BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

Con has posted his opinion of time but has not contested cubic time other than 'over-think', Sure, But I don't understand your opinion, You might want to define your terms; there's no obvious image to put with your wording. I say, Take a look at the image of a human walking from one point to another, Or the time lapsed memory of such an event, Where you can theroize from any angle. The number of angles you can come from a point in space is like a sphere, But when perceived and when cognizing, Is like a cube. You can move around a point in your front vision, Spherically, But what you're truly moving on is a cube. Look at your monitor, It has a back side, Therefore it is a cubit. Cubic understanding of life is wordless it's related to pure knowledge and experience; you can visualize a memory from any angle of the walk to the park, But one frame and ther creation of 'frame' itself, Related to spacial objects, Is a cubit. Sure the planet is a sphere, But time is cubic, The sphere planet is a cubit when experienced and revolving/tilting/orbiting.
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

The human condition invites over-think, It's an inevitability. Good in terms of moving theory forwards, But not always valid. Time is merely an utterance relative to something. For me time represents the simplicity of a potential and does not imply dimensionality. I similarly regard spatial potential in the same way. Nonetheless, Cubic dimensionality is an inevitable consequence of spatial potential. Whereas time dimensionality is a separate utterance not relative to the simplicity of time potential. Events and duration are the inevitable consequences of time potential and it is events and duration that we regard dimensionally, Rather than time potential itself. Therefore progression is an event that has duration relative to time potential. Undoubtedly spatial potential allows for multiple events with associated variable duration, Which I suppose could be interpreted as "Natures Cubic Time" or "Cubic harmony" or "Cubic relationships" etc. But for me this is definitely over-think and unnecessary conceptual fluff that lacks any detectable effect. Perhaps Pro can offer a more realistic explanation of "Cubic Time" etc. And their associated effects.
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

Time is relative to us progressing into the future and away from the past; time is thus, An obvious assumption about that factor (progression/simulation). Dimensionality definitely comes into time, But not only dimensionality, Also nature. As stated: There is a cube time field; the cubic harmony found between Sun and planet is the cube-time-action that creates the cube-time-field. Nature's Cubic Time. Planets and Stars find harmony in cubic time, And cubic time exists for animals on the planet because of the harmony that's consistent between planets and stars. It's worth noting, Again, That not only dimensionality exists, But also cubic nature exists within the cubic dimesnions; the cubic planet and sun (referring to their dimensionality), Have a cubic relationship (referring to their nature). It was a lowly argument anyway that proclaimed 'over-think', This response is for the debate only not for educational purposes.
Smoking-Please read on for the full resolution

My apologies to Volkov, but due to time, I will be able to post only a brief round. I will quickly address what had been said. "...I am arguing for people's rights to smoke it in public as they wish. I will do this by proving to you that the government has no right to infringe on a person's rights to perform legal acts in public, and as such that they have not enforced the same bans on another similar killer." Yes, smoking is currently legal. I am arguing that it should not be. Just because something is a law does not make it just. Look to the Jim Crowe Laws. These "legal acts" infringe on OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. Now to my comparison. Yes, I read the whole thing, and I urge you to do the same. Note specifically: "No person shall appear nude while in any unit except in authorized areas set aside for that purpose by the Department" NO PERSON. Illegal. UNLESS it is in authorized areas. " This is a person's right, and one that must be protected against by the majority of those who would take it away." Really? I charge of you to show me where in US law it says you are allowed to smoke. A right? Where is it guaranteed? Even IF it were a right, it would still infringe on other's rights, specifically health, and life. You conceeded that smoking and second-hand smoke kills, so why allow for the killing? Is that giving people their rights? "I would also like to draw your attention to another killer that the government has failed to stop. Pollution has been documented as one of the biggest killers in society, and between the years of 1986 and 1993 alone, they have been accounted for almost 3% of deaths in the United States." Great. I agree. This is however irrelevant. Please stick to the resolution. Here is the essence of my argument: I may exercise all of my RIGHTS, so long as they hurt no one else's. This is the same in US law, which is the discussion of the debate. (I can swing my fist anywhere I like, until it touches your nose) If you want to smoke, great. Do it in your house, or in a smoker store. I don't care what you do to yourself. Whatever you do though, do not infringe upon my right to health, and my right to life. Negated.
Smoking-Please read on for the full resolution

I thank my esteemed colleague for this interesting topic, and I hope that my first debate will go well. Whether it is to protest, dine, debate or just to live out our lives, all citizens have a right to do anything within the law on public property. So why should cigarette smoking be banned on this same property? I will make my argument based on three principles: legality, property and economy. With these principles I hope to convince you that this ban is wrong in many, many ways. In the US, smoking bans are determined by the state and municipal governments. As it currently stands, 35 states have bans in place to varying degrees, while the remaining 15 - Alaska, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia - do not have any bans in place at all. These states realize that a ban will not only infringe on a person's personal rights, but the rights of business and property owners. Nicotine is not an illegal substance, therefore it is not illegal to smoke it in public. All Americans are entitled to do anything they wish within the law on public property. This is an indivisible aspect of American democracy and a ban on smoking in public would be in direct contradiction to this. Public property belongs to all Americans and the government has no right to come down on one group to please another. Americans enjoy the fact that they are allowed to hold public protests and demonstrations against what they are in opposition to. A ban on smoking will be the first step in stripping away this right. This is not what the Constitution was written up for. As well, the government has no right to enforce a ban on smoking on private property. Business owners have property rights just the same as any American citizen, and the government does not have a right to enforce a ban on a legal substance within private confines. Enforcing the ban on businesses will hurt their revenue. Hospitality businesses in the states with enforced bans have seen a decrease of business since the ban was instituted, leading to lawsuits by several companies in states ranging from Nevada to New York. It has been noted by studies that a ban hurts businesses that rely on low to middle-class customers for the majority of their business. Upscale businesses find themselves content with the ban and no one will challenge their right to enforce their own ban on smoking on their own property. But the government has no right to enforce it on all businesses, causing them to lose untold amounts of revenue. One such business was 4-B's Restaurant in Missoula, Montana, where the owner reported a six-figure loss. The government has yet to reimburse him for this lost income. So I ask you friend, what part of the smoking ban is to the benefit of Americans? What part of the smoking ban is legal under the laws of the United States? When will the government reimburse businesses for their lost income - if they ever do? I await your response.
Smoking-Please read on for the full resolution

Resolved: In the United States, smoking ought to be legal everywhere open to the public. I would like to define the following terms: Smoking- To draw in and exhale smoke from a cigarette, cigar, or pipe Legal- permitted by law; lawful (The US law) "open to the public"- an area or place that is open and accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level As my opponent is affirmative, I will allow him/her to open. Good luck, and I look forward to a good debate.
Smoking-Please read on for the full resolution

I'm sorry to hear that you were unable to talk more on this, but I will nonetheless rebut your argument just as if you had. "Yes, smoking is currently legal. I am arguing that it should not be. Just because something is a law does not make it just. Look to the Jim Crowe Laws. These "legal acts" infringe on OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. " So to does the act of creating pollution in the air. It infringes on people's rights as well, which is why my argument is relevant to this case. You are arguing that it must be illegal because it infringes on people's rights, and so must US law follow in step on other matters. As well, "laws" are not meant to decide what is just or unjust; they are there to provide protection on our human rights and provide structure to our society. These rights are included to all people, including smokers. I invite you to view the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I wish to point out to you articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13. All of these are relevant to the rights of smokers. None of them infringe upon the rights of non-smokers to avoid smoke, or ban it upon their private property. You may view the Declaration here: . http://www.un.org... Your argument that it 'infringes' upon the legal rights of non-smokers is therefore negated in two ways; one, the state itself does not respect this right, therefore making your argument that they have a 'just' obligation to do so void; and two, the legal rights of non-smokers are not violated. So here is the essence of my argument. You may excersize all of your rights, so long as they hurt no one else's. This is positively true, but a ban on smoking does exactly this. You may use the terms "rights" to refer to basic rights such as the right to health, right to property, right to protest, etc. The fact of the matter is that rights are much, much more complicated than that. People have rights to not be exiled, in which a ban would; the right to not have arbitrary interference with his privacy, which a ban would; and the right to have recognition as a person before the law, which a ban would. Smoking bans only compel people to shun away these rights, leaving us in a dangerous limbo, where a government no longer serves the people, but a special interest group of anti-tobacco activists. Activists that I may add, have done nothing to help clear the problem by furthering technological innovations to make smoking less toxic, and have the complete right themselves to compel private businesses to institute smoking bans on private property. So yes, absolutely is smoking a danger to people's health, but it is also something that any of us have a right to do. It is the same right that activists enjoy to be able to petition businesses to curb smoking on their property. It is the same right that my opponent has to use his internet without observation by the government. These are all rights that are unassailable, and we must respect them, even when it does not seem just, or even healthy, to do so.
abortion

Lets go on ahead and get this out of the way. your going to tell me that its a woman's rite, its a woman's body and she can do what she wants. Then you will bring up the rape point, which is fine, and tell me that a woman should not have to carry a reminder like that around. And you might even bring up the point of a child being a fetus, and cant feel, even though its bones, spine, brain and heart form in the first trimester, so it feels just fine. so go on ahead and throw these at me and lets get real and down to facts.
Legal age should be lowered to 16

I will gladly accept this challenge and I thank Con. Since you didn't post a structure preference, I guess I will start with asking for clarification on what exactly you mean by "legal rights" as we all rely on our legal rights, no matter what age. Here are a few rights we have in the UK, once we have turned 16; ~ we have the right to have sexual relations with anyone over the age of 16 and under the age of 18. ~Drink wine/beer with a meal if accompanied by someone over 18 ~Get married or register a civil partnership with consent ~Drive a moped or invalid carriage ~Get a National Insurance number ~Join a trade union ~Work full-time if you have left school ~Be paid national minimum wage for 16/17 year old ~Join the Armed Forces with parental consent ~Change name by deed poll ~Leave home with or without parental consent ~In certain circumstances you must pay for prescriptions, dental treatment and eye tests ~Choose a GP ~Consent to medical treatment ~Buy premium bonds ~Pilot a glider ~Buy a lottery ticket ~Register as a blood donor, but you won't be called to give blood until you're 17 ~Apply for a passport without parental consent All of these are our legal rights once turned 16. I understand not all countries have all these rights, and I will gladly argue (with evidence) that these rights are rational for the age of 16 if there are any of them that you disagree with. I will also argue any other legal rights issues you have as well (i.e. legal drinking age- this is 18 in the UK.) Please clarify and I will be more than happy to respond with evidence that "legal age" should be lowered to 16 (within reason of course).
Legal age should be lowered to 16

Legal age should be lowered to 16 is a major issue being debated all over the world. I strongly believe that 16 is too tender an age to allow teenagers to be given legal right. At this age they merely have the sense of judgement and as said and observed it is an age when most of the teenagers move off track and tend to do wrong thing. Then how can they be given legal rights? If you disagree with me then you need to present proof so as to!
Sexting

Sexting is not wrong. If a person wants to take nude or revealing pictures of him or her self that is their choice. They just have no right to whine and complain when the pictures are put on the Internet or distributed out. Sexting should not be considered child pornography. Most of the time, sexting is used by couples in a semi intimate relationship where their is enough trust to allow the partner to see their bodies. But charging a teenager as an adult for child pornography could potentially ruin their lives. The pictures are harmless. Sexting is not used for malicious intent. Only real child pornography should be condemned not harmless sexual hormones being let out.
Reddit is objectively better than 4chan.

Objectively = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Better = more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.Fact = a thing that is known or proved to be true. You have full BOP."I think Reddit is better than 4chan." This is influenced by personal feeling and opinion."It has a much larger userbase."... "4chan has a much smaller userbase"Has not presented any cited evidence, so we can disregard as proved fact for now, but also has failed to prove why this means it is objectively better."full of manchildren and trolls." Baseless opinion."trolls that troll each other." So what?...750 limit reached.
Reddit is objectively better than 4chan.

I think Reddit is better than 4chan. It has a much larger userbase, and that userbase is full of mature, thought-provoking people from all over the world. On the other hand, 4chan has a much smaller userbase full of manchildren and trolls that troll each other. Basically, what you have on 4chan is a bunch of people trolling each other while a big whiny manchild poops himself crying to everyone about how "MUH 4CHAN WAS BETTUR BAK IN 20XX!!" which is simply not true. Also, Reddit has more original content. 4chan has been known to steal content directly from Reddit and claim it as their own. Examples being: "Lemon Key Face" which is Reddit's memes "le" and "Gorilla Cereal", and 90% of the ragefaces like FFFUUUUU and troll face.
God is the Best Explanation of the Existence of the Universe

Con, your first argument here appears to be the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is only acceptable if we speculate that other parts of the universe have different qualities or constants. If that were the case, then of course we should not be surprised that we are the only part of the universe which has the conditions necessary for the existence of life-forms. It'd be like a rich man looking around his neighbourhood and wondering why everyone's house was so big. However, this hidden assumption of he anthropic principle does not strike me as any less speculative than theism. Therefore, I do not see how I can nullify my wonder at the existence of life by assuming that our part of the universe, outfitted for life, just occurred by chance, and I do not believe I shouldn't be surprised to observe life in it. The chances of observing such a phenomenon as life in a Universe started by a (presumably) random explosion are so tiny as to be impossible to have been created by mere chance, nor are these arbitrary quantities, constants and laws created by any Universal Law of Nature. Therefore, to me the only explanation for the fine-tuning of these values is a theistic God who wanted to design us in a way that pleased Him. To address your point that there is no evidence for God being the first thing in the universe, this appears to be slightly OT. Just because I cannot furnish evidence of God doesn't mean I cannnot propose Him as the best explanation of the existence of our Universe ex nihilo with all it's architecture. If archeologists dug up plates and tomahawks in the ground they wouldn't need any more evidence of the existence of the existence of humans there than that. They wouldn't assume they had been created by erosion or other natural processes. Universe From Nothing Gambit This Universe from nothing gambit you have used would work, if it were not for the fact that currently the best interpretation of Q.M is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, this is an interpretation that uses Probabilistic Causality to show particles coming into existence. Such an interpretion still needs an explanation for how the elemenetary particles were created in the first place from the primordial fireball at the beggining of the universe. This paragraph does not come close to describing a cause of the existence of such particles. The God is Meaningless Gambit God's primary characteristics can be gauged through the Bible. Therefore the basis of this argument is silly. The Null Hypothesis I don't understand this argument, could you cite a source for it please?
God is the Best Explanation of the Existence of the Universe

I will be arguing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the Universe. My argument for God is that the Universe is a contingent object which began a finite time ago, according to Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem, that shows that any universe that is on average expanding has to have an absolute beginning in time[1]. The only thing that could explain the emergence of all physical reality is some abstract personal being who exists by the necessity of his own nature, which is what most theists understand by the word God. The design of the Universe, which allows for the creation of intelligent life, shows the handiwork of God. If the Universe had different laws, quantities, and constants, then life could not exist.[2] Citations [1] http://www.astro.caltech.edu... [2]http://www.reasons.org...
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

People can communicate to a wall, and that wall has no knowledge; therefore, communications does not imply knowledge.Storing the speech on the colored rocks means the color rocks are a language just like reading the speech in A, G, T, C's.A scientist can read a DNA section and tell you what protein it makes. [1] If you give a cell that section of DNA it will make that protein. That means the DNA is instructions to build proteins, and is a language. Since DNA is a language, and languages are codes that contain info; therefore, DNA is a code that contains info. Then follows that because DNA is a code that contains info, and the only source of info is intelligence; therefore, DNA requires intelligence.Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

I say language transfers information to an intelligence and you say it communicates. These mean the same thing. Communication implies knowledge, which in turn implies intelligence " at BOTH ends of the communication. When a DNA molecule undergoes a chemical reaction, it is not communicating anything to anyone. Human minds storing an MLK speech on DNA is no different than storing it on colored rocks. Both cases involve storing symbols and then symbol reading by humans, not a direct chemical reaction. DNA does not "convey info on instructions to build proteins". It directly causes the proteins to form as a result of the chemical reactions that it undergoes. Chemicals don't communicate. They interact physically.
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

I couldn't find your definition of language in any dictionary, so I found one. Language: A system of objects or symbols, such as sounds or character sequences, that can be combined in various ways following a set of rules, especially to communicate thoughts, feelings, or instructions. [1] DNA is a system of nucleotides that conveys info [2] on instructions to build proteins. Scientist have stored MLK's "I have a dream" speech into DNA. [3] DNA conveys info, unlike other molecules. That is why specified DNA is different. Since DNA has info, and the only known cause of info is intelligence; therefore, there must be an intelligent cause for the DNA info. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

It is true that the DNA molecule will not function as it does if the order of its component parts is changed, but this is true of all molecules. Nearly all chemical reactions between complex molecules, especially catalytic reactions, occur in a certain sequence, one atom forming a bond leading to the making or breaking of further bonds, etc. That its effects are sequential may remind us of language, but it is not language. Language transfers information to an intelligence which then initiates action. DNA causes physical effects directly. Dawkins is right: DNA is indeed "uncannily computer like" and that is exactly why the mistake is being made which is the subject of this debate. But reminding us of a computer does not make it one.