BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe is made of only one particle

1,2. All the the scientific terms you mentioned - as the ones I too mentioned before - have completely different properties in comparison to each other. Dark matter, matter, dark energy, electromagnetic waves are completely different things which have nothing to do with the ether. The ether is supposed to be a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel. How exactly is it the same with matter, antimatter, or even electromagnetic waves such as light? That does not even make sense. As for light, as I said above, it is an electromagnetic wave with a wave and particle nature duality. The wave nature of light was proven by Maxwell's equations and by the famous double slit experiment. The particle nature was initially proven by Einstein (although I do not remember any more details, so do not take it for granted), and has been confirmed by quanta experiments in which scientists successfully formed beams of light with breadth of one photon. 3. Indeed, even Feynman admitted that he was sure that no one understood quantum mechanics. And that is due to our lack of knowledge. It is just like some centuries ago, when people saw a lightning and could not understand it, so they said "God must have done it". The reason scientists accept quantum mechanics is because of experiment and observation, confirmed by mathematics. This is the basis of science. Quantum physics is not something to be doubted, for it is a description of how the subatomic world works in the first place, and not a scenario we came up with and struggle to confirm (just like the ether). Furthermore, I do not see what fractals have to do with this, since I am not really into universe geometry and so on, so I would like you to explain yourself a bit more. 4. Aether holds matter together. Without aetheric pressure a galaxy would just explode into nothingness. No, that is actually called gravity. a. Never did I say that light does not slow down when not in a vacuum. But the change of speed when entering the water from the air would be so small, that it would hardly be detectable. Anyway, I showed you that the conclusions you drew out of the experiment were false through my Hazelnut experiment. Therefore, Airy's experiment proves nothing. b. The Michelson and Morley experiment found no difference in the speed of the two light beams. Please show me your sources. c. I already stated that the Sagnac experiment was conducted in a non inertial frame of reference. I also linked you to an article that elaborates on it. I doubt that all these happen so because of the ether flow. It could be too explained via gravity, inertia and other Newtonian forces. Mainly the former two.
The universe is made of only one particle

1 & 2. The science community uses many different terminologies to describe the aether. This is because they like the idea of an aether but conventions and fashion don't allow them to say it so they use other terms such as - space time continuum, dark energy, dark matter, virtual particles, anti-matter and bosons etc. Empty space contains alternate left and right spin particles. Matter contains left, right and a no spin particle in the middle. Light is just an energy movement through the aether matrix. 3. Most scientists say they don't understand quantum mechanics. They just accept it. The problem is that the universe is divided into fractals. Atoms and galaxies are one and the same thing, only they exist in different fractal realities. We are stuck in the middle somewhere. To us a galaxy moves painfully slow and atoms move blindingly fast. This fast movement makes scientists think that atoms possess mysterious powers which they call quantum powers. Time is relative to the fractal dimension. Smaller fractal dimension move faster than bigger ones. 4. In order to prove the existence of a single particle in 3 states - first, you must prove the existence of an aether. Without an aether, my theory has no legs. The aether is the starting point of everything in the universe. Thus, if you avoid discussing the aether, you will miss the key binding element which is holding the universe together. Aether holds matter together. Without aetheric pressure a galaxy would just explode into nothingness. (a) Light only travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Once it enters a medium, then it slows down. (b) The michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10m/s so it wasn't a null result. That's gravity and gravity is aether flow. (c) Sagnac found the missing fringes because the Earth moves with the aether and not through it as Michelson and Morley thought. Thus, spinning the interferometer moved the device through the aether which created the fringes. Thus, there is an aether. Get yourself a gyroscope. Spin it and try to turn it against the aether flow. Its hard to do. That's because there is a downward falling aether (wind) which keeps pushing the wheel in the same direction. Try riding a bicycle and see how the spinning wheel stabilizes the bike. Think sailing boat and how the wind pushes the boat against the wind direction. etc.
The universe is made of only one particle

1. I can only describe the properties of this particle. Those properties are positive, negative and neutral. 2. Positive, negative and neutral can be described under my theory in a more simplified manner. That's left spin, right spin and no spin. 3. Other theories and explanations are illogical and don't make sense. 4. Airy's telescope experiments and Sagnac's experiment where he spins the interferometer at a rate of 2 revolutions per second creates the expected fringes. The expectations of the Michelson/Morley experiment were that the Earth moves through the aether at 30 meters per second. They never considered that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. The Michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10 meters per second. This experiment was called a null result because they didn't get what they were expecting. This is the speed that the aether enters the Earth. Its called gravity. 9.8m/sec. If the aether is travelling at the same speed as the Earth then of course, there wont be much wind. Note - Ignore the religious content and references of this video.
The universe is made of only one particle

As the Pro on this matter, namely "the universe is made of only one particle", you are to argue for and provide proof of your claim. I, as the Con, will argue against your statements. Remember that I have no obligation to prove the existence of numerous particles. I would like you to explain your hypothesis and elaborate on the evidence you - probably - have to support it. In other words, I wish that you rationally answer the following questions. (Note that, since this is considered a scientific debate, no religious or pseudoscientific arguments will be accepted) 1. Could you describe the particle you are talking about? 2. What are the particle's positive, negative and neutral state? 3. How do you explain the scientific society's statements which you are now opposing? 4. Is there any experiment that can be interpreted as a confirmation to your claim? 5. Can you prove your claim?
Sea lions are seals

Con states that my "use of dictionaries is insufficient." He is mistaken. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are sufficient to establish that sea lions are seals. This debate is about definitions. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are perhaps the most authoritative source for definitions. That's what they're for. Con's comparison of this debate to insects and spiders is not relevant. The same could be said of his comparison of this debate to the debate over whether or not Pluto is a planet. This debate is not about those things. This debate is about sea lions and seals. Con claims that I made "a major contradiction." This is false, and Con is nitpicking. One of my sources states that walruses are seals, while I stated that walruses are not seals. The source contradicted my claim. I did not contradict myself. Furthermore, the "contradiction" in question is not relevant to this debate. This debate is about whether or not sea lions are seals. This debate is not about whether or not walruses are seals. I stand by my criticism of Brie Myer's blog post. That blog post is contradicted by more authoritative sources - Encyclopedias and dictionaries. The more authoritative sources should prevail. Con claims that his other sources, 8 and 10 from the prior round, support his assertions. However, Con merely links rather large articles and does not quote them. It's unreasonable to expect me or the voters to dig through these sources. Con's source 10 - http://www.researchgate.net... - is 101 pages long. Con's source 8 - http://what-when-how.com... - isn't too long, but I simply don't see what language is supposedly supporting Con's assertions in that article. Furthermore, Con's source 8 is a blog post. It is not as authoritative nor reputable as Britannica or Oxford. Con then argues, for some reason, that the statement "Sea lions are seals" claims that sea lions and seals are the same thing. That is not true. All sea lions are seals, but not all seals are sea lions. The reason is similar to Con's discussion over polygons - All squares are quadrilaterals but not all quadrilaterals are squares.
Bitcoin is fundamentally sound

I believe Bitcoin is fundamentally sound and I invite anyone to prove otherwise. I will argue this in 2 ways: 1) Bitcoin meets the definition of money 2) Bitcoin is superior to its competitors which are widely recognized as fundamentally sound 1: Bitcoin is a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange. These are the historical requirements of a "sound money." See the source below for evidence that Bitcoin can be (and has been) used in such ways: https://www.bitcoinstore.com... 2: At the above source you also may have noticed that the bitcoin prices various goods are sold at, even after considering exchange rates and fees, are below prices in Euro or USD. USD and Euro are considered widely as the world's most fundamentally strong currencies. Lower prices in Bitcoin is an economic market indicator of a fundamentally stronger currency. Reasons for Bitcoin's superiority include: A) Bitcoin creates a free market. This is due to its pseudonymous power. When used correctly, it can be used anonymously, allowing nullification of market-corrupting government law and taxation. B) Bitcoin reduces transaction costs. Its fees are lower than credit cards, paypal, western union, etc. Lower transaction costs means better money. C) Bitcoin is fundamentally deflationary in the long run. After a set amount is created no more can be created. This prevents inflation and ensures a strong currency in the long run, unlike the USD, Euro, or pretty much any currency out there. I could go on. Now bring the debate. I don't want to play all my cards at once.
The Theory of Global Warming is True the greenhouse effect is to blame

Stashu You don't get what I mean by a "freak accident" having to happen to raise a degree. You said that the little ice age (another fact, a couple years after the volcano, it snowed red in Europe), was a freak accident, and it made the Earth a degree cooler. There is no way for man to create a freak accident big enough to make it snow red. It is impossible, well, except for nuclear bombs. About your 2nd paragraph, Co2 emissions do not control tempature, tempature controls Co2 emissions. We don't know what will happen if we add more, but you can't come to a conclusion that it will raise the tempature. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com... the first part proves all my info about Co2 is correct. About the coal steam. The smoke or clouds isn't the green house gas. The water vapor is, but the one thing different is you can't see water vapor, which shows green house gases are invisible. Including water vapor. It's like what happens after you boil water, do you see it? No. Yes, Venus is hotter, but Earth has other stuff that Venus doesn't have. Do they have Oxygen, Nitrogen, an ozone layer, etc. YOu could only compare them if they were identical in other ways. Well, I have not had 3 months to work on this (rather 3 days) but, alls I have to say is where are your sources? I showed you where I got mine, are all your arguments facts or opinions? For future debates, put spaces in between paragraphs (like I do, and your 3rd argument) because its easier to read understand etc.
The Theory of Global Warming is True the greenhouse effect is to blame

Hello stashu: Fist off, I didn't use Al Gore's movie as my resource, but I used this website, which I frogot to includ- http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org... Maybe you should check it out. "they have found a very probable cause for the little ice age and that is a vulcano which they say would have spewed 10 the amount of ash and dust particales into the atmosphere which reflected the suns radiation back into space cooling the planet and the total temp drop durring the little ice age what gave 3 feet of snow in the winter " Stashu 1) It was 3 feet of snow in Connecticut and it was in the summer. 2) The volcano was over 400 years before that. The 3 feet of snow happened around 1815 and the Eruptions was in the 1400s, so scientifically speaking it wouldn't have a lot to do with the snow. If the facts are true, that Co2 rises temp. after 800 years, it would be another 200 years before we see the real effect of it. "so think about it if one degree drop gives us 3 feet of snow in the winter than one degree increase gives us melting polar icecaps, rising seas, the worst storms ever recorded, these plus many more" - Stashu By going what you say, that the little ice age was caused by a vocalic eruption (there was one in that time, but I don't think it led to the little ice age) there would need to be a freak accident like that for the Earth to rise 1 degree. I don't think that the effects you said would actually happen large enough to effect our daily lives. I live on the Long Island Sound, and this past summer we had more sand on our beach, than we have ever had before. The polar ice caps aren't melting. For the coal plants, I relies now that I didn't elaborate enough on what I ment. When you see the steam or smoke coming from the towers, that isn't green house gases. Why is this relevant? Green house gas is invisible, so the smoke you see is just smoke, not green house gases. THIS IS FROM THE COAL PLANTS OFCOURSE. To clarify this up, Co2 doesn't effect temp. It is actually vice-versa. When there is a temp. increase, 800 years later the Co2 level increases. So, I don't see why Co2 effects temp. I'm confused. Your last paragraph said that I believed in Al Gore's movie. I no that is totally fake, and I was using it for my argument sake, because when you go to my website, http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org... they give facts about green house gases, global warming, etc. They use Al Gore's movie to explain the argument (click on Al Gore snowjob)
The Theory of Global Warming is True the greenhouse effect is to blame

Hello stashu First off I do believe that the Earth is warmer than before, but this doesn't mean global warming. Green house gases DO NOT effect our tempature. IF you saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (my biaist sexist teacher made our class watch it last year, and we ended up fighting about politics) there was a big chart with Co2 emissions and tempatures. The Co2 emissions wouldn't move up or down till 800 years after tempature went up and down. So, tempature causes Co2 emissions to go up. Infact, without green house gases, the Earth's tempature would be -18 degrees Celsius on average. Another interesting fact is that 95% of green house gases are from water vapor (hmmm what's hydrogen?). The gases will only effect night time temps. too. LAstly, wet lands give out more green house gases than all human resources combined. So, green house gases are out of the question. The "Little Ice Age" was period of time between the 13th century to around 1850 (scientist aren't really sure when it began). But before that, was the mid-evil warm period. During that tempatrers were dramatically higher than average. That brought us to the Little Ice Age. The tempatures would get really cold in intervals. In between these intervals, the tempatuer would rise a little. In the final years of the ice age, Connecticut got 3 feet of snow in the SUMMER. This shows that just because it's getting warmer, doesn't means it will stay warm. Other good facts- - The Earth has risen in tempature around .33 degrees in 100 years -Co2 levels aren't the highest ever. The highest level ever was in the Cambrian Era. They were 18 times higher than now -The clouds from coal fired power plants are just clouds, nothing else. -Weather satellites can record global warming more accurate than weather ballons and ground thermometers. -The satellites have recorded a decrease in global temps. since they began 18 years ago -In the "inconvenient Truth" Al Gore says that sea level will rise 20 feet, will predictions at our current rate, the sea level will rise 23 inches in 300 years -He says that Polar Bears will go extinct, well in research done, it shows that Polar Bears have increased in numbers
100 male adult Humans could kill 1 male adult African Bush Elephant

100 humans would not win this fight, one bit. They can carry a vast weight but are very heavy. They can pull up to 9 tons - 1.7 times their normal body weight. One angry elephant can do a lot of damage. On my recent trip to Kenya, I stood there as an elephant took out a large bough of a tree with one lazy swipe of its trunk. An angry elephant barrelling towards you would most definitely engage your flight reaction to get out of the way of it. For these reasons, an angry male elephant will beat 100 humans.
100 male adult Humans could kill 1 male adult African Bush Elephant

Hello Everyone!I claim that 100 adult human males could kill 1 adult male African Bush Elephant.Con must argue that the Elephant would win the fight. For the fight to end, the elephant must be dead, or all humans must be dead.Scenario and Rules:100 Humans:- All humans are adult males- All humans are 6 feet tall- All humans weigh 185 pounds- All humans are physically fit and athletic- All humans are slightly faster then the average person- All humans are slightly stronger then the average person- All humans have fairly sharp teeth- All humans are initially unarmed- All humans are initially naked- All humans know certain martial arts- All humans know basic elephant anatomy- All humans are mentally well- All humans are as smart or smarter then the average person- All humans are mentally unaffected by the death of their companions- All humans have regular human anatomy- All humans will willingly sacrifice themselves to kill the elephants- All humans have no physical or mental disorders- All humans are unaffected by hunger, thirst, and temperature during the fight- All humans have an IQ of 115- All humans may use their surroundings to their advantageElephant:- The Elephant is an adult male African Bush Elephant - The Elephant weighs 13,000 lbs- The Elephant is 11 feet tall- The Elephant is hostile- The Elephant has the regular anatomy of a African Bush Elephant- The Elephant's tusks are 2.5 meters long- The Elephant is unaffected by hunger, thirst, and temperature during the fight- The Elephant is mentally well- The Elephant has no physical or mental disordersPlaying Field:- They fight on the average African Savannah. The field has several trees, a couple large rocks and there is a small pond about 6 feet deep at the center. The pond is muddy and void of life. The arena is a 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile area.- No animals, besides the elephant and humans, may interfere in the fight.My opponent may start round 1 by stating why humans would not win this fight. Good luck to my opponent, and may the best mammal win!
The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV.

I suppose it depends on your area, since they play different commercials in different places. I, like kels in the comments section, have not seen the optimum online commercial played on TV. Also, whereas the Optimum Triple Play commercial takes many times to get irritating, HeadOn is annoying from view 1. Also, you spoke of the length of the commercial. I think this is a good thing, since it gives the commercial some variety. While the Optimum song might be corny, it's somewhat entertaining and not all that bad sounding. I guess I'll just respond to your numbered statements. 1> I'd hardly count annoyance of repetitiveness as making the commercial itself annoying. Even so, the commercial isn't played nationwide as often as it is for you locally. Neither myself nor kels in the comments section have seen the commercial. Also, according to kels, HeadOn is played multiple times per day some places. Now THAT would get annoying. 2> It is, just not as often (or maybe not at all) where you live. Optimum Triple Play isn't played where I live (NC), but it apparently is where you live. 3> Reggaeton isn't very popular in the US, but it isn't annoying. I obviously can't support this with evidence, but I assert that the music in the commercial isn't in itself annoying. Perhaps the phone number part is, but that's not much of the commercial, plus it's not all THAT annoying. 4> Irrelevant. I don't know most of the words to most commercials, this doesn't make them annoying. 5> Pirates, trashy? WHAT? How dare you speak ill of the chosen people. that just makes the commercial more awesome. 6> So the mermaids are lame. A few seconds in a minute long commercial isn't bad. At least it doesn't hurt my brain to watch them. 7> See #6. It's maybe not the coolest looking thing ever, but it's not actively annoying. 8> This is a good thing. The HeadOn commercial is like pure, concentrated annoyance. With the Optimum Triple Play commercial it's less annoyance AND it's spread out over the course of a minute. 9> Irrelevant, since that doesn't make it annoying. 10> After the pirates, the sea monster is the coolest thing in the commercial! I personally was disappointed at the small role he had in the commercial. I guess I'll end on that. I'll make a final assertion that HeadOn is definitely more annoying than the Optimum Triple Play commercial, and is likely the most annoying commercial ever conceived. Thanks for the debate!