BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time for the United States to finally adopt the Metric System

I don't expect my opponent, or the audience to have a full grasp of French history. Any irrefutable proof would be in French, and I don't expect everyone to know French. Perhaps a book from when people were trying to convince the US to go metric that cites "pure reason"[6], but that would be a minor point. My point about Decimal Time is that it was never accepted. Pro didn't refute my argument, and choose to try and divorce it from their position. However, that leaves my argument intact. If the decimal system was so great why isn't it used to measure time? Why insist that decimal is so great, and easy to use, but not when it comes to time? Pro will either need to address this, or conceed my point. Pro hasn't yet addressed my point that the US isn't behind because we educate everyone on both the Metric and English systems. Pro hasn't presented any evidence that shows that the US is lagging behind, or any evidence that any perceived lag is due to a lack of adopting metric. I'm sure more than a few mistakes can be traced back to measurement systems, but nothing that wouldn't also be caused by using the 1889 version of the meter instead of the 1986 version of the meter[7]. Which happens when you try to repeat older scientific experiments that used different metric measurements at the time. The point of using fractions is that it increases your precession, and greatly reduces the effect of rounding errors. If we were to take 1/3 of a meter and dummy it down to 33cm when it comes time to multiply it by 3 you'd end up with 99cm instead of the 1 meter that it should be. Fractions exist to enhance precession, and if using the English System forces people to better understand fractions then it can help push us forward in understanding mathematics. If the inch was the smallest unity it doesn't exclude it from precision. You just have to learn to use fractions. However the pica, and points are smaller than an inch. The English measurement system was used in science for precise work long before metric was even conceived. I never presented the English System as only a base 12, and Pro is wrong about only feet breaking down into units of 12 inches. There are 12 points per pica, and 12 Troy Ounces to a Troy Pound, and they are a part of the US standard measures. I also presented it as base 12, or base 16 depending on need. I'm not excluding the others either because it's based on everyday need, and precision. [6] . http://books.google.com... [7] . http://condor.depaul.edu...
It's time for the United States to finally adopt the Metric System

[1] Measurement unities were so chaotic in Europe, that each city had different systems. Several people through history have supported the creation of a unified system. [1][2][3] Con cites the failure of decimal time as an argument against the metric system, however, decimal time have never been officially part of the metric system. It was part of the French Republican Calendar, and was abolished by the same decree that instituted the metric system [4] [5] [6]. Con argues that, since the metric system does not work well with fractions, it is inferior to the US system. Yet, the fact that 95% of human population has lived all their lives without the need to use fractions in measurement is an indicator that decimals are at least as useful as fractions for everyday use. Nevertheless, I’d like to show that decimals aren’t equal, but superior to fractions:[7] 1)Everyone are used with the decimal system, even Americans have to deal with things like percentages and money. 2)Given a set of decimal numbers, you don’t have to make complicated calculations to know which is bigger (which is easier to compare: 5/32; 1/8; and 9/64 or 0.15; 0.12 and 0.14). 3)It’s easier to make addition and subtraction calculations with decimal numbers than with fractions4)The same number can be written in different fractions forms, including in very obscure ways. 5)With the metric system, you can adapt a number by simply changing the decimal point and the unity. So, even though 1 third of a meter is 0.3333. .. , you can treat is as 33cm, 333mm or 333,333μm, etc. according to your need for precision. In fact, there is no US unity smaller than an inch, meaning it’s impossible to use the American system in any science that requires precision. That’s why the metric system is so widespread in science. Pro also claims that the American system uses base 12. However, the 12 ratio is only used for foot–inches. There is no other unity that uses base 12. [7] The only rule in the American system is to have as inconsistent ratios as possible. Now, I agree that 12 is a better base, but then why not adopt a system entirely based in a ratio of 12, or, for the sake of consistence, an entire duodecimal number system. That sounds great, but to do it, we would need to change the very concept of numbers in the minds of over 7 billion people. That is not realistic, so let’s stick to our flawed 10-base number system and use the measurement system that is the most appropriate to it: Metric. [1] - . http://goo.gl... [2] - . http://goo.gl... [3] - . http://goo.gl... [4] - . http://goo.gl... [5] - . http://goo.gl... [6] - . http://goo.gl... [7] - . http://goo.gl...
It's time for the United States to finally adopt the Metric System

As con my position is the US should not change its current system of measurement. I would like to define a few things. The Metric System is a system of measurement started in France during the French Revolution[1]. It is a system designed around base 10 under an argument of "pure" reason. What's more reasonable than measuring things in the same numbering system as your count in? The current metric system is actually the SI, or International System, and was established in 1971[2]. What system the US currently uses isn't cut, and dry. According the the NIST the US is currently in transition to SI units[3]. NASA, and all scientific work, uses SI units. Our schools teach metric in every science, and math class so we are hardly falling behind anyone. However, clearly for everyday use the US the English System is used. It would be easiest to illustrate how irrational metric is by highlighting some of it's failures. When the French invented metric they also included Decimal Time[4]. As standards go, Decimal Time isn't used much. Some people have even tried to get it to catch on with Beat Time[5]. Why hasn't the world converted to a Metric version of time? You might be thinking that it's convenience, but it is not. It has to do with something people assume SI units does very well, but in everyday life does very poorly. That thing is basic fractions. If I were to ask you how many minutes were in a half an hour, quarter of an hour, a third of an hour, and a fifth of an hour what would you say? 30, 15, 20, and 5 minutes. Do you notice how the third of an hour came to a whole value of 20 instead of some infinite decimal? This is because English Units, and Time are based off of a base 12 system, and not a base 10 system. In a base 12 system fractions of 2, 3, and 4 are simple to do, and in the case of minutes base 60, which is base 12 times 5, fifths are easy. Those happen to be the most common form of fractions in everyday life. In a base 10 system you get 2, and 5 which is ok, but fifths aren't as useful if you don't also have thirds, and quarters. Even when it switches at the smaller scales to base 16, like with inchs, it's to make common fractions simpler. When you need smaller than an inch an eighth, quarter, or a half, work great in base 16. You can still end up with those infinite decimals, but they are less common with the common fractions. For everyday uses, like buying food, cooking, and basic measurements the English system is vastly superior, and the US should stay with it for everyday usage, and continue to use SI in Science. [1] . http://www.sciencemadesimple.com... [2] . http://www.iop.org... [3] . http://www.nist.gov... [4] . http://mentalfloss.com... [5] . http://www.swatch.com...
It's time for the United States to finally adopt the Metric System

I believe that the United States has postponed the complete adoption of the metric system for too long. Being among the 17 original countries to sign the Convention of the Metre in 1875 [1], the United States have successively refused or failed to introduce the metric system to its society further than through mere official statements and projects. Today, only 3 countries in the world haven't adopted the metric system - Liberia, Myanmar and the USA [2], making the US the only industrialized country where this system isn't used in trade, business, industry and everyday life.Therefore, it's sensible to say that the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world by sticking to an overtly complex, outdated and decadent measurement system.[1] - http://lamar.colostate.edu...[2] - https://www.cia.gov...;
The Media's role vs The People Around You in the Development of Personality (continued)

This is a continued debate which started here. . http://www.debate.org...Although this is a contentious debate, The Debate has moved into a matter between the debaters. Voter's should take into consideration each continuation separately. Please vote and comment on any considerations you have. An Opinion section has been started on this issue and is linked back to the first debate. . http://www.debate.org... As this is a follow on debate, any information from the previous round may be included in this Debate, but should not be used by voters to determine the outcome of this debate. Some predetermined points of this debate can be found in the Comment section of this debate.
The Media's role vs The People Around You in the Development of Personality (continued)

A news reader preaching peace whilst your brother whacks you over the head is fighting a losing battle.As promised in our private chat, I concede this debate. This may be because I was specifically looking for this evidence from your side, or because you made an adequate and justifiable claim that peers have a greater power of influence. Although I believe you are indirectly making this claim, I acknowledge that the claim was made and I cannot refute it. Fear of Reprisal is powerful and limited solely to peer, and parent relationships. The media cannot hit you over the head for disagreeing with their perspectives. Your brother can hit you. I came to this conclusion after the first round of this debate while I was considering war propeganda. The media is unpunishable for its misdeeds, and misinterpretation of information, and poor representation of morality. The only fear a person may have of reenacting media representations is is that of reprisal by society and peers. If you see someone kill on a screen, you don't do it because you will go to jail. However, if you see 16 year olds singing and dancing, you may want to join a glee club yourself, or join the military where certain taught behaviors are acceptable. Anyways, all other points are mute in comparrison, even though I have provided clear evidence and could provide more evidence to prove that the media is superior in its influencing capabilities on all other counts.
Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

I understand what Pro is requesting, I am suggesting that societal consensus is a viable moral platform and that moral sentiments are quintessential to the survival and prosperity of group species. I gave examples of non-human species to demonstrate this. In other words Pro, I am suggesting that the feeling of disgust you feel when thinking about child molestation is a selected trait by evolution. Group species cannot harm individuals of their group without unraveling solidarity and eventually, the group. To conclude, adherence to morality is logical to the point of quintessential to group species and is very likely the product of evolution itself.
Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

It has come to my attention that a fundamental error has been made on my part of this debate. I have set erroneous debate standards by accident and then attempted to defend the valid/intended standards in my previous rounds. Being that this is the case, I concede the round. I’ll explain further. From an evolutionary atheist’s perspective (EVA’s) there are a select few things which can be considered morally justifiable. This is due to their moral platform, or in other words, standard on which to evaluate morality. From and EVA perspective, only things which promote biological continuation and reproduction can be considered morally justifiable, this of course because that is the whole point of evolution, to continue life. In the acceptance round, when I said that I was having trouble finding a platform on which to base my morality, I meant that some things which I internally feel are bad, are morally justifiable under the moral platform of evolution, or in some cases they just aren’t immoral. For instance, most would consider torturing a mentally disabled child as bad (obviously) or molestation as bad, as I previously said. However the scope of evolutionary atheism does not consider these immoral 100% of the time. For instance, does it go against evolution’s human endeavor/purpose to torture a squirrel? No, but it feels wrong, thus the problem arises. So the purpose of this debate was for the opposition to A, justify another moral platform under EVA perspective and/or B, to find a whole in the logic stating that evolution is the only acceptable moral platform in the first place. I hope I have clarified this suffieciently, and once again I apologize for the misunderstanding. I fully concede and forfeit the ability to be given any points for the debate. Thank you for reading and have a good day or night. If interested in the intended debate, just keep an eye out in the challenge debates, it will be up shorty. Interloped, once again, I apologize. Signing off... -JVN
Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

I didn't see a rebuttal or even an indication that what I said had been read.Rebuttal 1: Law of Contradiction - Morality as a Logical and Beneficial Group ElementPro suggests that a moral platform should be subject to a 'law of non contradiction'. I submit that the optimal moral course is largely dependent on context. I submitted consequentialism as a moral skeleton for Evo Atheists, if killing one person saves 10,000 then killing one person is the morally proper course of action. I went on to elaborate - not entirely though - simplified, we would not do things that will cause harm to the group. [3]: It is wrong to kill innocent people It is wrong to steal It is wrong to tell lies It is right to keep promises These concepts serve evolution & Logic's goal of holding groups together and maximizing their effectiveness and reliability. Ultimately, societal consensus would determine what exact moral obligations should be fulfilled. As we see in each country laws are present whether they're a religious state or not.Rebuttal 2: MolestationPro submits that Evo Atheists have no moral perspective on molestation, I commented on this subject in round 2: if the group does not have morality then members would steal from eachother, kill eachother, rape eachother or simply not share and therefore not thrive - thus the group would dissolve very quickly as its members would observe it as dangerous and damaging to them self. Morality is in the perspective of Evo Atheists, a mechanism which evolved with group species to maximize their prosperity.Pro's last statement before his conclusion actually seems like an argument for Con?Conclusion: Morality is essential for a group to thrive, cooperate and reach maximum efficiency and effectiveness. A group is necessary for an individual to obtain resources either he does not specialize in or cannot obtain without assistance. For humans, grouping up is the logical thing to do, ergo adherence to a moral platform is the logical thing to do, with or without religion.
Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

I would like to start by laughing at the strange turn of events which lead the atheist (myself) to argue against the christian who is advocating an atheist's position Hahah. Firstly I would like to present the argument which I myself have not been able to defeat. 1.) evolution can't neccesarily have a goal, however what evolution generally acomplishes is simply the mass creation of life. 2.) evolution acheives this through any means neccesary and is thus amoral3.) therefore there can be no justifiable platform to base reason except perhaps that a certain action would go against evolution's 'purpose'.4.) this of course proves that humanity has little to no basis to justifiably claim morality.Finally, I would like to make something clear right off the bat about something Interloped said in the acceptance round. He said: "I will argue that Evolutionary Atheist recognize and adhere to moral platforms."However this is Not an argument that could win the debate. The fact that EVAs DO adhere to various moral platforms is completely irrelevant. What Interloped must prove is that whatever those platforms are, they can be justified logically from the proper and correct and logical world view of an EVA. For me to win on the other hand, I must prove the opposite. That it is illogical and/or unfounded to have any other platform than one based on the aforementioned qualities. That's really the whole argument so I pass the pen back to Interloped....
Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

Thesis paragraph: As an Evolutionary Athiest I run into the predicament mentioned above. I find it hard to locate a platform with which I can bestow ethics or morality upon a given situation. As evolution would have it, the real purpose of life is simply to create as many organisms as possible, specifically it is my purpose in life to create more human beings. Using this logic however, many things which I find immoral cannot be considered as such. Genocide for instance would be justifiable if for instance the death of those being killed would ultimately lead to the continuation of the human species. Intuitevly this feels wrong however and thus the problem arises. Do evolutionary atheists have a platform on which to excersice morality? I instigate not just for the sake of intelectual confidence but also personal revolation and the continution of this idea. This idea has been presented to me by a christian elder whom I have always confided in; I cant seem to find a hole in the logic. thus if any challegers would like to accept this debate, just put a comment in the comments section and let's see what we can do. ThanksRules1st round is acceptance2nd round is argument3rd round is rebutals 4th round is conclusion no new argumentsCritical arguments must be clearly labeled. The debate will of course assume no god is real, The opponent shall argue that atheists do have a moral platform on which to base their ethics that doesnt solely rely on the bettering, continuation, ultimate good or initiation of biological life. I will argue that is the only supported platform. **I will assert evolutionary atheists can only justify subjective morality or signnificantly subjective morality. Con MUST argue that those who dont believe in a god and who are supporters of traditional evolution can justifiably hold an objective morality.** Bop is sharedDefinitionsmoral platform- a standard on which actions or thoughts are morally justfied or unjustified. example) the teachings of the christian lutheran bible, protestand bible or catholic bible all serve as moral platforms on which specific christians operate.Evolutionar Atheist- one who does not believe in any form of god and also holds the beleif in standard evolution.Biological continuation- as a broad and non binding definition, this refers to something along the lines of, the continuation of life through sexual or asexual reproduction which directly results in the birth or growth of another bilogically living organism or creature.
Pro's Username Is Better Than Con's

1). My name is simple and memorable. I use this for gaming a lot and actually for everything online pretty much. It is also very easy to pronounce. When somebody sees "peru" they will pronounce it like the country and everyone would pronounce "ssi" "see". If somebody sees it they will remember it and they will be like "i've seen that before... same guy?". Boom. People know my name. And it is only 7 characters long. And it is unique. 2). It means something cool. It means consumer, like how a fire consumes things. Destroy/consume. But it is a noun. A fire is an example of a "perussi". So yeah, it's cool. 3). There is nothing wrong with it. It isn't hard to pronounce, isn't long, not hard to remember, isn't derpy, and isn't stupid. There is not a single thing wrong with it.
The death penalty should remain legal

I am new to this site and hope I am doing this right. I believe in the ten commandments and in Thou shall not kill. No one should have the right to take a life except who it was created by. Capital Punishment is revenge not justice. I personally would prefer a person who violated the law in victimizing someone I care about, would be sentenced to suffering for the rest of their existence and not have the thoughts and feelings terminated. Yes I believe there are instances where I would understand the reason to kill but I believe killing is immoral under any circumstances. Since the advent of DNA, proof has shown many people were wrongly convicted. No one before DNA was convicted and executed although innocent. All of the people recently found innocent would have not been executed without DNA evidence? I believe more strongly in my faith than in the opinions of human beings and unlike them, I do not rationalize laws and actions that interfere with my makers creations. Do not think that my opinion has anything to do with not believing you have the right to yours.
belief=nothing

Everything is Everything. If you understand the definitino of everything that I provided you would understand that everything cannot be just something. Everthing it all things. Something is some things. Everthing cannot be the same as something because there are 3 things that a thing can be. Everything = all things. Something = some things. Nothing = no things. It doesn't make sense to swap round definitions and words because that makes things complicated and it doesn't make any sense. Thoughts are very complicated and are still not fully understood to this day but that doesn't mean that they don't make sense. It means that at the moment we do not have the technology and equipment to fully understand thoughts and the human brain. We may never completely understand the human brain primarily due to its infinitely complex structure. Information isn't mental in most people's opinion. Whilst information is not always factual for example if I said that my sister has blonde hair, this is a piece of information. You don't know for a fact what my sister's hair colour is so you will have to assume that her hair colour is blonde because you have no reason to think otherwise. Information can also be factual for example I could say that grass is green. To me this is a fact because when I look at grass I see the colour green. Yes, the brain is physical - I never said it wasn't. I said that thoughts and information are not physical things. Did you just say that the brain is not part of the brain? I don't think I have to respond to that in any great detail for everyone to see the great flaw in that argument.