BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The big bang theory is false

I accept. Resolution:It is necessary to note that there are many big-bang cosmological models, none of which are necessarily finite or eternal, and all of which assert to explain certain phenomena.It is also noteworthy that the big-bang was not actually a big-bang at any single point in, per NASA, it is rather" the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."Also, I would like to note that the inquiry of "what caused the big-bang?" is also not a valid criticism of cosmological models, because descriptions of general relativity break down in the early universe. I'm going to give pro the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she is well versed in cosmology, and not make anymore potentially obvious or tiresome qualifications.BoP:In order to establish the models as false, pro would need to refute the foundations of the models-- general relativity and the cosmological principle, or establish that big-bang models do not adequately explain the phenomena they assert to. While the onus is technically on pro, I am going to assume a part of the BoP, and argue why big-bang cosmology is a sound foundation for cosmological models.I look forward to a rigorous scientific debate.Reference:https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
There is more of a liberal bias than a conservative bias in the media

Don't worry it's fine, I enjoyed this debate overall. ResolutionThe resolution is about the media as you stated in your previous rounds "There is more of a liberal bias than a conservative bias in the media". Academic professors barely hold any relevant arguments, because A) They are not included in the media B) They do not succumb to confirmation bias due to their knowledgeable status.The resolution is about the media! that argument is irrelevant. Even it is so, I have denounced why it is so otherwise.The Conservative Media practises both in-group bias and out-group biasEntirely Dropped, my opponent resorted to resolution semantics as outline below.Pillowface's quantity argumentThanks for contesting my points, however it is surprising you came only with an re-assertion of previous points that were already brought down. Your argument revolves around "I want to address the fact that there is MORE liberal news than conservative news.". How many viewers do you think watch smaller liberal tv channels? You've essentially conceded my point, it is not about the quantity of the news station or trademarks of said channels, but a question of how many viewers flock most. Fox news is the major conservative outlet & has the most biggest amount of viewers! that's the most important point. You can have a million liberal channels, if there is no viewers, the question of bias is irrelevant. We are talking about bias, not "how many liberal news vs conservative news" as per your resolution, why are you changing the resolution. Pillowface's Hollywood & Obamney ArgumentThis is barely a contention, my opponent is making sweeping generalisations. Do not do this. He did not establish any causal correlation whatsoever, interpreting the evidence of Obamney to suit his case. Besides, How did you find hollywood to be liberal? This is just selective bias, the act of seeing things as perceived by oneself. Objectivity oozes out of this process,hence both these argument are nullified.
There is more of a liberal bias than a conservative bias in the media

Yes, I forgot to credit the source where I found the poll. I will take the hit on that. Here it is: (http://www.gallup.com...) I apologize for the for the forfeit. I wasn't receiving emails about updates and the debate got lost in my other debates I had as well. The reliability of liberal/conservative is not what I am trying to get at. I am trying to say that there is more Liberal bias in general, especially in colleges. How often do you have a conservative professor? Academics today are getting more liberal. Please take a look at the two graphs. (http://www.insidehighered.com...) I'm not concerned if Fox News or CNN, NBC. etc, are correct in what they report. The in-group and out-group bias, although a problem that should be addressed, is not part of my argument. The nature of the bias does nothing to the quantity of the bias that is available to and broadcasted to the public. All I am saying is that there is more of a liberal mindset in the giving of information in general. Conservatism is rarely seen in the displaying of information because Fox News is the only major conservative news outlet. "what's important is the amount of viewers which Fox news is currently top." Yes but how many Fox News channels are out there? The amount of viewers watching conservative/liberal news is not what I am aiming at debating about. I want to address the fact that there is MORE liberal news than conservative news. Hollywood is liberal. There's no denying that. During the Obama vs. Romney race, the positive stories about Obama (29%) outweighed the negative stories about Obama (19%). As for Romney, negative stories (33%) to positive stories (16%). (http://www.home60515.com...) You see, even though Fox News has the most views, the majority of news is still liberal.
There is more of a liberal bias than a conservative bias in the media

The Conservative Media practises both in-group bias and out-group biasOf course, we are left with the usual position. Both media did succumb to political bias but the conservative media is more unique. As if out-group bias isn't enough, the media goes far to discriminating its own peers. Ron Paul ran for the 2012 election as the GOP candidate and the media intentionally showed bias. Fox News purposely ignored him even after tying with Michele bachmann(1), how does the media came to a conclusion that endorsing a women who believes that Obamacare literally kills women and children rather than an honest candidate is beyond reality.Ron Paul's vote count was completely ignored by Fox News(2). Even a liberal such as Jon Steward acknowledged this. As such, aside from out-group bias, in-group bias was prevalent which makes the conservative media more prejudiced than its current state. Even more than its liberal counterpart. The Overall Liberal media showed only out-group discrimination while the conservative showed both in and out. It is obvious the conservative wins this honourable title.Pillowface's Quantity ArgumentLet me put it to you,pillow, with all due respect, you made examples of liberal news channels and with 1 the magnificent fox, representing the Conservative Bias. This is just quantity, I can just refute this with tv channels that sought to intentionally show bias such as NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and Fox News. His argument showed characteristics of oversimplification. One that showed trademarks without showing viewers. Viewers actually flocked more towards Fox news than any other news channel(3). Trademarks are irrelevant, I can show 150 liberal news channels, what's important is the amount of viewers which Fox news is currently top.I also question the credibility of your argument pillow, as I recall, there was no such poll to ever forecast such results. Sources(1)http://tinyurl.com...(2)http://tinyurl.com...(3)http://tinyurl.com...
There is more of a liberal bias than a conservative bias in the media

Through out the years, Fox News has never had enough scrutiny for acting as the conservative side of the news. Yes. I do agree that Fox News has a more Conservative mindset than any other news outlet in the US. However, Networks such as MSNBC, NBC, CBS, PBS, ABC and WBRE are either unbiased or bleeding heart liberal channels. Fox News is the only major conservative news outlet our there. Why is Fox News such a thorn to everybody's side? It's because it is the only news channel that does not agree with government in general. The other SIX networks act as the Liberal's mouthpiece so word by those channels travels fast. With 6 liberal channels and and only 1 conservative channel, its hard to say that there is a conservative media bias at all. Fox is a fly in the ointment for everybody else because no one likes anything, in this case a news network, going against the grain of media. When you have 6 stations saying Obamacare is good for the country while 1 station is saying the opposite, it is easy to refute what Fox News says. The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative. Republicans complain that the news has a liberal bias while Democrats think that the media is just about right. Why is it that the Democrats feel as though there is no bias, while Republicans think there is a liberal bias? This is because most of the networks, as I listed above, are liberal news outlets and they dominate the news; so what do Democrats have to complain about, other than Fox of course? Thank you and I look forward to your points as well.
The Oscars should create a category called 'Best Blockbuster'

If you are reading this, chances are that the Oscars took place about a few days ago now. Those who watched the Oscars probably noticed that there was an overwhelming LACK of awards nominations for movies that were considered 'Blockbusters', much like EVERY year, with 'American Sniper' alone grossing more in the box office than all other 'Best Picture' nominee's combined, yet American Sniper at $500 Million in income doesn't even crack the top 10 of the highest grossing films of 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org... I will argue that the Academy Awards should create a 'Best Blockbuster' category in order to give some greater acclimation towards movies that are considered to be 'Blockbusters' A 'Blockbuster' film in this case will be defined as any movie that had a very large production cost, yet brought in an even larger amount in ticket sales. For the sake of the debate, I will go ahead and establish just two criteria for a film to be nominated for 'Best Blockbuster' as a rudimentary means for what a 'Best Blockbuster' competition would look like. 1 - The movie must be in the top 10 grossing movies of 2014 prior to the Oscar nominations event (which usually takes place in late January) 2 - The movie must hold a rating of 70% or higher among BOTH critics AND fans via Rotten Tomatoes. Using these two criteria, the nominees for Best Blockbuster in 2014 according to the artificial criteria I made up would be the following movies: 1 - Guardians of the Galaxy (3rd highest grossing, 91% and 95% approval from critics and fans) http://www.flixster.com... 2 - Xmen Days of Future Past (6th highest grossing, 91% and 92% approval from critics and fans) http://www.flixster.com... 3 - Captain America Winter Soldier (7th highest grossing, 89% and 92% approval from critics and fans) http://www.flixster.com... 4 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (9th highest grossing, 90% and 89% approval from critics and fans) http://www.flixster.com... 5 - Interstellar (10th highest grossing, 72% and 86% approval from critics and fans)http://www.flixster.com... =================================================================== If you accept the debate, I implore you to please NOT argue against the selection process that I made for nominations of 'Best Blockbuster'. If you want to argue about how the possible flaw for the selection of movies for 'Best Blockbuster' as an argument against the category, you are allowed to do that. I'm just emphasizing that the criteria I made were used just to generate an overall idea of what a 'Best Blockbuster' competition would look like. - I am arguing in favor of a 'Best Blockbuster' category at the Oscars - Con is arguing against a 'Best Blockbuster' category at the Oscars - First round is acceptance only. - Debate is now open to anyone - 4 rounds, full 10,000 characters.
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)..part 3

I must confess my confusion. If it is not random, then there was always destined to be a planet called earth in the Milky Way and it could not have been any other way. I find it difficult to accept this as mere coincidence. If you believe everything was destined to happen a certain way, how could you not believe God set this path in motion? I am not saying we have no free will. I am saying that there are some things in life that we can truly choose and some that we cannot. It is up to each individual to choose the path which can give him the most happiness. And, regrettably, the rest of your paragraph did not make sense to me. =D All this debate really comes down to is, as you said, the belief in god. I will ask you one final question: do you think it is possible to believe in God and not believe in morality? Or to believe in morality and not God? That is the fundamental question of this topic, and truly, as you said, what this debate boils down to. Even as a Deist, I believe God made things a certain way for a reason. As such, I do not believe it is just in the eyes of God or nature to perform certain acts. We as humans are capable of greater. (Hate to be overly brief, but Chemistry awaits, and I think it would be immaterial to discuss additional peripheral topics, as this, I believe, is the focus of the debate.)
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)..part 3

Given that we could attempt to convince each other of God or the lack thereof until the cows come home, I will cease this topic since it has no capacity for progress. There is only one thing I will say. You seem to believe that the creation of the universe was an accident. No more than quantum mechanics. Tell me this; if we exist by mere chance, who's rolling the die? Of course we are ignorant in nature. We understand so infinitesimally little about God, the best we can do is to study his creation. "We see now as through a glass darkly." It is the best any man can do to draw what conclusions he can from what little he can see. The beauty of science is that it is the method by which we slowly lift the blindness of our nature. But I can promise you one thing - God will never be disproven, but he could quite easily be proven. Now onto other things: To relate a human sinning to a river sinning is also counterproductive. We are capable of thought. Of weighing options. Of getting hurt, and not choosing that option again. I agree with you that many of our choices are predetermined by our experiences, triggering a specific reaction in our brain. But man cannot be allowed to believe this. If he did, he would cease taking responsibility for his actions. He could murder someone and say "Well, it's not my fault. The chemicals in my brain just reacted that way." Belief in choice grants us choices. Disbelief chains you to the current of the choices of others. You said this: "Why does it matter whether they are harmed?" It matters because you know what it feels like to be burned. You know it is painful. Why would you inflict that same pain on another? Because you wish it to feel pain as you felt pain. And that is where we differ from other organisms. Other organisms are incapable of wishing pain on another. When I stated that humans are not driven by instincts, I did not mean we did not obey our instincts. I meant that they do not rule us. A surgeon operating on someone does not leave to get food in the middle of an operation because he is hungry. It is rational to postpone that urge, because obeying that urge would mean someone would die. And so logic overrides instinct.
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)..part 3

Thanks for the debate. There are a series of things that you need to understand for you to accept that morality exists. 1. God exists. 2. Sensible morality does not condemn things for existing, it condemns those who deliberately perform acts to harm others when the being's survival did not depend on said act. 3. Comparing morality to the behavior of animals is irrelevant, given that humans are capable of logic and rational thinking, and are not driven by instincts. 1. You say that God's existence cannot be proven. I disagree. Assuming we can accept the Big Bang as the creation of the universe, God exists. In a single instant, the First Law of Thermodynamics was wholly violated - one of the most fundamental laws of physics does not violate itself. Something cannot come from nothing. Moreover, if something did come from nothing, it would not be able to arrange itself into perfect, organized units we call atoms. Who decided there would be two charges, positive and negative? Why not 3? 7? Why does gravity exist? Why do the atoms of our body, perfectly disparate particles react to ensure that we have the highest desire to survive, when the individual particles would be just as happy in a nonorganic substance. 2. Morality as defined by the Church is not morality as it appears to me. I see an immoral act as an act that deliberately harms another human being. Does the lion harm the gazelle? Yes, for its survival. We live in a world where our survivability is largely set in place by the infrastructure of our society. Therefore what possible reason could we have for harming a possible human being, except where harming one human being could save the lives of many others? We have learned that causing another organism to feel prolonged pain sends its brain into distress. We as humans possess empathy, so why put an organism through that when we know that it is unpleasant? 3. There is a famous essay by Mark Twain that describes humans as "Lesser Animals" and animals as "Higher Animals" because humans cause harm to one another when it is not necessary. Animals have to harm each other to feed. As do we. But animals do not torture, do not murder. Neither should we, but we do. A system of morality is necessary to ensure that people do not infringe upon the rights of the individual citizens. That is the purpose of the government, to protect those innate rights of human beings. Therefore, many things cast as immoral are not immoral at all. Homosexuality? Who does that hurt? Gambling? Premarital sex? None that I know of. Thanks again.
Freeman's Debate Tournament round 1: TUF V.S. Badger

" However, really is there a difference between the two? In order for us to be able to percieve the said sound, musn't something first "happen" such that the sound can be percieved?" Yes there is a difference between the two. Right, think of that mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a soid, liquid ot gas. It hits the outer ear, right, then this:http://en.wikipedia.org... it says there that it's down around the primary auditory cortex that's responsible for the sensation of basic characteristics of sound such as pitch and rhythm. I dunno? and there was a whole load of conversions down along that line. Those wouldn't happen if you weren't there. If a tree fell in the forest and there was nobody around, that mechanical wave wouldn't hit anyone's outer ear and be put through the rest of the auditory system, processed as what we hear close enough to the end, or the end? So yeah.. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org... speaks for itself "Super-positionalism..." Wat? "However, the fact remains, that there really isn't a difference between percieved sound, and what is actually happening because we know that something must first happen in order to hear the sound." Yes there is. See my first responce there about the "Wat?" one. So nobody around, no sound :P had to say it lol. "My opponent talks about sound being pursuaded by "a bleep load of human organs" (you can fill in the bleep). That's great, again we can argue what we know. We know we are arguing human perception, which again, is what we must evaluate this debate on. If organs provide a human with the ability to percieve such actions, then we know that it is still human perception of known results all the same." Yes it is human perception... "Because as I said in my contention 2, without a human there, we know the sound will still be percieved via camera, or recorder." Ok.. the camera or recorder or whatever has it's own auditory system and memory.. then what? We defined sound as what we perceive. Somebody listens to it? That's that somebody being around to hear it. They're hearing the tree falling because they're around to hear it. It's heard even more indirectly again, but certainly as a result of being around. "The rest of what he said" If the tree fell it would cause those mechanical waves, sure, but in the absense of anyone to hear it, there would be no sound as we have defined it. There would be no human perception.
Freeman's Debate Tournament round 1: TUF V.S. Badger

TOPIC: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Getting this debate finally underway, I will be arguing pro, or inaffirmation of the topic. This debate will be one of philosophy. I hope that both debaters, will have fun, and at the same time learn from this experience. Rules for this debate are as follows. We shall pertain to those of Freeman's proposed set of rules of conduct, IE no semantics, non-gritty arguments, and basically staying on board with the conceptional debate ettique. Other than that, I think given this is a philosophy debate, arguments, and sources should be freelance and creative. Please use round 1 to accept this debate, and I will begin my opening argument in round 2. I am quite excited to start this tournament, and look forward to many great arguments in this debate! Good luck Badger, and I hope you (the audience) enjoys reading this debate!
Abortion

I'll start my argument off with a quote by Ronald Reagan: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." 1. Why not give the child up for adoption. There are millions of couples who would love to have children, but are infertile and can't do so. Why not give them a chance? Sure, you may not be ready for a child, but some of these couples have been trying for years! 2. Life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact. If you disagree, let me ask you this. Mentally rewind your life back up to the point that you were born. Then rewind a week before that. And a week before that. You just become smaller, and smaller, right? There was no magical moment when you went from something that someone can morally justify in murdering to someone who deserves love and protection? Just because you were a little younger, you were less important and less worthy to life? 4. You are an American, I presume. Abortion denies fetuses one of the three fundamental rights delineated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence: LIFE. 5. Abortion is not just about the woman. Pro-"choice" women LOVE to say, "It's her body. It's HER choice." Is it her body that's getting sucked up through a tube and disposed of? I dare you to look up pictures of aborted fetuses. The similarity between them and newborn babies is startling. The baby doesn't have a choice. The baby is at the mercy of its mother. The bond between a baby and its mother is probably the closest one in existence. And yet, 1.21 million bonds are shattered every year, in the UNITED STATES ALONE. 6. Many pro-choice activists like to bring up the rape question. What if the the woman is raped, and doesn't want the baby? Why should she carry the baby of a rapist? Well, that's not the baby's fault, is it? Why punish a baby for a crime it didn't commit? Why not punish the real criminal, the rapist? 7. Babies don't need you to be ready for them. They just need you to love them and care for them. If you don't think you want a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. Sex isn't designed for your pleasure; it's designed to make babies. 8. Why should my taxpayer dollars go to murdering children? Think about that for a second. When we pay taxes, some of it goes to sucking those 1.2 million babies into tubes. 9. Many women who go through abortions regret it afterwards. Many of these women are young and don't have enough life experience as well. 10. Fetuses can experience pain, as young as 8-weeks old. Can you imagine how painful it is to get your body sucked from you by a tube, as you're powerless to do anything about it? My sources: https://www.probe.org... http://www.archives.gov...