BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time is just an illusion/made up force that helps us understand our place in the Universe

If time dose exist… If time did/does in fact exist then why can we not travel forwards and backwards through it? If there is no past and no future, only present then that proves that it is non-existent except for its current state. You are defining time as a series of chronological events that move in a linear fashion. In mathematical terms this would be “x = x+ (∞+1), x ≠ x+ (∞+1)”. Just as you cannot divide by zero, you cannot dived by “time”. To prove time does not exist that would mean, “time” is not a series of chronological events that move in a linear fashion. In mathematical terms; x=∞, ∞=0. Basically, time is any point on a non-existent line. Past, Present, Future: Back to the example of me coming back to find you dead for 10,000 years, existence, my currant state would be 0. My current state relative to you would be -10,000 while your state in relative to me would be 10,000. Existence is 0; anything positive is the future, while anything negative is the past. If the past existed, then 2000 years ago would be shown as: x = x – 2000. If x = x – 2000 then x does not equal 0, therefore the past does not exist. If time has to be equal to zero, then, it cannot be positive or negative. With this being said, 0 + 0 = 0, therefore, time does not move in a linear fashion, making it non-existent. On a grid time is and only can be the origin. How we perceive time: There is the same amount of matter on Earth as there was 100,000,000,000 years ago; matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, in order for us to get from the past to the present non-existent matter would have to be created, which is impossible. What we perceive as “time” is when matter changes from one state to the next. For water to change from a solid state to a liquid state would be; water is represented by w, w = 0, w – 1 = 0 – 1, therefore w was always in existence, water in its previous state is non-existing because it is equal to – 1. As we age our existence is describe like this; 0 = 0 ± 1, therefore we are in a current state of existence, and, like water in its solid state, are non-existing. This explains why we cannot go back to “when we were younger”, or travel into the future, because both no longer exist. Just as we remember non-existing things, like water in the solid state, and out “past”, this is just how we deal with the changing of the state of matter. When we die, no matter will be destroyed, it will just change form and appearance.
Alcohol Should Be Banned

Thank you for the definitions. I would like to view this from a utilitarian point of view, at first at least. People will be unhappy at first, as the alcohol will be gone but they will start to see improvements in time. 1. Less crime. Things will be more calm 2. People can socialise in other ways, sports, cinema...endless possibilities 3. I dont want to socialise with someone for eho they are when they drink alcohol, I want to socialise with themfor who they really are Thanks :)
Alcohol Should Be Banned

I will first clarify some definitions, then let my opponent go into their opening arguments. Alcohol - any beverage which contains ethanol for the purpose of consumption. This excludes ethanol based fuels and cleansers. Ban - "Officially or legally prohibit. " [1] I will likely address this from both a libertarian rights perspective as well as a utilitarian perspective, but that really depends upon my opponent's arguments. [1] . http://www.google.com...
we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy

Ok, Sorry for putting God into this debate. I had gone back to the bible and it surely didn't say anything about human eating livestock. The reason we should eat cows is simply because we need to eat it. We have a natural appeal towards meat. The reason we don't feel guilty and sympathy is because they are livestock. Cows are way dumber than dogs and elephant and they don't have self awareness. Human consume beef because they are born to be eaten by human. That is their life purpose.
we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy

Ok, Fellas here is what I think. I have been argueing with someone about this this evening. That when we eat beef or veal, we should not feel guilty or sympathy about it. Because Firstly God said we can. Secondly, Cows have no self awareness. They dont understand. If they dont understand, it means that apart from the physical disturbance that the pain it brings when human kill them, They experience no mental trauma. Therefore we, as we eat fish have no guilt about it.
we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy

No I did not mean by that. By the way this is not what we talking about. Lets imagine if human does not exist, I would blieve that cows will still exist. but human is not the only spcie that consume beef. So do the tigrs and lions. Your idea infact reinforce my statmnt that there is no moral issue involved in this circumstance. if human dont eat them, other animals will. this issue is simple. that what i am trying to say is cows are meant to be eaten by us. If it is meant to b, then we should not feel guilty. However in dog senario human dont usually at dog meat, then it becomes questionale.
Should Chemical Warfare be Legal

Well, I would first like to talk about the evolution of the gun. It originally was a weapon that lead to painful deaths. It was inaccurate and usually death wasn't caused by the bullet itself it was the infection the killed. Nasty, right. But as the gun evolved, it started being the round that killed, not the infection. Given time I am sure that chemical weapons can change. Also if used chemical warfare is used carefully, it could be used to save lives, and not contaminate water sources. Lets transport ourselves to the Middle East. Here we have insurgents fighting U.S troops, they know the are going to die, but they want to kill as many Americans as the can, what if we could remove the soldiers deaths, but still kill the insurgents, we could send chemicals into their hideouts instead of Marines. Also how come chemical warfare is banned, but not nuclear warfare, when the America bombed Japan, the nuke killed almost everyone in the cities, not just the targets.
Should Chemical Warfare be Legal

Chemical warfare should be illegal for several reasons. First of all, chemical weapons are by definition weapons of mass destruction, and can effect a much more wide range of people than conventional weapons. This could lead to much more widespread killing than conventional warfare. Secondly, chemical weapons kill in particularly insidious and painful ways. Third of all, chemicals from chemical weapons can effect much more than people. These chemicals can contaminate entire water supplies and much more. Lastly, if one country were to attack another with chemical weapons, the attacked country could strike back with other weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear, biological, or radiological weapons. Now, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
College athletes should be paid.

I commend cons argument and where as he offered no rebuttals to any of the points I made, I will assume he will offer them in next round. Since no rebuttals where made, all my points still stand. Now I will address Cons arguments. He states that to sign a contract the Kid in question would have to be 18, which is true. However to offer a response this logic, by the time any season started in College, they would meet the requirements to sign this contract. I will now address his second contention that it violates NCAA rules and regulations. Let us hypothesis that the NCAA worked with the college, to make this contract themselves. They would have to change some of the framework for previous rules but it is a viable option. If this were to happen, in addition to being paid, the NCAA still could enforce bribery and other issues of athletes accepting outside gifts or even gifts from the college, because this would not be including within the contract. Any breach of the contract would result, in termination of said contract and results in fines, penalties, and possibly suspension from the team and the season. I believe this is an entirely viable option. He then states "College kids are already paid with scholarships" and in a way this statement is true, but when we look deeper at this it breaks down. Yes indeed they gain benefits from athletic scholarships, but this primarily helps students who do not plan to go pro and are seeking an education. Athletes that do not desire this, and by the 3 year rule are being forced to play in college have to put there career on the line with no promise of not being injured. Where as a scholarship is a great way to help a student out, it can not compare to a years salary in the NFL. The salary that they are not allowed to have because they are being forced to play the years specified in he current regulations. With a salary implemented in college sports, it may not be as much as a NFL or NBA salary but it at least gives them some insurance in case they are injured. In closing Con has not addressed players who came out of high school, went pro, and then succeeded with no draw backs. He has not addressed on how we can compensate college athletes who could possibly be injured due to the current regulations. I however have shown how a contract could possibly work and be managed in a way that helps both sides. I urge you to think reasonably and give college athletes some compensation for all the work they do. Voting to do so could help future athletes and students solidify their life, by providing insurance to them within the career they have chosen for themselves.
College athletes should be paid.

I look forward to this being a entertaining sports debate. The debate is about weather or not college kids should be paid or not. I am here to tell why they should not be paid. Kids from high school are talented athletes but don't get hyped in the moment. I believe high school kids should not play professionally because these are still kids. In most situations these players still need a parent or guardian to sign up for certain things when they are under 18. Sometimes when still even under 21, these athletes are still immature. The NCAA Benefits Rule: If college athletes were paid, it would completely break this rule in half.An "extra benefit" is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution's athletics interests (i.e. "booster") to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete's relative(s) or friends(s) a benefit not specifically authorized. The acceptance of an extra benefit is a violation of NCAA regulations and will jeopardize the eligibility of the student-athlete. Additionally, "preferential treatment" for benefits or services is prohibited. This corresponds with an extra benefit arrangement. Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual's athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete is prohibited unless otherwise permitted under NCAA regulations. http://www.iwu.edu... (This is a PDF) And besides!!! College kids are already paid with scholarships. If a college athlete got paid they have to sign a contract. Again this is where the age restrictions come in. When under 18 you still need parent/guardian assistance. Dear Pro I will try as best as I can to reply as fast as possible. I am kinda busy in the day.
Summer is better than Winter

I still stand in firm negation to this resolution because winter is much better than summer. In conclusion, winter is better than summer because 1) Summer is too hot to sleep at night, there are mosquitoes, you sweat more which is both uncomfortable and causes a valuable water loss, heat makes you sleepy and tired causing you to be lazy and not get as much done, more sticky smog, and there are millions of bugs that both bite, sting, and bother you by just being there. 2) It is a proven fact that people sleep better during the cold weather. 3) There is a point in the hot sticky weather where you can't take off any more clothes, however you can always add more in the winter. You can always be too hot but you can never be too cold because you have plenty of warm clothing and blankets to warm you up. 4) Hot chocolate, marshmallows, and fire as well as other hot drinks. 5) Winter has more holidays that are celebrated by more people. 6) There are more songs written for the winter season. 7) Snow looks beautiful And so many more points that I can't even cover them all. I encourage all to vote for Con because, as I have proven many times above, winter is better than summer. Thank you.
Summer is better than Winter

I thank you for joining, and for posting your arguments so quickly. Now, I would like to rip apart everything that you have said against me: 1) You stated that there are mosquitoes, but, all problems have a solution, if you find that you are heading to a place where the mosquitoes would be particularly unbearable, then you can simply use mosquito spray, to protect you. Also, for those who highly dislike the spray, scientists have been coming up with fantastic technology that offers other solutions, such as mosquito fans, or candles that will repel those nasty pests. Also, I would like to point out that that while, during the summer, yes there are millions of bugs, OUTSIDE. During the winter though, it gets too cold for most of them out there, so they move inside with you. That is why in the winter you find a lot more spiders, earwigs, and other nasty pests in your house than you do during the summer. 2) I believe you somewhat contradicted yourself with this statement, , and this is how, in your first point, you stated that the warm weather makes people sleepy. Don't people usually sleep better when they are sleepy? 3) Some people enjoy being extremely warm, and it is hard for them to get as much as heat as they desire, or need, in the winter. There are also several biological problems that can occur from being unable to warm yourself up, but there are few that are caused from being unable to cool yourself. If you do, by some chance, get unbearably hot, then you can always go swimming, or sit a tub full of ice, turn on the AC, or eat a Popsicle to cool yourself down. Which, I don't know about you, but many of those solutions sound much more fun than simply putting on more clothing. 4) Hot Chocolate, Marshmallows, and Fire do not nessecarily 'Say it all' as you stated. a) Some people do not like hot chocolate, nor marshmallows, and also, many people fear fire. b) These points have no relevance to the topic, because, first of all, you can have hot chocolate whenever you wish, not only in the wintertime. Secondly, marshmallows and fire, are more often associated with summer than with winter, because summer is the time that you go camping, and 'roasting marshmallows over a roaring fire' has become what many people think of when they hear camping. Now, I have a question: 1) In your second point, you said it is a proven fact that people sleep better during the cold weather, can I ask you, Where is your proof? That's all I have to say at this point. Your turn. :)
Summer is better than Winter

I stand in firm negation to the following resolution that Summer is better than Winter for the following reasons. 1) Summer is too hot to sleep at night, there are mosquitoes, you sweat more which is both uncomfortable and causes a valuable water loss, heat makes you sleepy and tired causing you to be lazy and not get as much done, more sticky smog, and there are millions of bugs that both bite, sting, and bother you by just being there. 2) It is a proven fact that people sleep better during the cold weather. 3) There is a point in the hot sticky weather where you can't take off any more clothes, however you can always add more in the winter. You can always be too hot but you can never be too cold because you have plenty of warm clothing and blankets to warm you up. 4) Hot chocolate, marshmallows, and fire. It's all said there.
Summer is better than Winter

Let it be resolved: Summer is better than Winter, for the following three reasons. 1) During the Summer solstice, the days are longer, Allowing you to accomplish more in one day, and also have more fun. 2) Most schools and Universities have longer summer breaks, than they do winter breaks. This allows you to go on vacation, and to do things that you normally would not have time to do. 3)The weather is nicer in the summer than it is in the fall, meaning, there are usually less storms, and more sunshine. This allows you to spend more time outdoors, which can be better for your health than sitting inside and drinking hot chocolate would be. Now, I would like to invite my lovely opponent to post her arguments against me.
Videos For People is a better YouTube channel than PewDePie.

Ah. Well, whatever. From now on, I shall refer to him as TweetyPie or PooDeePie or whatever he calls himself. I have not lost due to one simple typographical error. Please tell me why PewDiePie is better than Videos For People. Use certain evidence, please. I want this to be a real knock 'em down, great debate. Please continue to debate, please. Don't be lazy. We must finish this debate before people can vote and decide who wins. Please continue to debate. Tell me why PewDiePie is better.
Videos For People is a better YouTube channel than PewDePie.

Videos For People is an oft ignored YouTube channel that's a lot funnier than more popular YouTube channels. For instance, PewDePie. How does Videos For People, king of comedy, stack up to PewDePie, an imbecile who made millions for speaking in an annoying voice? Let the battle of the titans begin. Go ahead and accept. First argument's on you. Before debating, here's a link to Videos For People's channel. Only accept if you think PewDePie can beat this sort of cutting edge entertainment. https://www.youtube.com...
Are Video Games really bad for people? 2

There are many reasons video games are not bad for people. I will name just a few. 1. ) Exercise. Video games can include exercise. The Wii requires movement. A few games are Wii Sports, Just Dance, and Wii Sports Resort. Video games that require a controller can help build finger and hand muscle. 2. ) Video games can actually help older children when it comes to school. War games can help in history. Survival games can help in science. Math can be found in pretty much any game. Cooking games can help with home economics. 3. ) Video games are a way for people and children to hang out when the weather outside is not very good (rain, snow, thunderstorm, etc. ). It can be a way for them to interact and find out things they have in common. It can also benefit families. Some families have family game night that is dedicated just to video games. This way, parents and children can spend time together and do something both can enjoy. Thank you for debating with me.
Are Video Games really bad for people? 2

In this round, I will attempt to prove that video games can be bad in a few ways. 1.) Video games can cause violence in younger children. Video games can cause children to be violent if they play games that they shouldn't play, such as GTA 5 or Call of Duty. Typically, children who are allowed to play these games don't have very good parents to help tell them right from wrong, so they don't know that the violence and violent ideas in video games are bad. So then they grow up and do bad things because they think it's ok. 2.) Video games are unhealthy. Video games can be very unhealthy because of the lack of exercise. Most video game counsels have a controller that doesn't require movement. True, modern systems come with some sort of tracking camera, like the Xbox Kinnect, the ps4 camera, or the Nintendo sensor bar. But, there aren't very many games that the typical gamer would want to play that needs these accessory. 3.) Bad grades People who play games often have bad grades, as they often concentrate on games instead of doing schoolwork to get good grades. And when they aren't playing games, they are thinking of them at school instead of paying attention. So these are my contentions, and these are the websites I used. I had a good time debating with you. Good luck and good sportsmanship! http://www.myaddiction.com... http://www.familyresource.com...
Are Video Games really bad for people? 2

This debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like "Hate". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.
Deadpool would defeat Batman in a fight.

Fighting SkillBruce Wayne is in the top fighter of DC. Training for years on end, he has perfected his own style and often changes his style around to be less predictable.As Batman, he has beaten David Cain, Lady Shiva, and possibly Cassandra Cain. The latter three recognised as the top fghters. The common factor between them: they are all better fighters than anything Deadpool's faced.They have all studied/mastered all major martial arts known to man (Batman even knowing Kryptonian and possibly Tamaranain martial arts). They regularly take on 20 guys at once, not getting hit. StrengthBatman has regularly been seen benching 1000 lbs., but much more impressive is his striking power. As Bruce Wayne he kicks down trees and steel doors. As Batman, several versions have him regularly injecting lead into his gloves. He has been shown to hurt Killer-Croc and Bane.DurabilityBatman wears armor that has allowed him to survive much more than you or I could handle. The Batsuit is bullet resistant (bullet-proof, depending on the distance).Deadpool's HealingBatman has dealt with members of the Court of Owls, each having a healing factor. While they were not as good at healing as Deadpool, they still had the healing factor. Batman despatched several members before retreating back into the bat-cave and coming back with his Bat-tle Suit and anti-healing temperature.
Deadpool would defeat Batman in a fight.

Round 2 is to open on the defending character's abilities. Round 3 is countering the opponent's points, and Round 4 is conclusion. The fight is won through one character being incapacitated, knocked out, crippled, etc. Death is not a means of winning, as Deadpool cannot die, and it would be unfair to Batman, Both combatants will have their regular equipment, meaning there is no time for preparation. Both combatants will be in their regular mind-set and/or mentality. 616 version of Deadpool and Pre-Flashpoint and Post-Flashpoint Batman showings for Batman are to be debated. This is NOT a debate of which character is better. This is a debate on who would defeat who in a fair, random fight.