BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The immune system is iodine based

First, you shouldn't use other peoples poor research to fight your own battles. Secondly, you think that nature made a mistake when it created humans and that doctors know more than nature and can do a much better job. lol I am sorry to have inform you that nature doesn't make mistakes but doctors often do. Immunization is a primitive carry over from our prehistoric past when tribes used initiation rites of animal blood which was mixed with human blood. This was done because primitive people thought that the animals spirit could be transferred to humans in the hope that the animals strength could be transferred. Vaccination is just a remnant of these prehistoric practices which have somehow persisted through to the technological era. Edward Jenner, who was a poorly educated rich boy, revived this ancient practice and earned himself a bit of fame and fortune in the process. Devious individuals have seized upon this opportunity to make a handy profit from this snake oil practice. Even well meaning governments have swallowed this nonsense and now provide funding to vaccine makers. The thought of using dead and diseased animal tissue mixed with toxic chemicals could somehow improve one's health is totally ridiculous. The human immune system is an iodine based system. It needs natural iodine from plants and animals to function properly. Note - Elemental iodine is toxic and not recommended. http://drsircus.com... http://www.naturalnews.com... http://www.naturalnews.com... What Jenner didn't know is that the modern diet was the blame of most disease. Grain, sugar and dairy are unnatural foods which the human body can't properly deal with. The result is sickness and disease. Thus, colds, whooping cough and flu which are attributed to germs, is really an allergic reaction to grain, sugar and dairy foods.
The immune system is iodine based

I would rebut your points, but AWSM0055 has already done that in the comments section. Since it's the same information, I'm just going to plagiarize what they posted: Posted by AWSM0055 3 hours ago "Bollocks. iodine is iodine. The ELEMENT iodine is what humans need. Too much kills you. Nuff said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.health.harvard.edu... http://www.livescience.com... And no, iodine does not sort the problems vaccines do. Lack of iodine causes thyroid problems and brain damage. Iodine is used for metabolism hormones and messages in the body Vaccines are for the immune system Totally different." Your turn.
Small talk

The problem with faking extrovertism and the enjoyment of participating in small talk is that you are fabricating a lie which takes effort not to mention time you could invest in more enjoyable activities.You're missing something: I'm 14-year-old. I have nothing to do! I usually spend my day surfing the Internet, just to do something. It is only when neccassary that I remove my firmly-planted bottom from off my bed and my hands from off the keys.Faking social interaction quickens the pace of trivial events, and is sometimes fun. I have been doing it since 3rd Grade, and it is a reflex for me, as it is for most people. Most people don't realize that they're feigning happiness.I'm sure you've noticed; the toothy-smile; the unblinking eyes; the cough-like laugh.People participate in faking sociality without even noticing!_____________________________________________________________________________For added fun, tell whoever you're talk to that you regularly fake social interaction.Watch as they step around as if on thin ice."W-well... You should open up.""Don't you fake social interaction?""No.""I think you do."Person will now get defensive. You have skipped over small talk and now can initiate conversation on other subjects"You're right. You don't fake it. What do you think of Obama?" Note: This works best with someone you already know fairly well. The person also knows what you're doing. They're not stupid.Also, you can also feign annoyance with people you don't know very well. Smile just a little too widely. They will avoid you, especially if you make your voice a tad higher. Say the most unfunny, random things.These newer people will avoid you. You now have all the time alone you could want.Now, there won't be as much of those pesky party-invitations. Have fun.Warning: You may come to regret your life and be unable to change.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Small talk is indeed just pandoring for social/monetary gain; I do not dispute this. However, it does get you social/monetary gain.Humans are rather obsessed with socializing. This is the only way other people know to make friends."How're you?""Fine.""You watch the game?""No.""Like sports?""No.""Watch TV.""Yeah.""What show?""Dallas.""T-that's a cool show.""Yeah. I like it.""Can you believe her?""She doesn't deserve to live.""No, she doesn't. It's the producers fault!"____________________________________________________________________________That's all they know hoe to do in orde to make friends, and thus we will have to resort to such petty lengths to succeed socially.
Small talk

I have never been one for "pointless chatter;" but you argue convincingly that it serves a substantial role in human interaction. Of course, intellectual or meaningful discourse is impossible for every conversation that one is involved in as it involves argument construction (worthwhile debate require forethought, research and preparation), a whole lot of effort, and pre-fabricated logicality that impairs spontaneity However, as an introvert who often lives a solitary life of the mind especially when accosted and trapped by uninspiring company [my instinct is to tune out], I would say that I feel my time and space being parasitized by those who want to "shoot into the wind." I cannot think effectively in the midst of the clatter of vacuous chatter, and cannot recoup time lost in inane chatter. Any thoughts on this great disadvantage?
Legalization of sin.

umm, romans is a book in the Bible written by the apostle paul who was a disciple of Jesus christ writing to the Romans in that time. Bro, you should read the Bible. Dem Rumun die cuz of Jesus, Jesus too cool fo dem. No actually the Roman Empire fell into disarray as the Empire began to fracture due to increased corruption which led to a decrease in military strength which allowed germanic tribes to invade. Then Eastern Rome became Byzantium and was a theorcratic monarchy led by the Partriarch and King who was appointed by him. Constantinople converted the Byzantine empire into Christianity. Eventually splitting off from Western christianity during the great schism they are now a different offshoot from what we deem as "normal" protestantism based on the doctrines of Martin Luther's teaching of the Bible as the source of all Divine information and reference. Btw, you pretty much dropped all them talking points Jesus wins!!!! What wuld Jesus Do? Vote Pro cuz Jesus luvs me yes i know, fo da bible tell me so! bro lets be fwends. Hey do you know how to make cupcakes? shet i like cupcakes. Bruh i know u is trollin me bruh, bruh, like wat bruh. You know what's better then trolling people? it starts with a v and ends in na, thats right vienna!! I've always wanted to go to that city-state in Italy. Oh the catholic church is in Italy.
Legalization of sin.

Sin is already legalized in some aspects: the right to freedom of religion? Yea according to the ten commandments, Thou shalt not have any other gods before me, that's a sin. Hindus, muslims, and other religions don't follow the same God as christians yet are they all pimps, dealers or bookies? NO!!!!!! Sin is already legalized since we don't have to honor the sabbath day, we can say the lord's name in vain God damnit and we can do a bunch of other things. If i say God damnit and not go to church every sunday, does that make me a pimp, dealer or bookie? NO!!!!! It's not illegal to have anal sex yet it's clearly a sin. Since that sin is legalized, am i a pimp, dealer or bookie? NO!!! Sin is based off of the moral lessons taught within the Bible. The Bible also teaches hypocrisy and judgement. You have no right to judge those who are sinning for you yourself are a sinner, only God has the right to judge you since he has no flaw. Romans 3:23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God"s glorious standard. Proverbs 28:13 People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy. Galatians 5:19-21 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Look, committing one sin does not make you a pimp, dealer, or hooker. It's when we begin to fall blindly into sin and indulge in our sinful nature that these kinds of occupations arise. WE ALL HAVE SINNED, that is a fact. The bible tells us that when we have sinned, we must repent. If we make sin illegal, you have disallowing humans to exist or be humans. In this light, only Jesus would be a law-abiding citizen while everyone else will be thrown into jail. Look, the Bible explicitly states that we should not disobey the government since they are all through him. Our government does not make us sin, nor does it disallow us to sin. Our Government was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as the beliefs of the enlightenment where all men are created equally with certain inalienable rights. If God did not want this Government to be created, then this would not exist. Romans 13:1 ESV Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Legalization of sin.

When a sin is legalized, we all become the pimps, dealers, and bookies. If you are a . gov kiddo, wishing to set the world straight with your sense of morality, all the while cashing in on the opportunity that government power endows you with, then you are the ultimate sinner, as you wish to capitalize on your fellow humans normal behaviors, all the while condemning them as worthy of a sin tax, which by the way, seems to fit in your pocket just fine.
Famous' Unofficial Tournament: R1

Full ResolutionResolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech should be valued above a community's moral standards. StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro Opens, Con OpensRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense of rebuttals (2nd rebuttals)DefinitionsConflict: be incompatiable or at variance; clash. Freedom of Speech: the right to express beliefs or opinions without government restriction. Community: the people collectively, especially in the context of social values and rsponsibility. Moral: relating to the principles of right and wrong, the distinction between right and wrong, ethics. Rules1. No forfeits.2. No semantics.3. No kritiks.4. BOP is shared.5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter.
Capital Punishment

I believe that the Death Penalty should not be used. First of all, many believe that it is inhumane, thought that is very controversial. Part of the reason why a life sentence without possibility of parole would be a better sentence than the death sentence is that of the families of the accused. Think of how much that could tear a family apart! Especially the children of the accused, that would be traumatizing. When a person gets a life sentence in jail, at least they are kept alive for the family. They can still visit the person and write them letters, then they are getting punished without punishing the family as well. Also, not every person accused of a crime is actually guilty. There have been plenty of cases where an innocent has been falsely accused of a crime and sent to jail or even a death sentence! The Capitol Punishment could kill (and probably has already killed) innocent people that were victims of poor defense at a trial, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Capital Punishment

Although the issue over capital punishment may not be as well known of a debate currently in the US, it has a huge impact on most Americans lives. I believe that the death penalty should be in use everywhere in the US because it offers many benefits to society and the economy. Capital punishment is currently prohibited in 19 states, which is because these states have deemed that the law is unconstitutional and it contradicts the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. I disagree with these 19 states; capital punishment should be enforced for any crime punishable by death. The death penalty brings retribution for the victim"s families and offers closure, as it doesn't allow for the guilty party to be granted life with parole. Secondly, the annual average taxpayer cost in the US was nearly $35,000 per inmate. To keep a prisoner in jail for life put a large burden on the American taxpayer, and inevitably this cost can be cut with the death penalty. To summarize the topic of capital punishment is an extremely important topic for all of America, but can also be a very personal and emotional topic for some. Large weight on the American taxpayer in terms of cost and emotional aspect for the people and families involved with each crime, are the just some of reasons behind my opinion. I believe that the death penalty should be put in use in all states for all crimes with enough evidence to be punishable by death.
Is Squidward's attitude towards Spongebob and Patrick wrong

You do have a good point there. However, a good chunk of the time, Spongebob and Patrick infiltrate Squidward's home to get him to come and play. He refuses nearly every time, and manages to get himself into deep trouble (no pun intended). You are right, he is not mean and sour all the time. Squidward does have some shining moments in the series. Although, no matter how hard they try, the squid just doesn't want to do anything fun. Perhaps, if he were to be a little nicer to them and engage in some healthy activity once and a while, Spongebob and Patrick will stop bothering him...
Is Squidward's attitude towards Spongebob and Patrick wrong

Your right squidward does not show any patience towards either Spongebob or Patrick, though that's to be expected. Squidward has told them many times to not trespass into his home, to keep the noise down, and not to get into his business. Though no matter how many times he's told/asked/ordered and thrown them out they refuse to listen. In fact it usually continues to happen So yes while forgiveness would be great, Squidward can't forgive knowing that they'll just continue ignoring his requests. While its true squidward does somewhat shun Spongebob and Patrick, he doesn't shun them all together. An example of this would be during one of the Spongebob Christmas specials where Spongebob and Patrick find out about Santa and get excited about him coming. They eventually get all of the town hyped up as well. In the end Santa doesn't come and Squid in turn dresses as Santa and gives all of his belongings away. Thus also showing he's not always mean and sour.
Is Squidward's attitude towards Spongebob and Patrick wrong

I believe that Squidward's attitude towards Spongebob and Patrick is obviously wrong. He shows no patience or tolerance to the two creatures, and bases his feels upon past experiences. In reality, we should all be able to forgive each other, even after we have done something wrong. Of course, he has the right to be angry. However, he has no right to constantly shun them. Matter of fact, the purpose of Squidward's character is to show that you won't get very far by maintaining a sour attitude. Kindness and joy always prevails.
Luis Pasteur was a fraud

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.
The World is Better Off Without the Catholic Church

Well, these 'concessions' that I talk about are the only things necessary to counter this argument since there is more than one answer to your statement "The World is Better Off Without the Catholic Church" I could argue that there there would be no effect, which I have and still will. And I could argue that there would be a negative effect... which I won't argue because there wouldn't be a negative effect. People are still going to believe what they want to believe... if the Church fell tomorrow, there will still be some people who believe what the Church says and take it upon themselves to start another version of the church... and so on! Anyways... The implications surrounding the foundation of you question told me that you want the Church to just go away... I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant. A case for the disappearance of the Church would be as I said earlier... you can take the organization away from the people, but you can't take away their beliefs... and since their beliefs are what drive the cause... there will still be groups of people and powerful people that will block the rights to homosexuality and contraception... it is to embedded with society's core for it to be vanish along with the Church. "It still denies the civil rights of so many, while also paving the way for the death of so many of its followers to HIV and AIDS, not to mention the institutional molestation of young boys. All these clearly add up to a world which would be better without its presence." Well, the church really doesn't do the denying... it is the people that share those beliefs in powerful places that deny the people those particular rights... not the church, so once again... no effect if the church vanished, not the people who have the beliefs. As for the pedophilia in the church... it was wrong of them to handle it the way they did... However, if the church was gone... wouldn't those same people who molested boys molest even without the Church? They were only using the Church as a portal of some sort to get access to the under-aged children, which sounds morbid, but unfortunately true... those sick people. But just because the church would be gone, it doesn't mean there would be a significant reduction in molestation. That sir is a fallacy! I agree that they generally aren't a good force... but the world would not be better off to without them... nor would they be worse off... it is neutral And that neutrality I feel is an equal side to be held... there are three sides to this debate! Respectfully, ~LosLambda p.s. please just call me LosLambda, not Con or opposition :)
The World is Better Off Without the Catholic Church

I would like to acknowledge the frustration of the Pro debater that he/she apparently has with the Catholic Church. I can definitely related to that frustration as one too many times to I see this particular form of religion in places where it should not have any influence at all. The real question here is whether or not the Catholic Church should be as powerful and influential as it is today, and whether or not the influence is a benevolent or malevolent force in society. Well, as history dictates, the Catholic Church has been in the midst of quite the amount of controversy throughout its relatively short history (compared to the history of humans). As I view it, the Catholic church in particular is like the overprotective mother that wants to protect its children from anything negative towards their children. The intentions of the views and actions of the church are mostly within good intentions. Now are those actions and stances good ones.. some yes, some no. Unfortunately as a society, where the Church has a predominant influence on the media and world governments... these opinions may be a little overbearing. It is alright for them to have these opinions, but it is their power which affects society based on these opinions is the real trouble. In a short answer... no, the world wouldn't be better off without church. However, it wouldn't be better even if the church stayed. There would be no effect if we got rid of the church now. The anger and frustration should be directed at how can we limit the power of the church, not destroy it. Just because someone or some entity has an opinion, it doesn't give anyone the right to completely get rid off it... So in the case of their stance of homosexuality and opposition of contraceptives, I am OK with them having the opinion... However, I do not agree with how much influence they have... even having their own seat in the UN (that's ridiculous) and it is that power we need to fight off. They have conservative views and should have their own right to share an opinion, but not at the scale they are currently sharing it in. In the argument of the molestation of the little boys... I completely agree with you that it is completely disgraceful. However, it is not the church as an entity you should blame but the individuals within the entity you should point the finger at. Granted, there should be more tests that the church can make so these creeps don't get into the religious system. It really is ashamed that those events have happened.