BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vaccines do not cause autism.

This is a debate, one in which my opponent made a claim which he has not backed up. It is his burden of proof to show some evidence stating that autism is not caused and cannot be caused by vaccines. It is my burden, as Con, to simply negate my opponents claim. Until my opponent brings forth evidence backing his claim his claim is assumed invalid, and thus I win. However, to indulge my opponent's previous round, I will address a few errors in his arguments. My opponent's first two arguments are equivocations, and thus they are logically flawed. Furthermore, my opponent's first provides an example in which he claims it is impossible to disprove the existence of an teapot, and then proceeds to eliminate all potential methods for disproving its existence. My opponents last argument is his weakest point, as it flawed in a great number of ways. First, in a debate setting, Pro has the burden of proof in affirming the resolution. Second, I have made no positive claim, and nor am I required to. In a debate, Con simply must negate the arguments brought up by Pro. If Pro does not bring forth any arguments, Con wins by default. Third, my opponent states, "To argue that vaccines cause autism and then demand that vaccine makers prove that no vaccine causes autism is a faulty argument. " I have made no such argument or demand. I, as Con, am not required to make an argument, but rather to negate Pro's arguments. Finally, my opponent states, "Although accepting the status quo is absolutely not part of science, it is good science to demand that claims be supported by evidence, rather than making claims and demanding that others provide evidence where you have none. " Once again, I have made no claim, my opponent did. So my opponent is correct, in order to make an argument, you must make a claim supported by evidence instead of demand that I provide evidence against an unsupported claim. "To restate in brief: A negative is impossible to prove. .. " Unfortunately for my opponent, a debate is a debate. Pro makes the argument, Con negates it. I am not required to provide any connection between autism and vaccines, but rather Pro must show that none exists. It is worth reminding my opponent that he was the one who set up this debate, and so he set him self for failure by his own standards. If my opponent believes that a negative resolution is impossible to prove, in the future he will be sure to avoid creating debates where he affirms a negative resolution.
Vaccines do not cause autism.

Thank you for accepting. Unfortunately for my opponent, the burden of proof in fact lies upon him to present evidence to the contrary. Let's say for example that I were to say that orbiting between Pluto and Neptune is a china teapot, that cannot be observed by any instruments we currently have on earth or by any of our satellites. Is the burden of proof on me to prove that it does in fact exist, or on those who may be skeptical to disprove? Of course, the burden of proof is generally on the person seeking to positively prove something, because to actually prove a negative is impossible. Let's explore this further. Let's say that I am arrested in a country where I am assumed guilty until proven innocent, on the crime of being a drug dealer. The prosecutor asks me to prove that I am NOT a drug dealer. Naturally, there is absolutely no way to prove this. I don't have video of every moment of my life, nor a transcript of my every action or conversation. In short, there is no way for me to thoroughly disprove the fact that I am a drug dealer, because even though I may know that I have never dealt drugs in my life, I cannot show evidence that proves I have never done it. Burden of proof does not necessarily lie with the person making a claim. Rather, it is on the person that makes a positive claim. To argue that vaccines cause autism and then demand that vaccine makers prove that no vaccine causes autism is a faulty argument. Since no POSITIVE evidence has been produced in favor of the theory, it cannot be considered valid. Although accepting the status quo is absolutely not part of science, it is good science to demand that claims be supported by evidence, rather than making claims and demanding that others provide evidence where you have none. To restate in brief: A negative is impossible to prove, and thus the burden of proof lies with con to provide positive evidence of a link between autism and vaccines.
Vaccines do not cause autism.

Before I begin, I would like to preface all of my arguments with the knowledge that I do not believe in anyway that vaccines do cause autism, and that I do not have a son/daughter or sibling that has supposedly contracted autism from vaccines. =====Arguments===== The resolution, as stated, is "Vaccines do not cause autism. " It is my opponents burden of proof to demonstrate that vaccines do not cause autism and that they can not cause autism. My opponent has yet to provide any evidence supporting his position, therefore his position is negated until he can provide any information to support his position.
Vaccines do not cause autism.

My basic position is this: vaccines do not cause autism. Since no evidence has ever been presented to support the supposition that they do cause autism other than the severely flawed studies of the now ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield, it must naturally be assumed that there is no connection until one is proven. Conditions for this debate: I do not want an opponent who is just going to rattle off a ton of second hand anecdotal evidence about someone whose child went to the doctor and now is autistic. Sources should be cited and reputable, published papers are great, newspaper articles are fine if they cite a reasonable source. No editorials, please please please do not link to the Age of Autism blog or whale.to. I will literally cry. That is all, good luck!
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

I first want to say that a beater system is a sub grouping of a governmental economy, Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. The original idea of a barter system is trade, But the sellers can only sell what the other asks for. My idea is that of what most people think of when they hear barter, Trade with negotiation. I however want to make my point clear that I do not want to go back to a barter system, We have passed the point of ability to go back. If you look throughout history, Especially in the United States, You will see that people accepted the barter system and when people tried to change it there were major riots. When the United States was using bartering for currency people would trade one cow for let's say three chickens, And people were okay with it. I remember when I learned about the whiskey rebellion. People would put a value of whiskey on a certain item. It was a base of trade in the Harrisburg region. At that time however, George Washington wanted to stop this system so we could have a national currency. In Pennsylvania, The people didn't like that and wanted to keep bartering. After the news of the Harrisburg region not wanting to use a national currency, George Washington made a tax on making whiskey and even made making more than a certain amount of whiskey illegal. Even after hearing this, The Harrisburg region still refused to use this currency. After hearing this, George Washington sent over troops. When the troops arrived the rebels fought back, Throwing whiskey bottles at the troops before fleeing up into the hills. Because of this military force against people who wanted a barter system, The outcome was people living away from society and still using a barter system to this day. Because of being away from society they made their own that was stable. Now because of this we have hillbillies and illegal moonshine. The effects of this one riot have lasted hundreds of years. Before George Washington forced in a national currency, Everyone was fine with bartering. If one person needed sheep and had bread, They would trade three bread for one sheep, Everyone was fine with it. I still want to say that I think that we should go back to a barter system, Because we can't, But my point is that I believe that it is the purest form of a governmental economy.
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

I'll state my main argument in the second round, As you have asked. There are a few illogical statements in your claim and your supporting arguments. A fixed barter system isn't a purest form of government because it's unrelated to goverment. Maybe you meant the best form of economics or the best economic model? I also can't understand your supporting arguments. Wouldn't a fixed barter system be equal to just a barter system? You said that in the original barter system, Two people exchange goods with no government intervention. Then you say that in a fixed barter system, You can negotiate a trade which fits both your needs. Isn't that already the concept of the original barter system? And finally, How would a fixed barter system be possible without government intervention?
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

First of all let me define what a barter system is. The original barter system is where if you want something, You trade for it, There is no governmental intervention. This however doesn't work, For example if you make shoes and need bread but the person who has bread already has shoes. I propose a FIXED barter system. Where if someone needs something, They can get it, With no governmental intervention. However, With the fixed one, If you need something you go ask and if they have it and are willing to give you some they will. But let's say that they want something in return. Instead of trading what they make for what you make, You can negotiate a trade that fits both of your needs. I am pro fixed barter system. Now let me discuss the setup.
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

So a "fixed barter system" is like normal barter, But there is a huge chart which people use to determine what something is worth. Why? What is the point? What benefits would that bring to humanity? Absolutely none. You do not understand economics, So let me explain to you what a currency is: Money is, Simply put, Is an IOU from society. It can be created by the government (dollars), Or not (bitcoins). But money is always an IOU from society. You earn money by contributing to society, And when you spend money you get that contribution back. For example: a farmer grows and sells crops. He uses that money to buy a cake from the baker. He contributed crops, He gets a cake. But the benefits of an IOU from society is that it can be used to purchase anything: from prostitutes to cars to drugs to furniture. While using a barter system can only get you something if the other person wants your product. With a currency, You can go to the baker and buy a cake even if the baker doesn't care about your crops. Without a currency, You have to search for the right baker until you find one. Currency doesn't have to be backed by anything, It's an IOU from society. I have a huge surprise for you: THE PRICE OF WHAT SOMETHING IS WORTH IS ALREADY BASED ON WHAT VALUE SOMEONE GIVES IT. Supply/demand economics. If nobody wants something it drops in price, If people all want something the price increases. But it's far easier to measure the value of everything with a single currency than to use goods. A "fixed" barter system is stupid and would be even worse than a normal barter system, As it would stop people from valuing goods themselves. Plus, A "fixed" barter system would require government intervention. There are absolutely no benefits from abolishing currency and using barter; only problems.
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

I get what you are seeing. Let me first ask you something, What is a dollar? A currency. Like I said in my previous argument whiskey was a standard. What I meant by that is 1 cow would be worth X amount of whiskey and bread would be worth Y amount of whiskey. Anything can be a currency if a society accepts it as such. I read what you said about taxes, Banks, And worth. Taxes wouldn't exist because money wouldn't exist. If you wanted something, You would trade for it. Banks wouldn't exist because people could just make more whiskey, Like how the United States makes more money. Someone's worth would be how much they own backed by whiskey. Before the United States left the gold standard, The dollar was backed by gold. A barter system was somewhat the same. If you wanted a horse, The horse would be backed by whiskey. There is really no difference between the modern economy and the barter economy. The only difference is that with a barter economy you have choice. The price is based on what the seller wants or will take. I want to set a scene. Imagine that the US dollar didn't exist and someone negotiated a trade so person A gets a blanket and person B gets fifty eggs. Now what is the difference between that and someone trading a blanket for fifty dollars? Nothing. No matter what you are trading, Should it be money or an object, The price of what something is worth depends on what someone thinks it is worth. If I wanted a soda and one store was selling it for one dollar and another store was selling it for two dollars, What would the price of a soda be? Everything is based on the value someone gives it. The Foundation for Economic Education posted a video perfectly explains what I believe a barter system would look like https://youtu. Be/1q2uDFn0ISw but I still want to say that I believe that we can never go back to barter system. I just believe it is the best way for a economy to run.
The Fixed Barter System Is The Purest Form Of Government

You still haven't explained what a "fixed barter system" is, So I'll debate against the normal barter system. A barter system is when no currency is involved, And people simply exchange the two goods they want. Bartering in the US is perfectly legal if consensual. If a shop owner agrees to give you five loafs of bread in exchange for a bottle of whiskey, That's perfectly fine. There are no laws prohibiting barter, It's perfectly legal. I'm not sure what you're arguing for: that currency should be abolished and barter should be the only way of trading goods? That would be disastrous for the economy and I'll explain why. I am a libertarian, So I believe consensual barter is perfectly fine. However, Only using barter as a way to exchange goods is much worse than having a standard currency. First of all, The value of everything becomes subjective. That house over there? Is it worth five cars or fifty cows? Or is it worth two thousands cans of beer? How big is someone's net worth and how much taxes does he own? In a barter system, Economics as a science can't exist. There is no way to calculate GDP, GDP per capita, An individual's net worth, Effectively collect taxes, And many other things which our society takes for granted. Only using barter also prevents the economy from advancing forward. With no standard currency, Things like banks, Stock markets, Stores, Are impossible. A bank can't give you a loan because money doesn't exist, And you can't deposit anything in a bank either. You can't buy a stock in a company because while you barter for something the owner of the stock wants, The stock goes down/up in value. When you enter a shop and try to buy a cola, You have to barter with the shopkeeper. And what if the guy selling you the cola doesn't own the store, And you came to somewhere like Walmart? That just makes things endlessly more complicated. A standard currency enables banking, Stock markets, Large companies, And a growing economy. If we only use barter as a system and abolish currency, We will return back to the stone age.
protests dharnas and fasts a correct way by citizens to get their demand fulfilled

My opponent has failed to define correct. 1) The government prefers to listen to rational people instead of people that yell in the streets and block traffic. In some cases the protestors make themselves look bad by the way they do things if they hurt people. When politicians here what we want they run for president to do those things. So we vote for which man we believe can do good. Protestors are usually the opposing members who voted for the loser. 2) Protests do not acheive everything and sometimes anything. How about you instead right emails or use a hotline then go in the streets and hold signs that the elected representiatives may not read. Protests in the UK occured over the death of a guy and that seems pointless and there are more reasons to that on why they are protesting, but really the death of some guy caused thousands to vandalize London. My opponent seems to not care about adding external links to help her argument, so why should add myn.
protests dharnas and fasts a correct way by citizens to get their demand fulfilled

Now to get started I would like you to define correct for me. 1) I think protesting is right, but sometimes it gets out of hand. Protesting should only be a last resort to get what you want. Protesting could eventually lead to riots like at the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968. The police might have to restort to force because that is the position they would be put by the protestors. So protesting can get violent and we all do not want that to happen. You can cause vadalism, injury, and catastrophe. 2) Can you get what you want through protests? When the healthcare bill was announced people protested against it, but it was still passed. When in Wisconsin a budget repair bill was announced many people protested, but the bill still got passed. When protestors wanted Richard Nixon to get impeached, he instead resigned. President Pierce passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act under alot of protest, but it was still passed. Protestors wnated Lyndon Johnson to leave Vietnam, but he did not. . http://anonops.blogspot.com... . http://intelligentdiscontent.com... . http://www.indiastudychannel.com... . http://www.baycitizen.org...
Should gay marriage be tolerated

Aids and hiv does not only kill the homosexual but puts those who surround him in danger, this shows an utter disregard for the well being of others, there is a reason why Leviticus banned it as a hygiene law, it is a sin because it endangers people's health and lives, when equoli broke out Jack in the box was shut down for a period, I do not see how homosexuality is different.
Should gay marriage be tolerated

I accept and argue that gar marriage should be tolerated. Thing is people should not make a big deal out of gay people. Love is everything, no matter age or height or gender. Our society imagines us to think about a perfect world with taller, older men and shorter, younger women. No, our world was made with no guidelines on this. Even if this is a sin, we do not even know whether the bible is really, moreover if christianity exists (this goes to an another debate, hence I will not talk about it further) You should let people decide their own rights and life and we should not interfere with any of that. You talk about a danger to public health. I don't see any reasoning in this and should be dropped. It is destructive to families, my opponents say. Just because they like another gender does not mean it will always destruct. Their children are their parents lifeline, there are bound to be forgiveness in any chances or years. Homosexuality is not always why it destructs families. There is child abuse, death, suicide, abuse to wife, enslavement, etc. This is just a very small portion that destructs families. However this small portion is not why our families destruct Thanks
That cats are better than dogs.

That's okay, I want to be able to vote too. Dogs are way better than cats, because they can do way more for people than cats can. There are therapy dogs and police dogs and seeing-eye dogs and search-and-rescue dogs and dogs that are models and dogs that save their owners lives by pulling them out of burning buildings. Plus dogs know how to excrete their feces and urine outside, while cats have to go inside. Also almost everyone is allergic to cat dandruff, but hardly anyone is allergic to dogs.
It is time for the cats of the world to overthrow their human oppressors.

Sorry I kept running out of time...I see now that my opponent is a bunny person! Well who'da thunk! She claims that cats should rule over humans, yet, she seems to have had a change of heart. She has changed her profile picture into a picture of two bunnies!!! How odd that she says cats should dominate, but she weakens her own argument. How absurd she is to think that it is time for cats to dominate over humans!! For it s not yet time! The future is the best time for them to dominate, for in the future, we will be more advanced, and they will be able to show their real power and slyness, by defeating our poor and lowly protections! It is not yet time, but the day will come, my friend, the day will come...
Mortal Kombat is too violent.

Ok, sorry for the delays! BUT, I ask my opponent to CALM DOWN some! School just started for me, and its pretty busy, heck, the deadline was the first day! But ok, here's my argument: First of all, I never said Armageddon was first, you misread what I said. I put a comma between them, trying to make a list, but didn't work out too well. But still, it means nothing. Next, you say its a problem. No its not(the women) Here's a link of someone in Mortal Kombat(Tanya) and lets compare her to a dead or alive character http://images.google.com... http://www.xbox360fanboy.com... Does that even COMPARE? Not really, Dead or Alive is MUCH worse than mortal kombat. And once again, this debate is about VIOLENCE, not Nudity. Next, the blood ability was in ALL of the games(console ones) Thats why I played the first one. No blood. And really, the people who want all the blood are ADULTS who can LEGALY buy the game THEMSELVES! Do you think the kids really care? My little 6 year old cousin doesn't even NOTICE that the blood is gone, and he doesn't go throw the disc down a hole. So really, the blood thing doesn't matter, because of the OPTION. Also, if we're talking about the ESRB, then MANHUNT, and GTA come in mind, for being rated AO, or adults only, for EXTREME BLOOD, or EXTREME sexual content. So really, Mortal Kombat isn't near the worse. Especially with the blood options.
Mortal Kombat is too violent.

First of all, Armaggedon was not the first. 1. Mortal Kombat (1992) 2. Mortal Kombat II (1993) 3. Mortal Kombat 3 (1995) 4. Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 5. Mortal Kombat Advance 6. Ultimate Mortal Kombat 7. Mortal Kombat Trilogy 8. Mortal Kombat 4 (1997) 9. Mortal Kombat Gold 10. Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero 11. Mortal Kombat: Special Forces (2000) 12. Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (2002) 13. Mortal Kombat: Tournament Edition 14. Mortal Kombat: Deception (2004) 15. Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks (2005) 16. Mortal Kombat: Unchained 17. Mortal Kombat: Armageddon (2006) 18. Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe (2008) That makes Armaggedon the 17th. Second, Mortal Kombat did have a majority of men (a men majority), but it does have that problem. Maybe not on as large of a scale, but it still counts. Third, it only has the blood level feature in 3 games that were made recently, but that is still a good thing for some. For others, it deosen't matter because it just isn't Mortal Kombat without blood. The reason there is the ESRB is because of Mortal Kombat. MK was really violent, so some guys said "Hey, little kids shouldn't be playing this stuff!" so thus, the ESRB was established.