BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

I can only assume that you comy paste all your arguments because you get cut off before you get to your argument.You are avoiding the main question with useless knowledge which doesn't relate to this topic.!You mentioned that they asked "what the universe is expanding into". This means that you already assumed that the universe was expanding. You haven't identified that yet so don't get ahead of yourself.Also, what you mentioned about light speed is totally irrelivent to the main argument and I question whether you even read it or you're just trolling.So far, you've proven nothing to explain that the universe is expanding and you only assumed it did because someone on TV said so. The Sience Channel isn't always right but it tells you how much we know. Coming back to the main argument which you've cleverly avoided up until now, we cannot make conclusion of something we haven't seen 1% no matter how many facts that little part gives. You must understand that the further science grows, we'll no more and maybe we can go from 0.00000000001% to 50% to then 99-100%. By the time we see 50%, we'd have seen certain patterns in the universe that we wouldn't have seen with the technology now.Looking at 1 trillionth of something and making a final conclusion is insane and it's time you realize that.
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

Last week the readers of io9 asked their most nagging questions about physics to a real-live physicist. The first question: What is the Universe expanding into? You responded to my call for questions in droves. There were over 350 comments to the post, and at least a hundred unique questions. For a few, I couldn't wait to answer. With others, I waited in vain for closure, including the reader asked me out, and another who apparently has a theory for interstellar travel that he's been working on for 20 years, but after being burned by physicists before was unwilling to provide any details. Lots of you wanted to know what would happen if you were driving at speed of light and turn on your headlights, and I'd be remiss if I didn't shamelessly mention that my new book answers many of the questions. Chapter 1, in fact, is entitled, "What happens if I'm traveling at the speed of light and I try to look at myself in the mirror?" but this being the Internet, you want your content for free. Over the next several days, I'll be answering the best and the weirdest, and what the hell, if you're the asker and you send me an email, we'll send you a free book! Today's question comes from PVIII (and others, but PVIII asked first): Ok, so I've always had this question, and I know it's very, very dumb: So the universe is redshifting (or is blueshifting, I always forget), but either way it's either expanding or contracting from the big bang. That being said, what is it expanding INTO or FROM if it's the freakin' universe! If it's not endless, where is the end?!? How is there an end to the universe! My mind just exploded. I get this question a lot, and with good reason. You've seen a Science Channel special in which a dapper (presumably British) cosmologist talks knowingly about how the universe is expanding as though it's the most natural thing in the world. But to someone not trained in general relativity, it can be hard to grok what the expanding universe really means. This sor
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

Unfortunatly, the information you copy pasted from the website listed below, only included the finite and infinite universe and the part that you meant to copy didn't fit on this page due to character restriction. The argument was solely towards the idea of the expanding universe but you talked more towards the idea of the finite and infinte aspects of the universe.What you explained is irrelivant to the main argument, something finite or infinite could be expanding or shifting making your copy pasted argument invalid.You failed to explain or disprove what I had layed out for you so all I can do now is assume you have no response for my arguments.Further more, I can only highlight the idea that something we only have observed 1% cannot have solid conclusions based upon its entire movments.Allow me to reintroduce the idea that the universe is much much older than the human race and it will also have certain properties that humans wont comprehend and this is not unheard of. There are other natural phenomenon that humans don't understand and it's ok, but as of now, we cannot make any conclusion of something much older than us of what we can see only a super tiny fraction of a fraction of 1%.{http:}//{skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp} - ignore curly brackets
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions about the size and age of the universe. Does the universe go on forever, or does it have an edge somewhere? Has it always existed, or did it come to being some time in the past? In 1929, Edwin Hubble, an astronomer at Caltech, made a critical discovery that soon led to scientific answers for these questions: he discovered that the universe is expanding. The ancient Greeks recognized that it was difficult to imagine what an infinite universe might look like. But they also wondered that if the universe were finite, and you stuck out your hand at the edge, where would your hand go? The Greeks' two problems with the universe represented a paradox - the universe had to be either finite or infinite, and both alternatives presented problems. After the rise of modern astronomy, another paradox began to puzzle astronomers. In the early 1800s, German astronomer Heinrich Olbers argued that the universe must be finite. If the Universe were infinite and contained stars throughout, Olbers said, then if you looked in any particular direction, your line-of-sight would eventually fall on the surface of a star. Although the apparent size of a star in the sky becomes smaller as the distance to the star increases, the brightness of this smaller surface remains a constant. Therefore, if the Universe were infinite, the whole surface of the night sky should be as bright as a star. Obviously, there are dark areas in the sky, so the universe must be finite. But, when Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, he realized that gravity is always attractive. Every object in the universe attracts every other object. If the universe truly were finite, the attractive forces of all the objects in the universe should have caused the entire universe to collapse on itself. This clearly had not happened, and so astronomers were presented with a paradox. When Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativi
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

As far as physicists are concerned. They have drawn a conclusion that the universe is expanding, and from that conclusion, they have theories based on this principle. They say they believe that the universe is expanding by tracking certain celestial bodies and see they're moving further away. With this information, they concluded that since there moving away, there must have been a point where everything was really close or a singularity. Now when I say " We can't be sure", I mean that these scientists have according to there cosmic tracking, they conclude that the universe is expanding. At the same time, they said that they can only see less than 1% of space. This statment completly contradicts the fact that we made a conclusion based on observing less than 1% of the Universe. There is so many things wrong with that and i'm sure you agree.Therefore, there is no solid proof that the universe is expanding.
Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

I thank Geo for his respond. Further, I will make it known to the audience that my opponent has supplied a syllogism, as he has quickly stated in the comment sections and in a PM to me - it simply is an outline of the position he holds. Obviously the premises don't follow to the conclusion (among other flaws if we were to view this as a syllogism), and I will treat it more like a notepad. So in my response, I will demonstrate that consciousness likely is a "mere function of a single nervous system", the brain, and set the stage for my opponent to demonstrate otherwise. ==================== Premises that lend support for the claim that consciousness is a function of the brain ==================== My first premise is that physicalism, the philosophical doctrine that claims all that exists is physical, is true. In other words, things are no more extensive than their physical properties, and there can be no two physically identical worlds that are even in the least bit different in some other respect. Secondly, I will make the relatively uncontroversial claim that most, if not everyone, people we meet are conscious beings. While we can't know this for certain (as is the same for most things), we can be assured that those with similar brain structures and makeup will have consciousness; they will have a "mind". We can claim that others are aware, subjectively experiencing, and have self-concepts. The connection is that if everything is physical then consciousness must be physical as well. This would also mean that the cause of consciousness is physical - which I purport to be the brain. And indeed, it would seem obvious that our brain is the causal origin of consciousness; after all, when people become brain dead then they are considered to be permanently unconscious. This relationship would lead credence to the idea that the brain and consciousness are causally connected. My job isn't to argue for functionalism over other monist theories of the mind (since they all support that consciousness arrives from our brain among other possibilities), and dualism is probably not an ontological theory my opponent supports. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's job is to demonstrate that under the same world view we both share (which I am assuming he is a monist physicalist; if he isn't then by all means try your way at arguing against either) the idea that consciousness is "of the totality of interrelated stars and galaxies" is by all means more reasonable than the claim that consciousness is generated from our brains. I propose given our understanding of how our brain works, and of the insignificant effect heavenly bodies has on our own nature, Geo's position is far from just being wrong - it's absurd.
Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

I thank TheSkeptic for challenging me to this debate. He asked that I use this round to explain my claim in further detail, but since it's fairly self-explanatory, I will represent it as a syllogism to make it more clear. Syllogism: P1: Consciousness (C) is not an isolated soul (S). P2: Consciousness (C) is not the mere function of a single nervous system (N). P3: Consciousness (C) is of the totality of interrelated stars and galaxies (U) C = ~S C = ~N :.U --> C I'll leave it at that for this round.
Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

In a conversation via profile comments, Geo and I touched upon the philosopher Alan Watts. In particular, Geo professed to share Watt's claims about the nature of consciousness. The following is a quote of which he supported (do note that all these come from my profile, but after awhile will be unaccessible if more comments are made [comments that are pushed down one's wall far enough will be unaccessible, it seems]). If you doubt the validity of any of these quotes, then refer to Geo to be reassured by my honesty. Anyway, here it is: "We must see that consciousness is neither an isolated soul nor the mere function of a single nervous system, but of that totality of interrelated stars and galaxies which makes a nervous system possible." - Alan Watts (Geo says this makes sense to him, i.e. he supports it) I'd like to have Geo defend this claim. While I find Watt's beliefs to be utterly preposterous, all positions should be treated in the same manner. So this is how it's going to work. For Geo's 1st round, I ask of him to explain this claim in further detail -- which is why I made it 4 rounds instead of a normal 3 -- and perhaps give an argument for it if he wishes. I will then start my 2nd round attacking his position and it will then proceed as a normal three round debate. Any comments or suggestions should take place in the comments section toting rounds.
Philosophy: The Nature of Consciousness

======================= The Universe Yields Consciousness ======================= C1. {*There is no SUFFICIENT connection, as even though the universe may exist we can have no life (thus no consciousness) or no highly developed organisms in which brain function allows for consciousness*} My opponent claims that there is no sufficient connection between the Universe and consciousness other than the necessity of the Universe to exist. This is obviously not the case as I demonstrated in my first argument. The Universe is the environment from which we depend on to live. The Universe not only gives rise to consciousness, but is directly linked with and provides essentials for consciousness to survive. Again, I point to the analogy of the apple tree. The apple and the tree can be separated, yet the tree still exists. The apple cannot survive (stay fresh without rotting) without being attached to and relying on the tree. Just like we and our nervous system cannot operate as a single, separate entity independent from the Universe. Remember, my opponent claims that consciousness is the *mere* isolated function of a nervous system, in which case, it should be able to fully function on its own. Clearly, that's not the case. {*Indeed, your little fact here is a little trivial and useless...practically everything that exists hinges on the universe first existing. So do we start to base the nature of everything as the TOTALITY of interrelated stars and galaxies?*} It appears as if my opponent concedes that Alan Watts' proposition is an obvious fact. C2. {*I want to point out that we don't only need a nervous system to generate consciousness, since as a functionalist I advocate the idea of multiple realizability[1], which is the " thesis contends that a single mental kind (property, state, event) can be realized by many distinct physical kinds." This means we don't only need to have biological systems to have consciousness.*} No disagreement there. ============== Meaning of the Quote ============== "[Consciousness is] of the totality of interrelated stars and galaxies." There is a very key word in this statement; the word "of." Of: "Used to indicate derivation, origin, or source" - Dictionary.com [1] Given the above definition, this is quite an obvious statement, as pointed out by my opponent. The Universe is clearly the origin or source of consciousness. ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent concedes that Alan Watts' statement was an obvious fact. He was also unable to demonstrate that consciousness is the mere function of a nervous system as an isolated unit. I await my opponent's response. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Being Transgender is having/experiencing a mental illness and/or disability

It is a mental illness. I am not saying people shouldn't undergo operations, if you want to go under the knife and get a sex change it is up to you, it is a free country. It doesn't affect me personally. However, after talking multiple psychology and sociology classes, I believe it is a mental illness and people should recognize it as such. It is the reason why President Trump attempting to prevent transgenders from being in or joining the military as a lot of people who are transgender require testosterone or other hormone injections in order to function properly without having mental breakdowns or anxiety attacks. People with severe anxiety cannot join the military if they are reliant on medicine to avoid attacks, most people with other mental illnesses are barred from it as well as they are RELIANT on medication. Gender Dysphoria is recognized by the DSM-5, a common tool for diagnosing mental illnesses. "In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one"s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. " (https://www.psychiatry.org...)
Being Transgender is having/experiencing a mental illness and/or disability

While I personally think being transgender is wrong that is my belief. Yes we are all born male or female, however some people think that it is morally and physically right to be transgender. With that in mind, let's look at why my opponents statement is wrong. It all depends on your viewpoint. For example, from a Biblical viewpoint, being transgender is wrong and corrupting the body God gave you. On the other hand, some people think nature messed up and you're in the right to "fix" it. Some people don't care. It all depends on who you ask. For some people, it isn't a mental illness or disability. It's a correction to fit your personality to some people. That's why my opponents statement is wrong. We can't assume that they're messed up in the head. For them it's perfectly ok. My second argument is the fact that being transgender isn't an illness or disability. Compare this to an actual illness or disability, that impedes your ability to think correctly. Being transgender doesn't do this. It's not a means of stopping your ability to think correctly, it's an incorrect mindset to start with. There's a difference between a incorrect mindset, and a mental illness and/or disability. My final argument of this round closely related to my second one. You don't hear people saying "That guy was diagnosed with transgenders disease." Because that's not what it is. As I said, it's just an incorrect mindset. Thank You.
should abortion be legal

A woman's body is the woman's body. A woman's womb is a woman's womb. A woman's child is a woman's child. No one elses. To impose legislature banning abortions because we do not agree with this ideal is ridiculous. The opposition will tell you that we are unnecessarily killing children, but I ask the voters to accept that there are times when terminating this child is necessary. If a woman's life is threatened by the birth of this child, if the child is a product of rape or incest, or if the child will be born into a quality of life so poor it is inhumane then the birth of this child should be decided by the mother to terminate. I ask you also, why would we oppress the rights of a woman like this? Why should we, people who have no understanding of every person's ability and circumstance, oppress the woman's right to decide what happens with her own body and then generalise and enforce it for everyone. I must say that to ban abortion would be to ban the woman's right to decide the fate of her body. This is not your body, nor mine. It is hers and the choice is hers to painlessly terminate the baby. I reject the idea that a woman being told by others what she can do with her body is up to them. I reject the idea that a child should be born regardless of what the mother wants. I reject the oppression of women. I urge the voters who also reject these things to vote in favour of this motion.
would captain marvel win in a fight against superman

the fact that you trust me means a lot. and it is true that superman is fast but captian is also fast. according to http://shazam.wikia.com... shazam can run 299,792,458 m / s the speed of lightalthough he rarely has to. and that 46,625,000 m/s is when supermanis at full power but we established in the rounds before that in a battle between the two he weakened by captian's magic. also has super strength that matches supermans. and he is much smarter and less emotional which allows him to think clearer. he may not have have laser beams but he has lightining bolts which matches the heat and intesity of superman's lasers. shazam also has other magical abilitys such as healingand hypnosis. he can also speek any language. a quote from http://shazam.wikia.com... " His resilience to damage is on par with beings such as Superman, but without the weaknesses."
would captain marvel win in a fight against superman

The statement that you said about Superman versus Capt. Marvel in the cartoon is true but take this into consideration. Let's look at the speed. Once Superman was able to fly to a Saturn moon in four minutes. This means that Superman was able to accelerate at a speed of 46,625,000 m/s. Meaning his velocity was 186,500,000 m/s I found the fact that Superman was able to fly to Saturn in four minutes at this website http://www.comicvine.com.... Now looking at Superman's strength. Superman was able to break the face of a doomsday clone, used his heat vision to blast away multiple Doomsday clones, and beat brainiac by clapping his hands. I found all of this on the same website listed above. I'm trusting my opponent to find some great feats of Capt. Marvel and compare them to Superman's.
would captain marvel win in a fight against superman

yes superman may have won that fight but look at the comics. superman's biggest weakness (other than cryptonite) is magic. and just because one tv show made an episode where superman wins that does not mean he really would. if they wanted they could make a mouse beat superman. the comics show that billy and superman are equal. there are a lot of comics where capt. marvel and superman fight. the win loss ratio is about equal for both of them and these comics usually ignore the magic weakness thing. if they did not ignore superman's vulnerability to magic billy would most definitely win in these, because even the ones he lost they were very close.
would captain marvel win in a fight against superman

These are very reasonable points indeed but I have to say that there are other interesting point that you're not taking into consideration. Superman has the same powers as captain marvel and more. Sm (superman) has the power of supervision, super breath, super speed, super strength, and more. You may even take into consideration the fact that Capt. M uses magic to attack, but referring to TV show justice league unlimited, sm went 1 on 1 with capt. M and won. https://m.youtube.com...
Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

Thanks to Zaradi for agreeing to debate this with me for the semifinal round of the DDO tournament. Standard rules apply. No semantics, no new arguments in the last round, ect. As we're both experienced debaters I dont really think we need to worry about this coming down to a definitions or semantics war, but its always best to make sure. Round one is acceptance and I look forward to the debate.
Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American war

Words on paper have little affect on a war. Especially words on a newspaper. The only words that can have a major affect on a war are words from the president or general. Yellow journalism did not put the USA into war, but rather interested more of the population into see what was going to happen. The misleading in the newspaper made more Americans pay attention to what was happening in the world, if the USA was going to go to war and what was going to happen between them and Spain. This article started talk in the nation, people were talking about more important things rather than plain gossip. People started to get involved in what decisions the government would make and how they would enforce them. This whole ordeal gave people an insight to what the government was like, by how they would handle the situation. The article also brought back the major feeling of patriotism from the civil time era. People wanted to defend their country from everything. Yellow journalism brought many things to the nation, but it did not put the country into a war.