BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
1+1=2 (Math)

Actually, usafkid, I can show another argument, just over the weekend I have a life! so I apologize for not writing my case, I'll try to make up for lost time... But I digress. You realize the Einstein also proved math false? Einstein created dozens of problems that made sense in the day-to-day world, but in the blurry and obscured eyes of math, they made no sense. For example, three men walk into a hotel. The manager says that it costs $30 to rent a room with three beds. So each of the men hands over $10, adding up to the fee of $30. Later on the manager had a kind idea and decided to give back $5. He hands 5 singles to his concierge, who then goes up to the men's room. On the way he has an idea, "how am I to split $5 into 3 separate groups? So the boy takes $2 for himself and hands each of the men back a dollar $1+$1+$1+$2(he took)=$5. So by substitution, each of the men paid $9. 9 x 3=27. 27 + the two dollars taken by the concierge is only equal to $29. You can look this over a million times but you'll never be able to find what happened to the final dollar because it is IMPOSSIBLE! next, your statement that we should believe something that has been believed for 2000 years is completely illogical. before Galileo came along, people had thought the earth was the center of the universe for even longer than a couple thousand years. So Math should also be questioned because nothing is exempt from thought. thank you and please vote Nay. Math is never perfect!
1+1=2 (Math)

Well I must first rebut your equation, in step 3 you state the wrong square root, therefore making your argument wrong. "√-1/√1=√1/√-1" is not an actual proper root. And according to Albert Einstein, one of the most famous mathematicians "Even the slightest of errors, can make a genius, a dunce." Furthermore, according to the Greeks when they first established a number system, they concluded that the order was 0123456789, 0 being the least. And that 0+1 was 1 because 0 is nothing and 1 is just a single thing. Thus, if nothing plus a thing (singular) is one thing, then, one thing plus another thing is two things, considering that 2 is equal to two ones. Which should we believe in this debate, a problem that attempted to solve 1+1=4, or an equation that has been believed for more than 2000 years? I urge a PRO ballot. Thank you for your time.
1+1=2 (Math)

i will prove to you through the use of complex systems that you are, infact wrong that 1+1=2. it is actually 1+1=4 because 1=2 Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1 Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: √-1/1=√1/-1 Step 3: Simplifying: √-1/√1=√1/√-1 Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i. Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i), Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i), Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ), Step 8: i (i/2 + 3i/(2i) ) = i /(2i) + (3i)/(2i) ), Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2, Step 10: and this shows that 1=2.
as an operating system Mac is better than Windows

A. Widgets go away so there's no argument for that. And Just to sum up this round becuase I have to go. When you minimize stuff it goes in your toolbar at the bottem and you can get it whenever you want. It never shuts off completely. The thing about windows is you need to upgrade it more and give it better stuff than a Mac for it to work at full capacity. So Mac's are a better OS for security and any other reason
as an operating system Mac is better than Windows

first i will say I am a mac user as is the rest of MY family. Responding to your reason A. Widgets are not always there and in all macs they are optional for you to turn on and off so people who dont find it a convience can turn it off at any time. Widgets are good becuase they help you find the information you need quickly and help to make your time on the computer easier. B. No offence but all you have to do is put your mouse on the red yellow or green button to see what they do, If you have enough sence to do that then you would know that red is close, yellow in minimize, and green is maxamize. Unlike the windows these are helpful becuase when you minimize it hides it totally and when you maxamize is only uses the full length of the program not your desktop so that is no inconvience at all. C. Closeing things does not close them to make it a convenience to you to never lose your stuff. At one point or another all Windows users have had something very important they wanted to minimize and instead they close it. With windows all you have to do is pop it right back up and recover it. If you really dont like it still being open all you have to do is go to the top next to the apple sign and click quit (whatever program you are in) its not hard at all therefore causeing no inconveience. D. I agree that not all programs run on mac but I do not agree that they never have the newest program. You are making this debate like all the standard stuff a computer should have is everything on a window. well a mac is different and they have they're own standard stuff such as the internet i am using right now Safari which is appsolutley free. Mac gives you updates daily on the new stuff that you can download to your computer and unlinke windows that have a lot more memory room for you to hold that stuff in. E. As i just astablished mac gives you updates daily and not all of their upgrades cost money. in fact only about 38% of them cost money. But even if some do it makes it no better considering windoews upgrades cost money also and they have less memory so you can download less programs to make your computer better. F. In your statement you agree that mac gets less viruses and I will just say that in my expierences with a windows I had to delete some stupid virus at least once every month so there is NO WAY that windows is more secure. And my last argument is the commercials. Come on the mac commercials are pricless "Hi im a mac" its hilarious and you never see windows commercials showing that the mac OS is highely more marketable.
as an operating system Mac is better than Windows

first, i will say, i am a windows user, although the rest of my family uses macs. here are the main reasons why i beleive macs are infact not superior to windows. a. widgets whenever i move to a certain corner of the screen, a bunch of "widgets" cover whatever i am currently working on and are simply annoying. also, vista has gadgets, which are, basically the same thing, but are nicely attached to a closeable sidebar on the right side of the screen. b. the window interface in the top left corner of any given window on a mac, there is a green, a yellow, and a red button. they are not labled in any way, and the user is just supposed to know which one does which. I beleive this is the epitome of user hostility, not user friendlyness. Windows, has an X, for close, a picture of a smaller windowor a bigger window for restore/maximize, and a symbol to represent the taskbar for minimie. c. closing things does not close them. this is one of the biggest problems with the macintosh OS. when i close, say, firefox, on a windows computer, it closes, and shuts down. On a mac, however, the window i was looking at closes, but the program is still running, taking up processing power and slowing down the performance of the computer. d. hardware windows, like most operating systems will run on any computer. mac however, because apple wants to make money, uses inferior hardware, and makes up for it by having the operating systems specialized for the specific hardware in the computer. This means that it is impossible to upgrade your macintosh's hardware, which means you will never be able to run the newwest software. e. upgrades Windows has this nice little control panel called windows update. when the OS gets updated, it tells you, and dowloads the update for you. with macs, however, you have to actually purchase each and every update, which not only decreases security, but costs alot of money as well. f. security macs are not more secure. as most people realize, people who use macs do not get very many viruses, this is not, however because the OS is more secure, but because it is only something like 6% of the market. (much like the webbrowser opera, which, although it has many bugs, isnt exploited much since noone uses it) for these reasons, i beleive that mac, is, infact is inferior as an OS in nearly every way to windows. thanks to whoever accepts this debate.
as an operating system Mac is better than Windows

to your minimizeing argument actually the taskbar on mac only pops up when you put your mouse on it so there is no way that it can take up more space than the windows taskbar which is always there and taking up space. Widgets: Mac has the same taskbar but, as I have said in this speech it goes away so it does not take up space AT ALL there is no way it takes up more space than the windows toolbar. Mac has a better OS and you can also upgrade it and make it faster. In all studies it shows macs operate faster than windows so the thing about windows being faster and better is untrue. Also you dropped my commercials argument, they are the best :) For these reasons i urge you to vote Pro. Thank you to my voters and my oppenent.
as an operating system Mac is better than Windows

"A. Widgets go away so there's no argument for that. And Just to sum up this round becuase I have to go. When you minimize stuff it goes in your toolbar at the bottem and you can get it whenever you want. It never shuts off completely. The thing about windows is you need to upgrade it more and give it better stuff than a Mac for it to work at full capacity. So Mac's are a better OS for security and any other reason " A. Widjets do, in fact go away, but the reason mac is worse than windows on this point is not just because they are annoying, but because windows does it better. if you look at the screenshot in my previous "speech" you can see that windows has a nifty sidebar to organize all of your "Gadjets" and it does not get in the way. when i minimize things they got to my taskbar... on a mac they go to the dock. honesly, i don't think that there is much of a difference in minimizing between mac and windows. BUT, if you want to debate about that, windows does it better because the taskbar takes up less space on the screen than the dock. hmm.. i don't NEED to upgrade a windows at all. i know when i built my computer, it had the best parts i could afford, and was much much better than any macintosh i could have got for nearly twice what i paid. The fact that i CAN upgrade my windows however, is one of the main reasons why it is the superior operating system. (also, my computer ran just fine when i first built it, and i didnt need to upgrade it to run at "full capacity", whatever that means) Because most of my points were not debated this round, you can pull my b-f points over to con. Because of the many reason i gave in my last post, and for the reasons stated here, i show that macintosh is not only not the superior operating system, but, is, in fact, very much inferior to windows. because of this i urge you to vote CON. Thank you.
Global Warming

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth " in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases " including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide " to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today " higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth"s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100. What this means to humanity is that, unless some serious changes are made, the global climate will continue to shift so drastically that the world will not be the same as we know it in a century, or less. http://nationalacademies.org... The Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the primary community authority on global climate change clearly states that climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences. What this means is that humans must act now to spur the adoption of cleaner energy sources at home and abroad, rather than trying to convince ourselves that global climate change is a hoax and letting the problem get worse before we address it. http://www.nrdc.org...
Global Warming

It's nice that 31,00 people of various scientific backgrounds out of the millions of people in the world with any science degree decided to sign a petition against global warming. Let us look a little deeper however. First off, this was submitted, you claimed, as an Op-Ed, more commonly known as a letter to the Editor. Last time I checked, when I looked for a serious opinion on a topic, I looked to experts in the field, not the letters to the editor section of the newspaper. Furthermore, of these 31,000 scientists, exactly 39 climatologists signed this petition (http://www.petitionproject.org...). So while the small percentage of uninformed biologists or chemists who also signed this and somehow amassed a number of 31,000 signatures, the only qualified to be making such claims in the field are the 39 climatologists. As if only having only 39 even remotely valid opinions wasn't weak enough, of these 39, only two-- yes, two-- of these climatologists are even in the top 200 most published climatologists. As being published is generally a testament to a scientist's expertise in a field, these two climatologists make up only 1% of the top climatologists around the world. The overwhelming majority of climatologists clearly respect the obvious fact that global warming is real and needs to be addressed. This issue is pushed forward by a statement issued by the Joint Science Academies on Global Climate Change (http://nationalacademies.org...). The very first heading is straight to the point: Climate Change is Real. However you can continue to try to downplay Climate change by calling it "cooling" repetitively, if you really want to. It doesn't make the actual issue go away, but the cooling, as earlier explained, is simply a byproduct of the warming. A really hard question is faced now. Who do you believe? The 31,000 scientists who signed an Op-Ed, among which only 2 were legitimately qualified to be making such claims? Possibly. Perhaps, however, you choose to believe the leading scientists and climatologists from every primary developed country in the world, who felt that it was necessary to bring this issue to the forefront of the world and confront the problem with an international effort because its effects were so drastic. The choice is yours, of course, but in general I usually pick the best in the world over the only 39 climatologists in the world who feel that global warming is not a serious threat.
Global Warming

According to John Howpkins of Right Wing News, a leaked report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the world is not warming but is actually cooling, and will continue to get colder until the middle of the century. Source:http://www.rightwingnews.com... "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening." "Timothy Ball Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest fraud in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. Source: http://www.sitewave.net...
Global Warming

In October 2012 there was data shown that in fact the earth has been cooling over the past 16 years. http://i.dailymail.co.uk... Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... According to "a really inconvenient truth:Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition agreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. It has been estimated that we have spent around $106.7 billion of taxpayer money from 2003-2010 to try to understand" global warming. And the spending doesn't stop there. The same research shows the government has proposed to spend around $1.4 billion in 2012 alone on climate change issues. The fact of the matter is we are spending large amounts of money on an issue that there is no scientific evidence to back. Source:http://www.policymic.com......
Global Warming

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an internationally recognized authority on global warming and the science behind it, directly states, "The science is clear. Global warming is happening." (http://www.ucsusa.org...) There has been a 1.4 degree increase in global temperature from 1907-present and the past 10 years have been the highest in recorded history. The United States only makes up 2% of the world"s surface, so the claim that the hurricane and weather patterns in the U.S. have showed little change would mean very little in the global sense. The ocean temperature has been consistently rising over the last century, yet another indicator that Global Climate Change is real and happening. In addition, The CO2 composition of the atmosphere has been climbing to unprecedented levels, causing the heat from the sun to stay within our atmosphere rather than flow out. Next I would like to address the concept of "global cooling". While in an observable sense it does seem reasonable that cooler weather could not result from global warming, the actuality of it ties into the ocean and polar ice caps. Water is unique in that it is most dense as a liquid and when it's at 4"C, rather than the typical model of the solid being denser than the liquid. Because the seas surrounding Arctic areas and ice caps are usually just below freezing (the salt lowers the freezing point) the ice caps melt into water that is actually warmer than the sea, which explains both the rise in sea temperature and water level globally. As the resulting shift in ocean currents continues, the effect on temperature on land appears to be cooling; however, the reason for the drop in atmospheric temperature is actually directly tied into the ocean changes caused by melting ice caps. Therefore, the root of this "global cooling" is actually global warming. Perhaps a more apt term, agreeably, would be Global Climate Change, but this does not change the fact that serious change is happening right now and is a serious issue. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov......)
Global Warming

According to "A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is not real." A group of scientists grouped together and signed a OP-ED saying that global warming is not actually supported by science. In fact our earth is not being heated up it is going through a cooling stage. Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. http://www.policymic.com...... According to University of Colorado environmental scientist Roger Pielk, there is in fact a reason to argue global warming. Pielk testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, this included, California"s Barbara Boxer, Rhode Island"s Sheldon Whitehouse, and Vermont"s Bernie Sanders. "Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900," Pielke added. "The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970."" (He also noted) that U.S. floods have not increased in "frequency or intensity" since 1950 and economic losses from floods have dropped by 75 percent as a percentage of GDP since 1940. Tornado frequency, intensity, and normalized damages have also not increased since 1950, and Pielke even notes that there is some evidence that this has declined." droughts have been shorter, less frequent, and have covered a smaller portion of the U.S over the last century. Globally, there has been very little change in the last 60 years, he said." http://frontpagemag.com......
Spray painting a banana

I'm noticing a paradox here. After first, you literally said "Just ask my professors" and now you are saying that I literally CANNOT contact them. These two statemenst don't go together, so since you have a hole in your logic, this means that your statement is illogical and thus invalid. If this statement of yours is invalid, then you can't be right every time, meaning your statement about being omnipotent is invalid. Also, you didn't specify the debate, it's unfair for me to refute the claim.
Spray painting a banana

I don't see how I could get off topic on a debate that I don't even know what it's about. If you can warp space and time, then you are suggesting that you are omnipotent. I highly doubt this, seeing as this is simply impossible for a human being. You don't have any evidence for this? Which professors? Please specify this? What am I supposed to argue about. You just stated that you like to eat spray painted bananas, there's literally no argument going on. You have the Burden of Proof.
Spray painting a banana

I just disproved your statement, and in return, you only give a weak assertion that terribly fails to defend your case. You have no proof and have no logic, so we'll let the voters decide who makes more sense. Also, you didn't specify what the debate was really about in the 1st round, thus, I didn't know what the debate was about. Instead of giving me an argument to contrast to, you literally just stated a fact. It's unfair for you to tell me what I have to debate at this point.
Megan Fox is Ugly

Despite whether or not my opponent thinks she is ugly, this is a debate on pure opinion. As such, this debate should be forfeited, and everyone should vote Con. My opponent has challenged me, so I decided in humor to see how it will end. Despite this, I will try to show as objectively I can, why Megan fox is attractive. Fox has appeared in a five page spread for the November 2005 issue of the popular men's magazine FHM. She also posed, in decreasing amounts of lingerie, for the March 2007 issue of FHM, the June 2007 issue of GQ,[13] the July 2007 issue of Maxim,[14] and the September 2007 issue of Arena. She was voted the Sexiest Woman in the World by FHM magazine in 2008, beating out Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Megan Fox is Ugly

Debate (American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Her face is severe." Some people, such as I, find this attractive nonetheless. The view of whether or not Megan fox is ugly or not is plainly an opinion. It cannot be argued by facts or logical reasoning.