BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is possible to see an image of Earth's past.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now. I believe this is a possibility due to the finite velocity of light. I have taken the liberty of drawing my scenario to give my opponent a better idea of what I'm talking about here: . http://img365.imageshack.us... To the right of the picture is Earth now, Earth at this present moment. The Earth goes on its journey at a velocity of about 30km/s, and does so for 100,000,000,000km, which takes about 106.5 years. All this while, Earth's image (the reflected light rays from present day Earth) will continue indefinitely in all directions at the speed of light, until it strikes a large parabola mirror. The mirror reflects the image, making it possible for humans in 106.5 years to use a telescope and see the Earth as it was a century ago. I believe this scenario is possible (obviously very, very difficult and not worth the effort, but we are debating its theoretical possibility here). I will leave my first round here. Thanks.
It is possible to see an image of Earth's past.

I will be reposting this and I ask that you don't take it again because you seem to lack the intellect required to sit still for 20 minutes and think of an argument. "I'm glad to disappoint for you do the same to me by believing in this theory. Your right I don't care about the physics, but you are wrong, it is impossible. " Proof? Nah. "Here is a wee bit of Science 7 for you, for something to be true it muse be observed, measured, and repeated, thus making your mirror thingimabobber as much of a theory as the big bang, evolution, creation, only to be accepted by faith. " I'm not asking you to accept anything by faith, I'm asking you for one piece of scientific theory which will quash my idea. You have not even attempted to find one. "If you really want to see into the past just look at your grandma's scrapbook. " Or to a big parabolic mirror situated 50-odd light-years away! Prove me wrong. "I like it warm, lets go. " I don't know what this means, but considering the rest of your argument I'm going to assume it's pointless. Please try your hardest not to ruin any more of my debates. I realize (from memory) that it's hard being a Christian and having a bunch of beliefs which science has shown are certainly wrong. But it's not my fault you're a Christian, and I'm not here to waste time. Thanks.
should Britain leave Europe

But British People are fed up with the EUThere is no evidence to this claim, nor did you source it. Because The UK Government send money to the EU But we are Bailing Countries out Like GreeceCan you source it? From my understanding, inflation rates have soared, and US business men are booming. Hasn't Germany been bailing YOU (UK) out as well. Also There lots of people coming into Britain and Taking our jobs awayCan you source it? What does this have to do with the EU? Open borders? That comes with a BOP within itself. Most of your immigration is out of the EU as well, so this point is moot.---------------------Sorry people, I thought this was a troll debate, but either way, the OP has not provided any form of arguments, did not cource his contentions, and made this a weird and confusing debate.
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

I can see how my aforementioned statements can be taken as me saying boxing takes no mental skill, that is not my opinion. Yes the pressure of a crowd, does a lot to a athlete mentally, but as u said, it can equally be said that no crowd can create the same mental strain. Without a crowd, there is no way to distract yourself from the millions of things going on in your mind. My opponent stated,"Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he gonna come back? Does he come back swinging harder?...". If mayweather was knocked out he doesn't have to think anymore because the fight is over. This brings me to my point, in Golf there is no premature end. Yes u can replace the ball that you hit in the water, but you have to continue your round thinking about what had just gone wrong. However there is not just the crowd there to add mental stress there are also elements such as weather to take into account, unlike in boxing. In golf, you constantly are at the mercy of mother nature and she is very unpredictable. Dealing with 20mph right to left winds is definitely mentally taxing, especially if u are one stroke back at a major championship. Remember u are trying to get a small ball into a slightly larger hole, up to around 600 yards away, there is a lot that can go wrong in that stretch. So I respond to you saying i'm not educated in the sport of boxing, with have u ever played 18 holes, let alone 72 holes, i doubt it because you would understand the constant mental stress. So you my dear sir are not educated in the sport of golf
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

You obviously did not read the article I posted. If your going to debate, you must listen to all statements. You are completely arrogant to my fact I stated above, & are COMPLETLEY blind to boxing using no mental skills. My opponent said "Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think." Really? last I checked boxing fights in arenas like MGM Grand & Pay-Per-View fights, you have millions of peoples eyes on you. You feel the pressure yet? Lets get inside the ring (Fake dramatized mini novel about boxing. *Ding Ding Ding* "Round 8 has begun and it's one hell of a fight here in Las Vegas MGM grand, Manny Pacquiao & Floyd Mayweather are putting a heck of a show on tonight for us ladies and gentleman. Mayweather throws a right jab, Manny takes the punch, Mayweather Swings & misses! OH! Manny hits Mayweather with a hammer right hand & he's down! can he get up!? Referee: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, .... Mayweather gets up!" This is just an example of a fight how the intensity can be & how the pressure can easily fall on you. Understand what I'm saying ok? Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he going to come back? Does he come back swinging hard? Does he just run around & play safe & wait to talk to his trainer? Behind your back you have half the stadium screaming "Pac-man Pac-man!". Do you feel the pressure yet?? This can be for any boxer, contenders, sparing, a belt fight, even just two high school kids fighting over a girl. As for golf though... You just hear the announcer say: "Ok Tiger Woods is up, everyone be quiet now... he swings, oh! A miss!" Yeah I understand how the awkwardness of a quiet zone focusing on one person can be hard but that is absolutely noting compared to boxing. One more thing, my opponent says: "With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, "I just lost the tournament", or "I'm such an idiot. It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game." Well excuse me but last I checked a knockout can end the game. As for golf you can hit it into the water and be like, "Oh it's ok, I'll just put another ball here by the water". Either my opponent just is irrelevant or just uneducated about the sport of boxing. To wrap this up, an environment can effect you anywhere! But if there's a million people watching what you are doing, that's two-million eyes on you.
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

Lets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, "I just lost the tournament", or "I'm such an idiot". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of "sport" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in "A source of diversion" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, "sexual play" refers to the use of "sport" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition "physical activity engaged in for pleasure" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a "relaxed canoe trip" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a "relaxed canoe trip" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is "okay exercise." By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill

For the time that Pro was here he put up a good argument, Pro if you see this please make another account & add me we can debate again about this. But also just because Pro is not here doesn't mean I'm going to just stop debating, I'm a winner I want to win this debate. Through a boxers mentality he or she has to constantly keep in mind & that he can get hit or dropped in a blink of an eye. Boxers fight from 2-3 minutes & must be aware & cautious at ALL times, but in golf you only have to think for about 30 seconds because I'm assuming that's the average time a golfer uses to swing the club. Is the boxer going to uppercut to the gut, or jab 4 times to the face? If a boxer gets hit hard just one time this can take away his confidence because it can make him question "can I keep up with him?" or if you are giving your full force on every punch you throw & you see your punches are not phasing his or her opponent this can make the boxer question his own strength, for example: "Are my punches that hard? Am I throwing them hard enough"? This can make the boxer throw more punches & drain his or her stamina.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

I most definitely did not say that God can defy anything. If he could, He could defy his own plans meaning he couldn't have been omniscient in the first place. If you are accepting a debate on this very topic, You ought to have something to back up your position other than blind faith. Unsubstantiated beliefs are welcome in religion and many other places, But debates are not the place for them. As Con has conceded that I have won, I'd request judges to ensure that is carried through voting.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

I don't know all the answers. I'm young and I don't know what I'm doing. But I know that there will always be questions we can't answer. We will not and will never understand God, Because He is above us. I knew coming into this that you were going to win. My purpose in life isn't about winning debates. My purpose is in spreading the truth. That being said, You used the very logic you said God can defy to reach your conclusion. You forgot one thing. God can defy anything. You said it yourself
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

At any given time there is a future that God "knows" to be true. It may include changes of some sort. If he were truly omnipotent, He would be able to change this future. However by changing it, He'd show he wasn't omniscient in the first place. There doesn't have to be a logical reason for God to change the future. He clearly does things that defy any convention of logic we know today. If he were omnipotent, He should be able to change the future if he wants to, Even if he has no intention to.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

If God were to change the future, It would be in the future. Since God knows the future, He would know that He was going to change it. So therefore, Due to the fact that He is all-knowing, He would not be incorrect. But, There is no logical reason for God to change the future at all, Since He is all knowing and has been since the beginning. Absolutely nothing could take Him by surprise. -This is my first time doing this, So please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Thanks!
Severe gun control

Bop is shared. (Kudos to SebUK for giving such amazing arguments to completely change my opinion about gun control. Given well arguments to change my stance. I respect him for that.)First round is acceptance.Definition of severe: (of something bad or undesirable) very great; intense.To clear things up, when I say "severe" gun control, it means almost banning guns, not giving to public use (even with lisence), and cannot own guns inside any home. Or, just really strict gun control. Feel free to ask questions in regards to elaborate on "severe"
Severe gun control

My opponent has not refuted any of my points clearly, showing he has no objection to them. I wait for a rebuttal towards all my points. I believe my opponent had sufficient space to address his BoP as well as perform rebuttals. However, since it was not clearly stated in the rules, I have no objection to my opponent's lack of rebuttals. Moving on. . . "For things like gun control, you cannot have one policy for an entire nation." By accepting this argument, my opponent has agreed that severe gun control is not beneficial on any levels. However, this was not clearly stated in the rules so I will have to perform a rebuttal regardless of what I had in mind. I will be more careful next time. To refute my opponent's statement, I have shown earlier that increase gun control may lead to an increase of crime as well. Therefore, it is expected that states with lower gun control laws have a decrease of crime rates. In fact, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. "My argument is that give gun control to the people in the areas that want it and let people keep their guns in the areas that want it. In this case, rural areas can keep all their firearms, but people in urban areas may not want them."Well. . .As shown by my previous statement, lower gun control does lead to a lower crime rate. This debate is not about what the people want and their opinions, but if severe gun control be enforced or not. http://www.cato.org...;
Severe gun control

For things like gun control, you cannot have one policy for an entire nation. I think that if we do things on the state or county level, then more people would be happy. My argument is that give gun control to the people in the areas that want it and let people keep their guns in the areas that want it. In this case, rural areas can keep all their firearms, but people in urban areas may not want them. The divisions of government are not used enough on the big issues like gun control and I think that the smaller forms of governments would work here. The federal government should allow the states and their counties to figure it out for themselves, also because legislation is always much more productive on the state and county levels.
Severe gun control

Lets get started I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world." -As presented by Harvard gun studyThe idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite. II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese? III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime"If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)"-As presented by Harvard gun study So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...http://www.theacru.org...http://www.gallup.com...http://www.bostonmagazine.com...
College Recruiting

I extend my argument about how College coaches should not recruit 8th graders because - The children are too young, - A wide majority of them show no exceptionally gifted skill, - It is out of the jurisdiction of college coaches to recruit in middle schools, - Coaches can already recruit four years in advance for athletes, - It gives children the wrong message, - It distracts children from academics at an earlier age to focus on sports instead of their education, - Middle schoolers can be brainwashed to believe just about anything that college coaches fill their heads with.
College Recruiting

I believe that college coaches should not recruit to people who are in 8th grade, the children are too young, a wide majority of them show no exceptionally gifted skill, it is out of the jurisdiction of college coaches to recruit in middle schools, coaches can already recruit four years in advance for athletes, it gives children the wrong message, it distracts children from academics at an earlier age to focus on sports instead of their education, and middle schoolers can be brainwashed to believe just about anything that college coaches fill theri heads with. I will expand on my arguments in round 2, other than that,