BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

http://www.youtube.com...OPENINGOK, I admit it. I was not completely in my right mind when I accepted this. I’m just going to have to go with it. I will mention I am unhappy with my opponent’s unnecessarily aggressive comment last round, especially considering my excellent conduct regarding his plagiarism. Moving on…ARGUMENTSBUT IT’S GOD, BRAH.My opponent has presented some excellent science to prove his resolution, claiming that if the Earth was truly 6,000 years all this evidence wouldn’t exist, I.E. light from other starts, age rings in trees, radiometric dating.Well you can completely ignore all that stuff because it doesn’t matter. In this video we see an ordinary human using cheap materials to make her piece of paper look ancient. If we accept that the God of the Bible is real (we’ll come to that) then surely he could use his omnipotent power to create a Universe with the illusion of age. THE GOD OF THE BIBLEThere is a reason that all but the most militant Atheists will allow some doubt for the existence of God. This is merely reasonable thinking; I cannot demonstrate that God DEFINITELY doesn’t exist to the satisfaction of anyone, including myself. Suspend your doubt for a second readers and let us examine Yahweh for a second and see if he perhaps would play his hand this way:We can see through the tales of the Bible that Yahweh works in mysterious ways. He likes to fvck with people to test them. To support this I present the Book of Job (http://www.esvbible.org...) and doubt that I need to go into detail. I purpose that if God were real, he would likely have created an all-mighty test for all mankind: evidence that disproves a literal interpretation just to make sure that only really real believers believe!!We know that the Bible is to be interpreted somewhat literally (because it says so, duh!):2 Corinthians 4:2: “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”Proverbs 8:8–9: “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.”SEMANTICS!!!Now, I come to the coup de grace.My opponent has left no room for doubt in any of his assertions:"The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old""In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old (An estimated 4.6 billion years old)""Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byo""Given that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is 4.6 byo."My opponent’s burden of proof is crippling!CONCLUSIONMy opponent has been a bit overzealous; Science hasn’t ‘proven’ anything. It presents the best theories based on the evidence. There is no doubt that an all-powerful God could create a Universe with all the bells and whistles to suggest it is 13.75 gigayears old, especially if he had 7 days to do it!It’s all part of His divine plan dude.
The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

I also thank him for giving me a chance to "Re-phrase" As he admits, I have the easy side of the debate and he has no argument. I admit to copying and pacing and I should have used a source. I shall re-do my opening arguments. Contention 1: Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byoA. Radiometric datingScience has proven using radioactive isotopes that there are certain rocks, and meteors that are much older than 6,000 years. The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). . http://www.tim-thompson.com...Radiometric dating, is in fact, very reliable. B. Problem with starlight We can see objects and universes that are billions of light years away. Given that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second (186,282 miles per second) we can calculate how far away something is just by using the light that it gives off. C. The nucleid argumentNuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that: Every nuclidewith a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. D. The oldest living tree is 9,000+ years old . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;(A lot of evidence in that article. If there was a "Great flood" how could it be still standing? ConclusionGiven that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is 4.6 byo.
The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

Hello DDO.INTRODUCTIONMy opponent may not be aware, but I am a very strong Atheist.I took the debate as a challenge to my ability to play Devils Advocate, which is an excellent trolling tool.So, on with the debate.ARGUMENTSI'M NOT MAKING ONE... YETMy opponent has the very, very easy side of this debate. Let's not beat around the bush. Unfortunately, rather than research the topic and write a few paragraphs on some of the processes we use to age the Earth, he has gone to one of my favourite sites TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org...) and simply copy/pasted huge chunks of it's Age of the Earth page. This is fail beyond comprehension, given his proven he can find an excellent resource, but cannot be bothered to paraphrase and personalise. I have however, decided to give him a chance. If he makes a new opening argument and writes it himself(and I'll know), we can carry on the debate. I have already decided to bury him in semantics anyway. :)CONCLUSIONGet the fvck on with it.
The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

I ask you leave an open-mind and I'll do the same. Good luck to you. What is the age of the Earth? The age of the earth is generally accepted to be between 4.5-4.6 byo + or - 1-2%How do we know this? The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time. Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites: Type NumberDated Method Age (billionsof years) Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76 Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34 Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02 Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04 H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06 L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12 L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12 LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02 LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04 E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13 Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19 Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30 Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19 Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18 Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21 After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted. So, what does this mean? Using radioactive isotopes, we can figure out how old something is. Not by using the daughter product--but by seeing how much of the "Parent product" that is left. Let us do an example. I find a rock and I want to know how old something is. I know that there is some C-14 in it. C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. This is fact. I see that there is EXACTLY half C-14 left. Therefore, the rock is 5730 years. I have presented a scientific case showing how dating is done. Please do not use religious examples, but rather show me scientific facts, calculations and proofs to show that the Earth is young. Back to con.
The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

and his patience with debating me. I regret accepting this. I was going to launch a massive attack of semantics and Young-Earth nonsense against him, but meh. Moving on… My opponent has suggested my BOP was to prove God exists. I suppose, but I was hoping we could just skip that bit and move on to the fun stuff. Damn…Anyway, my opponent has suggested that my video is fails because the paper would fail under scientific scrutiny. This is true, but this is why I explained that an All-Powerful God wouldn’t have that problem. He could create the Earth with the properties of an ancient planet in the blink of an eye. I think Moses meant to say “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. He created the Universe so that in 6,000 years when Man (who he hadn’t created yet) had the facilities to begin scientifically testing the age of things and measuring the distance of other stars, it would appear as though it was billions of years old, so that it would contradict the Bible (which hadn’t been written yet) and bring doubt into their minds. ”Obviously that would be very confusing for primitive men so he just cut it short. He knew they would figure it out later, those clever monkeys. Regarding science ‘proving’ things, my opponent says something very silly. “So, science hasn't proven the sky is blue, gravity exists and the Earth is a sphere? What? ”The sky is blue? What indeed. This is so silly, it clearly counts towards the truth of my own arguments. Anyway, I’ve wasted enough of everyone’s time. You should vote for me because God commands it. I used advanced calculus methods that I learnt from Harold Camping to decode the message from within the text.
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government

DefinitionsJury Nullification: Keep in mind that Pro cites Darryl K. Brown's article in the Minnesota Law Review and specifically notes the first page of the article in his sources section. The first page reads, in it's entirety [1], "The jury has been the subject of a resurgence of scholarly and popular interest in recent years, partly in response to several high-profile criminal trials and civil jury damage awards." Continuing on to the second page of the article, Mr. Brown explicitly writes that jury nullification is, "defined as a jury's ability to acquit a criminal defendant despite finding facts that leave no reasonable doubt about violation of a criminal statute." Prefer this definition of jury nullification and refuse to acknowledge any debate about the definition of jury nullification beyond this point because I have provided a direct quote from a source that my opponent introduced to the debate. If he disagrees with this definition, then he wouldn't have cited this source in reference to the definition, unless his intention was to misrepresent the author, which may explain why the page he cited has nothing to do with his paraphrase, but I digress.Justice: I concede my opponent's claim that, "equitable does not mean equal in legal terms" and I concede the incontestable validity of his source. However, yet again, he has failed to represent his source. Elaborating on the claim of fairness, his source states that equitable means [2], "Just, fair, and right, in cconsideration of the facts and circumstances of the individual case." Again through using the same source, we have ended the definition debate on another topic. For an action to be just, it must be fair and equitable, and for an action to be equitable, it must be made "in consideration of the facts".Definitional ObservationLet's look back at the definitions provided this round in reference to the resolution. Jury nullification is, "a jury's ability to acquit a criminal defendant despite finding facts that leave no reasonable doubt about violation of a criminal statute." Justice must be equitable. For an action to be equitable it must be made "in consideration of the facts." My opponent's source on jury nullification admits that jury's that nullify disregard the facts, therefore, by definition, jury nullification exists in contradiction to justice. Remember, I am deriving BOTH definitions from sources provided by my opponent, don't let him backtrack next round and disregard evidence that he legitimized by introducing to the round. In essence, it has become definitionally impossible for my opponent to prove jury nullification to be just. This debate is over.Sources1. Darryl K. Brown. “Jury Nullification Within the Rule of Law,” Minnesota Law Review 81 (1997): 1150.2. http://thelawdictionary.org...
Does God exist: please watch/

Hello again My biggest issue with religion is that, may it be a beautiful thing that helps people morally and teaches lessons to be a good person. It's creation was made after so many other ideas of creation were made. I believe that it helps people who need it, like people who can't rationalize the idea that they will die someday and that's it. Don't take this personally please I'm just giving my opinion about it. I would absolutely love if God came to me in a dream and told me that I'd be saved after I die and sent to heaven. I personally am young, 20. So I may even see in my lifetime an extension of life or even a way to upload my consciousness into a computer which I would do. Religion is important because it's a free way to teach people how to be good. I've read and listened to many stories in the bible on the radio and the books themselves. There may be some weird rules in it but no one really takes it fully to heart. Even those devote Muslims take the Quran to heart. Which leads me to the next part. There are so many interpretations of god and an afterlife. So many different ideas but they mostly all come down to the same idea. That there is paradise, or there is nothing or hell. As someone I am sure you are, believes in god because he has always been in your life. It strange to think that others just don't believe in him. I personally don't believe in him the same way I don't believe that my finger is going to turn into a tree branch the next day after I go to sleep. I hope there is a larger being out there, aliens even. There is no easy way to really debate this without talking about this as if we were talking about a movie. It's just not believeable no matter how much you go off of the books or the world around you. Religion just makes sense to the average person. God created all, he watched over it and created more and more. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 " And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. These verses explain it all really. He's made everything in this book and so it must be true, the only problem I have with it is that it was created nearly 2000 years ago. And before that there was man, and gods before the god of the book. And of course, there will be arguments about whos god is right and whos wrong. But whos to say as each book and scroll isn't correct because another human made it.
Does God exist: please watch/

No no, I did watch your video. But going off of a theory doesn't make the idea perfectly right. I've talked with my friends about the start of the universe a lot, we don't have the answer other than at the center of it all matter is being pushed out and energy is being pushed outward. Almost in a circular fashion so we know that something happened, most likely an explosion from the center of it all. Things sound convincing when there's no evidence toward something other than the idea of god being only 2000 years old. How could the creation of humanity be found at that point and which was created by man, with over a thousand different gods and different stories on how the world was made. I'm sure if you revealed into it a little longer you could find several gods that are exactly the same as yours. I know you probably would not like this video, it's 2 minutes long so it's not that bad. But please try to get through it as it's going to challenge you.
Windows 8 is Great

I downloaded Windows 8 several months back and I love it. I think it is better than those ipads, and here is why. 1.Live Tiles. The iPad"s icons just set there. 2.The iPad's inferior multitasking capability and no multiple window display. 3.Windows 8 tablets run Windows. More importantly, they run Windows applications! HA! This will be my second silly debate. One more debate and I can vote on other debates. Help me get 2/3 the way there.
God is better than you and me

Ive read like 2 out of the new 50 comments I got, ive got to say, what non- believers. Hipocrats. Liars. Persucuters. Jerks. Hard hearted. Hard headed. Stubborn. Unfollowers. Nasty. Rude. Blasphemous. Haters. Sinners. I had a revelation at church camp this past weekend. Im closer to god, rededicated myself to him, and repented. I am SICK of this site. It makes me SICK to my stomach, to see all these hateful sinners persecuting christians for what they believe in. You will hate on christians, then get all offended when they something about your religion. I hate this site. Its hard to look around this site and not see the stupid people that think unicorns are real, then compare a unicorn to a cucumber. ( or in some cases God) and your right, there is no evidence that the jews were captive. But that doesnt mean that the whole bible isnt true. And you think the pharoah was a good godly man. HAH. , if hitler was right in front of you, standing in front of thousands of enslaved jews with his nazis torturing them, not for what they believed in, but what race they were, and you had a gun in your hand, and noone could stop you from doing it, would you do it, take him out? If you didnt take the shot that would have saved thousands of people, how does that make you better than god. Im a good thinker, i really am. Im guessing that after this, people will say that god is like that guy with a gun that couldve taken the shot on hitler, and didnt. But I say to that, god gave us free will, and hitler was killing jews, and he was going to go to hell. Why didnt god stand in? Cause he gae us free will. If he would have stepped in, that wouldve ruined te point of free will. My point is, im getting off this site for good, not because there is no more arguments left in me, but because have you ever heard of a guy getting saved through a debate? At first i was fired up to just get on here and beat, but I saw it was much more than that. This was a one way trip to crazy town. Its insane here. Whats the point of debating people who are given good real true evidence, reject that evidence as lies, and then ask for real evidence, and repeat. People will hear only what they want to hear, not what they need to here. I wish any of you guys struggling with faith and stuff to stay off this site. Its just depresses you even more and makes you think bad untrue things about christians and god.I just keep you guys in my prayers, and stay off this site, because this is not a very good place to argue apologetics. May the bible be with you. Goodbye, im leaving crazy town back home to logic city, where people actually make sense. God loves you! Goodnight and goooooodddbbyyyyeee!!!!!!!!
God is better than you and me

They will argue first that God is not real, and then follow that with a whole bunch of other stuff. God is very real, believe me, I've had my experiences, and I needed a lot more than will power for some. But I want you to pretend God is real (believe or not), and base our facts off the Bible. This debate will focus primarily how God (real or not) is still better than you. My first argument, where in the Bible does it say God cheats, steals, commits adultery, lie, argue, or even sin/do evil/do wrong at all for that matter? God says in the Bible that he has unconditional love for us, that no matter what happens to us, we believe in him or not, he still loves us. The Con may say that Con can have unconditional love too, but if you started dating a women/man, and you loved him/her, than if she turned evil and called you names, and cursed you out, blame you for every wrong thing in the world, than would you still love that person? You could curse God out, flip him off, or even moon him and worship the devil, and his love wouldn't change for you. We love because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19 God IS better than YOU AND ME!
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me start by summarizing the debate as I have seen it: R1 (Acceptance, rules, all of which were followed) R2: Pro argument based on conjecture only, and no evidence presented in that speech for said conjecture; Con argument responded to Pro's case, and presented his own, all with reasoning based on displayed evidence. R3: Pro shows evidence for R2 which should have already been provided; Con continues to back on his case with evidence and extends previously unanswered argumentsR4: Pro, obviously tired of the debate, gives a short and insubstantial summary of his/her case without backing it up. No reason to believe it!!! Con pointed this out and extended all R3 arguments which were completely unanswered.Now, R5, I give you voters:-More evidence-based arguments on Con's side-Pro getting tired halfway through the debate, dropping most of my arguments, and giving inadequate responses, such as "Breakfast helps kick.start the day"For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Ladies and gentlemen, "Breakfast helps kick.start the day" is not in and of itself an argument. Perhaps it could be used as a closing remark to a well thought-out, well organized speech using evidence and logic; however, the Pro's 4th Round is devoid of all of these things. It is clear that my opponent is not interested in the topic, nor does she show the courtesy of giving substantive speeches, at the very least. Extend my Round 3 evidence, which directly negates her Round 3 arguments, as conceded, for an argument not responded to is dropped. "Breakfast helps kick.start the day" is the thesis of her argument; no warrants were given in the 4th speech, and so no rebuttal to it is deserved. Once again, extend all Con Round 3 arguments as dropped, securing a Negative vote. Thank you.