BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

"The problem with this is that it negates free will, by making everything that happens "fate"." Arguably any number of theories would negate free will. The big bang could make all of existence one big inevitable mechanical process. If the concept of past is an illusion then certainly free will could be as well. "The problem with this is because he wouldn't be able to travel back to his dimensional present, it could never be confirmed that his time-travel experiement was successful." Confirmation does not equal success however. We're arguing whether or not someone could possibly travel back in time, not whether or not someone could verify such an accomplishment. "This lack of extra observers proves that time travel is not possible." Once again, not so. For one thing, many historical events are full of people, which would make it difficult to discern if a time traveler was there or not. Also, there is the possibility that the past could be observed in a state outside of the universe, in which case causality could be preserved. Finally, there is nothing to say that what people perceive to be ghosts, aliens and so forth are actually time travelers. If that is the case, history is replete with instances of such things before the occurrence of a historical event. [1] "If time travel to the past is possible why doesn't the scientist who invented it come back to an earlier time and share his findings with the past?" I would assume causality would have something to do with that. If you tell people about how they might obtain the marvels of the future, then they will make the marvels of the future, and then the original inventor of said marvel will have no need to invent it, creating a paradox. "We could conduct an experiment. We could create a monument in Washington and etched a message to the future on it. We could ask any scientist that invents time-travel to the past to arrive at the dedication ceremony for the building. If someone shows up then time travel to the past is possible, if not then it isn't." We could, but then we would have to assume that the monument lasted through the ages so that it would be recognized as significant when time travel finally became available. The problem with the question "why don't we see them at important event X" is that the civilization that exists when time travel is possible could potentially have an entirely different way of valuing important events. Similarly, a 21st century monument may not be something that historians of the era keep track of, any more than people today keep track of time capsules. [1] http://www.space-2001.net...
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

In order to avoid paradoxes and the destruction of causality one of three things must be true. Either if time travel to the past is possible then whenever someone has traveled to the past, they always existed there and anything they did became part of history. The problem with this is that it negates free will, by making everything that happens "fate". Another possibility (as you pointed out) is that your mere existance in the past causes the branching off of another dimension. If this is the case then a "time-traveler" would never be able to return to his present in his own dimension. The problem with this is because he wouldn't be able to travel back to his dimensional present, it could never be confirmed that his time-travel experiement was successful. The third option is that time travel will never be possible. If people are able to travel back in time at some point, why weren't there many people there to witness the birth of Christ? Or the battle of Gettsyburg, or the assassination of Lincoln, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor or any of a host of historic events. If time travel were possible we should notice in history that whenever an historic event occured there were a great deal more people there than there should have been. This lack of extra observers proves that time travel is not possible. If time travel to the past is possible why doesn't the scientist who invented it come back to an earlier time and share his findings with the past? We could conduct an experiment. We could create a monument in Washington and etched a message to the future on it. We could ask any scientist that invents time-travel to the past to arrive at the dedication ceremony for the building. If someone shows up then time travel to the past is possible, if not then it isn't.
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

Very clever, I have to think harder when I word these things. Of course, I meant the ability to physically travel backward in time to a previous date. My first argument as to why this would never be possible is because it presupposes that the past is in constant existance as a physical thing (as opposed to a memory) which is not logical. When things move into the past they are no longer there physically. This lack of a physical realm makes it impossible for people to physically go there because it no longer exists. As Stephen Hawking questioned, if time travel to the past is possible then why have we not experienced time-traveling tourists to our time? Why were there not reports of out of place observers at different historical moments? My opponent has already conceded that effecting past events is impossible (by his admission that the grandfather clause does exist) so were time travel possible interaction with the past would be impossible. Your article on cosmic strings is from an article that asserts that most scientists think that time travel is impossible. What would happen if we bent time with cosmic strings? Just because we bend space time does not mean that we would travel back into time. We might simply fold space onto itself, it could lead to the destruction of an area of space. The main point is that once the past becomes the past it ceases to exist as a physical thing. It becomes a mere memory and that is the only way to experience the past. To believe otherwise would be to believe that versions of ourselves live on forever in the past but this is not possible as one thing cannot occupy two points in space at the same time. Since space and time are connected in spacetime, it is not possible for a version of ourselves to exist in the past as well as exist in our present.
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

Thank you for the debate Mr. Mark! My opponent has stated that: "It is my belief that time travel to the past is not only impossible at this time, but will never be possible. I will explain in round two and look forward to my opponent's opening round" I propose that my opponent is wrong, for the following reasons: 1. Time travel to the past is already possible. Conceptual time travel to the past already occurs whenever you remember a past event. While it may not be actual time travel, you can think backwards in sequences of time to a past state. Therefore, one form of time travel, a conceptual one, already exists. 2. Wormholes offer a possiblity http://en.wikipedia.org... Wormholes may allow travel to the past. It wouldn't be travel through time (more like around it) but if you have a way to survive a trip through a wormhole you probably have a way to wrap a bubble of your own space time around you, which means that you can bring a watch with you ... to time* travel to the past. Zing! * as in, keep track of time for 3. Cosmic Strings offer a possibility http://www.livescience.com... If we bend it, we can break it. If we break it, we've bought it ... a ticket to the past that is!Through time, too. 4. Science says it's possible! Unlikely ... but still possible! http://www.pbs.org... Scientists can't make claims unless there is evidence to empirically support the claim. No one can say if time travel to the past is possible, though they might qualify that some methods don't work. Spinning around in a box, for example, may make you feel like you're time traveling when you're six, but clearly it doesn't work. For time travel to the past to be precluded as a possibility, every possibility would have to be tested with negative results. That hasn't happened yet. 5. If my opponent would like to argue the grandfather paradox, remember that the debate is "time travel to the past is not possible" not that interaction in the past is impossible. If you reach the past and instantly vanish (because you would otherwise interfere with causality, then you've still traveled to the past ... you just didn't enjoy it very much. That's all for now. I look forward to my opponent's response!
Gender equality A tool for social and national development

It does not mean that women and men have to be the same but their right and responsibilities will not depend on weather they are born male or female Gender equality mean fairness of treatment for men and women according to their respective needs in this case both male and female will be able to make decisions on their own" And also their will be equal treatment in terms of rights and opportunity The shakers is an evangelical group in America their head Joseph had a revelation that sexes should be equal so he introduce a female as his counterpart and together they restructed the society to balance the view of equal right between both sexes and this began in year 1774 and during shakers time men live with men and women live with women so no one will have authority over the other and so that men will not have control over a woman After Joseph died in 1796 Lucy then became the head of the shakers till her death in "1821 The shakers maintained the gender equality for 200years and their society witnessed progressive developmental strides.
Gender equality A tool for social and national development

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand."
Gender equality A tool for social and national development

Gender equality, also known as sexual equality, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and opportunities regardless of gender, including economic participation and decision-making; and the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender. "Gender equality, equality between men and women, entails the concept that all human beings, both men and women, are free to develop their personal abilities and make choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices. Gender equality means that the different behaviour, aspirations and needs of women and men are considered, valued and favoured equally. It does not mean that women and men have to become the same, but that their rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equity means fairness of treatment for women and men, according to their respective needs. This may include equal treatment or treatment that is different but which is considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities." Gender equality is the goal, while gender neutrality and gender equity are practices and ways of thinking that help in achieving the goal. Gender parity, which is used to measure gender balance in a given situation, can aid in achieving gender equality but is not the goal in and of itself. Gender equality is more than equal representation, it is strongly tied to women's rights, and often requires policy changes. As of 2017, the global movement for gender equality has not incorporated the proposition of genders besides women and men, or gender identities outside of the gender binary. When women are given equal opportunity in the society, they mange the activity just the way they mange their homes as mothers and by so doing their is development in the society s everyone will be carried along and like the saying goes two good heads are better than one. Women have a role to play in the society and when they are not given equal opportunity the ideas they carry that could have helped in societal development and nation building will die off. Thanks
Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools

Obesity is on the rise One out of six children these days are obese, one out of three are overweight[1]. That is too many children. In the past when children were bored they would play outside. Right now they sit around and eat junk food on their cell phones. If we do not stop these obesity rates it is inevitable we will be facing a heart disease epidemic in the future as well as a future of lazy adults who can barely touch their toes let alone run a country. It is recommended that children get 1 hour of physical activity a day[2] and getting lots of fruits and veggies and limited fats and oils. With a healthy meal plan and physical education we can achieve this. Physical Education offers more than just gym At least here in Canada, physical education is not just playing sports in a gymnasium, it's also learning about health living and eating, the dangers of drugs and alcohol, sex ed and bullying. That is the grade 9 Ontario curriculum I would imagine others would be similar to it in a sense. The point is kids would learn a lot more in phys ed than just how to run. They would learn how to take care of themselves when they're at home, all the healthy and unhealthy things to eat and moderation. Kids are eating too much junk 34% of child eat fast food on any given day[3]. If we learned anything from Super Size Me than we know that is way too much. School might possibly be the only place these children even get nutritious foods. At home they might proceed to eat junk so the very least we can do for them is give them a nutritious lunch that gives the body a portion of the nutrients it needs to stay alive. Citation [1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [2]https://www.cdc.gov... [3]http://time.com...
Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools

My opponent says I must be debating the topic, which I am. My burden as Con is to show that the resolution isn't true, and I have done this. Forcing kids to do something is wrong, like take PE. I explained that in the third round. A world without education is not anarchy. Just think about the dark ages in Europe where most places in Europe were ruled by some form of monarchy, which is clearly not anarchy. Education existed only for the rich, again in most places in Europe. That itself is a strawman however, I never argued that education shouldn't exist. Only required education. The next argument took me a while to understand. It appears that she has gone on my profile and seen that I am con on drug legalization LOL. First, I set that a long time ago, I'm not sure I believe that anymore, I haven't thought about my opinions on that in a long time. Second and most relevant, my personal beliefs aren't in question. I can argue completely opposite to my beliefs in debate. In debate, using an argument does not imply belief in that argument. People do this all the time, including me, to understand the opposing side better. You are right that your arguments are untouched but that's because they don't argue anything important if my impacts survive the debate. If I am right that mandatory school and mandatory PE destroys the point of living, whatever positive effects are gained from it don't matter.
Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools

This is a debate on healthy meal plans not the existence of schools. When you click on a debate you are supposed to be debating that topic not something loosely related to that topic. A world without education is anarchy. No one would have the qualifications to work no one would have money so the selling of drugs, looting of the educated and other self interest crimes would skyrocket. Though this is not the point of this debate. A world without school though you think it is "controlling humans" would be far worse. I have reason to believe that con is half way through the book "Anthem" and is now against any sort of collectivism. "gain free experience which still devalues human life, so you still negate." This is not a debate banning minors from consuming junk food and not exercising an hour a day, but rather enforcing healthy living in schools. Children can go home play COD and eat a big mac if they wish, but this sort of behavior wouldn't happen in schools. Something hypocritical on your apart id that ou believe that you are against the drug legalization with the argument "not good". I find it appalling that you would oppose school because it is similar to slavery yet you argue that letting adults not be able to do as they please as they please without harm to others to be "not good". Simply a world without education would be far worse than a world with legal drugs. Another case of hypocrisy on my opponents part is that he claims his "argument basically goes untouched." When he makes no attempt to rebute my arguments from the second round. I urge my opponent to remain with the subject of the debate which is "Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools" instead of schools being banned or whatever argument con is trying to make.
Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools

My opponent clearly does not understand the point of my argument. It argues that school should not exist. I should not need to point that school has to exist for the resolution to be affirmed, thus if my argument stands at the end of the debate you must negate. This is obviously topical so there is no reason for this to affect conduct. My argument basically goes untouched. They just give some facts about the benefits of school and ignores the greater harm that my opponent is creating by improperly controlling humans. The ultimate purpose of life is destroyed when deprived of free experience. She doesn't respond to this at all, this impact goes completely dropped. This argument presents much greater importance than all of Pro's case and so their impacts can be ignored if mine can stand. Furthermore, even if my opponent is somehow able to prove that school is beneficial enough to be allowed, forcing children to take PE and school staff to offer healthy meals restricts their ability to gain free experience which still devalues human life, so you still negate.
Physical Education and healthy meal plans should be mandatory in all schools

A lot of cons arguments seem less like a debate about whether or not we should should have healthy meal plans and physical education and more like that we shouldn't have government. I encourage con to get back on track with the original sttement of the debate. "School is devised as a way to control children and teenagers to do what the adults want them to do, same as the slaveowners." School is used for the education o our children to prepare them for the future. After 16 you can legally drop out of school if you wish. It is designed to make us better citizens. The way the school system is designed with rules and consequences when you break them is set up to be similar to the judiciary system so when our children leave school they know how to act. "it forced in the US." The jobs without a high school education can barely be spat at[1]. The government has good reason to make school mandatory. Without it you have a future that can't count to ten let alone do any job that requires any critical thinking. "School does not contribute back the freedom it takes away." This is so inaccurate. School provides about 68 years of freedom if you don't got to college and you live to be 80. If we don't have physical education in our schools you can expect you can expect it to be half of that. Okay so my opponent continues with something that has nothing to do with this debate. My opponent solely made points that said that we shouldn't have school or government. He didn't even reference the title of this debate. I will let voters decide how this affects his score on conduct. Citation [1]http://work.chron.com...
The death penalty should be banned in the United States.

I regret to inform my opponent and those spectating that I simply won't have time, due to numerous reasons, to be able to post in the next two hours. I was excited to see that an opponent I wanted to face was debating a topic a felt strongly about. I assure him that, were he to give me another chance, and possibly more time ofr rounds to fit my busy schedule, that I would've given him a fun match.But ironically, I have to leave for an actual debate meeting with my club, which will prevent me from posting my argument.Congrats to my opponent, and I hope that he considers offering up this challenge again, with more time allowed, and possibly an extra round (or no limits on when someone can rebut contentions).
The death penalty should be banned in the United States.

Since, as negative, I must only support the status quo, and since my points as the negative team are just rebuttals to my opponents original contentions, I will not be bringing up any contentions. I cannot yet respond to my opponent's contentions due to his establishment of said rules in Round 1. Please note that this is not an attempt to rid my opponent of a response, but rather an act of adherence to the previously established structure. In the next round, I will be demonstrating how the death penalty is an effective deterrant, it is moral, and it is Constitutional. With a lack of arguments on my part for this round, I would encourage my opponent to add as much backup information and argumentation to his current contentions as he desires. Then, I will rebut. It appears as if, under the current structure, my opponent will not get a chance to respond. Please note that, again, this was not my doing, and I find it most unfortunate.