BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time travel is impossible / time does not exist

He is making two claims, 1) Time travel is impossible, and 2) Time does not exist. I will show that 1) Time does exist, and 2) that Time travel is possible (meaning that it can mathematically be done without breaking any known laws of science). However, I'd first like to point out a cheap semantics trick. This will not be an argument of mine, just something I want to point out to the importance of defining terms, even if you think they are well understood. Though if one was to make this argument, most voters would consider it semantics abuse and not give points for it. I am traveling forwards through time at a rate of 1 second per second, therefore, time travel is possible. Anyway, onto my actual arguments. 1) Time does exist. If time was nothing but a man made concept, nothing but a tool that exists only without the confinds of our mind, then nothing in the physical world would be able to alter it. In fact, you could claim that clocks are merely physical representations of this imaginary concept. This was once believed to be the case. However, upon studying the speed of light, we've come to the uneasy conclusion that light travels at speed c (when in a vacuum) in all reference frames [1]. This was very contridictory to modern science. Einstein came up with special relativity, which was a series of equations which explained this, aswell as predicted several other interesting phenomenons. One of which was time dilation at high speeds [2]. This has since been 100% confirmed to be true by both human testing [3] and as seen in nature [4]. This proves that the physical world actually effects time, and so, time exists outside of our mind. Proving that time is a real part of the spacetime. Now, on to the second part. 2) Time travel is possible My opponent points out a popular paradox, the killing of you grandfather, as proof that time travel cannot be possible. However, this is making the assumption that there is only a single timeline. By turning to multiverse and the many worlds theory, this paradox is no longer a paradox. Since every potential outcome is acted out by it's own timeline (resulting in a countless, yet finite, number of timelines) you very well could go back in time and kill your grandfather. What would happen would be that you would then be traveling along an entirely different timeline, one in which you are never born, but since you came from a different timeline (one from which you were born), you would not cease to exist, because the timeline you came from would not cease to exist. I will end with this, so that my opponent does not have too much to address. I look forward to the next round. Thank you, [1] . http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au... [2] . http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au... [3] . http://www.nature.com... [4] . http://www.physlink.com...
Time travel is impossible / time does not exist

Time travel is not possible because if you could travel back in time you could kill your grandfather, causing you to never be born, this would be a paradox, paradoxes can not exist in nature. Therefore time is not a property of the universe, it cannot be measured and it does not exist. It is entirely a human made concept based on the earths orbit around the sun and nothing more. Prove that time is relative. You can't because it is not. Einstein was wrong.
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

The idea of evolution, simply put is essential for any sort of understanding overall of biology or natural science. The child that may have a natural talent for these practices such as science has lost their opportunity to be a part of that overall occupation due to a complete incompatibility with the philosophy forced upon them at birth. If they choose later to adopt this philosophy that is a different issue, but children, simply do not have that option when their parents force this idea upon them with no facts to refute them. As global populations rise and environmental technologies and more efficient farming techniques are needed as a world we need more scientists, creationism stops the future scientists and intellectuals from ever rising. Without this driving force behind the scientific community and with such a large percent of the population not believing in evolution is simply becomes inappropriate for children to be taught creationism as it is so detremental to them and society
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

So, Thank you very much for accepting whomever this is. This resolution comes from Bill Nye the Science guy's controversial comment on whether or not creationism is appropriate for children. Found here: http://www.youtube.com... Semantic arguments are not allowed, no trolls etc etc. Also, I would prefer that this debate does not turn into an argument about the truth or lack there of behind creationism. The argument: "Creationism is important because kid's will go do hell without it" is unacceptable. Definitions: Creationism: The religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. http://en.wikipedia.org... Appropriate: The quality of not being detrimental to overall well being either physically or psychologically. Children: Having an age below 18. The first round is only for acceptance. The third round is for opening arguments The final round is only for refutation, no new arguments may be created although new evidence may be added to reaffirm previous arguments. If you have any questions ask them in the comments. This will be my first debate so let's see how it goes.
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

My opponent makes it very clear that if a child cannot be an archaeologist, or a microbiologist, then the theory of creationism is somehow not for the child's well being. "Other than an Ad Hominem attack on Bill Nye, and a list of personal experiences my opponent has failed to make an argument. " To my opponent, a recognition of Bill Nye's biased opinions is an example of Ad Hominem. I simply pointed out that engineering did not the require a belief in evolution. Which. .. my opponent agreed with. .. "perhaps not engineering but nevertheless it is an incompatible belief system. " My opponents ONLY argument was that creationism is detrimental to a child because it is an incompatible belief system. This argument "could" be made if my opponent proved his theory of evolution, but he didn't, and it remains a theory. I must ask my voters to look at this objectively, my opponent didn't give a valid example of how a belief in creationism could harm their well being.
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

Other than an Ad Hominum attack on Bill Nye, and a list of personal experiences my opponent has failed to make an argument. In response to the idea that creationists can be scientists and doctors you are right to an extent but if you want to believe that the world is 7000 years old and created by an all powerful creator it simply is impossible to create valid scientific hypothesis. For example if you want to be an archaeologist then the idea of the fossil record, one of the basic tenants of the field fails to make sense. If you intend to be a microbiologist you have to compensate for evolution of bacteria as they become resistant to new drugs. The belief system simply is not compatible with reality and cuts children off in most fields of science, perhaps not engineering but nevertheless it is an incompatible belief system. In terms of your own family's experience in creationism you are thinking of religion. I only have to prove that creationism is detrimental which I believe I have.
Resolved: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

I would like to begin by saying good luck to pro, and that this should be interesting. Just for the record, I love Bill Nye. Maybe not his views on creationism, but as a scientist I have always thought he was brilliant. Always watched his show as a kid, always have admired him. Just watched his video, and I'm wondering if he was really tired while he did that video or something because one of his statements was that those who don't believe in evolution can't be engineers. Why? Why can't those who believe in creationism be scientists, and doctors, and authors? My previous two science teachers have been Catholic, and very strong believers in creationism. They understand biology, they understand chemistry, but according my opponent, they are incapable because they believe in creationism. If anything, my family has benefited from our belief in creationism. It gives us something to work for, something to live for. I anxiously await your rebuttal.
This is Gay Recruitment

If my opponent insists on invoking "gay teenagers" as much as he does, I think it only fair that he tell us what a gay teenager is and the process he uses to label a kid a "gay teenager. I will also include some of the next paragraph in this argument. Firstly, I apologise, I assumed that "Gay teenager" was rather self explanatory. For my opponent's sake, I will clarify. A Gay teenager is, lo and behold, a teenager who identifies themselves as gay. It isn't the gay "activists" doing it, it is the teenagers themselves. I am using gay teenagers so much in my argument to make a point which you haven't refuted yet. The youth who watch the television, read the papers, listen to the radio, need to "see" some idols who they can relate to. It is the same with those who are black. We can't just dominate the media with a select group of people and then expect everyone to be happy about it. We can't just dominate the media and expect the young people who acknowledge themselves as that thing to understand why the domination is happening. This leads to discrimination and hate, which is never justified, no matter what your subjective opinions are. Also, my opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males? Well, firstly, I looked at the statistics you claim to be true. The recent CDC report was only about 60%. Furthermore, 97% of people who have HIV live in low-middle income countries like Africa, so this statistic is not surprising at all (as they don't have condoms for safe sex). You are going on about this statistic, acting like every single homosexual will get it, but you aren't looking at all of the facts. I apologise, I forgot to state my sources last round, but I generally used the same, so here they are: http://aids.gov...\ http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is Gay Recruitment

If my opponent insists on invoking "gay teenagers" as much as he does, I think it only fair that he tell us what a gay teenager is and the process he uses to label a kid a "gay teenager. This is part of the problem I have with gay activists in our schools. We know nothing about them save they claim to be gay. None are licensed to teach. all immediately go about labeling the kids gay, bisexual, transgender. Is that what you call "gaydar"? Also, my opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?
This is Gay Recruitment

Yes, Con is correct, Gay people do exist, along with muggers, thieves, murderers etc. The arrogance which he has, to claim that a loving relationship between two consenting adults is the same as taking someone's belongings/life is beyond compare. We should not use imagery to glorify these things, as they are all considered wrong worldwide. However, you seem to make out that all homosexual relationships are sex orientated with inhuman people participating in them, but this isn't true. You are generalising each and every case of homosexual relationships here, which should never be done during a debate. You fellows go into the schools and teach children the gay lifestyle is wonderful and cool Again, people who go into schools, broadening children's minds about what a healthy relationship can be, reaching out to all Gay teens who are struggling with their sexuality and need these people's support, are not saying it is "cool". They are simply saying that it is a viable way to live, and these people shouldn't be ashamed of themselves and hide themselves away, which could possibly damage them further. Gay pride parades are a good example of this. Perhaps if you'd explain why they're a good Idea you'd have an argument. I don't need to. You have the BOP to say why they are bad, sick and twisted, which you haven't done. But, for the sake of it, Gay pride events are good because they allow Gay people, who don't have the same rights as heterosexual people, to stand up for what they believe in. You then go on to say about gay bath houses, etc, which only some gay people utilise. It is like saying that heterosexuals are all sex orientated because some go to prostitutes. You are using your own subjective opinions here, and are not using actual facts! Show us a gay event that isn't sex oriented. In another debate I called gays a "sex cult". Yes you did. That was factually inaccurate as most Gay people can have long and healthy relationships. Really, your arguments here are based all on assumptions and generalisations with no support to them. A normal homosexual relationship isn't sex orientated, just a heterosexual one isn't. Both contain two consenting adults who love each other. Sex is really just an optional way to deepen that love. Here's the point: when news sites carry imagery that glorifies homosexuality, they're glorifying a life-style that is destructive and dehumanizing. A recent CDC report showed that young gay males are 72.% of all new HIV cases. This means homosexuality is a major public health hazard. They aren't glorifying it! Again, for the third time, they are simply allowing those who are Gay a relateable person. Yes, Gay people may be the biggest contributor to HIV rates at the moment, but that does not mean that we shouldn't allow them to have relationships. If we teach these children about safe sex, what they should be having anyway, then there would be no problem. Just because people from African countries statistically have a higher chance to get Aids doesn't mean we should stop them from having relationships.
This is Gay Recruitment

My opponent opens with statement "Gay people Exist!"Yes, of course they exist -- as do heroin addicts, pedophiles, terrorists, muggers, thieves, BDSM, crack heads, etc. Should we use imagery that glorifies these groups too?Homosexuality is a destructive, soul destroying behavior that turns young people into sex addicts and worse. You and Obama would have us believe all gays are like Ellen Degenris and Anderson Cooper. You fellows go into the schools and teach children the gay lifestyle is wonderful and cool -- a viable alternative! But everywhere we look gay culture is destructive and dehumanizing. Gay pride parades are a good example of this. Perhaps if you'd explain why they're a good Idea you'd have an argument. After that, explain gay bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenwich Village Docks, cruising, gay porn. Show us a gay event that isn't sex oriented. In another debate I called gays a "sex cult". Tell us why this is inaccurate.And then there's the billion-dollar male escort industry. If that isn't evidence of sickness, I don't know what is. And I'm not just talking about the men who use this service, I'm talking about the thousands of "barely legal" boys who are roped into this life of disease and misery. Here's the point: when news sites carry imagery that glorifies homosexuality, they're glorifying a life-style that is destructive and dehumanizing. A recent CDC report showed that young gay males are 72.% of all new HIV cases. This means homosexuality is a major public health hazard. How many of your gay public speakers are telling kids this when they go into the schools? Putin had the right idea when he made it crime to promote homosexuality. Idiot Obama tried to bully him on the point which is why we're on the brink of WWIIIThis is the reality of homosexuality. This is why homosexuality SHOULD be discriminated against. This is why people need to stop believing all your self-serving fairy tals about homosexuality and get the facts. To repeat: the reason why imagery that glorifies homosexuality is wrong-headed is because homosexuality is a destructive, dehumanizing, public health menace.
This is Gay Recruitment

I do not believe the Huffington post is "recruiting" people to be Gay. They are showing the diverse culture that exists in our society. The simple fact of the matter is: Gay people exist! Homosexual relationships aren't just some made up fantasy. The huffington post are simply showing anyone who wishes to view their site what our world is like; the job of the news! Here are some examples of other photos they show in their articles: They show heterosexual couples, and with the recent legalisation of Gay marriage in the UK, it is no wonder that they're showing pictures of homosexual couples! It isn't showing children that homosexual relationships are "incredibly cool", it is simply showing pictures that relate to the article. If we are to avoid discrimination of any kind, both heterosexual and homosexual couples must be seen in the media. Those who are Gay need to see people who they can relate to, otheriwse we risk damaging the whole community. Here are some statistics for Gay teens who commit suicide: Between 30 and 40% of the Gay youth ( a collection of different ages) have attempted to commit suicide The Homosexual youth are more likely to try to commit suicide than their Heterosexual counterparts Here is an interesting statistic found by GLAAD on the media : homosexual couples make up about 4.4% of the media we see today (at the start of 2013). This figure is shocking! The only way we can hope to destroy the hateful discrimination the LGBT community faces is by showing the youth of today the truth! By shying them away from the reality will only push those who need help further away. https://www.glaad.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
This is Gay Recruitment

The Huffingtonpost is one of the most popular news sites on the net. Huffpost, a thoroughly gay run organization, continuously runs articles extolling the wonders of homosexuality with accompanying photos like this:http://i.huffpost.com...Well, folks, this is recruitment. It's implanting in the minds of youth the notion that gay culture is incredibly cool and everybody's trying it -- "why don't you?"In other words, the liberal is asleep at the wheel. While gay activists assure him only those "born that way" can become gay, these same activists are assaulting Little Johnny's mind with imagery showing homosexuals living a wonderful and incredibly cool life.There's not a scintilla of evidence supporting "born this way." Bombard any boy with enough homosexual imagery and he'll end up at the front of the local gay pride parade in an erect penis hat and g-string.In other words, you've been had, Mr. Liberal -- and your kids are the ones who'll pay for your unholy stupidity.
Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. We have a pretty small character limit per round, so without further adieu... Con begins by stating that he "doubts the probability" of overpopulation happening. Overpopulation is defined as filling with excess number of people, thereby straining available resources [1]. However, there is no 'probability' of this as it is already happening. In many parts of the world, human water use exceeds replenishment; the U.N. predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with water scarcity. Unsustainable farming practices cause the destruction and abandonment of almost 30 million acres of arable land each year. We consume about 40% percent of Earth's primary productivity. Every day we burn up an amount of energy the planet needed over 27 years to create. These are only a few of the statistics showing that our current levels of consumption are not sustainable. We cannot continue gobbling up our diminishing oil supplies and rural lands at the rate we have been doing. We need to bring our social, economic and environmental systems back into balance in a way that replenishes them for future generations [2]. As you can see, overpopulation is already a problem, and the only way for the human condition to sustain itself is to prepare - i.e. take preventative measures to ensure survival. In a response to Con's questions--> (1, 2) While the number of Anglo-American births is going down, the earth's population on the whole is rising; The number of humans is increasing by 1.18% per year... (3) I'm not sure if people will be "ignorant" to resource shortages though I don't really see how this is relevant... (4) Con suggests that society will be able to adapt to certain shortages. While I agree that we may be able to find ways to replace oil, I do not see how it is possible that human beings can survive without water. Also, he mentions rice and wheat though ignores the reality that it is not just these 2 types of food; we're losing land that will help us farm, and depleting resources that kill other animals thus effecting the entire food chain... (5) The answer is no, if conditions keep worsening, we will not be able to "obtain more" of any of those resources. In conclusion, Con writes, "In today's ever more growing liberal society, future generations will all be extremely conscious of there use of resources and in a worst case scenario there will always be governments to regulate the problem before it causes the imagined chaos." Right here Con defeats his very own argument. If he expects people to REGULATE a problem in order to prevent a problem, then right there he acknowledges that we must *PREPARE* for the problem. So here you can see that I have demonstrated overpopulation is both imminent and in need of preparation, which Con apparently agrees with. Thank you. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.overpopulation.org...
Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

In light of many of these horror stories of overpopulation destroying all resources I have had doubt on the probability of this happening. Our society as well as many others. Ask these questions to yourself. 1. In today's (Anglo-American) culture will many women want to pursue childbirth? 2. Will these women give birth to a large number of children. (Such as more than 2-4) 3. Will these children be completely ignorant to resource shortages and will governments fail to ration foods accordingly in the case of said shortages. 4. Will society be unable to adapt to even the disappearance of a substance. I.E.'s Oil, Water, Wheat, Rice 5. Will we not be able to plant/breed/create more of this resource. The answer to all of these questions is no. Young adults and adolescents of both sexes are too preoccupied to consider conceiving children and those that do will avoid more children like the plague. In today's ever more growing liberal society, future generations will all be extremely conscious of there use of recources and in a worst case scenario there will always be governments to regulate the problem before it causes the imagined chaos. Overall I do not believe a society can unknowingly do itself in to the point of causing setback in an evergrowing population. I forsee a fairly consistant growth of the human race and there is little to worry about.
Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

My opponent has been online in the last 3 days; in fact he was online 35 minutes ago (and I am posting this as soon as I saw that my opponent forfeited R3). Therefore we can assume that he concedes this debate, or at the very least, expresses bad conduct in not coming back for a final rebuttal. Nevertheless, I'd like to extend my arguments and wishing my opponent luck in the voting period.