BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution

How are scientists able to easily observe half lives of isotopes accurately. They assume the isotope has decayed at the same rate, for all of history. Science assumes no outside sources have interfered with the decay, or for example washed some of the isotopes away. If the Earth were billions of years old, then a lot could happen in that time period to screw up results. I didn't bring up Carbon dating as an actual dating method, I brought it up to show how C-14 numbers in the atmosphere is increasing. Meaning that the decay and production of C-14 in the atmosphere hasn't reached equilibrium. The picture of a tree is one of many examples of any fossils that run through multiple rock layers. I just wanted to show you an example of what i was talking about. I was disproving how the rock layers cannot be different ages. You bring up a valid point of how they could be stuck in a marsh or buried by volcanic ash, which is plausible. My point is that these trees are found everywhere through the earth. Many are actually not found by volcanoes, or marshes. They are spread out within different ecosystems. Some trees have been found underground in some places in Alaska or Antarctica, suggesting a rapid relocation of the organisms. Just Google it. One more thing I have to bring up is that the earth's rotation is slowing down. If the earth was billions of years old then why hasn't it slowed completely yet? What has caused it to loose rotational speed? What is an old universe believer's explanation for this. You cannot use the Great Barrier Reef as evidence for the age of the earth. You need to look at both perspectives. It probably would have taken the reef millions of years to grow the size it is today, but God could have made the reef and let it grow from there. He didn't plant one tree or one blade of grass to populate the world with. You assume the Reef must have started with one organism or however small you thing it was, when also God could have made it the way it is, letting it grow. -Dan
Evolution

You bring up carbon dating, however I never mentioned carbon dating. C14 is not always an accurate dating method, but that is why we have hundreds of types of dating methods. As you can see in my first link from round one the radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are: Parent/Daughter Uranium-235/ Lead-207 Uranium-238/ Lead-206 Potassium-40/Argon-40 Rubidium-87/Strontium-87 Samarium-147/Neodymium-143 Thorium-232/ Lead-208 Rhenium-187/Osmium-187 Lutetium-176/ Hafnium-176 These are a lot more reliable for dating minerals and rocks. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov... C14 is not used to date minerals or rocks. Because of that C14 is not able to be used to prove or disprove the age of the Earth. You then bring up a petrified tree but your only evidence for why that would show a young Earth is a picture of the tree. You did not provide a source for why that would disprove an old Earth. They are also known as Polystrate tree fossils. Geologists have been able to explain these for quite some time now. Since you did not source anything but a picture, I will simply give a source to explain this and only touch on it a bit. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... The trees could easily have been fossilized in multiple layers because of many conditions. Large trees can stay upright for decades after they die, some of the upright fossils have rotted away interiors as well. Volcano ash that buries trees could easily cause them to form as they did, and if they were buried in a marsh then they are nearly immune to rot, allowing for them to be fossilized as they did. For a better and more in depth explanation you can check out the link I provided. Another point for an older Earth is coral. Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 18 million years. http://www.greatadventures.com.au...
Evolution

Ahh very insteresting. Here is one of my evidences for a young earth. Have you heard of C-14 Dating? C-14 is an isotope of the element Carbon, and is created when some of the suns energy hits Nitrogen in the atmosphere to make the isotope. It has a very short half life of just under 6000 years. Eventually the amount of C-14 created and lost to decay would equalize in a state known as equilibrium. Willard Libby was the man who created the process of Carbon dating. He made some very serious assumptions. He assumed the earth was millions of years old, so the the C-14 equilibrium was already reached. The amount of C-14 has actually increased in the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years. Now, Libby calculated that it would take about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, which it hasn't. This means the Earth is less than 30,000 years old. Also, because the amount of C-14 dating in the atmosphere is changing, it is not a reliable source of dating. http://www.chem.uwec.edu... (Bottom couple Paragraphs explain this problem). http://www.google.com... The picture you see here is of a petrified tree running through multiple rock layers. Just Google "petrified trees" and you will find pictures of them. They have been found all around the globe. In this picture, you can see that the tree runs through multiple layers. By the law of superposition, all of the layers the tree runs through are different ages. This means it would take millions of years for the tree to be encompassed by the rock. Problem number one is that trees fall over when they die. Not right away of course but they cant last millions of years. It is impossible for the layers to be different ages if the tree runs through all of them. Petrified trees prove that they were encompassed by a rapid burial from rock layers being formed very quickly. Maybe from a global flood. (: I only used two pieces of evidence because you only used two. Should we just stay even with evidence through the debate? And I'm not sure... was i supposed to disprove your points of evidence? I can tell already this will be fun. Thanks for accepting! -Dan
The Apollo missions were faked.

I extend my dust particle physics argument as it has not been addressed by the pro. I also adress my temperature argument as it has not been addressed by the pro. To the kaguya argument: The two images were not both photos taken by NASA. The first was a computer generated from the SELENE (common name: Kaguya) probe, launched in 1990by JAXA. There is no lander in either photo, it is the LRV. The images were meant to be from the exact same location or as close to it as possible. The Japanese aerospace probe's image is proof that the NASA photo was taken on the moon. To the hills in the photo argument, the actual distance between the two hills and what NASA said about it is irrelevant. The geography from the SELENE images matches almost exactly to the geography in the many photographs taken by Apollo astronauts, specifically those from Apollo 15. The "C" rock: It is well known that the image of the rock showing the letter "C" is not the original image. It was more than likely a small hair that made its way into the film in a darkroom. Keep in mind that these third generation images, like the c-rock image, could not be copied digitally at the time because we did not have the technology. Layered Cross-hairs: They were not imprinted over the top of all the photographs. The black + marks were on a glass lens in front of film pane. When the cross hair was directly over a bright object, the mark faded due to overexposure. This can be copied on earth with most cameras slr cameras. Unexplained object: What is seen above? I cannot see an image or link. I cannot find the image online either. To debunk most of the unexpained objects: The film process was not a perfect science. Images on film had to be developed by hand. Most of these "objects" are smudges or dots that seem to have appeared during development due to mistakes by darkroom workers. Other objects are simply overexposure.
The Apollo missions were faked.

Pro has decided to ignore most of my arguments including those regarding light sources, heat, and the astronauts footprints, calling them "not valid" and providing no further evidence or even acknowledging them in their second argument. Therefore, I extend all those arguments as logical and acceptable counterpoints to their original argument. To the flag argument: My argument is very valid and sound. If you believe that they faked the motion of the flag using wind, would the dust on the ground not fly everywhere? There is no wind present, and therefore the only way the flag could possibly be moving is because of the physics I explained in my original rebuttal. I also extend that argument as Pro has failed to provide a legitimate counterpoint. Pro attempted to make the argument that because he already knew the counterpoints to the arguments he made regarding the hoax, when I used them they were somehow invalid. They are absolutely valid, even if they are not originally my ideas. Pro has also decided not to address the dust physics argument, so I extend that argument as well. To his new arguments: No crater: There would not be a crater. When the lander descended, the engines were cut above the ground. People like to think that when spacecraft land, there is a big plume of dust or smoke and a huge spitting flame, like on takeoff, but the reality is that is not how it works when landing on planets with little gravity. If you listen to some of the recordings from apollo missions, some landers kicked up more dust than others, depending on the pilot and how they chose to land the craft, but none of the landings used the module's engines violently enough to create a crater in the ground. Moon Buggy: The LRV (Lunar Rover Vehicle) folded up. It did not fit inside the LEM, it was attached on the outside. You can view a video of the apollo 15 rover being deployed from it's exterior position here: No Stars in photographs: This is very simple. The surface of the moon was quite reflective and bright, so the astronauts decided to use fairly high shutter speeds, between 1/150th and 1/250th of a second, in order to keep the photos from whiting out. Photos taken at this speed would not have been able to capture dim background lights, such as stars, very well, or even at all.
The Apollo missions were faked.

Your answers to my statements are not valid. For example, the actual reason the flag "waving" is due to a inserted wire in the flag. When the astronauts put the flag up, they bent the wire, causing the flag to "wave". My "statement" pr not truly my opinion, therefore I also know the counter-arguments. Here are a couple more statements that prove the moon landing was fake. - When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface." - There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving, in many pictures, could have fit into that little landing module! - Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?
The Apollo missions were faked.

To counter your arguments: 1. Flag-waving: This is simple physics, and any notion that the motion of the flag was caused by wind is unfounded in science. The motion of the flag can be explained by inertia and lack of resistance. The flagpole was moved around and even rotated several times during planting. The lack of atmosphere on the moon provided little resistance for the motion, and the flag continued to "wave" for a short period of time. If you look into the reports of the other manned apollo missions, they actually copied the actions to make their flags wave as well, because the astronauts that it was cool. 2. Light sources: There WERE multiple light sources. Light from the sun reflected off the lunar surface, the astronaut's white spacesuits, and the lander. The strange contrasts seen in the videos occur because the astronauts were not professional film-makers. They did not realize that the lighting was weird, the video was not their first priority. 3. Temperature: The moon's temperature is 280 degrees F, but that is SURFACE temperature. There is no "air temperature" like we have on Earth, because there is no air on the moon. For temperature to exist there must be increased particle motion, which is impossible when there are no particles, or at least very few, like on the surface of the moon. There are a similar amount of particles in the atmosphere near the moons surface as there are near the orbit of the ISS. The film would not have melted so long as the container it was in was shielded from radiation and not in contact with the ground. 4. Leaving a footprint does not require moisture. The soil on the moon was similar to volcanic ash. Such a fine powder is easily compressed into a footprint, while substances with larger grains, like sand, do not. The moon is not covered in sand, however, it is covered in very fine rock dust. New Arguments: The most creative and definitive proof that we landed on the moon: . http://www.popsci.com... In the famous rover video, the motion of the dust coming off off the wheels of the rover is possible only in gravities near 1/6th the gravity of the earth, or 1.6 m/s/s. Also, the lack of deceleration in the horizontal direction could only have been possible in a vacuum to a magnitude that we could not produce on earth. This could not have been faked. Kaguya Probe: The Japanese probe "Kaguya" carried 3D imaging technology that mapped the topography of much of the moon, including the geography of regions photographed by astronauts. In one specific photograph, the topography matches exactly. Here are the two images, one a photograph taken by astronauts of apollo 15, and the subsequent 3D image. . http://www.darkgovernment.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Apollo missions were faked.

Thanks for posting this debate. It sounds like a lot of fun. Here is a couple of reasons why people believe the astronauts never landed on the moon. On the picture the American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind. Multiple-angle shadows in the moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp. In the sun's rays, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted. To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it? (Referring to the picture of the astronauts footprint)
A Vegan lifestyle is better than a meat-eating one

Thanks for the debate, Pro. Rebuttals ============ 1. Nature It seems that Pro is linking animals to slaves. This is not a good comparison, and this is why. Animals are treated with RESPECT. Crazy, right? After all, the big manufacturers treat the animals poorly. Ask any farmer who is not part of a big manufacturer and they would say they care for their animals, even though they are to be killed anyway. Even some farmers who are part of large manufacturers love their animals, and they think they shouldn't be treated like so, some even quit because of this. Animals are still LOVED, they are not viewed as "mere commodities". Second, food. Did we need slaves to survive? No, it was just a way to be lazy. Animals can be FOOD, it isn't bad for you and it certainly has nutritional value. We ate it for SURVIVAL, slaves were used just for making things easier, and they weren't treated with respect. Yes, there could be improvements to the current system, but how does this benefit the individual? It doesn't, it doesn't. 2. Nutrition Pro forgets one key aspect. Pro keeps arguing how eating vegetables and fruits is healthy, we need to remember that having a omnivore diet means eating vegetables and fruits too. As I explained in round 4, you get all the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables, and get all the benefits from eating meat as well. Why trouble yourself into trying to find a source of protein and all the nutritional things in meat in a vegan diet, if you could just change to a healthier omnivore diet( (eating more fruits and vegetables)? 3. Veganisim is Better for the environment Do we need electronics to survive? Do we really need online debate sites? Do we need big cities or schools to survive? No, they aren't necessary, but they are EXTREMELY beneficial. We could live without all these things, it's possible, but it's better if we do have them. Same thing goes with meat, we don't need meat, but it is extremely beneficial. Remember, you will still be eating vegetables and fruits, and you will benefit from meat too. 4. Veganisim is better for the environment So, if we let ALL of them free, will that help? At least in farms they get food, and their waste gets cleaned up. Imagine how bad it would be if we let them free. A lot of natural resources would be depleted, there would be overcrowding due to the mass amount of animals. , and there will be a lot of gases being thrown into the atmosphere. In fact, there might be even MORE, because there's no one to clean it up. All in all, it would be more disastrous for everyone if we just let all of them free. Conclusion ============= I stand firmly on the position that an omnivore diet is better than a vegan one for the individual. You get all the nutrition from fruits and vegetables, AND you get the added bonus from the meat (Not to mention having one of the tastiest parts of the meal). It is just better and more nutritious (that's vague, but that's all I can think of). I believe I have successfully countered my opponents arguments, and that my arguments stay standing. Thank you for the amazing debate Pro.
Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage

Hi! INTRO/EXPLANATION: Because of the sometimes astronomical cost of health care, the Affordable Care Act includes a new provision that makes many preventive services available patients. These services will not require co-pays or deductibles, and will apply to both self-inusured and fully insured plans. Among these preventative services are FDA-approved contraceptives for men and women, with some restrictions. This provision was included as a way to drive down costs, to reduce pressure on overburdened systems, and to remove cost barriers - ensuring that more women maintain access to preventative health care. [1] Only half of Americans have historically sought health care as a normal preventative measure, and this has driven up medical costs in the US exponentially. [1] Additionally, women's health care needs in particular can be difficult to meet, especially in relation to reproductive health, where the health of an infant may be necessarily included. [2] Hopefully, this debate will help to explain some of the reasons for including preventative health care and reproductive health care in particular, as part of any new health care reform laws. I look forward to an interesting exchange! --------------- For the record, this is a link to a DDO Opinions section that covers this subject: http://www.debate.org... [1] http://www.hhs.gov... [2] http://www.hrsa.gov...
Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage

I saw this topic in the Opinions and thought it interesting that 75% answered in the positive. This is a source of much debate in the United States as it is one of the more controversial provisions of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). I will be arguing that contraceptives should not be classified as preventative health care for the purpose of insurance coverage. For the purposes of this debate, a contraceptive is a device or drug serving to prevent pregnancy. The debate will have 4 rounds: 1 - Acceptance/Intro 2 - Opening Argument 3 - Rebuttal/Continuation/Clarification 4 - Closing Statement This is my first debate on DDO but I am an experience debator. Thank you and good luck.
War Debate: United States of America (Pro) versus The People's Republic of China (Con)

General Information [1][2][3]Total Population: 1.357 billion GDP: $9.24 trillion USDTotal Army Members: 2.11 millionReserves: 3.25 millionBudget of National Defense: $147 billion Standard Weapons: LandTanks: 7,000Artillery Pieces: 8,000NavyAircraft Carriers: 1Destroyers: 23Frigates: 52Corvettes: 23Tank Landing Ships/ Amphibious Transport Docks: 30Medium Landing Ships: 22Diesel Attack Submarines: 57Ballistic Missile Submarines: 4Coastal Patrol (Missile): 86Air Force [4]Airmen: 398,000 Aircrafts: 4,000 (approx. 1,000 more aircrafts are expected to come this year)Fighters: 1,170Attackers: 885Transporters/Trainers: 1,142Helicopters: 856Special Mission Aircraft: 114Missile Forces [5]ICBM: 75 - 100 (estimated range of 5,400-13,000+ km)MRBM: 200-300 (estimated range of 1,500+ km)SRBM: 1,000-1,200 (estimated range of 300-1,000 km)GLCM: 200-300 (estimated range of 1,500+ km)Major Allies [6]RussiaNorth KoreaPakistanSources:[1] http://www.chinatoday.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://www.defense.gov...[4] http://www.popsci.com...;[5] https://www.defense.gov...[6] https://www.google.com...
i win

Any position is not better than yours, and your position is not the worse. My proof lies in your own profile. If your statement were true, you wouldn't have won even a single debate out of the 800+ debates you had, but you still won 99 (data according to when I checked) Your second argument is a universal truth. I know you are not me. It is similar to saying that 'Asia is a continent'. No one can prove otherwise. Besides, you strayed from the original debate.I would like to point out that I have made more convincing arguments as my opponent did not argue at all till this round. Also, I have better sources because my opponent did not mention sources till now.Sources - vi_spex's DDO profile