BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to make a day opposite day

My opponent makes a good point. However there is a flaw. You cannot declare opposite day on opposite day, by saying this my opponent is correct. However, you can declare opposite day the day before, and not say anything about the day the day of opposite day. Thus you can have an opposite day just as you can have a Christmas, as long as you don't say anything about it being opposite day on opposite day. Thus it is possible to have an opposite day. Thus you must vote con. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
It is impossible to make a day opposite day

Definition: 1. opposite day- a whole day in which everything said takes opposite connontation 2. make a day- declare oa day to be something in such fashion that it can legally be referred to as such 3. legally- simply means that the name stands without argument. Ex. If you say Dec. 25 is Christmas, then it is legally Christmas because there is no reason in itself on why Dec. 25 would not be Christmas (And no you can't just say its not Christmas to make it not Christmas. I mean there is no contradiciton in the statement "it is Christmas" that would cancel itself on Dec. 25) IT is plain and simple really... If you say it is opposite day then it would be the opposite of opposite day and therefore be not opposite day If you say it is not opposite day then it would not be the opposite of not opposite day (since it never was opposite day) and therefore the day would remain being not opposite day If you say today is the opposite of not opposite day or not opposite of opposite day then you would lead to these statements being flipped. If today is the opposite of not opposite day it is not opposite day, so we take the opposite of what was said and today is not the opposite of not opposite day leaving it not opposite day. If you say it is the opposite of not opposite day then you end up with the same pattern as i Just stated... the not opposite of not opposite day. This pattern plays out for however many twists and turns are added because it is a simple fact that whenever you try to make a day opposite day, it will cancel out itself. This can be referred to as the oppisitoryday theorem Therefore by the oppisitoryday theorem it is impossible to truly make a day opposite day.
Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

Hello,Herein I will lay out my initial opening statements and will then in my next argument provide a rebuttal for the points my opponent made in his first argument.As Pro I will be contending that 1) the Roman Catholic Church is not morally sound, and 2) that it is also not Biblically correct. In order to do this, I will not be weighing the good that the RCC does against the bad, this is a poor method for determing if it is morally sound as we would rather simply seek to show that it is not morally sound in some areas and thus could not be claimed to be wholly morally sound.Also, it is not my contention that the RCC is wholly corrupt in regards to it being Biblical, my argument will be simply to show that certain aspects of the RCC are not Biblically correct.The initial opening remarks will be all in regards to the issue of Celibate priests and child abuse.Catholic Priest Child Abuse: Since 1950 the Catholic Church has been fined 2.6 Billion dollars in regards to cases involving sexual abuse, some with over 500 victims reported in a single Diosece, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.[1] It is close to an epidemic in some countries and even being called the Holocaust of Ireland, where priests sexually molest and rape young boys.Is it the Church's intention to have this happen? I don't think so, but I will contend in my secondary argument that their teaching on Celibacy is directly the culprit for this rampant abuse.Roman Catholic Church on Celibacy:The historical "discipline" of Celibacy which is enforced upon priests perhaps dates back to the Council of Elvira in 305 AD.It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.[2]This teaching is directly contradictory to that of the Bible.An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion.[3]Note that the elders of the Church are to be married, and with children as it is a qualification that this elder has demonstrated he can effectively lead his household. In 1 Timothy 4:3 Paul actually speaks against the practice of forbidding marriage.Therefore, as Celibacy was mentioned as a gift according to Jesus in Matthew 19:9-12 and that "the who who can accept this should accept this." It is clear that requiring celebacy of the leaders of the church is not only contrary to Paul's qualifications, but also forces men who seek to lead in the church to live a life-style they are not gifted to live in.The Catholic Church then is not only Biblically in error for it's requirement of celibacy of it's leaders, but also is found not to be morally sound in this regard.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://faculty.cua.edu... celicacy [3] http://biblehub.com...;
Catholicism is morally sound and biblically correct

Hello,I accept the Con position of this argument and will contend that 1) Catholicism has aspects that are not morally sound, and 2) also has aspects that are not biblically correct. Most importantly doing so in a respectful and thorough way, as I hope this will be a great debate.I now pass the ball to my opponent to make what I am sure will be a great opening statement. Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
It is Better to Rule through Fear than through Love

It seems my mistake in round 3 was clear. I was not clear on how fear is a form of injustice, or can be interpreted as unjust. By clarifying, I can give backing to Plato's arguments.http://www.youtube.com...1) For a man to be feared, he must give the populace a reason to fear him. He makes the populace fear him by commiting injust acts. Whether it be cracking down on protests or massacring political opposition. A just man interprets these acts as unjust, and will seek to surpass the ruler, even if his intentions were good.- Clarification - For a man to be feared, he must be injust. Hence, civil war or mass protest. The above is a quote from the great Niccolo Machiavelli, the founder of political science. I may use his quotes often, because I want to give credit for my statements where they're due, and my following argument is derived from that quote.Machiavellii, is not advocating active fear in this quote. He is saying that fear must be a available option, but not always present. Ex: A ruler can love his people, but establish laws to those who do not respect his love. The simple truth is, when one rules with fear, one is in far more control. If you set the rules and never make exceptions in regards to the following of those rules, you have control over your subjects more completely because they will do their best to avoid breaking one of your rules, in order to avoid falling into punishment.Most will follow the fearful rulers laws, but many will participate in active defiance. The USSR has some people who genuinly cared about their people, but used fear to control the poulace. How did that turn out?This section is a necessary disclaimer. I will be showing readers that a leader can be feared and not hated. Even though most people who are feared are also hated, it is still possible to avoid this. What a leader needs to do is properly apply fear. He needs to make laws that can be clearly seen by all to be in the interests of the common good, and not in the interests of the leader only. The rules need to be fair, and the punishments must also be fair. The implementation and adherence to these rules must be without exception, and if there is exception, the core reason for the exception should not be seen in any other cases in which the rule was followed. The person you propose is not a agent of fear, but rather a agent of order. In this case, the ruler is not feared, but rather the state. If the ruler himself is feared, he will most certainly be hated by many.Conclusion---------------- Fear is a form of injustice, so by Socrates reasoning, weak and bad.- A ruler can both be loving and strong.- Rulers in the past who have used fear have failed.
Calculus at 4 grade why ? I haven't learned that yet

It doesn't seem right to present the final portion of my argument. I will instead summarize very briefly and state some reasons understanding calculus can be beneficial for children. Calculus is the foundation of all modern scientific understanding, even in fields which are not typically associated with mathematics, such as biology and medicine. Underlying the principles and methods used in all fields of science, whether directly or indirectly, is calculus. For example, see the Noyers Whiter equation for calculating dosage rates (https://bhcc.digication.com...), or see hypothesis testing in statistics, which is used in most scientific studies and clinical trials to establish whether acquired data supports or fails to support a particular hypothesis. As someone with a mathematics degree specializing in statistics, I can say that almost all of probability and statistics is based upon calculus. Calculus itself is not the symbols and calculations most people associate with it. Calculus, in reality, is the set of concepts, ideas, and principles which give meaning to those symbols and allow us to develop methods for those calculations. Therefore I have argued that this level of understanding calculus should be the focus of education. I have also argued that a basic level of each of the essential concepts of calculus (infinity, limits, derivatives, integrals) is within reach of children at the 4th grade level and I have provided basic sketches of how these concepts can be taught to children. However, the question of this debate is 'why' teach calculus to children, not whether or not it is possible. I will presume that establishing benefits from learning calculus for children in the 4th grade which outweigh the effort involved in learning the concepts involved is sufficient to answer the question. As I said at the beginning of this post, I will not put in the effort to establish the validity of these benefits when my opponent has not taken the time or effort to argue his side. I will simply list these benefits and invite any reader to take up this debate with me if they disagree. Benefits: 1) Improved ability to understand scientific concepts, including such things as velocity and acceleration in physics, which are currently taught in high school without calculus, even though calculus is required for learning the actual concepts. 2) Improved understanding of the natural world around them (all sorts of phenomena involving rates of change and accumulation). 3) Understanding infinity and limits in a concrete sense have great potential to expand the mind and develop the brain for higher level concepts. 4) Greater appreciation of math and science. I will conclude by thanking Con for setting up this debate. It is a topic in which I am very interested, and I strongly advocate teaching calculus to children of this age. I personally intend to teach my children calculus starting from the first grade.
Calculus at 4 grade why ? I haven't learned that yet

The concepts of calculus can easily be explained with visual examples that a 4th grader can understand. Infinity implies a quantity that is large to an unlimited degree, while infinitesimal is a quantity that is small to an unlimited degree. Here is a simple illustration: if you start drawing a straight line and just go on forever, the length of the line is infinite. Or, if you keep dividing a line in half, you will get smaller and smaller lines but you can always divide it in half forever. Limits: Draw a triangle. Then a square. Continue to add one side to the polygon. By adding sides, the shape becomes closer and closer to a circle. Indeed, the limit of a polygon as the number of sides approaches infinity is a circle. Similarly, if you collapse one side of a triangle, you get two lines on top of each other (2 sides). Collapsing one of the lines gives you a line again (1 side). And if you collapse that line, you get a dot (0 sides). So the limit of a polygon as the number of sides approaches 0, is a dot. This is the essence of limits. Differentiation tells you how much a quantity is changing at a specific point. Understanding this only requires knowledge of basic division, which all 4th graders have. Take a right-angle triangle and color it in. Ask how much the height of the triangle changed from the start to the end. This is of course the height of the triangle divided by the length. Now erase some of the color from the beginning and the end, and ask the same question. Keep erasing to get smaller and smaller slices of the triangle and repeat the calculation. The limit as the colored slice gets infinitely thin is the derivative at the point along the length where the triangle is still colored. Integration: Integration is basically the generalized concept of area or volume for any shape. Draw an irregular shape and explain how you can roughly estimate the area by drawing thing rectangles side by side with the tops touching the curve and adding up the areas. Now make the rectangles thinner and show that the estimated area is slightly more precise (color the part of the rectangle that is inside the shape blue, and the parts outside the shape red, and as you make the rectangles thinner, you can see the amount of red decreasing). The integral is what you get when you take the limit of the total area of all the rectangles as their widths become infinitesimally small (which also means the number of rectangles approaches infinity). These together are the essentials of understanding calculus. With this, equations become more intuitive. But equations are only descriptions and not calculus itself, in much the same way that the word 'dog' is not actually a dog. Therefore, conceptually and visually understanding the above examples is actually understanding calculus, just like a toddler understands what a dog is before they can read and write 'dog'. I will explain why these concepts are important for 4th graders in the final round.
Calculus at 4 grade why ? I haven't learned that yet

Thus it is unclear (to me) whether an argument should be fully presented. Since Con did not begin with a fully argument, I will simply take this opportunity to define terms and state my position more precisely, leaving the main argument for Rounds 2 and 3. Apologies if the content of this post extends beyond the expectations for the first round of this debate. Calculus can be defined as the mathematical study of limits [1], and/or the mathematical study of change [2]. A limit is a concept in mathematics which is used to describe the behaviour of a function or a system as its inputs approach a particular set of values. Limits are of particular interest where the behaviour of the function or system is not obvious (often when the inputs are zero, negative infinity, or positive infinity). My position is that the basics of calculus can, and should, be taught in the 4th grade. My argument will consist mainly of two basic points: (1) children of that age are capable of understanding the basic concepts of calculus, and (2) an understanding of the basic concepts of calculus is beneficial for children of that age. To premise the argument, I would like to differentiate between a few levels of understanding in calculus. (1)A basic understanding of the concepts of calculus involve a conceptual understanding of limits, working with infinity, rates of change and changing rates of change, and accumulation (integration) of quantity. (2)A further level of understanding in calculus is the learned ability to compute derivatives and integrals. (3)A deeper level of understanding in calculus implies the ability to generate and manipulate mathematical expressions to make derivatives and integrals easier to compute, but also to describe different aspects of real world problems. (4)A deep understanding of calculus implies the ability to derive theorems and produce mathematical proofs relating to the concepts and principles of calculus. A basic understanding is sufficient to allow one to appreciate the significance of calculus in the world to a valuable degree, and to gain a deeper understanding of reality. Therefore, I will be arguing for teaching the basic concepts of calculus to 4th grade students. I will also give examples of how the concepts of calculus can be taught to a student who has only a 4th grade level of mathematical ability and why even this rudimentary level of understanding is beneficial for their conceptual understanding of the world, their development, and their future success. I look forward to an interesting debate and hope for the best from both sides! Cheers. [1] Verberg, D. ; Purcell, E. J. ; Rigdon, S. E. (2007). Calculus, 9th Edition. Pearson Education Inc. , New Jersey. Chapter 1, p. 55. [2] Latorre, D. R. ; Kenelly, J. W. ; Reed, I. B. ; Biggers, S. (2007). Calculus Concepts: An Applied Approach to the Mathematics of Change. Cengage Learning. Chapter 1, p 2
Fannyboy is a legitimate cuck

Let me start right away, because these rap battles I enjoy everyday This is more fun then working anyway. shyrewolf is a prepubescent child, that I could destroy anyday How can I compete or debate with a kid who's mentality is near the retarded level A kid who everyone feels sorry for, so they give him a participation medal He's 12 and thinks he knows everything in the world Yet he hasn't yet even graduated from any high school in this world How can I debate with a child, it's like a genius debating with a dropout This kids rap battles are a blackout because he is a school dropout And this debate will be Shyrewolfs knockout I have seen the world and lived everywhere, including Bel Air While this kid plays X-box games in his arm chair We are worlds apart in discussions It's like he has a concussion Let his childish rambling rap continue because I like to rap until we discontinue Good luck I say my little child But don't forget the recess bell, schoolchild (mic drop)
God changes to match science

Jesus descended into hell. The bible clearly states that if you drill deep enough you will find a place filled with monsters. Jesus ascended into heaven. The bible clearly states that if you fly high enough, you will find a place filled with angels. Remember Stephen? Heaven was visible from Earth. Closer than the space station, probably, if he could make out individual features on faces. If God leads science, then the Hebrews would be ahead of the scientific knowledge of the time. Instead, we see them taking their cues from the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and later, the Greeks.
God changes to match science

Aha, I think you are incorrect there, first about people thinking the Earth was at the centre of the Universe. This was never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but back then, it seemed the logical thing to believe. Remember how self centred humanity was back then, it would have been hard for them to accept that humans weren't important. Heaven has always been "In the clouds" but it's hard to say whether that was a metaphor or not. (This is hard) Heaven, isn't God though, God is apparently an androgenous eternal, divine entity, that will always remain unchanged. Christians will resolutely deny that God is changing with science, the idea of God has changed, but if there is a God, he would have remained the same.
God changes to match science

There was 13.6 billion years, there was the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, and then there was YHWH of the bible. Before the bronze age there was no YHWH. So the God of Abraham came on the scene. A great warchief, apparently. He didn't hit his full stride until he had a few million people to lead. He was also unusually focused on morality. I think the focus on war and law took from the areas of scientific inquiry. So what was the belief of the day. The earth was the center of the universe. So Galileo finds that the earth is not the center, the sun is. The church decries this as heresy. Which is correct: the idea contradicts the writings of the bible. Further. The ancients believed the sky was a solid dome, known as the firmament. God lived beyond the firmament. There was a divine action against a skyscraper, presumably with this assumption. This is just background information for a sweeping overview of what I see: The earth was everything and the sun, moon, and stars were in submission to the earth. God was the god of the fire, of the wind, and of the humans. Science discovers what the milky way is, time is the fourth dimension, and suddenly we have God outside of time. String theory postulates "extra dimensions" and the believer clings to this as a place to put God. Actually, God was just above the earth until ~400 years ago. Then he moved.
God changes to match science

Hello, I'm magi800, I agree with the statement but I'll try and disprove it as a challenge! God has always remained the same in the eyes of the Christian people, the bible shows it as well, look, Genesis 21:33 Abraham planted a Tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God. The key word here is ETERNAL, it shows Christians believe god always remains the same, Christians still deny Evolution, even though it has been proven to be true several times. I am looking forward for a rebuttal, thank you for giving me this opportunity! magi800 out!