BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing in science is ever proven

This final round will be for concluding comments and any short final arguments that you or I wish to include I would like to begin by addressing a common theme in my opponent's reasoning: the idea that there is always another possibility. The thing is, for a something to even be considered possible, it needs to have a reasonable claim on truth. It must not be arbitrary. I would like to reference the my opponent himself provided. In the link, the scientific method is defined as "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world." This directly contradicts my opponent's application of the method. He prefers to consider multiple hypotheses that are unproven as all true, rather than all false, leading to contradictions (defeating the consistency). He prefers to throw out random hypotheses with no regard for evidence (defeating the non-arbitrary). These two combined create a system filled with contradictions that can never hope to be proven useful (defeating the reliable). My opponent has asked me to identify something that science has proven. I will provide several things: gravity, evolution, cells, atoms, chemical reactions, the Milky Way galaxy, etc... Scientific application has also given us the Industrial Revolution, electricity, the Moon landing, etc... Concluding, I deserve this victory. I was able to demonstrate fallacies in the contention, and show that science can and does give us truth about reality.
Nothing in science is ever proven

C1: The idea of a conflict between historic truth and scientific truth is non-existent. Both of the braches of knowledge are integrated as part of truth as a whole, and there cannot be disagreement between the two. A scientist must still accept the existence of Lincoln, and a historian must still accept the existence of gravity. C2: Here you say that my theory would be correct. I don't know what you are trying to say here. You acknowledge the truth of a theory, contradicting your premise. C3: As I said, scientific truth does not contradict other kinds of truth. Scientific truth, as going by the definition we are using, refers to truth gained through observation and experimentation. If we are to accept that there is no scientific truth, only other things like historical truth, then why do we continue to use the scientific method? Wouldn't it be better to use one of the other types of gathering information that they use in history? But of course, this is what is used in history, at a lower conceptual level. Events are observed and recorded. They are verified through reference to other facts, and techniques such as carbon dating for very old events. The line is not as clear as one may think. Dinosaurs and the Roman Empire are both in the past, but dinosaurs are a part of scientific study while the Roman Empire is part of historical study. So where is the line between the two? Maybe there is even some overlap during the ice age? Just because the concept of 'truth' can be divided into categories does not mean that the categories are totally independent from each other. P1: By your logic, if we ignore the disabled Canadian grandma, the idea that she is the killer would have as much legitimacy as the idea that a twenty year old Argentinian ex-convict is the killer. Since her being the suspect is just as legitimate, we would not be able to convict the real killer because the Canadian grandma was not investigated. As for the earth being round, until the evidence for it began to appear, it would not be a legitimate claim to make. It would be considered false. Considering two mutually exclusive theories as both true is a fallacy, but considering them both false is not. P2: If the scientific testing is to be represented by earthquakes, then where did the village come from. All we have is destruction, and in this village nothing represents the building of buildings. Scientific testing should be represented by ground surveying, and scientific development should be represented by construction. If there is one earthquake (identification of error in a scientific theory) the whole village is not destroyed. Only parts are. The rebuilding (modification of theory) will change the village, but it will still be the same village. For a more real metaphor, the rebuilt World Trade Center after 9/11 is not the same World Trade Center. But New York is still New York.
The "Free Press" deleted me

Yes, I agree that mass media is blocked of many things, but just because your comments were deleted doesn't usually mean that you were being censored online on purpose. You might have offended someone, or might have typed in vulgar language or any words that teased someone in a way that they would understand. You might have been bullying or making fun of someone in a way you thought was jokingly; but they thought of it as bullying. So, to not get a bad repetition, the site blocked/censored your comments.
The Best Film Composer Of All Time

Great choice, Pro! I absolutely love Jurassic Park. I’ve still got all the VHS tapes. The third work I’ve chosen by Howard is from King Kong (2005), OST 13: “That’s All There Is…” (3:26 minutes). Listen here: When I first heard this score I was slightly disappointed. As it was credited with Howard, I had certainly expected something a bit more grandiose and moving, never minding the fact that it is a monster movie. My disappointment transformed into astonishment when I learned that the reason this score is simpler than his usual work was because the composer who was originally hired for this film, Howard Shore (best known for his score for Lord of the Rings), quit. That left the producers scrambling to find a replacement, which they found in James Newton Howard. He had only five weeks to completely compose, record, and edit an original score. For this reason, Howard had to resort to a more straightforward orchestral score, shying away from the soloists he usually incorporates into his music. Despite the mad dash for completion, Howard’s score, as usual, was successful. He earned six Oscar nominations for the score. It conveys and evokes a great many emotions and feelings throughout, even in this short piece called “That’s All There Is…”, which is suspenseful, beautiful, and whimsical at once, thanks to an effortless flow. Most notable in Howard’s score of this classic remake is the four-note descending brass motif for Kong (can be heard at the 0:22 mark and is repeated later in the piece). In Max Steinbeck’s original 1933 score, Kong’s theme was a three-note descending motif. The fact that Howard adds another note implies that Howard can, so to say, do one better, which I believe he most certainly did. Thanks for keeping up. Looking forward to the next piece by Williams!
The Best Film Composer Of All Time

A captivating and moving piece by Williams! I’d have been disappointed if you hadn’t exhibited Schindler’s List. The second chosen piece by Howard is from The Village (2004), OST 2: “What Are You Asking Me?” (6:01 minutes). Listen here: Though the movie itself isn’t logical, The Village film score by Howard has been well-received. James Newton Howard was hired to write for this movie because of his skill in creating a suspenseful atmosphere, as well as his ability to keep period authenticity. The Village, a romantic and mysterious story, takes place in 1897 in Pennsylvania, so Howard incorporates a piano and a solo virtuoso violinist, a prodigal teenager named Hilary Hahn, whose recordings are phenomenal. Howard received an Academy Award nomination for this score. I chose OST 2: “What Are You Asking Me?” because it is a summary of two major, elegant melodies in the score, which emphasize first loneliness and uncertainty and then companionship and love. It hovers between brooding and hopeful. This soundtrack is particularly striking because the meandering, restless themes are paradoxical, yet complement each other quite beautifully even when mixed together. The rhythmic flow is associated with movement towards confrontation, while the slower and more contemplative moments describe quiet uncertainty. Howard expertly pulls off the dual nature of this soundtrack just as the film juxtaposes the village itself, which represents civilization, and the forest, where the supernatural roam. Romantic elements are added as an overtone for the melody, the driving force that carries the melody even through the uncertainty and eventually overtakes that theme altogether. The composer makes an incredibly complex statement with this piece that is so powerful that one cannot help but to be enthralled and moved. Howard shows that things, particularly feelings, are not always black and white. It is a mixture of different emotions, all vying for domination within the self, which is something that resonates in everyone. This piece is especially important because it brought the movie to life in a way that the often stilted dialog did not. It sets the stage of the premise, and is complete in and of itself—which I feel The Village could not accomplish alone. That is to say that the film would have fallen flat without Howard’s score.
The Best Film Composer Of All Time

John Williams and his classic Star Wars is absolutely brilliant. On my part, I intend to show why Howard deserves to be chosen over Williams. Although four pieces is rather a narrowed selection, I have decided upon four of my favorite pieces from my childhood that showcase the artist’s ingenuity. My first piece by Howard will be from Atlantis The Lost Empire (2001), OST 15: “The King Dies / Going after Rourke” (5:12 minutes). Listen here: The film score for this 2001 Disney film is a slowly rising majestic theme depicting lost civilization. Howard’s use of eclectic instrumentation marks these soundtracks as his own, particularly by way of the simple, harmonious chord progressions. In this score he displays a choral and percussion creativity that boosts the overall atmosphere of the strange new (or rather, old) world that is the underground Atlantis. He was chosen over Alan Menken for this project purely for his enormous scope of epic proportions. His work on Disney’s Dinosaur (2000) brought attention to him, and he was rehired to compose for the next Disney animated film, Treasure Planet (2002). The movie Pearl Harbor came out at the same time as Atlantis, which took away audience attention from the fantastic score wherein female sopranos represent the majesty of the seas, and the fuller adult chorus hauntingly reflects the ghosts of a dying civilization, all of which is elevated by the steady underline of bass and strings. OST 15, titled “The King Dies / Going after Rourke” is especially memorable. It encompasses a broad, moving theme that is reimagined in two scenarios: sorrow for the death of Princess Kida’s father, and then determination and action when the protagonist Milo chases the antagonist Rourke. Howard is able to incorporate a multitude of emotions and atmospheres into one piece in such a way that they flow continuously, helping the audience’s mood change to reflect that of the hero’s. The brassy and punctuating title motif (around the 4:40 mark) rouses the adventurous spirit and is a call to action. This soundtrack is one of the most empowering and best-rated of the entire score, the pinnacle of the epic. The unearthly voices accompany the king’s passing, signifying the end of greatness. A quiet moment follows his last breath, wherein Milo mourns, but a sudden swell indicates change—the protagonist of the movie resolves to rescue his princess. But the softening after the swell reveals that he cannot do it alone, for he needs his companions. Suspense overtakes the score as they abandon the mission and take his side, as true friends do. Together, and with the help of the few Atlanteans left, they manage to procure weapons and vehicles. Here begins the chase, which ends on a dramatic note, a war cry, as they race to the rescue. Even without seeing the animation of the scene, it is clear that due to a tragedy, a choice is made, and that choice is enacted. Not only is it an amazing piece, but it also tells a story on its own. While this is not considered to be his best work, it is my personal favorite. I look forward to seeing the next piece by Williams!
The Best Film Composer Of All Time

PrefaceThis is a film composer debate, intended to determine the best film composer of all time. Each participant, Pro and Con, will choose one film composer each that they consider to be the best and defend his/her musical greatness and genius in the course of this debate.As the instigator I have decided to let my opponent choose first. Anyone who is willing to debate me, please put the name of your composer in the comments, and I will challenge you if I determine that you are suitable to debate this. Do not try to accept the debate in any other way, as that would result in an automatic forfeit.The Nature of the Debate and VotingEvery round each participant will supply one musical work by their chosen composer, which demonstrates his/her musical talent. To make this debate more reasonable and to prevent purely subjective voting, I encourage to not only supply musical works, but also to explain in words how or why it is special, unique, valuable, and why it successfully shows the greatness of the composer. Some analysis of the musical work is also recommended as that would help you convince the voters in your favor.The voters who would like to vote are encouraged not to vote on purely subjective grounds (i.e. because they personally enjoyed the music of one composer above the other), but also to take into account the reasoning that the debaters provide. It is up to you to weigh the impact of these arguments and to vote as objectively and fairly as you can, providing at least some sort of Reason For Decision when you choose a winner. In other words, RFDs like "Well, I really liked the music by X and found Y's music boring" would be frowned upon.There shall be no rebuttals throughout this debate. Do not attack the works, the arguments or the composer that your opponent chooses. Rather, promote your own.StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: One musical work each & argumentsRound 3: One musical work each & argumentsRound 4: One musical work each & argumentsRound 5: One musical work each & arguments; summary of your case.Rules1. Only composers that are widely considered as film composers or that have otherwise significantly contributed to film music shall be used.2. The duration of each musical work shall not exceed 15 minutes.3. No trolling, swearing or personal attacks.4. No kritiks or semantics.Most importantly of all, make sure to retain a civil and friendly atmosphere, and have a good time during this debate! Let's enjoy some great music! :)
The Best Film Composer Of All Time

Fawkes’ theme is brilliant! It is one of my favorite soundtracks in all of Harry Potter. My final piece by Howard is OST 3: “Charades” from Lady in the Water (2006). (5:50 minutes). Listen here: This score is one of his most stand-alone works. There is never a dull moment that simply accompanies a dialog or compliments a lull in the action. Every note moves the piece along, has a meaning—this is a prime example of constant motion. The entirety of the score reflects the different properties of water: flowing, freezing, thawing, rushing, etc. Howard again displays his mastery of harmony, writing this piece in a dominant minor key, which gives it a hooking sense of both discord and flowing beauty. He allows for a brass element that does not drown out the treble, which is often difficult to achieve, although “Charades” mostly deals in woodwind introductions. The theme is stated liberally and principally throughout, ranging from slight meanderings to full-ensemble pronouncements. There is also a plethora of secondary themes and interactions of theme fragments and motifs, highlighted by fantastic crescendos. To summarize, I’ve exhibited four of James Newton Howard’s works: “The King Dies / Going after Rourke,” “What Are You Asking Me?,” “That’s All There Is…,” and “Charades.” Although Howard has not produced as many pieces as he has in the past due to commitments in running his own studio (JNH Studio), his works continue to showcase his brilliance, and I am happy to announce that Howard has been chosen to compose the score for the upcoming Harry Potter spin-off Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. He has been nominated for no less than 38 awards, and has won seven of those. Howard has been a very important musical figure in my childhood and even now. When asked to suggest some of my favorite music, I always push his name at people. I would like to thank Biodome for challenging me to this debate and for being so courteous. I had a fantastic time with this, and I learned some new facts about Williams and his works! Lastly, thank you to the audience for keeping up, and I hope you enjoyed listening to not only Howard’s works, but also Williams’. They are both magnificent composers.
Convince Me

Before I present my argument, I will make a few clarifications on the Common Theistic Arguments for an infinite God that I represent. ~I will be using a Biblical point of view to represent my argument, but shall not use the Bible, nor any other religious book to support my argument unless called upon specifically by my opponent, with the exception of naming sources. ~I will not take the stance of attempting to understand an infinite God but instead to convince the possibility of one. Now that is over with, let's begin! —————————————————The Concept and Evidence of InfinityInfinity is a tricky thing. Infinity is not a number, it is not a positive nor negative. It is hard to comprehend, because we do not fully understand it nor have we experienced it. One thing we know, is that Infinity is a reality, but it is outside of our universe. It is not hard to prove that there is an infinity. For without an infinity, how would our world come to be? In the Big Bang theory, and/or every other atheistic theory of how our world came to be, there is a problem of linear time. Linear time is not infinite. It is the truth that there was a beginning, and there will be an end. We know that we operate within a linear time because we have a concept of time. Without an external source, there was a point when there was nothing. No universe. Nothing. And then. .. poof! There was something, without any cause. If there isn't an external cause, then there wouldn't be a universe at all, because there would need to be a cause. An infinity of some sort, a God, who called us into existence. I say again, infinity is not inside of the universe. Infinity is not something that can be proven by science but by reason instead. The realization that there wouldn't be time, space, nor matter, without an external infinity. The Evidence of an Infinite GodAlright, so now we have down the fact that there is an infinity. We know that without infinity, we wouldn't be here. But without an infinite being, or as we call it, God, there wouldn't be a cause to begin with; in fact, there wouldn't be a possibility of there being a universe, let alone an eternity, at all! To rephrase, there needs to be an infinite being to cause the universe for there to be a universe at all. This is proof enough for an infinite being. There cannot be two eternal (infinite) things. For that to happen, one must have a different characteristic, something different from the other, which is impossible. This refutes polytheistic views of God such as Mormonism. God cannot be the world, as pantheists believe, otherwise the world would either be eternal, or there would still have to be an outside infinite being. This concludes my base argument for an eternal, theistic God. It's getting late for me, and I need sleep. I hope this explains a lot, and am willing to answer any rebuttals and counter-arguments that you might have. ~Thanks,Corridon.
Convince Me

If my opponent can convince me that the common theistic arguments for an infinite succession of events, and actual infinte being impossible are flawed and do not establish that infinity is impossible; then they win the debate. I will have to provide reasons why I am not convinced or reasons why I am, but it will be based on the honor system on my behalf. If one checks my debate record, they will see I engage in a lot of silly debates so I do not care about my record that much (in other words: I am not just going to lie to win this debate to get my stats up). If one thinks they can step up to the challenge and convince me that these arguments showing the impossibility of an actual infinity fail, then lets do it. In the first round my opponent will post his/ her first argument. In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"Good luck!
Convince Me

"The above is delusional."I am disappointed that my former opponent has to turn to petty insults to prove his point. I believe my opponent is the one who is delusional, believing that his celebrities and idols overrule scientific laws. I have been the only one to use real scientific laws as compared to hypothesis and theories that have been put out by my opponent."This was clearly in the debate outline." I agreed to the debate outline. You broke our agreement."All of your agruments are horrible and unconvincing."You are entitled to your opinion. At least I made an argument."You provided no real evidence, just nonsense."I have. You have ignored my evidence. I will not reply any more.
Convince Me

"I would love to continue this debate if my opponent would be willing to respond directly to my statements using science instead of the scientific community."The above is delusional. You do not know more than the scientific community, if you do then where is your Nobel Prize? Of course, no rational mind is going to believe the universe is not expanding when virtually every scientist does. I do not believe that some random debater on DDO.org knows more about science than the scientific community. "I appreciate the opportunity, but I cannot debate under this format. Under this format my opponent has the advantage of, instead of debating me fair and square, my opponent can simply say 'I am not convinced', or 'The scientific community disagrees', without the necessity of using real arguments against me."This was clearly in the debate outline. You did not have to accept. "I accepted this, because the expectation was that my opponent would not be biased, but balance both sides of the argument fairly."This is exactly what I have done. All of your agruments are horrible and unconvincing. "However, this debate format has been used unjustly to my opponent's advantage, him using this as a way to argue his worldview without needing to use real evidence."You provided no real evidence, just nonsense. You contradicted yourself, which is why you are forfeiting and you know it lol You are supposed to be arguing that theistic arguments that an infinite series is impossible is flawed, yet in your last round you endorsed the theistic argument that an infinite regress of time is illogical. Since you refuted yourself you did not need to forfeit; You lost the debate due to your logical inconsistency in your last round.
Convince Me

I would love to continue this debate if my opponent would be willing to respond directly to my statements using science instead of the scientific community. I appreciate the opportunity, but I cannot debate under this format. Under this format my opponent has the advantage of, instead of debating me fair and square, my opponent can simply say 'I am not convinced', or 'The scientific community disagrees', without the necessity of using real arguments against me. I accepted this, because the expectation was that my opponent would not be biased, but balance both sides of the argument fairly. However, this debate format has been used unjustly to my opponent's advantage, him using this as a way to argue his worldview without needing to use real evidence. Therefore, I forfeit this debate.~Corridon I hope we can debate again sometime on fair grounds.