BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Frisch-Smith Time-Dilation Experiment

First, a brief overview of the experiment. I will be doing some serious rounding of numbers to keep things simple.The experimenters counted 600 muons decay at 6,000 ft. Muons decay very fast, so they predicted only 30 muons would survive the fall to decay at 0 ft. if time-dilation isn't true. However, they figured that, since the muons are falling at near the speed of light, they should experience time-dilation that would slow their decay-rate so much that 400 muons would survive to decay at 0 ft (sea level). Instead of only 30. 400 muon decays were, in fact, detected at 0 ft., and this was considered proof of time-dilation. To be precise, it was considered as proof that the muons' time was slowed to ten times slower than normal.The experiment suffered from circular logic on a fundamental level. We can agree that if the experiment is based on the premise that Special Relativity is true, then it is circular to try to prove time-dilation, since time-dilation is a necessary consequence of the truth of Special Relativity. In other words, if the experiment assumes Special Relativity, it is not very useful to try to prove time-dilation, since by assuming Special Relativity, time-dilation is virtually assumed.Special Relativity was assumed by employing the Relativistic velocity formula. The experimenters predicted only 30 muons would decay at sea level if they were traveling near light speed without time-dilation. However, there is another option. The muons are not travelling near light speed, but much faster than that. If the muons are traveling much faster than the experiments thought, there is no need to invoke time-dilation as an explanation for why so many reached the ground!So how was the speed of the muons determined? They measured how deeply they penetrated a thickness of iron. The mass of the muons was already known. These values were then plugged into a Relativistic formula which, when solved for v, calculates the speed of the muons.But this formula is contructed in such a way that v can never exceed c! So no matter how fast the muons were actually falling, even if it were a billion times faster than light, this formula would calculate that they were not traveling faster than light! Thus, Special Relativity's assumption that nothing travels faster than light was assumed, and protected from falsification. This is why the experiment was not a bona-fide test of Special Relativity, and largely an exercise in circular logic.Here is the formula: v/c = [1-(mc^2/E)^2](1/2) V can never exceed C. The muons' speed could never be measured as exceeding the speed of light, even if they were.
The Frisch-Smith Time-Dilation Experiment

I will show the Frisch-Smith experiment[1][2] does not offer scientific confirmation of time-dilation.I welcome Ramshutu to this debate. First round is just for acceptance and pleasantries; I will post my opening argument in the next.[1] http://didel.script.univ-paris-diderot.fr...[2] http://www.scivee.tv...
The Frisch-Smith Time-Dilation Experiment

I will not add an additional argument, but will simply summarise this debate: My Opponent has claimed that the experiment is invalid because it relies on the particles in question traveling slower than the speed of light, and this cannot be validated. As pointed out, numerous experiments have been conducted that validate that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Most appropriately the same particles, in the same conditions as measured by the experiment. My opponent offers no positive evidence for his claims, whereas I have cited numerous examples that validate that the speed of light is not violated by particles; the majority of which he did not contest. In this respect, the burden of proof has more than been met to show that his argument is incorrect. The two aguments my opponent cites with regards to the single experiment he contests; are based not on rigorous examination of the evidence, maths and interpretation; but simply quoting a portion of the scientific paper, without care that the subsequent lines in both cases completely refute the point he is making. As my opponents unevidenced hypothesis has been shown to be wrong; the premise of the experiment is now sound, and this experiment does indeed validate time dilation. My opponent summarise his argument thusly: "Although common sense might not always be correct, there is not sufficient reason for abandoning it in this case. " I will let the voters be the judge here. From my side; I have shown that all the evidence shows that common sense should be abandoned with consistent measurements in a number of different methodologies all showing common sense is wrong. My opponent has offered not a single reference, source, or citation that shows any evidential basis for his opinion. It is clear to me that the burden of proof has been met both in terms of validating that the experiment does indeed validate time dilation exists; and also in terms of demonstrating the only premise my opponent puts forth is wrong.
Fundamentalism is detrimental to society

I am arguing that religious fundamentalism of any sort is dangerous to society and counterproductive to progress as a species. I am not arguing that there is no God, no metaphysical, that we evolved, or etc. I only want to argue about fundamentalism and according to the general definition as defined by Merriam-Webster: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" First round is acceptance. This is meant to be a 3 round debate.
Fundamentalism is detrimental to society

I have a gas leak in my house and I am confined to staying in a hotel right now, and cannot really participate from my work computer. I have had to concede out of my other debate. I would concede this debate, but I actually think that I might win if I just leave it as is, because you have not met your burden of proof. Some fundamentalism IS dangerous ( violent, cultish, etc ). Some is NOT. Your claim was that ALL fundamentalism is dangerous. I have shown that your claim is not valid. Lets let the voters decide. I would like to say your debate skills are good, and it has been an enjoyable debate, a bit of a roller coaster waiting to see your responses. Take care and thanks for a good debate.
Fundamentalism is detrimental to society

"Now, there is your burden of proof. I have just told you that I am a fundamental Baptist minister. Therefore, MY FUNDAMENTALISM is a "sort" of fundamentalism." --Yes, it is a sort of fundamentalism. Just one type. And all you are doing is extricating your own denomination from mainstream Christianity and saying "we aren't like that". Yet, you clearly identify yourself as a fundamentalist whilst also refusing to directly answer any of my questions or refute any of my points. But you obviously want a clear cut case of an independent baptist exhibiting disturbing behaviour (which is why you won't answer me, because your replies alone would sway the voters in my direction). So hmmm... here's an ex-baptist talking about it and a crapload of articles on the IFB's ridiculousness (and I grew up a Baptist also, since we are "whipping out" our denominations now). "IFB churches typically teach a kind of intellectual suppression where free thought and open mindedness is discouraged. There is an unfortunate mind set where philosophical questions are at best not understood and at worst not welcome." -- http://www.baptistdeception.com... Here's some more stories. All Independent Baptists. http://whnt.com... http://www.chicagomag.com... http://www.danielcharlesbrocktrial.com...(REDACTED%20VERSION).pdf http://www.chicoer.com... I know you thought you were making my BoP harder, but you actually made it easier. I just wanted to prove fundamentalism in general was dangerous, but your specificity just narrowed it down to Baptists. I win.
Fundamentalism is detrimental to society

Rather than refuting everything that you just said line by line, I will say this instead: Take into consideration that your opening statement was "I am arguing that fundamentalism of any sort is dangerous ..." Now, there is your burden of proof. I have just told you that I am a fundamental Baptist minister. Therefore, MY FUNDAMENTALISM is a "sort" of fundamentalism. I have shown that MINE ( meaning the type of people I am associated with ) is NOT dangerous. I have clearly shown that. You, on the other hand, have clearly ( and a bit rudely, at times ) shown that you have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this debate. Instead of showing us FACTS you are telling us how you feel about things. I am not here to debate your feelings. You are entitled to them, and God Bless you for them. However, the things that make YOU angry, or afraid, or disgusted, or bigoted against certain religions does not make them "Dangerous". Maybe scary to you, but certainly not dangerous. Now, your burden of proof is to show that "fundamentalism of any sort is dangerous". I have just given an illustration of a ( very, very large ) fundamental movement, called "Baptists", of which I am a minister, and you have to prove this "sort" of fundamentalism is dangerous. You have failed to do so. You have painted it as: Annoying ( to you ) Mean or Evil ( to you ) Hypocritical ( to you ) Scary ( to you ) I could go on, but you get the picture. You have not shown us to be dangerous. The people on these debate forums aren't going to be swayed by your argument about how something makes you feel. You must show evidence. Better luck next round.
ManBearPig is real.

Round three rebuttalsFact 0: The Ozone hole still exists. " Overall, the 2014 ozone hole is smaller than the large holes of the 1998–2006 period, and is comparable to 2010, 2012, and 2013." [8]Graph of ozone hole. [9] Myth: There is no ozone hole.Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. There is little to no evidence to support that the ozone hole does not exist. Fact 1: Global warming has continued to warm the planet since the 1970s. My graph in the previous round show the temperature increase. [6]Myth: Global warming stopped in 1997-1998. Fallacy: Cherry picking. By looking at high temperatures in 1998 you can come to the conclusion that global warming is not happening. Yet, the overall trend is warming, and several years have surpassed 1998 since. Fact 2: There is enough historical data. In the past Co2 has been strongly correlated with temperature. Myth: There is not enough historical data.Fallacy: Impossible expectations, there is ample evidence, deniers are demanding even more evidence. Global warming is extremely likely to exist, caused by man, and the main driver is burning of fossil fuels that release Co2. Fact 3: A scientific consensus exists.Myth: 31,000 scientists petition disproves the consensus.Fallacy: Fake experts, only a very small portion of the 31,000 are climate scientists. As seen in the previous round as expertise increases, so does agreement. [2]Fact 4: Overall large bodies of ice are losing mass. Myth: Sea ice in Antarctica is increasing therefore warming does not exist.Fallacy: Cherry picking, although sea ice is increasing for certain bodies of ice, the overall trend is loss of ice. You can see this in the previous round. [6]Fact 5: Even if all climate models were proven wrong, they would still be useful. Climate models are better at predicting long term trends than short term. Some of the climate models have made incredibly accurate predictions about long term trends. [10]Myth: Climate models are unreliable and thus useless Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Despite, climate models being flawed, they are still useful.Fact 6: Human finger prints rule out natural causes.Myth 6: Climate change is part of a natural cycle.Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Fact 7: Some early predictions were proven correct and some incorrect.Myth: Early predictions were wrong therefore global warming is disproved.Fallacy: Cherry picking. The overall trend of warming and Co2 increase has been proven correct. By focusing only on the incorrect predictions, deniers can create the illusion of more errors than reality. Thank you for the debate, and not just forfeiting like so many other debaters. Sources.8. https://science.nasa.gov...9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...10. https://skepticalscience.com...
ManBearPig is real.

The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth. "Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years." "Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear." "Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version." "Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift." "Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."
ManBearPig is real.

Round two argumentsPicture of consensus studies. [2] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [2] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [3] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [4] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [5] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [6] Human fingerprint picture. [7] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. A person may ask, but is there not natural sources of Co2? Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources. Meaning nature is a net sink of Co2. This can be seen by more Co2 going into the ocean than out and the resulting ocean acidification. Sources2. https://skepticalscience.com...3. http://www.climatecentral.org...4. https://www.epa.gov...5. https://skepticalscience.com...6. https://skepticalscience.com...7. https://skepticalscience.com...
ManBearPig is real.

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.I will contend that ManBearPig exists. My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally.Previous debate. [0]DefinitionsManBearPig = global warming and visa versa, these can be used interchangeably. Global warming "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."[1]Sources.0.http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Spongebob is a darker show than thought

This is proved in the commentary of the episode " Plankton" when Tom Kenny( the voice of Spongebon) brought up the topic. Here is the list Mr. Crabs: greed This is a no brainer considering that he always talks about getting money and cries when he loses a single dollar. Patrick: sloth Patrick is a lazy starfish, in one episode he actually got a reward for being lazy, WTF Sandy: pride Sandy is always proud of herself, from karate to being a science genius, she also brags sometimes about how bad@ss she is. She also takes pride in where she comes from, Texas, and likes to let people know it. Gary: gluttony You may be going "WTF, why! ?" But Gary is almost always begging for food, it constantly shows spongebob feeding him, and most of his meows are for trying to get food. Squidward: wrath Wrath is hatred, and Squidward hates his life,hates Spongebob, and is angry most of the time Plankton:envy Plankton is always envious of Mr. Crabs and his successful business, which drives him to try to steal the krabby patty secret formula. Spongebob: lust One definition for lust is "excessive for others" and Spongebob certainly fits that description, he always tries to make friends with everyone he meets. Con should at least try to disprove this, good luck to you, good sir. I hope we can be friends after this debate
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

Now the end has arrived- May 1945 The German force is scattered The Nazi flag in tatters. This foolish German Fuhrer Thought himself a Russian ruler But the hammer came down I smashed your Axis crown The sickle sliced twice With your blood you paid the price Of trying to swallow steel Trying to bend what will not yield. I got the mouth of a cobra What I spit will kill ya While your words are mushy Like they dribbled out of your tushy Your motto when you check the score: "Lost the battle, not the war" keep up that loser mentality deny the true eventuality There is only one way to figure- This all ends with the Soviet victor.
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

Why don't you just say "Hitler"?Right now, nothing of yours could get any littler.I've got Mussolini, Hirohito, boy am I glad.I got more than one Axis comrade.FDR hit the beach?Mr. Showa really did hit his beach. (1)H-Bomb, does that "H" mean "Hitler"?We certainly are the bombs, even Mr. Himmler.You crush me like an egg, I'll fold you like origami.Get ready to be a swan, you arrogant commie.Even though your skills are teeny,Just for now, don't be a meanie.This guy, he's slick like a genie.Put your hands together for my pal Mussolini! MUSSOLINI:Italy's got more than pizza and linguine.They've got me, Boss Mussolini!We've got an army of chrome,And we'll knock you from London to Rome.My power's enough to scare your men out their tights,We'll beat you down, then read you your rights.Oh wait, you have none,'Cause when you taunt Italy, you stare into a gun.It'd be best if you grab your crumpets and run,By the time we catch up, you'll already be done! piu tardi, perdenti! (2) (1) a reference to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.(2) "piu tardi, perdenti!" Is Italian for "later, losers!"
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

At least you have shown you can follow instructionMade you say my name TWICE and admit your destructionNow Frank and Winston want to join StalingradDJ switch up the beat for my allied comradesFDR has hit the beachI got a bullet in the breach I got a – aeroplane, an H-bomb with your name,and I don’t need no legsto crush you like an egg.so fear my infantry's precisionreconsider your positionwhile I liberate the Frenchfrom your German stench.Hit it ChurchillWhen your Luftwaffe fliesYour evil clouds the skiesthink you finally found a way to put my mettle to the testBut with my feet on the ground I swat em down like pestsyou’ve only rattled my chainheads up, this bulldog’s insanecause I can take them V2 rockets you been tossin my waybut when its my turn you will learn that Winston Churchill don’t playAfter our show of force its time you surrenderOr do us one better- stick your face in a blender.
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

I'm slick, I'm cold, I like things frozen!You'll be squashed by the man the people have chosen!I'm sweet with my rhymes, quick with my wits.You'll be dead sooner than the jews in Auschwitz! (1)Don't even judge the Swastika,Nazi ideologies even spread to America!Why should I obey the man who can't even spell "Kamikaze"?All you got is haters, I've got a paparazzi.How about we meet in Berlin, say Friday night?You're too busy killing random people? Yeah, that's right...At least I believed in my cause,And could put up a fight.Come on Stalin, I'll show you to your grave.Or would you rather me take Russia, and make it my slave?Bow down before the real land of the brave,Nazi Deutschland is starting a rave! Why don't we see who has the stronger empire?You could be beaten by a mere church choir.Better surrender now,Before my Soldaten (2) hang you on a wire! Let's take a look at what rhymes with Stalin:Crawlin', Bawlin', and Fallin'.Which is exactly what I'll do to you!A bit past 8:00, here's my cueWE WILL PULVERIZE YOU!Translations: (1) Auschwitz was a concentration camp. (2) Soldaten is German for soldiers.
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

I am cunning and hard, I'm alert, I trust no one That why I was ready when you snuck into Poland Caught your hand when you attempted that stab in the back With black bear fury I was quick to react You bent over the trough, tried to gobble the East When my homies in France interrupted your feast As they charged up your rear, your mouth open in fear The world watched you fall on the tip of my spear. Listen up little boy- lets compare and contrast While my empire lasts, your Third Reich will crash, You will burn and explode like a doomed kamikazee The fallout erasing all trace of the Nazi. Don"t even pretend that you spit any game, Weak men steal others lines cause their own are lame. We know your obsession with 'berg, 'feld, and 'stein But saying it twice doesn't count as a rhyme. Why don"t you dish face to face, come and meet me in Moscow -Wait you tried that and froze like a prisoner at Dachau Instead I"ll trek to Berlin and bash in your door I"ll do you a favor and clean your brains off your floor. So save us the trouble, by now you're just stalling Say the name of the man before whom you"ve just fallen It"s the same name you can hear the whole audience calling Say my name punk - IT'S STALIN.
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

How dare you insult the Nazi pride!And how dare you denounce my only bride!I beat the Poles and Czechs, guess who's next?I'll carve my name into your communist necks!I brought my country to fame,You brought your's to shame.Now step up to the game,Before I set Russia aflame.Better prepare yourself, Soviet Union,The Axis will have one Holle (1) of a reunion! Welcome to Deutschland, (2) where I rule with an iron hand!When I'm done with you, you won't be able to stand! You call yourself the man of steel?You'd be better off if you would kneel!The man of steel is Superman,Can you fit nothing else in your Dummkopf (3) can?You call me a snowball, you'll get a blizzard! An avalanche!I'm so slick, you'll kacken (4) your pants! My people have rage burning like fire,We'll make you bow down to the German Empire!From Hamburg (5) to Brandenburg, (6)I'll beat you harder than I beat Luxembourg! (7)So back off, Soviet trottel (8)I'm kickin' this rap into full throttle. Frieden! (9) Translations: (1) Holle is the German word for Hell. And no, that doesn't count as vulgarity, it's just a place. (2) Deutschland is German for Germany. (3) Dummkopf is German for fool. (4) Kacken is German for poop. (5) Hamburg is a city in Germany. (6) Brandenburg is also a city in Germany. (7) Luxembourg is a neighboring country to Germany that was occupied by Germany during WWII. (8) Trottel is German for idiot. (9) Again, Frieden means peace.