BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time is a measurement of spin.

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited his last round. I believe I have suitably shown that time is not a measurement of spin, however in order to further any voter's resolve, I will quickly discuss voter's issues. Now, I won this debate due to the fact that my opponent had no remaining arguments due to the fact that he agreed with my refutations. I also had two contentions that showed how some measurements of time are arbitrary, were as some are no logger based on the Earth's rotation. For these reasons, I have won the debate. All my arguments and impacts from round four carry over to this round.
Time is a measurement of spin.

My opponent keeps saying he is going to prove something, then, inexplicably, he fails to prove anything. The world keeps adjusting the the standard time. This is done because the spin of the Earth is slowing down. Every 18 months on the average, with variation, a leap second is added to planetary time keeping to keep the day consistent with atomic clocks and astronomical observations. Although the caesium atom radiation may be used to measure a second, the overall time is still a record of the Earth's rotation. Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org... To win this debate, my opponent must prove that the spin of the Earth has nothing to do with time and that clocks that record time have no spinning or rotating mechanisms within them.
Time is a measurement of spin.

I will begin with creating the understanding that whether or not the 4th dimension is time doesn't really matter. It impacts this debate in the least of ways and helps neither side. To continue on to my opponent's claim that time division is not arbitrary, my opponent mentioned that the cesium atom was calibrated to be the same as the time segment, however I can make the opposite claim that time is calibrated to the radiation of a cesium atom. My opponent, in his attempt to prove me wrong, actually agreed with me. In fact, I could say that any one source of measuring time was the measurement all measurements were based off of. Time division is completely arbitrary, and thus my opponent's 2 and 3 arguments fall. Let's go to point 4. My opponent stated that without spin, the universe would not exist. This seems like a inverse of this debate. We are attempting to prove whether or not time is a measurement of spin, not whether or not time would exist without spin. I would like to continue my second contention, that the length of a day is changing. My opponent must agree with me, because he has yet to refute this argument. He has dropped my second contention, and he cannot make any further arguments against it. Why? Because doing so would have prevented me from arguing his point for two whole rounds, and thus is not allowed in debate. Now, I will analyze my contention to show it's impacts. I quoted Wikipedia, showing how the rotation of the Earth is slightly off due to the moon and tidal effects. This shows that the original length of time form a day and a year are different then when the were created. Note that I admit days and years are created off of spin, but prove that since the current days and years are not the same length as they were when they were created, they are not the measuring spin anymore. Thank you.
Time is a measurement of spin.

1. A dimension is a plane of space. Space only has 3 possible dimensions - breadth, width and depth. It doesn't logically have any fourth dimension. If yo add a fourth dimension, you are in breach of logic and common sense. You can't mix up time with dimension. They are two different things. I know that a lot of scientists and physicists have used time as a dimensional vector, but this is just theoretical nonsense and has no part in the real world. Note - Nobody has proven that time is a dimension, so there is no valid basis for assuming that it is an acceptable theory. 2. My opponent has assumed that time division is arbitrary. Yet, I have clearly demonstrated that seconds are fractions of the spin of the Earth's rotation. My opponent has used the frequency of radiation from the caesium atom as a measurement of the second. He has failed to understand that the number of oscillations is calibrated in relation to the existing second and is not an independent observation. 3. The fact remains that the second is definitely a specific fraction of the Earth's rotation and that it can't be said that this is in any way "arbitrary". 4. My opponent has failed to logically explain how time can exist without spin or rotation. Note - Without spin, life and the universe wouldn't exist. Thus, without a universe, there can be no time, matter or any thing else for that matter.
Time is a measurement of spin.

To begin the second round for the Con side, I would like to define the 4th dimension, which is time itself. I did not make it up, and it is an acceptable scientific term. I understand that it may be confusing those who have never heard of it, and implore those to simple substitute the 4th dimension for the word time. I did not mean to confuse or prevent my opponent from refuting any part of my speech, but simply to use a better term for determining events that happened in time. Also, you cannot interact or perceive the forth dimension. However, my opponent could easily have looked up the term, so I am puzzled as to why he/she did not. Nevertheless, I shall continue the debate. My opponent challenges me to produce a deletion for a second that does not use the earth's rotation, and I looked at his own link to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org...). There, I acquired the definition of a second as: "It is quantitatively defined in terms of a certain number of periods " about 9 billion " of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom" As we can see, it is rather easy to define the length of a second without using the spin of the Earth. I could even define it as the time an object takes to fall 9.8 meters at sea level with no air resistance. I could even define it by using the time it takes to travel a certain distance. The whole point of my first contention is that seconds, minutes, and hours are arbitrary measurements. We simply invented them. There is no scientific basis for why a second, minute, or hour is the length it is. I agree that seconds, minutes, and hours are sub-divisions of a day, but that means nothing to either side, and thus has no impact. Finally, time would still exist, even without the Earth's rotation. As I have mentioned, time is a mental construct. My opponent completely ignored my second contention, and in debate that means that you agree with it, however for the purpose of creating a better debate, he may refute in the next round as if not rounds had passed. Now, to recap for my opponent, he must refute: My continued refutations of my first contention My second contention And continue his first contention Thank you.
Morality does not come from any religion.

Re. Argument Number; One Rebuttal Number One & Rebuttal Number Two:Resolution: "Morality does not come from any religion. " "The Ten Commandments is a list of ten moral standards by which the God of Christianity would want his people to live. So, I have showed that the Christian religion have morals. Once again, my opponent hasn"t showed exactly how all of these morals have been adopted by the Christian religion from the. So, my claim still stands to be true, unless my opponent proves otherwise. "I agree that there are moral teachings within religion; however Religions adoption & exploitation of our naturally occurring morality, likely done so to add weight to the given belief system, is not proof of creating the original morality that they reinforce. Hence the morality came from another source and Religion plays on it. "standards that humans created for themselves" We did not create these standards, they are traits that evolved and were favoured. Language was not required as they started out originally as behaviours and were instinctual and /or emotional responses. Quote from interview with Professor Psychology, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University Marc Hauser. . http://www.abc.net.au... "Those people who believe that morality and religion are synonymous need to think twice out that. Well, I think it's a completely misguided view. I mean Peter Singer and I have written about this. But I mean what we're finding now is that in many cases when you ask 'do people with a religious background show different patterns of moral judgement from those who are atheists or agnostic'? The answer is no. What we're interested in doing now, which is one of the projects that we're engaged with, is if you ask questions that are morally live right now like abortion, and euthanasia, and stem cell research, you'll pretty much find religious groups kind of lining up on one side and non-religious on the other side. But the intriguing thing is that when you can conceal the dilemma in terms of the real role case and give a kind of an artificial dilemma that captures some of the crucial ingredients, there does not seem to be differences between people with a religious background and those without. "I understand and contend therefore that we all share the same sense of morality as we evolved it together, it is no wonder that Religious people deny this as the science vs religion divide makes them feel understandably threatened in their beliefs & there is psychological value in the beliefs held. This does not change the fact however that there is significant evidence that people behave in a moral way with or without Religious teachings and that evolution and group theory provide a logical and evidenced based proposal that i believe reinforces the argument "morality does not come from any religion". Marc Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong published by HarperCollins provides lots more than I ever could on the subject.
Morality does not come from any religion.

An interesting start with canny use of extension and false syllogism, however your inference that morals cannot exist within religion is incorrect and not the intended debate. Clearly religions can have morality as part of there teachings, I would not argue this. The point I would make is that morals were adopted by religions and then claimed as coming from religious teaching when in fact they already existed as favourable behavioural traits in humanity evolved from group living. Your self set task of proving "There are morals that exist within at least one religion" will not win this round of the debate as it avoids my supposition..
Morality does not come from any religion.

I accept. I will give a brief statement on what general direction I will go in this debate.Resolution: "Morality does not come from any religion."My opponent (pro) has claimed that morality doesn't come from any religion. This means that my opponent has stated that no morals, no matter what type of morals, exist in any religion. Therefore, I (con) must show the following statement to be true).There are morals that exist within at least one religion.I look forward to an intriguing debate.
Morality does not come from any religion.

I would like to debate against the religious perspective in the supposition that our sense of morality & doing the right thing does not come from any religious teachings, that morality possibly evolved as a necessity for living in a group together. That learning to trust each others behaviours instinctively before we evolved to a stage we could utilise language was critical to group success and therefore the driving force for the evolution of behavioural morality. This is why we do not sacrifice people to harvest organs as it goes against the greater good of the group as trust is lost. If you would like to debate this from a religious point of view in that morality was created by and without religion lost to people I would be genuinely interested to read your perspective and your counter to my position. Thank you.
Abortion

Those examples you mention killed for malicious purposes, And if they didn't kill, They would have remained the same. Parents who abort do it so that they can remain where they are; if they don't abort, They would collapse financially, And they don't want that to happen. As for those who are already collapsed, They would gain nothing from killing other than more collapse, Therefore they are killing just for killing, And that should be punished. However, You are right; just because you are immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho doesn't mean you have the right to take a human life, But that only applies for people where killing doesn't benefit you and the world around you. To how the world around you is affected: if you are poor, The economy suffers, So if the reason you are poor is because of not aborting, Then the baby is the reason for some economic suffering. While that might seem to not matter because of minority, Every single person that suffers financially, Ruins the economy. There are other reasons why abortion is beneficial, But those reasons are cruel and sadistic, So I am not going to mention them.
Abortion

You bring up some great points but help me to better understand them. What you're saying is that you must be immature, Poor, Unready or Psycho in order to take a human life? So in the case of John Lennon we shouldn't prosecute because Chapman was psycho or Batmans parents killer because he was poor. In a war the options are kill or be killed it is self defense. Unborn children cannot defend themselves so it is up to us to stand up for them.
Abortion

My definition of abortion in this scenario is when a mother or father is so immature, Poor, Unready, Or psycho that she/he decides to kill their unborn baby. I think it is justifiable for a mother to have an abortion because it would spare a child from living with the mother that would have aborted the child. An abortion is a definition of killing, But the baby did not yet develop a consciousness, Therefore it doesn't yet have feelings. Also, We willingly kill our own species in wars, Why can't we make an exception for this? I also might be completely wrong, And there are better option than abortion, But I also might be right. I can be both right and wrong, One can never be sure.
Abortion

There are many good and bad sides to abortion, But just like everything, There is no black and white, Just a whole range of gray. Abortion is one way that poverty can decrease. Most unplanned teen pregnancies that lead to child birth, Lead to either the child being sent to adoption, Or the family being sent into poverty. That is because raising a child is expensive and some parents are just not mature enough. I would not want to live in a world where children are living their entire sad lives in poverty instead of less children living in more richness. Abortion also has its consequences. The parents who get an abortion are usually called out by their friends for killing their own child. That alone is enough to discourage abortion for most. That leads us to the ethical values of abortion. Even though abortion is logical in every way, The rules of ethics say that killing an unborn child is bad because it is like killing a child. Just like how Thanos (from Avengers: Infinity War) wanted to kill half the universe so that the other half can live a life filled with happiness, Abortion prevents entire families from going broke and allows them to have children later in life that can live a rich life. But like I said, There is not black and white, Just a range of gray. Abortion should be the choice of the parents, Not others. Good luck to you.
The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

Many claim that the Christian Bible contains many contradictions. As con, I will attempt to show that these contradictions can be clarified, within the Bible. Pro will give examples, of alleged contradictions, and attempt to refute my clarification. To avoid confusion, specific verses should be listed, along with an explanation of why there is a contradiction. Burden of proof will be shared. For the purpose of this debate, a contradiction is any statement made, in the Bible, that is inconsistent with other references to the same subject. As this debate is about what's in the Bible itself, an allegation can not require me to prove, or disprove any scientific fact. That can be another debate. Bible: I use the King James Version, but will accept from any version. Round 1 will be for acceptance, and listing of alleged contradiction/s. Round 4 is the last round to introduce new arguments. Concerns about debate rules, definitions, etc. , can be addressed in the comments section. As there are no allegations to address, at this time, I will await a challenger, and will begin my argument in round 2.
The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

I apologize for not addressing this point when presented, but DDO only allows 8,000 characters, and I didn't think I'd have enough left, last round. --"It's clear that not only the will earth perish/pass away but heaven as well. Something cannot exist forever and be destroyed as well, a very clear contradiction. " -- Since we're talking about the end here, we have to go to Revelations, and other books that talk about end times, in order to clear this up. Revelations 21:1 says: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. " The earth and heavens, as we know them, have passed and been replaced by new ones. The Bible goes into more detail on this. The following verses show that the old heavens, and earth, will be cleansed by fire. Everything on the earth's surface will be gone, including oceans, leaving a clean slate for the new earth. 2 Peter 3:10- But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Revelation 6:14- And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Zephaniah 1:2- I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD. Then to finish off the new earth: Revelation 21 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And there you have it. The earth passes, yet remains. No contradiction. I look forward to pro's response.
The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

I will also concede the contradictions in Genesis. However, I respectfully request that my opponent address the below argument which was presented in the previous round. Ecclessiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. " Abideth means remain so the "earth will remain forever. Also, Deuteronomy 4:40 - "That thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever. " Pretty clear, that the earth is here and will be here forever yet this is contradicted by the below; Psalm 102:25-26 -The earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away. It's clear that not only the will earth perish/pass away but heaven as well. Something cannot exist forever and be destroyed as well, a very clear contradiction. I now pass this debate to my opponent.
The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

2 Kings 2:11/ John 3:13 I don't usually cut and paste but this is a good explanation of what happened to Elijah. "2. Chronicles 21 contains a letter to King Jehoram from Elijah warning him about the punishment that God would give him and the nation of Judah. Notice that Elijah wrote this letter to king Jehoram of Judah who began his reign in 848 B. C. . This is a very important date because Elijah departed Israel by the chariot of fire at the end of Ahaziah's reign and the beginning of Joram's reign in 852 B. C. . This means that, even if Elijah wrote this letter at the beginning of Jehoram's reign, he could not have written it any earlier than four years after he had left Israel. Remember that Elisha only asked for two thirds of the spirit that Elijah had. The reason he did not ask for more was that he knew Elijah would continue to live, and to ask for more power and authority than Elijah would be the same as asking to replace him as the chief prophet. This was an unthinkable thing for Elisha, because he knew that his master Elijah would continue to live. The four year gap between the reigns of King Joram of Israel and King Jehoram of Judah proves beyond a doubt that Elijah was still alive long after his departure from his office as prophet to the House of Israel. " Since he didn't die, he couldn't have gone to Heaven. Keep in mind, people of that time used the word heaven to refer to the skies. . http://www.bibleresearch.org... Genesis 1 and 2 Point 1- The two chapters serve different purposes. Comparing these two chapters is not really comparing apples to apples. Genesis 1 gives a brief, chronological listing of the Creation, and it's main parts. Chapter 2 shows what God did on the seventh day, and then goes into a more detailed focus of what happened here on earth, adding detail that wasn‘t mentioned in the first chapter. If you want to see the correct order of events, look to chapter 1, this is where it‘s established. Point 2- The order of Creation is already established in chapter 1, there is no need to use the next chapter for the same purpose. Genesis 2 doesn't need to be, nor does it imply, that the events listed are in any particular, or correct order. If that were the case, then a contradiction can be claimed because the making of the seasons, sun, moon, light, etc, aren't in chapter 2. As further evidence that no particular order was intended, chapter 1 puts the sea animals, and fowl being created on the fifth day, land animals and man on the sixth day. However, in chapter 2, they are lumped together. Also in chapter 2, man is mentioned before trees, but in chapter 1, the trees come first. I think this is proof that chapter 2 was for giving further information, and there was no intent, or need, to put things in a particular order, as that had already been established in Genesis 1. Therefore, there is no contradiction. . http://www.biblegateway.com... I look forward to pro's response.