BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To keep a diet lead to diseases

Restriction of calories reduces energy level. Observance of a diet and its violation can harm such bodies, as kidneys, heart and a liver, and also muscular fabric. Continuous sitting on a diet reduces quantity of natural cages killers in an organism. They are necessary for fight against such diseases, as a cancer. Sitting on a diet can become the reason of skin diseases, headaches, baldness, dizzinesses, an irregularity of a menstrual cycle, drowsiness, a cholelithic illness and locks.
Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government

The fact that my opposition did not post any arguments in this debate is displeasing. This means that I do not have anything to refute. Therefore, I shall just convey the methods to "exterminate these diseases" (as promised in the previous round) and simply go over all the topics I have stated.To begin with, diseases can be eradicated by simply providing the general public with health care and vaccines- which was the point of concern in this debate. Moreover, awareness could be spread to let people know the dangers of not walking in the right direction in the medical field. And that is it. It is extremely simple to save people from being affected by these diseases, however only theoretically. These simple ideas are very complicated to implement considering the complexity of human population. Hence, all that is possible should be done to make it easier for them to co operate. However, giving the benefits to anti-vaxxers does more harm than good.Now I shall move on to the reasons why the voters should vote for me. Firstly, and most evidently, I have actually posted arguments in every round of this debate, unlike the pro side. Moreover any arguments that were made in the first round were baseless, did not have any research and also not sensible. On the other hand, I have showcased the knowledge I gained through the research on this topic through my thoroughly discussed facts and figures.Moreover, I hope that this debate and not voted for and then ignored. I believe the readers will give some thought to the topic and my given arguments will lead to spreading awareness in public- thus making the world a better place.Thank you for viewing this debate, and hopefully, Con gets the vote for this one.
Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government

It is unfortunate to see that my worthy opposition had not posted any response to my arguments almost implying that he/she has nothing to say. Therefore, I have got nothing to refute. Because of this I shall just state some of the possible situations that could arise if the government does indeed give benefits to parents who don't vaccinate their children. Firstly, like I have said in the previous argument, doing so will convey a wrong message telling everyone that it is not worth the effort to take one's child to a hospital or even a clinic and provide a child with his or her basic medical requirements. Which would also imply that it is perfectly fine to put a young one's life at stake. Furthermore, let us think of this, if there were such 'anti-vaxxers' in the times of medical disasters, for example the time when small pox existed, it would still exist, there would still be people suffering from the disease. Death toll would be far more than a already staggering 500 million people. And people who are the reason for this would still be getting benefits from the government. Strictly providing such vaccinations have saved the world a number of times before and can still do so. Providing the world with a vaccine for polio has definitely done it. At this point of time, there are only two countries which are polio-endemic - Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Link: - . http://www.who.int... ) . This is the change that has been brought about by us. Merely 28 years ago, there were 125 countries affected with polio. However, at this time of crisis, when diseases are evolving and getting stronger and fighting us back. it is more important than ever to stay together and fight better, as diseases like MERS, ebola and zika come in our way, we have to spread awareness among people to eradicate them in the same way we eradicated smallpox. And that is where governments come in. They are one of the only ways we can do so, they must do whatever is possible to save the world. However, giving benefits to anti-vaxxers is one of the many ways our progress is being hampered. We have to appreciate the fact that although there are only 2 countries that are still affected by polio and polio alone, failure to eliminate this disease will mean that within ten years, there will be a rise of the disease and there will be more than 200 000 cases every year from all around the world. Moreover, this is not the only disease of concern, there are many more diseases that are to be worried about, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, measles and many more. The only way we can stop them is through vaccinations. And that is why actions must be taken, which includes taking small steps like not giving any benefits to the anti-vaxxers (which is only one of the several. things we must do). In the final round, I shall suggest some ideas regarding what could be done to exterminate such diseases.
Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government

Firstly, you have said that "parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.
The raw vegan diet is ideal for a healthy life

Rebuttal 1: I feed my dog meat and vegtables and she is stronger than ever. You know, we also eat veggies. It is not like we eat only meat. Rebuttal 2: Throw in a lunk for that and I will accept it as fact. Otherwise, I rule it an invalid statement Rebuttal 3: Read before you make an assumption. By the way, vegans can't eat cheese. It is a product aof the cow and is strictly forbidden. I eat chesse all the time. My favorite is sharp cheddar. :P You find different forms and bigger quanities in meat. Some which you can not find in veggies. Look at the food pyramid. Meat is on there. This proves meat is essential for a good diet.
The raw vegan diet is ideal for a healthy life

It's funny that such arguments would come from a person who only feeds their dog vegetables. You use the term "animals" as though all animals are omnivores. Of course, it is a well known fact that most animals are vegans. Take the mighty lion for example. It only eats fresh raw fruits and vegetables such as zebra and buffalo. Vegetables have all the vitamins and minerals that you've mentioned. Maybe B12 is lacking, but google "durianride" to find oout about vegan B12 supplements. Most human beings, meat-eaters or not, have a B12 deficiency. Vegetables and fruits are also rich in nutrients that you can never find in meat... such as chicken and beef. You can only find chicken and beef in vegetables and fruits. Cheese is another example of an essential nutrient nowhere to be found in meat and dairy. How can you live a healthy life without cheese?
The raw vegan diet is ideal for a healthy life

I'll skip the formalities and get straight to the "meat" of it. Here are the arguments to support my claim: 1. Meat and dairy cause diseases that fruits and vegetables do not. 2. Cooked fruits and vegetables lose vital nutrients when they are broken down during the cooking process. 3. Vegans live longer than vegetarians and omnivorous human beings. 4. Personal testimony: I have lived a 100% raw vegan lifestyle all my life. I am the healthiest person I know. I can do up to 50 push-ups without stopping on a good day. I am very happy and always feel satiated. I never feel hungry. I occasionally eat chicken and beef every day of the week. Also eggs and cookies are an essential part of my diet. However, I do not eat meat, fish or dairy. I do eat ice cream and I enjoy trout and halibut 5 or 6 times a month, but I have never had anything other than these and other fruits and vegetables in my entire life. My favourite raw vegetable is deep dish pizza. I like it baked, but never cooked. I like grilled cheese sandwiches as long as they're not cooked. I have six pack abs and it's a wonderful automatic breaking system. I'm very hot.
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

Paddy I cannot accept your false claims without proof and evidence Paddy you quoted this Details about the history of the COMPLETELY FABRICATED god Baphomet. / Me Quote Paddy you never used any proof and evidence for your claim about Details about the history of the COMPLETELY FABRICATED god Baphomet. and yes you have Contradicted your self by the statement you said this is what you said I don't agree that the Freemasons worship Baphomet. I said 'I don't know that they do' because you posted as your first argument/rebuttal: / Me Quote Paddy be honest which is it going to be here Paddy Paddy you said I don't agree that the Freemasons worship Baphomet. / Me Quote then Paddy you said this s I don't know that they do / Me Quote Paddy you cannot eat your cake and have it both ways Paddy you have to be honest about the Contradiction statement that you have made :) well I have given video proof and evidence that Freemasons Worship Baphomet and how I know I won this debate is because Paddy is the one who made the Tittle for this debate and Paddy named the tittle for this debate by saying Freemasons Worship Baphomet if Paddy never believed that the Freemasons Worship Baphomet then Paddy would never of put for the tittle for this debate as Freemasons Worship Baphomet So Paddy has lost this debate and yes Paddy I will say again CHECKMATE CHECKER CHECKMATE ehehhehehehehehehhehehehehehhe,bahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahaha
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

That documentary is a TV documentary produced by the Discovery Channel. The Discovery Channel is highly sensationalist. In fact, most documentary networks in America are. You see, the thing with TV documentaries (and, to a lesser extent cinematic documentaries) is that they have to appeal to the public, and the public aren't as interested in the truth when speculation is so much more sensational. You can't blindly trust anything you see on TV.You say I've failed to provide evidence that casts any doubt on the proposition that Freemasons worship Baphomet. Clearly you haven't bothered to read any of my previous arguments where I have clearly provided you with the following:- A quote from an article written by a Christian minister/Freemason, who explicitly states that Freemasonry is neither a religion, nor incompatible with Christianity.- Details about the history of the COMPLETELY FABRICATED god Baphomet.- Information about the Taxil Hoax, which is the source of all the Freemason/Baphomet worship conspiracy theories.The contradiction you claim I have made is not at all a contradiction. I don't agree that the Freemasons worship Baphomet. I said 'I don't know that they do' because you posted as your first argument/rebuttal:"Paddy how do you know that Freemasons worship the demon Baphomet."To which I responded:"I don't know that they do."Please, if you are going to quote me, quote me in context.You haven't checkmated me as we are not playing chess. You have not won the debate yet. Please stop declaring victory before we even make it to the voting period.
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

here is a link to the Secret History of the Freemasons http://www.youtube.com... / Me Quote Paddy I have not failed to give you proof and evidence of Freemasons Worship Baphomet Paddy you have failed to find ways to say that Freemasons do not Worship Baphomet Paddy here where you Contradict your self Paddy you said this to me I don't agree that freemasons worship Baphomet, then Paddy you said this I don't know that they do. I'm / Me Quote so Paddy made a Contradiction statement by saying I don't agree that freemasons worship Baphomet, then Paddy you said this I don't know that they do. I'm / Me Quote I say Checkmate Paddy I checkmated you lol
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

Do you know where the connection between Baphomet and the Freemasons comes from? No? I'll tell you. While researching for this debate I discovered mention of a series of anti-Masonic pamphlets written in the 19th century by a Frenchman who went by the name of Leo Taxil. Taxil claimed that the Masons worshipped Baphomet (among other demons). This is the sole source for anti-Masonic zealots such as Jack Chick.However, Taxil (whose real name was Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès) admitted that the whole thing was a hoax. His exposé of the Masons was, in actual fact, a practical joke at the expense of both the Masons and the Catholic Church (who at that time hated the Masons with a passion).Your video looks highly suspect in terms of accuracy. For one thing, the video description reads: 'Full vid. Don't ask where this material came from, I can't answer that question, but its real.'You would think that if the information presented was as accurate as the uploader claims, then he or she would have given some citation, or would at least not concede that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE INFORMATION IS COMING FROM.---As for your claims that I contradicted myself, I would be interested in knowing exactly where you believe I have contradicted myself.
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

Paddy I have already shown you proof and evidence that Freemasons Worship Baphomet I will show you the video evidence again http://www.youtube.com... here I will give you more evidence that the Freemasons Worship Baphomet here is a link http://www.youtube.com... Paddy you said this to me I don't agree that freemasons worship Baphomet, and would like to debate you about it. / Me Quote Paddy you said thus to me I don't know that they do. I'm not sure why / Me Quote so Paddy you cannot really debate this subject why because you said I don't know that they do. I'm not sure why so Paddy you Contradict your self nice job lol
Freemasons Worship Baphomet

[You haven't actually proven it to me, you've shown me a video. I don't believe everything I see on YouTube.I'm not going to watch it again at this point because you posted it in the acceptance round. The debate hadn't officially started yet. But feel free to post it again at any point in the debate.]---Your claim is that the Freemasons worship the demon Baphomet.I think this is highly unlikely, as the Masons explicitly state that Freemasonry is not a substitute for religion. This is from an article written for a Masonic magazine by a Mason and Christian minister: "In the prayer we ask that that the candidate “may so dedicate and devote his life to Thy (God’s) service as tobecome a true and faithful brother.” We seek “divine wisdom” upon Him that He may “be enabled to unfold thebeauties of true godliness.” "[Source: http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk...]I have done a little research, and can find no mention of Baphomet in connection with Masonry in any sources that don't have a strong anti-Masonic bias. In fact, the only mention of Baphomet by name on the Wikipedia page on Freemasonry is in the citation section, and that is in reference to the title of an anti-Masonic tract by evangelical comic artist Jack Chick, who is notoriously biased and sensationalist about a plethora of topics (including Freemasonry), and is known to get his information largely from his own imagination rather than reliable sources.Baphomet himself is in fact NOT a genuine god or demon. He does not represent Lucifer or Satan (this is a misconception that exists for reasons that I will get to in a second). He is, in actual fact, a product of Christian folklore. The Christians, when writing their anti-Pagan propaganda, combined aspects of various Pagan and non-Christian mythologies to create a very evil looking god to claim that they worshipped. The name 'Baphomet' is actually a corruption (based on provincial dialect) of 'Mahomet', which is the Latinized form of Mohammed, and needless to say, the Christians have never been huge fans of Islam. The reason Baphomet is often confused for the devil is that when the church were trying to stamp out Dionysian cults in Greece, they created propaganda that declared the goat (a symbol of Dionysus) and the Satyr (a half man-half goat, resembling the modern image of both the devil and Baphomet, and also a symbol of Dionysus) symbols of, and forms of Satan.Thus, the horned, goatlike Baphomet and the horned, goatlike devil became synonymous, despite being completely separate entities.
Prostitution should not be legalized

prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry. prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking. prostitution does not control the sex industry. It expands it. prostitution increases clandestine,hidden, illegal and street prostitution. prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings
Prostitution should not be legalized

The main reason why prostitution should be legalised is health related. Right now prostitution is the leading cause of STDs, but only because it is illegal and practised on street corners. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would be checked constantly and clients could be required to prove they are healthy. In Australian brothels all men must be checked before going there. As long as prostitution is illegal, it is impossible to control their health. Legalizing it, however, allows you to check both the prostitutes and their clients constantly in order to significantly reduce infections. Also, legalising prostitution would eliminate most pimps, because prostitutes would be able to work on their own. Sure, some would still work for pimps, but they would clearly act very differently. The reason pimps can abuse prostitutes is because they cannot call the police or complain in any way. Legalizing prostitution would give prostitutes a chance to report the abusive pimps to the police without risking their own freedom. Human trafficking would be just the same if prostitution was legal. Legalizing prostitution doesn't mean legalizing human trafficking. Also, legalizing prostitution wouldn't have any effect of human trafficking, it wouldn't make it easy or encourage more people to do it. Legal prostitution would also mean a very different work space for prostitutes. As long as prostitution is illegal, they must work on the streets. Legalizing it would allow them to work in more decent and safe conditions. This would also solve the problem of safety. Prostitutes are very vulnerable. This is why most serial killer kill prostitutes. When you allow prostitutes to work in decent, clean, safe, legal brothels, you also protect them from murderers or abusive clients. These are the main benefits of legalizing prostitution. I don't have much time so I will post my rebuttals in the next round.
Prostitution should not be legalized

HUMAN TRAFFICKING ARE REAL ISSUES Prostitution as work doesn"t dignify women or human , its not a professionalism or dignify work. Legalized prostitution encouraging the society to create a legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen in sex industry. its trading human for profit, No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. Prostitution industries are one of the root causes of human trafficking > http://en.wikipedia.org... the International Organization of Migration (IOM) has estimated that 500,000 women and children are trafficked in Europe annually . In contrast, it has been estimated that 45,000-50,000 women and children are trafficked annually into the United States One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street prostitution. However, many women are in street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps (transformed in legalized systems into sex businessmen). Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is legalized. legalized will create a society view of prostitution is acceptable, it also encourages men to buy women for sex . men who would not formerly consider buying a woman in prostitution think, "Well, if it"s legal, if it"s decriminalized, now it must be O.K." Most women in prostitution did not make a rational choice to enter prostitution from among a range of other options. They did not sit down one day and decide that they wanted to be prostitutes. They did not have other real options such as medicine, law, nursing or politics. Instead, their "options" were more in the realm of how to feed themselves and their children. Such choices are better termed survival strategies. agree with me not to Legalizing Prostitution , when its legalized it will encourage and support unfaithful man , it will teach our future generation the wrong value in life. it will encourage businessmen in sex industry, human trafficking. criminal group will start to operate in city . will any decent businessman run a sex industry? most women in prostitution because of survival strategies.
When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

My opponent brings up a good point about how these people live in "Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities" well this is true that won't matter if they are not alive any more because of globe warming and other natural disasters. --- They also say that the environment it always bounced back to anything that has happened, but you have to think about the fact that the earth has never had to deal with the pollution and other technologies that humans have developed. as well as the population rate that its known today. --- My opponent asks where I get my diseases information from, this came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov... ---