BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Universe is NOT Infinite

As humans, we have a hard time grasping the concept of infinity, as it is an abstract. Infinity never ends, as is given by the definition. The Universe, according to the most accepted theory of origin -- The Big Bang -- is increasing at a constant, infinite rate (the speed of light, which cannot be surpassed as defined by General Relativity[1]). This expansion can never be surpassed by any known thing within our universe's physical laws.INFINITE SIZEAs we will never reach the edge of expansion in our universe, we must can known through our assumed logic that the Universe is infinitely big. If the end is never observed, we may not say that the Universe is a set size. With this assumed logic (assumed logic, because we can never truly know anything for certain, as all 'fact' is based on one primary assumption), we can say that the Universe is infinite and will continue to be as such. The speed of light is a constant, at 299,792,458 meters per second. [2] The Universe will expand at this rate for the remaining existence of space and time as we know it.INFINITE TIMEThere is no way to know exactly how old the Universe is, how long it's been around. We assume it is 13.7 billion years old, and that at the velocity of expansion it is currently experiencing it is 93 billion light years in diameter. [3] However; since none of this is observable, we cannot say with solid assumed logic that it is this size, this age, and is NOT infinite.In Conclusion we now see that without complete observable proof, we can use assumed logic (again, we know nothing for certain!) to determine that the Universe is infinite in size.Thank you. Vote CON!SOURCES:[1] Penrose, R (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage Books. pp. 410–1. "... the most accurate standard for the metre is conveniently defined so that there are exactly 299,792,458 of them to the distance travelled by light in a standard second, giving a value for the metre that very accurately matches the now inadequately precise standard metre rule in Paris."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Dimensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27
The Universe is NOT Infinite

We know that a bottomless pit can't exist. We know that a box can't have an infinite length. We cannot draw a line that goes on forever. It simply isn't possible. Everything has to have a beginning and an end.Why then, should it be different with time and space? Time is a dimension. So, we must think of it that way. For the same reasons infinity cannot exist in the reasons above, time and space will not go on forever. Also, the span of space is the same way. If something has a beginning, it must have an end. The theory of the "big bang" doesn't come from nowhere. Because of a thing called the "Doppler effect," when things move toward you, they appear slightly blue, and when they move away, they look slightly red. When scientists look at planets through telescopes, they notice a red shift, meaning the universe is expanding. So, when they trace the space bodies in the opposite direction that they're moving, scientists find that everything comes from one point. Hence the theory of the big bang. While many are still debating on what caused the so called "big bang," the fact is, the universe had an origin, or beginning. Everything that has a beginning must have an end. It's evident that our universe has a beginning, and therefore, it has an end, too.Sources:(1) Into the Universe with Steven Hawking(2) How the Universe Works(3) http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The Universe is NOT Infinite

Because the fourth round is solely for concluding, and con's forfeit gives me nothing to rebut against anyway, that is what I will do. Conclusion In the end, saying that the universe is infinite because we cannot get to the end if there is one is illogical, considering that humans may, indeed, be able to travel into deep space and toward the boundary. And if the universe is expanding, as many say, the universe would still not be considered infinite. Think of it; infinity already goes on forever and cannot get any bigger. An expanding universe is another way of saying that our universe is getting bigger all the time. In this case, it cannot be infinite. And, the universe will not expand forever, as I explained in my last post. It eventually has to run out of energy. And, in trillions of years, time will have to end, too. Whether it ends with the "big freeze" or "big crunch," time will still cease. (Refer to my last post. ) And, once again, time is a dimension. We definitely cannot draw a line that goes on forever, because the span of space does not go on forever. Time is the same way. But one big question remains- what is it like outside the boundary? Whether that area is shrouded in dark matter or time and space stops altogether there, I believe that, one day, by embracing wormholes and other advanced technology, we may be able to find the answer.
The Universe is NOT Infinite

Infinite SpaceMy opponent says, "If the end is never observed, we may not say that the Universe is a set size." However, if the end is never observed, who's to say it isn't a set size. My opponent says this is all based off of "assumed logic," but, if I may ask, what is that logic? And if the universe is indeed expanding, the part where it expands would still be a boundary. And that expansion cannot go on forever. Eventually, the explosion from the big bang would have to run out of energy. In that case, the expansion would stop.Infinite TimeTime can end in two ways: the big freeze or the big crunch. In both cases, the universe stops expanding, as I mentioned above. With the big crunch, gravity pulls everything together, back to one point, as in the big bang. In the big freeze, the universe keeps expanding until it runs out of energy. Then it stops. In that case, all of the energy left in the universe is used up, until there is nothing left except things that simply exist. There would be no light, no heat, nor any movement. Some may make the case that in the big freeze, time still exists. However, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, the definition of time says, "The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, or future."In the big freeze, there is definitely a progress of existence, since everything still exists. However, it only exists, and no events occur. There would be no progress of events in the present or future. Therefore, there would be no time. And Just for Fun…My opponent suggests that since the universe is expanding at the speed of light, we won't be able to see the edge of the universe if there is one. This does make sense, since nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, in 1935, Einstein and Nathan Rosen realized that general relativity allows the existence of “bridges,” or shortcuts, between time and space. Today, these are known as wormholes. In that case, you could go through that shortcut faster than if you were going at the speed of light without that shortcut. Wormholes may sound like science fiction, (remember, black holes used to be considered science fiction until the discovery of quasars and other studies) but recent calculations show that humans may be able to make wormholes work, and for more than an instant of time. So, we may indeed be able to see if there is an end to the universe.Sources:(1) http://www.pbs.org...(2) http://www.windows2universe.org...(3) http://www.universetoday.com...(4) The Oxford American Dictionary
Teresa Earnhardt

You say ever since the late great Dale died everything fell on her shoulders and problems started. Not true. Dale Jr made a big deal out of everything. He made this poor woman feel bad for his own selfish reasons. Maybe it stemmed from lack of a mother figure in his life until she came. All he wanted was more even though he had 60-70% of fans. He had nothing left to spare for stepmom. She is butt of joke but is really victim. Victims are victims of being convicted.
Teresa Earnhardt

"She was a loyal wife to Dale and was able to manage a Nascar team. How many people can say that? Not too many." You have given me very little to argue against, but i'll make do with what I can. None of those moves were as disastrously bad as the one Teresa Earnhardt made when she thought she could call Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s bluff about leaving his late father's racing team. (1) Her stepson was serious. Painfully so for DEI. (1) Since his father's on-track death in 2001, Earnhardt Jr., now 32, has become the driving force in all of NASCAR. He has what, half the fans? Sixty percent? Seventy? Any track, any weekend is a home game for Junior, as a sea of red-clad worshippers make him more beloved than his nearest competitors – the likes of Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon – combined. (1) When Junior takes the lead the place goes nuts. When someone bumps him into a wreck, they'll be met, eventually, with a hail of boos and beer cans from the grandstands. (1) There essentially is nothing else like it in sports. Only Tiger Woods controls golf in the same manner – assuring crowds, television ratings and revenue. But Woods doesn't play every week, and culturally golf and NASCAR fans are little alike. (1) Even so, you wouldn't see Nike Golf let Tiger walk under almost any circumstances. You wouldn't see Nike co-founder Phil Knight assume he could just rebuild the division with someone else. Nike knows Tiger is the golf division. (1) That Teresa Earnhardt didn't see the same in her stepson is stunning. Maybe she really never does show up at the track? Maybe she really never talks to Junior and still thinks he was some silly, hard-partying kid who didn't know the difference between tens of millions and hundreds of millions? (1) Many fans feel as if Teresa has no business running DEI. (2) With the passing of Dale Earnhardt Sr. in 2001, all of the company decisions have fallen on the shoulders of Teresa Earnhardt and that seems to be where the problems began (3) I think that by this it is quite obvious that Teresa Earnhardt has not fulfilled her expectations as the leader of DEI. I would also like to mention that you have given no evidence to either of your claims, making them invalid. Citations: (1) http://autoracingsport.com... (2) http://nascar.suite101.com... (3) http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Teresa Earnhardt

My opponent has failed to cite such information (I normally would not pull this, but I've tried to research this occasion and have found no such stories or valor). I believe one of the flaws in your story is that a five year old Teresa Earnhardt dove and was able to push an adult out of the way before being flattened by a truck. (This can be seen when you have the birthing incident with the next paragraph starting with "Five years later"). In conclusion, My opponent has failed to fully defend the resolution; Neg wins by default.(Also to mention, Neg has provided much more cited information by experts; whereas careless-smith has cited no information and only used his word to state she was a good person). Thank you for the debate.
Teresa Earnhardt

"She was a loyal wife to Dale and was able to manage a Nascar team. How many people can say that? Not too many." I'm saying that your resolution that she is a loyal wife to Dale and able to manage a Nascar team is not true. I do not need to say that she is a good person, I just need to show you that one part of your resolution is flawed; I've shown so in my evidence saying that she has driven DEI to the ground. You have yet to provide any evidential backing showing your case. Vote Neg.
Teresa Earnhardt

My opponent has failed to examine round 1 Con in which I stated the following "She was a loyal wife to Dale and was able to manage a Nascar team. How many people can say that? Not too many." You have given me very little to argue against, but i'll make do with what I can. None of those moves were as disastrously bad as the one Teresa Earnhardt made when she thought she could call Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s bluff about leaving his late father's racing team. (1) Her stepson was serious. Painfully so for DEI. (1) Since his father's on-track death in 2001, Earnhardt Jr., now 32, has become the driving force in all of NASCAR. He has what, half the fans? Sixty percent? Seventy? Any track, any weekend is a home game for Junior, as a sea of red-clad worshippers make him more beloved than his nearest competitors – the likes of Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon – combined. (1) When Junior takes the lead the place goes nuts. When someone bumps him into a wreck, they'll be met, eventually, with a hail of boos and beer cans from the grandstands. (1) There essentially is nothing else like it in sports. Only Tiger Woods controls golf in the same manner – assuring crowds, television ratings and revenue. But Woods doesn't play every week, and culturally golf and NASCAR fans are little alike. (1) Even so, you wouldn't see Nike Golf let Tiger walk under almost any circumstances. You wouldn't see Nike co-founder Phil Knight assume he could just rebuild the division with someone else. Nike knows Tiger is the golf division. (1) That Teresa Earnhardt didn't see the same in her stepson is stunning. Maybe she really never does show up at the track? Maybe she really never talks to Junior and still thinks he was some silly, hard-partying kid who didn't know the difference between tens of millions and hundreds of millions? (1) Many fans feel as if Teresa has no business running DEI. (2) With the passing of Dale Earnhardt Sr. in 2001, all of the company decisions have fallen on the shoulders of Teresa Earnhardt and that seems to be where the problems began (3) I think that by this it is quite obvious that Teresa Earnhardt has not fulfilled her expectations as the leader of DEI. I would also like to mention that you have given no evidence to either of your claims, making them invalid. Citations: (1)http://autoracingsport.com... (2)http://nascar.suite101.com... (3)http://www.associatedcontent.com... If he read this evidence, it would show that because of Teresa's actions DEI has been on a decline.
People at high risk of contracting AIDS must be interred until a cure is found.

Sadly, there is no cure for AIDS, the disease which kills millions of homosexual men, intravenous drug addicts and prostitutes every year. [1] "So who cares?" I hear you say, "I agree with former chief of police Sir James Anderton when he said that AIDS victims were dying in 'a human cesspool of their own making'. They knew the risks, they should accept the consequences." [2] Fair point, perhaps, but the people in these high risk groups are spreading AIDS to decent, law-abiding heterosexuals and that cannot be allowed to continue. That's why all heroin junkies, whores and gays must be removed from society and detained in secure institutions until a cure for this deadly disease is found. Thank you. [1] http://www.nhs.uk... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Legalization of suicide

You may. Suicide should be legalized as it would save up on the cops' resources, reduce population and therefore reduce resource consumption and pollution, reduce weak-willed people on the planet and reduce the influence of media. It would save the cops' resources as when suicide is legalized, there will be lesser paperwork and policemen would spend their time chasing actual criminals rather than chasing around the culprit for the dead weakling. It would reduce population as more people would suicide if it is legal, and reduced population means lesser resource consumption such as electricity, food and water, to name a few. There will be lesser pollution as there will be lesser cars on the road and lesser facilities needed that cause pollution. It would reduce weak-willed people on this planet and therefore create a more productive world. It will reduce the influence of media as suicide would no longer be a rare event and media wouldn't be able to give coverage to every suicide. I propose the development of suicide centers when it is legalized, where a doctor will try to persuade the victim to not die or join risky jobs like the army and die for a cause. If the victim is not convinced, death would be given depending on the choice of the victim and whether it requires extra funds or not. If victim wants to use fancy poison or swords, he would have to buy it himself or die by the simple method of hanging. Also, suicide at homes should be illegal as it is really not a mood elevator when in the morning you are taking a stroll with a coffee mug in your hand and a dead body falls in front of you. So much blood, and it has a disconcerting effect on the neighbors. Furthermore, legalizing suicide would make sure that property and possessions are entitled to their rightful owner lawfully, and that everything is taken account for.
The Ontological Argument

A thanks to Double_R for expanding on his contention. After a while of thought, I came up with two rebuttals to that specific contention. Here's the first 4 premises:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.Rebuttal 1: Maxmial Greatness Lets assume a maximally great being does exist in some possible world. But such a maximally great being would not be limited to the realms of possibility, so any possible world where he did not exist would be absurd, paridoxial, and non-existant. Therefore, he exists in every possible world.This, I think, is the argument CON is contending. However, for my above explination to be correct, it would reopen Con's first contention, that P2 simply jumps to the fact that he does exist, and provides no support for that notion. I could simply reply that the argument literally talks about 2 real, abstract worlds that exist. But this would then open Con's second contention again, that the vocabulary in P3 and P4 are drastically different.So either way, I cannot defend this notion without reopening more holes within the argument. The OA with this argument does not logically lead to the conclusion. So here is my actual rebuttal:Rebuttal 2: Necessary Lets assume our world is one of two possible worlds. These worlds are almost exactly alike, except that in one a maximally great being exists and in the other no maximally great being exists. Also, let it be noted that a maximally great being would have the quality of being necessary. So if we look at the world where a maximally great being exists, and exists necessarily, that world is not absurd nor paridoxial. But now if we look at the world where he doesn't exist, but is still necessary, that world would be absurd and paridoxial. Therefore, the notion that a maximally great being does not exist is absurd.1. A maximally great being would have the quality of being necessary for the world to exist.2. A maximally great being is necessary for the world to exist.3. A world where a maximally great being does not exist does not fill a necessary requirement for the worlds existence.4. It is absurd to think something exists when a necessary component for it's existence is missing.5. It is absurd to think no maximally great being exists.After this logic, P2 flows to P3 and P3 to P4 perfectly. However, an obvious objection to this case is "Why does the world where a maximally great being does not exist require one to exist?" At this point my character space is limited so I will simply direct you to Axiom S5 Modal Logic, which states the following:If possibly P, the necessarily possibly P.If possibly necessarily P, the necessarily P.If my opponent wishes for me to expound on this, he may do so in his next round. Until then, I now hand over to my opponent.
The Ontological Argument

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. My opponent states that he looks forward to my opening, thus I assume he is fine with me going first. Argument against the OA The resolution states that the Ontological argument (illustrated in round one) is sound. For this argument to be sound, the conclusion must flow logically from the premise. However when looking at the argument I find that a major flaw with it stands out, which can be easily highlighted by removing points 2-5 and looking at the premise and the conclusion: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. Premise 1 begins by stating that the existence of a maximally great being is possible, which is true. Anything is possible. This is possible only because we can not prove that it is impossible. However, our own inability as human beings to disprove the existence of a maximally great being does not lead us to conclude that a maximally great being must exist. If we begin to follow this argument step by step it only takes us to point 2 to see where the error is: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. In order to conclude that a maximally great being exists in some possible world we must first prove that it in fact exists, however point 2 of this argument skipped that process and jumped straight to the conclusion. From there, points 2-6 simply use the assumption that a maximally great being exists, to arrive at the conclusion that a maximally great being exists. This is a fundamental error in logic which clearly negates the resolution that this argument is sound. Pro however can still claim that point 2 is valid because "some possible world" is not yet assumed itself. So let's take a look at point 3:3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.In this point we are still talking about possibilities. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.This point would be our next major error. The argument simply jumps from possible to actual with no justification. The flaw is difficult to realize at first because the term "every possible world" is being used in two different contexts from point 3 to 4. Point 3 uses the term in a hypothetical sense, by focusing on the word "possible". Point 4 uses the term in an actual sense, which point 3 never established. Because the premise of point 4 was never established, the remaining argument is not logically sound.
The Ontological Argument

My position: The Ontological Argument is sound.A while ago, I debated a user named 'izbo10' about this very topic and lost. I conceded my position, and left the site for a while, forfeiting a few debates I had going.Anyways, I have reassessed the argument and still believe the Ontological Argument is a wonderful and sound piece of work to lead us towards our Abramic-creator, whichever one that may be. The argument that will be discussed will be the following: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.My opponent may present his arguments against the OA in the next round. I look forward to my opponents opening, and hope this debate remains as friendly and as casual as possible.