BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hilary Clinton has more experience than Barack. Obama.

Well, first I'd like to say that if we examine Obama and Clinton objectively, I don't think we can come to the conclusion that Obama has more experience than Clinton. Clinton has four more years in the Senate than Obama, 8 as a very active first lady, and holds a law degree. Obama has about half a term of experience in the Senate, 8 years as a state legislator, and also holds a law degree. Comparing the two records, I think it's clear that if we're using the commonly accepted definition of experienece, Clinton has more of it. You said: "If time in the Senate is the metric of relevance then surely we should go with one of the lifers, Biden or Dodd." Of course, Biden and Dodd do have more experience than Clinton. However, experience is usually only brought up by the media when comparing Clinton directly to Obama, not to the rest of the field. I believe the concept operating here is a threshhold of experience necessary to execute the Presidency effectively. You said: "Or is the term "experience" nothing more than an inuendo to race in America, and the inevitable "unelectability" of an African American." No, experience is not a euphemism in this case - many voters have legitimate concerns about Obama's relatively recent exposure to the inside workings of Washington, and his idealism which some attribute to his inexperience. Some voters may also have concerns about his race, but that's a completely separate topic from experience. Finally, you made a comparison between Clinton and Laura Bush, which I assume was to suggest that being First Lady shouldn't count as "experience." There is a difference between the role Hillary Clinton played in her husband's administration, and the role Laura Bush plays. Clinton was actually involved in policy during her husband's administration, whereas Laura Bush is not - if Hillary weren't so involved in policy, her opponents wouldn't be able to criticize her for her views on health care in Bill's first term.
Hilary Clinton has more experience than Barack. Obama.

Hilary Clinton is readily afforded credit for being more experienced than Barack Obama, especially by the media. What leads them to this conclusion, her additional years of service in the Senate, in which she failed to lead or distinguish herself on anything of note? If time in the Senate is the metric of relevance then surely we should go with one of the lifers, Biden or Dodd. Is Hilary more experienced because she was first lady; the logic of which implies that Laura Bush has more recent "experience?" Or is the term "experience" nothing more than an inuendo to race in America, and the inevitable "unelectability" of an African American.
The Big-bang is a good theory

I hope my opponent reconsiders his evaluation of DDO and decides to stay. He's certainly a step up from our other creationists (http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org...) and at the very least adds variety to the site. Most of my contentions have gone unrefuted, so I'll keep this round brief. ========= REBUTTALS ========= C2 - The incredible shrinking sun I am not saying that Helmholtz's theory is incorrect merely because it was postulated in 1869; that would be a genetic fallacy. I'm saying it's wrong because of new information that has been discovered in the time since. The sun does not derive its energy from gravitational collapse, it derives it from nuclear fusion. Helmholtz's projection is based on an estimate of how much energy the sun puts out and how much its volume would have to decrease to account for that. I'll address the issues with the Principle of Uniformity later on. ========= CASE PRO ========= C3 - Radiometric dating There is a significant difference between the case of the shrinking sun and the case of radiometric dating. The rate of decay is assumed to be constant because of the Principle of Uniformity.[1] Simply stated, this means that all physical *laws* are constant in all parts of the universe regardless of time or place. It is a necessary condition for scientific inquiry to take place. While laws are immutable, specific processes are not. The manner in which they occur, however, is still contingent on such laws. The rate of radiometric decay is constant. It is determined solely by an isotope's nuclear properties.[2] External factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical exposure, or the presence of magnetic fields have no effect on how an isotope decays.[3] == CONCLUSION == Even if we reject the principle of uniformity and drop both my argument from radiometric decay and CON's shrinking sun, I still have two powerful arguments to prove an old universe that remain unaddressed. I thank my opponent or an interesting debate and urge you to vote PRO. The resolution is affirmed. -- References -- 1. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com... 2. Emery, G.T., "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates." Annual Review of Nuclear Science. 1972. 22: 165–202. 3. Shlyakhter, A.I., "Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants." 1976. Nature 264: 340.
The Big-bang is a good theory

First, I am not going to argue all of Pro's points because I'm going to stop using this debate site. I just don't have the time. But I would like to say a few thing about Pro's argument. About the sun, He says that because the study of the sun shrinking was first done in 1869 that it does not apply. Clapeyron -- discovered entropy - 1834 Fizeau -- measured the speed of light - 1849 Herschel -- discovered the existence of infrared and of radiant heat - 1800 Joule -- discovered the First Law of Thermodynamics - 1843 Ritter -- discovered ultraviolet rays - 1801 Thomas Young -- proposed the theory of light and colours - 1801 --------> http://wiki.answers.com... So I guess we cannot accept any of these either? Oh and best of all.....Darwin -- published "Origin of Species" and gave us the Theory of Evolution - 1859. Looks like you can't trust the theory of evolution because it was originally composed in the 1800's. Also Pro says "Taking a measurement of the sun at any two given points and ASSUMING A CONSTANT RATE of change is like looking at the ocean as the tide goes out and concluding that 10,000 years ago, the sea level must have been somewhere in the stratosphere." I agree that assuming a constant rate is not scientific, but Pro does the exact same thing! Later he says "An isotope's half life is the amount of time it takes for half of the original material to decay into another isotope. With this knowledge, by measuring the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope found in a sample, we can determine the sample's age" Right there Pro is ASSUMING A CONSTANT RATE of decay. He is ASSUMING that the half life has been the same throughout history. Radiometric dating is completely based on assumptions, yet Pro claims that "it can prove that the earth is several billion years old". And without radiometric dating there is no evidence for millions of years. Therefore, saying that the big bang happened 13.75 billion years ago is a faith statement. As as all evolutionist know very well, faith cannot be a part of science.
The Big-bang is a good theory

Thanks, CON, and good luck! Note that I will not be arguing that the Big Bang was an uncaused phenomenon, or that something came from nothing. There are many competing theories regarding what gave rise to it. According to TalkOrigins.org, "The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time."[1] Specifically, I will be arguing that at some point in time, approximately 13.75 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. From here, it expanded rapidly. It cooled by expanding to its current state and continues to expand to this day.[2] -- References -- 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. S. H. Suyu, P. J. Marshall, M. W. Auger, S. Hilbert, R. D. Blandford, L. V. E. Koopmans, C. D. Fassnacht and T. Treu. "Dissecting the Gravitational Lens B1608+656. II. Precision Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Spatial Curvature, and the Dark Energy Equation of State." The Astrophysical Journal 711 (1): 201. 2010
The Big-bang is a good theory

The Big-bang is a poor theory. If you feel otherwise please accept this debate. I ask that my opponent use round one to define any terms and make an opening statement. I will begin opening arguments in round two. Big-Bang: "a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density" [1] [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable

My opponent has forfeited the second round, so my previous argument stands and has not yet been rebutted. Though my opponent has forfeited and does not allow me to rebuttal any of his arguments, I will simply say that this debate is strictly on if whether or not the Bible supports animal experimentation as acceptable. You can look at my previous arguments, and I have proven the resolution. In my first argument, I show that the Bible states that humans have been given dominion over all the animals-in the water, in the air, in the ocean. I have given sources for the definitions and the site where you can directly read the text from the Bible. Because the Bible states that we have control over animals, that means we can choose to do what we want with them, and that includes animal experimentation, therefore the Bible does support animal experimentation. P.S. This does not refer to the cruel animal experimentation that they use on animals to test items such as make-up products. This is the positive animal experimentation that is used to help better scientific studies. It should also be taken into consideration that my argument stands. The opponent forfeited, did not respond to my arguments, which means I have proven my point.
Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable

First of all, not everyone believes in God. Second of all, if we can do experiments on animals then we should be able to do experiments on other humans because technically, we are a more advanced type of animal but we are still animals none the less. Animals are living things just like humans! They should not be abused like this. If a God/Goddess does exist, do you really think that he/she would want you doing experiments on innocent animals? I don't care whats in the bible, that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted! Third of all, just because its in the bible doesn't mean its true. There are so many different versions of the bible. How do you know the bible is from God? Someone could of just made all this stuff up about God, Jesus, Satan, etc... and made all this stuff up because they wanted an excuse to be lazy on sundays. That is why they also made up a thing aobut going to church on sundays! Fourth of all, If it said in the bible that if you believe in God and shoot yourself in the head, you will not die. Would you do it? I think not! I think its more depressing when an innocent animal dies then when a human dies.
Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable

I will present the affirmative to the resolution, "Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable." I will simply support why animal experimentation is acceptable based on the Bible. First I would like to define several words: Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Animal Experimentation- the act, process, practice, or an instance of making experiments on animals (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Acceptable- capable or worthy of being accepted; capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I will now prove why animal experimentation is acceptable based on the bible: Genesis 1: 26-28 reads: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (http://bibleresources.bible.com...) In these passages from the Bible, males and females have clearly been given control of all the animals on earth:"have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Because the people of the earth have been given complete control/dominion of all the animals on earth, that would make animal experimentation acceptable, because humans have complete control over animals and can do whatever they want with them, based specifically on these several verses of the Bible. I believe I have successfully made my case. I await my opponent's contentions and arguments.
String Theory Is Plausible

To begin with, physical and mathematical constants would be affected at levels of greater precision because of curved space in higher dimensions. This effect, while not conclusively proved to be the effect of higher dimensions, does show some experimental validity: "A recent review recommended that the number of decimal places used to represent numbers in the software should be increased. This means all mathematical constants such as e and pi, as well as physical constants and the measured dimensions of the detectors. So far, so routine. But when adding more precision to pi, a strange effect was noticed. The alignment of charged particle tracks across detector boundaries actually got worse when a more precise value was used. In addition, the agreement between simulation and data also got slightly worse.... However, string theorists have pointed out that a firm prediction of string theory is the existence of extra space-time dimensions. In a space which is curved into a higher dimension, the apparent value of pi can deviate from that seen in real life. And thus the LHC may have proved that they were right all along." In other words, this evidence of deviation from the exact value of certain constants is evidence of curved space in higher dimensions.1 Also, string theory is plausible by the philosophy of science. While just about every prediction of string theory is hard to test, in time, we will have the ability to test such predictions. This means that string theory is inherently falsifiable, even if it is not yet. 1 http://www.theguardian.com...
The Geneis account of Creation should be read literally

I contend that the wording of Genesis within the context of the Bible does not allow for the Day Age Theory, the Gap Theory, or the Framework Hypothesis. For the purposes of this debate, I ask that scientific arguments be kept to a minimum. By this I mean that I do not wish to delve into a debate on carbon dating, the big bang, how to explain distant starlight, etc. I wish to stick to the Bible, its wording, and whether or not we can interpret the Creation week as anything other than 24 days and still be consistent with the Bible. An example of a scientific argument that is welcomed is the apparent conundrum of light existing before the Sun. I hope it is clear that science may be used in a supporting role, but that the purpose of the debate is to address what Scripture does/does not say. This is my first debate on this site, but that did not deter me from challenging such a formidable opponent. I admire your debate record and your belief in the truth of Word of God, and I look forward to a friendly debate on a subject that has long been controversial (yet need not divide Christians). If you wish to refer to interpretations of the Creation week other than the three I already listed you may certainly do so, and you are by no means obligated to defend any or all of the three theories listed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It was clarified via the comments section that Con will be arguing a form of the framework hypothesis, and Pro will be arguing that a literal reading of Genesis is required for various reasons. Con may begin with his arguments in favor of his specific type of non-literal reading, as a good portion of Pro's argument will consist of showing how such a theory should be considered wrong.
Abortion, Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton

Your stance on these issues seem to be predicated on misinformation. "...Planned Parenthood was investigated for selling fetus organs to other countries around the world." Your use of the words "sell" and "fetus organs" is very liberal here. Planned Parenthood is not turning a profit by selling fetuses. In reality, they are being reimbursed for the expenses that are associated with performing abortions by donating fetal tissue for research and stem-cell purposes [1]. The price for these tissues are typically found within the $30-$100 range, a modest amount by any reasonable person's standards. It's easy to see the impossibility of turning a profit this way for the company. "[Hillary Clinton] supported Planned Parenthood on the "full term" abortion policy, as long as it did not harm the mother at all. This policy allows a mother to decide to terminate a pregnancy up to the very last day of the projected due date." Clinton is never quoted saying she advocates late-term abortions in all cases. She has strictly stated only in very rare cases where the mother's health (emotional or otherwise) was severely at risk from giving birth, late-term abortions could be justified [2]. I'm not necessarily agreeing with her claim, however, that many late-term abortions are due to medical necessity, but she never stated that as long as the mother wouldn't be harmed, all abortions past 20-weeks are fine. "Hillary Clinton's opinion on this subject in my opinion, classifies her as a murderer, as well as everyone who voted for her." This statement seems to advocate thoughtcrime, and should not be taken seriously. "We all must answer to God sometime in our existence, whether we are alive or whether we are dead, we ALL WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO OUR SINS!! God said "Thou shall not kill" God did not tell us to decide who lives and who dies." Irrelevent to the debate. Also, not only is abortion never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but it was also practiced and permissable under Roman law during the time period Jesus would have been alive [3]. Sources: [1] http://www.factcheck.org... [2] http://www.factcheck.org... [3] http://www.christianbiblereference.org...
Abortion, Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton

Not too long ago, Planned Parenthood was investigated for selling fetus organs to other countries around the world. That quickly went hush hush. Now, we had a presidential nominee (Hillary Clinton), who in her third debate with Trump, fully and 100% supported Planned Parenthood on the "full term" abortion policy, as long as it did not harm the mother at all. This policy allows a mother to decide to terminate a pregnancy up to the very last day of the projected due date. WRONG!!! Now, if i'm not mistaken, isn't there a law that states that an abortion must take place before the 4th month of pregnancy because at that time, the fetus has developed it's little extremities (hands and feet)? After 4 months, it is then considered murder. Hillary Clinton's opinion on this subject in my opinion, classifies her as a murderer, as well as everyone who voted for her. We all must answer to God sometime in our existence, whether we are alive or whether we are dead, we ALL WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO OUR SINS!! God said "Thou shall not kill" God did not tell us to decide who lives and who dies.
It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

BOP We have a shared BOP, and yet Con didn’t provide any proof to support his point, he just attempted to rebut my points. Con admitted that I proved sane and wise people, the founders, were against gun control, and yet con has failed to provide any evidence that sane and wise people would not support gun control. Con has provided to evidence that would suggest that is saner and wiser to support gun control. The Department of Economics at Centre College vs Fox News Con attempted to rebut the study conducted by the Department of Economics at Centre College, with Fox News. Con’s source is bias, and my source is more reliable. When two conflicted studies are presented, one must consider the source, and whether or not there is bias. Black Markets Pro is bringing up old arguments. As I already proved, no one would waste the time and money developing WMD for private use. If someone was planning to use a WMD for terrorism, the law would not stop them from developing the WMD; that is provided they have the money and resources in the first place. Pro avoided the main point of my black market argument, which was that black markets would allow criminals to outgun law abiding citizens. Alternatives If a mass murderer wanted to kill people, and only cared about the body count, he would use bombs. The mass murderers who used assault rifles, used assault rifles because they didn’t want to spend the time making a bomb. An assault rifle is less effort than using a bomb. If assault rifles were banned, the mass murder would switch to making bombs, because he wants a body count. If people want to kill they will kill, and taking away their first choice weapon does not eliminate that urge. Serial killers, who use knives and rope, kill their victims individually, over a long time frame. Mass Murderers like Adam Lanza would not use a knife, and in the absence of assault rifles, he would use bombs. There is a reason al-Qaeda uses bombs; they are cheap and easy to make, and they create a large body count. The IRA was also known for using bombs, as was the weather underground, and even the KKK. Boston Bombing Because I have character space to spare, I would give my condolences to the victims of the Boston bombing and their families.
It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

The YouTube of the bazooka blowing up the bonfire was worth the price of admission. Con has shown that a sane, smart person can support ABSOLUTE freedom of ownership of weapons. He made a good case that the U. S. founding parents were OK with private ownership of military grade weapons. For their time they were some of the sanest, wisest people around. Let's be clear about the resolution, though. It wasn't can a sane, smart person be a weapons absolutist, and it wasn't about what was more sane and wise in 1776. The resolution was "It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control. " The tense refers to the present and the modifier "more" is also pertinent. Finally, the modifier *some* means that Con needs to show that every possible weapon is acceptable for private ownership and should not be regulated. Unfortunately for this debate, Con spent a lot of time with irrelevant points like whether a bazooka is an effective weapon, and whether it would be awful to be sliced to death. Practicality paragraph Fox News cites a number of studies that show the death penalty deters crime. . http://www.foxnews.com... Black Markets Con changes an argument he seems not to understand. While he misquotes me as saying," "; in fact I said thatmaking HUGELY destructive weapons expensive due to illegality is a good thing. Con showed concern that would-be criminals would make their own faulty weapons. That does NOT seem to argue for legalization of WMD for private use. Alternatives It is a bizarre argument to say that banning assault weapons is wrong because someone can use readily available materials to make a bomb. Why in the world would a would-be mass murderer use anything other than the most attractive available weapon? People kill with knives, their hands, rope, whatever is available and is the most attractive for their purpose. Taking more deadly automatic weapons away does NOT increase the likelyhood of a wou;d-be criminal using a more lethal weapon. On its face this is preposterous. Due to time and characher constraints I'll stop here.