BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth orbits the Sun

Yes, I know that my trampoline model is not an accurate description of space. However, the purpose of the analogy was to give a simple depiction of how gravity works in relation to objects and their masses, i.e. the larger the mass the larger the gravity. It had nothing to do with the density of space. Your proposed theory that space somehow pins objects in space has absolutely no factual basis. Please provide one. If this where true then the space would apply an equal stopping force to every planet, thus slowing them down. So if the planets orbit in the way they do then there must be a constant force pushing them along. What is this force? So far your entire theory basically ignores gravity and substitutes it for this superdense space you have described. I find this hard to believe especially since you have provided no evidence for this. If we are ignoring gravity in order to allow for your superdense space, please explain how objects fall, how we stick to the earth and why the planets orbit instead of simply flying off into space. Ok so far in the debate we have agreed on several things that blow major holes in your theory. You said yourself "and yes, i'm well aware of the gravity of the Sun compared to that of the Earth". So if our mathematics for finding the mass and gravity of the Sun are correct, then that requires that our mathematics for finding the distance and size of the Sun must also be correct. Now if we know that our math works, then it should work for all the other planets in our solar system. Now if this were true this would put the Sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. However, according to the geocentric model the Sun is between Venus and Mars. We have two different distances, which according to you are both correct?? Please clarify. Now, about the moon. Technically speaking you are neither right nor wrong. As the moon orbits the earth it moves at a constant velocity. However, from the perspective of the Sun it appears to accelerate and decelerate as it orbits. This is all a matter of perspective. If the moon where orbiting the sun, then yes it would need to accelerate and decelerate as it moves around the earth. However, the moon is orbiting the earth and not the sun. So, as I said before you are neither right nor wrong it is simply a matter of perspective. Finally I would like to point out one of the largest flaws in your theory. In your opening statement you said, "Later, Darwin introduced the heliocentric model". First of all Darwin proposed the theory of evolution and natural selection, not the heliocentric model. Secondly the heliocentric model was first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos. He was a greek astronomer and mathematician who lived between 310 B.C and 230 B.C. Even though the theory wasn't properly published and excepted until 1543 when it was proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. This doesn't line up at all with what you said. Please explain. sorry it took so long i had my whole argument written out and then it got erased when i tried to up load it. So i had to rewrite the whole thing.
The Earth orbits the Sun

In answering your first question to me; "How does the density of space effect the planets" etc. I will also explain to you how your trampoline analogy does not work in comparing to outer space. The density of outer space is more properly compared to two trampolines, one stacked upside down on top of the other. In your analogy, you had one part density of space (surface of trampoline) and one part density of the Earth's troposphere (air above and around the trampoline) which is MUCH less dense. In my analogy I have 100% density of space. The fat boy and skinny boy both make their own bend in both top and bottom surfaces of the trampoline as do the balls all according to their own size and nothing moves on the trampoline as the surface of the top one sandwiches all masses to the bottom one. The double rip in space likewise counters the effects of gravity. And yes, I'm well aware of the gravity of the Sun compared to that of the Earth. Answer to the second part of this question: The Earth is stationary abiding within it's own rip in space and has not been acted upon by an outside force to cause it to move. The other planets, Sun, and stars, have been acted upon by an outside force, and therefore move within their own rip in space. About the parallax of stars around Polaris: You have not provided any good proof that the stars would still look this way if it was the Earth that was spinning. We know for a fact that this is how they would look if it were the stars that were moving to a stationary Earth. I now have a question for you... According to the Heliocentric model, the Earth orbits the Sun, and meanwhile the Moon orbits the Earth. If the Moon was orbiting a moving Earth it would have to accelerate when orbiting in the same direction that the Earth orbits the Sun, and then decelerate as it begins orbiting back around opposite the direction that the Earth orbits the Sun. What outside force causes the Moon to constantly accelerate and decelerate?
The Earth orbits the Sun

In you're statement, "However, you would also see this exact same effect if the fan was not moving and instead the floor was spinning in a circle" you failed to cite who conducted this experiment, Or did anybody? I have spun in a circle before and looked straight up. I believe everything appeared to move the same speed. please validate your response to my argument. In your argument, you described how the Sun has much more gravitational pull than the Earth and that logic demands the Earth to orbit the Sun. Although you failed to explain your logic. So I have to assume that your logic is that if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, the Earth would not have enough gravitational pull to keep the Sun close as it is and that the Sun would orbit farther and farther away from the Earth. This is not so. The space in which the planets orbit is SO dense that the Sun does not require gravity to stay in orbit because the density of space keeps it in place. It's like if you stirred a big pot of soup. The contents of the soup do not require a gravitational pull from the center of the pot, the density of the liquid keeps it all in place as it all "orbits" the center of the pot.
The Earth orbits the Sun

This is not at all what these photos suggest. looking at the photos we do see stars farther from Polaris do have longer tails in the time lapse photos. However, this does not mean the stars are moving. The best way I can describe what I believe you're saying and what is actually happening is through a thought experiment. Suppose you where laying on the floor and looking up at a fan on the ceiling. if you turned on the fan you would see the ends of the fan (stars farthest from Polaris) moving much faster. However you would also see this exact same effect if the fan was not moving and instead the floor was spinning in a circle. Both of these achieve the exact same effect. Now it is my turn to provide evidence. Possibly the biggest example of evidence supporting the heliocentric model is the force of gravity along with the the known laws of trigonometry as well has our understandings of circles. First of all trigonometry. We know, by using trigonometry along with the mathematics of circles, that the sun has a volume of 1.41x10^18 cubic Km. This is 1,300,000 times larger then the earth. We also know that mass causes gravity. Using this logic we can conclude that the sun has a gravitational force many times larger then that of the earth. This huge difference in gravity means that the earth must orbit the sun.
The Earth orbits the Sun

Ok... No evidence given.... I will give one point of evidence. In the time laps photos of Polaris, It is apparent that the stars farthest away from Polaris have a longer stream of light behind than those closer to Polaris, as if the outer stars are moving faster than the inner. If it was the Earth that was spinning and not the stars orbiting the Earth. all the stars would have the same length streams of light behind them in the time laps photos as it is, as the heliocentric model states, the Earth that is spinning while the stars remain stationary. Time laps photos do not show this, they instead seem to demand the stars moving rather than the Earth. Explanation please?
The Earth orbits the Sun

I'm excepting this challenge and hoping that this is a fake debate simply to spark controversy and not because you actually believe it, however I will debate just as hard all the same. I will not go into specifics as this is simply the opening argument. Evidence supporting the heliocentric model is overwhelming, ranging from the fundamental workings of gravity, trigonometry, the mechanics of light and matter, and nuclear fusion. All of these branches of physics and mathematics have been proven correct time and time again. All of these models support the heliocentric model.
should kid own phones with service

I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety "in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that." However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the "Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999," all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...
The Death Penalty

The death penalty is something that should be allowed and utilized. If there is sufficient evidence to convict someone of a serious crime, they should not be able to appeal and re-appeal their case, costing millions of dollars per case, most of which, if not all, is paid by taxpayers. It is less of a financial burden to humanely kill those guilty of severe crimes, and it ensures they won't do it again. If the justice system can hold firm on ensuring that those who commit severe crimes are punished accordingly, it should serve as a deterrent to committing these crimes, as most people don't want to die.
Videos for People is a wonderful channel on Youtube.

Hello. I look forward to an engaging debate. In future rounds, please type a little more than a paragraph. I am not the creator of it, but I wish I was. The guy behind this channel is a quirky genius and I keep waiting to see what he puts out next. It's sad how nobody knows about him, because he's much better than anything else out there. His videos, while slightly bizarre, are still worth watching. I notice how you point out his recent "goopy goopy style" video. I don't see anything wrong with it, it perfectly captures the idiocy of Gangnam Style. You have to understand that it's a parody. Then it makes much more sense. It's designed to be stupid. You can't judge everything by just that one video. he's made over two hundred. It is a bit of a mystery why he would make so many if nobody watches them, but they're all perfectly fine. They're strange, but they're normal at the same time. maybe it's their uniqueness that makes them strange. They're not fast paced, or annoying, like some other things. The stick figures are not animated, because, presumably, the creator understands that something can hold meaning without being appealing. That's the key to understanding his work, it's not meant to be flashy or well made. The art is horrible. But he's asking us to look past the surface quality and find the deeper meaning. His text is fine, quite eloquent, and it makes up for any artistic flaws. The text is what makes the stick figures seem real, and it's what holds everything together. I'll include a few examples of his striking intellect here: This isn't just random clickbait, this is high quality comedy. These videos, I'm sure, could b something from saturday night live, if they were acted out by people instead of garish stick figures. But our minds turn away from them because we're not accustomed to anything like this. We enjoy seeing real people, and hearing actual voices. But does it really matter? Does the format matter, just so long as the message remains? I think that, if he was suddenly to reveal his face or his voice, then the magic would all be lost. Anonymity is only fun if it's held together. Once the person reveals himself, everything is ruined. I hope that he doesn't switch to real people or real voices. I would turn off his channel for life. I'v grown accustomed to the voiceless stick figures and the lack of talent. I admire the guy for trying to do things even if he doesn't have any expensive cameras or dynamite ideas. His stuff is still great, and I hope it never ends.
Videos for People is a wonderful channel on Youtube.

Okay, so I'm just going to say that you're probably the creator of this channel and you just want subscribers, so I'll subscribe because I'm nice. In reality, I've never seen anything dumber in my life and it makes my head hurt. I watched only 2 of your videos and I physically cannot watch anymore because it's so stupid it makes my head hurt. It's just a picture of a stick picture doing a pose, or a stick figure saying "Goopy Goopy Style"
Videos for People is a wonderful channel on Youtube.

About a month ago, I started debates about this thing, and ever since then, I've had to keep making new ones, because my opponents are inept. Please debate thoroughly and pose engaging questions. I look forward to our argument. Your round one argument will be the counter argument to the following: Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him. He is a hidden genius. I have never seen any videos like his and I don't think there ever will be anything like his. They are completely unique. They are so funny that I can't stop laughing. I don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but I can identify with him. His videos are unique. They are done using stick figures. The stick figures are badly drawn, and created using MS paint, but their quality isn't what matters. What matters, really, is what they do. They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff. Nothing is too insane for this guy to tackle. Every video seems more bizarre than the last. But, although his videos are weird, they still seem somewhat normal, so the viewer isn't removed from reality. He uses normal language in his writing. There isn't any dialogue, only music. everything is written. His videos are the better than anything else I have ever seen. I am a devoted fan to the way he interprets things. Every video of his resonates with me. Videos for people is a genius. I don't know who he is, and I have no desire to uncover his identity. Knowing his identity isn't necessary to enjoy anything he makes. He's quirky, and I enjoy his videos. I await your first argument. Good luck!
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

Honestly, if you wanted to have a good debate, you should have written a good resolution. I hope everyone votes for me just so you'll learn your lesson, write a better topic, and you can have a legitimate debate next time. I would also like to Pro has violated the character limit by posting the remainder in the comments. Also, Pro has no backing for his claim that Britain is regarded as one of the more ethical superpowers. Without evidence, that argument is rather useless. Pro would have won had he stated his resolution differently, but he has dug his own grave and, per his topic, must prove that America is ethical than every single superpower to ever exist. Alas, it's impossible in such a short character limit. Therefore, Con wins primarily due to Pro's phrasing of his resolution.
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

Honestly, I don"t even care about winning, I just wanted to have a good debate. I hope everyone votes for you just so you stop crying like a little girl. It"s actually quite difficult to find a superpower with an ethical record, but some are less bad. Britain is often regarded as one of the more ethical superpowers in history, so I compare US to them. Least Ethical Events on Superpower"s Track Record Britain: During the Boer Wars in South Africa, Britain put locals in concentration camps where thousands of women children, and blacks died [1] US: In Vietnam, US used Agent Orange to destroy the forest that the rebels used for cover. The effects from the chemicals killed thousands of people [2] The British are less ethical here because they got away with it and America didn"t. The American people used their democratic power to force America to withdrawal. Here, modern technology and a democratic system forced a modern superpower to be more ethical [1] [2] in comments
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

Well Pro, You're written a resolution chock-full of loopholes that anyone can win this debate with technicalities. You should have stated the topic wisely. Ever - at any time[1] Exist - to have actual being; be[2] In other words, you must prove how America is more ethical than any superpower that had been in any time. Any time. That is what your resolution states, and you have not covered them all. Unfortunately, even if you were able to compile a full list, I doubt you could list them all in this terribly small character limit. Bottom line: Pro misinterpreted his resolution and is attempting to compare only a select number of superpowers. Furthermore, your contentions are easily biased. You do not consider the positive and constructive deeds of each superpower, and only focus on one aspect. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

Well Con, The list of superpowers throughout history is quite long, so it would be ridiculous to compare America to every single one of them. I was hoping you'd make a suggestion since your Con. Anyways, since you"re just trying to win on technicalities and haven"t made any sort of argument, I"ll go ahead. America vs Mayans Treatment of Neighbors Mayans: Went to surrounding villages, raiding them and using the prisoners as human sacrifice. In one religious event an estimated 20,000 human sacrifices were made [1] Americans: Prevents neighbors (mostly Mexicans) from entering its borders without proper documentation. Those found within its borders are sent home. America vs Rome Civilians Killed During Wars America in Iraq: 133,000 killed due to fighting in civilian areas [2]. Out of 32.6 million people that"s 0.4% of the population [3] Rome in Gaul: 1 million killed. Most were executed. Out of 3 to 6 million people, that"s from 17% to 33% of the population. [4] Sources in comments
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

I concede that I misread the topic of this debate (XD I think I got it mixed up with something else), and crime statistics don't mean anything. However, you must understand that your resolution is to prove that America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist. That means two or three comparisons will not help; you must use statistics and arguments to show why it is the most ethical, not more ethical. So far, all you have been doing is to prove that it's more ethical than those three superpowers, not more ethical than every single superpower to ever exist. Your BoP has not been fulfilled. In addition, you are missing the positive deeds of those governments above and are merely exploiting the negative deeds. I will do the same with America, so quid pro quo. I'll have to post it next round, as this character limit is ridiculously low. Tl;dr: Pro did not fulfill BoP and is intentionally misinterpreting his own resolution.
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

I hate when people claim theyve won, thats for the voters to decide. The debate was going completely off topic. You compared american crime statistics to canadian crime statistics. This debate is about behaviour of superpowers in relation to other nations and treatment of its own citizens. So some comparisons. Ancient Egypt: forced thousands of slaves to die to build ridiculously resource consuming pyramids all so one guy could be happy France under Napeleon Bonaparte: engaged his country in constant war to support his ambition of power. Sent thousands of his French soldiers to fight the battle of waterloo, a battle with such low odds of success, because it was worth it to him to gamble for greatness at the expense of his soldiers lives. Soviet Union: Citizens were basically expendable under Soviet rule. 27 million died during world war 2. Also free speech was surpessed. Under Stalin you could be killed for expressing opposing political views.
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

BoP is on Pro to prove how America is the world's most ethical superpower to ever exist. While he can certainly argue that it is ethical, he must prove how it's the most ethical. So far, he has not done so, for he only posted a few examples of superpowers that were more unethical than the United States. As a result, he has lost for failing to write a resolution, and results in allowing me to control this entire debate. I rest my case, for none of this has proved how America is the most ethical superpower to ever exist.
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

I meant America as a superpower, like in it"s actions towards other nations, and the actions the American government takes towards it"s people. So you might say the Roman Empire was unethical as Caesar put millions of Gaul prisoners to the sword. You can also say Soviet Union as a superpower had very little regard to the lives of it"s citizens. As far as violence and crime in America I agree with you. I also don"t consider Canada to now or have ever been a superpower. So yeah superpower". Think Persia, or Ancient Greece, or Colonial England, or any Chinese dynasty throughout time. Do you still want to continue?
America is the most ethical world superpower to ever exist.

Ethical - Pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. R1: The US is Hardly Ethical In 2013, 16,238 Americans were murdered by others.[1] Two million Americans were assaulted.[1] 237,868 Americans are sexually assaulted every year.[2] The US has the highest prison population in the world.[3] C1: Canada is Much More Ethical 543 murders in 2012[4] 563 rapes in 2008[5] 45th highest prison population in the world[6] [1]http://www.cdc.gov... [2]https://www.rainn.org... [3]http://www.prisonstudies.org... [4]http://www.statcan.gc.ca... [5]http://www.nationmaster.com... [6]http://www.prisonstudies.org...