BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

radioactivity is in motion or a product of none the less.. . . besides it is matter that has been subjected to conditions.. if we did not exist we would not be able to measure time . stasis field or no stasis field.. don't get me wrong. Im not saying something doesn't exist if there isn't anyone there to see it.. thats total nonsense.. i mean time only exists to the living or none living matter that is effected by movement. re- My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time. i am sorry. i wrote this in a rush on the way to work.. i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world. yet still being side by side.. one under the illusion of time in a moving material world. imagine no matter. (no hard stuff) imagine all the energy's in the universe as one energy without matter of any sort.. one big energy . an energy that is everything all at once.(before earth experience) (nothing to do with our world) just existing .not even planets.. possible yes.? there is no time or measurement as there is no need to create a path of change.. now if we brought matter into the equation we then instantly have movement.. which applies to time in any relative way we look at it. this theory would explain a good few things like ghosts. premonitions. dee ja vu . think about it.. that funny feeling you have done this before.. or when you knew something was about to happen and it did.. gobsmacked by it.. only due to the illusion of time
child labor

your facts are true but.... do you have kids do you want them working in coal mines i mean they can work at burger king or something or a summer job im talking full on labor that need to be stopped i was on youtube yesterday and i saw a nike sweat shop would you want your kids working in there? would you! I dont think so therefore labor of kids is and should be illegal in the united states its a seocond slavery and im african american so the minumum age a child can work is 14 in the united states but... in other countries you can be 4 and work do you want your kids to work like that hm. there fore it should not be happening anywhere it happens mostly happens in china and africa so one question are you a biusness man?
Anime is the Best Form of Animation in America

Thank you RinLaufeyson for starting this debate. I'd like to begin by saying that anime is very dear and near to my heart as I grew up watching anime since I was a kid. If anything, I would be on your side if it wasn't for the fact that this debate was on anime being the "best" form of animation. Anime is not the best form of animation in the United States nor is it the best form of animation anywhere in the world regardless of the intended age of the audience as all animation style has their unique attributes that enhances the story being portrayed; however, since this debate is strictly speaking from a kid's perspective, I will only specify on that topic. My position here is that regardless of the style of animation, children will enjoy any animated tv shows as long as it does not reference something too esoteric or obscure. It is hard to say whether a child is able to fully comprehend and appreciate the incredible amount of detail and work that goes into any animation. Speaking from experience, I grew up watching DragonBall while at the same time captivated by the weekly airing of Samurai Jack. Both to me were incredibly entertaining as I was more enthralled by the constant action and fight scenes that flashed before my eyes and the adventures that awaited for both Goku and Jack than the animation style. At the time I did not have a bias for either shows and it was only until I became of age that I was able to look back and fully appreciate the animations that went into weaving the stories.
Anime is the Best Form of Animation in America

Anime is the best form of animation in the United States. It has a diversity that tends to lack in a lot of animation nowadays. The Characters are often more relatable and although they have their own troupes the characters often differ quite a bit in their set roles, unlike other animation. The colors that can be used in anime are rarely used in animation in America. The stories are often deeper, more intriguing, and emotion connecting than many shows on television today. This all focusing mainly on children's tv shows as that is who a good portion of anime is aimed at in Japan is children. Overall, I would like to debate that anime is the best for of animation for children in the United States compared to other televised animated shows for children aired in the U.S.
Was Math invented or discovered

You once again are failing to see that math was slowly discovered. A triangle will always have a inner angle measure of 180 degrees whether we knew it or not just as the laws of physics will always be true whether we knew them or not. The equations that you speak of that we "invented" were not inventions but profound discovers that changed our view of mathematics. You also fail to realize that the numerical system is our method of interpreting math not actually math. It doesn't matter how I express mathematics its fundamental nature remains the same. For instance in physics if the unit Newton was not named a newton it would not fundamentally change physics it would just change how it was written. The same is true of the numerical system which merely facilitates math just as money facilitates trade. Also just because somethings solves problems does not make it a invention it must have not existed previously. To continue with the apple orange analogy their will always be those 7 fruit and that fact is irrefutable this number was not invented it just is and that is the nature of a discovery not a invention no matter how much interpretation we use to make mathematical discovery's.
Was Math invented or discovered

I will admit you are right about your argument against what I said. About how the numeric system was invented to use math however math is still invented. Like time which is man-made it is used to see a better understanding of how things work. The foundations were discovered but it by itself was not. The teaching of physics are man made just like the teachings of math are man made. Before math was invented people would have said there are just some apples and oranges due to the numeric system not being invented. The notions or problems that math solves are discovered naturally. Math like I said before is a tool used to solve these problems. The use of equations were invented, but the fact the problems that are solved happen on there own. However the problems are not math because math is a tool used to solve problems.
Was Math invented or discovered

You are somewhat correct in your definition of math but you fails to capture the differences between a invention and a discovery. A invention is the creation of a tool that had previously not existed to solve a problem or fulfill a need. A discovery is the finding of something already within nature. Math has always existed whether we were ignorant of it or not. For instance if you had 3 apples and 4 oranges their would always be 7 fruit in the basket whether some figured out how to use a numerical system to discover it. Also inventions to not have laws that are irrefutable. For instance a triangle always has a interior measure of 180 degrees. This fact remains constant no mater what. This is similar to the laws of physics which were also discovered not invented. Also your argument for the equation being created by humans is incorrect for 4 plus 3 will always equal 7. The only thing that was invented by humans in your example is the Arabic numeral system which helps clarify mathematical contents better than previous systems. However just because humans have a different way of seeing things does not mean we discovered it. For instance we did not invent infrared light but rather discovered how to harness it in thermal goggles. Thus the mathematics that we know of to day is not a invention but a profound discovery with our best conveyor of math being the Arabic numeral system.
Was Math invented or discovered

Math is used to solve problems that people have in life. These can be simple or complicated. An example would be if you added 3 apples to a cart with only 4 oranges in it then how many fruits are in the cart? This is simple addition and the equation is 3+4=7. The equation was created by humans in order to find out how to use this equation with other problems. To discover something means you find something that pre-existed. The equations used in math were created by people. If math was never created and was discovered then how was it discovered?
Golden Goose Outlet warehouse

in a statement. (Privacy Policy)Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, Or signing in to your Hubpages account. Building site on a stretch of Robson that slopes down to Stanley Park currently is home [b][url=http://www. Goldengooser. Com/]Golden Goose Shoes[/url][/b] to the nowclosed Empire Landmark Hotel, A 45storey structure now being dismantled floor by floor to make way for the two new towers 34 and 32 storeys high that will be joined by a podium that houses the common amenities. Among the many revolutions of the Swinging from The Beatles to the first man on the moon, The miniskirt remains one of the era most enduring icons. And for those that are about to sing warehouse system, Criminals have feelings too, Bla bla blaa. Most doctors don't have the resources or training to know what's effective. We discuss the show's influence on men's fashion. (Privacy Policy)VimeoSome articles [b]http://www. Goldengooser. Com/ [/b] have Vimeo videos embedded in them. We've done quick insights into current events and pop culture, We've done comics, Video reviews and more. Every major city there is one street that makes it famous, Says George Wong, Whose Magnum Projects is marketing the homes. As [b][url=http://www. Goldengooser. Com/]Golden Goose[/url][/b] we head into the winter months, Cold turns always bring with them the thought of snow. Those flashbacks work, Because Hawley and his directors know that keeping us visually enthralled won't do any good if we're not emotionally engaged. We run our business with empathy and data. These are UAG, UGA, And UAA. What's that, You say? You don't think you're capable of writing long list articles like Cracked [b][url=http://www. Goldengooser. Com/]Golden Goose Outlet[/url][/b] is famous for? Good, We need you even more we recently started running Quick Fixes, Shorter content that can be read in a minute or less, In basically any goddamned format you can imagine.
Resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

"Democracy" is generally defined as a form of government in which all citizens have an equal vote/say in what the government does and who is in charge of that government. So a democracy is where every person has the ability to vote. I define "ideal" generally as something that embodies (the epitome) a concept. So one of the many examples of an ideal of democracy would be the absence of a poll tax, or the absence of a test that one must pass before being able to vote. Therefore I'd generally define "democratic ideals" as something that allows everyone to be able to vote and participate in how they are governed.
The Big Bang and evolution are real and have occured.

Though I'll first state that I will not argue the issue precisely. I will argue that with our current scientific evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the theory of evolution is valid, and that there is no evidence detailing that the universe came about because of a willful, intelligent force. We're all sick of these types of debates. I'm sure of it. But it's my first God debate on this particular site so please bear with me. I greatly apologize. "I am obviously a religiouss person. I don't believe in evolution and the Big Bang didn't occur. I know thos because where did the stuff to create the atom that formed the universe come from? ?? Where did it start? " Philosophically speaking, we can answer this question by asking "Where did God come from? Where did God start? " The answer is simple. Just as how the theists say that God always was, we can say that the atoms always were. Or better yet, we can say that all the atoms came from God, and God initiated the Big Bang and set the whole universe in motion, the left (deism). My opponent has declared that he does not believe in evolution, or the big bang, and that he knows God exists. I now ask him the following: Why do you not believe in evolution? If you do not believe in evolution, how can you explain our existence and speciation? Please answer in detail. Why do you not believe in the big bang? If you do not believe in the big bang, how do you explain the presence of matter in the universe? Please answer in detail. Why do you believe in God? Do you have empirical evidence for God? Do you believe in God purely because of faith or do you have reasons? What attributes does God have, and how do you know he has all those attributes? Answer all my questions, and I shall answer all of yours.
Christianity vs. Evoulition

I intentionally spent the last round defining terms in order to frame the debate and correct a common misconception. There also seems to be some confusion as to what is being debated here. You asked "how can you explain the world coming to being without GOD the CREATOR!!! [sic]". In order to answer this, I explained what evolutionary theory is. I would address more of what the Creationist view is, but you have not actually described it aside from essentially saying that God made everything and that the Big Bang and Evolution are not true. You are also presenting a false dichotomy between "Christianity and Evolution" in the title of this debate. In Round 1 what you really set up was a debate between Creationism and Evolution. There are certainly Christians who believe in Young Earth Creationism (YEC); however, there are also many who believe that the earth is much older and that evolution is true. Here are examples of Christians who believe in evolution: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... And here is an article explaining that it is not impossible to be a Christian in addition to believing in Evolution: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... "Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book." I think I did give evidence last time as to why Evolution/Big Bang is likely to be true. When I explained what Evolutionary theory is and how it works, I showed that it is a coherent theory with a full and viable explanation for how things came into being. I gave examples, including ones that you can see around you with ease (other people), and even provided a link to show that 97% of relevant scientists agree with the evolutionary view. I continue to point out that these people have experience and education in the field. They have looked at the facts, and they have come down on the side of evolution. As for the validity of the Creationist/Biblical Literalism point of view: I pointed out before that Christianity and Evolution are not inherently opposed, but you seem to be taking the view that Creationism is true and that Evolution must be false. If you are going to assert that Creationism is true, then you need to provide evidence. There is a burden of proof on you as well. So far you have an assertion with no evidence or commentary to back it up. In the lack of any evidence I will just ask a question: Why should the audience/voters or I take your opinion seriously? I could assert a million different things off the top of my head, but without any evidence, why would you believe them? For Example: If I said that Evolution is false because my sister actually created the Universe yesterday, you would ask me for evidence that what I am saying is true. The burden of providing evidence would fall on me to prove my claims, not on you to disprove something that I have not provided any evidence for. In the lack of any evidence presented for your point, there is no reason to believe it!
Christianity vs. Evoulition

First off, let me explain what the pro-evolution and pro-big bang theory position actually is. The idea that humans came from monkeys is one of the most annoying misconceptions about what evolution says! What evolution actually says is that humans and other modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. In other words, there was an ape-like creature in the past, which is now extinct, and multiple species developed from it. Depending on the environment, some of the offspring, after many many generations, became more human-like, and some became more like modern apes. The reason this would happen is that all animals are born with slight differences between them. Think of other people for an example. Some people have different traits. The reason people from near the equator tend to have darker skin is because those areas are more sunny. If you have dark skin it is more difficult to get sunburn and thus skin cancer. So people with dark skin are healthier in sunnier climates. This advantage means that they will live longer, healthier lives on average, and generally thrive. On the other hand, people in less sunny parts of the world (think maybe Northern Europe) tend to have more pale skin. This is because that color of skin is more suited to the amount of sunlight that those parts of the world get. This idea that some individuals, of any species, are more suited to some climates than others is Natural Selection. The life forms that are more suited to that environment will tend to do better, be healthier, and have more kids. I'm sure you know that your kids will/do have similar traits to you. Kids generally look like their parents. So the individual members of any species who have better traits for that environment will have more kids. Eventually, all of the animals there will have those traits. Over a long long time, some groups can become so different from each other that they become different species. Humans developed more intelligence, while modern apes developed more strength. We are related, but distantly, and through many thousands of years. It is like we have some relative in common from 10,000 years ago. If you found out that you were related to somebody you know because they came from your family centuries ago, you probably would notice that they do not look much like you any more. This is what evolutionary theory really says. As for the Big Bang, it is the theory that all energy in the universe was once packed very tightly together and then exploded outwards. This resulted in clumps of dust, gas and other matter that eventually stuck together to form asteroids, stars, suns, planets etc. Scientists have a huge consensus in favor of evolution. These are people who have studied this stuff for years, decades in many cases. They have researched this themselves, and read tons of material on it. They have discussed with each other and come to largely the same conclusion: Evolution is real. Even if you don't take my word for it because I'm just some guy on the Internet, maybe you should lend some thought to the experts on the issue. http://ncse.com...
The Traditional God Can Exist

This will be a debate about if the traditional Omnipotent God could exist. this is not a question of the existence of God because all too often those arguments become highly opinionated screaming matches, Therefore this is a debate of whether or not the base ideas of God conflict with each other. This is an argument of whether an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, ect. Being could possibly exist without creating any contradictions Within itself. I will be Pro, meaning i am for the theoretical existence of a God. The terms of the debate are: any arguments on the basic idea of a God will be allowed in rounds 1, 2, 3 but in round 4 no new arguments may be stated. I will allow my opponent to Begin the Debate by Posting his first argument against the existence of a God in Round 1.
Children should be forcefed shugar till they have diabiedus then take all sweets away

you seem to be way too close to this topic to debate it efficiently. Sorry for the inconvienience of my knowlege however if you just go look up dr. phill's magic bathtub potion you shall see i am correct and you is not correct... allso i would like to mention that there are no deathes proven to cause diabeedus so that compleetly is better than your point wich wa you dont have one mom give me back my mustach i love it more than my pet hamster... please dont sit on my hamster
Children should be forcefed shugar till they have diabiedus then take all sweets away

um no there is a way. It is called prayer to the lourd jesus chiste. and also dr. phill will give you a majic potion to put in your bath that you must soack the back of your feet and top of your forhead in for 8 hours takeing a short break and then for another 3 hours while staying on a stricked wet cracker diet. so there.
Nurture plays more part than nature

A drastic example of why nature means more than nurture can be found in serial killers. Serial killer David Berkowitz had a reasonably nurturing childhood, no more or less than you most likely had, and yet he still ended up killing 6 people. This was not because of a lack of nurture, but his natural predisposition towards psychopathic behavior. Another good example is in Ted Bundy, whose most likely father, Samuel Cowell, was described as a tyrannical bully and a bigot. Interestingly, despite living with his grandparents throughout his childhood, Ted still became very violent. Nature plays the most into who a person will grow up to be, and is often as obvious as a violent parent creating a violent child despite the child never meeting him.
Nurture plays more part than nature

Although in many cases involving separated identical twins the families aren't incredibly different, the families, including the ones in my example, were neutral. There wasn't an exceptional appreciation for writing in either family; it is not like the parents were writers, and in a way this makes my case even stronger because there was very little influence it seems that the families had on the twins preferences. My example shows that nature, in one of the twins own words, plays more than 90% into who a person will be.
Nurture plays more part than nature

Some times extreme cases allow us to see the mechanisms at work more clearly. A less extreme example would be Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein. "They both edited their high school newspapers, studied film at university, and became writers. But the identical twins didn't realize any of this until they met for the first time"(http://theweek.com...). Paula herself is cited as saying "'Since meeting Elyse, it is undeniable that genetics play a huge role " probably more than 50 percent'"(http://theweek.com...). It is highly unlikely that these twins were both nurtured into a preference for writing. It is much more logical to assume that their brains were genetically identical, and so the ability to write well was shared between the both of them making it more rewarding to pursue a career in it, causing there reunion.
Kurt Cobain was Murdered, it was not suicide

The opponent claims that it was murder. What if it were manslaughter, an unintentional killing that was up afterward? The opponent's arguments can lead in that direction, too. Murder is not the sole conclusion that can be made. And suicide is still a possibility, since no murderer has been officially been sought to be convicted. The opponent's resolution does not hold true, and his evidence did not substantiate his claim fully. Hence, due to failure to uphold his burden of proof, the opponent has lost this debate.Many thanks.