BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

ALL of the massively overwhelming amount of evidence by thousands of experts...Argumentum ad populum. Rejected.No, it's one of the hardest substances in the universe. Regardless, crushing diamonds does nothing to demonstrate a young earth. (C14 dating requires incineration.)It's not extremely hard to crush, it's only hard to scrape or cut. It's a common misconception, no worries.You already stated that the hypothetical presence of C14 in diamonds does not help to date them. To C14 date something, you must first know how much C12, C13 and C14 was in the originally formed material (the ratios). If diamonds have C14 in them... Then so what?We have to know the original amount, which is exactly why C-14 dating does not work. However, we're not attempting to find a date for these diamonds, we're only investigating whether or not they contain C-14 atoms, if they do, they are automatically less than 100,000 years.Also, halflives are *averages*, based on the decay of billions or trillions of atoms. The decay of any *specific* atom can not be predicted. It could decay instantly, or not decay in a billion years.You know how many atoms we are talking about when it's 50,000 years / 0.12 pMC? Much more than one or two. Even if it were one or two, I still doubt they could survive for a billion years, extremely unrealistic -- please read up on some literature.Finally, if the UC, Berkley happens to be wrong about the age of diamonds, that does not establish a young earth.Regardless of the age of diamonds, if they still contain C-14, which they do, they are 100,000 years old or less. I pointed out UC Berkeley's statement to show that your evolutionary ages are wrong.It translates to 50k IN ORGANIC MATERIAL, because we know the ORIGINAL ratios. Demonstrate the original concentration.No you don't -- no one does. It's relative to our current ppm., still wouldn't make a difference since we're not looking for an exact age, like I pointed out many times before.
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

--"C-14 dating does not work at all," Begging the question. But I don't care. ALL of the massively overwhelming amount of evidence by thousands of experts over hundreds of years says the earth is NOT young. The most reasonable and USEFUL belief is that it's not young. C14 in diamonds is irrelevant. --"It's easy to crush diamond, what is your point?" No, it's one of the hardest substances in the universe. Regardless, crushing diamonds does nothing to demonstrate a young earth. (C14 dating requires incineration.) --The Univ. of California, Berkeley, states that all diamonds are atleast one billion years old.... You already stated that the hypothetical presence of C14 in diamonds does not help to date them. To C14 date something, you must first know how much C12, C13 and C14 was in the originally formed material (the ratios). If diamonds have C14 in them... Then so what? Also, halflives are *averages*, based on the decay of billions or trillions of atoms. The decay of any *specific* atom can not be predicted. It could decay instantly, or not decay in a billion years. Only when dealing with large numbers of atoms can any radiometric dating be used (other than for a Creationist argument). The presence of "some" atoms tells us literally nothing. (Odd that the C14 halflife supposedly exceeds age of universe.) Finally, if the UC, Berkley happens to be wrong about the age of diamonds, that does not establish a young earth. >0.12"0.01 pMC translates to approx. 50k years.... It translates to 50k IN ORGANIC MATERIAL, because we know the ORIGINAL ratios. Demonstrate the original concentration. >the lab's background is 0.08 pMC while the diamonds were approx. Provide a source for amount measured by UC. Everything that I can find regarding C14 diamonds comes from the Institute for Creation Research, Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth project, and not peer-reviewed. Diamonds are made of carbon. C14 is carbon. Even if we could accurately measure any... Who cares?
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

If it doesn't help date diamonds, then it says nothing about the age of the earth. Your statements are contradictory.C-14 dating does not work at all, organic or not, it's extremely inaccurate beyond 4,000 years -- but we're not looking for precise dates, we're testing for the existence of C-14 atoms, which would indicate that the diamond could not be older than 100,000 years.To perform C14 testing, the sample must be totally incineratedIt's easy to crush diamond, what is your point?The contamination is not from the diamonds. Despite diamonds NOT being pure carbon, and does have "contaminants", that contamination is IN the material, so it's PART of the material. That's "contamination" only in the sense it's not pure diamond.The Univ. of California, Berkeley, states that all diamonds are atleast one billion years old. If C-14 entered during the formation of the diamond, it would have disappeared within the first 100,000 years.Measure literally empty space, and C14 will be "measured". C14 in diamonds is "no accurately measurable amount", since it is in the margin of error. 0.12±0.01 pMC translates to approx. 50k years, it's within the margin of error for accurate dates, but not for the existence of C-14, since the AMS can detect nearly up to 100k years, or double the value we have -- also, the lab's background is 0.08 pMC while the diamonds were approx. 0.12±0.01 pMCWhile not relevant, tree rings grow a new ring every season. It's true there be changes in growth seasons, it is known that this is very rare. There are dozens or hundreds of dating methods, from tree rings, to Antarctic snow deposition, to other radiometric datings, and many many others. They overlap, and can be cross-compared for accuracy. You must discount all of them.Simply false, everything you said. We can discuss these things in another debate as I do not have space, here it's about C-14 in diamonds specifically.
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

If it doesn't help date diamonds, then it says nothing about the age of the earth. Your statements are contradictory. To perform C14 testing, the sample must be totally incinerated, to free the carbon atoms from the molecules. This same process is used with diamonds, only the temperatures required are much higher (about 6,500 degrees). That means C14 machines with different lasers must be used, introducing greater unknowns - it simply hasn't been done enough times, and there are fewer other materials requiring the same device. The contamination is not from the diamonds. Despite diamonds NOT being pure carbon, and does have "contaminants", that contamination is IN the material, so it's PART of the material. That's "contamination" only in the sense it's not pure diamond. Two different meanings for "contamination". DATING contamination comes from external sources. Surface contamination on the sample, in the impure vacuum in the chamber, contamination on surfaces of the test chamber or contamination in the measuring device (most likely accelerator mass spectrometer). Frankly, the claim that no C14 testing ever has errors is just plain wrong. Also, there is background noise. Measure literally empty space, and C14 will be "measured". C14 in diamonds is "no accurately measurable amount", since it is in the margin of error. While not relevant, tree rings grow a new ring every season. It's true there be changes in growth seasons, it is known that this is very rare. There are dozens or hundreds of dating methods, from tree rings, to Antarctic snow deposition, to other radiometric datings, and many many others. They overlap, and can be cross-compared for accuracy. You must discount all of them. It is on you to demonstrate how the measured presence of C14 can be used to date the earth. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

First, you offer no explanation for why C14 in diamonds would suggest a universe only 6,000 years old. I never said the universe is 6,000 years old. I said C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young.At best, your argument suggests there is a flaw in C14 dating.Notice, this is not about dating diamonds, it's about the fact that there is C-14 inside diamonds at all.Not only is C14 dating is compared to other methods, so we do know for a FACT it is accurate in most conditions C-14 dating is not considered accurate beyond three to four thousand years since the magnetic field undergoes decay, this would alter the production of C-14 in the past and therefore alter the amout of C-14 in organic material....even tree ring dating (dendrochronology) extends well beyond 10,000 years or more. Tree rings grow according to their environment - sometimes, it's three per year, sometimes it's one per year, sometimes it's zero for decades! Not reliable for scientific purposes.Second, C14 dating is only useful with organic material. It can not be used to date even recent mineral formations. We're not dating anything. We're testing for the existence of C-14 atoms inside a hard crystalline structure.Third, C14 dating, especially for minute amounts, can be and are affected by contaminationThis is exactly why I picked diamonds instead of coal seams. Diamonds are extremely hard and there is no possibility of contamination -- plus, these are found in every diamond, not only one, so you can completely rule out contamination.Fourth, C14 testing requires combusting the material. Diamond doesn't burn at normal tempertures.It's certainly possible to crush and re-shape diamond. Not so extraordinary temperatures to burn diamond.. it takes 800 C / 1500 F, but where DOES burning diamonds come into play?
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

Just as a quick correction, C14 does not have an expiration of 100,000 years. Useful dating using C14 only extends as far as about 50,000 years. First, you offer no explanation for why C14 in diamonds would suggest a universe only 6,000 years old. At best, your argument suggests there is a flaw in C14 dating. Not only is C14 dating is compared to other methods, so we do know for a FACT it is accurate in most conditions, even tree ring dating (dendrochronology) extends well beyond 10,000 years or more.[1] Second, C14 dating is only useful with organic material. It can not be used to date even recent mineral formations. A measurement of C14 does not mean we can date diamonds, rather there is a process occurring in diamonds that's not understood, such as interaction with high-energy particles. Third, C14 dating, especially for minute amounts, can be and are affected by contamination and background noise. Even today, with refined techniques, a single stray atom can distort results - one single atom of carbon remaining in a test chamber from a prior test. In addition, the detection is not perfect, and false positives can be registered. The amount of C14 "measured" within diamonds, is within the margin of error. Fourth, C14 testing requires combusting the material. Diamond doesn't burn at normal tempertures. The exceedingly high temperatures required to destroy diamond increase the chance of contamination, and distorts known background signatures and false readings. New techniques bring risks of unknown (or insufficiently quantified) errors. In summary, only a minuscule amount of C14 is measured in diamonds. The most plausible explanation is contamination. C14 in diamonds does nothing to establish the age of the universe. Scientists will continue to refine their methods, and study the issue further. If diamonds contain C14, a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS must be presented to explain it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

C-14 is an isotope of carbon. It's radioactive and the decay rate is approximately 5700 years which means that it can't last for more than 100,000 years. It's been reported in coal deposits which are supposedly millions of years old -- however, I will not use this as an argument, since contamination will be the common response. I will use C-14 in diamond, one of the hardest materials known to mankind. The existence of C-14 in this material is known in the conventional literature, for example R.E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.However, it's obvious from the title of this research paper that the authors do not believe this is evidence of a young earth, instead, they state that the radiocarbon reading is background radiation in the detector. However, this can not be the case, since AMS does not measure radiation, it only counts atoms. The researchers very well know this, but had to say it anyway since the idea of a young earth is very unwelcome. Even if AMS could measure radiation, the 14C/C ratios in diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).What is the explanation for the existence of C-14 in diamonds?
Rodeo sex is rape

Definitions ------------- Rodeo sex: where a gentleman approaches his good lady wife (or girlfriend), who is naked and in a kneeling position, and proceeds to smash her back doors in, and when the lady's excitement reaches the point whereby she starts frothing at the gash, the gentleman calls her by her sister's name and sees how long he can hold on. Rape: the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will. Argument ------------ Although, at the outset, the lady in question may have consented, either explicitly or implicitly, to sexual intercourse with the gentleman, when he calls her by her sister's name, she implicitly withdraws that consent by trying to buck him off her, and from that point on he is committing the crime of rape. Therefore, rodeo sex is rape. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle

(Each line is one bar, the short lines are said with a pause at the beginning of the bar and the long lines are said quickly over one back.) Haha, Kangaroo… Watch while I bounce, with your hoe in my pouch. I'm the fvcking nookie monster and you're Oscar the Grouch. Can't get enough snatch, cause my dick is a match. Doing better than you, you muppet Cause I don't live in a can of old trash. Loserboi, shut your clap trap with your crap raps As5 hat, watch, while I take you down a notch. my lyrical complexity sends you spinning like a flapjack. Or a pancake, for fvck's sakes, only people rocking to you Are old women who bake prune cakes for the school fete. You think you're chewing shrooms, but you're chowing down on snail bait. Imma murder you again, son. Like a hamburger versus chewing gum [1] Before you posted your raps You should have rewritten them, bar none. Let's start back at line one Quoting Black Eyed Peas, b!tch please. You must have a mental disease. Resume the position and get back down on your knees. Your growth has been stunt. Cause you're all back and no front. Like a car with no engine, you're sh!ts going nowhere, cvnt. Making aussie jokes? Yeah, you should leave that sh!t to pook. It's not a kill streak if you kill yourself with your own nuke. This is no fluke, straight off the dome; my style's sheek. Your last round was grim and your future looks more bleak. Keep on bringing it though, cause I'm building up to my peak. [1] http://www.debate.org...
Rap Battle

Yo time to get it started LB vs TV lets get retarded I don't gotta go hard I'm adjusting it to rookie TV don't got enough skills to actually to shake me who you think you playin hoe, in this game i'm F*cking Ko-be My rhymes and flow hits more times than Tiger- on and off the green Think of this as a mirror, your looking at the rapper you wanna be, supposed to be, outta be, cause right now your just a soldier with no artilery and I'm on my 25th kill streak- nuking spree Call me prestige, or just plain legendary I'm married to the game call it holy matrimony Never stop killin, like John Elway in his 40's I'm Sorry, I'm just mad that I'm the one who has kill this little Wallaby Wassup mate? think you can win? well i think imma win the lottery haha I'm sorry if you think I'm late, but unlike your dad i don't like to come early Ask your mom man, we all make mistakes and she'll agree My name is LB man, im the best rapper you will ever see Your just another rapper who is faker than anna nicole smith's titties Rapping against TV is not a challenge, He can't rap for sh1t Listen to geico man, even a "cave man can do it" I'll end it here for now, I'll pass the mic to do you start your rap, you punkass kangaroo
We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

Ok, so here are some small contradictions in your argument. When addressing my argument about why gambling would fund people staying in jails, which spending is a problem....you say that there is an inherent value to allowing these people to live. You say it is good that if someone survives a fight, they get to live a few more days, yet the state will have to fund the gladiators as long as they have the skills to live. An alternative would be as soon as you get the death penalty, instantly kill them, or have them have combat vs tigers instead of other inmates. In terms of pooping and bisexual dating shows, these have different effects than violence on children. Now, whilst I disagree at times with the statistics that say simulated violence leads to violence in children, these statistics may have more truth to them when the children see actual violence unfold in front of them. Labels and disclaimers will never solve because all parents will never be responsible. This is true because we have morons who continue to come to near paralysis because they see idiots shattering their testicles and have crocodiles eat chicken out of their thongs. And people may not have voluntarily enslaved themselves, but today there is a different breed of child and a different style of discipline in today's world. And to say that children didnt mimick violence from the arena in Rome is absurd, in the era of school shootings and massive violence, I am sure some kids will be influenced to kill in the name of sport. In terms of the profit argument, it is hard to prove that corporate media sponsorship will give money to the prison, and in terms of gambling revanue, this is possible, but most of the money will go to big casinos. And in terms of corporate sponsorship of death is also a tenuous moral argument. Even if you change some direction in who moral responsibiliy lies upon, you now place a dollar sign on human lives. This means capitalism will find a new way to kill people in the name of profit.... The final argument I would like to introduce is asking whats next. Studies show that if you televise executions (which this would fall under the umbrella of) people will see the morbidity of death and lead to movements banning the death penalty. This begs the question of what will be the new disaster or car wreck we gravitate ourselves to? Something more horrendous? Maybe televising euthanasia? I believe you are in a doublebind. Either you cause a more violent society through children increasing violence. Or, the benefits of your profit are only shor term, and we lose the death penalty as an option to reduce prision populations because people move to ban the death penalty. This means we will have more crowded prisons and it will only cost us more in the long term..... Finally....I still cant believe you think Lazer or Gemini wont try to challenge bobby the rapist in the arena? Come on.....
We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

If the gladiator keeps living they don't get freed. This isn't Rome, they just keep fighting until someone kills them, or they die in prison. The benefit is they get is to live a little longer. I don't care if Billy the Rapist or Russel Crowe win the hearts of the people. The law keeps them in jail, regardless. They don't get out, problem solved. As far as cultural concerns go. The whole concept is entertainment. We have bisexual dating shows and internet sites that depict people pooping in each others mouths. I don't think societal corruption is a problem. The key here is that the people fighting would be people who are already going to die. If the American Gladiators want to fight them thats their perogative (that won't really happen). We'll just put warning labels and advisory notices like Jackass does. Kids wouldn't model these people because they are criminals. Responsible parenting or an age restriction could solve this problem. If people want to fight to the death, they are going to do it anyway. They would have to commit the crime to get on death row, in which case they would deserve this anyway. The arena would not be an incentive. This was true in Rome too. People didn't enslave themselves in order to fight to the death. People wouldn't face life in prison, or, you know, the dying part, in order to have a shot at fighting in the arena. Who cares if we let murderers kill some more. Obviously society has decided that these people deserve it, so why not? Having someone who has already murdered kill again is better than having an innocent employee of the state responsible for a death. This takes the moral burden of the death of the person off of innocent individuals and places it on those who are already killers and going to die. So, the benefits are money, entertainment and moral values. The state could make MASSIVE profits off of this. Counteracting the millions of dollars we spend on these people and other prisoners every year. This would be like a car wreck, people would come in droves to watch this stuff. We, as a society, would get some benefit out of the terrible crimes these people have commited. Also, as I stated above, it takes the moral burden off of the state.
We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

This is a good and hilarious approach to the topic, however I can find a few different problems with your approach. The first is the idea of the surviving gladiator gets to fight again. What happens if they keep winning? Eventually if slaves won several fights in the arena, they would be freed for staving off death. This means billy the rapist can stave off death a couple of times, and then keep on raping. I mean, come on, havent you seen Gladiator? He won over the hearts of the people. Now picture him raping people....with a sword. Second, can you imagine how bad this would be in terms of setting a precident for bad reality TV spinoffs? I belive the only amazing gladiators in America should be the american gladiators, people like Turbo, Lazer, Gemini, etc. You could eventually have these gladiators wanting to prove their supremacy since they are the only American Gladiators. This could lead to innocent people getting killed in the name of honor. This could also set a bad precident for kids. Who do most children model after these days? Athletes! You create a new generation of bloodsport athletes who will inspire these kids to kill and get the death penalty in the name of fulfilling their dreams in the arena someday... Third, vegas odds? It might be pretty bad or morally wrong for people to wager on these death matches, because, you know thats inevitable. In the end, this also means those on death row really win in the end, even if they get killed in the arena. Why is this true? Because if they have killed in the past and they want to kill again, why give them the glory of swording someone to death, or fighting their opponent and knocking them into the spike wall.....the killers can keep on killing, which means they dont get punished, this is just another win for all of the murders and billy the rapist!