BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I think we should have UFC for under 10s

What's the purpose of this debate? The purpose of this debate is to propose a solution to children under 10 committing criminal offences and misbehaving in school. What's the general idea? What I believe is that we should pit < 10 years old against each other in a gruelling cage fight. We would select the most ill behaved children and force them to fight. It would serve as a punishment and encourage better behaviour out of badly behaved children. We would erect facilities especially for these fights, I also believe the taxes made of these cage fight events would generate millions of income and generate dozens if not hundreds of new job for referees and staff. How would we select the participants? We would send out a management team to survey every school and select only the most criminally hardened children to partake. These criminally hardened children will be pitched against other criminally hardened children. If a child ever got expelled from school, for bad behaviour, that child would have to come and fight in the cage. These expelled children, would only fight vs other expelled children. You have to fight until you win, otherwise there would be no need to actually try in the cage. How can we justify allowing young children to beat each other up? These children threw away their privileges the moment they committed their offence. It's true that children are committing more offences today, than ever before. Now we must enact some tough love and give the children of today a reason not to misbehave. We need a "stick" approach to naughty children and this is a profitable and effective way to do it. I will close my opening argument with this. There are many children in schools who behave very well, but their education is being ruining and disrupted by evil and criminal children. We must protect these children and we need to take drastic action. I firmly believe this drastic measure is the answer we need to prevent the growing number of criminal children. thank you for listening to my pitch.
The Matrix ripped off Dark City and Dark City is way better

The Matrix has won lots of awards, But it doesn't deserve any of them, Because its idea is not original by any means. Dark City is a better movie and it's more enjoyable to watch. The Matrix is not a bad movie, But it is not original and it's not as good as Dark City. Dark City is far better- not just because of its atmosphere, But because of its ending and its characters. Dark City is appealing. The Matrix has no appeal. I love Dark City. I hate The Matrix. The Matrix is for pseudo-intellectuals and sci-fi fans who don't know beans about sci-fi. This debate is open for all Matrix lovers who have seen Dark City. I expect some dedicated arguments and a good discussion. Please accept by all means if you think that The Matrix is superior to Dark City. The Matrix is really nothing more than plagiarism- but I'll hear your points. Go ahead, Step right up. I'll wait.
A Debate on Time

Pros first objection could lie within either step 8 or step 9 of my first argument: 7. f(y)=(f-1)+x; where f(0)=a | no objection from pro, f shows the age of the universe 8a.f(0)=a 8b.f(1)=f(0)+x=a+x=a+1x 8c.f(2)=f(1)+x=a+x+x=a+2x 8d.f(3)=f(2)+x=a+2x+x=a+3x 8e.f(n)=mn+b | generic linear equation 8f.f(0)=0z+b=a 8g.b=a 8h.f(n)=mn+a 8i. f(0)=0+a;f(1)=a+1x 8j. delta n=1; delta f(n)=x 8k.m=x/1 | rise over run 8l.f(n)=xn+a | lines 7e, 7g, 7k 8m.f(n)=a+xn 9.f(n)=a+nx Much more work than it should take to show show that multiplication in repeated addition (I think that is the definition of multiplication) Pro:"Using my opponent's example function, before one could calculate f(n), he must calculate f({all real integers < n})." Not really, as i have shown that f(n)=f(n-1)+x=a+nx A simple use of the transitive property gives us the function f(n)=a+nx Also your proof seems to attempt to be a proof by contradiction, however it contains the assumption that time is finite Consider if i had some amount to time add 1 to some number, in any finite amount of time, i would have a finite number. But how does one represent the number i would have after an infinite amount of time has passed, infinity. In order for a proof by contradiction to work, you must assume true that which you are attempting to disprove, assuming it false is circular. Pro: "What my opponent's function does show, however, is time's potential, which is infinite." so times has the potential to be infinitely old, also it is possible time exists outside of our universe Arguement 2 step 9: f(y+z)=f(y)+zx proof: 0. f(n)=f(n-1)+x 1. f(y)=f(y) 2 f(y+1)=f(y+1-1)+x=f(y)+x 3.f(y+2)=f(y)+2x 8. f(y+q)=f(y)+qx 9. f(y+q)=qx |f(y) is defined as 0 Note, this really is the same as proof 1 but without that annoying a Pro: "the end of time changes as time passes; essentially, we are always living at the end of time" No, we are living in the middle of time. Lets say i am on a 100 mile road. I look to my left and see the 10 mile marker. The end of the road is still at 100 miles, even though i am only at the ten mile marker. All pro is saying is that the current age of the universe is finite. This i could argue against as well, again in an attempt to disprove me, he is assuming his side. Consider our equation f(0)=a; f(x)=f(x-1)+x. what happens if a is infinity. Then the current age of time is infinity, and time has always existed, and every value for (x) will be infinite. however Pro has been assuming that a is finite, and time has a beggining. As i said before, in order for a proof by contradiction to work, you must assume that which you are proving false. Pro: "I never said that time will ever actually reach all real numbers." It is implied in: x is added to a. a is now [a+x], since x and a can be made infinitely detailed To conclude: Infinity is annoying, get used to it.
A Debate on Time

Thank you, gizmo, for your response. It appears that we won't have any issues using your definition of "infinity." Now, my opponent disagrees with my first point in my proof, and only disagrees with my first point, so if I can prove this point to be correct, then I have proven infinite time to be impossible. The claim is that "an actual infinite cannot be reached through the successive addition of finite values." My opponent offers a proof to counter it (labeled A), but while his proof may appear logically flawless, he only asserts in the end that "infinity can be written as an addition of finite values." They key here is the difference between instantaneous addition (x+x+x...+x=nx) versus successive addition (a+x=b,b+x=c,c+x=d...). Successive addition is what we're looking for, because time does not pass instantaneously, but successively, with seconds being added to the total length of time that has passed. Now, as we're dealing with the successive addition of finite values, the very first value, a, must be finite. The length of time that passes, x, must also be finite to fulfill the requirements. First, x is added to a. a is now [a+x], and as two finite values added together yield a finite value, a is still a finite value. Second, x is added to this new a, and using the same logic as before, a remains a finite value again. No matter how many times x is added to a, a will always be a finite value, and therefore will never reach an infinite value. Therefore, the successive addition of finite values can never reach an infinite value, affirming my first point, and therefore my proof, negating infinite time and fulfilling my burden. My opponent's next list of points (labeled B) is not a proof at all, as it posits that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time on a potentiality, not a fact, and relies on (A), which was already demonstrated to be irrelevant. Finally, in (C), my opponent sets up a proof that time is not finite, and therefore infinite. Firstly, by the third paragraph in the outline of the debate in Round 1, this claim is irrelevant to this debate. Secondly, this assumes that, in its third claim, that a second will pass after the end of time, which contradicts the idea that there is an end in time. Of course, currently, the end of time is now, so that the length of time is currently the difference in the time at the start (assuming one exists) and now. There is no contradiction between the second and third points, as my opponent claims in the fourth point, because the end of time would shift by one second as one second passes, an event that his proof does not take into account. He restates this so that time will have an age of infinity. However, there is a flaw in his fourth point, claiming that {all real numbers} + 1 > {all real numbers}. For any real number X, there is a real number Y that is equal to X + 1. Therefore, {all real numbers} + 1 = {all real numbers}. Math doesn't really work as one would expect once unlimited sets are used. In conclusion, I have a solid proof that negates infinite time, upholding by burden and winning me the debate. Good luck, gizmo.
A Debate on Time

In response to pro's comments on the definition of Infinity, that is the common usage of infinity, however from a mathamaticle point of view, is innacurate, as infinity is not a quantity, however i also do not anticipate a simantic problem, and ask that we consider the mathematical definition, not the colloquial one. In response to pro's argument: I agree with point 2, and accept that given point 1, points 2 and three are true. This makes the debate, unless another argument is presented, entirely about point 1, which i will point out is entirely in the realm of math, which should simplify things in that math can have definitive proofs. A) Pro's conjecture: "An actual infinite cannot be reached through the successive addition of finite values." My conjecture: "An actual infinite can be reached through the successive addition of finite values." Proof: let x=a positive real number 1)x=x 2)x+x=2x 3)x+x+x=3x 4)x+x+x...+x=nx 5)a term written in the form of nx can be expanded into an addition of finite values 7)if n=infinity, nx=infinity 8)nx can be written as an addition of finite values (5) AND nx can be infinity 9)infinity can be written as nx which can be written as an addition of finite values 10) infinity can be written as an addition of finite values B) Consider 1. An actual infinite can be reached through an infinite number of successive addition of finite values. (A) 2. The universe has existed for an infinite amount of time 3. this gave it an infinite amount of additions 4. therefore we live infinity seconds after time's Creation I realize this is circular, it is intended only to provide a frame of how to think so that time being infinite is not paradisaical C) 0. Assume time is finite 1. All finite series have a beginning and an end 2. let x=the age of time at it's end 3. one second later, the age of time is x+1 4. we have a contradiction (2,3) 5. therefore our premise that time is finite is false 6. therefore time in not finite 7. there for time is infinite Put another way 1. For any age (x) of time, time will have an age x+1 2. Time will, have an age of all real numbers at some point in time (not at the same time, i.e it will have an age of 1 second, and an age of 2 and an age of 3.14159, and any real number. 3. Time will have an age of {all real numbers} + 1, at some point in time 4.{all real numbers} +1 > {all real number} 5. Infinity is defined as: > {all real numbers} 6. {all real numbers}+1==infinity (4,5) 7. Time will have an age of infinity (3,6)
A Debate on Time

I don't currently see any real issues with my opponent's terms. Infinity, I believe, would be better defined as "a quantity without bound or end," [1] but as far as I'm aware, it doesn't conflict with my opponent's definition. My opening argument will a rather simple version of the argument that William Lane Craig called "the argument from the impossibility of completing an actual infinite by successive addition" [2]: 1. An actual infinite cannot be reached through the successive addition of finite values. 2. Time increments with the successive additionof events of finite length. 3. Time cannot ever reach an actual infinite. (1+2) 4. Time is not currently an actual infinite. (3) That should do it for now. Good luck, gizmo. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org...
A Debate on Time

I will be arguing that time is infinite. As pro outlined, i will not make any arguments this round, but would like to get some terms agreed on. Time: a continuity of events; a happened before b but after c Infinite: having a distance between beginning and end of infinity Infinity: infinity > x for all x in {All real numbers} To clarify, my position is Their is infinity units of time between the beginning and end of time. Substituting my definition of infinity: Their is more than x units of time between the beginning and end of time for any real value of x. For simplicity, i will assume that we are speaking in a non-zero unit of time, and that time is a constant (i.e ignore relativity) If pro has any objections to these i will prefer to discuss that in the comments rather than take up valuable debate time.
A Debate on Time

Here's how this debate will work: In Round 1, CON will choose to argue either that time is finite (equivelant to the presence of a first event preceded by absolutely no other event at all) or that time is infinite (equivelant to the presence of an infinite number of events preceding now, with no first event at all). In Round 2 through 5, PRO will attempt to prove that my opponent's chosen argument is logically impossible (in other words, impossible so long as the rules of logic remain constantly applied). Whether or not CON can prove the other possibility to be impossible is irrelevant to this debate; if both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO. In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins. Essentially, PRO will be fighting an offensive debate, while CON will be fighting a defensive one. Whether or not a side is proven false should take into account only statements made by either debater. If a voter can see a flaw in one debater's arguments, but this flaw is not properly exposed by the other, the flaw should be assumed not to exist. The vote for sources shall be given on a needs basis; as long as both debaters always support their arguments with either logic (that would reduce back to basic laws of logic or tautologies) or sources, the vote should be a tie. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees and consents to all rules described herein, and agrees that they are not abusive. Finally, good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
if possibilities are true, then atheism is true

FIRST FLAWPossibilities are true only if there are no contradictions with other possibilities.The possibility that the earth is flat is contradictory with the possibility of circumnavigation.It's possible for coins to be either heads or tails, but it's not possible for both to be realized simultaneously at the same time.And so obviously, there you go...not all possibilities are true.I'm neither disputing theism nor atheism.I'm only disputing the flaw in your logic that "anything is necessarily true if possibilities are true".SECOND FLAWThere is also missing element in your logic - possibilities are true only if they do not contradict with what you already verified in actuality.So unless you have verified something (scientifically for example) to relate it to, you can't consider the possibility.The possibility of a flying spaghetti monster is contradictory with aerodynamics, or contradictory with life-forms having both RNA (pasta and tomatoes) and DNA (monster).
if possibilities are true, then atheism is true

"possibilities are false, dosnt exist in reality"This contradicts what you were arguing for. Your motion states - if possibilities are true, then atheism is true. So by admitting that possibilities are false, you defeated your own motion.I entertain the possibility you are exposing the fallacy of ontological arguments from theist - that anything possible must necessarily exist.Those arguments are false, and are really contingent to NOT contradicting other possibilities, and NOT contradicting those already verified true in actuality.For reasons already mentioned, not all possibilities lead to actuality. You now said so yourself. The possibility that earth was made in 7 days is contradictory with the possibility (eventually proven as an actuality) that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.If all possibilities are true simultaneously, they lead to contradictions.So this premise can't be used to justify "then atheism is true".
improved mental health leads to better grades in school

Hello Pro, It might be true that having a good mental health might make someone focus easily and lower stress, But that isn't the reason why someone would achieve good grades. According to studies done by The National Center of Education Statistics, The students that have the best performance are the ones that work hard and are determined to be successful, No the ones that are mentally stable. In addition, Most of the limitations that people with poor mental health have can be avoided or solve through different methods, So that means each person has the same level of understanding ( https://cpr. Bu. Edu/resources/reasonable-accommodations/how-does-mental-illness-interfere-with-school-performance/ ) Secondly, Learning becomes easier if the student is willing to let itself be taught and is willing to learn. Someone that might be going through depression might think that learning is the thing keeping them interested, And therefore that person might have better grades than someone with a stable mental health that prefers sleeping over studying. I would also like to point out that the link you posted on your claim does not lead anywhere, Therefore I can't seem to find any evidence supporting your idea.
improved mental health leads to better grades in school

Firstly improved mental health does lead to better grades as it is easier to focus. Having a good mental health means that focusing on certain things at a time is much easier as stress levels are low and school work isn't such a challenge. Being in a good mindset allows people to be able to have a clear head which means that it is easier to remember and stay on track resulting in better grades at school because you didn't have so much on your mind to interfere with you learning. According to https://gatewaycounseling. Com/prioritzing-mental-health/, When doubts and fear aren't in the back of your mind, Learning becomes easier, Which proves that if learning becomes easier then grades can go up because of better understandings and focus.
Parents should be as involved in a child's school education as possible.

The issues of wrong and right are applicable mostly to moral behaviour, and supposedly everybody is taught that from childhood. As far as life decisions go, there's not so much right or wrong but there are mistakes. The way to a responsible and independent personality lies through past mistakes. There isn't a mistake to make by a developing personality that can't be remedied, but only a mistake can help a young person understand fully what is right and what is wrong for themselves personally. On the other hand, while parents might have been going through the same periods in their early years, it does not guarantee that they know exactly what needs to be done, what needs to be done in the contemporary circumstances, and what is right for their child in particular. It often happens that parents' expectations of a child are influenced by their own unrealised childhood dreams, and have nothing to do with what the child has an inclination for. And, considering school, there is still a lot of control and guidance over a student there, so it is not like they would be left completely to their own designs anyway.
Parents should be as involved in a child's school education as possible.

As students we don't have much idea about what is wrong and right. So at this stage we go through many things which can only be sorted by our parents. Parents no matter what will always be there for us whether we are right are wrong and they have been through what we are undergoing now, so they have more experience and can sort out things easily. So i think parents should be involved as possible so that if he/she is doing something wrong , they can guide them through the right path.
Parents should be as involved in a child's school education as possible.

It cannot be denied that parents play an important role in the school education of their children, encouraging, helping to make important decisions, fighting to keep the children on the right track. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of parents who seem to take their involvement a bit too far. They control every academic step of their children, check their homework (in extreme cases - force the children to do that homework/ do it for them), scold them for anything short of excellence, run to the school to talk to teachers at the first sign of a smallest problem the child may be facing, enroll them in all kinds of extracurricular activities... While it is healthy and proper for parents to be interested in their children's school life, and they should do their best to explain the importance of education, and be there to offer reasonable help, school and home life should be separate institutions. Furthermore, it's important to provide a child with some freedom and independence, as well as take into account their inclination, personality and abilities.
unauthorized occupation of privately unused land is never justified.

Ah, but it does take certain rights of ownership away from the owner if people are illegally occupying his/her land. Is it not the owner's right to do with his/her property as they may wish? Furthermore who decides what is used and unused in terms of property? What if a farmer leaves land bare for the soil to regenerate? That appears unused. And a land developer keeping land clean while waiting for the official paperwork to be finalised? That also appears unused. When these owners finally get to "using" their property they can't because people are occupying that space. As for "past policies" you so eloquently mentioned, we cannot keep calling "injustices of the past" to right every wrong we commit today. 20 years from now we have still have the same problem. People will be saying land was taken from their families to right the wrongs of Apartheid and that they now want it back due to the fact that they were unfairly wronged. As for the PIE act, it also clearly states that an owner may evict illegal occupiers from his/her land. Have you ever noticed the increase of criminal activity surrounding informal settlements? How is that to the benefit of the public? Does the public not have a right to safety and security? Not to mention privacy. Having their homes invaded and robbed (or worse) does not respect those rights. Adding to that, the value of land decreases when there are squatters on that land. It also decreases all the surrounding property value. That means an entire region's economic value is decreased. How is that to the good of the public? Whenever the economy goes down prices go up. So now they not only have to deal with squatters they also have economic problems. As for section 26 of the constitution it states that every person hase the right to accesto adequate housing and (ito subsection 2) that it is the state's responsibility to provide people with this access. It is not the duty of the private citizen. Even with compensation you are taking something away from them that they worked for or received from their family (who propbably worked for it in turn. The "compensation" the state can offer them will never amount to the same value as the benefits they could have received through the property. Their assets are being taken from them. They don't want to give it up. If they wanted to give it up they would have sold it. Look at the reality of this. The state does compensate people for their land. But the land could be worth millions and they'll get (maybe) R20 000 for their property. Is that fair and justified?