BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

1: The "morning after" pill presents the risk of levonorgestrel the main source for the pills effectiveness throwing off woman's menstrual cycles which can have long term effects especially if used habitually. 2: The pills other side effects include significant weight gain of on average 15 pounds, depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death 3: Studies show the woman who use the pill are more then likely to use the pill habitually which can only increase the chances of the individual being effected by the side effects. C: The "Morning After Pill" should be banned. Source:http://www.pop.org...
The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 years ago

(1) The bones are mineralized and therefore not suitable for carbon dating(1A) This tells me that you have not read the report. It clearly says that fractions of residual collagen were dated, in other words, the proteins of the main connective tissue. The bones were not mineralized. Please, the first step you should take is to read the report. This rebuttal is therefore dismissed, unless you can provide a further explanation or clarification of your rebuttal.(2) Acetone and Shellac might have contaminated the bones(2A) There are two things to consider here. First, the bones were not bought from a sales company, they were taken specifically for the task of carbon dating by professional paleontologists - they would know not to contaminate. Secondly, the chemical cleaning process was overseen by an independent senior scientist who is a carbon dating expert. There are no reasons to believe that Acetone or Shellac was used, and there are good reasons to dismiss that notion. Unless you can provide a reasonable case for this, then rebuttal is dismissed.(3) If these dates are true then they are simply undiscovered reptiles like crocodiles(3A) These are well known dinosaurs, not undiscovered. If the dates are true, science books have to be rewritten, the evolutionary theory has to be rewritten, countless theories have to be dismissed, for they all state, in unison, that dinosaurs went extinct as a whole a very long time ago, tens of millions of years ago, when an asteroid struck the earth and turned the entire planet into a living hell.:)
The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 years ago

What you are forgetting is that these fossils we are finding are not the original bone, but are minerals that have replaced the bone when it decayed. So I do not believe that C-14 forced its way into bone. It is very commonly known that Carbon dating usually only works on organic material. It works in plants because plants take C-14 from the atmosphere the radiocarbon ratio is the same as the atmosphere. When the plant dies the C-14 is no longer replaced and begins to decay. As the Oxford dating service explains: "For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. This means that things like stone, metal and pottery cannot usually be directly dated by this means unless there is some organic material embedded or left as a residue." https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk... You need to explained how the starting radiocarbon amount in the fossil minerals will be the same as the atmosphere and how no new carbon will be added. If the minerals didn't get their carbon from the atmosphere carbon dating is inaccurate. Another point to mention is that fossils are coated with preservatives like Acetone and Shellac which have C-14 while being dug up and transported and we don't know if all of it was removed. You also said that they were dated using another dating method. Seeing that this study was disowned by its own university I am curious to know what this other method was. You need to present evidence that this new method is accurate. Concerning the point about dating old fossils, we know from many other dating methods that dinosaurs are millions of years old so we know that if we find C-14 in some of them there is a very high chance that this is merely contamination in a few samples even if we don't know what it is. If dinosaurs really are young then we should be finding significant C-14 in all dinosaurs yet no evidence has shown this. My last point is even if these dinosaurs are thousands of years old then they are just undiscovered reptiles that survived past the mass extinction like crocodiles and modern reptiles. This doesn't prove all dinosaurs are young and that other dating methods don't work on them.
The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 years ago

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I shall do point by point counter rebuttals.(1) The bones that are found are not the actual dinosaur bones and are minerals including Carbon that have replaced the bone over time. (1A) C-14 does not force it's way inside fossils and become a part of a fossil over time, there is no mechanism known to science that would allow this to happen. The way C-14 comes inside the bones is through the processes of respiration and consumption, which are processes that cease to happen at the time of death and therefore the carbon dating method can provide a relatively accurate date and show researchers how many years have passed since the death of an organism.(2) All dating methods have a margin of error because sometimes C-14 can come in from the outside, and usually this margin is about 2% when there is a normal amount of the original left. (2A) As I have explained in my opening argument, when many dinosaur bones from many different locations are split into many samples and then the samples undergo an excessive chemical cleaning to remove potential contaminants, as well as undergoing two different types of dating methods as a cross check - and then they arrive with the same date ranges - one can be certain that contamination is not responsible.(3) On old fossils it is better to use isotopes that have a half-life of millions of years because there will still be a significant amount of the original left and there are plenty of dating methods that do this. (3A) First, what you state is completely irrelevant to the case that I have presented, as the method of accelerator mass spectrometry will not under any circumstances detect C-14 after a total of 17 half lives, or roughly 100,000 years. Secondly, your train of thought is positively anti-scientific. One does not simply assume the age of a fossil before the act of dating, but vice versa. But like I said, this is totally irrelevant to the case (as AMS does not count above 100,000 years even theoretically).
The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 years ago

I would like to present three rebuttals to this argument. The bones that are found are not the actual dinosaur bones and are minerals including Carbon that have replaced the bone over time. The C-14 in the mineral rocks are not the same as that in the original fossil and this is an illegitimate way of dating a fossil. This C-14 came later and can be much younger than the fossil. Also C-14 has a half-life of 6,000 years which means that after 6,000 year half of it will degrade. So if the fossil was millions of years old there would only be a tiny amount left. All dating methods have a margin of error because sometimes C-14 can come in from the outside, and usually this margin is about 2% when there is a normal amount of the original left. If we have only trace amounts of the original left then the margin of error will be bigger than the amount left making the method inaccurate. That is why we don't use Carbon dating on fossils that are millions of years old because there isn't enough original carbon left to do a date because it will be much smaller than any carbon that got in from the outside. On old fossils it is better to use isotopes that have a half-life of millions of years because there will still be a significant amount of the original left and there are plenty of dating methods that do this. If you want to use C-14 on the minerals that have replaced dinosaur bones, you need to present evidence that this method has been used accurately in the past because no real scientists do this for the reasons I have mentioned above, and this use of dating you are proposing is completely new and untested.
The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 years ago

The theoretical limit for the detection of C-14 is 100,000 years. Therefore, when C-14 is detected in a closed system, the age is certainly less than 100,000 years of age. C-14 has been detected in numerous dinosaur bones consistently, therefore the dinosaur bones are less than 100,000 years. Read further for more information:Ten researchers from the United States, France and Poland wrote a report called BG02-A012 A Comparison of 13C & pMC Values for Ten Cretaceous-Jurassic Dinosaur Bones from Texas to Alaska, China and Europe - after investigating the existence of C-14 in dinosaurs. In this report, they state that they measured C-14 in 20 bone fragments of eight dinosaurs from different locations, using accelerator mass spectrometry at the University of Georgia. The removal of contaminants and preparation of the samples was overseen by senior scientist and carbon dating expert dr. Alexander Cherkinsky. As a cross check, two of the samples were dated using conventional equipment and the results were compared to confirm accuracy. To summarize their research in five points:(1) There was not one dinosaur, but eight different dinosaurs. (2) The eight dinosaurs were not from one location, but several. (3) There were taken not few, but twenty two samples for testing. (4) The process was overseen independently for accurate handling. (5) The samples were dated using two methods as a cross check. The data came in a very consistent manner and there was no inconsistencies in the data. This, in combination with the five points above, make contamination an impossible explanation for the data that was observed in the study.
Edible Vaccine

Yes, but the behavior of this is unknown, therefore it's not fully proven. Have you thought about those people who are live in not fully developed countries, Struggling economically to get these Vaccines? That is why so many people die. Most of the people out of the 4 million people, at least 3 million are the ones who cannot get a hold of it. This type of biotechnology is making us humans, immune to some diseases and making us allergic to some or most of the genetically modified food such as; potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, etc". Also it is taking away some of our resources. Possible risks are that.. 1. It's gonna help us prevent preventable diseases in our world, but in other countries, most specifically the third-world countries, will have trouble getting a reach to these Edible Vaccines economically, they also don't have adequate health care attention. Your argument is invalid, okay I agree on that it can help prevent, but what about those who can"t. I believe that the people who are dying, are mostly those who don"t have access to the vaccine. 2. Another disadvantage is that, for the vaccine to work and fight off the disease/virus you need to take two banana's or two of whichever food, carrying the vaccine that your eating, and that will probably make you have an allergy to that food. 3.It"s not convenient for infants. 4.It"s taking away lots of resources. 5. In one experiment, multiple generations of hamsters were fed a diet of GM soy; by the third generation, they were losing the ability to produce offspring, producing about half as many pups as the non-GM soy group. GM= Genetically Modifried.
Edible Vaccine

How about I say that edible vaccines are really not as bad as you think. Edible vaccines can save lots of lives, four million people die every year from preventable disease and edible vaccines can decrease the number of deaths.10/11 volunteers 91% who ingested the transgenic potatoes had fourfold rises in serum antibodies.19 out of 20 persons showed increases in the serum antibody levels.Edible vaccine technology has been one of the great public health victories.A transgentic lettuce carrying a hepatitis B antigen to 3 volunteers 2 of them displayed a good response.
Edible Vaccine

People may develop an allergy to the fruit or vegetable expressing the foreign antigen. It is not clear what will happen when the person comes in contact with the actual virus. The vaccines behavior is not very predictable. My opponent will try and convince the audience that Edible Vaccines are good. I am here to prove that they are not. My opponent will try to say that, Edible Vaccines are a great help to our community. But in reality, just simply making these genetically modified foods, is expensive.
"Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

Closing ArgumentI will reiterate what I said last round. I believe that it is ridiculous to change something as historically significant as the Pledge of Allegiance, simply due to a religious disagreement. There will always be those who disagree (as we see with the ridiculous politics being played in Washington as we speak), and it is unreasonable to expect an outcome that every party would be in favor of. Changes should only be made when it is revealed that the current phrasing is either unlawful, or causing citizens undue hardship. Because neither of those two situations are true, the only logical result is to strike down the notion brought forward and retain the current phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance.
"Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

"It isn't a law."In 1954, Congress passed a bill, which was signed in law, altered the Pledge of Allegiance to add the phrase "under god." This was done to fight against the atheistic beliefs of the Soviet Union and Communists.(http://www.religioustolerance.org...)"It is up to the choice of the individual on whether or not they choose to say the pledge."This statement by Pro is incorrect. There are five states: Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Tennessee, and Illinois that require their students to recite the pledge every day at school. Also, almost every state requires that schools say the pledge. However, while the schools are required by law, nobody enforces the law. Due to the Incorporation Doctrine, states are required to abide by the first amendment. As long as anybody is required to acknowledge the existence of a higher power in a public institution, it is breaking the first amendment.(http://undergod.procon.org...)"Because there is no penalty for opting out of the recitiation, it is equally ridiculous to assert that it violates Freedom of Speech, or any other clause present in the First Amendment."Any law that goes against the constitution should be repealed, no matter how little it is enforced. Even if it doesn't happen that often, every once in a while a public school student is suspended for not saying the pledge. The problem I have with it is that a student cannot fight the suspension as long as there is a law requiring him to do said action. (http://houston.cbslocal.com...).
"Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

My opponent cites the First Amendment in his argument - specifically citing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and how the wording and mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance contradicts that. However, my opponent seems ignorant to what exactly the Pledge of Allegiance is. It isn't a mandate, it isn't an article in the Constitution, and it isn't a law. It's an expression. An expression of fealty. The First Amendment explicitly bars Congress from creating laws that establish religion. Because there is no law stating that every American must recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it doesn't apply in this situation. It is up to the choice of the individual on whether or not they choose to say the pledge. Because there is no penalty for opting out of the recitiation, it is equally ridiculous to assert that it violates Freedom of Speech, or any other clause present in the First Amendment.
"Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance reads "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. "The first amendment of the constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " (. http://www.law.cornell.edu...) The part that pertains to this debate is "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. " The sheer fact that the christian god is mentioned in the pledge directly contradicts this clause. While non-Christians are a minority in the USA, it is unfair for the government to act like they do not exist. The United States is not a theocracy, and we should act like it.
Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better

Good luck with your project, I realise the importance of the change to renewable energy resources in the future and that these can be used alongside other resources. I must say your title and first argument slightly misled me into thinking that you were championing this resources alone, saying that it was better than all others. As I personally believe there is no argument against your revised claim I forfeit my opposition to it. Sorry to be unsporting but I agree! Thank you for the debate.
Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better

Hey! thank you so much for your participation.. This is my first debate as well. Actually we are doing a project for National Children's Science Congress (India) in which we got a choice to choose any one of energy resources where we chose Concentrated Solar Thermal Power Plant. Obviously its better, and why not? It reduces pollution, and can be a new prevention for depletion of energy.. And I said before in my first and I am telling now as well that this is one of the way that can be used. I never told in my debate that this is the one and only way that has to be used. And coming to the questions you put up I hope I can answer each of them. I accept that we cannot put it in the places which don't have suitable climatic condition but we can at least out it at places where we have the suitable ones. And coming to the situations of rainy season etc. a lot of energy can be stored in this process. We can reduce the use of non-renewable resources by this.. Because present stats say fuels like oil, coals and other natural resources would soon get depleted by 2128. This might be a long time for imagining at but once we really start feeling the shortage of resources we would realise the use of renewable resources. We even can't realise when we use up non-renewable resources later. We need to have every thing we are blessed with by nature and make use to all the resources but not totally rely n only one. And why not? When we have many technologies coming up forward to change this scenario of using up non-renewable resources. can't we use them? And coming to the new methods you put forward like the shale gas and nuclear energy, thank you for the new ideas you put forward so that we can't also spread awareness about this. But, I never told that we should only use solar thermal energy and not any of you ideas. I just put up one of the ideas which we can use and get rid of the increasing concerns about energy.. And have have many resources still, which we can use. When we have so much, why do we have to depend on only nuclear, solar thermal or fuels? We need to take the gift of nature and use all of them. Concentrated solar thermal power plant is really one of the very beneficial resources that we have make use of today and yes "Usage of solar thermal energy instead of NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES is better!" Thank you! Please do share your views :-).
Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better

Hello there, this is my first debate so I am unpractised: hoping that will change. To begin! Now first of all I would like to question what it is you mean by 'better'. -If you mean more efficient at producing energy I am sure you're right as this technique requires no transportation, no mining and little maintenance. -If it is better for the economy I am sure you are wrong: with the age of fracking (essentially mining shale gas) around the corner, already having made a serious impact in America, this solar method is expensive and certainly less tested than fracking. Britain (as I say I'm new I assume we're in the same country) would benefit far more from a concerted effort into mining this easily obtainable and (more importantly) British resource as for too long we have been reliant on foreign fuel which could be stopped at a diplomatic whim (exaggeration I know but true nonetheless). -If you mean better globally we run into another problem: in that this resource is highly dependant on the weather. In hotter countries this is surely a viable and attractive option but in Britain the efficiency will be greatly reduced and thus make the method less cost effective. -If, as I'm almost certain you do, you mean better for the environment then I cannot fault you. Despite some carbon costs in manufacturing and of course the land used up and of course obtaining the materials necessary for construction and, of course, harvesting the salt needed there is next to no cost to the environment. However, clean energy is already something of a British penchant in the form of wind power and yet, despite extremely concerted efforts, this only accounts for around 5% of energy production. -If you mean that it is renewable and will therefore last longer I direct you to the newly discovered shale gas, to scientific predictions that more oil will be found and of course to nuclear power which I personally believe to be a far more viable option, it being so very efficient at energy production - producing thousands of times more power per unit mass than fossil fuels. In short I believe that such a system would be inefficient in many areas of the world, it would be cost ineffective in those areas, there are more viable candidates for clean energy (let's not argue about nuclear - if everything is done properly there is no risk whatsoever, it even creates large natural habitats because of the required space for dumping etc.) and that as interesting the method of production this energy source is just one of the many forms which are considered renewable, as most rely on the sun, and should not be singled out for promotion. How was that? :)