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

I have said it in our previous debate and i will say it again, no offense. Polio in this debate is uncorrelated to the argument against viruses, as we have a vaccine for it, and you only showed me an article with evidence from 1944-69.Obviously the medical system will never identify a disease by looking at it, but rather from symptoms, which i see you've provided me an article to read, which says that bleeding, a symptom of ebola is replicated in antibiotics. This is simply false, antibiotics can cause aenemic like symptoms, but won't produce the same symptoms of Ebola. A patient with Ebola won't simply be aenemic, they will throw up and also cough up blood. The article you linked claims that vomiting of blood can be attributed to bleeding in the digestive tract, but that isn't true simply due to the fact that when you have Ebola you vomit pure blood. Which isn't normal digestive tract bleeding, which causes blood IN the vomit, but vomiting due to that isn't normal to begin with, usually it exits via stool, so even when you do have digestive bleeding you shouldn't necessarily always vomit it up. Ebola also comes commonly with coughing up blood, eye redness, headache, mental confusion, red spots on skin, or sore throat, which is never directly referenced in the article linked.Autism is a developmental disorder, and is not classified as a disease, you could consider calling Autism a disease almost insensitive to someone who has it or has someone close to them with it. Autism is not a virus either, The large number of autistic individuals with unaffected family members may result from spontaneous structural variation — such as deletions, duplications or inversions in genetic material during meiosis. While Autism can be attributed to an infectious disease during pregnancy, which is very very rare, most cases are attributed to air pollution, smoking, other drugs, expose to heavy metals or particulates
There is no such thing as virus

The medical system never identifies a disease by looking into a miroscope and seeing the 'so called disease'. The only method they use is the symptom method of identification. They have a list a symptoms which is supposed to relate to certain diseases. This system is a load of baloney and is just a clever way of disguising ignorance that gives doctors the power to decide what the name of any disaese is depending on what the current trend is or what they think the public most fears. Yes, its all about creating fear in the community. When people are scared, they run to the doctor for protection from then dreaded threat (disease). But, little do these people know, that they are running to the devil in disguise. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com...Avoiding gluten and dairy can prevent many disease conditions including autism.http://www.generationrescue.org...Studies show that polio is caused by pesticides and not by and mirco-organism. The advent of polio outbreaks coincides with pesticide usage. The included graphs show how pesticide usage and polio outbreaks occur simutaneously. When you stop using pesticides, the so called 'polio' problem disappears.https://www.westonaprice.org...Youtube video of man trying to convince some Africans that DDT is so safe that you can eat it for breakfast. "The african natives think that DDT is some kind of witch craft". Not far from the truth African natives! lol. It looks like those Africans know more than those silly English sales people and government officals! lol
There is no such thing as virus

Hello again! Glad to be now debating the facts of viruses causing diseases with you. To respond to your first round debate, if ebola is caused by pesticides, please tell me how many of the west african villages that had ebola outbreaks had available access to pesticides for their crops.One term i'd like to set for this debate is please do not debate about the multi billion dollar scam unless you can show me some links to credible sources that back it up. There is obviously money to be made from medicine, it's like making money off of anything else, like food, which is branded and sold.Polio is also primarily spread through water as a host for infection, but it can be spread onto food. There is a vaccine for Polio though, and rarely do we ever see cases of it spreading.
There is no such thing as virus

There is no such thing as a virus. This concept was invented at the same time as scientists started to realize that bacteria don't cause disease, so they had to find another smaller disease base. The viruse is just a fictional creation to justify the pharmaeutical industry in its quest to create a mullti-billion dollar empire of profit making. Ebola and polio are caused by pesticides and not by viruses. This is a cover-up to protect the pharmaceutical industry from litigation and blame.
There is no such thing as virus

CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, who famously headed up the "Denmark Study" that many claim disproved any link between autism and vaccines, has been indicted in Atlanta by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and defrauding research institutions of grant money.Poul Thorson is a scientist who formerly worked for the CDC, and over the last several years, he oversaw millions of dollars in grant money that was used to conduct research to "prove" that vaccines have no link to autism. Dr. Thorson's research papers include the famous "Danish Study" entitled Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......)This paper concludes that thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in vaccines around the world, has no statistically significant link to autism. It is one of the key papers used by vaccination proponents who argue that thimerosal is safe to inject into young children. That Poul Thorson's credibility is now being called into question by a federal indictment of fraud and money laundering will, of course, have ripple effects throughout both the vaccine industries and autism support groupsAll of this, irrelevant to the topic at handIf you really are taking such an extreme amount of offense as to call me a cretin over me telling you that you aren't proving anything we're debating about, then it must be true. You typed up 3 paragraphs as i've posted above which has no link to viruses whatsoever, autism isn't a virus. I said in my first round debate that I do not wish to read your billions of dollars being funneled into pockets conspiracy theories because they aren't theories, of course the medical system profits from medicine it isn't that big of a shock. I believe that your debating method is something worth insult, although i wasn't insulting you. Speaking of not addressing the issues what about the Megavirus, feline leukemia virus, canine parvovirus, norwalk virus, mumps virus, SARS coronavirus, and rabies virus I brought up earlier, you completely ignored that. If you want to win such a generalized topic of debate as to viruses as a whole you're going to have to prove that the viruses are indeed not real, proving to me that Ebola and polio may be misrepresented cases of pesticide poisoning doesn't prove that the viruses themselves don't exist. No insults, just a tip.
There is no such thing as virus

It is getting difficult to debate this with you, since you are pro, challenged me and must fulfill burden of proof still I cannot really formulate a response to last round's debate. You did do something similar to that of which you did in last debate, and that was make half of the round's arguments about something we aren't debating and providing evidence and links for everything you're debating except the main topic. Simply stating that the concept of viruses is "illogical" isn't going to win the debate, i don't see any feasible way for viruses to be an illogical concept, and if viruses are simply "digital manipulations" of bacterium and funguses then i would like to see some sort of proof to back that up
Alabama was right to illegalize the woman being on top during sexual encounters.

Section 1: It has come to my attention that Alabama has recently changed the law. Section 2: My opponent claimed that the American government can't make sex positions illegal, but they can, and they have. In Virginia every sex position is illegal except for the missionary. In Virginia it's also illegal to have sex with the lights on. (http://www.dumblaws.com...). Virginia being on the border of Washington D.C., may have its laws well known amongst congress, and if they do, obviously congress must not care. Plus there is still a sex law in Alabama. There, it's illegal to "deflower" a virgin, no matter the couples' marital status. ( http://www.dumblaws.com...) Section 3: My opponent asked why the government doesn't just ban sex. Well if they did that, our population would drop. The laws that the governments put up on certain sexual activities is because they deemed these activities immoral.Section 4: My opponent claims that penile fractures aren't a big deal and a lot of people don't get one. But according to medical literature, there are 2,000 cases a year, but there could be more. We'd never know because people are too embarrased by their predicament. (http://www.emaxhealth.com...). That may not seem like much but it can still be considered a big problem. Penile fractures actually occur very often in young men. Mostly 16-30 years of age, which this is just 50.88% of all penile fracture cases.Section 5: The government can easily hack into your smartphones and turn on your cameras and microphones. This could give them the ability to watch. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). For instace, the NSA have put their code into Android's operating system, this covers 3/4 of the world's smartphones. Remember the smartphone camera and mic thing? The government can use your computer too, and in the same exact way. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). The government has recently got a hold of a couple of hub satellites to spy on earth, and who knows how good this is. The tech may be good enough to see straight through our windows. ( http://skullsinthestars.com...)Section 6: I'd like to ask my opponent this. When has the modern government ever listened to the constitution?
Alabama was right to illegalize the woman being on top during sexual encounters.

Section 1: The woman on top, or cowgirl, is the most dangerous sex position. This position caused half of all penile fractures that occur during sex. Studies from Advances in Urology hypothesized that a man is can not stop a painful action when the weight of a woman is on top of his erect penis. While when a man is in control he less chance of obtaining an injury. This seems like a good reason to make it illegal. When Alabama illegalized this sex position, they were saving men from receiving bad injuries. Almost every website says the same thing, so I may not post many resources. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... .
The United states should abolish the death penalty

We will be debating 3 rounds this 1st round is just for me to say the rules. So to my opponent please don't use your 1st or 4th round for debating. Just say that you have skipped this round as we have agreed upon. Thanks. So onto the rules. Both sides have burden of proof. There must not be use of a 3rd party writing software. And please no forfeits in the actual debate once things get started. Thanks to my opponent and to whoever is judging.
The United states should abolish the death penalty

Though the time isn"t the right, I shall start by making arguments against my opponents" first speech. In his first argument, he claimed the death penalty wasn"t a state run-lottery that blames the unlucky ones, but as I mentioned before, they are "surrendered" to the jury"s subjectivity and reluctance into sentencing someone to death penalty. About the constitutionality, the 8th amendment may allow the death penalty, however, as I mentioned before: human life is a right, and the 14th amendment clearly forbids the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens, hence it isn"t constitutional. Last but not least, regardless of the deterrence of the crime, life without parole is always a more proper punishment then death penalty. For the arguments on my opponents" last speech: For his first argument, there isn"t an actual link between race and death penalty, so I shall skip it. For the second argument we can say there is, indeed, a suffering from the victims family, however, the death penalty is not bringing the victim back, it will just pass the suffering from one family to two families, which is just unnecessary. For the third argument, no matter how it"s done, capital punishment is still cruel, even if morphine is applied before death. For my first argument, I"d like to say that I believe the death penalty is rather totalitarian, and if America is a democratic country, it doesn"t make any sense to have a system such as the death penalty implemented, and for a first world country in the 21st century, something like the death penalty is simply barbaric. For my second argument: What does the convict learn? Nothing, he learns nothing, there is absolutely no rehabilitation, unlike the rest of the world where you can get a hard and long stay in jail, but you receive rehabilitation. For instance, the UK reoffenders rate has been quite low, without ever being necessary a death penalty. For my last argument, capital punishment is against that natural rule of law, being it arbitrary and irrevocable, it doesn"t provide any type of justice, It simply murders a person who could be rehabilitated, as I mentioned before.
The United states should abolish the death penalty

I shall as well attack my opponents" arguments. In his first argument he claimed the death penalty was about "retribution", however, this is simply talking about law, by saying that "punishment fits crime". Morally, both the acts were simply killing, this being, morality is again not found. The second argument is widely subjective; the jury system doesn"t help the death penalty at all. As my opponent mentioned in his argument there IS a possibility of killing the wrong person, being so, the jury can be much more reluctant about finding a candidate to the Death penalty guilty, this being, the process is not as selective as my opponent mentioned. It"s really a matter of chance, as we can easily find a vicious serial killer versus a reluctant jury, or a convict who committed few murders against a jury who wouldn"t think twice about putting him down. As for his third argument, he mentioned that, the existence of the death penalty would save money on trials and limit the opportunity for appeals. However that is literally saying that those who can be sentenced to death penalty should have less opportunities to defend themselves, and therefore, an argument saying the death penalty is not so costly is matter-of-factly emphasizing a sense of few morality. For my first argument, the death penalty is rather unfair. Among the executed, there are many poor people, as well as mentally-ill people. As for the poor people, it"s hard to find a lawyer who accepts a case with a low compensation. For the mentally-ill patients it"s not fair to kill them for a crime, in this case the jurors usually don"t have an option of life without parole, being so, the death penalty is also taking an easier way for mentally-ill patients, as instead of working for a rehabilitation, they merely kill them. For my second argument, we must talk about the FAMILY of the convict. Their family is hardly affected in a way that wouldn"t happen if he was simply put to life without parole. The family rarely would have anything to do with whatever crime their loved one was charged for, and yet they must: "face "a prolonged period of anticipatory grieving" and must live with the shame that their family members "have been formally . . . judged unworthy to live" @ . http://mtabolitionco.org... Secondary trauma of executions With this in account, we can say the death penalty doesn"t just affect those who get executed. Finally, my third argument was already mentioned beforehand in this round, I"m talking about the chances of a mistake. As a matter of fact, there have been, throughout the years many people who were convicted by murder, and yet were innocent, these cases were not executed anyhow, so they could easily be forgiven, however, we can"t forgive a corpse. The trial can last forever, the jury can be as smart as it wants, but there"s never a chance of a perfect verdict, so there is a problem here, that could also be solved with sentences to life without parole. With these arguments, I can say the death penalty is, if anything, unfair.
The United states should abolish the death penalty

Very well, I shall present my arguments on why the death penalty should be abolished. In the first place, the death penalty has the "job" of decreasing crime rates, however, the murder rates have been throughout the years higher in the states with death penalties, the difference in the rates was 25% in 2015, and it peaked in a difference of 46% in 2006, with this, we can say the death penalty has failed to do its job. The next piece of evidence I shall present proves that the death penalty isn't good for the American economy "A new study by Lewis & Clark Law School and Seattle University that examined the costs of hundreds of aggravated murder and murder cases in Oregon has concluded that "maintaining the death penalty incurs a significant financial burden on Oregon taxpayers. " The researchers found that the average trial and incarceration costs of an Oregon murder case that results in a death penalty are almost double those in a murder case that results in a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of years. " @. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... "Costs of death Penalty" This shows that the american economy can be harmed with the death penalty, and that would be avoided if the convicts were sentenced to life. With that in account, the death penalty isn't good for states on which it's implemented For my third argument, I"d like to point out there is no morality on the death penalty, for a variety of reasons: "It isn"t accepted by most religions " It can often be mentioned as "playing god" and killing people before their time. Besides, religion would believe there"d be a chance for the soul of the criminal to be saved, against capital punishment. "Human life is a right " Hence, a human should not be killed in any way, and therefore the state killing a human because he committed a murder is merely contradicting. "It brings out a negative value for the society " If the state decides to kill a human, the human life value is decreased, if the human life is decreased it will be taken lightly, which will cause more homicides.
Public Schools in the United States Should not Teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution

Extend arguments.Just so that everyone has clear access to the corrections and sources I posted in the comments, I'll put them here:Correct Sources for R2[1]-http://www.nap.edu...[2]-http://www.religioustolerance.org...[3]-http://www.interacademies.net...[4]-http://en.wikipedia.org...Please note that this source [4] features a long list of scientific organizations that explicitely reject ID.Sources R3[1]- http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2]- http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3]- http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]- http://ncse.com...[6]- http://www.nytimes.com...;[7]- http://undsci.berkeley.edu...[8]- pg. 64 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov...Although, the first time I cite source [7], the link should be this: http://www.nap.edu...
Public Schools in the United States Should not Teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution

Resolved: Public schools in the United States should not teach intelligent design as an alternative alongside evolution.Definitions: Evolution“Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.”http://en.wikipedia.org...... Intelligent Design“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.discovery.org...... Rules and Such Things The burden of proof is shared. It is not enough for one side to merely present rebuttals to the other’s arguments. Both sides must develop a case of their own. The first round is for acceptance. Clarifications regarding the resolution, definitions, or any other preliminary matters should be brought up in the comments before accepting the debate. No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments. Drops shall count as concessions. No new arguments in the final round. Thank you.
Money in football is becoming rediculous

It is a very long time since I did a sports debate, so hopefully it will prove interesting. The Burden of Proof will be on Pro in this debate. Pro needs to show that money in football is ridiculous. I will first rebut my opponent's opening arguments. My opponent says that football is beyond a joke. My opponent says that it is a beautiful game, but it is beyond a joke. That means it is a joke. Football is not a joke, many people like it, and think of it very importantly. My opponent says that that there are many owners who are plowing billions into overrated players in football. First of all, my opponent doesn't say why the money is too much, and ridiculous. They have a reason for putting in that much money, such as they think that football is very important and fun, not everyone thinks that it is ridiculous in the money. My opponent's argument is a bare assertion, opinion, and I showed it is false, and rebutted, therefore vote for Con. I will now pass the debate to Pro. Please vote for Con! !! Thank you.
It should be legally possible to legislate law-making as a crime.

If it is legally impossible to legislate law-making as a crime then you are placing a limitation on law that prevents a limitation being placed on it which is self-defeating.It would be like punishing your child in a way that prevented you being able to punish them.The aim of law-making should be to support whatever the democratic majority wish to be made law at that time and such a law should indeed be possible. If the majority of humanity are that insane that they agree to legislate this then they are beyond repair to begin with.It is also not a trap. It is very possible to amend a law and this law wouldn't outlaw amendment and thus it would simply be amended when humanity later became sane but to make it impossible to do this is an unnecessary restriction that is simply unjustifiable and goes against the very democratic principles of law in the first place.Another point to consider is that this is the single best way to outsmart a dictator. By this being possible, the will of the majority in government could outsmart the dictator by having them unintentionally pass this as law. once this is in place, the dictator is blackmailed to step down or the amendments of it will be refused. It is the single best way to checkmate a dictator and hasn't yet been done because people weren't smart enough to trick the dictator into legislating it.