BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is infinity A Number (listable infinity)

FIrst of all we must realise I am talking about all numbers here, not just real number, and citrantly not just natural numbers. There is really only 1 parameter for something to be considered a number and that is it must have a definite unchanging value. A listable infinity Definitely meets these parameters. while its value might be hard to define, it is definitely absolute. If you look at some other non real numbers which are still numbers like imaginary numbers. there value is also impossible to define it is unknown is 1i is greater than or less than 2i and weather or not 1i = -1i since both 1i^2 and -1i^2 = -1. Or infinitesimal numbers, the most popular of which famously known as the smallest number which is not zero. these are a type of surreal number because you know where they fit on the number line. except they aren't there. Right after zero but before anything els. Unfortunately no such spot accually exists so its not a real number. Both of these have a set and defined value, it is just either unkown or unreachable. in the same way a listable infinity is a number.
The United States should close its borders

I am for the United States not closing the borders, because I believe that everyone should have an equal chance to get the freedom America has to offer. America was founded on the phrase(All men are created equal), and we should also implement this logic on the people that want to come into America. The people on the against me would usually bring up the illegal immigrant topic to attack my side, but I will also be going into comprehensive immigration reform in round 2.
The United States should close its borders

My opponent has presented points that would be considered invalid. She did not have a source. She says that Immigrants have no benefits to offer. I provided sources on my statement declaring the idea that companies liked immigrants better. She had no sources which means that her statement is invalid. She also claims that immigrants working harder than Americans isn't a valid argument. If immigrants are working harder than the average American, than they can benefit America. They have the strive to get to a manageable income. We should value that, because they are one of the only Americans that value the American dream. Vote for Con, because Con was not basing his judgments on opinions. Con had more logic, and evidence in his case.
The United States should close its borders

No Mexican who comes over the border is "poor". They all know that it's illegal, but they come over here anyway. Many of them have been sent away, but they're still so stubborn that they keep on trying to get to the United States. It certainly isn't the United States' fault if the people in Mexico aren't happy there. Immigrants have no benefits to offer. And they all certainly aren't hard working. Some of them are and some of them aren't, just like Americans. Saying that immigrants work harder than the average American is not even a valid argument. Immigrants don't benefit America at all, especially illegal immigrants!
The United States should close its borders

Too many people are taking advantage! That is ridiculous. Poor Mexicans come to America searching for freedom. They hop over the fences, because they think that it is the easy way in America. They don't know that they are breaking the law, because there is no comprehensive immigration reform. It takes 8 years for a Mexican to become an American If you read the immigration reform bill, you would see that it wants 34,00 patrol officers on the look out for Mexicans. A Mexican wanting to come to America will be welcomed in, and have to visit an office to get there citizenship test filled out. Now if we are able to pass immigration reform, and have more illegal immigrants become legal. Than that will reduce the millions of dollars we are spending. Now we can take the time on focusing on the benefits immigrants have to offer. Immigrants are hardworking people it seems like. Companies love immigrants because they work harder than the average American. They have a drive to catch the American dream. They have the drive that Henry Ford had when he created cheap cars for people. Immigrants can benefit America in a positive way. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... http://cjonline.com...
The United States should close its borders

Too many people are taking advantage of the borders being open. Do you know how many illegal immigrants are in the a United States? There are millions when there should be none. Do you think that it's fair for people to just come into our country and live here illegally? And on top of that, get free health care insurance, food stamps, etc? Our country is already paying for millions of poor people; it certainly doesn't need to pay for illegals, too!
Clan Jangle presents: Paragraph partners

The idea of this debate: I will begin by writing a paragraph and u must add your own, we will repeat. The winner will be decided by whoever adds the most interesting input. ___________________________________________________________________________________ I arose from my death like slumber, my downs begun hurting particular severely, as last night was an alcohol induced mess. My memory is vague at the best of times, but now I only remember the taste of sick in my mouth. Feeling such uncertainty with what had transpired last night, I decide to ring Jerry my buddy. Jerry answered his phone in an incapable manner. “wa u wan man? ” “Ggggeeeri dwhhaaa hapenn lest nighhh eh? ” I said in a very socially inept fashion. For you see, my downs was crippling my brain, I felt my words slur and my eyes roll back, I was beginning to go FULL RETARD MODE. Jerry, realizing this quickly hung up on me. Terms and conditions. Those willing to accept this debate do so understanding their soul, life or family members might come under harm. When permitted by law, Clan Jangle™ will not be responsible for loss of life, souls or family members, indirect, consequential or intentional bodily harm as a result of this debate. The acceptance of this debate is a declaration of acknowledgment concerning these terms.
Clan Jangle presents: Paragraph partners

I opened my window. As I was perched upon my window sill, I gazed at the innocent childs walking before me. In a single-file line, they marched away to school. I licked my lips in hunger and thirst. My throat felt parched and sore. As they approached my house, I was ready to pounce. I reared up and jumped on the window, immediately shattering it. I was free. Cuts and scrapes were all over my body, however, I could not feel any pain in my current state. I ate all of the children, their screams silenced and their corpses littering the street. I looked around, thinking of what to do next. I wanted more. I remembered Jerry and began to run towards Jerry's house. As I passed people, I chanted "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry..." so that I would not forget, however, this made people give me odd glances, so I ate their fingers and eyes.
Clan Jangle presents: Paragraph partners

My head began pounding, my heart was racing, I knew what was about to happen, my transformation was beginning. “GGGRUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHRRRRRR! !! !! !! !” I began to scream, my lips curled back, my eyes grew wide and I shat myself. I felt a hunger deep inside my stomach, it was thirst that needed to be quelled by bloodshed. Like a savage troll I began to kick at my chained bedroom door, for you see, my mother knew I was dangerous and had taken precautions to keep my ferocity caged in, but it was futile on her behalf. I was too strong and easily obliterated my bedroom door; I rampaged through the house and attacked my mum, eating her arm while she was screaming help. After I had gouged upon her flesh, she began her transformation into a rabid retard. I licked my lips and through the front window I watched all the children blissfully skipping to school, my hunger was not yet quelled. Terms and conditions. Those willing to accept this debate do so understanding their soul, life or family members might come under harm. When permitted by law, Clan Jangle™ will not be responsible for loss of life, souls or family members, indirect, consequential or intentional bodily harm as a result of this debate. The acceptance of this debate is a declaration of acknowledgment concerning these terms.
Clan Jangle presents: Paragraph partners

Jerry's POV: I quickly became aware of my friend's full transition. I hung up, fearing for my life. I was unable to gather myself fully. I ran to the conveniently placed elevator in the center of my kitchen. I jumped inside, and mashed the 'Close door' button. I had to get to the bunker. I knew this would happen eventually, I could tell from his over-sized toes that he was on the edge of full-downs. I knew I had clothes, two years worth supply of food, a bed, and a sink in my bunker. I would have to mash my poo down with my fingers into the sink drain. That was the least of my worries now. The whole of humanity was about to be destroyed. As I watched the elevator doors close the surface world out for the last time, I whispered. "Downs is coming."
If smoking was illegal whould it save more lifes

I would like to begin with a few simple arguments that would clearly show that prohibiting smoking would save lives. 1) The amount of people who die every year from second hand smoking (just in the USA) is an astonishing number of approximately 50,000 (as cited from the ANR).Which I think we can all agree would be greatly eliminated if smoking were to be illegal as to the amount of public smoking would go down significantly. 2) Another point would be, if every time you wanted to smoke you would have to go hide ,or get arrested/fined I think the amount of cigarettes you would be smoking a day would also be likely to get cut down significantly.Less cigarettes means lowering the chances of death. 3) Also, I definitely think there is a number of people young and old, maybe not a whole lot but there are those who wouldn't go to you're local cigarette dealer and buy cigarettes just because it's illegal.Whether it's because they're afraid of getting arrested / fined ,or ethically speaking they wouldn't want to break the law but either way it does cut down smoking and in which case would save lives.
Communism

=== Thinking about this, most animals work under a Communistic State. For example: Ants live in large colonies ruled by one person, the queen. Lets say the queen is the government of the colony. The other ants are born with a certain job, and they will do this job and others throughout their lives and nothing changes. And the queen is the only power in the colony, like in a Communist nation where there is only one political party, normally the Communist of of [Nation Name]. And the ant colony works great and is slowly or quickly expands. === If you read the next paragraph of my argument, you'll know my answer to this: Termites aren't humans. Communism works for ants and the like because Communism demands total submission to the collective, which, as unintelligent, and unaspiring beings, the bugs can give. Total submission requires ignorance, stupidity, and a lack of knowledge. Ants and Termites collectively display this. Humans do not. Although YOU may wish to submit to authority (I'd guess you'd rather be in power, however) and be part of a grossly controlling government (like the queen ant), it is safe to say the general population of humans would not. === Karl Marx's works where edited over time. For example, Vladimir Lenin edited Marx's work it benefit the revolution at the time. But, Marx did say that for a revolution to occur it needs a few things: 1. A modern nation. 2. A nation where the Capitalists are oppressing the working class. === If my opponent holds these to be true, that is to say, that when these happen, there will be a communist revolution, then he is arguing against himself. Either there is not a nation where the workers are oppressed, and capitalism isn't the evil of all evils, or that there is a nation where workers are oppressed, but there hasn't been a popular revolution -- which would mean Marx is wrong. Yes, there are communist nations. However, I think my opponent would agree that Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. aren't true communists. If they are, that shows how useless communism is: the populations of those countries are destitute and poor, and have very few civil liberties. === I can not even tell you how many times I've seen this. If you wanted to improve these, you'd need more people. And, if there is only 100 people in your village, why would they need a car? It would be such a small community, it would be unneeded. 100 people is a small community, they would need a lot more people to meet your needs. Unless you have technology, but where would you get that? === I cannot help but feel my opponent is avoiding the argument. 100 people is simply a basic number I chose. Let's replace it with one million. You'd have one million able-bodied workers, but you'd have to supply a vast amount of basic goods Capitalism gives to a million people -- an impossibility, even with robots. Someone has to research nd make those Robots, which takes a massive amount of time and man hours. ____ I feel like my opponent did not accurately address all of my arguments in the second round, so extend them here. Thanks for reading, and thanks to Comrade_Ulyanov for debating!
Communism

Well, I will start with some quotes from your argument. "The desire to achieve, individuality, and greed/envy" I both agree, and disagree with you on this. All humans are naturally born with the desire to achieve, in some ways. But in modern times, Capitalism's leaders (Mostly Private Companies That Are Massive) control this. They can decide if one is to fail, or succeed. In Communism, all is equal in every way. No one needs to only have one career. One person can have the choice of which job to have. Although, one person can be a doctor in the morning, a company worker in the afternoon, a librarian in the evening, and a teacher at night. (Not in any order, only an example). This was true in most official Communist nations. Greed is not a natural ideal that most of us think it as. Off course, there is the aspect of wanting more food, for hunting, ect. Next, I am going to clear up some facts about the: RED TERROR Lenin ordered the Red Terror was in response to the White Terror. The stated purpose of this campaign was struggle with counter-revolutionaries considered to be enemies of the people. Many Russian communists openly proclaimed that Red Terror was needed for extermination of entire social groups or former "ruling classes". Lenin planned the terror in advance. In 1908 he had written of "real, nation-wide terror, which reinvigorates the country". The Red Terror was not at random. This was in the era of the Russian Civil War (1917-1922) between the Whites (The Ones Still Loyal To The Czar) And the Reds (The Bolsheviks). Leninism is the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a revolutionary vanguard party. Theoretically, Leninism comprises the political and socialist economic theories of Vladimir Lenin, developed from Marxism, and his interpretations of Marxist theory within the agrarian Russian Empire of that time. Leninism reversed Marx's order of economics over politics, allowing for a political revolution led by a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries. After the October Revolution, in 1917, Leninism was the ideological basis of Soviet socialism, specifically its Russian realisation in the Soviet Union. As a political-science term Leninism entered common usage in 1922, only after infirmity ended Lenin's participation in governing the USSR. Two years later, in July 1924, at the fifth congress of the Communist International, Grigory Zinoviev popularized Leninism as a Marxist ideological term denoting "revolutionary". After the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was established in 1922, its governing philosophy, Leninism, became the predominant branch of Marxism. In Russia, the theoretical descendants of Leninism are Stalinism and Trotskyism; at his death in 1924, Lenin's revolutionary comrades, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, were the leaders of the strongest ideological factions that emerged to assume command of the Communist Party in the USSR. Ideologically, the Stalinists and the Trotskyists (like their namesakes), deny the philosophic and political legitimacy of the other, because each claims to be the true Leninist theory.
Communism

Thanks for debating, Comrade_Ulyanov! If my opponent disagrees with any of these following definitions, then let me know in this round and provide definitions you see fit. I will post my argument next round if there aren't any large objections. In a few words, the chief reason communism cannot work is free will and human nature (although there are more reasons). The definitions relevant to this paper are listed below. All are taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . COMMUNISM: a broad term to describe the idea generally promoting collectively owned and distributed land and property; not necessarily socially totalitarian. Fiscally far-left. FREE WILL: the tendency of the human species to be largely independent; a free choice or decision. HUMAN NATURE: the nature of humans; especially: the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans "Some say it is of human nature to sin." I believe human nature consists of three main principles: The desire to achieve, individuality, and greed/envy. We see this from toddlers , especially the latter two, to adults.
Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

Capitalism - http://en.wikipedia.org... Corporate executive - http://en.wikipedia.org... Deserve - to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Salaries - http://en.wikipedia.org... Paid (to pay) - to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) My first contention: Corporate executives work, and the stockholders pay them for their work, and people deserve compensation for their work. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
That the world can not be sustailned

You can't pick up an article or turn on the news without running across the word "sustainability." So, I got to thinking about what sustainability means on an individual level—not from a purely ecological perspective, but from a humanistic one. Ecologically, sustainability is about biological systems remaining diverse and productive over time. For human beings, it is about the potential for long-term maintenance of our own well-being. Although I know that without a planet, our own well-being as humans is a moot point, I still think there's value to considering how to promote our sustainability as individuals. When you think of your own sustainability, you bump into psychologist Abraham Maslow, who gave us the hierarchy of needs. As you may remember, in Maslow's hierarchy, once physiological safety, love and belonging, and esteem are satisfied, then the top of the pyramid is self-actualization. From a human perspective, this is very much like sustainability. Self-actualization includes growth, self-awareness, and understanding who we are. It's the ability to continue to strive and reach for that which gives us the greatest joy. Let's look at this through a project management lens and see how self-actualization can make a team or organization more sustainable. Self-actualized people—and by extension the teams and organizations they are a part of—are: Realistic. These are the people on the team who are confident, self-assured, and have a clear perception of reality. Accepting. They accept themselves and others and are not seeking to lay blame. Problem solvers. Because they can accept themselves for who they are,they can focus on problems beyond themselves. Autonomous. They are self-starters who can get the job done and bounce back from adversity. In the present. These are the people who know how to appreciate all that is good in life, see the blue sky on a rainy day, and truly live in the moment. Capable of peak performance. Because they can see the possibilities, they can achieve the highest levels of performance at whatever they pursue.
That the world can not be sustailned

I misread the original post so argued on your side on my opener so I apologize, I will try and redeem myself. Firstly energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed. This entails us to believe that we cannot actually 'generate' more energy or matter, just convert between the two, just like stars do. A star fuses elements together to make heavier elements and then eventually you end up with just the top level elements, the stars don't have enough energy to complete the end stage actions, they run out, it becomes inefficient and they die. Humans don't have the efficiency of stars in energy production by a long shot and it is very hard to exceed this, we still reply on non-renewable fossil fuels for our energy production supplemented by splatterings of wind and solar. Humanity will not fall down scientifically but politically, our political system itself caters to the selfish interests of the elite and they gain further control over it as time goes on, we see that wealth gravitates upwards into the hands of the elite as society 'advances' and wealth gaps become more stark (as they did after the industrial revolution and after ww2). We can say that we 'must' redistribute out resources and serve the survival of our species and our shared prosperity but the system we use puts those with that decision in the position where it least benefits them. You state need for 'good access to services' yet offer no solution, you also want to keep it at a county level, one county doesn't produce all of its goods and services in check with its supply at its best efficacy, globalization does this but then it is easier for the elite to manipulate people. Soon the discontent sown either by the global manipulation and utilization of the masses will cause mass discontent (the Arab Spring) or your own suggestion of local production will cause mass inefficiency that can only lead to economic down turn. A sustainable development could be done but only by sacrificing basic human desires like aspiration for profit, the vast majority will not forsake their own well being for the sake of the rest of the world. The developing world is continually taken advantage of by the majority of the developed one, we can offer as many counters to this as we like but if we inhibit the individuals freedom then discontent will lead to societal collapse. My point here is that to conserve our resources we need conformity to ensure this, at the moment little is done because those with the power to doesn't have it in their best interests and human nature is intrinsically selfish. If we even tried to as a powerful collective force people into a planned economy to serve this goal it would only lead to mass discontent and societal collapse.