BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is more than 7000 years old.

First off, I would like to state that all of my opponents sources are from that of the answers in genesis website which has been known for much less than stellar scientific marks. There is a team they employ known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) that was created specifically to try to disprove all types of dating. If anything, this shows there will be bias in their scientific articles regarding dating. I do hold on all of my numerous other statements, which you have yet to disprove. When you point out Carbon Dating's flaws let me point something out I stated earlier. I stated that there are numerous other scientific methods to date these fossils: radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating, keep this in mind while reading the following. 1.) "This said fossil according to said system to be 110 million years old, but under further correct analysis the said fossil is only 1,000 years of age." The problem with this statement is purely this: Carbon - 14 dating can only be used for fossils and artifacts less than 50,000 years old. So, of course results for this fossil would go haywire if you used this type of dating on a fossil that is found to be 110 million years old under different dating methods. (1)(3) 2.)"They have also found that If all the atoms on Earth were Carbon14 it would take 5730 years for all of the atoms to decay and vanish. Which would mean that everything would be under the 7000 year limit." Again, you CANNOT USE carbon-14 dating for anything beyond 50,000 years or otherwise you will get haywire results (1)(3). So again, to find time periods for things older than 50,000 years you would have to use a different dating method. Therefore, this does not disprove that diamonds are indeed in the billions of years old as found under numerous other dating methods for longer time periods. Therefore your claims against Carbon Dating are scientifically incorrect. For your claims on Helium diffusion and why it has taken so long when it should have take a short time: Helium and other gases produced by radioactive decay cannot easily escape from the rocks they were formed within without human assistance. Zircon minerals are not porous enough to allow gases to escape from them. As stated: "Helium resides in two different states within the crystal: a loosely-bound state and a tightly bound state. There is precedence for this two-state or multidomain diffusion model in the geochemical literature. (See for example: Reiners and Farley, 1999, pp. 3850-3853; Farley, 2000, pp. 2906-2908; Reiners et al., 2004, pp. 1872-1874; Shuster et al., 2003, pp. 28-29; and Shuster et al., 2005, pp. 669-670.)" (2) Therefore, it can be explained through numerous scientific literatures that there is indeed a scientific reason for Helium to still reside in these rocks for so long. 1. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 2. http://www.asa3.org... 3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The earth is more than 7000 years old.

The overall accepted theory by scientists, astronomers, chemists, and professors today is that the world is around 4.54 billion years old. These scholars come to these conclusions through numerous separate dating measures. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Therefore, these are just three separate techniques by which scientists are able to date certain objects consistently. Overall, the main way to calculate earth's age is through Radiometric dating (all of the three above). This is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates that scientists have viewed, studied, and proven into law over their own lifetimes. These decay rates have provided principal sources of information about the age of rocks, geological features and the age of Earth itself. These decay rates provide a very credible timeline of Earth's history over the past 4.54 billion years which has been named the geological time scale. This scale does not follow any contradictions within itself and were something found to disprove this it would not exist. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant and accurate source of information about the ages of fossils from millions of years ago such as dinosaurs and ancient artifacts. Scientists have also used these similar methods to find out the age of cave drawings in France, Spain, and Asia which have been universally accepted to have been painted around more than 15,000 years ago. Using tree dating methods that boy scouts learn and use on a daily basis one can conclude that the tree Old Tjikko is around 9,950 years old (2000 years older than 7000). King Clone, a Creosote bush ring in the Mojave desert, has also been found to be around 11,700 years old which is almost 5000 years older than what would be a 7000 year old earth. Scientists using these forms of dating have also concluded that numerous meteorites struck the earth millions if not billions of years ago. One example of these is in an impact crater that was formed 3 billion years ago by a meteorite 19 miles (30 kilometer) wide. One other way to view that earth is older than 7000 years old is through logic. There have been no recordings of humans ever coming into contact with the incredible amount of species of dinosaurs. Survival would have been near impossible and the extinction of these dinosaurs would have no explanation. There have been thousands of cave drawings of extremely old age that do indeed paint the animal life surrounding them and none of these animals in any of the caves represent anything close to that of the dinosaurs.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

First I will state some of the reasons why I believe that carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic heating. My reasons are as follows: 1.Carbon dioxide is not the most abundant nor most important "greenhouse gas". Water (in the forms of clouds and water vapor ) is the most important and account for approximately 90% of the heating due to the "greenhouse effect" 2.The popular "greenhouse effect" graphics used to explain global warming fail to account for other factors such as evapotranspiration and thermals. 3.Heat in not actually trapped by the Earth its return to space is only delayed, this happens because the "greenhouse gases" can only absorb specific bands of radiation and when radiation is absorbed it is reradiated in different wave lengths and therefore cannot be reabsorbed by the same gas. 4.The relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is more likely than not, logarithmic and not exponential or linear. Which basically means that if 200ppmv of carbon dioxide is required to produce a 1ï¿½C increase then to produce a 2ï¿½C increase 500ppmv CO2 would be required. Now to address your points: -Carbon dioxide is not the principle "greenhouse gas" water vapor is, accounting for about 70% of the net "greenhouse effect". Clouds account for 20% and carbon dioxide for less than 10%. -Deforestation does not cause an increase in carbon dioxide it simply reduces the absorption of carbon dioxide. At the same time however increased levels of carbon dioxide may actually cause new forest growth in places like deserts.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

First of all, I'd like to say thank you to JBpixie for posting this argument. Second, I'd like to state my position on this matter: While carbon dioxide is not the sole cause behind global warming, the United States as a whole should try to limit the amount of emissions for the overall well-being of the environment. With that being said, let's begin. -------------------------------------- Fact: Carbon Emissions According to "http://www.carbonify.com...;, global warming is increased my carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, ALONG WITH methane and deforestation. Because of the rising CO2 emissions, our oceans are becoming more acidic due to the absorption of the chemical, causing fish to die. According to "http://www.ecobridge.org...;, about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. Fact: Methane While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important. According to the IPCC, Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. (ecobridge.org) Fact: Deforestation After carbon emissions caused by humans, deforestation is the second principle cause of atmospheric carbn dioxide. (NASA Web Site) Deforestation is responsible for 20-25% of all carbon emissions entering the atmosphere, by the burning and cutting of about 34 million acres of trees each year. We are losing millions of acres of rainforests each year, the equivalent in area to the size of Italy. [22] The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. We are also losing temperate forests. The temperate forests of the world account for an absorption rate of 2 billion tons of carbon annually. [3] In the temperate forests of Siberia alone, the earth is losing 10 million acres per year. (ecobridge.org) Since this is simply my opening arguement, and there are 5 rounds, I'll save the rest for later =)
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

The popular theory states that as carbon dioxide levels increase so too will the temperature at an exponential rate. According to the popular "greenhouse effect" theory carbon dioxide is the main driver of the Earth's temperature however according most of the reliable science I've seen it isn't and it as things stand today cannot have any significant effect on the planet's temperature due to limitations of carbon dioxide's ability to absorb radiation. I'm for the sensible protection of the environment and for alternative sources of energy but I don't believe that carbon dioxide can produce the catastrophic events outlined by Gore and his cronies at the UN because the science and math simply don't add up.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

First of all I have to comment on how JBpixie has not used one reference to wear he obtains his information, seeing as how every fact I have stated has a source. -------------------- "-Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is one of the most essential gases for life. Without it plants could not grow and life on Earth as it currently is would not be." According to (www.eia.doe.gov), carbon dioxide occurs naturally through both the carbon cycle and photosynthesis. It is also in the ground naturally because of decomposition of materials; however, we as humans are emitting approximately 9.3 billion tons more CO2 in addition to what is created naturally. So yes, carbon dioxide is essential to life here on Earth...what is produced naturally. Not 9.3 billion tons more, we don't need THAT much to survive. Also, according to (www.eia.doe.gov), of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere currently, 82% of the total amount of CO2 is produced from fossil fuel combustion (aka. humans). This supports my statement in a previous round that we need to decrease CO2 emissions by 80%. -------------------- "-The relationship between CO2 and the temperature is logarithmic so obtaining a 6ï¿½C rise in temperature by 2100 due to the doubling of CO2 levels is impossible." According to (www.earth-policy.org), as carbon emissions continue to increase, so will the pace of climate change. During the past century, temperatures rose 0.6 degrees Celsius, with most of the increase occurring during the last three decades. But the average global temperature is projected to rise 1.4—5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of more than 1,500 scientists. -------------------- "-Most people who are propagating {{global warming are not climatologist}} they are; celebrities, politicians, or political activist, but not many qualified climatologist. " Again, where do you get your information?! I guess all the .org, .gov, and .edu sites I've cited are run by celebrities. =) ------------------ "-There is no magic temperature for the planet. Throughout history the climate has changed and consequently species have gone extinct to be replaced by another…in fact had it not been for these changes humans would likely not be the dominant species." I'd like to see your sources for all the bold claims you are making. What proof do you have that these changes caused humans to be the dominating species? -------------------- I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate; however, my opponent needs to back his claims up with studies and sources from other people as I have cited in my arguements. If he doesn't, then it sounds like this entire debate is his own opinion. The fact that he even started this debate is risky, because he is arguing a scientific fact without any statistics or sources to back it up.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

First off nitrogen is not a "greenhouse gas" though it is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. The main "greenhouse gases" is water (clouds and water vapour) with accounts for 90% of the total net "greenhouse effect" the other 10% is accounted for by other gases such as CO2 and O3 and CH4. Secondly when speaking about atmospheric composition one should use parts per million by volume (ppmv) which refers to the amount of molecules of a specific element or compound for every one million molecules. Carbon dioxide is currently at about 380 ppm, which is said to be a 100 ppm increase since the dawn of the industrial revolution. And currently the carbon dioxide levels are raising at about 2.5 ppm per year. Carbon dioxide is for reasons stated before not doing significant damage. It is not the principle greenhouse gas and will in the near future (about 100 years) produce a temperature increase of about 2ï¿½C. This temperature increase (of 2ï¿½C) will not cause a catastrophic event of uncontrollable super destructive weather. Though increased temperatures may have some negative effects it will not put humanity on the edge of extinction as the popular theory goes. For one a temperature increase will not cause more hurricanes as is evident in the past two seasons being relatively dormant it may actually decrease the amount of hurricanes since the conditions required for the formation hurricanes may not exist in higher temperatures. And you are correct in stating that (assuming it is anthropogenic) it would be near impossible to do anything now that would reverse any damage done. This means that whether or not carbon dioxide will cause disasters that threaten humanity will be known irregardless of what is done today to slow or halt emissions. Just one more thing the planet does not exist in equilibrium. It changes constantly, in relative scientific terms. The theory that there is a special temperature favoured by the planet is flawed. The planet's temperature increases and decreases naturally overtime. Hence history is riddled with ice ages and warm periods.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

Correction. Nitrogen is the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for 78% of the atmosphere. Water Vapor only accounts for 0-4% of the atmosphere. (New York Times, 2008) On that note, CO2 emissions have increased about 2% in the last 300 years due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It is also produces naturally during cellular respiration and the decay of organic matter. It is also a reactant in photosynthesis as well as a MAJOR greenhouse gas. HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 5.5 MILLION TONS OF CO2 PER YEAR. (New York Times, 2008) By definition, "global warming" can best described as what happens when sunlight strikes the Earth's surface, but some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared heat. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation & trap the heat in the atmosphere. (New York Times, 2008) So according to the definition, greenhouse gases trap the heat in the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, there are 10 major greenhouse gases: 1. Nitrogen 2. Carbon Dioxide 3. Caron Tetrachloride 4. Chlorofluorochloride (CCL4) 5. Halons 6. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 7. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 8. Methane 9. Nitrous Oxide 10. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Of these 10 greenhouse, humans are responsible for a HUGE amount of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: PER YEAR -- Carbon Dioxide: 5.5 million tons -- Methane: 400 million tons -- Nitrous Oxide: 6 million tons (New York Times, 2008) Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by 25% since industrialization began around 150 years ago. During the past 20 years, about 3/4 of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels. In the USA, the greenhouse gas emissions come mostly from energy use. (New York Times, 2008) An estimated 3.2 BILLION metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. Earth's imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth of the greenhouse effect. (New York Times, 2008) While carbon dioxide may not account for a substantial portion of the atmosphere, it certainly is doing some major damage. To simply STABILIZE the current global warming crisis would require the following: -- A decrease in methane emissions by 8% -- A decrease in nitrous oxide emissions by 50% -- A DECREASE IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY 80% (New York Times, 2008) And to make things even worse, here's a thought: if we stopped EVERYTHING; travel, energy use, electricity, gas, transportation, etc., it would take us 150 years to put an end to global warming. (New York Times, 2008)
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

Since we can both agree that carbon dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution there is no need for discussion on how it happened. Therefore I will ignore the effects of deforestation, and focus on the effects of carbon dioxide on the climate and temperature. Though humans use carbon dioxide emitting sources for energy and not water. Water (which affects both incoming and out going radiation) remains significantly more important in climate modulation than carbon dioxide. Most of the radiation that can be absorbed by carbon dioxide is either already being absorbed or is close to being fully absorbed which means that at some point the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on the temperature when its concentration raises above a certain level. "When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space. So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse." -Simply put when carbon dioxide absorbs radiation on one wave length it releases it on another (which it cannot reabsorb) causing the heat to stay within the Earth for longer than it would have if the carbon dioxide was not present thereby increasing the mean temperature. And the same principle is true for water (which constitutes 90% of the total "greenhouse effect") and other "greenhouse gases". One final note: doubling carbon dioxide levels from 300 ppm will produce at most a 1.5ï¿½C increase while increasing carbon dioxide from a level of zero would have produced an increase between 5 ï¿½C and 12 ï¿½C. This means that doubling carbon dioxide levels from 600ppm to 1200ppm would produce a temperature increase less than 1ï¿½C. So within the next one hundred years the temperature could increase by as much as 2ï¿½C. The consequences of which can be discussed later on since there are two remaining rounds.
Carbon dioxide is cannot cause catastrophic heating due to the greenhouse effect.

According to "ezinearticles.com", deforestation increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The continued degradation of our forest heightens the threat of global warming because the trees and other plants that takes up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to be used for photosynthesis are gone. The burning of wood or its decay contributes to the release of more carbon which combines with oxygen in the atmosphere thus increasing further the levels of carbon dioxide that causes greenhouse effect. While water accounts for 90% of the principle "greenhouse gases", we as a society do not use water as our energy source, nor as a primary source of transportation. Our society uses coal for over 40% of our energy consumption. More specifically, a source of energy that produces large amounts of CO2. CO2 does, in fact, trap heat in the atmosphere; or in your words "delaying the process." According to "www.pa.msu.edu", most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space. So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.
I am better than you

This is a purely troll debate. In this debate I will attempt to prove that I am better than my opponent. Better meaning: of superior quality or excellence: as according to dictionary.com. To respond to midnight accepting since this is a 5 minute debate, I will post an argument right now. I have a PhD is engineering, I know Advance Calculus, additionally I won the fields award and the Nobel Prize, I memorized the song Imdabes, showing that I am the best and according to dictionary.com, best means, of the highest quality, excellence, or standing, therefore this shows that I am better than you because IMDABES! (spelled wrong on purpose) [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
I am better than you

Since it is very difficult to prove if one person is "better" than another, and my opponent has not provided a very clear way of judging who is better, I will stipulate a rule. My opponent has to prove that he/she is better than me in everything. I would also like to point out that BoP is on Pro. I wish to point out that my opponent is 14 years old. As there have been no 14 year old who has won the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal, I will treat his above argument with a grain of salt. I would also like to point out that I have better artistic taste than my opponent. The picture I have for my profile picture is the most expensive painting in existence. My opponent's profile picture (at this point), is only a purple circle.
I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

I am a bit confused here because my opponent is deterring away from the meaning of the Christ I intended to put forth, which is the Biblical Christ. However I will let my curiosity be satisfied by allowing my opponent to go first, and let him construct an argument for why a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand along side God and show why he should share in the power and glory of God. Also by request, my opponent wants votes to be awarded for grammar skills, to which I accept. I hand the debate to wrichcriw.