BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young Earth

I shall present my evidence right now. 1) Using Radiometric dating, the measuring the decay rate in radioactive elements, scientists have found rocks in Greenland, Swaziland, and Western Australia that are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Look that up. 1.5) About 70 large and significant meteorites have hit the Earth. With radiometric dating, the rock and crater have been found up to 4.5 billion years old. 2) http://apps.usd.edu... Evidence that proves a point wrong. The magnetic field is not decaying at a constant rate. Dr Barnes is a creationist using the magnetic field to prove his theory. Using data obtained by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst in 1967, Dr Barnes asserted that Earth's magnetic field has been decaying in a non-cyclic manner at an exponential rate since the beginning of creation. However, that is not true since observed scientific evidence has shown that the magnetic field had not been decaying at a constant rate but instead fluctuating, and at a few points reversing polarity. Therefore, the south would be north and north would be south. Also, when the flood happened, if it was created by a downwards thrust of the tectonic plates on earth it would create cooling in the outer atmosphere, putting lots of changes to the magnetic field. This doesn't mean I am not antichristian but is just evidence from scientists looking at the earth that ties in with the bible. 3) When the Apollo missions went to the moon, they collected rocks that were analyzed and found 4.4 billion years old. 4) Dinosaur bones and other bones/fossils have been found and carbon date and radiometric dated back millions of years. 5) Erosion. Just 1 specific example: How could the Colorado River create the Grand Canyon in only 6,000 years? 6) Sun activity is proven to alter carbon decay rate.
Young Earth

Let's say Con will present his evidence, then we will get into the rebuttals next round. Let me get into the evidence. 1) There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. If the earth was old, with the accumulation of sediment on the ocean floor, there should be miles of sediment on the ocean floor. Wind and water erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock and deposit them on the seafloor every year. Tectonic plates remove around 1 billion tons of sediment, but this still leaves 19 billion tons of sediment gained per year. The average thickness of all sediments globally over the seafloor is not even 1,300 ft. At this rate, 1,300 ft of sediment would accumulate in only 12 million years not billions. 2) Earths decaying Magnetic Field Scientists discovered that earth magnetic field is decaying fast. At the current rate, the field and the earth could not be older than 20,000 years old. 3) In 2000, scientists claimed to "resurrect" a bacteria found in a salt crystal conventionally dated to have lived 250 million years ago. Its DNA was very similar to modern bacteria but if the earth was old, the bacteria's DNA would be very different based on known mutation rates. https://answersingenesis.org... 4) The recession of the moon The gravitational pull of the moon creates a tidal bulge on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards slowly. Because of this, the moon would have been much closer in the past. Using gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved. If the earth is 6000 years old, there's no problem. In that time, the moon would have moved only 800 feet. But in Billions of years, the moon would have been touching the earth. 5) Radiocarbon in Diamonds Radiocarbon or carbon-14 cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it rapidly decays. Therefore it can only be used to obtain ages around tens of thousands of years. Scientists from the RATE project examined diamonds that are thought to be 1 - 2 billion years old. The RATE scientists discovered significant levels of radiocarbon, dating them around 55,000 years old. There's some evidence of a Young Earth.
The words "under God" should not be taken out of the Pledge.

R1: But the word is not god, it is God. God is not a god, he is the god. In America, God is often used to talk about the Christian god. It is silly to think that Eisenhower or the Knights of the Columbus were referring to all religions. Still, this is not Constitutional as it presumes a faith in a god.R2: Um... All the sources I have found about the pledge indicate the change was because of the Communists [1] [2].R3: My Communist argument was the rebuttal to your early president argument. So if we throw out the early presidents we can also throw out the Communist argument.R4: Well those text books are wrong, or you misunderstood them, because the Big Bang is the explanation to the event that caused our universe, not abiogenesis, which is how life got on Earth. Also, if we are a secular country, and everything points to us being besides this pledge, then we shouldn't be a country putting faith in a god. That's kind of ridiculous, if you think about it. I am pledging my obediance to a country that puts its faith in something I don't even think exists.R5: I mentioned that quote again because of your statement "You're the one who got us into debating about whether the Founding Fathers were believers in God. I concede that I was a bit harsh, if that's the word, when saying you were off topic." I was showing it was you that started the conversation about the founding fathers' beliefs.R6: This is a response to your... Israel argument? I really don't know what to make of this. Are you saying that if we abondon God we will be surrounded by countries that hate us? I mean, the Middle East kind of already does so I don't really know your point. Even so, Sweden is a secular country but they haven't been Sodom and Gomorrahed.R7: So your final, end all argument is that it isn't worth the trouble? Where would anyone be if they didn't change anything because it wouldn't be worth the effort? That's really the weakest argument I've seen. I know this is the last round, so you can't really respond, but what would happen if we took out any mention of God from the pledge? Would the world end? Would God wipe us off the face of the planet? Would hardly anything change besides a bunch of people getting upset they can't force their religion onto everyone else? It's a question worth asking.Sources: [1] http://www.ushistory.org... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com...
The words "under God" should not be taken out of the Pledge.

Response 1: I never said Buddhists can't have a god, I said they don't require one. This isn't a debate about Buddhism, though. Hinduism can include multiple gods, and some people worship Satan, who isn't a god at all. Having God in the pledge is unconstitutional as it implies the necessity to believe in one.Response 2: I really thought I explained it, but here we go. In your first argument you said the opinions of these men had to be respected, as if there own opinions on something completely separate from their work is an authority. I am saying the Constitution is important, as it lays the groundwork for our government, yet the opinions of the founding fathers on anything other than government has no place here.Response 2.1: "Great to know Mr. Cocky-pants." To be fair, you've stated outright you won in the final round of one of our debates. But not apart of this debate.R3: Homosexuality is natural, as is homophobia. Just like berries and cyanide. R4: I think we're getting a bit mixed up in our arguments. So, I think you and I need to agree on something now. How about we agree that the opinions of these early presidents aren't important, but what is in the Constitution is. I can back this up, because the Constitution is law and the opinions of these men aren't. Alright?R5: I still think the two are entertwined but all right. R6: What elementary school did you go to where you were taugh evolutionary theory in the elementary school? I didn't even hear it mentioned in my school until 8th grade, and that was only for my teacher to tell me I'd learn it later. Also, that scenario is what you are proposing. I mean if these kids really want to take the extra effort to worship their god while pledging themselves to a secular country then they can mutter it under their breathe or think it in their mind after it is over. R7: I meant God was a Christian term. I did, actually, argue that how you were using God wasn't meant to apply to Islam, but I guess we are just throwing that out.R8: Again, please, hold up. You mentioned the sanctity of the founding father's opinions in the first argument. Here's a quote for you: " It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not, but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected." R9: The Supreme Court did make its ruling, and I disagree with it. Also, on the Supreme Court during the time, all 9 were religious, with 4 Roman Catholics, 3 Jewish, and 2 Episcopals. I'm sure that none of them were biased at all.Here's a question. Are people allowed to be atheists in America? If yes, then America isn't about trusting in God. If no, then you must live in a different America than I.Oh, and just for the fun of it, I am leaving a link with some... interesting Supreme Court decisions.http://newhampshire.watchdog.org...;
The words "under God" should not be taken out of the Pledge.

I, Pro, concede and imply that "under God" should not be taken out of the American pledge of Allegiance. It is truly a matter of if you believe God is our Creator or not, but our founding Fathers did and this is something to be respected. The nation should not take the chance or risk it because, if the God many presidents and citizens of the USA believe in is real, then we should continue to put our trust in Him. It should not make atheists mad if those words are in the Pledge or on money because they don't believe in a God (why should it worry/concern them?). America is not an atheist country and we should not change how it is.
The use of credit scoring should be prohibited in hiring practices.

First off, the resolution is intended for government intervention under EEOC laws to include credit scoring for non-bone fide reasons. This negates anything related to military or security sensitive jobs, and that is a bone fide reason for discriminating against someone under EEOC regulations. This resolution is intended to protect minorities from the blindness of credit scoring and what it means. Just because someone is a minority does not mean that they, individually, will steal, will not show up for work, or otherwise make them a bad employee. What the statistical evidence basically shows is that if you have 100 Caucasians, 100 African Americans, and 100 Latinos, and so on, the Caucasians and Asians would have the best credit scores. However, this does not correlate that having a bad credit score makes anyone a poor employee. Further, credit scores do not necessarily mean that one has failed to pay his or her bills. Recall, only 35% of the total score is related to repayment history. Credit scoring does not accurately predict anything that would relate to employment, as accurately as it predicts race. So why would anyone use credit scoring for hiring screening? Yes, the government does have the right to interfere with the freedom of associate or property rights. It's called the social contract theory. I'll even let you pick the one that I'll use. Whether you want to agree or disagree, it's in full effect. It's not something we chose, we were born into it, so long as we are born into a society.
The use of credit scoring should be prohibited in hiring practices.

You seem to be attempting to answer the question "Should companies choose to use credit scoring in hiring practices? " The resolution, however, asks whether it should be PROHIBITED,which means all your questions of whether it's correlated with turnover (not necessarily the only factor with which one should be concerned, especially if they steal and don't get caught, or are subject to blackmail for their debts that results in problems in security-sensitives jobs with military contractors and the like who often use credit history, but that's secondary to the main point) are out the window; because it becomes an issue of force, which is absolutely immoral under any non-retaliatory circumstances. The government does not morally have the right to interfere with freedom of association or property rights in such a manner, and the former also happens to be unconstitutional. You see, the sole purpose and justification of government is the protection of rights, when it becomes the violator, people's self-interest no longer clearly lies with that government, and self-interest is the fundamental rule of action. Any breach between actor and beneficiary is an error in planning, an ethical contradiction, because human beings seek to live, and their own life is the only one they can live. Any violation of rights by the government condemns said government.
It's time to restore our traditional mid-winter festival to its former glory

Sadly, many years ago our mid-winter festivities were hijacked by religious zealots who wanted us to celebrate the birth of the founder of their sect – Jesus Christ - and they sought to rebrand the traditional Yuletide celebrations as "Christmas" in his honour. The fact is, the Christians of Northern Europe didn't adopt the 25th December to mark Jesus Christ's birthday until around three or four hundred years after he died (supposing he even existed at all) and this is generally accepted to have been the way they wrecked Yuletide which was, until then, widely celebrated. (1) These early Christians coerced the population of Northern Europe into observing Christmas and, as a result of their bullying, the real meaning of Yuletide was largely forgotten and all we have to remember our original festival are Yuletide logs, holly, ivy and mistletoe – and the fact that the festive season lasts for twelve days rather than just one. Of course, going forward, we should still keep the seasonal greetings cards; the gifts; the roast turkey with all the trimmings; the champagne, port and brandy and the decorated trees – they have no connection with Christianity at all - and I see no reason we should go and give Santa Claus the boot just because this kindly old Anatolian happened to be a Christian. (2) No, we should still be able to enjoy ourselves at Yuletide – in fact, even more so without pious Christians pestering us to go to church on Christmas Eve. That's right, it's now time we told North European, American and Australasian Christians to go and celebrate Christmas with the orthodox Christians on 7th January - and to take their carols and nativity plays with them. Thank you. (1) http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk... (2) http://www.stnicholascenter.org... (3) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
It's time to restore our traditional mid-winter festival to its former glory

I look forward to addressing your contentions. Pro is arguing that Yuletide should be re-instituted. His basic reasons for this notion are that Yuletide existed before Christianity and Christianity pushed Yuletide out of the spotlight. But let me provide a simple analogy that I think will cut down on my tendency to talk to much. Imagine I told you that we should re-institute slavery, misogyny, fighting wars with swords instead of guns, or any other idea, because those things preceded our current state, and were pushed out by modern practices. I don't think the logic follows. Why reinstate something? Well, if you have some sort of objective standard, and that standard was lost (i. e. prohibition of alcohol impeded on rights, therefore it was good to get rights back). But Yuletide is just a personal preference to my secular friend, so there really isn't a reason we ought to bring it back [1]. If one thinks that numbers confer oughtness, then Yuletide is certainly out, because there aren't many people who are for bringing it back . What should make me, or anyone else feel obligated to bring Yuletide back? My opponent goes on to say that the festivities wouldn't really require taking off twelve days of work. The festivities wouldn't really require secularists to change anything, including continuing to not go to the church they already don't go to over Christmas. In fact, my opponent claims we don't even know much about what Yuletide was or the people who celebrated it. So what on earth are we changing? It seems as though the whole matter isn't about adding or re-instituting anything. It's about removing the structure of the religious domination of the holiday season. While this would be an interesting debate, we are here to debate establishing Yuletide. But how do we bring back something we can't define? In the end, my opponent's desire is to secularize the holiday season. Let everyone do as they please, except those who want to do as I don't please. That's all well and good. Christianity by no means holds the power it once did, and it may not be as well represented anymore. And even if it were, other people should be respected as well. But to tell us that we should (which implies an obligation of some sort) re-instate a holiday we can't define, and is really old, doesn't go too far in my mind. I would like to thank my opponent again for an interesting debate. I think he raises an issue we should all look in, which is a great reminder to the respect we are called to give others. However, I disagree that what he is asserting logically follows in the form he has argued. [1] . http://docsdining.blogspot.com...
It's time to restore our traditional mid-winter festival to its former glory

However, I should like to reiterate that my argument is not so much that Yuletide should be "instituted" or that it should "replace" Christmas, rather that it should be restored – Yuletide was celebrated long, long before Christianity arrived on the scene and muscled in on this cherished Pagan festival. In practice, though, once the Christian elements of the mid-winter festival are stripped away, we will notice very little difference in the festivities, except that they will no longer be blighted by religious dogma and tiresome lectures from preachers. Furthermore, there will be little new to add simply because we know so little about pre-Christian Paganism. William Dalrymple, the presenter of The Long Search wrote: "Fathoming how our earliest ancestors understood the world is something we can only guess at very tentatively using the clues of archaeology. In Wiltshire, a unique collection of ceremonial monuments and burial mounds span several periods of pre-history. The earliest of them tell us that kinship and the support of a clan's ancestors seems to have lain at the centre of the conception of spirituality. " (1) Basically then, Yuletide would pretty much be business as usual except that we would be encouraged to celebrate with our friends and family and remember those who are no longer with us – which is what most people do at that time of year anyway – and in terms of religious duties, there will no longer be any: hooray! That means Yuletide will be suitable for people of all faiths and those of no faith at all – ideal for the enlightened, multicultural societies we live in today. Finally, my opponent questioned the advisability of a twelve day holiday but, just as there are currently ‘twelve days of Christmas', when my plan is adopted, there will be ‘twelve days of Yuletide' instead – but that doesn't mean twelve days off work, of course! Naturally, though, I wouldn't wish to deny Christians the right to celebrate Jesus Christ's birth, I merely maintain that they should do so on Christmas Day, the 7th January - although if they decide to take the day off work they should do so at their own expense rather than their employers'. Thank you. (1) . http://www.bbc.co.uk...
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

I do not understand how your summary of the Reconstruction Amendments pertains to this debate. Whether or not the Reconstruction Amendments were the result of slavery, which they were, they still apply to all legal citizens. Your argument that same-sex marriage should be prohibited because a state has a prohibition on same-sex marriage is a tautological argument. My statement in round 1 states that tautological arguments will not be considered rational or legitimate. It is certainly fair for people to fight against prohibitions that they deem unfair, especially if it's defenders cannot provide a legitimate, rational reason for the prohibition to begin with. The government of Texas certainly has the final decision on state affairs, but they cannot pass a law prohibiting same-sex marriage without a legitimate, rational reason (rational basis test). Although this has nothing to do with the debate, there is nothing in the natural world that can be truly socialism, fascism, hell, and nazism simultaneously. Socialism, in simplest terms, is an economic system where there is a social ownership of the means of production. Fascism, and all forms of fascism, which includes nazism, opposes this idea. Mussolini himself wrote, "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of"Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...." Hell is a man-made afterlife to scare people into conforming to the ideas of the religion proposing the existence of hell. I agree, it is the right of the states to determine the legality of same-sex marriage. However, a state can only prohibit same-sex marriage if they provide a legitimate, rational reason. You, nor any state with a same-sex marriage ban, has proposed such a reason.