BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

1: I am unsure as to how you can experience everything, and what the reflection of nothing actually means. We have enough rounds, you can strike up some more definitions.2: Either you mean "to know" or "knowledge" is the same as matter.2a: To know something does not mean it matters, or that you matter because you know it. Additionally, you cannot have a verb equate to a noun.2b: Knowledge is not matter - at least, not directly. It is the state of neurons in the brain. Whether the neurons are active or inactive, they're still made of the same stuff. A neuron which is on, just like a bit, is physically exactly the same as a neuron which is off. A neuron which is on only has some extra electrical energy with it as well.If knowledge is matter, it must be quantifiable, and how much you know cannot be truly and accurately quantified, due to some facts possibly being infinitesimally more valuable than others,3: Using your definitions, now is knowledge, and you matter your experience of matter.Anyone who thinks that everything matters probably lneeds to take a second look at their priorities.
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

lol... i am talking about blind people. not what is generally accepted as blind at the age center downtown, which is also called partially blind...Even people who are completely blind (cannot see at all) still have eyes that aren't dead. Their eyes can still grow and repair - though not to the point of restoring/giving sight. Blood still flows to the cells which replenish themselves using the nutrients dissolved in the bloodstream. Just because you can't sense (see) using them, does not mean they are dead.if everyone in the world call people that can see, blind people, then you are all clueless..Actually, being sighted would then be known as being blind. The actual meaning of the word is based on the majority's opinion, which changes over time. For example, the word "naughty" used to mean law-breaking, instead of the petty squabbles it is used for now. Blind would then mean "can see".you could be a bot trying to make me think you are human, or a human trying to make me think you are a bot Well, I'm certainly not trying to make you think I'm a bot. Firstly, that's probably not allowed in one of the rules, and secondly, there wouldn't be any use in it. The fact of the matter is that I must exist to be able to present this argument to you. Even if I were a bot (which I am not, the last time I checked) the bot would still have to exist in order to present the argument. Something must have created the argument for it to exist. You experience the arguments, but not its creator. Therefore, something "beoyond my personal physical experience of now" is not necessarily false. I am "beoyond my personal physical experience of now", but I exist, because I'm the one creating the argument. You're not experiencing me, but you're experiencing the fruit of my labours.
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

machine is the opposite of nature, nature is life lol... i am talking about blind people. not what is generally accepted as blind at the age center downtown, which is also called partially blind... a blind man... can not see, cause and effect... if everyone in the world call people that can see, blind people, then you are all clueless.. 0=information=nothing=not physical experience 1=matter=something=not imaginaiton is and memory ;) only know is true, so may is irrelvant as i dont know, and i dont know is a position i know, i am certain i dont know if my neigbhour is home right now you could be a bot trying to make me think you are human, or a human trying to make me think you are a bot false=imaginary i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

a camera dosnt see.. seeing is an experienea camera has no sense, it dosnt senseBut how can you prove that it can't see? All you can prove is that you can't sense them sensing. As I have said, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not necessarily mean it's false.if you can see you are not blind...Nope - in North America and the most part of Europe you can still see, just not very well. Legally, you have to have a visual acuity of 6/60 or less - meaning that a legally blind person would have to stand 6m from an object to see it - even with corrective lenses on - with the same clarity as a normally sighted person could from 60m. Only around 10% of those legally blind have no vision at all. And even then, their eyes are not dead, they can still grow and repair, just not to the degree that you can see through them....Your next argument: true = 1, truth = 0. Please define the difference between true and truth, since they are clearly opposite. Additionally, truth = 0, and false = 0. So by your definition, truth and falsehood are the same thing? Please elaborate.only know is true, and beyond what i know is what i dont know, belief is automaticly false, as belief is unknownJust because you don't know what it is, it doesn't mean that it is false. Although you have to believe/imagine it, again, it is not necessarily false. It may still be true, and although you can't prove it true, you can't really prove it false either.You have had no experience of me as a person. According to your logic, that means I don't exist. However, how can that be true when I'm the one debating you here? It is not possible for arguments to exist without the person who created the arguments and put them on this website existing as well. You cannot prove that I am "true", because you can't see me. However, I am true - at least to my senses.
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

a camera dosnt see.. seeing is an experiene a camera has no sense, it dosnt sense if you can see you are not blind.. i said you die, and i call you corpsi future=belief=false=0now=know=true=1past=knowledge=truth=0 0=information=nothing=mental1=matter=something=physical lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one its either true false or truth unknown is imaginary, imagination is false only know is true, and beyond what i know is what i dont know, belief is automaticly false, as belief is unknown
anything, i can be very argumentative.

But some are biased not because of news but because others are biased and convinced them to be bias. A perfect example would be gossiping. You've been told by your best friend/co-worker the new boss is mean and crude. This would cause one to have a sour attitude towards the new boss and do not bother to get to know them because you believe your friend that they are a bad boss. I will admit, that showing Travon Martin as a young boy then what he was presently was wrongful but even so being bias would still show due to the theories of racial murder. Wanted posters do not show the community what they look like in a normal situation. There is a big difference in appearance between someone smiling and frowning. Also the defendant could suddenly changed their appearance. As for Tv ads, yes media screws many things up but it's our right as the people to know what we deserve to know. Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press.
anything, i can be very argumentative.

About the biased thing and them being recognized after being released and commiting another crime, The public will be be biased based on the zews. That recent Travon Martin Case- the media made it look like he was a little kid by only showing pictures of him as a little boy, when he was in fact a 6'3" 18-year-old man. people don't regognize when somthing is biasing them. A better warning for someone to know of a murderer is a wanted poster. The TV ads about these cases made it almost impossible to find Jurrers for the Conrad Murry case. The media screws everything up.
anything, i can be very argumentative.

Should cameras be allowed in the courtroom? I believe it should. Cameras are an amazing invention that capture important moments such as your special day with your beloved as you take your vows in front of the altar. But in the case of the courtroom, it's to capture those overwhelming moments if the defendant is guilty or not. The thing is without footage of the case, we have to rely on media to give the report and there have been cases where the information is misleading. Not only that, but we become biased. We are much more likely to hear about people who are released from prison if they murder someone than if they don't. Newspapers are not likely to have headlines that say "Released Prisoner Doesn't Commit Murder" even if that happens for hundreds of released prisoners, but they are likely to report it when a released prisoner does murder someone. Based on what we see reported, our mental image of the percentage of released prisoners that actually murder someone is likely to be much greater than what happens in reality. "People tend to trust what they can see and they are wary of what they cannot see," said Beacon-News photographer Brian Powers.
Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.

< . http://www.merriam-webster.com......) Instigator - the person who starts a debate Round 1 - The first round of said debate debate - A debate held on this site. rule - a prescribed guide for conduct or action (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) contention - a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) >> I agree with these defintions. <<1. My opponent has to debate as if the resolution is "Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like contentions than rules," and he/she is PRO. >> Now my opponent has tried to set me up for failure. He has "made a rule" that if I follow I will lose, and if I don't follow I will lose. A definition of debate that does not clash with my opponent's is: Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints I am opposing not only my opponent's main argument "Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions. " but also the above rule. For my opponent to make a rule of which I cannot debate defeats the purpose of the debate. A debate is when 2 people with opposing view points disagree over a certain subject. I happen to disagree with my opponent's "rules" and "definitions". Because this IS a debate I must be allowed to debate it. Something that can be debated is a contention, not a rule. One example of when a definition was used which should not be used as a rule would be here: . http://www.debate.org... Thank you and good luck with your response.
Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.

Definition - a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Instigator - the person who starts a debate Round 1 - The first round of said debate debate - A debate held on this site. rule - a prescribed guide for conduct or action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) contention - a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) More rules: 1. My opponent has to debate as if the resolution is "Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like contentions than rules," and he/she is PRO. Sometimes, debaters start a debate with a clear set of rules, such as in the following: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I think that definitions should be counted as rules. Sometimes, you see people say, "I agree with all definitions stated by my opponent." I think that if a person doesn't agree with a R1 definition, that person should either debate as if he/she did agree or not accept the debate, as one would with a rule. For example, let's say that I started a debate with the resolution, "Most tables are made of wood." In the first round, I state my definition for table: a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) My opponent then accepts the debate, and says, "I disagree with your definition. I think that the definition should be: a systematic arrangement of data usually in rows and columns for ready reference. These are obviously not made of wood. I win." This would obviously seem very semantical, and very stupid. And yet, it has happened before. http://www.debate.org... I believe that definitions are not disputable in such cases, and must be accepted upon accepting the debate. Thank you to whoever accepts.
Mankind is causing the hurricanes

I believe that humans are causing the hurricanes through Global Warming. The CO2 produced by factories and other industrial complexes traps sunlight inside of the atmosphere. This leads to water temps. rising causing more hurricanes and also the ice at the polar zone smelting. When winds, normally at Africa collide with cold winds it causes wind to gather up and in this case, the high water temps causes hurricanes that then gain velocity and strength.
Evidence suggests an Old Earth.

Experienced debators are reccomended.The Arguments:The Earth is generally accepted to be about 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) based on scientific evidence. [1]The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time. [1] This provides a way of knowing the age of the Earth. The oldest rocks on Earth are dated to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago using several radiometric dating methods, such as the one above.[1] However, this is only a minimal age, as the age cannot be computed directly from material that is from the Earth because evidence suggests that the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface and that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. [1]Plus, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 billion years were spotted from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.[2] This proves that the Earth is at least 4.4 billion years old, and is very close to the 4.55 billion estimate.Other Dating MethodsAs I have proven that the Earth is indeed old, I'll refute some of the other dating methods that give different results.Ocean SalinityDating using Ocean Salinity has suggested a young Earth, but it is not reliable.The salt in the ocean fluxuates, and the ocean also loses about the same amount of salt as it gains. Another flaw in this system is that the rates of erosion, solution, rainfall, and runoff cannot be measured over large amounts of time.[3] Therefore, it does not provide a reliable age of the Earth. [1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://pubs.usgs.gov...[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...
Evidence suggests an Old Earth.

1It is possible for some of the lead or uranium to leak out. To continue my analogy, the corresponding part of a sandtimer would be the glass being broken. If so, sand can leak out one side without the other side being affected. This would ruin the ratio, therefore rendering the data nill.However, this assues that the uranium/lead is leaking, and it is only POSSIBLE for it to happen, and con has not proven that it is leaking. Although I have the BOP to prove the resolution, he still has the BOP to prove that it is leaking as the BOP is on the person making the claim.2.ContaminationContamination does not explain how radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected. [1]3.Assumption that there is 0 PbHowever, it is not required or assumed for there to be 0 D. (Another symbol for Pb, that is used at the source.) However, the greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.[2]4.Decay RateWhat you said to refute radiometric dating can also apply here. The Helium might have already escaped the crystals, and that was just like how in your sand timer analogy where the glass of the timer might be broken. Also, significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating were ,in fact, never observed. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. The largest changes reported by Emery are minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.[3]Other Dating Methods1: you have not proven that the earth is indeed old2:Ocean Salinity is one out of many options. This response is not enough.I have proven that facts point to an Old Earth. Thus Con has ignored about 99% of my arguments.Ocean Salinity is indeed one out of many options, but my BOP is to prove that the Earth is old, and the other options should be pointed out by con as I do not have the BOP to disove them."4: The same argument is made against RD. You say that it is impossible to see into the past and determine the rainfall, erosion, etc."That was not my whole argument, my other part is that the salt in the ocean fluxuates[4] and that the ocean gains about as much salt as it loses. [4] My opponent has not adequately addressed that. Theefore my opponent's argument does not hold any water.I think I do not have to put any more evidence on my side in this round, as most of my arguments are still not adequately refuted.[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]http://orgs.usd.edu...
God Most Likely Exists

Pro has changed his position on souls. He now states there is one soul, God. His theory of souls doesn't seem to be relevant, nor does he offer an argument in support of it. He then talks about death and how if we don't have souls we will be gone into nothingness. Again, the impotence of this is never mentioned. Next, he talks about the idea that you cannot define yourself without your behavior and that consciousness works this way. Then some more about death, then something about us being a single energy. What any of this has to do with God is beyond me. Pro has dropped his teleological argument and instead has chosen to argue something which has nothing to do with God. Temporal Argument Pro hasn't at all touched on my argument from time. He discusses some temporal ontologies, like claimimg the present is the only temporal state that exists. However, this is irrelevant to my argument, the actual nature of time is trivial. What matters is that causality is bound within time. Presentism fits quite well with my argument. In fact Pro agrees that "time has no starting point", since time needs a starting point for God to exist, it seems Pro has just conceded the debate.
God Most Likely Exists

Something being a "sad way to look at life" doesn't tell us if such a way is true or not. It is an appeal to emotion. While most atheists don't believe in souls, there is nothing that binds them to that position. Pro hasn't shown why we should believe in souls anyway. Just because we have a set of complex material that was created (clocks) doesn't entail that all sets of complex material are created. This is known as a fallacy of composition [http://www.nizkor.org...]. Why does an atheist need to be bound to the claim that everything happens by chance? It is accepted that the creation of life was due to physical laws, not chance [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...]. Temporal Argument God is the creator of the universe (connected spacetime), however it makes no sense for there to be a cause of spacetime. Causality is necessarily based on time. A cause of something follows an effect in time. There can be no "before" the first moment in time, because that would require time. Consequently, there can be no cause, as in this event a cause comes before an effect, no before equals no cause. Some appeal to simultaneous causation to get around this, however SC itself is also based on time. SC states the cause and effect can exist at the same time. When applied to the origin of time "simultaneous" loses all meaning. The cause and effect (time) existing at the same time presumes there is time for time to be simultaneous in. Therefore, there cannot be a cause of time and by extension cannot be a cause of spacetime [http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...]. The universe is just connected spacetime, therefore the universe cannot have a creator.
God Most Likely Exists

Man is a little germ in an unimportant rock ball who floats around this spherical fire in the outer edges of one of the smaller glaxies. That is kind of a sad way to look at life. If the atheists were right then we wouldnt have souls and we would oonly be compicated machinery but. Just like a fine clock wasnt made by itself our "Conciouss" and our "bodies" had to be designed by somebody else. Or else all the universe would still be lifeless . Just look at everything that has life it is too complicated and precise to be just something that happened by "odds" Even this world has all the characteristics necessary to grow people and all the animals
Create your own country

I saw Cowboy recently do a debate like this, and his contender quit during the middle of it. I would like to extend to him the same challenge he extended to the other guy Create your own country and votes determine the best one. Establish rules, location, type of people, ethics, what type of system. Whether its conservative, what economic polices it holds etc. Choose a leader and his qualities, and what his goals are. What punishments there are, how do you detour crime and anything else you can think to add. There are 4 rounds to this, use the rounds as follows. Round 1 is merely acceptance. Round 2 is describing and building your country Round 3 is the same as round two Round 4 is offering rebuttals as to why our country is better than the others.