BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biological weapons are a fallacy

Oh my... Rebuttals and Arguments:First of, as defined above, a biological weapon is "a harmful living thing used as a weapon in a war". It does not matter if Pro thinks this is a germ or not. That is irrelevant. This definition could apply to trained dogs, meaning that all of Pro's arguments regarding how germs do not cause disease are irrelevant. This debate never was about germs causing disease. 1.) Pro seemingly did not read the evidence. So apparently the besiegers also died because of a lack of fresh water and food? Also, they survived for over 3 years. Considering that humans die after around 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food, 3 years (over 1000 days longer) and then mysteriously started dying when their besiegers catapulted corpses of individuals who died of the bubonic plague. Though it obviously has to be seen that the estimated 50 million individuals who died due to the black death actually died due to malnourishment. According to pro at least. 2.) Really? Scholarly references are sketchy? Especially when compared to No References? Also, this debate has nothing to do with disease. It's about Biological Weapons and how they apparently don't exist. 3.) Again? Saying something is 'sketchy' but not being able to point out why does not really give credit. Also, the statement "My opponent hasn't explained why biological weapons were not used in World Wars I and II" is nonsense. First of all, it seems to have eluded Pro what I even wrote. I quote "In 1940, the Japanese bombed the city of Ningbo..." Now, I do not know if Pro knows what was going on in the 1940's, but this answers the question, or does it not? As a counter question I could now ask why Nazi Germany did not use Nuclear weapons. However, Pro does not seem to know that Nazi Germany did have a Biological Weapons Program, as well described in 'Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War'. However, this surely will be seen as yet another 'sketchy reference' by Pro. 4.) This has nothing to do with 'germs' or 'disease'. As Pro does seemingly not know what either of these are, a definition will be a waste of space as it most surely will be disregarded by Pro. As to Pro's 'reference'. Yes, I will most definitely trust a horribly made website providing anecdotal evidence by someone who most likely does not even know how to spell 'evidence'. Conclusion:Pro is yet to refute any sources correctly, to provide any evidence or to fulfill their BOP of providing that Biological weapons are in fact non-existent. Also, Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round..
Biological weapons are a fallacy

1. My opponent has used examples of disease being used in battles from the past in medieval times. During this period of time, it was assumed that when sieging a castle, that if you catapulted a dead animal over the wall of the castle that the 'diseased' animal would infect the occupants of the castle. This was a false assumption. The fact that you cut off the occupants food and fresh water supply was the real cause of disease in these situations. Note - Vitamin deficiency and chemical poisoning can be the only cause of disease. 2. The references that have been given by my opponent are very sketchy and brief. In ancient times, little was known about disease and its causes, so this can't be used as serious evidence in regards to this matter. 3. The modern incidence of warfare given by my opponent is also very brief and sketchy. My opponent hasn't explained why biological weapons were not used in World Wars I and II. Surely, Adolf Hitler would have used biological weapons if he thought that they were effective. But, no, he didn't use biological weapons because he knew that germs don't cause disease. Hitler and the Germans in world War I used halogen gases to kill Jews and to bomb the enemy. Halogen is a chemical which disrupts iodine in the body. The immune system is iodine based, thus, people die or are injured when exposed to halogen gases. 4. The 5 anthrax deaths in America was just a political deception to make people believe that germs cause disease. This is because George Bush had investments in biological warfare companies which he wanted to exploit. The letters were most probably just filled with arsenic powder which would have the same effect. The government would have covered up this by their usual means of deception. See ref - http://whatreallyhappened.com...
Biological weapons are a fallacy

Kind Regards for this Debate. I will represent the Con side, meaning that 'Biological Weapons are not a "fallacy"', as biological weapons are in existence and were/are used.Opening Statement:First, it has to be addressed that the word 'fallacy' is not the correct word used in this context. A fallacy can be applied to an argument, but not a noun. As the second step, Biological Weapon needs to be defined. As Pro did not supply a definition, I will do so. Merriam Webster defines it as:"a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war".As such, any living organism that can be harmful and is used deliberately as a weapon can be defined as a 'biological weapon'.Therefore, Pros assumption that 'biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease' does not apply, as biological weapons are by no means linked to germs.Next there will be a rebuttal of a fallacy, which is Pro's assumption that 'Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind'. How incredibly incorrect.In fact, biological weapons have been used for millennia, as clearly stated by this scholarly article (http://web.stanford.edu...), which in fact is an excerpt of a book. This CDC article (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov...) describes the use of bodies infected with the plague as a means to win a siege and is, quoted, seen as " Caffa should be recognized as the site of the most spectacular incident of biological warfare ever, with the Black Death as its disastrous consequence". This happened around 1345 CE.In 1940, the Japanese bombed the city of Ningbo in PRC with ceramic bombs filled with fleas carrying the bubonic plague, though being inefficient, this still killed an estimated 400.000 people. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)I do not think I have to mention the anthrax attacks in Tokyo by the same group that released the Sarin gas, the latter affecting several thousand people, while the anthrax attacks were a total failure. This however was not the case in the infamous anthrax letter sending case in 2001, which killed 5 people. Conclusion:Looking at the evidence above, it is easy to see that biological weapons have been and most likely will be used in the future, meaning that Pro's entire statement is incorrect. "biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease". Incorrect. Biological weapons exist. If germs cause disease or not has nothing to do with this."Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind" Incorrect. See evidence above."Reason - they don't work!" Incorrect. Hundreds of thousand, though more likely millions of individuals would disagree. Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Biological weapons are a fallacy

1. It is up to the instigator to determine what the debate is about. If there is any confusion about the topic, then it is up to the contender to ask further questions to clarify the topic. The contender can't change the topic to suit their own purposes. My opponent is quite obviously fearful of conducting a fair debate and wants to derail the debate with side issues. This is a 5 round debate, so the contender has no excuses for not knowing what the debate is about. My opening post states - "That biological weapons don't work!" this should be a clear enough indication that the topic is about whether biological weapons are effective or not. Thus, it is up to the contender to prove that biological weapons "do work!" 2. My opponent continues to play a cute little game of cat and mouse. He pretends that he doesn't understand the topic, but he is just using court room style stalling tactics to try and derail the debate. Being trained as a legal person, he knows all the dirty tricks about how to confuse issues with red herrings and other related tactics. 3. Note - A biological weapon should be regarded as a man made weapon created for the purpose of killing humans. Using fleas, dogs, dolphins and the like, are not true biological weapons because they are not man-made. When I am talking about biological weapons, I am referring to laboratory produced viruses which can kill humans. My opponent knows this, but he is playing a little pretend game of manufactured ignorance. 4. Quote - " I don't care about opinion" Reply - Is that your opinion? lol My opponent clearly doesn't understand the English language and makes constant contradictions and foolish remarks. Voters, please note - the poor quality of my opponents debating skills.. Quote - 'schematics'. ????????????? lol Again, my opponent probably meant semantics. More evidence that my opponent is out of his depth and can't logically defend this issue with any competence. lol Have a good laugh voters! Then vote - Akhey!
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT CULTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RELIGION

Since my opponent has failed to provide any responses in her last round and has forfeited, we must assume that she has (in turn) forfeited the entire debate. Even if that were not true, I have nullified her points since R1, as she did not provide any links or impacts as to why my contentions were wrong in her R2. My case has come clean throughout this entire debate, whereas she has no offense left going for her. Haruhi Suzumiya tells you that the resolution is wrong.
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT CULTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RELIGION

Okay. Culture is basically the knowledge that we gain as we grow up in a particular social place. It's based on our lifestyle, tradition, way of doing things and our philosophies. In the contrary, Religion is a system of faith or belief which is actually headed by a superhuman being we call as God, Allah, Buddah etc. with the given definition for religion, I believe that religion actually has implemented laws and doctrines, unlike with culture, there are no specific laws and restrictions we should follow. I believe too, that Culture is more important than religion mainly because it's already our "natural way of living" unlike religion that needs many commandments that could actually control our way of life.
Do playing violent video games affect your mental health

Violent video games do show gore, murder, drugs, alcohol, racial slurs, nudity and foul language. But the most this can do is desensitize you to the prevalence of these things in the real world. If someone knows something is wrong, a video game won't change that. That is, of course, unless that certain someone has a severe mental disorder.I find it interesting that you mentioned the Columbine High School shooting. I looked deeper into the incident's Wikipedia page to find a section called "psychopathy and depression". I think it's very important to mention that Harris was a clinical psychopath and Klebold was depressive and often wrote about suicide in his diary, which supports my claim that violent video games only truly affect those with severe mental illnesses.I found an article that shows a long term study that examined violent media, and whether or not video games and movies are to blame for violence in society. This excerpt here shows the bit about when they studied video games: "A second study into video game violence used data from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to estimate the violent content of popular games from 1996 to 2011. This was then compared with data on youth violence during the same years, with the study finding a correlation between falling youth violence and the popularity of violent games." But you also mentioned raging, and I'll be honest, I get angry at video games. But I've never broken a controller or harmed myself beyond hitting my desk with my fist. It's never been anything serious. It's not a thing that only applies to violent video games either, I could be playing a Mario game and I'll get mad.Sources:http://www.independent.co.uk...https://en.wikipedia.org...I'm also a beginning debater, welcome to the site. Good luck, and thanks for setting this up!
Do playing violent video games affect your mental health

Yes, violent video games are something that can affect your mental health. Violent video games show gore, murder of people and animals, usage and abuse of drugs, alcohol, racial slurs, nudity and foul language. These things can cause serious problems, for example when a player is in rage if they died or lost a level they may slam their fist on a table or even more extreme smash their controller to bits and pieces. When playing a game you are so immersed into it you may not pay attention to things around you, like taking consideration for others and the area around you. But with those statements we can go deeper like in shootings/attacks in the real world, there have been shooting/attacks linked to games. For example the Columbine High School attackers noted that "It'll be just like Doom" Doom being a first-person shooter video game from the 90's which throws you into fights with creatures from the dimension of hell. Playing a game like this where you shoot other players or non playable characters can over time make it so you think the things in these games are ok do. In conclusion violent games can make you feel different and even influence you in a bad way. Sources- 1. http://www.aacap.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org...(series) Notes- Hello everyone, this is my first debate on this site. I am a beginning debater starting this year and I'm learning new things lately. I primarily focus on Lincoln"Douglas but I wanted to just do something like this, some uncoordinated if you know what I mean. This is by no means a LD debate its just something I threw together.
I should get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday

Hello!!! This is my first debate in a few months so please go easy on me. Now, my grandson is really into stuffed animals and I think uglydolls would be perfect, but now I'm questioning myself. Will he like it? I really can't decide so I need help. First round is just saying what this debate shall be like. Debate doesn't officially start until round two. This isn't a very serious topic. 3,000 character max. I hope this will be fun.For information about uglydolls before the debate starts please check out these two links. http://www.uglydolls.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
I should get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday

WATCH VIDEO AFTER YOU READ!!!!Shawnimals: I do not really like them and my grandson won't like them so we can just drop them and forget about them.Monster Factory: I must agree with you on the sense that they are not childish and I take that back. If you check the prices, you can see that uglydolls are less. I was looking for something probably the same price. I do truly love uglydolls and well more than the monster factory animals.I have made up my mind and will get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday. Thank you for debating with me. This was fun. I hope the best for you in your other debates, and may we debate again sometime. Thank you again and farewell. I would now like to show you this uglydoll video. http://www.youtube.com...
I should get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday

Pro arguments against #1 1. A. monster factory appear to be childish B. Monster factory might have stolen similar ideas from ugly doll MY DEFENSE A." I do not believe monster factory dolls are childish," ( My rebut of my opponents argument) check in the source below for evidence of this statement. [1] http://monsterfactory.net... [2] http://monsterfactory.net... On my first source [1] you'll realise that this monster has tattoos (not all the monsters have tattoos it the humor in this one) tattoos aren't really childish on my second source [2] One may notice that he has a tie and under the category of "substitute" thus he is dress for success (more so than ugly dolls), he has a tie (a non childish piece of neck wear) and a job (In 1rst world countries children do not have jobs- in 3rd world countries they do... kony! Giving jobs to the job less!) [3]http://monsterfactory.net... Also in the above source you'll find that "Rudy" looks more realistic and less cartoony than ugly dolls[3] ( Ugly dolls use simple colors and use straight edges thus carttoony[5]) Since Rudy is realistic (compared to ugly dolls) it is a less childish doll. B. I am unable to see how copying an idea sways you away from purchase of a product. Nicola Tesla stole the idea of Thomas Edison's electric cable and made it better. There is no problem with this since, Tesla created a far better product as a result. Pro arguments against #2 Shawniamals A. they look cheap B. Video games MY Defense A. To appear cheap one must assume they are not worth the price of said object. In the source below you will notice that there is no visible stitches or craftsmanship errors and its size is relatively large. -Plus its a mustache [4] [4] http://shop.shawnimals.com... B. My video game argument was 1. To state that it had a relation to video games (Since your grandson has no relation to video games this point drops. I accept this.) And point #2 was that There were many people who enjoy shawnimal's characters. "My grandson already owns two ugly dolls. I want his gift to be special. Ugly dolls are very vintage with their tin toys and all. I believe that they are very cool looking." - debate.org I can't really say anything against this since its your opinion. But my purpose is to try and sway you (in this singular debate) and the audience away from this idea. But I do believe the dolls I have presented do have their own "coolness" much higher than ugly dolls. [5] http://shop.uglydolls.com...
I should get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday

Well...1. Ok, but the monster factory plush animals are very different. My grandson is going to be twelve and those seem a little babyish to me. Also if you look at the copyright date uglydolls is 2001 and monster factory is 2010 so it seems to me that monster factory might have copied uglydolls and well uglydolls should be unique if you ask me. 2. The shawnimals seem to look very cheap to me. My grandson does not play much video games. (for an old man like me I do know a lot of the new things that are "in") My grandson already owns two uglydolls. I want his gift to be special. Uglydolls are very vintage with their tin toys and all. I believe that they are very cool looking.
I should get my grandson an uglydoll for his birthday

Its fine that your round was short because it clearly states your point. My reasoning behind you not giving your child an Ugly doll is a simple one: Better options. In this round I will provide 2 different stuffed animal brands that I believe are better. 1.Monster Factory [4] This plush brand offers a variety of aesenthetically pleasing dolls. There masculine so you won't have to worry about that as well. There surprisingly humorous with their blank expressionless faces. Another notable feature about Monster factory dolls is that their website is frequented more than ugly dolls [2][3] Alexa.com rates websites based on how often they are visited with the most frequented sites have the lowest number [5] Face book by common knowledge is one of the most frequented sites. Ergo one may come to the conclusion that Monster factory is more popular than ugly dolls. Another brief notice about Monster factory dolls is that they have a series of funny videos involving their plushes [7] this will allow your grandson to show them to his friends and in turn bring smiles to your grandson's face and his friends. Also monster factory dolls are not sold in retail unlike ugly dolls [1] So maybe your grandson knows somebody with an ugly doll and he can show them how cool and monster factory doll is. Thus making him appear more well informed and not having the" same old stuff" as his friends do. 2.Shawnimals [6] A. Publicity Shawniamal's characters are already well known themselves.[8] These characters were used in the video game "Ninja Town". This game won several major awards in the gaming industry so thus gamers know about the characters (on the off chance your grandson plays video games) B. Aesenthetics ( How they look) Ugly dolls are in fact monsters, however I will give them the credit of being slightly adorable. But I believe shawnimals are even more adorable. Look below we have one of their products "Mustachio" http://shop.shawnimals.com... This is a mustache! Wearing a MUSTACHE! I rest my case C. Masculinity/ humor Despite being "nice" monsters Ugly dolls are not very masculine They are of lighter spring colors. Spring colors in themselves are feminine. If you look at Shawnimals they are ninjas and mustaches. Mustaches are one of the manliest objects [9] Ninjas are in a manly occupation Since your grandson is male there is no way you could face gender issues with shawnimals! Also mustaches are amazing and with-in pop culture very humorous. More humorous than monsters CONCLUSION 1.With the plus dolls I have presented there is no gender problems 2.The dolls I have shown are more widely known and popular ( It is logical to assume a popular product is an effective product) 3.The dolls I present are more pleasing to the eye SOURCES ARE IN COMMENTS
Kalam Sucks Butt

Does the kalam such butt? Ima say NO WAY!! Argument (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: There was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature"something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be: *spaceless because it created space *timeless because it created time *immaterial because it created matter *powerful because it created out of nothing *intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed *personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? (5) God exists.