BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

The uranium-lead dating methods are used with some arbitrary assumptions.We cannot know the state at which the rocks formed. It may be that the daughter atoms were there at the beginning, thus making that dating methods invalid.There may also have been contamination in the past that lead to a gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes.It is also possible that the decay rates were faster in the past. My opponent shows that he understands nothing about radioactive decay vs. radiation sickness. The issue at hand deals with radioactive decay in rock layers deep beneath the surface. To say that this could affect people with radiation sickness is beyond absurdity.Also, we can prove that uranium-lead dating is unreliable. Helium dating is much more reliable, as it cannot be contaminated, and it's reduction rate has been reliably tested. Helium dating has been tested on zircon crystals that were dated to have been 1.5 billion years old, but the helium dates showed that the rocks could not have been more than 6000 years old. My opponent is now going to try to make an argument that the emprical evidence presented by the Creation scientists are untrustworthy because my opponent has a closed mind. He does not base his worldview on empirical evidence, as he denies the emprical evidence presented by Creationists because it disproves his beliefs. If my opponent wants to deny empirical evidence, fine, but don't present yourself as a person who adheres to science.SOURCEShttp://www.answersingenesis.org...
Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

UNITS: BED(banana equivalent dose), Sievert(dose equivalent.)BED: 0.1 microsievert's HOW RADIOACTIVE IS URANIUM: 10 BEDSo that gives a radioactivity of 1 microsievert or 0.000001Now according to creation models the earth is 6000 years old.According to uranium-lead dating the earth is 4.5 billion years old.So 4,500,000,000/6000=750,000 That means that to give the illusion of a 4.5 billion year old earth which is really only 6000 years old uranium needs to be 750,000 times more radioactive than present radioactivity.750000x0.000001sievert=750 millisieverts750 millisieverts is enough to cause radiation sickness.If creationism's argument that faster radioactive decay rates in the past gave the illusion of an old earth; with the radiation level being high enough to cause radiation sickness someone would have noticed that people were constantly getting cancer, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. Remember 6000 years is from the young earth creationism beginning of the universe to one or two hundred years(probably around the time of the discovery of radioactivity) before present. So how could NO ONE even notice all of those symptoms? Since no one ever reported any of those symptoms that means that radioactive decay rates couldn't have been fast enough to decay to present levels in 6000 years invalidating the argument.SOURCES:http://www.idigumining.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://modernsurvivalblog.com...http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Rich People Should be Taxed more

Resolved:Rich People Should be taxed more in an office there are two employees working @ RS 500/day. one person completes a task some how at a given time. and at the same time the second person completes the task much before the given time. then, in this situation, if the employer assigns more task to the person who completes the task early than he would get demoralized. In the same way,if the government would tax more from the rich person then,it will give not show their exact income hence it will lead to the generation of the black money, which will in turn result in money laundering. this all may prove disastrous for a nation in long term. So, I conclude that rich people should not be taxed more.
Rich People Should be Taxed more

rich people should not pay more taxes because they are the ones who had done hardwork in their life and now passing their life in a easy way.they had done hardwork and they are possessive about their life when they are students. but poor people are poor because of the careless about the life when they are students.rich people worked hard in say high school and got 85 to 95% marks and then got involved in the college.after their college life they get a good job. on the other hand the people who are poor might be didn't got good marks when they are students but they have a chance to start a business also.this came to know that in this situation we are responsible for our bad life. tell me when somebody asks you that pay higher taxes on the money you have what do you feel? you feel embrassed because you are the ones who worked hard for the money say 10- 15 years and your money is going to the government side. then it might happens that government should pay the money to poor people but I am saying that when you give the dollars to poor people they do not learn how to make money by different things and they always depend on government money. money is need of everyone. someone has more money and some has very dew money but we are responsible for our life as it has been mentioned above by me.
Women are treated as equals to men

C1)Yes two people can both be executives, but they can be of different ranking still. It's completely logical for a person of higher ranking to make more than a person of lower ranking. Also, if they work for different companies than their salaries are most likely going to differ. Anyone ranking CEO is going to make way more than anyone elsewhere the corporation. The only true way to see who makes more is by taking people who have the exact same position in the exact same corporation. This way they're on a so called level playing field. When you make this comparison a male with this position is more likely to make more than a female in the same position. Showing that the playing field is not level, but really giving the male the upper hand. C2) "... honor their elderly celebrities" This should say it all. All the women you listed are rich celebrities who can afford beauty enhancements (such as plastic surgery). Also magazines aren't ever looking at the "normal" women. They see the women who can afford enhancements. Even with these enhancements there is a risk that they could go wrong. When they do go wrong celebrity women are shamed for trying to look younger. It's a double edge sword: it's bad if you look your age or its bad if you try to look younger. Also, while women in their so called later years can be incredibly gorgeous & sexy it's only praised among celebrities, and very seldom with "normal" women. This isn't true among men. They're considered attractive for most of their lives without judgement. C3) Just because women are "simply better" at being homemakers doesn't mean they should only strive to be wives & mothers. Just because someone is better at baking than someone else, does that mean they should only strive to be a chef? Telling a woman the only thing she can do with her life is be a homemaker, and then tell a man he can be anything in the world is proof that men and women are not treated as equals.
Women are treated as equals to men

Hello, let's have fun. You present 3 arguments based on the premise of equality. C1.. Women do make less money than men in most career situations. Yet this argument isn't all encompassing. White women "corporate executives" earn salaries higher than black male executives, and salaries astronomically higher than Latinos. In addition, white women CEO-ran corporations & sole proprietor companies see white women making more money than their male counterparts. C2... Not true. Shania Twain (48) is still considered sexy by a large number of 20 and 30ish men. As well as Christie Brinkley, Connie Britton, Sela Ward, Kelly Preston, and oh my gawd, the 44 yr old C. Zeta Jones. Hollywood & Maxim are just about the only entities that cater to the young beautiful woman. People and Cosmo regularly feature older "hot" women and actually highlight the age of their beauty. In addition, only the so-called "white man" ran nations prefer the young. China and Russia honor their elderly celebrities. C3.... Honestly, women are simply naturally-born BETTER parents and homemakers than men. True chauvinistic sentiments exist in American and foreign homes. But the Arabs and Chinese cultivate a society where the woman is the homemaker because they "believe" females are superior in that capacity. The American view blinds most of us to what really is happening in other racial societies.
Women are treated as equals to men

I will firmly negate the resolution that states: Women are treated as equals to men. Women were considered property for most of history, but those days are long gone. However, people still expect less out of women & don't consider them equals to men. C1) Women make less money than men. Even though this is a well known fact it is still an outrage. Women still make less than their male co-workers. If women really were equal they would make the same amount as a man that has the same job. C2) For the most part women aren't considers attractive after a certain age. When a women begins to look older around a certain age ( the age varies from woman to woman) they're no longer considered sexually attractive. However, most men are still considered attractive for over half of their lives. C3) Many people still expect women to stay at home & take care of children. Even though this was customary for most of history it is no longer customary. Women have the power to achieve whatever they want, but if they're constantly told that they're going to be a house wife that is what they'll most likely become. In some situations people even shame women for getting an education and working. I recently experienced the personally. People tend to expect men to go out there and make something of themselves. You can't say we're treated as equals when people expect men to make something of themselves and expect women to do nothing.
halo vs call of duty

As it is obvious, most of the time, the game that is superior in most ways has the most sales. The following diagram shows a list of the top selling games on any console of all time, ranking most of the CoD Games in the 30's. The Halo series games however, are far behind, having Halo 3 the top selling game of them. [1] ....With that said, here is another graph showing the weekly sales of the Call of Duty games.[2] .My opponent has not stated how much money the Halo series made, so it can be assumed it has not made nearly as much money as any of the Call of Duty games..Now the same graph will be shown for the Playstation 3, having nearly the same patterns. [4]. .Once again, my opponent has not stated any evidence to show that the Halo series has greater sales....."...Activision’s latest first-person shooter, Call of Duty: Ghosts, exceeded $1 billion on its first day." [4] All but one of the Halo series did not get nearly half the amount of 1 billion dollars, which also shows Call of Duty's superiority. "Last year's "Call of Duty: Black Ops 2" made more that $500 million in retail sales its first day on the market, eventually reaching the $1 billion milestone in 15 days — a day less than its immediate predecessor, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3."" [5] As the quote states Call of Duty had humungously more sales than the Halo series....My opponent has shown no arguments in the Round 2 of this debate, so I will count that as a forfeit, and hope he puts serious arguments next round[1] http://www.vgchartz.com...;[2] http://www.vgchartz.com...;[3] http://www.vgchartz.com...;[4] http://www.forbes.com...;[5] http://www.nbcnews.com...
This picture is valid.

With thanks once again to wjelements for his contribution, I don't think the voters would thank me for getting bogged down in any more in-depth analysis of the commercial aquaculture of Lake Victoria or the relative value of houses in London and Texas, so I will cut to the chase and address the real issue of the moral value capitalism. It think my opponent and I both agree that corruption in Africa is the root cause of many of their problems. However, this corruption, both state and private, is a product of the capitalist system. At the end of the day, private companies do not provide schools, hospitals, roads, sanitation, police, libraries, museums, national parks, social services, welfare payments and all the other public services that benefit society as a whole: that is the job of the government. It may well be that countries of the West are generally more prosperous than African countries because their governments tend to be less corrupt – although, as we have seen there are many poor people in the West and many rich people in Africa – but the common denominator is that they all operate under capitalist systems. That's why we should not "Enjoy Capitalism" as the picture suggests. Capitalism promotes injustice and inequality, both nationally and internationally, and permits the scandalous situation whereby one child can stuff his face full of junk food until he's fit to burst whilst another child has to scratch around in the dust looking for grains of rice in a desperate attempt to keep himself alive. In conclusion, if you are rich, capitalism will seem like the most liberating and fairest socio-economic system ever devised, but if you are poor it will seem like the most oppressive and unjust system this side of feudalism. Sadly, since there are so many more poor people in the world than there are rich, the impartial voter must vote Con. Thank you.
This picture is valid.

Resolved: The picture linked to below is valid: http://www.debate.org... In case it is taken down or replaced, here is a copy on tinypic.com: http://i49.tinypic.com... Definitions: Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth http://dictionary.reference.com... Parasite-a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others http://dictionary.reference.com... **************** Contentions: 1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial. 2. Countries with more capitalist activity have higher standards of living. 3. The problems in Africa can be attributed to geography and government. **************** 1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial. In capitalism, transactions are not arranged through violence or coercion, but mutual consent. An individual, firm, or corporation will not consent to a transaction if they are not better off making the transaction than any feasible alternative. Therefore, both parties in a trade benefit. [1] 2. When comparing the economic freedom scale [2] and the GDP per capita values [3], the correlation is obvious: *Of the fifteen countries with an economic freedom rating above 75%, eight are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP *Of the fifteen countries with an economic freedom rating between 70 and 75%, five are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP *Of the remaining one-hundred sixty-five countries, only two (U.A.E. and Qatar) are in the top fifteen in per capita GDP, and they were not included in the economic survey. So, the highest wealth-per-person countries are also the most capitalist. 3. The starvation problems in Africa, described in the picture as a result of capitalism, is actually a result of government corruption, government handouts, and government oppression. A. Government Corruption The most desolate African countries, such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Congo are also the most politically corrupt countries [4]. B. Government Handouts -The AIDS virus that has so destroyed the lives of sub-Saharan African peoples was the result of the free smallpox vaccination [5] [6]. -Foreign aid has allowed corrupt regimes in Africa to buy the military equipment needed to further control and oppress their people [7]. ********** Sources: [1] Thomas Sowell: Economic Facts and Fallacies [2] http://www.heritage.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita <---Broken link [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.associatedcontent.com... [6] Stephen Weir: Encyclopedia Idiotica [7] http://www.capmag.com...
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

I'd just like to expose the fact that to prove that Observational comedy is true in all cases, i'd have to list every single joke ever used that would be considered observational comedy. I think it would be much easier to have Con point out one time where something considered observational comedy isn't true.Conclusion - Until con provides evidence of the premise 'it's funny because it's true' that observartional comedy is relied upon is a comedic premise and not a factual one, we have good evidence that suggests that con did just trump.
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

Observational comedy would be evidence if you could prove it to be true in all circumstances. My opponent brought up the point, that it relies on the premise " is funny because it's true", however this is a comedic premise, not a factual one. Thus, unless you can prove that observational comedy is always true, then I am still innocent of trumping.Also, I have shown that the odds of me trumping were slim to none, and I have taken an oath and stated that I did not trump, therefore I have proven my innocence.
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

ArgumentsCon denies farting, which begs the fact that whoever denied it (1) supplied it (2). We can make a syllogism from this.(P1) The statement 'whoever denied it supplied it' is a joke.(P2) The most popular type of comedy is observational comedy, which relies on the statement 'it's funny because it's true' [1].(C) Therefore, we are justified in thinking that the statement 'whoever denied it supplied' is funny because it's true and that Con just farted.The odds do not matter when we have evidence.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...Notes(1) This refers to the causation of the release of intestinal gas.(2) This refers to the fart.
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

ClarificationsThe burden of proof is actually on you to show that I “just farted”, as I am “innocent until proven guilty of farting”. Also you did not clarify this in the first round like I did, so you still have the burden of proof.Arguments1. The odds of a human farting at any given time• The average human farts 14 times per day (1).• Most farts only last a few seconds(2), and there are 86400 seconds in a day.• Therefore, if I fart 14 times a day, for 10 seconds each, the odds of me farting at any given time is 7:4320 (140/86400). This means that it is highly improbable that I “just farted”.2. Because you have the burden of proof, you must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that I just trumped. Answers:Q1. Yes, I swear to tell the truth for this entire debateQ2. No, I did not just trumpSources1. http://www.heptune.com...2. http://www.kgbanswers.com...
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

ClarificationsThe burden of proof is shared.ArgumentsTo make my case, I will use simple interrigation [1] [2].My questionsQ1. Do you promise that for the rest of this debate you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?Q2. Did you trump?Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://people.howstuffworks.com...
The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

Resolution: It is more reasonable to believe that the user in the position 'Con' of this debate just farted than it is to believe that (s)he did not fart. StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3/4 - Arguments and RebuttalsRound 5 - Q & A with three questions from three different people in the audience. Definitions Trump - To fartFart - To expel intestinal gas through the anus; break wind. [1]Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com......
Mitt romney was not the right choice for the GOP

In the continuance of my position I will acknowledge the many problems that faced Romney. First off to respond to the comment posted, Mitt Romney was a man with honor, he proved this by not allowing Barack Obama to get away with anything during the three debates that they did. Now to acknowledge the flaws in Romney, he did not go after Obama over Benghazi which was probably one of his biggest mistakes, second he spent too much time attacking Obama and not telling people what he would do differently (which is why many people I know believe he lost), and finally the fact that he didn't present himself as a person that the people could relate to, the media is partially to blame for this however, he didn't go into the places where people most needed to hear his message and weren't getting it. All these things contributed to his defeat however I still hold that he was the correct choice for the G.O.P. in 2012, but if he runs in 2016 I will not support him again.
Mitt romney was not the right choice for the GOP

To further my point that Mitt Romney was the right choice for the G.O.P. I will present the point that Mitt Romney had the funding to effectively go after Barack Obama, though he failed to go after Obama badly on issues such as Benghazi, ObamaCare, his lack of effort on proving his hatred of Israel, and diminished influence around the world (as is show this year by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Isis, Iran's continuance of their nuclear weapons program, and the lack of support to the Iraqi gov't, Kurdish and Turkish Military. Mitt would've taken care of all these problems and that is why he was the correct choice for the G.O.P.
Mitt romney was not the right choice for the GOP

I contend that Mitt Romney was the right choice for the G.O.P. because at the time he was the strongest candidate for the job. The energy and passion he invoked at rallies was nothing that I have felt before in my short life. He easily made a fool of the president when debating him and humiliated him by showing the people what we now see as ObamaHell. He used people who called themselves former Democrats and got them to vote fro him, he surged in the polls among Independents and did so well. Now however that we see the rise of more conservative stars, such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, Romney would not be a good repeat candidate, he would make a bad choice for 2016 presidential candidate.
Children usage of smartphones and other devices should be limited

Children usage of smartphones and other devices should be limited because of : (1) Ubiquity of smartphones and similar devices among children and using them most of the time force parents into making them available. Which substitute their social activities and therefore there might be a high tendency to become isolated from the real world. (2) The usage of such devices without setting red lines from their parents will not only affect their social interaction with people, but also they will probably affect their physical health like their vision and hands muscles.