BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being realistic is more logical than being optimistic

Since we are debating a topic about logic and optimistic, I am going to use my good old friend Merriam Webster Dictionary: According to Merriam Webster Dictionary: Logical means: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion; a logical thinker while Optimistic means: feeling or showing hope for the future Realistic means: based on what is real rather than on what is wanted or hoped for : not impractical or visionary Finally, Optimism: an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome; I might be wrong in the eye of Tholht, Omar2345 and many others, But in my point of view, Being logical and being realistic is very different. While thinking with logic is indeed wise for many situation, Realistic is no less logical nor more logical than being optimistic. Being realistic simply means you are without dreams, And only concentrating on present. Obviously, This is very different from what you are suggesting and what the world is telling us. What is wrong with being Optimistic? Being Optimistic is great! It give you a purpose, A goal to chase for in life. While being realistic is to choose the best choice in the present, Not concerning in the future. If everyone should be realistic, Since it would be more logical, Won't government officials simply taking bribes because it is the best solution in the present? Judges accepting money because it is the most profit way? Civil Servants campaigning only for large industry giants because what is the point of helping low-income people while they get rich? If everyone becomes realistic because of it having more logic, Our society would cease to exist. The only reason the society was kept together, Was those young, Ambitious, Still naive in your opinion, University graduates who still have dreams to serve others, To make this society a better place. In truth, If people are without optimism, The world will become a cold and emotionless world.
The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax

Well, you are a hoax believer right! Thetitle of this debate is "The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax" which says to me that I am to debate on why it is not! The title does not say "What do you think about the 1969 moon landing" Anyway, I think that the information that NASA and the government has is more substantial than yours! The government knows alot more than you do. I don't think that I have to prove every single point wrong that you have made! Common sense tells people to believe the government in this!
The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax

I'm not sure why you accepted this debate. You have provided no argument as to why you believe the Moon Landing is NOT a hoax. All you have done is said that hoax believers are wrong if they have not done adequate research. Obviously, from the looks of our first round arguments, I have spent the time to provide sufficient evidence of the fallacies related to this issue. I hope for a more productive round to follow.
The 1969 Moon Landing Was A Complete Hoax

You seem to have alot of information on this topic! But where did you get the information! Is it reliable? Anyway, Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth. When the hoax advocates (you) make claims that are based on flimsy evidence, sloppy research, and a poor understanding of the sciences, it does not take a PhD to figure out they are wrong. In general, the main proponents of the hoax theory are people who have no special education, training or experience to qualify them to make their claims. They are in no better position to judge the facts than you and I
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

you asked for things in which there is no evidence and so there for is impossible to debate besides theories of which I gave and you then gave a weak rebuttal against saying that you do not see how it works of which I then tried to explain but you did not understand of which I apoligze for how ever you did not leave much room for widely accepted views and so I there for but forth some of the views that I know which are purely philosophical views and a little more accepted then most scientific views. with out change in knowledge that we currently have no we would never be able to go back in time and so I then took a position that is not fully accepted as scientific proof but again as I have already said previously none of this is the very nature of this debate is unscientifically based it is all on theories which is all highly controversial. none of which I have stated have you refuted in a real manner other then the fact that you said it is not scientific fact of which I then said none of which is and still stands with out refute. then when I have brought in a real scientific thought you did not refute it besides saying that it just would slow down time not reverse it and added a new definition to the debate time is change so in order to travel back in time we would have to change back time. with this thought we could never be able to go back in time but that is just one way of looking at it. I then argued you point of Einstein's there which is just as easily refuted as any other theories after this you forfeited the round. you then came back on and said how you did not agree with my point of view on the philosophical point of view without giving any other definition and so we kept at it with you saying the same thing in every round and then you once again said how it is all speculation for black holes and wormholes but did not refute my argument.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

As I initially stated, time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe and the empirical evidence of our established theories. I was clearly referring to "scientifically accepted theories" and wanted the discussion to "stay away from sci-fi or pseudo science. " My adversary insisted on defining time travel in terms that are not scientifically accepted; he wrote: ". .. I define time travel as a window into the past not direct physical transportation back in time. .. My reference point is memories, writing, and stars in all three of these you can catch a glimpse of the past not always a full look into it but at least a small window into what has happened. " This of course is not the time travel referred to by the parameters of the argument. And I repeat: I really fail to see how recalling memories, reading, writing, or seeing involves or requires any form of travel? By extent, the only traveling or "time traveling" of this type is purely philosophical in nature and not "scientific" as I had mentioned from the start. Additionally, he failed to show how there was any traveling involved. To this, I would like to add the fact that memories are not always a very reliable source of information about the past. For one, you are required to have been at the moment being recalled and even if you were, it is possible for everyone that was there to have a different account or recollection of the same events. This is very evident in police work. When police officers question witnesses (uninvolved parties) they can get very varied accounts of the same event. I believe this same flaw applies to writing and seeing. On the scientific front, I showed how wormholes and blackholes were also incapable of backwards time travel: ". .. as far as wormholes are concerned, there is no empirical evidence for them so they are (as of now) completely hypothetical. Blackholes, on the other hand, have the distinction of having been observed time and time again but, it is not clear at all what would happen if one (or anything for that matter) would traverse a blackhole. .. " and because time = change one simply cannot travel change. Basically, wormholes are purely hypothetical and have never been observed and in all likelihood do not exist. Even if they did, the method of time travel using wormholes requires many other things (dark matter, dark energy, etc) that do not exist and are purely hypothetical: pure conjecture & speculation.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

1 philosophically speaking I am not talking direct quote from dictionary if you do not like it then you offer a new term like I did or you hold up your own all you did is say that it does not have to do with travel but I am speaking from a philosophical point of view which does not mean a literal point of view. so speaking from this point of view it does mean travel of a sort no it does not mean physically traveling but a mental form of traveling in which case I do fall under your definition. 2 worm holes are a theory not a proven fact has I have already said it is not proven nothing of which has been said is a solid fact but theory only for nothing as of now can be proven with what we know. nothing that you said or that I said because we do not have the technology to test it we have barely broken bast the sound barrier let alone the speed of light. Einstein defines time as change in which case even if you were able to go back to the 18 hundreds then you are still going forward in time and so you can never go back however that is just one way of looking at it. 3 it is not a widely accepted as I have again already said. you once again did not refute that it is accepted as a science in some places not all. they accept it has a form of science because it has a high degree of logic in which the more accepted sciences once fell under back in the days of Darwin when they refused to accept his theories of evolution they considered science of that sort to be plasphemy and so refused to accept it until much later in time. is there any other way to debate such a loose topic that has no other way form of proof other then theory in which this debate is all formed Einstein's theory is the biggest one used so far and it is just as easily refuted as the worm hole theory accept that it is from someone who is well looked up to and so is not to be thrown out until after it has been disproven.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

(1) "...philosophical debate. reading writing and seeing is a form of mental travel the only current way of time travel into the past..." I still fail to see (and you failed to have shown) how reading, writing, observing, or remembering are forms of transportation. As reference, I suggest to review the definitions of read, write, observe, and remember and you will see that travel has nothing to do with these: http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) "...worm holes and black holes are a a passage into the past however we do not have any way of getting to a black hole or of surviving the travel though them..." Einstein said "time is what clocks measure" and what do clocks measure? Change. Therefore time is change or time = change. Now as far as wormholes are concerned, there is no empirical evidence for them so they are (as of now) completely hypothetical. Blackholes, on the other hand, have the distinction of having been observed time and time again but, it is not clear at all what would happen if one (or anything for that matter) would traverse a blackhole; however, I believe that time travel isn't one of them. Why? Who says time is something that you "can travel" anyways? This is a common misconception; it's an exercise in meaninglessness! Time = change; nothing more and nothing less. You can have more change (like time "speeds" up), less change (like time "slows" down), or no change (like time stays "still"), but you can't have "negative change". Additionally, this is in agreement with Relativity: time dilation (slowdown/speed up of time) and c (time stopping with reference to traveling at c.) (3) "...philosophical form which is a form of science while not a widely excepted form of travel it is a type of travel..." Philosophy, in the way we are referring to it here, is taught as one of the "arts" and in almost all universities is considered a BA or MA (arts) degree and not a BS or MS (sciences) degree. However, there is usually a high degree of logic involved in Philosophy (in general) which would provide a great deal of formality and structure but, to venture into the abstract interpretations of "travel" and so forth, would be an exercise in futility. If we are so free to stretch meanings "time" or "time travel" then we loose all substance and are left to vie for only our manner of debate which, quite frankly, transforms our debate into a choice style over substance.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

you are right which is why I said at the beginning and end that I was not going to debate that because you are right with are current knowledge that is available to the public and with out change there is no possible way to physically go back in time in which case the only way that this can properly be debated is by going into a philosophical debate because yes it was a debate lost before it was even started going by a physical debate so in order to make this an even debate is to make it a philosophical debate. reading writing and seeing is a form of mental travel the only current way of time travel into the past. (I tried to post a question and instead it excepted it so I went with it any ways) and based on are established theories worm holes and black holes are a a passage into the past however we do not have any way of getting to a black hole or of surviving the travel though them and so the only reasonable form of debate with the restrictions placed is to go with a philosophical form which is a form of science while not a widely excepted form of travel it is a type of travel.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

I respect your definition of time travel but, it is not the one that I am referring to in this argument nor is it the most commonly shared definition as quick Google search on "time travel" will reveal. I was however, referring to physical time traveling. I guess we should have possibly conversed on this in the Comments section but we did not. I really would like to stick the physical concept, though. On an aside note, I really fail to see how recalling memories, reading, writing, or seeing involves or requires any form of traveling? By extent, the only traveling or "time traveling" of this type is purely philosophical in nature and not "scientific" as I had mentioned from the start.
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

First of all defining time travel I define time travel as a window into the past not direct physical transportation back in time. Now with my definition out I strongly negate the resolution that you can not time travel into the past. My reference point is memories, writing, and stars in all three of these you can catch a glimpse of the past not always a full look into it but at least a small window into what has happened. my first point memories. Memories are a glimpse of the past while not always perfectly reliable it is a window that has been used often. my second point writing a much more reliable window then memories as memories fade and often become a little twisted though time. We have learned much form the writing of the Egyptians and many more from what they have written and so it becomes a window into the past. My third point is the stars what we see today is not happening now it is happening thousands of years ago and so when we see them die or when we see them born and grow we are watching a window of the past. many of the stars that we see are already dead and gone but still there from are point of view here at earth when in actuality the ones that we have just seen spring to life are already dead and gone. so with are current technology we can go into the past and have been doing it for hundreds of years while not physically but mentally. what more could we want. We are always going forward in time never back we can stop but not reverse and if we could would we want to?
Time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.

Based on our current knowledge of the Universe and the empirical evidence of our established theories, time travel to the past can never be possible. I would like the debate to stick to scientifically accepted theories and stay away from sci-fi or pseudo science. I'll take the position of Pro, i.e. that time travel to the past can never be possible based on our current knowledge of the Universe.
Rap Battle

Pro makes baseless assumptions about my family, past and love life I'm not a homosexual, though I do believe they deserve rights. I'm not a slave to a book, I'm not claiming it's right to hate a man for his decision to not take on a wife. Judging by the content in my dear friend Pro's post, he sexually desires my mother; their past encounters he boasts! My mother is sixteen years deceased now, she's compost so Pro is an admitted necrophiliac, dude. .. .that's gross. I pity the man behind the computer attacking my large vocabulary, I'll be sure to throw in a few nice words in his obituary. Pro's inability to procreate professionally has led to his increased use of profuse profanity Whilst Con constructs lyrical constraints upon Pro's typo's and mistakes You call me homosexual, familiar with the male genitalia and it's load; it's funny. .. .your verses are the only thing in this entire battle that blows.
Rap Battle

I see you're usin' big words as a man that can't even rap What's all this "Intellectually, ambidextrously, degenerate", crap? Sittin' there behind a computer screen talkin' out his neck This pansy as$ nerd needs to start recounting his Yu-Gi-Oh deck. Now I ain't gonna lie, I have watched Dora But listen here boy, talkin' to a real man like this i'll send you back to Bora-Bora You might not be Muslim, Hispanic or Asian But my man Trump will put you in a Prostration. It's no surprise to me you'll get bent over by old dudes, Cause when I'm done with you, you'll be fed through plastic tubes. I see you're a Consumer of the Arts, or at least that's what you say, No worries, God's real and I'll make sure you don't go to hell for being Gay. This guy talks like he can amount God to a nickel, Assuming what I believe in is a fake, yet reads Inheritance Cycle Now you might claim that it's just for entertainment, Funny though, you probably let your uncle tie you up till you're screamin' enslavement! I know that verse was long and it might be hard for you to comprehend But at least it's longer than the pen!s of your ex-boyfriend Now i'll finish this quick, something similar to what your Dad said, You must have 15 siblings cause all your mom does is Get down, arch her back and spread.
Rap Battle

First off, I've never had explicit intercourse with a mother; your first diss is a lie, I sigh, my intellectually challenged brother. No amount of words (or disses) can lead to your salvation; your worthless puny stanzas lead me to believe you have mental retardation. Go back to your body pillow and take off your fedora, You've got a third grade education, you learned english from Dora". I'm an intellectual, my rhymes are perpetual; ambidextrously smacking your lines which are supposed to be sexual I'm a consumer of the arts, you worship a god if you would just read the book, you'd realize he's a shod.... but wait, I forgot, you're barely literate; I'm 'bout to spit some curses now, you christian degenerate. En guard, I'll use my fiddle to whittle you in half I'll shower in your blood, little conservative trash, Then I'll mathematically split you in half as you burn, call me Nero... I would use your IQ....but I can't divide by zero.
Rap Battle

Sup, this motherfucka wants to challenge me Little does he know I already sent him crawlin' up a tree. Got him scared shtless he doesn't even know it Boutta grab his mom, start makin' her blow it. Now look, I see your name is ADHDavid Where the f*ck did you come up with that? Your Grandma's Grave bed? Got it written on her cornerstone with my name right next to it Why's that? Cause I gave her such good D that she couldn't handle a single bit. That's right, I just went the next level ova' But like I said, yo grandma's one level Lowa' Imma make this quick so you don't end up in an ashtray, Gotta make things good with your mom cause I like it my way. What's that? A third rhyme and it's not even may? Damn dude, shot my cum at your mom harder than Harambe.
abortion out!

< > And yet they have a vote in the matter, don't they? Men get to vote on abortion issues, so your point has just been utterly devastated. <> There is no 100% fool proof method of protection, short of abstinence. That is a fact. < > In the real world, a female that has just experienced such a trauma does not always consider pregnancy. Sometimes they just want to forget about the rape and try to move forward without giving that a thought. You are under the impression that every thinks just like you. They do not. In fact, many people have more common sense than you and cater to the lowest common denominator. How is a scared, recently raped, teenaged girl supposed to get her hands on the day-after pill??????????????????????????? < > Many people do not know how they feel about any given matter until they are faced with it. You can imagine how you'd feel all you like, but when it comes down to it, you just don't know until "it" is happening to you. < > Many, many, many people like having sex just for fun. They shouldn't have to take any planned-parenting courses just to have sex. That's crazy! < > Again, you're wrong. Pregnancy is something a person can "undo" and it happens everyday by moral and profession doctors in countries that condone it, like the USA. < > Your idea of responsibility is not for everyone and I'm glad that such fascism is fought daily by elected representatives that are progressive and forward-thinking. Thank you for the debate!
abortion out!

Responsibility of the men is not as strong as a woman's. Although the men who are sexually active are just as responsible as the women for a pregnancy, obviously women are the ones who would carry the consequences for the most part. If a woman was seriously concerned about becoming pregnant, she would assure her protection while being sexually active. < > However, that female has the choice to take Plan B (a day-after pill which can help prevent unwanted pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex). < > If a person was not emotionally strong enough to handle a pregnancy, that female should have resisted temptation and waited for a more prepared or suitable time period to become pregnant! Parental ability and responsibility should have been assessed before becoming sexually active. Pregnancy isn't something a person can just "take back" or "undo." That is probably the most IRRESPONSIBLE abortion factor.
abortion out!

Sometimes a dangerously complicated pregnancy requires an abortion to save the life of the pregnant female. Sometimes rape prompts an abortion. Sometimes the reality of raising a child becomes "real" once pregnancy occurs and potential parental abilities are assessed to be poorer than previously imagined, which results in a responsible abortion. There are many reasons why abortion has nothing to do with being irresponsible. Also, my opponent only makes mention of a woman's involvement. What about the responsibility of the men? < > My opponent knows not of what s/he posts.