BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Converting Repeating Decimals to Fractions using Algebraic Method is Invalid

First off, I'd like to say that I will not be using algebra to argue in this debate. I will, however, make reference to my opponent's algebraic arguments. I must do this out of necessity for the simple fact that, yes, using algebra DOES 'prove' .999 = 1 ....however, algebra falls short. It is incorrect because it is dealing with things that it shouldn't be dealing with. Let x = .999...10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10)10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides)9x = 9x = 1.999... = 1I'm showing a version of your argument because it's more condensed. I believe that both proofs are wrong. The problem is that they are engaging in mathematical legerdemain and using an infinite series as a real number. But I don't believe it is mathematically possible to use infinite series as a real number. You can't multiply it by anything. It is infinite. You end up with terms that cannot be mixed, like a blue mile or a red 65 miles per hour. It just doesn't make sense or describe anything real.You cannot treat multiplying a series as just multiplying the constant terms, you have to distribute each term into each other and then combine them, which is literally impossible when dealing with an infinite series. .999 repeating is not equal to 1 because .999 repeating DOES NOT EXIST exist. It's an irrational number.It's like trying to prove 1.00000000....0000001 (...... = infinity) is equal to 1.I just realized that I have been debating on the wrong topic that whole time ....oh well. My proof for the invalidity of the above is the same as I would have put for the 'real' debate. Thanks for debating with me and have a good day!
Cell phones in school

Hello, class I am here today to talk about why cell phones should be allowed in school. One of the reasons cell phones should be allowed is because we have freedom of speech according to first amendment news 2011. Cell phones also allow students to do more than text. Students can use cell phones for calendars, calculators, and even stopwatches. Also if you have a cell phone with music on it if we were allowed to listen to it then students might do better in school because music might help us focus. One of the biggest reasons why cell phones should be allowed in school is for safety utensils. Another good reason why cell phones should be allowed in school is so that students can take pictures of an assignment to remember to do it. What if one of your relatives get in a car accident or something and there trying to call you and you don"t answer because you"re in class the you feel guilty for the rest of your life.
Banning the Morning After Pill

I would argue in favor of keeping the morning after pill and to just have restriction that will only allow adults to buy it but I cant. Even though there are already restrictions that only allow anyone over 17 to buy the pill there is still a possibility that anyone younger than 17 can get access to it through those that are allowed access to this pill, since, once they leave the store they are able to do what ever they want with the pill.
Refugee

I couldn't agree more! with that being said lets take a look closer to what is going on in the world today! When people migrated to this country before 1912 (give or take 1 year not sure the exact year) immigration was open to anyone who believes they can make a better future for themselves. That is not so much the case today! you have several countries that have accepted refugees within the last 5 years that are now in "state of emergency". now lets look a little deeper as to who the refugees really are!? We have a group of people who believe in an ideology and dictate their beliefs to citizens. I have personally read the Quran and will recommend you do also. When you have someone who is promised an eternal life in paradise if they commit violence against the "non-believers" it is very hard to get them to adapt to the way of life in America. With that being said i completely agree that every human is equal, but that is not so much the case with them. If we should act we should help them where they are today and not bring them to our door step! Thanks, RJZ
Refugee

As many people come to realize, there has been a very difficult situation that has been approaching our front steps! I have created this debate to get a better understanding from both sides of the situation. When people often debate in the direction of bringing in refugees to America it seems to catch my attention in a way I believe most people don't see. Now with that being said i would like to inform the people reading this that i am a Christian Arab who is from a Arab country. Please feel free to share Comments/Opinions/Debatable arguments along with anything else! Thank you!
The United States death penalty is inefficient as it stands and should be done away with.

I will provide definitions for this debate as the PRO did not do so in his opening. (1) Inefficient: Not efficient(2) Efficient: Satisfactory and economical to use--> For example, the death penalty deters crime whilst keeping costs reasonableMy opponent has the burden of proof, and therefore must prove the death penalty (DP) is both 1) inefficient as it stands and 2) should be abolished. Although the BOP is not on me, I will attempt to argue that the DP is, overall, beneficial to society. Unless my opponent proves (1) and (2), I will win the debate. Good luck!
Socialism

In case it isn't obvious, Con is strawmanning based on the American conservative definition of socialism, which is anything they don't like. Socialism could work in the form of individual city-states, for instance. A co-op is socialist.Moreover, socialism by definition is not a small elite planning the economy of a whole nation. It is the entire population deciding the economy.Con gives no reason why we should think it impossible for people ot use information for a whole economy. It's complicated, sure, but is it so complicated that we can't think about it rationally at all?There is competition between businesses in socialism. Evidently Con has never heard of market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Again, in socialism means of production are collectively owned (though not all of them, people can own hammers and whatnot)--not the finished products. That means I can't own a mine privately, but I can own something that sells mining machinery privately.1. It's not unpopularity, it is his cruelty. Big difference.2. Of course they did, they were dealing with the fact that they were recovering from World War 2, were still pretty tyrannical, and had the aftershocks of tyrannical leaders. Also most of Russia was dirt-poor and they really couldn't manage it effectively--not because of socialism, but because of the faults of the leaders themselves (not to mention that Russia is flat-out huge; socialism becomes less effective when applied to larger and larger areas).3. See point regarding market socialism.4. Indeed they are combined local trends, so who better to analyze them than an entity with the ability to get the trends from local places? Economic trends aren't something that some old dude says, "Why, in my day this only cost a nickel!"5. Which is why individual details are not left to the fedreal bureacracy, but smaller bureacracies. The government sets things like minimum wage, environmental standards, et cetera. The workers in the factory decide how much to produce and most of the business decisions.
Socialism

Yes I am segusting that it is immpossible for a central elite to plan a economy. There is no logical reason they could. Central planning is a small elite planning the economy of a whole nation. There is simply to much information to say that this small elite can make wise choices for a whole economy. People make good descions with local information about local issues. People cant use information for a whole economy. That's impossible and leads to the economic faluries of socialism. An while in some systems of socialism people who work more get more rewards, without compatition between bussinissis, there would be little improvement or innovation. Businesses will improve themslevses to beat competitors. In a system were all production is under government control, people have no need because it gains nothing for them. This has happened in all socialist countries. You cant argue that the failure of Soviet socialism on Stalin's unpopularety. The Soviet stare continued to struggle even Russia's less tyrannical later leaders. The government couldn't manage a whole economy effectively. American bussinesses also had far better technology then the soviets due to the lack of incentive for Soviet factories to immprove. The government also has trouble predicting economic fortunes. Major trends are just combiened local trends. A local bussiness can see local signs and make forecast. A government will not see local trends until its to late. They cant change policy in time to react and this leads to econimic hardship. http://www.breitbart.com...
Socialism

1. That is not an argument against socialism, as socialism is simply public control of the means of production. For instance, in a socialist factory, the workers control the operations of the factory. In a socialist mine, the miners control the operations of the mine. Money still exists, and while in a socialist society someone who doesn't work certainly won't die, or suffer unduly, they will have a lower quality of life than someone who does work.Indeed, this is an argument for socialism. In more economically equal countries, as there is greater social mobility, there is a greater incentive to work: You are more likely to advance[1].2. Con provides no support for why we should believe him--the farming collectives in the Soviet Union did fail, but given that they were imposed by a dictator of questionable stability without popular support behind the initiative, were met with actual violence, tried to enforce atheism, and were not voluntary, we might suspect that, perhaps, the failure was at least in part due to those factors.Moreover, collectively owned farms can be run by a very small number of people. Is Con suggesting that it is impossible for a group of people to collectively run an economic enterprise?1. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk...
Socialism

The two main reasons for rejecting socialism in my opinion is the tragedy of the commons and the inefficiancy of central planning. The tragedy of the commons is a theory that States that people will work with less motavation if everything is shared. This leads to people not working as hard because they wont keep what they create. The problem is central planning. Socialism is a central planned economy. The problem is there is simply to much information to to manage a whole economy. Individual interprises function better because they each manage a small amount of information. If all imformation is used by one source no effective plan can he made. Their is to much information for a few smart citizens to manage a whole economy. All socialist countries have had this problem. Farming collectives in the Soviet union barely produced enough to keep the country going. There was no incentives for workers to work harder. The economic planners of the Soviet union could not make effective descisions for the massive country. This caused the collapse of the Soviet state and will lead to the economic deppression of any socialist state.
Recreational Hunting

Round 1This debate will be centered around the question of whether or not recreational hunting is good, both morally and environmentally. I will take the Con side of this question and will attempt to prove that recreational hunting is both immoral and environmentally harmful. I have made this debate impossible to accept, and I ask that anybody who wishes to debate this topic leave a comment or PM me. I hope that this will be a civil debate, as I have had a number of let downs as of late. The debate structure will be generic, with the first round for acceptance only. DefinitionsRecreation: Activities done for enjoyment. Hunting: The act or sport of chasing and killing wild animals. therefore. .. Recreational Hunting: Chasing and killing wild animals for one's one enjoyment.
Gay marriage should be legal

My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds now. I suspect she is busy with something. That is just as well. Anyway, I have but one rebuttal. It was to a comment she made: "Definitions change over time. Gay used to mean happy". While she is right that gay means happy, she is wrong that definitions change and that gay "used to mean happy". It is still a synonym for happy. It also took on a slang meaning to also mean homosexual. This does not change the synonym meaning between gay and happy. That never changed. Just like the definition of marriage never changed to include same sex marriage. She is committing a category mistake here.
Gay marriage should be legal

I seen in a comment on one of the debates I was in you said you would love to be in a debate with me on "absolutely anything" so I decided to start one with you. Of course to know what I should debate you on I looked at your profile to get a grip on what things we might disagree on and I seen you disagree with gay marriage. Since I agree with it, it's the perfect topic. This round is for acceptance. I'll define the terms involved: Gay- homosexual or attracted to people of one's own sex Marriage- (depending on which definition you use) 1- the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law 2- the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage 3- an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected 4- an intimate or close union To put a little format to this debate: Here's how the debate will be formatted Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statements The rules here are simple: No cursing No "dumbing" down the opponent Have good "sportsmanship" I'd like to wish my opponent good luck, seeing as thing sort of thing has become much more accepted by the general public it's going to be hard to win. Of course, I'm not too good at winning debates so I guess that gives you a head-start.
is it a good idea for kids to drink energy drinks in classes

Energy drinks are beneficial to students and can help improve their experience within the educational system. They have many benefits over regular beverages and are not as bad as many people think. Since they have an excess amount of caffeine, sugar, and other related ingredients, it allows them to have and give the consumer a high amount of excess energy. Since the person has consumed such a high amount, it allows them to complete tasks that they normally would not be able to do, whether mentally or physically. In physical terms, this is obvious as it can allow athletes to go beyond their body limitations and outperform those that have not used an energy drink. In mental terms, excess energy can make one go in a "hyper" state - which they cannot stop and stay idle and must continue to talk, move, think etc. This can be used to one's advantage if used and maintained properly, as the user can now process information and solve complex problems much faster than before, can have faster reactions and reflexes to reduce the amount of time and effort spent on the easier challenges in school, and the "hyperness" itself allows the user to have full concentration and motivation on what they desire (key factors to succeeding in anything). Unlike soda and juice which has excess chemicals and acids that are not healthy for one's body, there are many nutrients, minerals, and vitamins found in these drinks as well, making them great alternatives to water and milk. That's not to say there are no flaws, as once the hyper state is over, the exact opposite occurs which can do more bad than good to the user. Also too much of excess energy can even damage your health in the long run. Many ingredients also either do nothing at all or they simply are part of soda as well, not making them very healthy. But overlooking those past flaws and using energy drinks in moderation (everything needs moderation), students can indeed use these in educational facilities to better benefit their learning.
The Bible & Christian God are not the best source of morality

Building off of the previous post, I will point my finger to a couple articles based on the same topic – Evolution of Morality. "[The] precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals," [1] suggesting that in spite of not being able to reason at the human level or read any of the languages that the bible has been written, the elements of morality that we hold to be so important are also able to be found in the rest of the animal kingdom. Clearly the bible is not a primary source for morality in such cases. It is important to keep in mind that the bible's morality is not evidenced through our world either. The views of the Hindu, Buddhist, new age religious views are often contrary. Examples include the Buddhist belief that you are supposed to avoid frivolous entertainment, simple beds and seats and the use of money, hold the virtue of knowledge[2]. These are peripheral social norms in today's modern society but certainly not the same as Christian moral precepts assert. The closest one can come from the bible are a handful of citations regarding living modestly, and the notorious eye of a needle reference. Nowhere in the bible does it discuss knowledge. Even in the occurrence that the "moral teachings" of the bible are simply mirrored in another groups moral beliefs, the point of this debate is to show that the bible is not the best source. I was asked to provide other sources, and in spite of how disingenuous that request may be I have complied with two substantially different sources. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://webspace.ship.edu...
DDO is an unhealthy site.

Debate Accepted.Clarrifications : I am not a Global Warmist - I am not a Buddhist. (this is within context with a previous debate, so they cannot be used to forfeit round(s))Definition : Unhealthy adjective harmful to health. Of course we assume the site being 'unhealthy' represents the users of the site, as the site itself has no immune system (apart from potential virus threats, as in Computer terms).My Stance on the matter is that this site is not unhealthy for the members, to which I will clarify in later Rounds.Over to you - Pro.
DDO is an unhealthy site.

Last round my opponent promised a breath-taking round, I had my socks on and his response is liken to an elderly dog, breathing its warm breath down by legs. It is summer where I am, it was not a request, but me begging for help, its' too damn hot! hahaNow to defend my stance :Have I no common sense?Ironic, as that is literally what I was thinking as I read your response.2 companies have made a mutual agreement to share funds so a website has images of what they asked for. This generates income for the owners of this site (which you love to whinge about, but keep coming back too), to keep it running.The restaurant selling this pizza in no way wish for anyone to be unhealthy, they simply want money. It is up to the common sense of the average human being, to decide if it is good for them to have this junk food.They happen to know the predilection that debaters are also somewhat lazy (cooking wise, of course there are exceptions), so this is a perfect platform to advertise for their product - the maximum bang for their buck so to say.I myself, simply faze out the adverts, I rarely even notice they are there, and thus I do not get tempted. If I happen to see an add, guess what? I don't buy it, because I do not need it (Common sense). Note: If you are going to make these kinds of debates, at least make your responses funny man, Seriously.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

I do believe that taxing fatty foods is a good idea. However I don't believe that there should be any exception to the tax, just like there is not for cigarettes. The problem with these exceptions to the tax is that once again, it seems Pro is only concerned about the physical appearance of the person, not their healthiness. I do not agree with a fatty food tax if some people will be exempt from the tax. The problem with taxing just "fat" people (as you still have not clarified your definition of fat) for fatty food is that once again you are charging somebody more money because of their appearance, habits, ethnicity, religion, or health and that is not how it works in the United States, because everyone is equal. The reason why it would be fine to tax all fatty foods (to all people) is because it is unhealthy for everybody. Fatty foods are not unhealthy for just "fat" people, they're also unhealthy for skinny people. Fatty foods are unhealthy for everyone, so this fatty food tax should be applied to everyone. In Pro's last argument, they stated "there's really not much different taxing the food or taxing hte person.... both are causes of bad health care." There is a lot different about taxing food and taxing a person. If you were to tax a person because they smoked, there would be an uproar. You can not tax a person just because of something they do, how they look, how healthy they are, or their background. Our government just does not function that way. Now, to the second part of that statement. "Both are causes of bad health care." Now this is a statement that confuses me. The idea that "fat" people are a cause of bad health care seems a bit preposterous. If people are having bad healthcare, that would be because of doctors who are stretched too thinly, or because of our nation's overly expensive healthcare. "Fat" people are not causing bad healthcare in the US so that part of the statement is irrelevant. Now Pro also stated that we should "get to the source" but "stay open to all tax fatty foods". I'm assuming that by "getting to the source" Pro means taxing "fat" people. However, a tax on fatty foods (for everyone. No exceptions) would be getting more to the source than this proposed tax on "fat" people. I don't know if I can make this any clearer, but a tax on people who are "fat" would be similar to putting a tax on smokers. It goes against the idea that in the US all people are equal, despite appearance, ethnicity, health, age, gender, etc. By imposing an extra tax on fat people would go against the principal that all men are created equal. A better alternative to improve the health of all people, fat or thin would be the idea of a tax on unhealthy, fatty foods. This would improve the health of all people.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

con concedes do taxing fatty foods. doctors could give special exceptions fo people who have thyroid or metabolism problems, though, per taxing them direct. there's really not much different taxing the food or taxing hte person.... both are causes of bad health care. in fact, healthy people might want fatty foods, and why shuld they have to pay mroe when it's the being fat that we see as the problem? i say, get to the source. focus on that, but stay open to all tax on fatty foods too