BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

In this we will be debating whether time travel is possible or not, this is purely theoretically based. unless the pro does what scientists have failed to do and prove that it is possible with hard evidence. I believe that time travel is impossible so I am the con, one reason I believe it is impossible is because if we had we would have meet someone who has traveled back in time. Yes this is an intentionally easy to debate so that we can get a smooth start. I will have better evidence as we continue.
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

You are not going to refute my reasoning for how time travel is physically possible with strings, then? Great. The existence of paradoxes does not disprove the possibility of time travel. Everything in your example begins with a person traveling back in time, so I fail to see how it proves your point. If that happened, it would prove my point: time travel is possible. Also, the multiple universe theory, which is theoretically possible, would allow loops like this to be resolved. There would be a universe for every possible outcome, so there is no need to circle in paradox. One universe exists as if the person did change time. One exists as if he didn't. They are both real.
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

Strings aside traveling in the future or past especially could could theoretically erase some important event causing time to loop or even stop altogether. For example say you travel in time to the future and stop an assassination with no background on what was going on the person who was supposed to have died then stops what ever is allowing time travel (string or otherwise) not knowing this you travel back to your present time (able to to this because your string is in the past) there for not affected by the destroyed string in doing this the future that you cause is erased because your traveling back along a destroyed string not yet destroyed cause a loop therefore when reaching that point in time, time resets to the point in time you traveled back to. (This is assuming with future technology we would be able to destroy cosmic strings.)
computer games are good for us

I agree with you in the sense that it can end up taking too much of one's time. But that does not make the video games inherently bad. The saying goes, "too much of anything is bad." You then seem to only be talking about violent and online video games. But in your original argument, you only state computer games. with such a broad scope it is nearly impossible to argue. I simply counter your argument by saying that even violent video games are bad as you claim, not computer games are bad. There are many educational games and games that can positively stimulate the brain.
computer games are good for us

In the context of focusing on games that solely focus on violence, vulgar scenes, and bad words, I disagree that there are a few benefits to playing such games. This article by HT Heath states that games such as Call of Duty, which is very violent can actually be beneficial. It strengthens one's cognitive ability by making them more spatially aware. It can also increase the speed of learning. (http://health.heraldtribune.com...) As for taking what kids learn for violence, vulgar scenes, and bad word and taking it out towards other people, I also disagree. I argue that it can actually be a good coping mechanism. Instead of taking out their anger and frustrations on other people kids are able to go home and enter a virtual reality where they are able to safely inflict harm without the consequences of doing it in real life.
evolution=survival adaptation

Before I post my argument I always give the definitions, so that there will be no confusion over terms. Pro did not post any definitions, I will do it instead. Evolution can basically be defined as (natural, biological) changes in organisms over time. Survival - the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusualcircumstances. Adaptation - the act of adapting; the state of being adapted; adjustment; something produced by adapting. If Pro's definition of evolution (evolution=survival+adaptation) is true, then all evolutionary traits in biological organism should be explained in terms of survival and adaptation. And secondly, as one wise man said, examples are not proof or evidence. First we need a mechanism which explains the hypothesis of Pro. Secondly, we need observational data. Thirdly, we need falsification test and predictions. If hypothesis survives all of these and adapts to some unexpected observations, then I can consider assigning some truth value to the claim.
Palestine becoming a Nation

An understandable reason indeed. Though I have a question. If Palestinian Statehood cant solve the problem. What will? Palestine wants statehood. In 2012 the United Nations voted for whether Palestine should be a member of the UN or not. Of the 50 countries that voted. Over 80% (40+) voted for Palestine. So that is proof that Palestine can become a nation legally. Second you said that Palestine becoming a state without negotiation would result in a reverse of the progress that has already been made. That would seem reasonable at first. Yet remember. Palestine cant become a state without negotiations with Israel. The only problem is that Israel isn't always willing to negotiate on that. As for the Jewish Settlements in Palestine and Vice-Versa . You don't have to remove them, Just keep the Jewish settlements in Palestine once it becomes a nation yet don't have the settlements advance much further and vice-verse with the Arab farmers. My questions for the Rebuttal: 1. If Palestinian Statehood wont solve the conflict then what will? Please go into detail on an alternative that doesn't involve Palestine becoming a state at the end. Sources: 1. https://www.un.org... 2. http://www.theguardian.com...
Palestine becoming a Nation

Now note this. I am not against Israel being a nation. I am against how they became a nation. They practically colonised Palestine in the process of becoming a country. Now to back up this statement I will show you several maps of there occupation of Palestine: http://www.freerangelongmont.com... http://www.juancole.com... http://echosdepalestine.files.wordpress.com... As you can see here it shows the Israeli occupation on Palestinian Lands. Now how did it get that way? Now despite common misconception. The Israeli-Palestinian Border disputes was not a long conflict that has lasted hundreds of years. It actually originated as a result of an interaction of Early Modern Super Powers of the 20th century. French and British powers in that time showed and interest in Mediterranean Trade (Mainly in the Suez Canal region of northern Egypt) that led to in the Indian Markets. But the Ottomans (now modern day Turkey) had presence their. A navy base in the Levant region of the Middle East. That posed a direct threat to the British and their interest in the Suez Region. So what do the the French and British do? They divided their colonies and lands in the Middle East in order to make it virtually impossible for the Ottomans to control them all. A century later , these smaller divided regions of the Middle East become independent Countries. This was the origin yet what was the trigger to the conflict? Here is a link to a video that shows the triggers of the conflicts: http://www.youtube.com... Before the Jewish occupation of Historic Palestine Post WW2 (not trying to point a finger at anybody) The region that is called Israel today was a colony Known as the British Mandate Territory of Palestine. Now here is where I get to my point. Now I do know that there is more info to be explained but I shall go on with that later into the debate. My point as to why Palestine should have recognized state hood is because like the maps shown above. They were oppressed in many ways. Their lands taken from them ( I'll get to that later) and with the UN plan of 1947 things only continued to get worse from that point onward. That is why Palestine should be given statehood. It will give Palestinians what they want and open up to actually peaceful negations with Israel for the future. http://www.youtube.com... NON VIDEO SOURCES: http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...
Palestine becoming a Nation

I know this is a very controversial topic here but please not hate or flamewars and argue in an organised fashion. Debate format: Round 1- Acceptance, Rules,Et cetera Round 2-Opening Arguements Round 3- Cross Examination Round 4- Cross Examination (for Pro) Rebuttals Round 5- Conclusion This is my second debate on this website yet this is also the first debate that I am holding. Well I have not much else to say I guess.
"Good" and "Bad" Do not exist, only Ignorance and knowledge.

I simply do not believe that the beliefs of Good and Bad even exist. Obviously, someone can break a law, but that doesn't make them Bad, it makes them a lawbreaker. Someone who should be defined "Bad" would be an ignorant or arrogant individual who simply denies fact. Also, someone can follow laws their entire life, but they could be the most ignorant person alive, denying fact or simply being arrogant about something in their life. As an example, people do not learn from the past or their mistakes, causing more problems than would be there if they had learned from the past, hence the quote "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." I wish you good luck, my adversary, and let the debate begin!
Poem about niggers

You are a complete idiot. 1. What is it with you and rape? Rape and sex with children is wrong. Sex will people who don"t want to have sex with you is wrong. Honestly you should just leave. Do you have a partner? I feel sorry for them. Your understanding of love is terrible. I"m going to accept your "Rape is Love" debate too. And show everyone how much of a dick you are. I swear if you put ur penis anywhere near me you would regret it immediately. 2. Your language is terrible. No one writes poems about "niggers" who rape people. 3. Why would you rape your girlfriend? Why would your son rape her, Or his sister? Your messed up dude, And everyone knows it. If you have anything to say, Feel free to message me. I can"t wait to put you to shame!
Poem about niggers

Poem about niggers You are a cop, I am a nigger Please don't pull the trigger I want to live, I want to rape I still haven't raped my girlfriend And If you kill me, I never will So please, Begged the nigger Don't pull the trigger But cop didn't listen And he pulled the trigger While the nigger was fleeing The heart of a rapist stopped beating Nigger said in his last breath The cop has not defeated me yet Because I have a son He will rape my girlfriend instead of me And then he will rape his sister Goodbye Lord, Goodbye mister
Humans are the friendliest animals.

Rebuttal: You compare the human to a wild boar which is obviously not a contender. Just because one animal is wild (and I accept that there are many more) does not mean that others aren't. Just because one example isn't friendly doesn't make a human friendly either. I truly believe that a dog, cat, Guinea pig, mouse and bird are all examples of friendly animals, and trust me there are more. An example of a dog being friendly is this (http://www.today.com...) "It happened on a dark Sunday evening in British Columbia, Canada, when Austin went outside to collect wood for his family's wood-burning furnace. He noticed that Angel, his happy-go-lucky golden retriever, was acting much more cautious and guarded than usual. Within moments, a cougar tried to pounce on Austin from less than 10 feet away. Angel jumped directly into the big cat's path and bore the brunt of the attack instead. "She was my best friend, but now she's even greater to me. She's more than a best friend now," Austin said after the attack, which almost certainly would have killed Angel if a local police constable hadn't managed to shoot the cougar." A dog saved an 11 year old boy, this is an act of courage and you would have to be a true friend to take a blow from a cougar, like a dog. If you were in this situation would you save the boys life and take a fatal blow? I'm willing to bet that that at least halve of you wouldn't, but it's clear that this dog wasn't even hesitant. These animals we know as pets are so much more. Humans live in a world were we kill, steel, murder, rob, vandalise and insult each other over and over and over for what? Power? Fame? Are selves? Animals like angel save and commit to there doings, they help others survive, they are the true friends. I hope now you understand why humans are most definitely not the most friendliest animals. can Pro please forfeit the other round as agreed, Thank you.
Humans are the friendliest animals.

Thank you Con for your great Rebuttal and Points. Rebuttal: 'Animals that we keep as pets don't kill there own kind or humans, humans kill both. ' Animals can kill their own species, like Rottweilers and Pitt bulls kill their own kind and numerous other animals do as well. Yes we kill each other and animals but gold fight for example don't need to eat ( it couldn't eat us if it tried anyway) we are killing them for food to feed our ever growing population, and wouldn't that be cruel if we didn't feed our fellow humans? You seem to compare us with pets, but there is a wild side to animals. Such as the Wild boar, they are known for taking out deer and have a extremely bad temper. These enraged animals often charge at Humans in sight and some incidents have been fatal, you call them unfriendly? Sorry for my quick response, I apologise if you wanted me to add more.
Humans are the friendliest animals.

rebuttal yes, i'm judging us by how smart we are. We are smart so we disagree. Exactly, just because we are smart doesn't mean were friendly. Pro said: "Yes, it is true we do kill each other but we are more complex then other creatures. All Cats do is sleep, eat, drink, but us humans were giving this masterful brains and we disagree with one another. I do not agree with killers but really it is almost impossible to rid deaths of Humans by Humans, Some people are born savages some are brought up in a savage household and grew up to be murders. Humans are the most friendliest animals by far and my opponent is judging them by how intelligent we are." It is impossible to stop killers, because they are not friendly. You have just argued that humans are smart but not friendly. No, i'm not asking any one to do anything, i'm making a point. Humans aren't that friendly in the sense that they can't say hi. Saying we are to busy and are there for friendly is like saying a mouse would punch a cat they are just to small, it doesn't help your debate and it doesn't prove anything. Just because you don't have the time to be friendly doesn't make you friendly. And I bet that if we had time to acknowledge each others we would sit on our buts and do something like play computer. Not only are we not friendly but we will take any chance we can to be lazy. Points Animals that we keep as pets don't kill there own kind or humans, humans kill both. If you adopted a dog it wouldn't go kill other dogs when they came near, it wouldn't even be suspicious, in fact it would play with them. Humans however fight over everything for there selfishness. I don't even have to state one animal to prove humans aren't the most friendly, I can say pets and most of them will be way friendlier. Even if an animal is equally friendly, humans still aren't the friendliest.
Humans are the friendliest animals.

Rebuttal ( you seemed to contain Rebuttal only so I will not bring forward anymore arguments. ) 'We humans have an extremely large reputation for killing each other.' Yes, it is true we do kill each other but we are more complex then other creatures. All Cats do is sleep, eat, drink, but us humans were giving this masterful brains and we disagree with one another. I do not agree with killers but really it is almost impossible to rid deaths of Humans by Humans, Some people are born savages some are brought up in a savage household and grew up to be murders. Humans are the most friendliest animals by far and my opponent is judging them by how intelligent we are. 'Meet a human and you might say "hi" or you might just keep walking without even acknowledging them. ' Are you asking for all Humans to stop and acknowledge everyone they walk past? As I say, we are smart critters and we have busy lives we are not going to have a conversation to everyone we meet. Keeping our lives balanced are hard enough, the stress with work and we can't behave like our fellow animals as for example a monkey it only feeds itself and everything else ( not much ) it must contain in its life. If we had the time, I am sure it would prove to you we are the most friendliest animals.
Humans are the friendliest animals.

Thank you for your argument My opponent has compared humans to dogs. I will have to call this one of the biggest mistakes you have made. you stated that 283 people died from Rottweilers and pit bulls alone. I state that at least 108 million humans were killed by, well, humans. Thats only in the twentieth century alone. We humans have an extremely large reputation for killing each other. Also, if a human disagrees on something then they tend to start a war. Dogs killed a few hundred people, this is nature, at least they weren't killing 108 million of themselves. You also said that animals in a zoo wont come down and play with you unless you give them food, water or love. This is true but a stranger isn't going to start randomly playing with you on the street unless they are putting on an act for money. The problem with your argument is that you'r saying that animals aren't friendly to humans, but thats not the topic. Dogs are friendly to dogs, cats are friendly to cats and monkeys are friendly to monkeys. Humans are hostile to humans. Meet a human and you might say "hi" or you might just keep walking without even acknowledging them. Walk down a street with a dog and they want to play with each other all the time. Also since when were humans friendly to other animals, we make them suffer for testing medicine, butcher them for clothes, murder them for there pelt. Not only that but humans aren't friendly to humans. We kill each other, fight, steel, fail to donate, are greedy, never share. Thats not very friendly. You all so said that we donate to homeless. Very rarely. You walk past buskers, homeless and poor people and many times have you donated more than 50$? When you have thousands of dollars you hand over one. You live with a family, a home and a pet. He has nothing but your 1$. How sad. Humans aren't very friendly to themselves or other animals. They kill millions of themselves, harm millions of animals, are selfish. Why can't we be like a dog or cat? Say hi? Donate when others are in need? play and help strangers? Because we are selfish and hostile, definitely not friendly.
Humans are the friendliest animals.

Intelligent enough to be the Friendliest. Humans, the most smartest beings on earth as evolution has showed us or for Christains, a walking gift. If a god or the proof that we are the smartest creatures on the world means we have a lot more potential then other animals. We prove on a day to day basis to balance our own lives and still have the time and effort to show love, although compared to other creatures Humans change in personality quite a large amount to their fellow People this means not every Human being will be the same in the amount of joy and compassion for their neighbour. I am positive my opponent will compare us with Dogs, yes their May be many heroic dog story's but they have very dangerous teeth and a power to kill, During a 9 year period in America, 283 people died from Rottweilers and Pit bulls alone and in 2013 32 U. S dog bites and terribly and many injured. I wouldn't try using dogs as an example. Domino of Love. Animals such as pets, zoo animals for them to bring the best they can be to you, you have to be to them. What I mean is if you are lost in a jungle and you saw a monkey 100% it won't come down to you and play with you, it must gain your trust and that means giving them love even if that is giving them food and water. And it is only after a period of time that Animal will trust a human truly and start to give some joy back, yes those animals are very friendly but it always has to start with some compassion from the Human and that's how these animals are showing it back to us. Yet again I advise My opponent to not say 'Well we just don't go around being nice to each other' but we really do, Humans can find a spare coin to give to the Homeless on the ground and we have this thing called Random Acts Of Kindness, we do this to help others, not to get something although that could be possible most people just do it to help the unfortunate. Reference for Dog Stats: . http://www.dogsbite.org...
Women's treatment

Thanks to Pro! I will be rebutting his last round. I will quote the lines I am rebutting, and I will italicize them."I accept your view that women are getting more job opportunities, education facilities and basically all the primary rights. I have never denied that and I am not planning to too."Pro agrees with the arguments I presented last round. Pro also says he never denied that the condition of women is improving. Yet, in round one he wrote: "What is the situation of women around the world? Atleast in our country? WORSENING is the minimum term that can be used." So, Pro clearly contradicts himself."In India the maximum punishment of rapists is life imprisonment."In fact, the maximum punishment for rape can be death: "in response to public outcry over a brutal gang rape in Delhi, the Indian Government passed an ordinance which applied the death penalty in cases of rape that leads to death or leaves the victim in a 'persistent vegetative state'. The death penalty can also be handed down to repeat rape offenders under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]"India should preserve the culture it is boasting about."Why should the topic (and this debate) be limited exclusively to India? The title of the debate--the closest thing we have for a resolution--talks of women's treatment, not of Indian women's treatment. I have shown that the condition for women around the world, as a whole, is improving, which outweighs any issues a solitary nation might be having.But, even if you don't buy that, the two graphs I linked last round (and which are embedded here) show that Southern Asia's (including India) gender parity rating has improved since 1990 and that there gender-based education gap has been reduced. This strongly implies that India is improving, albeit slowly. So, there is progress--even in India--for women to celebrate on International Women's Day.VOTE CON because I've shown that women's conditions have improved (which was the central issue of debate here). Please award me sources, since my opponent gave none. Pro, thanks for the debate--well wishes for your time on the site.