BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Nothing' exists.

Existing CAN denote a positive sum of something, but it can also denote something which is not there, but is still in existence; therefore, nothingness is something. Take Atheism for example. Most Atheists believe that there is no God. Their belief is the belief of something not being there. Nothing can be there, but it is still a belief. So say there is a rock and it has nothing around it. To describe that matter or that space around the rock would be nothing. So couldn't 'nothing' exist in an absent form? We can even take a more feasible example, like zits on a particular spot on someone's face. Let's say some teenager told there friend, "Do I have any zits here?" And they point to their cheek. The friend can reply, "No, nothing is there." They are using nothing as a form of existence of something. And if 'nothing' breaks the understanding of the word 'exist', then why can we say something such as "Nothing is there," or even the rare "Nothing isn't there"?
'Nothing' exists.

Agh I totally misinterpreted your arguments and thought i was taking your position. I'll go for this as best i can. "Existing" denotes a positive sum of something. If you are in debt then the money you owe "does not exist" (at least not in your bank account). So to say that 'nothing', which is effectively zero, exists breaks the common understanding of the word exist. Oh and about your "prove me wrong" thing, i like to take in ideas through the scientific methods...i dont "disprove" your idea. I merely try and present a preponderance of evidence counter to your idea. The evidence can be accepted on its merits...but there is no disproving cuz new evidence comes up in support of your idea then interpretations can be changed.
'Nothing' exists.

If something is not solid and tangible then it doesn't exist, maybe i should have been more clear on the meaning of "solid". What i mean by solid is that it has mass. Since anything with mass can have something "solid" or concrete enough when you get to the atomic scale. Air is not nothing...it is something. When air goes through our skin it is not nothing going through our skin...it is tiny nitrogen, and oxygen particles. They have mass. Our language was not developed to accommodate something that doesn't exist. Why would it? Zero hasn't always been around, because its not very useful to anyone other then mathematicians. There is a word for zero (nothing), that does not mean that the use of the word coincides with the meaning of that word. The obvious practical use of the word nothing is to describe non-existence. If you have zero apples, then our language makes no difference...it treats zero as a number even though it is just a concept. Saying i have zero apples is the same as saying i have nothing. A tangible thought is much different. If tangible thoughts exist, then you can argue unicorns exist. But unicorns don't exist...they only "exist" in the confines of our mind, but not in the real world. Nothing is the same way. It is a concept and a thought that only exists in our head...not the real world. Nothing can be something only within the terms of the English language. If you are looking for an animal and your buddy asks what you see and you say "nothing" it doesn't mean that the earth, trees, plants, and sky are nothing. It means you see zero animals. The word nothing is confusing because the concept it represents does not fit into our language. Your examples of Augustine and Socrates are just more evidence for how this word doesn't fit. I don't know the context of that quote from Socrates but I can bet it was him chiding his fellow Greeks for not thinking enough. A rock doesn't do any thinking that is why "nothing" is non-existent, or "nothing". But the English language doesn't handle the concept of nothing, so nothing is treated as a descriptive term, noun, or number. "Nothing" is no more real or in existence then other human concepts. It is on the same level as unicorns, honor, and god. No form of provable existence outside of the human mind. 'Nothing' just like other human concepts has its purpose in our everyday lives, but cannot be misunderstood as something that exists. Good debate...i convinced myself. :)
'Nothing' exists.

You say, "Zero is not a solid tangible thing." Just because it is not a solid tangible thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nothing can be described in a tangible sense as in the space around something, but it can also describe something that is tangible as in understandable and not confusing. For example, air. It is not solid. It can go through our skin (little by little . . . VERY VERY VERY little). It is not tangible. But it exists, because we have defined it that way. You say, "Our language is set up in a weird way where "nothing" is treated as a tangible object." Because it is. 'Nothing' is a noun in the dictionary. If it is not tangible, then why do we always use it in a tangible way? Your basically saying our language is set up to say "'Nothing' exists'. 'Nothing' cannot only be something, it can be a quality of something. It describes something that is not there; the matter, the space, the openess around something IS 'nothing'. I think what you are trying to do is to redefine the english language, away from what it already was and is. Some people cannot understand it, and just because you cannot understand something doesn't mean you redefine it for everyone. The English language rules are set. Yes, some people argue the point that 'nothing' cannot exist. But if 'nothing' cannot exist, then why use it at all in our language and in our lives? You say, "Zero in itself is representative of non-existence, so to say the opposite would kind of be breaking a few language and math rules." No, they would not be. A mathematical nothing is represented by a tangible thought. We know exactly what we are thinking about when we think of numbers, and we have even attached zero to it's own number and letter, thus we can understand it. Again, if zero does not exist, how do we use it? To add to this, 'nothing' is the quality around an object. It is the description of something that exists. It is there, we cannot picture it, but it is there. I think it was said by St. Augustine: "we should not start at the beginning, nor at the end, but where we are, in the middle. We reach a verdict about the existence of controversial things by assessing how well these entities would harmonize with the existence of better established things." Nothing exists because it works with other things. Nothing works with the rock because nothing is around the rock. It was also Socrates who said: "Nothing is what rocks dream of". 'Nothing' exists, and it can be said what it is. We haven't taken up weird language and broken the laws of language by using 'Nothing' in reference to existence since 'nothing' has been used with existence since the times of Socrates. "Nothing is the absence of time, dimension, object, and value. Nothing is a quality. Nothing is there, and therefore it exists." That's what I say.
Homeschooling

Alright here are my final thoughts: Some co-ops cost money. Public schooling is free and a daily thing. Would you rather spend money for single day per week to do an activity or have open activities at school every day for free? The answer is clear there. I would much rather have daily interaction with other students and participate in daily activities for free at a public school rather than paying money to spend time with some kids every once in a while. Both options are virtually the same except one meets more often than the other and it will be for free. Also not every home-schooled student will know other children. They might not be as involved beforehand making it more difficult for them to make friends. If you want to protect your child a little bit more, private school is a good option. You can't just simply live your whole life avoiding things that other people do/say that are offensive to you. You are going to eventually come face to face with some people who live their lives differently than you and who do these things. By going to a public school, you are preparing your child for the "real" world. In this "real" world you will be exposed to new things that you may not like, but because you have learned how to handle these things by growing up in a public school, the change will come easier. A home-schooled child on the other hand may have lived their life more sheltered. When they experience things like that, it may be harder for them to adjust. Parents can't keep their children safe forever so why not slowly ease them into the world by going to school away from home? I know from growing up going to a public school that there are just some things that are best taught at school. Both of my parents are both highly educated, yet I know that I acquired more academic knowledge through my teachers. There were plenty of things that I learned in school that are helping me in life that my parents could never have taught me. Parents should be teaching us the life skill's lessons and teacher should be teaching us the academic/information used to make us intelligent human beings. Giving parent's both responsibilities is very tough where as giving the responsibilities to the people that they were meant for will be easier for all. Even though disabled people might not experience the same "real" world that you and I experience, they will grow up in a different "real" world. They will have to face new things. Some might want to improve their life. By growing up in an environment specialized to teach the life skills with others and themselves, they will be better prepared for the "real" world that they will see. They can even go to a school specialized for kids like them if they want. I don't really understand the last point you brought up, but if you were talking about parent's cheating at home, I never said anything on that. I would hope that the parent's would have the decency not to do such a thing. It was good debating with you too.
Homeschooling

I feel insulted, as I find this debate most enjoyable. Yes, the co-op classes are not everyday, but they still offer valuable time with other home-schoolers over extended periods of time, for say, 30 weeks. A co-op, just to clarify, as icanteachmychild.com [1] puts it, "As with any organized group, structure and rules vary from group to group. In general, however, homeschool co-ops are groups of homeschooling families who join together to enrich their homeschooling experience by learning from and with one another. Often these groups will participate in field trips, sports, classes, etc. There are often mom"s night out activities and retreats to encourage and refresh us moms in the midst of our busy lives." Parents give rave reviews of co-ops, too! "Personally, I think that joining a homeschool co-op is just one of many ways to enrich your family"s homeschool experience. There is so much we can learn from one another!"[1] Next, many of the home-schooled students are involved in other activities outside of school, such as community baseball teams, in which they meet other students. Many people in my church are home schooled, but people in my school know them from both church and sports. As a result, everyone knows them very well. So, no, home schooled students do not always have more trouble finding friends than public/privately schooled students do. Many students in public school, such as myself, know how annoying it is to not be able to switch periods without hearing the f-bomb or hearing about the sex one had over the weekend. Those home schooled do not have to experience these terrible words and conversations, unless it is commonplace at home, in which case they are most likely used to it. But many are not in favor of these harsh words, and get very irritated by these words. I disagree with you when you say that home schoolers may find themselves behind. Many home schooled children may experience more than quality education. Dr. Donald Ericksen of UCLA says, "Some of the worst teachers I"ve ever seen are highly certified. Look at our public schools. They"re full of certified teachers. What kind of magic is that accomplishing? But I can take you to the best teachers I"ve ever seen, and most of them are uncertified.... We don"t have evidence at all that what we do in schools of education makes much difference in teacher competence."[2] Clearly, if a doctor declares most home schooling parents better teachers than those certified, we have a problem in our schools. Many disabled children may never experience the "real" world, as they may live with their parents or in a care-giving facility for the rest of their lives. Lastly, most states require that standardized tests must be administered in other locations. One of my cyber-schooled friends had to go to the state capitol to take a major, standardized test. Thank you for debating. [1] http://www.icanteachmychild.com... [2] http://www.hslda.org....
Homeschooling

Really, you made me read all of that??? By the way I am taking this seriously (ish). Humor is needed to make this debate tolerable. The co-op classes are not everyday. This means that they are only being exposed to a difference maybe 4 times a month or less. In public/private school, they are receiving all of these things DAILY. You then brought up about how the homeschoolers have the opportunity to do activities in the district. This is not always so good though. For one, most of the kids in the district participating are already friends and see each other everyday. It may be harder for the homeschooler to fit in/make friends. While more possibilities for the homeschooler may be present at the schooling age than the public going child, in the long term, they find themselves a bit behind. Through schools, kids learn about college and can more easily attain info. about colleges. Consistency can also be seen through a constant professionally trained caring individual at the school. They will remain with the disabled student for many years. In a school, specialized for kids with disabilities or not, can get these kids better acquainted to the "real" world and help them improve their life skills. They can make more friends like them who are experiencing the same things they are. Parents have to teach certain topics that are the same that public/private schools have to teach. They all have to take the same tests. Good you made that all clear. So why then give an untrained figure the hand in training you for the test. A teacher at a school has been trained to deal with these tests and will help the student perform best. *I left out the humor this time. I hope you are satisfied.
Homeschooling

Unlike yourself, I am actually taking this debate seriously. Many people who home school, my cousins, for example, go to co-op programs in which they interact with other home-schooled students in a safe, fun environment. These co-op classes are not run by the parents of the child, so they experience teaching beyond what their parents teach them. Also, most districts give home/cyber schooled children the ability to participate in extra-curricular activities in that district. My one friend, who is cyber-schooled, is in the school musical with me because she is in the district, and our district allows these kinds of interactions. Many home schooled children also experience more field trips than regular kids, because the need for funds for the many kids does not exist, and ends up just like a family trip to the zoo, lets say, except with stricter attention to the educational part of it. Next, many parents have the special touch with their disabled/handicapped child that another somebody might not have. The parent would know what makes, say, an autistic child very upset or very glad, while a school employee would not for a while. Also, consistency is often needed with these types of children, and constant parental intervention makes this consistency possible, as oppose to the weekends, snow days, substitutes children experience at a "real" school. Yes, many parents find home schooling difficult and draining at first, but soon find the many joys in it, so much that they resent sending their children to public/private school in the first place! [1] Contrary to what you say, parents have to teach certain topics, administer certain exams, and such depending on the district that they are in. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Keystone exams are required for graduation. If a student, home schooled or not, does not complete these tests, they cannot graduate. The Home School Legal Defense Association, advocates for home schooling, have performed extensive research on the topic and find home schooling to be helpful. [2] They say, "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone," because of their research. Another source, raisesmartkid.com, [3] also gives benefits of home schooling. [1] http://www.scholastic.com... [2] http://www.hslda.org... [3] http://www.raisesmartkid.com...
Homeschooling

Home schooling is giving children a false picture of the world for their early development years. They will only be experiencing their parent's teachings. With going to a public/private school, you learn social skills, make friends, and go outside of the "norm". When you simply stay at home, you do not attain these skills. With disabled students, they will be getting care/attention from people who are specialized in this area. Home schooling is also a lot of work for the parents. If we don't allow home schooling, parents will have more time to save orphans or fight world hunger (you get the point). Curriculum can be somewhat monitored if you choose to go to a private school too.
Gay Marriage

Honestly I've said all I can say. I won't wast your time with lots of unnecessary line by lines, but instead I'll just give a few quick voting issues. -> Legalizing SSM without a valid reason will lead to movements to legalize other forms of sexual debauchery, simply because it's wanted. -> My opponent has given no real reason to legalize SSM other than simply saying they think it's right. ->My opponent has, out of necessity had to spend a large majority of his time refuting my arguments instead of making constructive arguments for his own stance. As such this proves that he has provided utterly no ground as to why we must vote for him.
Gay Marriage

As my opponent has forfeited Round 3, I will reiterate my opinion on this topic. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage. In America, what I thought to be a country of equality, I'm troubled to find people still clinging to ignorance in merely a different form of prejudice, that of which I thought to be destroyed. African Americans were at one time not allowed to even marry each other. Then we let them do that, but we ruled it illegal for 'whites' and 'blacks' to marry. We fixed this injustice. Now we deal with a different issue. But how different is it really? The campaign and support for the continual ban on gay marriage is a relic of the discrimination and inequality of the past. When David Blankenhorn, a leading expert on the institution of marriage and an individual against SSM, was asked, "Do you believe in the American culture of equality- the ideal of equality?" He said he did. Then he was asked, "Isn't it inconsistent with that, to say that gays can't get married?" Guess what. He said yes. So, he was asked, "Is it true or not that America, by the criteria that we judge, would be MORE American the day we permitted gay and lesbian marriage than it was the day before. He agreed it would. This was in front of thousands of people. He answered this way, because when you're on the witness stand, so to speak, there is really nowhere to hide. The truth comes out. "When you can't hide, discrimination falls."- David Boies As long as we have this prejudice in our country, the homosexuals are not the only ones suffering- we are all ethically diminished. We don't discriminate based on orientation at the workplace. On every legal application for a job in America, it reads that employees are not discarded due to "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." So we'll promote equality in the workplace, but not in marriage?
Gay Marriage

I think that because we allow marriage, we should allow it to be all-encompassing. Just as Blacks, for example, were not allowed to go to certain places to eat, certain people are not allowed to take their relationship to the next level in almost all of the States. I think that we need to correct this illogical decision that has ostracized a smaller, yet important part of our population. I would also like to say that I am not a homosexual. But I reasoned with myself, that if I was, I would want to be able to marry who I loved, just as straight people can marry whom they love.
Should teens under 18 be able to live independently from their parents

Yes you are correct in assuming that the teens are from 13 to 19 and that they are without outside help.I agree with you that it is indeed a desperate mistake, but also try to see it through a certain point of view such as that the child's parents are divorced.Both parents want for the child to live with them and neither parent wants for the child to live with either parent.The child feels tormented living with either parent.Does not want to live with the parent they are currently living with and is in a war where everyone wants to win.
Should teens under 18 be able to live independently from their parents

I can understand where your argument comes from. I attained the age of 17 not 6 months ago, so I am my own witness. I understand that independence is great and all, but let us not hide the fact that they are still children. The need to get your own space is not uncommon. Every teen naturally feels that way one time or another. However, self-sustaining ability, an unyielding legal process, the stage of early development, and more reasons to come, allowing teens to live independently from their parents is a desperate mistake. I am going to assume certain things. teens: the years of a person's age from 13 to 19 independently: without outside help; unaided. For the sake of the debate, I would request sources throughout the argument. Am I also to assume we are following the standard debate procedure: Round 2 & 3: Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion
Should teens under 18 be able to live independently from their parents

I will represent my rebuttals next round as agreed. I still haven't seen an argument from my opponent. First, I will make the case for teens under age 18. Again, I will point out that teens include age 13. At age 13, the mere thought of independence is liberation. That means, in the mind of a 13-year-old, playing your game boy all day, not having to clean your room, no one to argue with. That lasts for about 30 seconds. Then you realize that you don't know how to cook, or get a job, or the space isn't big enough. The question admits 'independently', so no mommy or daddy to come help you. To rebut this, my opponent has to prove the following:1. Teens, including the age of 13, can
The god of the bible exists

My opponent seems to be confused. The resolution is "the god of the bible exists" of which I am CON, meaning that I believe the resolution to be false, or that I don't believe the god of the bible exists. My opponent is the PRO side, which is arguing for the resolution, not against it. Now my opponent can continue with the debate for the side he signed up for, or I will have to create a new challenge and hope someone reads it properly.
Was operation Barbarossa the turning point of WWII

The axis was winning the war before Operation Barbarossa because that was their (the third Reich) first major defeat. Historians agree that this was the turning point (http://www.globalresearch.ca...). While the statement above concerning Pearl Harbor is to an extent true, it is irrelevant to the debate. The USSR victory over Germany also gave the Allies a much needed boost in moral by proving the Nazi's were not invincible.