BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Relativity Is Wrong

I would like to start off by pointing out that I will be altering my structure and will make my points about "relativity and motion" in my next argument due to my limited schedule. Your glib argument consists of criticisms about the experimental evidence I have provided, where you fail to provide any rational explanation and new arguments. You also point out that the experiments I provided do not compare your so called "modern day proving" of relativity. This is an example of what I call rubbish talk, where you attempt to disregard my points in order to try and make me look bad. You also point out that at the time of Michio Kaku, relativity wasn't verified although the video was created on 15 Aug 2012, so we can safely dismiss this. Towards the end your argument starts to collapse and make absolutely no sense and again is another example of rubbish talk. Your quote "At the time of Michio, of course, relativity wasn't verified." speaks in volumes and is evidence that you didn't even attempt to click one of the links I provided. I ask of you to take your time and review your points. But please in your next argument write something that is worth debating. Onto you, con.
Relativity Is Wrong

Your big body of arguments crucially hang on the string of needing the experiments to fail in order to disprove relativity. However, experiments like those are erroneous and don't compare to the experiments I presented above, the modern proving of the theory of relativity.At the time of Michio, of course, relativity wasn't verified. It was only during the last century or so that these experiments were conducted. If you can find a (credible) modern source that comes after my experiments were conducted, and that source proves my experiments invalid, then you can correctly state relativity is wrong. Without something to disprove relativity, and the tests I used to prove it correctly, you cannot assume relativity is wrong.Onto you, pro.
Relativity Is Wrong

Before I rebut, I will make my opening statements.Proof of relativity--from http://en.wikipedia.org..."Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit2. The deflection of light by the Sun 3. The gravitational redshift of light" And he also says "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible". So, what Sir Einstein is saying, is that if even one of these three is disproved, then his theory is wrong.As cited by the same wikipedia page, the first point is proven in this chart: Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury Amount (arcsec/Julian century) Cause 531.63 ±0.69[1] Gravitational tugs of the other planets 0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) 42.98 ±0.04[2] General relativity 574.64±0.69 Total 574.10±0.65[1] Observed Point two is proven by this part of the passage: "...The first observation of light deflection was .... performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[3] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa."Point three is proven by "it was....conclusively tested when the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect.[4][5] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity".[1] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...[2] http://classroom.sdmesa.edu...[3] Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291–333.[4] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...[5] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...;Now, onto my rebuttals!I agree with your definitions. TIME: Yes, the 2cd experiment failed, because of the electromagnetic field on earth. However, you didn't say how the 1st experiment had failed. In addition, you have to prove relativity wrong. Being unable to prove something exist does not mean it doesn't exist, as one such case being god. But this is not a religious debate, this is a scientific debate. I was only giving an example where BoP didn't have to be presented. It must be noted that I actually provided solid evidence for relativity.GRAVITY: You did nothing to prove this wrong. I suppose you will do this later. In the mean time I have already proven the gravitational pull and the "redshift of light".MOTION: Again, you probably meant to address this later. In contrast, I proved this correct right above, with the gravitational motion of Mars and all that stuff.Onto you, pro!
We should elect student leaders.

Moneyboss, You are right now not following the rules, and telling to me to make a rebuttal. However,2. 2 round is only for arguments3. 3 round is for rebuttal and conclusion.You were trying to say make a rebuttal, when the rules say that round to is only for arguments, and also round 3 is for rebuttal and conclusion, so you were flaking by making your clashes, when we didn't need one, and telling us that I did not say a rebuttal when the rules say we should not. This means that all 7-points come to me. Now I will say my arguments the last time. Arguments1. It is unfair for any kind of students/ students will be mad. It is unfair for students who do not get the votes to be a leader. Also they will become enemies with the other students who voted them or won't like the teachers than voted. Also it is unfair for students who are new, because they don't know if it is for popularity or being smart. First because they aren't popular because they weren't in the school for a long time so they won't be popular. Also people don't know if they are smart because you just went.2. They won't work for school. If you not ban student leaders they will just work hard to become a student leader so they will work hard at it at school. They will have less time to work for school and they can't participate. Even if they be elected, it is hard to do schoolwork Now I will say my rebuttal. Rebuttal(I will just say that Pro did not write how many arguments he has, so I will say it with no number)1. Why do they need to get ready all for that. You can get to the market in many different ways by studying the economy, shopping. Also if teachers vote, then it is unfair for other students. 2. Also when Pro said that they can have meetings, then they can share all the plans, secrets and things that teachers do which is no fun. They can look at the answer keys, and private stuff. Of course, they have to get connected, but also you can get connected by doing our usual students jobs. Also if you do this when they are young, they can't understand and in the end be bored. Also Pro did not say what age they should do it at.Conclusionin conclusion I think that we should not elect student leaders.Thank you, Moneyboss for having a good debate.PLEASE VOTE FOR CON!!!
We should elect student leaders.

I will rebut to Opposition's points, then I will move on to my clashes. Opposition refused to rebut to any of my points so I think I should take all of them I think in any leadership position that accords responsibility to anyone, there will be bound to be backlash when aims are not achieved. This is all part of school life and is a learning process to understand that failure is all a part and parcel of life. If the student is so demoralized he cannot recover, teachers will council them, as what Primary and Secondary teachers are trained to do. Opposition also mentioned students may vote based on popularity, and I agree some students do, but that is also a natural part of every election process, even some adults do so as well. However, I still think that the majority of students will pay mindful attention on who they vote for as they have an interest to see improvements in their school. No one policy works for everyone, but mine have the majority of students on my side. Now I will talk about the clashes. Clash) Which side better ensures better development for the students? Under Opposition's model, students running to be leaders would be overly-competitive, not hardworking at school and demoralized if they do not get elected as student leaders. I think that in any case, students will always face some form of negative social impact in school, and this is all part of growing up. If the negatives become too extreme, teachers will be there to help too. I think that this would then dissolve all the kinds of harms that the other side can come up with.
We should elect student leaders.

Contentions1. It is unfair for any kind of students/ students will be mad. It is unfair for students who do not get the votes to be a leader. Also they will become enemies with the other students who voted them or won't like the teachers than voted. Also it is unfair for students who are new, because they don't know if it is for popularity or being smart. First because they aren't popular because they weren't in the school for a long time so they won't be popular. Also people don't know if they are smart because you just went.2. They won't work for school. If you not ban student leaders they will just work hard to become a student leader so they will work hard at it at school. They will have less time to work for school and they can't participate. Even if they be elected, it is hard to do schoolworkIn the end I think that we should not elect student leaders Now I would like Pro come up to the podium.
We should elect student leaders.

I believe in electing student leaders as it prepares students to vote when they mature and for students to market themselves to the student body to get more votes. Student leaders are a bridge connecting the student body to the teachers, as they can have regular meetings with teachers and suggest requests made by students. If they are elected by teachers, the purpose of electing student leaders are defeated. I think that having a teacher intervene in the electoral process undermines the independence of student leaders to act as a representative bridge that connects student body and teacher of a school.
We should elect student leaders.

Accepted. Even though if Pro didn't say this, if you break these rules below it is a automatic 7-point loss and 7 points goes to your opponent.1. No forfeiting2. 2 round is only for arguments3. 3 round is for rebuttal and conclusion.4. No flaking5. No trolling6. Stay in topic.7. 1 round is for rules, acceptance, and definitionsDefinitionsElect: chosenStudent: a person who attends a school, college, or university, a person who studies somethingLeader: The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or countryNow lets begin the debate. :) Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
mass murder weopons should be banned by statute

the constitutiaonality is not clear of this issue... so i'm not going to debate it. for various interpretations by const scholars, which shows the variability, see: http://en.wikipedia.org... if it's not a ocnstituaoinal right, then taking ak's machine guns etc isn't being unconstitutional, and that argument doesn't matter. besides, instead of tehnical legal arguments policy argments are better so the const argument is weak either way you cut it. you never respondedto the idea that AKs etc don't save people in defense. it's simply common sense that if someone has an AK instead of a pistol, they'll do more damage. so your main point is baseless. even if there's many people dead when a pistol is used, as you said, that only means more would be dead with a machine gun etc. so... i agree guns don't kill people but people do... that doesn't mean we should allow machineguns etc. the reason we shouldn't.... is because people kill people. i never said that guns do, you put that in my mouth. an AK makes it much more potent, and spreads it. i'm all for guns in general... just not machine guns etc.
mass murder weopons should be banned by statute

You have spent your entire last argument pounding a point that you conclude is unclear on the issue. "...the obvious ambiguity in the statement itself... ". You have left most of my points entirely open, and in attempting to refute the small point I made about the constitutionality of the removal of AK47's, you have only proved the it's ambiguity on the matter, and have not made a case for yourself. I therefore have nothing to respond to on the matter because you are right. It is ambiguous. I read it to say that the possession of all guns is a right, and you do not. It is a clash of personal opinions, then, and nothing can be done about it. We can argue the constitutionality of it until we are blue in the face, but until they pass a final law banning the right to fully automatic arms, there is nothing more to discuss. As of right now, they are legal. We are discussing, then, whether or not they SHOULD be legal, not whether or not they are constitutional. "cars and planes are not analogous. these have many purposes other than killing, and AKs are built to kill only. miltias and self defense are cop outs. they're never used." Well, it could be argued that an AK47 could can be switched to semi automatic mode and used for hunting. There is another used for it other than killing people. Yes, I know it is still killing, but if you care about killing deer too you had better want all guns to be made illegal. One thing you need to understand is this: GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL. That was their purpose, that is their purpose, and that will always be their purpose. AK47's are made to kill people. AK47's are made to kill people effectively. This does not, however, mean that they are more likely to be used in the case of a murder, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CONCEAL THEM. Go over all of the murders committed in all of the United States of America and you will fine that VERY FEW of them are committed with fully automatic weapons compared to the number committed with other weapons; namely handguns, knifes, and objects used to strangle. If we were to outlaw handguns, knifes, and objects that can be used to strangle someone the murder rate would drop more than it would if we outlawed AK47's and the like. If you want a murder weapon banned, I would suggest the handgun. They kill more US citizens yearly then automatic rifles. "your simply keep avoiding the fact that AKs actually kill more pepole and this is common knowledge, and Aks etc do not save people." Ugh. They CAN kill more people but the DON'T kill more people. Why? Because a weapon that size is simply impractical for use in a murder. On a battlefield the AK47 will kill more people then a handgun will. In a dark alley or a house during the night, a handgun will. Why? Because it is way more practical. If it is potential casualties that we are talking about, then once again I suggest we outlaw skyscrapers. They could fall on people at any time! What about bridges? Goodness, what if they start collapsing? Your argument simply does not make any sense. Thanks for the interesting debate topic! Renzzy
Pink Floyd, The wall vs Dark Side of the Moon.

DDO is being sick and erased a good portion of my response. Additionally, this response falls on Con's 21st birthday and Con feels there are better ways to spend him time on this night than rebutting Pro. Con also feels contentions 2-5 can largely be considered dropped by Pro. In C5 Pro claims that The Wall contains "more good songs" but I'm simply going to call this one an unsupported assertion. C1: I think that Con's claim that The Wall is more creative has been thoroughly rebutted. He weakly reiterates previously points such as the album's length, song number, and music time, which I rebutted to extending those "edges" to their logical conclusions. The issue Con has here if my use of the term "pure cultural commentary." When I use that term, I'm talking about general themes for the album. Con misconstrues this and interprets it as the claim that every song must have direct social commentary even though some songs - like many in The Wall - are purely instrumental. Saying DSOTM is pure cultural commentary is another way saying that the theme pervades the album - the point is purely semantic. Regardless, Pro grossly misinterprets several songs.Con strangely uses the idea that DSOTM includes a mild theme of mental illness as a point against the position. I fully acknowledge this and treat it as a deepening of the album. Con perhaps brought up "On the Run" as a way to prove a point that I fully embrace, all the more themes in DSOTM! The diversity of themes could easily be brought in as a strong point for DSOTM. Truthfully, I'm surprised that Pro asserts that Great Gig "is just a bunch of screaming, except for the beginning." I happen to believe the songs is beautifully sung by talented vocalist Clare Torry, with an intro which expounds on another theme in the album: death."And I am not frightened of dying, any time will do, I don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've gotta go sometime." "I never said I was frightened of dying." "If you hear this you're dying." [1]http://www.youtube.com...The song is beautiful in the contrast between the stunning vocals of Torry and the solemn but real theme in the introduction of the song. Dying can be beautiful. "Us and Them" again is insightful cultural commentary. It comments on the socio-cultural divisions that we find ourselves randomly born into ("It's not what we would choose to do.") [2] The song itself describes a grandiose battle scenes and is one of my personal favorites in the album. [1]http://www.sing365.com...[2]http://www.lyricsfreak.com... floyd/us them_20108709.html
Pink Floyd, The wall vs Dark Side of the Moon.

I look forward to having what I think will be a most excellent debate with OMGJustinBieber. If my opponent has any questions, problems, or things needed to be clarified before accepting she can pm me or post a comment in the comments section. -Voting period will last six months.-Time to argue, 72 hours.-8,000 character limit. Here is my proposed resolution. Resolved: Pink Floyd's album "The Wall" is superior to their other album "Dark Side of the Moon". (Or DSOTM)To make it clear, I as pro will be arguing in favor of "The Wall". Each of us will be making a case for which one we think is superior. Definitions:Pink Floyd - A British rock band that formed in the 60's. [1]Dark side of the moon - Pink Floyd's 10th album. It was produced in 1973. [2]The wall - Pink Floyd's 14th album. It was produced in 1979. [3]I purpose that we have no definition for superior lest this become a definition debate. Burden of proof:BOP is shared. Structure: 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal. 4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.Terms and rules:-A forfeit will result in the loss of the conduct point.-If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link. This is best done by creating a new debate, posting your sources on the debate, canceling the debate, then posting the link to the debate on here. -Too the voters, please be fair, unbiased and PLEASE read before voting. Again if my opponent has any questions or problems please pm me or post a comment, thanks!Sources: [1] http://www.pinkfloyd.net... [2] http://www.pinkfloyd.net...[3] http://www.pinkfloyd.net...
Free Will

I completely agree with you! the information external from us and shapes us does not change based on our perception. But, people may have very different perception and or interpretations of reality, and therefore altering his or her qualities and characteristics. The laws of nature defines and shapes us and we sometimes shape nature by inventing things, etc. "Above nature" cannot exists because the world is a physical, closed, natural system, where nothing can be external from it. Therefore, when something is interpreted as "above nature", either we found new bounds to explain the only (purely physical) world, or we cannot yet explain the physical nature of this so-called "above nature" thing; therefore spirituality cannot exist. Also, the same goes with animals. Their limitations to understand, interpret, and most importantly, express their perceptions of what they can possibly perceive, makes them "choose" how they behave; all life is bound and limited by their abilities.
Free Will

You are right that we are pulled not pushed to do things. However, as we know, both the conscious and the unconscious of a person is makes a personal identification possible and unique. Therefore, since both our conscious and our unconscious are the identifiers of self, and since as you stated that we are pulled, ourselves, both conscious and unconscious, "chooses" our behaviour. Overall, it is our perception of the world and inherited genetics which our mind makes choices off, and so we are pulled to choose between things based on preference, which comes from expereince (consciously or unconsiously, because both are our identifiers of self).
The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf

I will now present my final rebuttals. Strength in Numbers CON concedes my point here. Chance of Recruiting from Pete's World I agree; had the Cybermen fled to Pete's World, they would have lost the battle. However, if the Daleks had done the same, as CON thinks they could have, they would have lost the battle in the same way. Human Support Many of the humans only fought with the Cybermen because they had been forced to surrender [1]. Even the Doctor was powerless against the Cybermen. In any case, the Daleks had such a small army their chances of winning would have looked pretty slim, so most human soldiers would have kept on what they thought was going to be the winning side. In addition, whether the Daleks had won or lost, they would have exterminated all who helped them, while the Cybermen might have been more willing to negotiate. More Power CON argues that my source is unreliable. However, I have used that Wiki in particular for quite a long time and have found that most of its information is up to date and very reliable. You also claimed that the Daleks would have been able to adapt against any form of attack. The Dalek who survived the attack would have been very lucky and, next time, the Cybermen might have developed something that would destroy the Daleks before they could adapt to it. Superior Weapons and defense See More Power New Daleks If the Daleks merely used a shell of their own, they would still have only four Daleks and be no better off. I do agree that Torchwood was stuffed full of alien stuff, however I don't think that they would have had the time to upgrade humans; the Cybermen sent a command sending all Cybermen to Torchood Tower [1], allowing them to swamp the tower before the Daleks had even begun experimenting. Again, I believe they would have lacked the resources and the time, if not the knowledge. I thank my opponent for this debate. It has been extremely enjoyable and I hope we can debate together again soon.