BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as a virus

~~~Opponent's Sources~~~ A] This is a review on a book that does indeed support your claim, but can I ask that you give a source with more weight? I.E. an actual quote from the book itself? I don't have too much to comment on this- it's a pretty good source for supporting a ridiculous argument. B] The title was intriguing, but none of the arguments in this source about how "corrupt" it is has nothing to do with lies about the science itself. It's simply reprimanding the work ethic and wasted potential. C] Question: Why do you trust this source? A quick search told me all I need to know- there are no other records of Edward "Fast Eddy" Jenner. However, I can't exactly DISprove the source, so for now I'm not going to consider it at all. D] A video about how milk is poisonous? Can you explain how this has to do with disproving the total existence of viruses? ~~~Counterattacks~~~ A] Your claim on bureaucratic organizations make sense, but as I previously proved you have no support and, as such, your claim has no support to use. I've taken into account that financial organizations DO have a want to say what they can for money, but they also realize that they can't just lie ALL of the time. They're too smart for that- that's why I trust at the very least the science that they say, because science ISN'T purely monetary. B] I'm calling bull. There is no overload of the immune system- it's everything that you said that WEAKENS it. As such, the virus (because, yes, it does exist) is able to penetrate the body more easily. What you said about cancer also applies: the immune system is weakened by what you listed, but it's the virus that uses that weakness to give you said disease. ~~~Claims~~~ A) If viruses don't exist, how can diseases exist? Everything you listed can bend and weaken the immune system and your health, but it can't truly cause harm. Modern science is saying that viruses break the body; however, in order to do so, you have to have a weak enough immune system. B) Can you find me another source of the existence of Edward Jenner? I see no record of him other than the source you already stated. And if you say that the reason I can't find any other records of Edward Jenner is because of government secrets than I also expect a REAL source to go along with that bold claim. ~~~Sources~~~ I didn't feel the need to source anything this time- your sources were enough and my past sources were enough to support me.
There is no such thing as a virus

My opponents source of information is unreliable and corrupt. It is subject to nepotism, special interest groups and secret deals to keep quiet etc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.quora.com... All bureaucratic organisations that are supposed to protect the public are subject to influence from powerful companies and organisations that are cashed up and can pay people to keep quiet over matters of public concern. You can only determine what is truth from nonsense by doing your own research and finding outside 'the system' organisations like naturopathic doctors and the vaccination liberation website for your information. Non for profit organisations are your best bet to find the truth. Any person or organisation that has a financial investment in disease is always going to find that viruses do exist because they have shares in medical companies that produce the drugs to kill said 'germs'. You need to study the whole history behind the small pox virus fiasco. It all started with a nit wit by the name of Edward Jenner. aka (Fast Eddy) http://www.vaccinefraud.com... C. HIV - There is no HIV virus. Even the doctors say this. It is just a culmination of bad diet, drugs, lack of sleep, anal sex and perforation of the bowel lining leading to immune system overload. Thus, its just another case of leaky gut syndrome which is the cause of most disease. Gut bacteria get into the blood stream. Thus, if you avoid dairy, grain and sugar and you can avoid leaky gut syndrome. Cancer - Caused by blockages in the fine blood vessels and lack of vitamins to repair. People who get cancer have bad diets which lack vitamins. Especially vitamin C and D. Again, sugar,grain and dairy are to blame.
There is no such thing as a virus

Smallpox is, in fact, caused by the variola virus- which is transmitted from person to person. Again, I credit the NIH, specifically the NIAID for the research. As such, I highly doubt volcanic ash would spread the variola virus. On top of that, some health groups (not the NIH, however) categorize smallpox as not being the effect of a virus but is in itself a virus. As such, if you want to hold up your argument in any way, you have to prove to me that smallpox itself does not, and never did exist. Good luck, buddy- you need it. I apologize for using CNN (not a good source by any means) as a source in my last argument, but using The Guardian is a step too far. I noticed you linked to two news articles about volcanic ash being the cause of a major epidemic and possibly sparking the Dark Ages. Again, while that is an interesting read, just showing me sources that say that volcanic ash was the cause of an epidemic doesn't disprove ALL diseases. At least I linked to evidence that provided reasoning for why viruses do, indeed, exist. So, with that out of the way, let me present one more argument- C) If viruses don't exist, explain the following three viruses and their respective disease and how they are caused: HIV & AIDS, EBV / Certain Cancers, and Ebola (which in it of itself is a disease AND virus). And please provide reasoning other than just an unsupported claim having to do with volcanoes. NOTE: Apologies for only using one main source this time- NIH and its subdivisions was the most trustworthy source for this subject. So it has a little less weight because I didn't have the time to double-check my information. Sources- "Smallpox." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 19 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/smallpox. "HIV/AIDS." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/hivaids. "Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases (PIDDs)." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/primary-immune-deficiency-diseases-pidds. "Ebola & Marburg." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/ebola-marburg. "Diseases & Conditions." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 20 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/immunologic-diseases.
There is no such thing as a virus

A]. All doctors are incompetent because the system makes them incompetent by teaching then false concepts like the germ theory of disease. Quote - "What does this have to do with viruses"? A virus is a germ. Thus, if you teach doctors to look for germs when a person presents as being ill or sick, then, they are looking in the wrong place for a solution. B.] Small pox and all other epidemics are caused mostly by volcanic activity which ruins crops and makes people sick through toxic gases and ash fallout. It has been found that most epidemics occurred during or after major volcanic activity. A world war can also bring on an epidemic. This is what happened after world war 2 which resulted in a flu epidemic due to food shortages and destruction of farming land and resources. https://www.theguardian.com... https://motherboard.vice.com... Thus, we can see that there is really only one human disease which is called vitamin deficiency. All diseases are just different varieties of vitamin deficiency depending on which vitamin that you are deficient in.
There is no such thing as a virus

I do realize that viruses are not living. That's where I was wrong and I apologize for my misguided information. I have yet to watch the video, and I'll add to this if needed if said video raises a certain point. A) Incompetent doctors will always be. It is very difficult to correctly diagnose a patient, so the best that most doctors can do at first is give you the most general medicine for your symptoms. However, what does this have to do with disproving viruses? B) I bring you to smallpox. Smallpox was a great danger (killing over 5 million natives of Mexico in the span of two years from 1519 - 1521), and yet has no been eradicated from the world. Check my sources for more information. ~~Sources~~ "Deadly Diseases: Epidemics throughout History." CNN, Cable News Network, www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/10/health/epidemics-through-history/. "Smallpox." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 19 Sept. 2017, www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/smallpox
There is no such thing as a virus

You are wrong from the start. Viruses are not living. Something that doesn't exist can't live. Even the medical system states that viruses are "non-living entities". Viruses are illogical things that were created by the medical system to justify vaccination, drugs and other unnecessary medical procedures. The medical system is not as benevolent and caring as they say they are. The medical system is there to make money out of gullible and ignorant people. The medical system has brainwashed the public and government into submission over a period of hundreds and even thousands of years. Go back thousands of years to the time of the witch doctors who used magic to cure illness. Nothing has changed. Doctors still use magic (deception) to trick people into thinking that they are curing an illness. I have been through the medical system many times over 60 year period. I have been misdiagnosed several times by incompetent doctors who haven't got a clue as to how the human body functions. I have worked in a university laboratory as a photographer of electron microscope images. During this period I never saw any images of viruses. I know how an electron microscope works and what its limitations are. Even if there were such things as viruses - the electron microscope wouldn't be capable of capturing their image. This is because in order to photograph an image with an electron microscope you have to know where the object is in the first place. Electron microscopes are only good at scanning the surface of large solid objects. You can't photograph anything that is too small and isolated. Especially if the object is soft and squishy because you need to dry the object out using chemicals and freeze drying methods. Thus, all of the images that you see of viruses will be fraudulent. They will either be computer generated nonsense images or photos of hormones which will be in conjunction with pituitary glands. Its funny how viruses always occur around pituitary glands and are never seen in other locations. Question for you to answer - How did the first person identify a virus without knowing what one looked like? Without any reference material of what a virus looks like, finding one would be impossible. Therein lies the illogical nature of virus research and theory. As stated in my opening post. Most disease is caused by internal leakage of the gut where bacteria escape from the bowel and enter the blood stream. This is caused by eating an inappropriate diet of grain, sugar and dairy. These items are all post agricultural revolution products. They have been around for about 10,000 years. Disease has been around for that exact same amount of time. Note - Disease and illness are unnatural and don't occur in pristine nature. Dangerous chemicals can also cause disease such as pesticides, fungicides, heavy metals, dyes and water repellents. I will leave you with a video that highlights the corruption and deception of the medical and pharmaceutical industry.
There is no such thing as a virus

Hello! I will be arguing for how viruses exist. ~~My Statement~~ VIruses DO, indeed, exist. They cause everything from the common cold to AIDS. The probability of catching a virus can change depending on food patterns (which you did mention, but you used it as reasoning for why viruses don't exist) and exposure (another thing that you mentioned). ~~Facts~~ 1. Viruses are living organisms that are even smaller than bacteria. 2. Viruses are a leading cause of infectious diseases, along with bacteria, fungi, and parasites. 3. Viruses can cause fever, diarrhea, fatigue, muscle aches, and coughing. ~~Conclusion~~ Thank you! Let me know if my source was incorrect. I did get this information from an actual clinic, written by the staff members which include nurses, doctors, and scientists working at the clinic. ~~Sources~~ http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Resolved: The US Ought to Aid Ukraine Militarily

I will be using an LD style for my debate, con does not have to. Definitions: used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence http://www.merriam-webster.com... Militarily: in a military manner (also merriam webster) BOP: Pro must prove that the United States of America ought to aid ukraine militarily Con must prove that the United States should not aid Ukraine militarily I am debating this over again because my last opponent was not enough of a challenge to satisfy me, I am not imposing restrictions on who debates, but unless you have some background in foreign policy and are at least a somewhat experienced debater, do not accept please.
Resolved: The US Ought to Aid Ukraine Militarily

It would seem that pro has quit the last round, so I'll sum up my points:Historical proof that military interventions do more harm than good – and that most were part of larger, more selfish plans. We supported the Mujahedeen in Operation Cyclone, this fact is not controversial and should not be treated as such. This Operation gave these militant Extremist Muslims around $26 Million every year and by 1987 around $630 Million yearly. They later became the Taliban. Afghanistan is also responsible for some 75% of the Worlds opium productionWe have no business being in the UkraineThere is no proof Russia is “trying to rise again”.Crimea has 58% Russians, and 24% Ukrainians. Who are we to say they can’t take Crimea, especially if the majority of Crimea is Russian, and the majority wants to be Russian? Isn't that what Democracy is?It cost a million dollars per soldier per year, and a war fighting insurgents in a desert has cost the United States around $500 Billion.It is not worth it to threaten Russia.Is it worth it to threaten a nuclear standoff? Over a sliver of Ukraine? I'd wait and see. Especially when the Russians are acting in their own backyard and have perfectly acceptable reasons to want to assimilate Crimea, a Crimea that wants to be assimilated yet for some reason we won’t let them, when, meanwhile, the U.S. travels all around the globe whenever it pleases, and operates a massive sphere of influence, South America included. We cannot allow the US to support a pack of rebels who have just reconstucted their Government. It is too dangerous. Past hostory has shown that these rash judgements have always been poor, and ignorance is no excuse – and we cannot let this ignorance continue.
This website should have a means of communication other than a debate.

(For debate's sake I will take the opposition on this one) In our world today, everyone is so caught up with having the most technologically savvy, hi tech top performance everything. It seems as if nobody will just pause for a second and breathe instead of trying to keep up with the rushing tide of innovation and the pressures to be the most efficient multi-capable software. But here, at debate.org, the user is not overwhelmed with walls to write on, comments to leave, applications, or other distracting features. Users come here for one purpose- to debate. And here at debate.org, that is exactly what they get. Instead of spending time commenting users and making friends, visitors to debate.org can spend their time thinking out well organized debates, providing insight not only to the opposition but to the entire community as well. Adding other methods of communication would just cause users to deviate from their plans to debate. I ask you this one question, Sarina: Is this site a debate forum or a social network?
Women like much older men

I guess you could argue that I have just done a straw-man. However you are really hurting my poor misunderstood brain. You wrote in the title "Women like much older men". Then you wrote as a first argument: "Women like men that are about a generation older than them. Let's say somewhere between 10-20 years older." These initial statements implied a generalisation about women. Any speaker of the English language would assume you were making a generalisation (see? that was a generalisation). Therefore I am not wrong. When you refer to a group of people then imply something about them, it is NEVER implied that you are talking about small percentage of this group unless clearly stated. Instead you are talking about a majority or all of them. Again the constant use of the bandwagon fallacy whereby you surround your argument with people who agree with you by online articles does not prove your point. I could google and find an article that rejects gravity and weight, would gravity cease exist? The only article with statistics show only around 13% of women marry men >10 years older than them. So the stats say no. So to summarise. I am not wrong as your initial question (and argument) was a generilisation about a group of people as a whole. If ONLY you had only put the word "some" in front of each statement. But then it wouldn't really be up for debate. The stats have shown that most women date men around their age. Therefore the initial statement is false.
Women like much older men

I only said women. I never said "most" or "generally", thus, Con is wrong. -There’s a common stereotype that American men who remarry are especially likely to walk down the aisle with a younger woman. A new Pew Research analysis of census data finds that it is true. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/04/tying-the-knot-again-chances-are-theres-a-bigger-age-gap-than-the-first-time-around "Decisions to marry older men when young aren't uncommon." -Men's Health http://www.menshealth.com... -- Headline- "Men choose younger wives in remarriage, but women choose older men the second time around" -Deseret News m.deseretnews.com/article/865618589/Men-choose-younger-wives-in-remarriage-but-women-choose-older-men-the-second-time-around.html?pg=all -- Here's an entire site dedicated to hooking younger women up with older men- http://sugarelite.com... -- http://www.marykatebrogan.com... So. Con is wrong. Younger women are trying to hook up with older men because they have a warm, wet, cozy spot that needs a dlippery iguana to fill in the hole that they have(in their lives! Perverts...).
Women like much older men

I admit that SOME younger women like to date older men. I do not agree with it being a general truth for all younger women. You whole argument is just psychological reasons as to why a younger woman might want to date an older man. What you are failing to do is show evidence that there are younger women dating older men, in the majority. Then your statement "Women like much older men" would be true. Using journalist articles that state opinions rather then statistics is a bandwagon fallacy that lacks facts and therefore don't prove anything. Dr. Paul Hokemeyer did not prove anything as he provided no evidence. He provided his perfectly valid, scientific opinion on why a younger woman MIGHT want to be with an older man. However, these opinions are not backed up by facts and they are also quite assumptive of younger women as a whole , therefore not really supply any real evidence for the claim. I am simply saying prove that "Women like much older men". NOT tell me why "Women Like Much Older Men" I have looked and not seen any information to prove that statement therefore I assume it is false. Journalism can be used to justify anything but cannot be used to prove a statement. To summarise, giving reasons why a younger woman might want to be with an older man won't support your claim as it offers not statistical evidence.
Women like much older men

Con: "humans have a preference and sometimes it's older men." Con admits that women do like older men that fit my age demographic. -- Younger women prefer to date older men for many reasons," says licensed marriage and family therapist Dr. Paul Hokemeyer. "The truth of the matter is that older men come with maturity, grace and dignity. They value their younger mates and treat them with more respect." And this, of couse, is appealing to young women who have grown tired of the narcissistic adolescence frequently found in younger men. In addition, older men typically possess more confidence. They've reached the age where they place a high value on things like love and family, and are generally more focused on things that truly matter. magazine.foxnews.com/love/why-young-women-go-older-men-and-why-it%E2%80%99s-good-thing -- There's also a biological aspect. Women are very intuitive: They know what they value, what they need, and are typically gifted at obtaining these things. “A younger woman who is mature for her age may want children, so biologically, it makes sense to go after a man who has the means and resources to provide for her and for those children,” says Dr. Cooper Lawrence, a psychologist and the host of "Girls in Heels." The relationship that a young woman had with her father, while growing up, could also impact her relationship choices later in life. And yes, it's sometimes true that a woman who didn’t get the love and support she craved from her father will instead seek it out from a mate, but only sometimes. "Father absence, due to death or divorce, in early adolescence can contribute to certain behavioral problems, but the cliché that young girls seek a father figure when they date older men has more to do with them mirroring their mother’s behavior than replacing the father they lost," says Lawrence. "Some women feel that their fathers were exceptional and provided them with everything they needed," adds Hokemeyer. "Therefore, they seek out mates who share the very qualities they valued in their fathers." http://love.allwomenstalk.com...
Women like much older men

Citations needed. You have made a positive claim without any evidence. I have done some research into the issue and honestly all I can find is explanations as to why a women might want to go for an older man. Without any actual statistics to back up this claim it can't be a fact and the idea that they do is just speculation. As a final point, I am not saying that all women don't go for older men, what I am saying is that all humans have a preference and sometimes it's older men other times it is the same age - there is no general truth when it comes to an age gap.