BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Germ theory is false

Looks like that Erold has done a bolter. Anybody what to take over?1. Germ Theory has never been proven to be a valid theory. It was only accepted because it was a way of making money out of gullible people. Money talks, so it was accepted and a huge pharmaceutical industry has since flourished to cater for this pathetic theory.2. Luis Pasteur was a fraud and a hustler who married the rector's daughter and became a famous scientist by stealing all the experiments of other scientists. Thus, he was similar to Einstien in that he was dull and stupid in science but was clever in decieving people. Thus, both Pasteur and Einstein were both thieving frauds who stole all their ideas from other people.3. Antoine Bechamp was the real expert on Germ Theory. But his theory differed from Pasteur in that he stated that "germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of it"4. Prior to agriculture, there was no disease. Agricultural products are the cause of 98% of all diseases. These products include sugar, grain and dairy. The other 2% are caused by dangerous chemicals such as chlorine, bromine and flourine. These chemicals are known as halogens which cause a disruption of the human hormone system. The hormone system is an iodine based system which is vulneable to disruption by rogue halogens as listed above.5. When Germ Theory was formulated nobody knew anything about hormones, gut bacteria and leaky gut syndrome. Thus, Germ Theory is a totally moronic theory which disregards all knowledge of how hormones work; how the gut leaks when agrivated by grain products and how bacteria enter the blood stream internally instead of externally. Thus, the internal leakage of bacteria is a more logical explanation of disease than the exterior invasion model of disease. Therefore, Germ Theory is false because it assumes that the germs come from exterior sources.6. Germ Theory is illogical. How do germs know when to attack humans? Germs have no legs to attack with, no brains to think with, no eyes to see with. Thus, they are conpletely incapable of even finding anything to attack in the first place. Note - The word "attack" is used repeatedly by the medical fraterity, so don't try to deny that this word is ever used.
Fruits versus vegetables.

I haven't ate a damn fruit since 2 years, and I am not going to eat one either. Vegetables weren't supposed to be made into juices, although some nutritionists still make stuff like carrot juice. I prefer chocolate shakes to strawberry shakes, and anyways you are adding extras to improve the fruit. If we look at it alone, I prefer vegetables, although I can't have them raw. Does corn and tomato count as a vegetable or a fruit? Not sure.
Fruits versus vegetables.

I love Strawberry banana smoothie. Whenever i drink it i feel no need to consider eating vegetables. After all fruits grow on trees just like vegetables do. I am not much of a nutritionist but bananas contain potassium and so forth. Therefore i believe that you don't have to worry about eating vegetables as long as you have your fruits instead. Here is the recipe for the smoothie discussed above by the way. Ingredients: 2 cups frozen strawberries. 1 fresh banana, peeled. 1 cup milk (I prefer almond milk in this one) 1 cup Ice. 1 tablespoon honey, if needed to sweeten.
Abortion

It not being safe..(!) More than half of women were using contraception when they became pregnant, and 47,000 women die every year as a result of the complications of unsafe abortions where it's illegal and 57 000 children are abused every year because of mothers regretting having children. These figures should should show us that woman need another option than being forced to have children you could argue that there is adoption but then mothers would still have to give birth to children and in countries when rape is common so the number for unplanned pregnancy is high which puts woman's lives in danger. More arguments for abortion: 1.Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies 2.The right to abortion is vital for gender equality 3.The right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential 4.Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists 5.The right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy If we don't use abortion imagine the fight for gender equality men will start seening woman purly for the purposes of giving birth Woman must have a choice for all these reasons...
Abortion

1. Protecting Women's HealthUnfortunately, abortions can do the opposite of protecting women's health and can completely jeopardize their life. There is a great risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, pelvic immflamatory disease, and many more possibly harmful complications that can potentially be fatal to the mother. Abortions don't just physically damage a woman but they can also cause considerable mental anguish that cannot be resolved.2. A Fetus Isn't a PersonI agree with you that fetuses aren't a thinking, feeling person but they are lives that have so much to live for. Indeed, they are 'Brain Dead' but does that mean that their lives are worthless? There is a disease that causes people of all ages to be what it is informally known as 'Brain Dead': they don't move, think, feel at all but would you kill them just because of that? Would you consider their lives worthless and just give them up?3. Reproductive Choice is DeniedWoman do generally have a choice to reproduce or not but unfortunately they are sometimes raped or sexually abused. However there are solutions to ensure that they don't become pregnant at all. If seek medical help soon enough, they won't have to go through the mental anguish of abortion.4. All Woman Have Abortions Because They Have toI know or a fact that this isn't true. When I was born, the doctors refused to tell my parents what sex I was because of the chance that they might abort me if I was female. Because of all the stigma around girls in the Islamic and Indian part of London that I lived in, the doctors wouldn't tell my parents if I was going to be a girl or a boy. This may be because that the hospital didn't want to go through the heartbreaking process of abortion which can mentally damage people for life. The point is that, not all abortions are for health but for other more petty reasons. 40% of woman have an abortion because of religious and sexist reasons.
Abortion

Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. A woman is more than a fetus. Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's " a thinking, feeling, conscious human being " is arrogant and absurd. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. Decades ago, women suffered through horrifying back-alley abortions. Or, they used dangerous methods when they had no other recourse. So when the Republican Party launched an all-out assault on women"s health, pushing bills to limit access to vital services, we had to ask: Why is the GOP trying to send women back"to the back alley? "Lisa Edelstein Woman never has an abortion for fun or because she wants to she does i because there is no other way out.
Abortion

'There are women who are raped and become pregnant; the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant.There are women who are starving who become pregnant; the problem is that they are starving, not that they are pregnant.There are women in abusive relationships who become pregnant; the problem is that they are in abusive relationships, not that they are pregnant.'Megan ClancyNo civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different to that. Why should one person be executed or incarcerated for killing another human being, when people go unpunished for it everyday.An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. All these problems could take the life of the mother someday and then the poor doctor who has to do this as part of their job, will have two lives on their hands.In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. It is like the situation in Scotland at the moment: the majority of Scotland voted to remain in the Eu but they are still being forced out of it because the rest of Britain wanted to exit.Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards and are too emotionally traumatised to have children again.
Abortion

Abortion is the way out for thousands of woman who need a a way out. Abortion is about allowing woman to make a choice and the government is not allowed to control the choices that woman make. "Teen Pregnancy in the United States. In 2015, a total of 229,715 babies were born to women aged 15"19 years, for a birth rate of 22.3 per 1,000 women in this age group. This is another record low for U.S. teens and a drop of 8% from 2014." Teen pregnancy is one of the times were abortion is often necessary. In this situation teenagers giving birth will put their lives in danger, we should be wanting to protect their lives. If abortion is not legal then woman will turn to dangerous black market drugs to try and stop the pregnancy. This puts the woman in danger which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. So this will not damage the fetus or inflict pain on the baby. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? These are the questions I wish to leave my first argument on.
Abortion

I do think that abortion should be allowed but for the purposes of a good debate, I shall be playing devil's advocate. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking a human's life. Why should people be given the death penalty in America for just one murder, when doctors are forced to do it as part of their job many times, and are not even put on trial? Round 1. Basic statements Round 2. Main argument Round 3. Rebuttals
Heavy Metal is the best genre of music.

Alright dude, thanks for accepting. I'd like to start out by saying that, despite extreme popular belief, heavy metal is often very meaningful. I'd like to use a few examples here, Facade - Disturbed [1], Never Enough - Five Finger Death Punch [2], and Master Of Puppets [3]. "Facade", by the band "Disturbed", is about a woman trapped in an abusive relationship who just can't seem to get out. There is no doubt that a song like this is very meaningful. My next example was "Never Enough", by the band "Five Finger Death Punch", about being forced into doing things over and over and abusing good-hearted people. Of course a song with such sorrowful and enraging power has meaning. The final example I mentioned was "Master Of Puppets", by Metallica. This song is about drug addiction and opposes the use of drugs, and so obviously is meaningful. The next point I have is that Heavy Metal opens a great way to express anger and vent. These emotions are often kept inside and cause great mental pain to the keeper. Expressing your thoughts is beneficial because otherwise there comes a point where a person simply cannot contain themselves and will snap. My final reason is that Heavy Metal can often serve as a wake-up call. Two songs by the band "Disturbed", "Deify"[4] and "Another Way To Die"[5], are great examples of this. "Deify" tells us to stand up to every power-hungry control-freak who has deified themselves, and not be controlled, while "Another Way To Die" warns us of how humans are destroying the world. It is important that humans do not live in their own self-created dream world where everything is peaceful, or otherwise everyone less fortunate then them will suffer and no problems will ever be fixed. Thanks for reading this, mate. I look forward to seeing what you've got to say.
Heavy Metal is the best genre of music.

CON has made mostly rebuttals in round 2, against the structure. This is extremely severe, I believe, though I'm not going to freak out over it. CON also said "PRO begins by asserting that "despite extreme popular belief, heavy metal is often very meaningful" but never directly establishes 'meaningfulness' as his criterion for "best" genre ever. " this is true, and might of been a mistake, but I didn't bother establishing "meaningfulness" because I thought the definition was common knowledge. Though it is true that other songs in other genres can be just as meaningful or even more meaningful, heavy metal will go where other genres seem to be afraid of going, and it's style and rough sound emphasizes that meaning to an extent which no other genre could hope to compete with. Take "Angel Of Death"[6], by "Slayer" as an example, about the holocaust. Sure, any song could talk about the holocaust, but not in the same powerful style as heavy metal. Please do not mistake this as me going against my own structure, and adding a new argument. I am merely rebutting CONS argument that other genres have songs even more meaningful. I'm also extremely curious as to why CON seems to think that, simply because someone is old, they wouldn't like metal or would get angrier much easier, as he seems to imply ". .. for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger. ". As for fundamentalist Christians, I'm simply stricken, why would your religion stop you from wanting to hear the powerful sound of a band playing their hearts out? My opponent states ". .. that doesn't mean that heavy metal is the best genre ever because not all heavy metal songs have such a deep or valuable meaning and even if they did, there are other songs from other genres which serve as even more compelling harbingers of tragedy's onslaught. " this is true, not all metal songs are meaningful, but this can be extended to literally every other genre. Not all rap songs are meaningful, neither pop or rock songs are ONLY meaningful. Also, once again, my previous argument comes to play here, the unique, often angry, sound of heavy metal emphasizes it's meaning. Thank you for reading, I am on the edge of my seat pondering what you have to say about your infringement of my proposed debate structure, and the fact that you didn't really present any arguments, and only attempted to refute mine. :)
Personal Searches in school, Lockers, backpacks, etc.

And I might add again, they should only be searching someone if they have reason to suspect that they have something they should not. However, I do believe that if someone seems innocent and have no reason to be searched, then they shouldn't be. If someone reliable and mature is the one looking through the students stuff, then they should have nothing to worry about. I would take embarrassment over someone thinking I have something with me that is illegal or harmful any day.
Personal Searches in school, Lockers, backpacks, etc.

I don't know about you, but I would feel awfully unsafe at my school if I knew someone was carrying around a knife or gun. If a teacher has reason to suspect that a student is carrying illegal drugs or weapons of any sort, they should have every right to search their locker, bag, etc. If someone is storing something harmful in their locker, which is the schools property I might add, they should without a doubt be able to search the locker and find out if there is something in there for the sake of other students safety. Also, if a student brings illegal drugs to school, the teachers would be doing a very good thing by searching them for the drugs. If they're illegal, they shouldn't have them at school and the authorities should be called. I think being able to search lockers and bags would be doing the community a favor.
Personal Searches in school, Lockers, backpacks, etc.

Yes you could be right in some cases, but personal locker/backpack searches would violate the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their personals, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. At the school I attend people have things in their backpacks that they shouldn't have but, I think that the school should find another way to hsndle these types of situations.
Personal Searches in school, Lockers, backpacks, etc.

I accept. First off, I'm going to start by saying I come from a school with a bunch of kids who smoke weed and think it's cool to talk about it out loud. I think that personal searches are necessary if a teacher or staff member is under suspicion that someone has dangerous weapons or illegal drugs with them. If teachers were unable to do personal searches, things like that would go unnoticed therefore putting the lives of students in danger. What if someone were to bring a knife or gun to school and the teachers were suspicious that that person could possibly be harmful in any way, but they couldn't search through his stuff? Then there is definitely going to be a problem.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Prostitution Ought to Be Legalized.

This debate is part of the Second Official DDO Tournament, hosted by TUF. http://www.debate.org... And part of the Intermediate Tier of the tournament. http://www.debate.org... This is my first time initiating a debate, as well as participating in a tournament. Good luck, have fun, and learn things :D ========== Topic: Prostitution Ought to Be Legalized. Definitions: Prostitution – the act of having sex in exchange for money [1]. Legal – sanctioned by the law. Putting up a reasonable amount of regulation still counts as legal. Context: This debate is about the legality of prostitution in the United States. As of now, states have power over the legality of prostitution: “in most states, prostitution is considered a misdemeanor in the category of public order crime, a crime that disrupts the order of a community,” all except parts of Nevada [2]. Rules: R1: Acceptance. R2: Arguments. R3: Rebuttals. R4: Rebuttals. ========== [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Round one I will be arguing that the Christian God is evil. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is good.DefinitionsGod ""(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]"Malevolent"1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.2. Having a harmful influence: malevolent stars."Benevolent"1.a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).b. Suggestive of doing good; agreeable: a benevolent smile.2. Relating to a charitable organization that operates without making a profit."All other definitions are assumed common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be equally shared.StructureRound 1 Acceptance and DefinitionsRound 2 ArgumentsRound 3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two.Round 4 Defense, respond directly to opponent's round three. Failure to comply with any of these rules on a first offense will lose the conduct point. A second offense will forfeit the spelling and grammar point. A third offense will forfeit all remaining points. Sources0. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

I will be arguing that the Christian God is benevolent. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is malevolent. Definitions God (https://www.merriam-webster.com...) "The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." Malevolent (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) "Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious." Benevolent (https://www.merriam-webster.com...) "Marked by or suggestive of goodwill."
Hans Hermann-Hoppe vs. Noam Chomsky rap battle

Meh, there's a little time left. I'm not putting much effort into this. =================================================I demanded a rap but you didn't supply itYou'll say you couldn't find time but I'm not gonna buy it So admit that I heated you - you couldn't come near meOr that I defeated you - beat you with your own theoryCuz it seems that right now your value is zeroJust more proof that I'm the anarchist heroNext time come at me instead of just bringing forfeits Guess it's not easy to out-talk the most cited living author=========================================================
Hans Hermann-Hoppe vs. Noam Chomsky rap battle

I suppose this will mostly be a 1-round battle due to Pro's forfeit... ================================================= Your last name's Hoppe so you should hop to it Supposed to challenge me but couldn't manage to do it Saw that it wasn't in your rational sef-interest Couldn't handle or smash this battle at all or diss this So you chose to dismiss it like a little wimp chick, bitch Witness all talk but no walk - is this what a capitalist is, miss? So hurry, come on, scurry to fvck me with your dark, smart wit When you're done having fun sucking Murray Rothbard's hard d!ck =================================================
Hans Hermann-Hoppe vs. Noam Chomsky rap battle

Many thanks to my opponent for instigating this challenge. As I haven't debated or battled in a long a$s time, I think it sounds like a fun idea :) I'd like to remind the audience that this is NOT a capitalist vs. syndicalist debate. The winner should be determined based on the rap battle content and not the political philosophies espoused by the respective advocates.