BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
FTl travel is possible.

I would like to preface this debate by saying that I am by no means an expert in physics and do not pretend to be. However, to my knowledge this is a fairly straightforward topic within our current understanding of the universe. My opponent has not proposed any reasons why faster than light travel is possible, so I am going to open up with a few simple comments and in the following rounds I will offer more specific rebuttals. First off, no object has ever been demonstrated or observed to travel faster than the speed of light. This does not necessary mean that faster than light travel if definitely impossible, but it certainly points toward this conclusion. If faster than light objects have not be observed than there is no reason to assume that they exist. Unless a strong scientific theory favors the existence of faster than light travel, than the lack of faster than light objects should be enough information to conclude that faster than light travel is at least unlikely if not impossible. Also, a few simply physical laws strongly point against the theory of faster than light travel. As a result of the way acceleration works at very high speeds, it would require an infinite amount of time to accelerate an object with mass greater than zero to the speed of light. It would also require infinite energy. These are long the requirements to reach the speed of light, exceeding the speed of light would require an amount of time and energy both exceeding infinity. Another physical law is the phenomenon of length contraction. This dictates that an object contracts along its axis of motion as it accelerates. In order to exceed the speed of light, the length of an object would have to shrink to a negative value, which is obviously impossible. The final problem I propose in this round is the issue of time dilation. I cannot post the equation for time dilation in this text box, but anyone can easily look it up. Part of the equation is sqrt[1-(velocity of object)^2/(speed of light^2)]. What this means is that if the velocity of the object was greater than the speed of light, than 1-x (x such that x is greater than one) would exist under the radical. This would result in a negative value under a square root, which would result in a non-real value. The time dilation do to acceleration of an object cannot be a non-real value. So, in conclusion, no faster than light objects have been observed and our current understanding of the laws of physics suggests that such objects cannot exist. The theory of relativity is explained here: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu...
Christianity is the total truth.

ME - 1) How do you certain that christianity is the truth? PRO - All other religions don't have what mine has. Proof of a son a son of the true living God ;)Tell us what religions dont have and you got it amaze us! i cant wait for the shock... "Proof of a son a son of the true living God" words in air... 1+1+1 = 1 !! by the way its true...ME - 2) How you can believe in something - the bible, that has been changed & curropted? PRO - One part has not been corrupted that of the testimonies of Jesus. Evidence for that claim?ME - 3) Why do you believe in the gospels to be true and at the same time the authors are unknowns?PRO - The authors of the gospel are known, his disciples and an investigator and a friend of Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.That is wrong. almost all bible scholars reject this views you have, so you believe in blind faith yep?ME - 4) Why do you believe Jesus as God and Jesus never claimed such a thing or say worship me, why you pray to him instead the father ? PRO - Jesus is the son of God, he is the only sinless human being to live on this planet, ever.Thank you admitting that he is not God and he is only "son of God" (Adam Ephraim Solomon Jacob David all are sons of God in the bible) and he is human being, according to you he is sinless (which i dont agree from reading the bible..) anyway you saying that Jesus has quality of God? well go to Melchizedek:Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, - Hebrews 7:3he is greater than Jesus obviously... so worship him please.i think it was habli babli debate
Christianity is the total truth.

One part has not been corrupted that of the testimonies of Jesus. The authors of the gospel are known, his disciples and an investigator and a friend of Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You can make a similar claim with that of Shakespeare novels. FYI I do not belong to any church and don't really care about organized religion because it is unnecessary. Jesus is the son of God, he is the only sinless human being to live on this planet, ever. All other religions don't have what mine has. Proof of a son a son of the true living God ;)
Christianity is the total truth.

Ok tear my points :)1) How do you certain that christianity is the truth? on what basis you say that? what makes christainity (you didnt mentioned what side you belong to which chruch) true and other religions are false? 2) How you can believe in something - the bible, that has been changed & curropted? 3) Why do you believe in the gospels to be true and at the same time the authors are unknowns?4) Why do you believe Jesus as God and Jesus never claimed such a thing or say worship me, why you pray to him instead the father ?i think its enough.....
Christianity is the total truth.

Hello, I am willing to defend the truth and nothing but the truth. I dare anyone to try to go up against not me, but the truth of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I would love to tear your points of stupidity to shreds. Me a man of God are willing to hopefully show you the light and rethink your way of thinking. I love all and I am a very liberal-christian. Many Christians are not truly followers of Christ and if all knew about Jesus people would treat others with more respect. Please ask me any questions you have and any points that make you not believe and I will be glad to assist you. God bless.
Slender Man isn't real

Have you ever see a canniban before? Perhaps no. But that does not mean that they don't exist. Slender man is real but just as rear as a canniban but they are real. You are a human not because you live but because even in your absence your pictures represent your present and that is what makes people believe that you exist. Infact, you must know that I don't really know you, i met you online but your profile made me accept that you exist. Slender is real, even with or without evidence.
Resolved "violence is a justified response to political oppression."

I (Pro) will be arguing that violence is a justified response to political oppression, my opponent (Con) will be arguing that violence is not a justified response to political oppression. Definitions: I. Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. – google.com II. Political Oppression: prolonged cruel and unjust treatment or control. – google.com III. Justified: Having done for or marked by a good or legitimate reason. – google.com All sources must be cited and values consistent. Thank you, and I look forward to the forthcoming debate.
There Is No Sure Hope for Anybody if Jesus Christ Is Not Resurrected and Alive Now.

I have not forfieted! Why say that?? I must not really understand what you are trying to say then. Ohhhh....I was suppose to be CON not PRO. Oh okay. Well, I do agree with you but not that there is no hope if he wasn't resurrected. But if he wasn't that would mean we wouldn't go to heaven because there wouldn't be one? Right? And I say your comment. I find it a bit bigoted. "Are Roman Catholics Christians"? OF COURSE THEY ARE!! I am Catholic! I will accepted that debate if you make one of it. What makes you think they aren't??
There Is No Sure Hope for Anybody if Jesus Christ Is Not Resurrected and Alive Now.

this debate is not about freedom of religion, it's about "sure" hope. Yes, many people have hope but it is hope in things that will end or cannot be guranteed. Please explain the hope you assert that people have so i can show that it is not sure hope. I did not say people have no hope. I said there is no sure hope for anybody if Jesus Christ is not resurrected. What do you hope in? Do you hope that the good things you do will impress God so He won't have you cast into the fire of hell? Remember, the one thing you cannot use as your example of hope for this debate is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The burden of proof here is on you to show sure hope apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There Is No Sure Hope for Anybody if Jesus Christ Is Not Resurrected and Alive Now.

First, I'm Catholic and I believe in God and Jesus. I have accepted him into my life. Everybody in the whole world doesn't have to believe in God and Jesus. Okay? It's called Freedom of Religion. Listed under the UN. If one doesn't accept Jesus, doesn't mean he has no hope! Gosh! Be more tolerant of different beliefs!
There Is No Sure Hope for Anybody if Jesus Christ Is Not Resurrected and Alive Now.

Con must show how there is sure hope apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Sure hope is hope in something that we know is going to happen. Some hope in death to relieve them from the problems of living. This is not sure hope as the person who might hold such hope cannot be sure his problems will end in death......unless he (or she) is sure to be resurrected to eternal life the same as Jesus Christ. Burden of proof is on Con to show how there can be any sure hope in anything or anybody other than the resurrected Jesus Christ.
a communist ecmnomic sestem is the best

All I can ask is that you... ...wait for it... ...wait for it... *II*****II***IIIIIIII***IIIIIIIIII**IIIIIIII******IIIIIIII***IIIIIIII***IIII***II**II* *II*****II**II****II****II****II*********II*****II****II**II*II**II**II* **II***II***II****II****II****II*********II*****II****II**II*II**II**II* **II***II***II****II****II****IIIIIIII******II*****II****II**II**II*II**II* ***II*II****II****II****II****II*********II*****II****II**II***IIII**** ****II******IIIIIIII*****II****IIIIIIII******IIIIIIII***IIIIIIII***II****II**II*
a communist ecmnomic sestem is the best

Communism- A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Communist systems are not ideal for several reasons: 1. The laws of economics show that communism makes people poor. 2. The potential for corruption is high. And I will leave it there. First, the origin of wealth is labour, and the ultimate value of labour is based upon several factors: -Amount of labour worked -The demand for the produce of that labour -The supply of the produce of the labour -The time required to produce the product of the labour -The time required to be learn to produce the product of such labour -The cost of living in a society Source: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (outline: http://art-bin.com...) For these reasons, the produce of one individual is never equal to the next. Communism tries to make everyone equal and share the produce of their labour equally. They do this for ethical reasons of course. However, now the factors contributing to the value of the individual is: -Whether or not that invididual is alive. So the common worker has lost incentive to: -work long hours -study many years for a proffession The result of this is a lack of incentive to produce, as the produce of one's labour is not what one recieves. When a society produces less, their is less wealth to go around. Therefore, everyone is less wealthy. So, in one system, there are rich and middle-class and a few poor, in the second, everyone is poor. 2. The potential for corruption is high. There is a one-party state in power. This political monopoly allows for the party in charge to successfully be corrupt and irresponsible. Such tendencies happened under Stalin during the Great Purge and the well-known abuse of the Party during that time. -------------------------------------------------- In response to my opponent, economic inequality is just. -------------------------------------------------- I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Abe Lincoln vs. Barack Obama

"I would like to debate you Obama vs Lincoln seriously and professionaly unlike the other debate that you had."Well good luck with that :P"I will be arguing that Abraham Lincoln is an infinitely better president than Barack Obama."Infinitely? (excellent.... a loophole I can exploit in case I need it! muaHAHAHAHAHAHA) Other then that, I accept. State your case
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border fence.

DOTWThis is a part of Tej's DEBATE OF THE WEEK efforts, and this will be this week's DEBATE OF THE WEEK! For more details please view the link:(. http://www.debate.org...) The Full resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border fence along the US-Mexico Boarder. Rules Round 1 is rules and definitions for Con, Pro may begin his Constructive Case. Round 2 Con may begin his Constructive Case (No Rebuttals), Pro will begin his rebuttals. Round 3 Rebuttals (Pro may also post his conclusions)Round 4 Rebuttals and Conclusion by Con. Pro will post "No round as agreed upon. "If Pro posts anything, but what is posted above then it is an automatic forfeiture. No trolling. No semantics. No profanities. No Machine gunning/shotgunning arguments. No source spammingAll sources must be in the debate round and accessable by direct link. (tinyurl works)Definitions The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...) Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) (. http://www.dictionary.com...) Mexico–United States barrier is a series of walls and fences aimed at preventing illegal crossings from Mexico into the Southwestern United States (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)
The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

Like I said in the comments, my source messed up when I copy/pasted it. Here's the real link: http://www.space.com... A guy or girl, whichever, and I were arguing (http://www.debate.org...) over the existence of God, and he/she posted the link from up above to show that God was not needed to create the universe. Quantum fluctuations could be the source of the universe's creation because the laws of physics provide the possibility. However, I kept reading through the same article, and at the near end, it says something interesting and in the favor of a theist. He says: '"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'"' He responds, speaking as a believer, "'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" Later he continues, explaining why that won't work out... "But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer." God is the supreme being, he doesn't need a creator. He is the only exception to the cause/effect rule. And if he does need a creator, than he is not God. So, in order for quantum fluctuations to work, the laws of physics are needed, and for the laws of physics to work, a somewhere down the road a creator who needs no creation is needed. Atheists will sometimes say: "Why does God have to be the only exception to the cause and effect rule? Why can't the Big Bang (produced by fluctuation) be the only exception to the cause and effect rule? What if, as you say God is, the laws of physics just always were and needed no creator?" The laws of physics are not sentient and cannot think, they are mere things. God, on the other hand, is an actual being with intellect. Comparing the laws of physics and God in the creation of the universe is like comparing a potter and a mannequin in the creation of a pot. Something is thoughtless cannot create, and something with thought can. Of course things happen in the universe by force of nature, but their causes ultimately need the "ultimate causer." For example, take a golf ball and hold it up, representing the Earth in space. You represent God, and in this case, gravity will represent lack of gravity. The goal is to keep Earth from falling out of space. Let go of the Earth, and it falls to the ground. The laws of physics do not know that they are supposed to hold the Earth in place. Now hold it stable. You, a person who can think, can hold the Earth in place. (You might be wandering about gravity in this case and how it's reversed. The principal still remains the same, however, as the lack of gravity or at least a severe depletion is a law as well.) To close with, quantum fluctuations, the laws of physics, or anything you want to attribute to the creation of the universe ultimately will still need a cause. The exception to this, however, is God. Thanks to cakerman for accepting, it took a while but hey here we go.
The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

Whenever a theist puts forth the question "how does something come from nothing?", atheists have a very scientific and seemingly full proof answer of quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are "random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness." [1] This is a source used from the seemingly atheist person I am debating. The article says that because of these quantum fluctuations, the universe/big bang can produce itself without need of a God. The article states "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there." This argument used widely by atheists for the origin of the universe, however, is flawed, and I will be explaining why in Round 2. Round 1: Acceptance, questions, definitions. Round 2: Arguments by both sides, no rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals from both sides, no new arguments. If for some reason you run out of character room for sources are something, you can use the comments- within reason. (Note: this is not just a regular "does God exist" debate, it's just a debate on a specific argument used by atheists. Other arguments for why God doesn't or does exist are irrelevant to this debate. Only quantum fluctuations.) Sources: 1.random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness.
The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

To respond to all of the points my opponent has brought up I have something simple to say:"5. "In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right?" No, because God is outside of space and time. And if you ask why again, then I'll just say again that he's the Supreme Being. We are talking about GOD, after all, not just me or you. We may not understand how, because we are not omniscient. But God is."But why is that, and how does it make sense? You have not explained to me how that is logically possible, to assume that nothing existed before god did is simply asinine and shows 0 critical thinking on the side of Pro."7. "I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet." Have you ever thought that maybe the Laws of Physics have not explained God yet?"We do not need the laws of physics to explain a living being such as a god, nor does the definition of god have any relevancy in this debate. No matter what this supposed god is there has to have been a quantum fluctuation that created his realm of existence. We cannot say that God does not have a realm of existence because then he would not exist to begin with, without a place for his mind to inhabit there is no God. This simple validates that the same quantum fluctuation that caused the big bang is the same quantum fluctuation that created god and the space he lives in."cakerman has fought as best as he could, but should of ultimately not even joined this debate. I will admit that the burden of proof is strongly on Pro, but hey, I didn't force anyone to accept this debate. cakerman claims that this debate is unfair because I just say God is tri-Omni, so my argument is foolproof. Yep, pretty much is foolproof... maybe you should've seen that before accepting."Why exactly do you expect to win this debate then? If you consciously announce that you understand that your burden of proof was not fulfilled and that you have a point and click style argument every single time than why didn't you just concede after my last response? Why did you waste your time typing up this debate and arguing so passionately for something of which you're later going to admit that you never even fulfilled your burden of proof for? Shouldn't a conscious awareness of not fulfilling your duty to debate your side using logic, reasoning, critical thinking or evidence disqualify you as a whole?A real argument for saying that god doesn't need to be created would be to show me a real instance of a living being of which has simply existed since the beginning of time, an observable creature that isn't god. I don't feel I need a conclusion or a final coup de grace, it's as simple as you admitting you lost the debate, and you admitting you didnt play your part in structuring a fair, and reasonable argument.
The bible teaches flat earth

Actually he didn't travel to space but if you have God, God will give u knowledge and he did and so he would know plus John actually saw the end times so anything is possible through God like great knowledge. So in space you see it as a circular shape and 2D. This is all I will say because all you will do is find the faults in my points and not make any of your points meaning you don't have any reasons why, but just using my points as your points. I may not have sources but I have God. Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. Isaiah 40:28 NIV God bless you d84;