved, Therefore it is secure; growth to others is achieved because of shells interacting with each other, The nature of many shells creates highways between others theoretically. I suppose we can achieve a connection now with enough focus on the same objective, But its going require explanation. There is also a lot of skill involved. You use your eyes as, Metaphorically, A mouse (for a computer) - the means by which you focus on the shell screen and activade nodes. However, This can also be in a wrathful state, And mostly is in a wrathful state, With currents, Where you are creating encircling power using your eyes and not focusing on an open screen; if you want the open screen effect, You need to create a temporary instance with currents. If you install a operating system, Which is an engine that uses currents such as a quad-sphere principle when you cross your eyes around a light bulb that whirls light, Or a light engine itself created in the realm of quad-sphere, You can have a temporary or permanent screen.
I have developed a mind computer

Mind computers have been around for thousands of years. I myself have a mind computer. Function is relative to the present and also relative to evolving information sources. Structure and mechanics have changed little and capability has always been variable, Though a programme of stimulation and exercise coupled with a quality maintenance regime will always increase function and performance. Disfunction maybe relative to physiology in a small number of cases. But more often than not in instances of acquired disfunction, Problems will almost certainly result from one of three things. 1. Inappropriate programming. 2. Inadequate maintenance regime. 3. Externally sourced abuse. My contention would be that any bio-mechanical additions to current systems would ultimately result in inappropriate subliminal, External influencing. Is this what Pro is proposing? The subtle rise of a politically correct Orwellian culture is now more apparent than ever. Bio-mechanical influencing of current mind computing systems may well be an inevitable consequence of evolution. But will the loss of self-control also be the Orwellian consequence. Is Pro, Big Bro?
I have developed a mind computer

A Mind Computer is a sensory based phenomenon of abstracted rest state; when active, It appears as an energy shell of current - generating maximum encirlcing power. If you now would take on a partial-rested-state, Or after you have read the following, A full-rested-state, The resting feeling is like a wave or current passing over you; this current is the points where your senses thread with your body. Your eyes take on a semi-sleep state when when they rest, As if they were falling, Into the bodily rest rhyhtm. To abstract rest state, Go back to where you were resting, But imagine when you woke up, A force of current is also with you on the awake step, And flick your eyes upward, Imagining the action to resume to have draft, And repeat process to harnass fabricated currents. After repeating the process, You should be able to understand well a perculiar effect, Especially if flicking your eyes up out of a rested state and your added exit current. You can create a screen by imagining tiny sensations in mind with an illusory, And visual prompts, Where you have tracked currents for a long time and have adapted currents in mind; imagine hypothetically, You traced rest feeling for a long time, And now sensations appear in your eyes where you have tracked current, Simulating current. In any case, You need to have full body current to begin building a mind computer; with currents alone you may be able to send messages to each other or create multiple party dreamstates. You will lose the black in your awake closed eyes, But you will have space at sleep - a layer of energy is what replaces it, Looking like dense or apart line form. I predict that if many people install mind computer's energy shell it will fight for it's nature automatically, Evolving the energy shell into a species wide internet.
The Omniverse is infinite

Unfortunately, Pro, while still arguing that a finite number of things is 'nothing' compared to an infinite number of things. has dropped the argument that an infinite omniverse would be 100% probable. Considering that that is what is required for the resolution to be true, he loses by default. To reiterate, even if there were a possible infinite omniverse, it would still be competing probabilistically with all the possible finite universes. Nonetheless, I will respond to his remaining points:Pro asserts that he does not need to respond to the book example since he has "logically demonstrated that any finite number is nothing compared to infinity". I'm interested that he thinks this, since as far as I can tell there is no such logical demonstration anywhere in this debate. However, even if he has made an argument to that effect, the analogy shows that the conclusion is clearly false. Pro gives the example of a number generator that could generate any number. This demonstrates my point perfectly! If Pro is correct, such a generator is logically impossible, since the probability that it could generate any one number is 0%! Since I think that such a generator clearly does seem possible, add it to my side of the debate. Pro says "if a black hole really was infinitely dense, it would have infinite gravity, which would instantly suck the universe into the black hole". Now, I'm no physicist, but I assume that the reason this is not the case is that gravitational attraction increases with *mass* not density. Black Holes have a finite amount of mass. They also have an 'event horizon', a finite border outside of which it is possible for things to escape its gravitational pull. Pro sort of makes an argument: "The infinite omniverse must exist- within it all possible modes of existence are actualized, refuting Con's argument that he or I would not exist". However, as it stands, like the rest of the debate, this is just a bare assertion. He says that an omniverse containing all modes of existence 'must' exist but never says why. He never gives a probabilistic argument as to why such a universe necessarily exists, as it would have to have a 100% probability of existing.
The Omniverse is infinite

'Quadrillion might be infinitely smaller than infinity, but it isn't nothing; it's a whopping great big, entirely existent finite number. Besides, Pro doesn't address my examples: A Brief History of Time does not have 0 pages. Black holes are not non-existent. Infinitely small(er) is not a synonym for non-existent - the two are distinct concepts.' My opponent, unfortunately, still misunderstands my argument. I do not need to specifically address his Brief History of Time example, as I have logically demonstrated that any finite number is nothing compared to infinity, which renders his argument invalid. From a finite perspective, a quadrillion is "something" but from an infinite perspective, it is nothing. Take into account this example: If a number were randomly generated, any number between one and infinity, what are the odds that it will land on four? Infinitely small is not an acceptable answer, it must be given as a percentage above zero. Con may claim that my example is impossible, or that it doesn't make logical sense, but this only proves my point, that anything finite is essentially nothing compared to infinity. As for the black hole example, if a black hole really was infinitely dense, it would have infinite gravity, which would instantly suck the universe into the black hole in literally no time at all. The infinite omniverse must exist- within it all possible modes of existence are actualized, refuting Con's argument that he or I would not exist. If everything that can exist does exist, doesn't that prove that we can and do exist? In essence, Con's arguments are the same ones from round one, but restated in a different way. He claims I did not address his arguments, but this his due to the fact that he did not understand my points, and I hope he does not repeat this in the final round. Your turn :)
The Omniverse is infinite

Thanks to Pro for his reply, though I fear his confidence that he has solved the problem of solipsism and most of cosmology is premature. Pro writes in support of his claim that a finite universe is nothing in comparison that: 'If you add up all the finite numbers you can think of, you would never reach infinity, nor would you ever get any closer'. This is, of course true - one could never reach infinity starting from 0 or any finite number. However, this does not entail that finite numbers are equivalent to nothing. Imagine that I decide to count to infinity. I have been counting for ten years and have reached 1015 (1,000,000,000,000,000). I suddenly realise "Oh no! I'm not really any closer to infinity! One can't count from a finite number to infinity!". My lifelong dream shattered, I prepare to commit suicide. But then it occurs to me: it isn't like I've achieved nothing. After all, it's unlikely anyone has counted to one quadrillion before. Quadrillion might be infinitely smaller than infinity, but it isn't nothing; it's a whopping great big, entirely existent finite number. Besides, Pro doesn't address my examples: A Brief History of Time does not have 0 pages. Black holes are not non-existent. Infinitely small(er) is not a synonym for non-existent - the two are distinct concepts. Pro clarifies that what he intended to say in the first round was that there is that what he intended by an omniverse was a sort of collection of all possible worlds. Everything that can possibly exist does exist in the omniverse, so there are an infinite number of rubber ducks in one universe, an infinite number of trees in another and so on. However it's difficult to see how this saves his argument. The question was: isn't this omniverse competing probabilistically with all the other possible ways the universe could be? Assuming for the sake of argument that Pro's omniverse is possible (pace Hilbert's Hotel for example), it is still one possibility amongst many others. For example, the currently hypothesised finite universe began to exist at some point in the past 13.7 billion years ago and is spatially finite. This is also a possible way the world could be. There of an infinite number of other finite configurations the universe could possibly be, so the probability of Pro's omniverse is exactly the same as everything else - infinitely small. Besides, this would lead to the conclusion that neither he nor I exist. If finite things have a 0% probability of existing, then since he and I are finite, neither of us exist. Pro's blowing up of his omniverse into all possible worlds doesn't save his argument.
The Omniverse is infinite

For the first point, Con claims that a finite universe would not be nothing next to an infinite one but that it would simply be infinitely smaller than it. However, this is based on the idea that the two are somehow different things. If you add up all the finite numbers you can think of, you would never reach infinity, nor would you ever get any closer. "Infinitely smaller" is just another word for "nothing compared to infinity". His next two points are other clear examples of a lack of understanding about infinity. But before I move on to his second rebuttal, I must address the first. Con states that 'Is it not true that there are an infinite number of ways an infinite omniverse could be? An Omniverse filled with an infinite quantity of rubber ducks, for example, as opposed to an infinite quantity of trees? Is not an infinite omniverse also competing probabilistically with all the possible finite universes? ' I believe his misunderstanding is my fault, as I did not make myself clear enough in the first round. By infinite, I did not mean infinite in the sense that the omniverse was neverending in three dimensions. I meant infinitely infinite, in which there are an infinite number of infinities. While this omniverse is physically COULD be filled with rubber ducks or trees, the odds of that are 0%. This "ifiniverse" must have every type of existence possible, every possible universe must exist, because in an infinite omniverse eventually there must be infinite exact copies of our own universe, and then infinite exact copies, but with an atom floating this way and not that. This disproves his second point, as there would be a certain universe, with an infinite number of clones, with certain laws, in which matter would come together and form galaxies, stars, planets, life, and would evolve a certain species called humans. I hope I have made myself clear enough this time and look forward to my opponent's response.
The Omniverse is infinite

Definitions Omniverse: The Omniverse is all that exists. By definition nothing can exist outside it. Infinite: Something without limits: limitless time, space, or distance. My argument is simple. If something is finite, it is literally nothing compared with something that is infinite. Therefore something finite cannot exist, because it would have a 0% chance of existing, since anything else could have existed. Even if you include with our universe billions of others, with their own laws and possibilities, it would still be finite. If however, we live in an omniverse with infinite universe and modes of existence, it would make a lot more sense. An infinite omniverse would have a 100% chance of existing. It is up to whoever accepts this debate to disprove this.
Assuming an endless universe, there are as many Thursdays as there are days.

Georg Cantor established the idea bijection to establish the relationship between the sets of infinite numbers and establishing that they were the same size. He famously derived the counter intuitive proof that there as many unit squares as items on the number line in his 1874 Crelle paper. http://en.wikipedia.org... Assuming the universe doesn't end and the word day still holds some meaning unto the infinite, then there are as many Thursdays as there are days in general. Today -> Next Thursday 1 day from now -> 1 week from next Thursday. 2 days from now -> 2 weeks from next Thursday. 3 days from now -> 3 weeks from next Thursday. 4 days from now -> 4 weeks from next Thursday. 5 days from now -> 5 weeks from next Thursday. 6 days from now -> 6 weeks from next Thursday. 7 days from now -> 7 weeks from next Thursday. 8 days from now -> 8 weeks from next Thursday. ... For each day you site in the first set of days in general there is a 1 to 1 comparison to a Thursday in the second set.
modern day feminism does more good than harm

I will be representing the 'pro' side, for moder day feminism please answer the following questions:1. Political party (and what canidate you're rooting for)?2. What country are you from (because this mostly has to do with America)?3. What is your gender/sex? ____________ Rules:1. No trolling2. No forefits3. No use of racial slurs (sad I have to say that)____________Debate set-upFirst round: AcceptanceSecond Round: Introducing your arguement (no reply from con! )Third round: Debating the others arguement (no new arguement)Fourth round: Conclusion and finishing thesis statement
modern day feminism does more good than harm

Feminism. FEMINism. People fighting for WOMEN'S rights, for WOMEN'S higher pay, etc. Modern day feminism is not about the equality of the genders. It is about women becoming more powerful than men. And I have already proved this in my earlier speech. I would like to first say that 3 instagram screenshots of feminists liking Bernie Sanders is nowhere near a reasonable source when the claim is "99.9% of feminist are for Bernie Sanders". It's ridiculous, really, to say that anyone, even the government, knows the political views of all feminists in the world. Even my opponent themself says it. "radical feminist are of course harming". Voters, my opponent did not title this debate "intersectional feminism does more good than harm". They titled it with "modern day feminism" in mind, and that is why radical feminism is still valid throughout this debate. Radical feminism is the entirety of modern day feminism. It doesn't matter slightly if radical feminists are the minority, it just matters that they get their voice out more, and effect the general populace more, meaning that, to the general populace, they do more harm than good. This is why you should vote Con. Thank you.
modern day feminism does more good than harm

"My opponent provided no source for their 99.99% of feminist voting for Bernie Sanders claim." http://prnt.sc... http://prnt.sc... http://prnt.sc... Sorry for the inconvience of having to go on another tab to see because I don't know how to add photos but, those are a few feminist pages that have a big following (the lowest one is 4k) which doesn't speak for all of the feminist community. Although they dont speak for the whole INTERSECTIONAL feminist family I can say that most feminist love Bernie because he shares feminist views. Modern day feminism has radical feminist in it, but thats not the whole. You are doing all you can to avoid the fact that there are bad apples in the bunch of feminist but their are also a lot of intersectional feminist who love men, and aren't men bashing people. Malala herself said she is a feminist, "I am a feminist and we all should be feminist because feminism is another word for equality". Pulling the "why does it have a word derivative of FEMALE" is a bit brave saying that the human race is called MANkind. It has the root 'fem' because it was created to empower woman but has of course rooted into different things too. It isn't just feminist, but most of the time you will see LGBT+ people call themself feminist also because intersectional feminism has a big role of fighting for LGBT+ rights [http://prnt.sc... , http://prnt.sc...] those of course don't speak for ALL of the lgbt+ family, but they have a big following and it's a bit hard to ask everyone who considers themself part of LGBT+ if their a feminist. Feminism has done so much good, radical feminist are of course harming but intersectional feminist like myself are striving to make a more equal society for men and women. Feminism had a lot to do with me being pro-black and being okay with being a queer female. Feminism helped my sister come out as a rape-victim, telling her she wasn't the only one. You may only see the radical feminist because thats the only type you see in the media but people like me and many others want to make men and women EQUAL not women better than men or vice versa. People like Malala, Rowan Blanchard, Amandla Stenberg, and even Canada's prime minister are great examples of intersectional feminism and what it is as a whole. I hope I have convienced you that feminism does a lot more good than harm, and that I may have even convienced you to learn more about intersectional feminism. [NO REFUTE FROM CON] side note: I used screenshots from instagram because a lot of feminist do online activism and raise awareness through instagram & it was the easiest way to show some type of proof of my statement. Have a nice day.
modern day feminism does more good than harm

First of all, my opponent provided no source for their 99.99% of feminists voting for Bernie Sanders claim, which makes it completely irrelevant within this debate. Second of all, my opponent says that I am talking about radical feminism, but no, in this debate we are talking about modern day feminism, and I am describing it for what it is. People like Malala are for EQUALITY, feminism is just a word sometimes used to describe that, but in actuality, it's called equalism. If feminism was for equality, then why is it called feminism, a word derivative of FEMALE? In my opponent's speech, they mention that feminists are good because they raise awareness for things like LGBT, but this isn't just feminists. Many people who aren't feminists do this also, so it isn't limited to feminism, and thus has no relevancy in this debate. Feminism is harming our society because of the hating on man, and that is why it does more harm than good.
modern day feminism does more good than harm

I can admit that misandry is not held accountable 1/3 of the time, and in the feminist community we do recognize misandry and how much of it is in the "feminist" family even thought we do our best to seperate them from us because they are RADICAL feminist. Men who enjoy pornography are just men in most feminist eyes, because women to enjoy pornography. All of your arguement is radical feminist, not feminist like Rowan Blanchard, Malala, etc and it sadens me that you only see that side of feminism not the kind that empowers everyone. Here's some quotes that are great from great feminist idols."When the whole word is silent, even one voice becomes powerful","I believe in equality, and I believe there is no difference between a man and a woman."-Malala Yousafzai a powerful feminist who helps put middle-eastern girls into schools.eminism itself is incredible but now when it's in a misandrist hands who only holds radical views. I'd like to add that 99.9% of feminist are for Bernie Sanders and if we hated men so much we would be voting for Hillary because she's a woman.