BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time Travel is (theoretically) and will eventually be possible

I am Pro (affirming) the statement that Time Travel is possible. I will present the reasoning why. Time is defined as the numerically induced events between point 'a' and point 'c' where 'a' is infinitely in the past and 'c' is infinitely in the future, and point 'b' is the now (which philosophically is described as '.0000...1 (with the '0' recurring infinitely)). Time Travel will be defined as the ability to change the patterns and energies of atoms to look as though as if it were younger or older. I present the first argument that time is man made. We do not need time to exist, because we have defined it for ourselves. When the first homo sapiens came into being, they did not have a concept of time. They lived without it. Therefore, we also have the ability to live without it, because we had to ability to birth it and to kill it (in a metaphorical sense of it being 'alive'). Therefore, by taking away time, we have the ability to control and manipulate it. Therefore, I proceed to my second point. We have the ability to transport people. http://inventors.about.com... With this ability we can disintegrate and successfully reintegrate that person into a being. So if we have the ability to take atoms and destroy the energy that is between them, and we have the ability to take those atoms, rip them apart, and rearrange them, then why not rearrange those atoms in a copied order that looks like the original 'data' but a younger or older version that is approximated. For example, if we were to do this on a planetary scale. Since nothiing is truly destroyed, and energy and atoms just go through formational changes, then is it possible to say that we could restructure a person through transportation technology and make them look younger by recconecting the energies to outline a copied form of it's original person? Yes. We could therefore bend time in a way. Since time can be possible to not exist, we can take things that lay outside of it, and replicate them in different ways. Therefore we are restructured beings, defining the time and matter reoccurence of age. Message me if you have any complaints or questions (or if you are confused).
debate is pointless

My opponent must prove that debate is pointless AND that it sucks, while I must prove that it is either not pointless or it does not suck. I will, for now, only attempt to prove that debate is not pointless. Pointless: devoid of effectiveness (Merriam-Webster) Contention 1: Proof by Contradiction Let us assume for a moment that my opponent is correct, and that debate is indeed pointless. My opponent must prove this, by winning this debate. But if my opponent wins, then my opponent has effectively utilized this debate, and debate is therefore NOT pointless, so I win. If my opponent does not win, then I won and since I effectively utilized debate, debate is still not pointless. If the debate is a tie, nothing is proven; this does not prove that debate is pointless, but instead only fails to prove that debate is not pointless. So if my opponent wins, I win; if I win, I win; if it's a tie, it's a tie. So in any situation, it is impossible for my opponent to win this debate.
debate is pointless

My opponent presumes that I have forfeited, when in fact I am the only side who has posted any arguments. Because of this blatant manipulation, conduct goes to me. Since my opponent has repeatedly started a sentence without capitalization, S&G also goes to me. I have one, unrefuted argument, while my opponent has no arguments. The arguments vote also goes to me. I have one source (Merriam-Webster), while my opponent has none. Sources as well goes to me. If you vote for my opponent, I will be disappointed in your reasoning abilities. So please vote for me.
Ultimate Team War: GeorgeCarlinWorshipper Style

TACTIC ONE CONT: Leave it to Goku! ======================== I have to question legitimacy of PRO's first source as it makes several statements which are most inaccurate with the manga. In fact, Goku describes the technique here and he never says anything about moving in a pocket dimension: http://www.mangavolume.com... Furthermore, we've seen it used as a combat technique when he fought Cooler (first video: 1:44 and on)http://www.youtube.com... ). Moreover, that is all besides point. The fact of the matter is that my opponent is insisting that Goku does not possess the proper neuron efficiency needed to perform the tactic which I have summed up. However, my opponent is most incorrect. Take for instance Yamcha's battle with a saibaman who merlely had a stated power level of 1200. As you can see here, Gohan thinks that both Yamcha and the strange alien are invisible, yet Piccolo and the rest are easily able to see them, having heightened their senses with their ki: http://www.mangavolume.com... This tells us that DBZ indicates that neuron functioning is in direct correspondence to the level of ki one has. Given that Goku's power level as a Super Saiyan is stated to be 150,000,000 ( http://dragonball.wikia.com... ) during his battle with Frieza and given that Goku is stronger at the beginning of the Android saga, his neuron functioning would at least be 125,000 times greater than the processing power in the earlier instance. Hence, to merely outperform an human who may at best have neuron processing power 2 or 3 times greater than an average human (which, in DBZ, is roughly around 5) would be child's play to the Super Saiyan. Of course, without the numbers, my points can just as easily be supported by simply taking the time to watch the high speed battles which DBZ is stuffed with as all fighters would have to comprehend every move they were making in order to actually fight at such a speed in the first place. In fact, watch the second video to the right to see what I am talking about in action. Keep in mind that Goku wasn't even using full power at this point and that his max power was merely 85,000: http://www.youtube.com... IN SUMMARY: I've thoroughly proven that Goku is very well capable of thinking at enhanced speeds. In fact, he would've lost most of his fights if he weren't. Thus, it remains clear that only could Goku locate Peter Petreli in teh confines of midgar in nigh-infinitely less than a single second, but that he could also annihilate him as well before Peter was even aware that the battle had begun. TACTIC TWO CONT: PREP TIME ===================== Since I've shown that Goku would still be too fast for Mr. Petreli, there isn't much to say here since PRO's case hinges on the man being able to think and react faster than Goku can. Thus, all goes as planned and Balthier makes sure to heal himself or curse reverse. Since this debate comes down to whether or not Goku can tag Mr. Petreli fast enough to prevent his area wide effect, we shall leave it at that for now, although I may come up with additional strategies in next round.
Ultimate Team War: GeorgeCarlinWorshipper Style

I will begin by thanking my opponent for the debate. Now I will select my remaining two team members: 4. Nagato, chronologically immediately before his invasion of Konoha. He is equipped with the six Pain bodies and their standard equipment (robes, ninja tools, etc.), as well as his own standard equipment (his "platform", chakra transmission rods, etc.). http://naruto.wikia.com... 5. Chirox, chronologically immediately after his blinding. He is equipped with his usual armor and weapons, as well as his mask: the Kanohi Shelek, the mask of silence. http://biosector01.com... Now I will proceed to define the chronological periods and equipment of all of my opponent's characters who were not already defined: Dr. Strange: Chronologically immediately after birth; no equipment. Sosuke Aizen: Chronologically immediately after birth; no equipment. Goku: No equipment; Time period already defined. Reed Richards: Chronologically immediately after birth; equipment already defined. Balthier: Chronologically immediately after battle with Vayne Solidor; equipment already defined. Though the UTW: GCW rules do not address exploitation of undefined terms, it is basic debate protocol that if one speaker fails to define a term, the responsibility of definition falls to the other speaker. Since LM did not define the time period/equipment of some of his characters, it fell to me to do so, as the time period and equipment of each character are key to this debate. Now my tactics: Peter will begin by speeding up his mental functions and subsequently "freezing" (drastically slowing) time on everything but his own team. Though time-freezing normally has a "charge period" of 2-3 seconds, with accelerated neural functions Peter can concentrate enough to freeze time before a single second has elapsed. Once this is done, Peter will telepathically locate the opposing team and teleport his team to them, as well as telepathically "mark" their locations for the blind Chirox. Chirox will then use his mask of silence to prevent the opposing team from communicating. Next, Peter will melt [1] the Ultimate Nullifier as my sped-up team lays waste to their opponents. I will end by thanking my opponent for the debate and the viewers for their time. [1] http://heroeswiki.com...
Ultimate Team War: GeorgeCarlinWorshipper Style

Dr. Strange - http://marvel.com... Sōsuke Aizen - http://en.wikipedia.org... Super Saiyan Goku (Beginning of Android Saga)- http://en.wikipedia.org... Reed Richards - http://en.wikipedia.org... (equipped with his ultimate nullifier ray Balthier - http://en.wikipedia.org... (equipped with the best weapons/armor/accessories in the game, at the highest possible stats and knows every spell/ability which can be learned). As of now, I do not contest any of the characters or rules, although I may depending on my opponent's arguments in future rounds.
It's never ok to say the n word, even on debates

Hi, new member here. Wanted to start a debate around the n word. Note: I am white! I believe that, if we are not black, we should never use the n word, even when debating. I believe that even if we believe we aren't using it in a derogatory way, it can contribute to the normalization of its use. Even if we are referring to it while discussing how it shouldn't be used and standing by the view that it does continue the oppression cycle. I believe even then, when we stand totally respectful to that culture and recognize the differences and oppression in society, by using it (even in those situations) we are using our privilege and thus adding to the oppression. I believe we are forgetting that, no matter how educated we are, we will never "not be racist" as we stand in a place of privilege in society no awareness can erase. This came up because of a conversation I had with some friends haha, would love to hear some thoughts on this. Also excuse my english! Not fluent haha
The United States should ban all guns

To everyone who is reading this, you should think reasonably. Guns are not the only source of violence. Even if guns were banned, crazy people can still get access to other weapons to but other people. My opponent's idea of a completely peaceful world will not happen even after guns are banned. Banning guns will make people more determined to get them. What's the proof? You don't need proof to understand this. There will always be evil in his world. Without evil, there is no good.
The United States should ban all guns

I will begin with my case, then move on to my opponent's case. First, extend my framework. The purpose of the debate is to determine what is moral, and the best way to determine what is moral is to determine what best protects life. Any argument not relating to the protection of life is irrelevant. My opponent concedes this, so the debate will be evaluated under this framework. My opponent's only attack on my first argument was that I do not solve completely for murder, and that the guns aren't dangerous but rather the people using the guns. Turn this argument. I solve for murder better than my opponent because I completely eliminate gun homicide, while my opponent doesn't mention anything about gun homicide, so they don't solve for any of it. Also, even if the people, not the guns, are causing the harm, those people would not be able to cause the same amount of harm without access to guns. My opponent says nothing countering the fact that I minimize homicide and suicide, so you can extend those arguments. My opponent said nothing countering my second argument, so you can extend that also. My opponent did not refute my third argument, but only said that they solve it with background checks. You can extend my third argument. I now move on to my opponent's case. Their defense of background checks only says that we need to solve these loopholes. But turn this: I solve for the loopholes in the system by banning guns entirely better than my opponent does by simply expanding background checks. My opponent offers no reason why allowing guns to exist but with background checks better protects life than eliminating guns, and I have offered reasons why it doesn't. So you should vote pro on this argument. My opponent drops my attacks his second and third arguments, so I win those. This debate comes down to three key voting points. First, my opponent conceded the framework, so the debate will be evaluated under who best protects life. Second, does it better protect life to eliminate guns or to set up background checks? I have proved that it is far better to eliminate guns entirely than to allow a system where people can get legal guns and pass them off to criminals, as I said happens in my second contention and that my opponent never refuted. Third, practicality. My opponent said it is not practical to ban guns, but they had no reason why. So this argument of impracticality should not be considered. It would be far better to have a world without gun violence than a world with maybe slightly less gun violence but where it still occurs.
The United States should ban all guns

In my opponent's first argument, it was mentioned that guns are dangerous. That is not true at all. Guns are not the ones to be blamed for mass shootings, but the people who are using the guns. My opponent mentioned in some states, the murder rate dropped after guns were banned. There was still murder. So that means that Pro's idea of a safe world is not true. People are still being killed in these states where guns are banned. Countries that ban guns still have homicide rates that are not zero. You mention multiple reasons in your second argument that justify my argument. There are loopholes in the system that criminals can easily get past. As for your third argument, my first argument follows up. In order to prevent children and teens and adults from suffering from PTSD, we need to be careful on who we sell our guns to. The world of Pro is a nice one, but it is not practical. The world of Con is a much more reasonable one.
The United States should ban all guns

My opponent did not offer a counter-framework, so the debate will be evaluated on who can best preserve life. On my opponent's first argument: First, they only say that we should have background checks, not that we shouldn't ban guns. So this argument is not even relevant. But even if you don't buy that, it would actually be much worse to increase background checks than to ban guns. Banning guns solves all gun violence. My opponent claimed in their own argument that there was only a 48% reduction in the gun suicide rate, gun trafficking, shooting of police, and domestic violence shootings. But banning guns would solve 100% of all of those things. In the con world, violence might be minimized, but people would think it is solved and just ignore it, even though it isn't solved. This "ruse of solvency" would allow the problem to get much worse because people wouldn't be trying to address it. In the pro world, however, the problem is actually solved. On my opponent's second argument: Police should not carry guns. They use guns in "self-defense," but actually all self-defense is is a supposedly justified killing of someone who is trying to harm you. It doesn't actually minimize the amount of death. Police officers often shoot too quickly in a crisis, killing someone that was not a threat. This is proven time and time again in the news: According to the Washington Post, there are over 1000 police killings every year. The goal of police is to protect people, not harm them. If police need to protect themselves, they can carry pepper spray or TASERS or other less deadly items. There are no states without any grocery stores; that's ridiculous. If you need to protect yourself from an animal, it would be better to carry a less lethal weapon than a gun because shooting an animal only ends up taking more animal lives than absolutely necessary, which is bad. On my opponent's third argument: This argument was not impacted under the framework of protecting life. My opponent has no proof that keeping people in the gun industry protected their lives. Any slight good that would be done is outweighed by the huge amounts of death caused by the existence of guns. My opponent admitted themselves that the idea of living in a harm-free world is "a nice one. " There is no reason why it isn't practical; on the contrary it is quite easy. The only thing we need to do for this world that both my opponent and I agree would be good is ban guns.
The United States should ban all guns

Guns should not be banned for several reasons. 1. The reason why we have all these mass shootings here in the United States and around the world is because the background checks of potential buyers are not thorough. So because of that, people who are mentally unstable or who have evil plans are able to buy a firearm and shoot people. It is true that we have background checks for some states. In these states, 46% fewer women are shot to death by their partners, 48% fewer on-duty police officers are shot to death, 48% less people have commuted suicide using guns, and gun trafficking had been reduced by 48%. But people who buy guns illegally find loopholes through this system and are allowed to buy guns with no background checks or questions asked to them. (everytown.org) This system is like having two lines that go through a high security bank. One has security checks, and the other doesn't. All the bad people out there who want to buy a gun or other weapon know about this. This is one reason why guns should not be banned. The gun background checks should be more thorough. 2. Sometimes guns are needed depending on their occupation or where they live. The law enforcement workers, such as police officers need guns in case if someone makes threatening moves towards them, and they can use that in self-defense. People who live in states where there isn't that many people need to get their own food. Not through supermarkets, but by actually getting their food by hunting. People who live in Alaska may need a rifle to defend themselves against wild animals such as grizzly bears. For these people, guns are just a "must need" item. This is my second reason on my belief that guns should not be banned. 3. Selling firearms creates jobs for people. As of 2014, the United States has over 100,000 people employed selling or making weapons. (nssf.org) If we banned guns altogether, we would be cutting jobs of so many people who work hard to earn money. Millions of dollars in wages would not be given. The unemployment rate could be up several tenths of a percent. This is my third reason. In conclusion, guns should not be banned because (1) it is the background checks that need to be improved, (2) people, depending on where they live or their job occupation, and (3) it helps the economy. The idea of living in a harm-free world is a nice one, but not a practical one. I look forward to my opponent's response.
"Big Bang Theory" can possibly happen, but it is not enough to debunk God's existence

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. " - From my research, and in this I will base my points. 1) Big Bang Theory claims that nothing exist, then, after an "explosion", something exist. We need to consider that there were particles which caused that "explosion", in short, something exist, before all of this. 2) It is impossible for something to exist out of nothing For sure, we will not be created unless the sperm and egg cell of our parents meet. The same thing, it is impossible for nothing to create something unless their is a Creator (One reason why God exist). The "nothing" there refers actually to plainly "nothing", as in non exist. So, way back, if there was nothing, how come can we exist if it is through natural scientific means? 3) God cannot be debunked through the "Big Bang Theory" The Bible clearly says that God created us by just words. Example: "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day." Genesis 1:3 God is just so amazing, Someone that cannot be imagined. Who knows? With just His Word, the "Big Bang" happened? From these point, there is a possibility that "Big Bang" and "Biblical Creation" co-relates.
"Big Bang Theory" can possibly happen, but it is not enough to debunk God's existence

"We have no examples of nothing." One example of nothing is in the very beginning before our universe and everything here exist. Maybe, we have a limited understanding towards our world, or where do we came from. I am impressed how scientists try to explain our creation, but it does not remove my faith. Because, as I had told, it is impossible to exist for something out of nothing. How can particles exist if there is nothing, as in totally nothing: No atoms, no particles, no alpha beta gamma rays and all the like. I will give two situation: 1) If you will suspend particles, as in tiny particles, in the outer space, there is a chance that a universe can exist through natural reaction, by Physical reaction, or chemical reaction, etc. Which will end up for something, let's say a universe. 2) If you will suspend none, How will those reaction occur? We need variables for us to create something. Industries needs raw material to create their products. Chefs and cooks need the ingredients that will be used for their food. Of course, they will not mix something if the bowl is empty or the machines in the industry cannot process if nothing is inside it. The same thing with the outer space, it is impossible for reactions to come without atoms. I believe that tiny particles is sufficient to make these, but who will create those? God. Who will create something from nothing? God.