BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kalam Cosmological Argument

I also invite anyone who reads this to critique my arguments and to make suggestions on how I might have done better. Premise 1Pro is in essence claiming that the energy in an absolute vacuum does not produce these particles, but rather consists of these particles. However, he has given no source, no science to show that this is the case. The Uncertainty Principle speaks only to our inability to predict certain things about particle/anti-particle pairs, radioactive atomic decay, and so on; to say that it has metaphysical implications for the causation or non-causation of these pairs is begging the question. Pro suggests that an uncaused universe is the simplest explanation. However, preferring simple to complex explanations is a principle that only applies when all other circumstances are equal. If the Kalam argument succeeds, then other circumstances are not equal, for we have strong inductive reasons to think that the universe did have a cause. So by appealing to simplicity, Pro is again begging the question against the argument. As for the suggestion that the universe could have come from "an empty geometry indistinguishable from nothing," I don't think that such a concept is coherent. A true nothing would lack, among everything else, geometry itself. Unless by "geometry" Pro means something like "the underlying fabric of space-time," in which case he's appealing to something rather than nothing, and something that seems to be part of this universe rather than the metaphysical layer from which it sprang. Premise 2Again, unless "geometry" is a code word for something other than mathematical geometry, the only geometry possible in a timeless and spaceless model is a zero-dimensional, zero-time universe. But that describes the Big Bang singularity. Finally, my opponent has still failed to show why an infinite regress of moments is possible. He did say in his first statement that an infinite number of moments could have been traversed to reach the present, so long as the traverse never began. But consider the counterpart of an infinite past: an infinite future. No matter how much time passes, there will never be an infinite number of moments starting from now and extending into the future. If the concept of traversing moments is coherent in both directions, then no matter how many moments we traverse toward the past, we will never reach an infinite number of moments prior to now. This proves that the universe had a beginning. Thus, the Kalam Cosmological Argument stands. Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate. :-)
Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1The only reason the vacuum is teeming with energy is because the fluctuations are occurring. They are occurring in what would otherwise be, empty space. So the only example we have of something remotely from nothing, does so with no apparent cause. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to deny that likelihood that the universe began spontaneously. Thus, the Kalam Cosmological Argument clearly is standing on very shaky grounds at best."Pro is correct that there was no time earlier than the Big Bang Singularity; this necessitates that the cause of the universe is removed altogether from the temporal framework of the universe. Perhaps it exists in a time stream tangental to our own, or perhaps it exists in a timeless realm. There's no conceptual reason why such a thing can't happen." Or maybe there is no cause, this is the simplest explanation. We know of events that don't have any initial causes, like the radioactive decay of an atom and spontaneous quantum fluctuations. There is also no reason to assume the universe came from absolutely nothing either, there is nothing about a finite-past universe (which is all the paper you mentioned demonstrated) which indicates it came from literally absolutely nothing. It could have came from an empty geometry indistinguishable from nothing. My opponent is trying to propose false dilemmas to make a faulty case work.Premise 2 "Pro cites Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins as a model from which something comes from that which "resembles" nothing. Key word: "resembles." Even under Vilenkin's model, this universe would have had to come from something, which in turn would have had to come from something else" This is false. The empty geometry from which the universe appeared in Vilenkin's model was a timeless and spaceless geometry. Thus, it didn't need a beginning or a cause by Pro's own standard."Most physicists believe that the universe came from a singularity at which space and time began, and few if any physicists support Vilenkin." My opponent simply doesn't understand Vilenkin's model. Time and space did begin under his model, so she is clearly mistaken (I even mentioned in my opening round that describes his model, and that the geometry is timeless). Also, most physicists I have researched believe Alexander's model is plausible and the claim that they don't support him is simply not true. There is no reason to exclude his model.ConclusionMy opponent clearly failed to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument succeeds, and I succeeded to show why it fails.
Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1Particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence from empty space, and Pro correctly defined empty space as "the only thing close we have to 'nothing.'" In fact, even an absolute vacuum is teeming with energy; a cubic meter of absolute nothingness contains 10 to the -9th power joules of energy.(1) So these particle pairs don't come out of nothing, and don't refute the causal principle, which everyone intuitively knows, that "nothing comes from nothing."Pro is correct that there was no time earlier than the Big Bang Singularity; this necessitates that the cause of the universe is removed altogether from the temporal framework of the universe. Perhaps it exists in a time stream tangental to our own, or perhaps it exists in a timeless realm. There's no conceptual reason why such a thing can't happen.Premise 2Pro cites Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins as a model from which something comes from that which "resembles" nothing. Key word: "resembles." Even under Vilenkin's model, this universe would have had to come from something, which in turn would have had to come from something else, which leads to an infinite regress. Also, a theory being "plausible" in this sense only means that it's consistent with the known evidence -- i.e. it's possible. There's a non-zero chance that it's true. That's consistent with there being an extremely low probability that it's true. Most physicists believe that the universe came from a singularity at which space and time began, and few if any physicists suport Vilenkin.(2)Also, Pro did not address my argument that, aside from the scientific evidence, an infinitely existing universe is metaphysically impossible, because an infinite past would require an infinite number of moments to pass before we reached the present, and an infinite number of moments in the future will never be arrived at no matter how long we wait.The Kalam Cosmological Argument stands.(1) Sean Carroll, Sr Research Associate - Physics, California Institute of Technology, June 22, 2006C-SPAN broadcast of Cosmology at Yearly Kos Science Panel, Part 1(2) http://space.about.com...;
Kalam Cosmological Argument

1) Whatever began to exist has a cause for its existence.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.Premise 1 is true by experience: we don't observe everyday objects coming into existence out of nothing, or we'd live in a very chaotic world. It's also true by metaphysical intuition: we can't conceive of a possible world where things come into existence uncaused.Premise 2 is true for two reasons. First, we have scientific evidence that the universe came into existence in a Big Bang singularity, which was the first moment in time for the universe. Second, we know that the universe can't exist forever, because if there was an infinite past then we would never get to the present, and no matter how long we wait there will never be an infinite number of future moments between now and an infinite point in the future.Thus the argument proves the existence for a cause of the universe.Craig, W. L. and Sinclair, J. D. (2009) The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (eds W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Mountain Lion is Better that Windows 8

Con has made his statements and attempted to counter my argument. The way that he has stated his argument sounds like he has never even used windows 8 or mountain lion. 1) con has stated that Mountain lion has only has a limited number of hardware it can run on. In fact this is true Mountain lion can only run on a select number of hardware (MacBook pro, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro) but this hardware is custom built to have mountain lion run on it. While windows 8 may have a wider range of platforms (computers it can run on). But windows will plays be running on 3rd party hardware (dell, HP, gateway, Lenovo, ect). Because mountain lion is hardware is custom made by apple all the drivers are the same so you can switch any apple hard drive and boot it up and it will work without having to go and find drivers. 2) con has stated that because windows 8 has iTunes that it syncs with all apple devices. This is true but on very small level. When mountain lion has the sync option built right in to the OS. For example if someone enters a new contact on one of there iOS devices it will update the contact book of all other apple devices or computers under your apple ID. 3) con has stated that gaming on mountain lion is very limited. When all that is needed to run all games on mountain lion is one simple software install. 4) con's claim that "Windows 8 is backwards compatible with previous versions of Windows Because it's backwards compatible, this means users have a much larger base of applications to choose from." Is saying that if you have an application that is running on a previous version of windows that it will run on windows 8 while this is tru you can do the same on mountain lion. Mountain lion is a "backwards compatible" system. Unfortunately for windows users you need about 10 updates as soon as any software is installed. With mountain lion software install is simple because all installs go thought the install utility. I believe that I have covered all of con arguments.
Mountain Lion is Better that Windows 8

People say that Windows 8 is the best operating system out for today's computing needs. the people who say this would be wrong in so many ways.1) Mountain Lion is user friendly and stylish. Windows 8 is slow and a repeat of vista.2) Mountain Lion is able to sync with all other apple devices. Windows 8 is the tablet software on a laptop and desktop and is unless without a touch screen.3) Mountain Lion is only 20$ for all Computers under your apple ID. Window's 8 is 30$ and up depending on if you have windows 7 already.
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

Not ALL commercials are inappropriate, and I cannot understand why you insist they are. In addition, the production costs more and is of higher quality, because why would the companies air commercials for millions of dollars when it isnt worth it? (e.i. poor quality...) The only logical way to advertise during the Superbowl is to make commercials that are of great quality, and that catch the eye of the viewers. You misunderstood my first argument. I was not only implying they are inappropriate, but they lack in variety. This has gone untouched. Since they all focus on one SPECIFIC group, they lack in variety. This is bad. But what you did try to attack was the inappropriateness of the commercials. Your only response is that "not ALL commercials are inappropriate." Honestly, the majority of them are inappropriate. Thus, they are bad. And finally, the value of the commercial. I understand what you saying, but you are confusing what is wanted to what is actually done. Here is my logic...again...with numbers this time for clarity. Commercial has a budget of $15,000. Normal commercial cost $2,000 to air. Normal commercial allows $13,000 for production. Super Bowl commercial cost $7,000. Super Bowl commercial allows $8,000 for production. Companies obviously WANT to make super bowl commercials of the highest quality, but they can't afford it. So super bowl commercials lack variety are inappropriate lack high quality
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

First off, I don't think your question, "Did you watch last year's Superbowl?" was logical to ask, because in my previous argument, I stated some of the commercials I watched during the Superbowl last year. Not ALL commercials are inappropriate, and I cannot understand why you insist they are. In addition, the production costs more and is of higher quality, because why would the companies air commercials for millions of dollars when it isnt worth it? (e.i. poor quality...) The only logical way to advertise during the Superbowl is to make commercials that are of great quality, and that catch the eye of the viewers.
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

Your first statement, sadly, is very incorrect. Did you watch last year's Super Bowl? GoDaddy.com was the most common commercial, and always had sex appeal. Many other commercials were for beer. There were a few appropiate commercials, but many are limited to the two examples above. Next, you claim that the companies must make the commercials good because they cost a lot. First, you ignored my statement that the airing cost only is very high, and the budget can not handle high-budget production. You have no proof to why production will cost more and quality be higher while I give a very logical reason why it is not. SuperBowl commercials are narrow-themed, and poor quality
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

Thanks for accepting, cody.... < > This statement isn't true. There are Walmart commercials to Fedex commercials, to even CVS Pharmacy commercials! There is a wide variety of commercials that are being shown, and most of them are hilarious. Such as last year's commercials: from the cavemen with the fedex boxes to the "magic fridge" commercial. Not all of the commercials are bad... the only ones that show a little bit of explicit content are only the 'Axe' commercials, and even those aren't that bad. The bottom line of my argument is that the majority of commercials that are played during the Superbowl tend to be the best ones that are shown to TV. The companies that are paying to air these commercials make it worth their money, therefore they have to make it good.
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

To begin, Paramore is awesome Moving on Here are some reasons why super bowl commercials are bad"The companies that try to promote their products tend to put in a little extra effort for the viewers, because they know millions of football fans are watching." Football fans are watching. So the only commercials on have sex or beer. That's it. This is a smaller variety of commercials. The commercials don't try to appeal to everyone. They don't even try to advertise to anyone who isn't a beer drinking guy. Thus, they are not as good. " Also, the companies who are promoting spend millions of dollars in order to get the message across that their product is worth buying, therefore the commercial better be good!!" Companies do spend more money to advertise commercials. The problem is, they spend more money on the TIME to advertise, not the advertisement itself. Watch the super bowl commercials. They have a lower production budget because they have a higher time slot cost. So your only two reasons why super bowl commercials are better only prove why they are worse
Commercials that are shown during the Superbowl tend to be the best commercials on television.

I would like to begin this debate by saying good luck to my opponent. Ok, now down to business... the commercials shown during the Superbowl are always better than the normal commercials that are shown on an every-day night! The companies that try to promote their products tend to put in a little extra effort for the viewers, because they know millions of football fans are watching. Also, the companies who are promoting spend millions of dollars in order to get the message across that their product is worth buying, therefore the commercial better be good!!
Feminism is Wrong

You are correct. I'm stating reasons as to why I believe in feminism. No, I am not a strong feminist. I just believe in the rights of man and woman. I mean, for example, you go to play a game such as Battle of The Sexes. Then, you notice how sexist to both genders it really is. That's the type of stuff I promote to fight for. "Now feminism is nothing but making women superior." In some cases, it is. But in most cases over 60 percent of people don't even want anything but to be equal to men. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . If you don't believe me there's an article. " There are many feminists who are outright man haters (Andrea Dworkin) ." Yes, but do you even know how many women/men are even feminists? less than 30 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com... . However, women who want to be superior to men are NOT feminist, that is actually called Misandry, the hatred of men Look in to many reasons. Don't judge off the first thing you see. Feminism is the equality of the sexes. Thank you for this debate. Hope to see you in another debate.
Feminism is Wrong

"I stated that women make way less than men" - Yeah and what is wrong with that? It is a byproduct of the choices women make.There is actually a trend where single women under 30 make more than men their age.In some cities it is up to 20% more. http://content.time.com... "No, not all women do." Correct, but it is the overall trend that women in general choose specific types of jobs. They can go work in a dangerous and higher paying job if they want to but they don't. Women are not as capable as men in some areas. When the job requires strength and physical stamina it is rare that a woman can do the job as well as a man. Lifting really heavy things is not something most women would even want to do for a living. I used to work in a copper/brass factory. It had a few women. They worked in the shipping department, cleanest and safest part of the company. "you're stating that its almost unethical to find a woman working in an oil rig, because they would rather be teachers." - Well if women want to be teachers they should be teachers. That is just what society is. Women can work on oil rigs if they want to and are physically capable but that is not what they want to do. " everyone can do everything, and not be judged for it." - No, not at all. Women can't be a starting QB in the NFL. Men cannot play in the WNBA. If Bruce Jenner tries to be in the olympics as a female he should be judged for it. My young opponent has done a decent job but said nothing that makes this new wave feminism appealing. Feminists won the argument a long time ago and need to stop arguing. Nothing can be done to close the wage gap because it is a byproduct of choices women make. Now feminism is nothing but making women superior. They want to make it appear that men are nothing but perverted woman hating bullies. There are many feminists who are outright man haters (Andrea Dworkin).
Feminism is Wrong

As my rebuttal, I stated that women make way less than men. You say that it isn't the case. You aren't looking at the facts right, then. That was a comparison. When we were debating in the comments as well, you stated that women are paid more. No they aren't in most cases, and when they are being paid more, it's less than a $0.10 difference!!! No, you say I may not be correct, but in the end I AM stating facts. I'm not being taken seriously because I'm young, and I understand that. But, I can make a stand point to be correct in the end. My mother and father went into the same work force, took the exact job. They compared checks at the end of every two weeks and my mother always made less. "Women choose lower paying and more comfortable jobs while men do more dangerous and higher paying jobs". No, not all women do. Some women, such as my aunt, work at places such as Olin Brass Company ( where I'm from). So this just knocks that rebuttal out the ball park. Women ARE just as capable as men. Women aren't as strong, but they are wise, just as men, and can do things. "There are some dummies who do but that is rare and our society as a whole looks at them like they are fools" Well where I was from, it was common. I seen this all the time. It was just something that looked normal in my city. This, for that reason caused us to leave the city. We didn't ever go back there, and haven't ever went back to this day. "Women tend to be teachers while men go off and risk their lives in an oil rig." Well, in this case you're stating that its almost unethical to find a woman working in an oil rig, because they would rather be teachers. Well, that's basically a sexist statement in itself. "I think we have a feminist paradox where feminism is saying women should have less rights!" You are correct, in a stand point. But, you are also wrong. Because, what I am fighting for in feminism, and sexism is that everyone can do everything, and not be judged for it. It's something that I feel I stand for. You have very valid points, but I'm still going to believe in that everyone needs to be equal. Women, African American, Caucasian American ! We all are missing our equality.
Feminism is Wrong

"The power to be paid like men are" - Women do get paid like men get paid. The wage gap is a myth. Men make more overall because of the jobs they choose. Women choose lower paying and more comfortable jobs while men do more dangerous and higher paying jobs. If women got paid less for doing the same exact job, everyone would hire women! "the power not to be judged by the fact that we are WOMEN doing MANLY things" - People get judged for everything they are and everything they do. It is human nature to evaluate people. I never heard of this being a problem for women. Seeing a woman do some major welding on the frame of a classic car is unusual but most men would enjoy seeing it. I have no idea what you think the problem is. "Women are treated like they are only good enough to take care of their husband (boyfriend or lover as well) for their sexual needs and their hunger" - Who does that? What is this, the 1950s? I am calling BS! In modern western society women are not viewed this way. There are some dummies who do but that is rare and our society as a whole looks at them like they are fools. "Then, on top of that women are paid WAY less than men." - Are you sure about that or are you just stating random figures that compare men's and women's earnings overall? "I looked on this site www.iwpr.org it says " Women, in 2015 were paid 80 cents for every dollar made by men ."" - Yeah, you are comparing overall figures. Men are not "paid" more. Men "earn" more. Men go into higher paying and more dangerous jobs. That means they get paid more. It is only natural for oil miners to be paid more than a middle school teacher. Women tend to be teachers while men go off and risk their lives on an oil rig. 2 of your points are identical and flat out wrong. If you truly believe this then you are fighting AGAINST the woman's right to decide for herself what she wants to do. You are saying women should go for jobs where they can earn more money instead of jobs they truly want. You think women get paid less for the same identical job but that is flat out wrong and illegal. I think we have a feminist paradox where feminism is saying women should have less rights!