BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

Pro’s first paragraph is perplexing since the very notion of debate entails a continued dialogue. By leaving my arguments unopposed Pro is neglecting his burden.You can’t discover all the digits of pi because they’re endless and non-repetitive. Pi is an irrational number, which does not really help Pro’s case because it can only be approximated. It’s hard to conceive of a number with non-terminating decimals (and no repeating pattern) existing in nature. We can represent 5 and 2.5 with objects, but that’s impossible to do with irrational numbers. For all practical purposes, it is not a problem, but it does threaten the view that math is discovered. Pro's entirely wrong that we know everything about that which we create. When chess was invented, the countless strategies for winning the game were all unknown. We’ve built on math from the past and used technology to help us arrive at further knowledge. Invoking new concepts (such as imaginary numbers) makes math more functional. We continually develop new ideas and analyze our current mathematical knowledge to build on what we know. Derivations can be made from previous mathematical notions, which itself explains how new mathematical knowledge grows. Math is not a complete system. We’ll very likely have more mathematical knowledge in the future, not because we discover it, but because we do not fully understand math and all its derivations, and because reshaping may be necessary as well as new concepts.Pro’s last paragraph is difficult to understand. I realize at least that he’s claiming our names for numbers are created, and I assume he’s not saying numeric value is created by us since that would contradict his case. Obviously, something exists behind the symbols we give objects: matter. But the notion that this can be categorized into individual entities is a human conception. Overall, Pro only elucidates his meaning and does not really give a response to the argument.
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

Before I begin I would like to ask why you must rebuttal against your opponents arguments in a debate, for it is my decision whether I do that or not. I did not ask you to prove my argument wrong, so I have not committed any fallacy. An example of my point from my argument before, Pi. Pi as you would know was discovered hundreds of years ago yet we have not discovered all the digits of Pi. It is a mathematical concept is it not? An invention is a device or concept that we create, when we create something, we are able to understand every aspect and function of the invention. Mathematics cannot be defined as an invention because we still have mathematical concepts that are unknown to us and need to be discovered. Addressing your question in the third paragraph, I only said that the character that represents numeric value was created by us, and so numeric value is the thing that all math is comprised of. The characters we create called numbers are again, as I have stated before in my arguments before, a representation of numeric value.
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

Pro has not addressed any of my arguments, meaning they still stand against his case and he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Part of my argument from the last round was actually taken from another article inspired by the one Pro mentions called The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics. While math is vastly effective on one level, as shown, it breaks down at certain scales and is only an approximation of reality. Pro's argument is especially erroneous since he's assuming a non-Platonist position that math is not abstract but physical. The fact that math invented centuries ago has functions even now only testifies to the widespread usefulness of math and that math can be built upon, which no one denies. However, the effectiveness of math is overstated by Pro. For example, Maxwell's equations were standard for modelling integrated electromagnetic devices and structures. Modern devices abandoned analytical calculations, instead reverted to simulation programs. "When we carry out engineering in different circumstances, the way we perform mathematics changes. Often the reality is that when analytical methods become too complex, we simply resort to empirical models and simulations". http://ieeexplore.ieee.org... Pro agrees that numbers are invented. I ask how anything else in math is different. The concept of multiplicity and singularity are concepts invented by humans. Reality is not inherently categorized into distinct entities. Humans make it so. We categorize it and give it labels. Moreover, mathematical equations assumes the terms in the equation stand for absolutes all equal to each other. Entities in nature, on the other hand, are unique.
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

I would like to point out Eugene Wigner's study; The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics. In which he says that mathematical equations and geometry "invented" centuries ago has proven useful even now, these mathematicians of ancient times could not have predicted the possible future uses of their equations and geometry, therefore mathematics has to be a discovered entity, that always has existed in the universe. The numeric characters; 1, 2, 3, 4 etc were created by us to represent values so we could understand the mathematics and science of the universe more fully. Back to my example of four apples on a tree, that value exists, the fact and meaning that their are four apples on a tree has not been created by us, we simply create the name of the value (in this case is four) to help us interpret those values.
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

Mathematics: the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Pro must support the metaphysical view that mathematics exists independent of us and our language. However, it’s hard to tell if he’s arguing for mathematical Platonism, since he seems to be implying that mathematics has a physical, rather than abstract, existence. That’s extremely problematic, however, since math is quite evidently non-physical. It has empirical applications but its entities are abstract. Pro says we can see math everywhere. He says the 4 apples on a tree is a value independent of us. This is erroneous. Mathematical values only make sense as idealized entities that are inexact in their representation of reality. Math is a language that we tailor to articulate reality. The symbols of math are conceived of as absolute (1 is exactly the same as 1), but empirically, math is only approximate. For an elementary example, when you add physical objects, such as coins, you are only adding objects approximately similar to each other. It does not follow an exact 1+1=2 model. The entities being added are not equal to each other, even though they’re represented as identical in math. We can conceive of adding one electron to another, thus creating two electrons, but the electrons have different properties and by the uncertainty principle, their positions and momentum are inexact. There are no pure triangles, circles, or numbers in reality, only approximations of those entities. This makes sense under the view that math is a creation used to describe a fluid and blurry reality through the means of abstract absolute symbols. Though math is extraordinarily useful, there’s a disconnect between it and reality. Math is also only successful on certain scales. For example, in the 1970s, when transistor behavior was on the level of micrometers, they could be elegantly described with equations. With the submicrometer transistors of today, compact equations fail and computer software is required.
Mathematics was Discovered, not invented

Mathematics was discovered, the evidence can be set firmly in place. When we look at the world around us, we see mathematics everywhere, mathematics did not need to be invented to exist. An example is, when we see four apples on a tree, there are four apples on the tree, we didn't invent that value, but we did invent the name/character for that value, which, in this case is the number four. Numeric value existed before any human did, before the big bang when the universe was singularity, it was one.
the US should preemptively attack n korea

"The Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is a treaty signed on July 11, 1961 between North Korea and the People's Republic of China." this is a treaty with the north korea and china. Do you know why it's important? It because china would protect them if there were attack first. That's why china help them in the first korea war. With the US helping the south. So history have alot of importance, we need to understand it, so in the future we don't do the same mistakes. The Chinese government has issues hundreds of warning to the US, not to attack the North. Why would they be so concern, if they wasn't going to do anything. They even said if the US attack there would be catastrophe, why would the Chinese go to great longs to issues such strong warning to the US. Like i said before the north would not attack first, why because kim un would like to stay in power, in get killed. He not ad dumb as the media like to make it to be. Russia and china have thousands of nukes, did they use one? No, why because there would get destroy. The same will go with the north. Oh yea, did you know if we attack first how many hundreds of thousands of lives would be lose. Just in the first couple of days. Oh did you remember what happen in Iraq? Over 10 years in there, with millions of lives lost. Iraq wasn't a good idea, and attacking the north would be worse. Like i said kim not crazy to attack first. But we would be if the US does. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
the US should preemptively attack n korea

you mention that china has troops around korea. that's only because they dont want their people in china and because korea is unstable. china has not mentioned a word about wanted to militarily defend korea, and no one ever talks about it. this is all a novel idea brought up by con. so i take it you think kim is just bluffing, and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives if you're wrong?
the US should preemptively attack n korea

First of all China does have a huge role in this North Korea and US crisis. China does not want the US in Korea period. You need to understand the history of Korea and china, and the President does not seem like he is understanding what China position is. Why you think China have over 100,00 china troops on the boarder of north Korea and china, why you think they just had a huge navy drill over the Korea seas this pass week. China want peace in the Korea peninsula, not war. So if the US strike first, who side is China going to be on, it not on the US side. Look at the last Korea war the US help the south and China help the north. it no different what is happening now. China have other reasons why there going against the US it's the trade policy, because trump threaten to have a trade war with China. Another part of the world we have India and China threatening war with each other. So guess who side the US will be taking it not China. So there is alot of reason why china going to be helping the North if they are attack first. Another problem is China having a very good partnership with Russia, and what would Russia do if things get out of hand, that is to help China. My other reason is let have the North have Nukes, because there will not use them. unless the US attack them first. Like I said before other countries have nukes and are there using them or will they. The answer is no unless they are attack first. The US miss they chance 15 years ago to attack the North, with not as many lives were at risk. Back then the North was much weaker, not as much anymore. Now with the North having the missiles they have now. If war happens it will be a catastrophe in the area, not just for the North but the South and Japan. That's another reason why we need the south and Japan ok on a first strike. But even the south and Japan would not want the US use a first strike, because so many lives would be gone. Oh yea trump don't know about war, he never when to war or had anyone he knows gone to war. so the generals actually been to war and have a better idea of what would happen. That's why most of them say there want another way not war.
the US should preemptively attack n korea

con says to be weary of china and russia. they are self interested and would not be interested in a war. they haven't expressed that they would be if we attacked, and it doesn't make sense that they would. theyd much rather let us fight it out and try to deal with any conseqences the two sides going to war would cause. con says we should just let them have nukes and only attack if and when they attack us. the problem, is they could have hundreds of nukes eventually, and a first attack would be much more lethal than a preemptive attack when they are much weaker. does on a tangent also mentions that most generals are against attacking. the thing is maybe we should postpone when we attack, but when you back people into a corner of the inevitable, most would probably not rule it out and be forced to conclude that it might be best. also trump has said and clear it is true, that he knows more than teh generals. lolz though he did use my reasoning in an interview a long time ago about n korea.
the US should preemptively attack n korea

I'm against preemptive strike on North Korea. Why because if the US strike first, it would look very bad on the US part on the international community. Russia and China would not accept this out come. The US will be risking a war not with just the North Korea, but with China, with relations with China is stress already. That's why most if not all of the US generals are against preemptive strike. That not to mention South Korea and Japan would lose so many lives, in a US, North Korea war. The only reason I'm against this is because China and Russia, and even Pakistan have nukes. Which one of these countries have used them, none. Russia and China are a greater threat to US policy and to the world security. I say let North Korea have them. Because if and when they do have them, it not going to use them, just like why China and Russia haven't use them. If the North did use them, the US would destroy them, plus then the whole world would unit against them. Even China would go against the North if it strike first. It's important to know the North would only use them if attack first, just like any other countries that's have nukes.
the US should preemptively attack n korea

the US should preemptively attack north korea it's inevitable that they will eventually perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes. we should strike sooner than later because it's better than waiting till they have more power and leverage, as they are not fit to have hundreds of nukes and be able to take the world hostage. it would cause one of the worst humanitarian problems ever, but it's better than losing LA and NY to nukes.
PC's are better than consoles

Ok, so let's analyze what you just said. "I buy a console for $400 then I use my 75" tv with it, I don't need to buy the PC then a monitor" You can use the PC with the 75" tv. That argument doesn't make any sense " All new consoles have the same graphics as PC's" This statement is just wrong. I can find a few examples for you: https://goo.gl... https://goo.gl... https://goo.gl... "Also the consoles are like PC in the sense that I can remove the hard drive add more memory, I can play Netflix, Crave, save photos, videos, watch Blue Rays on it, it's all included." No arguing you there, even though PC had those long before any console "The best part is that I don't need to upgrade my sound card every year, or buy a new video card" Okay, this just shows how little you know. I never had to upgrade the sound card in my life, and never will. I upgrade my PC's Video card every four to five years and I never buy the newest one. Lets say now that the GTX 1060 is out, I'll buy a 970. "I can also download games from Steam just like the PC." I really don't think that's how it works " I just play for approximately 10 years of the life of a console without any upgrades," Okay, fair enough. My pc can only hold for about 4-5 years. But I only do upgrades worth maybe 200$, you buy an entire new console for around 500$ "and I also prefer to use a controller, don't want to play on a keyboard and mouse like the PC" You can use Xbox and Dualshock controllers on the PC, with steam now even officially supporting the PS4 controllers "Buy a console and just play, buy a PC and you will constantly be upgrading the thing" Whatever you say
PC's are better than consoles

The consoles are a lot better then PC's mostly because of the cost. I buy a console for $400 then I use my 75" tv with it, I don't need to buy the PC then a monitor. All new consoles have the same graphics as PC's Also the consoles are like PC in the sense that I can remove the hard drive add more memory, I can play Netflix, Crave, save photos, videos, watch Blue Rays on it, it's all included. The best part is that I don't need to upgrade my sound card every year, or buy a new video card because I can't play the latest games, I can also download games from Steam just like the PC. Bottom line the cost is way cheaper and I just play for approximately 10 years of the life of a console without any upgrades, and I also prefer to use a controller, don't want to play on a keyboard and mouse like the PC Buy a console and just play, buy a PC and you will constantly be upgrading the thing
PC's are better than consoles

So, my second round argument will be based on just saying why I think PC is better than console 1. The Customization One of the advantages of PC gaming is that you can customize almost everything. Firstly, you can customize your pc and make it a beast which can run GTA V Redux mod with Ultra graphics and 4k resolution, all at a solid 60 fps, or make it a normal pc which can run just about everything at reasonable FPS. After you built your pc, you can use it for just about anything, but we are focusing on gaming now. Any game you install you can run with a 4 year old pc (granted, you will have to lower your graphics options, but you can still play it). You can choose to play with mouse and keyboard or a joystick if you prefer. 2. The Price Tag A lot of console gamers have this weird misconception that PC gaming is so expensive that you can buy 4 consoles for the money you pump into a PC. Truth is, while you can build a PC like that, and waste money in my opinion, you can also build a PC with the price tag of the PS4 and it could be more powerful (proof: http://gamingbolt.com... ) 3. Graphics You can not deny that almost all games look so much better on PC. Sure, some developers don't give a damn (I'm looking at you Ubisoft) and just make their games graphically the same. 4. Other -You can do everything you do with a console on a PC and much more -You can use everything you use on a console on a PC -Indie games -Steam, GOG, Instant Gaming etc. -Free Multiplayer And I will be first to admit, the PC Master Race can be total cancer sometimes, and I admit that not all console gamers are "Console Peasants". Putting everyone under the same blanket is just unfair in my opinion.
The chicken came before the egg

Yeah, Pro, if one accepts evolution (as all legitimate scientists do lol) then they have to accept the reality that the egg must've come before the chicken just based on genetic factors and the process of evolution alone in addition to what we know about DNA and cells. You did a good job though :) Regarding my faith, well... I'm inconsistent. Maybe one day I will be a Jedi depending on which God or belief I happen to like better at that particular point in time! Googlism sounds cool on the basis that I love Google but who knows :P
The chicken came before the egg

I'm certain that I didn't NEED to forfeit, however I did not have many other options. Every source that I could find supported your side of the debate! Due to my lack of biological knowledge and lack of SOURCES of biological knowledge that would actually AIDE me in my argument, it seemed that forfeiting was my best option, rather than carrying on a debate that I could not win and simply making myself look like a fool. As to your religion; Are you really Pastafarian? Because I read about it a few months ago and it was on a list among other religions like "Jediism" and "Googlism". If you certainly believe that a flying spaghetti monster created this universe, then be all means I would accept your challenge. I will resist conversion at all costs. :) ~Tom
The chicken came before the egg

"all that existed were two non-chickens whose DNA morphed into the DNA that makes up chickens" This cannot be proven. Non-chickens do not lay chicken eggs. In order for them to be non-chickens they must NOT be able to interbreed and produce a fertile chicken. [1] The first chicken would most LIKELY be able to have offspring with its parents species, therefore making it ONE of its parents species. making them chickens too. The question is: At what point does a dinosaur stop being a dinosaur and start being a chicken? Good question! (why thank you!) The thing is, by your definition, a chicken is never a chicken, (or all its ancestors are chickens too, take your pick) because biologically they are still evolving. (as are we). There must be some genetic wiggle-room for when species are species and not something else. But, I think we failed to establish something earlier in this debate, and it is crucial. I'll even let you do it on your terms. Define "Chicken" please. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
The chicken came before the egg

Living things evolve through changes in their DNA, though the genetic material of an animal can ONLY change as a zygote. Zygotes are the first cells of an organism; it is the original cell that divides to eventually produce all of the cells that make up the entire organism. So, the organism that we have come to know as 'chicken' must have had all of the traits applicable to chickens as a zygote. Scientists have concluded that chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA, or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote [1]. In other words, prior to the first zygote that contained chicken DNA, all that existed were two non-chickens whose DNA morphed into the DNA that makes up chickens. In order for a chicken to exist, it must have had chicken DNA as a zygote inside of the egg. Two non-chickens created the first chicken DNA (zygote), while the first chicken must have evolved from a zygote that already had chicken DNA (inside of an egg). Ergo the egg came before the chicken. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...