BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is flat

My opponents have conceded in my arguments, thus making my points stand higher in this debate. I haven't seen any refutation on my points either. Thank you for your picture. I will like to present my piece of evidence in a picture too from this website: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... Lets look at it from a perspective: Lets take the ocean as an example If earth was supposedly flat, these boats have a potential of falling off once they reach the end of the "flat surface". However, because earth is round and the gravity within the sphere is pulling us towards the centre it makes more sense that these boats will not fall off the surface, moreover fall off of earth with gravity. Its like a rubber band. If you pull the opposite end of the band, it comes back to you after you let go. If we jump, we are pulled back onto the ground from gravity. There is no fancy dancy explanation for this; its simply straight forward. Gravity is the real truth on why our earth has to be round. Every object pulls towards its centre. A flat surface has no centre. Therefore, it brings to the conclusion that our earth is a sphere. My opponents only have pictures that back up their case. However, these pictures may not be as reliable as common knowledge. We all know gravity, unless you skipped 3rd Grade. Yes, I agree that in this picture, it is straight grounds. But the earth isn't necessarily perfectly curved. If you draw a big circle, and measure 5 mm of the surface, it is somewhat straight but a little curved. Our world is big, and we can't rely on the reason why there is "no curve". There is, but we can't see it because earth is big and the airplane you were riding on is smaller than a hair on earth. and with those measurements we can't prove through pictures, as they are inaccurate in our stances of how we see the earth and why we can't see a curve.
The earth is flat

That is all? Okay then, lets get to it. My opponents have talked about how he himself witnessed a view of a flat horizon on an airplane at 10,000 meters. This extraordinary claim needs much extraordinary evidence, and I request you upload these pictures in the next round. In order for this, we will have to upload the pictures of these claims and if they fail to do so, that makes their claim false. Today there is a big reason to why the earth is round: It all comes down to gravity. C1) Gravity It is basic knowledge that the earth is round because of the gravity, which is explained more in the next paragraph. C2)Understanding the concept of scientific research [1] Two features of Earth that determine its shape are mass and gravity. These features are, in fact, interrelated. Mass attracts other mass, resulting in the force we call gravity. Smaller objects, such as a car or a house, have tiny gravitational forces. The amount of mass throughout Earth, however, is huge and really adds up. As Earth's mass added up from all this matter and gravitational forces increased, the matter attempted to take the most efficient shape possible: a sphere. If Earth was a cube, its corners would be farther away from its center than other points. Because gravity acts equally on everything, the corners would need to be pulled closer to the centre. Now that we have access to space, the easiest way to prove the Earth is spherical is to leave it and view it from a distance. Astronauts and space probes have done just that. Every picture of Earth ever taken shows only a circular shape, and the only geometric solid which looks like a circle from any direction is a sphere. I will right more in the next round for I have not much character remaining 1)http://www.universetoday.com...
The earth is flat

Note: I'm not of the belief that the earth is flat. The reason behind this debate is to come to the bottom of a specific issue that I came across recently: there is no earth curvature upon naked eye observation of the horizon, only when using fisheye (GoPro) type cameras that create illusions, f.ex., Felix's camera created a great curvature at height of only 3-4 km.I myself witnessed this view of a flat horizon while travelling with an airplane at 10,000 meters. I took some pictures of that and now I'm still in confusion.This I find very puzzling and I can not find peace of mind until I receive a scientific explanation of this very specific and unexpected issue that any and every person can confirm by observing the horizon from an airplane or viewing no-fisheye onboard cameras on rockets and weather balloons.Here I will provide a video of the phenomena, note that I am in no way supporting the uploader of this video, I use it merely for illustration: The curvature of the earth, according to basic mathematical calculations, should be seen slightly at low altitudes of one or two kilometers, and seen clearly at passenger airplane height or more.
The earth is flat

My opponents conceded in all of my arguments. This prove that my points are valid and that my side should take the win. He has only disagreed that the earth is a sphere. But if my opponents have already agreed with my arguments which is mainly that gravity makes it a sphere, this therefore makes this claim false. They said that 1)It is clearly computer animated and 2)fish eye lenses can create the effect. This of course needs to be proven by pro but because this is the final round, I will just provide you another picture. -> . http://i.stack.imgur.com... This picture shows that the reason why we can't see things that keep on disappearing from far is due to the round curvature of our world. My opponents have not bothered to reconstruct nor refute my arguments except for my evidence, nor provided any real arguments except with the explanation from his picture and that he is "puzzled" by these. His side clearly falls because he conceded with my arguments and had weak arguments. He has not bothered to defend his side. It is straight forward that the earth is round from gravity. There is no real explanation that earth is flat. All boats would be falling off by now if they reached towards the end. Good debate.
should schools be aloud to have diet or non diet foods and drinks

It looks like I will not be getting an argument. I will try to post a quick argument off of my opponents beliefs. My opponent says that it is the child's choice to do what they want with their body so teachers who will most of the time only see them for 4 years should not make decisions for them. There are things wrong with this statement. We could say the same thing about drugs,it is the child's choice to take Meth so he teachers should not stop them. Diet foods and drinks like coke-0 and sugar free products can be hazardous. It has been suggested that the sugar free products cause cancer.
acceptance only for first round is usually a waste of time

You showed weak examples as well. You had extended your main argument and told me that I had weak examples without really telling me why. Don't vote for Pro, seeing as he couldn't even give me a proper rebuttal. Acceptance round is very useful to clarify the debate and save more space for an actual argument. One may not be able to fit an argument into the 1st round. Also, somebody may need to gain more time for an argument, so they may use the acceptance round to buy them time. I apologize for the ff, although, you haven't posted a solid rebuttal that clashes with my case head on, not to mention, your resolution was very flimsy.
acceptance only for first round is usually a waste of time

i dont think i needed to add much more, but i will say when you make arguments then they respond and you respond and so on, each person had an equal amount of times to say something. when you just say "i accept" as con argues, they are just accepting rules when it could be stated from the get go that the opponent must abide by the rules. it may serve a limited purpose to clarify things, but usually this doesn't happen.. it's more like "i accept" and that's basically all. at best, con showed how some might want to use acceptance only in limited situations. in reality, he showed weak examples of using it.
acceptance only for first round is usually a waste of time

Pro claims that acceptance is a waste of time in debating because "usually it is better to just start out with an argument, let them respond, and so on." Why is it better to start out with an argument? You only assert that, but you do not tell me WHY this is the case. This resolution is incredibly weak, and needs to be backed up with reasoning of your own. I must make a point of my own: The acceptance round helps you clarify what you're debating. You can put rules and definitions in the 1st round, and the opponent will just say "I accept". This way, a troll cannot change your debate. The acceptance round gives you a chance to prevent trolling by putting in rules. Also, it's unfair for people to simply put in claims, and have the opponent quickly rebut it so that he blatantly wins the debate. (like this one) Also, the opponent would get more time to actually argue. Posting an acceptance round allows you to simply clarify on your topic, and then argue to keep it simple.
Death Penalty

What a shame. I really hoped you would give more points. However I still have to refute your points. "The Deterrent Effect" Like I previously wrote the Death Penalty does NOT deter crime. "One argument for the death penalty is that it is a strong deterrent to murder and other violent crimes. In fact, evidence shows just the opposite. The homicide rate is at least five times greater in the United States than in any Western European country, all without the death penalty. Southern states carry out more than 80 percent of the executions but have a higher murder rate than any other region. Texas has by far the most executions, but its homicide rate is twice that of Wisconsin, the first state to abolish the death penalty. Look at similar adjacent states: There are more capital crimes in South Dakota, Connecticut and Virginia (with death sentences) than neighboring North Dakota, Massachusetts and West Virginia (without death penalties). Furthermore, there has never been any evidence that the death penalty reduces capital crimes or that crimes increased when executions stopped..." Just because something is supposed to deter another thing it won't always work, like an untested vaccine. Here in Canada we have no death penalty and and almost no crime. "Repeated Murders" I get what you are saying but if someone has committed a crime so bad that they get the death penalty chances are they won't be released. Also there is a huge risk of innocence. "The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 142 men and women have been released from Death Row nationally....some only minutes away from execution. Moreover, in the past two years evidence has come to light which indicates that four men may have been wrongfully EXECUTED in recent years for crimes they did not commit. This error rate is simply appalling, and completely unacceptable, when we are talking about life and death." Think of it this way. You are weighing the possibility of a criminal being released and POSSIBLY killing someone to the certainty of the state executing it's own citizen who might be innocent. "Safety is Utmost" Ah, you missed one thing. The state executes it's citizens in the name of public safety but this opens up a Pandora's box of governmental abuses, like the NSA. This is all in the name of public safety but are you getting a chain reaction of problems. You are destroying personal liberty and freedom just like Hitler or Stalin. They claimed what they did was for public safety but they took away their peoples rights just for their safety. The death penalty can, has and will mold people into Hitlers and Stalins. Thank you for debating me, it was a pleasure and a challenge. VOTE CON!!!
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

RebuttalsNo statement in this round has any proof whatsoever. I assert that particles are real; as Pro is making the positive claim that they are not real, Pro must prove that particles are not real. This transformation is destruction - not complete destruction, but destruction nonetheless. "Thing=true" is an invalid and void argument. Possibilities are possibilities, not "nothing. " Let me prove it:P1: If x is asserted to be x, then x has a value. P2: If x has a value, it cannot have no value. P3: If it is implied that x does not have a value, it has a value because of subjective envisioned conclusions. P4: It is implied that x does not have a value. C1: X has a value. Memory is a personal experience; this is a biocentric idea of memories existing without existence. For something to have being, there must be a concept of having being. This is refuting Pro's own philosophy. "Logic" is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity"; reason is "a psychological analysis of a situation". Psychological attributes are of the mind; hence, logic is of the mind. Pro's assertions have no proof whatsoever. Pro makes bare assertions without enforcing them; Pro does not refute any of my arguments. I extend them to this round. This resolution is negated.
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

creation is impossible in reality particles are not real, they are imaginary there is no destruction going on in reality.. its a transformation.. no part of an apple is becomming nothing when you burn it.. thing=true do you not have memory? does memory not exist?.. possibilities are nothing, not real lies exist there is no, your and my logic, logic is not of the mind the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

RebuttalsThe "nothing" referred to here is the quantum vacuum. As I clearly illustrated, there are particles that are virtually creating themselves via. the limited energy of the quantum vacuum. Pro is still ignoring my definition of "destruction." As I said, destruction is a variable word; my definition states that even a major transformation is a form of destruction. Pro says that everything is imaginary unless there is personal experience; this leaves no contingencies. If so, by the same application, even objects which have been experienced personally are non-existent. Let us move to ontology here.P1: It is possible that nothing exists anywhere. P2: If it is possible that nothing exists anywhere, then nothing exists anywhere in some location.P3: It is impossible to exist without being. C1: Nothing exists. This argument, derived from ontology, refutes all Pro's claims via. Pro's own logic. By the definition of the temporal dimension, the future will become the present (i.e. "now") and will come into existence. Now let us see this argument:P1: The future will exist.P2: If the future will exist, it has to be created.P3: If anything is already conceived of and created, it exists.P4: The future is conceived of and created.C2: The future exists. I extend all my arguments as Pro has not refuted them with proof and, hence, has not fulfilled their BoP.
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

hmm, that is a transformation, like with an apple, burn it and you get smoke or something, or eat it, it dosnt get destroyed knowledge=machine=skill=technology(take knowledgy) there is no small particles jumping in and out of nothing.. nothing is information, 0 pick up 0 sodas from the floor particles are, nothing, information there is no time in the past, time=now true can not exist without false, everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, but non existence, cant exist matter is true, something, physical, information is false and truth, mental, 1 and 0 a universe is an imaginary idea, not real, unles you define universe as personal physical experience of now the future is something? the future is false
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

RebuttalsDestruction does not refer to forcing an object x out of existence; destruction transforms x to a point of practically no repair without change in mass-energy density. Take the quantum vacuum, for example. The quantum vacuum contains particles that randomly pop in and out of existence. [1] Thus, the transformation leads to eventual annihilation; not wiping out its existence, but rather changing its form majorly. Memory, as Pro states, is the only way to measure experience of the past, but not the past itself. The past is not governed by any personal agency; your past is governed by memory, but not past by the arrow of time itself. The past sans the future would mean non-existence of the universe in the future, viz. the future determines probable and coming existence; there would be no probable existence without the future. If existence is a contradiction without it being contingent, then there is no existence whatsoever. Lack of existence of anything implies that the resolution itself is non-existent, hence nothing is equal to anything. Thus, the resolution is still in my favor. If imagination is false and not contingent, then even a highly plausible contingency is absolutely impossible. Here, I state that the universe itself, and, thus, everything, is contingent. The explanation lies in a Higgs field. All particles have contingent mass via. the Higgs effect, where conditions for symmetry are broken because of the existence of Higgs bosons. [2] The Higgs field is an energy field of the Higgs boson existing everywhere in the universe. If the field becomes unstable, viz. the energy density changes, then it could result in minor wave-like shifts in the universe that virtually break the laws of physics [at 100 billion GeV, it could result in megastable vacuum decay that could destroy the universe]. [3] As the universe itself is contingent, if contingencies do not exist, then the universe doesn't exist. This implies that evaluations such as this are non-existent, still keeping the resolution in my favor. "Thing=true" means everything is true. If everything is true, nothing can be false; hence, the future cannot be false. Even here, the resolution is in my favor.Pro has not rebutted my "Definitions" argument, nor have they rebutted my Round 2 arguments. Once more, I extend all my unchallenged arguments.The resolution is refuted.References [1] Walter Dittrich & Gies H (2000). Probing the quantum vacuum: perturbative effective action approach. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-67428-4. [2] Del Rosso, A. (19 November 2012). "Higgs: The beginning of the exploration." CERN bulletin. [47-48][3] Israelian, Garik; May, Brian; Hawking, Stephen (2014). "Preface." Starmus: 50 Years of Man in Space. Starmus Press. ISBN 1-627-95026-5.
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

transformation=from something to something there can be no light of a match without a match burning, so a match burning is the light of a match make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you how do you experience 5 seconds ago without your memory? now is true, the future is not true, and the past is not false, memory is not false, and imagination is not truth imagination goes to future, not past, i can imagine jesus, and believe he was real on that basis, but i have no memory of it, therfore it all goes to belief, which goes to imagination hm, memory of objective experience is the opposite of imagination if destruction didnt happen you wouldnt be able to remember the headline of this message thing=true
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

RebuttalsConservation of matter is disproved by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe hypothesis to remain logically consistent with existing laws. [1] Here, the expansion of matter allows its transformation into energy of greater size; mass-energy equivalence also allows for the complete expansion of matter into energy that can then reduce in size to the point of vacuum state. [2] Thus, destruction in this sense allows for the eventual end of the universe itself, by the three Friedmann models. [3] Past is not defined by memory; that is only according to the human concept of the past. The past is merely a period prior to the current level of entropic graduation, as stated above. Pro seems to be confusing between non-existence and contingencies. The future is contingent, i.e. there is no certainty as to the occurrences of the future; that does not imply the future's non-existence. My opponent stating that future is imaginary simply because of its being a contingency is stating that the universe is sans contingencies. This means that everything is an illusion, but my opponent has no proof; hence, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. And "memory of know" is absolutely incomprehensible; I request Pro to provide a definition for the same. Pro has not rebutted the "Definitions" argument. Therefore, it still stands and I extend it to this round. Thus, this derivative is substantially refuted. References [1] Einstein, A. (1905), "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18 (13): 639–643. [2] Christopher Ray (1991). Time, space and philosophy. London/New York: Routledge. Chapter 10, p. 205. ISBN 0-415-03221-0. [3] Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

it is also memory of now, know is now kNow=physical experience destruction is impossible in reality, destruction is from something to nothing, matter can at best transform im saying, past is, memory of physical experience, without this there is no past, imagination goes to belief, future destruction=turn my back the future is creation, false, you have no knowledge of the future the future and past is information, not real knowledge is truth, is fact, is subjective, is memory of know my claims are supported, by your experience. show me objective memory, tell me the truth about what is going to happen in 5 seconds.. you cant, truth is in the past, memory, and the future is false, imaginary
ANY government handout is freeloading.

Post your particular interest.I was on a bus once and there was a discussion about replacing the republican governor with a democrat because the bus fare subsidies were going to be raised from 2 dollars to 3 dollars. How shallow does a person have to be to vote over a dollar .I said there should be no subsidies. Only a freeloader would vote to get a handout from government. I pay full fare. Someone said,"wait till your 60, and you will sing a different toon."He didn't have anything to say when I said I was 65.Since when does age have anything to do with honor.
ANY government handout is freeloading.

I believe that anyone taking another mans earned income by government force is corrupt in their thinking.Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is different for all of us. That is what freedom to choose is for.And for those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that. They are in a better position to weed out the cons.Government loves the cons. They will vote for them to get more freebies.