BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

Thanks to FritzStammberger for issuing this debate challenge.As my opponent asked me to post 2 to 3 pieces of proof rather than 10, I will give two pieces of evidence. Also, as my opponent is free to use Christian sources (The rules never said that he can't), I should be able to use atheist sources too. (the rules never banned them either)1. Radiometric datingThe oldest rocks which have been found so far are about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old (found by using several radiometric dating methods). Some of them include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. [1] How does it work? TalkOrigins says: "The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time."[1]This creates a way of knowing the age of the Earth. However, it won't work if the decay speed changes a lot; but the study Emery (1972) only found really small changes of decay rates, not even close to enough to fit the Earth's history into 6000 years.[2]2.Ice CoreThe Vostok Ice-Core was tested for its age, using 18O/16O isotopic analysis, independent ice-flow calculations , comparison with other ice cores , paleoclimatic comparison , comparison with deep sea cores , 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis , deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis , comparison with marine climatic record , CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. [4]160,000 is only the MINIMUM age of the Earth, and testing the ACTUAL age cannot be tested this way because it would be like trying to know someone's age by using the age of their hair. However, this at least, means that the Earth could be millions or billionsof years old, confirming the radiometric dating results. BONUS: Lack of population III starsPoplation III stars have never been found, as of 2010. [3] Due to the high mass of the Poplation III stars, their fuel will soon become exausted and they will explode in a supernova. [3] Thus, they only existed in thearly universe. [3] If our Earth is young, it implies that the universe must also be young, which means that population III stars will be observed. However, they haven't been observed, maeaning that the univrse must be old.[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The rate of decayMy opponent claims that the decay rates varies and are out of equilibrium. However, it is not true. Emery (1972) is a survey of experimental results, and the changes of the decay rates were minuscule. [1]Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years.Volcanic rocks are actually cooled down lava, thus the age is of the lava (including the time it stayed underground), this arguent is like trying to find the age of the writing by using the age of the ink. The ink was made before the writing, so it obviously fails. 2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years. Experiments such as Emery (1972) never found big changes in decay rates. [1]It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.This was just plain wrong. The initial daughter product is not assumed or requird to be zero. The computed age is not affected by changing it. [2] In 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.Again, the known age was when the volcano erupted, not when the lava was formed. The dating method gives the date of the creation of the lava, not the date of the eruption of lava. This argument is therefore invalid. Both ages are correct, but they are the time of eruption and the creation, respectively.There is thus no sound physical evidence (that the earth is millions or billions of years old). Objections to the concept of a young earth are not made on scientific, but rather on philosophic, grounds. ... and a host of physical processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the universe, and a young earth.My opponent has ignored all my previous evidence by not refuting my other arguments, but rather trying to "refute" them using assumptions, which he objected to. The Earth was not young, I proved it, my opponent decided to refute it by using the dauther isotope argument, which I already made an argument in the first round. Maybe my opponent is living in a young arth separate from the real one, because he does not refute my case and instead decides to refute a separate case from mine. [1]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

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) The point is. Without knowing when the candle was lit it is impossible to say how long it has been burning.That argument fails. Let's see a quote from talk origins refuting it."The amount of initial D 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." [1]As the amount of initial D does not affect the computed age, it can be assumed to be anything and still be a correct answer. Plus, you won't wonder about how long it burnt if you knew when it started burning. This argument can thus be used on any dating method, thus it also refutes all creationist dating methods.Radiometric dating does not need the initial D to be anything. Period.My opponent has not adequately refuted my other arguments. His arguments were hypocritical, trying to say that based my arguments on assumptions, ignored my rebuttal to that and instead my opponent posted a bunch of arguments which are based on assumptions themselves. My side was unchallenged and I pointed out my opponent's arguments are based on assumptions. Pro has ignored most of my rebuttals. [1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

These data points are based on radiometric ages which I have already shown to be a selective dating technique. You can't use carefully selected data points that fit your hypothesis and ignore the rest yet this is exactly what you are doing. I suspect that Radiometric dating needs to be a debate in itself. You know what? since Radiometric dating seems to be your best and only evidence for an earth millions or billions of years old I will thoroughly refute it right now. RADIOMETRIC DATING (why it 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) The point is. Without knowing when the candle was lit it is impossible to say how long it has been burning. 2. "Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race? you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible." http://creation.com... I don't think I need to continue showing you why Radiometric dating is fatally flawed. If you are so certain the earth is millions or billions of years old surely you must have some other evidence on which you base your whole world view. If you like however we can continue the last round solely on radiometric dating.
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

My opponent never addressed 1.2 he just repeated his big "IF" assumption.My opponent ignores my whole argument by saying this. I'll repeat my argument once more. If my opponent ignores it once again, my opponent should lose this debate because he does not address my arguments.If the assumptions are true, then the data points will line up in a single line, and the data points did line up n a single line, therefore the assumptions are true.[1]- My opponent thinks that basing his data on 70 meteors out of 84,000 using radiometric dating (which I have proven to be a selective technique) is perfectly good.My opponent bases this argument on the ASSUMPTION (see? his arguments are self-refuting) that the results collected from the 70 meteors must be wrong and the ommitted ones must be correct. As my opponent said, assumptions are not strong arguments until you prove them. My opponent concedes the Bonus "evidence"It was only a bonus, my opponent's only valid argument was on this one, thus he never refuted my case.However, penetrating the wall of preconceived conclusions erected by the so called "science" is nearly impossible. People see what they want to see. I believed the earth was billions of years old for most of my life. However when I began to examine the evidence closely I found that this was not necessarily the case. The only reason anyone wants you to believe that the earth is "billions of years old" and the reason why this mantra is repeated throughout science textbooks the world over is because the ridiculous premise of macro evolution requires "billions of years".Refuting your so called "arguments" are easy.[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

My opponents arguments are so pathetically week that I don't feel the need to repeat myself. I have shown his absolute BEST evidence to be easily refuted in the first round. - My opponent never addressed 1.2 he just repeated his big "IF" assumption. - My opponent thinks that basing his data on 70 meteors out of 84,000 using radiometric dating (which I have proven to be a selective technique) is perfectly good. My opponent concedes the Bonus "evidence" This is a no brainer, The evidence chosen as the absolute BEST is very week and proves absolutely nothing. However, penetrating the wall of preconceived conclusions erected by the so called "science" is nearly impossible. People see what they want to see. I believed the earth was billions of years old for most of my life. However when I began to examine the evidence closely I found that this was not necessarily the case. The only reason anyone wants you to believe that the earth is "billions of years old" and the reason why this mantra is repeated throughout science textbooks the world over is because the ridiculous premise of macro evolution requires "billions of years". If a frog turns into a prince quickly we call it a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince "over billions of years" we call it science. The fact is that BELIEVING the earth is "billions of years old" requires faith. It is religion NOT science.
RAP BATTLE #3 Cheesedingo1 V.S. Beachgirly

Last round, right here!!!!! LET'S GO!!!!!!All right, you say you get guys everywhere,But when they see that you got nothin' they will run like they be scaredYou act like you are hot sh*t but we all bewarebecause in all of your no-no regions they be covered in hair!You sleep with lots of guys, and all you do is pull and push?You got one thing in common with George W. and it is BUSH!When I first saw your profile pic, I didn't think "D cup"!I just saw some big-mouth chick that likes to get f*cked up!You be attackin' my body from the bottom upYour definately no match for me, your skills need to amp up!I think you the football player, get on me and shout "TOUCHDOWN!"You wanna get tackled, give me head like with a crownWhen you see what I be packin' you be smiling, there's no frownBut then I see your not attractive and I laugh just like a clown!My d*ck be bigger by far than any tic or tacBut even Sir Mixalot will agree about you that "baby got NO back!"Your skills are so below me, I tower over you like ShaqThen, baby, you be swallowin, like a bottle of #7 jack!I be smokin' like a blunt, you be old like betty whiteI be far out of your sight so far, Im in space while you stare at the nightYour the tornado that that met my volcano, Eminem know's my skill's are tightThis rap battles over. I've won. Go home. My bird of victory is in flight!I thank Beachgirly for this debate, and the voters for reading this.Thank you. VOTE FOR PRO!!!CHEESEDINGO1'S OUT!
RAP BATTLE #3 Cheesedingo1 V.S. Beachgirly

Your right, I don't have a a** or them tig-ol-bitties But I got guys on me, in all sorts of city's Including you! Isn't that true? Ohh honey, don't come at me like you know Wassup Cuz guys look at me like i gotta D cup. Just stop your stupid rap! Your like a gay football player, Always getting sacked! Alright little boy, whats this s*** about me wanting your dick ? Are you kidding me i cant even see that little tic-tac? Damn I'm coming at you so hard that you might want to fall back Because lyrically you lack. Got you so nervous you might get a anxiety attack.. (TI-OL-BITTIES = BIG BREASTS)
RAP BATTLE #3 Cheesedingo1 V.S. Beachgirly

I can't beleive it. You say that your the best?The last time we battled, i swatted you like a pest!The voters voted for me, you aren't the one who's blessed!Go take a nap and just give up, I'll put your skills to restYou play with me just like a toy?I think it's you I will destroyThis is so easy, I will enjoyThe loss you take, your unemployedNow your startin to say you shake me like cage?You were the one shaken by your mom out of ragethat's why you so mental, just get offstageJust get the f*ck out, my power you can't gaugeI agree with you on the fact your rap was taboono one should hear that peice of crap rap, it sure blewIm a motherf*ckin' animal, can't contain me in no zooYou have no chance to beat me, all the voters know it's true.Get back to my sausage fest?Your the only one there, cause it's what you digestYou got no butt you got no breastEven Pitbull don't wanna open your treasure chest!Im seein' strange clouds like B.o.B.smoke a joint so fast i go through it all easyyou just wanna get on top of meI know your okay with that, my d*ck you wanna seeI'm out!
RAP BATTLE #3 Cheesedingo1 V.S. Beachgirly

CheeseDingo? Who the heck are you? Talking to me like you got a clue. Your just a little boy I'm just playing you like toy. Now, is sad you challenged the best at a rap battle Because Ima shake your cage..Rattle! Your a pest, A lyrical mess Go back to the sausage fest I'm god's gift, I'm blessed Did you just feel that shift? Now you gotta get on my level! Damn, I'm such a rebel! I do stunts over you like a dare devil. Okay Im done! On to round two! Hope you enjoyed my lyrical taboo(:
RAP BATTLE #3 Cheesedingo1 V.S. Beachgirly

I thank Beachgirly for accepting.Now, let's get started. Beachgirly, what you got on me your shady like an oak treecut your head off like labotomy U just wanna get on top of me!Your weak just lyin' on the beachI bet your rap voice is like a screech I clean you away like a bottle of bleachI am the king they can't impeach!Life is a beach im just playin in the sand,said lil' wayne, b*tch, slap you with my left-hand!You be sinkin out of sight, just call it quicksand,You try to wrap around my waist, just like a waistband!I'll try to make this nice and fast,The gap between us is long and vastJust give up now, you know you're outclassed,I sense me winning with some rain on the forcast!
what50 and masterful are the same person

Pro asks me to be concise. Does Pro understand the definition of the word concise? Concision is my middle name. Pro just needs to read between the lines. So, what does Pro offer? What Pro offers can be repeated in one short line of text. " They are both supremely white, racist, panophobic comedians". As I said. "Platforms attract", supremely white racists and copy cats. Panophobia is a vague supposition and comedic qualities are debatable in their own right. I also proposed, "noticeable differences, in both literary acuity and levels of cynical antagonism". Pro made no attempt whatsoever to counter, my simple, concise, accurate observations. Pro thinks that what50 and masterful are one and the same. What do the voters think?
what50 and masterful are the same person

What 50! Top fifty Toff fipty. Master Bates, full of mastery. Similarity is a concept, hilarity is a laugh. Supremely white, sublimely black, dazzlingly yellow. Skin dream. Wrought in ecstasy. Baptised in reality. Feeble keyboard twitchers, ignoble arse itchers, arse itch insecurity.
what50 and masterful are the same person

I think what50 and masterful from debate.org are the same person indeed. Here is the link to their profiles: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... See, they have very similar ideologies. They both support racism and white supremacy, which I believe is okay. what50 is a comedian: http://www.debate.org... masterful is a comedian: http://www.debate.org... See, both these debates are good.
Death is superior to Birth

I am new to DDO and I made this short debate to have a short argument on whether or not Death is Superior to birth.I think death is superior to birth because when you die all of your problems and heartaches are behind you. There is no more fear, pain, suffering, or hardship.When you die you are remembered for the good things you have done but when you are born you are expected to do great things and to already have done a great thing is better than being expected to a great thing.Being born means the stress of life is being put on you but dying means it is lifted off.I just want to see if anyone can refute these arguments.Feel free to accept! No restrictions.
Death is superior to Birth

DEATH, death too many is a gruesome thing conjuring up images of the Grimm Reaper,skulls,decay etc. Death is usually viewed as an end and birth is viewed as a beginning. Once you are born there are many things to view,to hear to see and feel,Life is grand and magnificent, of course there is also heartache,pain, despair etc..Birth can be a relief to a pair of parents desperately trying to conceive a child,it can be a relief to the world,imagine if none of our leaders scientist, and important figures of history were never born it would be a sad world indeed. Yes, it can be tough at times, but with life, IN life you can experience feelings of hope, optimism and happiness to accompany feelings of dread and despair. Now,I would like to rebut my opponents claims, the first, being, that when you die you are remembered for good things. My opponent must recognize that not all people are good, and not all people do good things, that is based entirely on the individual and whether he or she was good or bad. The second,would be that "the stress of life is being put on you but dying it is lifted off" I have to disagree,being that there are way better methods to alleviate your stress than dying. There is Yoga,Tai Chi, stress balls, exercise lots of things, we should be able to cope with life and face are hardships our fears our hardships or whatever it is that is keeping us from being happy we shouldn't wait for death to alleviate all these things for us. In Conclusion, I would like to end this by saying that birth and as a result, life, is grand, I'm certainly glad to be alive right now and I think my opponent is too. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
Rap battle armoredcat vs NDECD1441

You're a style connoisseur, You rap like Eminem too, My real own sh! T would really burn your mental You got 6 fvking L's, My sharpness draws yellow cards Leaving your cheeks pink, At the end, Like a pencil, B! Tch, No structure? I thought I was too elementary, Can't mettle with my bars, On lock, Like penitentiaries You wanna sentence me? I guess I'll take a lower case, And throw capital punishment right at your motherfvcking face, Who even gives a fvck who's the best rapper still, All I give a fvck about is the next rapper killed, Cause Mac Millers ill, 3X TENTACION Higher in the sky than any rating of Revival is on, How would I know you're a pseudo? Listen to this sh! T, You said I lost every battle you fvcking hypocrite b! Tch Y'know I say I'm straight fire, And they saying the same thing People go Cain and Abel on boys, You ain't able to hold a cane, I"m the master of rap that is actual fact Ghostwriting for your favorite rapper with high caliber knock you sideways like a lateral pass, I grew up on K. Dot, And Good Kid Maad City, That TPAB and that Carter 2 fit me, That Section 80 and that College Dropout with me I"m was with MF DOOM and Madvilliany kill me My self esteem high, Higher then the sky, A little under some gates of heaven, But I"m still fly, I could pull out an Airsoft and miss and you"d still die, It"s like my blood fused with marijuana all my life I"ve been high If my flow fell on Satan death would be a safe haven I ain"t playing, My cloud 9 is heaven NCECD's is a fvcking raven, I'm nicer than a Canadian motherfvcking Mormon, These haters coming at me, You a 15 year old Corbyn, My flow Is rael, Test me you fvck, See how it feels Heating sh! T up on my grill, Raise the stake (steak)s, You a meal So I'mma break the 4th wall like Deadpool was a Mexican And say on DDO your b! Tch a$$ is never gonna rest again, Electric sh! T
Rap battle armoredcat vs NDECD1441

You're like Brittney N Phrem when the lightning struck her Because your life flashed before your eyes, You shudder You chose that style for your reply, Shoulda picked another Because your raps were like Frank Gehry's works, No structure I could be high on ec$t@cy, Especially when you're next to me I just go numb reading this monstrosity you call a rhapsody You can't rap and you know that, All you do is act scary Hope that you rap steady, Yet, Like a factory I manufacture a product multiplying my elo Dissing the best rapper still, How low can he go? I'm literally at school projects, Don't inflate your ego How do you claim I beg bjtch, You start from zero Most make their way up to the top but we know Armoredcat thinks he's got a platform, Does he though? Or is it taken by some user of modern day street flow Getting ready to turn this cat's career like Benzino's The entire album on some redneck gnat? Bjtch listen again, See what songs you ain't checked yet You'd also be crazy to think Killshot is straight @$$ wack I'll strike a 21 like the last time you played Blackjack So I'm a pseudo, How would you know? I'm 15, You're too old To be making threats at me, Put out my trump card, Its uno If you got a way to make some progressive shjt then do so But if you're only a self-proclaimed socialist like Trudeau (Then shut your mouth with super glue bro! ) Now its onto you yo!