BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time has a starting point

In my opinion, time and space are very simple to understand. Therefore in my opinion time and space actually require simple explanations. My opinion is what makes up my half of this debate. Does it not. It is amazing how many people are unable to grasp the simplicity of realism. They prefer to make bizarre references to chocolate brownies. The chocolate brownie sitting on the plate, is an event. Defining that event using seconds is merely gratifying the human need to measure the duration of the event. This has no relevance to the supposed beginning or end of time. With regard to definition. Definition has more than one definition Pro's definition of definition is misplaced. There is no "a" in my statement. Con asserts that it is futile to attempt to define time with boundaries and limitations, such as a beginning. Ok. The "brownie" begins sitting on the plate and sits there for 10 seconds. But this is an event, not time. Time just is. That annoying statement. I fear it annoys, because it is so simplistic yet so logical. It usurps the human need for over complex conceptual theory and explanation.
Time has a starting point

It is tedious to explain the irrelevance of your four statements, however I guess I have no other choice at this point... Con statement number 1: "Time just is!" That is not an argument; that is a position that needs to be proven true or false. By saying the words, "Time just is!" you might as well just be repeating the position you are supposed to be proving. "Time just is" is synonymous with "Time i eternal (aka time has no starting point)." This restatement of your position clearly accomplishes nothing. Con statement number 2: "Time does not require a definition." Time actually does need a definition if you are to use it in a sentence and try to prove a position that includes the word time. By saying "time does not require a definition" is to say it is impossible to say what time really is.... If that were the case, why are you trying to prove time is eternal when you claim you don't even know what time is. Con statement number 3: "Only human beings have the need to define time." While true, this has no point whatsoever. I don't even know where to begin with this one. I guess I'll use an example. If I am trying to prove that my brownie will sit on my plate for ten seconds before I eat it, and someone comes up to me and says, "No, it will not sit on the plate for ten seconds, because only humans have the need to define brownies," I will look at him and say, "Wow great point, you have obviously proven the brownie could not exist on my plate for 10 seconds......." Con statement number 4: "Only humans beings seek to give time boundaries" .......is this not the same exact thing as number 3? Only human beings seek to specify the amount of time a brownie sits on a plate, and therefore it could not possibly have sat on the plate for 10 seconds......Um. sure whatever you say pal.
We should invest in alternative sources of energy

After two dropped rounds, I have nothing further to add... I feel as if I should apologize to the readers and voters, since my opponent isn't going to do it. I, personally, wish my opponent wouldn't have started this debate and walked away... I'd have loved to see the clash! All I ask is you vote CON. All my arguments still stand, and I believe all my points are stronger than those presented by my opponent. Finally, I'd like to ask that you vote on the merits of the debate, and not whether you think we should have an alternative form of energy or not. Thanks.
We should invest in alternative sources of energy

There are many alternative sources of energy available, and I believe that those that are both renewable and non-toxic would help the environment best. Such sources are solar energy, hydropower, and wind energy. Alone, these kinds of power have seemed to be less-than-needed by the large population, but when put together could have a tremendous positive effect on the economy and the overall homeostasis of Earth. Solar energy is energy gathered from the wavelengths of light produced from the sun, which can be captured with solar panels that contain light-capturing cells. Instead of wasting some of this energy powering huge electrical appliances, it could be kept in it's primitive form to heat houses, water, and small hand-held devices such as calculators, watches, etc. It can also be converted into electricity through various machines. If the United States were to further invest in Solar Power, the citizens themselves would be able to spend less money on house electricity and thus result in more money to the Federal Government, which could be used for multiple things to better our situation with other countries, such as China, to which we owe enormous debt, and as the National Debt decreases, the value of American currency will increase and we will slowly but surely achieve a better political and economic condition. Hydropower and Wind energy are could be used to move rotors or wheels, and the resulting movement would create electricity. These, if used correctly, would greatly decrease the amount of money we use to buy foreign oils and the National Debt would decrease further and the previous results would occur in a quicker time. :)
We should invest in alternative sources of energy

As CON, I will try to prove that an alternative energy source is something that is either a loss or a draw for the United States. In order for PRO to win, judges, my opponent must prove to you that an alternative energy will pull us out of the economic crisis and will be beneficial to our environment. I am deciding to allow my opponent the opportunity to bring some forms of alternative energy to the table. It's not practical for me to organize arguments against alternative energies, only to have PRO state that my argued forms of energy aren't the ones we, as a nation, should pursue. So then, PRO, which form(s) of alternative energy would you like to see implemented in today's society and why?
Radiometric Dating is not reliable

In this debate, pro should provide evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable, while I try to refute them. BOP is on pro. Pro should start on the first round and only post a conclusion in the last round.The "conclusion" for this debate is how you would vote if you were a reader.Definitions:"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates"- Wikipedia[1][1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Radiometric Dating is not reliable

The arguments regarding contaminations have been refuted in the last round. The others are arguments done by ThePipes and is not an accurate source. Therefore they are baseless.Therefore I'll refute the ones that are not things I already refuted or arguments of someone else.Ocean SalinityActually, the salt in the ocean fluxuates. In fact, the ocean loses about as much salt as it gains.[1] Therefore ocean salinity cannot be used for an accurate dating method. Erosion of Continents This argument fails to see the other side: the continents also build up through things like lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup, and uplift from colliding tectonic plates. These build ups are nearly the same speed of the erosion rates.[2]Decay of The Magnetic Field The magnetic field of the Earth has fluctuated and reversed in polarity over time, proven by evidence of periods of increasing and decreasing field energy [3]. The magnetic field therefore cannot be used for a reliable dating method Fritz's CONCLUSION: 1. assumptions are unreliable. 2. radiometric dating is based on several false assumptions. 3. Thus it logically and necessarily follows that RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE. The right conclusion: 1. Rock are nearly closed systems and therefore contamination has only changed the results by 1%. Contamination can be deected using the isrochron dating method, the same thing as radiometric dating except with multiple samples.[4] 2.Fritz has made no arguments by himself, while I made rebuttals based on information rom my sources. Therefore Fritz has not met his BOP. How I would vote if I were you: Arguments: Con. Pro never had any of his own arguments and did not meet his BOP, while I posted information from my sources in my own words. Conduct: Con. "Also we can add to all this the view point that a powerful, supernatural, evil force wishes to deceive the humans into accepting an old age of the earth in an attempt to discredit the books of Moses which tell of the coming messiah Jesus Christ." Pro is basically saying that yone who does not agree with him is evil. That does not deserve to be in a debate, a conversation where people exchange their opinions. Sources: Tied. We both used biased sources. S/G: Pro. I had some errors in spelling and grammar. Sources: [1]http://orgs.usd.edu...[2]Ross, Hugh. 2004. A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 186-187 p.[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Radiometric Dating is not reliable

My opponent bases his argument on if the rocks are a closed system and contaminations. Absolutely closed systems cannot exist. However, many rocks are nearly closed systems, so closed that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount. [1]In conclusion, the contamination does not affect the age much."The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated."Actually, it does not. The contamination does not affect it much, as proven above. No samples have ever met this criteria and thus radiometric dates are un-reliable on this one point alone. So a 1 percent difference because it is not completely closed makes it unreliable. Sounds right.As you can see, Pro has provided no conclusive evidence for his side. [1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Radiometric Dating is not reliable

I typed that out by hand I'll have you know…anyway Con concedes that C-14 dating is unreliable!In regards to my first argument on C-14 con replys;"this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it." - the "kind of it" that con is referring to is C-14 dating.wikipedia under "radiometric dating" states;"Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating."http://en.wikipedia.org...Thus I have successfully shown that at least 1 of the 3 major radiometric dating techniques is unreliable. C-14 dating. the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methodsAs I said;"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."con simply replies If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.[2]but that's what I just said was happening"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."so we completely disagree on this point but neither of us has proven anything one way or the other. finally, I said NO SEMANTICS!! you think you defeated the candle analogy but how about the swimming race one? you failed to mention that one. see, I included two so you couldn't twist words around to get a solution. Thus: Radiometric dating is too flawed to be trustworthy and is un-reliable.wildly discordant dates are produced and then selected from to fit pre concieved ideas, which I will likely show in the next round. "science is a religion with its own priesthood" - (I think Chuck Missler said that). Don't let the priests of science fool you, you are not descended from a fish you are made in the image and likeness of God. The only reason this old date is pushed so hard is that these ridiculously long periods of time are reqiured to make evolution look even slightly rational. as Kent Hovind say's "I am not against science, I am against lies."
Radiometric Dating is not reliable

Thanks to Henry Hiebert for responding instead of Fritz making his own arguments.C-14 dating is not reliableC 14 dating is only used for things that are about 50,000 years old.[1] There are also many other radioactive dating methods, not only C-14, so this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it that is not used for things that are very old.Assumptions:ContaminationPro claims that contaminations can cause the results to change because the rocks are not a closed system. However, radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.[2]Daughter ProductIn the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.Please don't mess up the date it erupted and when it formed. These different dates are all true, one is when it erupted and the other one is when it formed. The amount of initial daghter isotopes is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected. [3]Decay ratesActually, decay rates don't change really much. Emery(1972) has shown that even the biggest changes are less than 1% of what is needed to fit the Earth's age into 6000 years.[4]Radiometric datign "doesn't" work 1. imagine you walk into a room and you see a candle burning. how long has it been burning? (no stupid semantics about wax dripping or whatever) Actually, what radiometric dating is mesuring IS the wax that is dripping. "I don't think I need to continue showing you why radiometric dating is fatally flawed"- Fritz StammbergerWell, you are not showing it. You just copy-pasted from someone elses book.[1]http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised

The resolution of this debate is:'Prostitution should be legalised by the government, in a similar manner to legalisation in Germany (1) and the Netherlands (2).'I will be CON on this issue, whilst my opponent will be PRO. Since legalising prostitution is a move against the status quo, Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the benefits of legalising prostitution will outweigh the negatives. I will be making my own arguments against legalising prostitution, but I need only negate Pro's arguments to win the debate.StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Open debatingR3: Open debatingR4: Closing summaries; no new arguments made in this round should be credited by votersRulesNo kritiksNo trolling_____________________________________________________________________(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Goku vs. Wolverine

You have to understand, Goku doesn't need to regenerate! He fired and came back to life twice. What can kill this dude? Nothin. The only human who can live up to those standards is Chuck Norris! Goku doesn't lose, nor does he give up. He's like a energizer bunny, mixed with a cockroach (because they survive nukes), mixed with anything else that can't be destroyed! Bang.your shot.
Verifiable constitution of a species

I do not accept the changes you made to the debate. I recognize my failing in not providing what I called "the current accepted definition of a species" but do not recognize Merriam-Webster as a sufficient provider of said definition. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary that vaguely documents the usage of language, without providing rigorous references itself, and therefore should not be taken as gospel. Another failing of the use of Merriam-Webster to provide a definition for debate purposes is that it is necessarily generalist, not specialist. Gone are the days of specialists contributing to dictionaries (e.g. the efforts of Lamarck in editing a decades-long encyclopedia of natural history, the name of which escapes me, mainly because it was written in French). The definition you quote is crap basically, it could apply to any taxonomic level, not just species. The definition of species I had in mind, and I'm sorry to not be able to quote specific references (I prefer to debate using my own ideas, however folly that may seem to the debating community), was something along the lines of "a group of individuals capable of reproducing viable offspring", viable meaning also capable of reproducing offspring, i.e. sexually fertile. It's impossible to use this as a foolproof definition, for several reasons, which I will go into if you reply to this.
Verifiable constitution of a species

I accept my opponent's challenge. Firstly, I would like to clarify the resolution as: "It is possible to verify the criteria for a new species", a species being "a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name"[1]. I would like my opponent to clarify what he means by the current accepted definition of a species being inadequate, and how it relates to the resolution. I await my opponent's case in the next round. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Males can be Taylor Swift fans

Well, let me be honest, Society. The ugliest thing come to life. The majority of me are straight, and are somehow influenced by their selves or their "manly friends" that if you listen to girls, you'll be gay. Now that I have my opening, I will post my argument; Her songs are about. GUYS. Them, they sound like the bad guys. Now, some boys may not care, but some are very sensitive, even if they look like they aren't. Now, when boys sing, they speak about girls or life in general, right? Taylor Swift doesn't. She speaks about boys and breakups, like "he cheated on me." What's worse, though, is when she speaks about a really good male singer and states all the bad qualities he had in the relationship. She has dated 15 MEN! Those men are; Justin Gaston, Joe Jonas, Lucas Till, Taylor Lautner, John Mayer, Cory Monteith, Toby Hemingway, Jake Gyllenhaal, Chord Overstreet, Garrett Hedlund, Will Anderson, Zac Efron, Patrick Schwarzenegger, Conor Kennedy, Harry Styles. She acts likes it's no big deal, like she is innocent. (Note: I don't have any of a personal problem with her, but I am the Contender, so..)
Males can be Taylor Swift fans

The first issue I will bring up is well, what is the main issue for a male to listen to and enjoy her music? Taylor is one of the last remnants of musicians that abstains from heavy editing of vocals and adding electronic sounds (ie. electronica and dubstep like sounds). She is also one of the last multi-talented performers as displayed by her ability to play the guitar, banjo, and piano which I will talk about later. First, her singing is one of the finest and most powerful in music of all time due to her vocal range being close to some of the greats. People and many performers in the industry always say that Queen frontman, Freddie Mercury was "the greatest singer of all time and he is also one of the most talented performers of all time". I would like to bring up the Freddie Mercury only could play two instruments, the guitar where he could only play a few chords as noted in many live recordings especially in Live at Wembley[1] where Taylor can play a wide range of chords as displayed throughout her music. Freddie Mercury could also play the piano likewise with Taylor whom can play it quite well[2]. Taylor can also play the banjo which Freddie could not. Freddie was also a great showmen but he would only speak with the crowd a few times to gain momentum whereas Taylor would speak about stories and occurrences to connect with her fans in the crowd regularly. Some even say Taylor Swift is the next Bruce Springsteen with her fusing of story telling and playing[3]. If I can listen to a great musician like Freddie Mercury and not get ridiculed then why can I not listen to a great musician like Taylor Swift and not get ridiculed? My true taste in music are old bands and musicians like The Doors, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. So for someone as popular as Taylor to not heavily modify their voice to change it to make it sound better in a business where you can currently add effects to make it 200% better shows her pride for her real voice which is quite commendable. Plenty of musicians use autotune whereas she does not. Surely she experimented in her song "I Knew You Where Trouble" which has few dubstep/electronic like sounds but as heard in the rest of her album, Red, and also seen throughout her career she stays far away from adding electronica/dubstep like sounds. Which is one of the main reasons why I like Taylor's music because its real and nothing is fake about it. Taylor is one of the very few musicians that isn't lewd with her lyrics. Today most of the things are violent and sexualized but Taylor stays away from that which I fully commend her for doing so, because it shows respect for her work. She also isn't lewd with her image and her life, she dresses modestly and she is very polite with everyone she deals with. This shows that she holds old world values which old artist and celebrities held decades ago which are now lost to many that are popular today. [1]: http://www.youtube.com... [2]: http://www.youtube.com... [3]: http://www.thestreet.com...
Males can be Taylor Swift fans

Firstly, music taste do not define ones gender, I myself am straight and I look at Taylor Swift her looks very appealing to me which is the main basis for many males to like her but I myself have taken another step then them and I actually have taken the time to listen and appreciate her work. We all have musicians we like based on their lyrics or their sound. I myself have bands and musicians which I like for their lyrics and sound such as The Doors which sing about societal issues, personal issues, and spiritualism through psychedelics. I also like The Clash for their socialist spin on punk rock because of my political stance. Surely Taylor's lyrics do not fit things that I like, but I respect that she adds some meaning to her songs. Taylor's music is also very well made and is very well played both in the studio and live. Surely one of her focuses are on past relationships but their is always a subject that an artist focuses on, such as Jim Morrison's lyrics in his late career focused heavily on nihilism while Johnny Cash's lyrics focus on his drug habits and his personal issues. You bring up her personal life, what has that to do with the debate? We are solely talking about if males can enjoy Taylor's music? Surely 10-20% of her songs focus on past relationships but what has personal life to do with the rest of her career? In her music she focuses on her days as a youth (From the top of my head, Never Grow Up), having fun with friends(From the top of my head, 22), enjoying life (22), and teaching self-esteem to her listeners ([Mean, Stay Beautiful] mainly her target group ie. teen girls). You have brought up a small majority in her work which the media loves to focus on because it creates buzz for the rest of her album. Its a cunning tactic on her part to create a few controversial songs about her love life to get the rest of her album noticed.