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

Okay. So first of all. I'm going to debunk you claim that there are only two causes of sickness. You said the only two causes were 1. Vitamin deficiency 2. Chemical poisoning. So first off. You admitted yourself that bacteria exists. So that automatically adds a 3rd cause because it doesn't fall into these two categories. Furthermore, You mentioned bacteria and germs like they're two different thing. They're synonyms. So all it takes to disprove your claim of these 3 causes is a simple reductio ad absurdum. If these were the only causes of sickness. Then doctors would only have to use medicines to treat these three things. These would mean that every medical condition could be fixed by penicillin, Detoxing, And flintstone vitamins. Since this is not the case. It necessarily follows that these 3 are not the only causes. So concerning your questions about viruses. They're all just argument from ignorance fallacies. Basically, You're saying "I don't know how viruses can do all this, Therefore they don't" This is not the best way to get to the truth of the matter. Your questions also make it clear to me that you have a poor understanding of physics. Why would an ant be able to eat a virus off the ground? That's nonsense. Viruses are microscopic and cannot be detected through sight alone. If you want strong evidence for you case. Then you need supporting details. Ignorance fallacies will NEVER cut it. You claim that there's some kind of conspiracy that the doctors are in on to not tell people that viruses are fake. This is silly. Viruses can be witnessed by any layperson through a microscope and we used to do it in my high school science class. I will post a microscopic image a virus for you in case you've never looked through a microscope before. Since there are microscopic images of viruses, The only way to prove your claim is to prove that those images are fake, Or there not images of viruses. But since you don't even know that bacteria and germs are the same thing. I'm thinking you can't do that Your floor
The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

"I contend that as long as the consumer is properly informed of the nature of the scientific knowledge on the product, they have the ability to make a good decision. All the government should be responsible to do is to make sure that people are properly informed."When the institution of homeopathy misleads people, even by defining itself as a form of "medicine," it is in the wrong. The government should not allow such unlawful, deceptive practices to go on in the first place. Regulation of quackery does not effectively null the lies passed on to the public from the institution of homeopathy itself."My opponent continues by committing the fallacy of composition, which uses information about parts of something to make a claim about the thing as a whole."Anyone who prescribes homeopathic treatments and claims that they are only as effective as placebo is not practicing homeopathic medicine; such practice would not be approved by any major homeopathic organization or regulatory service, which all uphold "evidence" for homeopathy's more-than-placebo effects on health. Moreover, I have never heard of a homeopathic practitioner who does not claim that his treatments work; this may be because no one would ever go to a practitioner and pay for treatments that he claims do not work. Moreover, the FDA can certainly ban homeopathic treatments, thereby precluding the further (legal and medicinal) practice of homeopathy in the country. An example is the FDA's ban of HCG diet products, a homeopathic weight loss treatment that clearly posed a threat due to its lack of a scientific basis. [1] The FDA can simply not approve of the medicinal sale of any homeopathic products. Doing so, the currently accepted, medicinal practice of homeopathy would be banned, pretty much. "Even if homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, if people find that they notice less allergy symptoms because of homeopathy's placebo effect, then it will have had a positive impact on that person."The absence of allergy symptoms will have a positive impact on the person? What makes a treatment effective is the existence of effects, not the absence of effects. If it were the absence of effects, then we could call the consumption of gasoline a valid remedy for the common cold, since it does not cause acne--among the infinite number of things that remain absent after its consumption. [1] http://www.fda.gov...
The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

Pro begins by writing: "If a car dealership representative were to sell a car and say, 'Although this car's functionality has not been tested, we assure you that it works ideally,' then the car dealership should not be held responsible? Although it is admitted that formal testing does not evidence it, the claim that it works still exists, and it is misleading and not excusable." I contend that as long as the consumer is properly informed of the nature of the scientific knowledge on the product, they have the ability to make a good decision. All the government should be responsible to do is to make sure that people are properly informed.My opponent continues by committing the fallacy of composition, which uses information about parts of something to make a claim about the thing as a whole [1]. He provides evidence that a certain group of homeopaths claim that homeopathy is scientifically valid, and then all homeopathic practioners must uphold this claim. There is no reason that someone who practices homeopathy must believe in their work as anything more than a placebo. Many do, but it is not necessary. Pro's final argument is that all that must be done to make the practice of homeopathy illegal is for congress to reverse a provision in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. This, however, is not the case. While reversing his part of the law would mean that homeopathy would have no official status as a form of medicine, as the law merely recognized homeopathy [2]. People would still be allowed to practice homeopathy. My argument that the practice of homeopathy cannot be made illegal without violating the Constitution has not been refuted, and therefore stands. Additionally, my argument that homeopathy can helpful, even if its impact is limited to that of a placebo, has not been refuted, and also stands. My opponent has not proven that it is necessary to make the practice of homeopathy illegal, even though it does positive things for some people. Therefore, the resolution is negated.Sources: [1]- http://www.nizkor.org...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

Does homeopathy work? Conceded. Why should the practice of homeopathic medicine be made illegal? My opponent claims, "All that is necessary to remedy this problem is to require homeopathic practitioners to inform clients that homeopathy is not supported by scientific evidence." So, if a car dealership representative were to sell a car and say, "Although this car's functionality has not been tested, we assure you that it works ideally," then the car dealership should not be held responsible? Although it is admitted that formal testing does not evidence it, the claim that it works still exists, and it is misleading and not excusable. Moreover, the basis of homeopathy is that there IS that there is evidence that homeopathic treatments work and that they are effective. Theories of "water memory" and other pseudo-scientific bases have been established, though they have been debunked by the mainstream scientific community. According to the National Center of Homeopathy: "It has a laudable and extensively-documented clinical record and there are literally hundreds of high-quality, peer-reviewed basic science, pre-clinical and clinical studies showing it works." [1] A homeopathic practitioner who does not uphold the scientific validity of his field is, by definition, not practicing true homeopathy. "The manufacture and sale of homeopathic medicines is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States was written into federal law in 1938 under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, making the manufacture and sale of homeopathic medicines legal in this country." [2] The FDA should not approve homeopathic treatments, and Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia should be erased from federal law. By having the treatments be not FDA approved, homeopathy would no longer be a government-approved institution of alternative medicine. And its role as a provider of alternative medicine would no longer be upheld or allowed. [1] http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org... [2] http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org...
The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

DefinitionsPro has not questioned my definitions, so they shall be the definitions I will use.Does homeopathy work?For the purpose of this debate I will concede that the scientific evidence goes against the practice of homeopathy.Why should the practice of homeopathic medicine be made illegal?My opponent makes the case that claiming to be able to heal someone through homeopathy is like claiming that a toaster works, even if it doesn't. All that is necessary to remedy this problem is to require homeopathic practitioners to inform their clients that homeopathy is not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, it is no longer "false advertising."Even if homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, if people find that they notice less allergy symptoms because of homeopathy's placebo effect, then it will have had a positive impact on that person. But really, this debate boils down to one big idea: Does our federal government have the right to make something illegal, even if people feel that it helps them. The answer is no. There are two ways the government can make homeopathy illegal. The first way is to have Congress pass a law rendering the practice illegal. The powers of Congress are enumerated in the Constitution, however, and the power to make a law banning a certain medical practice, mainstream or alternative, is not included in this list [1]. Congress does not have the power to ban the practice of homeopathy.The other option is to create a Constitutional amendment banning homeopathy. The purpose of the Constitution is to lay down the foundations of our society. Homeopathy is not an issue that the Constitution should be concerned with.ConclusionMy opponent has not shown that homeopathy is harmful. At worst, it does nothing to a person. At best, it may relieve their symptoms for certain ailments. In the United States, we allow many things that are not proven by science to be practiced: Tarot reading, astrology, and religion. People have the freedom to choose whether they wish to partake in these activities, and the government should not infringe on that freedom. Source:[1]- http://www.archives.gov...
The practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the US

Does homeopathy work?All in all, studies suggest that homeopathy does not have effects beyond those of a placebo. [1] [2] [3] Moreover, the methods used have no scientific basis, as well. The concept of "the more a substance is diluted in water, the more substantial its medicinal qualities" is unfounded. [4] And here is a list of homeopathic preparations that are used to cure real diseases. [5] The use of a majority of these has no modern scientific basis. If my opponent wishes to contest this, I will surely expand on my objections to the validity of homeopathy. What is alternative medicine?Homeopathy is a form of "alternative medicine," which is a "practice claiming to heal 'that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine.'" [6]Why should the practice of homeopathic medicine be made illegal?If a company were selling a type of toaster that they claimed functioned perfectly and then the toasters were actually all broken and not functional, then that company would be held accountable. A business cannot make a false, unfounded claim about its product that is not supported by any rational basis. In the United States, we believe that customers have the right to know what they are buying; when products are misrepresented by a company, it is considered "false advertising." [7]Homeopathy, by being an institution of alternative medicine, makes the claim that it has the ability to heal (i.e., to restore health), despite its disassociation from conventional medicine. However, in reality, there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicine is more effective than placebo. The claims made by those who practice homeopathy are simply untrue, and this misleads the public. In conclusion, the practice of homeopathy should be made illegal in the United States, since it is clearly deceptive.---[1] https://www.mja.com.au...[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[3] http://nccam.nih.gov...[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Solipsism

My argument is rather simple: when it comes to the existence of anything, it relies on our senses and perception. I've never heard of anyone being able to confirm the existence of anything without their senses, or someone else's senses. Whether it's done through math, or science, etc, in order to read that scientific data, in order to conduct experiementation it requires your senses. There are a myriad of optical illusions out there which prove that what we see is not always what is accurate. One such is Ames room which is explained here[1]. Since perception and our senses are fallible, as Ames room and many other optical illusions show, we can never be sure when our perception is telling us what exists is accurately portrayed. In fact, it could be something entirely different. For all we know, reality could be all a simulation. There's no way we currently have to prove it isn't that I know of. Therefore, the only thing we can know with surety, is our own mind's existence, because it follows the logic that Rene Descartes stated with, "I think, therefore I am". I contend that the only thing we can do, is believe we live in reality. We cannot prove it with 100% surety, thus we cannot claim to know anything else is true. We can have belief, but knowledge is something we can never actually have, except when it comes to one own's existence. For example, it is a belief I have that I am communicating on a debating website called debate.org, I cannot say with surety that I am for my perception can be wrong and there's no logical way to prove my perception is accurate with 100% surety. I'll turn this to my opponent now. My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind. Source:[1]
Solipsism

I'm making the character limit 5,000, as I want this debate to be easily read by voters, and not too lengthy. I'm open to increasing the character limit or the number of rounds if con wants me to. Be sure to comment that you want me to change it before accepting the debate, otherwise I won't be able to change it.Rules: 1) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate(so, if there are 3 rounds, use only 2 rounds for debate). Con may present their arguments in round 1, but must waive the last round to keep the rounds used for debate even if they choose to use round 1 for argument. 2) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults. If either of the above rules are violated, voters should vote for the one who did not violate them, or who did so to a lesser degree.Definition:Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind. [1] Solipsism is basically the ultimate agnostic position, applying agnosticism to everything except one's own mind. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun control

The amount of fallen crimes in states has fallen immensly.Gun crime does decrease but gun sales go up. This means te more guns the less the crime. http://www.bostonmagazine.com...Also a scientific study at hardvard has shown that banning guns wont cause a solution to ending gun violence. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. There has been also assertions on how United states has the most highest amount of murders when there are other places with bans on guns and crime rate is higher than United state http://www.ncpa.org...Those countries have strict gun control laws and crime rate goes up. And United states has more guns and the crime rate is lower so the causes of that crime rate decreasing is by guns as showned in the harvard university research.More rebuttals No other viewers Just because two things collaberate doesnt mean it is true.Guns decreasing crime is true because gun sales increase and crime rate goes up and in certain countries there is gun control and crime increases. It also has been studied at Hardvard so ys it is true that guns can decrease crime. Afrikaans Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English (United Kingdom) English (United States) Español Español (Latinoamérica) Euskara Filipino Français Français (Canada) Galego hrvatski Isizulu Íslenska Italiano Kiswahili Latviešu Lietuvi%1; Magyar Malti Netherlands Norsk Polski Português (Brasil) Português (Portugal) Română Slovenčina Slovenščina Suomi Svenska TiN71;ng ViN79;t Türkçe Ελληνικ^0; h1;m8;l3;k5;k2;l8;l9;l2;l0; i6;m1;l9;l9;l2;l0;l1; i7;l8;l7;l9;l2;l0; i9;l2;l8;k2;o1;l5;l9;n0;l2;k2; עברית اردو العربية فارسی नेपाली मराठी हिन्दी বাংলা ગુજરાતી தமிழ் తెలుగు ಕನ್ನಡ !74;!78;!75;!90;!79;!30; #23;#38;"58;#24;#17; $52;$07;$18; %49;%62;%51; /68;ማር/63; ខ្មែរ 中文A288;中国A289; 中文A288;台灣A289; 中文A288;'321;港A289; 日本#486; 6620;국2612; Share... New`58; Open...Ctrl+O Rename... Edit description...(Y)Ctrl+Shift+E Make a copy... Move to folder... Move to trash See revision historyCtrl+Alt+Shift+G Language`58; Download as`58; Publish to the web... Email collaborators... Email as attachment... Page setup... Print preview PrintCtrl+P UndoCtrl+Z RedoCtrl+Y CutCtrl+X CopyCtrl+C PasteCtrl+V Web clipboard`58; Select allCtrl+A Select noneCtrl+Shift+A Compact controlsCtrl+Shift+F Full screen Docs Help Report an issue Report abuse Keyboard shortcutsCtrl+/ Single 1.15 1.5 Double Custom Add space before paragraph Add space after paragraph Custom spacing... Every change you make is automatically saved in Drive. Copy selection to web clipboard Clear all items Web clipboard help Public on the web Anyone on the Internet can find and access. No sign-in required. « Close preview Print
Gun control

Guns in our community are a very serious problem in our society. Me myself believe that guns should not be in the hand of criminals and the wrong beings, but I believe the should be no gun control over firearms. It is going over the second amendment. Many people have said ' guns kill people so it should be banned' so do cars. McDonalds. and candy and should we ban those things. There are many benefits of not having guns in our society. Cons for gun control - Gun control takes control of all guns and takes it away from citizens who need it. - It goes against the second amendment. - People would not be able to hunt for what' they need - Criminals would be able to spot and find weapons and citizens would be helpless. People also like to say that ' people can call the cops and the cops catch the criminals' a point of a gun is for self defense and it is not the government's right. The cause of gun violence of criminals is society itself the society needs more stricter punishments and a better way of criminals not holding guns. I disagree with gun control because it takes away all guns from citizens and the poor and the helpless would be defenseless. Banning guns will mean cops would not be able to use a gun. Self defense is a key to stopping criminals from bothering you. Guns are growing rapid and crime rate decreases No guns = more crime Criminals will still cause crime no matte what no end to it.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Well I must say, I am very disappointed that my opponent has forfeited this previous round. Anyway, I'll press on and conclude my argument. All my opponent has done is attempted to turn this debate into something to his favour. There were statements that this was a 'trap' debate, however it is no such thing. I've made no stipulations at all as to how my opponent must argue, and I don't ask my opponent to debate with my presuppositions or that he should even be restricted to his own. For my opponent to claim that this is a 'trap' is a joke. It is not. And even if it was, attempting to change the terms of the debate after accepting it makes no sense. Attempts at disproving evolution does not constitute a legitimate argument as to why intelligent design is a scientific theory. And this is all my opponent has done. By copying and pasting christian propaganda, all that has been achieved is being drifted off the course of the debate. Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I have won this debate for several reasons: -My argument from definition still holds (testable, predictive, and experimental) and I have sufficiently shown all arguments against this argument to be deeply flawed. -My opponent makes no case to meet his burden of 'Intelligent design is a scientific theory' all that is done is arguments against evolution. -My opponent has forfeited a round. Vote PRO. Thank you.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

I affirm that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. [Definitions] Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. Both Definitions taken from Wikipedia. [Burdens] Affirmative- Show that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Negative- Show that Intelligent design is a scientific theory. I'll let my opponent make the first move.