BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Germ theory is a fraud

1. Germ theory is essentially an illogical assumption. The assumption that germs can or would kill their host is illogical. If this had been occurring throughout mankind's evolution, then, the germs would have become extinct a long time ago. 2. Germ theory advocates never state what the real cause of a disease is. This is a common omission of germ theory advocates. Germs don't appear unless there is a cause for them to appear. In most cases, the human body generates its own disease which is a reaction to toxic chemicals or vitamin deficiency. Humans have strayed from nature in their endeavours to conquer nature so that they are not threatened by it. They have created what they believe to be fool proof systems of growing crops so that they always have a plentiful supply of food regardless of the climate conditions. Unfortunately, nature always has the last laugh. The grain crops that they plant are unnatural to the human digestive system and cause all sorts of problems for humans. These problems may include, blurred or poor vision due to high blood sugar levels, diabetes, stroke, heart attack, cancer, arthritis, dementia, colds and flu. 3. Nature doesn't have any diseases. Disease is restricted only to humans. Animals in natural surroundings never get sick. The only instances of animals getting sick is when those animals eat or are infected with human made chemicals which cause the disease or problem. Some examples would be - Tasmanian Devil - Cancer caused by herbicides, insecticides, fire retardants, plastics, rubbish tips and poison baits. Bees - Colony Collapse Disorder, Varroa and Acarapis Mites - These are just the result of insecticide spraying which causes these problems. Note - The authorities try very hard to ignore the causes of disease so that they can't be blamed as being part of the cause. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and government bodies are protected against litigation and prosecution. You will never hear a media report on a disease which highlights the true cause. The media will never say, for example - "that the Tasmanian Devils are being poisoned by toxic chemicals in the environment". In order to find the true cause you have to seek out secretly produced research documents which never reach the public's notice. 4. The main cause of human diseases are improper diets, lack of sanitation, eating stale food, faecal infection of water supply, chemical poisoning and over processing of food. Humans have adopted an unnatural diet which nature never intended. The human body can't handle or deal with the foods that humans eat, thus, they get sick and blame it on germs as being the culprits. Universities support germ theory because because they get funding from the pharmaceutical industry and germ theory generates a lot of profit for the health industry in general. 5. The medical authorities keep changing the names of diseases to suit themselves. This is because they really don't know one disease from another disease. They generally only identify diseases by symptoms. After all, all viruses look pretty much alike. lol http://ahealedplanet.net...
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

1. Stability:In terms of stability, I do agree that a Console is easy to setup. It's plug and play, so you don't have to worry about your hardware or software. In terms of online networks, however, I think both Steam and Xbox Live/PSN+ are pretty easy to handle, and they both shut down from time to time for maintanence and other things. However, the biggest problem with Consoles is that if something goes worong, you can't tamper with the system. You have to buy a new system unless you have a warranty, and there are so many ypeople who have their Xbox's breaking down all the time. Compared this to the PC, and it's different. If something isn't working, you can just replace the individual part. Furthermore, if you really don't want to tamper with the system, you can go to a computer repair shop, which isn't that hard to find. Plus, PC is making improvements to increase stability (which is acknowledged by my opponent in his second argument)2. Blurred LinesMy opponent states, "consoles have long since caught up to pc's as media platforms, Web browsers, and countless other things relegated to the realm of pc in previous generations" I agree that you can browse the web, watch youtube videos, watch netflix, etc. on a console. But do you think that browsing the web on a Console is as fluid as a PC? Nope. Fact is that Consoles are no where near the level of PC's in terms of what they can do. PC's, along wth being able to play games, can do so many more other things like Photo/Video editing, Coding, Recording Videos, etc. And while a lot of the things the PC can do are exclusive, a lot of things that Consoles can do, the PC can simply do better. If Consoles truly have bridged the gap, why do people that own Consoles normally also own a laptop? It's because you can't do everything necessary for work and games on a Console, while you can ceratainly do that on a PC.3. The market has spokenInterestingly my opponent states that the PC market has decreased, while the Console market has increased. Allow me to present an infographic: As can be seen here, since last year, the game software revenue earned in the PC market has actually grown slightly higher than the Console Market. The next point my opponent brings up does require some consideration. He says that there are lot of games coming out on Console first, and then to PC as crappy ports. I agree, this is happening. But, consider all of the PC exclusives for a moment. And think of some of the popular Console games that actually started off as PC games. One that comes to mind is Minecraft (which is insanely popular on Consoles), yet the PC version is WAY better. What about MMORPG games? What about MOBA games? Games MILLIONS of players across the world play, and they are only available on PC. GTA 5, CoD, BF4, and some other games are extremely popular only on the Console and not on PC. But there are so many games on PC that don't make it to the Consoles that are still amazing. I will post a couple of more infograpics about the amount and quality of exclusives, and I think it's quite clear PC wins: I think it's clear that PC exclusives are of better quality and are in abundance.
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

I would like to extend gratitude to my opponent as well for both the debate overall, a for introducing such a thorough series of arguments. I hope I will not be remiss in only posting new arguments in this round. I plan to tackle the others he has already presented in rebuttal rounds, but feel no compunction to reintroduce them here. 1. Stability: it is my position that the more integrated Platform offered by console systems is of great benefit. Consoles do not experience hardware or software conflicts, console online networks are not as prone to disruption from protocol conflicts or background programs, and console game installation is often either brief or unnecessary entirely. 2. Blurred lines: As we move into the future, computers and consoles are essentially gradually becoming the same device. As pc's are bridging some of the gaps in stability, consoles have long since caught up to pc's as media platforms, Web browsers, and countless other things relegated to the realm of pc in previous generations. 3. The market has spoken: We've all watched as the pc section of games in stores has shrunk and shrunk. While online purchasing platforms such as steam do offset this, the reality is that console games outsell pc games by a factor of 5 to 1 or more. This means developers are far more focused on console markets first, and much of what you get with pc games are clumsy ports of games designed for console play, often months or even years after initial release for the intended systems. (my apologies for my brevity, I'm tapping this out on a phone. For my upcoming and much longer rebuttal round, I'll be sure to be at a keyboard for the pc or console depending on my mood.)
The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

Drops:My opponent advocated for a free-market system of healthcare, but dropped my point that it does not cover everyone, and because of medical ethics differing from free-market philosophy, the free-market cannot be used here. Effectively negating all of his points. I shall repeat what I stated in the previous rounds as to why this cannot be used: This was outright admitted by the Republican Ron Paul, who upon being questioned about this simply proclaimed “well that's what liberty is all about, taking risks!” and then went on to say “well the church will take care of them!” Note that they never denied that the GOP's system cannot cover 100% of the populace, indeed it admits that some are not worthy of it financially, and becausde of the philosophy as shown above, I therefore submit this as evidence that if we accept the philosophy, then logically it follows that the opposite (some cannot have it) ought to be scorned. Espescially when the US guarentee's it's populace the right to life. Part of the right to life is the being taken care of should you become sick. -(youtube)/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA-(youtube)/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZsIf the governments responsibility is to the community, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a system set up that would only account for some of the populace. Fundamentally, it must account for ALL it's people. The freemarket system cannot account for all peoples and thus it must be refused and Obamacare stands. In fact, part of what my opponent claims ought to be abolished is what insurance must cover. But as previous studies notes the impacts of this is severe in this case. They mean outright death. The bulk of this was refuted by my previous statements to which my opponent dropped. Obamacare decreases costs, and is expected to have the government 200 billion by 2021And as the video I uploaded notes as well, that the public option uses it's power via masses to cut prodecures (saving money) and forcing companies to keep prices low by negotiating with doctors on the basis of how many people they have signing up for it. What the video didn't discuss, was how the market prices would fall as well, because insurances would have to charge a lesser rate to cover everyone because of the public option or fall out of the economy for being too expensive. Finally, as the facts show, my opponent is simply wrong about the impacts of Obamacare Obamacare is in fact an expansion of medicare as well. http://obamacarefacts.com... the very purpose of obamacare was to reform the healthcare system. My opponent simply copy and pasted onto his argument to try and save time, but some of those claims that obamacare simply doesn't cover is sillyness. It is voluntary as well, you do not need obamacare you can stick to your insurance, but those who do not have it, can now afford it. http://www.youtube.com...Thank you. I have met my BOP and Obamacare ought to stay. My opponent dropped a good portion of my arguments, and I shall hold back here due to 1) the video and 2) because my contentions remain the same and my opponent didn't really give me much to try and defend obamacare against as he has BOP.
The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

Fixing Healthcare the Right Way My opponent made a few good points in this debate and I do agree that healthcare needs to be reformed; however, I believe ObamaCare is NOT the correct way to do so. In this round, I will proceed to give my way on reforming the healthcare system. The problem with our healthcare system is that we do not have a true free market healthcare system in place. My opponent admits this point under his c2 that the healthcare industry does not run under free-market principles. However, ObamaCare will make this point even worse. In order to fix this problem, here are some steps we must do that ObamaCare does not address.[1] - Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). - Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. - Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. - Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. - Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. - Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. - Enact Medicare reform. - Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. ObamaCare addressees none of these. With that said, the reason why are spending so much money on healthcare is because of too much, not too little, government interaction. Due to college and public speeches, I have not been able to complete this round. I will finish off next round. [1] This is the Heritage Foundation’s Plan: http://blog.heritage.org...
The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

I look forward to an exciting debate and hope to learn a few things from you. I would like to echo what my opponent has said to the voters, please be as objective as possible. Although this is a hotly controversial topic, please vote according to whoever had the better arguments. Contention 1: ObamaCare is bad for the economy ObamaCare is truly wrecking the US economy. According to Gallup[1] polls, nearly half of small businesses claim that ObamaCare is going to be bad for them. More than half claim that ObamaCare is going to reduce the quality of health care while raising cost of health care. All of this translates to higher costs and businesses having to cut back. Businesses must be willing to take risks and if the government (or anything for that matter) were to discourage businesses from taking risks, the result is higher unemployment. Indeed, small-businesses have been reducing hours and reducing their staff because of this law This is not a good trend and thus does not surprise me that unions are turning against the law! [2] As an example, Stryker Corp, a manufacturer in medical devices, will lay off 1,000 works as a result of the medical device tax. [3] Contention 2: The Unaffordable Care Act Despite the name “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, we see that ObamaCare is anything but affordable. The PPACA contains twenty-one (21) new tax provisions[4] increases taxes on certain medical devices including pacemakers and custom wheel-chairs. [5] If we want to decrease healthcare cost, increasing taxes is NOT a way to do so. Contention 3: ObamaCare is Unworkable ObamaCare, as it sits, is an unworkable load of mess. We see this three-fold: One, ObamaCare has missed half of its legally implemented deadlines[6] including the out-of-pocket price-caps[7], Medicare cuts[8], and the delay of the employer mandate. [9] With delays and missed deadlines like these, we must wonder whether or not this is an admission from the Obama administration that ObamaCare is unworkable. Secondly, we see that ObamaCare is unworkable due to the fact that many Americans are unfamiliar with the Law. A Gallup poll[10] shows that 43% of uninsured Americans were unaware that ObamaCare requires them to get health insurance before 1 January 2014 Conclusion ObamaCare is an unworkable mess that ought to be repealed. [1] Note: the polls can be found at . http://www.gallup.com... [2] . http://www.politifact.com... [3] . http://thecoloradoobserver.com... [4] . http://www.atr.org... [5] . http://www.factcheck.org... [6] . http://www.forbes.com... [7] . http://www.forbes.com... [8] . http://www.forbes.com... [9] . http://www.forbes.com... [10] . http://www.gallup.com...
The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

I thank DoubtingDave for the challenge, and I accept his terms and conditions. Although not a case for my position for the debate, I do ask that the voters in this case -- though biased as they may be -- remain objective as possible and vote on the individual cases of the debate, rather than partisan lines. This is a particularly controversial subject and one in which still divides America even today, leaving the big 2 bitter enemies. Thank youLet's get this going!
The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

Resolved: The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act "ObamaCare" ought to be repealed. In this debate I will argue that Obamacare should be repealed, and my opponent will argue that it should remain as law. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate the topic, whoever may accept, and I'm looking forward to a good debate. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round. Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments. DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments are allowed. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. DR 6. Dropped arguments are not immediately counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
God is Self-Existent

The fact is, the Bible is thousands of years old. It has been edited countless times, and although I have my faith, I don't believe that the entire Bible is true. When the Bible was written, they didn't have the knowledge or technology to fully grasp the world around them. It took the scientific minds of the ages to develop the knowledge that we have today. Evolution is a fact. Just because we exist, does not mean that the Christian way is the answer. Ancient Hindu texts have a creation story, along with Muslim texts. If what you are saying is true, then that would be proof that Allah exists, or that the Hindu gods and goddesses exist. I appreciate the time taken to debate this.
God is Self-Existent

Hello friend, Its okay. hope all is well. Anyways, to your thoughts, I don't see how a Christian can say that evolution is real and scientifically proven? That just doesn't go together. Either your a Christian or your an evolutionist. No, science cannot prove the Bible, but it makes sense as to why it doesn't.. Something cannot be proven if no one accepts it.. Evolution is fallacy, because the Bible strictly says that God created it and everything in it.. Not a "bang" theory.. If someone believes the evolution theory it is because they accept it and believe it.. But if it is true,nothing is amazingly continuing to happen if in fact evolution is true.. But if God is real and the Bible is true, there are clearly evidential things in the Bible that has said things that is shown.. The earth was made, there's the sun moon stars. there's men and women. there's all kinds of animals. there's wars and fights. Jesus walked on the earth (is recorded in Historical accounts). The Bible was written by inspired men of God.. Prophecies from the Old Testament came true for the New Testament.. And things that are happening today is actually recorded in the Bible as well prophecy for today's society.. Check it out yourself.. Thank you for answering my questions and asking questions. Wished we could have gotten more debates in, but its alright. God bless. :)
Contemporary Art is becoming more perverse and repulsive than the art of previous eras.

While it may seem that contemporary art is becoming more perverse and repulsive (in some cases it is beyond true) it is all based on whether the audience accepts it as art. Repulsive art could be a political statement, where the artists are not afraid to make a statement. It could also be a representation of how they feel, (I'm sure we all had days where we feel icky inside or depressed or even had dark thoughts run through our minds) and these artists are able to capture that moment. It takes a lot of creativity (or maybe even not enough).
Contemporary Art is becoming more perverse and repulsive than the art of previous eras.

In my opinion, art of the modern era is becoming far less beautiful and marvelous and instead increasingly disturbing. Much of what is considered art today is no longer something to be appraised, but instead what could be labeled downright repulsive. It seems to some that much of the contemporary art is putting up a proverbial middle finger to the traditions and standards of artists of the passed. Over the passed few decades, there has been an increase in art that includes pornographic images that are formed in the name of art. Art such as "The Virgin Mary" that utilizes cow dung and pornographic images to create a reported "masterpiece". Also, there are such pieces as "Petra" that are accepted as art, when really an image with such immature and inappropriate of a depiction should not be appraised.(Petra is an art piece of a woman urinating. The rock at the LA County museum being called art is quintessential of the downfall of the demand for standards in art. It is legitimately a 340 ton boulder that sits at a museum. Is it reprehensible? No, not really. But yet, how can such a silly element of nature be thought of as a praiseworthy piece of art. With these aforementioned examples, I ask you whom are voting, whether or not you think that contemporary art is disturbing or if it merely represents a progression of social evolution and acceptance.
"Being drunk" is not a valid reason to not be able to give consent to sex.

I will start off with simple arguments. and first off. No one was drugged or liquored up against their will. If a woman goes out to a bar, has a bit too much to drink (of her own free will), and decides to go back to Random Guy's place and have sex with him (also consensual at the time), should she be allowed to say she was raped after sobering up the next day? Women should take responsibility for how much they drink. If you (general) get wasted and rob a store or crash your car the "I was so drunk that I didn't know what was happening" excuse is not going to help you. So, why should that be a valid excuse when accusing someone of rape? It isn't fair. a.) No one is being forced. If both consent then, no one is forced into sex. There is no reason that being drunk means they cannot consent. As long as they aren't blackout drunk, then they can consent. b.) We prosecute drunk drivers, drunk murderers, and drunk assailants, because being drunk isn't an excuse for not making the right choice, so why can being drunk mean someone can't make the choice to consent? It would set a dangerous precedent and give unscrupulous women a way to manipulate laws that exists to protect actual rape victims and punish actual rapists. What if she decided you weren't any good, or you didn't return her call the next day, so she decides to pull the rape card? Where does it end? It's a giant slap in the face to anyone who has actually been raped, and didn't simply let their bad decisions snowball during a night of binge drinking.