BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's reasonable to believe in magic

Real quick, I'd like to say something to anaklusmos. There are 3 days to post an argument, so there's no rush. Just take what time you do have to consider what your sources say.Cross Examination:Moving to alchemy. What is alchemy? Merriam Webster defines it as "a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life". [https://www.merriam-webster.com...]The link you gave me was pretty big, and you haven't pointed to any specifics, so I can't really say you did a good job of using a source. Instead of just giving me a link, tell me what the link says, and how this affects your argument. Though I should've probably quoted my first argument myself.Moving on, I'll answer my opponent's question. "Are these accounts of alchemy explainable by any form of science whatsoever?" I Ctrl+F'd "gold" so I could pinpoint alchemy's well known transmutating metals into gold. You can find many accounts (fun fact: "gold" appears 43 times in the article) of such.So is it scientifically possible to transform a metal (specifically lead) into gold? Actually, yes! However, the process I found is pretty difficult. To quote ScientificAmerican, the source I'm using:"It is indeed possible—all you need is a particle accelerator, a vast supply of energy and an extremely low expectation of how much gold you will end up with. More than 30 years ago nuclear scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California succeeded in producing very small amounts of gold from bismuth, a metallic element adjacent to lead on the periodic table."[https://www.scientificamerican.com...]I'm not sure how the guys in the fourteenth century pulled off 50,000 pounds of gold, though. I want to lean towards him already having the gold beforehand, though I really can't say for sure. This topic's definitely interesting and worth researching. Another question that rises is; Is alchemy magic?While it seems like magic, and might be considered by some to be magic, alchemy is really a form of chemistry, though definitely fascinating.
It's reasonable to believe in magic

The Bible may have no historical accounts of it's listed actions of Jesus but an art that has been practiced for millennia and has many historical accounts is alchemy. Alchemy has been accounted throughout history by notable persons and civilizations from as early as ancient Egypt to the present. I don't have much time at the moment so I leave you with this link and a question. Are these accounts of alchemy explainable by any form of science whatsoever? https://www.alchemylab.com...
It's reasonable to believe in magic

I'll begin by posting my arguments against magic, then refuting my opponent's opening argument.Argument:1) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Here's a source, http://www.physicscentral.com...;.For example, when you eat an apple, it goes through several physical and chemical changes through your body, but the mass and energy contained in the apple still exists. The energy goes into your body, and whatever's left goes in the toilet. You can't create matter, it has to come from somewhere. There also hasn't been any way to remove mass from existence either.2) We haven't seen real magic.Ever been to a magic show? It seems like they're really turning doves into swans and making things disappear, but in reality, they're tricks. For example, when they use smoke, they use it to hide coming out/in trap doors. They also use mirrors and various other tools.You should check out the Masked Magician, who exposes many magic tricks. Here's a video where he shows how to survive a spike trap: https://www.youtube.com......Rebuttal:Of course, my opponent uses a biblical story to prove magic. There's a few concerns regarding this approach:1) If Jesus really could walk on water, how come I haven't seen this outside of the Masked Magician's video (which he uses fiberglass as platforms), and cartoons? To my knowledge, biblical feats haven't been able to be replicated, even by loyal theists.2) Can Jesus's feats be proven to happen? My opponent's source even states "we can’t verify that Jesus performed miracles, or that he is the Son of God—these are theological ideas, not historical statements." [Third paragraph, opponent's presented link]3) The bible isn't accurate 100% of the time. Paragraph 6 in my opponent's source goes on about some inaccuracies, such as whether Herod was present and whether Mary could be pregnant. This puts the bible's historical accuracy into question.
It's reasonable to believe in magic

Magic is present throughout much of history. Many have had accounts of magic such as the men of the Bible accounting, "Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[b] 7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." 11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." This demonstrates thatJohn specifically witnessed this form of magic as one may call it along with all of the guests at the wedding. It could be argued that the Bible is a work of fiction. This I counter via this. "In truth, the Bible gets things historically correct..." As stated by Bible Odyssey. This quote has been slightly abridged and I sadly do not have the time to read the entire article so I leave you with this link and my ration. http://www.bibleodyssey.org...
It's reasonable to believe in magic

Recently I've been seeing advertisements about magic on this site. So I decided to make this debate, to see if anyone would defend the notion that magic exists.Definitions:Magic; the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forceshttps://www.merriam-webster.com......Exist; to have real being whether material or spiritual, in this worldhttps://www.merriam-webster.com......Rules:1) The Burden of Proof will be mainly on Pro to show magic likely exists, but I'll also bring a few arguments that show it probably doesn't.2) We won't be arguing whether magic exists in media (like video games or TV), but whether it exists in this world. Also, science doesn't count as magic.3) It's preferred to have sources alongside your arguments, but they can and will be open to critique by the opposing side.4) Make sure you're willing to participate until the end. If you don't have time or aren't willing to post an argument in a round, type anything. A bluff, "anything", or along the lines of "I'm passing this round".(If there's anything you'd like added to this debate, say so in the comments before accepting.)I'm arguing that magic doesn't, or at least can't be shown to, exist in this world.
It's reasonable to believe in magic

Proving magic exists is an incredibly difficult task, which is why many ads concerning magical cures or spells are often passed off (and proably are) scams. I'll summarize my points as to why people, including myself, believe magic to be fake:1) Magicians often use tricks in their magic. Whether it's a hidden compartment, fake weapons, or sleight of hand, I can probably guess what a magician's secrets are.2) It's near impossible to actually prove magic. A video can be dismissed as editing or a trick. We also can't prove Jesus did such as we only have text. (Proving the bible is accurate is a debate in itself, but it has contradictions and implausibilities. Not to mention the circular "Believe the bible because it was made by God. I know this because the bible says so. ")3) Alchemy's the closest you could get, but it's still closely tied to chemistry and science. It's up for debate whether alchemy would count, but as it relies more on chemicals over spells, it's a science.
Our eyes cannot see the difference between any two things

::Rebuttals:: 1."Your eyes cannot see the difference between any two things." Yes they can "the organ of sight". http://dictionary.reference.com... 2."Only your mind can see the difference between things." The mind doesn't do that "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc." http://dictionary.reference.com... ::Clarification:: What do you mean in "BETWEEN" and why is it all capital letters ?
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

"You never acknowledged my argument that he went back in time or the corresponding proof. " There's no actual "proof" in this debate. It's all theoretical. The topic of multiple universes is unrelated. There doesn't need to be different universes. And if the universe implodes, it doesn't make it a draw. The topic is whether or not Jack fails in his mission to stop Aku. Since the universe imploding would stop Aku, you would vote CON in the event of implosion. "Now I plead to the readers of this debate and urge them to vote not for the simplest argument but the smartest and most logical argument. Vote for the argument that thoroughly explains his theory. Think deeply about which argument is more sound even if it is complex. " I agree. But if mine is simple and right, I should still win. I'm going to provide a final analogy to help clarify my argument. Time is nothing but a dimension. So, we'll use another dimension for the analogy: distance. We have three locations: Location A, Location B, and Location C. I am at Location A. Now, if we I am traveling by normal means, this means that I must walk through Location B in order to get to Location C. However, I am at Location A and I am teleported to Location C. I have never visited Location B. However, there is something at Location B that I can do that will altar Location C. Having not visited Location B YET, Location C remains unaltered. Location C will remain unaltered until I go back to Location B. Just because I haven't gone back YET and altered it YET doesn't mean that I ultimately fail to do so. Now, apply this to time. We have three times: Time A, Time B, and Time C. Traditionally, you must go through Time B in order to reach Time C. However, I am in Time A and am teleported to Time C. I have never visited Time B. However, if there is something in Time B that if I do, it altars Time C. But since I have not gone back to Time B YET, Time C remains unaltered. This show simply takes place while Samurai Jack has reached Time C before he travels back in Time to Time B to altar something. It remains logical that in order for him to have incentive to go back in time in the first place, there must be a period before he goes back in time. This is all the show is showing. You have to reemmber that simply another dimension. It works no different than distance.
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

My opponent has noted that in his opinion I did not give reason to how his logic presented a loop but that is not the case I clearly stated that though young Jack missed out on the events older Jack would have if he was successful in finding a portal home. And if he did get home and beat Aku if would be visible to younger Jack because it would have already happened in the past even though he technically hadn't done it yet, but it wasn't. This is why I said his logic presented a loop that would have been visible but it isn't meaning no loop thus flawed logic. Though it has not happened to him yet doesn't mean it hasn't already happened to his older self have you ever herd of the past effecting the future? This is not a paradox it can be solved if he went to the past and won no world takeover if he lost that stops the loop. Also even if the universe did take Aku out in a paradox caused implosion Jack still didn't succeed in his mission because he didn't defeat Aku himself in fact it would be a draw. To my argument: You never acknowledged my argument that he went back in time or the corresponding proof. Finally since you had to bring the universe into it I have to add this Aku threw him into the future but the future is undetermined bringing up the topic of multiple universes so if the future is undetermined any future he was thrown into would only be a possible future from another universe. So based on what we've seen this would be one possible future where he most likely failed. But in the off chance he didn't fail (which is not true) in the infinite other dimensions he did fail at least once sense every universe has to have a different outcome. This means that he will have won somewhere but my debate is not about if he won but about the fact that ultimately he failed and somewhere he did. Now I plead to the readers of this debate and urge them to vote not for the simplest argument but the smartest and most logical argument. Vote for the argument that thoroughly explains his theory. Think deeply about which argument is more sound even if it is complex. Your turn and good luck in the polls.
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

1.) My opponent did not give any reasoning as to how my logic presented a loop. He simply said that it presented a loop. Therefore, I extend all of my arguments. 2.) Jack is trying to get back in time to an event that he was initially removed from. Until he reaches that event, he cannot be counted as failing, because it hasn't yet happened. His time-travel back to the point where he wants to be at hasn't yet happened. Therefore, he has not had his chance to get rid of Aku yet, so of course he is still in power. 3.) Let's say that it presents a "time loop". I still maintain that you offered no reasoning for such a loop, but for the sake of argument, I will continue. Since this loop would create a paradox of events, the universe would be unable to function, and it would destroy itself. Even though this isn't what Jack wants it would stop Aku, because he would be destroyed along with the universe. Which means that Jack is successful.
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

Second, though I like my opponent's way of thinking I cannot accept his way of thinking for two reasons: One, if I accept my opponent's theory as is it would mean instant loss for me and this is forgetting the fact that it's incomplete because in reality it would be in a complete loop. Two, my opponent's thinking is flawed and the loop is broken if we were to complete the loop he's started it would still lead to the inevitable ending where Jack fails. Why? Because the only way for Jack to succeed in his mission of stopping Aku is to go back in time and stop him from taking over the world. This all would have occurred in the past and would be apparent in the future unless he was killed. So if it isn't apparent in the future then that means it never happened and if it never happened he either died or never went back to his time which is even worse than going back and losing like a man. And I would win. But that is not the case because I have substantial evidence that gives me reason to believe he did go back but failed. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Find the section that says plot read the last paragraph excluding the part where it says he was predestined to succeed that is pure speculation by the writer and therefore cannot be used as evidence. This shows that most likely he did go back to his time period and failed as the future clearly shows and as they say time waits for no one not even Jack.
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

Second, though I'm not actually a fan of the series, I do know it and know what it's about, so I can understand this debate. Third, for the purpose of the debate, I will be looking at time as linear. If my opponent wishes to argue this framework, I'll listen to what he proposes as an alternate view of time (which, logically, would either be cyclical or every event according at once, and time just being a collection of various moments). Depending his argument as to why to accept a different view of time, I will accept or decline it. However, I urge him to accept the framework as time as linear, as the is the simplest and most obvious explanation, and the other two explanations lack empirical evidence. Now, on to my case. The plot revolves around Jack going back in time to stop Aku from attaining power in the current future that Jack has been sent into. If I'm understanding my opponent's argument, it's basically since that Aku is still in power, Jack has failed and will always fail. Now, consider this: The events that Jack missed while travelling through time have already happened without him attempting to stop Aku. Since Jack was removed from these events initially, Aku will always be in power until Jack has travelled to an event in the past where his presence would make a difference. So, in order for my opponent to win the debate, he has to prove that Jack has already travelled back in time to every event where his presence would have made a difference and failed. Basically, until Jack travels back in time to an event where his presence makes a difference, Aku will always be in power. Since he was removed from those events initially, he did not have a chance to stop Aku in all of them. By travelling back in time, he is altering the as-of-yet unaltered past. As long as some of this past remains unaltered, Jack has not failed in his mission.
Samurai Jack ultimately fales in his mission to stop Aku

It's simple do to theoretical time mechanics and basic logic it can be deduced that even if he dose make it back to his time period he failed in his atempt to kill Aku all because of how the future is already. But I will give my opponent the opportunity to prove me wrong before I start on my argument I really only need two rounds. P.S. Please only except this debate if you know the series don't just go and research at the last minute you won't get the gist of the show from reading it. Your turn
TV and Films Influence Children More than Their Parents Do

The resolution was meant to umbrella those who do watch. Most of the households that do not have TV are the ones who cannot afford it, but they often have DVDs to watch. Those who do not have TV nor see films are those who do not own a television set at all, which is notably prominent in older people whose children have moved out. Considering that 96.7 percent of American households own a television set and others use Internet devices to view shows and films [1], the resolution should not need to be that specific. On the whole, parents are overshadowed by the media. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com...
TV and Films Influence Children More than Their Parents Do

Hello, and welcome to my debate. The following terms must be adhered to, or the offender of said terms risks forfeiting all points. If you accept this debate, you must do so with the intent to participate seriously. No trolls, please. No forfeits. Please use correct spelling and grammar. It doesn't have to be perfect, only be to the best of your ability. Proofread before submitting. Make sure any citation links work. They should direct to the page from which the information used was taken. Please be cordial. Any argumentum ad hominem from any party will not be tolerated, including commenters. For the sake of clarity, Pro (me) will be arguing that television and films have a greater impact on children than do their parents. Con will argue that parents are more influential over their children than TV and films. The format of this debate will be as follows: -First round (R1) is acceptance. Please, no arguments here. -R2: I will begin with my argument. Con will begin with his or her rebuttal and / or argument. -R3: I will rebut Con's R2 argument. Con will respond to my rebuttal. -R4: I will post my final argument and closer. Con will post final rebuttal and closer. This debate is open to anyone who wants to accept it. I look forward to debating. Thanks in advance.
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

You said The answer to your question is how we got all the races from Black people. You are asking 'why are there not varying degrees of skin-tone' but there absolutely are. Brown-Asians are lighter than black people but darker than Arabs and the sunlight of their region is directly correlated with that. Arabs are lighter than the south Asians but darker than the east Asians and Europeans on either side of them which each have less hot climates and less intense sunlight. My response I'm not saying their aren't I was asking why haven't the east Asians acquired a darkened skin tone e.g Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese ect the climate is practically the same as the climate in certain parts of Africa such as South Africa. Also if a Caucasian decide they wanted to live outside without sun-screen how long would it take he/she to acquire a dark skin tone also would they lose the skin to if he/she decided to relocate or live indoors?
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

The answer to your question is how we got all the races from Black people. You are asking 'why are there not varying degrees of skin-tone' but there absolutely are. Brown-Asians are lighter than black people but darker than Arabs and the sunlight of their region is directly correlated with that. Arabs are lighter than the south Asians but darker than the east Asians and Europeans on either side of them which each have less hot climates and less intense sunlight.Lighter skin does better than darker skin with less sunlight because lighter skin loses less heat due to the same reason it gains less heat. Lighter colours insulate better (take in and let out less heat) than darker colours which conduct better.https://www.colormatters.com...I've also explained why eventually evolution has stopped and why for the past few centuries since we've invented buildings and other inventions to help protect against all kind of natural selection factors we've ended up making race not matter in one's chances to survive and reproduce.
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

Thank you for posting your argument (You said) Due to inventions that didn't exist back in the days of the more ancient humans, such as sunscreen, air conditioning, buildings themselves (guaranteed shelter no matter where you are from all kinds of outside natural threats), the entire natural selection of the human species racially has become defunct. It's so extreme that there is actually no justification at all for being racist anymore and all more economically and scientifically advances nations are moving towards acceptance of all races and towards not just tolerance but intolerance towards the mentality that wishes to segregate them as there no longer is any advantage to being any race and this is a scientific fact because you don't have to be a basketballer at all, nor do you need to be a particular career at all. We live in a world that's moving away from survival of the fittest and towards making everyone 'fittest' by their own definition of the term in a context where they can somehow shine and that's a great and beautiful thing. My response Yes some of those inventions didn't exist back in the day but you would see them have a slightly darkened skin tone to account for the hundreds of years they didn't have those also inventions also yes they might not have had buildings but they would've definitely had built shelters to protect them from the harsh sun also civilisation in places like China have been around for 4,000 years they would have to wait a long time for the invention of sunscreen, air conditioning and especially when building cities they would spend a long time outside but evidently no form of evolution has taken place on them.