BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A biological attack on USA would likely become a pandemic

You don't understand basic epidemiology, it depends entirely on the disease. For example, bubonic plague does exist within the United States in the ground hog population. It rarely causes any trouble and needs to be transmitted by fleas or body lice. Few people today have either fleas or body lice. You could move plague London from the 1400s into the center of the United States and we wouldn't have a pandemic. Y. Pestis does not transmit the way you suggest. The United States has been subjected to biological terrorists attacks. Just after 9/11 several letters filled with anthrax were mailed to various people around the country and killed several people. It didn't lead to a pandemic because you need direct exposure to become infected and from there it isn't contagious. A number of biological weapons are exactly like that. There are very few which are transmitted through the air, deadly without being too deadly too soon, and have a long enough incubation period to be effective in a pandemic fashion, and can't simply be quarantined. Much of modern society is categorically setup specifically to prevent disease transmission. Figuring out how to prevent disease was pretty much the source of the modern city. It would take a very specialized disease to actually become pandemic. Most of the general stuff you're talking about simply doesn't work. HIV and the flu are more deadly. You could wire a few genes into the flu make it more deadly (perhaps like pandemic flu), but it would still have to compete with the rest of the flu also vying for market share in the disease scape. Deadly doesn't always mean the best transmitter. In fact the most prolific diseases are absolutely harmless. It's a general rule in parasitism that you should be as harmless to your host as you can. Over the short term this means that often the nicer diseases to better. It's really hard to make a successful pandemic disease, the most likely biological agent would be anthrax and that'll only kill anybody you could powder with it (which by definition isn't pandemic).
A biological attack on USA would likely become a pandemic

My case: A biological attack on a single city in USA would likely become a pandemic. First of all, in this case the word "likely" is not based on mathematics. The word "likely" is based on evidence. Period. Case closed. Rule number one: No argument may be based on the definition of the term "likely". Rule number two: No off-topic. We don't want to hear about how magnificent your web page is. On to the definitions from (www.dictionary.com): Biological attack: The use of bacteria or viruses or toxins to destroy men and animals or food. Pandemic: (of a disease) Prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area. Epidemic: Extremely prevalent; widespread. I, as Pro, must prove that a biological attack on USA would likely become a pandemic. My opponent, Con, must prove that a biological attack would not likely become a pandemic. We're not debating about the possibility of a biological attack, but about the possibility of a biological attack becoming a pandemic. Okay. Let's say that a terrorist organization was to manufacture bubonic plaque (that killed 1/3 of Europe's population in the Middle Ages) so that it would be resistant to antibiotics it is treated with. Then they would inject themselves with it and walk around the city and infect as many people as they can. Now, bubonic plaque is extremely easy to catch. You only need to touch someone infected and you're a walking dead. It is transmittable via bodily fluids, air, and touch. So, let's say they infect a hundred people, to stay low. Now, those who have a family infect their wife/husband and children if they have any. So, that makes about 20-40 more infected. The next day the children go to school and the adults either go to work, hang out with their friends or go to have a drink etc. The infected children infect most of their classmates and their teachers. The adults who go to work infect at least some of their co-workers. Those who hang out with their friend infect their friends and then those who were infected infect their classmates, co-workers, friends, etc. After about 2 days from the initial infection the first symptoms settle in. After 2-3 days from the first infection the first death occurs. After a week or so the Center for Disease Control will notice that something unusual is happening. Then they will try to cure the diseased, but with little success. When quarantines are starting to take place and borders are being closed, the infection has spread to many countries, Europe, Asia and everywhere else (just think about how many international flights go from US in one day!) So, we have a pandemic. The survivors, should there be any, will isolate themselves from anyone else. History repeats itself.
A biological attack on USA would likely become a pandemic

ZOUNDS! A far fetched attack plan to release anthrax! Wait, I asked for a CIA plot that caught terrorists with "weapons". Neither of those examples fit that description. You have documents and a Japanese cult. "CIA has caught terrorists with biological weapons." -- No. They haven't. "Yes. CIA Director George Tenet has testified that documents found in Afghanistan showed that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was pursuing sophisticated biological weapons research in Afghanistan. Aum Shinrikyo, a doomsday cult in Japan, had an ambitious biological weapons program and released anthrax spores and botulinum toxin in Tokyo on several occasions, but none of the attacks inflicted any known casualties. Iraq, the Soviet Union, and other countries experimented extensively with anthrax bacteria and other germs as recently as the 1990s. (The United States abandoned its offensive biowarfare program in 1969 and destroyed its biological arsenal in the early 1970s.)" I'm taking from this that I'm right and your statement wasn't true. And that again anthrax is the vector of choice. ---- All in all, my opponents supposed attacks are nonsensical pipedreams. A real biological attack is weaponized anthrax. In the future, such custom super pandemic agents might be possible... but at present they aren't. All the biological attacks thus far have been anthrax, and anthrax is likely still. My opponent has suggested other vectors, but he hasn't given anybody a reason to suppose that they are likely. That suffices to fail. He has not provided any good evidence for the accuracy of the topic. At most we are told that a pandemic attack is possible, we have no reason to suppose that its remotely likely, and every reason to suppose that it won't be. Vote Con. Pro failed to demonstrate the topic.
A biological attack on USA would likely become a pandemic

>>"Who is most likely to know how bubonic plaque spread in the Middle Ages, persons who saw it or persons who think they know what happened 800 years ago? If you have the fleas that in some cases cause bubonic plaque, another person who touches you will also be attacked by the fleas." If you're serious, you just lost the debate right there. Fleas don't pass from person to person, they usually hang out on more hairy mammals. The body louse however may allow for some person to person disease transfer. However you may have noticed the lack of lice in modern society. Further, fleas are actually pretty rare too. >> "In this debate, I'm talking about a contagius disease. I acknowledge the fact that anthrax is not contagius and has no chance of becoming a pandemic (unless major food and water supplies are powdered with the disease)." No. In this debate we're talking about biological attacks. Trying to restrict that down to simply contagious diseases is completely unacceptable. How about we talk about whether when I take an M&M at random if would be likely to be a green M&M, would it be acceptable to only talk about those packs of pure green M&Ms within the debate body? No. >>CIA has caught terrorists making sophisticated biological weapons that could have resulted in an epidemic. Name one. Name one serious plot involving a biological attack thwarted by the CIA. I detect a fibber! >>"So, a long incubation period. The longer it is, the longer the disease has to spread. After the first symptoms occur, half the world is infected (yeah, maybe a little exaggerated, but still...)" No. The disease doesn't become contagious until after the first symptoms occur. You get a rash and then you can transmit the virus. >>Okay. Let's say someone with a medical degree were to get his hands on bubonic plaque. Now, by doing something with the genes he could easily manufacture the disease to be airborne, resistant to antibiotics, etc. He could also lenghten the incubation period. Now he would have the perfect weapon that is not likely curable, easily transmissable and has a long incubation period. Lets suppose that magical fairies fly around the city spreading nerve toxin and stabbing people in the eye. The likelihood of that kind of magical perfect disease is roughly nil. Anthrax is easy, you can grow it in a bathtub, with limited expertise. It would be the most likely vector for a biological attack. You seem overly obsessed with pipedreams that overstate and oversimplify the very precarious nature of epidemiology and bioterrorism. You'd cause more damage going to a Russian prison getting infected with multiple resistant TB and then spending a few months taking public transportation around the US. But even that would only infect a few thousand people and would still be treatable with vancomycin. Pandemics are more likely to simply naturally evolve like the 1918 flu than to be engineered and weaponized. Your most likely biological attack is still going to be a quick kill pathogen.
Legalization of Marijuana

I will argue against the legalization of Marijuana. I'm not sure if you would like my debate in the first round, but I'll write it here anyway to avoid the your rebuttal assumption that I am against marijuana for health reasons. Marijuana is safe; there are several studies that prove this, so I'm not going to argue against the legalization of marijuana for health issues. I'm going to argue against the legalization of marijuana because of taxation, convolution, and the taking away of money from people that truly need it. These things would be a pretty large influence on the marijuana community considering that, once the government takes over, it'll all go to absolute garbage. Take taxation, for example. Not only will people have to wait in large lines at their local marijuana shop, they'll also have to pay a large amount of tax. So, that dime bag that you would get for $10 from your local, freelance dealer is now $15.99 plus tax. The reason that these government-influenced shops will make a lot of money is because the government will supply them with all different blends, flavors, et cetera - so, people will most likely choose the slightly raised price of the marijuana shop for convenience. Which brings me to my next point: taking away money from people that truly need it. It's not difficult to realize that the state the US is in is absolutely terrible, especially economically - people are losing jobs and money because of this. The people who grow, sell, and influence the marijuana community deserve that money because they are trusted growers and have a passion for growing marijuana. If the government got their hands on it, they would have some crummy farmer trying to get the most money for the least amount of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana would bring about too much convolution to smoking marijuana and it would also give a state and federal tax to marijuana shops, the marijuana that you would be buying would be extremely under-valued and plagued, and the government system for running the shops would most likely try to pull the most money out of you. It's not hard for dealers to sell marijuana, as long as they play it safe, and this ensures that the people would be getting quality weed for the money they spend and it would also ensure that the money being circulated through this plant-use would go directly to the people, not the government. If the government wants money, they should legalize/tax the harder drugs - meth, cocaine, et cetera. That's a whole different point, however.
absolute truth is evidence of God

absolute truth is that something exist at all times for everyone. now i will give a few examples, and feel free to prove them wrong. for there to be an absolute truth, we dont have to actually know the answer. 1.) we exist. 2.) the christian god does or doesnt exist, whether we know if he does or not. 3.) are you absolutely sure absolute truth doesnt exist? 4.) could you be wrong about everything you know? 5.) it is absolutely true you will post next round. FF is an automatic loss. (JK) lolz
Resolved: World Peace and Harmony will never be reality.

My opponent will assume the burden of the proof, since currently the world does not realize world peace. 1. The Bible prophesies very clearly that World Peace will not become reality until the second "Return of Jesus". 2. Every major power has fought eachother throughout history, and the past hundred years have been no exception. Currently, major powers are too concerned of nuclear war and economical failure. 3. Two Great World Wars have consumed portions of the world. Current events, trends and even population theories predict that a Third World War is unavoidable. Economies will crumble without the benefit of wartime. 4. Nations' leaders are avaricious and wish only to benefit their own nation. Creating lasting world peace will be impossible in this political background. Also, developing nations tend not to align themselves with competing countries. 5. The one uniting organization lacks the power and ability to orchestrate world peace. It has failed until now, and will continue to flounder about while compiling debt. Thanks for accepting and may we have an enjoyable debate.
Electoral Collage

Here are my opening arguments for why the electoral college should be abolished 1. The electoral college gives significantly more power to some states than others. For example the population of new york state is about 19.75 million people and the state has 29 electoral college votes which is about 680 000 people per electoral vote. But wyoming on the other hand has 584 000 people and 3 electoral college votes which is about 195 000 people per electoral vote. Because of this the vote of a person living in wyoming is worth about the same as the votes of 3 people in new york state. This is inherently unfair in that some people have significantly more voting power than others. 2. The electoral college often leads to elections where the person with the most votes losses. This is inherently undemocratic in that it allows for governments that are not in the interests of the majority of the people to take office. 3. The electoral college makes it very difficult for 3rd parties and independents to get any power in the government, and nearly impossible for them to win elections. In the electoral college for a party to get any votes the party must get at least half of a state. Because of this party's with less than about 15% support have almost no chance to win a state. This encourages people to vote against their own interests because the party they really support has no chance of winning. I propose that to replace the electoral college a open list semi parliamentary system be put in place were voters chose a political party then chose in which order the party members running are elected. The votes are counted and the person chosen most for each place position. The person who is elected to have the highest priority in the party with the most votes gets the presidency. The rest of people running are distributed based off of the amount of votes their party gets into the senate and house.
Electoral Collage

Now the first reason that we shouldn't get rid of the Electoral College is that we're not a direct democracy and we were never ment to be one. We are a Constitutional Republic. Second with us not being a direct democracy the Electoral College shows who the country wants as President not the people using the most recent election as an example if you look at a map of which States voted for which candidate you can see that most of the country,not people, voted for Trump. We have a big and diverse country and different places in the country have very different needs so I think it's better to pick the candidate best for the country.
god has no moral compass

I'm not debating you again, sorry, especially when you happen to be 100% wrong as always. "God did not create evil" Really? Absolutely 100% YOUR god created evil and he freely admitted it. IS 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Now what part of that DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? "AND---CREATE---EVIL. Oh wait, let me guess, you like the typical christian, you CAN'T READ. Tough. "read hosea"? Um no why don't YOU read YOUR bible in which YOUR god would NOT be stupid enough to use text so YOU would get it wrong as text is the worst form of communication possible. Um no why don't you get off your lard a$$ and read YOUR bible. YOUR god, in which you cannot even prove even exists freely admitted HE IS EVIL. You are the type of person that if someone were to agree on EXACTLY what you were to say and think, you would still manage to find fault with that person. Hell you cannot even take YOUR god at his word as proved and even more proof of that is... 2 SAM 12: 11-14 sick and disgusting, EX 32:14, 1 KS 1 22: 22-23, 2 CR 18:22, JM 19:3, JM 19:15, JM 23:12, AM 3:6, DT 30:15, 2 KS 22:16, JU 9:23, PV 15:3 But nah, I know there's not a chance in this world you will look those verses up because you know ---everything--- that there is to know about your god. WE ARE DONE! Don't bother posting me back and inventing yet another one of your monstrous excuses. K? I am officially blocking you. You didn't even look at the verses posted to absolutely 100% prove YOUR god's immorality. You instead did a round-about and invented your own miserable whacked out versions of nothingness and complete void that has 0 to do with the topic because you CANNOT in no possible way, pay any attention whatsoever to what your god, much less your christ has said from cheapened blank pieces of paper and thus prov, not ever, that either of them has ever existed.
god has no moral compass

God did not create evil, He gave humans and angels free will, and we mess it up. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23, God is faithful, read Hosea. I have cursed God, and He forgave mne when I repented. God is love 1 John 4:8, neither you nor I hould blame Him for our problems, but seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you. I have been a sinner, but I love Jesus because He is the faithful God in human flesh who was tortured to death for all repentant sinners who confess Him as risen Lord. I have failed my God so many times I should not be alive, but He is the God who serves, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, Hebrews 13:8, He will never leave you nor forsake you, v 5, and He is the number ONE LOVE of my eternal life, peace!
EUTHANASIA not be legal

Hi, thank for giving me the chance to debate this topic with you First off, Euthanizing someone is not meant to help their disease, as you say it does not. What is meant to do is end their suffering so they may pass peacefully, instead of in crippling agony. Also, you contradict your point by stating “you say people must die but you are wrong. God is death”. You are stating that people do not have to die, but then that God is death, and kills people. Additionally, you state that people should have to live to see the end, but the end of what? Certainly not the world, that will likely not happen in their lifetime anyways, and that death would be much worse than a quick and painless one. Could you mean the end of their life? Because if so, the end of their life should not be when they succumb to a terminal disease, but when they feel that they can endure no more pain. Many patients with terminal diseases are already on powerful painkillers, and for those who would consider euthanasia, these painkillers clearly are not enough. Tell me this: Who in their right mind would want to suffer through years and years of pain, for no reason, knowing that the only end to it would be their own death? I am not saying that anyone diagnosed with a disease with a low survival rate should get euthanized, but that those who simply cannot take the effects of their disease anymore should have access to this tool.
Israel is justified in attacking gaza

This topic has been debated a few times on this forum, so please tell me what you feel you can add to the debate. In past debates, my argument has been that the death toll on Gaza was a justified response to indiscriminate attacks by Hamas on civilian population centers. My opponents have argued that since it was disproportional that it is unjustifiable. I would counter that the argument for proportional response is invalid when the goal is preventative. I.e. It is Israel's goal to stop Hamas from launching rockets at civilian population centers. To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response. Consider if Kurds were launching Qassams against Turkey from Iraq targetting Turkish civilian population centers. What do you think the Turkish response would be? I believe there response would aim to be harsh enough to discourage future attacks. I would further argue that the civilian death toll from Israel's attack on Gaza, when compared to similar operations by major armies against embedded guerrilla groups in civilian population centers, was considerably low. See for example, the US in Somalia, or South America, or just about any time any Arab group has begun any unrest against Arab rulers in the middle east. so to reiterate I believe 1) A military response is justified b/c of indiscriminate civilian attacks 2) A disproportionate response is justified when done for preventative purposes 3) the civilian death toll was small in comparison to similar operations
sports as career

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you on this subject.Let me start off by saying that I fully support a child playing sports. It is only when this child, boy or girl, dedicates his life to sports for the sake of a potential career, in which I do not support. If a child wants to go pro one day in, say, baseball, he/she must be willing to have a Plan B - a more academic outlet. I support children playing sports, and I even support a child aspiring to become a pro some day. Simply, I am against dedicating your life to sports when so much could go wrong: injury, etc. A child must be willing to put forth an academic effort and create a Plan B before he/she dedicates their life to athletics.I wish you good luck. May the voters decide who ultimately wins.
sports as career

I would like to sum up my stance to the voters. Kids should play sports if they want to, but when they and their parents decide that it should be their career path, I disagree with it. These parents are, most likely, arrogant to the fact that their kid is not that great - but they make them they are, and inspire them to be something they really aren't. And, if they were really good, there still is the problem with injury - one broken bone or sprained muscle, and you're out. Also, the odds at going pro is so slim, that it will only set the child up for disappointment. Unless this child is a sports prodigy, than they should not be influenced to pick sports as a career option. Even then, they should have a more traditional plan "B" in case they get injured or something doesn't work out. Vote for the debater than debated in every round, and provided fact and backed it up with a resource.