BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

I did, indeed, read your argument very carefully. Your idea about light slowing down has never been observed and would be a change in the natural laws of the universe. You said that "My opponent assumes that whatever the speed of light was today, it was yesterday, the day before, the day before that and so on." Yes, because natural laws don't change overnight. Suggesting that the speed of light changes is saying that the laws that govern our universe change from day to day (or over some period of time). Please answer my two questions. 1) Why would such a kind God want to trick everyone on Earth by making it look like the universe is very old? 2) Can God make a rock that even he cannot lift? You completely ignored both, presumably because you have no good answer to either one as you cannot pull the "God did it" cop out like you do for everything else. You say a person CAN prove a negative, like the one about God. Well, if you prove to me that there isn't an invisible, intangible, undetectable alien behind you at all times, I can prove to you that there is no God.
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

Did you not read my response? I did not say anything about laws changing, but that you claim is built upon an arbitrary assumption, which if rejected, causes your argument to fail. Next time, respond to what your opponent actually says, and not just spew the nonsenses you are propagandized to believe. What makes that idea absurd? I bet he cannot tie the idea into absurdity. Rather, he just do not like it and have no answer for when someone rejects his assumptions that he pretends is science. I showed you in the comments that you claim that you cannot prove a negative is false. But if you admit that you cannot prove God does not exist, why do you claim it? If this claim does not rest on rational grounds, it must rest on irrational grounds. As to your silly Q, look up category error and get back to me. Now where is this scientific proof the earth is 13.8 billion years old. Stop with the red herrings and prove that claim?
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

Please present your evidence that the natural laws can change. This is what your idea rests on, the changing of natural laws throughout time. Then show me that they can change. We've never seen it, we've never seen any evidence of it happening in the past. I do have scientific proof of my claims. My claims rest on the fact that light has been observed and tested. The hypothesis that the speed of light doesn't change in a vacuum is absolutely falsifiable (unlike the existence of God), and it has never been falsified. It fits the scientific method. Indeed, I have heard the ideas that God "spawned" the galaxies with their light halfway to Earth or whatever but this is absurd! Such a cop out! Why would God do this? Why would your kind God want to trick you? Also, you tell me to prove God doesn't exist. This is logically impossible, however I will present the following argument. It seems that you think that God is omnipotent. So then tell me, can God create a rock that even he cannot lift?
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

It is interesting seeing what my opponent claims to know when, in reality, his argument is built on a number of question begging (read illogical) assumptions. We shall illustrate one of them. My opponent assumes that whatever the speed of light was today, it was yesterday, the day before, the day before that and so on. He has no scientific basis for this assumption because no one was able to observe the speed of light, say, 6000 years ago. Thus, this choice is arbitrary. If he can make an arbitrary assumption to reach his desired conclussion, so can I and say that the speed of light has been gradually diminishing over time such that if we were able to calculate it, we would see that the evidence from the light from distant stars has been traveling only about six thousand years. See how this works? He also assumes that light cannot be created independent of its source, which is fine, but as Christians, we make the opposite assumption based on the Biblical creation narriative. If light was created independen of its source then his math becomes useless. Here is a good article that presents these articles better than I: https://answersingenesis.org... Next argument?
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

Thank you for accepting the challenge. My claim will rest primarily on the following argument: We know that light travels, in a vacuum, at a speed of about 299,792 kilometers per second. In a vacuum (which space essentially is), the speed of light does not change. So here is the logic. If we see celestial objects that are millions or billions of light years away (one galaxy is found to be an incredible 13.3 billion light years away), we know that it took light that amount of time to get to the Earth. As a result, we know that those objects have existed for that amount of time. http://www.space.com... http://www.space.com... Result: The universe is billions of years old. I curiously await my opponent's response.
The Universe is 13.8 billion years old

I will not be arguing that the universe is exactly 13.8 billion years as this is very difficult. However, I will be arguing that the "scientific worldview" of the age of the universe is very reasonable and that the age of the universe can be measured in millions and billions of years, not thousands. I expect (though not require) that my opponent will be a creationist who will be arguing that the universe (and Earth) is several thousands years old, and my opponent may present his/her arguments in the first Round. No new arguments may be introduced in the last Round. Any questions will be answered in the comments.
Vaccines cause autism.

You say that vaccines cause "higher risk" of "developing autism" when it widely believed that you are BORN with autism and it is not something you develop, no ingredients of autism at their amounts can affect the body enough to have an affect as big on the brain as autism! https://www.autismspeaks.org... https://www.healthtap.com... The medical community has accepted that you are born with it, so saying that you can develop it is pure rubbish. Good day to you sir.
Vaccines cause autism.

(Disclaimer: Based on my name, I'm am a Pro-Vaccinate. Just for clarification, I sided with the Affirmative because these arguments are what I think are the strongest arguments against vaccines and I wanted to do an experiment to strengthen what I'm actually siding with) According to the scientific consensus, many peer reviewed studies have found no correlation between vaccines and autism. Plus, there are no other studies that say the opposite. However, this statement is just an oversimplification that the pro vaccine movement overuses. And yes, there is evidence that vaccines cause autism, or will give you a higher risk at developing autism. Reason #1 There is evidence of vaccines causing autism. These studies have proven the connection and they are from peer reviewed journals and have great credibility. https://www.researchgate.net... http://ebm.sagepub.com... http://www.ane.pl... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://link.springer.com... This one is flawed due to the use of urine test but they were able to make this observation - "Mothers of ASD children showed a higher percentage of dental amalgam restorations compared to the mothers of healthy controls suggesting that high Hg levels in children with ASD may relate to the increased exposure to Hg from maternal dental amalgam during pregnancy and lactation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org... https://www.researchgate.net... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; Reason #2: Pro Vaccine studies are flawed They are considered flawed right here. http://www.ageofautism.com...
All public schools in the United States should be required teach foreign language up to highschool.

I thoroughly disagree with my opponent's resolution. Schools should not be forced to teach foreign language. At all. First, I will respond to my opponent's first point. Essentially, he says, "people in other countries learn English as well as their native language, therefore we should learn more than 1 language." This makes absolutely no sense, and is in fact nonsense. If people in other countries know English, then English is all we need to know! Teaching foreign languages in schools would therefore completely useless, as it has next to no advantage for the students. My opponent says that 2nd languages are important, and help us communicate and travel easier. However, as I said already, other people are already learning English as a second language, so both ours and their ability to communicate and travel are taken care of. We can travel there, because they know English. They can travel here, because they know English. My opponent also asserted that understanding a language helps one understand the culture of the native speakers. However, this is more nonsense. If I learned Spanish, would I understand the culture of Spain, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, any better? If I would, which country would I understand better? Even if I did gain some cultural knowledge from learning a new language, this is no reason for schools to force students to learn a new language. There are not only much easier ways to learn about cultures (like actually learning about them) but there is no reason we should be forced to learn about the culture of county X. I believe I've sufficiently defended my stance for now.
All public schools in the United States should be required teach foreign language up to highschool.

if you look at the global situation, nearly all of europe and most of the rest of the developed and semi-developed world is required to take english classes. usually, these classes start at about 2nd grade and are required up through highschool. by the end of conventional schooling, these students know their native language as well as english. Yet, in the united states, most students can only speak one language. english. other languages are important, they help people communicate with the world and help understand english as well as making it easier to travel. Understanding another language also makes it easier to understand the culture of the native speakers. because of this, i beleive that all public schools should be required to teach a foreign language, (preferably spanish, german or french) until the 9th grade, and all public highschools should offer courses in at least these three languages.
Nuclear Power

IntroSome time ago I was discussing nuclear power and noted that I am not a big fan of it. Think offered to debate me on this topic in responses to my comments, so, here we are. We will be using the current LD topic for this debate. Please note that the topic is written such that Pro is arguing against nuclear power rather than for nuclear power. Thus, I am taking a stance against nuclear power.I have nominated the following judges, some at the suggestion of Think, for this debate: Danielle, Max, Lannan, Peep, Tej, Hayd, and Whiteflame. Should Think object to any of these voters, or should he wish to add voters, he should let me know before he accepts. Judges are, of course, free to accept or decline their nominations as they choose. The voting period is 10 days. Furthermore, Think is strictly prohibited from posting his acceptance in R1 before Friday, the 21st of October. He must accept the challenge by the 20th of October. If he fails to accept on time or if he posts his arguments early, he automatically loses the debate.TopicCountries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.TermsCountries - areas of land controlled by a sovereign governmentOught - implies moral desirabilityProhibit - to forbid (ban)Production - the creation of utility, specifically, the making of goods available for useNuclear Power - electric or motive power generated by a nuclear reactorRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case; Con's CaseR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR5. Pro generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Con generic Rebuttal and CrystallizationThanks......to Think for this debate. I'm looking forward to a fun dialogue.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Well fights and wars only occur when someone is in danger and or if a country feels threatened. So if a country or people do not have anger then they will be walked on and be pushed around. Don't people need to take a stand for themselves and countries as well? I believe that anger does involve losing emotion but only to the extent to that which they achieve a positive outcome. So if your getting smacked and or picked on you wouldn't get angry and try to stop it? Anger is in everybody and will always be used as a motivator for centuries to come.
anger can be a good moral motivation

I believe anger can be a good motivation for a lot of reasons. It is still till this day used as a motivation to win battles, wars, and fights amongst other people and countries. It also gives a person or country the adrenaline they need to achieve something they couldn't imagine achieving before without it. So it gives them the push they need to succeed and to over come obstacles that are put in front of them. Anger is usually used as a good action because it is aimed at a positive outcome. So i believe that anger can be a good motivation because not only has it been around for many years as a motivator, but also it is used to overcome hardships.
anger can be a good moral motivation

I meant that people feel something, but it is not anger. What people wanted is justice. But it could be that terrorist used anger as their motivation and made up catastrophe. Body builders and self-defense is not something moral, so it is not a good example that can be relevant. But it eliminates reasons too which is important. They just do not accept this emotion, I did not say that they do not feel it, what they do is control.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Yes but you just agreed with my essential point that when people get faced with a bad obstacle like a fight or a war they use anger to overcome it. As an example America when 9/11 occurred we were faced with a lot of anger because innocent lives were taken. So as an act with anger we retaliated and re insured our power to the terrorists countries. People use anger a lot to overcome multiple thing like body builders use anger as a motivation to push heavier weights, some people use anger to get jobs done, and others use it as a sense of self defense. So it cannot be only deemed as a bad emotion just because it eliminates all emotions at one time. It should be viewed as a equal emotion because it is so frequently used and for the good. How can Buddhas not feel anger and try to get rid of it at the same time. Its either they don't feel it so theirs no point of trying to get rid of something you don't have or they have anger.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Is there any particular example of people using anger in war? Anger makes people feel insecure. For example, if people know that others can become angry at any moment, they won't feel safe at that point. They can stand for themselves because of duty or protection, anger is additional. It is not the case that you'll get angry when you smacked or picked, it is a feeling that somebody hurts you. There are people, like Buddhas, who don't feel angry, but try to get rid of it.
Rap Battle 1A: Mikhael Bakunin vs. Karl Marx

It is true, in the end the same goal is what we try to achieve,But you're forgetting one thing you really should percieve;When there is no government, government forms.If this didn't happen, civilization wouldn't be norm.So cut the sh1t, Bukanin, even if you did win;You would just have to sit down and start all over again.But for Communism, I know I got it made.The people who are oppressed can't survive a grenade.If a group rises up, I just bring in the planes;But you say "Don't do it, it will only cause pain!"You gotta keep the people down and in their place;Thats why I'm on top, fvck I'm in outer space.Elementery school kids know my nameAre you jealous that you can't even say the same?Man, quit b1tching about political insight and public attention,Or I'll send you to Peter and Paul for another detention.
Rap Battle 1A: Mikhael Bakunin vs. Karl Marx

You think anarchy's dumb, how contradictory In a state of classless anarchy, lies your perfect society You said it yourself in the Gotha Critique The State's only temporary, your memory's so weak Morality depends on the conditions of existence That's why I continue to lead this anarchic resistance You got it wrong, greed and hate are definitely not innate But these things would be magnified in a Communist State The government doesn't help the people one bit To the will of the bourgeoisie the bureaucrats commit To take away the power from the corporate infection We must destroy the crutch on which they cling for protection You're not in the lead, I'm way up ahead I'll bring the worker's bread, all you bring them is dread Communism has already shown itself to fail But don't worry comrades, anarchy will finally prevail!
Rap Battle 1A: Mikhael Bakunin vs. Karl Marx

Oh, Bukanin. You're still such an old fool.You think you can challenge Marx to a duel?Well I protest! I say this isn't really fair;Cause you got the mind of a boy without any d1ck hair!Evidently, my opponent doesn't know;about human nature and the properties it shows.Everyone is greedy, you dumba$$, so I simply suggestThat Mikhail should run if he knows whats in his best interest.Anarchy is the dumbest sh1t I have ever heard;Most of the civilized world thinks its absurd.What are you thinking, supporting an absolute free state?Thats like supporting laissez faire or feelings of hate.Are you really for anarchy, or are you just another troll?Cause government suppposed to provide for the people as a whole,So go communism! We know who deserves to be on top;We balance the powerful and weild the poverty mop!Karl Marx is in the lead, and got fire in my eyes;Toward you and all your other fvcking "collectivist" spiesSo you better sit, and think, and learn to repent;Or call this Second International, cause your a$$ goin' back on the pavement.
Rap Battle 1A: Mikhael Bakunin vs. Karl Marx

Hello Bakunin speakin, bigger than B.I.G.Challenger approaching, a beatdown I foreseeThey say I'm the father of anarchyLittle known fact, I'm also the master of R.A.P.On dictatorship, it can never be freeProletariat or bourgeoisie, it's still authorityTo be free from coercion, a free societyMust throw off the chains of forced hierarchyDictatoship can only lead to "self-perpetuation"To the ideals of liberty, there's no relationThe end result is dehumanizationSuch is the nature of any NationYou know what fvck this man, now I'm fvcking pissedTo hell with philosophcal criticism, time for you to get dissed!I'm gonna take your a$$ down, with one hit from my fistNever knew where I came from, but hey you get the gistI still got a grudge from back in seventy-twoYou know the First Interational, it was just me and youI know you have your own story but I do tooBut for anyone new here let's have a little reviewI pointed out how your ideology was authoritaranHow the enemy of the movement was right here withinBut pointing out the truth, to you was a sinSo your buddies kicked me out, bet you thought you would winBut I'm back, and I'm coming for ya, the flag shall be blackOne day you'll wake up on a table, lying on your backI'm standing over ya with an ax planning my attackWhen you least expect it I'm coming to hack!
Rap Battle 1A: Mikhael Bakunin vs. Karl Marx

Finally, perhaps the biggest rivalry in the socialist movement, between Mikhael Bakunin and Karl Marx, will finally come to fruition. Who will win? Will it be Bakunin and his theory of collectivist anarchism or Marx, the father of revolutionary communism? Now we shall see.Pro raps as Bakunin.http://en.wikipedia.org...Con raps as Marx.http://en.wikipedia.org...Round 1 is for acceptance, battle begins in round 2. Good luck!
Students should have homework

According to research, homework improves test scores if not given too much. If we give no homework, then there is no extra practice being involved. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) I wouldn't exactly say that it would save teachers a lot of complaining, although I'm sure it would, teachers more than likely would rather hear the complaining then see failing test results. Poor grades not only hurt the student, but also make the teacher look bad.
Students should have homework

Students should have homework. If students have other things they have to do, they need to learn to balance both. Homework is given to make sure that the students understand the material before the test. If the student doesn't understand the work at home and it is taking them hours to get it done, most likely the student will do poorly on the test. Giving the student homework teaches them responsibility. They need to learn to be responsible and get it done before the day it is due.
Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.

Seeing as how my opponent has forfeited this round, I must again urge a strong vote in affirmation of the resolution. Please keep in mind the following as you vote: "Even if you don't have time to leave a full response, DO NOT forfeit a round. Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you. If you can't post a full response, write as much as you can, and leave a simple sentence stating that you are unable to post a full argument and will return for the next round. This lets your opponent know that you still wish to participate in the debate and allows them to elaborate their argument." -Debate.org's "Tips for a Better Debate" by Nate Simmons Since there is nothing for me to refute, nor any new arguments against my own contentions to address, I shall leave my own Round 2 submission at this. I will be happy to continue the debate if my opponent posts his rebuttal in Round 3.