BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The big bang happened

If nothing ever happened according to the universe, then we dont exist, I do not understand your logic. The big bang must have happened, because our universe is expanding, we can trace it back to a starting point, the big bang. Here are some pictures I found on the web, i hope you like them! As you can see the starting point is the red-orange section, then it expands, eventually making the universe we have today. Here is a timeline. Here is the cosmic microwave background we were presented with in 2012 Dark Matter During the 1970s and 1980s, various observations showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter has always been controversial, it is inferred by various observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.[78] Indirect evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, as no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.[79] Above we have a pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the universe, according to the best ΛCDM model fits – roughly 95% is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energy I hope the voters like my presentation, I pass the debate on to con.
The big bang happened

Argument Against The ResolutionP1: If it is not the case that at least one thing has happened with regards to the universe, The Big Bang did not happenP2: It is not the case that at least one thing has happened with regards to the universeC: Therefore, The Big Bang did not happenThe argument is logically valid via Modus Ponens, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. Defense Of P1P1 is true necessarily. If nothing has ever happened with regards to the universe, then The Big Bang couldn't have happened, because The Big Bang would have been something that happened with regards to the universe. Pretty straight forward. The controversial premise will be P2. Defense Of P2I will argue that time doesn't apply to the universe or have any ontologically existence pertaining to the universe. Since this is the case, the Big Bang couldn't have "happened" because time needs to be applied to the universe for events to ontologically occur. Basically, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that most likely describes our universe (based on most Loop Quantum Gravity models and Superstring Theory models) has no time unit. This means that nothing ever happens. As a quote from a physicist article points out:"The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence."[1]So, how do we reconcile the Wheeler-DeWitt equation with observation and experience of time? Well, we can say that time is an illusion. However, is there any evidence of this? In fact a recent experiment confirmed it [2]. What the scientists were able to do is entangle particles in a toy universe, and show that to any inside observer, they would experience an illusion of time, but the universe would really be static and unchanging. Since the particles in the toy universe are entangled exactly how they are in the real universe, the same concept applies, and the same conclusion can be drawn in that regard. ConclusionSince time is an illusion, that means it doesn't really exist ontologically. That means there is no actual time for anything to happen, thus, The Big Bang couldn't have happened. This view is consistent with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang, as The Big Bang "13,7 years ago" would just be a static point, not an event that happened. This holds for any point that we would call "in time". The universe isn't actually expanding in reality, it is only what we observe, but what we observe is based on the illusion of time, which the Wheeler-DeWitt equation tells us plays no part in reality. Since the argument I presented is logically valid, and the premises are true; the conclusion follows. Sources[1] https://medium.com...[2] http://www.newscientist.com...
The big bang happened

Here are my reasons for my opinion: 1. Universal Expansion Scientists have knows for many years that our universe is expanding, so, all we have to do is trace that expansion back to a starting point, a point in time (T=0) when everything started, today we call it "The Big Bang. 2. Energy cannot be destroyed, nor created. This is actually a viable point, if energy can't be destroyed or created, it has been around forever, as we know, energy can cause friction, creating heat, making the Big Bang particle to intensly hot. 3. For the Christians According to the bible, God said "Let there be light" in my opinion, that sounds alot like the Big Bang, i. e a huge "Bang". This part has nothing to do with the initial secular debate we are having, i just wanted to point out that The Big Bang doesnt violate the Bible. Thanks again to my opponent. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... I await my opponents rebuttals. :)
The big bang happened

My opponent's logic is flawed, because his logic begs the question (which is fallacious). He says if time doesn't exist, then things couldn't get smaller, larger, debates cannot "happen', and the birth process couldn't occur. I agree with all of that. The problem with my opponent is that due to time being an illusion, that things getting smaller and larger and bigger are also illusions, things happening are illusions, and all processes are illusions. Ontologically, each step of this debate exists as a timeless collection. Therefore, the debate didn't "happen", but it is still very real. My birth didn't "happen", yet, it is very real. If time doesn't exist, then our births are just as real as our death, however, we still only experience a finite time interval. So, is this debate a waste of time? No, because time doesn't exist. There is no time to waste ontologically, we only experience the illusion of time. Basically, my opponent is taking things which I already proved were illusions (things that require time, like aging), and saying that because those things are real, time must exist. However, those things are not real, specifically for the very reason that time doesn't exist. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation describing the universe lacks a time unit, and this equation is the basis for most Quantum Gravity Models. The Toy Universe experiment I provided that our experience of time comes from the nature of quantum entanglement, and confirms the Wheeler-DeWitt equation's prediction of a timeless universe. I also provided an argument that because of the 4d spacetime fabric, that if we assume time exists, it must be tenseless time. With tenseless time, there is no temporal becoming, and nothing happens. In conclusionI argued that because reality lacks temporal becoming, nothing could have happened, nothing happens, and nothing will happen. Things "happening" are illusory. However, since this is the case, then The Big Bang couldn't have happened (since that would be something that happened). Ergo, the resolution is false.
Rhyming contest

Son you say? Oh hey you're my mom! C'mon, you look like Rosie O'Donnell mixed with Susan Boyle. You should wrap your face in some tin foil. How did it feel when you gave birth to me? Did I destroy your insides and wreck your belly? Yeah, I knew I did. Since I was so massive, you just couldn't handle me. As you can see, I've been abusing you since day one. I remember when dad had some fun. My fave is when we tagged teamed you. We kept hitting you with shoes and you flew half way across the room.
Rhyming contest

Hey fool this gonna make you drool on the stool, hello what can i say, okay you gonna sleep in slime your words flow like grime, your rap is crud you are a dud sitting in the mud, bawling cuz your words are stalling! you wanna bring up the poo? call me a shrew? I don't think you've got what it takes, if ya stay in this rap you gonna bake! Ive already won cus im number one! beat that son.
Rhyming contest

I don't think I should even drop a line to this worthless slime, but I'm going to because my rhymes are sublime. It really should be a crime since your head will become red and it will put you to bed. Good luck because you'll need it. I'll send out my favorite wood chuck, he'll go ham like a ram that slams into the caravan. By the way your in the caravan yelling may day! Sorry to break it to you no one is here to help you. You're a worthless shrew. fling you in a pile of poo. Then stomp on you.
God is a Delusion

Last round I ran out of space and neglected to address the hidden premise of the KCA--that the cause is God. As shown, P.1 is clearly false and P.2 is problematic, but even if we accept those premises and thus the conclusion that the universe has a cause, there's no reason to conclude that this cause is God. Con's argument is that the cause must be abstract and that minds are the only abstract objects with causal power. However, he hasn't actually shown that minds are abstract. Clearly ideas and consciousness are both abstract, but there's no reason to believe the brain is abstract; rather, the brain creates mental states and mental events. We have no reason to believe anything abstract has any causal power at all; at least independent of their material foundations, i.e. consciousness independent of a brain. Why should we believe consciousness exists independent of the brain? Con hasn't made any argument for substance dualism. I've given alternatives to the personal omnipotent cause, such as an abstract world that gave rise to materiality. Or idealism, in which everything that exists is abstract. The latter would rid us of the problem of having an abstract entity creating a material universe out of nothing. The former is not any less plausible than God. There could also be multiple causes of the universe instead of just one. Moreover, the cause cannot transcend time because the notion of cause and effect assumes that the cause comes before the effect in time. From special relativity we know that time and space do not exist independent of each other, so the cause can also not transcend space. (As mentioned, special relativity also brings P.2 into question).
God is a Delusion

I will now respond to my opponents counters to my arguments in the same style as he did previouslyKCA First my opponent says that we don't know what happened before the Big bang singularity and therefore can't say that was the start of the universe. He ignores the evidence from the second law of thermodynamics, which shows that our universe's energy and matter must have come from somewhere at some finite point because otherwise it would have existed forever and there would be no energy-content in our universe at all. That is proof there was a beginning. Whenever and however that happened, it doesn't disprove the evidence I have brought to show my second premise is true, at least more true than its negation, which is all you need to demonstrate about your premises to have made a sound logical argument.My opponent then says we never see anything begin to exist, but only exist ex materia. But of course objects begin to exist and space-time is an object which did have a beginning point.Finally my opponent objects to the idea a mind has to be the cause of the universe, but this is simply non sequiter arguing because I have explained why a mind must cause the universe- it is abstract and has causal power. Other abstract objects do not have such power.Fine-tuning argument My opponent posits a multiverse to explain the improbablity of a fine-tuned universe, but offers no evidence for it beyond speculative theories. I have provided evidence for this argument and he disputes that, but even if the hypotheiss of god seems unreasonable, it comes from logical argunment and should be taken as true until he disputes the premises. The moral argumentI have appealed to intuition in this argument and simply said we simply observe moral values and duties. It's not my duty to prove them, we just sense them. I appeal to people think of something really wrong and see if there is any time or place it would be good to perform said action or behgaviour. If there is not then my argument is sound and holds as proof of God.Your turn.
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

This again? 1Defenition of brainwash: Make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. (Merrian-Webster) That does not mean just personal beliefs, or physical beliefs, it could be any type of belief you like! This is open to interpretation! What about a belief that you are a fresh baked muffin? Would you have the agenda of a human? Of course not! Your sole purpose is to be delicious for the person that eats you. Think about that for a dictator: what if you believed you had no personal bias, no actual opinoin on anything and a benevolent mind? You would total Queen-of-the-world material.This again? 2 I said that Mitt Romney changed his stance on abortion simply because he was a republican. Coulden't Sarah Palin become a better person just because she had complete control of the world? And also a little brainwashing might help?As for your second reason, I have a story for you. Back on the metaphorical apple farm, sometimes apples landed on top of other apples. Those apples were unrulu and caused a bit of trouble, since they bruised the lower apples. There where fiestier apple still that fell off the tree and took all of the apples on it with them. Soon, I had to duct tape all of the metaphorical apples to their respective trees until they were ready for picking. After that solution was made, all was well, and the apples were sent to there normally scheduled ride to the factory to be mashed up and made into baby oil and to color different assortments of festive bubblegum. My point here is that I'm right, you're wrong and I am the best at making good metaphors.Relutiblublius:1. I meant that sometimes it was a good thing to have tyrants, and quite a few romans did it without becoming corrupted (before Ceaser, of course.)2. http://www.helpguide.org...I like linking to studies. And puppies!
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

Defense 1My opponent fails. He fails to see that I was stating a figure of speech in my statment about "all of the training in the world". What I am to point out that evenn if we were to brainwash her she would either still become currupt because that is whjat happens to ALL humans beings when they are given power over all. He then ends with a sad metaphorical statment that case at all.Defense 2My opponent then brings up Mitt Romney as an example, which does not help him. For one, abortion bans are a violation of women's civil right and another thing he brings up the risk that I stated in mthe last round. I said if Palin were to become a mindless drone of someone else other then herself then she would be under the control of one of three groups, the church and the corporations (in this case it could be both), which is what she already does if you take a look at her policies. Or the people themselves, in which there would be no reason to have a "Queen of the Earth" anyways. So really, my opponent has done nothing here but help me.Refutations1. My opponent has no point here, so I will dismiss it until he actually comes up with something that helps him.2. Puppies are irrelevant to this debate.
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

Defense 1"All of the training the world would not help her." You say that all of the training...in the world? On google there are 2,110,000,000 results for training[1], and I doubt that is all the training in the world. Training to become totally un-corrupt, un-meanie and un-sarah palin? She could train as much as a crazy train, and also train in the world. Think of a metaphorical, erm, train. You get on a the train when you are a sarah palin. But you came out as a leader of the world. Seventy chugga chugga miles of choo choo!Defense 2'Politicians are not drones, they are a lot of times ruthless and tyrrancal." Republicans have to believe what republicans believe. Mitt Romney had to change his stance on abortion because he was a republican. Definition 4 of "drones" on dictionary.com: "a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer." Did Mitt Romney really have to think to accomplish that? Its not like he was: "Oh I have a great idea. I could be pro life!" He did it because others were doing it, like a drone.Refutation 1 & 21. Before Ceaser, being a tyrant was a good things. They took absolute power and steared a crumbling society into the the right direction. Now we associate them as the metaphorical evil apple in the batch of good leader apples. If you ate the bad apple nowadays, you would probably spit it out, and then (metaphorically) protest against it wearing V for Vendetta masks. In the old days, the tyrant was the metaphoricaly metaphor of a golden apple. You wouldent be able to eated, because it is to hard for your teeth. But you can worship it because it is shiny. And throw at people to impale them.2. I dismiss this argument because you havent posted a picture of yourself holding not one but two puppies. No you haven't. She has.I will a-now will a-wait my a-opponent's response.[1]Citation
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

Defense 1My opponent has not proven anything in this. All of the training the world would not help her. It is not her leadership skills I am attacking, it is what happens when people get a hold on too much power. They become corrupt and have no restraint. I would also like to point out to my opponent that whether or not she commands from space or not is irrelevant.Defense 2My opponent admits that her ideas are horrible, and then goes on to say that Palin would be subjected to "training". However, that last part is absurd, if she would become "Queen of the Earth" then she would have complete control over everything and everyone. Politicians are not drones, they are a lot of times ruthless and tyrrancal. Plus, if she were to be a mindless drone who would control her? The Church? Corporations? They people? if that be the case then the first two would still be tyrrany, and if the second were so then "Queen of the Earth" would not exist.Refutation 1 & 21. Simple mindedness is over powered by tyrrany. It is too big of a risk, and a very bad idea at that.2. I like puppies too. I doubt everyone thinks I should be "King of the Earth". I will now await my opponent's response.
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

Although, I do see a couple problems here:The tragedy of a world leater(Part II: Rebutzel)The problem with you is that you don't have an open mind. Sure, those guys commanded countries. But did they command countries-From a space base in the sky? No. Will Sarah Palin command the world-From a space base in the sky? I have know idea. But there is actually, like, a fifty fifty chance. Also, leading the world takes practice. Did I eat the largest bag of Crunch To The Max (TM) Lard chips in one day? No. Will Sarah Palin complete her Queen Training in one day? No. She'll approach ruling the world the same way one might approach a king sized bag of Crunch To The Max (TM) Lard chips; with experience. Sarah Palin is a meanie :( (Part II;Rebuttalina)I know. She has the stupidest beliefs since I believed it would be a good idea to be a proffesional lard enthusiast. But once she goes through the intense training exercises for the mind, hair, and spirit, she will be a mindless drone who is easily manipulated. But really, isn't this what polititions are, but on a much larger scale? She will be the super-politition of earth. She will be the great gift that we will give to the crap we have put up with all these yearsNow here is my case:1. She knows everything simple. Look at the link below, where she gracefully states that "Bad Guys Don't Follow Laws. " This observation is the epitome of the obvious human condition: Everything is black and white. If your bad, your bad. If your good, your good. Nothing else exists. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;2. Sarah Palin loves puppies. http://xfinity.comcast.net...puppies!!!
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

Rebuttel 1My opponent has no point here. Russia is to far away from Alaska to actually see it [1]. Furthermore, I would like to point out anyone could fill in that job if it were really an issue. Russia is not our enemy anymore [2].Rebuttel 2As to his second point, it really fairs no better then the first. He claims that she has leadership abilities however, she is not the only person with leadership experience. I would also like to as that he clarity what "four or five people in Alaska" are. But I will refute this further in my negative case.Rebuttel 3This does not help his case in the slightest bit. Rebuttel 4This is no better then my opponent's third point.Rebuttel 5Indeed. So does the rest of the politicians.My CaseContention 1:The Threat that Comes from a World Leader.We have seen time and again that having a totalitarian form of government leads to tyrrany and other horrible things. We have seen Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and others who have gained complete control over single countries and have destroyed their's and other countries around them, because why? They had too much power given to them [3]. Having Sarah Palin become undisputed "Queen of the Earth" would no doubt end in the same thing only on a more massive scale.Contention 2: Sarah Palin is an enemy of Liberty.Sarah Palin has shown many times that she hates liberty. I will state three examples.1. She is against legalized abortions even in the case of rape and incest or when the mother's life is threatend. She is therefore, against women's rights to self-ownership and freedom of theirn own body [4]. She is even against birth control of any kind [5], which further intells her hatred of women's rights even though she is a woman herself.2. She is against gay rights [5]. She against both Same-Sex Marriage and same sex couples adopting children. She therefore, hates another group of peoples. She is against them on the because her religion tells her so therefore, she is against Se Church and sState making her against against the rights of different religious and known religious people as well.3. She is also against dind including use as a means of medicine. She shows yet again he opposision for people's rights to self-ownership. I will now await response.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://wiki.answers.com...[3]http://answers.yahoo.com...[4]http://www.alternet.org...'s_9_most_disturbing_beliefs/[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...;