BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are 360 degrees in a circle.

I think I understand what you are saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. I will mainly use pictures for this round to give you a clearer idea why I think there are 180 degrees in a circle hopefully.if you look at the below image for a moment you can see polygons are made up of triangles (shaded lightly). The sum of the angles closest to the the origin (centre) of the circle will add up to 360 degrees e.g. 120 x 3 = 360, 4 x 90 = 360, 5 x 72 = 360, 6 x 60 = 360 etc Below I have taken your image and edited it slightly to try and make it clearer, it now appears like the square in the circle above (if you turn your head). However I'm not sure how the above pictures prove a circle has 360 degrees. The images only show that if you draw a line (or a dot) in the middle of a circle the central angle is 360 degrees, which is true for every polygon; not just circles.I want to show you what the central angle looks like, see below. Note there is no shape. Since a square has 360 degrees (2 x 180) it makes sense to imagine the central angle as a square, see below It was decided a long time ago a "point" has 360 degrees. However a point is not necessarily a circle, it can be any polygon. And you can make a complete turn by walking in one direction along the sides of ANY polygon.We know a triangle has 180 degrees because if you see below, you will see angles a,b, c = 180 due to being below the line, and they are all located inside a triangle, meaning a triangle has 180 degrees. It is very easy to work out the number of degrees in every other polygon by applying the following equation:(180 - (360/ number of sides)) x number of sidesWe all know a circle has 1 side, yet if you use the equation to work out the number of degrees in a circle you will get - 180.If you apply this for semi circles which have 2 sides the answer will be 0These answers are wrong of course.A semi-circle has 180 degrees like a triangle, your calculator will say 0 because a semi circle has one side less than a triangle so you are doing 180 -180 = 0. A circle has 2 sides less than a triangle so you are doing 180 - (2 x 180) = - 180A lot of people think that if you join two semi-circles together to create a circle the angle of a circle will be 2 x 180 degrees. But it isn't like joining two triangles together. If you join two triangles together you GAIN a side and therefore add 180 degrees. An octagon has 5 more sides than a triangle so it has 180 + (5 x 180) = 1080 degrees. If you join two semi-circles together you LOSE a side. The best way to show why a circle has 180 degrees and not 360 is with a simple picture. I believe that if you think about the picture below it ill be clear why there are 179.9... degrees or 180 degrees in a circle.
There are 360 degrees in a circle.

Great! Thank you for accepting. Let's just right into it.Since this is the first argumentation round, I'll try to keep it short, simply, and neat. After reading my opponent's previous debates, it is clear that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "degree" actually is. Some time ago, it was agreed that it is useful to slice a circle into 360 equal parts and each of these parts was called a degree.Now, the opponenent's argument will focus heavily on using other shapes to justify that the circle should contain 180 degrees. However, this is backwards logic, considering that the amount of degrees contained in other shapes is derived directly from the circle. Here is a visual example: https://flic.kr...In this picture, which I'm hoping works, you can see a square on the left. Each of its angles is color coded, each is 90 degrees a piece, and together they add up to 360 degrees. By cutting up the square and reassembling its part ontop of the origin of a circle, you can see that indeed, the square perfectly breaks up the circle into 4 equal parts, each of 90 degrees.This is how angles in polygons are measured. Given a particular angle, you place the vertex of that angle on top of the origin of a circle, then measure what portion of the circle that angle "covers". If you were to cut up a triangle in the same way we did the square, you'd see that the angles covered exactly half of the span of the circle, or 180 degrees.For now this should suffice as my argument. In summary, the amount of degrees in a circle is a fairly arbitrary value that was set long ago and is widely used and accepted today. Any angle in a polygon is directly derived from the amount of degrees in a circle and is how many degrees the angle "spans" within a circle. Thanks for reading.
There are 360 degrees in a circle.

I read mostlogical's recent debate on this issue and was stunned when his opponent forfeited his remaining rounds. I now feel it's my duty to defend the sanctity of the circle! Rules: 1. Shared BoP. This is a mathematical concept, the likes of which can be proven outright or dis-proven through counter-example. Additionally, since it's accepted now in the status quo that a circle does indeed have 360 degrees, this offer of shared BoP seems more than reasonable. 2. No forfeits. Srsly. 3. No semantics. I,e. No arguing "but it doesn't have 360 degrees, it has 2pi radians. .. ", these are obviously equivalent measurements. R1: Acceptance R2: Present/Refute R3-5: Rebuttals Have fun!
Anarcho-Capitalism is the only just society

Axiom: Humans are able to purposefully act. Axiom: Morality determines the proper acts and aims of moral agents. Extension: Where one cannot purposefully act (where one cannot choose one's goals and means), morality plays no role. Definition: Saying "X should do Y" is a moral claim. Axiom: All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgments retain their validity. Extension: "X should do Y" is equivalent to "X' should do Y" if X and X' are essentially indistinguishable. Proposition: "X should give up his own freedom" is a contradixion. Demonstration: The statement professes an acceptance of morality (it is normative), but advocates that one discard morality (for giving up one's freedom destroys moral agency). Proposition: "X should violate Z's freedom (make Z give up his freedom)" is a contradixion. Demonstration: If X giving up his freedom is a contradixion, it cannot be prescribed, and if Z giving up his freedom is effectively the same, morally, as X giving up his freedom, the new statement also falls. The same applies to "X should give up freedom in favour of another value." Q . E . D . . E . D .
Anarcho-Capitalism is the only just society

My opponent aptly points out the flaw in his case with the qualifier on his final paragraph:"If you believe, even faintly, in the principles which affirm that. .. "What if I don't believe in those principles? There is no objective reason for me to place absolute moral value on personal liberty. In fact, the vast majority of people weigh personal liberty against other equally subjective values, e. g. security, happiness, etc. Given this, it is very plausible that some alternative form of social organization might be justified, wherein liberty is compromised for the sake of upholding those other values. Because Pro's case relies on the unsubstantiated assertion that personal liberty carries absolute moral value, his case fails. Anarcho-capitalism is not necessarily the only just society.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

Alright then. I'm sorry for my absence as I am still in school. Thank for this opportunity So, The Hulk has the ability to smash a planet twice as big Earth with one kick. http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) Also, the angrier he gets, which is when he is attacked, the stronger he gets. So statistically, Hulk might eventually be able to overpower Superman and win the fight. Hulk could get Superman in a headlock and snap his neck. Hulk can also jump higher the angrier he gets. This is not flying be he could jump pretty darn high eventually to other galaxies. Bruce Banner is smarter than Superman. As stated in a previous article, "there is no human test to give an IQ rating to Bruce Banner." I would think that Bruce would be able to think ahead and find the shiny green rock that renders Superman powerless. I look forward to seeing what points my opponent brings up to try and prove me wrong.
OFFICIAL DDO TOURNIE: On Balance, Nuclear Energy is a more viable alternative to Solar Energy

This is part of the DDO tournament pitting myself against Apollo.This debate is about whether Nuclear Energy is a better alternative to Solar Energy. I shall argue for nuclear energy, while my opponent shall argue for solar energy.This debate mostly focuses around the US.Definitions Anybody who doesn't know them should go back to their cave.Anybody who argues semantics shall get a proverbial slap across the hand, coupled with an incision in the jugular. StyleRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttal/Conclusion. To balance out the last word advantage, Pro can rebut two points while Con can only rebut one point.Let the games begin!
Android(Google) vs Ios(Apple)

Hey man I mean no offence by this but you Talk ALOT!!! When you say "My phone is android and I support the technological segregation between Android and Ios" Androids Suck. They have to be beefed up (lots of resources) to start with. The iPhone is running with about half the resources at the same speeds. Next I am sorry for not linking a video to the iPhone drops. So for this I will make it up you and I will give you a 12 story drop test then... (the drop is a around 4:00) BTW that great that you would bring you iPhone skydiving- it just prove their Superiority over Android. For your next point that is complete non"sense. The first link is a 58 page Report. So next time tell me where the info is or DON'T send it. http://www.createdebate.com... In the second link is says that 99% of threats are toward Android (should have read it before you send it) Also there is a difference between malware and hacking. IPhones don't get malware, they can be hacked like everything else, but don't get malware or viruses. "Several pieces of malware have also been found on iPhones, however only devices that had been "jail-broken" to bypass Apple's security were affected." https://discussions.apple.com... This is also why you need Anti-Virus on an Android and NOT on an iPhone http://www.digitaltrends.com... You mention Storage and I do agree with you that Android has Superior Storage. Now that I have proven my self (i hope there is enough links for you) :) I will await your response... See you in Round 4!!!
Android(Google) vs Ios(Apple)

So on to the second round and I can see that you left nothing out! Your 1st point on saying that apple products look better, you said that out of 20 they ranked 17th and 2nd. First of all there are only one or two apple phones that come out every year while hundreds of Android phone come out. Second you said that the HTC One M8 is number one, well the HTC One M8 just came out. When the new iPhone comes out give me a call. Next Retina Display is NOT just a " marketing term invented and overused by Apple". Retina Display is a high resolution display used and loved by many. I agree that most people don't need a retina display, but if you are using it to edit photos, watch videos, and read book, this is where it is needed the most. The display is not comparable to androids displays because of the differences in the technology. Lastly Android devices with similar displays are not too far off of the price of apple products. You said that apples devices aren't as Premium because of the delicate screen. This is not because of the device it self it is mainly because of the consumer. When someone gets a apple device they want to show it off so they won't put cases on it. This will then cause the device to be more fragile. To prove this I have an iPod with the Griffin Survivor case and got bored so I dropped it off a two story building and it survived without a crack, scratch, or dent. Since my opening statement has now been justified lets continue. I will just start with this it is easy to jailbreak an iOS device and that will give all the functionality of a android. Also browsers can be downloaded very easily. You talked about fake apps and malware, I am sorry these such things don't exist on Apple but they do exist on Android. Go Apple!! Paid and free app have nothing to do with the phone. With apple you can jailbreak, while with android you can just illegally download and put them on. That Concludes my Explanation and Pointing out the Flaws in your Argument. Next in my argument there is many things wrong with Android. 1. Stability- android devices crash ALOT! this causes alot of inconvenience. 2. Speed- Apple is optimized for speed, Android is NOT. Android needs to stuff more RAM, faster Processors, and better Graphics. While the iPhone uses an A6 1.3 GHz, the HTC one M8 uses a Krait 400 2.3 GHz, while both are around the same speed. 3. Lack of uniformity- All of the Androids are different which leads to many problems and issues. The skins on the android basically make the consumer have to relearn the operating system all over again. This concludes my side of the argument, I will await to hear yours.
Transgender Children Who Identify As Males Be Able To Join A Boy Scouts Troop

Transgender children who identify as males should DEFINITELY be let into a Boy Scout Troop. It is a boy scout troop not a biologically born boys troop. Many children who change genders do it because they aren't interested in what their original gender does or is classified as. If a biological girl wants to become a boy and join a boy scout troop, let him/her. They probably aren't interested in selling cookies and doing crafts (although that isn't all girl scouts do) should be able to join a BS Troop. Society is extremely messed up if they think that a male identified child should not join a BS Troop. Who cares what feces extruder part they were born with. So if anyone thinks that they shouldn't, you are a moldy chicken nugget stuffed in a wet sock that was made in an easy-bake oven!
Transgender Children Who Identify As Males Be Able To Join A Boy Scouts Troop

There are two arguments my opponent basically makes. 1) Children who identify as male should be let in, which is basically just repeating the claim without any warrant, you can dismiss it based of those grounds. 2) Boy scouts should allow transgender children because it doesn't explicitly say biological boy scouts. However this doesn't make sense because then every single title or label, would have to explicitly write down every single thing they mean, which is not practical. Not every single sign at a grocery store has to say don't steal because it's common sense. Therefore this argument is debunked. My Arguments 1) You can not be a male just because you say you are, being a male or female has everything to do with biology and nothing to do with mentality. Every single transgender out there still is biologically a male or female, thus overall male or female. Sure someone can identify with the other sex, but that has nothing to do with what they are. Therefore in conclusion, there's nothing put forward by Pro that deserves change.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

Humans are multi-faceted. As there is a part of us that is primitive and okay with a dog jumping on them in a solely emotional bond based on reactions rather than reason. There is the part of us that is practical which evolved from emotions and reactions into control and reason. A dog jumping on those types (me) is a sign of being inconsiderate to other's physical boundaries which is a sign that it does not know any better. Teaching dogs to respect people's physical boundaries is the same thing as teaching a child. Having to teach both is evidence that it's not an advanced trait, which makes it an old part of the biological system.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

This is my first argument on here so not that experienced at arguments yet. Help me get better with arguments please! Dogs are lovely companions who show a lot of companionship. They are living beings who strive to please. There are behaviors that are cute. When dogs see friends/ people coming through their homes, at parks, dogs get excited run and jump. When I turn away from a dog who is jumping it stresses me out and feel like a jerk. When I let dogs jump on me I feel happy. I find it easy to make great satire for dogs jumping too. When we stop dogs from jumping are we getting in the way of there happiness? Could we be wrong again? Are people really over-exaggerating? Is this a perspective point of view that should be respected? Of course depending on the circumstances won't let dogs jump.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

This is what I mean. When I call someone an idiot, they start bluffing and revealing the part of them that I can see while others cannot see because they, too, are idiots. When I'm called an idiot, well, nothing happens. Grow up, kid. You have nothing to show. You just see your issues in dogs and wonder why you get destroyed in an argument for being irresponsible and selfish towards the Universe. All I did was call you an idiot, while you make a big deal out of it, hypocrite. Thank you for proving how much I know you more than you know yourself. You must be afraid of your true nature behind that supposedly respectful and kind face. I see right through you as I do for anyone else - humans are not complicated at all and I know all of their games. Yes, express your true nature. I feed off of the truth - and it's always a bonus to see such a lie become so true in a such a way that the lie got what was coming to it.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

Laugh out loud, how very mature to call someone stupid. Hypocritically old lady you are the stupid ignorant fool here, you aren't powerful or strong enough to win. It's pretty childhood nonsense to over-exaggerate and get upset over some stupid argument like a "dog jumping". It's like a child getting upset if he has a toy he thinks is better. Adults like you haven't grown up at all. To add the words your throwing at is getting you anywhere in the argument. An argument above had ya all red in the face meaning I blew something up and you can't find valid arguments back. My arguments and ideas may be unusual to the general popular way, but who cares. I see you have no respect for people's perspective view points. Since in all sounds like you are a republican thinking everyone has my perspective, well little girl that's all in your head. There are people out there that think like me and those who don't. That's fine I respect others by not letting their dog jump if they don't want to even though, it's fricken inconsiderate, nonsense, ridiculous and immature and stupid. Hypocritically you say to not do any of what you preach and you do them. Plus whining like the loserLaugh out loud, how very mature to call someone stupid. Hypocritically old lady you are the stupid ignorant fool here, you aren't powerful or strong enough to win. It's pretty childhood nonsense to over-exaggerate and get upset over some stupid argument like a "dog jumping". It's like a child getting upset if he has a toy he thinks is better. Adults like you haven't grown up at all. To add the words your throwing at is getting you anywhere in the argument. An argument above had ya all red in the face meaning I blew something up and you can't find valid arguments back. My arguments and ideas may be unusual to the general popular way, but who cares. I see you have no respect for people's perspective view points. Since in all sounds like you are a republican thinking everyone has my perspective, well little girl that's all in your head. There are people out there that think like me and those who don't. That's fine I respect others by not letting their dog jump if they don't want to even though, it's fricken inconsiderate, ridiculous, nonsense, and stupid. Hypocritically you say to not do any of what you preach and you do them. Plus whining like the loser you are is embarrassing and annoying. It's like a child whining to a board game he lost. A child can beat you in an argument, and I feel sorry for you. ;( you are is embarrassing and annoying. It's like a child whining to a board game he lost. A child can beat you in an argument, and I feel sorry for you. ;( Do me a favor start thinks that you are over-exaggerating human crazy weirdo jerk. A lot of humans are unintelligible nothing to be surprise about, they never cease to be not amusing. Unless the humans are intelligent and are strong those never cease to amaze me and other animals too that are nonhuman species like dogs. Humans are the most selfish species with no compassion intelligence.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

Argument invalid, there is no reason for anybody to not be happy. Without it life is miserable and serious. It is inconsiderate to not let dogs jump on friends and owners, in reality. Yes people are dramatic about dogs jumping like aggressive pit bulls. You see, I've seen some dogs get adopted by jumping on potential owners or me a volunteer. People smile or go "aw" and it's not all in my head. You may have lived and thought longer than I have been alive, but that doesn't mean you know for sure. Doesn't sound like some people haven't thought what I'm thinking about dogs jumping. Fine argument is more valid for those who don't have good balance or elder whatever. However, invalid when it comes to new generation ideas and for people who have good balance. How many times on the news you hear "oh no jumping dogs killed 1-10 people today"? In general, dogs are showing love. I'm fine with it and won't get hurt from it. Doesn't mean I think it through neither means agreeing or disagreeing. Even if you thought this through you would disagree anyways or agree depending if you are truly being honest with yourself.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

No it's not. Happiness is not always a good thing. That's why you address it. Dogs jumping on people is being inconsiderate and reactive - there's no if's or but's; there's no "dramatic nonsense here". I have covered everything already. I have thought about this far longer than you have. No, you are not taking the life away from you - you are calming their wild. There's a difference between telling a dog to settle down and silencing someone. Again, you do this only because you see your own childhood insecurities in them.
People over-exaggerate jumping dogs

Well, biologically speaking no wonder why we have that emotional feeling when dogs jump. What a reaction! You see, not letting the dogs jump on people like particular friends or owner is taking that life away from them. What if in honest reality we could be dishonest about ourselves? The majority has been wrong about many topics such as the world was thought as flat. Majority said, "the world is flat" we were wrong. We could be wrong again about just dogs jumping. We may be ignorant thinking its inconsiderate to not let dogs jump. Well, there are consequences the dogs Is missing out on life. You see the other day coming back from whale watching I would shout out hi to cargo ships or people on beaches. My friend's dad was like, be quiet. That would make me be sad cause got to get the energy out and live life to the fullest. Same with dogs for jumping, and some barking. While people have boundaries against touching with each other we do not for dogs. There are no laws for dogs jumping is not okay or there is prison. It's like people are treating them like monsters. In the pictures dogs are jumping on people and they are happy!