BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such things as viruses

Sorry, this is no joke. The joke is on you because you believe that the medical system is really trying to save lives and cure people. This is illogical thinking. If somebody gets paid to heal your illness, then, it is in their best interest to keep you in the dark as to what the cause of your illness is. Thus, this is exactly what the medical system has been doing is is still doing to this very day. Germs and viruses do not cause disease and never have. Viruses can't cause disease because they don't exist in the first place. The main cause of disease is the modern diet of grain, sugar and dairy which causes malfunction and blockages which results in most so called diseases from occurring. The medical system can't afford the public to catch onto this scam or they might all be put into jail where they belong. Dangerous chemicals can also cause diseases like polio and Ebola.
There is no such things as viruses

There are no viruses.There never has been any viruses in the past and there wont be any viruses in the future. That's because viruses don't exist. Viruses are just made up nonsense by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies so that they can make huge mega-dollars out of gullible people with drugs and vaccines. (Only people with some life experience can apply. That means no 16 or 14 year olds thanks.)
should kids get a facebook

should kids get a facebook yes but i can see no so i will leave it to you.Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims there is no harm for underaged children to have facebook accounts, that COOPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection) is wrong to ban them from this large social community. In fact Consumer report survey suggest that 7.5 million users are under 13 as it is.Facebook is a popular social network, on the surface it doesn't seem dangerous.In ideal circumstances it would be a great place for children to stay in touch with their family and interact with friends. But in the world of pedofila, child pornography and many other socially unacceptable behaviors, the question is obvious: Is facebook safe for our children? So, 11- and 12-year-olds across Britain and the US are standing by in the hope that Mark Zuckerberg's plea for under-13s to be allowed to use Facebook is heard by their countries' decision-makers. Only, of course, they aren't . . . because they are already on it, tapping away furiously like all their mates, finding out what shopping centre to meet in after school tomorrow and what park to hang out in on Saturday afternoon. Under-13s might be banned from having Facebook accounts, both here and in the US, but that hasn't stopped hundreds of thousands of them from using false dates of birth to rule-dodge. Yes, of course parents like me worry that means our kids are at risk of both being bullied and of bullying others . . . but the important thing to realise here is that Facebook is only an arena for bullying, like the school lunch hall or the playground. No one is trying to ban under-13s from those places. Some fear that their children are prey for paedophiles, advertisers and other baddies on Facebook: again, does your kid travel alone, or go to a shopping centre without you? Most children do, from the time they go to secondary school. And just as you teach them the rules for staying safe when they're out and about alone, so you teach them the rules for staying safe online. Facebook is about what life is about, which is connecting with others. When children are young, we supervise them: as they get older, we trust them to connect without us around all the time. And what Facebook does is teach our kids a language that will undoubtedly be crucial to their future: because today's children are going to be interacting online with friends and, in the future, business colleagues and customers, for the rest of their lives. Why, when we're trying to educate them in useful skills on other fronts, hold them back on this one? Kids already do have accounts, along with pets and imaginary people Parental control, privacy settings and look at Myspace/Youtube Facebook cannot monitor all users nor validate user information Well...yes and no answer to giving out personal info is dangerous If there's parental control and they use proper privacy settings . assists in schoolwork Let's look at it a different way.
Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage vs Premarital Sex and the like Well, if an increase in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease, divorce, and children born out of wedlock to uncommitted parents are the measure of success, I would prefer aspiring to the traditional standards of old. The message of "practice safe sex" has been a resounding failure. There is nothing safe or wholesome about sex outside of a marriage relationship. The intimacy shared between a man and woman in a committed relationship has been reduced to a hedonistic act to be exploited by unchecked desire. Isn't it amazing how a man and woman in a committed monogamous relationship never have to practice "safe sex?" A truly disease free relationship. Wow...what a concept! They also don't worry about an unwanted pregnancy (and even if one occurs, the committed parents are prepared and support and love the child anyway). A committed sexual relationship in marriage is built on trust, respect, and love. The 3 key ingredients for any successful relationship. Most relationships today are not built on these foundational principles and the result is most marriages end in divorce. With that said, it's no wonder. How can you build a relationship on trust, respect, and love when it was already built upon a premarital sexual relationship based on everything to the contrary! Good luck. We are living in a society which values having no values at all. We live in a society whose only principle is to stand on no principle, and whose only standard is to have no standard at all. God help us...and I say that without apology. Where are we heading? I sincerely hate to think about it. In this standard-less society we could legitimately argue to accept any behavior. Prostitution? Why not? They are consenting adults. Bestiality? Those who practice such a thing are not hurting anyone. Incest? They love each other. Triad Relationships? Who says more that "marriage" has to be between two people? Our court system is in for a circus in the coming years? Well, in closing...the logic of traditional values greatly out performs that of the "anything goes/embrace diversity to any extreme" outlook prevailing today. Water is old fashion too...but I don't want to live with out it.
Traditional Marriage

Since my opponent forfeited the previous round due to lack of an argument, this conclusion will be brief. There are several alternatives to traditional marriage: "Some couples may be hesitant to get married under traditional procedures. There may be many reasons for this, such as religious reasons, financial considerations, or other factors. For example, a couple"s legal marital status can affect other areas of life, such as access to medical care, retirement benefits, tax consequences, and citizenship/immigration. For such couples, it may be worthwhile to learn about different alternatives to traditional marriage. This is especially true of same-sex couples, as same-sex marriage is not available in all states. " Cohabitation: This is where the couple lives together in the same residence. They usually aren"t afforded the same rights as married couple. On the other hand, the couple can spell out their rights regarding property, etc. , in a "cohabitation agreement". Common Law Marriage: This is where the state recognizes the couple as a married couple, even though they never had a wedding or obtained a state marriage license. This is not available in all states, but the couple is usually granted nearly the same rights as a legally married couple. Civil Union: This is where the couple is granted the legal status of a married couple. The couple must file with the state for a civil union, and receive the same benefits as a married couple. States that allow civil unions (or are currently reviewing civil union bills) include: CT, DE, HI, IL, NH, NJ, VT, and RI. Domestic Partnerships: These create a legal relationship for the couple which is similar to marriage in many states. Depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be treated as if they were married; however, in many areas a domestic partnership is closer to a cohabitation arrangement, with the couple receiving much less rights than a legally married couple. Same-sex Marriage: This allows a same-sex couple to obtain the status of legally married. These are also not available in many jurisdictions due to the controversy surrounding the subject. Therefore, a couple may have many different alternatives when it comes to contemplating marriage. In most cases, it will largely depend on the laws in the area where the couple lives. . http://www.livescience.com... . http://www.unmarried.org... . http://www.foxnews.com... Conclusion: Vote Con 1. My arguments remained respectful and on topic. 2. My spelling and grammar are superior. 3. My arguments are salient, utilize data and provide comprehensive counter-points to Pro's statements. 4. Pro attempted to change the direction of the debate. 5. Pro attempted to frame me in a negative light when their arguments were derailed. 6. Pro uses stereotypes, unsupported by provided statistics. 7. Pro was unable to refute my rebuttals. 8. Pro forfeited round 3.
On balance, a minimum wage is detrimental

Im kind of new so here's my stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 1. Minimum wage helps people in the way that they know that they wont live like the chikdren in china with 2 pennies per hour. (Can I bring up this china thing in the debate against you?) 2. Minimum wage helps people so that if they are paid under the $7 or so they can tell a law person (Police officer) and have them arrest the man and then the person will get all the money they would've received if they were working at minimum wage. 3. Minimum wage is the bare minimum and is very low no-one should think of going under a very low price, its like I give you an inch and you take a mile.
The Kalam Cosmological argument

= Bop = 1. Regardless of who's argument's you buy regarding BoP, two things are important to note. a. My opponent still made BoP arguments in the round meant ONLY for acceptance b. I uphold the burden my opponent perscribes to me regardless = Arguments = Pro- 1. Purpose What my opponent has said here proves my point fantastically. It is a skewed resolution and it isn't any fun to argue. The reason that people like Stephen_Hawkins and Rational_Thinker9119 do takes these debates are because they are easy for them to win and, as anyone would, they enjoy winning. Are there a lot of people who have passionate views on this subject? Yes. Does that mean it's fun? Noooooo. Whether it's because they know they can win them, not because they feel strongly people don't debate this topic because it's fun. 2. Past Debates Contradictions debate here was forfeited. Aside from that, Contradiction is a skilled debater regardless; it doesn't mean he took the debate for fun. 3. No Fun a. Interesting? Yes. Enjoyable? No. The debate has been done far too many times on this site and it's simply old hat. b. I'll take this as a concession; vote Pro! c. Lack of uniqueness doesn't destroy the impact here. People don't want to debate something they know they can't get a fair round on. Con- 1. Versatiliy Again, the KC Argument certainly is an interesting thing to study and talk about; but that doesn't make it any more fun. Especially not as a debate topic, and especially not here on DDO. 2. The God Question When it comes to things like God, Religion and Philosophy, you either believe or you don't. The motivation that drives us to ponder and discuss issues like the KC argument, especially here on DDO, aren't desires to create truth; it's the desire to make others like-minded and hone our skills in defending our belief. 3. Questioning Athiest/Apologist Authority Extend my argument on point 2; that which drives us to debate these things isn't for 'fun', but to make others think as we do. Underview The first part of my opponent's underview is nothing more than an attack on the validity of my arguments. I'm not making my stance or my arguments on a general basis, I'm making them specific to debates here on DDO. I never deny that the KC argument is deep, or worth of discussion. I contend that it's not a fun debate topic. = Closing words = I made this debate short for a reason, I really can't be bothered to talk about this anymore than I already have. There's not a whole lot of depth to this debate, and we've said what can be said here. I urge a vote for the Pro. Thanks to InVinoVeritas for debate, and thanks to all the people who will vaguely skim this debate before voting!
Animals on the brink of extinction should be sent to the zoo

Animals should not be sent to the zoo if they are on the brink of extinction. 1st. The zoo does not know how to take care of a sickness the animal could have. 2nd. The zoo would be oblivious to why the animals are going extinct and the change of climate could kill the animals themselves. 3rd. People could throw their food into the animal exhibit which could cause harm to the animals or even worse.
Taxes should be decreased for the Rich

Point 1: They don't "buy up things that other people should have". Most people today are not in poverty and have most of the things that they want. And even the people who don't don't have the rich to blame because they aren't stealing anything. This makes no sense. Point 2: Well at least 51% blame the George W. Bush and "Fifty-one percent say George W. Bush deserves “almost all,” or “a lot but not all” of the blame, while 31 percent said the same of Obama."[1] That's 82%! 82% blame the Government. Got sources to prove otherwise? Point 3: Your point?Point 4: Ok. With my source I have said that the top 2% or so pay about 36% of all charitable donations. I have already disproved your point. Either concede or come at me with sources. Point 5: To pay off the debt, it is more important that we cut spending instead of raising taxes, especially right now. If we cut spending tremenduously, have a set flat tax rate of say 15% at a rate where we are constantly having Government budget surpluses, we could pay off the debt in no time. Then when we have paid off the debt, drop the flat tax rate to about 2-3%. If we fixed the system, it would save the country. Attack Point 1: The cost of high taxes on the rich to jobs: [2]Attack Point 2: Higher marginal tax rates will not increase tax revenues: [2]Sources: [1]:http://www.politico.com...[2]: http://www.demint.senate.gov...;
Taxes should be decreased for the Rich

First thing I can't use sources because the school has blocked most of the internet... 1. The top 5% and GOP (Grand Old Party aka republicans). Humans are greedy creatures by nature and as you said yourself they don't give a dam about anyone else, except their "Personal Items." The more $ you give these hogs the more they'll buy putting the regular people in a bind. As I say Tax the rich and give to the poor. 2. Indeed you need $ to incorperate a business and build jobs, but you get the blame when it crashes. Lets look at Germany the reason for the Holicost of the Jews was of the sterio type that Jews were good with $ and when the economy failed they blamed the Jews. 3. That's because the people at the top have gotten their way up by a trickle up theory. Tax the poor to get rich. 4. 36% I'd be more convinced if it was in the 70s.
The Detroit Red Wings will win the 2012 Stanley Cup

As the 2011-2012 NHL Season is coming to a close and teams are locking in playoff positions, as of now I think that the Detroit Red Wings are primed for a Stanley Cup run. The following are why I think so: Their historic 25 game winning streak at home at the Joe Louis Arena; The return of starting players that were out due to injury the previous month, thus explaining their recent slump (namely Nicklas Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk); The Red Wings are loaded with a great mix of seasoned veterans and young talent; If Detroit can win their division and get a 2 or 3 seed in the conference, the advantage is theirs due to the considerable home ice advantage that they established this season. Most attacks will speak of the Wings' most recent slump and their road weaknesses, I have answers to all of these and will gladly debate another fan from either the Western or Eastern Conference.
The Detroit Red Wings will win the 2012 Stanley Cup

None of those arguments are relevant. Federov is no longer on the team, nor is Yzerman or Hasek. Bowman is long gone as coach, the coach is now Mike Babcock. Detroit is Hockeytown and should be. What professional hockey team has been as successful as the Wings the past 15 years? Not a single one... 4 Stanley Cups, 20 straight playoff berths... the numbers speak for themselves.... Mike Babcock was the coach of Team Canada when they won the 2010 Vancouver Gold Medal and guess who the GM for Canada was? Steve Yzerman. Detroit is Hockeytown. Just watch the 2008 highlight reel when they put little old Cindy Criesby in his place.
The Detroit Red Wings will win the 2012 Stanley Cup

20 reasons why the Red Wings suck (Yeah , Like We could limit it to just Ten...) 20. Catholic School Girls Slap Harder 19. Draper's bubble-butt caused by his wearing Depends--as he puts it, "just in case one goes in". 18. Wings players being rejected in their attempt to join the Stars on Ice tour. 17. All Wings losses are claimed as "unfair" and should be counted as "do-overs". 16. Federov using wife's Oil of Olay. 15. During the pre-game, Wings players listen to N'SYNC to get pumped up. 14. The fact that Yzerman's Mom still writes his name on the inside of his underwear. 13. That constant high-pitched squeal every time they touch the puck. 12. Wings spent too much money on acquisitions, forgetting to set aside the "Ref" money that helped them win their past two cups! 11. Certain players demanding to be roommates on the road and requesting a single bed. 10. The Department Store Santa Claus uniform is ridiculous ! 9. The fact that the team won't skate until they've coordinated their underwear to their nail polish to their uniforms. 8. Octopus ?- That's only fitting - A vile, smelly, slimy, bottom feeding sea animal - What better mascot for the Red Wings. 7. Scotty Bowman has more whine than California's vineyards! 6. The fact that the play of the Red Wings directly influences sales of One-A-Day Vitamins and Metamucil. 5. The plate in Bowmans Head causes confusion and mayhem at airport security screening. 4. The City of Detroit - although, your fireworks last year sure kicked butt! 3. Hasek the Dominator ??? - More like Hasek the Spastic!!! 2. The name "HOCKEYTOWN" ??? How arrogant! 1. Red Wings Fans - need I say more....
Jedi Don't Use Underwear

Crud. My overly serious opponent has ruined a perfectly awesome troll debate. I did some (about thirty seconds worth of) research and discovered that the novel my opponent mentioned took place in between Episodes 1 & 2. I was assuming that the novel took place in between Episodes 2 & 3, during that period known as the Clone Wars. Had this been the case, my string of arguments attacking the Clone Wars would've been valid and relevant for this debate. Also, my opponent has provided picture evidence (though the second picture looks more like a bikini), fulfilling his burden of proof to the fullest. Therefore, I must concede victory to Con.
Jedi Don't Use Underwear

I request that the viewers and voters please disregard my opponents previous post, as proving "The Clone Wars" is absolutely irrelevant. "Approaching the Storm" is not a related to "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," and I truly have no idea why my opponent is spending his time babbling on about "The Clone Wars." Whether it is canonical or not doesn't matter, because I was not using "The Clone Wars" as a proof; I was using "Approaching the Storm." Thus, my opponents arguments from the previous post may be deemed utterly irrelevant.Thus, my evidence provided in "Approaching the Storm" still stands, as it clearly describes multiple Jedi bathing in their underwear, not diapers.My opponent has begged the matter that his "pictures" help prove his point. BUT, not one of my opponents pictures showed a true Jedi wearing a diaper. He merely provided pictures of (blatant impostor) Jedi. However, I can provide a picture that proves once and for all that Jedi wear underwear. This picture shall provide closure to this argument beyond a hint of a doubt. Oh, and for good measure: Good sir, it is you who are checkmated, not I.
Jedi Don't Use Underwear

I hope that this is due to my opponents grand ambition, not pride. .. I will first refute my opponents (ludicrous) arguments, then establish my own. My opponents whole argument is based entirely on speculation. The pictures and examples that my opponent provided are not from the Jedi era, but rather present day. As Episode IV clearly states, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. " As I am sure that everyone has heard of Justin Bieber and Charmin, it is impossible for them to have existed a long time ago in a galaxy far away. Can we all agree that my opponents proof is based on a story that he has simply concocted for this debate? Any true star wars fan knows that Jedi wear underwear. In the Star Wars Novel: "Approaching the Storm," Obi-wan, Anakin, Luminara Unduli and Barris Offee stop by the river to wash their robes and bathe themselves. The book then describes them as swimming in their underwear. Last time I checked, Obi-wan, Anakin, Luminara Unduli, and Barris Offee are real Jedi, whereas Darth Bieber and Darth Tinky-Winky are not. I rest my case and eagerly await my opponents response (please don't just make something up this time? )