BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All matter can be divided. This includes photons.

1) The Intro Yes, photons have weight, so photons are matter. If you search for divisibility, you will find it everywhere in everything! This is part of a theorized universal law of nature. http://analaytical.wikia.com... All the laws of nature are discoverable in everyone and everything. -Sivashanmugan 2) The conditions: Quantum mechanics says that photons are indivisible particles. Quantum mechanics also says that photon is not a particle. By definition, matter is that which has mass. Yes, it can be mathematically calculated. No, it can't be experimentally calculated. The electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10-28 and 5.1 x 1014 photons can produce the photo-electric effect, then the mass of a photon can be calculated to be 1.8 x 10-42 g. So a photon has MASS. http://www.kentuckyscience.com...... "In physics, the question of whether matter is infinitely divisible is the question of whether it is true that no matter how small the pieces into which a physical object has been cut, they can be split further. The word atom originally meant a smallest possible particle of matter, which cannot be further divided. Later, those objects to which the name atom had been assigned were found to be further divisible, but the word atom nonetheless continues to refer to them." http://www.economicexpert.com...... 3) Conclusion: Science says that all matter is divisible. Definition of matter is one that has mass. It has been proven that a photon has a mass of 1.8(10)-42g. That means that a photon is matter. They said before that an atom was the lowest unit matter can be divided until they came up with what was inside of the atom. Quantum mechanics says that a quantum (photon) is the lowest unit, and that it cannot divide further. This is contradictory because one that has mass can be divided further. Conclusion: As long as an object has mass, it can be divided. 4) Final Thought Just because one has not found a way to do divide an object, does not mean that the object is indivisible.
College Athletes Should be Paid

I completely understand my opponents case, however I am sorry pro but you have provided no evidence that somehow if they were paid it wouldn't violate the principle of amatuarism. The problem with my opponents case is it is revolved around a notion of expecting something in return for work done but only takes monatary compensation as the only form of payment. The athletes are paid, the form of which is not always monatary. You can take money away but it is incredibly difficult to take knowledge away. Also my oppenent is in concession that they are paid even if it not be by the schools, therefore not violating the principle of amatuerism. My case is in clearly a refutation in of itself of my opponents case. The reason why athletes shouldn't be paid is because the reason they play has to be in accordance with the principle of amatuarism. Another problem is that my opponents case fails for the same reason pure conquestialism fails it undermines the intergrity of the person and in this case the game.
College Athletes Should be Paid

All I'm saying is that athletes are the ones who are doing all the work for their school and getting nothing in return except for playing the games they love. It's one thing for non-revenue sports, but some sports like football, hockey, soccer, and sometimes baseball have thousands of people coming to their games with extravagant amounts of money being spent on tickets at all of them. They are on TV, in advertisements for their schools and conferences, and are used as marketing tools for people to watch big games. Often student athletes are walking billboards for colleges and sponsors, yet they are compensated noting for their efforts except for the small percentage of them that receive athletic scholarships.
College Athletes Should be Paid

Resolution:College Athletes Should be PaidFirst lets be clear BOP is on the Pro to prove that College athletes should be paid. The pro has offered no definitions at the start of this debate. I will make a makeshift definition of the resolution which I will not contend is any better than Pro's unless Pro contends my definition. I take the resolution to mean that while in College that athletes that participate should be paid for their performance. First Contention: The Fine Line"There is a fine line between remaining an amateur and becoming a professional in the eyes of the NCAA. Turning pro does not guarantee endorsements and royalties; it simply means that an athlete will be paid to play for his organization. Payment for actual gameplay is the fundamental difference between professional and amateur status, so, college athletes should not receive anything more than scholarships."Dan CassavaughThe fact is that the reason that people in college don't get paid is simply because they are not professionals. For example, it is well within ones rights to join the local hockey team however there is no particular reason to assume the local team should pay you. The fact is that when one gets paid it implies two things that are not true(ALL OF THE TIME) in the college players case but are in the professional players case: that the reason they are playing is making it a job, and two that they providing a essential service for the general public. JOE CROWLEY: Well, the NCAA is based fundamentally on the principle of amateurism, which Mr. Branch feels is a principle, sadly, out of date, and indeed no principle at all and perhaps a hoax, because it isn't what it was 100 years ago.And that is true. The world has turned upside-down a couple of times since then and many other changes. And no concept, I think, in its pure state can last that long. Nevertheless, we believe, the NCAA believes, higher educational institutions believe, that paying a student a grant in aid, a scholarship, is not a violation of that amateurism principle.So if we paid athletes to play for us, clearly, they wouldn't be, could not be, amateurs. And we will stay as long, at least as it is possible, by adhering to the principle of amateurism, no pay for playing.I will be using a single contention for this case. I will refute my opponents case next round. I AM NOT CONCEDING HIS POINTS I SIMPLY WAITING FOR A RESPONSE BEFORE I REFUTE HIM.
College Athletes Should be Paid

While colleges and the executives that run their sports programs continue to rake in millions of dollars of revenue, the ones who re truly working for that revenue are the ones getting snubbed. Athletes work so hard for their schools while only a handful of people are benefiting financially. Athletes can't get jobs because their schedules are filled up from their sports. They are also continuously under scrutiny from taking benefits because of their ability. When did it become wrong to take advantage of your skills and popularity to gain an edge? Everyone else in the world does it, so why is it so wrong for college athletes?
College Athletes Should be Paid

It is an exact statistic, and I don't see you making any arguements besides "they get paid in education" and saying I should be disqualified; take it easy. You're right, there's a reason they call them student athletes and not the other way around but what's the difference from any other student getting extra compensation from their school? There are countless jobs for students where the college pays their salary. Athletes are providing a service to their school where the school benefits financially so therefore they should be paid, end of story. Athletics for most of these students is a full time job and they are already put at a disadvantage from everyone else by giving up their time for their school. You can say they get paid in scholarships and education all you want but the fact is only a small percentage of student athletes receive athletic scholarships. Colleges are exploiting their athletic programs for financial gains and in the end, the ones benefiting aren't the ones doing all the work.
College Athletes Should be Paid

I have a severe problem with my opponents argument besides the fact it misdefines amatuer principle. The resolution clearly states the athletes should be paid and my opponent seems to suggest in his first argument he is refering to the colleges themselves paying the athletes than you suggest that anyone or someone rather should pay them for something. Like I said they are currently being compensated in education and it is not nessarsary for them to compensated finicailly.I think changing intepration of the resolution should be grounds for disqualification. My opponent has fail to meet his BOP and asks questions of me. I answered the question in my argument so I would apprtiate if my opponent references my case. Is 98 percent an actual statistic or was that an estimate?
College Athletes Should be Paid

I'm not saying that monetary compensation does not violate the terms of amateurism. However amateurism, in this sense, is taken to an extreme. The NCAA regulations regarding cases such as some Ohio State players exchanging autographed memorabilia for compensation brought upon severe consequences for those players. Not only did they nearly lose their eligibility to play for a while, but they were publicly embarrassed all over the news. They're allowed to be ridiculed like professionals but they can't sell an autograph. I'm sure sporting merchandise stores throughout Ohio have and still are cleaning up selling the same things that these kids were almost kicked out of school for selling. So tell me what the difference is? Times are changing and the way the media and the public holds some of these collegiate athletes to a higher social standard does not match up with the restrictions put on them. They're put on billboards and used on TV advertisements, they do interviews and talk to reporters, they are role models in their community and are looked up to by kids throughout the country, yet they're not allowed to benefit at all from all the good they do. 98% of student athletes do not end up going pro in their given sport. After its over for college it's over for good.
rap battle (no video)

He's not starting his DDO career on a clean slate, Especially since he can't wait to get this battle's rebate. It must be my opponent's sudden fate, His realization that his ideas are comin' too late. He be with his boy toy tomorrow on a date, All he be thinkin' is how he took my bait. It's simple: my opponent has entered an unwelcoming gate, A gate that shows him to be nothing but filled with hate. He'll have better luck finding a mate than winning this debate, But I do not have that much time to wait. My opponent's so embarrassed he'll probably move to Kuwait, He's so poor all he can travel by is on cargo inside a crate. He can't even afford to masturb@te, Doesn't even posses the masculinity to contain such a trait. I shall halt this exhibition of prate, And wish my opponent luck in further debate. My dominance over him resembles a protectorate, So I must sit here and see the voting await. Vote Pro! Thank you.
rap battle (no video)

my opponnet thinks he can rap but he actually wack. i can beat him easy he is not even that good. cheddar, i can rip you to a shreader, cheddar cheese, theres not a better MC then me, im the Apollo, bitch, sting like a bee, float like a butterfly, what am i, so what if i cut a guy, did i s-s-studder guy, leave you punch drunk from lunch truck to shelter, you never felt the rag that held the skelta, melt ya, got the belt for the welt to weight champ, you got in with a fake stamp, garbage bag full of clothes, still pullin hoes, rip you from head to toe, from leg to bullet hole, next gun pull it slow, and aim at the freeworld before you let it go, instead of oh, i just shot my dick head, and yes you do gotta big head, i can't call it, cheddar where's your wallet, your so drunk, you can out drink the alcoholics, make them say damn, cheddar's the man, he needs a can surgically removed from his hand
rap battle (no video)

My opponent has failed to remember, That this debate is about rap, not his rhyme failure. He must not be thinking about the future, In which I will destroy his imagined beat tenure. He probably doesn't understand what I just said, He probably still hasn't gotten out of bed. He probably reads my ridiculous rhymes with dred, He probably gets embarassed of my dominance, and wishes to be dead. It is apparent that my opponent cannot spell very well, That must mean his Spelling and Grammar vote fell. I'm beastin' him up on my new Dell, I'm sending him straight to rap hell. He can't comprehend my rhyme structure and scheme, He is as unconvincing as it may seem. His disses are so disrespectful, I would deem Them as either inappropriate or as foggy as steam. Shall I continue, or give my opponent another chance, To redeem himself, and show his real stance. He can't do this, he is no more impressive than an initial glance, My rhyme has left him in a complete trance. The round may be over with and done, But I must say, I have had fun. When my opponent sees my post, he will probably run, All the way to Florida and give me a gun. The gun would be used to end his misery, Seeing that he can't handle this debate without feeling dizzery.
rap battle (no video)

nice =) comin at you drastically, all them niggas after me, im the center im the gravity, finger squeezin, trigger pleazin, why u grinnin, syrup sippin, im winnin, smile cuz i am grinnin, like fairy tail, im happy endin, so pop pop u off, clip eater, ima clip off, bounce like big balls, claws, ima snatch you up, im JAWZ, ha stop the track and pause, stop rewind that, im the spine crack, now in your back, fallin have a heart attack, smack, sinner of all, i will never fall, im the best you eva saw, with me, yellin f*ck all, im f*ckin ball, so you in, together we be ballin, but were not, so dont front bitch stop, you aint got nothin, sep stacks of rocks,
rap battle (no video)

I'd welcome you here, But your rap just ain't clear. I'll make you disappear, Like Chris Angel, but with more fear. You're mediocre at best, Not even close to the rest. Noobs can't rap, they can't spit, Let's get this done, I'm sick of this sh!t. You can't take me, you can't handle my rhyme, I'll annihilate you, any debate, any time. I'll steal your lines, some may think it's a crime, But hey, at least you're still in your prime. It's quite sad if this is the top of your skill, I've got much more experience, and time to kill. I'll challenge you to come up with more rhymes at your own will, But I doubt you can even find the lines to fill. You humor me, like a drunk falling over a keg, Like a dog humping my right leg, Like my liberal friend named Greg, Like the kids in dodge ball that I peg. I shall halt the rhyme for now, I will take a humble bow, Wait for my opponent to fall like a cow, Or for him to whimper with a meeeooooww.
Evolution

Do I have to argue that Evolution is not the process whereby life came too be how it is now, or whether it is possible as a process. I would prefer the first.....but the second is doable. I'm a sceptic on this issue, while the religious point of view isn't my choice, evolution as a process for creating life is obviously flawed. I think that's all that needed saying in this section, you can mention whether we're arguing about the validity of the process of evolution or about the usefulness of it in your argument if you have space.
Evolution

To clarify things and set some parameters, we'll set aside R1 for discussion of rules and definitions. Here's what I have: 1. The contender must be against evolution. He can believe whatever they want, but he must not believe in evolution. I want to convince people, and I don't need a Devil's Advocate. 2. The contender must also have some capacity to reason. He cannot make arguments like "The Bible says God exists, and it is the flawless word of God, ergo God is real." 3. The contender must not forfeit without a salient excuse. The same applies to me. If either debater forfeits without providing an explanation, that debater loses. 4. Acceptance of this debate is accepting these rules, unless a challenge is made in R1, in which case the rules will be discussed via private message. Definitions: Evolution-the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next Thank you, and I look forward to this debate.
Jehovah Witnesses is too a restrictive Religion

I concede. I bloody hate Jehovah's Witness. I don't have time for this debate. Jehovah's witness doesnot allow people to be involved with current and political affairs. It is too strict on sexual conduct, we are not allowed to smke or take any drugs or alcohol. We are condemned if we use profanity ( which is very hard not to succumb to in modern times). It is against homosexuality any types of sex before marriage and we are not allowed to show affection in public. This religion restricts us of being able to do many sports.I concede. I realise that I have no actual argumments against the topic.
Lucifer is not Satan

As my opponent has not responded to my reasons why Lucifer cannot be Satan, they stand in this debate until as such time as he refutes them. Furthermore, so far, he has only attempted to identify Lucifer with some heavenly body in outer space (Venus), not a spirit person known as Satan. So we await his evidence for Lucider being the Devil, Satan himself. He says he will bring the apocrypha into the debate. Well, the point of this debate is to show that Lucifer (the one mentioned at Isaiah 14:12) is not Satan the Devil. So Con can bring in all the apocrypha he wants, but he has to prove that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is indeed Satan the Devil. I will respond to his use of apocrypha when he does use it, for I find that they have varying levels of reliability which would need to be addressed, it all depends on which ones he uses. He also disregards the rule that the 66 books of the Bible are to be trusted as reliable? If that's the case why even engage in the debate at all? Why not just argue that the Bible isn't reliable to tell us who Lucifer is? If they aren't reliable, what makes him think the apocrypha is any different? Coming from an atheist? Come on, Pro!
Gold is Crow Food.

Though Gold may seem useless at a glance it has more use than it's mere luster. Firstly it is a metal that lends itself to acting as a standardized bartering medium via coinage through it's malleability and scarcity. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly in the modern age; it is a valuable raw component in industrial and manufacturing applications. In short saying that : "Gold is Crow Food" Is a bit like saying: " Helium is only good for filling party balloons and making your voice go high pitched." I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

Jussie Smollet should apologize coming from the fact that the LGBT is a very sensitive community and as I said before, The other reason is that it could affect the next person who is a true victim and that victim might get second guessed. As far as the white women, I see your point and I actually agree with everything you're saying but with the case of white privilege, They can do anything and get away with it. True hypocrisy and double standard at it's finest. Thanks for the debate!
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

In conclusion, Actor Jussie Smollett has been caught lying in hopes of receiving more exposure and "fame. " My side of the debate was never really about if he's innocent of guilty. I presented my argument more so on the hypocrisy of the legal system. I used his case as the perfect example on how the legal system is biased and flawed. Ever since the Starbucks fiasco, Black people have become a target of false police reporting by white women for whatever reason. The issue is that the legal system & the American people have never asked these women to apologize, Pay restitution or spend one day in jail. Flip the scenario around; the legal system & the American people all of a sudden seem to want this man to apologize, Pay restitution & serve time in jail. This is how I've proved that the American way of life is heavy flawed in hypocrisy. My final thought on this situation is that he definitely should not be expected to apologize because no one else has been expected to apologize. Selective outrage is running rampant now days and these false police reports are being used to put people's lives in danger.
Actor Jussie Smollett Shouldn't Be Charged For Allegedly Telling A Fib

My point exactly, Which goes back to me saying that it's not as serious as it's made out to be because gay, Straight, Black, White and every other race has done the same thing numerous times. None of those white women, Who purposely made those false police reports, Were told to apologize, And that's the issue here. I'm not defending what he's done, But he shouldn't apologize because no one else has apologized for doing the exact same thing. Yes, I'm well-aware of white privilege & double standards as you stated, But there definitely isn't any outrage coming from other racial communities. As you just stated, "people have become numb to it. " The only outrage is coming from the black community. The big issue here is that there really isn't any fear of a black person who's doing something wrong. We both know that's a lie. Everyone is well-aware of how law enforcement is killing innocent black people, And the courts refuse to punish law enforcement even when the act has been caught on tape. The fact is that these racist people just want to see a black person get killed, And that can't be refuted. The question is, "why won't white people ever stand up and say something about these killings? " The white community could at least call-out the people who purposely make false police reports. We agree on many things, But apologizing should be out of the question until everyone else starts apologizing for their crimes. . . The Emmett Till case is a perfect example of how long these false police reports have been taken place. That woman's blatant lie resulted in the death of a 14-year-old. Other than the black community. . . Where was the outrage from the white community? The strange/funny thing about this case is that the woman who caused E. Till's death admitted that she lied. Yes, The book was released a few years ago, But no one is asking/telling her to apologize, And no court system has indicted her.