BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All particles with angular motion are in a radius approaching 0.

"The electron (as far as we know) is a structureless point particle, and its spin angular momentum cannot be composed into orbital angular momentum of constituent parts." - from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," the standard undergrad textbook on the subject. [1] My opponent's argument completely misrepresents the laws of physics. As far as physicists know, particles are not rigid bodies, they are points (or in physics what we call "fields") with a radius of 0. Therefore, everything my opponent has argued does not apply to particles. If the angular momentum of a particle came from the particle actually spinning around, and the particle had some kind of radius, then the particle would have to spin much quicker than the speed of light. Of course, this is physically impossible. There are proofs that show all particles are 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional. In either case, all particles have a radius of 0. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.physics.sjtu.edu.cn...
The carbon tax would be succesful

Brah, looks at this ya nub The carbon tax is "Seriously bad" Mulling over the mess we find ourselves in, it occurred to me that there are several other reasons (apart from those most frequently discussed) why a carbon [dioxide] tax is a very bad idea. The US economy is in strife. Unless congress can agree an increase to the borrowing ceiling, things could get very bad, very quickly, dragging the global economy down. The EU is in strife. Greece is on the verge of default, Ireland's finances have junk status, Italy has joined the queue next in line, after Spain and Portugal, waiting for a handout. If the worst happens, the European currency could be blown apart sending the economy into a tailspin, again, dragging the global economy with it. I am of the old school that believes that drastic reforms should only be undertaken when a government has a clear and unambiguous mandate to do so. Minority or shaky coalition governments should do nothing that rocks the boat - their job is little more than to keep the country on the straight and narrow. But here we have a government with a wafer thin majority thanks to a couple of independents and a Green, undertaking the biggest wholesale reform of our economy since the GST. Only when a government has a substantial majority and a clear mandate should it embark on such major reforms. And despite all of these issues, and all of the well-rehearsed ones as well, the government ploughs on regardless. That is because it has, at every turn, placed its own survival above what is in the country's best interests - the worst possible crime of a politician. Dumb french! Go Blacks!
The carbon tax would be succesful

The carbon tax is "Seriously bad" Mulling over the mess we find ourselves in, it occurred to me that there are several other reasons (apart from those most frequently discussed) why a carbon [dioxide] tax is a very bad idea. The US economy is in strife. Unless congress can agree an increase to the borrowing ceiling, things could get very bad, very quickly, dragging the global economy down. The EU is in strife. Greece is on the verge of default, Ireland's finances have junk status, Italy has joined the queue next in line, after Spain and Portugal, waiting for a handout. If the worst happens, the European currency could be blown apart sending the economy into a tailspin, again, dragging the global economy with it. I am of the old school that believes that drastic reforms should only be undertaken when a government has a clear and unambiguous mandate to do so. Minority or shaky coalition governments should do nothing that rocks the boat - their job is little more than to keep the country on the straight and narrow. But here we have a government with a wafer thin majority thanks to a couple of independents and a Green, undertaking the biggest wholesale reform of our economy since the GST. Only when a government has a substantial majority and a clear mandate should it embark on such major reforms. And despite all of these issues, and all of the well-rehearsed ones as well, the government ploughs on regardless. That is because it has, at every turn, placed its own survival above what is in the country's best interests - the worst possible crime of a politician. ^ That is why the carbon tax is bad brah. Your turn.
Black is a color

I'm going to address your arguments. 1) Black has different shades therefore it is a color. Here's the problem with this argument. There is only one TRUE shade of Black. The true "shade" of black is one in which absolutely no light or color is reflected back to the eye. This is why black holes appear black. It's because they are so strong that absolutely no light is able to escape them. They appear BLACK because there is NO COLOR being reflected back to the eye. 2) Two colors/Multiple colors can be mixed to create black. This argument is somewhat similar to the first. When you mix colors to the point where they appear very dark and can be considered black, it's not truly black. You can mix colors all you want but you will not be able to achieve true black. It's a very dark grey or charcoal. True black is the absolute lack of light/color. For something to be TRULY black it must have no color or light.
Black is a color

Black is referred to as a color in many of areas of our lives. When a police officer asks you the color of the shirt donned by the man who stole your unicycle, it's not often that you would say "It wasn't a color". That would be ridiculous, therefore we say Black because that's what our eyes perceive it as--a color. When I say that black is not a color, first we must understand exactly what a color is. Color is the visual perceptual property in humans. The colors we see are based on a visible spectrum of light. The different colors we see are based on how much light is reflected back to the visual receptors in our eyes. This comes into play when we are deciding on whether or not black is a true color. Here's the deal- White reflects light and is the presence of all colors. Black- Absorbs all color and is the absence of all color. Here's the question you have to answer...Would you consider something completely absent of color to be considered a true color? Is a PB&J - PB still a PB&J?
Is the Godfather the best movie in cinema history

I have to admit that my opponent has made very good arguments but he forget the meaning the best movie in cinema. It means that the critics love it best not the crowd or people just the critics and seeing what the movie got on rotten tomatoes I don't think it is as good as you think. It got a 42% and the godfather got a 100%, if we were talking about which movie people liked more you could have made a better argument and it would have been a better arguments by comparing different movies to the godfather. I'd like to point out that my opponent is saying the same thing twice.
Is the Godfather the best movie in cinema history

My answer to his rebuttal:The components that I stated prove why the 300: Rise of the Empire is better than The Godfather.Now I am going to show the fact that 300: Rise of the Empire has all the components my opponent put forth: Ability to Interest the Audience: 300: Rise of the Empire uses several ways to interest the audience, such as sex, brilliant military tactics, slow motion, and amazing computers graphics as well as great acting and good story plot.A Good Story Plot: The movie is about the Greeks uniting to defeat the Persian armada, but there are several subplots in the movie that makes it great. These includes, but not limited to, how the God-king came to be, how Themistocles became a hero of Greece and his inner battle, and, the most interesting subplot, Artemisia rise to power, her demons, and how she placed the God-king in power.Good Acting: Eva Green is a great actor and plays her role perfectly. Sullivan Stapleton (Themistocles) also plays his role extremely well and gives a speech not heard since Independence Day. Transformation of Character: Artemisia was a simple Greek orphan girl until she was saved by a Persian. From there she rose through the ranks to become the most powerful woman in the Persian Empire. Gunfights: All the gunfights in The Godfather are simple hit and runs. Yes, The Godfather has bombs, but 300: Rise of an Empire has ships ramming each other and water on fire exploding the ships.Conclusion:I have proved that 300 Rise of an Empire is the better than The Godfather thus making The Godfather not the best movie in cinema history.
Is the Godfather the best movie in cinema history

The components that you are stating don't make a movie it just makes the people wish they had the people in the movie and wish they could do what the people in the movie are doing, what makes a movie is the ability to interest audience, a good story plot, and good acting and the godfather has all of that. And since your talking about components 300 doesn't have the Transformation of a a regular citizen to a Don and I think that the god father has a good gun fight's. And the godfather has bombs. Good luck to you too!!!!!!!
Is the Godfather the best movie in cinema history

The burden of the Affirmative is to prove that The Godfather is better than every other cinema movie made. The burden of the Negative is to prove there is at least one movie better or at least equal to the The Godfather. The negative does not have to give a best movie of cinema movie, the negative just needs to prove that there are better movies than the Godfather. My First Argument is 300: Rise of the Empire The Godfather is quite slow and it is missing several components that 300: Rise of an Empire has: Blood and Gore: In 300 they combined real Spartan tactics with awesome spinning assassin moves. Furthermore, they have ships ramming into other ships, amazing sea tactics and water on fire burning ships. The Godfather does not have enough blood and gore. In other words, it’s missing an awesome gun fight for the movie to be better than 300: Rise of an Empire Hot Girl: Every great movie needs to have that really hot girl. In 300: Rise of the Empire, Eva Green (Artemisia) is that hot girl. Who is that hot girl in The Godfather? There is none. Sex Scene: In 300: Rise of the Empire, there was a scene between Artemisia and Themistocles which allowed for several jokes later on in the movie. The Godfather is missing a scene like this. Hot Shirtless Guys: For guys it's hot girls, for girls it's the hot shirtless guys of the aewesome spartan variety! This is severally lacking in The Godfather; they may be Italian, but not shirtless. The Godfather is missing these elements to make it better than 300: Rise of an Empire. Therefore, The Godfather is not the greatest movie in cinema history.
Is the Godfather the best movie in cinema history

Ok: Don aka The Godfather Micheal Sonny Richard S. Castellano- old friend of the Godfather Kay, she becomes major after she marries Michael "I'm gonna make him an offer he won't refuse." -The Godfather I am wondering which of the these movies you have seen: Star Wars (All Episodes) Lord of the Rings Extended Edition The Gladiator 300 : Both movies Les Miserables (the newest version with Russell Crowe)
Public Anti-Nudity Laws are jusitfied

however, seeing as it my duty to win this debate on public nudity, I must argue that. .. I would firstly like to say that i was not by any means comparing free speech and public nudity, but more so comparing the ideas of living with a free will, having the personal right to choose what you do with your self. Yes, ofcourse there are restrictions on freedom of speech, hate speech for example is not allowed in my country. However to a sensative inoccent ear speech weather it be hatred or motivational could be offensive to a particular individual. It is a due fact that to each indiviudal based on thier nurture and nature up brining they would find different things offensive. Im sure that to a religous man, someone screaming the words "Oh my God" would touch on the topic of offensive, a person expressing thier feeling of gay love in public could offend another family who were brought up in the ways of thinking being gay is wrong, or weather it be your neighbour banging on the drums at 2 in the morning screaming north american war chants. The basic point that i am trying to bring across, is that offensive is all around us, and that nudity, something that we all share, all know what it looks like and something that if your willing can find on the internet, is nothing but nature at work and has been labaled as "shameful" and "disturbing" when in truth, what is there to be offended about? Counter arguement 1: " Individuals have the right not to see the nude"- Individuals have the right to not be exposed to a lot of things out there, war,voilence,rape,hate, second hand smoke, alchaholic dads or even daytime TV. Individuals also have the right to express themselfs. Not a valid point. Counter arguement 2: "Nudity is allowed in private areas"- So if things are offensive to the public, aslong as we do them behind closed doors that is ok? we can break the law but if it doesnt affect the majority, no worries? Counter arguement 3: "Nudity is unsanitary"- So are public toilets, door handles, trailer parks, internet cafe's, escalator handles, strip clubs, stranger sex and taxis, the list continues. Not a valid point. Counter arguement 4: "Accidental Rapes can occur"- Manslaughter, the end of the world in 2012, peace on earth, the making of rocky 6 and a zombie apocalypse can also "occur". Not a valid point. Therefore i stand my arguement, and challenge a counter debate if you dare.
Public Anti-Nudity Laws are jusitfied

Thank you for allowing me to debate this point with. I would like to as you suggested, take this first round to clarify some topic key words, please let me know if you agree or disagree upon these definitions. Nudity: "Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Majority: "The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes" Arguement: I believe that public nudity falls into the same very basic idea as free speech, what I mean by this is that by telling someone weather they are allowed to walk around in public with or without clothes is the same as restricting free speech, ergo restricting free will. With this I argue, that is it not every persons own right to decide in their own lifetime weather they can wear what they want? or therefore lack of. Addressing the issue of majority voting, about two years ago a company did a census on the general public of America. The census included weather they believed that public gay marriages should be allowed. When the results came back, it showed that 74% of the population was anti gay mariages and that the other 26% was pro. Yet gay marriages are permitted in the USA. If the gay population can get what they want even if it defies majority voting, why shouldnt public nudists?
PC is WAY better than any game console

I have heard of the crazy price increase in other countries for game consoles. If i was in Brazil then hands down i would rather have a PC if i had to pay 1500-2000$ for a PS4. That i will concede hands down. But for the rest of this lets both pretend we are in the states. I will say we are even in: Purpose built: Steam does amazing things. I retracted my complaint's about drivers and popups. Mobility: Okay yeah laptops are mobile... But who really games on a laptop :P Better Titles: Though i stick by my argument about games slowly leaving the computer. I did forget about the MMO market. Usually this is almost all PC with a few exceptions (Elder Scrolls Online, Final Fantasy 11, ect) But i will stick tooth and nail by these. Price: already been there. (from the states point of view) Hacks and Exploits: Usually to mod in a game on console you will have to first mod your console. (Usually hard-mod with a chip soldered in, can be expensive.) This makes it a bit more of a pain to hack on consoles. With a PC you can already run home-brew code and mess around with the game from the start. (exceptions soft-modding: original Xbox and I guess the Wii if you count that as a game system :P ) And in my experience gaming on both, hacking on the PC is much more common. Even Playing Field: "This is only true for people with low specs machines" I agree with this but that's the glory of the console. No one playing on Playstation Network in my Call Of Duty/BF4 game will have a low-spec console. Convenience and Simplicity: No real installing (yes i know you have to on new gen but its an easier process than the PC). No computer chair and monitor. I know you can put your PC on the TV but most people don't. And on the PS4 i can play COD on a 60 TV without re-arranging my living room. Its just more simple and straight forward in my opinion. Networks: PlayStation Network and Xbox Live both have one point of integration for friends and content. You could argue that Steam is the same for a PC. But not all PC games are on Steam and the overlay does not always work for games. Also voice communications are a snap. You don't have to switch between Ventrillo, Team Speak and Skype when playing to talk to different friends.
PC is WAY better than any game console

great arguments this one gonna be exciting!! So lets get started. More for your money: Well, a PC is indeed more expensive than a game console for sure, but, its not that much more expensive actually, if you think about gettin cheap keyboard and mouse and other stuff like that it didnt get that much expensive. you shouldnt count the PC monitor cause game consoles need a TV anyway. and so, you pay more for a PC, and get so much more than a console can do. the thing is, i will be honest here, i live in Brazil and things here is WAYYYY expensive, its all tottaly out of balance, so PS4 here cost 4.000 Reais In dollars doing comercial money exchange, will be something close to 2.000 dollars! with 4000 reais you can buy n over the top computer around here... But well, if you want to consider the Brazil thing as an argument, i let you choose because its a little off of you reality of things i suppose, its kinda unfair play it as an argument here, your call. Better Titles: This is actually not true. Lots of games come to the PC, and PC only, or come first to the pc, THEN ported to game consoles, and most of then actually got pretty downgraded for the console version. Even playing field: This is only true for people with low specs machines, those people actually shouldnt be playing that game (at least not at that resolution and graphics configs), its like someone trying to play God of War III with a Playstation 2. Hacks & Exploits: I kinda agree with you on this one, but even so, consoles have opening to hack so much as any PC (maybe more) but depends on the Operational System, is harder to exploit or hack it, windows is certainly the most used OS, and because of that we have so much problem with hacking and virus stuff. Look at nintendo system, they use the same system from Gamecube, only updated, because of that, lots and lots of exploits is possible, because people already know deeply that OS. Mobility: Well, depends solely on your machine, if you have a laptop, there you go! By example, Steam Machines will come in a lot of varied sizes and possibilities regarding size and mobility. Purpose Built: This one fits on the category "With great powers come great responsabilities", because PC can do lots and lots and lots of stuff, because of that, some badside must come, and in this case, is lots of process and softwares running in the background. But even this way, you can configure stuff to not be intrusive on your use, them, those pop up things, will never get in the way. So for greater use, you need greater responsability. Purpose Built: This one fits on the category "With great powers come great responsabilities", because PC can do lots and lots and lots of stuff, because of that, some badside must come, and in this case, is lots of process and softwares running in the background. But even this way, you can configure stuff to not be intrusive on your use, them, those pop up things, will never get in the way. So for greater use, you need greater responsability. You can as well, install the Steam OS, it is solely for gaming purposes, so no popup and nothing like that happening.
PC is WAY better than any game console

I will give you that if you buy a game on PC and lets say the PS4, the PC game will have the possibility of slightly better graphics. (due to the more expensive hardware) But I would not call PC "better" A console you get: (I will be judging off of the PS4 mostly) More for your money: 399$ for a system that will play games for around the next decade (judging by history) PC 1000$-2000$ for a top of the line gaming rig. Plus a few hundred dollars for upgrades over 5 years until you have to replace the whole thing. Better Titles: More games are going console-exclusive because of the piracy on the PC. Even playing field: When you join an online game you don't have to worry about someone's PS4 running windows 95 and holding up the lobby. Cant say the same for the PC. (Lag can still suck on both) Hacks/Exploits: I am not saying they do not happen on the consoles but they are much more rare. Mobility. When i go to a LAN Party i can fit my console in a small backpack. I have two cords max to bring with me. PC you have a tangled mess of wires/wireless fobs, monitors and bulk. Purpose Built: No drivers/compatibility issues with the PS4. I don't have to worry about Adobe reader or some other program ruining my game by asking if i would like to update or give feedback. Indie games: With steam i will give you this category on the PC. But the consoles are catching up quickly.
Rondo is an underrated player

Rondo is extremely underrated because everyone dismisses him in arguments about best PGs simply because he doesn't shoot a decent percentage of his jumpers. Now I know that it is important for any player in the NBA to be able to shoot wide open jumpers from mid, but Rondo more than makes up for his lack of a jump shot by other aspects of his game: First: He already averages enough points for a point guard. He averages about 12 points per game since his sophomore year in the NBA. and in the playoffs, he averages 14.5 points per game. These numbers clearly show that he has other scoring options than the mid-range jump shot. Second: He is an incredible play maker. During his last three seasons, he averaged about 11 assists per game, and he lead the league in assists in the previous two seasons. And let's not forget that he holds the record for the second most double digit assist games in a row. A player who can assist at will is more impressive in my eyes than a player who can score at will, and these numbers prove my point. Third: He is an amazing rebounder for his size. During his career he averaged 4.5 rebounds per game during the regular season. and during the playoffs he averages 6 rebounds per game. That is just amazing. Fourth: His defense. He is a great defender; he is consistently among the league leaders in steals. Looking at all the things that he brings to the table, one can clearly see that he deserves more credit than he actually gets, and even though he shot 64.5% from the line this season; his shooting isn't terrible and it definitely doesn't immediately make him a player who is a liability at the 4th quarter. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org...