BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

Hello, I'm looking forwards to this. Just a point of order, I assume we will discuss the validity of carbon dating dinosaur bones, rather than the outcome of the dating. Otherwise, I can't debate your statement without performing tests of my own. Carbon dating depends on the half-life of Carbon-14, which is around 5700 years. That means that the amount of Carbon-14 is cut in half 10 times within less than 60 000 years. Therefore, carbon dating is not recommended to determine any age over 50 000 years. (1) Rather, you should use Radiometric dating, where they look for isotopes with a half-life of millions, sometimes even billions of years. (2) While a bit less accurate, it can be used over much longer time frames. If you want to approximate a skeleton you found in a tomb, carbon dating is better but it's useless over the time frames we are discussing. In conclusion, it's quite possible that the carbon dating shows that these bones are around 40 000 years old, but that does not necessarily reflect the age of said bones. It's just not possible to go much further back using that technology. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org... (sorry for the source, couldn't find any decent source without paywalls) 2: http://paleobiology.si.edu...
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

Dinosaurs have been carbon dated by many laboratories all over the earth and the results have come back 'young'. For this argument, I will use a specific example of this because in my opinion it's so well done. They have used state-of-the-art equipment. This paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting, their abstract was without any notification removed from the website after the meeting by two chairmen, no scientific reason was given. Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely". Here is the website and you can read for yourself: http://newgeology.us...
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

Hold on now. I have provided a lot more scientific data than you have, all pointing to dinosaurs being quite a bit older than you claim. Your continued unsubstantiated dismissals of what the actual scientists say made me change my approach. If we can't agree to a linear time table, there is simply no point in debating the science of dating things. Since you could not provide one form of measurement you believe in that stretches more than 50 000 years, it's pointless to argue the science. Somehow solar flairs and crystals has effected all isotopes in such an extreme and conform way that 100 000 000 years seems like 20 000 or vice versa. Besides the actual science, I provided a hypothesis that would explain this anomaly, and provided sources of other times when creation scientists did similar things out of either incompetence or ill will. I also showed several other outlandish hypotheses this church, or lobby group or whatever they are, also claim. That is a substantial dent in their credibility, and therefore devastating to your case. I also brought up the question of the origin of these bones several times, without getting any response. It's a pretty grand claim that we should completely abandon modern geology, astronomy, paleontology and our general scientific method because of one article. It's unreasonable to dismiss all other dating methods because one dating method points in another direction once. In my opinion, the most likely explanation is incompetence or ill intent from the team creating that article, but I can't substantiate that neither have I ever tried.
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

In summary, the only scientific argument you have brought to the table is that the bones were contaminated. I would say that this is a very, very shaky and weak argument -- the reason I say that is.. quite obvious. Laboratory reports and the signature of one of the world's leading carbon dating technicians confirm that every precaution was taken to avoid contamination such as the protection of the bones, the avoiding of cracked areas, meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals, comparison of AMS collagen and bioapatite tests with conventional counting methods. The extreme precautions taken above would be enough to rule out contamination even if one bone was tested, but they performed this exact same anti-contamination process on eight different bones, completely ruling out contamination as a possible explanation of the results. If you want to keep telling us that the bones were contaminated, you better explain how contamination can leak into the results of EIGHT DIFFERENT BONES after precise and accurate chemical cleaning, after precise and accurate avoidance of possible contamination areas, after precise and accurate comparison of AMS/Conventional tests.
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

Surely you must agree that the source of information, and motivation of the publishers is relevant? There is not that much more to be said about the data; the numbers are there, they are in complete conflict with all the mainstream science and other data. A likely reason is contamination, since they most likely don't perform excavations themselves. It's not irrelevant, or persecution, to question the motivation and methods of the publishers. Since they don't seem to be affiliated with any department, there is no disclosure or oversight of their methods. That's relevant.
Rights are Alienable

Thank you for accepting Joshua. I certainly want a more challenging debate than before, so good luck to you. I'm glad to have another legal mind to debate. I am arguing that human beings have inherent rights to tangible property in their person, and external objects they acquire by mixing their labor with them, purchasing, or gift. The person who denies this is using their self-ownership to deny it, a clear logical contradiction on its face. Human rights are in fact property rights, to ourselves and our external property. (1) Logically it follows that "if I own something, I can sell it (and should be allowed by law to do so). If I can't sell, then, and to that extent, I really don't own it." (2) For us to own ourselves, we must be able to sell or give up property in ourselves in whole or in part. While a mere promise is not sufficient to transfer property if there is consideration it would be (3). This can be either through purchase or devise. While the self-sale has been objected to as a person's will being "surrendered in advance" (3) this would apply to all contracts. If one denies a self-sale or devise contract would be valid, then none can be. This is logically contradictory as stated above. Although supporters of property rights do not deny that external property can be sold or gifted (houses, cars, etc.) they generally oppose the wholesale transfer of property in the person. Partial transfer, such as organs, may be permitted, but if so, where is the separation between selling yourself entirely? Rights can be alienated by voluntary action, but also in response to such alienation. If one violates another's self-ownership of themselves and or their external property, they say, by this action, that it is thus acceptable in return. They have thus abrogated their property rights to the extent of violating another's, and the victim may demand punishment or compensation to the degree of the violation suffered (4). Sources: 1: The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 15. "Human Rights" as Property Rights, by Murray N. Rothbard, New York University Press, 1998. Originally published: Atlantic Highlands, N.J. : Humanities Press, 1982. ISBN 0-8147-7506-3. http://mises.org... 2: Toward a Libertarian Theory of Alienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon and Epstein, by Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 17 no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39-85 ï¿½2003 Ludwig von Mises Institute https://mises.org... 3: The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 19. Property Rights and The Theory of Contracts, ibid. http://mises.org... 4: The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 13. Punishment and Proportionality, ibid. http://mises.org...
TUF is a wimp

First of all, TUF stands for "The Ultimate Fighter" A TV show on spike hosted by Dana White, where MMA fighters get a shot at 16 figure contract in the UFC through an elimination process of fights and extensive training.http://www.ultimatefighter.com...Anyways, it would have been spelled "Tough" if I was actually claiming to be tough.However, I will accept and defend the fact that I am not a cowardly "lacky" of Imabench.The word Lacky, in the urban disctionary, means;Lacky: a person's bitch.http://www.urbandictionary.com... I have not done anything that would indicate I am his "bitch".
Use Torture? (See Scenario)

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood the scenario... I thought we were dealing with a SUSPECTED terrorist here; not an already known terrorist... I'm actually in favor of using torture if we already know he is a terrorist... I suppose it is up to you what to do with this debate then... I suggest one of the following: 1) change the scenario 2) make me continue defending the non-use of torture in this scenario (I probably won't do very well) 3) stop the debate where it is and make you automatically win If you want to do something other than the above then go ahead; I'll just go along with whatever you say. Sorry for the misunderstanding...
Use Torture? (See Scenario)

Thanks to my opponent for the arguments. Before I get into rebuttals integral to this debate, I'd like to rebuttal the use of the word 'innocent'. I feel the need to rebuttal this because it's the kind of descriptive language that can sway voters. My point here is that the man in question is not really innocent, even if he has no information. He is a terrorist who has made himself an enemy of America. If he has no information, he is not innocent, but merely ignorant towards the plot. Now his lack of innocence is not the reason I condone his torture, the reason for that is the possibility of saving lives. Onwards! My opponent says my argument is not valid because there is only a 25% torturing him would save lives. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with this. The name I labeled my argument was 'The Greater Evil', in reference to the evils that were in play in this scenario. The evils in regard to the act of torture itself are torturing a man who turned out to have information, or a man who actually had no information. Clearly, it would be horrible in one man is tortured fruitlessly. But is that a greater evil than the deaths of numerous people? Obviously, it isn't, as more people and more families would be affected by numerous deaths. The deaths of many should be avoided at any cost that is not worse than the numerous deaths. And what if this man is not tortured, and the plot is executed, and numerous people die? How can the agents who had this man in custody justify their lack of action to the families of the dead and afflicted? If you had tortured that man, and discovered that he did not know anything, that action is still justified, through the fact that it was committed in the interests of the greater good. Consider the two worst evils in this scenario. The deaths of many, or the fruitless torture of one. The deaths of many is by far the worse evil, and since it is, it is justified to risk the lesser evil in order to stop the greater. It would simply be a disservice to the American people's safety to not risk the lesser evil in order to stop the greater.
Use Torture? (See Scenario)

Your arguments would be valid, but only if you were SURE the terrorist has information. There is no doubt that torturing one guilty man is worth it if it means saving many innocent lives. However, in this case, there is only a 25% chance that the terrorist has information, in which case there is a 75% chance that you would be torturing an innocent man, and that is never okay. Imagine that you are an innocent man and somehow got framed as a terrorist because of circumstances outside of your control. You wouldn't care that your torturers are "planning for the worst"; you would simply be longing for the pain to end so you can stop being punished for something you didn't DO. You can't torture someone unless you are sure of their guilt, because torturing an innocent man is a CRIME, and there is no way to make it up to them for the physical pain they have had to endure. I look forward to hearing your next argument.
Use Torture? (See Scenario)

In order to determine what action to take in this scenario, it is necessary to weigh all the possible actions, and determine which produces the most desirable outcome. There are two options, torture or don't torture. If the option to not torture is chosen, the terrorist is unlikely to simply volunteer the information when asked. So this leads to two possible outcomes. 1A) For whatever reason no terrorist plot is carried out, nobody dies due to gunfire or bombings, and the terrorist in custody goes un-tortured. 1B) The terrorist plot is executed, and numerous people die. The terrorist in custody goes un-tortured. Clearly choice A is preferable. Now with the choice to torture the terrorist in custody, outcomes become a little more complicated. 2A) The terrorist is tortured and provides information vital to stopping the terrorist plot. This information is used to stop the terrorist plot. Numerous lives are saved and one man has been tortured as the price. 2B) The terrorist is tortured but provides no useful information. The terrorist plot is successfully carried out. Numerous people die, and one man has been tortured. 2C) The terrorist is tortured and claims there is no terrorist plot in final stages. No plot is carried out. Nobody has died and one man has been tortured. Out of these possible outcomes I will make my argument for why a terrorist should be tortured for information. Clearly choice A for not torturing is the best outcome out of all of these, but it also takes an unjustifiable risk. Argument: The Greater Evil I will not pretend that subjecting another human being to pain without their permission is good, or something to be taken lightly. It is most definitely an evil, and it should not be performed unless an alternative outcome in avoiding this evil is a greater evil. In regards to our scenario, I submit that the deaths of multiple people is a greater evil than a single man experiencing pain in order to attempt to save the lives of multiple people. To not torture the terrorist is to not even try to avoid the greater evil. My opponent and I agreed on 25/75 odds, and that is more than enough to justify this evil. If you have a 1 in 4 chance to stop the deaths of many, it should be taken without hesitation. "Plan for the worst, hope for the best" is a common saying. To not torture the individual in an attempt to stop numerous deaths would be hoping for the best (hoping for 1A), but due to the fact that they are not taking this action against the terrorist plot, they are not planning for the worst, and will be regretful if the worst comes anyways. To torture the terrorist would be planning for the worst while also hoping for the best. You are trying to take action against this terrorist plot, and as anybody would of course do, you are hoping for the best.
Use Torture? (See Scenario)

Full Scenario: A terrorist is being held under the custody of US security agencies. The security agencies have information that a terrorist is likely in the final stages of preparation, and an attack will soon happen if action is not taken. There is a 25% chance the terrorist has information that is related to the plot, and that information can be helpful in attempting to stop it. Should the terrorist be tortured in order to attempt to gain information? I say yes he should, my opponent Romanii, should he choose to accept, says he should not be tortured.
Violent Video Games

He has also made some amazing points and I will take it as a challenge to rebuttal them. The pro was talking about how the parent is responsible for what games a child plays, however this is only partly true. Sometimes an older brother or sister, or even uncle or aunt will buy a game for a child without the parents consent, or even knowledge. While not directly relevant to the point, the violent video game indirectly still ends up in the hands of the child. You pointed out that it was hardship to blame for the violence. Even if this is true, had the game not exist, he wouldn't have to stab a taxi driver in order to buy it. Before you say anything, yes, I do understand your point, but I also stick to mine, something else MIGHT of happened, but this even wouldn't have. As for the video game industry, I could name plenty of games that do not require violence. Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, Wii Sports, My Sims, and Tetris , just dance, and rock band. These are all games that don't have violence. This is my final argument, I would like to thank my opponent one last time. I reccomend that the voters vote for not who they agree with, but who did a better job. Thank you.
Violent Video Games

You said that a childs mindset may not understand the violence portrayed in video games. My response to that is "exactly". Due to the fact that the child does not understand the violence, he or she is more likely to think that his kind of behavior is okay. Mostly because, as you have stated, they do not understand he violence, or how it is wrong. I can also give many examples in which children have commited acts of violence due to a video game. One for example,On August 2, 2008, Polwat Chinno, a 19-year-old Thai teenager, stabbed a Bangkok taxi driver to death during an attempt to steal the driver's cab in order to obtain money to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV. A police official said that the teen was trying to copy a similar act in the game. Another thing I forgot to point out. is that some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are OFTEN not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative, is this the kind of stuff you want a small child playing?
Violent Video Games

Thank you for accepting, and I agree with your first statement. I would like to start with your second, that children are more prone to violence from video games. Well I still stand by my reasoning about responsibility of parents, but also a child's mindset is different then when in adolescence or older, therefore they most likely do not understand the concept of the violence that are in those video games. And how many kids have you heard violently hurting someone just because they wanted to? Even if their past growing up was not rough or devastating? Sure there are some smart kids out there, but if they were smart enough about it, they would know about violence and take in account human integrity and have some idea that it is wrong to cause violence. I admit I may have outspoken for the more recent Call of Duty's, but the older ones did have a educational value. If violent video games could hold some sort of educational value I believe the violence would matter less The education, if prevalent enough, takes your mind off the more violent parts of the game. The emotional status of the characters, how the game makes you feel, whether it be sadness, or even hate towards another character, that emotion leads to a deeper understanding of the violence in the game, if that makes sense. And the thing about the military? They live that on a weekly bases, even before video games became electronic. Sure it may be how they become less aware of killing another human being, but again, that is their lifestyle, and sure there are more even better ways, to deal with that, but obviously video games were the option chosen, and I would like to believe more for the fun that could be taken out of it by sitting next to your comrade in arms having a friendly competition.
Violent Video Games

Hello, I would like to debate on the subject of violent video games. I will now counter argue my opponent's points. First of all, you said that parenting is a primary source to violence, while this may be a legitimate statement, it does not pertain to the argument at hand. Second, you mentioned that some people may not be able to differentiate reality from fantasy, and that may cause them to be more prone to violence without gaming. This is only true in some cases. For example, a child. If a child plays this game, he will be prone to violence he is most likely has not been exposed to otherwise. You mentioned that parents should be deciding at an early age whether they should play violent video games or not. Well if video games that were violent were not sold, this would not be a problem at all. You mentioned call of duty, or medal of honor. You said that while realistic, it is educational. I have to disagree, as the last four Call of Duty games have taken place in modern ages. With most taking place in the near future. Did you know the Military uses first person shooters to make them less sensitive to killing. Why would you expose that to children? As for Crysis, it still involves shooting humans. The fact stands that you shouldn't put children in the hands of someone who is killing another person.
Violent Video Games

This is my first debate, just a side note. I have played video games since I was very little. Gaming has become a passion of mine and I want to follow that career path. Violent games I believe are not a direct source to violence in society. First from a personal note, I have had many hardships growing up and being raised and have played violent video games throughout my lifetime. In no way has video games swayed me towards violence against anyone or anything in real life. I understand not everything has my mindset. So a couple of my points are 1- Parenting. I believe parenting is a primary source to violence. In younger years of a child's life it is up to parents to decide whether or not a child or adolescent should be playing violent video games, but whether or not that actually happens, well no one actually has control over an individual"s parenting. Also family violence such as drug abuse, mental, and physical abuse, are the main factors to violence. 2- Reality vs. Fantasy. Some may not be able to differentiate reality from fantasy. To me, those people are more prone to violence without the aid of gaming. Many say violence in games cause people to act more violently, which in reality, if you think about it, how much of the violence in games is actually capable of being performed in real life? Infamous, for example, is about a man who can control electricity. How many people do you know can control electricity and shoot electric bolts from their hands? FPS (First Person Shooters) such as the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor series, have gun violence. Sure that is pretty realistic, but in some FPS you can't even cook a grenade, which is, in my opinion, very unrealistic. Also those particular series have a more historic and educational story line to them. The Crysis series, a FPS, involves aliens and abilities such as invisibility and suit upgrades. Sure you aim down a sight to shoot either human or alien, but still quite unrealistic. MOST people, I'm not saying all, can tell the difference from reality and fiction. I hope i have made my points clear, if not, please say so so I may go into more detail.