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

No, it's hard for me to debate if you dismiss medical evidence. What if I said that the Sun and all of the planets rotate around the Earth, that the Holocaust was a lie, and that the Egyptian empire never existed. I could say that the videos of the Earth rotating around the Sun are computer generated. I could dismiss the Holocaust testimony. I could say that the Rosetta Stone was a fake. I am not trying to say that any of these are true. I am not trying to insult anyone who went through the Holocaust. My point is that there is no good reason to reject the germ theory and that rejecting the evidence is silly.
There is no such things as viruses

I can see that I am dealing with someone who knows nothing about the subject matter at hand. You seem to be incapable of replying to previous statements and you continually want to change the subject or cause a disruption. I know all about Louis Pasteur the con-artist. He married to rector's daughter to gain power and authority over Antoine Bechamp who was his adversary. Antoine Bechamp was a real biologist while Pasteur was a meddling chemist who didn't understand biology and wanted all the glory of germ discovery for himself. Thus, he stole Bechamp's ideas but got them mixed up and misinterpreted his results. Also, there is no money to be made in Bechamp's theory of germs so he created a theory that would be profitable to chemists who could manufacture drugs to kill said "germs." But , alas, humanity had to suffer the consequences of this greed and malpractice for the next 150 years. Try to stay on topic and reply to my statements. I know this is difficult for you because you are trying to defend a bunch of murders and scoundrels.
There is no such things as viruses

You have ignored most of my previous post and not addressed the issues at hand. You are supposed to address my claims in a systematic and thorough manner, one item at a time. That's called debating. Issues not addressed - 1. You seem to be confused by definitions. A virus is a type of germ. Its called a sub-set. If you are going to discuss viruses you must also address germs in general as part of a logical discussion. By not discussing germs you would be ignoring vital evidence concerning the issues at hand. The point being, that viruses and germs are not responsible for people getting sick. Refer to Antoine Bechamp - "Germs are a result of a disease and are not the cause of it" 2. I have already tested the proximity concept of germ propagation. I have been in close proximity to sick people many times and didn't get their germs. It doesn't occur because of a things called biological barriers such as skin, digestive system and other internal defence mechanisms. The medical science nincompoops inject dead germs into people bypassing this natural defence system. Its called vaccination. This is a very dangerous thing to do. 3. Viruses are illogical things. They can't exist merely on a logic basis. Something which is not alive can't live. Viruses are said to be non-living replicating things. You can't replicate if you are not living. I used to work in a university microscope unit and never seen any viruses. You can't see something in an electron microscope unless you know where that something is first. Viruses are too small to see even with the aid of an electron microscope. The photos of viruses you see on the internet are just computer generated images or photos of hormones. Its funny how viruses always appear to form around pituitary glands. lol 4. The medical system is just a money making scam which is responsible for the unnecessary deaths and injury of millions of people every year.
There is no such things as viruses

I have been on a Paleo diet for about 12 months. During this time period I have had no illnesses, headaches, chest pains, stomach pains, blocked nose, flu symptoms and any other problems. Thus, the medical system that we live under is a complete fraud which is based on the false assumption that germs cause disease. The modern diet is completely wrong and leads to disease and illness. Dairy, grain, sugar, coffee and alcohol are all dangerous foods which cause blockages and malfunctions in the human body. If you can avoid these addictive substances you can avoid all diseases and cancer from occurring. Grain foods cause leaky gut syndrome which allows gut bacteria into the blood stream. Ebola and polio are caused by pesticides. HIV is caused by the gay lifestyle and possibly gut leakage due to bowel perforations. Thus, 99% of medical research and expenditure is a waste of time and money. All you need to stay disease free is a natural diet, which is a pre- agricultural diet. Most processed agricultural products will slowly kill you if you eat too many of them. Note - There are millions of people on the Paleo diet so don't say that there is no evidence to support my claims. You can test it yourself by going Paleo for 2 weeks and you will see immediate benefits. DDT for breakfast anybody?
We Should Have a Holocaust Every 10 Years

I believe that Jews we ought to have the Holocaust every 10 years. This way, we can get rid of overpopulation and global warming. As a bonus, there will be less annoying and evil people on the world. Who will be killed by this holocaust? Indians Blacks Mexicans Jews Fat people Diabetics Depressed people People with eating disorders Mentally or physically handicapped people Poor people Excessively rich people Anybody who doesn't believe in communism Muslims Hindus Single parents Orphans Redheads Ugly people This will, the world will go back into an age and polar bears will be saved.
Ron Paul 2012

Resolved: Ron Paul is the most reasonable republican presidential candidate. Ron Paul seems to me to be the most reasonable (and by many measures the most respectable) republican presidential candidate of 2012. He is honest in his debates. He doesn't make comments which are only motivated by the attempt to attract voters or appeal to his audience. He is realistic in his statements and is most serious about the issues at hand. He is very consistent with his views. He is reluctant to attack other candidates and he doesn't get his applause by relentlessly bashing Obama.
Minimum Wage should be abolished.

1. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. 2. Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage. 3. A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills. 4. Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices. 5. When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. 6. Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. 7. The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. 8. A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. 9. Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set. 10. The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally. 11. The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.
Minimum Wage should be abolished.

Alright so since my opponent has conceded this debate, I think it's only fair that I stop responding with tons and tons of arguments. There's nothing for me to respond to anyway. I mean I think it's really shady that there was such a "time issue" when he challenged me to this debate and plagerized in R1... so there was no time limit... (which btw I didn't ask for this debate, so that's complete nonsense), but whatever. Vote how you will and beware of plagerism in the future regardless of who you're versing. That's all :)
Minimum Wage should be abolished.

Remember: - If the minimum wage were abolished, companies would reduce their worker's compensation. Those who depend on that income would now be impoverished citizens. This would only lead to an increase in the dependency of programs like welfare, an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, and an increase in crime (i.e. drug dealing) for people who could not legally earn a reasonable living wage. This in turn would lead to more crowded prisons, an increase in taxes to sustain those prisons, etc. - Lower wages for workers will not mean lower prices for consumers. And even if the prices of SOME products dropped... say by $1... this would only benefit the middle and upper class; the lower class (who hold those minimum wage jobs) would not have any money to pump back into the economy. Ironically the lower class contains some of the biggest spenders, so this would overall be bad for the United States. - If people chose not to take on certain jobs because the wages were too low, illegal immigrants would take those jobs instead off-the-books... meaning more Americans out of work. - This would only be successful at making the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. However aren't the poor - earning only minimum wage - poor enough?!
Torture

1.Torture is to inflict severe pain on some non-consenting defenseless, but the purpose does not need to be, breaking their will, and the torture does not necessarily have to be mental or physical. 2.The level of morality within the torture is irrelevant because torture is not moral to begin with. 3.Torture cannot be justified as minimally, morally acceptable by saying it is "needed". 4.Yes, emergency cases that "call" for torture are for the better of the greater good, but once again that does not justify torture being minimally, or morally acceptable. Non-controversial: Premise 3 and 4 are not controversial because there is no way prove that some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable. Controversial: Premise 1 and 2 are controversial because what defines torture can be argued; there are various definitions.
Torture

Not everyone abides by the law, and not all laws are accepted or to be more specific, morally accepted. People protest laws every single day; Laws are changed, passed, and altered all of the time. What act may serve for the greater good does not make killing or torturing someone morally acceptable. However, killing and torturing someone can be justified. I still do not understand why you would compare death row and torture because they both entirely different things. With death row you are not breaking someone"s will; you are simply ending their life as a punishment for a crime that they committed. On the other hand, torture has a purpose in which you physically inflict pain in order to break a person"s will. Electrocuting someone in a chair to end their life is incomparable to torture; they are entirely difference. As stated of above, the two things have no correlation with one another. Just because it legal in some states for someone to be put on death row does not mean it is morally acceptable. Moreover, torture is not morally acceptable either. Comparing death row to torture is an invalid argument. Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are morally, minimally acceptable.
Torture

A law is something that everyone abides by, there for it is accepted. What makes it morally accepted or not depends on whether the outcome of the act serves for a greater good. Torture can be compare to the topic of death row because in torture the torturer has physical control over the victim"s body, e.g. the victim being strapped to a chair, and then the victim is then terrorized by means of the controlled use of physical suffering. Criminals on death row, legal in some states, are put in an electrical chair and then electrocuted. This sounds a lot like the means of torture. If a criminal can be put on death row then a criminal should not think they have the right to not be tortured. This is one example of how there are some cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Torture

Yes, I suppose torture being moral depends on the reasoning for the act. But, is killing ever moral? Maybe in some particular cases in the law it is justifiable, but that doesn"t mean it is moral. With torture you may live afterwards, but you can suffer from the horrible affects of torture later in your life; Such as damaged self-identity and a person"s autonomy. Torturing someone is never understandable because it is never moral. Arguing the topic of death row is irrelevant and incomparable to torture, so why bring it up in the first place? A law can be legal, but still be morally unacceptable. Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Torture

Torture being moral depends on the reasoning for the act. If killing is at some times moral then torture can be to, because unlike killing, you get to live your life afterwards. Law enforcement uses their gun all the time, so why is torture such worst? If you have to torture someone for information and the circumstances are understandable, then it should be okay. In some states death row is legal, although the two are incomparable, why would one be legal and the other be considered totally unmoral? Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
Torture

1.Torture is to inflict severe pain on some non-consenting defenseless, but the purpose does not need to be, breaking their will, and the torture does not necessarily have to be mental or physical. 2.Psychological forms of torture and ill-treatment have long-lasting effects, which very often have the most long-lasting consequences for victims, commonly include: isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions and witnessing the torture of others. The consequences listed are not examples of minimalist torture. 3.There are no acceptable cases of torture due to extreme emergencies because they are not minimally, morally acceptable. 4.Just as torture can be considered an effective form of punishment in some instances, it can also be considered ineffective. 5.Killing is not an effective form of punishment because ultimately the non-consenting defenseless is killed and the now purpose of the torture is null and void. 6.Morality is the distinction between what"s permissible and impermissible in respect to harm. 7.Killing ends someone"s life, while torture can just put a person"s life at stake, but killing and torture cannot be considered moral because torture ethically wrong, and what is ethical is moral. 8.There are no extreme emergencies where it is ever acceptable to torture someone. Even during an extreme emergency there are moral ways to go about saving an individual or a society at stake. 9.The level of morality is not dependent on what is at stake. The two are irrelevant from one another. If torture is being committed regardless of what is at stake, the morality level is negligent at that point. 10.Torture that is minimally, morally accepted does not come down to who is being more affected. By definition, minimalistic torture is dependent on the victim"s will being broken temporarily. 11.Yes, many individuals believed that torturing terrorist groups would lead to information about Al Qaida, but that does not mean the torture is minimally, morally acceptable. 12.The word acceptable, by definition is able to be agreed on; suitable. The term acceptable has nothing to do with tolerance or being approved by majority. 13.Whether torture is minimalist or maximalist, temporary or long-term, no form of torture is morally acceptable. 14.Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Torture

Torture is to inflict server pain on, either mentally or physically for the purpose of breaking their will. Psychological forms of torture and ill-treatment, which very often have the most long-lasting consequences for victims, commonly include: isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions, and witnessing the torture of others. Some cases of torture are due to extreme emergencies. Torture can be considered an effective form of punishment in some instances. Killing can be considered and effective form of punishment in some instances. Morality is the distinction between what"s permissible and impermissible in respect to harm. People consider some killing moral but contrary to killing, torture can sometimes be brief and one being tortured can live their life after, where as a person killed cannot. There are acts of extreme emergencies where it is acceptable to torture someone because the well being of another individual or society is at stake. The level of morality of torture depends on what"s at stake. Torture that is minimally, morally accepted comes down to who"s well being will be more greatly affected, the society as a whole, or the individual being tortured. Around 911, Many individuals thought to be in terrorist groups were tortured in hope to get information that could possibly lead to us knowing more information about the terrorist group Al Qaida, which would lead to provide justice for America. . What"s acceptable is what is tolerated and approved by majority. Therefore, there are some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
Gay Marriage

Greetings, I much appreciate your engagement in this topic and look forward to this debate. Allow me to bring upon the concept of liberty; by which is defined as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." I bring this definition up due to the fact that, while gay marriage does stir the emotions of those especially of particular homophobic religions (especially those of Islam), there is no direct effect heterosexuals are oppressed by with same-sex marriage. Henceforth, those against same-sex marriage declare it to be "immoral" under their own personal emotions, and not due to ethical concerns. I am pleased that you have brought up the concept of divorce. The Williams Institute has gathered data by which show only 11% of same-sex couples dissolve their legal relationships each year, which is lower than heterosexual legal relationships by 2%. The very same institute also states that those whom identify as homosexual only make up 3.5% of the United states population. Therefore; it can be reasonably argued that gay marriage would not bring a significant spike in divorce rates. In terms of Procreation, let the record show that we both agree that homosexuals cannot birth a child together. However, they can certainly adopt; the American Civil Liberties union makes special note of the fact that sexuality does not define one's ability to parent. In fact, if that argument were to be absent of fallacy then the same can be said for heterosexual couples; the SPCC reports that "there has been an increase in overall reporting, and confirmed child abuse cases increased from 679,000 in 2013 to 702,000 in 2014." Can you guess how many of those cases are from heterosexual couples? With homosexual couples adopting, we could more children going into homes rather than remaining stuck in government institutions. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://americanspcc.org... http://www.pewforum.org...
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a controversial issue that attracts numerous reactions from those advocating and those opposing the vise. The issue regarding whether lesbian and gay marriages attracts heated debate. In the societal setting, certain individuals believe that homosexuality is immoral while gay advocates believe that putting into consideration the sexual preferences of every individual is essential. To the latter group of people, lesbians and homosexuals should have similar civil rights, including marrying anybody, one wishes. This piece presents two sides of arguments regarding pros and cons of gay marriage. To begin with, advocates for gay marriage argue that denying a couple the right to marry any person of their choice regardless of their sexes is immoral since they are denied some of the basic right. This is because when an individual is unable to marry, there are certain rights that they cannot enjoy. Some of these rights, which only the married couples enjoy that include visitation rights when one partner is admitted in hospital, health care, social security and joint tax benefits. Sullivan asserts that nevertheless, the fight for equal rights does not essentially focus on the access to benefits only, but rather focus on ensuring that gay and lesbian couples proclaim their love and commitment to one another in a similar manner the heterosexual couples always enjoy. Gay marriage supporters believe that allowing same-sex marriages guarantees the couples some legal and economic security. Additionally, when the government encourages same-sex marriage, it is simply strengthening the relationship between couples. According to Rauch people against gay marriage affirm the act is immoral, and allowing gay marriages is likely to increase the divorce rates. Besides, those opposing same-sex marriage purport that gays and lesbians are likely to taint the long-standing practice within the institution marriage " that is marriage between different genders. A further argument presented by the proponents of gay marriage stems from the belief that the major purpose of marriage is procreation. Gay marriage does not support this belief; therefore, such couples should not marry. Indeed, homosexual couple"s home is not fit to raise children, even if they adopt a child. In conclusion, it is evident that gay marriage is immoral. However, both proponents and opponents argue to support their stands respectively. Same-sex marriages deny the couples certain basic rights, which the opposite sex marriages enjoy. Gay marriages do not offer a good environment for bringing up children while marriage between different sexes promotes the long-standing belief of the marriage institution " that is, different gender marriages.
4 year-old girls should be licked by adult men

"If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. " Ok, But it is not a crime. Parental control is the case. You want your child to cross the road and getting hit by a dump truck? No. As a parent it is your responsibility to say no and regulate his morality and safety. Also if parents are harassing the kid then it could be a crime, But if you just say the 4 yro girl wanted it then duh, Do you want her to be the person that everyone harasses? That would be a trouble. "We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. " We must teach ourselves and our children to protect their body, Not to be harassed. In fact, In some parts of the world, Licking a stranger girl is illegal. "Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. " so what about any other children? They don't worth "nothing" and licking isn't very mandatory. "Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. " Ok? Kisses do much better. Also we rather train our daughters as mill workers than princesses. " Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. " come on. I don't want to debate with a nerd like this. I don't know if this is a joke or not. Stop doing illegal things. This is america a free country, But consitution exists. We have laws against harassments, For parental controls, Child safety and anything related.