BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time travel is real.

Just because we can't go into the past, doesn't mean we can't time travel. Con says for any significant time dilation only occurs at speeds close to the speed of light. But time travel does not have to be a year into the future, or even a day. As I have already shown, someone has went into the future by .02 seconds. That technically is time travel. We don't need to go at 299 792 458 m / s to travel through time. But to go farther into our future, we do. Time travel has happened, even if it was extremely small. Thank you for debating, it was fun.
Time travel is real.

Time travel is possible and what's more, its already been done. Sergei Krikalev is known as the greatest time traveler in human history. This Russian cosmonaut holds the record for the most time spent orbiting Earth. A total of 803 days , 9 hours, and 39 minutes. During his stay in space he time traveled into his own future by 0.02 seconds. Traveling at 17,500 miles an hour, he experienced time dilation. http://www.universetoday.com...# Definition: Time dilation is the phenomenon where two objects moving relative to each other (or even just a different intensity of gravitational field from each other) experience different rates of time flow. http://physics.about.com... Phenomenon: a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. One day we will be able to use time dilation to jump ahead much farther into the future.
should you be permited to eat anything at school

I am taking the side of pro, even though I disagree with the idea of allowing children in school to eat anything. My opponent took the con position, even though he/she should have taken the pro side.By stating the "we should be permitted to eat anything at school," you are essentially stating that anything goes. an·y·thing G2;enēG6;thing/ pronoun used to refer to a thing, no matter what. "nobody was saying anything" The definition of anything states that there is no end to the collection of things. in this case, food consumption at school.Should we allow children to consume granulated sugar? Or perhaps brownies mixed with marijuana? "Anything" is a broad statement.
Abortion is wrong

"Do I need to tell give you reasons why life, specifically a human life needs to be respected? I need to tell you why I should respect you as a person and someone with life?"Yes, you do. Why? Because the reason human life is worthy of respect is very relevant to the question of whether or not embryos should be afforded that same respect. If you want to assert that something is wrong, you need to make a claim on what it is, in this situation, that defines it as wrong, rather than just saying, "It just is, and you should know why it is."There are some who assert that human life has worth because humans are moral agents. To those people, your argument holds no merit, because embryos are not moral agents. There are some who assert that human life has no worth, but is worthy of respect because the mutual respect for human life and human rights is the foundation of a functioning society. Abortion has not destroyed society. There are some who assert that human life has worth because of divine command. To those people, your argument holds no merit, because you have not established that a deity has assigned worth to embryos.There are some who assert that human life has no worth and is worthy of no respect. To those people, your argument would be charmingly naive. Your argument may be compelling to those who hold the exact same set of views that you do, but this is a website for debate rather than for preaching to the choir. I'm not asking you to explain the source of the worth of human life because I disagree that human life has value; I'm asking because, as con, it is my job to oppose the claim you advance, and as pro, it is your job to clearly explain all aspects of your claim. Honestly, I am sympathetic to the claim that abortion is wrong. I am not sure I agree with it, but I certainly agree with the claim that human life has intrinsic value. However, you have failed to establish any logical reasons for your claim that human life has intrinsic worth; rather, you rely on a sort of emotional appeal -- and what I feel as a person is very different from what it is my job as Con to argue.You really need to justify your claim that human life has intrinsic worth, because the reason that human life has worth is relevant to whether this worth also applies to embryos.Because you have failed to do so, I will assume that human life has great worth because humans are conscious moral agents. Embryos are not conscious moral agents -- rather, they are potential moral agents. It is not incoherent to claim that conscious moral agents have worth, but potential conscious moral agents do not. Embryos therefore do not have worth (or, at least, not nearly the worth of humans), unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Abortion is wrong

"It is not incoherent to claim that conscious moral agents have worth, but potential conscious moral agents do not. Embryos therefore do not have worth (or, at least, not nearly the worth of humans), unless you can demonstrate otherwise." You claim that you need to be 1. Conscious and 2. A moral agent in order to have value. This proposes a problem with people in comas and perhaps even more common, in a sleep. You see, people who are at rest, are not at that moment conscious. According to your logic, I would be justified in killing that person in his sleep. Likewise, the man in the coma is not conscious, nor will he be for a long time. I'd argue it's morally wrong to kill either of these two individuals due to their current conditions. Please realize that both of these people are potential moral agents. They are not conscious, but have the potential to be conscious. I don't see your argument to hold any weight in this example. You see, potential value is value all the same. If someone were to hand you a check for $100,000, it has no actual value until you cash it. No money has transferred bank accounts, no cash has been handed to you. But the fact that it will do those things gives it value. Just because it only has the potential to do so, doesn't depreciate it's value. So in the context of human beings having the only role of moral agents, embryos, though they only have the potential to be, do not have less value. Why do you say that "...potential conscious moral agents do not [have value]. Embryos therefore do not have worth (or, at least, not nearly the worth of humans)" You didn't give any reason why you can justify killing potential. I don't see how I could justify burning your check. Now, this is the last time I can prove my point, so allow me to sum it up. 1. Human embryos have every single requirement in the biological aspect to be classified as a living homosapien sapien (human). Therefore, destruction of a human embryo is the destruction of a fully alive human being, no matter how it was conceived. 2. I absolutely disagree with the statement "If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Don't take that right away from others." That is a pacifistic, apathetic, and flawed way of looking at abortion, or more descriptively, murder. Using my first statement about embryos being human, this statement says "If you don't like murder, don't murder. Let others do it though." That is an insidious statement trying to scare people from speaking out against this issue. 3. The embryo is not the woman's body, and it's not her property. Again, looking at #1, the embryo is 100% unique from its mother, it is not her. So the argument, "Don't tell a woman what to do with her body," again doesn't qualify as a valid statement. OK, basically, the main point is this: The unborn are still human. Therefore, we do not have the right to end its life.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, I was unable I recieve any internet connection the past few days. As my opponent has clearly pointed out, verbal bullying is the cause of a significant rate of suicides in the U.S. Every year, however, I'd like to remind my opponent that we are operating within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, and not simple good-will or morality. The First Amendment of the Constitution was set up for the intent purpose to defend offensive or unpopular speech from those who may try to censor it under the guise of 'the common good'. Without this intent to protect unpopular speech, there is no need for the First Amendment at all. The statistic on suicides, though saddening, holds little weight in the context of the law. While certain outside factors can indeed be the catalyst for sucidal thoughts, the very definition of the word suicide holds the implication that the act was committed upon oneself. With this in mind, the only person who can reasonably be held responsible for the act under the law is the person who committed the act. This same principal would be applied to a hypothetical case in which a man tells his friend to rob a bank, and the friend proceeds to do so (without the man's knowledge). Despite the man putting the idea into his friend's head, he cannot be counted as responsible for the crime itself (as he had no actual part in committing it). This isn't to say that harassing somebody to the point of suicide isn't morally reprehensible, but morality is not necessarily a basis of legality in the Unted States I find it ironic that my opponent brings up the Declaration of Independence in her argument, while blatantly overlooking perhaps the most famous line in the entire passage ("all men are created equal.") This line isn't to say that all men are exactly the same in abilities or potential, but instead than all are entitled to the same rights. If my opponent were to truly believe that, she would force him/herself to be inconsistent with her beliefs in order reconcile her view that the beliefs that men hold are not equal under the law.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

Since my opponent is making no argument, I will go on and show the research I have done to prove my point.The site bullyingstatistics.org states that suicide from verbal bullying (hate speech) is the third leading cause of deaths in America. Over 7%-9% of young people have commited suicide every year. That's give or take 22535338 people per year! You took your leading quote from the constitution. The constitution, in the Declaration of Independence introduction, says this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If we are allowed to have life, doesn't that mean that it is not allowed to take life from others? Even though hate speech doesn't directly kill people, it causes people to want to die regardless. Isn't that against the laws of the Constitution?This means that the law promoting free speech (an amendment) is going against the original Declaration of Independence. Should this be tolerated? I leave that up to you voters. Take your pick.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

I will be making the argument that hate speech, so long as it doesn't directly pose a threat to national security or another's life, is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Round will be limited to acceptance and introduction. Please cite all sources.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

It is true that morality doesn't really go with legality, but I brought that up because I wasn't paying attention to what I was writing. Sorry. :| Now for my argument. Many bullies know their victims may commit suicide, yet they continue bullying anyway. Some really bad bullies actually want their victims to commit suicide. (I was bullied when I was younger, so I should know!) That's like (as you put it), the first man continually telling his friend to rob the bank, and threatening to kill him or something like that. Declaration of Independence violation again.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

Well since my opponent hasn't given me anything to offer a rebuttal of, I will continue on with the point I was making. Before I do so, however, I would like to clarify to my opponent the The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, though similar in the ideas they espouse, are two completely different documents; and thus neither holds a direct bearing on the other. It seems to me that this debate has centralized around whether the state has the power to inform people what they SHOULDN'T say, versus what they MUSTN'T say. For the state to discourage hateful speech isn't necessarily unconstitutional, as long as the people are still free to express their opinions freely. If the government were to punish people for the opinions they hold, an individual's constitutional right to freedom of speech and thought would be rendered essentially null...regardless of how noble the state's aims may be.
IVF Debate

According to http://www.parenting.com...... the fate of frozen embryos is often undecided. If a couple has embryos left over they can choose to pay a fee per month to keep the embryos or the embryos are discarded. Many people are undecided about whether or not they want to keep the extra embryos. The extra embryos are given to the biological parents if they want to pay to keep them. In conclusion, I believe that IVF is very concerning and should not be done based on its ethical concerns and the way that the leftover embryos are taken care of.
IVF Debate

According to http://www.religioustolerance.org...... most embryos, if not used, are deep-frozen in liquid nitrogen , called cryopreservation. There are problems concerning cryopreservation that include, some embryos dying during the freezing, some die when they are thawed, and they may eventually die because of an operator malfunction. Also, the embryos that are not preserved die and many clinics either discard or destroy the left over embryos. Some are thrown in a waste basket and others are flushed down the toilet.
IVF Debate

According to www.els.net, advances in IVF technology, PGD, raise ethical concerns. PGD which stands for, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, is an example of an advance in IVF technology. PGD is used for gender selection at the beginning of the IVF process, and it raised multiple ethical concerns. Whether or not the selection of future children on the basis of less serious or even non-pathological traits is an acceptable practice is a concern raised by PGD as well as some others. PGD may also be used to select embryos that can become suitable bone marrow donors to seriously ill siblings, which has aroused controversies regarding the instrumentalisation and future wellR08;being of these children.
IVF Debate

IVF is significantly safer than pregnancy after Fallopian tube repair, which is a dangerous surgery during which many damaged tubes are broken beyond repair. It also is safer for the woman due to IVF having a lower chance of injuring the woman who it is done to. This is according to https://www.dominionfertility.com.... After IVF doctors combat Superovulation by having the doctor who performed the procedure regularly making sure that the hormone levels of the patient are regular. This is according to http://www.webmd.com....
IVF Debate

IVF may be helpful for couples who can't conceive, but it comes at a price. According to http://www.docshop.com...... IVF itself costs around $12,000 per cycle, and it is not a guarantee that you will get a child. In fact, a cycle itself can be done 6 times before someone has a baby which puts the price at around $72,000 by the time the baby actually arrives. This price is just for IVF alone, it does not take into account the additional prices for if you wanted to get additional treatments such as, intracytoplasmic sperm injections (ICSI) for sperm issues, and pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD) to prevent passing of genetic disorders, the cost would be even more.
IVF Debate

IVF allows for the creation of children for parents who could not usually have children, such as Amy, whose story is recorded here: http://www.hfea.gov.uk....... She is infertile for an unknown reason, yet due to IVF she was able to have a child. IVF also allows for the selection of traits such as gender or selecting away from genetic diseases, allowing for a healthier child overall. This is recorded here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk....... This allows for a world without genetic diseases.
Government Stimulus Is the Best Way to Get Out of a Recession

I will refrain from thanking my opponent again, as it only seems to come off as boot-licking upon review. 1; The reason that I chose Ireland as an example is because Ireland was a country that used saving as a method to escape recession. But it was not beneficial to the nation. Austerity was a harsh system that caused mass emigration, most notably the most skilled workers. The Banks have regained their credit, but refuse to lend to anyone, afraid that it may lead to another crisis. The focus of this debate is not which is the best long term solution, it is which is most beneficial. Yes, it may only be a short term solution, but as I have said before, government stimulus is an immediate solution to a problem. It is most important to the taxpayers, as they can keep jobs and earn income, improving their standard of life. In this way, I would say that this method is more beneficial, as it is the most satisfactory, suitable, or most desirable. solution. The people has regained their disposable income and can continue to afford luxury goods, healthcare and essentials. 2; I am answering the question, the title of the debate, according to your definitions. If a recession is a drop in economic activity, and beneficial results are ones most satisfactory, then even if short lived, the spending of the government to escape recession is a more beneficial answer. I never argued it was most efficient, but you never pointed out how saving, removing money from the economic system, could benefit the everyday worker. Officially, Ireland is out of recession. But that hasn't changed the standard of living for many mortgage holders. Shops still close down and people still emigrate. While it may be more stable, it most certainly deprives the benefits of not being in recession anyway. 3; I will simply restate why Ireland is a better candidate for discussion. It actually followed savings as a means of escaping, This means it is an example of how the system is implemented fairly, as I doubt America would escape recession with saving. America has such a large debt, due to their "debt ceiling" allowing them to borrow endlessly and blame it on the President when necessary. The country spends more than it has, and has been doing so for so long, I doubt anyone alive today will live to see the end of the US recession. At least I'll be in my 70s when Ireland actually pays its debts off. In conclusion, government stimulus is a short but merry method of escaping recession, which is all the debate title ever asked for. I wish I could have used another economic example, but I don't know enough about Portugal or Spain, and I'm not sure Greece even has a functioning government right now, so we both produce one example. This brings to the end of the debate, at least for me. I will leave my final round empty as per the agreements of the debate, and so I would like to to thank my opponent for this debate and also thank the viewers who take the time out during Christmas to vote on these debates. Merry Christmas, Duncan.
Government Stimulus Is the Best Way to Get Out of a Recession

I don't usually do formal debates, but when I do, I find difficulty sticking to structures. Nevertheless, I am here to prove how the most satisfactory conclusion to escape recession. I will be using Keynesian Economics to show this, and I will use the example of Ireland, my country, which has recently regained some of its economic sovereignty. Let me first set the scene for my example. Due to a total lack of regulation (and some corruption), Ireland enters a massive recession. As the Troika essentially buy our sovereignty and our debt, they inflict Austerity on us. With constant taxes and mortgages, people begin to spend less. As less people spend money, businesses fail, workers become unemployed, they require welfare and spend less, which damages businesses even further. Reducing expenditure was an economic bombshell for the Irish economy. Now, Ireland has become to improve partially.The Troika left last Saturday, hopefully for good. But spending has yet to increase. Banks are afraid to lend and people still struggle with mortgages, up to and over 300,000 euros. Until people have the extra money, they will will have no discretionary spending. Business will be slow to pick up and the economy will remain overly cautious for a long time. http://www.ictu.ie... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I propose a government stimulus as a solution to recession. (If you try to use the US as an example; I doubt the US can ever pay back that debt with out a write off of some kind. And perhaps they don't need to pay it off, only so much as to pay off interest. ) Now, if the government of a country introduces stimulus packages, such as tax reductions, sources of employment etc., much more people will have a larger disposable income, and will be able to buy more goods and services. The increase in demand will create more employment, and further increase the disposable incomes of consumers, as well as reducing costs of unemployment benefits. Any borrowing required will soon be accounted for by the increase in revenue. Remember, a debt is not the end of the world if you can pay it off. Of course, I don't just propose the packages; the government should also regulate the economy to ensure spending is encouraged in ways that are reliable, this way, the economy can pick up, while preventing the causes of the previous recession. It was a credit bubble in Ireland. Now, we have a new Central Bank regulator who will do his job properly. To conclude for now, While cuts can be a way to escape recession, it is a much slower process and it does not satisfy or benefit the people in recession as it lowers their standard of living, whereas Government Stimulus is a much more desirable, beneficial and fast method of escape. See you next round. Duncan