BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A nuclear attack will likely take place on US soil in the next ten years

The term "likely" refers to probability. Probability is used to predict the results of random or pseudo-random patterns based on known data from the past in a similar context. However, there have only been two nuclear attacks in all of human history, both by the same actor, and both in completely different contexts than that today. We have insufficient data to even begin to make a probability judgment about such a thing. The resolution is epistemically incoherent. Since so far all of the documented incidents of attempts to purchase nuclear material on the black market have resulted in exactly zero nuclear attacks, we have exactly no data whatsoever about the percentage of such attempts that come to fruition in the form of an attack, and on the distribution of those attacks in terms of national jurisdiction. From zero data, zero conclusion can be reached, under any useful system of epistemology-- or any system proposed at all except for "Faith." Faith being non-useful (it has no tendency to reach true conclusions), we are left with a world in which it is impossible to support the assertion of the applicability of the mathematical concept "likelihood" as to the occurrence, nature, location, or time of the next nuclear attack.
A nuclear attack will likely take place on US soil in the next ten years

"If for instance Al Queda detonates a nuclear device in New York, what could we do? America can't send their nukes to a certain country because Al Queda doesn't have one. They hide in the caves in the middle of no man's land. We could do nothing. So, the terrorists have no reason NOT to attack America using nukes." Al Qaeda are, in case you haven't noticed, Muslims. Several members of the American religious right have proposed nuking Mecca in the event of a nuclear attack on US soil. The religious right is an ideological group with a significant amount of influence in the US military, there is a possibility for them to perform such a bombing in the chaos that would result from a nuclear attack. Al Qaeda would not want to be responsible for the bombing of their holy site, presumably, therefore, they do in fact have such a reason-- it may or may not be sufficient, though the difficulty of performing such an attack doesn't help make it look any more attractive. "Actually, I'm very surpised that America has not been already attacked with nuclear power." In other words, your theory predicts they already should have, and they haven't, therefore, your theory is missing some data. :) " I cannot present a mathematically calculated probability of a nuclear attack on the US soil." You concede, then that the resolution is undemonstrable, since "Likely" is a reference to probability. " In my last post I presented logical evidence that it would be at least possible, or even easy to smuggle "suitcase bombs" or uranium/plutonium to the United States of America." Easy you have not demonstrated. Possible you have, but possible and likely are different things, and it's the burden of the latter's demonstration that is resting on you. " Question: Okay, say someone smuggled plutonium into America unnoticed. How would they build a nuclear bomb? Answer: It would be very easy." Your oversimplifying sources notwithstanding, the best efforts of several significant countries have had difficulty with the task.
Is O.J Simpson guilty

Yes during that time the Lapd and black people didnt love each other but he wrote a book about it claiming if he did do it this his how. Also they found blood on his property so a criminal came to a gated in home and also he had blood on his car what do u think now and the only reason he was guilty was because a cop who new he was a murder tampered with the evidence and they had to disclaim the case.This was not a racial motivated investigation more of a normal investigation and if this was a white person they would be much harder.
Is O.J Simpson guilty

OJ Simpson was convicted of murdering his wife.Gloves with his blood was found near the crime scene.The gloves didnt fit but still had his dna on it .He also wrote a book about the murder called "If I did it" wich is about if oj killed his wife wich he did.The only reason why he was innocent was because of a officer who tampered with evidence a little bit but he was guilty.
dogs are better than cats

if your dog seen you dead on the side of the road they will walk over to you and sit there. However, scientists have found out which out of our feline or canine friends love us more. As part of a new BBC2 documentary called "Cats v. Dogs", hosted by animal experts Chris Packham and Liz Bonnin, a neuroscientist has investigated which species prefers humans. We already knew that, like humans, dogs release the 'love hormone' oxytocin. This test has never before been done on cats. "We have pretty good evidence that dogs actually love their humans," according to Dr Paul Zak, who conducted the study. "A couple of small-scale studies have shown that when owners interact with their dogs, the human and their dog appear to release oxytocin. "It"s one of the chemical measures of love in mammals. Humans produce the hormone in our brains when we care about someone. For example, when we see our spouse or child the levels in our bloodstream typically rise by 40-60 per cent." The neuroscientist checked the oxytocin levels in both cats and dogs after playing with their owners. He took saliva samples from 10 cats and 10 dogs on two occasions - 10 minutes before a playtime session with their owners and immediately after - and tested both samples for oxytocin. The results show the hormone increased by an average of 57.2 per cent in dogs but only by 12 per cent in cats. This means in theory, dogs love their humans more than cats do. "I was really surprised to discover that dogs produced such high levels of oxytocin" the dog level of 57.2 per cent is a very powerful response. It shows these dogs really care about their owners. It was also a nice surprise to discover that cats produce any at all. At least some of the time, cats seem to bond with their owners," he added. Some think that cats don't actually like their owners at all - this study at least proves that wrong. % oxytocin increase 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Dog Cat Powered by Factmint Cats beat out dogs in one area, however - they are better at surviving. A study of 2,000 fossils has revealed that the felids are much better at surviving than canids. A team of scientists found that cats have played a significant role in making 40 dog species extinct. Cats often out competed dogs for food rations because they are generally more effective hunters. No evidence has been found that dogs have ever wiped out a cat species. The dog family - which includes wolves from which our domesticated dogs descend - originated in North America 40 million years ago. 20 million years later there were more than 30 species of dog on the continent. Then the cat family arrived and caused a period of dramatic decline among the dog family.
The Heliocentric model of the solar system is more correct than the Geocentric model.

I apologize for saying "superior" instead of "more correct" in my opening statement. You'll notice that later on, I argued in favor of "more correct" as the actual resolution says. It's true that I specified barycenter when I could just as easily have used a geometric center. This is because a barycenter is actually used in astronomy, where a geometric center simply isn't. You'll find that the geometric center of the Solar System can also more closely be called the Sun than it can the Earth. The geometric center of the Solar System is on average closer to the Sun than it is to the Earth. Even if not, even if neither could more correctly be called the geometric center, this does not tip the scales any further from the heliocentric model being more correct. My opponent also brought up "center of biomass," but that's clearly not what the heliocentric and geocentric models talk about - they are astronomical models of the solar system that have never depended on where there is more biomass. Barycenter is the most astronomically relevant center, and that center is often the sun, and is rather close to the sun when it is not. It strongly favors the heliocentric model. Geometric center is less relevant, and it also favors the heliocentric model but less strongly. Center of biomass is completely arbitrary, and has no implications astronomically, but it favors the geocentric model. My opponent tries to attack my syllogism. He says that I show my bias when I say that the Solar System is the sun and the planets that surround it. This is not biased. They are also the planets that surround the Earth. Regardless of our starting point, we are talking about the same planets. That is all that matters. I simply did not want to list out each plantetary body by name, but I certainly could have and the syllogism would still say the same thing. I was simply defining what bodies are part of the Solar System - feel free to pretend I said it some other way that doesn't sound as biased, the implications would be the same. He also restates that my choice of center was "cherrypicking," but I assure you it was not. Barycenter is the only relevant measure of center. Center of volume, geometric center, is not used in astronomy, but it would still favor heliocentrism. My opponent points out that I did not attack his points. There was no need. His points were not points at all, they were "well, my opponent might try to do this!" I didn't do any of those things, so rebutting them was unnecessary. My opponent concludes by claiming that I never argued that heliocentrism was more correct, only that it was "superior," but that's completely false. I only used the word "superior" in my opening statement - every other time after that I said "more correct," even at the conclusion of the syllogism. I even included a definition for "more correct" in the syllogism. I have affirmed the resolution. I thank my opponent and the readers/voters as well. Hope you all enjoyed
The Heliocentric model of the solar system is more correct than the Geocentric model.

I find it interesting that he has tried to change the terms of the debate by claiming the heliocentric model is *superior* rather than *more correct*. I do not doubt that the heliocentric model is superior in at least some (but not all) circumstances than the geocentric model, however that is not what is being argued about in this debate. For a quick example of when the geocentric model is superior, note that the math used for celestial navigation is considerably easier if a geocentric model of the solar system is assumed. So even omelet's modified assertion cannot be demonstrated true. I thank my opponent for using the doughnut example. It is true that the center of a doughnut is the middle of the hole, but the important point to remember is that this is true *even if led is embedded into one side of the doughnut,* thus making one side of the doughnut heaver than the other, if we are talking about the geometric center of the doughnut. Then my opponent brings up the barycenter, or center of mass, of the solar system. The fact that my opponent needs to specify a particular sort of center highlights the basic problem with his argument. It is only true that the sun is near the center of the universe under certain definitions of the word "center". In other words, the center is relative to what the measurer chooses to measure. Like in the doughnut example, things change if we choose to measure positions of the planets rather than positions and masses, things also change if we include the velocities of the planets. So the "center" moves if we choose to admit either fewer or more properties. Of course the center also changes if we choose to measure *different* properties than what my opponent chose. For example, if we choose to measure biomass. Lastly, my opponent's syllogism isn't valid. He takes as his first premise that the planetary bodies are surrounding the sun, this shows his bias. He then chooses a particular definition of center (the barycenter,) which is specifically defined to give more "centrality" to the most massive object of a group. By making this initial assumption and cherry picking a particular sort of center, his syllogism begs the question. In conclusion, my opponent specifically accepted my first point, and made no attempt to refute my other three points. Meanwhile, nowhere in any of his argument did he make any attempt whatsoever to show the heliocentric model as being *more correct* in any sense of the word. Instead he tried to show that the heliocentric model is "superior", but even here, he failed to specify under what circumstances this superiority manifests. As we all know, "superiority" is strictly relative to a particular task, and not a universal.
The Heliocentric model of the solar system is more correct than the Geocentric model.

I affirm the resolution. The heliocentric model of the Solar System is superior to the geocentric model. My opponent points out, correctly, that no frame of reference is inherently better than any other. I am not going to challenge this notion - I accept it outright. My opponent is confusing the issue here. Frames of reference being arbitrary does not mean that centers of objects are also arbitrary. From any frame of reference inside or outside of a donut, we can safely say that the center of that donut is at the middle of the hole (assuming a normally-shaped donut). It doesn't matter which frame of reference we use, that center is still the center. The same is true of the Solar System. It has the same center no matter what frame of reference we choose to take. While it's true that the center of the Solar System is not always the Sun, the Sun is much more often the center of the Solar System than the Earth is. Allow me to present my first and only piece of evidence, a mapping of the center of mass, the barycenter, of the Solar System. This is the relevant "center" in astronomy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Note that this is not complete - it is only from 1945 to 1995. If continued indefinitely, we would see a polar graph centered around the Sun's nucleus. That is not the significant part. The significant part is that for a good chunk of time, the barycenter of the Solar System is actually inside the Sun - meaning it is quite correct to call the Sun the center of the Solar System. In contrast, this does not happen at all for the Earth, so it is never correct to say that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System. It is at least true to say that it is more correct to call the Sun the center of the Solar System than it is to call the Earth the same. Allow me to just recap my argument in the form of a syllogism. 1. The Solar System refers to the Sun and the planetary bodies surrounding it. 2. This system has a center, irrespective of which frame of reference we look at it from. 3. That center is often located at the Sun, and is never located at the Earth. 4. The difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models of the solar system is that the former says the center of the Solar System is the Sun, and the latter says it is the Earth. 5. A more correct model is closer to reality than a less correct model. 6. From 3, 4, and 5, the heliocentric model of the Solar System is a more correct model than the geocentric model.
The Heliocentric model of the solar system is more correct than the Geocentric model.

My opponent will argue that the heliocentric model of the solar system(1) is more correct than the geocentric model(2). I will show that his/her assertion is wrong. 1) My opponent might try to present testimony of various authorities in the field. However, if you examine their claims, you will find that they all source one specific authority, Copernicus(3). This would be OK except that Copernicus' model was laid to waist by Einstein's theory of general relativity(4) which allows for no privileged frame of reference(5). What this means is that according to general relativity, there can be no point that is considered the center of the solar system. 2) My opponent might try to convince you by showing how the orbits of the planets are ellipses(6) all around the Sun. However, please note that an ellipse has *two* foci, neither of which is in the center of the ellipse (a point on the line between the two foci and equidistant from both of them.) Even if one of the foci was a valid center, according to the Heliocentric model, the center of the Sun doesn't sit on the foci, rather it orbits rather erratically about the foci. The final nail on this argument's coffin is that it begs the question. *If* the heliocentric model was more correct than the geocentric model, *then* the orbit of the planets would be best described as ellipses. 3) Since neither of the above work, my opponent try to use Occam's famous razor(7). For those that don't know, Occam suggests that given two theories which accurately describe reality, the one that has the fewest assumptions should be the one adopted. Here too, Einstein steps in and causes problems, neither the Heliocentric nor the Geocentric models accurately describe reality, so Occam's razor doesn't apply. Even if we accept that both theories are equally erroneous at describing reality, my opponent fails in the contention that the Heliocentric model is in any way more correct than the geocentric model. "The math is easier" does not translate to "it's more correct." 4) The only possible argument left to my opponent is that somehow heliocentrism produces more correct results when used to model the solar system, but this cannot be asserted unless we deny the geocentric model one or more of its required assumptions. *Any* model will fail if we deny its assumptions including the heliocentric model, so this argument is destined to fail as well. I await my opponents arguments. Why should I accept the heliocentric model of the solar system over the geocentric model? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org... (7) http://en.wikipedia.org...
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

My opponent says "First of all the car crashes occur only once every thirteen minutes not once every fourteen seconds. " But the source he sites says "One person dies in the US every 13 minutes in a Car Accident". I said every 14 seconds someone is injured in a car accident in America. Those are two different statistics. On the subject of the list about what happens every 60 seconds. What I was trying to show was just some of the things that will happen while you read my argument. You do not become stronger because someone thousands of miles away bought and X-box. Someone buying an X-box did not kill you and it didn't make you stronger. The same thing is true about the lightning. If lightning strikes and you didn't hear or see it are you stronger? You are not stronger for not being struck by lightning. When people do recover from a lightning strike they do still experience symptoms. The quote in my previous argument from the NWS says "People struck by lightning suffer from a variety of long-term, debilitating symptoms, including memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, chronic pain, numbness, dizziness, stiffness in joints, irritability, fatigue, weakness, muscle spasms, depression, and more. " . http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov... My opponent says "Another flaw which I'd like to point out is that if people don't eat until they're starved, they'll die. " Yes but many people don't die. Risks of not eating enough range from dehydration to muscle atrophy to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. These symptoms may not kill but certainly don't make you stronger. . http://www.nondiet.com... Now about the smoking part. My opponent responds by saying "For statement number one and two the people could just be uneducated. In some cases being slimmer does mean being either stronger or healthier than before. You are right on number four but then there are those who really don't care if it is good or not, just as long as it makes them look 'cool'. You are also right on number five " Being uneducated or not caring about the problems and effects of smoking and then smoking doesn't change the fact that it is a bad thing to do.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

An almost perfect argument. The thing is that there are a few flaws. First of all the car crashes occur only once every thirteen minutes not once every fourteen seconds.http://www.car-accidents.com... Okay now on to the subject of things that happen every 60 seconds. The thing I don't get is why you would list all of this because it is pretty much just a whole bunch of people buying things. The only bad things were the hacking and the e waste. On to the point of the hacking. If the people get hacked they will soon know how to stop that particular type of hack. Now unto the point of e waste. The thing is that about 99% of all e waste is recyclable. http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au... The other things I would like to acknowledge are the lightning strikes. Some people do get killed by lightning strikes but there are those who do not. The people who do not get killed are hurt but the thing is that they'll recover pretty soon depending on how fatal the strike was. http://www.emergencydude.com... Another flaw which I'd like to point out is that if people don't eat until they're starved, they'll die. If they eat too much on the other hand they'll die too. http://wiki.answers.com... http://wiki.answers.com... Now unto the smoking part. For statement number one and two the people could just be uneducated. In some cases being slimmer does mean being either stronger or healthier than before. You are right on number four but then there are those who really don't care if it is good or not, just as long as it makes them look 'cool'. You are also right on number five. Thank you Angrymen.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Good argument angrymen. Yes, I do admit that there were a lot of veterans committing suicides but did you ever ask how many veterans weren't committing suicide? About 24,000 veterans are alive and didn't commit suicide. The answer to the question shows that while some veterans did commit suicide and were therefore weaker (because of something that didn't kill them) the other veterans were stronger at some point after whatever war they were in. Of course there are those veterans who are alive but have some type of disorder, but there are also those that don't have disorders and are stronger in a way because of whatever war they were in. My opponent pointed out that even if going without food doesn't kill you it can certainly negatively affect you in the future. Well my question to you is what about those who live in third world countries? They don't eat as much but they still stay as strong and sometimes even stronger than those in richer parts of the world. They eat less than others but they really aren't affect negatively in any way. As I said before smoking is rather bad but there are still advantages. I shall disprove my opponent's disadvantages. 1. Helps people eat less. - As I showed eating less is sometimes a good thing. 2. Gives quick & temporary stress relief. - There are the uneducated but deeply troubled who run into those that give them the cigarette. They see that it gives them relief temporarily and then they go out there and get more, later getting addicted. 3. People become slimmer. - Look at 1. 4. Good social booster in some cases. - There are the teenagers and youths who would think that their friends would think of them as 'cool' if they smoked. 5. Accepted by people you'd rather not mess with. Getting accepted by drug dealers doesn't mean that you have to become one of them. Now look by to my third sentence. I said "one thing that I found is that we have just both listed both the good and the bad things that come from circumstances not killing you." Can we just come to the conclusion that the saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger is sometimes right and sometimes wrong? Thank you and good luck. Sources: -http://dva.state.wi.us... -http://www.time.com...