BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals Are Conscious Beings

I must challenge the comment you made in the "History and Debate of Animal Rights" discussion. One of your comments read, "I am for animal testing because people are people and they are conscious being and animals aren't and therefore I don't really care about animals that aren't human beings." I have to disagree with your stance. All mammals contain a central nervous system, allowing them to feel pain, for their neurological receptors will send synapses to their brain just as the Homo sapian nervous system does. The definition of the term, "conscious" is ambiguous, perhaps yours is different than mine. In my mind, a conscious being is one that feels. Feeling pain, obviously, but also emotion. For example, mother pigs, when their young is taken away from them, will scream and cry out, an indication of their dismay. Though this next example is, perhaps, less concrete, I will try to the best of my ability to relay my thoughts. The videos depicting animals in the process of being tested on will often show their face. One of the most valuable body parts used for seeing an individual's emotional state is one's eyes. The eyes of an experimentation animal are both crying for help in a frantic and desperate kind of way, but also displaying the animal's lack of hope and unhappiness. These examples are indications that animals are, in fact, conscious, so that characteristic should not be a defining factor in man's reasoning to test on them.
Zero point nine repeating is equal to one

Now onto my final rebuttals. To clarify the sources I cited in round 2 (1,2) had to do with infinity and not with real numbers. I cited them to show the illogical nature of infinity. The citation (3) dealt with Schrödingers cat was to show that like in quantum mechanics when we deal with something abstract (like infinity in math) we can reach bizarre conclusions. My opponent has said the following in summary in their round 3 argument, P1: The difference between 1 and 0.9r is an infinitesimal. P2: There are no non-zero infinitesimals in the Real number system, thus the difference between 1 and 0.9r is 0. C1: 0.9r is equal to 1 This argument effectively concedes the debate again. Let me clarify how. If we accept P1. Then we know that the difference between 1 and 0.9r is infinite. This means it is not 0 which is what my opponent is asserting in this debate. So while my opponent is correct to say “There are no non-zero infinitesimals in the Real number system in P2” this does not mean we can make an infinite number (which was what P1 says) a real number to win a debate. Thus I have show both P1 and P2 to be blatantly false for the proposition of the debate. As such the conclusion that “0.9r is equal to 1”cannot hold. Additionally, my opponent has said this debate does not have to do with infinity. Unfortunately, it does have to do with infinity. A recurring number is number that repeats forever. (4) Forever is another term used for infinity. As such, a recurring number can be said to be repeating for infinity. This means my conclusions from round 2 hold. Using both my arguments and proving my opponents arguments faulty, I believe I have successfully shown that 0.9(r) is not equal to 1. Remember if 0.9(r) is equal to 1 then the following MUST hold 1 + 0.9(r) = 2. I now hand the debate over to the voters. (4) . http://www.mathsisfun.com...
Zero point nine repeating is equal to one

 Non-terminating decimals are real numbers My opponent claims that 0.9r is an infinite number, referencing two webpages on infinity and one webpage on Schrödinger’s cat. None of these webpages make any comment on non-terminating decimals nor support my opponent’s claim that 0.9r is unbounded or infinite, so I’m unsure why they were cited. My opponent’s source, Mathworld, does have a relevant page on repeating decimals; however it does not support my opponent’s claim that non-terminating decimals such as 0.9r are not real numbers. Mathworld states that “All rational numbers have either finite decimal expansions (e.g., 1/2 = 0.5) or repeating decimals (e.g., 1/11 = 0.0(9)r).” Mathworld further notes that“Numbers such as 0.5 are sometimes regarded as repeating decimals since 0.5 = 0.5(0)r = 0.4(9)r.” Non-terminating, repeating decimals are rational numbers. [3] The mathematics used to construct the real numbers by completing the rational numbers with the irrational numbers works because non-terminating decimals are real numbers. If non-terminating or infinite decimals weren’t real numbers as my opponent claims, then no irrational numbers could be real numbers since all irrational numbers are non-terminating, non-repeating decimals. This would be problematic, because then the real numbers would be incomplete. Hence, non-terminating decimals must be real numbers.  0.9r satisfies the least upper bound property The same mathematics used to construct the real numbers works because non-terminating decimals satisfy the least upper bound principle. What is the least upper bound of the set of all numbers less than one? Simple: it’s 0.9r or 1.0, both of which are two different decimal representations of the same number. “The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.” [4] My opponent has confused infinity with non-terminating decimals. Infinity does not have an upper bound, but it also is not a real number.  Summary of arguments My argument is simple:  P1: The difference between 1 and 0.9r is an infinitesimal. P2: There are no non-zero infinitesimals in the Real number system, thus the difference between 1 and 0.9r is 0. C1: 0.9r is equal to 1 My opponent has contested P1, arguing that 0.9r is not a real number because it is a non-terminating decimal; therefor the difference between 1 and 0.9r does not exist or is not a real number. This is false; non-terminating decimals are real numbers – my argument stands. My opponent must prove either that the value of the difference 1 - 0.9r is a real number greater than 0, or that the real numbers contain non-zero infinitesimals. Simply asserting that basic arithmetic operations are “clearly” illogical or “defy logic in itself” does not do this. The resolution is affirmed, vote Pro.  References [3] http://mathworld.wolfram.com...[4] http://books.google.com...
Zero point nine repeating is equal to one

Thanks to my opponent for inviting me to debate this topic. Essentially my opponent has conceded the debate with the following statement “ will argue that there are no non-zero infinitesimals in the real number system and therefor 1 - 0.9r must equal 0 which implies that 0.9r = 1.” If the real number system does not contain any infinite numbers then the resolution is not upheld. To elaborate, if 0.9r is not an infinite number then the number 0.9r cannot be used in any of the reasons my opponent has given in their opening round argument. My opponent rightly asserts that the real numbers must satisfy the least upper bound property, however 0.9r is an infinite number. To clarify and infinite number is defined as follows. Infinite number: Is a number that displays infinity. Infinity: is an unbound quantitiy that is greater than any real number.(1,2) So this means this number is unbound and hence not a real number. This means it does not have a “least upper bound”, and so my opponents arguments from round 2 are invalid. This means that 1-0.9r is not equal to 0. Now to give some more information about infinite numbers, I do this to make the debate easier to follow as the infinite concept leads to conclusions that sometimes define reality in the same way that conclusions from quanumn mechanics defy logic.(3) I think the easiest way to do this is to follow some basic mathematicalm formulas. If we consider addition, then the following holds. 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 0.9r = 1.9r, however if we assert that 1 = 0.9r then it holds that 1 + 0.9r = 2. This is clearly illogical! If we in the same way consider subtraction, then the following holds. 1 - 1 = 0 and 1 - 0.9r = ?, where ? Is some number that is infinite in nature which shows that infinite numbers defy logical thought. However if we assert that 1 = 0.9r then it holds that 1 - 0.9r = 0, which defys logic in itself. Lets now consider multiplication, then the following holds 1 X 1 = 1 and 1 X 0.9r = 0.9r however if we assert that 1 = 0.9r then it holds that 1 X 0.9r = 1. This is clearly illogical! If we in the same way consider division, then the following holds. 1 / 1 = 1 and 1 / 0.9r = ?, where ? Is some number that is infinite in nature which shows that infinite numbers defy logical thought. However if we asert that 1 = 0.9r then it holds that 1 / 0.9r = 1, which defys logic in itself. These examples clearly show that the infinite concept is something that falls outside the normal way of thinking. This is due to the inherrent property of an infinite number, and that is it is not a real number. In this round I have succesfully shown that an infinite number is not a real number, as such I do not need to show that “My opponent must prove either that the value of the difference 1 - 0.9r is a real number greater than 0, or that the real numbers contain non-zero infinitesimals.” as my opponent asserts. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) http://mathworld.wolfram.com... (2) http://nrich.maths.org... (3) http://www.newscientist.com...
Zero point nine repeating is equal to one

Resolution: Zero point nine repeating (0.9r) is equal to oneBurden of Proof: Burden of proof is on Pro. Pro must prove that 0.9r = 1 and Con must disprove Pro's arguments. Voting: This is a maths debate and the resolution is true or false; the "Select Winner" point system will be used on this debate. Additional notes: The real number system will be used in this debate.
Jesus Christ was a Historical Person

Rules: 1. Be civil2. Round 1 is acceptance for Con.3. Round 2 is Con's Argument and Pro's Argument (No rebuttals)4. Round 3 is Rebuttals from both sides5. Round 4 is Rebuttals6. Round 5 is conclusion Pro: Jesus Christ was a historical personCon: Jesus Christ was not a historical personAcceptable sources include:Original Sources (Canonical and Noncanonical works, historians, etc)Fairly reliable and unbiased sources (Not blogs or Wikipedia)Again, round one is acceptanceThe burden of proof is shared. This means that the person who provides the most evidence that would come to the rational conclusion of their side wins. There does not need to be absolute proof for either side for them to win.
this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

To qoute Jesus Christ "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."You can go with the pervert-loving Colbert and enjoy the pleasures of sin all the way to the fire of Hell if you really think he's all that funny. I hope you repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ask God in Jesus' name to save you and receive Jesus Chrsit through faith as your Saviour so you can be saved and know it now. I'll follow Jesus into eternal life and give thanks at the remembrance of God's holiness and always agree with God that my sin is evil and I deserve to die and I'll forever praise Him and thank Him for giving me eternal life.Binding Contract:I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.Sign here ____________________________________to enter into agreement with God and receive His guarantee of pardon and eternal life in Jesus Christ.If you signed this agreement and received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, gettting baptized is the next step showing you are now identified in His death, burial, (shown by submersion under water) and resurrection (shown by being raised up out of water), and share the good news!The Gospel according to John is a good place to start reading, and of course use only the King James Bible. Then read the Letter to the Romans. And pray and talk to God every day and ask Him to show Himself to you through His Word, the Bible, and thank God and praise the LORD forever!
this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

You could be one of those who will rise from the dead. There is going to be a big resurrection in the future. Those who are saved and going to heaven now will get their bodies back from the grave, transformed, purged from sin to be united with their heavenly body in which they will be enjoying heaven through Jesus Christ. Those who are not saved, like all the people who think purgatory wiill spart them from Hell, wiill receive their old corrupt bodies in the fire of Hell where they are tormented in the flames from the moment their body drops forever dead.There's no probably about it. If God said it, it's true. If you don't believe it, that won't prevent God from doing what He promised to do.
this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

that they were willing to be martryed might prove that there was something to Jesus, but it doesn't mean that everything the bible says is true. we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event. I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events). The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway.
this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false 51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves opened, and many of God"s people who had died were raised from death. 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51 Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other people rising from the dead, out of graves! The fact this story is only mentioned in one of the gospels (and incredibly briefly at that) is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, is that we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event. I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events). The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway.
There are only 2 sexes, Male and Female

In most cases of androgynous people it is due to a genetic mutation and usually only one of the sets of genitalia works, and even in some cases neither do. The only other thing besides the typical binary sexes is asexual, a- meaning lack of, you get the rest of it. Asexual organisms tend to be self-sustaining, and still have two sexes male and female.
There are only 2 sexes, Male and Female

Thanks for posting your arguments. My arguments will be very short because the lack of time.1. ScienceThis argument will be very short because I do not have much time. Science does say there are more than two sexes. It is just that we don't use them and it is unfamiliar to the world.This is mainly biology science. First of all the different sex is Hermaphrodite. It is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes. This shows you that there are more than two sexes. However there are many more sexes.This is what our team believes. Pro never said this debate about sex of humans. This debate is about any type of animals which I explained in biology.This means that Pro lost and could not fill his BOP. hermaphrodite
There are only 2 sexes, Male and Female

According to the Oxford Dictionary, I think we can both agree that this is a credible source, Sex is defined as: Sex: 2. Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. Many people often misuse the terms Gender and Sex as if they are the same word, some confuse it to be opposite of what it actually is Gender is how you identify yourself and how you portray yourself. Sex is purely about your original role in reproduction. I am excluding exceptions to this such as eunuchs, etc. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Poetry Battle

This is poetry aint it? not rapit doesnt have to rhyme, what don't you git? It doesn have meter like other crapNow you may say I kick puppiesor that I lick dirty feetbut the only guppiesI will eatAre the ones with meaningNot just arbituary screamingNow that kid Harold, what a boreand boy was he fathe came to my door and that was thathe got shot for tresspassing with my Ruger-14I doubt you forced him, because you're that mean. This stanza doesnt rhymeand thats the pointcause its mine. So your poems oinkthey roll in mudjust like a pig, in a mud bathtub. Maybe it didbut do I care? I dont send kidsto pay my fare. My opponent makes kids get him foodThats not just because hes in a bad mood. Dont vote for BangBangCoconut for the nationI'll call him BBCLike the news stationbecause his poems are like the news, you see? cuz theres always bad newson BBC. Where'ed you find your muse? Nothing personalThis is a poetry battle no? So may the best poet's arsenalof words win.
Poetry Battle

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=...= Pre-Poem Poem Of Sunshine and and puppies =......= Freaking Puppies Man =...My opponent is mean,and that makes me sad.his heart's rotten and green,And his breath smells Bad.I bet he eats doo-doo.I bet he licks feet.I don't like him do you?I don't want to meet.His poems do not rhyme,and that is no fun.He has plenty of time,to write a good one.I bet he kicks puppies,wow he's such a jerk.He's dumber than guppies,and that is no perk.Do not vote for Rocky,it just isn't smart.His poems are crocky,Whereas mine are art.This preamble is done,So on to the show.This has been so much fun,but now it's time to go.=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=...= Ze Epic Poem of Doom and Despair =......= Part 3 =...Boy why you smackin, all dat funky jazz?it's more than just rhyme, that my poem has.I think that you are, just one big ol spazz;And this whole mess has, got me in a frazz.Your words don't make sense, is Harold there yet?You are so silly, he will laugh I bet!You are such a clown, your bed you still wet.Your life is a joke, that no-one will get.America this, America that.you care not about, this country you rat!Get out of my house, but put on a hat,or you'll catch a cold, and we don't want that."This stanza don't rhyme"? Then why put it there?Sounds like a cop-out, and that's just not fair.I'm typing all this, from a spinning chair.Your scalp is dirty, so go wash your hair.Back to the topic, so where is my food?So did you eat it? Just pleas tell me dude!Well jokes on you then! And although it's crude,I sat on that slice, While I did pose nude.Okay not really, I'm just so upset!I'm filled with worry, and shame and regret.That slice was not food, that slice was my pet;she was just so young! he name was margaret.That was a lie too, I'm just filling space.only three lines left, and I must make haste!I long for my meal, how I miss the taste;but it is gone now, it has gone to waste.=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Poetry Battle

So, you can rhyme Woop de doo Lets not waste time And write a poem for you Mr. Kurtz is dead have you heard? They chopped off his head and threw it in a turd That would be funny if it werent so sad the day is not sunny so dont be glad A mind is like a funnel a ton is there but barely any comes through the tunnel. Now, you may ask why do I care? Please wait, I'm not done My mind's in a cast beneath my hair Have you taken the same simple answer? Again? Send your kids Send their friends Go on a quest for a morcel of food This stanza doesnt rhyme and thats the point because that journey for food is the American Dream God bless America Land only I can love Stand behind her and guard her from the heretics and the immigrants You see its not about the rhyme Not about the meter its about the message, in the lines you pizza eater.
Poetry Battle

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=...= Ze Epic Poem of Doom and Despair =......= Part 2 =...Today I set out, A mission to keep.To regain my meal, I sacrifice sleep.Not pillows for me, and no counting sheep.For anything less, would make me a creep.Your cup of noodles, are not as tasty.They lack that pizazz, they are quite pasty.The time they fill me, is just so hasty.The girl who cooks them, Just looks quite rasty.I bet you took it, My delicious meal.My yummy pizza, you took it to steal.Oh why did my slice, fill you with such zeal?It will take some time, for my wounds to heal.I can't forgive you, for what you have done.And yet out battle, has only begun.I will not let you, think that you have won.I will be avenged, by harold my son!With his chubby cheeks, and his big fat head;he will beat you down, he will make you dead.And if it's too hard, he'll call his friend Ed;If it's still too much, He'll call his friend Fred.And then when they're done, you know what they'll do?They'll take a road trip, to the Brooklyn zoo.They'll have so much fun, that they'll need to to poo.And do you know what? I think I will too.Well this has been fun, but I must say bye.I'll take a nice break, I may at some pie.I'll stare at the clouds, I'll stare at the sky.And I will conlude, you're not a bad guy.To be continued...=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=