BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dinosaurs co-existed with mankind

"For example, the Karoo formation fossil field in Africa contains eight billion vertebrate fossils." In no legitimate source, does anyone say that there are 8 billion fossils there, and only one mentions a massive amount (800 billion) but then goes to say, it's less like 40,000 or so. But let's just say, for the sake of blind argument, that there is 8 billion. They include (per every reference) plants and insects, and that the Karoo supergroup is about 2/3 the size of the entire continent of Africa. AND that it covers a time frame of over 200 million years. So it isn't hard to believe that over 200 million years on most of the continent, that several billion plants and animals lived and got fossilized when they died. [1] "Vasquez Rock has the appearance of a rugged moonscape. It's main features are massive shards of jagged rock strata, broken sharply and thrusting out of the ground to great heights. Whatever force stood those rocks on end was obviously sudden and violent, not slow and gradual." Like an earthquake 25 million years ago. [2] "Waldo Canyon in Colorado was at one time covered by ocean. The highest point in the Waldo park is Pikes Peak, the top of which is only 14,000 feet high. There is only a small portion of the world that is over 14,000 feet high. That means that everything under 14,000 feet was also underwater." No link and can't find anything suggesting it in a modest look over the internet. But, it is easy to point out, that tectonic activity causes mountains to form, and they can grow at a rate of a few mm per year. [3] That means after 1 million years or so, a mountain could easily be 15,000 feet or more. so what was once level, can become a mountain, and stuff that shouldn't be at the top of a mountain, could be there (like evidence of a body of water). "Providence Canyon, near Lumpkin, Georgia, is a spectacular canyon that covers more than eleven hundred acres. In the early 1800's the entire area was flat farmland. By the mid 1800's, farmers had completely cleared the area of trees and their roots systems, leaving the area susceptible to erosion. In 1846, heavy rainfall began forming small gullies and crevices. These expanded with every successive rainfall. By the 1940's nearby buildings and towns had to be moved to accommodate the growing canyon. Today the canyon comprises sixteen fingers, some more than one mile in length. At places the distance from the canyon floor to the rim is as high as a fifteen-story building. This is clear evidence that it doesn't take millions of years for major erosion to happen." Yep, if we strip the land of plants (whose roots tend to hold the dirt in place to minimize erosion), stuff can happen a lot quicker. Okay, so I fail to see what any of this had to do with proving that dinosaurs lived with humans in this last round, since you only really argued about a fossil bed and erosion. But, I guess that ends this debate. [1] http://www.highbeam.com... [2] http://www.scvhistory.com... [3] http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...
Dinosaurs co-existed with mankind

I don't even have to use the Bible to give evidence for the flood. First of all, a flash flood can produce a large layer of rock sedimentation in a few hours, it doesn't take millions of years. If you took a jar of water, sand, rock, soil, and other types of dirt and shook it up, it would form into layers for you in just a few minutes. Natural sedimentation over several ages cannot explain how so many fossils came to be concentrated in one place. Every inhabited continent contains large fossil beds where millions of fossilized species are found together in large concentrations, as if all these creatures were destroyed and buried together by massive flooding. For example, the Karoo formation fossil field in Africa contains eight billion vertebrate fossils. Vasquez Rock has the appearance of a rugged moonscape. It's main features are massive shards of jagged rock strata, broken sharply and thrusting out of the ground to great heights. Whatever force stood those rocks on end was obviously sudden and violent, not slow and gradual. Waldo Canyon in Colorado was at one time covered by ocean. The highest point in the Waldo park is Pikes Peak, the top of which is only 14,000 feet high. There is only a small portion of the world that is over 14,000 feet high. That means that everything under 14,000 feet was also underwater. Providence Canyon, near Lumpkin, Georgia, is a spectacular canyon that covers more than eleven hundred acres. In the early 1800's the entire area was flat farmland. By the mid 1800's, farmers had completely cleared the area of trees and their roots systems, leaving the area susceptible to erosion. In 1846, heavy rainfall began forming small gullies and crevices. These expanded with every successive rainfall. By the 1940's nearby buildings and towns had to be moved to accommodate the growing canyon. Today the canyon comprises sixteen fingers, some more than one mile in length. At places the distance from the canyon floor to the rim is as high as a fifteen-story building. This is clear evidence that it doesn't take millions of years for major erosion to happen. In light of all the evidence, I believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, they did not live millions of years ago, and there could still be some around today. Thank you and God bless
Dinosaurs co-existed with mankind

"Okay, when you say this, you assume that that is actually how they do it though. Its not. Even if they did, radiometric dating is not perfect. I have actually talked to people who use it and they say that it is a good method, but there is much room for human error." Although it isn't 100% accurate (which nothing is), it is about 98% (leaving a few million years of wiggle room). That is accurate enough to the difference between 65 million years and 5 hundred years. "The reason I say that they do not use radiometric dating in determining the age of bones is because the geologic column was invented before any kind of radiometric dating was even thought of." They actually use both. Go figure, using different science to double check and avoid circular logic. "I believe around 4400 years ago, there was a worldwide flood. That would have formed many layers at the same time." What evidence have you on this? And please don't say the bible, not right after your thing about circular logic. "Finally, there have been fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. How is this possible if they lived millions of years apart from one another?" Umm, because water erodes the layers and exposes them thus allowing humans who die in that aera to suddenly be on same "layer" as a dinosaur without actually living in the same time frame. That's kind of how we came across their bones (technically fosiles aren't really bones, but same difference).
Dinosaurs co-existed with mankind

"It is possible, through radiometric dating, to know if the skeleton of something had died 65 MILLION (not billion) years ago. [1] While we may not know if one male dinosaur liked pretty butterflys and rainbows, but had to keep it secret from other dinosaurs for they wouldn't understand, we can know the simple age, and have been able to tell for decades now." Okay, when you say this, you assume that that is actually how they do it though. Its not. Even if they did, radiometric dating is not perfect. I have actually talked to people who use it and they say that it is a good method, but there is much room for human error. The reason I say that they do not use radiometric dating in determining the age of bones is because the geologic column was invented before any kind of radiometric dating was even thought of. It is not through radiometric dating that they determine the age of the fossils. They determine the age of the rock layers by things in them known as index fossils. However, they determine the age of the fossils by what layer they are found in. That is circular reasoning. Also, lets discuss these age layers a little more. If you have ever studied the rock layers, you will find that they are stacked on top of each other like a plate of pancakes. If these layers show the different ages, why do you not find erosion marks in between them? Why do you not find layers of soil in between them? On top of that, several layers can form all at once in moving water. I believe around 4400 years ago, there was a worldwide flood. That would have formed many layers at the same time. Finally, there have been fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. How is this possible if they lived millions of years apart from one another?
Ireland should pay the cost to the UK taxpayer of the Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain.

I thank Brian for this humorous debate. I am, however, quite dismayed with his revisionist history stance. When the British aristocrats came to Ireland, they didn't have the best interests of the Irish peasants at heart, but rather their bank balance. Many didn't even bother to visit their vast acres of land, seeing as they were too busy fornicating with women of low standards, as was the case with Oliver Cromwell [1]. As for Maize, the Irish simply didn't have the luxury to make such delicacies with Maize. It was quite regretful that Robert Peel failed to send a cookbook such "Your way out of this blight maize!" or "101 ways to replace hearty meals of Potato stew and Guinness with bland maize meals". Indeed, the blight itself came from the Isle of Wight and Britain first so without Britain Ireland would ave been munching Potatoes like there was no tomorrow. Now, Britain can arrest the Pope, much like they arrested Augusto Pinochet for violating human rights [2]. The parallels between the two are remarkable: - Both suppressed their victims from speaking up. - Both aided in the abuse of children. - Both deny claims of responsibility. Furthermore, the trial would be broadcast and make huge profits for British broadcasting. People would pay top Dollar\Pound\Euro to see the Pope face his own inquisition. Furthermore, it would teach the Roman Catholic Church a lesson in England, as they have repeatedly threatened to dump children in orphanages out to the streets because of Englands marriage and abortion laws. They would be content with the children being screwed by the Church and then screwed by society on the streets before being finally screwed by the system in state care. It would show them the state will no longer stand for their tomfoolery or they will be sent to the West Indies as slaves as done back in the Middle Ages [3]! I would, however, agree with Ireland compensating Britain for their missiles hitting the Popes plane, as long as it guarantee who goes from ashes to ashes. Indeed, the explosion rubble into a gigantic metal dildo which could be used to punish paedophiles in a tit for tat fashion. This would provide justice to the victims of Catholic Kiddy Fiddlers. [1] = http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] = http://www.ewtn.com...
Ireland should pay the cost to the UK taxpayer of the Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain.

In reply, I would like to state that Panda's history teacher is clearly an Irish Republican who indoctrinates his students with nationalist propaganda – nothing else can explain his perverse interpretation of his Ireland's history. I can assure you that the British only had Ireland's best interests at heart when they assumed control of the country and transferred the ownership of the farms to aristocratic English landowners, who then very kindly sent professional farmers over to manage and improve the agricultural production processes. Furthermore, when potato blight damaged the crops, the British sent maize (corn in the US) over as a substitute. Panda asserts that this was unsatisfactory because it came without instructions, but this is nonsense. The starving Irish peasants could easily have made the maize into corn tortillas and these could have then been served with a filling of guacamole, jalapeno peppers, onions, kidney beans and Cajun-style chicken to make a delicious snack. Alternatively, they could have simply put them on the barbeque and cooked them in their husks, eating them on the cob, drizzled with organic butter or extra-virgin olive oil. They didn't though, because maize is from America and the Irish don't like foreign food. Moving on to Panda's money-saving solution of arresting the Pope on arrival in Britain and charging him with complicity to sexually assault minors, I'm afraid that Britain is diplomatically bound to grant heads of state immunity from prosecution. I like the idea of shooting his plane out of the air, though, but missiles are expensive and I am adamant that Ireland should bear the financial cost of sabotaging the Pope's visit. Unfortunately, though, Ireland doesn't have many military aircraft and their most potent air platform is the somewhat less-than-formidable Cessna 172 – a piston-engined, propeller-driven aircraft that entered service in 1972. . http://www.military.ie... Now, because the Cessna only has a single seat and carries no weapons, the pilot would have to use a long-range rifle to shoot the Pope's plane out of the sky whilst simultaneously flying his own aircraft. However, because Shepherd One (the Papal plane) is an Airbus A320, which cruises at an altitude of 36,000 feet and a speed of 511mph, and because the Irish Air Corps Cessna only cruises at 126mph and has a maximum service ceiling of just 10,000 feet, the pilot would have to intercept the Pope's plane and fire his shot as it flew 26,000 feet above him. I don't know if there are any rifles with that sort of range but I do know he'd only get one chance to hit something vital because if he missed there would be no way of catching the jet up in his little propeller plane. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Overall, I think we have to accept that it is inevitable that the Pope will come to Britain and arrive unscathed and that there will be a huge bill left to pay as a result. Because Ireland infected Britain with Catholicism and it's followers and they caused the Pope to come to Britain, it's only right that Ireland should picks up the tab. Thank you.
Ireland should pay the cost to the UK taxpayer of the Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain.

The Pope's forthcoming visit to Britain is going to cost the country ï¿½14 million [1] and I firmly assert that the Irish government should pay. Here's why: The Irish aren't very adventurous with their food and they won't eat pasta, rice, noodles or any other "foreign muck" so when the potato harvests failed during the late 1840's, millions of Irish people were left with nothing to go with their succulent lamb chops, juicy pork steaks and rich beef and Guinness stews. Therefore, millions of Irish people decided that life in the Emerald Isle was no longer worth living and they decided to sail across the Irish Sea to England, the country that had taken Ireland under its wing in 1603 and had nutured and developed the country since then. [2], [3] Once in England, the new arrivals from Ireland received a warm welcome, offers of employment and, of course, the opportunity to gorge themselves on huge bags of lovely, golden-brown fish and chips. Unfortunetly, the extra demand for potatoes to make the chips to feed the Irish immigrants meant that extra supplies had to be imported from Ireland, which, ironically, excerbated the acute shortage there and led to a million Irish people starving to death. But never mind that, over in England, the Irish immigrants retained many of their traditional customs: heavy drinking; brawling in public; fixing horseraces; building houses on the cheap and operatng dangerous fairground rides are some of the many, but chief amongst the Irish imports was Catholism. Before the Irish came, England was a wholly protestant country but today the decendants of the original immigrants have created sufficient demand to warrant a Papal visit to Britain. Most British people are either protestant or not religious at all – it's the decendants of Irish immigrants that make up the majority of Catholics in Britain. So, since Britain helped Ireland out of a fix when they had a shortage of potatoes, surely it is only right and proper that the Irish government should pick up the tab for the Pope's visit to the UK? Thank you. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://users.drew.edu... [3] http://www.great-britain.co.uk...
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

That's my point. How was the rebellion formed? A bunch of different races did not want to be ruled by the empire and as a show of might the empire blew up that planet. At the time they thought the rebel base was on datooine. So if what you say is true then they had no reason to blow up alderan. And finally like I said the only reason nuclear warheads work at all in real life is because every countire has some. So everyone can be a threat that is not the case with the death star since the only one is owned by the empire. Who uses slaves and forces people to obey. Another side note the tie fighters were made so that they are loud to make people fear the tie fighters
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

Alderan only blew up because it was under Tarkin's orders because the planet was a Rebel refueling Station and to send a message to Princess Leia for her to give out the location of Rebel Headquarters. There is no such thing as a Good War. Even in real life at the End of WW2, Berlin was Decimated by Allied Planes. The Jedi Certainly did damage in the war by blowing up the death Star full of millions of life's, Twice. I said all That I needed to say.
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

Lets ignore the beginning bit because this is a objective view on the Empire itself and we have limited time. So your right with the fact that if you go to the sword fight with the gun you have the advantage but guess what. That is not peace you are forcing them because they can not kill you without dying. And I guarantee you they will betray you the instant they get. The reason the nuclear warheads work in real life is because since everyone has some not one person rules. The death star is a problem because Palpatine has ultimate rule with it and if someone disagrees? We get another alderan. Also there's the fact that there are slaves with the empire so it is not completely peaceful
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

But The Jedi Betrayal of Palpatine lead to the Escalated war, Palpatine wasn't in the wrong when he issued Order 66 to have the Storm troopers Execute the Jedi. If you have a pack agreement with someone, It is unwise to violate the treaty. Furthmore His intention was never to get rid of the Democracy but rather bring Security to the Galaxy. Yes he commited a Genocide against the Jedis but they were in the way of Ultimate peace, Furthermore They were Pro Republic which means they would do all in their power to Eliminate Palpatine. His goal can be seen that he wanted to be the Ultimate sith. Similar to the story he told to Anakin about Darth Plaqueis "I thought not. It"s not a story the Jedi would tell you. It"s a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith who lived many years ago. He was so powerful and so wise that he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life" He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying". Both have a idea construct for Peace but is Emperor Palpatines idea of peace that is Similar to Realities, where as you see Many tried to pursue Peace with the fact of knowledge but lead to little Effort being made, It wasn't until Nuclear Wareheads were made (In Starwars Case of The Death Star) that the biggest threat of all was making Peace. Heres a Scenario, If Everyone was fighting each other in a Sword fight and I bring a gun then Clearly I would have the upper Advantage, In which I would be able to call shots in which I would be able to make everyone get along since I would have the Advantage. This can be said with the Death Star since it is the Most Superior weapon (Of the time) in which Emperor Palpatine forcibly made The Galaxy be at peace (Until the Rebellion)
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

He called Binks pathetic because of his incompetence. The reason Mace wanted to kill and eject Palpatine is because he was pretty damn sure that he was the spy helping the C.I.S. And if he was right (Which he was) then having a person who openly wants to get rid of the democracy would be bad. He would not stand down so Mace decided to kill him to save the republic. Yes the Jedi and Sith seem similar but there is a difference with their code "The Jedi Code is a complex of five (or four) antitheses: emotion and peace, ignorance and knowledge, passion and serenity, (chaos and harmony,) death and the Force. This means that the Jedi seek to transcend some aspects of everyday life and even natural laws through the Force; they don't negate them, but rather embrace, acknowledge and seek to overcome them. They are morally single-minded and make clear distinctions between light and darkness. There is no first and second grammatical person in the Code, which means they are not biased or prejudiced against anyone personally nor obsessed with their image, but rather focused on how the Force works and how their world is (There is...). They view the world as something static." "The Sith Code takes the form of a ladder: every sentence has two basic terms, with the second one becoming the first term of the next sentence. This means that the Sith don't care about moral distinctions; more than being immoral, they are amoral, so to speak. Also, their philosophy is very individualistic, as it has already been pointed out; there is only the first grammatical person, I, proving that. Their Code describes how an ambitious person can rise from being nothing to ruling everything to being free from every physical and spiritual boundary. They care only about themselves, have faith in nobody and see the Force as a means to and end"the end being unlimited power and freedom from death and any other limit. They see the world as something in the making, not static."
The Empire from Starwars are the good guys.

The Jedi think they are vast Superior compared to anyone, a prime example is in "The Phantom Menace" Obi-Wan who is one of the best Jedi's the counsel has to offer, simply refers to Jar-Jar Binks as a "pathetic life form." As well as their desperate attempt to kill off Palpatine, With Mace Windu saying "If he does not give up his emergency powers after the destruction of Grievous, then he must be forcibly removed from office" which not only is a Non Democratic thing to do considering the Jedi are the ones that Normally stand up for Democracy, but also is more of a Communist thing to do. Then when Mace Windu confronts Palpatine, He processed to try to kill Palpatine because windu said's "He has control of the senate and all the courts. He is too dangerous to be left alive" An indication in his Mistrust towards the very Democracy hes to protect. Obi Wan saids "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil! The Sith are evil. The Dark Side of the Force is an evil presence." But yet Palpatine makes a very valid point when he saids " Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power". The only difference of the two is the Sith embrace Emotions while the Jedi believe rejection Of Emotions will lead to peace. A prime example is when a young Anakin around ten leaves for the first time his Home and processed's with Obi Wan to the Jedi Counsel so he could have them Accept Anakin as his Apprentice, When He arrives at the counsel. Yoda notices fear in Anakin whom is just a young kid and has every reason to be scared, Yodas response is "Fear leads to anger, Anger leads to hate, Hate leads to Suffering".