BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

While I would agree with my oponent, and the dictionary with regards to classification of mathematics as a form of science, both mathematicians and scientists would vehemently disagree with the suggestion that we cannot be sure about the veracity of our mathematical analysis. More specifically, I would contend that the statement that "mathematics, like any other form of science, is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." is absolutely incorrect. The reason for this is fairly simple and is down to how mathematical proofs are determined. This is specifically down to the fact that maths uses various types of logical reasoning, rather than empirical evidence and measurement to show that a particular statement is not just true, but necessarily true. With regards to my oponents above statement, I would also contend that no formal mathematical proof has ever used observation or experiment as part of it's logical statement or to validate that a given mathematical statement is true. Some mathematics, although not formal proofs, may use observation or experiment to estimate or model the real world; but this becomes part of empirical, rather than mathematical science. Going back to pythagorus; given that a right angled triangle has three sides, two of which are perpendicular; that the area of a square is the square of a single side; and that a square is a four sided shape where all sides are equal, and meet each other at right angles; and a square with an identical length of side has the same area as any other; it can be shown that pythagorus is not just true; but necessarily true. Necessarily true simply means that one has to be true because of the other. To be unsure of this proof is not to be unsure about the mathematical analysis as this analysis is purely logical; but to be unsure of logical reasoning itself. For example, to be unsure as to whether 1=1, or true != false. If such fundamental logical concepts were uncertain; then the statement that nothing can be proved has been proved, and therefore disproved.
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

To start, I'll refute my opponent's main argument: that of logical deduction being proof. Using the example of the hypotenuse and a right angled triangle, I agree that the likelihood of the square of the hypotenuse always being equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is highly probable. In fact, it is so probable that we consider it to be a "fact. " The problem, however, that exists is this: how do we know that our analysis of mathematics is accurate? It's interesting that while my opponent accepts that science is unprovable but that mathematics are not, mathematics itself is a science: the Oxford definition of mathematics is, "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. " [1] My point behind this is that mathematics, like any other form of science, is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. " [2] In short, science is the study of how things work–that study involves observation and experiment. Mathematics, like any other form of science, is only a demonstration of reality as what we believe it to be. In the end, most of history points in the direction that humans' knowledge is inherently limited, and as a result, it's not possible for humans to know anything or prove anything to an absolute degree. While my opponent has done an excellent job of showing the credibility of mathematics, the question remains: how do we know that our interpretation of this science (which mathematics is) is accurate? Perhaps we are on the right track, and perhaps our study of mathematics is absolutely correct. We still can't prove it, merely show that it is highly probable that the science of mathematics are a very concrete standard–but not an absolute standard, as humans are the ones who study the concept of mathematics itself. Thank you, to both the voters and my opponent for your time. Sources: [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

There are indeed many things that cannot be proved absolutely; much of science and theories based upon evidence and observation only hold because there are no measurements that deviate, or disprove the theory. Such theories are only true until a measurement is obtained that disagrees. For science or any other system of knowledge based on empirical observation and measurement, the statement that nothing can be proved absolutely is completely true. However, there are many other types of knowledge that are based on logical deduction; such as mathematics, which given a set of assumptions, can give a logical set of answers that can be proved to always be the same. For example, if you take a right angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is ALWAYS equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides; this can be proved using mathematical methods only based on the initial set of assumptions about what a right angled triangle is, the theory can simply be proved by drawing the triangles in two square arrangements. The field of mathematics is one of the most important branches of knowledge, as it's application enables science to describe the real world. Without the terms "e" and "pi", the values of which can be proved to always be the same, science would not be possible. All mathematics stem from a simple set of logical statements, from which the rest can be proved. As a result of this, while the statement "It's impossible to know or prove most science absolutely," can be considered truthful; the statement "It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely" is absolutely incorrect. Because of the logical deductive process that mathematics follows; the only way to claim that these proofs cannot be proved "absolutely", is if the very nature of reality is subjective; in that we cannot be sure that a triangle is a triangle, or anything we see, touch, feel or measure can be relied upon. While this is a valid philosophical position to take; it invalidates the whole premise simply by proving that it is impossible to prove or know anything absolutely, leaving this simple statement the one thing that can be wholly proved.
F*ck Sh*t C*nt on Television

Such vulgar language should not be aired on American television because it's inappropriate and promotes ignorance and negativity. Words like f*ck, $#!t and c*nt are commonly used to express negativity in an negatively extreme manner. If children hear these words, then learn how they are commonly used and led to believe that it is acceptable for everyone to use them, we'll do damage to them and society. Censorship of vulgarities assists in teaching children self-control. Knowing that there are boundaries to what they can say reinforces how they were raised to behave. Without this, they would be more inclined to be disrespectful of others, which is totally unacceptable. F*ck ("and others") are most definitely words, so once again, you are wrong. A word (http://dictionary.reference.com...) is a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. The use of vulgarities promotes ignorance. I don't think we can afford to promote ignorance, since America's education system is rated as 3rd from last place by ourselves and the rest of the world. We should be teaching our young more positive ways of expressing themselves, so that they stretch themselves and exercise their intellect.
F*ck Sh*t C*nt on Television

Your position in this debate and your argument in Round 2 prove that you not only believe in your stance, but prove that I am right as well. You didn't even have the respect to form vulgar words to drive your point home -- you just typed a bunch of nonsense so that your post had enough characters for acceptance. I don't appreciate an empty victory, as I'd prefer to win based on the merits of a legitimate debate, so thanks a lot for making a mockery of my efforts and this forum.
Abortion can be demonstrated as immoral using Beauchamp's Principles

As my opponent has opened with some depth I will jump in with an alternative perspective to the resolution. I would add that if my opponent chooses to include beneficence we could do so for the purpose of being comprehensive.1) Non-maleficence definition: "avoiding the causation of harm; the health care professional should not harm the patient. All treatment involves some harm, even if minimal, but the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of treatment. "The question here is at what point does an unborn child acquire the same rights as the mother. In the UK it is 24 weeks after which a termination can not go ahead legally. Before this point however there are morally and legally accepted reasons to terminate the pregnancy. These could include the pregnancy threatening the woman's life, her health, career prospects, financial prospects, family life or mental health. To avoid harm to the woman the Non-maleficence principle will protect the woman over the pregnancy.2) Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices. This clearly favors the woman who is the autonomous person and thee only party able to make a reasoned &informed choice.3) Justice: distributing benefits, risks and costs fairly; the notion that patients in similar positions should be treated in a similar manner. I would argue that pregnant woman when taken with thee previous principals are the primary patients and those wishing to take control of their bodies (all women) should all be treated fairly and equally. This is only possible by enabling choice up to the point the pregnancy can no longer be legally performed. My opponent appears to advocate the removal of a woman's human right to self determination which I hope he agrees is not an acceptable thing to happen?
Prepaid VS Contract Cellular Phone Service

Many people do feel like they have to use big name providers for a marginally better service. I would disagree with the idea that the service is equal or even comparable on a nation wide scale. Rural areas will most likely have better coverage from larger service providers like AT&T. Almost 20% of the U.S. population is located in these rural areas. That demographic has very little choice in providers and often is forced to put up with the higher costs of larger providers. I think it depends more on where you live and travel rather than just a matter of dollars to dollars.
Prepaid VS Contract Cellular Phone Service

Most people feel that they have to sign up with a big cell phone provider in order to receive good service. People are willing to pay sky rocket prices for high speed data. I have heard people paying $125-$250 for their service. I have straight talk service and I couldn't even imagine signing up for a big cellular company. I pay only $55 a month. I get unlimited calling, Texting, and pic messaging. I also get 15GB of high speed data (4G Lite). I don't ever have to pay for overages. The only thing you have to do is buy an unlocked phone at whole sale price; spending $750-$1,000 may seem like a lot, but it's cheaper in the long run. Most people are worried about getting crappy service (You pay for what you get). Prepaid providers use the same towers the big carriers use. If you want Sprint service, then you would sign up with Boost Mobile. Why pay more money for the same service?
Making abortion legal does not decrease abortion related deaths due to "backdoor" abortions.

Rules:This is a simple topic, so I will make this only two rounds. The first is acceptance and stating your opinion, the second will be for rebuttals. Then voting begins. Opinion: Making abortion legal does not prevent abortion related deaths caused by “backroom” or self inflicted abortions. One of the more popular arguments for legal abortion is that if abortion were illegal, women would perform the abortion on themselves or by visiting an illegal “backroom” abortion clinic and seriously hurting themselves. If abortion were legal it would be safer for women and if it were illegal it would lead to many more deaths. This simply is not true as the evidence proves that there is no correlation between enacting legal abortion laws and the decline of deaths caused by abortions. By the time Roe V. Wade was enacted abortion related deaths reported by the US CDC were on a steep decline for a decade. By Roe V. Wade abortion related deaths decreased by 250 million. This proves that the decrease of abortion related deaths has little to do with legal abortions. Citations:http://www.justfacts.com...
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

This debate is very confusing. However, I will try my best to reason with you. I beleive that you are basing your 'elitest' comments based on stereotypes rather than actual fact. Take Sweden, as you've mentioned, as an example. Yes, in the States we have an image of elitism in our minds - but the fact is that a mjority of people in that nation are not elitists but are regular people. The same is for cities - like New York - and people of diffrent groups. Your ideas of elitism are based off of stereotypes. Okay, let's look at how you refered to MetroTech as being funded corruptly. The decision to grant money to establish that foundation had to be decided by some form of legistalitve meeting - like a local, state, or national congress - since it involves tax money. These bureaucrats you are reffering to had to apply for this grant. Now, they obviously passed and funded the grant. As much as you might hate the idea of your tax money being spent on this, the government sees a purpose for it; they must have some reason to approve it. And, seeing as how these congressional leaders were elected by the people, it isn't corruption - it is simply a matter of opinion. Confusing, I know - but what I'm trying to point out is that these folks that approved the grant were elected by the people for their wisdom, their ideals, and how they would vote on certain issues. Since this congress is a representaion of what the people want, it is not corrupt. It is fair. You might not like the idea, but others may see a purpose behind it. You are basing your argument on opinion. Now, the East India Companies were obviously not a decision made by a represantion of the people; they were decided on by members of a royal family. Although tax money went into these projects, the people had no say in what they wanted. This is why you cannot compare modern commercialism to the East India Companies or even imperialism. And SOME companies can be corrupt, but all are not. Not ALL governments are corrupt, not ALL people are corrupt. And not ALL companies are corrupt. SOME will lie and cheat and steal, but this isn't the majority; a majority of companies do what's right. A majority of companies extend their influence and maximize profits in ways that aren't corrupt, but are rather related to capitalism. Your argument is based on sterotype and opinion.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

I'm not talking about capitalism. I'm talking about imperialism. Competition is healthy. And commercialism isn't bad. But like I said, success is good. What I'm saying is some companies can be corrupt though. And some big cities, and countries in general tend to have elitist nature to them. Also some building projects are funded, not by people, but by bureaucrats trying to show off. MetroTech in Brooklyn is a nice example of our tax dollars being put to waste. Some companies, you can't deny, have the same nature of the East India Companies.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

It sounds like, to me, that you are basing your argument off of assumption rather than fact. Your argument is also flawed by the use of stereotypes. Let me explain. Here is a definition of imperialism found on The Free Dictionary: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. I can see what you trying to get at with comparing imperialism and commercialism. However, there is a better word for it. It's called capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Companies are simply trying to maximize profits and extend their influence in the business world. This isn't corrupt; this is simply what companies do. Sure, some companies will cheat and lie and break the rules of business, but you can't say that this is the majority. You can't say a majority of people are corrupt, you can't say a majority of governments are corrupt, and you certainly cannot say that a majority of companies are corrupt. I think this is where you made an assumption. Now, I don't understand why you have limited our argument to North America and Northern Europe; companies around the world try the same tactics to try to maximize profits. Sure, some cities have more advertising than others - but that has to do with the economic situation. Take Beijing for example. It's in China - a communist nation. Of course their aren't going to be as many adverts, because the government owns everything! And Tokyo has just as much advertising as New York; I don't know where you got this from. Paris and Rome; the companies there utilize the same tactics as IKEA and other such companies. So, to me, your argument is based off of a hunch. Just because some companies are more successful than others does not mean that it is imperialistic - it means they are doing what business just naturally does: maximize profits. It has been doing that since the dawn of time, and will continue to do that. It is not corrupt; it's natural. At least, a MAJORITY of companies are not corrupt. I also want to address the fact that you called big cities 'elitist'. I don't know where you live, but I live real close to Atlanta. Let me say that some people in that city are rich, and could be put into the category of 'elitist' - however, there are a lot more low and middle-income people living within the city. A MAJORITY of the city is not elitist; it is just those who live in the high-rises that can be described this way.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

Actually I'm not saying commercialism is bad. Innovation is good. Cars, electricity, medicine. What I am trying to say is that a good majority of corporatism is sorta rooted in imperialism, from the empires like England, Denmark and Sweden. Many companies such as IKEA, from Sweden, can sorta be the modern day Swedish East India Company (since Sweden did try to conquer India, but wasn't successful at it as say England). To me a majority of the elitist, yes I say elitist, big cities, tend to have that commercial cesspool quality. Corruption. Whatnot. I mean come, a city like Atlanta, New York, Bristol or a city in Denmark has nothing on a city like Paris or Rome or Beijing or Tokyo. In a way, while corporatism isn't bad in and of itself, some companies have deep roots in imperialism.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

Is you argument that commercialism is bad for cities - because, in my opinion, it isn't. Commercialism is just a way to allow companies to maximize profits, which - in turn - boosts the economy. If this is your argument, I am against it. But as I said, a largely-populated city wasn't created through commercialism. It was created through natural factors, like its vicinity to a water supply. After a large-enough population has moved in, commercialism takes place. Cities of all sorts utilize commercialism; I wouldn't call it a cesspool, however. It is factored by the population.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

OK, sorry I think what I meant to say was cities in Northern Europe and North America in general, regardless of size. But yeah, since the tragedy of imperialism and commercialism as a result happened in Denmark, England, Sweden, and later North America, cities in all of those countries tend to not be cities with culture (though that's a subjective term), like cities in Spain, France, India, China.
Most big cities in Northern Europe and the Americas are not really cities but a commercial cesspool

Here is a definition of city found on The Free Dictionary: 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any large town or populous place Yes, there is much advertising and commercialism done in big cities. But that is because of the large population, not the effect of it. Cities build up after a long period of time, due to several reasons. Once these areas are populated, companies advertise and commercialize within these borders; there's nothing wrong with this, because it's called capitalism. But middle and smaller-sized towns utilize advertising as well, but on a much smaller scale. Everywhere you look, there are businesses; the difference is that these companies are larger in bigger cities than smaller. Commercialism is found in virtually every civilized place. Small-town car dealers advertise their honesty and 'how well their cars run'. Restaurants in medium-sized towns put up billboards, hand out flyers, etc. to try to get people to come in and have a taste of their food. And companies in large cities advertise on much larger scales. Large cities are not commercial cesspools. Virtually every town, no matter how big or small, has some form of commercialism; the amount of commercialism, though, is factored by the population. Large cities are no more commercial cesspools than any other town on the face of the Earth.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

Yes. Countries that have evolved into atheism from Christian states are peaceful, that is because their roots were in Christianity. The worst countries to have ever existed were based in atheism. Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea all had cults that worshiped their leaders because they were atheist. In Nazi Germany they considered the Christian religion uncouth and switched it out for the political brainwashing of children... ...first hand account of that. The bible is the foundation of human morals and has shaped society dramatically, which can be seen in the founding of America, founded under Christian morals...(I recommend you watch this) You should imagine yourself as an ambassador for atheism. By calling all Christians brainwashed and implying they advocate for violence you will change no ones mind and earn you enemies, as you stated someone is constantly voting against you. Looking back on what I said, I'm sorry for calling you a tad crazy...that was wrong of me morally as a Christian.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

“I don't believe…” Strange, just like ALL christians, no exceptions, none, you cannot give give one good reason for “why you believe”. And as I told you to do some research in which you clearly haven’t done. No. You have to flat out invent excuses as all christians do. Go ahead and google something like “atheism and peace” or “worldwide atheism and peace” or “atheists worldwide peace vs christianity and worldwide peace” since you think you are so smart. We’re done. Bye.