BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Radiometric Dating is Accurate

Radiometric dating is the method of establishing the age of objects by measuring the levels of radioisotopes in the sample. The best known example is carbon dating. Carbon 14 is created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. It decays to nitrogen 14 with a half life of 5730 years. C14 is continually being created and decaying, leading to an equilibrium state in the atmosphere. When the carbon dioxide, containing C14 as well as stable C12 and C13, is taken in by plants it is no longer exposed to the intense cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere, so the carbon 14 isotope decays without being replenished. Measuring the ratio of C14 to C12 and C13 therefore dates the organic matter for periods back to about eight half-lives of the isotope, 45,000 years. After a long enough time the minority isotope is in an amount too small to be measured. There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe. other isotope pairs cover intermediate time periods between the spans for carbon 14 and uranium. For the purposes of this debate, "accurate" means that 95% of the dating errors are within 10% of the measured date, within the time span for which the isotope pair is utilized. Since carbon dating depends upon variable cosmic ray intensity, a calibration curve is assumed to be applied to account for that. The actual accuracy of radiometric dating is about 2%, but there is no point in splitting hairs for this debate as to whether it is 2% or 3%. An error of 90% would, for example, still disprove Young Earth Creationism. There are four reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate: 1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced my chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus physical principle of the method is well established. 2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, electron spin resonance dating, and other methods. 3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other. 4. Trained scientists understand the limitations of radiometric methods and apply them as appropriate. By analogy, a stop watch will not keep accurate time if it is not wound, if it is not in good repair, or if the operator forgets to press the button. Methods are precise insofar as they are properly used. A good explanation of all of the dating methods used for samples up to about 200,000 years old, together with their accuracies and references to the scientific literature is contained in [1] Walker, Mike, "Quaternary Dating Methods," John Wiley & Sons, 2005 This debate is intended only for issues related to science, not for arguments from non-scientific reasons.
The driving age should be increased to 18 years of age.

Don't worry about my last argument. I don't actually believe that we should let our kids drive on roads just because they're old enough. I just wanted to see how you would react to that. It is not like the government hasn't considered your argument. That's why we have licenses. You see, you cannot get a license without passing the driving test. Just like you aren't guaranteed to graduate, you are not guaranteed to get a driver's license. Pushing the age back to eighteen will not have a negative change on any of those stats you shared. People are not stupid or reckless drivers because they are seventeen. They are stupid and reckless drivers because they are bad drivers. People are not good people because they are thirty-five. They are good people because that is who they choose to be.
The driving age should be increased to 18 years of age.

To get on point, I understand that it is a coming of age ceremony in a way, but many teens are very irresponsible. I will state that in a trusty online article, the author gave some scary statistics: "Teen Drivers, Cell Phones, and Texting 32.8% of high school students nationwide have texted or e-mailed while driving. 12% of distracted drivers involved in fatal car accidents were teens ages 15 to 19. Talking on a cell phone can double the likelihood of an accident and can slow a young driver's reaction time to that of a 70-year-old. Drivers under the age of 20 make up the largest percentage of distracted drivers. 56% of teens admit to talking on cell phones while driving. 13% of teens admit to texting while driving. 34% of teens age 16 and 17 admit that they send and respond to text messages while driving. 48% of kids ages 12 to 17 report being in a car when the driver was texting. Underage Drinking & Driving Statistics About 1/4 of fatal teen car accidents involve underage drinking and driving. (MADD) About 5.8% of 16- and 17-year-olds and 15.1% of 18- to 20-year-olds reported driving under the influence of alcohol in the past year. (MADD) About 8.2% of high school students reported driving a car or other vehicle one or more times when they had been drinking alcohol. 13.5% of 12th graders reported driving after drinking. Kids who start drinking young are 7x more likely to be in an alcohol-related crash. (MADD)" (. https://www.edgarsnyder.com...) These stats are not only scary in a way, they very clearly state that High schoolers can't be mature enough to operate a motor vehicle without risking the LIVES of others. Safety is of my concern, and I get mad at all the stupid drivers on the road these days. Most of them are younger. I believe the driving age should be 20, but it would be dumb to not allow adults to drive, so 18 should be the minimum. I also think that if the law enforcement officers where given a device that can detect when a text is sent in a nearby vehicle (by analyzing telephone signals) than these idiots on their phones could be brought to justice. I always put safety first over "coming of age" because if the students are not mature enough to have a licence, than they simply shouldn't. If this coming of age thing KILLS young people who could have good potential or even just the fact that it causes so many fatal accidents, than why have it. If you don't agree, than 'go be a chump, and vote for Trump! '
The driving age should be increased to 18 years of age.

At the age of eighteen you are given your freedom. From your parents, from school, and from all of your friends. Why would you want to drive around the year that all your friends are going to leave you anyways? High School entrance is like a coming of age ceremony. Why wouldn't you want your drivers' license then? I'd really like to see your argument, I'll get a laugh out of it.
The driving age should be increased to 18 years of age.

Seriously! You where messing with me? That isn't exactly the best debate etiquette. That was a waste of a whole round. Not funny chump... Besides that, strict laws for driving licenses are not yet in place, or are not being enforced properly. The result is that when cops see a 16 year old driving, they expect them to have a license. They cause a very large amount of car accidents every year. 18 year olds are usually more mature, but there will always be those people who are just never qualified to drive. This is why licenses shouldn't be handed out so freely to younger people. We have two options: we can create tighter control on teenager licensing, or we can increase the license minimum to 18 years of age. The first option would be costly, in time especially. A lot of people would already have their license and they would all need to be retested for it. The second option will stop some of the fatal car accidents, because we can stop people from allowing immature adolescents from operating cars. The second solution will be easier, because we could simply remove licenses from 16 year olds, but this could cause lots of younger people complications, so removing the existing licenses may not be possible. All I am trying to say, is the problem has to be solved, or it would continue to cause several problems. And no more of this dumb "messing with crap", because it makes it seem like you aren't taking this seriously (Which is kind of obvious...).
Can this work about fruit be considered poetry

so in conclusion con gave a definition of poetry which included the notion of rhythm as this work has no rhythm then by cons own definition this work is not poetry thus i must win the debate con says "I have said again, with other source, there is no need for notation of rhythm. It expresses emotion and feelings towards fruit, making it poetry. I will give another definition on the next round if it pleases my opponent" con here is being disingenuous when one definition he gives is found to not suit his purpose he then goes and finds a definition that dose suit his purpose in the opening argument the first definition con gives contains the notion of rhythm being the first of his definitions we can assume that it was considered to be his mt important definition as stated above this definition of con infact proves that this work is not poetry thus i must win the debate as a corollary though as the finale round one cant bring in new material i will just say this cons second definition as he says "I have said again, with other source, there is no need for notation of rhythm. It expresses emotion and feelings towards fruit, making it poetry. I will give another definition on the next round if it pleases my opponent" makes no distinction between poetry and prose ie "It expresses emotion and feelings towards fruit, making it poetry." this could apply to prose thus this 2nd definition is meaningless as it does not distinguish poetry from prose
Can this work about fruit be considered poetry

con says "The poem expresses feeling, and creates an emotional response. As I have stated before, there is no specific rule, as long as it expresses feeling. http://examples.yourdictionary.com......... It also has metaphorical language, and expresses emotions (as I stated before)" but you gave a definition of poetry which had the notion of rhythm this work has no rhythm therefore it does not meet your definition of poetry so by your definition of poetry this work is not poetry "
Can this work about fruit be considered poetry

hi you give definition "writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm " in your definition is rhythm this work does not fit your definition because it has no rhythm ie a repeated or recurring pattern of anything be it sound stress letters etc http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions: the rhythm of the tides. 2. The patterned, recurring alternations of contrasting elements of sound or speech. thus by your definition it is not poetry
Can this work about fruit be considered poetry

Yes, this can be considered poetry. Oh those tight little bundles of sweet syrupy fruits wrapped up in white cloth that be soaked with the juices of those pulpy fleshy things the moisty cloth that on the airs sends sweet humid musky scents to perfume the world with the odors of those flesh pulp fleshy fruits those pulpy flesh fruits fleshy succulent ripe and luscious that we all long to lick suck kiss and eat long to kiss lick and suck that pulpy flesh from out pouting tingling lipsSo, the definition of poetry is writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm http://www.merriam-webster.com...Although this does not have a specific ryhme pattern, it indeed expresses feelings, and creates an emotional response through fruits. It fits within definition and does not have to ryhme. There are no real rules, but it has to create an atrictic expression. Therefore, this is indeed poetry. http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
Students are required to wear a uniform

Rebuttal 1: Uniforms Do Not Show Credibility You said: "I think so because the form shows the credibility of the institution." Credibility - The quality of being trusted and believed in. There's nothing about a uniform that will cause someone to trust in or believe in a school. Schools, especially colleges and universities, are considered credible because of academics, financial aid packages, countrwide/worldwide exposure, sports teams, teacher to student ratio, and religious ties. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com... For example, with the link above, you will find a list of US News's highest ranked colleges and universities in the US. For US News, one of the most prominent news websites, to rank a college or university as one of the best in the US, that means that US News TRUSTS AND BELIEVES in that college, which means that the college has credibility. Of the colleges on that list, none of them are on the list because of uniforms. They are on the list because of the reasons I previously listed in my first paragraph. Therefore, uniforms don't show the credibility to be required in every school. Rebuttal 2: Uniforms Do Not Show Discipline You said: "Secondly, educational institutions with a uniform that's a whole other level. Because the form shows discipline, and at the present time is a serious discipline in life." Discipline: Obeying the rules or code of behavior. The clothes that someone wears does not determine that he or she has discipline. How does wearing a certain type of clothing show that one obeys the rules of a certain code of behavior? Simply put, it doesn't. Likewise, one could have bad discipline even though they wear a uniform. Examples of bad discipline that someone in school could have include insubordination, showing up late, not doing work, or doing something illegal (ex. drugs and underage drinking). There's nothing that a uniform can do that will make someone be of good discipline if they are participating in one of the previously mentioned activities. If someone wears a uniform but doesn't have discipline, then clearly, uniforms don't show discipline. Contention 1: No Good Reason to Require School Uniforms/Uniforms Are A Waste Of Money In my 2nd round argument, I have explained why both of your reasons that requiring a school uniform would be beneficial are not valid. Therefore, there are no GOOD and LOGICALLY SOUND reasons for requiring a school uniform. If there isn't a good reason to require school uniforms, then the transition to requiring school uniforms shouldn't be attempted. Not only is there no point in doing so, but it is also a waste of money. Due to the economic hardships of the United States, money should only be used for wise investments. School uniforms, based on what I've previously stated, aren't wise investments. In conclusion: I have explained why both of my opponent's reasons for requiring school uniforms are not valid. I have also stated that schools uniforms are pointless and a waste of money. My opponent must defend his previous claims and explain why my claims are false. I await my opponent's final argument.
Atheism is the default position.

A-theism is the antonym of theism. Theism is the belief that God exists. An atheist requires knowledge of God to lack belief. You are confusing deliberate lack of belief with ignorance. Ignorance: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures" synonyms:incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; More lack of knowledge, lack of education, unenlightenment, illiteracy; lack of intelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy antonyms:understanding, familiarity, knowledge, education Here's the definition of agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the of God or a god" -Merriam-Webster If anything, the default position is agnosticism rather than atheism but even this isn't the case. All people who don't have the awareness to make a conscious choice about their beliefs are ignorant but if their beliefs had to be classified it would fall under agnostic. You made a lot of examples like these: "Do non-golf players have to know what golf is, in order to be non-golf players? Of course not!" Here's the fail in your logic. Non-golf players have an undecided position toward golf. They wouldn't lack the desire to play golf as a default if they'd never heard of the game. I appreciate the time my opponent has put into this debate but hopefully I've made it clearer for him that atheism requires the knowledge to lack belief. If any default position is considered out of ignorance it would agnosticism. Thank you.
Atheism is the default position.

My worthy opponent claims, "Lack of belief entails the knowledge to lack belief.".That has to be the most ridiculous logic I have ever come across. Do non-golf players have to know what golf is, in order to be non-golf players? Of course not!If you have never heard of the game and don't know what it is, you are a non-golf player. You don't have to learn golf, study it, know the rules and own clubs to be a non-golf player! Do non-Chinese speakers have to know Chinese, in order not to speak Chinese? Of course not! If you have never heard of Chinese, you are a non-Chinese speaker. You don't have to learn Chinese, study it, know the words and grammar in order to be a non-Chinese speaker.Do atheists have to know what god is in order to not believe in god? Of course not! You don't have to learn what god is and study the Bible in order to not believe in god. When you "lack" something, you don't need to know the thing you lack in order to lack it.If I have never heard of the Chakablaka tribe in Africa, it would be impossible for me to believe in them. I don't have to be told about them and study them in order to not believe in them.If you lack knowledge of something, you automatically lack belief in it. My opponent wants to turn the logic around and claim that you must have knowledge in something in order to lack belief in it. It's true that you need knowledge of something in order to believe in it, but you don't need knowledge of something in order to lack belief in it! An atheists lacks belief in ALL gods, even though it would be impossible to find out and study every god that ever existed. It's not the atheists' job to disprove gods. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim for a god's existence. The only time an atheist leaves the default position of atheism, is when he or she is not only told about a specific god, but also given demonstrable, convincing evidence that such a god exists. Without the knowledge of the definition of what a specific god is and without demonstrable, convincing evidence to prove the god exists, an atheist stays in the default position of not believing (lacking the belief) in a god. #t=4265:45-7:05Since this is my last chance to say something about the topic, because my opponent will get the last word, I would like to point out that adding another (different) augment in the last round without me able to comment on it, would not be fair.I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it was as enjoyable and educational for him as it was for me.
Atheism is the default position.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it.That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist.It's that simple.
Is homeschooling better than schooling

Hi ashoup, great point, but first thing first, you are not allowed to say vote who, because the voters decide. So here is my rebuttal: I agree reading books help learning, but children can also read at home, it needn't be home schooling that makes children read. They can even share their books with friends. Teachers can also notify parents anytime of behavior and succeeds of students. Also, with technology like now, they can ask teachers about different questions by phone, email, or school websites like Google classroom, etc. . And for your final point... yes, the better the relationship the better the education, but when they are at the level of grade 5, 6 or a bit higher, they will be emotional and the relationship might not last good for that long, the child might also use the advantage of being son or daughter to try and make their mom or dad not punish them, but that can never happen in school. And here are my points: 1. they can socialize. At school, both public and private school have a lot of children, not just one, like home schooling. at schools outside, they learn to make friends, HOW to make friends, and he/she knows who to talk with. I mean schooling is giving the child a few more chances to make friends. If they begin making friends when they are adults, they might not know how and the manners. They might also be much more shy than others, because they've never learnt to talk in front of a lot of people, they might not even know how to participate! 2. Outdoors activity. Home schooling will be focused on the books. Children will then have boredom. Outside schools, they have PE (physical education) lessons, like my school. But home schooling, they won't have time to do ANY outdoor activity! It will not be a happy experience for children. they might lack the needs of exercise. 3. Lack of responsibility. Children in public AND private schools knows to carry the responsibilities with extra duties like prefects, monitors and teacher helpers, but home schooling doesn't. Home schooling might also lack the other experiences like experiments that they cannot experience at home. They might also not learn to share because at home, their moms (or dads)will give everything to him/her. If they grow up like that, they might make up that habit of hogging everything, being the spotlights and be to self-centered. The best way to learn is always learning outside the book, and that is what home schooling misses. Affirmative please