BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The dual-slit experiment is a fraud

I'm not sure about the Ethon. But the Double Slit experiment and it's variants like the Delayed Choice one I mention, infer that wave theory is the most accurate model in predicting quantum behavior. When I said the detector did not matter I began with, "In the video it is suggested that the detector is blocking the potential pathways". The detector does not block a potential pathway of split light. That is why it is not important. What is important is the amount of information detected. If the information is not enough to discern which path the photons went through then there will be an interference pattern. As to why "observation" or "measurement" causes such a reaction, A recent Italian Experiment using a filter over one slit, suggests that measurement causes electrons to propagate inelastically. Which localizes the wave function. [1] I think the main point is that there are many experiments that confirm the wave properties of quantum entities. Currently there is no way we can really know what particles look like. But what Science does is it creates models. And the accurate models of quantum particles utilize the idealization of them being wave-like. It is these models which have led to the development of the electron microscope. The wave-particle duality of matter is not just confined to subatomic particles. An Experiment carried out by Brezger Et al, Showed an interference pattern with C70 fullerene molecules.[2] And now you jump into talking about the Aether. It makes a debate with you difficult. What I find interesting is in history when new aspects of nature are trying to be understood the default route to go is a liquid like medium. Understandable the movement of water is still quite hard to predict. Heat was thought to flow like a liquid medium. And then light through the Aether, a liquid like medium. And all these interpretations have eventually lost favor. Because they failed to adequately account for experimental results. I hope I have upheld that the results from Young's Double Slit experiment as indeed accurate. And more importantly to the point I think my opponent was arguing is that the wave-particle duality interpretation of those results is the most accurate of all competing models. [1] http://phys.org... [2] http://arxiv.org...
The dual-slit experiment is a fraud

The basic problem is that scientists don't understand what constitutes mass. Light creates mass as it travels forward, thus, you get the photoelectric effect. Scientists think that light is a particle but it is not. It is a spinning wave of ethons which gives the temporary impression of mass. (Ethon being one unit of aether.) Spin creates dimensional change. Light being a dimensional signature. An ethon doesn't have mass unless it is rotating around another ethon. Thus, mass is just ethons in rotation. You may call these proton, electron and neutron. (Left spin, right spin and no spin ethons). Quote - The presence of the Detector is not important. Reply - The detector is very important when dealing with weak forces. The weaker the light, the more influence the detector will have on the result. When a scientist says that they are observing an experiment, it usually means that there are very strong electromagnetic forces being applied to the experiment. Thus, in these cases, the result will be spoiled. http://www.cellularuniverse.org... http://www.youtube.com... 0
The dual-slit experiment is a fraud

R1. Your argument doesn't falsify the results of the Dual slit experiment. This doesn't seem to falsify the results of the experiment but to offer a different interpretation of those results. R2. Wave-particle duality is also confirmed by other experiments. While there are many non-classical attempts at explaining the results of the young experiment, those that accept the duality of light (and other particles) is consistent with other tests. Most famously the Davisson and Germer experiment [1] which confirmed the Louis de Broglie hypothesis. This experiment was the beginning of the electron microscope, it consisted of directing a beam of electrons at a nickel plate and observing the electrons as they bounced off. R3. Other experiments show that observation or measurement affect the resulting pattern. The presence of the Detector is not important. There are other variants of the Young experiment such as the Delayed choice quantum eraser [2] which shows that information about the detection of which slit is key to the appearance or disappearance of the interference pattern. In the video it is suggested that the detector is blocking the potential pathways of quanta and that this blocking is why the inference pattern disappears. This simply isn't the case with the quantum eraser experiment that uses entangled particles and splitters to allow for all paths to be taken. The interference pattern is created or null depending on what detectors are looked at. The detectors which allow discernment of which path was taken show a diffraction pattern. The detectors that don't allow knowing which path was taken result in the interference pattern. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Music Theory/Music Skills classes should be mandatory course's for all students to take.

. .. . I'm going to make this short because I just finished listing out my opponents points (1-10 at least) and my computer froze. Let me first connect my ideas. 1. Listening to music during a class helps retention/enjoyment/ and comfortablity. 2. When a student learns music, and hears it while applying his knowledge of music theory, more areas of his brain are activited. 3. If we get students to take music, not only will they start to retain more info (from something like Math class), but more of their brain will become accessible to them. Thus a Music student has an advantage over a non music student. 4. We can pair something like music (fun for students) and a math (not so fun), we can implement associative conditioning. The students will use more of their brain in class (because of its expansion from studying music). 5. So why make it mandatory? Just like english, math, and geogrpahy give real world advantages to those who dont take them, Music is the same. Music increase the analytical skills of students, something only benfical. 6. And finally, like I stated in my first argument, making a music class apart of school for everyone brings in a CREATIVE aspect of learning rather then the constant academic feel, and guess what? Music will even help with those academic class's. I apologize for not going over everything, but after typing for an hour, I hardly feel up to that again, especially if I am having to rejurgitate my ideas.
Evolution is real.

Okay, I have just stated that the building blocks of life are cells, and that they are found in virtually every living being. That is why evolution is real. The development of cells overtime is why evolution is real. Also, there are fossils. With fossils, we have been able to date animals back to certain years within the layers of the Earth. Also, we have found numerous bones from Neanderthals, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus species of humans. We have been able to piece together the bones and figure out how similar our species, the Homo Sapiens, and the previous species have been similar. It's not magic, it's just evolution. We have also been able to track DNA from Chimpanzees and see the RNA/DNA similarities. Scientists have also been able to recover DNA from Neanderthals and have found genetic similarities. And its not a common creator that proves why we are similar, it is a common ANCESTOR that makes us all similar to many animals.
Evolution is real.

Round 4 and my opponent is yet to provide a single piece of scientific evidence for evolution. I have also shown in round 3 how the evolution of complex systems by mutation is mathematically impossible. My opponent now seems to be switching from talking about humans evolving from chimpanzees to just merely talking about cells turning into organs. He is switching from Macro evolution to micro "evolution" or what I would call "growing". This is a sort of reverse of what happens in schools. In schools they start off talking about micro evolution and then they switch to macro and start talking about animals some how mutating into other animals over "billions of years". Regardless.This is a major problem people. There are atleast 6 definitions of "evolution" according to creation scientist Kent Hovind.1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”2. Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind” Only number 6 has anything to do with real science. I have shown how macro evolution is mathematically impossible and therefore "evolution" as commonly regarded is not real.
Evolution is real.

Let me bring up this topic. What is the basic building block of life? Cells. Animal Cells, Plant Cells, White Cells, there all over. So where did life begin? Well, with cells, it's been proven. Life started out as single celled organisms. Then, the organisms EVOLVED into tissues, tissues evolved into organs, organs evolved into systems, and systems evolved into organisms like us. See? Cells are the basic unit of life. Tell me this: If we have found and seen cells under microscopes and taken visual evidence of them, why do you still believe that evolution is false? We have found the source behind evolution, so it has been nearly solved.
Evolution is real.

My opponent states:My conclusion is that the genetic similarities are a result of biological evolution.yet my opponent is yet to provide any evidence for this conclusion, This is just un-substantiated speculation. This is equivelent to saying "because the stick bug looks like a stick then it evolved from a stick." But this is not science. This is just conjecture. Evolution is mathematically impossible!"let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." http://www.icr.org...;I rest my case.
Evolution is real.

I will write rebuttals to each of your comments. The similarities are due to having the same designer. Rebuttal: Hmm. .. I can tell you that I do believe in God, yet I do believe in evolution. Actually, the similarities are from the nearly same DNA. I said nearly same because evolution occurred and the DNA took shape overtime. Ford cars are very similar, this doesn't mean that the Ford F150 evolved out of a Ford Taurus over billions of years. It means they have the same designer. Rebuttal: That analogy is not a very good comparison. After all, evolution was a natural event, unlike car designing. You have good observations but draw the wrong conclusion. Rebuttal: How do I draw the wrong conclusions? My conclusion is that the genetic similarities are a result of biological evolution.
Evolution is real.

Evolution is, overall, a well proven theory. Before we officially begin, a "theory" is defined as "a re-proven and reiterated idea." In fact, evolution is one of the most well formulated theories in all of science. Anyway, why it is real: Chimpanzees/monkeys and other primates have had close genetic similarities and behaviors as many humans. Also, many systems of the human anatomy work virtually the same. For instance, humans have been proven to have the strongest immunities of all living beings. And what living being comes next on the list? Chimpanzees. That is because of evolution; The Immune System has become stronger as evolution has progressed. We'll go into depth once you accept.
Evolution is real.

Ok, may I remind you again that I am Catholic and I do believe in God, yet I also believe that evolution occured. Anyway, think about this: Why do we humans and chimpanzees look the same? Evolution. Our features are similar to theirs. For instance, our reproductive system and their's are the same, because of the same gentials and everything. Also, check out the Phylogenetic tree and the molecular tree. When comparing them, they match so well that the significance is P <0.00077. Animals overtime gain new features as evolution occured, such as the way that marsupials have aquired many of the placental mammal features. Animals, with evolution, have the capability to adapt to their environment, such as birds have different beaks for their own unique needs. Tink about this, too: Goose bumps. You experience development of goose bumps when you are cold or in fear, same with all of the other animals. See? If you match animals characteristics with us, you will find that evolution has passed on many vital characteristics to us. Thank you for accepting my debate, and I conclude my final argument with saying that I am a firm believer of science and God. May the best man win.
Euthanasia

), I also look forward to this debate as it is my first one on here! Good luck. I like your suggestions as well, yes. I think euthanasia should be legalized for many reasons. In fact, don't understand why euthanasia is a controversial debate in the first place. What is so immoral with ending someones life if they are in insufferable pain and who want to die? I would say it is more cruel to keep someone alive against their wishes. You put animals to sleep and put them out of their misery, why not human beings? If you want to look at euthanasia from a liberal point of view, people have an explicit right to die and I don't think that someone should take that option away from them. Most people agree with human rights e. g. right to life, right to liberty and life to a fair trial etc. Why not right to die? Also, this could lead us to another point, we shouldn't even need a separate right allowing us to die as I think 'right to liberty' gives us the right to euthanasia, and euthanasia being illegal is in a sense, prevents our right to liberty. You can also look at euthanasia on an emotional level. If you allow people the right to die it can give the family of the deceased some comfort that they did not suffer anymore than they needed to, and that they were in the comfort of their family, you would also be able to say a final goodbye to your loved ones. Euthanasia also allows the deceased to retain their dignity, so they don't have to be seen helpless, suffering and in chronic pain. I think one of the most important points when fighting for euthanasia is why should someone be kept alive, especially when they know they do not want to live. A perfect example of this is the case of Tony Nicklisnson: . http://www.bbc.co.uk... He had to starve himself in the end has his appeal was rejected and he could not end his life any other way without the help of his family (active euthanasia), which is murder or manslaughter. In fact, Britons have had to go over to Switzerland to have the legal right to die. One important sentence in the article is "For those who traveled with them, there was always the fear of prosecution but, to date, no-one who accompanied any of the 182 Britons has been prosecuted. " Although no one has actually been prosecuted, there has always been a fear. Which I think is bad enough! . http://www.bbc.co.uk... To look at the argument from a philosophical point of view, is death actually a bad thing? In some cases people prefer death over life, that's why people commit suicide. Why should death be regarded as such a bad thing? If you are going to die anyway, an example of this could be a cancer patient who has discovered the cancer in too late a stage to act on it, and who is going to die anyway. Euthanasia isn't the act of killing someone healthy, it is the act of giving someone a dignified end to their life, who is going die anyway.
Euthanasia

Hi. I accept this challenge, as this is a fascinating and contentious topic and is open to myriad interesting ethical/moral arguments. It should be interesting to discuss. Rules: I agree to the three rules that you set out about remaining civil within the round. I also agree to refrain from new arguments in Round 4. I think we should also refrain from offering new evidence in Round 4 as well. Burden: I think burden of proof should be shared. Pro shows legalization should occur; Con shows it should not. Definitions: I agree with your definitions of euthanasia--I think we should consider the term "euthanasia" as encompassing all of the various sub-categories of it that you mention. I also think we should define "should" as "indicating that something is the right thing to do." I hope all of my suggestions are okay, and that we can begin the debate. I look forward to a promising debate!
Euthanasia

1) No swearing directed at someone 2)No insulting 3) Always conduct yourself politely I believe euthanasia should be legalized in the UK. Euthanasia- Active euthanasia " where a person deliberately intervenes to end someone"s life, for example, by injecting them with sedatives. Passive euthanasia " where a person causes death by withholding or withdrawing treatment that is necessary to maintain life, such as withholding antibiotics in someone with pneumonia Euthanasia can also be classified as: Voluntary euthanasia " where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do this. Non-voluntary euthanasia " where a person is unable to give their consent (for example, because they are in a coma or are severely brain damaged) and another person takes the decision on their behalf, often because the ill person previously expressed a wish for their life to be ended in such circumstances. Involuntary euthanasia " where a person is killed against their expressed wishes
Masturbation in Schools

Sorry about the forfeit mate. Contention one: Some kids don't know how to masturbate properly At a theoretical level, we can assume that some children have urges that must be immediately sated, but don't have the knowledge or patience to safely satiate that need. It is all too common that young males will use harmful lubricants , or improper technique that can damage their genitalia. In an ideal world we would just kill any kids that are stupid enough to not know how to properly masturbate (about most of them probably), but our society demands we teach them proper methods. My resolution supports high school teachers ensuring that young boys know that there are many lubricants that while wielding results, can lead to later irritation and damage of the males genitalia. Why must this happen in school one might ask? Young children face enormous obstacles when confronting their parents on advice about self gratification. We feel that many children simply don't want to talk to their parents about anything sexual. The internet is also a horrible place to learn about this sort of thing because there is a very thin line between sexual education and pornography on it. Young children could easily stumble on an inappropriate site if they google "How to masturbate". Instead of finding a completely innocuous video of an adult using a diagram or prop showing how to safely do the deed, we fear they will find "Two guys, one horse". In a school environment they will have a safe and supervised place to learn about and incredibly important activity that will effect them for the rest of their lives. There is no distinction between what I propose and the existing sexual education classes. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GIRLS IN THE CLASS? Just like how boys aren't excluded about learning about girls menstrual cycles, girls will not be excluded from these classes. Masturbation affects them almost as much as it affects the boys. They cannot be kept blind to this aspect of the male condition, knowledge is power, and understanding will bring a familiarity and responsibility with the sexual question. It's disgusting? So are girls periods but we learn about that. Sex in general can be disgusting, we are perfectly happy to concede that, hell, I even found some scenes from Romeo and Juliet disgusting when I was in English class. Being absolutely hideous, shocking and unsightly is a reason to include a topic in a curriculum not exclude it. The children must learn about this inevitable process, in a classroom the act will be so much less disgusting and they will have their peers and a teacher to help them through it. Ladies and Gentlemen, I propose.
Masturbation in Schools

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I am in support of children having access to informative lessons that they may be too uncomfortable to ask their parents about, and not stupid enough to try and access over the internet, I am in favour of girls learning about a crucial part of male puberty, and I am against our next generation of world leaders potentially harming their genitalia through improper methods of self gratification. Canada should incorporate masturbation lessons into it's public school grade 8 Sexual Education classes. How one might ask? That is up to the discretion of the school boards, be it pictures, diagrams, or models/physical props.