BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does god exist

god dosnt exist as if he did he surely would have heard the cries of some terrorism's victims and helped them; he wouldn't let us create this divide of religion which becomes the reason of mass destruction many times; he wont let millions pay tributes of food candles or blankets when people die of hunger and cold so often; he would do something to stop people like hitler and send more like buddha or MK gandhi;he ll try to stop killings or subjugation of women or fraud with the sentiments of poor in is name etc.
Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

I find it ironic that travel to the future is assumed possible until proven impossible by me, but the idea of traveling back to the present is assumed impossible until proved by me. Either both should be assumed true and require disproving or both should be assumed false and require proving. Now, I'm not saying that I think traveling to the past is possible, only that if you can travel to the future, then you can return to where you started. Because we are assuming that both directions of travel are assumed possible until proven impossible, my arguments about paradoxes still stand. All of Pro's "no proof" arguments against it are only a cop-out and should not be acknowledged. Also, this idea that there can only be one "you" is not really applicable here. The paradox argument does not have to be about you, the car crash was just an example of how what you see in the future will change your behavior. The Pro says that "Whether or not it is considered "time travel" or not (which is arguable, but that's for another time) one would still be traveling at an accelerated rate into the future." Firstly, whether or not that is really time travel is not for another time. It is not time travel, therefore the uncertainty principle that he completely ignored in this round means that time travel to the future is impossible. On the second half of the statement, time travel is jumping from one point in time to another without going through the time in between, not getting there faster. I am winning this debate because the Pro has not sufficiently rebutted my arguments about paradoxes. I am also winning because time travel does not involve passing through the time in between, so there would not be a certain future for you to arrive in.
Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

I would like to direct con to my first statement of the debate "I believe that in theory, it is possible for a being to travel into the future, however short it may be." I would also like to point out that we are not bound by just the idea of time travel. As long as you can travel into a future moment, by time, or by space it is considered TRAVELING INTO THE FUTURE. Now as I said in the comments, technically we are all traveling into the future right now. BUT as promised that will not be part of my argument. Again, Cons argument of pradoxes is completely dependent upon the possibility of returning back to the present. Con said "Time travel to the past would be possible as long as you do not travel further back that the present you left". This is a huge statement, and I'm afraid he has absolutly no evidence, or findings to back up this claim. Should we take his word for it? If he could get some meat to back up that claim he may have won, but I see no huge scientific time travel breakthroughs on the horizon. I have presented and backed up a way for one to travel into the future using Albert Einsteins time travel theory. Con has said traveling back through time is possible with no proof at all. So unless you establish the fact that one can travel BACK through time, as well as FOREWARD, that argument is invalid.As for his second paradox example, it is still flawed. Con stated "if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all." If one went into the future and say he could return back to the present in which he left, even then there is no possible way for one to die after he has already left. As stated by Con earlier, we are on a non-parallel universe basis for this debate. When dealing with the future in this case, there is only one "you". Con said "His light speed method would not be considered time travel in this instance because it is merely accelerated living" Wether or not it is considered "time travel" or not (which is arguable, but thats for another time) one would still be traveling at an accelerated rate into the future. By slowing down time for yourself, you can effectively arrive at a later point in time, thus traveling into the future. So unless Con establishes some proof for backward time traveling this debate is mine.http://everythingforever.com...
Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

In response to the Pro's argument about how none of the paradoxes would occur, they are based of the idea that you would be returning from the time travel, not be stuck in the future. Time travel to the past would be possible as long as you do not travel further back that the present you left. None of the paradoxes usually associated with traveling to the past would apply because the future is flexible and changes all the time. Also, the BoP to show that travel from the future to the past is impossible falls to my opponent for the same reason that I have the BoP to show that travel to the future is impossible. The Pro says that travel to the future would be possible, not with a Sci-Fi method but one involving light speed. His light speed method would not be considered time travel in this instance because it is merely accelerated living. This would be like comparing driving really fast to teleporting. Just because you are getting there faster than normal doesn't mean you are telleporting/time traveling. Time travel is moving through time without the need to experience the intervening period. I am winning this debate because the Pro's only argument against the paradoxes is that past travel is not possible, but he has not proved that. Also, Pro's proposed method of "time travel" to avoid the uncertainty of the future is not actually time travel.
Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

You raise some points but as you said, we are assuming that there is only one timeline, and are not considering parallel universes. I will address you argument of paradoxes first. You said; "The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in. " In order for this to be valid, we would have to submit to the possibility of time travel into the past. I did not agree to this nor do I think it possible. Unless you can prove time travel into the past, there is no way for someone who went to the future to bring back something to the present. Your second paradox example was "if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all. " This is impossible because when you travel to the future, you don't leave yourself behind. When you leave, you left. The "you" from the past would then travel into the future. So if you left May 3, 2012 to go to the future, you no longer exist in the present to be in a car crash December 3, 2013. And your other argument is that the future is uncertain. I can disprove your argument here with an example of how travel into the future ca be achieved. You're thinking of time travel in the conventional "Sci-Fi" way where you press some buttons and you end up in the future. But there is no way to make that happen at this point in time. But, as Albert Einstein proved, time is relative to the speed you are traveling. This is fact, ask anyone who works at the space station. All the clocks on the satellites must be slightly adjusted because of the speed they are orbiting the Earth. But that is minuscule and is not the time travel we dream of. But, if you can create a craft and travel at the speed of light, time literally slows down for you. So instead of going to a random point into the future, essentially you would be traveling half the speed that time on Earth is. So if you traveled at the speed of light for five years, when you return to Earth, ten years will have passed. This type of time travel negates the "uncertainty" because life goes on as usual, you are simply traveling in a different "time". So unless my opponent can prove time travel in the past, or disprove Einstein, this match is mine.
Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.

For the sake of simplicity it will be assumed that there is one time line and no parallel universes. It would be impossible to travel to the future for two main reasons: uncertainty and paradoxes. The first reason that it is impossible to travel to the future is that the future is not set in stone. The future changes depending on what happens in the present, so the future is always changing. Because the future is so unstable, it would be impossible to arrive at any one time or place. The other problem of time travel to the future is the paradoxes always associated with time travel. Although most paradoxes are geared toward the past, there are two main paradoxes dealing with the future. The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in. The information would have come from nowhere, thus causing a paradox. The second paradox is far more likely and practical. It is the idea that after going to the future, you would change some behavior in the past, changing the future that you saw. For example, if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all. This creates a paradox because if you don't die, then when you went into the future, you wouldn't have known not to drive to work that day. Unless the Pro can show that time travel to the future could land you in a certain place and that it would not create any paradoxes, then I win this debate.
The Sabbath (for Christians) should be kept as Saturday

In this debate, I will be arguing that the Sabbath in the Bible, therein the 10 Commandments, refers to the seventh day as Saturday, and could not have been changed in any way since the Judaic, Mosaic, or even periods before or after then. In other words, I will be arguing that the Sabbath is Saturday, as the 10 commandments stated, the 7th day.
should there be school uniforms

There should be school uniforms for sports teams for the following reasons.A) If we didn't have uniforms for sports teams, people may find it difficult to identify people. Yes, a player in a sports team is likely to know most of the people in his team, but if one person on a team looked identical to another, and both were on different teams, then a uniform would definitely help differentiate between the two and not cause confusion. People watching sports games may also find it difficult to identify certain players for a school sports team.B) Some sports require safer equipment for you to play. Pads and a helmet are part of a Football uniform, and what happens when you take that away? More broken bones, more blood, and more disfigured muscles. Injuries in Football can get pretty ugly. Back in the 1900's when you didn't have as much safety equipment, you could actually get KILLED playing Football. And playing like they did back then could certainly lead to some serious injuries assuming there are no deaths.C) It would be far less creative to not use uniforms for our sports. We wear shirts everyday, and quite frankly, without sports uniforms, actual games would just look like kids playing around for recess. You don't get much of that team vibe. There's no school spirit in not wearinf uniforms and it would be very unusual since the norm today is for people to wear uniforms during games.
Anyone who says"Good sir"in a flamewar is clearly butthurt andis trying to make themselves looksmart

Burden of proof rests solely on Pro, who has to prove that anyone who says "good sir" in a flamewar is both "butthurt" and "trying to make themselves look smart. "" Y u do this:( "Now let us begin, good sir. " I am a master troll. Trying to provoke me won't work. Now, imagine this situation: Bill and Bob (Both fedora wearing neckbeards living in their parents basements) are arguing about politics. Neither of them know what they are talking about. This is their conversation: Bill: The state of the economy in Europe is deplorable. I'd wish they would fix the country. Bob: I've lived in Europe for 40 years, good sir. The economy is amazing, And I had sex with your mom last night, good sir. Bill: Good sir, I believe the correct term your looking for is "Bob is an uneducated peasant as's bitc. h SHlT head". Bob: Fukin stupid a5s good sir good sir retarded as's bitcchhhh Bill: Good sirfuggin as'swiiiipesh;it. Bob:GOODSIRRRRRRRRRR Bill:GOOOOOOODSIIIIIR Now, I think it's fair to say everyone has witnessed many flame wars like these. And isn't there a very common trend? EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE SAYS "GOOD SIR", THEY ARE MAD. THIS IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT.
It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

Thanks for the lovely debate! It was certainly fun making the arguments. Thanks also for telling me that you concede rather than letting the clock run down. Would you like to continue the debate on the other points for fun, or just allow the debate to stop? If not, would it be possible to just say something random to waste the rest of the rounds and run down the clock? Thanks again for the great debate! --kbub
It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

I certainly agree that under most conditions killing another in order to gain their meat is ghastly, and factory farms are among the greatest atrocities homo sapiens have ever committed. I am however excited about this subject. My opponent goes first of course, but I will be talking about one or more specific sets of scenarios where killing for another's meat can be acceptable. I think I already hinted at one possibility in the comments section. Anyway, I'm looking forward to my opponent's arguments!
It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat? Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience: Awareness; feelings A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i. e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals). I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.
Another race besides caucasian being a brain surgeon

Yes I am saying they are good enough for some jobs. Again the whole force fed society thing comes into play again. My father is racist. I'm sure some of that has rub off on me but i try my best to vote for the underdog. If Obama is running America he is not directly effecting me ( I know that sounds stupid) what I mean is he does not literally have my life in his hands. Not to mention if you watch American politics at all. Its not one man who decides the fate of the country it is the elected officials we also put there the help Obama. Obama and his closest aids probably come up with the idea, they bring it to the senate and house for voting. I mean its not like Obama presses a button and everything he says is done instantly. There are procedures that Americas founders came up with to not allow 1 single man to rule a nation ( like Hitler ) The superiority lies within the fact that this Dr. has his hands literally inside my brain. My life is quite literally in his hands, and I put emphasis on this because of the point i made about Obama not having my life directly in his hands. The same goes with the African American I would follow into the battle lines. I would follow him into battle, but if the top of my head was blown off I wouldn't allow him to operate on my brain. Hope you understand what I meant when i said i would follow him into battle, but not let him operate on my brain. There is also a trust issue. What if an African American boy was raised in a white neighborhood, his parents were wealthy and they had a nice home. However, since his youth he was teased, taunted and tortured using race. Now lets say 40 years down the road, the boy has become a Dr. hell a brain surgeon even. He just so happens to have a new patient that is a boy from the racist neighborhood. Well now the tables have turned haven't they. I will leave the conclusion of that up to you. However, I think you know the direction I'm headed in. About the segregation. You say it would be easy to start making changes to the law passing that segregation be legal on bus's and now apparently dentistry also. Like I mentioned before its not as easy as pressing a button, like on that office depot commercial. Press it and everything you want is magically done. There are rules set in place to avoid situations like that. Be honest, even if this Afro American hair dressers also cut Caucasians hair would you go in there? I think because of the debate you will clearly say you would, heck you would even go as far as saying you would leave a generous tip. I don't believe that for a second. I think you would go to the regular barber down the street where your parents have been taking you since you were a child. (just as an example of course)
Another race besides caucasian being a brain surgeon

Could I have chosen a more difficult topic to debate? on my 1st debate here at this wonderful establishment? no I don't think I could of, and its more of a lose lose situation for me. I like the challenge though and i appreciate you taking on my debate so late at night, and also responding so quickly and with such a great response like that. Well done. (Hoping now you will take it easy on me) lol.. How is me voting for Obama and me not wanting an African American brain surgeon in any way related? I would let a mechanic work on my car but not on my brain. I would "let" obama run my country but not operate on my brain. I would follow an African American in to the battle lines yet i wouldn't let one operate on my brain. Maybe there should be segregation when it comes to issues such as this. Let one race operate on their own race's brain. Seems fairly reasonable to me. They have barber shops for only black people.
Another race besides caucasian being a brain surgeon

Firstly, Thank you for highlighting this argument that some people simply won't talk about. I'm sure your view is held more widely than people think, so it is good to address it. Your view that you are not racist because you voted for Obama is contradictory to your argument. You will trust and African American with your county and ultimately the future of your nation, but you will not trust another person of that race with your life in surgery? (At least not as much as a Caucasian surgeon). Also, this is a definition of 'racist' : "A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others." You clearly stated that; "I suppose just life experience and I'm only 24 has forced fed me the idea that Caucasians are superior." Thus suggesting you may have some racist views, but this is off the track and I will return to the argument in hand. I question the very fact that the colour or ethnicity of a person affects their performance in surgery, or anything for that matter. There is no evidence to suggest this (the only plausible explanation I can stretch my mind to is the quality of training in other countries, but as you have said 'African Americans' I'm guessing you mean that they were born in America and trained there). Lastly, I will comment on your conclusion of what the debate entails: "There should be no African American brain surgeons at least not for another 20-30 years until this idea that white people are superior has been washed clean from our society. Because we know all right now, its out there." If the only problem is society's views, why does that make the African American any less able than the Caucasian? In reality, the minority view that you are expressing does not change the fact that the colour of the surgeons skin will make any different to their skill. Also, if there were no African American surgeons for 20-30 years, how will the idea of Caucasian superiority get wiped out of the medical profession? There will be no excellent surgeons to prove these views wrong and the job 'Surgeon' will be classed as a 'Caucasian Profession', further adding to the prejudice seen now and possibly even creating segregated jobs. In conclusion, there are only a minority of people that would choose a Caucasian surgeon over an African American one based only on their ethnicity (excluding any difference in level of skill), and most people have no problem or even don't see the separation between them in the first place (I, for one do not). We are all humans in the end, so what separates us except the amount of melanin pigment in our skin? Thank you, I am looking forward to your reply.
Another race besides caucasian being a brain surgeon

Im not a brain surgeon, dont plan on being one and I definately do not have the ability nor qualifications to be one either. That I know and will state in the beginning, because i do not want it to be used against me in this debate. Tonight I was watching CNN like I do every night, and Larry King had 2 Brain Surgeons on and they were talking about the head injury that Natasha Richardson, Liam Neeson's wife had while skiing. One of the brain surgeons was caucasian, and one was African American. My personal opinion Is that if I ever (god forbid) had a brain injury that needed operation I would want the Caucasian brain surgeon operating on me and not the African American. I'm far from a racist because I voted for Obama lol, that's my excuse i guess "I'm not racist I own a color TV" sort of deal.. OK back on track, I suppose just life experience and I'm only 24 has forced fed me the idea that Caucasians are superior. I have no clue if its true and I bet you its not, however you cant teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. So my 1st choice would be the Caucasian brain surgeon. My debate is basically this. There should be no African American brain surgeons at least not for another 20-30 years until this idea that white people are superior has been washed clean from our society. Because we know all right now, its out there.