BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cold sores are good for you

It seems as though my opponent is all over the place with this debate. Not once was the words "cold sores" used by my opponent. Rather, telling that the body showing symptoms of disease is good for you because your body is telling you you are sick and that your body is trying to rid itself of any illness. Of course the body show symptoms, other wise we wouldn't be sick. Dehydration is not a good argument, as a headache and dry mouth are signs long before a cold sore. This debate seems all over the place, but I will try anyways
cold sores are good for you

Signs and symptoms of the primary infection (Primary infection - the original outbreak of an illness against which the body has had no opportunity to build antibodies.) In the majority of cases there are no detectable signs or symptoms. When they do occur, usually in very young children, they may be severe, and can include: Herpes simplex gingivostomatitis Mouth or tongue lesions Blisters in the mouth Mouth ulcers Mouth or tongue pain Lip swelling Possible swallowing difficulties Sore throat Swollen glands Elevated body temperature !!!!!DEHYDRATION!!!!!! (body does not have enough water) Nausea Headaches -(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) -(http://www.citizensinformation.ie...) the website on top of this sentence is were i got my previous information from and also you havnt argued the fact that infectious diseases like the main one that i have mentioned is good for people... might want to
cold sores are good for you

the main reason why cold sores are good for you is the fact that they tell you when your dehydrated, not many illnesses tell you this, a flew can tell you that your probably cold, and some diarrhea can tell you to drink less. regardless the illness im gonna tell you why sickness is good in general: u may get Illness Benefit from the Department of Social Protection if you cannot work because you are sick or ill. You must b aged under 66, covered by the appropriate class of social insurance (PRSI) and satisfy the PRSI conditions and now i did not pull that from my buttocks If ur income is too low to meet your needs, while you are waiting for a decision on your claim for Illness Benefit, you may be entitled to basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance, which is a means-tested payment... ever heard of the dollar sickness (no such thing just say yes like you know what im talking about) a sickness that helps your well being and your pocket ;)
Dance Moms is cruel pressure and child abuse!

Good luck to you too.I strongly believe that the mothers of Dance Moms aren't putting cruel pressure and child abuse on the children there. Children, especially young children, usually must be pushed and coaxed into doing something outside of video games and sitting on the coach watching tv. Children's minds at a young age are great for absorbing new information and to get them into something like dancing is very beneficial. It helps their physical and mental health as well as building a healthy for of competition as well as how to deal with both winning and losing.This show could also be seen as something good for the actual moms. Yes, I agree that some of the mother's behaviors are too much and over the top, but sometimes it takes that people looking back in a third person sense; through the television, to see just HOW bad their behavior is. And from there they open the door into changing it. And for the children who truly hate it, or just can't stand the pressure, this after-the-fact look at how their behavior affects their child, also is something that opens the door for change for mothers.
Dance Moms is cruel pressure and child abuse!

Thanks and good luck to you too! I strongly belive that the tv show Dance Moms is cruel pressure and child abuse ~well i said this because often the moms go out of control,they will have shouting and swearing matches that are issued right in front of the childs face! I think children should not have to witness that kind of horrible behaviour ecspecally from there own mothers. That attitude is affecting there picture of life and how to interact with other people. This show is broadcasting bad mothering and child abuse. Some of the moms like cathy also dare say that if there child took an intrest in anything other than danceing that she would slit her WRISTS! That is a terrible example of what the show is like right there.often some of the kids would start to mope like brooke wanting a normal teenage life or like mikenzie starting to cry under the moms yelling at her to do something silly like straighten your legs. The moms are incredibly competitive so much that it affects there danceing and personality. I find it extremely sad that when chloe and Maddie grow up they are going to probebly be enemies but if they had not waisted there lives in gyms and in competions trying to beat each other they could have been friends. :( Good luck and thank you again :)
Government provided health-care sucks

For argument sake, I'll go with American health care, since that's the big hot topic trending. First to say that government health care suck we need to look at costs. Without insurance everyone ends up paying. Uninsured people more often than not, cannot afford to pay their medical bills. These unpaid bills end up being compensated by the government (taxes), or by hospital charging insurances more to make up for the deficit. When people are uninsured, more often than not they wait until 11th hour, where treatment is both crucial and costly. Had they been insured, preventative care would have saved everyone the cost they can no longer afford. The way Obamacare works is that everyone pays based on income. The healthy can afford insurance for when they need it, and this pays for the cost of the unhealthy who are also paying. While individual costs may be irksome on an individual basis, overall we are saving money on health care costs since hospitals are getting reimbursed and patients are getting more preventative care than they were before.
It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

Finally, I think I understand where my opponent is coming from. The argument is essentially that any argument or evidence an atheist might give for believing in ghosts would apply equally to God, so it is inconsistent to believe in one but not the other. The problem is that Pro did not bother to demonstrate that any argument for ghosts would equally apply to God. And even if he did, he wouldn't have show that it's inconsistent to believe in ghosts without believing in God. Concerning the first point, I have already offered a scenario in which an atheist could consistently believe in ghosts without believing in God, namely, in a situation where the atheists sees a ghost but does not see God. In that case "seeing" would be the cause of belief in a ghost, but the same seeing could not be applied to God. But suppose an atheist sees both a ghost and God. Would he be inconsistent if he believed one and not the other. Of course not. Consider people who suffer from psychosis and who frequently see things that aren't there. In addition to their hallucinations, they also see things that ARE there. Somehow or other, many of these people are able to distinguish between what is real and what is not real. For example, if they saw a pink elephant dancing in their living room, and they saw the floor of their living room, they might believe the floor is real but not the elephant. Are they being inconsistent? No, they are not. The reason is because seeing, alone, isn't what leads to belief or disbelief. One way to make that distinction is by appealing to what other people see. If everybody in the room sees the floor, but only the one person sees the elephant, then it's likely the floor is real but the elephant is not. In the same way, if a group of people saw a ghost, but only one person saw God, it would be safe to say the ghost was real but he vision of God was only in the one person's head. So an atheist can consistently believe in ghost without believing in God. There are lots of ways that belief in ghosts might arise in an atheist without belief in God going along with it. It is not hard at all to imagine such scenarios. Here's another. Suppose you're a nurse, and you're helping during a surgery in which a person dies on the operating table. Later on, the person wakes up and claims to have had an out of body experience in which they floated to the top of the building. The person was able to describe some very specific things that were sitting on the roof, like the colour of a shoe and the designs on it. So you go up there to investigate, and you find the shoe just as the person described it. That might be a good reason for you to believe the person on the operating table was a ghost, but that wouldn't be any reason for you to believe in God. So it would be perfectly consistent for you to believe in a ghost but not in God.
It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

"Maybe because the atheist didn't see one, and they don't believe the person who said they did. Or maybe because while they believe the other person saw SOMETHING, they doubt it was God they saw."If the atheis doubt that what they saw was indeed God. Then why they firm to believe that what they saw was indeed ghost. Is it seem consistent to you?"Maybe, but this debate isn't about whether there are ghosts or not. It's about whether a person can consistently believe in ghosts while not believing in God. You're suppose to be making arguments for the resolution and refuting my arguments against the resolution. You're just asking questions."Yes this debate is not about whether there are ghost or not. it is about consistency. I am asking you those question because i believe if some atheist provided me with "sound argument of ghost existance" then i can used it as "sound argument of God existance" and then those atheist will reject the very argument that he give me which prove that they being inconsistent.
It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

>If an atheist believe in ghost because they claim that they seen one...then why they can't believe god exist when someone claim they seen god? Maybe because the atheist didn't see one, and they don't believe the person who said they did. Or maybe because while they believe the other person saw SOMETHING, they doubt it was God they saw. But what do you ask? This debate is about whether it's consistent for a person to believe in ghosts if they are an atheist. I want to hear your arguments. Can you give me one "sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts"? Maybe, but this debate isn't about whether there are ghosts or not. It's about whether a person can consistently believe in ghosts while not believing in God. You're suppose to be making arguments for the resolution and refuting my arguments against the resolution. You're just asking questions.
It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

"And even if they did deny the existence of God for that reason, they could still be consistent in believing in ghosts because maybe they've seen one"If an atheist believe in ghost because they claim that they seen one...then why they can't believe god exist when someone claim they seen god?"At the same time, the person says that ghosts cannot be seen; however, there are sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts. Therefore, they believe in ghosts"Can you give me one "sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts"?
It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

God and Ghost basically have the same characteristic, both can't be seen. So if there is an atheist who denied the existence of god but believe that ghost exist...isn't that contradictory? No, that is not contradictory. A contradiction is when you both affirm and deny the same proposition at the same time and in the same sense. The claim that "ghosts exist" does not contradict the claim that "God exists." Now, if an atheist says that whatever can't be seen does not exist, and they also claim that neither God nor ghosts can be seen, then to be consistent, they would have to say that neither God nor ghosts exist. In that case, they would be contradicting themselves because while affirming the existence of ghosts, they are also affirming propositions that logically entail that ghosts do not exist. But an atheist need not deny God's existence for that reason. And even if they did deny the existence of God for that reason, they could still be consistent in believing in ghosts because maybe they've seen one. Moreover, an atheist need not explicitly deny the existence of God in the first place. Many people consider themselves atheists for lacking a belief in God without affirming that God does not exist. An atheist could deny the existence because God cannot be seen and for some additional reason. It may be that the combination of the two reasons is what leads them to be atheists, and that neither reason, by itself, is sufficient to explain their atheism. In that case, they could also say that ghosts cannot be seen, but lack that additional reason, and therefore continue to believe that ghosts are real in spite of not being able to see them. Consider this scenario. A person says that God cannot be seen, and there are no sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, they do not believe God exists. At the same time, the person says that ghosts cannot be seen; however, there are sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts. Therefore, they believe in ghosts. So we can see that the atheist in this case agrees that neither God nor ghosts can be seen, yet they are justified in believing in ghosts but not in God. They are still being consistent. So there are a variety of ways for an atheist to consistently believe in ghosts.
Policy debate: space topic

Post all speeches to google docs or media fire, then post the link here as your speech. DO NOT ACCEPT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT POLICY IS AND HOW TO DEBATE IT! I will be aff on this topic. CX will be in comments after opponents speech. The full resolution is: the united states federal government should substantially increase it's development and or exploration of space beyond Earth's mesosphere r1- intro and acceptance r2- 1ac, 1nc r3- 2ac, neg block r4- 1ar, 2nr r5- 2ar, and neg don't post this roud The neg will wave the last speech. To judges: please vote on a policy basis, and on this debate- AWARD ALL 7 POINTS TO THE WINNER. It makes it easier on all of us. Thank you. Lehgo
Privacy

I believe that the government should be allowed access to our online information. The reason as to why is because they are just doing their job and trying to protect the nation as a whole. If they believe that there is suspicious activity going on then they should have the right to view it. No one should be worried about privacy on the Internet because they are the ones putting out all their information. If you are truly worried about someone seeing anything about your private life then don't put it on the Internet for everyone to see. Information that an individual would like to keep private should not be on the Internet in the first place.
Privacy

I think that if the government did get involved with our online privacy, it would just be ruined. They would be so caught up in our online life that everything else would fall. Everyone would be worried about how they "research" on the Internet. Just think, all the hackers, terrorist, and criminals would be against this which would cause more chaos. "One man thinks justice consists in paying debts, and has no measure in his abhorrence of another who is very remiss in this duty and makes the creditor wait tediously. But that second man has his own way of looking at things; asks himself Which debt must I pay first, the debt to the rich, or the debt to the poor? the debt of money or the debt of thought to mankind, of genius to nature? For you, O broker, there is not other principle but arithmetic. For me, commerce is of trivial import; love, faith, truth of character, the aspiration of man, these are sacred; Ralph Waldo Emerson. With justice also comes injustice. With all of that being said, I humbly ask for a negative ballot. A by signing aff. you agree to all of your privacy to be ruined. The government can see anything at any time. With a neg. you agree that our privacy should be OUR privacy. Thank you for your time.
Spend more on space exploration

I accept to argue against the resolution. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is undeniably a crucial aspect to our progress as a society, however space exploration is not the entire function of this organization. The most notable in-progress work of NASA is the ITS (International Space Station) is probably one of the most remarkable works of international cooperation. This station will provide an internationally shared station for research and engineering. My opponent mentions an apocalyptic meteor that could strike Earth. I would like to point out that, if said meteor ever existed, it would be beyond our current technology to redirect the momentum of the projectile without launching another item at it using an estimated equation of trajectory. The most plausible form of this apocalypse would be a large chunk of space debris large and fast enough to push Earth out of its orbit. My opponent also mentions colonizing new worlds. I would like to address the issue that space travel is not only expensive, but also time-consuming. The only piece of human technology to stretch out of our solar system was an unmanned spacecraft. On the universal scale, a solar system is like a state. While I do accept that the Sun's expansion will make Earth uninhabitable eventually, the true goal we need to focus on is terra-forming. If we can manipulate the surface of Mars to be habitable by humans, then we can buy the entire species time. However, there are far more pressing issues that we need to focus on. Why would we run from our planet when it is us who are killing it?
Spend more on space exploration

People may think that space exploration is unimportant and is a waste of money but that is not true at all. In fact without NASA our present technology would not have come this far or even worse our world would have ended. Without NASA who would be able to redirect meteors that could destroy earth? Though we do have many problems here in earth we must also look into our future as mankind and humanity. Just think, why spend so much money fighting amongst ourselves when we can explore together in our vast universe that we know so little about? Perhaps even find a new habitable world to live and start anew.
Abortion

I understand your concern and would like to challenge you on it. Please read everything. . What I believe is a fetus is not exactly a human yet. It is a human entity. The reason why the debate about abortions is so difficult is because people view it like that black and blue/ white and cold dress. Some people see the dress some ways while others see it another way. Just like that some people see that a fetus is a human and others see a fetus as it isn't. We don't know what makes a living thing "life" yet now do we? For example a 20 year old man is a build up of cells which in itself are just molecules stacked together to function. . A human is therefore a cluster of dead things. What makes it alive and conscious is a scientific mystery. We know that a 20 year old functioning human has that "I'm alive" factor by the way he makes decisions and by how he acts. We can't say the same about a fetus though. . We don't know when to place that flag of "being alive". As the title of this debate is "Abortion", I conclude with: I believe about the matter is that it is the parent's decision. It is their call whether to go on with the procedure and no one should bother them about it. As I said, Someone people see it differently to others and that is fine. You can have personal opinions but should never enforce it upon others.
Gun Laws

Con is against changing gun laws, I am for changing gun laws. I believe that the US should pass laws to strengthen the power of background checks and expand conceal-carry laws throughout the US, because these measures have been proven time and time again to be effective in reducing crime. "He alerted the police to his plan before entering the store, and attempted the stunt just to prove to the public that there are sane people with guns in the United States, and apparently does this quite often. So, who wants to challenge THAT?"It would be good to know that 1) He passed a strong background check needed to own such a weapon and 2) That if in the event someone with a AR-15 planned on shooting up the place, he would be met with resistance from other armed people thanks to conceal carry laws..... Not everybody who walks around with an AR-15 strapped to their back is by default sane. Apart from those gun laws it would also be in everyones best interest if the government did whatever they feel was necessary to make sure that existing gun laws are carried out more effectively, such as reforming the ATF (Department that regulates alcohol, tobacco, and firearms)
Gun Laws

Gun laws in the United States today are fine as they are, and need not be changed. Fully automatic guns cannot legally be purchased in the United States without a Class 3 FFL permit which an take up to 60 days to earn and requires extensive background checks. Without semi-automatic guns, target shooting, hunting for sport, and many other activities for entertainment could not be accomplished without great difficulty. Recently, there was a story on the Nightly News about a man that carried an AN-94 (an assault rifle) into a local Macy's store. He alerted the police to his plan before entering the store, and attempted the stunt just to prove to the public that there are sane people with guns in the United States, and apparently does this quite often. So, who wants to challenge THAT?
nate a weeaboo

No... I would know if I am a weeaboo or not... You do not have the evidence to support it. yes i do like things that are associated with Japan, but I like things associated with other countries too. I like Mexican food, does that make me a Mexico-afile? NO! That is a very harsh generalization to just assume things based on likes. I like food, does that make me a food-afile? No.
There is no such things as viruses

The problem is that you are just a 16 year old with very little life experience. You haven't been through the medical system many times like I have and experienced medical incompetence every time. Form the dentist that I had as a small child who filled my fillings with cotton wool so that he could increase his profits and destroy my teeth at the same time. To the misdiagnosis of my heart condition and going onto medication for 10 years when I was later told that I didn't need any medication by another honest doctor. Doctors are all charlatans who really don't understand or know how the human body functions. We are right in the middle of a holocaust called the 'modern medical system'. Millions of people are dying prematurely because they have been either misdiagnosed and are eating the wrong foods which cause their illness. The medical system knows this but they need to make profits so they keep quiet and don't tell anybody how to fix their problems. When you leave your protected shell (school system) and go out into the real world you will discover that things are not as they seem. The world that we live in is a corrupt and evil place which is full of charlatans and liars. Some of information that you get at school is totally wrong and full of mistakes. The universe is not as complex as you have been told. There is only one human disease which is called vitamin deficiency. There are not thousands of different diseases. This is one of the biggest lies that you will be told at school.