BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Grim Reaper Paradox

Pro has 2 main contentions1. ) The Grim Reaper paradox yields a contradiction and2. ) Because of 1, time cannot be infiniteSince this debate is a relatively long format, I will allow Pro to expand on his opening arguments and lay any additional contentions he would like to assert/defend. I will defend the contention that infinites are indeed possible, and if they were impossible, it would not be for reasons such as these Zeno-type paradoxes. It seem's Pro's contention is limited primarily to the fact time cannot be infinitely divisible, please clarify if this is your main position
The Grim Reaper Paradox

If there were an actually infinite number of Grim Reapers tasked with your death at a uniform interval from 1pm to 2pm, and the first Reaper strikes at 1:30, the second at 1:15, and so on... then you can't both live or die in that hour interval. But if this is the case, then an infinite set of time leads to a contradiction. Thus any bounded interval of time contains only finitely many moments. And therefore time is finite. SourcesPruss, Craig, Koons et al
The Grim Reaper Paradox

I will summarise briefly: 1. I have argued that an infinite as given in Vernich's thought experiment is infinitely divisible, and can be dealt with mathematically. 2. I have argued that even if time was not infinitely divisible, it does not demonstrate than an infinity in time cannot exist, and gave supporting origin if universe models that are capable of explaining such. I am rather disappointed Con went AWOL, but thanks for the brief debate anyway.
Video Gaming Should Be An Olympic Sport

Since I have already given my positive arguments, I would respond to CON's small argument: 1. "I think the Video game should not be just Olympic Sport." Poor grammar and spelling aside, I think what CON is trying to say is that... I don't know. Is CON saying that video games should be MORE or LESS than an Olympic sport? His use of "just" is ambiguous. Even so, this is just a claim; there's no evidence here. Thus, there's nothing to refute. 2. "Because Some people can want other games which is not Olympic sport..." Ok, this is actually an argument. Yet, as I have said before, the Olympic games has evolved over the years to include modern sports, like fencing. Given that video games are at a record popularity and have a permeating cultural significance, it follows that video games deserve to become an Olympic sport, where players can watch and learn from the best of the best. For those who dislike video games, they can go watch another sport on the TV. No harm, no foul. Only benefits. 3. "and People have their human right which shows they can play the game whatever they want." Well, of course I agree! My proposal does nothing to infringe on the fundamental right of human liberty. To the contrary, my proposal enhances the liberty by including video games as an Olympic sport, where players can choose to compete against each other on a much larger stage in front of a massive, global audience. I do not see how this argument is germane to this discussion. I have responded to CON and do await his responses in Round 2. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker
Video Gaming Should Be An Olympic Sport

(1.) Resolved: "Video Gaming Should Be An Olympic Sport" (2.) Definitions: Video Gaming: "The act of playing video games." Video Game: "A digital world that usually involves objectives and is controlled by a player." Player: "A human being who interacts with video games." Sport: "A communal, usually competitive, human activity that involves mental and physical effort to accomplish a given task(s)." Olympic Sport: "A sport that is chosen for its versatility and challenge, that usually involves the best performing players, and that is - in modern times - a publicized, televised competitive event which occurs over a certain period of time. (3.) Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is shared between PRO and CON. PRO must satisfactorily prove the resolution to be true. CON must satisfactorily prove the resolution to be false. (4.) PRO's Opening Argument: I. Introduction. Since the Greeks began the Olympics with a few, physically demanding sports, the famous competition has grown to include unoriginal sports, such as fencing, bobsled racing, and synchronized diving. At the same time, the popularity of the modern biannual event has skyrocketed due to the increased amount of state participants, athletes, and citizens. The Olympics is also lucrative for a wide variety of factors. First, the host state receives exposure to both its nationality and marketable goods. Second, advertisements on television reach an enormous audience. Third, live audience tickets to the Olympics are in high demand and are, therefore, expensive. Considering now it historic evolution and commercial nature, imagine how much profitable the Olympics would be if competitive video gaming was included! II. Arguments in Favor: A). Video games can be played communally as a competitive sport. Although not overly physical, video games still require light-speed thinking, even quicker reflexes, and remarkable strategy to win at highly competitive tournaments. Therefore, video games meet the definition of a sport and should be qualified for consideration. B). Video games have an almost ubiquitous appeal and modern cultural significance. From ERB to PewDiePie, TellTaleGames to Markiplier, Disney to CaptainSparklez, the video game culture pervades the modern world. The Olympics would be wise to harness the popularity of video games to its advantage. C). Video games would make the Olympics more profitable. By adding diversity, video games would attract more viewers and thereby more monies to the Olympics, specifically from the younger demographics. The addition would not necessarily disinterest older demographics because there would still be other intriguing sports to watch. For primarily these three reasons, video games should be added as an Olympic sport. (5.) Conclusion. This is a topic that is important to me and it is one that I hope to debate well. Thanks for reading; I await my opponent's acceptance and opening argument. - Mr. Speaker
Video Gaming Should Be An Olympic Sport

Let me respond by saying that I do not get CON's argument. 1. "I think NOT all Olympic sports are not evolved - just parts of sports evolved. such as crossbow,etc." I has to read this several times before I could understand it. CON, please improve your sentence structure! Basically, CON says that Olympic sports don't evolve entirely. Instead, CON maintains that they change over time partially. I will concede this because it's a factoid that is irrelevant to this debate. So what if sports change partially? Why should that be a reason for why video games should not become Olympic sports? 2. "and In the video games, there.... ???" I don't get this at all. 3. "so If the video game turn to Olympic sports, any sports game will not replace it." Huh? What does this mean? Ultimately, I am bewildered by both CON's grammar and argument. CON will hopefully do better next Round. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker
A debate without votes is better than a debate with faulty votes

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. In this closing round I will try my best to pinpoint the flaws in my opponents argument. It seems to me a clear cut personal feelings argument, and I hope I can change my opponents mind regarding voted debates. This is especially true when votes are personal feelings as well, and as such the votes and my opponents opinions of votes are all rather personal. The main issue my opponent has repeated in this debate concerns the issue of faulty votes. However, these are faulty votes in the sense that my opponent believes they are faulty. However, this means my opponent has already decided he is correct if he believes the vote is faulty. This begs the question, what is the point of trying to debate if you are not prepared to at least try learn something? This is equally ironic when on my opponents homepage he states his activities as “Spreading the truth.” My opponent also said in the previous round that “I don't think anybody ENJOYS being judged wrong.” However, he did not bother addressing the point I made in the previous round about reporting faulty votes to the moderator. It seems more to me that my opponent realizes that the votes are not bad but is looking for an excuse for a loss. This whole debate is bizarre in itself as it really contradicts my opponents point of view on the reason why they debate. If you are here to “debate the truth”, then why are you worried about some random votes. Why should this topic matter to you at all? The fact that you bring it up and want to debate is shows that this is an issue, and a personal one at that. In closing I want to quote a line from the movie Frozen. It goeslike this, “Let it go, Let it go.”
A debate without votes is better than a debate with faulty votes

My opponent admits, "I have lost debates I have deemed I should have won and enjoyed them thoroughly."I don't know many people who enjoy getting wrongfully judged. My opponent may be one, but that doesn't make it right. I wonder if my opponent like to pay parking tickets he/she didn't deserve. How about losing a job over an unfair judgement? Or getting a bad grade for a bad judgement by a teacher? I don't think anybody ENJOYS being judged wrong. Debate is an exchange of ideas, not a fight. You don't need to be judged and you don't need the stress of having to have a record of how many debates you "lost". Civil discussion in the comments is all you really need to expand the debate by continuing to exchange ideas. My opponent claims, "Voting acts as a motivator for people to read and give a judgment on a debate. Even if the voters misunderstand the debate, they are at least trying their best to understand"Who's to say that a voter doesn't just "skim" a debate or just votes because they already agree with a certain side of the debate?There's no reason to believe a voter reads a debate at all.Debates can be held in private and debates can be held without votes. There's no law that say all debates need to be voted on. The DDO environment is the worst scenario for votes, since you can never tell who will randomly come along your debate and vote on it, with or without reading it. You can lose a debate just because somebody happened to decide to vote at all. That's not an accurate account of who won the debate. It's just random votes that cause frustration and anger.
A debate without votes is better than a debate with faulty votes

Thanks to my opponent for opening this debate for me. I hope I can at least try to convince my opponent in some way that votes are good even if the are faulty. This opening sentence is essentially one of my main points for votes. My opponent assumes that some votes are faulty, but this means then that my opponent has already decided that their opinion is the correct one. As such anyone that votes against my opponent is wrong and their vote is classified as faulty. This is not in the line with what my opponent claims when they say “You could choose to debate topics you may not be well versed in, which gives you an opportunity to learn things without worrying about "losing" or being humiliated.” I highlighted the most important part of this sentence. If you want to learn, it is essential that you are open to criticism and are prepared to change your mind. However, if you believe a vote is faulty it gives you pause to consider why a person voted in that way. This additionally can be used as a point to engage the voter in an intellectual debate. If I may add another analogy for faulty votes. Following the line of reasoning above, in a presidential election we are then able to say that anyone that votes for the opposing candidate you voted for has cast a faulty vote. I am sure most people would scoff at this idea, but this is essentially what my opponent is claiming. My opponent also claims that you cannot enjoy a debate when you have to worry about votes. That is a personal opinion, and is one that needs personal introspection. In contrast, I have lost debates I have deemed I should have won and enjoyed them thoroughly. The reason for this is that I value the experience to educate someone, or to be educated. But again, this is a personal opinion and not a rational justification to do away with a voting system. Lastly, if you deem a vote is flawed you are able to report it to the moderators. However, this does not mean the vote will be nullified after all a vote is a personal opinion. My opponent is correct in saying that feedback can be given in the comments section. However, how many people truly read debates when they do not have a motivation to read them? Voting acts as a motivator for people to read and give a judgment on a debate. Even if the voters misunderstand the debate, they are at least trying their best to understand and as stated before this is a starting point for further discussion. In closing, when a debate is held on-line, no one is sure who is actually reading the debate. As such a vote is an affirmation that the debate has been read. While the judgment may not go in your favor, it does not mean it is a flawed vote. It means you have reached an audience and given them something to think about. I hand the debate back to my opponent.
A debate without votes is better than a debate with faulty votes

When you have a debate without having to worry about votes, you can enjoy the whole experience more.You don't have to play semantic tricks or other nonsense just to win. Instead you can concentrate on facts and real arguments.Also, You could choose to debate topics you may not be well versed in, which gives you an opportunity to learn things without worrying about "losing" or being humiliated.If the only reason you debate is to "win" votes. you become an expert at BS. All that happens is you start to sharpen skills about technicalities, semantics, and logical fallacies and less on real facts.Votes cause more damage than they are worth. You can always get good feedback from the comment section.
Racism is Natural

"a person they don't know and automatically hate them just because they're them." Nor does a person walk up to another and automatically like them. Without a doubt tribal people themselves are casually racist towards white men, especially when you consider how vastly different the cultures are, it makes sense for them to poke fun out of the white mans habits, looks and skin color. I've herd terms used by tribal Africans such as "Tha white Devil" is this not racist? I don't believe you have refuted what I've said regarding tribal prejudice and only given an opinion regarding "perhaps they have battled before." As for basing police patrols on statistical evidence, you must understand no one is saying- Blacks live in these neighborhoods therefore we should add extra patrols. The argument is, the stats suggest this neighborhood has a lot of crime while the neighborhood happens to be black, however, due to the neighborhood being black, people assert the extra patrols are a sign of racism, rather than, statistical evidence. That shouldn't stop the police from adding extra police cars.
Racism is Natural

I see your points. However, a tribe is not disgusted just out of instinct, they're disgusted just because they're from a different, or rival tribe. Like I said, a person does not just walk up to a person they don't know and automatically hate them just because they're them. The person had to have had a bad experience with that race, and now holds a prejudice against all of them. Racism is a defense mechanism, but the person only has a need to be wary because of something that happened before. Maybe that tribe had a battle with this tribe a couple days ago, so they now feel the need to be wary and racist to all tribes. I understand there will always be racist people in the world, no matter what speeches, or punishments we give, and we should not ignore the crime based statistics, however, if we were going to police a black neighborhood, we should only do it based on which communities have been hit before. We shouldn't just police all neighborhoods because they're black communities, but because the most crime has been going on there. You cannot generalize the whole group because of their background or stories.
Racism is Natural

Thank you for instigating this debate con. Racism is natural. Racism is a result of tribal prejudice and acts as a survival mechanism where tribes are wary of outsiders. This wariness, or distrust, is exacerbated when the outsider looks different, in terms of facial features or even skin color. This natural distrust of strangers is important as human tribes and civilizations have always sought out to expand their boarders and power. When one looks at the prison culture, one may find that blacks, whites and Hispanic are all by their own choice, separated. I'm interested into hearing why you think this is, I for one believe this supports my tribal prejudice argument. It's true that in modern society people are better educated and understand the intentions of other races, which are mostly good. This does not mean we should ignore crime based statistics that show some races are more likely to murder and steal than others.
Racism is Natural

It is impossible for racism to be natural, for there was already a separation of races in the world. 1. Europeans, (Mainly Whites) had no idea there were more humans in the world, so it is impossible for them to be racist, unless it was towards their own group. 2. Before the discovery of color, people did use slaves, however, that is the way people were grouped (nobles, peasants, etc.) but that is not racism, because there was not a certain prejudice against one group. It's not to say that there was never a homophobia against blacks, because there was, but it must have been for a reason. Most decent people don't just walk up to a colored or white person and say, oh you're white, so I hate you.
belief is theism

"i am an eye that can see all, a pyramid capstone reflection with an eye flying at the top of a pyramid" I have no clue how to respond to this claim. Confirmed for illuminati? "i can believe in a hammer, i can believe whatever i imagine, i can believe that i know what other people think, i can make up stories about others, and when i am with them experience that those stories are true, even the stories i never told anyone about" Yes, and this has been my point from the start. You can believe in whatever you imagine, which is virtually anything. Theism is a restricted specifically to god(s) by the definition of the term, so the two terms are different. Thank you for a rather interesting debate. My argument, stands uncontested and the Pro has submitted no arguments that were not nonsensical or easily shown to be fallacious or self-contradictory. If, as a reader, you have come this far, I applaud you for your patience and request you take the additional time to vote.
belief is theism

the i dont know position, is a position i know.its like saying i see that i dont see a dog right now, but how would i see that i dont see a dog if i didnt see in the first place.. false=imagination know=physical experience=true belief=imaginary belief=Be lie, as i have to imagine it=be lie, as i dont know is true true is the opposite of truth and false, matter is true, false and truth is information, matter is now i was making an example of belief since that is what we are talking about.. to me you are light on my screen and a story in my mind belief is of the mind, believing in an inanimate object is imagining it, its not something, know is something, know is true belief=Nothing=information=0=seperation=religion=god=santa=false and truth=knowledge=not know, not matter, not physical you gotta be good this year if you want santa to come with presents creating existence in your mind from nothing, i am not unaware that i am god creating worlds i am an eye that can see all, a pyramid capstone reflection with an eye flying at the top of a pyramid only know is true, and i dont know god only when i know is it true, and then its not something you predict, i cant say i predict i am reading these words, the prediction in itself is not true, future is false, now is true theism=i accept imagination agnostic=I accept reality imaginaiton is the opposite of reality god is information, you can believe that i am wearing a hat, believe that i am not wearing a hat, or accept you dont know i can believe in a hammer, i can believe whatever i imagine, i can believe that i know what other people think, i can make up stories about others, and when i am with them experience that those stories are true, even the stories i never told anyone about
belief is theism

beLief=Nothing kNow=something matter is true, information is false and truth belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, only know is true know=true, not truth, not knowledge truth can only be in the past, now is true math is absolute, but if i imagine the sphere it dosnt make a sphere true, its just imaginary believing me, is me being your god, creating your world, as i didnt wear a hat, which is to say the reality you thought you knew is really just a unicorn i made to enslave you to my will... :) but, really, i was wearing a hat, and i just enslaved you to my will by you believeing that i wasnt lying about not wearing a hat, so i am your god in either case unless you accept you dont know imagination is false, there is no life, in my imagination, there are not things, in my imagination know is a position i know, how do you know you dont know a dog unless you know you dont know a dog.. no contradiction, i am sure that i know, therfore i am sure that i dont know if i dont know all beliefs are based on the i dont know position, belief is unknown. beyond what i know is what i dont know, and if i know it, why imagine and believe it accepting that i dont know, is accepting that it is untrue, therfore belief is negated, to go beyond what i dont know is belief, is to not accept that i dont know agnostic=non belief=not disbelief and belief=not atheism and theism=i accept reality not imagination yees, you got it, theists are atheists and atheists are theists. a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism atheism is theism to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion which is the yes position, so an atheist says no there are no dragon! and theists says yes, but the theist dosnt see this in reality, and the atheist imagines a dragon and says, they are not there, even thou there is imaginary.. belief in mustard=belief in god belief there is a nut inside the nutshell in my hand, is belief in god belief is doubt, an atheist, believe god is false, this DOUBTS, god is false, therfore believes god is true, how else would you doubt that propositon?
belief is theism

belief=imaginary=false know=physical experience=True(now) knowledge=Memory=truth belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it am i wearing a hat as i type this? you have to imagine it if you believe i am, you are a theist and i am your god, i could also claim its a fact yes, know is no other possibility, absolute, belief is possibility, and possibility has a positive and negative side, can go either way reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown imagination is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now here now is the limited size of my physical existence i dont know=i know, as i dont know is a position i know, and know is real everyone is agnostic by default on the god claim, unless they know a god is true or false, but then its not religion becasue no one knows god, the agnostic position becomes specifik, i accept i dont know (on a higher level, only know is true, and i dont know god) if you believe, then you dont accept you dont know theist=belief atheist=belief to the contrary agnostic=non belief know=physical experience i dont have to imagine gravity belief=belief in god=theism i am saying, atheism is theism in itself. look, belief is doubt, so believing god is false is doubting god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true