BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My Analysis On Riemann's Hypothesis > Your Analysis On Riemann's Hypothesis

Rules: There is no "Acceptance Round". This is a philosophical debate, not a political debate, therefore in order to argue properly, you can only use analysis and a consensus; you cannot look for an answer, or make claims. Who ever can show best that they understand Riemann's Hypothesis, let alone solve it, will win this debate. Riemann's Hypothesis can be searched by you from any source, but you must research "Riemann's Hypothesis". First Analysis: "Considering that the Riemann's hypothesis dealt with numbers which created an infinite sequence, that was then curious towards why the numbers contained half values, the reason behind it was then posited to be the the imaginary units within a real value, which resonates in my brain for I am aware that 2+2=5 based on Einstein's theory or that the entire Universe is based on the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio, which is to say that knowing that math is based on the entire Universe, having knowledge of how the Universe seems to be "skipping" numbers, is 'enough information to suppose that the Riemann's hypothesis is truly relational to how the Universe creates both, genuine matter and imaginary matter, hence why the human mind can create both real things and false things' - math is based on the human mind, which is why our emotions are based on Newton's Law. I may not be able to read the thousands of names and labels they gave this formula - I am able to tell what this formula is relating to by its pinnacle of interest. Therefore the Riemann's hypothesis is directing us towards a truth that explains why the Universe manages to create false units and true units within the space and matter which are based on the previously aforementioned designs. If anyone wants to solve this mystery, I suggest them to combine the knowledge of everything I mentioned, as this formula reflects on Einstein's theory, the behavior of the imagination and the reality we live in, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Sequence and possibly other things I have yet to read on. " P.S This was originally for 'saboosa', but they knew they would lose to a mature debate, so they immediately declined to protect their whimsical image.
Am i hot

i am against you being pretty why do i do this it is simple pret"ty [prit-ee] adjective, pret"ti"er, pret"ti"est. pleasing or attractive to the eye, as by delicacy or gracefulness: a pretty face. http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. i have a right to my own opinion - Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.archives.gov... 2. i do not find you appealing as others may find you pretty i do not i do not feel it is wrong for me to say this because again as i stated everyone has a right to his/her own opinion
Am i hot

Pro i must say that you are an interesting person it is a pleasure to observe this nature you ask about my copy and pasting i will now explain this i copy and paste definitions to simply get a understanding of the words you use to define your statement so we all get a complete understanding and so that there are not any gaps i also copy and paste to show you my sources and how and where i get the information that i may be retaining to you claim i am trying to make myself look smart hmm yes no doubt there you want me to expose my body parts to you ? i think i will pass one good reason is you could be a minor and if i was to do these actions i could go to jail
Math challenge

My opponent's numbers don't meet the challenge. You can use this http://web2.0calc.com... to check if his two numbers work, which they don't. These numbers do complete the challenge: 937748634966726163746318950483273, 2571763699388990842068052197183127 Again you can use this http://web2.0calc.com... to verify my numbers do work. Just copy past the 2 numbers in with * in between and press the equals button on the calculator. You will see the result is the number I posted for the challenge. I am the first to complete the challenge. Vote for me.
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

Today's argument is about whether or not the human race will eventually go extinct. 1. Acceptance 2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument 3 & 4. Rebuttals 5. Resolution/Closing Argument Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1 Rules- No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

My opponent's main contention for this debate is that the human race will be extinct due to the Sun expanding and dying over the process of hundreds of millions of years. That is the key phrase here: hundreds of millions of years. The Sun will take that much time to expand to a point where the Earth's inhabitants will begin to be affected. Technology can--and in all possibility, will--evolve to a point to where we can escape the dying Earth and move to outer planets and moons. Planets that we can escape to are Mars and possibly Uranus (if we can develop technology that will prevent us from breaking through its surface). This is not even mentioning the numerous moons and dwarf planets that is possible to land on. My opponent also mentioned the lack of water and food on the outer planets, but it is possible that we can transport food and water to other planets. In fact, this was being done on the Space Shuttle, and is still being done on the International Space Station. If it can be done now, then it can be done--even on a mass scale--millions of years from now. My opponent also mentions that even though we can adapt to live with less food, we will still die because we can't evolve to live without food. This can be challenged in two ways: a. ) We do not know what we will evolve into in a few million years, let alone a few billion, so the claim that we cannot evolve to live without food cannot be made because we do not know what we will become in the future. b. ) If evolution fails to resolve the problem of finding food and water, then technology can solve that problem: it is possible to store water and food somewhere on or under the Earth, perhaps in nuclear-powered shelters or submarines, where food and water can be stored for humans, animals and plants. In conclusion, my opponent has not been able to show that humans will be rendered extinct due to the Sun expanding and wiping out the Sun. Technology will have heavily changed in the billions of years it takes for the Sun to fail, and human beings can escape the Earth, moving on to other planets and galaxies. If we are not able to escape the Earth, then we can survive in nuclear-powered shelters or submarines deep under the surface of the Earth, or have evolved to a point where we need few resources to survive. I therefore strongly urge for a vote in negation of the resolution. Thank you.
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

"My opponent says that it would be nearly impossible to land on other planets in order to escape the Earth. Keep in mind; the Sun's death is billions of years in the future. Technology can easily evolve and find a way around the problems of finding food, water and warmth easily. Technology can find a way around the problems of landing on the outer planets and can transport water and seeds that can be used to grow plants and animals to eat and grow other animals. Food and water has been transported on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, so it is completely possible that centuries from now mass amounts of water and food can be transported from planet to planet. My opponent also mentions that the process of evolution would not solve the problem of obtaining resources that we need. However, we have no idea what we will become in a few million years, let alone in a few billion; we could adapt to a world of less resources. If birds can change their beaks over time so they can access food easier, then it is entirely possible that humans can adapt to less food and water available. It's only a matter of time and energy." My opponent has ignored my argument: The Outer Planets are not habitable....... They are Gas Giants, thus no matter the technological advancements, we wouldn't be able to inhabit them.. They are masses of gas.... Not solid.... Doing anything that would allow us to surface gas would defy the laws of physics. It's impossible. My opponent is correct in one sense, humans could adapt to live longer with food intake. But this would still end up in us going extinct because we would eventually die no matter how we evolve to live without food.
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

My opponent says that it would be nearly impossible to land on other planets in order to escape the Earth. Keep in mind; the Sun's death is billions of years in the future. Technology can easily evolve and find a way around the problems of finding food, water and warmth easily. Technology can find a way around the problems of landing on the outer planets and can transport water and seeds that can be used to grow plants and animals to eat and grow other animals. Food and water has been transported on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, so it is completely possible that centuries from now mass amounts of water and food can be transported from planet to planet. My opponent also mentions that the process of evolution would not solve the problem of obtaining resources that we need. However, we have no idea what we will become in a few million years, let alone in a few billion; we could adapt to a world of less resources. If birds can change their beaks over time so they can access food easier, then it is entirely possible that humans can adapt to less food and water available. It's only a matter of time and energy.
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

First, I'd like to mention that the arguments I typed were opening statements, not full-fledged arguments. So if those lack "structure and information" it's because they are statements and just that, not actual arguments. Now for my real arguments: 1.) According to my opponent, the sun will die in a few billion years. This means that humanity has plenty of time to develop technology to escape the Earth and the solar system. There are many ways this can be done. One way via "electric solar wind sail" which is popularly considered by the scientific community, according to a 2008 article by Science Daily [1]. With enough money and time put into this project, it could become the fastest man-made device ever built, with speeds potentially reaching nineteen miles a second [2]. This can potentially allow the human race to escape the dying Earth and reach other planets and solar systems. We have no clue what technology might be in a million year's time. If it is developed enough, we could easily escape the solar system. 2.) If we cannot escape the Earth and the expanding Sun, then we can still develop technology that can allow to survive the harsh conditions that come about as a result of the Sun dying. Humans could survive the harsh conditions by being in submarines in deep, warm parts of the ocean or being in nuclear-powered habitats [3]. Plus, it is possible that the process of evolution enables us to survive the harsh conditions that the loss of the Earth would present. Keep in mind that the death of the Sun will occur in a few billion years; we could evolve into higher forms of life that allows us to live and thrive. Sources: [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2] http://www.popsci.com... [3] http://www.popsci.com...
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

"The human race can develop technology that allows to escape the Earth and Sun and move to another planet or galaxy." Con claims that such technology can be developed, but he does not explain the technology or give logic and reason behind it. I fully explained my Round two arguments and give reason and logic behind it.......... Con lacks this. "The human race is adaptable to situations; if things start to get too hot or supplies are running low, then humans can adapt to those situations and find ways to survive. There are numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive." Again this does not match with my method of extinction, In my method of extinction I explained that the Earth would reach -100 C' in a year which is -212 F' humans may be able to adapt to this but the oceans top layers would freeze....... In a million year temperatures would dip down to -400 C'........ Humans could not adapt to this and they would die........... This would happen: Although some microorganisms living in the Earth"s crust would survive, the majority of life would enjoy only a brief post-sun existence. Photosynthesis would halt immediately, and most plants would die in a few weeks. Large trees, however, could survive for several decades, thanks to slow metabolism and substantial sugar stores. With the food chain"s bottom tier knocked out, most animals would die off quickly, but scavengers picking over the dead remains could last until the cold killed them. Also, Con claims that there have been numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive. Again he claims this but does not justify it. Con lacks structure and information........... Thank you...... http://www.popsci.com...... http://www.suntrek.org......
The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

I oppose the resolution, "The human race will eventually go extinct, it's inevitable." I define the human race to be the species of homo sapiens, and the term, "extinct", to be "to no longer existing" [1] in reference to species. I base this opposition on a few points. 1.) The human race can develop technology that allows to escape the Earth and Sun and move to another planet or galaxy. [2] 2.) The human race is adaptable to situations; if things start to get too hot or supplies are running low, then humans can adapt to those situations and find ways to survive. There are numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive. [3] [4] Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.nbi.ku.dk... [3] http://www.senoryermo.com... [4] http://matadornetwork.com...
The practicability of Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Well they're not going to be in prison forever, especially since they're young (if youth offenders were imprisoned anyway, you'd assume that their time would be shortened). As for the twelve year old, I'm fairly sure that most twelve year olds have enough sense not to do ridiculously stupid things like that, if that's not the case, then they won't get very far in life with those decision making skills, or should I say lack of. Remember, we are talking about youths here, not 6 year olds. Again with the 'innocent' thing, I thought I told you already that no-one is innocent; especially a youth, who is at that period in their life where immaturity, cheekiness, the feeling of invincibility and devious plans are all that is in their brains (no offense). A small amount of pity is due to them therefore, as of the amount of trouble and mischief that youths get into, but it certainly isn't going to kill them let alone traumatize them to lock them up for a while to break that rebel inside of everybody. ;D
The practicability of Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Saying their minds are too young to be put into prison is a bit futile, because it's not like child prisons are places where you get abused. True, some juvenile courts aren't pleasant, but you are not tortured, so I reckon youth (bearing in mind that the correct definition is "the period of life from puberty to the attainment of full growth; adolescence. ") will be able to withstand a temporary home to teach them a valuable lesson in life. So you say that it will violate the youths' rights, well the whole argument is '...youth offenders should be imprisoned' so if that's the case then it's not violating their rights because it will be the new law that any youth that offends must be imprisoned. And for the record, no-one is innocent, even children. For your school work you could, if you want, pull a quote from the bible saying that we are all sinners, and not innocent. :)
The practicability of Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

Alright hope I can help out... So for starters, children/teenagers are becoming so blindly immature these days it's ridiculous. I think it would be a great idea if youth offenders would get a taste of what will happen when they are older if they continue to offend the law in such ways. It will teach them to grow up, to put it bluntly. There's a saying, 'spare the rod and spoil the child' If people really love their youth, then this law will be put into place to help them the hard way. It's harsh I agree, but necessary in order to straighten out these people's lives. Ha, quite hard to argue against what I want to argue for
know=physical experience

a blind father, and his daughter, the worlds most famous painter, is at a huge contest called "the best painter on earth", and as the daughter surely enough wins everybody celebrate and clap, but at the very end of the show random guests are allowed to ask questions, and a guy in the audience puts up his hand and gets the mic, and speaks out to the father and daughter on stage, and he asks the father what he thinks of his daughters amazing colorfull detailed skillfull artworks. a blind mans reality, is not of colours and light
[Christianity] God's "Divine Plan"

lolzor93, I could not have asked for a better argument. I am blown away by the amount of biblical proof you have provided me and want to let you know that I greatly appreciate you taking your time to collect all the resources. It was most helpful but I do want to confirm a couple things I could not find an answer to in your response. 1. I think hardening of the Pharaoh's heart (Exodus) is a great, if not the best, example of God shaping the heart of men. I understand that God is the creator and that the creator has all power to do what he wills. Yet, knowing that God is Love, it is difficult to understand not "how" but "why" God would make some men harden their hearts to eventually be punished. What if the Pharaoh's heart has not been hardened to stop Moses and the Jews from leaving? 2. This leads to the Pharaoh's son. What about his son? His son dies due to the punishment of God, but what sin does the child have? Would he, dying without the chance to take in God, as the true and only God, be saved? This is in correspondence to the question of natives whom never had the chance to hear the word of God. I know that the bible states that one has the capability to find the existence of God from nature, but how do they know that it is Yahweh, and how to pray correctly. 3. It is difficult to grasp the concept of God doing his will, but being innocent of the detriments that occur from them. In many sections of the Old Testament, God uses external factors, such as nearby enemies, to punish the Jews. Yet, how are we to understand whether those external parties are sinners or not? They do not live by the words of God because they are unaware. They were selected by God and their hearts hardened to do God's will, but they are responsible for all their actions. This is a bit hard to grasp.
Anti-Bullying

"For instance a student that was mildly disabled and a bit different from the rest of the student body was being pushed around by other students. While the students are picking on the disabled student other people are laughing at him. Is it right for students to zero in on people who may appear weaker than they are?" It is not right at all. My point has been proven by our differing examples. What I'm saying is the "Anti-bullying" campaign has allowed principals to throw the book at a student without doing any real investigation into the incident. Instead of showing someone who is being mean to an innocent person the psychological effects of their actions they are just handed a suspension. The problem with every Anti-bullying assembly in the nation is that it does not go into the science of mental health and well being.. but highlights rare cases where your words make someone kill themselves and you go to jail. 0-tolerance laws on bullying are insane. Instead of creating a positive in the situation, we create more negative by expelling the bully or even placing them in jail. Through this method, the person being harassed and insulted never gains real closer or an honest apology. The bully often doesn't understand how their words can hurt more than a punch. "Anti-bullying" and "Gun Control" are the same.. Of course I want people to stop being hurt, but the proposed solution is half hearted at best. One speaker in the gym that no one is listening to does nothing but waste money. Expelling the "bully" is just a lazy way for a principal to appear in control of the student body they reside over. Students should be taught in grade schools the psychological effects. This is a perfect opportunity for catholic schools to make a positive change and prove themselves relevant once again. Save the stories of 13 year old jesus turning water to wine for sunday, and take an hour a day to teach kids the science behind mental health. Teach them why what they say does what it does. Teach them that mental strength varies just as height and foot size does. In conclusion, I am for good humanity. I am for people being nice to each other and helping each other without being asked. The reason I disagree with "Anti-bullying" is because it does not solve the root of the problem. What it does is bring in some 20 year old jesus lover who not only no one listens to, but no one can relate to. Mental health specialist should be giving these presentations. 0-tolerance gives an uninvolved principal a way to shine and look powerful when in reality by the time it has come across their desk they have already failed. Unlike a black eye from a punch, Kids cant see the injuries they cause to someones mental well being and therefor have a difficult time understanding. "Anti-bullying" is nothing new.. it has never been ok for kids to be mean to someone.. but it is not working. It is a lazy and ineffective way to prevent children from mentally harming one another.
Anti-Bullying

I completely agree with you if both parties are bullying each other; we must ask ourselves when does it stop? Does it stop when some one get's hurt or dies while the others get punished? It's not very fair. However when I talk about bullying I mean it is one sided. For instance a student that was mildly disabled and a bit different from the rest of the student body was being pushed around by other students. While the students are picking on the disabled student other people are laughing at him. Is it right for students to zero in on people who may appear weaker than they are? Is it right for students to feel like they have to worry more about how they will be bullied that day instead of worrying what test they have to study for?