BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

Before I address Pro's arguments, I would like to point out that he still has not solved the problem posed by my argument. Correlation does not imply Causation. This is a basic tennent of all Scientific Research. Without providing causal proof, which can only be observed in real time, Evolution falls short of explaining our development. It is, therefore, an inadaquate explanation, and cannot be accepted as fact.Fossils don't form that easily, and we have only dug up a tiny portion of the Earth's crust, so it is to be expected that we don't have a fossil showing every tiny change that has ever happened in a species. However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species' evolution. They are called transitional fossils, leading me into my next rebuttal.The key here is the following excerpt: "However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species evolution." How do you know? Those fossils are separated by millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of years. Who is to say that a major stage did not take place between the two fossils we have on record and was not captured in fossil form? Your transitional fossils may only be a piece of the puzzle, and the true explanation may elude biologists and archeologists still. Again, Evolution lacks the vital causal factors. Your own statement that fossils don't form that easily undermines your argument. It casts doubt upon what we have unearthed, by exposing the rarity of any fossils. Given that they are, as you have pointed out, a rare occurrence, what reason do we have to logically believe that the fossils we have unearthed are the ones that were selected for? We have none. We can speculate, but we lack the causal factors, and therefore, any speculations we have conducted, including the theory of evolution, is porous in its analysis and has a high probability of misrepresenting history. With regards to your second point, you have now gone beyond the scope of this debate. My task was not to provide an alternative to Evolution. Rather, my task was to argue against Evolution. I have done so, and you have failed to address my argument. Rather, you have provided me with further justification for my argument. Furthermore, not once did I mention Christianity. So bringing Christianity into this argument is irrelevant. One does not have to be religious to argue against Evolution. So I challenge you once again to provide me with a reasonable reason to make the incredible jump for correlation to causation that your own Science and mathematics say is impossible to make. Show me the causal proof that those changes in the fossil record are due to Evolution. I ask this knowing that you cannot provide it, with the goal of moving this debate forward.
All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

I'm going to jump straight into the rebuttals: ". .. the jump from a Fossil record that shows minute changes in the structure and genetic makeup of organisms to definitive proof of evolution is beyond its reach. .. " Fossils don't form that easily, and we have only dug up a tiny portion of the Earth's crust, so it is to be expected that we don't have a fossil showing every tiny change that has ever happened in a species. However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species' evolution. They are called transitional fossils, leading me into my next rebuttal. "Correlation in the fossil record with the expectations of the Theory of Evolution does not imply causation, that is, we have no real proof Evolution caused the changes in the genetic makeup of those organisms, nor is it possible to obtain such proof. "Wow, this is a new one: an anti-evolutionist acknowledging the existence of transitional fossils and still managing to denounce evolution by declaring that "they aren't enough to serve as proof". So, if Evolution didn't cause those genetic changes, then what did? According to the Bible, God created all animals in their present-day states. And by the way, even if transitional fossils somehow didn't count as proof of Evolution, there is still lots more to show (2) SOURCES: (1) . http://archaeology.about.com...(2) . http://evolutionandgod.com... #
All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

Here is my argument:1) The Theory of Evolution states that animals evolve over millions of years through natural selection. The genes of those creatures selected for survival are passed on, and so on and so on, until we reach current day. 2) Evolution points to the fossil record for its proof. Unfortunately for Evolution,however, the jump from a Fossil record that shows minute changes in the structure and genetic makeup of organisms to definitive proof of evolution is beyond its reach, for the moment. We do have a fossil record which appears to consist of, as your video called them, "transitional species. " However, we have no causal relationship between the genetic development of those species, and the theory of evolution. It is impossible to establish a causal relationship between the two without observing the change in genetic makeup of every single species, both transitional and non-transitional, in real time. Without a causal relationship, Evolution is truly nothing more than a theory, no matter how much of the fossil record you may unearth. Correlation in the fossil record with the expectations of the Theory of Evolution does not imply causation, that is, we have no real proof Evolution caused the changes in the genetic makeup of those organisms, nor is it possible to obtain such proof. The DNA we may salvage from fossils is incomplete on an extraordinary scale, and any attempts to complete the gene code have a probability of error. It is, therefore, impossible to say for certain that Evolution is the cause of organic and genetic development over the course of Earth's History.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

"Says who? The doctors? " No, It was actually you who said this. Claiming that you got it from a medical textbook, The same people who you sworn to be greedy money collectors with fake medicine. "It said that only some people get sick when bitten or contaminated with lyme disease bacteria. " This argument only leads to a stupid stalement. As most of your sources is gained from people with medical degrees, Doctors, And the government itself, So who am I to believe anything to say since the government is evil? Most of our sources that are FACT CHECKED and secure are mostly government, Or privately ran by doctors themselves, Since most of our talk is anatomy and physolgical, And the rest of them are conspiracy theorists. Leading to most of the information presented under the presence of a lie (with your logic) Just because Ebola was discovered in 1976, Doesn't mean the disease hasn't existed until that time period. If my statement is false, You have not backed up evidence explaning how Ebola itself is pesticide. My cite that backs up your claim only supports it being in Nigeria. Whos to say its pesticide in the DRC, And other african nations. I did not use a new disease, I explained my distopian society where anti-vaxxers and the medical buisness is shut down. And how everyone will die in masses without knowing what specific food to consume to cure their gut syndrome, Similar to everyone in Europe not knowing the cure to the Black Death. Also like I explained before, Every new disease that gets brought up is apparently the aliens doing, Or the governement putting ranch dressing into syringes to make it look like a germ, You already 'showed me' how the diseases I listed are fake, What do you want me to do? "Talks about the common cold as an example" "The common cold is actually the amount of ice and freezing temperatures in the atmosphere, That gets pushed by NASA's satellites onto the population, And the ice blocks our pores, Which signals the brain to produce excess mucus" Nonsense Also you are telling me that there is not one doctor that actually wants to cure the greater of humanity? And there isnt one government allowing them to do so in any time period? Although I strongly disagree with any statement I respect you staying till the end with this debate.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

The second statement clarifies and elaborates on the first statement. Quote - "It was their lack of vitamins that caused it" Is a clarification. "There is a percentage of people who do get sick to lyme disease" Says who? The doctors? The same people who earn a living from the germ theory of disease. Now, Any person who makes a living off sick people surely wants a secure future which contains lots of sick people to treat. Thus, The medical doctors have no financial incentive to cure or prevent any disease. Thus, They keep quiet about the real cause of disease and make heaps of money because of their tacitness. Quote - "that Ebola as a whole is from pesticide. The disease has existed longer than even the invention of the product in the first place. "Ebola virus was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since then, The virus has been infecting people from time to time, Leading to outbreaks in several African countries. Note - Pesticides were first invented in about 1890. That's 86 years before the Ebola virus first appeared. Thus, Your statement is false by a long shot. "Now we are facing almost the same fate as the europeans did during the Black Death"You have changed disease once again! Amazing! The Black Death was a result of volcanic activity during the Dark Ages. That's why they call it the Dark Ages because it was literally dark due to volcanic ash. This caused crop failure and starvation. People had to rely on stored grain food to survive. Grain food causes leaky gut syndrome and results in the Black Death which is a vitamin deficiency disease. "But do you really think that is the case with every study in the whole of society? "Doctors have always decieved people right throughout history. Witch doctors used to shake sticks to ward off evil spirits. Nothing has changed that much. Vaccination is based on prehictoric rites of blood initiation. The blood of animals was once thought to contain super powers because animals were so strong and fast compared to puny humans. This belief led Edward Jenner to think that by injecting animal blood into humans that the spirit of the strong animal would make the sick person better. Its just an old wives tale gone wrong.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

I did watch the leaky gut video, And I am not expected to believe that everytime someone gets sick, It is because of leaky gut. There is literally no way for eveyone on the planet to encounter this 'syndrome' jst because they eat something that they are allergic to. You seem to not understand what you said earlier. "SOME people didn't get sick with the lyme disease after being bitten with the tick, Then, That proves it was not the tick or bacteria that caused it. It was their lack of vitamins that caused the disease. " -latest statment "it said that only some people get sick when bitten or contaminated with lyme disease bacteria. " -Earlier statment You said that some people don't get sick because of lyme disease, But eariler you said that the same some did get sick due to lyme disease. What ever point you are trying to make, There is a percentage of people who do get sick to lyme disease, And the other percent got sick to lack of vitamins. So what does that make the bacterial sicklings? Also lackinn nutrient diffeciency? Or is it leaky gut syndrome this time? Or maybe our world governent led by capitalists are trying to poison us and inject the bacteria in our bloodstream! Really? I keep using new bacterias and viruses because you pull out some random card out of your arse that proves it is not a "germ" and just a fake medical term. The only source that proves ebola OUTBREAK in Nigeria is from pesticides is from an IB times article. If that were to be true, That does not singlehandedly prove that Ebola as a whole is from pesticide. The disease has existed longer than even the invention of the product in the first place. Lets imagine a society where vaccines don't exist. We have people supposedly consuming foods that damage their stomach lining/digestive tract, Or consuming the wrong diet leads us to nasal infections and flus. How are we supposed to get rid of these syndromes? I guess by consuming the right diet, Because there are no vaccines or any doctors to tell me which foods I should be taking, Or any form of government warning saying what I should do, And I cannot seem to correctly find out what kind of diet I should follow because I can't risk dying of digestive failure, And no one with a doctors degree can tell me what to do. Now we are facing almost the same fate as the europeans did during the Black Death. . I am aware of medical bias, And how some tests may be faked in order to concieve a better truth for society. But do you really think that is the case with every study in the whole of society?
Germs are not the cause of disease.

If SOME people didn't get sick with the lyme disease after being bitten with the tick, Then, That proves it was not the tick or bacteria that caused it. It was their lack of vitamins that caused the disease. I have a video in the comments section about leaky gut syndrome which you didn't see. Thus, You are still ignorant about how disease is caused and what order things happen. 1. First you eat bad food - Grain, Sugar, Dairy and fat. 2. This bad food causes inflammation in the gut which creates gaps in the gut linning. 3. Then your gut bacteria enter your blood stream and make you sick. Thus, Bacteria entering blood stream is step 3 in the disease process and not step 1. Thus, Bacteria and germs are NOT the CAUSE of a disease but are a RESULT of bad diet. "The Ebola virus did not come about"You keep switching diseases? Ebloa, Polio and zika 'viruses' are all pesticide poisoning problems. The government and pharmaceutical companies use the word 'virus' as a cover-up to provent liability for poisoning millions of people with dangerous chemicals. Chlorine and fluorine based chemicals cae damage the bodies nervous system which results in paralysis or stops the lung's function which results in suffocation and death. The Vaccination Liberation website has plenty of graphs which show that vaccination has never worked or been effective. "As getting vaccinated from scientists who actually done tests, Experiments and years of work WITH the disease. "Asking the medical system to provide evidence that would send them all to jail is unlikely. Thus, They will provide false information and do false tests. I know, I used to work in a medical laboratory. Ref - Jon Rappoport's blog - Zika, Ebloa and polio
Germs are not the cause of disease.

"I checked the medical text book and it said that only some people get sick when bitten or contaminated with lyme disease bacteria. " Keyword; Some. This textbook that you apparently checked has said that only some people got sick when bitten with the lyme disease bacteria. These people who got sick, Did get sick with the lyme disease bacteria. According to your definition of a germ, Is to be not a parasite, And more of a bacteria/virus. So lets stick with virus and bacterial examples for now on. Your main claim to this argument, Is that we do not need to vaccine or take daily medication, Because eating the right nutrition prevents this, And that we do not get sick because of germs, But because our society is already eating nonsense and junk food, It gets us sick. (Which makes really no sense). We have germs that come in our bodies and make us sick after. First off, You will never achieve a society where everyone will eat what you want them to, Nutritional or not. Unless you establish genocide and total totalitarianism, There will be that one will won't listen to you completely. I am pretty sure that not only doctors know that we won't get sick if we eat the right foods, But anyone with a brain knows. If everyone actually ate something nutritional, Then it would be hard for the human body to get sick. You have failed to tell me WHAT causes us to get sick. If bacteria and germs never existed, Would we still get sick because of our bad eating habits? We would only get sick because of vitamin deficiency, And last time I checked, The Ebola virus did not come about, Because someone did not eat broccoli for dinner. The medical system has been around for ages, Where we have nurses and doctors caring for injuries and sickness since our being on Earth. Vaccinations have been proven to work, And I can list out many links to websites that prove this, However, If I did link my website, You would probably say something along the line of a government scam, And my sources are incorrect. But where does that leave you? How do I prove your sources to be correct about vaccinations not working. You said you got information from a medical textbook, Which is what you are against, And say is a scam for the government to gain more money. These are people who actually dedicated decades of research to actually trying to make our world a better place without viruses and diseases killing our population, While your information is coming from conspiracy theories, Googling, And lack of evidence between connection. All in which are minuscule amount of proven evidence. Unless you can actually give me a book, Website, Or source that actually proves that vaccination should not be taken to aid the immune system with the battles against bacteria, Please show me. I understand that dieting and hydration greatly helps at a level, But changing my diet from not eating at my local fast food industry, Or eating more carrots and vegetables, Will not help me against the Ebola virus, As getting vaccinated from scientists who actually done tests, Experiments and years of work WITH the disease.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

I checked the medical text book and it said that only some people get sick when bitten or contaminated with lyme disease bacteria. Thus, It depends on the diet of the person and not on the bacteria. For bacteria to be the cause it must occur on every infection, Not just some cases. That's because in science, It only takes one anomally to disprove a theory or hypothesis. The medical system likes to call everything a disease. A parasite is not really a germ. The medical system calls them germs because it strengthens the germ theory case (scam) which they use to make money out of gullible people. Note - Germs are not the PRIMARY CAUSE of disease but are a SECONDARY SYMPTOM of disease. If all people ate proper foods, Then nobody would ever get sick and there would be no need for any doctors. The medical system knows this, So they keep quiet about what the real causes of disease are and tell lies about germs being the cause. Thus, People take expensive medications and still get sick because medications don't work. Vaccination is a load of rubbish. The human immune system works via vitamins, Especially iodine which can kill germs. Lleaky gut syndrome is the most common form of disease. Colds and flu, Arthritis and dementia are all dietary problems.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

You say that parasites and poor health conditions lead to infections and death with disease, Which is true in most cases. However, They are still responsible for getting us sick in the first place. Just because we leave a hole and treat our bodies differently does not make bacteria not responsible for the cause. Lyme disease is a bacterial infection caused by ticks, If a tick bit you with lime disease, Would that make you responsible because of your unkept hair, The tick for biting you in the first place, Or the bacteria itself? Of course, The bacteria that is only purpose to infect and surivive will be the fault of it all. This is why we have cures, Vaccines, Daily medication and such, To prevent these germs from getting into a system that gives us disease. You are treating this "getting infected" like everyone has a case of AIDS, Making any common infections being not at fault. Everyone has their own reasons in getting sick, From not washing their hands, To getting bit by rats and insects. Which all get us prone to the main cause, Bacterial/viral infections. "But parasites and viruses aren"t technically germs" then your statement is left with arguments that would apply to the origin and definition of the word Germ rather than actually diving into the science and medics about this topic.
Germs are not the cause of disease.

Malaria is not a disease. Its a very small parasite. If you eat a proper diet it won't affect you. A propper diet is a diet that doesn't contain any processed sugar, Grain, Dairy and fat. Unfortunately, The human diet has shifted after the agricultural revolution so humans ate too much grain and sugar which doesn't contain the right vitamins that humans need. Note - Malaria symptoms include stomach pains, Sore joints which suggests a bad diet of the victim rather than blaming a mere parasite or mosquito. Note - Fleas, Rats and mosquitos are quite often blamed for diseases when it is most often just a lack of vitamins which is the real cause. Note - The human immune system is an iodine based system. Thus, If you are getting adequate vitamin C and D then you won't get any diseases or parasites. Tuberculosis is a gut leakage problem caused by bad diet and a lack of vitamins. The gut bacteria leak into the blood stream causing disease. Note - There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. The particular vitamin deficiency causes the particular disease. See comments for references
eating meat is wrong of course

As PRO has chosen not to make any further arguments, or to rebut mine, all of my arguments stand.First, PRO began his debate stating that humans shouldn't eat meat, but in his arguments, he only addressed beef. Even if all of his arguments stand, nothing translates to pork, poultry or any other meat. Secondly, PRO did not source any of his claims, therefore, it can be regarded as opinion.Finally, and most importantly, PRO has not tied any of his arguments to his initial claim. Even if cows can only be happy if they are not slaughtered, and even if humans can full obtain their nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet, this still does not support his claim that it is wrong to eat meat. PRO has not met his burden of proof.