BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeopathy and Alternative medicines do not work

First of all, it is not my BELIEF that the results shown are due to a placebo effect. It has been proven by respected scientists. A quick Wikipedia search will tell the tale, and you have more than enough good references: Quote: "The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are not only scientifically implausible[21][25][26][27] but precluded by the laws of physics.[28]" I admit I used the word believe wrongly at the beginning. What I meant to say is that I trust today's scientific community's methods of research and if they have proved that homeopathy is quackery, I have no reason to say they are not correct. Now coming back to the real topic, you see that it is not my belief and that systematic tests by the scientific community have proved that homeopathy is nothing but nonsense. I think its safe to accept the results of the scientific community, don't you think so?
Homeopathy and Alternative medicines do not work

You have contradicted yourself. First you classify the idea that alternative medicines not working as a belief. Then, you claim that they do not have a scientific basis - while admitting there are results. Then you resort back to your "belief" that any scientific results are due to a placebo effect! Science is based on physical observation. It is scientific fact that exercise contributes to greater good health. One of the effects is stress relief. Now although this is caused by a internal chemical reaction, it is not observed by the exerciser. Just because exercise makes people relaxed as a whole, it does not predict whether this person being relaxed is due to exercising or some outside "placebo effect". Similarly, since there are results of alternative medicine working. You cannot jump to a conclusion that it is due to a placebo effect without proper testing.
blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

"Ok thats all good and what not. Now readers please compare the window in his link, to the window of the command module that the actual astronauts were really in. 8:20 on my video." Maybe I should ask if you have watched it. :P 8:20: http://img256.imageshack.us... Nope, nothing to write about there. 8:32 has the clearest window shot. http://img222.imageshack.us... Clear evidence of omg it's a different window? Not at all. http://cache4.asset-cache.net... Since you wondered about a small round window. http://www.billzilla.org... "Actually if you start the video at 8:15 you can see him holding this light. This helps us esablishe that they were NOT fillinf up the window with the camera as you and Neil state." No *you* see *a* light source, clearly there are others other than a camera given the light rises before you see the camera itself. If it's not that specific light there are of course others - the module clearly wouldn't of been designed without interior lights. :P "Compare the earths location? with what? You can see were the earth is, through the window. NOTICE, notice my friends, how bright the light is shining through that perfectly round window. That is not the light from the earth 130,000 miles out, that is the earth from a couple hundred miles out." Bright light indeed. Perfectly round? Good luck from that quality of footage, seems adequate given the module design. I wasn't aware the Earth reflected so much brightness. Compare: http://img177.imageshack.us... to http://www.nhghosts.com... to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... and http://chamorrobible.org... Sure the Earth is blue, it doesn't generate nearly as much bright reflective quality as your smoking gun however. "No sir, what you see is the bright earth light through a small circular window, not a big square window, it is being blocked by nothing except Buzz for a moment." See above, and various module shots. "Link" I see the notorious Sibrel's name again. You still failed to answer why he would doctor evidence of the supposed hoax. Let's have a look then. Professional opinion list in favour for the hoax: Hoax specialists Our Mr Sibrel A lone self confirmed conspiracy theorist self proclaimed physicist (he apparently forgot to graduate from a University). Apparently you still don't read your sources, since it includes a list of refutations at the bottom. Remember if the evidence, physics, science, was on your side, you'd find copious amounts of support for it in the literature. Instead you are left with a hack list of conspirators. Conspirators without any of the required 100s or 1000s of individuals needed to propagate it in support. However no fear, NASA does the math for you! spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf And here are some more: http://www.wwheaton.com... "p.s. i will believe that we went to the moon if you can show me the footage, besides apollo 11. good luck you wont find it" Apollo 14 footage added. http://www.youtube.com... == :)
blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

Hmn... I see 1. You tell our readers to compare this command module in your Nasm.si.edu link, to your first link. Ok thats all good and what not. Now readers please compare the window in his link, to the window of the command module that the actual astronauts were really in. 8:20 on my video. Need i even say more? Your link is lying bottom line! I don't understand why i even had to say this a second time, i thought you would acknowledge that, not defend it. You keep accusing me of some sort of technique, but again, it is you using the technique if anything. Lolz <<"There shots are taken du[r]ing the live broadcast, shortly after the crew tell Houston they have moved the camera back from the Window. The light to the left in the images is the interior spotlight.We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image. Again we can see the Earth blocked by the window frame">> The left light in the left in the images is the interior spotlight you say. That light is used to see the camera controls. but not cast light on the spacecrafts walls. Actually if you start the video at 8:15 you can see him holding this light. This helps us esablishe that they were NOT fillinf up the window with the camera as you and Neil state. "We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image." Compare the earths location? with what? You can see were the earth is, through the window. NOTICE, notice my friends, how bright the light is shining through that perfectly round window. That is not the light from the earth 130,000 miles out, that is the earth from a couple hundred miles out. "again we can see the earth blocked by the window frame".... No sir, what you see is the bright earth light through a small circular window, not a big square window, it is being blocked by nothing except Buzz for a moment. I hereby make this part of my argument UN-DISPUTABLE. They were faking their mission, and lying. And here is the footage of it right up top. here's a good link for the Van Allen thing. http://www.bigmantra.com... I am going to rest my case here. Hopefully no biased opinions will show in the voting (yea right). Anyway have a good thanksgiving, and don't be fooled :) p.s. i will believe that we went to the moon if you can show me the footage, besides apollo 11. good luck you wont find it
blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

"Ok first I realize what i have said are claims... yes (good claims at that :)." Claims are neutral, it's the evaluation of evidence relating to them that constitutes them as being good or bad. No evidence =/= a good claim. "But hey this is a three round debate, maybe i'll sight my resources in this round, maybe i wont. Also, I am not playing any "creationist games" with you, and yes bro, there is a sufficient amount of space to try and debunk the claims I am making, I am not using a tactic, ha, if anything you are." I only responded to your chosen method: list of claims without evidence. It's not my fault if you share qualities with some creationists. ;) "Ehhh anyway, all that stuff about.. Van allen radiation belt, or key deaths, and the attitudes of the astronauts... I don't even need to talk about or prove (I will) these claims." If you don't wish to pursue, I'm sure the readers will understand. :) I will eagerly await this evidence however. "Uh ok... only gave ya one video. Did you even watch that video? I doubt it, i looked at your link." Yup, watched the video.. "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled by this.. low trick. That is absolutely 100% not the real window." "When the light is turned on and you see, undisputedly , the real window, which is a small round window, not a big square window like you link shows." http://www.nasm.si.edu... Command module. Check the windows. Compare to: http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org... From my link: "The capsule Window reveals the truth, no cut out, no transparency." This is the series from your 8:20. "There shots are taken duing the live broadcast, shortly after the crew tell Houston they have moved the camera back from the Window. The light to the left in the images is the interior spotlight. We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image. Again we can see the Earth blocked by the window frame" The supposed 'slip up' showing the earth. http://img340.imageshack.us... The earth appearing in a bedroom, eep! http://www.nhghosts.com... Scary stuff. No? Of course not, because it's an artifact of light reflecting off a mirroring surface. Notice it also holds that 'behind the window' quality due to it being a reflection. The link also disputes the requirements for a 'fake' cutout. See the cloud formations, issues with recession, maintaining a low orbit. :) Refer to R1 for the dubious editor and the link to what was dubiously edited.
blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

Ok first I realize what i have said are claims... yes (good claims at that :). But hey this is a three round debate, maybe i'll sight my resources in this round, maybe i wont. Also, I am not playing any "creationist games" with you, and yes bro, there is a sufficient amount of space to try and debunk the claims I am making, I am not using a tactic, ha, if anything you are. Ehhh anyway, all that stuff about.. Van allen radiation belt, or key deaths, and the attitudes of the astronauts... I don't even need to talk about or prove (I will) these claims. I want the talk about the smoking gun.... <<"I am expected to refute multiple 10 minute videos in a debate that has a character limit format. I will deal with the first video, that's easy, any more constitute as laziness at best, abuse of the format at worse. If you have no evidence other than you-tube videos, then start researching".>> Uh ok... only gave ya one video. Did you even watch that video? I doubt it, i looked at your link. This link you provide, is very easy to debunk. Basically what this link says, is that it was not an astronauts arm, it was a windows edge. The link even goes as far to show you "actual" pictures of the window, that was able to catch a shot of the earth from "130,000 miles out." as neil armstrong claims in my video. Here is the picture of the window the link claims is in the space craft. http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org... Ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled by this.. low trick. That is absolutely 100% not the real window. The real window is shown on 8:20 in my video. When the light is turned on and you see, undisputedly , the real window, which is a small round window, not a big square window like you link shows. Who do you see in the picture? Our moon boy Big bad Buzz Aldrin. Hahaha clever clever these people are, but low.... may reason prevail! This video that I have provided was never meant to see our eyes. Because it establishes conclusively, the astronauts faking their mission and lying. "We got the window completely filled up with the camera." Says Mr. Neil Armstrong. OH? do ya? Thats strange because when you turned on the lights we saw how far you really were from the window. The fake crescent.. It was inserted, we all saw it on my video if you took the time to watch it. They first show the earth without one, then inserted one. Your link lied, My video shows them faking their mission in broad daylight. Nuff said
The Death Penalty

Debate SettingsNo Character Limit, because of this Google docs is not a violation of conduct.72 Hour argument time14 Day VotingOpponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debate and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a commentComplete TopicThe the Death Penalty is an acceptable form of punishmentNote: Contender is debating against the death penaltyTermsThe Death Penalty the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. syn: Capital PunishmentIn the context of this debate we not focus on the lethal injection, just capital punishment as a wholeRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debateDebate FormatR1: Con AcceptsR2: Pro Arguments.
Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

Okay. So your argument is a sham. No better way to put it. You say that woman favor men who adopt a holistic dating strategy. But all the factors you name have nothing to do with strategy, They're physical attributes. So now you've moved the goalpost. Then you make a false comparison and say that specifically skilled people like athletes, Musicians, Etc. Also fall into the category of generally attractive. But it's not a fair comparison. You're comparing inherent qualities with a skill. That is not what your argument is suppose to be. You are suppose to be comparing a holistic strategy to a singular one. That means all of those attributes you mentioned are non sequiturs to the argument. So now you got to pick a boat to be in. If you're arguing for physical attributes, Then you're not allowed to use strategies, If you pick strategies, You are not allowed to pick attributes. Furthermore, Everything you've said up until now are merely baseless assertions. Even if they are quotes, That just makes them somebody else's opinions. I see no hard data to support what you're saying. Unless you can give me hard data to back it up, Then you really don't have sources, You just have more opinions. Who told you that autistic people can't get dates? I have no data for this, But that has not been my experience. I know two autistic people who had girlfriends longer than me for a while. I'm not really arguing this point, Because it's a non sequitur to the rest of the debate, But I just wanted to bring that up as a side note. Your killswitch examples are not good. Your scenario only drives the woman away because it's a "bad smell" But what about a neutral smell? What a about being indifferent instead of angry? Those guys could not have a holistic set of attributes and still get dates just as easily, So this blows your theory out of the water. My main point is simple. There are factors that lead to how a woman chooses their mate. However, Since attraction is a subjective thing, It is not possible to know what "the big secret" is to dating. If science knew this secret, Everybody would be bumping and grinding right now. Pro's points are mostly good, Except for the fact that pro states them as proven facts, When in fact, They are probabilistic assessment. Furthermore, Pro did not use proper comparison and therefore the structure of pro's methodology is flawed from the ground up and Pro will need to restructure Pro's argument or it is useless. Your Floor.
Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

My sources have to go in the comment section to prevent glitching. So that rule is gone. Semantics are good thing. That rule is gone. Don't know what lawyering is, But if it's you telling me I can't make good arguments, That's out the window too. My rule: No making rules that restrict a debaters access to sound arguments. If any rule you make does not comply with this rule, It's thrown out. I'm all for good conduct, But goal tending is not okay. I'm not accusing your of goal tending, I'm just forewarning you. I reject the no new arguments because a rebuttal may lead to a new argument. Every point made, Including rebuttals are arguments. I am clear that you have the burden of proof. That means I don't have to make any direct claims, But rather post counterpoints to your claim. Lets do this.
Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

Resolution: Women are more attracted to men who have adopted a holistic dating strategy than men who are excellent at one specific thing. Rules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, Trolling, Or lawyering. Rounds:(1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments. (4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments. Definitions: Holistic - focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his lifeBurden of Proof: I have the burden of proof.
9/11 was an inside job done by the government of the United States of America.

Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not. "As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles." Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that. "After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video." You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing. "Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..." I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory. Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory. "where is the Plane?" Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after. "The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge." Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too? "http://archives.cnn.com...... Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? " The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet. "The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive." The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive? Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that. You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement. Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument.
9/11 was an inside job done by the government of the United States of America.

I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up. 9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it. Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question: If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for?
cats are better pets to have then dogs

Definitions-Dog: a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, bred in many varieties [1]Cat: a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties [2] Better: of superior quality or excellence [3]Pet: any domesticated or tamed animal that is kept as a companion and cared for affectionately [4] BOP- I, Pro, will be arguing that cats are better pets than dogs. My opponent, Con, will be arguing that dogs are better pets than cats. With that all said, I wish my opponent luck in the following rounds. Sources-[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...