BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everyone is equal and must be treated equally

The problem is, you're cherry picking instances where people should be treated equally. However, there are PLENTY of instances where people should not be treated equally. For example, people are judged based on their actions; a serial killer should NOT be treated equally with a law abiding citizen. The statement reads "Everyone is equal and should be treated equally." I took this statement word from word from your profile and you accepted the debate. This statement is false as I have proven; in order for a statement to be false, I'd only need to list ONE example of it being false. I have listed MANY examples, and there are a plethora more which I haven't listed. People are not born equally; some people have higher IQs, athletic abilities, etc. They may be deserving of equal treatment in SOME areas, but not all areas. Why would someone looking to hire an employee treat someone with an IQ of 20 the same as someone with an IQ of 160, for example? Why would a serial killer be treated the same as a law abiding citizen? Why would the NBA treat someone with no athletic talent the same as a superstar? The list goes on Everyone is not equal, and everyone does not deserve equal treatment, because treatment is based on who you are and the actions you take, both of which are not equal.
Everyone is equal and must be treated equally

It would be silly to doubt the existence of other races. But this doesn't change the fact that we're still human. You wouldn't disrespect a Jew while complementing a Christian. Everybody is equal enough to be treated with an equal amount of respect.Everybody has certain human rights, such as the freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial in court, and the right to their personal freedom. We're all human, and are equal in this way. Thus, shouldn't we treat an African American with the respect we give our American brothers?
Should a 10 year old walk and stay home alone

My opponent's comments thus far are easily refuted.I.Depending on definitions, 10 year olds are indeed children, as is the case with Dictionary.com's definition [1]:"a person 14 years and under."Besides, my opponent gives no impact to this claim. So what if they weren't children? Why does this matter? Why does this mean they should be able to walk and stay home alone?II.Secondly, the claim that are mature is a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy. We have no reason to believe Pro's claim as Pro has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever [2].ConclusionFor the above reasons, neither of my opponent's claims should convince you.Reference:[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
In the 1900's specifically, limiting dissent during wartime was in the best interest of America.

1. The draft is the most horrible and blatant violation of human rights that one is ever going to find, its the condition when ones rights become the rights of the collective. While this maybe justified it is unnecessary for people to inform and continue to inform the government that they must bring any war involving a draft to a quick end, or face a rebellion. 2. I am debating this because you've decided to talk about Debs. Lets look at the real reasons Debs was jailed. A. Debs was a socialist and was speaking out to the poor about what soicallism is. B. Debs was pointing out the ways in which he was the true patriot and the Pres. and his men where plutonians. C. He was a political prisoner basically. 3. If we lose our rights during war, this means that in times of war the government has full biopolitical control over our existence. This is horrible, because it creates a pathway for us to lose all rights through total war....giving corrupt governments reasons to wage war. We must NOT set a precedent for agreeing to have our rights taken away, if we are to fight to defend democracy afar we can not allow it to falter at home.
.999... is equal to one.

For my first proof, I will take ,9r, and put it on both sides of an equation..9r=.9r*1010(.9r)=9.9r-.9r9(.9r)=9/9.9r=1Here my opponent attempts to prove his assertion through algebra. He makes an error in his understanding of multiplying infinite decimals. My opponent assumes that when one multiplies said infinate decimal by ten, one simply moves the decimal place one unit to the right. Example: 9r(10)=9.9rThe error here is that in this case, the number of digits after the decimal must in theory increase by a factor of ten. As the number was infinity, an increase by factor of ten remains infinity. This is paradoxical, and so as is taught in collegiate level Calc2 classes, the number of digits must first be defined before multiplying. Example:.999...(10)=9.999....0This error in understanding infinate decimals threw off my opponents algebra.One may refute this by saying "infinate decimals can be expressed as fractions, and fractions can be multiplied easily."According to Dr. Zacheus Oguntebi of GPC, infinate decimals cannot in reality be expressed as decimals. Example: 1/3=/=3.3r it is an approximation, and cannot be expressed any other way, according to Zeno's paradox. Looking at the digits, there is only one answer that makes sense. .28171... Now add it to e.2.71828...+.28171...=2.99999...Here my opponent makes the error of using a calculator to discuss infinite theory. A calculator is incapable of accurately depicting and/or calculating infinite decimals, and so defaults to ten digits. This can be confirmed using any calculator. My opponents proof is faulty.As there is no end to either number, there is no term that can "bump up" any final 9 to a 10. Following this logic, the below equation ust be true.e+(3-e)=2.9rAssociative propertye+3-e=2.9re-e=03=2.9r-21=.9r My opponent bases this clause on the previous, and I have already illustrated the error therein.My final argument is that both .9r and 1 are rational numbers, and the difference between the two must be able to be written as a rational number. While the obvious answer may be .0r1, there are two flaws with this. The first is that this is saying the one comes after infinity, which means it doesn't exist. Second, even if we did accept this logic, .0r1+.9r would be .9r1. In no way can a number be written to express 1-.9r Again, this can be refuted by a simple reference to Zeno's paradox. The difference between them is growing ever smaller and continues to do so as it draws infinity close to zero. This concept is the very basis of the entire college algebra 101 level.
.999... is equal to one.

For my first proof, I will take ,9r, and put it on both sides of an equation..9r=.9r*1010(.9r)=9.9r-.9r9(.9r)=9/9.9r=1For my second proof, I will take an irrational number, e, and subtract its next highest integer.3.00000...-2.71828...Looking at the digits, there is only one answer that makes sense. .28171... Now add it to e.2.71828...+.28171...= 2.99999...As there is no end to either number, there is no term that can "bump up" any final 9 to a 10. Following this logic, the below equation ust be true.e+(3-e)=2.9rAssociative propertye+3-e=2.9re-e=03=2.9r-21=.9rMy final argument is that both .9r and 1 are rational numbers, and the difference between the two must be able to be written as a rational number. While the obvious answer may be .0r1, there are two flaws with this. The first is that this is saying the one comes after infinity, which means it doesn't exist. Second, even if we did accept this logic, .0r1+.9r would be .9r1. In no way can a number be written to express 1-.9r.
social networks are more harm than good

People have come to treat social networks as a new means for communicating with others. When we contact others via Twitter, Facebook or any other site, we expect that we’ll hear back from those people or companies just as we do when we send an email or leave a voicemail. The problem is that many people and companies don’t. I see it all the time in my personal use of these networks. You get bad service or need to get in touch with a person/company and find them on a social network. You then contact them and wait to hear back — often you never get a response. In other cases, you may hear back days or weeks later. These folks did their part and set up accounts to promote their business, but in being unresponsive, they just did themselves a great deal of harm. If you’ve got a profile, people will expect that you are going to be responsive on that network.
social networks are more harm than good

A number of students at universities in England have and will publish a number of different pictures from nights out, weekends at festivals and images of general stupidity. However, according a study by CareerBuilder, the main reason that employers turn away candidates is because of the nature of the content on their Facebook or Twitter pages. A Facebook page is one which people use to get across their own personal views but if you’re wanting to avoid upsetting anyone then it’s best to keep some things to yourself so as not to cause offense. Because the web is such a big place and pretty much everything is permanent, it’s advisable that you are cautious when posting a status or uploading a photo. It may seem good boasting at the time to your friends about what you did on a night out, but this may be something which your potential employer may not like. This doesn’t rule out the posting of any pictures from your time at college, but at the same time you don’t want to post anything which could harm you in the future.
A disagreement of ideals justifies physical violence.

Great. Thesis: A disagreement of any sort be it polytical, ideological or religious does not justify violence due to the hazardous effect it has to both parties and the sorrounding parties. Arguments: 1#Violence is an emotional response. No logic can come from an emotional reaction, be it love or violence. 2#No natural agreement comes from violence Violence tends to result in more conflict, in chain creating no result for the discussion both parties had before, even if, the party that suffered the attack does forgive the attacking party.
A disagreement of ideals justifies physical violence.

Resolution - A disagreement of ideals justifies physical violence.Justified - to provide a good reason for the actions of [1]To win this debate all I have to do is show that there are any number of possible situations that could occur that would justify violence. Meaning if any possible disagreement of ideals could justify violence, my adversary looses this debate. Remember that justified essentially means showing there is good reason for, so we can break down the resolution like thisIf there is any possible disagreement of ideals that could justify a rational response or good reason for physical violence the resorption is affirmed. Con has the BOPLet's lay this out as a syllogism. [P1]: If any possible scenario justifies a physical retaliation, the resolution is affirmed[P2] : ????? (any infinite number of possible scenarios ) ( IE ; the holocaust, slavery, suffrage movement, ad infintum) [C] The resolution is affirmed. C1) Defense of C1If there is *any* possible situation (disagreement of ideals) that could justify physical violence, the resolution is affirmed. This premise speaks for itself, if there is *any* and I mean *any* possible situation that could warrant a rational response that equates to violence due to a disagreement of ideals, the resolution is affirmed. C2) Defense of C2There are *any* possible number of past and future scenarios (disagreement of ideals) that justified or will justify violence as a response. Take the holocaust for example. This was a disagreement of ideals due to the massive amount of killing that was going on. Hitler's ideals cost hundreds and thousands of people their lives. Obviously the rest of the world disagreed with this ideal, and in turn acted with violence ( a war ) to stop the killing and bloodshed. This action was justified because it mitigated the suffering of hundreds and thousands of people. Any action that reduces harm can be justified rationallyConclusionThe resolution is affirmed. Rebuttals in the next round[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
MIG Tourney R5: "Dexter, overall is a better show than Breaking Bad."

This is the Semi-Final round for MIG's Tourney!! First off I would like to congratulate my opponent for making it this far in the tourney, and wish him an immense amount of luck for the coming debate!To start, I think it's best we lay down some framework and rules for this debate.****FRAMEWORK****1. This is a tournament debate, so it goes without saying that both debaters will be polite and cordial in the coming clash of words, to the best of their own abilities!2. This debate is based on the concepts and ideas shared by two televisions shows. Both debaters will prove why they think their show specifically is better than their opponents shows. We will be using reasons on concepts, and Ideas, to prove why one show is more interesting than the other, etc.3. This is a tournament debate, so if either party drops or misses a round, it should be counted as a loss of the debate. Coming this far into the tournament, both debaters should be fully willing to debate accepting the time periods.As per tournament rules, this debate will be 4-5, with a day voting period, 72 hours to argue, and 8,000 character limits. 4. First round will be for acceptance, clarification of rules, etc. If my opponent has any discrepancies with the rules, it is asked that he offer them up in R1.I very much look forward to a fun and exciting debate with my opponent, and wish him the best of luck in the up-coming debate. I will start my arguments in R1. Over to you matey!
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

Where in the title does it say "biological"? Please provide me any part of the title that strictly relates to the biological factors? What I read is "Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth" please confirm. With the topic, I shall explain my reasoning: Human beings are considered life or living, Correct? Human beings are mostly on Earth, Yes? It is accepted that human beings can be diverse in the form of gender(as discussed in the previous round), Right? So please explain to me how Evolution explains this diversification? Did that reasoning go off topic? Does it skew the debate? (I assume you meant "skew" when you said "scue" *spelling check*) "And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. " Well wouldn't I lose? If I am restricted to only say things that you want to talk about, Then wouldn't you have a significant advantage? The only restriction that should be applied is to prevent going off topic, But as I've pointed out, I've stayed completely within the topic. I presume the "biological evolution" discussion you referred to was to do with "diversification in the form of speciation" which can undoubtedly be explained by evolution. However, That was only one branch of the topic. That was not the topic as a whole. Instead of running away to make a new debate "Evolution is true" please answer the two questions I have. 1. How did I go off topic? 2. How does evolution explain the diversification of human beings (considered living, Majority live on Earth) that identify within the gender spectrum?
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

As implied by the title of this debate "Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth" this debate was meant for biological evolution, Not the evolution of different ideology's, I was hoping to discuss biological evolution, Because that was THE FOUNDATION of this debate in first place. I allowed you to make your opening statement, That in no way implied that you could scue the debate off the topic which was more then obviously shown and explained in the title alone. and as a debater it should be your job to debate the topic at hand. "And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. " then why the hell did you even accept this debate in the first place? Its like you knew what this debate was about in the first place and you were planning on scueing off topic from the very beginning. If you want to debate the topic this debate is about thats fine, If not then don't waste my time.
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

Round 2 Argument As discussed before, The gender spectrum "has already received a wide embrace" 1. It has been accepted as a group of diverse individuals. To further the argument, The editor of ScientificAmerican states that "To varying extents, Many of us are biological hybrids on a male-female continuum" 1. Providing scientific data and analysis. Their validity has gone so far that legal rights have been created just for gender-fluid individuals 2. Organisations such as universities have invested large quantities of money for gender-fluid individuals 3. And even awards are given to people who identify in the gender spectrum 4. It doesn't matter if it is a social construct but regarding that, Papers say its not 5. What matters is that this diverse group of individuals who identify within the gender spectrum are accepted as valid. So tell me how evolution explains this diversification. "this really doesn't have anything to do with what i was hoping to discuss" What? So am I only meant to talk about something that you want to discuss? What is the point of that debate then? And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. Diversification in the form of speciation is basically the definition of evolution. You stated the topic of this debate and allowed me to have the opening statement as you said "Il let con make their opening statement". You therefore enabled me to interpret the topic as I pleased. And I have I'm sorry if I interpreted it in a way that made it difficult for you to defend but as a debater, THIS IS MY JOB. Sources are listed down below and numbered: 1. Scientificamerican article the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender 2. Guides. Vpl. Ca canada laws 3. Bristol-university-gender-neutral-toilets 4. Caitlyn Jenner moving speech 5. Scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

The gender spectrum is a social construct in the same way women being oppressed is a social construct, Il be it a useless and wrong one though. It does not matter what "gender" someone says they are, They will either have a penis or vagina, Or at the very least the DNA of a male or female, In turn this really doesn't have anything to do with what i was hoping to discuss because evolution more then explains, Predicts and shows that there will be multiple beings with different ways of thinking weather it be for the better, Or in this case for worse. Of course if you wanted to discuss how and why sexuality arose, That would be a far more interesting and "meaningful" discussion in this topic.
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

So the debate is "evolution explains the diversification of all life on earth" However there is one that evolution doesn't explain Evolution doesn't explain the diversification of the gender SPECTRUM A large chunk of society agree with the "gender spectrum". It has been accepted to a point where there are rights for these trans-gendered people in countries such as Canada. So unfortunately, The gender spectrum is legit when it comes to acceptance, They are living on earth. So please explain to me how "evolution explains the diversification" of the gender spectrum Canada's rights for trans, Gender variant and two spirit resources https://guides. Vpl. Ca/c. Php? G=698666&p=4959826 Note: I believe there are only 2 genders, However society doesn't and now the "gender spectrum" is legit :/ I just want to be a smartass and challenge this debate :)
Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

There is no reason to talk down to me and question my mental state. I am fully capable of understanding the topic. I have reasoned to you my argument. I have allowed you to point out any flaws in my reasoning. You still haven't addressed any of the questions I have put forth. The only time being wasted, Is mine. I have formulated rational arguments to defend my position and all I get in return are statements claiming that I have "skewed the debate off topic" which has no evidence or explanation. "Thank you for a debate that. . . " You are welcome :) Round 5 is the last round. I would appreciate it if you would answer the two simplified questions before the debate is over. 1. How did I go off topic? 2. How does evolution explain the diversification of human beings (considered living, Majority live on Earth) that identify within the gender spectrum?
MOST evil is started by man kinds

"This is the argument Stalin puts forward. Firstly animals do starve. But that is because either they are made to handle long periods of time without food or they chose a poor place to live."The same thing can be said about humans."I agree that ants do have fights. But there battles have been motivated for the queens survival that keeps alive the whole colony. But the Japanese didn't bomb pearl harbor just to survive. Stalin didn't start his ruthless dictatorship because he had to survive."The Japanese believed that in order for their empire to survive they would need to expand it and take valuable resources from the United States. Stalin believed that in order for the Soviet Union to survive the Capitalist world, he would need to industrialize the Soviet Union and yes, this did include killing millions. My opponent listed the ways in which the atomic bomb is a positive and negative weapon. So far this is the only good argument that he has made. I will respond to it now.Pro's first and third points about the negative aspects of the atomic bomb are basically the same. Pro's fourth point on the negative aspects of the atomic bomb does not support his position. It is simply somebody's opinion and although it is a correct opinion, you cannot use it, without even presenting a source, as a valid argument.However Pro did show how the negative aspects of the atomic weapons and nuclear weapons as a whole overshadow the positive points. Yet this does not prove that humans are the cause of evil unless all of these weapons were actually used. The only times that the atomic bombs have ever been used resulted in saving lives. This is why humans are not the cause of evil. The resources on this earth are.