BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's Time For America To Pay Its Debt of Reparations

My position will be: Reparations will not solve any problems The events in question date too far back to properly distribute them. The money would be better spent on improving the current state of society in a broader sense. Racial disparity cannot simply be bought away. Lets cover your question first. "why do white people have a problem with supporting their fellow brothers & sisters? " So the short answer is, They don't. The long answer is, You just made a statement that applies to all white people. That makes the statement false. In fact, The very question itself assume a racist belief. Some people help people and some don't. I'll address my points in the next round.
It's Time For America To Pay Its Debt of Reparations

As the title states, America need to pay its debt to the descendants of the people who built this country. There is absolutely no denying this because history is proof positive of who did all of the work in laying the foundation of this crooked country. America doesn't seem to have any problems with paying reparations to people of other countries so there's no excuse of holding back reparations for fellow Americans. Even though I already know the answer to the question that I'm going to ask, I'd like to hear a rock-solid argument of "why do white people have a problem with supporting their fellow brothers & sisters? " This country is hellbent on trying to keep black people as a group for being a permanent underclass. If you can't bring a (Logical) argument then don't accept the challenge.
Time never changes

What my opponent has introduced in his above argument is the twin paradox. This is a very difficult conundrum however this is explained in the theory of relativity. Firstly special relativity required two postulates. The first is the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the source of the light. This has been shown to be true. The second postulate is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, there have been no experiments proving this false and all recordings have been to suggest this is true. The most common explanation as a solution to the twin paradox is that the symmetry is broken due to the required acceleration, or deceleration in this case, causes the motion to no longer be uniform. Sadly I concede that this is not an excellent answer but it is the best I can explain it. Tests have been done and as my opponent has stated on both frames of reference, the plane and the earth, the alternative clock appears to be running slower. This should not be possible unless special relativity is correct. The nature of this experiment is slightly different; however the results are the same and show time dilation to be accurate. However, my opponent still claims that it is etheric pressures that affect the clock. However, no part of the clock has any meaningful alteration from pressure that we would not also see in other circuits. There are no gears or such to be affected. The clock is measuring atomic function that should not change based on any function. Other atomic functions have also been observed slowing at close to the speed of light. For example, as a helpful commenter pointed out, the half-life of unstable isotopes is "extended" when they are observed traveling at the required speeds. Thus my opponent can see it would take significantly more assumptions to attempt to disprove time dilation than to accept its existence.
Time never changes

Even if we believe in the clock readings "observed" by the experimenters, that would still not prove special relativity despite the swearing by the physicists. Imagine that the stationary clock at the observatory ticked 100sec while the clock in the east bound flight ticked 90sec and the clock in the west bound flight ticked 110sec (just to keep the numbers simple). Though these readings might appear to be consistent with the predictions of special relativity from the perspective of the centre of earth observer, the same is not the case from the perspective other observers. For example from the perspective of the observer on the earth, both flights were moving at equal velocity and hence both must have experienced time dilation by the same factor and should have read the same time. But this was not the case. And, from the perspective of an observer in the east bound flight, it was actually the west bound flight which was travelling at a very high velocity. So according to him, the west bound flight should have experienced the maximum time dilation and ticked the slowest if SR were to be true. Also the observatory clock should have experienced some amount of time dilation and hence ticked slower than his "stationary" clock. Similarly the clock readings would go against the predictions of SR when viewed from the perspective of the west bound flight. What it implies? The readings of the clocks (believing that the data was not "massaged" by the "phychicists" having got mesmerised by the stupid religion!) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. (Same is the case with GPS clocks) The only conclusion a sane mind can draw from the twin flight experiment is that the functioning of atomic clocks get affected by motion and gravity. It also suggest that motion is not relative, in other words there seems to be an absolute reference frame. But why the atomic clocks get affected as "exactly" predicted by the mathematics of SR? Surely it is not because of time dilation effect. If it was Time that dilates, then all processes should get slowed down by the same factor in a given scenario. And that should include the physical process underlying the pendulum clock also. Unfortunately for the relativists, this is not the case. This proves that relativity is not the cause of the time differences. Thus, that only leaves aetheric pressure as the possible cause of the time differences. Thus, it is not time that has changed, but it is simply the mechanism of the clock that has changed.
Time never changes

Time dilation is well documented and proven scientific theory first proposed by Albert Einstein as part of the theory of relativity. This has been proven experimentally. Time dilation is the difference in elapsed time between two events as measured by observers. This dilation occurs, in layman's terms, when an object is moving at a different speed. The most commonly cited experiment that confirmed this theory is the Hafele-Keating Experiment from 1971. This experiment required four atomic clocks. To understand why these atomic clocks are important we must first know that currently the second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of a caesium atom. There are a few more parameters and the number is a little odd as the second was first defined by taking the length of the day and dividing it up, however this proved to be inaccurate so the current definition was accepted. This action from caesium is monitored by an atomic clock to create the most accurate time keeping device ever made. An atomic clock will only be out by one second after approximately 15,000,000,000 years. During Hafele and Keating's experiment four atomic clocks where loaded onto aircraft and flown around the world, two clocks flown eastward and two clocks flown westward. Because of this the clocks are moving at a different speed to the ground. When the planes landed the time on the clocks in the air where measured against the time on a clock located on the ground. The results where that the clocks on the planes were they had been moving eastward where 59 nanoseconds behind the clocks on the ground (plus or minus 10 nanosecond) and the clocks moving westward where an astonishing 273 nanoseconds ahead (plus or minus 7 nanoseconds). These results were published in The journal "Science" in 1972, one year after the experiment. Thus my opponent can see that the clocks used in this experiment where accurate enough to not have a margin of error outside the results shown and the results confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Therefore time can change when two objects are moving at different speeds. The Hafele-Keating experement: http://www.sciencemag.org...
Time never changes

Without intending it my opponent has actually done most of the work for me. He has already accepted that Maxwell's equations show that light travels at a constant speed of "c". then they accept the results of Michelson and Morley's. This experiment proved that the speed of light does not change depending on motion to a reference frame and that it is constant for all reference frames. This caused a conundrum. Both measurements cannot be true under Galilean relativity. As my opponent put it "any observer in any reference frame would measure the same speed of light". However Einstein created a theory, with supporting math, which explains this strange phenomenon. The theory is self-consistent and plausible. It is a strange theory full of "counter-intuitive notions" however these hypotheses where later proved true through experiments such as the above mentioned twin flight experiment as explained above and muon decay supposedly slowing at high speed. So far there has not been another theory to explain these observed phenomenons, that has not been proven false like the theory of the ether. Moreover time dilation is now a part of the technology and science we work with and build upon. GPS is required to accommodate for the time dilation between the surface of the planet and the orbit of the satellite. Although the actual accuracy this effects is rather minuscule if this were not taken into effect the clocks on the satellites would slowly diverge from ground clocks. So as I have outlined so far time dilation is a basically proven and very well tested theory. Denying it without having an explanation for observations like decay in particle accelerators or the twin flight experiment is not logical. While it has some strange effects, like the twin paradox, the theory is still self-constant and we have built further scientific knowledge upon the base of special relativity.
Time never changes

I have clearly demonstrated that the Hafele and Keating experiment was a poorly conducted experiment which didn't prove anything. My opponent hasn't addressed the fact that the clocks should have registered different times relative to the observer. When we use different observers, the theory of relativity falls apart and the times and clocks don't make any sense. Thus, the recorded times, disprove relativity, rather than prove relativity. When Maxwell"s" equations predicted that light travels at 3"108m/sec, scientists wondered what was the reference point/frame to which the above speed refers. As light was thought to travel via Ether medium, it was proposed that the predicted SOL was with reference to this Ether medium (which was thought to represent the state of absolute rest). But as Michelson and Morley"s experiment "disproved" the existence of the long believed Ether medium, some scientists thought that the SOL predicted by Maxwell"s equations must be with reference to the source (Emitter theory). Apparently this was also disproved by an experiment (neutral pion decay experiment) As both the Ether theory and the Emitter theory were "disproved", scientific masses got attracted to the special theory of relativity (SR), which said that the calculated speed of light (SOL) must be with reference to the observer. If so, then any observer in any inertial reference frame would measure the same speed of light because SOL (3"108m/sec) is a derived value from Maxwell"s equations and hence must be the same in any reference frame. And Einstein had shown the supporting maths which mesmerised the scientific masses. (Of course a mathematical model can be woven around any ridiculous idea!) As SR proposed that SOL must be the same to any observer, this has lead to further counterintuitive notions like time dilation and length contraction. Relativists claim that all these weird notions were proven to be correct by many experiments like muon decay and twin flight experiments etc. Though the chronology was not exactly the same, the above description gives the gist of how the weird theory of relativity came in and got accepted amongst the most intelligent section of the population.
i am right

Gay is a being that has homosexual desires [1]Without a warrant for your definition, the voter may as well discard it as complete nonsense. Without an argument that has a warrant behind it, the claim is left without any foundations, and is able to be blown away in the wind with this: an extraordinary argument requires an extraordinary source.Now, I would like to show the voters something that is actually important; a graph that is showing that the consumption of high fructose corn syrup is extremely closely linked with pedestrians killed by cars: [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Taxi Driver is one of the greatest films of all time

First there is no such thing as 'the greatest film of all time'. Everyone has different opinions. Not everyone in the world would like that movie. According to my opponent, 230,000 people have voted taxi driver as one of the best movies of all time, ranking at #47. Out of all the people in the world, that is less than 2% of the population. What about the other 98%? My opponent has only stated those votes in one source. A good movie would have comedy, romance, horror, drama, action, adventure, etc. But it does not seem like Taxi driver has many of those characteristics. This may be an off-opinion about the movie. I must say it does look good, but its certainly, definitely not the best movie of all times. 'It was nominated for four Oscars' So? Titanic has won 11 oscars, and its not even on the IMDb top 250 movies of all time list! And how come 'The Dark Knight' had more viewers? Especially when its the mainstream type of stuff we see? Personally, i do think titanic deserves to be named one of the best movies of all time. Story, A+, actors A+, costume design A+, scenery A+, music definitely A+. This might sound a bit shocking, but titanic was a bit funny in some scenes, it had a bit action (not the ones you see today) , it involves romance, it involves that part where you start to cry your eyes out, and the best part, the story was true! (Not the love part) It was really based on a ship sinking in 1912. My opponent does not seem to have many sources to back up his facts/opinions. I will await my opponents response. Source: 1.http://www.imdb.com... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...(1997_film)
Rap is the worst genre of music.

My Opponent Already Lost:He has just conceeded that not all rap is bad as noted, and thus my BOP is already filled, due to the fact that my BOP was only to find a worse genre. Thank you to my opponent!Free-speech: What's the point in having free-speech without the license to offend? Secondly he takes the contexts of raps graphic language out of context, first it is a highly rebellious genre in the 80's-90's. This was at the time of Rodney King beatings, the aftermath of Helter-Skelter nonsense Charles Manson was trying to start, and questionable court-cases of OJ Simpson furthering the Caucasian /African issue. Which is why rap turned into what it is today; it was born to be an expression of pain, sorrow, and nastyness. It was born to enable people to express themselves without resorting to stupid stuff. Delores Tucker and Tupac:One feminist who criticises rap was Delorse Tucker, who made the same complaints my opponent made. In retort Tupac says this: (see vid) http://www.youtube.com...Essentially the video's message on behalf of the rap scene against women is that self-respect is the highest honor needed in "the game" and furthermore, no one wants to stay in the 'hood' if they can. Those who do by wh*ring themselves out are not worthy of respect and thus they are getting made fun of. Which is why Tupac notes that the end "this is why I wanted you to know why we call dem hoes b!tchez" they don't mean all women, just those who do nothing but try to sleep around for money. Worse Genre? Eminem not good enough for you? This album (the eminem show) is the highest all-time selling in the 90's, and Eminem today is the highest selling living artist both digitally and in sheer sales! All his music is in rap, and he has quite the talent in it (videos) http://www.youtube.com... did those freestyles straight on the spot unscripted. That takes skill, I ask my opponent to try to do the same in each battle equally as good as Eminem. http://www.youtube.com... that doesn't take skill I have no idea what does. But hey at least you can level a complaint against Rap because you understand the lyrics coming out of the rappers mouth. Try understanding deathmetal, where they don't even sing they just scream, and not even play guitar they smash them, and strum them and claim it's shredding. http://www.youtube.com...But hey, could be worse, all of this could be Justin Beiber ;D The goal of rap is clearly to show off skills and an appreciation for the english language, unlike that of deathmetal. And it enables for far more expression than any other genre. Clearly rap is NOT the lowest standard, clearly deathmetal is .. can you even call that last video music? Jesus ...
Rap is the worst genre of music.

First of all, there is some good rap out there. However, the vast majority of rap is not good at all. In rap, there is a higher percentage of bad than good, than in any other genre. That is why rap is the worst genre of music out there. 1. Horrible lyrics and subject matter. One of my biggest criticisms of rap is the subject matter referenced in the songs. Most rap today contains terrible and degrading subject matter: strippers, drinking, degrading women, drugs, and "getting money", just to name a few. Rap glorifies this lifestyle, influencing those who listen in a negative way. For example, the lyrics in Bitches Love Me (Good Kush and Alcohol) by Lil Wayne (. http://www.azlyrics.com...) I'm on that good kush and alcohol I got some down b*****s I can call I don't know what I would do without y'all Imma ball 'til the day I fall (ball, ball, ball, ball) Yeah, long as my b*****s love me (Yeah, yeah) (Yeah, yeah) I can give a f**k 'bout no hater Long as my b*****s love me (Yeah, yeah) (Yeah, yeah) (Yeah, yeah) Yeah, I can give a f**k 'bout no n****a Long as these b*****s love me Is there any effort, meaning, morals, or anything of significance in these lyrics? I would go over the character limit giving examples of horrible lyrics. If not referencing these subjects, most rap lyrics are simplistic, make little sense, or are overly egotistical and pompous. Like I said, not all rap is like this, but the greater percentage is. 2. Takes the lowest amount of musical talent. It takes relatively little musical talent to be a rapper, compared to any other music genre. Rap uses Autotune extremely frequently (see T-Pain for an example), many rappers do not write their own songs, and you obviously do not need singing skills (see the video . http://www.youtube.com... for an example). No instruments, no knowledge of music theory, or no effort in the lyrics written. Rap is definitely in a lower standard than other genres such as classical or rock. 3. Not about the music produced. The main goal of rap is not to produce high quality, soul stirring songs. It is to make money, produce an image, and to say you are better than everybody else. The music is "lazy" and uninspired. However, in the videos, you see the half-naked women, the gold jewelry, and the stacks of money. The goal to take money from those who like the image created by these rappers. Sure, the "beat" may be good, but what are you really listening to? Cash-grabbing, lazy, manufactured images and music. Other music genres, such as jazz, grunge, country, classical, blues, etc. , make their music the priority more often than not. These examples show why music is truly "Of the poorest quality or lowest standard". Thank you.
Men verses Women (who is better?)

I would like to point out that this debate is only opinion and there is basically no factual evidence on girls being better than boys.I will not refute my opponents statement because it is all opinion and he is making a judgment. PHYSICS: Girls are better.Can you explain those things with a source COOKING: Girls are betterPlease explain because some men can cook a gourmay dish. POLITICS: Girls are better. Please explain your point correctlyIf girls are better than boys where is your proof? Unles you give me the burden of the proof that women are better than boys than I will believe right now this is all opinion.This will be part of my argument which will be stated now.Argument 1:Men get paid more and they are paid on a daily basis and a dily salary while women get less than men,Argument 2:Men are more atheletic than girls in most of the sports you mainly see on TVAmerican football= Mainly menBasketeball = menArgument 3Men are equal to women and they cant be compared basically both are great and you cannot say women are better than girls without factual evidence.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

The reason I had stated that was because Davy Jones had said, as an excerpt of what GarretKadeDupre wrote, "...and POSTPONE the judgement", meaning either way he will be killed. Now he may be hurt because he WAS in love with Calypso, but instead of becoming sorry for himself, he took his Kraken and decided to destroy any ship in view, because then he would have more souls to carry with him. Finally, whenever Cutler Beckett had taken his heart, he ordered Jones to attack any pirate ship and bring him the survivors, but instead of doing that, Davy Jones had destroyed the ships to smithereens and left no survivors. He may be sweet on the inside and be hurt, but he let his hurt and anger get the better of him and destroyed any man he came across. He also killed Lord Beckett's, right-hand man, as I would call it, Mercer. He protected Mercer from a cannonball blast after Calypso was released, but then he took Mercer's weakness to his advantage and killed Mercer for the key to the chest.
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

Davy Jones feels hurt because he is in love with the woman who betrayed him. (1) Jack Sparrow never demonstrated true love, and his relationship with Elizabeth Swann revolved only around lust. He attempted to have sex with her, even though she was engaged to another man, by trying to get her drunk:[Jack offers Elizabeth a drink from his bottle]Jack Sparrow: "You know... Lizzy... I *am*... captain of a ship. And *being* captain of a ship, I could in fact perform a... marriage. Right here. Right on this deck. Right... *now*!"Con incorrectly claims that Davy Jones "forces [people] to become part of [his] crew". He offers them a choice:Davy Jones: "I offer you a choice. Join my crew, and postpone the judgment. One hundred years before the mast. Will ye serve? (2)Of their own free will, people choose to serve:Helmsman: "I - I will, serve." (2)(1) http://pirates.wikia.com...(2) [same source as citation #1 in my argument of round 2]
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

Davy Jones is ruthless, even if he is honest, because he has a system and he feels betrayed and hurt. Davy Jones treats his crew members like regular people, but he forces them to become part of the crew, either that or death. DAVY JONES: Do you not fear death? CHAPLAIN: I'll take my chances, Sir. DAVY JONES: To the depths.. [the chaplain's throat is slit, two crew members throw his body overboard] Ah, ha-ha-ha...! [unidentified crewman] Cold blooded - ! DAVY JONES: Life is cruel. Why should the afterlife be any *different*? I offer you a choice. Join my crew, and postpone the judgment. One hundred years before the mast. Will ye serve? (1) Then it is explained how Tia Dalma had broken his heart, so in turn he would be as ruthless as he could to every ship he came across. (2) (1) http://www.imsdb.com...'s-Chest.html (2) http://disney.wikia.com...