BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Geocentrism

First of all my opponent completely dropped my arguments. I didn't drop them. Like I said, I'll deal with them in this round since I ran out of space in the last one. My opponent never argued against the existence of gravity. I accept the existence of gravity. My opponent never argued that the Earth has enough gravity for the rest of the universe to orbit it. The gravity of the Earth has nothing to do with whether the universe will spin around it or not; rather, it is Earth's location that matters. I already proved the universe is spinning. I also proved Earth happens to be located in the center of it's spin axis. Instead of saying the universe is spinning around Earth, say the Earth happens to be positioned in the center of it's spin axis. Hopefully that clears things up. My opponent never gave an explanation to how geostationary satellites could just hover over the same spot of a non-rotating Earth despite the existence of gravity. Geostationary satellites hover because there are two equal but opposite forces being exerted on them. One is Earth's gravity, which tries to bring the satellite down. The other is the centrifugal force created by the spinning universe, which tries to pull the satellite up away from Earth. My opponent states that some difference in the speed of light was measured by the Michelson and Morley experiment. But the measurement was so small it could be accounted for by measurement error[...] Therefore my opponent has not successfully made the case that the speed of light varies. Miller repeated the experiment with better equipment and methodology. This is his conclusion: The method of observing [is] so developed that there [is] perfect confidence in the readings[...] it [will] certainly have to be considered as real[...] These observations all show a positive periodic displacement of the interference fringes, as of an ether-drift[...](6) Displacement of the interference fringes proves the light beams travelled at different speeds, that they did so due to an ether drift, and also that the speed of light isn't a constant. Pro attempted to prove the existence of an ether by appeal to intuition. But intuition is often wrong It's usually right. But it doesn't matter, since I proved the ether's existence with Miller's experiment. All my arguments stand. (6) http://www.anti-relativity.com...
Geocentrism

First of all my opponent completely dropped my arguments. My opponent never argued against the existence of gravity. My opponent never argued that the Earth has enough gravity for the rest of the universe to orbit it. My opponent never gave an explanation to how geostationary satellites could just hover over the same spot of a non-rotating Earth despite the existence of gravity. My opponent states that some difference in the speed of light was measured by the Michelson and Morley experiment. But the measurement was so small it could be accounted for by measurement error. "Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero" [1] Therefor my opponent has not successfully made the case that the speed of light varies. Pro attempted to prove the existence of an ether by appeal to intuition. But intuition is often wrong, for example: quantum mechanics. At the quantum particles behave in a completely unintuitively. I will explain in more detail if my opponent requests. Since quantum particles do not behave intuitively, an appeal to intuition can"t be used to prove the existence of an ether. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Geocentrism

Debunk 1 My opponent"s first argument boils down to this: P1: If light comes from a moving source, then is should alter the velocity of that light in the same direction and speed. P2: Light from Earth is the same speed regardless of the direction. C1: The Earth is not moving I challenge the validity of P1. P1 would be valid if light followed Newtonian physics, but I do not believe there is evidence to support that is true. My opponent has the burden of proof to show P1 to be true. I also request my opponent gives evidence for the existence of the ether. Debunk 2 For my opponent"s second argument, The assumed speed of Earth"s rotation is almost nothing compared to the speed of light (in water or vacuum) and it would be very likely that measurements used in the water telescope experiment were not accurate enough to measure the microscopic change expected with the standard model of the solar system. Debunk 3 The actual quote states: "Let's start with what that does not mean: Earth is not in a special place. Although it might look as if we are ideally positioned to look along the universe's unique spin axis, all of space expanded from just one infinitesimally small point at the big bang." This does not suggest that the universe rotates around Earth. Gravity Contradicts Geocentricism (I will give evidence for the existence of gravity if my opponent challenges it) For everything else in the universe to rotate around the Earth, the Earth must be the most massive object in the universe. But we know that there are other planets and stars that are bigger than Earth so it does not follow that Earth should be in the center with everything else orbiting it. On the other hand it does follow that the Earth rotates around the Sun as the Sun has much more gravity than Earth which would result in the Earth orbiting around the Sun and not the other way around. Geosynchronous Orbit A geosynchronous orbit is an orbit where the rotation is at the same rate as the planet"s rotation. This results in the satellite hovering over the same spot of the planet. [1] Earth has geostationary satellites (satellites with geosynchronous orbits) so if the Earth is not spinning, that would mean that these satellites are levitating instead of orbiting which also contradicts gravity. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Weed isn't bad for your health.

My opponent uses mere anecdotal evidence to support his claims. Even if he or his friends to experience some of the immediate effects that many still do, there could be a number of explanations.1. They are exceptions.2. They haven't smoked long enough to experience the effects.3. They do not smoke enough to experience effects.4. He cannot assess his own emotions/cognition without clinical analysis, so his conclusions are inherently untrustworthy. Additionally, I have provided many more ways that weed is unhealthy, including damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems. Marijuana and its ingredients have been linked to cancer and mental/emotional/developmental deficits. These effects are accepted among the scientific community and have been supported by various trials and studies.
Weed isn't bad for your health.

"A common effect is that users become more irritable, aggressive, or just plain unpleasant. They usually have emotional issues as well. [9]" I feel that this is untrue due to the fact that I know a lot of people that are now really calm now that they started smoking weed, even kids with anger issues who now no longer get that angry ever. And I know I don't have emotional problems and I smoke marijuana. And neither do my friends as it appears. Life is good. "When people start smoking pot at a young age, mental deficits abound. Studies have proven that it causes adolescents to experience slower emotional and mental development and maturity. [9] Additionally, teenage smokers fail to perform well on cognitive exams, showing that they cannot compete with others on a mental level. They don't perform a basic function of the human brain: learn from errors. Moreover, teen smokers tend to use the drug more often that older users. [10]" This is also untrue just due to the fact that after me and my friends started smoking weed my grades and many of theirs went UP. I'm also an active kid I participate in football and baseball. I'm the starting pitcher and shortstop and a starting running back on both varsity teams. My cognitive skills haven't been impaired and my grades are good. I made all league ITCL honors last year for shortstop. So I feel like that statement doesn't exactly ring true.
Washing Machines are racist.

South Africa may have no apartheid anymore, but I can't say the same for Modern-day England. Since around 1908 [1], there has been a common policy adopted that separates blacks from whites simply because of their colour. My nan says that it's so that the clothes don't turn grey, but then again she has Alzheimers so she's probably talking out of her bottom. Could any human in this day and age cause this? No, of course not, so we should do what anyone would do in any situation there is: blame the Washing machine.Washing machines Want apartheid! They are racist! If not, who is? The dustpan and brush? Don't make me laugh.I thank you.Sources[1] http://inventors.about.com...
Washing Machines are racist.

Thank you for this debate sir. Washing machines aren't racist, society/people are. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of racist is "a person who believes in racism the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others." Then the definition of a person is "1."a human being, whether man, woman, or child" and "a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing." A washing machine,though, is "1."an apparatus, especially a household appliance, for washing clothing, linens, etc." Then to make it even more precise an apparatus is a ""a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc., having a particular function or intended for a specific use" A thing is a "a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object." As you can it says a thing is a material and washing machines are materials, there they are also things. Since they are things that means they are not a person because a person is a human being not a thing. To be racist, you need to be a person and a washing machine is not a person so washing machines are not racist. Lastly, since an apparatus is a built thing designed for a specific purpose that means that if washing machines were racist, a person had to intend for that therefore the racist one here is humans because humans build washing machines and washing machines only do what people want them to do. Sources: http://m.dictionary.com... http://m.dictionary.com... http://m.dictionary.com... http://m.dictionary.com... http://m.dictionary.com...
The president of Iran does not hate jews.

"The topic is weather Ahmadinejad hates jews or not. I think you got side-tracked. I watched all three of the videos on you tube that you linked above. (Thanks for making them somewhat short. I was hoping I didn't have to watch 3 hours of video) I think without a doubt, those three short excerpts show that Iran is definitely not happy with the United States and Israel. However it does not show that Iran is unhappy with the people of these countries. It clearly is representing the Governments of the two countries." You said hatred and indeed it is evident. In the videos you see them chant "Death To Israel" time and time again. At no time is it anywhere clarified that it is solely geared towards the Governments. In order to want somebody to die, you must have a sense of hatred for them. "Let me state that last part very very clearly. There is a huge difference between being against a particular govt. and being against an actual group of people." And these videos prove my point. Not to mention the fact he disregards the Holocaust as a myth Jews made up. He has directly criticized the Jews on more than a dozen occassions as "occupiers" in a country they don't deserve to control. His saying he disagrees with the governments are a small factor, if not a cover up for his feelings. You see, the Iranian President seeks to gain support around the world for his ridiculous rhetoric and as long as we buy into his farces, he will continue to gain steam. "Did you know orthodox jews are completely against Zionism too? Matter of fact, the orthodox jews and Ahmadinejad have a pretty good relationship. They both agree that the existing problem in Israel isn't Jews, Muslims, Christians, its ZIONISM." I would like to see evidence of this from a reputtable source. As the Bible states Israel was given to the Jews by God. The Orthodox Jews only represent a portion and you forgot to include "some" as in "minority" of Orthodox Jews.
The president of Iran does not hate jews.

The topic is weather Ahmadinejad hates jews or not. I think you got side-tracked. I watched all three of the videos on you tube that you linked above. (Thanks for making them somewhat short. I was hoping I didn't have to watch 3 hours of video) I think without a doubt, those three short excerpts show that Iran is definitely not happy with the United States and Israel. However it does not show that Iran is unhappy with the people of these countries. It clearly is representing the Governments of the two countries. Let me state that last part very very clearly. There is a huge difference between being against a particular govt. and being against an actual group of people. Ahmadinejad doesn't hate Jews. He hates the Zionist Govt. in control in Israel. Did you know orthodox jews are completely against Zionism too? Matter of fact, the orthodox jews and Ahmadinejad have a pretty good relationship. They both agree that the existing problem in Israel isn't Jews, Muslims, Christians, its ZIONISM.
The president of Iran does not hate jews.

I'll open with video evidence and then continue in my next arguement with posts and more video evidence as needed. Notice in this video how The Jewish star, the US name, a White Hosue formation and the Nazi symbol are all used in unison to show a similar relationship. http://www.youtube.com... This video shows the army piercing through an apparent symbol of the israel flag http://www.youtube.com... And perhaps the most blatant proof of them all is the President of Iran himself saying Israel is Satan. Followed by "Death To Israel." http://www.youtube.com...
Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)

My oponenent has the BOP. He has to prove that Might is right in time of instability. I only have to disprove his points. First my opponent puts power over liberty as I see it for him being powerfull is more important than being free. Of course most people do not agree hince the creation of human rights. So in liberty vs power. Roman republic was more free than the roman empire less democratical as we here in europe but still more free yhan the roman empire. Roman empire was more powerfull than the republic but less free so the taking of power of Ceasar was a bad thing. Hitlers Germany would have been better of without hitler. No post war destruction completly destroying Germany. No post war occupation by allied forces. No losing basic human rights during his reign. No losing almost all of it's military strenght. No murder of millions. How did Hitlers take to power help germany in anyway in the long run? Bolshevic Russia :Gaining power destroying democracy.starting mass killings.putting up a system that had no chances to function in russia and this is by Karl Marx him self. The U.S goverment has been ruled by allot of leaders at the same time. There was no real centralize power.
Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)

The republic was weak and corrupt in ancient Rome. Though I do not in the slightest agree with Hitlers idea of what makes a superior being, the truth is that the Weimar Republic was weak as well. Whether or not you agree or disagree with either of these men and their ideologies the truth is that they made their nation powerful. For example, Julius Caesar himself set up the situation for one of the most powerful governments in history to prosper. hitlers government, while short lived, gave Nazi Germany power that had not been measured since the holy roman empire. Whether these men were good or bad is irrelevant, their nations prospered. (In Hitlers case for a select breed). Now I will present evidence first by pointing to the roman empire itself. The roman empire was created, (or at least the steps for it were created) by a man who siezed power when the roman republic (soleley in my opinion) lay around ruled by the corrupt and lazy, weakened by their lack of ambition. For my second example I point to the communist revolution of Russia. Lenin, though he did not necessarily plan it, gave the way to an incredibly industrialized nation that became a global superpower. This of course came at the rather hideous cost of millions of lives. Now I would like to point to The American Revolution itself. If the founding fathers had not seized the reigns to create the government without distinct allowance to do so then the United States would be nothing, and the (once more in my opinion) great government article that is the constitution ( and the articles of confederation) would not exist. Another thing that proves that might is right in times of anarchy and chaos is the european dark ages. After rome fell people needed rulers, and warlords took the reigns to prevent further death and to give a sembleance of order.Now i will begin to argue logically through a series of questions.What would happen if the mighty (ambitious, talented, charismatic, intelligent) did not take power in times of corruption, anarchy etc.? What would happen is that a nation and its people would fail to work at all and ever work again. For instance, take leaders that progress their nation and its powers. These leaders have the might to lead, but if a government is corrupt then they cannot elad and if their is no government they must take what they cannot earn by force. Therefore, if no people with the qualities and might of a leader step forward, then there is no longer anyone who can lead sucesfully with ou devolving into anarchy, decay, and coruption.Why should the mighty get power?Because the mighty are the only ones who can use it for the good and empowerment of their nation. The mighty are the ones who will use so that their nation will remain and become strong.
Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)

First I'm not the best english writter since it's not my native language. Mighty people should not take power because there mighty. People should take power because there elected. I suppose my oponent means when there is a crisis a man should take complete power to solve it. I will site examples of when mighty people took power in former free countries. Roman Republic: Caesar took power of the republic it ended becoming the roman empire the republic as dead. http://www.roman-empire.net...; Hitlers Germany:After the injustice of the versaille treaty and the attacks to Germany from allied forces the German people gives absolute power to Adolf Hitler.We know how that went The poin that I'm tryng to make is that those elevated to power like to keep it with often terific results.
Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)

DrySponge has forfeited the last round, so for this round I will like to close with my final thoughts. First I would like to thank DrySponge for joining in thus debate, it has been a pleasure and has been interesting, and thought provoking. Secondly J would like everyone to think about their own ideologies and see if it still holds up now in comparison to what they previously believed. Than you all for reading these past debates.
confederate flags represent racism

perhaps i inferred too much from con's statement, but his whole argument is hard to follow. he gives some historical anecdotes but doesn't really argue that the flag does or doesn't represent racism, but he does say things like "the north doesn't care if it wins to stop slaverY". he just seems to be stuck on the point that the north and south are equally racist. i say the whole war was primarily about racism, and there's plenty more evidence to suggest the flag represents racism.
confederate flags represent racism

Well that maybe true but in fact the union was just as racist. You see the south needed slaves as they worked farms and hot conditions. The north in fact were much more industrial but stilled payed workers low wages. That's effectively slavery. The Confederacy had the rights to enslave due to state rights as did the north however the North's states were known as free states where slaves could be free. The southerners had slaves that escaped to the north and wanted the fugitive slave rights to be passed. Even though the north were against slavery they still had negative views to black people and really only fought the war for pride more than helping the slaves as they cared more about stealing goods of the confederacy. Due to the fact the southerner's had many of America's best generals they mustered a powerful army and thus when fighting got tough for the north they decided at the time to resort to desperate measures: a black regiment. They thought it was stupid to use blacks as soldiers even going as far as saying they could be trained as soldiers because of their skin colour. The blacks had something to fight for however: their freedom. If the north lost they would be forced into slavery again not that the north really cared so much. So it was pure ecstasy when the north won as this meant the backs no longer could be enslaved after the thirteenth amendment was passed in 1865. To this day only one state still had a confederate flag upon their state flag up until the Charleston shooting recently after which it was took down. The confederate flag represents racism as much as the north.
confederate flags represent racism

there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race. here we have the designer of the flag saying it was an emblem for the cause of the superior race. sounds pretty racist to me. here is what Thompson, the designer of the confederate flag thought: "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of thee white man over the inferior or colored race... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race... Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals" when talking about the civil war people often go back and forth between whether it was about slavery, or about states' rights. the reality, is that it was about about both, and some choose to emphasize one or the other aspect of it. that's how some can try to weasel out of saying it's racist. (and to be sure, it's grown to generally mean rebel, such as with dukes of hazard) but the war was only there, cause the north drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable despite states' rights, and they said slavery wasn't, and the south drew a line in the sand and said it was per states' rights. slavery was an impetus. that means the whole flag is tainted. there might be a good way to symbolize states' rights and freedom, but hte confederate flag isn't it. there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race. ------ the south seceded most immediately because the North had such overwhemling republican victories in congress. why did the south care? from wikipedia... ""They were said by the Southern press to represent the antislavery portion of the North, "a party founded on the single sentiment"of hatred of African slavery", now to be the controlling power in national affairs. The "Black Republican party" could overwhelm conservative Yankee persuasion. Said the New Orleans Delta, "It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party" to overthrow slavery.[19] By 1860, sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence."[20]""