BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What number system would be the best replacement for base 10.

First I should mention I entered the wrong number in the previous round for 2^32 -1 in octal, it should be 37,777,777 instead of 39,999,999,999 since there are no 9"s in octal. "Using dozenal means we don't get horrible repeating decimals like 0.333... in the base 10 system. And because we naturally count in twelves too e.g. 12 inches to a foot, it would an easy system to apply in everyday life." You still get repeating decimals in dozenal. For example, for example 1/5 = 0.249724972497" "Memorizing the times table is easy in dozinal as there are so many patterns" The times table for base 8 is easier to memorize than for base 12 because base 8 has fewer digits. Base 8 and base 12 have 64 (8^2) and 144 (12^2) multiplications to memorize respectively. But if you exclude times 0 and times 1 since they are always equal to zero and itself respectively, you then get 36 ((8-2)^2) multiplications to memorize for base 8 and 100 ((12-2)^2) for base 12. So base 8 has only 36% as much multiplications to memorize for the multiplication table as for base 12. In addition, since there are fewer digits to multiply with each other in base 8, each individual single digit multiplication one does happens more frequently, since there are only 36 combinations excluding 1"s and 0"s. When a person is exposed to a question more frequently, it makes it easier for them to memorize it. "Most people are not computer programmers, so there is no need for everyone to count in octal. However it would be beneficial for everyone to learn to count in dozenal from a young age rather than our current counting system because the way time is divided, and the nature of our hands." Although it is true most people are not programmers, programmers use math much more than the average person, and that should be taken into consideration when weighing the advantages for programmers to advantages to everyone else. So it could be worth it for everyone to switch to base 8 even if hypothetically it is marginally worse for the average person but significantly better for the programmers who use math more frequently.
What number system would be the best replacement for base 10.

Base 10 (what we use today) has 10 symbols = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Base 12 has 12 symbols = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B (note: any symbol could be used to represent the two extra digits) Counting and performing calculations would be easy. You may think children may find it hard to count in 12's because they don't have 12 fingers but each finger has 3 segments, meaning they can count twelve on each hand which is very useful if they are trying to do any maths involving time as there are 24 hours on a clock face. The big advantage of using the dozinal system is when doing fractions because the number twelve has 6 factors which are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12, which is why clocks look the way they do. A sixth in dozinal = 2/10 = 0.2A qurater in dozinal = 3/10 = 0.3A third in dozinal = 4/10 = 0.4A half in dozinal = 6/10 = 0.6Using dozinal means we don't get horrible repeating decimals like 0.333... in the base 10 system. And because we naturally count in twelves too e.g. 12 inches to a foot, it would an easy system to apply in everyday life.The number 12 is a great number to divide by, before British currency was decimalised we had shillings which would be worth 12 pennies, "the penny was further sub-divided into two half pennies or four farthings (quarter pennies)" [1]Memorizing the times table is easy in dozinal as there are so many patterns, the video below also shows how easy it is to count too: Most people are not computer programmers, so there is no need for everyone to count in octal. However it would be beneficial for everyone to learn to count in dozinal from a young age rather than our current counting system because the way time is divided, and the nature of our hands. sources: [1] http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk...
What number system would be the best replacement for base 10.

I will be arguing for octal (base 8). In round 1, my opponent will state what number system he thinks would be the best replacement for base 10, excluding base 8 or base 10. No arguments in round 1. Pro will argue base 8 is the better replacement for base 10 to be used by people. Con will argue whatever he/she posted in round 1 is the better replacement for base 10 to be used by people. Burden of proof is shared. Additional rules: 1. no kritiks 2. no semantics 3. sources cited must be freely accessible 4. no new arguments in the last round. Rebuttals are fine.
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

I just want to say right off the bat, I am agnostic, so my view is I don't know. I don't know for sure that there is or isn't a god. I don't believe anyone actually knows. I'm just interested to see your point of view and hear your argument. It needs to be something besides "Well the Bible says god exists so it must be true." I will respect your opinion and your religion, I just want an actual valid argument. I do not believe in the existence of a god because it is a scientific PROVEN FACT that the earth was created from the Big Bang millions of years ago. It is also a PROVEN FACT that humans did in fact evolve from apes. We were not created by a person in the sky snapping his fingers. We can from years upon years of apes changing into the form we are in today. This is actually a proven fact. Anyone who has anything to say against that is wrong because it has been proven. Here is an article for you to read. It explains it all: http://humanorigins.si.edu... Even the pope has said that "god" is not a magician with a magic wand. He has said that evolution and the Big Bang did exist. What is your argument to say a god exists?
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

I suggest that if you want to know God yourself you consider few things. First, God is as he is if he is at all, and so do not ask God for something that which he has not already given, he was right to not give it in the first place. Acknowledge int his way, that God was/is/would have been right in all his actions and decisions, so do not rebuke them, but seek the wisdom in them, and assuredly if you acknowledge his decisions were wise you will come across his reasoning. In this, you would be acknowledging the First Commandment, Love thy God, and through honestly loving him and seeking an understanding of Him you would surely understand all of his motives, for you would stop accusing him, and address the problems he had to address himself. Second, and this should be easy, because it is fulfilled in the first act, seek an understanding of what is good about all God's laws (instead of actions this time) that you did not see wisdom in prior. Then since this is the same thing, try to think of the wisdom in comparing modern scientific evidence to the Model of Creation depicted on the firsts page of the Bible, and continue my illustration past the second day where I had ended my elaboration of it. All this taken into consideration, no other animal on the planet has developed any intellectual capacity equal to man, despite having the same amount of generations to "evolve". Even when man has given assistance and tried to fundamentally forward it . Indicating Creation is logical. Justly, because men raised without morals find none, and become evil corrupt people. It can be logically concluded morals are not a development of man, but are factual laws given by a higher being. These are just arguments to forward your acceptance of God if you acknowledge them. I only sound arrogant and rude in the same way, A Man can sound angry at another individual who is yelling at him, while all the while, should that individual turn and acknowledge what the Man says would agree
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

How have you "met" god? In your prayers? Has he spoken to you in your mind? Do you just "feel" his presence? If that is your answer, you have not actually met god. No one has. It is a fictional figure people create to make themselves feel better about certain situations or to give them hope. "God" is not an actual person. it was just something created to give people hope and guidance. Explain how you have "met" god. No one actually has so you can't.
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

sjrrj, I did not say electrons cannot be removed from atoms. But atoms cannot be studied without the presence of electrons regardless. In addition, removing the electrons from an atom is so temporary it is redundant tot eh article. An atom can still not be studied without electrons. And in addition, ionization does not remove all electrons from the atom, which is the condition I requested you envision. if I were to continue, The Light however was just created from this world for the very first time, as Greek mythology suggests the Earth is the Mother and the Father being the Sky, are the parents of the Sun, which is a model of this Biblical event. When electricity ignited for the first time here on the Planet Earth. Electricity always clings to things, so when it was ignited, it would not shoot out into open space. It would first cling to the least dense particles of the earths ocean of atoms. Molecularizing all the substance that constitutes water because the path of least resistance is to first go through the least dense matter. Sky and Liquid water are the same compound. So the second day of creation is thus scientifically accurate. So, as we can see, this map is logical scientifically, before we even put faith in it. The origin of energy, and the molecular state of sky+water being the same. One can be assured God is real simply by taking a scientific interest in Creation. But I have met God, sjrrj. And so I encourage you to think what happens with the energy next now that the outer layers of the earth ( the waters) have been molecularized for the very first time by this ignition of energy which was formed from the Earths atomic mass. and assuredly from there you will continue to follow this model of Creation and continually bear witness to it's scientific accuracy, until the question becomes whether or not Evolution and Creation can co-exist. Truly sjrrj, You aught to acknowledge that in Greek mythology only Chaos took part int he creation of the world
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

Troll much? I don't care I'm still going to respond. You say electrons can not be removed from an atom. You are wrong. Yes they can be removed. Let me explain. Ionization energy is the minimum amount of energy required to remove an electron from an atom. Electron shielding descries how many electrons are between the nucleus of an atom and the valence electrons, or the electrons farthest from the nucleus. The more electrons shielding the nucleus, the less hold the nucleus has on the valence electrons. As the hold weakens, the valence electrons can be grabbed by other atoms. Evolution was a proven fact. I have read those studies, I have read articles. Maybe that doesn't mean much to you but I have done research into the subject. There is so much science to back it up, its just funny when people deny it. And maybe there is a god. I don't know for a fact. Neither do you though. Have you ever met him/her? Have you ever met god? As far as you know, the only person to "meet" god, in a way, was Jesus or Moses or whoever. You have not met god. No one actually has hard, physical proof that a god exists.
Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

sjrrj, you claim that evolution is fact because a link says so. Yet have you seen the studies? Have you seen the methods or met the people who makes these claims? Your defense of evolution is comparable to simply stating that the Bible is a fact because it simply is so. But let me say then, that perhaps I have never heard the theories and arguments of evolution, and instead, I am a Druid, a Sage a Priest and a Paladin of God, and let me convert you from there instead of where we are now, observing the articles of evolutionists. If one was studying atoms. They cannot remove the electrons. They are always there. So, we can not say what an Atom would do without an electron. We can only guess. But we can also assume, that an atom would do one thing all atoms do no matter how many electrons they have: The atoms would cling to one another. So, if there was no Light ( light = energy = energy is movement of matter = time {time} ) and atoms where floating around in space slowly collecting, the least dense particles would be accumulating on the outside of the mass, and the densest would gather to the center. and this is how God starts the first page of the bible. An ocean of least dense atoms, which are all the components of liquid water envelop a foundation of atoms which are not of a watery substance. Then, at this time, the entire Cosmos, for God is alive in all Things, was focused on the Earth, because it was the perfect place to begin creation, and this world of Atoms which had accumulated Ignited the first spark ~ Now see. The Bible is not what says God is real. Abraham reserved this page of the Bible all on his own. No other man was given credit for this information. He, who came from the East, left a region close to India where all the oldest runes of the world can be found. and if one were to study Sanskrit it says through Krishna Hinduism is a monotheist religion. I will continue in my next argument. as I have run out of space.
Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps

Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.
Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps

Mobile Technology creates advantages in various situations in every day life. Those areas education, communication, employment, and leisure-time fun. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) hase expanded the capacity of social gatherings, personal connections (over long distances), and educational activities.. It has also largely increased self-education access, and decreased information illiteracy. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a positive way.
Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps

Mobile Technology creates problems in various situations in every day life. Those areas concern mental health, cancer, distractions, addiction, stress, cyber bullying, and social disorders. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) has defeated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections (face-to-face), and physical activity. It has also largely decreased self-esteem levels, increased mental health issues and stress levels. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a negative way.
Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps

I would like to see a source for the statistics provided, however. My opponent tries to argue in the first round that "[Mobile tech] has defeaated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections. .. and physical activity. " I am not sure what gives PRO justification for stating this. What purpose is this? How has mobile tech defeated? PRO makes claims, but does not support them. My experience has been that cell phones actually make having social gatherings and face to face meetings easier. Person A can call persons B, C, and D, and invite them all over for a movie, for example. If persons B, C, and D are a long distance from person A, say 45 minutes, then getting the necessary arrangements in place will be troublesome, as A would have to drive to discuss these things with each person. A can simply call or text each person, and they can plan ahead. This stretches in to various industries, the most obvious being business. Business professionals will not always be in their office when they are called. As such, the use of a cell phone allows people to get in touch with them. Or, even simpler, there is the fact that cell phones can be used for such simple tasks as keeping a planner. Granted, those people who are forgetful may lose their phone, or forget to check their planner, but this does not negate the usefulness of the feature. It simply shows that the person involved is not using their mobile device in the most productive way possible, as the business person will be wont to do. The above falls into the section of my opening statement where i mention the capacity for social gatherings and long distance personal connections. I then mention educational activities. Tablets and laptops are the best example of mobile tech being used for educational purposes. Some people, not all mind you, buy ebooks and read from a tablet. Other people go on the web regularly and engage in intellectual conversation. Still other people do independent research. The list is almost inexhaustible. I will concede the point that mobile tech can lead to negative things, however, the positives tend to outweigh the negatives. I believe, and I hope PRO corrects me if i am wrong, that many of the problems created by mobile tech (related to lower self-esteem, and cyberbullying) can be easily avoided by refraining from the use of particular websites. Some people are mean, and do mean things to others, however, there is no reason to believe this is a failing of mobile tech. Rather, it is related to the individuals who do these things.
The U.S. public should not be able to obtain firearms

by public i mean citizens of the U.S. excluding law enforcement and military. 1. If the public did not have firearms then pepper spray or a close quarters weapon would do fine as self protection. 2. If the public did not have firearms, public shootings that kill innocent people and greatly affect many others would not be possible. 3. Many countries such as South Korea already do not allow their public to have firearms. Therefor the public relies on close quarter weapons and martial arts to protect themselves. 4. Gang wars would not be nearly as life costly. 5. If the public did not have firearms the assassination of the President would be impossible.
The U.S. public should not be able to obtain firearms

Citizens of the U.S. can now relatively easily obtain firearms for whatever purpose they wish. Whether for hunting, self protection, sport or whatever reason I think we can all give up our guns to get rid of the negative affects that guns have on our society. 1. If the public did not have firearms then pepper spray or a close quarters weapon would do fine as self protection. 2. If the public did not have firearms, public shootings that kill innocent people and greatly affect many others would not be possible. 3. Many countries such as South Korea already do not allow their public to have firearms. Therefor the public relies on close quarter weapons and martial arts to protect themselves. 4. Gang wars would not be nearly as life costly. 5. If the public did not have firearms the assassination of the President would be impossible.
The Funny Debate Pt 1

Life is shortLife is shortLife is shortLife is shortPoetry in 12 words.Public Service Announcements are the definition of unwanted information.When Chewbacca cries, we aren't sure if we heard a goat.Redeademption is the process of dying red with no exemptions. Also the name of a videogame abbreviated.Tonight, I don't want a Gourd, but I do want a Falcon. (where are Jimmy and James when you need them?)Did I forget to explain the rules? Oh right, run - FrenchFighting is something that everyone does, but the US does with groups.My username reflects my jokes.China - Donald TrumpWhen Mao Zedong died, who knows what happened. When Stalin died, Trump remembered. When Hitler died, everyone cheered. Now we know who was really popular. And it wasn't Trump.Tonight, I have a place to go thanks to prepositions.French are ovverated and cannot bench. They also cannot quench their fear. Or keep away a stench. Or..... dig a trench.
The Funny Debate Pt 1

Q: How many Frenchmen died in World War II???? A: Not Enough. Q: Why do we need France on our side against Sadaam and Osama? A: So the French can show them how to surrender. Q: What do you call a Frenchman advancing on Baghdad? A: A salesman Q: What"s the shortest book ever written? A: French War Heroes. Q: What is the first thing the French Army teaches at basic training? A: How to surrender in at least 10 languages. Q: What is the most useful thing in the French Army? A: A rearview mirror, so they can see the war. Q: Why does Nike like the French Army? A: Because, in war time, they are the biggest buyers of running shoes. Q: Why do the French call their fighter the *Mirage*? A: Because it doesn"t really exist. Q: Why do the French have glass bottom boats in their Navy? A: To see all their other ships. Q: How did the French react to German reunification? A: They put up speed bumps at the borders to slow down the Panzers. Q: What do you call a man who only needs body armor on his back? A: Jacques Chirac Q: Why is good to be French? A: You can surrender at the beginning of the war, and US will win it for you. Q: How many Frenchman does it take to guard Paris? A: Nobody knows, its never been tried before
The Funny Debate Pt 1

Random life observationsWent Humpty Dumpty goes to Heaven, he is going to be a fallen angel. Emperor Palpatine is always scared of the dark side, and palpitates at the thought of his own shadow.Lame jokes are not able to walk anywhere.Raises are the worst way to start ones day, because who wants to go high in the sky?Castles are the inverse of caves.Markiplier and Jacksepticeye do not want ply their eyes out unfortunately.Thieves are the worst sleepers.Hope is Luke, and Anakin is Hope, so Luke and Anakin are the same person. (confusing eh?)Marshmallows do not grow in marshes.James Carpenter, is such a wooden name.To be or not to be, is a morbid question.Paradise is going to be a large game of Yahtzee.Why do we debate? To catch de-fish!*random spurts of applause. What am I doing with life?