BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Radioactive Dating Is Reliable

Since no one else wants to debate this, I will honor jh1234l's request to play devil's advocate.Full Resolution Radioactive dating is reliable. BoP is on pro. Definitions Radioactive Dating: "The technique of comparing the abundance ratio of a radioactive isotope to a reference isotope to determine the age of a material."[1] Reliable: "Capable of being relied on; dependable;yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials."[2] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.lbl.gov... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Radioactive Dating Is Reliable

Thanks for the response!This round was reserved for refuting my opponent's (Subutai's) arguments. What is radioactive dating?I concede this argument. This is just a extended definition. However, thanks for giving the voters context and basic knowledge about the thing in question. I appreciate it.Dating against historical record ([1])However, there are some instances that radiometric dating did not work well against the historic record. Lava known to be 168 years old have yielded a potassium-argon age of 2.96 billion years old. Some volcanic rocks known to be modern (e.g. was not stuck in the ground for a long time before the volcano erupt) have lead-uranium ages of billions of years. Agreement of different methods Note that the ages of different samples measured by different methods were used, not the age of the same sample measured by different methods, which is not how the scientific method works, therefore this argument was not valid. [1]"Evolution: Its Collapse In View?" by Henry Hiebert
Radioactive Dating Is Reliable

Thanks to Sabutai for his well thought out response. This round is reserved for making arguments, not rebuttals, so here are mine:1. Contamination and assumptionsPotassium-argon dating assumes that the sample being measured has remained in a closed system since the event being dated. [1] This has a problem: perfectly closed systems do not exist even in laboratory conditions. [2] If contamination is inevitable, and K-Ar requires it to be in a closed system and therefore not be contaminated, then it cannot work.2. InconsistenciesDifferent radiometric dating methods frequently produce results that do not agree. Out of the following results from the same rock sample from the Allende meteorite, 0.14 billion years (or 140000000 years) were different between the ages 4.48 b.y. (billion years) and 4.56 b.y. produced by different dating methods. This means that skewed results can be produced. 4.52 +/- 0.02 4.53 +/- 0.02 4.48 +/- 0.02 4.55 +/- 0.03 4.55 +/- 0.03 4.57 +/- 0.03 4.50 +/- 0.02 4.56 +/- 0.05 [3]Many other disagreeing results have been found, such as 2 samples of rock taken from locations that were really near eachother yielding to differences in dated age of 1350 million years, which is not something that sounds good for radiometric dating proponents. [4] This indicates that there are many flaws in radiometric dating, and therefore it is not reliable. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://creationwiki.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]http://www.examiner.com...
Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

Something to clear up. I am not arguing whether it's human or not. I am arguing about a fetus/baby that is in the beginning stages of life. Anyone reading this argument will know henceforth that the terms "baby, child, fetus, etc" are emotional ploys to drive your vote in the direction of the speaker. Argument using the 14th and 4th amendments. These amendments are great arguments and I am glad you used them Pro. The fact that a baby inside of the womb requires so much attention from a dedicated mother, it could be considered a breech of these amendments. A pregnant woman who does not want a child could feel like a slave to that fetus. I bring this up because if the government forced just 1 women into feeling this way, they have destroyed their credibility to withhold the constuitution. The 13th amendment even states that slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Not wanting a baby and being pregnant is natural involuntary servitude. Hopefully, some people will recognize my point. The baby or the mother can be considered the master or slave. It depends on the perspective of the mother which roles each will be playing. As well the 14th and 4th amendments can be used against both the mother and the baby. Neither has the right to own the other as a slave, but both naturally fall into the definition of slave. Slave 1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property 2. a person who is forced to work for another against his will 3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television 4. a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay 5. a. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device) b. ( as modifier ): slave cylinder If they both fall into the statutes as slave owner both should be punished. The mother is more of a slave to the baby than the baby is to the mother. Why the mother is a slave. The fetus obtains it nutrients through its mother. The body of the mother changes in response to the babies needs. The mother is forced to carry the fetus wherever she goes. A mothers body is forced into labor. Why the baby is a slave. The mother forces the fetus to eat what she eats. The mother forces the fetus to go where she goes. Argument against a right to life, liberty, and security of person. As I said, I will not argue whether it is human. I will argue that in our society people have the right to lethally defend themselves if their life and livliehoods are threatened. I will also argue that a fetus has no rights to obtain due to it's dehabilitated status. A fetus has less rights than a prison inmate in solitary confinement. I'm only pointing out that a fetus has less rights than a prisoner who supposedly has no rights.
Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

I will kindly accept Pros challenge. I would like to point out that a right comes from a governing entity that depicts and enforces the rights to whichever it governs. In the case of a mother and a fetus, the fetus is governed by its mother. Thus the child has no rights, unless the mother decides to grant the privilege. I would like to also point out that the fetus has no liberties that would help to define which rights it needs.
Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

Is Abortion is the Violation of the Unborn Child's Rights? Pro - Yes, Abortion is a Violation. Con - No, Abortion is not a Violation. Both sides shall carry BOP. ============================ Rules: - The topic must stay relevant. - The topic must stay respectable. - Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. R1: Introduction of Sides. R2: Debate R3: Debate R4: Conclusion (Final Rebuttals) ============================ I shall take Pro, and will argue that Abortion is the violation of the Unborn Child's Rights:
Native English speakers should learn a second language.

Learning a language requires a lot of time. Where are children going to find such time. They will have more necessary things to do such as sport and other activities that will benefit children more. Pro stated that Spanish and Mandarin are more commonly used. Yes but let's take the realistic side. .. If I learnt Mandarin, taking me years and years, all I can really do is travel to that country. Is that worth it. I'm sure you will have friends that will speak your language. Australia is such a multicultural country, you will most likely find a friend that speaks Mandarin or Spanish. "In addition, learning new languages keeps you involved in multiple cultures. The idioms and phrases of another country can help one understand how they think, and their way of life. Learning a language also allows you to understand the music and literature of the country. Speaking a new language affects more than your communication. It affects who you are. " Ask yourself this question. .. Is it possible to learn more than one language "learning new languages. .. " Verbal communication isn't the only way of understanding who people are. Pictures and foods also bring cultures together. Learning a new language is up to native speakers whether they wish to spend time on it or deciding to learn other new things.
Native English speakers should learn a second language.

Con stated that English is the most spoken language. By total number of speakers, it is, but by number of native speakers, Mandarin and then Spanish both beat English. If someone who learnt English as a second language would speak it when they had to, but if you go to their country, it is better to use their language. Also, many people who speak English are not at a level where they can have a decent conversation. Lastly, English speakers (both native and not) only make up about 11% of the world population (740 million, Source 1). This means that 89% of people cannot understand English speakers at all."A second language is helpful, but is it essential? English is already such a commonly used language. Yet even if you do come across a circumstance were a second language is needed what are the chances that you will know it. Learning a second language can be a risky move, it may not fully benefit you."That is why you would choose to speak a language that would be useful, for example, if you are working in space travel, Russian is useful. If you work in Arizona, Spanish is useful. If you have a Quebec girlfriend, French is useful."Moreover, technology is so useful. Rather than spending a few years to speak a language why not use the technology most of us possess. The translator is so much more efficient."Translating technology is only effective in written forms of a language. It also contains many errors. Computers cannot read context that well and therefore can mistranslate words with multiple definitions. Also, some languages that contain many word forms or affixes will not translate (for example, Esperanto suffixes won't translate unless they are common). Learning the language also enables you to have a conversation in the language.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Native English speakers should learn a second language.

Firstly, I would like to point out some misleading flaws on the pros side. 1.Pro stated that English is the one language out of thousands. However English is the most commonly known. If you had to select a random person from the 7 billion people in our world (if it was an adult) one out of five would understand English. I got this statistic from http://www.ask.com... Now onto my points. A second language is helpful, but is it essential? English is already such a commonly used language. Yet even if you do come across a circumstance were a second language is needed what are the chances that you will know it. Learning a second language can be a risky move, it may not fully benefit you. Moreover, technology is so useful. Rather than spending a few years to speak a language why not use the technology most of us possess. The translator is so much more efficient.
Native English speakers should learn a second language.

English is only one of a few thousand languages. When compared to the world's popuation, English is not that large of a language as some make it out to be. Having traveled to many foreign coutnries, I understand that English is very geographically limited. In order to be able to speak with more people, we should learn multiple languages. The more languages, the more you can communicate.In addition, learning new languages keeps you involved in multiple cultures. The idioms and phrases of another country can help one understand how they think, and their way of life. Learning a language also allows you to understand the music and literature of the country. Speaking a new language affects more than your communication. It affects who you are.
There are a lot of problems with Pokemon.

Your debate skills are also quite admirable! As for your arguments:Why doesn't he just keep the Pokemon he used to have? If Ash kept all of his Pokemon with him, then he would have 43 Pokemon, which would mean some would go in the box. Instead of leaving them in the box to be ignored, Ash would rather leave them in somebody's hands who he trusts. As the man who he trusts most, Professor Oak is left in charge of the Pokemon that Ash feels that he can not take care of. Sources: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... He mainly puts weakness vs. no weakness. Once again, he wants to find creative ways to win, and not just by type advantage. The question people have nowadays is why did Misty leave? It was very sad to viewers. Misty left because she had to go back to her job as a gym leader in her sisters' absence. Thank you for this wonderful debate!
There are a lot of problems with Pokemon.

Your pretty good but pokemon is gotten to be the 3rd worst anime I have ever watched it just comes to me I use to like it but then later on it becomes just down falling He is the worst character in the show I've seen his battles just look at the battles he played in but the question is why does he just keep the Pok"mon he use to have??? that's my question. Why put them in professor oak and leave em for care????? Yeah it cant be answered and you all know it. Stupid things ash does to make Pok"mon go down - Mainly when he battles he mainly puts weakness vs. no weakness meaning this shows that he just places a Pok"mon that has a weakness of the monster he battles. I know in some cases his Pok"mon got switched by the opponent but here this is what he does -grass vs. fire electrical vs. rock????? water is more effective http://atthebuzzershow.com... Like come on for real and is Pok"mon refuse to fight and insist on training them. The question people have nowadays is why did Misty left it was very sad to viewers. The sacred sword thingy was the one in that's blue and is part of the sword guardians I think one is grass one is rock then one is steel. I might lose this but that's all for this round that your skills are too good
There are a lot of problems with Pokemon.

Lets see what I got over here. Well we all know Pok"mon is long loved by many people but it has many problems so many problems!! Pok"mon is not the best and it has problems. Like he said no hateful comments I do not want Pok"mon fan boys who argue with me constantly just over a cartoon. The only people arguing right now is me and Justanotherguy . And yes it goes to the people in the comments who want to argue with me over a cartoon. 1. Confusing part about it is that there are to many Pok"mon I have got told there were from a range of 649-721 Pok"mon. I am sorry but I cant catch them all and it gets confusing of which Pok"mon you have. They have to lower it because its a waste of poke balls how the heck will you get 1000 of those to catch them all. 2. Ash is part of the reason because he is the one who placed it in the downfall + He doesn't focus more on the Pok"mon he has basically he just likes to change up Pok"mon and he needs to focus more on how to evolve them and how to make him stronger to fulfill his dream to become the best Pok"mon trainer but instead he just switches from different Pok"mon each season working with new people. Why do you think he mainly loses and makes the stupidest moves because he doesn't keep his Pok"mon. Its like he's abandoning them for no reason. +He's played role of immatureness and is a character who doesn't focus on respect. What I mean is that he is mainly most hated good guy because he has been argued with and yelled at by his comrades. What kind of person is this? A person I want to grow up to and get yelled at by my teammates. +He's basically the worst character in the show. I don't understand how someone can just go up and pick a grass vs. fire like are you kidding me and he has laid other moves but I don't remember some. 3. The game got to change If they want more people to play it why doesn't it have a better plot what the heck does a gym battle have to do with finding a legendary Pok"mon like OMG. The legendary Pok"mon's are not a work of art and the only way to catch them is with 6 poke balls or one great ball. If they are legendary let them be legendary not easily beaten and yes they could have you seen the sacred sword thingy could be killed easily so there not legends 4. Pok"mon has serious problems and I think they must fix it Sources http://carm.org... http://themushroomkingdom.net...
Most important moment in American history

I beleive that these are all important moments in american history but none are the MOST important. The most important moment of American History is the Civil War. The Civil War is the most important because without it, we would still have slaves and not everybody will be free in the "Land Of The Free". First I will like to state my Narrow, Plan, Move on to my assertions, Refute the Opponents Points then conclude. My Narrow is "In Wars" My Plan is that I Will use Evidence and Trustworthy Sources to Hopefully Win this Debate. Assertion 1: There would still be slaves. Reasoning: The Civil War was a war for freedom. Without it, We would al be 'Trapped in our own country'. Evidence: According to historynet.com, the Civil War was important because of Confederacy. Without confederacy, there would be no civil war. There would have been nothing to fight for. Impact: Without the CIvil War, or it not being thw most important Event in American History, it's most likely that it'll be forgotten and never brought up again. Assertion 2: No More Freedom. Reasoning: Just imagine, a country where we call ourselves "The Land of The Free" but only a select few are free. Evidence: charlstoncitypaper.com states that "If The Confederacy HAD won the Civil War, Not Everybody would be free. Impact: Going back to my Reasoning, We call ourselves "The Land Of The Free" and Humans but if we still had slaves, Not Everybody would be free and What we would be doing would be INHUMANE! Conclusion: The Civil War is needed in America or else we would actually BE America. We would just be a countryof hipocrits saying that everybody is free when They're actually NOT!
Policy topic: space

Hello people! I will be neg on this topic. DO NOT ACCEPT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT POLICY IS AND HOW TO DEBATE IT! The full resolution is: the united states federal government should substantially increase it's development and or exploration of space beyond Earth's mesosphere r1- intro & 1ac r2- 1nc & 2ac r3- Neg block & 1Ar r4- 2nr & 2ar I suggest typing your speech into mediafire/ googledocs and posting the link to save time. Let's roll! Evidence- http://www.debatecoaches.org...
Is it Ethical to Murder Animals Unnecessarily When Alternatives are Easily Accessible

"It is morally wrong to condemn animals for a plethora of reasons. [1]One being that we break the Golden Rule." What is the golden rule and why shouldn't it be broken? "[2]Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human." Who said I thought that it wrong to kill a human? "[3]If you believe in human rights, that we all have a fundamental baseline for the right to life, then I believe it would be logically inconsistent of you to not extend said rights to animals." Who said I believe in human rights? I've made absolutely no claim, therefor hold absolutely no burden of proof.
Is it Ethical to Murder Animals Unnecessarily When Alternatives are Easily Accessible

I was simply pointing out we do not need animals for health, therefore we should be leaving them off the menu entirely. I believe you hold the burden of proof when you commit an arguably immoral act without justification. Please establish that moral devaluation requires justification. People who would argue against this point could not argue against something like the Holocaust, as a Nazi could claim that he would't need to justify it. It is morally wrong to condemn animals for a plethora of reasons. [1]One being that we break the Golden Rule. [2]Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human. [3]If you believe in human rights, that we all have a fundamental baseline for the right to life, then I believe it would be logically inconsistent of you to not extend said rights to animals.
Is it Ethical to Murder Animals Unnecessarily When Alternatives are Easily Accessible

I would agree that a vegetarian diet can be quite healthy, however this was a question of ethics and morality. Not of healthiness. "If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation?" - Because why not? You've made the posit that it is morally unjustifiable to consume animals when other alternatives are available, but why? You have the burden of proof, I am holding the null hypothesis. Why is it morally wrong to do this to an animal?
Is it Ethical to Murder Animals Unnecessarily When Alternatives are Easily Accessible

Round 1 will be used for opening statements. Round 2 will be used for refuting and responding to opposing opening statements. Round 3 will be used for final/closing statements. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I hold the position that it is unethical to murder animals unnecessarily when alternatives are easily accessible. [1] It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. This fact proves we do not need the nutrition that comes with animals and their byproducts, therefore we can eat an animal free diet and thrive on it. We do not need to consume animals for health. Slaughtering animals solely because people enjoy the taste of meat is argued by some to be wrong and morally unjustifiable. If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Death sentences

Death sentence should be allowed (in all counties) due to the following factors: A) The Criminal would be sentenced to death/killed. He/She cannot do any more crimes/offenses. B) The number of criminals go down. C)Almost everyone is scared of death which makes less criminals due to their fear of death. D) If he/she is not killed he/she will have around 2% (as of 1999) chance of escaping which will have a chance to do the same crime.