BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are 360 degrees in a circle

1. I did 360 minus the number of sides to determine the exterior angles. Then 180 minus the exterior angle to determine the interior angles.I can't remember why I imagined a triangle instead of a straight angle, but I can assure you the answers are correct. There is another way of finding the angles. The way you may be taught is to find the sum of interior angles first by using the equation 180 x (n - 2) where n = number of sides, then divide this answer by the number of sides to find the interior angles.e.g. the sum of interior angles of a pentagon (5 sided shape) is 180 x (5 -2) = 540 degrees.Each interior angle will equal 540/5 = 108. The more sides a polygon has the larger the interior angles are and closer they will be to 180 degrees. The difference between interior angles of two polygons with more sides is smaller than the difference between the interior angles of two polygons with less sides2. If you imagine a point on each corner of a polygon, the total number of points is equal to the number of sides that polygon has. There are an infinite number of points on a curved line, this tells you that a shape with infinite sides is a circle.The definition of a polygon is a figure with 3 or more "straight" sides. Circles have infinitately more "straight" sides than 3 so I see no reason why circles can't be called polygons.My opponent claims "there are zero angles in a circle", however I have shown there are 179.9 reaccuring degrees (180) in a circle. It is even possible to gain a reasonablely accurate approximation of the angle using a protractor like it is possible to estimate the length of the curved circumference using a straight ruler. Just make measurements on a very large circle.3. A) I do apologise for bending your mind, I've used "perpendicular" when really I mean "aligned", sorry I got mixed up. A perpendicular line creates a 90 degree angle. Adding a side to a polygon with 4 sides will create an obtuse angle which will get bigger when more sides are added. If there are a finite number of sides the line hitting a straight line will never be aligned, it can only align if there are an infinite number of sides in a shape. 3. B) Whenever two straight lines meet the sum of the interior angles remains the same i.e. 180 degrees. This is true for curved lines too and a curved angle is the same no matter how much it is curved.4. Here is the method to calculate Pi:The point I was trying to make here is that the Babylonians probably wouldn't have even imagined that a circle can be made by increasing the number of sides a shape has. Thinking about it now, it wasn't worth mentioning. This argument can be dropped.5. A side and a point are effectively the same thing, if there can be an infinite number of points there can be an infinite number of sides. I put three dots after the last digit of 179.9 to show there are an infinite number of 9's repeating after the 9 as I don't know how to put a dash line on top of a digit. This argument can be dropped.
There are 360 degrees in a circle

Several misconceptions I see here, but geometry isn't my strong suite so feel free to correct me. 1. In your beginning equations, I do not understand why you keep repeating "there are 180 degrees in a triangle". Once we start talking about polygons with any different than three sides, it suddenly stops being a triangle and becomes something else. Instead you should say "there are 180 degrees in a strait angle", as an interior and exterior angle combined make a strait angle.2. I don't understand this as well. In the first round and even here, you agreed with me that a circle has only one side, but now you say it has an infinite amount of sides. Please choose one and follow it.In reality, a circle is a curve, and there is only one. Therefore, not only can you not refer to it as a polygon, but it also has zero actual angles. Instead, a circle is measured by the rotation of the one curve, which equals 360. 3. "there will be an infinite number of interior angles perpendicular to each other, creating one angle"There's two things I find confusing in this statement. (A) I don't even understand it. Angles can't be perpendicular to each other, only lines can. If there is a way to make angles look perpendicular, please attach a picture to explain. I think I bent my brain trying to illustrate it. (B) Maybe perpendicular angles would cancel themselves out if they existed? Or would they combine into 180 degrees? 4. I didn't even think of Pi for a moment during this entire proof until you brought it up. One does not need Pi to understand this, so the Babylonians could have understood it as well with a primitive understanding of Pi as well.5. IF there is an infinite number of sides, each angle would be exactly 180. If it were 179.9, it wouldn't be infinite, because there is a slight tilt after each segment, which in turn would eventually lead it around and back into it's end, making a finite, though very large, polygon.
There are 360 degrees in a circle

Thank you for being open, and providing a great introductionBelow is the maths I used to calculate the angle for a circle:16 sides:360/16 = 22.5 degreesThere are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the interior angles add up to 180 - 22.5 = 157.51000 sides:360/1000 = 0.36There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the interior angles add up to 180 - 0.36 = 179.643 million sides:360/3 million = 0.00012There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the interior angles add up to 180 - 0.00012 = 179.9998820 million sides:360/20 million = 0.000018There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the interior angles add up to 180 - 0.000018 = 179.999982If I continue increasing the number of sides of a polygon by repeating this method above with ever greater sides, each interior angle will become "flatter" i.e. closer to 180 but will NEVER reach 180 degrees. This is because finite polygon lines are not curved and a circle does have one side like you mention. However when there are an infinite number of sides it is clear the interior angle will be 179.9... or in other words 180, and the sum of it's angles will not be infinitely high because there will be an infinite number of interior angles perpendicular to each other, creating one angle.A circle and a polygon with infinite sides are therefore the same thing. If this was not true then the method used to calculate pi would not be entirely accurate, yet it is, and the circumference can be calculated despite it being a curved line. The Babylonians couldn't calculate Pi accurate to two decimal places so they had no idea how to calculate the angle of a circle. If they could then I doubt they would have imagined the central angle to be a circle which seems to be the case. Whatever the reason for them choosing 360 we have accepted it without applying maths.Mathematicians do not show angles in more than 1 decimal place, so this means they use a polygon with 647,640 degrees to make angle measurements. Therefore there is no need to "make up" the number of degrees in a circle. This is why it doesn't make sense to me. People do often say angles are about rotation, and I will leave it to you to prove this point, or any others you wish to shareMany thanks
There are 360 degrees in a circle

BoP is fully on CON as he is not only the instigator but also proving something a majority don't believe in. Despite this, I feel that I should point something quite obvious out to the audience:A degree is physically based off of the circle. The Babylonians created the "degree" several thousand years ago, and, since then, a single degree was always 1/360th of a full circle. So, as logic hints, there are exactly 360 degrees in a circle. The number 360 was probably taken from the Earth's revolution around the sun. The Babylonians discovered and logged the changes that different seasons bring, and estimated that a year is 360 days. They weren't that far off, only 6.25 days. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...;I will anticipate CON's points, or rather explanation, for how a circle could possibly equal only 180 degrees. Just to help my partner out, I might add that the 180 degrees for every angle rule counts only for polygons, while a circle is technically not a real polygon. Awaiting further posts. ..
There are 360 degrees in a circle

It appears people have accepted there are 360 degrees in a circle solely because the Babylonians believed this. I am hoping to find an opponent who can convince me that there are in fact 360 degrees in a circle I will begin: A straight angle has 180 degrees, therefore:There are 180 degrees in a 3 sided shape (triangle) because the sum of it's interior angles equal 180There are 360 degrees in a 4 sided shape (square) because the sum of it's interior angles equal 360There are 540 degrees n a 5 sided shape (pentagon) because the sum of it's interior angles equal 540There are 720 degrees in a 6 sided shape (hexagon) because the sum of it's interior angles equal 720And...There are 180 degrees in a 1 sided shape (circle) because the sum of it's interior angles equal 180. Good luck Pro
If abortion becomes illegal , it should be charged as a capital offense.

Well I am not going to delve if abortion should be legal or illegal the premise of this argument is that abortion is illegal,and for those purpose for the sake of moving forwards lets limit ourselves then to partial birth abortions. That said The law has room for self defense, which is what abortion would be if we were trying to save the mothers life. However if someone raped you, and you went out and killed that person later one you would still be brought into a criminal court. I think the same is true if someoen raped you and then you went out and killed the child. Infact I think that is worse because at least the peson committed the crime of rape, the child didn't do anything. Raising a Child and having a child are two different things, if the law requires you to have the child then you must have the child, if you do not we're debating what crime you should get, and you do not provide any alternative punishments in your argument. In our system people are tried by a jury of 12 of their peers, I think this jury is best suited to take the situation surrounding the abortion into consideration when they are trying the person. However my argument is that The prosecutor should bring up charges on pre-meditated murder. If abortion is to be illegal, and certain abortions are illegal already; then we need a crime to punish that, and on the premise of why and abortion would be illegal in the first place its logical to try it as murder. The Law needs to be black and white emotions cant be taken into consideration. Luckily our law system gives room for the jury to be compassionate and we should leave emotions to them.
If abortion becomes illegal , it should be charged as a capital offense.

First of all, science has proven that a fetus is not actually "alive" until after the first trimester, during which most abortions take place. Would your new law, since that's really what it would be, say that even if the fetus is not technically "alive" then it's murder? Since murder is killing a living person, it isn't murder to have an abortion in the first trimester, which I've stated is when most abortions take place. Let's say a woman is raped. Does she have the responsibility to raise the child if she's pregnant? It wasn't her fault that some guy jumped her like that, so why should she have to pay for his actions? That's a case when abortion is a good thing. Another example. The child has some disease that will result in it's near death and will most likely harm the mother. I don't know exactly certain diseases, but I know that there are some like that. If the child will end up dying before birth, and it will most likely harm the mother, should it be a death sentence to try and save at least the mother's life? If the baby is going to die, then why should the mother have to die with it? That's not logical. So, you argument is a good one, and I personally don't agree with abortion, unless the reasons I've stated. Your idea has no room for exceptions like these. That is where I find your idea flawed. I would agree with you if it weren't for your lack of sympathy it seems for the victims of rape, and the mothers of babies who will end up dying and killing the mother with them.
If abortion becomes illegal , it should be charged as a capital offense.

Currently in the United States abortion is legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Now abortion has been debated to heck should it be legal, should it be illegal. But I don't know how many times we've stepped back and thought what are we going to do if it is illegal about people who get abortions anyway, and that is debate is about. For the sake of this debate we are going to have to assume that abortion becomes illegal, and if that is hard for you , what you can do is take partial birth abortion in mind sense that was recently made illegal, But I don't want this to descend into is it right or wrong. I believe that: If abortion becomes illegal, it is because it takes the life of another human being. The name for the crime that is committed when one human being takes the life of another is called murder. In the United States Murder is a Capital offense and receives a capital punishment, the Death Penalty or Life in prison depending on the state you live in. I'd go further and state that Abortion is illegal is not just murder, it is pre-meditated murder. The law draws a distinction between murders that happen our of the moment, for example a heated argument ends in one person killing another. That is not pre-meditated. Pre-Meditated is when a person wants to kill his boss and spends a month fabricated the perfect way to kill him.. Thats pre-meditated. And I argue that illegal abortion is pre-meditated murder. You don't just get mad one day and kill the child, you fabricate the specific way to terminate the child's life. Therefore Abortion is pre-meditated Murder, it should be a capital offense and people who commit abortion should be subject to capital punishment depending on the outcome of the jury.
If abortion becomes illegal , it should be charged as a capital offense.

I'm not saying that the person is going to go out and kill the man that raped them, but do you think that the woman should be forced to pay for the actions of the man? What if the mother doesn't have the finances to pay for herself in a hospital? What if she doesn't have the time off work she would need? Isn't she more important then the little fetus that really isn't even alive at the point when they would abort it? If she can't support herself while she's being forced to pay for the man's mistakes, where is the justice in that? There is none. America is about justice. The child doesn't even have a brain yet, so therefore, it has no idea when it's alive or when it's dead, and it, being not alive, feels no pain. It is a humane act as long as it's done within the first trimester, it's not murder. You state that it's pre-meditated murder. I'm not arguing with any of that except the murder part. As I have stated before, the fetus is not alive during the time that it would normally be aborted, and since murder is killing a living thing, the Death Penalty would not be suitable. Killing someone for killing something that isn't even considered alive is the murderous act. You said that the law systems give room for the jury to be compassionate. We don't have the evidence to support this, therefore, we have no idea as to whether or not the jury would be compassionate. They could all just hate abortion and say, "She's guilty because it's murder." even though it isn't, they would just be bringing personal feelings into the courtroom, making it stupid to even hold the session. We don't need to punish abortion. It's not murder if it's done humanely and during the right time. After the first trimester, I agree with you completely. I just don't believe that those who decide to get abortions should be killed or stuck in prison for life. Being stuck in prison would be worse than dying in some cases, but that's another debate. I still believe that I have won this debate because I clearly stated that your idea was flawed and that it's not necessary for the woman to be punished for doing something she feels she needs to do.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

After going round for round with my opponent, I have come to see he does have a more convincing point, and the to continue this argument would be a waist of my time. I respect the argument that my opponent has made and he most certainly does have a better argument. The death penalty is unjust! Thank you for taking your time out to read over this debate, but I will not be continuing my argument as Pro Death Penalty. Thanks, C.R.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

It was a good tactic to us my words against me, but not as smart. You said ,"The death penalty is sought by the victim's family often for the purpose of closure." That is not true. Example: Click the link below. This is a video that will show an officer shoot an unarmed man in his back eight times. http://gawker.com... The white South Carolina police officer charged with murder for shooting an apparently unarmed black man in the back will likely not face the death penalty, according to the prosecutor. When Michael Slager was arrested and charged with murder a week ago, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the agency investigating the shooting, noted that this charge carried with it a potential death sentence. However, the prosecutor who could pursue the case said she does not think she would seek such a sentence. http://www.washingtonpost.com... With that being said, do you still think that the sentence was sought by the victims family? This is an example of a gruesome crime, in which someone should have been given the death penalty but was not. So your argument that "The death penalty is sought by the victim's family often for the purpose of closure" is invalid. Do you think the family wanted the man who shot their loved one to continue living? As I said earlier the decision is often made by a jury or judge!
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

I will argue that the Death Penalty should not be abolished. I will present facts to back up my argument. I believe that the Death Penalty is not a strain on America but actually helps the victims family, I know you might think that it is unfair but however if you were to put yourself in the victims shoes what would you want? 1. Only applies to Capital Crimes Such as Murder or Horrid abuse to a minor. Such as the States below who believe in the Death Penalty Oregon - Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095). Pennsylvania - First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances. South Carolina - Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (" 16-3-20(C)(a)) South Dakota - First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances. Tennessee - First-degree murder (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-202) with 1 of 16 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-204). Texas - Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Tex. Penal Code " 19.03). Utah - Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated). Virginia - First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (VA Code " 18.2-31). Washington - Aggravated first-degree murder. Wyoming - First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, burglary, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16. (W.S.A. " 6-2-101(a)) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Although the Death Penalty does NOT deter crime, and is expensive it is still something that should be kept. I say that because as I stated in earlier, how would you feel if you knew the person who killed your loved one got to continue to live life , and your loved one life was taken from them? CONCLUSION: I stand firmly behind the Death Penalty as it is the humane thing to do. I understand what my opponent is saying , that is a "Revenge" thing. But, I beg to differ because revenge is something that some one seeks when they have been hurt emotionally or physically. The Death Penalty is decides by a Jury or Jude! Not the victims family, therefore I don't think revenge is the correct word.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Hello all! This debate is on the abolishment of the death penalty.Definitionsdeath penalty: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. abolishment: to end the observance or effect of LayoutRound 1: acceptanceRound 2: ALL arguments presentedRound 3: rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 4: rebuttal pt. 2 (no new arguments)Round 5: conclusion/closing statements (no new arguments)Please note that this debate will be carried out in a formal manner, with extensive arguments that are expected to be well-written and respectable.--------------I accept this debate, and will argue on the pro side, claiming that the death penalty should, or ought to be abolished.I await acceptance of this debate.
The National Minnimum Drinking Age Act Of 1984 Should Be Abolished

I do tend to agree with you, but I decided to take a debate against my current opinion. After reading the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, I am prepared to debate the CON side of the discussion for the upholding of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. I also propose that the "National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984" should/can be just referred to as the "Act of 84" for this debate.
The National Minnimum Drinking Age Act Of 1984 Should Be Abolished

I. Introduction. Greetings! The resolution of this debate is as follows: "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 Should Be Abolished." II. Definitions. "Abolished" is defined as "to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)." [Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...] III. Debate Structure. This debate is organized into five rounds: Round 1 = Acceptance. Round 2 = Opening Arguments. Round 3 = Additional Arguments/Rebuttals. Round 4 = Rebuttals. Round 5 = Closing Arguments. There are also rules to govern this debate: 1. No kritiks [see: https://en.wikipedia.org...] 2. No profane, insulting, or otherwise improper language. 3. All sources must be cited, however you choose to do so. 4. Debaters may only forfeit up to one round each. Failure to comply with any of these rules by either party warrants immediate forfeiture of the debate; the offending party shall duly suffer the loss. IV. Commencement. With all the necessary information contained in the above sections, I release my challenge to anyone who is willing to accept it. Sincerely, - Spencarian
The earth is a ball.

Greetings! I will provide reason and evidence to demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. 1. Circumnavigation People have circumnavigated the planet both by boat and plane, meaning they have traveled all the way around it and started and ended in the same location. If the Earth was flat, this would not be possible. 2. The Moon During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow blocks the Sun's light from reaching the moon, causing the moon to "disappear." During a partial eclipse, we can see the curvature of the Earth on the Moon itself. If Earth was flat, the Earth's shadow would look flat on the Moon. 3. Other planets All other planets are round/spherical, there is no reason to suspect ours is any different. Also, other planets rotate too, which would be impossible if they were flat. 4. Timezones If the Earth was flat, the Sun's light would reach the entire planet simultaneously and we would all operate under the same clock. This isn't the case because we do have timezones. 5. The horizon With strong binoculars, you can go to the ocean and watch as ships slowly "sink" beneath the horizon as they move further away. 6. Constellations If the Earth was flat, constellations would appear in the same orientation at all places on Earth. But they do not. Their orientation shifts when you view them from different locations. My opponent wrote in the comments that he/she was expecting some of the arguments I shared. In return, I am expecting thought out responses to each. Let's have some fun!