BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lizard Illuminati is false

I thank Lexus for accepting the challenge. I'll begin my argument. Argument: Point 1; Lack of evidence of the Reptilians This is pretty straight forward. There isn't anything suggesting these beings exist. Con must show some form of proof that we're being ruled by the Lizard Illuminati. Point 2; How come we're not enslaved right now? According to David Icke, the Reptilians (referred to as "Anunnaki in my link) have started breeding with human females 200,000 - 300,000 years ago, with Adam being the first one [https://en.wikipedia.org...] So how come we aren't already enslaved, or at least the majority of Earth's population being the Reptilians? And with that, let's hear Con's argument!
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process.

1. Con continues with her childish dictatorial demands. I must do this and I must do that. Sorry Con, but I don't have to jump through all your crazy psychotic hoops to satisfy your lust for power and control. Your demands are unreasonable, irrelevant and mostly off topic or have been answered numerous times in numerous ways previously. Note - This is all just a tactic to distract me from the task at hand in the hope that I won't have enough time and space to find any further weaknesses in her own arguments and theories. 2. Quote - "A. Pro must distinguish between "educated", "wise", "intelligent", and "comprehensive". Con doesn't have any commonsense and wants me to distinguish between these words. My opponent doesn't have any of the above assets herself and they are most likely foreign concepts for her. Sorry Con, I am not going back to 3rd grade to satisfy your lust for power and control and play the childish master/slave game. Note - You are NOT my master and I am NOT your slave. 3. Quote - "Koch won the Nobel. Pro calls him a fool. Pro needs to list other "fools" who won the Nobel." All those scientists who received a Nobel prize for research based on germ theory should be asked to return there prize money because germ theory is a fraud. Einstein can return his prize as well, because relativity is another fraud. 4. Quote - "Let us look at the common cold. Using "germ theory", scientists have identified hundreds of germs as the primary cause ; Rhinovirus (1), Coronavirus (2) , RSV (3), parainfluenza.(4),. Thus pro's assertion is totally false... A myth." Reply - There is no such thing as a virus. See my other debates on this topic. http://www.debate.org... All these different names are just made up nonsense because there are no viruses to begin with. http://neue-medizin.com... 5. Quote - "So when pro says " I have been to dozens of doctors over the years and none have ... checked my stools." CON questions where pro is going for medical treatment. I myself have had several stool samples examined where the symptoms indicate the need." Reply - The medical system doesn't recognize leaky gut syndrome as a possible cause of any illness in general. I have been personally misdiagnosed by the medical system many times. I have been prescribed many useless medications which did nothing to fix my problems. It wasn't until I went onto a Paleo diet that my medical conditions disappeared. Thus, the medical system is just a money making fraud which is designed to deceive people. The medical system can't afford to recognize leaky gut syndrome because it will mean the end to their prestige, money, power and control. Proper diet is the only cure for disease in general, while most surgical operations and medications are just a waste of time and money. Conclusions - Con is just a dictator who wants to control the debate. She is not interested in elucidating the subject matter or replying to my logical conclusions. In order to win a debate you are required to address all the important statements and conclusions. My opponent has failed to do this on many occasions. Vote 1 Akhey.
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process.

Pro starts right off in error, He says "To win this debate Con must show that germ theory is correct in all of its aspects. " This is incorrect. Inasmuch as pro has initiated the debate, the burden of proof rests with pro. It must be pointed out too that Robert Koch won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1905 for his groundbreaking research on tuberculosis,. "he is known for his role in identifying the specific causative agents of tuberculosis, cholera, and anthrax and for giving experimental support for the concept of infectious disease. (1) In addition to his innovative studies on these diseases, Koch created and improved laboratory technologies and techniques in the field of microbiology, and made key discoveries in public health.(2) His research led to the creation of Koch"s postulates, a series of four generalized principles linking specific microorganisms to specific diseases that remain today the "gold standard" in medical microbiology.(3) The Robert Koch Institute is named in his honour.(4)" Pro links "leaky gut" to all disease when he says " Thus, if you avoid foods which cause leaky gut syndrome you can also avoid all disease." All disease? This is ridiculous. Science recognizes that while there are some diseases linked to diet (such as xerophthalmia, rickets, beriberi, pellagra,scurvy, iron-deficiency anemia, and goitre) , these account for a very small percentage of the universe of diseases (5) (6) Another area of concern has to do with the propagation of innovative new theories. When Einstein developed the theory of Relativity, he did not approach the public, but instead went to the collective of scientists. These "leaky gut" theorists seem to avoid the scientists and go to the public with their "snake oil sales". Pro then uses two citations from YouTube. YouTube? Come on. Put forth at least some intellectual integrity. Pro still leaves these items on the table A. Pro must distinguish between "educated", "wise", "intelligent", and "comprehensive". B We must see results from treatment of "leaky gut". C. We must see "leaky gut " clinics with a host of "leaky gut "survivors. D Finally Pro must explain clearly his concept of " secondary phase of the disease process." ******************************************************************************* (1) Robert Koch." World of Microbiology and Immunology. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Biography In Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. (2) "Robert Koch." World of Microbiology and Immunology. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Biography In Context. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. (3)) Brock, Thomas. Robert Koch: A life in medicine and bacteriology. ASM Press: Washington DC, 1999. Print. (4) https://en.wikipedia.org... (5) WHO ICD 10 (6) International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process.

To win this debate Con must show that germ theory is correct in all of its aspects. Con must show that Koch's postulates work under strict laboratory conditions and that germs can be replicated in a Petri dish and used to successfully contaminate a second host which should convincingly show the same symptoms as the first host. Then a saliva or blood sample of the second host should be taken and looked at under a microscope to see if the same germ is present that was responsible for the infection of the first host. Note - Humans must be used to demonstrate this principle. Note - This experiment, which is the often quoted method by the medical system many times as proof of germ theory, has never been accomplished successfully in laboratory conditions. Thus, the germ theory of disease is a fraud. The reason that this experiment has failed is because the germs from the gut have thousands of different types, any of which can leak from the gut into the in blood causing a disease. Thus, the medical system assumes that it is just one particular germ that is causing the problem. Thus, when they try to replicate the germ from the host they get a different variety of germ the second time around. Thus, the medical system will try to justify this change and say that the germ has mutated into a different germ, while insisting that this is still the same germ as before but is just a mutation of it. lol What a load of complicated nonsense.!!!!!!!!!! Why don't they just admit that germ theory is a fraud and go with the flow of new innovations. Leaky gut syndrome is the best and most logical explanation of the disease process. Hippocrates - "All disease begins in the gut"
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process.

I will show that germs are the cause of many diseases. I will show that the "leaky gut" theory, even if accepted as true, will only explain at its best a small minority of diseases. I will show that even if one eliminated all "leaky gut" one would still be prone to a host of other diseases. PRO has made a somewhat derogatory statement about being advised by " some less educated persons on this site that germs are the cause of disease". Pro must distinguish between "educated", "wise", "intelligent", and "comprehensive". I have known many educated people who could not comprehend. I have known many intelligent people who were not wise. Within this debate, we must take the medically educated as all three. Those who put forth "medical theories" which are not accepted by the "medical scholars" have the burden to prove their theory to those scholars first and lay people second. Writing a popular book to convince non medical readers that a theory has merit is akin to selling "snake oil". We must not accept a popular book as a substitute for a medical textbook. We must see results from treatment of "leaky gut". We must see "leaky gut " clinics with a host of "leaky gut "survivors. Anything short of these parameters must be taken as simply apocryphal. Finally Pro must explain clearly his concept of " secondary phase of the disease process."
Germs in the blood is a secondary phase of the disease process.

A have been advised by some less educated persons on this site that germs are the cause of disease. It is assumed that because there are germs in the blood that these germs are the cause of disease. This is false information. This type of thinking was common in the past before modern technology proved that leaky gut syndrome allowed the germs from the gut to enter the blood. Thus, if you avoid foods which cause leaky gut syndrome you can also avoid all disease.
According to Preference Utilitarianism, Speceisism is Morally Wrong

This debate will be on whether or not preference utilitarianism condemns speceisism as morally wrong. I as Pro will seek to affirm the resolution by showing that speceisism conflicts with basic principles of preference utilitarianism. My opponent as Con will seek to negate my arguments and may or may not bring his own case forth. Definitions Preference Utilitarianism: Moral theory according to which the good consists in the satisfaction an agent's preferences, and the rightness of an action depends directly or indirectly on its being productive of such satisfaction.Speciesism: discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another.Morally wrong: Being antagonistic to the principles on which preference utilitarianism is based.Rules---Drops will count as concessions.---Forfeiting of any round will result in a loss of all 7 points.---No needless semantical arguments.---No new arguments may be brought up in the fourth round.*I do not see a point in any other official rules. Courteous behavior will be expected but not required. I do not think this will be a problem with my opponent though.**Argumentation will begin in R2. R1 will be only for acceptance and agreement on the definitions of the terms of the resolution and rules.*
Investing in gold is the answer to everything.

"Since gold is a film in 1923 that has already been made, we can assume that by investing in it, we are actually messing with the fabrics of time."False. By investing in gold, we actually repair the damage to the space-time continuum caused by the creation of the RickRoll. Your endorsement of it only further damages it. Investing in Gold fixes this problem, as it leads to less people getting RickRoll'd (since you don't get RickRoll'd in the middle of Gold)."we do not need to invest in it since logically, investing in the answer is something that no one should do."This is also drastically false by the laws of logic. Let's presume for a moment that x is representative of Gold, and f(x) is representative of our investment in gold. Y would then be equal to the answers to everything, and z would then be equal to KFC. We can then conclude that if f(x) is equal to y and that x is equal to f(x) - y +2/3, then we would be able to logically see that without gold, we would no longer exist. Investing in gold solves this problem, as it provides us with more KFC (z). "However, the source appears to be from Enclopedia Brittanica-"It's apparent that my opponent failed to press Alt and F4 at the same exact time successfully. Everyone who did do it went to Wikileaks, which we all know is the most credible source in the history of Goldfish."KFC and investments directly contradict eachother."False. Without investments, we cannot have KFC. They are mutually beneficial. Below are three imaginary sources that prove so."KFC implies Keep Federal Investments and non-Federal Investments on Crappy movies such as gold low."My opponent apparently cannot spell KFC. Perhaps he needs to go back to night school.KFC clearly stands for Keep those Freaks who try to rickroll everyone in a detention Camp.So clearly, KFC and Gold are not conflicting. We can have both at the same time. And it will get you thrown in Gitmo, which is also a plus.
Investing in gold is the answer to everything.

False. If we don't invest in gold, we don't have gold, thus we don't have the answer to everything. In order to get the answer to everything, we must invest in the answer to everything.Simply put, that's an incorrect assumption. Whether we invest in gold or not is independant from whether someone gets Rickrolled. Since gold is a film in 1923 that has already been made, we can assume that by investing in it, we are actually messing with the fabrics of time. The rules of time of very simple.a) Time starts at -9999 bce.b) Time ends at Dec. 21, 2012c) The rules of time are written hered) 1923 was a dumb yearWhile gold is the answer to everything, we do not need to invest in it since logically, investing in the answer is something that no one should do. To address my opponent's second point. I'd like to remark that I concede that there is a source from urban dictionary stating that we should invest in gold. However, the source appears to be from Enclopedia Britannica, which we all know is one of the most inaccurate and bs sources in existence. (Not used for academic sources.) I'd like to point out that one cannot buy KFC easily in movie theatres (since they want to overcharge you on food) , and what my opponent fails to realize is that KFC and investments directly contradict each other. KFC inplies Keep Federal Investments and non-Federal Investments on Cra*py movies such as gold low.We note that the ideals of KFC directly contrast with investing in gold. Thus, we either get to invest our money in a "shi*tty movie" , or we get to enjoy the splendors of KFC. The choice is simple. The answer is yes.http://www.youtube.com...:D
Investing in gold is the answer to everything.

"Since gold is all-powerful and encompasses everything known to us, Investing in Gold is not the answer to everything since gold is the answer to everything."False. If we don't invest in gold, we don't have gold, thus we don't have the answer to everything. In order to get the answer to everything, we must invest in the answer to everything. Thus, investing in gold is the answer to get the answer to everything, and thus is the answer to everything.He then cites widely renowned Urban Dictionary, but his information is false. If you click on the link, scroll down to the bottom, then hit ALT and F4 at the same time, it will send you to the page where it clearly illustrates why we should invest in gold. You have to time it just right, because if you don't press the two buttons at precisely the same time, it'll close the browser. But you can do it, and if you do it right, it will send you to the page."The film was a disaster and much too unpopular to even get a youtube reference. Thus, investing in it will only result in a lack of KFC and any self-realization."False! If we invest in gold, then people will realize how sh*tty of a movie it is, then leave in the middle of it to go get some KFC, finally realizing that without gold, there would be no KFC.Your move.
Investing in gold is the answer to everything.

I fully agree with my opponent on how gold is the answer to everything.However, investing in gold is not. If we examine the English language carefully, we may eventually surmise that investing implies a verb that is different from gold. (which can be a noun, verb, name, Greek, Latin, adverb and/or an adjective). Since gold is all-powerful and encompasses everything known to us, Investing in Gold is not the answer to everything since gold is the answer to everything. Now, you may not believe me, but I direct you to one of the best and more reliable sources on the Internet. Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com...Nowhere does it say that we should invest in gold.Here's a well-cited source on the ethics of gold's amazingness. (Refer to video)I think what my opponent fails to understand is what gold means.We all know that:Gold is a 1932 American film directed by Otto Brower. An early sound B western, the film starred Jack Hoxie in the second of his six sound westerns, featuring Hooper Atchley as the villain Kramer. The film also marked the last screen appearance of silent movie actress Alice Day.http://www.youtube.com... The film was a disaster and much to unpopular to even get a youtube reference. Thus, investing in it will only result in a lack of KFC and any self-realization.I rest my case.
Does Jesus bleed from his hands when someone masturbates.

So you're basically saying that if a male and female masturbates every day, then his blood would turn into oceans. From pleated-jeans.com, almost 40% of ALL men and 25% of all women masturbate daily. Jesus's body, which was human at the time contains an average of 1.2-1.5 gallons of blood. He'd probably die over and over and over."Well we are able to confirm his hands bled on earth, so we could make a conjecture that he bleeds in heaven." If God is all mighty and all powerful, why doesn't he just heal his hands to stop the bleeding. If God is a higher power, why would he assume the form of a human as well?The Pro side has not proven the reason as to why Jesus's hands bleed.Con wins this round.Pro also has not proven his BOP. (We are assuming God is real in this debate.)
Does Jesus bleed from his hands when someone masturbates.

Well we are able to confirm his hands bled on earth, so we could make a conjecture that he bleeds in heaven. Sure they could be a discrepancy in these facts but our questions is whether or not his hands would bleed not if they can. Would it not stand to reason that since we use our hands to masturbate that when we do it Jesus' hand wounds from when he was crucified would bleed and he would feel pain because of our sins.
Motorbike riders should not be allowed to filter through traffic (UK laws)

"They say to keep your speed low. Many filterers do not keep their speed low and can cause great harm to everyone on the road."PRO You are correct that some motorcyclists do not keep their speed low and at the appropriate and legal speed however you could compare this minority to the many unlawful, unsafe driving practices a lot of motorists perform. For example: a motorist who neglects to use his signal when changing lanes. The law is simple, please see below Rule 103 from the highway code. https://www.gov.uk... Rule 103 "Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time" Although it is written in the law and thus should be followed to the letter, thit does not mean some car drivers neglect to follow the rules also. It would not be a just decision to ban all motorists from driving simply because what I believe is the minority choose not to follow the rules. This would not reflect the safe driving practices of the majority. I previously noted that is the responsibility of all road users and pedestrians to ensure they do not place themselves or others in danger. In defence of this point I would reference: Court Case: Davis vs Shrogin 2006. In this case the judge said, quote, " A filtering motorcycle passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if the motorcyclist had no chance to take avoiding action." If we consider this, the proverbial pedestrian in our argument is responsible for ensuring he does not place himself or the biker in danger. The biker of course is responsible for ensuring he rides considerately. Note how speed in this case was not a determining factor. https://www.clarkewillmott.com... http://think.direct.gov.uk...
Motorbike riders should not be allowed to filter through traffic (UK laws)

Filtering is bad for everyone on the road. First of all, if you are using it to get to the front of a light, it will not do anyone good because you will still have to wait in the middle of the road. In Rules for motorcyclists (83 to 88) https://www.gov.uk.... It states: Rule 88 Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low. They say to keep your speed low. Many filterers do not keep their speed low and can cause great harm to everyone on the road. You also stated that riders have to predict when pedestrians are coming. This is very hard to do, and many jaywalkers could get hurt when walking through the street in a red light. Jaywalking is legal under the UK laws, and the driver of the motorcycle could be sued for injuring, or possibly killing someone.