BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

Refer back to the initial definition of the four color theorem: "every possible geographical map can be colored with at most four colors in such a way that no two adjacent regions receive the same colour. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a border segment, not just a point." 'Region' doesn't mean the same thing as 'nation.' #5 on Pro's map is one nation, but two different regions. While region was not specifically defined in the resolution, it is absurd to assume that it means the same thing as nation, especially since we are talking about a mathematical theorem. 'Four Color Theorem', referring to the mathematical problem doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual maps or countries, as having a mathematical theorem dependent on whatever the current political boundaries would be absurd. [1] Pro does mention "geographical map", rather than just map, but that doesn't change the definition of 'region' to 'country.' [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

Here [1] is a "possible geographical map" that I have drawn out, with the addition of two photos. The two photos I used can be seen larger, here: [2], [3] ~~~ANALYSIS OF PHOTO~~~ Labled in the photo are 5 hypothetical countries; they are named "1", "2", "3", "4", and "5". The country that is in question is country "5", hence the lack of color (unless you consider white). What previously used color could be used to fill 5, without touching an adjacent nation/state? "5" borders all of the remaining nations, somewhere or other. As a preemptive response, notice the two photos to the right. We see Michigan. Michigan is a single state; it is also discontinuous. This makes country "5" legal, by the standards of the shape of a country. Meanwhile, the second photo shows the country of "Lesotho"; this nation is entirely engulfed by South Africa, leaving it with no bordering country except for South Africa, which goes all the way around it. My country "5" is a hybrid of Michigan and Lesotho; it is discontinuous, and part of it is engulfed. For this reason, country "5" requires a fifth color, which I will offer to be burnt orange because I go to college at UT Austin. I wish my opponent luck, and look forward to his response. PS If the link to the picture does not work, (the rich text feature has been giving me this problem) I'll repost it in the comments section. [1] . http://i56.tinypic.com... [2] . http://www.infomi.com... [3] . http://www.thecommonwealth.org...
I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

The four-color-map theorem, demonstrated here [1], is a theory that declares that "every possible geographical map can be colored with at most four colors in such a way that no two adjacent regions receive the same colour. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a border segment, not just a point." [2] The rules for this debate are very simple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) In round one, my opponent will ONLY accept the debate. The definition of the four-color map theorem cannot be altered; the reason I emphasize this is because I wish to stress "possible geographical map". I do not wish to use any other definition. 2) Semantics should not be used. My opponent may NOT define any terms in round 1, or any future round. 3) In round 2, I will present a picture I have created to "disprove" the theorem. In round 2, my opponent will attempt to point out flaws in my drawing and defend the theorem. Round 3 will be my only defense, and my opponent's closing remarks. 4) Please note- this debate allows for ONE full day to argue, and 6,000 characters to argue with. If you don't have the time, please do not accept- I don't want a forfeiture. Good luck to my opponent. ~SOURCES~ [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2] http://www.wordiq.com...
Funny joke contest.

Jokes. Five per round. Structure: Round 1- riddles Round 2- knock knock jokes Round 3- yo mama jokes Round 4- Chuck Norris jokes Round 5- Justin Bieber jokes What's round, bounces around, and laughs a lot? A goofball! What do you call a girl who like gambling? Betty! Why did the kid fall in the mud? Because he was a dirty boy anyway! Why did the Batmobile lose a wheel? The Joker shot it, but he was aiming for Batman. Why did the itsy bitsy spider climb up the water spout? He wanted to know what being Spider-Man was like.
Funny joke contest.

Since we all know that these jokes are about Justin Bieber, I'll simply use his initials JB.Though I really don't like making jokes about JB, as I actually like the guy.I think it is just a typical reaction of very Jealous guys, wishing they had JB's position.I've got nothing to be jealous of.My life is excellent as it is.Though I've seen most of Pro's jokes b4, they are all on: http://www.jokes4us.com... I prefer as I've done before, to create my own, a bit more original, but probably not as Funny!What about Michael Jackson would JB wish to copy? Testicles removed to avoid puberty.What Zombies would target JB for destroying their living images? John Lennon and James Dean for denigrating their Hair Styles in public. Cinderella lied when she said the glass slippers were hers, Why? She was covering for JB.What is the first sign of puberty for girls? They destroy their JB collection.What is the first sign your son is gay? They want a JB collection.Here's a JB Train Wreck appearance:http://o.canada.com...
Funny joke contest.

What do you call a Canadian girl who can't sing? Justin Bieber. Puberty will hit Justin Bieber one day. Oh, wait, never mind. It's rude to hit girls. Justin Bieber is so overrated that this joke probably offends any female fanatic of his. Justin Bieber's voice is so high that if he was in crush 40, he would sound so much more manly. Justin Bieber is such an idiot he thinks his songs are good.
Funny joke contest.

Chuck Norris went to Hell and reformed Satan.An Asteroid heading for Earth bebounded of Chuck Norris's back hair.Chuck Norris taught Jesus Christ how to walk on water.Creating the Universe Contest: God, Six Days, Chuck Norris 1 hour, including hair salon break.History got the Sinking of the Bismark wrong, it was not a torpedo it just crossed the path of Chuck Norris swimming across the English Channel.
Funny joke contest.

Hmm, never been into Yo Mama jokes, they are a bit Misogynistic and often degrading of such folk.Though, Pro's M&M one was pretty funny, Good one Pro. Don't think I can top that one.Though if I must do Yo Mama jokes, then here goes:Yo Mama is so Big that the army mistook her knickers for a ten man tent.Yo mama talks so much that she wore the ears of a garden gnome.Yo mama spends so much time putting makeup on that she wore out her mirror.Yo mama is so smelly that skunks avoid her home.Yo mama is so mean, she makes mosquitoes beg for some blood.I know, pretty lame, but well, at least I tried, over to Pro!
Funny joke contest.

Those jokes were actually funny. Here are my yo mama jokes. Yo mama is so fat that it took Satan five hours to find her ear so he could whisper in it. Yo mama is so ugly that she's so pretty that she's just ugly. Yo mama is so stupid that she tried to put her M&M's in alphabetical order. Yo mama is so dumb she's dumb. Yo mama is so smelly she doesn't have to fart to smell worse that old manure.
Funny joke contest.

I'm really crap @ Knocker Jokes.1: Knock KnockWho's There? AnitaAnita Who?Anita Bowl Of Sugar.2: Knock Knock.Use The Flamin Buzzer!3: Buzz BuzzWho's There?IzzyIzzy Who?Iz ze footy on today?4: Knock KnockOkay, Who's There?YodaYoda Who?Yo Door Buzzer Is Broken.5: Knock KnockWho's There?BuzzBuzz Who?Buzzer Repair ManThanks Pro, Over to You!
Funny joke contest.

Knock knock. Who's there? I said. I said who? I said "knick knack!" Knock knock. Who's there? I ASK THE QUESTIONS!!!!! Knock knock. Who's there? Nobody. Knock knock. Who's there? I'm Interrupting. I'm interupti- I'M INTERRUPTING YOU, THAT'S WHO! Knock knock. Who's there? You. You who? I'll be at the door. Your turn.
Funny joke contest.

Hmm Riddles, ummm, Dunno M8, I'll Give it a Go?? Q: Wonder Woman went to a party, but why did everybody there think she was insane? A: She was dating the Invisible Man. Q: Why did Batman glide down to arrest the Joker using an umbrella? A: He grabbed the Mary Poppins Utility Belt by mistake. Q: A prisoner is in a concrete walled fortress with only a table in his cell, how did he get "Out"? A: He ran around the table until he was puffed "Out". Q: Name four days of this week which start with the letter "t"? A: Tuesday, Thursday, Today and Tomorrow. Q: Why would Spiderman accidentally getting his web stuck between his buttocks remind him of a form of conferencing? A: Webinars. Hey, that's all I can come up with @ short notice. If you laugh at any of those, you are as twisted as Moi! Over to Pro for a Knockup or two!
Should schools spend money

My opponent seems to have ignored my point. You said that schools should only spend money on laptops, Ipads and leap pads (Quoting you:"Schools should only spend money on things like, laptops, and Ipads, and maybe leap pads for K-2"). Under your system that would be all a school could buy/rent. They could not buy or rent a building. They could not buy or rent books, and they could not spend money to pay teachers.
Should schools spend money

OMG. This is now going to far. Yes, I get your point. Once again your logic is neat but for some reason you're not getting my point. Many people don't see that schools are slowly losing money due to the amount of students/teachers/paras. Schools should set a limit of the amount of kids. That way schools don't have to spend that much on the teachers. Though that may mean people may lose jobs, but there are schools all across America. Desks, as you put it are another thing, schools should save all desks that they have, when a kid leaves. That way there will be a desk when someone new comes to the school. Also, they should have fundraisers so they can earn money. Another thing is instead of buying books, have a donation drive, so that the school won't have to buy new books, but get books free. They could check all books before using them. Also, instead of renting the building, they could just buy it. Public schools, just shouldn't spend money. They don't have people spend money to go there. If you would like to continue this debate please continue it by making a new debate or in the comments.
Should schools spend money

You said in the first round that "Schools should only spend money on things like, laptops, and Ipads, and maybe leap pads for K-2", however to function, schools need to spend money on books, teachers, desks, and rent. So I win on that point alone.A school that only buys Ipads and laptops cannot fuction as a school, and I have now proven your resolution to be illogical and false.
Should schools spend money

Should schools spend money? Maybe. Schools are losing money day after day. Schools are becoming worse, day after day. What is are economy going to do. Schools should only spend money on things like, laptops, and Ipads, and maybe leap pads for K-2. Schools need these things because, well, these are semi educational. Laptops are good for typing things. The school I teach at has an e-mail account for every kid in the fifth grade. This way we can type up stories and share them to other students and teachers. The laptops are good for students to get an idea on the thing there learning. But still, the school I teach at keeps getting new playground equipment, and are slowly losing money. Still, kids may need these things like recess, or PE, or Art, but they don't need knew equipment EVERY year.
All Religions are Communes, therefore Communism.

Final Rebuttals:"touche'"I assume that my opponent intended to write touché, meaning that I made a clever argument.[7]"So what?"I assume this means that my post is irrelevant to the debate, or that it's unimportant in and of itself.[8] But I do not see how my argument is irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is whether all religions are communes. My argument, which addressed the nature of both religions and communes, seems to be entirely relevant to the debate. If my opponent's rebuttal is to be taken seriously, my opponent must first show us how my argument is irrelevant to the debate.If this is the only reply to my post, then it seems like my opponent has effectively forfeited the debate. No arguments were made in support of the resolution, and the one argument I wrote was barely addressed, if at all. Certainly the soundness or the validity of my argument was not questioned. The burden of proof is continually on Pro, and this alone warrants a loss in most debate settings. Therefore, I claim victory. I thank my opponent for this learning experience.Sources:[7]https://www.google.com...[8]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
All Religions are Communes, therefore Communism.

Rebuttals:"That's what religion is, communism. Communism is suicide."This argument is a bare assertion, which is logically fallacious.[4] Even if this is true, I'm not sure how this affirms the resolution. "Do you fancy yourself to be the god of definitions? Really you have told us nothing. Please continue." This is irrelevant to the discussion of the debate unless my opponent wishes to dispute my definitions.[5]The burden of proof is still on Pro to reasonably show how (1) all religions are communes, and (2) that this relates to communism. However, I reserve the right to make arguments against the resolution.Negative Argument 1: Communes are geographically located in France. Religions are not necessarily geographically located in France.According to the definitions I provided, communes exist only in France. But some religions exist outside of France.[6] I suppose if all religions were communes, no one would believe in theism except for people who are located in France. Sources:[4]https://logfall.wordpress.com...;[5]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[6]http://censusindia.gov.in...
All Religions are Communes, therefore Communism.

Thank you, Max.Wallace, for instigating this debate. I will be using the following definitions in my arguments. Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.[1] Commune - the smallest French territorial division for administrative purposes.[2] Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. To win this debate, Pro will have to show both (1) how all religions are French territorial divisions and (2) how this relates to communism. I await Pro's opening arguments. Sources: [1]https://www.google.com... [2]https://www.google.com... [3]https://www.google.com...
Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country

Thank you Frankthetank885 for posting this debate. This should be fun. You have some valid points. But refining the gun rules are not going to make things any safer. You were right the first argument I"m going to bring up is that is a constitutional right for Americans to bear arms. The idea of arming the public is that we could start local militias in the time of need. Weather the threat be foreign or local we reserve the right to protect ourselves from it. You brought up the argument we don"t need to have military grade weapons and don"t need extended magazine clips. Yes it sounds like a pretty good idea to reduce the fire power and limit the bullets, but what is really happening is by enforcing gun reform laws we are making it an un even battleground if it ever came down to battles on the local front. What I mean here is that if you restrict weapons that everyone else has access to except for us it puts us as a disadvantage. Imagine Running around trying to protect your country on your home turf with a long rifle while the opposing side has the SCARS and other "high-grade weaponry". Take a look at Mexico for example; they have one of the most strict gun laws in place. In comparison to the U.S., Mexico had 11,309 murders due to guns that"s about 9.95 gun homicides per 100,000 people. The U.S. on the other hand had 9,146 gun homicides, which comes out to about 2.97 per 100,000 people. The high homicide rate partially is due because the law abiding citizens are fallowing the strict regulations and not getting guns for protection, while people who are getting guns for crime are acquiring the weapons as if they were legally distributed via the black market. The law-abiding citizens are then being over powered and out gunned by the opposing side. Gun regulation would not need to be so apparent if we taught gun safety. When it comes down to it guns don"t kill people; people kill people. A study conducted by Kyle Wintersteen the editor of Guns and Ammo found "Children who are taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than households with out guns"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security and recreation not violence." That leads me to my final point; there is a sense of freedom that comes with owning a gun." Yes the PRO Side will say that sense of freedom is closely related to senseless violence, but they forget about the majority of heroic, gun-wielding citizens, who stand up in the face of criminals and protect themselves and those around them. To sum it all up I will say restricting the gun rights of U.S. citizens does not provide a safer country, it is the teaching of gun safety that will ultimately help with the gun violence the US is dealing with and guns are an important part of many American"s perspective of freedom and by restricting the gun laws you are constricting our constitutional right as an American.
Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country

Gun Reform is a necessity for the future of our country. Our relaxed reform rules clearly not working right now. Sixteen of the top Twenty-Eight mass shootings in the U. S. have taken place in the passed Fifteen years. That’s a staggering statistic. Furthermore The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). More rules and regulation would reduce gun deaths. About 200 Americans go to emergency room each day, gun violence being the cause. Now I know the number one argument on the opposing side will be it’s our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns. With this being said there were gun controls back in the colonial time. Some of the laws consisted of criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, Slaves, and Native Americans; there was regulation of gunpowder in homes and loaded guns were banned from Boston houses. With this in mind there should be no reason to have High Capacity Magazines. A Mother Jones investigation discovered that he use of high capacity magazines were used at least 50% of the 62 mass shooting taking place from 1982 and 2012. With High capacity magazines being used injury rates rose about 156% and the death rate rose about 63%. There is also no need for civilians to have access to military grade weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single loaded long rifles or muskets. Now people can acquire military grade issued SCAR and guns like it. In conclusion there is no need for the public to have access to high-grade militant weaponry.
In a fight to death, between Logical-Master & Yraelz, Logical-Master would likely emerge victorious.

Greetings LM and the debate.org community. Although my esteemed opponent, Logical-Master, and myself have never met in person, years of indirect communication has assured me that I would be devastated if we were to engage in a fight to the death. In this debate, my burden of proof will simply be to demonstrate that LM would likely emerge victorious. Anecdotal evidence, links to previous comment threads, links to previous debates, poorly photo-shopped depictions, and general assessments of persona will all be permissible factors in this debate. However, the voters will have to choose their own criteria for what to weigh as important. Doubtlessly, LM and I will try to persuade these decisions. ***********************************************************Let's establish a couple of guidelines for each round.Round 1: Opening comments, LM will doubtlessly use this time to establish some definitions in order to get ahead of the game. In fact, he may just make an entire case. Round 2: Focus - General fighting. Round 3: Focus - If we were anime characters. Rebuttal to General Fighting.Round 4: Opposite round - Everything we say is the opposite of what we mean. Voters ought to account for this in some way. Round 5: Concluding Remarks - Which will really just turn into 8000 character rebuttals. ***********************************************************The best of luck to my opponent. I lay two cards face down and end my turn.
In a fight to death, between Logical-Master & Yraelz, Logical-Master would likely emerge victorious.

As you can NOT plainly see, Yraelz has NOT merey disagreed with everything I said in the previous round. Instead, he HAS offered arguments in response to what I said. In light of the arguments he HAS clearly provided above, I request that you NOT extend my entire round 3.NO THANK YOU! HAVE A TERRIBLE DAY!
Resolution: That CSPI is more interested in spreading vegetarianism rather than food safety

I accept my opponent's definitions, therefore I will not post my defintions Contention 1) CSPI promotes unhealthy food diets: It is well known that CSPI denounces fatty foods, but at the same time promotes high-carbohydrate foods. Studies have shown that high-carbohydrate foods are more dangerous than fatty foods for carbohydrates are seen as the body as 100% sugar. Thus, the body has to create insulin to deal with these carbohydrates. If the carbohydrates are not used as energy, they are then converted to fat. High fat diets actually are healthier than high carbohydrate diets, being that it takes longer for the body to use the fat as energy, giving the consumer of said fats, a full feeling, causing the consumer to have a lesser urge to snack/eat less throughout the day. On the other hand, carbohydrates, being that they are burned through easily, give the consumer a tired feeling after the energy has been burned through. Tom Naughton, director and actor of the movie Fat Head (food documentary replying to the "Super Size Me" crowd proved one can LOSE weight on high fat foods. In fact, he even lowered his cholesterol ratio on a fatty food diet! It is SELF-EVIDENT that CSPI's "Green & High Carb" diet is fruitless (hehe, pun.) Contention 2) CSPI denounces perfectly healthy foods CSPI denounces nearly all food genres that include fats, especially trans fats. But of course, CSPI only sees one kind of trans fat, the evil doer trans fat super villian causing America to be fact on their own accord. Could it be a responsibility issue, or a parenting problem? Oh no, says CSPI! In fact, CSPI even claims that eggs are a "dangerous food." This is ridiculous when many naturally accuring trans fats are good for oneself. Naturally occuring trans fats found in milk and yogurt significantly dropped the cholesterol levels of obese rats during a research experiment at the University of Alberta. As I've stated before in my previous contention, fatty foods can be good for a healthy diet, as long as exercise is present. Esentially, a breakfast of bacon is healthier than having a bowl of cereal. http://www.latimes.com... www.fathead-movie.com/ (informative nutrition movie about carbohydrates that I used in my 1st contention) http://www.thedietchannel.com...