BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Viruses do exist.

Thank you for the information. However, there are some fallacies. You talked about Koch's POSTULATES about microorganisms. You copied and pasted from Wikipedia your information, so I will copy and paste the entire paragraph that you missed disproving those laws. "However, Koch abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera[4] and, later, of typhoid fever. Asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV, and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent. The second postulate may also be suspended for certain microorganisms or entities that cannot (at the present time) be grown in pure culture, such as prions responsible for Creutzfeldt"Jakob disease.[5] Viruses also require host cells to grow and reproduce and therefore cannot be grown in pure cultures. The third postulate specifies "should", not "must", because as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,[6] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection. Noninfection may be due to such factors as general health and proper immune functioning; acquired immunity from previous exposure or vaccination; or genetic immunity, as with the resistance to malaria conferred by possessing at least one sickle cell allele. In summary, a body of evidence that satisfies Koch's postulates is sufficient but not necessary to establish causation. " - Wikipedia Next time, do not cherry pick laws that have been disproven.
Viruses do exist.

1. Viruses are illogical because they do not follow Koch's Laws. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. Note - No laboratory experiment with viruses has ever demonstrated or satisfied Koch's 1st and 4th laws. (a) Photographing a virus is physically impossible. Viruses are too small and can't be prepared for the electron microscope. In order to photograph something in an electron microscope you must isolate it first, then dry it out and eliminate all moisture. Then you cover the object is a thin layer of gold. If you can't see the object that you are intending to photograph, then this process is impossible. You can only photograph the surface of a relatively large object using an electron microscope. Thus, all the photographs that have been published of viruses are all frauds.Thus, photographing a virus is a physical impossibility. I know because I have worked in a Electron Microscope Lab as a photographer.Viruses are illogical entities because they have nowhere to go to when they are not infecting people. Please advise me of where viruses go to when they are not infecting people. I have never been able to work out where this secret hiding place is.The flu virus is a good example. Flu viruses appear randomly with no pattern what-so-ever. This is in violation of Germ Theory, which states that contagious agents should spread in concentric circles from the point of origin. The alternative to germ theory is that bad diet causes disease. This is far more logical and has plenty of evidence to support it. Ever since the beginning of the agricultural revolution humans have been dogged by constant disease. This is caused by agricultural products which are unsuitable to the human digestive system. These include grain, sugar,dairy and alcohol. These products cause inflammation, blockages, dysfunction, allegies, heart attack, stroke, arthritis, headaches, cancer and more. These products account for 98 % of all disease. The other 2% of disease is caused by dangerous chemicals. These may include - chlorine, bromine, fluorine, cadmium, lead, mercury and arsenic. Many of these chemicals can be found in pesticides, fungalcides, fire retardants, pool chemicals, plastics and food preservatives.
Viruses do exist.

Thank you for your unproven conspiracy theories. I will address your argument. 1. Define how a virus is "illogical." 2. People have seen viruses, creating flu shots and even artificial life. 3. The person who came up with the concept of a virus discovered it like all scientist that discover things; he/she thinks of something amazing and proves it. This happened with Isaac Newton and Copernicus. To say that viruses exist and it is all one conspiracy puts the entire science community at risk. I look forward to your response.
I will PROVE that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being

My opponent has repeatedly claimed that his argument constitutes proof of the resolution in a thread as follows: Rational_Thinker9119 contended: "this assumes that if the universe has a finite past, or a beginning point, that it came into being. I disproved that already" "I argued that a finite past doesn't necessitate that the universe came into being, and proved it. " "I proved in the OP that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being. " "I proved in the OP that a finite past of the universe doesn't necessitate that it came into being: "It is an argument, and I proved my case in the OP" "I already proved this was true in the first round" "I proved already that a finite past of the universe doesn't necessitate that it came into being" I am contending that he has not and can not "prove" the assertion without resorting to equivocation, conflicting axioms, shifting the burden of proof, or other logical fallacies and the challenge is for him to accept the burden of proof and make a valid argument. Consequently, the burden of proof is on Rational_Thinker9119 to demonstrate with a valid logical argument that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being.
You are extremely fat

You see, typical of a fat person to say: Adolf Hitler. You aren't 60 pounds stop lying. You are actually about 300 pounds and you eat enough from McDonalds. I've seen you before (while your sleeping) and you are the dumbest person alive. Your face looks like jelly and even Santa Claus looks up to you and calls you "The Holy Fat Lord." If you were in Hunger Games, they would call you Fatniss. I rest my case.
You are extremely fat

Again, typicall fat person: calling the other person fat! People of the jury, how can you not see how this is wrong? This person is soooo fat, yet he is going to call my ratsist and fatsist! This is such a wrong and he should be eliminated from the face of the earth. Him and his fat obesity. Please comment to him and tell him how much of a fat disgusting weirdo he is!!!!! KILL FATNISS!!!!!!
You are extremely fat

I am deeply offended! And so are fat people! My mother loves me and you are Adolf Hitler. Studies show (ha!) that I have lost weight. I am 60 pounds and 11 years old. Also short. Very short. My mom is saying I need to eat more every day. If you get a good look at me, you might think I survived the Holocaust! I do not stand corrected. Or stand fat. If I was the opposite, then I would be fat. But not today unholy ratscist / fatscist.
The American School System is Broken and Detrimental

That's completely fine. I was busy before so I'll post this in the last minute so to give you time.Since you're busy, I'll just have something light and easy.US Education spendingUS spends with an average of 1.1 trillion on all federal, state and local(1.http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). Its expenditure far outweigh other nations as US spends more than the average developed country(2.http://www.cbsnews.com...).The enormous amount of money dumped into education ensures the quality it deserves. Unless it is under funded like the NHS, of which doctors have serious complaints, but the system is well funded and this ensures all the necessary needs of teachers and students.Standardized tests helps raise standardsState governments mandate standardized tests as one of its requirements(3.http://en.wikipedia.org...). The advantage of this is that it allows weaker schools to compete more successfully. Teachers are not expected to be heavy weight thinkers like professors, they are expected to follow standard procedures. This allows poor teachers to pick up the pace and be student- centred as they don't have to research endless into the subject. Education isn't about the teachers, its about the students, and standardisation does just that.Standardisation allows easy classification and proffers an easy simplified system which teachers, of all background, can rely on.That would be all. I have waited as long as I could till the last 5 hours. Till then, I await your reply.Thanks
The American School System is Broken and Detrimental

READ THIS BEFORE ACCEPTING It is my argument that the American school system and education policies suck. It is mandatory that you learn information that has a probability of being useless later in life and over teaches/emphasizes unnecessary things. DEBATE ROUNDS: 1) ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE ONLY 2) First Arguments 3) Rebuttals/New Arguments 4) Rebuttals to the Rebuttals/New Arguments
God is Evil

He has brought up a number of issues but they are ultimately all connected so rather than address them all individually I will address their main focus. Many of the issues my opponent brings up as examples of how God is immoral are merely assertions, particularly when you consider he hasn't established how these things are immoral. What standard of morality is he using? The claim that since God created life he also created suffering is fallacious as my opponent has not demonstrated how he has come to this conclusion. I await my opponent's response.
God is Evil

No Bible verses. No adding new arguments in later rounds No semantics. If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that ever existed. He creates living beings that are self-aware. He then gives us certain instincts that compel us to do certain things. One instinct is the survival instinct which compels us to do whatever it takes to survive. Yet, this same "creator" made survival 100% impossible due to the fact that every living thing dies. Nobody asks to be born, so we are forced to exist and try to survive even though it is futile to even try. In addition, we are compelled by hunger to nourish ourselves. The only way to do that is to consume other living things. That means we must kill (plants or animals) against their own survival instinct, in order to try to survive ourselves. Yes, I do believe plants have a survival instinct. Plants try to grow towards sunlight in order to survive, for example. Another thing that we are compelled to do is have sex and make new self-aware beings (without them asking for it), so that they too are forced into the same situation of futile survival. This whole system is really just torture. Here we are, given no choice but to either kill and try to survive another day or end up not existing anymore. Also, the "reward" for surviving is the slow deterioration of our bodies causing us pain, blindness, sickness and many other problems to deal with. If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age. So, if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering and the futile desire to survive? The only reasonable answer is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving.
God is Evil

My opponent has conceded his point on the relationship between evil and morality, but he keeps asserting that god is evil without proving where he gets his standard for what evil is. He compares the idea of free will to letting a child touch a hot stove. God warned Adam and Eve not to each from the tree but they did it anyway, it would be the same if you warned a child not to touch they stove but they did it anyway. They disobeyed so they suffer the consequences of their actions. We must realize something else though, God’s relationship to humans is not as much like a parent to a child, although it is a little analogous, but more like human to any sort of invention they create or an artist to a painting. In other words, creator to creation. So just as we could do as we like with a painting, God could do as he likes with us and it would not be evil. So allowing us to die is not evil on his part but we can't take another life because we don't have the moral authority to do so. I will also give another example, it is like those nature shows, sometimes you wonder why the camera man doesn’t want to get involved, but he just lets nature take its course. Throughout this whole debate I have asked my opponent what standard he uses to determine that God is evil and rather than give a definite answer he issues a bunch of assertions. My opponent said he would prove that God was evil, he has failed to do so. There isn’t another round so we can’t get everything as fleshed out as I would like but I have held up my side of the argument the best I can in three rounds.
God is Evil

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, Christians would bring home the Gold every time. I will argue that not all immoral things are evil. But that's another debate. So let's assume all things evil are immoral. I don't care. The debate is still about evil, not morality. They may be related, but not the same. So now, here is where the fun starts: My opponent agrees that God is almighty. That alone should be proof that God is responsible for evil. Oh, but here we go with the gymnastics. My opponent wants to claim that God only created everything "in the beginning". He then claims Evil got created by something else. How convenient. God, the almighty, the all powerful, the all loving, the all just, sat back and let Evil get created, right under his own nose, and did nothing to stop it. That's evil, no matter what the reason for it is. God is therefore evil. Oh, but it gets better! My opponent says God can control everything, but wants to give humans "some level of free will". Ah yes, the almighty wipes his hands from responsibility and blames evil on the imperfect humans he created. If God is almighty, he is ultimately responsible for everything. There's no getting around that fact. If you allow something to happen that you could prevent, you're responsible for what happened. If you allow your child to play with the stove and they end up getting burned, YOU are ultimately responsible for that! If God let Adam & Eve eat the apple and could have stopped it, he is the one responsible for what happened. They had no idea what morality was at the time, yet God punished them and all mankind for this victimless "crime". That's not only unjust, it is evil. It's like leaving a child in a room with a loaded gun and saying "don't touch the gun"...and waiting until the child ends up shooting himself. Then saying..."Oh well, the child had free will." Only somebody evil would do such a thing. My opponent claims "Allowing and actively creating are two different things". First he says evil and morality are the same, but allowing and actively creating are two different things? If you allow something, you are, in fact, actively creating the circumstances for it to happen. The free will argument makes me laugh. According to the website http://www.gotquestions.org... "God could change everyone"s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be "programmed" to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation." Well, Sin is not allowed in heaven, so that must mean we lose our free will in heaven, along with any meaningful relationship with God. God gives me the "free will" to believe in him, but will burn me in hell for an eternity if I don't. Talk about evil! That's like a mob boss holding a gun to my head and saying I have the "free will" to hand over my money! It's nothing but evil. My opponent can try all the mental gymnastics he wants to defend his God. God is still evil and ultimately responsible for evil. Now all you evil voters can vote bomb me.
God is Evil

If my opponent thinks evil can denote anything unrelated to morality then he is using a definition f evil not commonly accepted by anyone. It is almost like saying a triangle has nothing to do with geometry.This is the definition of evil Google gives: [1]AdjectiveProfoundly immoral and malevolent.NounProfound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.Here is the definition according to Merriam-Webster [2]a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conductAnd here is the definition according to dictionary.com [3]1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering;unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.7.the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.8.the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.9.harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.10.anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.As you can see, according to all these definitions evil is linked to morality in the negative sense. Even where it can be defined without the use of the word morality, morality is implicit within the definition. Unless my opponent can show how either evil is not a moral judgment or show the source of his morality, he has no case here.Now to address my opponent’s syllogism.In the end though even if his syllogism holds up it would be irrelevant if he cannot prove how God is evil or how evil is not a moral concept since he then couldn’t prove that God creating pain and suffering is evil.Do you agree that God is almighty? YesDo you agree that God is the creator of everything? He did create everything in the beginning but evil came in later as a corruption of his creation. Sure he could have prevented it but he allowed it for the reasons I will go into on your next point.Do you agree that God controls everything? He doesn’t control everything like a robot, he could if he wanted to but he chooses not to so we have some level of free will. The same reason he allows evil to exist. Allowing and actively creating are two different things.Do you agree that God is responsible for everything? In the sense that I have just described it he does. He foresees everything and allows certain things.I await my opponent’s response.1 https://www.google.com...2 http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 http://dictionary.reference.com...
God is Evil

The first thing I want to point out, is that the debate is about whether God is EVIL or not. I never used the world "moral" and the debate is not about "morality". I haven't established how the things I mentioned are immoral, because I don't claim them to be immoral. I claim them to be evil. I'm not using any standard of morality, since I'm not claiming anything moral or immoral. I never even used the words. My opponent says, "The claim that since God created life he also created suffering is fallacious as my opponent has not demonstrated how he has come to this conclusion." OK, I will ask my opponent the following questions: Do you agree that God is almighty? Do you agree that God is the creator of everything? Do you agree that God controls everything? Do you agree that God is responsible for everything? If you agree to all the above, then God, did in fact, create all suffering. THAT'S how I came to the conclusion. If my opponent wants to try to blame a "Devil" for suffering, I will remind my opponent that God created the Devil and is more powerful than the Devil and can get rid of the Devil if he so chooses. Since God allows the Devil to exist and cause suffering, then God is ultimately responsible for suffering. I can't wait to see my opponent perform the mental gymnastics it will take to dispute this.
U vote for other person when I smarter

Ok. I'm sorry that I'm new to this. I'm sorry that I just got a new keyboard for my phone that I'm still trying to use. I'm sorry that I can't spell the greatest. Is that good for you? Cause obviously your only goal in life is to make other people feel bad to make yourself feel good. That is not what debate.org is about. It is about debates. Not making other people feel bad. No about putting people down. Got it? So I really don't care who wins this stupid debate. I don't care if I have no win ratio. At least I have I don't go around pointing at people's flaws.
Yo mama jokes duel.

I understand that my opponent did not mention the jokes having to be original. However, on a debate website, it would be appreciated to come up with original arguments; in this case, jokes. I admit that I have taken one joke from another person, but my opponent has copied several others from different sources. My opponent is inaccurate. All of my jokes are one hundred percent original, except for Joke III in Round I. With my opponent's acceptance, I am posting one more right here. 13. Your mother is so stupid, she failed a survey! 14. Your mother is so old, Jack Nicholson asked if she needed a nursing home! 15. Your mother is so hairy, if I shaved her legs, I could supply wigs for the entire Hair Club for Men! Thank you.
Yo mama jokes duel.

I'll make a note then too =P. *my opponent claims I post unoriginal jokes, 1. No rules were set by either of us that they had to be original, so it is a competition of who can post the funniest mama jokes, no matter from where. 2. He posts one or two unoriginal jokes as well (at least I know I heard them before). In round I: joke I and the first half of joke II; round IIII: first half of joke II and joke II. Voters, you can change"most reliable source" to creativity, when voting.* 1. Yo mama's so stupid, she had to study for her blood test! 2. Yo mama's so old, she invented every yo mama joke there is! 3. Yo mama jokes are unoriginal as well that, most people thought you were the first clone of "Yo mama".
Yo mama jokes duel.

*Note: my opponent posts unoriginal jokes in every round. Round I, Joke III; Round II, Jokes I and II; Round III, Joke I; Round IV, Joke II. Just keep that in mind ;)* 10. Your mother jokes are so unoriginal, I thought Watson and Crick were going to claim another stolen DNA model! 11. Your mother is so old and nasty, she caused the Bubonic Plague in rats and AIDS in the rhesus monkey! 12. Your mother is so stupid, she thought the Backstreet Boys were the homeless guys in her neighborhood's alley!
Yo mama jokes duel.

1. Your mother is so stupid, she thought the Nutcracker was the way of "restricting the man's sex activity"! 2. Your mother is so cheap, she uses candy wrappers to wrap her Christmas gifts. What does she give for Christmas? Food stamps she stole from the neighborhood hobo! 3. Your mother is so old, that when she was a child, rainbows were in black and white!
Yo mama jokes duel.

This is a quick duel of a Yo mama jokes. You can give up to three jokes per round, but not required, so I ask that voters don't penalize based on less number of jokes. I do ask for no severe inappropriate jokes, thank you. 1. Yo Mama's so dumb she thought fruit punch was a gay boxer! 2. Yo mama's so stupid she took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept! 3. Yo mama's so fat she puts on her lipstick with a paint roller!