BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People diagnosed with HIV should be interred in gay flu colonies until a cure for AIDS is found.

My opponent accused me of comparing apples with oranges but why not? Both apples and oranges are types of fruit that would be attacked by insects if the farmers didn't use pesticides to control them. Similarly, leprosy, mad cow disease and gay flu are all ailments that effect mammals. Moving on, I didn't propose that all gay men should be interred, rather people who are diagnosed HIV positive. The fact that the vast majority of HIV carriers will be gay men is totally irrelevant. I should be pleased to answer my opponent's questions as follows: Q. Why do we not do the same for people with cancer? A. Because cancer is not contagious. Q. Why do we not do the same for people with other STDs such as herpes and HPV? A. Unlike AIDS, these diseases are rarely fatal and they can be cured. Thank you.
People diagnosed with HIV should be interred in gay flu colonies until a cure for AIDS is found.

When arguing for this resolution, you cannot neglect the fact that comparing leprocy and BSE to HIV/AIDs is like comparing oranges to apples. The spread of leprocy can be caused by infectious bacteria tranferred from human to human by a simple cough or sneexe from someone infected. BSE, Mad Cow Disease, is found only in cattle and according to my link cannot be transferred to humans. I say you cannot compare these three to each other because HIV is tranferred through sexual relations, birth, or any other human fluid such as blood and sperm. To say that all gay men, some who aren't diagnosed with HIV, should be quarantined is illogical because as long as they don't have sex, they will not spread the disease. If however, a man decides to sleep with someone without asking if they are clean and ends up contracting the disease, this is the man's fault for sleeping with the HIV host. This does not mean that all gay men should be closed off from society because science hasn't found a cure yet.Questions for you to answer:1. Why do we not do the same for people with cancer?2. Why do we not do the same for people with other STDs such as herpes and HPV?Spread of HIV/AIDS: http://aids.gov...Spread of Leprocy: http://www.cdc.gov...;Mad Cow Disease: http://kidshealth.org...;
People diagnosed with HIV should be interred in gay flu colonies until a cure for AIDS is found.

Until the last century, lepers in China were burned alive to prevent the spread of leprosy which, at that time, was incurable. Similarly last century, when there was an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or "mad cow disease" as it is more commonly known, beef cattle were burned in their millions, whether they were infected or not. Happily, vaccines for mad cow disease have now been developed and a cure for leprosy has also been found but, sadly, an even more virulent and deadly disease has now taken their place: the "human immunodeficiency virus" (HIV). HIV leads to the fatal condition "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome" (AIDS), or "gay flu" as it is more commonly known. Preventing the spread of HIV is a priority but, now that male homosexuality has been legalised in many Western countries, the instances of the dreaded gay flu has spiralled out of control. Clearly, rounding up all gay men and burning them, regardless of whether they had contracted HIV or not, would be the most effective way of preventing the spread of AIDS but, rightly or wrongly, in much of the developed world, homosexual men are now legally deemed to be "human" and are, therefore, accorded human rights. This means burning gays, even after being humanely slaughtered, is now considered a crime in most Western countries. However, while the Chinese burned lepers alive the Europeans and Americans adopted a more compassionate approach and, instead of dousing lepers in gallons of high octane BP gasoline and throwing a lighted Zippo at them, they kindly built nice colonies for lepers to relax in until a cure for leprosy was found. In my modest opinion, burning people, even if they are gay, and even if they have been humanely slaughtered first, and even if it is for the greater good of humanity, seems somewhat barbaric. Instead, I propose those people diagnosed with HIV should be interred in gay flu colonies until a cure for AIDS is found. Thank you. Sources: _________ Gay Flu http://www.cdc.gov... Leprosy http://articles.latimes.com... Mad Cow Disease http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.fda.gov...
Gun Control

Rebuttal 1At this moment I would like to apologize, I can't seem to find any information concerning Chinese gun control from 1935. However, this in no way refutes my case. After Mao, there were no guns available to the Chinese population except for a few hunters. When the Tianamen Square Protests broke out what happened? The Communist Party of China used brutal force to break up the pro democracy protesters. Were these students armed or able to abtain arms? No, they were massacred by their own government. When the Soviets came to power they disarmed their people and what was the result? Forty-nine million people were murdered. Hitler disarmed the Jews, communists, socialists, and homosexuals, and what happened to them? Eleven million Germans were murdered by the Nazis. None of these people were able to defend themselves, none of them were. Gun Controlists such as my opponent say that the government is there to protect us, but no it's not. Without a armed population to safe guard against tyranny, tyranny will always have a possibilty of gaining footholds within the rings of power. That is why it is necessary to make it as easy as possible for people to own guns [1].Rebuttal 2My opponent has no evidence to back his statement up. As a matter of fact I gave evidence to disprove that claim. Only 1/10 of prisoners in prison today that have been convicted of violent armed crime gun their firearms from federally licensed gun dealers, and I have provided overwelming amounts of pier reviewed data to suggest that gun control not only is ineffective, but makes crime a whole lot worse. But this isn't a suprise, government is bad at restraining people from owning and using items that it finds harmful. just take the failed prohibition of alcohol and what we can now safely call the failed prohibition of drugs. Neither worked or have worked in ending alcohol or drug abuse, so why should we expect the government to do anyless bad a job on reducing firearms? However, let us not forget that criminals do not obey laws and that the only people who can stop a bad guy with angun is a good guy with a gun.I would like to thank my opponent for debating this, and those reading for reading this. Have a nice day/night. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

The definition of a gun: gun n. A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. n. A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire. n. A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver.[1] 1. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill With stricter gun laws with multiple medical tests conducted can easily lower the risk of a mentally ill person that is more likely to commit murder because of a severe issue on in their life that they think in their demented mind that they need to take the life of that person and other innocents as displayed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of 2012. If there was more thorough mental test before even getting a firearm would lower the risk. 2. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals With more thorough background checks into the person request a gun license would halt a would be criminal or even a concealed criminal. If they would conducted thorough investigations into the person they can find every single mishap and run in with the law. If they find history of abuse or neglect in their life this may predict a future criminal who might snap one day and become very violent with a "legal" firearm. I have two more points for round three. [1]https://duckduckgo.com...
National Security Is Less Important Than Civil Liberties

National Security is less important than civil liberties because in a democracy, its about the people and if you take away their civil liberties that is 1) unconstitutional and 2) starts turning our democracy into a totalitarian government. In America, we are supposed to be the place where people come to get better opportunities but if we take away their civil liberties, why would they want to come here if the country they are coming from also take away their civil liberties? If we start taking away people's rights, they are going to start leaving then America will no longer be considered the land of opportunities. Don't get me wrong, National Security is important but the people can use weapons, thanks to the right to bear arms, to protect themselves and if need be, the country but in no way shape or form should we be putting the needs of the government over the needs of the people, especially not in a democracy such as we have here in America. Civil liberties protect us not harm us. For example, thanks to the right to bear arms as I mentioned before, we are able to protect ourselves from others. The freedom of speech, gives us the opportunity to have our own thoughts, our own feelings and be able to express them without severe punishments such as being thrown in jail or executed. Take Hitler for example, he put national security over civil liberties and thousands and thousands of people died because of it. He wanted to protect his "perfect society" by getting rid of anyone that was different or believed different things than he did.
Health care is a human right

he wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system. Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money. Our single-payer system, Which is called Medicare (see above), Manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, Therefore, Be some other reason for the wait times. There is, Of course. In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, Which is also known as Medicare. Since then, As a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, Mostly for elective things, Which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours. Please understand, The wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, But they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative. Yes, They chose this. In a rational world, Those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, They attack the system. A survey of 11 countries finds Canadian patients have trouble seeing their family doctor right away or on nights and weekends. Health reporter Kelly Grant takes a closer look at the numbersHowever, The report found that once Canadians get in to see their physicians, They rate the care they receive from their regular doctors as among the best in the world. CIHI oversaw the Canadian portion of the Commonwealth Fund study, Which surveyed 4, 547 Canadians from March to June of last year. The Commonwealth Fund asked the same questions about timely access, Cost barriers to medical care and quality of care during the same time period in Germany, France, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, The U. S. And the United Kingdom. "Over all, Canadians were the most likely to rate the quality of care they receive [from their own doctors] as excellent of all the countries, " said Robin Osborn, Vice-president of the international program in health policy and practice innovations at the Commonwealth Fund. "Where it stands out in terms of having room to do better is on the access. "Getting same day service is a problem in canada but not in other nations like france or germany which also have universal care. . You might have to wait two days maybe a week. . But you won't be waiting months where did you did you get such a silly notion?
Health care is a human right

It does not have to be provided soley by the government, Private care does not need to be banned the rich can always pay for better private care, Not that that is desirable, But as a pectical matter some inequality will always exist, I don't think any society that is totally equal would function for very long it would collapse, Many examples in the 20th century did. But I do not think trying to make society more equal and just is folly and providing basic necessities to vulnerable groups is essential in a civilized society, Many different methods exist the NHS single payer the german model the french hybrid which combines public and private. . Many systems exist, But all of them in the developed world strive to cover everyone, And so should we >
The Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source of accurate information

I disagree with my opponent:They correctly claim all over their site that the earth is thousands of years old. They correctly claim that radioactive decay was accelerated in early earth.They correctly define macro-evolution and then use their incorrect definition to make many other claims.They correctly claim that Evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.They correctly claim that no transition fossils have ever been found.They correctly claim that the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.They correctly claim that the Earth's magnetic field decays by half it's strength every 1400 years.They correctly claim that Neanderthals were modern humans.They correctly claim that life needed a creator because life cannot come from non-life.They correctly calculate the odds of life forming.They correctly claim that a bacteria's flagellum irreducible complex.And the list goes on and on and on.I think my opponent does not understand the objective of the ICR website. They believe that God exists, and then they make logical deductions from that standpoint. Evolutionary Scientists start with the presupposition that God does not exist, and make logical deductions from that standpoint. These are two different models explaining the same phenomena- How did we get here?An example of different models to explain the same phenomena are the different theories for the formation of the moon (1). There are five models. It is correct to say that 4 of these may be incorrect, because they cannot all be incorrect, but we would not say that scientists who are further developing the different models are not reliable and trustworthy scientists. You can disagree with the ICR website. That doesn't make the website a reliable source of information. Their title admits to holding a Creationist perspective, and their website gives out all of their information from the Creationist perspective. My opponent seems not to understand how science and scientific models work. Because of this, he has no case against ICR website.(1) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
The Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source of accurate information

They incorrectly claim all over their site that the earth is thousands of years old. They incorrectly claim that radioactive decay was accelerated in early earth.They incorrectly define macro-evolution and then use their incorrect definition to make many other claims.They incorrectly claim that Evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.They incorrectly claim that no transition fossils have ever been found.They incorrectly claim that the Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.They incorrectly claim that the Earth's magnetic field decays by half it's strength every 1400 years.They incorrectly claim that Neanderthals were modern humans.They incorrectly claim that life needed a creator because life cannot come from non-life.They incorrectly calculate the odds of life forming.They incorrectly claim that a bacteria's flagellum irreducible complex.And the list goes on and on and on.Finding a few articles that may have displayed wrong information or have shown innacurate information is not enough to support the claim, as even Evolutionary organizations sometimes accidentally produce faulty information.Some of these may be from specific articles but these aren't mistakes someone would accidentally make. These are completely ignoring science; for example the Neanderthal being a modern human; scientists have sequenced the genes of both and have found major differences in the DNA. These mistakes are too large for anyone to make by accident.
The Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source of accurate information

I accept, and I hope for no insults towards the Institute for Creation Research, only valid arguments against why it is not a reliable source of information.The No True Scotsmas fallacy cannot be used (i.e. Scientists believe in Evolution. "But here are some examples of scientists that don't believe in evolution." Well, no real scientist believes in evolution.)Finding a few articles that may have displayed wrong information or have shown innacurate information is not enough to support the claim, as even Evolutionary organizations sometimes accidentally produce faulty information. The institution, as a whole, must be proved as providing overwhelmingly deceptive and false information.
The Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source of accurate information

My opponent ignored the arguments that I made.He goes on to try and turn this debate into an argument over Evolution vs Creation. This debate is about whether a particlular website is a source of accurate information. My opponent presupposes that Evolution is true, so any argument that I would use against Evolution, he will just say my arguments are from an unreliable source of information. This is circular reasoning. If a website claims to be Creationist website, he will immediately declare them as a false source of information, and conclude that it is run by liars. Even if they produce accurate information that refutes Evolutionary claims, he will still declare them fraudulent. This is invincible ignorance.The ICR is not dishonest about anything. In every article it produces, it sources all of it's data accurately. If it references Evolutionary scientists, it also adequately sources them. They are open and honest about everything. It is a website that presupposes God exists, and from that point, makes all of their arguments from there.Imagine if I were to say that the sources that my opponent used in this debate are not reliable sources of accurate information? What if I further stated than ANY evolutionary website was not a source of accurate information? He would then have to use evolutionary websites to try and argue that they do provide accurate information, but since I've already decided they are false, his sources would have no affect on me.My opponent is doing this: Creationism is not true. Also, no Creationist websites are true. So, I cannot use any information from any creation website to prove him false. My opponent wins by default.It is not ICR that it is dishonest- it is my opponent. If he wants to debate Evolution vs Creation in a separate debate, allowing both of us to use sources from both our respective sites, and then debate over the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, then we can do that. However, my opponent cannot claim that ICR is not a source of accurate information, as they do provide accurate information based on a CREATIONIST perspective, which is what they claim to do.
the sun causes cancer

well hello mr challenger my name is buildthatwall and im about to humiliate u and ur whole family. so lemme start by saying the sun gives u cancer. cancer kills u. so my argument is that the sun has kikled many people ND SHOULD BE PIT TO DEATH. we should reinstitute the death p;enalty in this grest country and build a wall ANSD LET ME TELL U THE MEXICANS WILL PAY FOR THE WALLL. u might argue that th esun shouldn't be put to deaqth because it actually keeps us alive but that is actually untrue. I couls very easily live w/o the sun . I mean I dfo it everynight when the moon is out and I am still alive so beat that u downsy boy
the sun causes cancer

I will first address my opponent's opening Round before proceeding to counter his Round 2 arguments. "my argument is that any kind of exposure to the star closest to our planet, the sun, causes cancer. it is a fact that every person to every get cancer has been exposed to sun light in some way." This is false logic. As one can clearly observe, not every human that has been exposed to the sun's rays has gotten cancer. Yes, every person that has gotten cancer has been exposed, but not everyone who has been exposed has gotten cancer. Your argument is simply false. " stay inside kids and remember to build that wall." Wouldn't it make more sense to build a roof? "so my argument is that the sun has kikled many people ND SHOULD BE PIT TO DEATH" Wouldn't it make more sense to take a look at the positives of the Sun as well? I mean, I agree that planting several quadrillion tons of plastic explosives into the Sun and destroying it would certainly decrease the rate of skin cancer, however I hypothesize that the entire human race would go extinct within several days. "we should reinstitute the death p;enalty in this grest country and build a wall ANSD LET ME TELL U THE MEXICANS WILL PAY FOR THE WALLL." The death penalty is already instituted in this great country. Why Mexicans? It is known that extraterrestrial beings placed the Sun where it is, so shouldn't THEY pay for the wall between us and the Sun so that we don't all die of skin cancer? "I mean I dfo it everynight when the moon is out and I am still alive" What a silly argument, you're obviously still alive at night because the moon reflects the Sun's rays towards the Earth, so you're still exposed.
george bush is bad because of wars and he started it

You gave lots of totally unqualified information in your opening statement. I refute the entirety of your statement because all of your information is completely unsupported. You have offered no facts to support your so-called war for oil. You have offered no facts to support president Bush arming the Arabs. You have offered no facts. Ask yourself if this statement makes any sense at all, "he was the one who then said that theyve got weapons and attcked them so that they could get the oil from the country to become even more rich driving the arabs poor" Since when did buying oil from the Arabs make them poor. Last time I checked Saudi Arabia was a very rich nation. Iran has financed their nuclear program based on oil sales. If Bush attackded Iraq so we could have all this oil then why has the price of oil sky rocketed in the last 8 years? It's funny too that you would say that Bush bombed the second World trade center tower given that no credible source has given any information to qualify such an allegation. You have the burden of proof in this debate.