BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

I applaud my opponents intuition and found his argument very interesting. (1) Your argument here I don't understand. If something is brighter doesn't always mean depth, and how does depth equal inverse spin. Also by "inverse spin" what does that mean? If something in inversely spinning it's just spinning the other way, so therefore "inverse spin" can just be transcribed as spin. I would appreciate if you delved further into that. Your second link does not load, so it is impossibly for me to understand the explanation of it, sadly. However, I researched quite a bit about the torus, but I don't get the link between the torus and electromagnetic fields. (2) By Inverse Spin in polarity does exist, I man that when upon researching it, there is nothing on the web about it. At all. Because your first argument was difficult for me to understand, I didn't understand your example at all. (3) Can you explain what you model has to do with gravity being the same as electromagnetic force? By gravity does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are, but magnetism does, I mean gravity is gravity, and mass is mass. Gravity isn't affected by the state of the mass, but magnetism is. That's the difference, among many others in my first argument. It's not "bringing two polarities together" It is bringing two masses together. By your logic, what if we had two massive completely neutral masses? By your logic, they wouldn't be attracted to each other. Not everything has a charge, so if gravity really is magnetism, it would not be very evident.
Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

(1) A magnetic field does not look like a torus(1A) The way I know that a magnetic field has the shape of a torus, is that when viewed through a ferrocell (which is a new invention that very few are aware of) then you can see an apparent clockwise and counter clockwise motion such as in this picture: https://i.ytimg.com... but the fact that one direction is brighter than the other direction indicates depth, and thus, an inverse spin: basically, both sides spin in the exact same direction, it's only an inversion. This in turn reveals to us that the magnetic field has the shape of a torus: https://i.ytimg.com... a zero point in the middle, the failure to realize this is what corrupts our gauss measurements (they measure the same in the middle of the magnet and on the sides) yet it's obviously not the same as demonstrated by spinning a metallic gyroscope on the top as opposed to the sides of the magnet - it will stop spinning significantly faster on the sides than the middle.(2) Inverse spin in polarity does not exist(2A) It certainly does exist, it's as real as the air you breathe. The inverse spin in polarity is easily observed using an old television with a target cross on the center of the screen. Position one side of the magnet close to the screen, and the target sign will turn to the left. Position the other side of the magnet close to the screen, and the target sign will turn to the right. It's exactly what I mentioned in 1A, the inverse spin of the torus -- this is confirmation that the view of 1A is indeed correct, and something anyone can perform at home for a cheap price. The simplest test, other than using a ferrocell, to confirm the torus shape of the magnet and the inverse spin of the magnetic field.(3) You have no sources therefore not reliable(3A) This is a misunderstanding on your side: what I have done is provided a model that can explain the world and unify gravity, magnetism and electricity into one field (and fields can not be quantized), what the contender is supposed to do, is use data and observations to disprove the model. (4) Gravity does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are, but magnetism does(4A) Perhaps it's time to elaborate on what you mean when you say medium, because magnetism works perfectly fine in water, air, vacuum etc., the only time the attraction values of two objects are different, is when a magnetized region exists, f.ex., clump of iron... however, the exact same applies to gravity, the only difference is that now we're talking about large clumps of mass such as planets that affect the gravity of objects (f.ex., tides / moon / earth)
Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

Your argument is quite interesting but the fact you lack sources to prove your claim makes it unreliable. Gravity, at its simplest, is the force between any two masses, pulling each other. Yes that is magnetism, but the fact that separates them is that Gravitational Force does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are. In any medium the gravity force between two masses are the same. In Electromagnetic Force, the force depends on the medium To further explain my cause, gravitational fields are determined only by the mass-energy of a body. Whether or not the massive particles are charged or un-charged, they produce the same gravitational field. (Of course the electromagnetic energy does have its own mass but it is a tiny difference). On the other hand, magnetic fields are produced by charged particles in motion, and depend on the charge and velocity of these particles, but not on their mass. You can only detect magnetic fields by using charged particles to measure their deflection, but Gravitational fields can be detected by using anything to measure a change in velocity Could you explain further in your argument? What do you mean the extrapolation in polarity. North and South are just another way to positive to negative, are they not? Also you "Inverse Spin in Polarity" does not exist, I could not locate a source about it on the internet. Also even with research on you piece about the sides of the magnetic field, I don't know what you mean. A magnetic field doesn't look like a torus, if I understood you properly/
Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

Gravity is merely a lower level of dielectric field coherence, it's a counter-space field which can be polarized by changing force and motion vectors. Gravitational attraction is basically nothing but an erasure of force and motion extrapolated as they move towards counter-space, similar to bringing two magnets together: bringing two polarities together. And to clarify, there is in actuality no north and south in magnetism, we are talking about extrapolation of polarity, the inverse to counter-space. And the only thing we're talking about in polarity is inverse spin, which is relative. Both sides of the magnetic field (geometrical torus) are spinning in the exact same direction in what people would call north and south poles (as shown in a ferrocell), the only separator is that it's either cancellation or addition. What I am stating is that gravity and magnetism are one in the same, the same way steam and ice are both hydrogen monoxide, only the coherence is different. If you would, you could also say that electricity, gravity and magnetism are one in the same, now we've added electricity to the mix and unified all three as one field. And electricity does not terminate into magnetism, by dumping that charge and creating a large electromagnet, it loses it's dielectric component. So electricity terminates not into magnetism, but as magnetism by losing it's dielectric component. Electricity by definition is a combination of two things, dielectricity and magnetism - lose that component and you have the other. If you would like to defend the common idea that gravity is an acceleration independent from magnetism, and electricity is it's own component then I'll be delighted to have a good talk with you and hopefully let you change my mind or should I say, let me change yours.
Pit bull ownership should be regulated by the state.

This may seem like an obvious statement to many of you. but... Pit bulls are dangerous. I see pit bull advocates on social media all day ranting and raving about hoe pit bulls are treated unfairly in the media and are in fact great dogs. rubbish. These animals were born and bred to be killing machines. We humans made them that way. selectively bred to have aggressive tendencies, powerful jaws, deadly tactics. I defy you to find a single study that puts any dog as more dangerous than this one. just how dangerous? from 2005 to 2014 there were 326 dog related deaths in the United States. 206 of these deaths came at the jaws of a pit bull. That is 62.3%. to put that into perspective. German Sheppard only accounted for 3.7% of all deaths. And they are the breed of choice for police in the field. so a dog that is trained to take down criminals and actually does it all day every day is 16X LESS dangerous than your typical pit bull. This is madness people. The only people that support unregulated ownership of wild beasts such as this are mentally ill. they would sooner see a human life be snuffed out by one of these animals than any harm to come to it. these are the same people screaming bloody murder at a police officer for "murdering their dog" while the dogs victim is laying bloodied and dying on the ground. Simply go on youtube and look up pit bull attacks to see what I am talking about. there are hundreds of them. I am not saying these dogs deserve death. I am not saying you should not be allowed to own one. but this is not like owning a gun. this animal has a mind of its own and extreme care needs to be taken to properly train it, or one day it might very well snap and kill someone. I propose that to obtain a pit bull you should have to go to a reputable breeder and pass a short evaluation showing that you are capable of taking care of this animal and giving it the immense attention it will require. this will get you a temporary permit. I then propose that states adopt a law requiring would be pit bull owners to go through a month long course (4 weekends) where they, as well as their dogs, are trained by certified dog instructors. they take their newly acquired pit bull out into the field and they learn together. this sort of class would teach the dog how to socialize better with strangers and other dogs. it would teach the human how to handle difficult situations and control their pit bull. at the end of the course if they still feel they are capable of controlling and owning this animal they can receive their permanent pit bull license. But only if they are willing to sign a document taking full responsibility for the animal in all civil and criminal proceedings. if the pit bull tears up someone's yard, it is the same as if you did it. if the pit bull kills some kid on a bike, it is the same as if you killed them yourself. If pit bull owners are half as competent as they claim to be this should not be a problem for them. I look forward to your response.
Influence of popular artists, singers, actors to the young.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for, are you saying that you want to cut out celebrities entirely from children? because that would be... very... very hard. Especially now that there is Youtube and all of that. And honestly I don't think that would be a good Idea, I understand that some fans take it to far but for the most part celebs are just for entertainment. They aren't or at least shouldn't be hurting anyone. Honestly I feel like a way to fix the situation is just to let the fans know that celebs are just people and they don't have to devote their lives to someone they never met.
Influence of popular artists, singers, actors to the young.

Hello fellow opponent whoever you may be.If you're wondering, pro is taking the side that complements today's influence of popular people on the children. My argument for con,Today, anyone can be famous, if he has the necessary money to push himself through the masses. That leads to young people becoming popular and not having or not knowing how to deal with the constant attention from the media then turning to some supplements to help them along the way. This leads to idols creating on a miss believe that a person is good because they are all over the media, going around the world (singers mostly).I myself have seen a number of people emotionally connecting to some celebrities which eventually led to self-hatred, self-inflicted pain due to the inevitable "fall" of the celebrity. Today's celebrities are not what they used to be. In the old days (I'm 18 but I was interested in the topic so I talked to a lot of people that have seen their fair share of adventures) when someone was on tv, touring the world, being famous in general, it was because they had some sort of talent, something that made them stick out of the crowd, nowadays that talent is very rare or absent. Since you know my age, I beg you to put it aside and focus on the topic at hand and not shut me down using my age as an argument.Look forward to a response.
Private religious schools should be shut down.

Thanks for the response! Refutations "The children have no say." Well, children don't have says in many of the things in their young lives. A bunch of things that go on in a kid's life is because of a parent's choice. For example, a kid may just be doing a sport because his/her parent wants him/her to do it. It doesn't matter if the kid enjoys the sport. It's the parent's decision. Do we ban sports because the children have no say? No, and likewise, private religious schools shouldn't be shut down either. "Separation from other cultures." Private religious schools don't force you to adopt a sort of hate towards other religions. That's the only bad thing about separation and that piece does not come with a religious school. You can't force someone to go to public school just so that they can experience different people. They have their own religious freedom and can choose where they want to go. We don't shut down all-boy or all-girl schools, and these people still thrive in the corporate world. Why? Because they are connected to each other on the weekend's. Private religious schools are no different. You can still meet different people on the weekends and thus, there will be no "separation." "Very money consuming" Well, first off, that's simply an opinion. Secondly, it's the parent's decision whether or not they want to pay for the religious school. If they want to send their kid there, then that's their choice. You can't shut down a religious school because some person claims it sucks up money. Once again, it's the power of the choice. "There is only one place for religion: HOME." On the contrary. What about churches, mosques, and synagogues? I don't believe those are homes. You are allowed, at least in the US, to express your religious views anywhere you want, so long as it doesn't cause harm [1]. There is now law that prohibits the exercise and practice of a religion. "But in no way, shape, or form should be people be getting PAID for brainwashing. It's ridiculous." Who says they're brainwashing? At the end of this round, it would seem you are extremely prejudiced against religion. We don't know if a god exists... And we don't know if he doesn't. Perhaps evolution theories taught in schools are the real kind of brainwashing. You cannot claim that religion is equal to lies and brainwashing. That's pure prejudice and rude. My opponent's points have all been refuted and the burden of proof is still upon the Proposition. I await the next round. Sources: 1. http://www.usconstitution.net...
Private religious schools should be shut down.

My contentions: 1. The children have no say. Usually, children are placed in these private schools at a relatively young age. Parents get them started VERY quickly They are force fed these beliefs, and they have basically no say in it. Being exposed too all this at such a young age basically decides their lives for them. They almost never think for themselves because of these school environments. 2. Separation from other cultures. When children go to these schools, they are only exposed to one culture: the Christian culture. They only have christian friends, they only read christian books. They only learn christian history. If all children were to go to public schools, they would experience different kinds of people every day and they would probably become more accepting. 3. Very money consuming Parents usually work their arses off so their kids can hand stuff from the bible. Because the schools get all their money from the students, punishment isn't as harsh. For instance, come into class late in a public school, you get a detention. Come in late in a catholic school, you get a warning and then you pray. 4. There is only one place for religion: HOME. As George Carlin said, there should be an eleventh commandment. "Keep thy religion to thyself. " If parents are going to brainwash their children to believe in an invisible man, that's the parent own fault. But in no way, shape, or form should be people be getting PAID for brainwashing. It's ridiculous. Thanks again to Con, and good luck :)
Facebook is Dangerous for kids

My opponent says that facebook is unsafe, because preditors can talk you into meeting them and kidnap you and traffic you. I respectfully disagree. My next contentions will show why my opponent is wrong. C1: Facebook is safe because it has privacy settings that will allow the usr to keep certain info hiden. C2: The user must accept friend requests, so if someone if the user doesn't know a person on a friend request then they can deny the friend request. In conclusion, Facebook is completely safe, unless the user doesn't follow one of the rules many of us have been taught since we can understand english. 'Do not talk to strangers'.
Is Soccer more known than Football

R1: But due to your lack of explanation I can only guess. I didn't realise you meant just American football, so your vague topic has trodden on your own toes. A1: Here are another reason why I should win if this reason why I am right is not enough. If I offer people sugar - they say yes please. Here's proof: http://data3.whicdn.com... You don't go down quite as well: https://stilettosandgreenjuice.files.wordpress.com...
Is Soccer more known than Football

Football refers to a number of sports, association football (or what annoyingly, Americans call soccer) included. Rugby, Gaelic football, American football and others also included [1]. Almost all sports are types of football. So - if you add the viewing up to all in the end you get more than just association football, that is of course simple logic. Billions watch rugby league [2] let alone its older, more popular sister sport rugby union. The 2011 rugby union world cup was viewed by 4 billion [3]. So football as a whole is clearly a lot, lot, lot more popular than just it's most popular variation - the original, or association football. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://www.answers.com... 3. http://www.deloitte.com...
Abortion

My opponent forfeits the previous round. I would like to use this round to discuss why I am pro life. I believe that every individual has the right to live. I believe we are endowed by the Lord with life, and that if the Lord wants to take our life he will do it himself, not with the decision of one of his sons or daughters. If we aren't even guaranteed with one of our most basic rights (life), what is this country/world? I ask that if anyone wants to take me on as an opponent they challenge me to a debate over this issue.
Abortion

I appreciate my opponents opinion on this issue. However, I don't think life is as complicated as portrayed by the pro's response above. When God created us, man and woman might I add, all that took for a living being to come alive was a breath from the Lord. " So breath is life, and when life is breathed into the earthen vessel that is a human body, it comes alive." -Genesis 2:7 Now, the complexity of your argument is impressive. But life is not complicated, you're either dead or alive. You pose the question: "How does one define life on a cellular level. How does a certain sequence of nucleic acids give one extra rights and protections?" The truth is it just is not that complicated! I believe life begins at conception, I'll attach a link that supports what my argument is. But when God breathes the breath of life into us, I say we are alive. You ask when I believe abortion is murder, and my answer to that question is simple. No matter when the abortion takes place during a pregnancy, it is ALWAYS murder. The question now is how do we prove that we are alive at the point of conception? Well, my answer to that question is also very simple. Whether you believe life begins at conception or not, why are we gambling with a babies life? Why are we just accepting the fact that the baby might not be alive, when there is chance it might be? I can't justify aborting babies that might be living. Look up the Planned Parenthood videos, that will change your mind about abortion. You bring up the Declaration of Independence, and how our founding fathers would change there position based on what was known at the time about "science". "However this seems like asking the founding fathers advice for setting a law for the maximum the speed limit for automobiles, or flight regulations..." Do you really believe that if the founding fathers had the ability of abortion they still would not guarantee us life? I find that hard to believe. When you compare life to speed limits and flight regulations, I don't really think you are intending to. I know you mistyped that. I can't imagine comparing life to regulations. It's unimaginable. https://www.princeton.edu...
Abortion

In order to draw a conclusion abortion is murder, one has to clearly define what constitutes life on a cellular level. Philosophically speaking this seems like a simple question. However practically when one investigates the scientific nature of life this question becomes extremely difficult to define. All life on this planet is made of cells. Simplistically speaking, a cell is a protein based robot to small to be self aware. It has a wall that separates it from its surrounding environment, creating an internal order, it regulates itself and attempts to maintain a constant state, it eats to stay alive, it grows and develops. It reacts to the environment, and it is subject to evolution. It has the ability to replicate itself. Of all the components of a cell. What part is alive? Chemicals react forming reactions, which start other reactions. In a single cell, every second several million chemical reactions take place. A cell can build several thousand types of proteins. Some very simple, some complex micro machines. But there is no part of a cell, whether it be in a human cell or a plant cell that one can fundamentally claim, is alive. Ever part of a cell is made of seemingly "dead" matter, which are moved by the laws of the universe.Without being able to clearly define what part of a single cell is alive it is difficult to assign life and therefore rights to a cell. So I pose the question what part of a cell is alive? How does one define life on a cellular level. How does a certain sequence of nucleic acids give one extra rights and protections? I am curious as to your insights on why a single fertilized cell or a very small cluster of cells should be provided the same rights and protections as a full formed adult. In so far as debating the ethics and morality of later term abortion, this certainly is an area that receives a lot of attention. However before we even reach that level of discussion, I must ask, do you believe abortion is fundamentally murder at all stages, or just the later stages of fetal development. Using the Declaration of Independence, a break up letter to the British Empire, 240 years later, to assign life to a cell so small the founding fathers lacked the technology to even observe, let alone did not even know existed... Is this wise? However this seems like asking the founding fathers advice for setting a law for the maximum the speed limit for automobiles, or flight regulations...