BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children have the right to freedom of religion.

Hi KJV! I do want to start off by stating that I respect your take on this issue and am in no way trying to sway you into believing what I'm proposing. Simply put, I would just like to take this opportunity to present my doubts and opinions regarding this matter to the audience and engage in meaningful discourse. Let's start! First off, the definition of the word "children" should be explicitly stated out so as to avoid further confusion later on into the debate (or discussion). According to The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is a human being under the age of 18 and this, in current societal convention, is a perfectly acceptable and even internationally recognized definition. This is where I will introduce my first substantive. Based on the definition that a "child" can be of any age below that of 18, I feel that not all children should have to right to the freedom of religion. This is because below the age of 18, most children aren't fully cognizant of the consequential impacts and the significance of their choices. The ignorance of children is recognized by countries all over the world and thus, it is common practice for governments to set legal ages for activities that require maturity such as voting, driving, and drinking alcohol (although it may be true that adults, at times, still make the wrong choices). Now, you might proceed to question: How is the act of choosing a religion a consequential one, or one that requires intellectual maturity? Before answering that question, let me take a step back. Religion in our current day and age is an extremely contentious topic due to the emergence of terrorist groups with radical (and more often than not, skewed) religious beliefs or philosophies. The most prominent example is that of ISIS, a group which believes in the ultra-puritanical interpretation of Islam and thus has an unconventional way of carrying out its duties. From this example, it can be said that the choice of religion can have significant impact on the future of an individual (not saying that any form of religion is necessarily "bad", this can be left for another debate). Therefore, returning back to the question, the choice of religion is indeed a decision which requires sufficient maturity and understanding of various religions as it affects the future of an individual. So, what is my take on this issue? I feel that the decision of religion should only be made official when a person is of age (18 years old) to, in society's eyes, make mature choices. P.S. Religion is a contentious issue and I'm terribly sorry if my argument in any way offended you!
The Earth Revolves Around the Sun

You make two claims. The first is an appeal to gravity, the force about which scientists are about the most ignorant. The second, an appeal to vision from space, supposedly at a vantage point from which the motion of the planets can be better observed. But firstly, while gravity may account for the planetary movements, it would do so even if the Earth were fixed. It's entirely possible that, while all of the other planets in the solar system revolve around the Sun, the sun itself revolves around the Earth, tugging all of the planets with it. Gravity would account for the movement, but it doesn't neccessarily dictate which object it is that is moving. Secondly, the vantage point from the space shuttle is still caught up in the movements its supposedly observing. The moon is simply not far enough away to clearly observe whether it is the sun or the moon which is moving. Hence, you have proven the following: Things move because of gravity. We can see them move from the space shuttle. You have not, however, given adequate cause to identify which object it is that is moving: The Earth or the Sun.
The Earth Revolves Around the Sun

An interesting topic, though I doubt that you've thought about it thoroughly. First, I give you an analogy to show how scientifically preposterous this notion is: "The earth orbits around a small pebble." Hopefully, you've figured out by now that I just lied to you. Assuming that our theories of gravitation are in fact correct (we're not debating gravity, so I'm assuming, reasonably, that you are not challenging it), the earth simply does not have enough gravitational potential to make something as massive as the sun orbit around it at the relative velocity between the two. Also, space shuttles for the win. I'm not sure if we HAVE made observations from far out in space of the earth-sun movement relationship, but in this 3rd person view, it would be entirely possible to disprove the... uh... terracentric model of the solar system. So yes, you CAN be proven wrong. Whether by applying known science or by making observations from a third person view. Probably more ways, but two is enough for now. Of course this depends on what level of evidence you consider 'proof.' It can be said that we don't know anything at all due to the fact that we could have been mistaken about our own observations. If that was your case, though, I expect that you would have already stated that. I'll leave it at that for now. I await your reply.
The Earth Revolves Around the Sun

It simply cannot be proven that the Earth revolves the Sun. We may chart the projectories of what we perceive the movement of the Earth and the Sun and the other planets to be. But from Earth, we are locked into a fixed point of perception, so that we cannot properly identify the movement of objects, except in relation to ourselves. Hence, we can tell that the distance between the Earth and the Sun increases or decreases in certain patterns, but from this, we may only infer that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and we cannot matter-of-factly prove it. We cannot actually tell whether it is the Earth or the Sun which is moving. Moreover, there are no direct external clues. When you move your hand you can observe the motion of the air which your hand moves through. But when the earth supposedly moves, there is nothing immediately surrounding the Earth which reacts to the motion. Hence, there are no indicators of movement. The only evidence which we have to indicate that the Earth revolves around the sun is a projectory of planetary movements. But there could be other causes for these movements which do not involve the centrality of the Sun. ((Note: Flexing the debate muscle, of course I know the Earth revolves around the sun.))
Sex Education should be taught in public schools.

If I can show that all of my opponents points are invalid I win the round insofar as the fact that he has not met his burden of showing that sex education should be taught in schools. I. A bias free education is the right of every child, including sex education especially since virtually 100% of them will use it, even in marriage. Community needs to be bias on certain issues. If we were to teach without any unbias, we would be teaching kids to do the following: 1. How to rape 2. Why smoking is good 3. Do drugs 4. Become Anorexic 5. Surpass the brink of obesity All these things are good from the perspective of the person doing them and under my opponents logic of teaching to an unbias standardw e would teach kids all of these things. II. To not teach sex education would be harmful to students Yes, thats what your supposed to argue. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TELL WHY. III. The facts should be taught in school, morals should be taught at home because morals differ from family to family. Some families may morally feel teaching sex education is bad.
Sex Education should be taught in public schools.

I think that the title basically speaks for itself as well as the definitions. So on with my opening. Contentions: I. A bias free education is the right of every child, including sex education especially since virtually 100% of them will use it, even in marriage. II. To not teach sex education would be harmful to students III. The facts should be taught in school, morals should be taught at home because morals differ from family to family.
Germs don't cause disease

1) All degrees have long studying hours. so many jobs such as executives, truck drivers and power plant workers have longer working hours than Doctors. Doctors have social lives too and are social, they have to be since you have to be able to talk to people about there conditions such as GP's. you need sugars to Survive so you cannot avoid them. 2) If germs arn't real why do we have a immune system? It makes no sense, If germs don't cause disease then how does the immune system work. Unless you are saying that scientists made that up too. 3)Animals have different stomachs and bodily functions. Dogs drink pond water and don't get sick but when we do we will get ill. 4) John snow still managed to prevent so many deaths regardless whether his theory was correct or not, so thank to him for contributing to science and saving lives. 5)There are good bacterias and there are bad bacteria. There are so many different types and they will all have different effects. IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH. MUST READ-VITAL You have forgot about the most important thing in the body.The immune system. Our immune system cannot defend from chemicals, so why do we have it? we have it to kill pathogens which are germs. Bad illnesses such as Aids weekend our immune system greatly, so germs and pathogens get in. This is why we get ill when we have these diseases. Blood had white antibodies which clearly defend agains germs. If germs are not harmless why would your white blood cells defend against it. You also have platelets which are basically scabs. they stop germs from coming in. You are also suggesting they 90 percent of medication is completely faulty and doesn't work. If your statements are correct about germs not being harmful and cholera not actually affecting you. You have the answers to all of life's problems. so your saying if we clean up the environment and not eat bad foods we will live until we are old or have cancer. If it were that simple the world would be saved.But the world isn't saved so your statements are false.
Germs don't cause disease

1) Doctors do have the image as 'little hero soldiers' because they save lives. Its as simple as that. Also the reason why there anr't enough Doctors is because not a lot of people do medicine or are even smart enough to become a Doctor. Being a Doctor comes with a lot of things many people can't do, such as handling large amounts of pressure, working late nights on call and thinking in different ways. 2)I Have clearly demonstrated that cholera can pass through the gut and take over your body. If not how do you explain how people get cholera, it isn't just an unknown cause. People have done hard research and in some cases prevent it. If it wasn't a bug or germs wouldn't there be many more cases and with it being unstopable. 3) Hypathetically say that the board street pump was not how cholera was spread how do you explain the Eleven cholera cases recorded in Lusaka. This only happened on the 9th of october and at the bottom it says "A combined team of officers from DMMU and Ministry of Health have been dispatched in affected compounds to ensure that people access clean water for domestic use," https://www.lusakatimes.com... See that it says' CLEAN water' where the bug is spread much like the pump on board street. Yemen has hundreds of thousands of cholera cases https://www.reuters.com... and in quotations it mentions "The disease, spread by ingestion of food or water tainted with human faeces, can kill within hours if untreated. It has been largely eradicated in developed countries equipped with sanitation systems and water treatment." It mentions again water like in broad street. 4) How was John snow a criminal? He saved so many lives. So you are saying Obama , Malala Yousafzai and Thomas Schelling were criminals as-well. 5) Where do you get you energy from? Glucose which is a simple sugar. Also all carbohydrates break down into simple sugars. so you are saying we should avoid bread, potato, pasta literally what a third of our diet consist of.Another thing to mention is that The equation for respiration is GLUCOSE +OXYGEN-----> CARBON DIOXIDE+ WATER+ENERGY you literally need to eat sugars to survive. Dairy is a source of protein which our bones need but I understand that we can get the recourses from things such a fish. 6) Virus clearly exist https://en.wikipedia.org... they are infectious agents which replicate and infect the body. Fresh poo can harm you. Poo is the bodies way of getting the things you don't want and need in your system out of you. So why would you want it back into your body in a more prone to disease area.
Germs don't cause disease

1. Well, of course, doctors have to keep up their image as 'little hero soldiers of medicine' working long hard hours to save mankind. But this is just a myth. The truth is that the medical system recruits less doctors than are required so that doctors are always in short supply and can thus charge outrageous rates for their services. More corruption and deception in other words. 2. Why should we trust Professor Pettenkofer? I have clearly demonstrated that he was right about cholera being a harmless bacteria. He an other people have swallowed cholera bacteria and had no severe effects as should be expected. Thus, the concept that germs cause disease and death are false. Note - It only takes one successful experiment to disprove a theory. Note - Modern equipment and facilities are useless in trying to prove a faulty concept to be correct. If a theory is wrong, then all the modern equipment in the world can't prove it right. 3. The Broad Street Pump. The data from John Snow's research is faulty. It assumes that germs are the cause of disease, which is a false assumption. This is where the concept of a disease slowly spreading from a central point was first conceived. The dot matrix diagrams which he drew show that the disease is spreading from a central point. This central point was the Broad Street pump. Thus, it was assumed that the disease came from this pump. Where did he go wrong then? The sewerage systems of this city was appalling at the time. Sewerage water was leaking into the water table system and was contaminating the well water. Note - I have already stated previously that fresh poo is harmless and that it is only rotten food and poo that can harm your health. It is not the bacteria in the food or poo that is the danger. It is the rotten protein that is poisonous. John Snow won a Nobel Prize. So what, plenty of other criminals have won a Nobel Prizes too. The Nobel Prize was originated by Mr Nobel who invented dynamite. Dynamite killed millions of people, so Mr Nobel felt guilty about that, so he created a prize for other criminals like himself, so that they wouldn't feel guilty too. Dairy, grain and sugar make you strong? Sorry, but these products don't contain and useful vitamins that the human body can use. These products will cause vitamin depletion because the digestive system needs to add vitamins to these products in order to digest them. You can eat a small amount of these products without getting sick. The human body is very forgiving and will allow a certain amount of rubbish to enter the body. Once the limit has been exceeded - (about 10 - 20 % intake) the human body will start to malfunction and you will get sick. This may be called a flu virus attack by the medical system. They will most likely recommend that you get your flu shots to prevent the nasty 'flu viruses' from getting at you. lol Note - There is no such thing as a virus - see my other previous debates on this issue.
Germs don't cause disease

First have you heard of the NHS? You would think that doctors always want to earn so much money. well how many doctors do you know personally, I can guarantee I know way more than you. Most of them don't care so much about money other wise they would work overtime earning 300 pounds an hour. On the other hand why should we trust a professor over 100 years ago when modern-day scientist and doctors have far more advanced tools. Your statement about the cholera not being in the broad street pump. look at these links: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.atlasobscura.com... http://www.ph.ucla.edu... John snow also won a Nobel prize for his work unlike Pattenkofer My last point is that is you don't eat dairy, grains and sugar you become week and malnourished. And I also explained completely about how bacteria multiply and take over the body. read my round 2 explanation.
Germs don't cause disease

1. Oh, I see you are planning on becoming a doctor. First you must realize that you are entering a gangster organization called the medical fraternity. They will do whatever it takes to preserve their high status and incomes. They make a living by conning people into believing that they can cure ailments. They use dangerous chemicals to kill germs in the body which they falsely believe is the cause of disease. This is essentially a criminal act. 2. Professor Pettenkofer was a highly respected chemist and biologist. (Full article below) - https://jamanetwork.com... 3. In the old days pump water used to get mixed with sewerage water, dead rats, dead fish and other items would contaminate the water because they didn't have any filtering devices. This is the true cause of disease. Cholera by itself was proven to be harmless by Professor von Pettenkofer. (See article above.) 4. Bacteria are harmless if they stay in the gut where they belong. Now, if somebody eats foods which cause irritation to the bowel such as dairy, grain and sugar. Then, this will open the walls of the bowel and allow the bacteria to enter the blood stream. If somebody doesn't eat enough fibre, then the food will stay in the gut too long and become toxic. Thus, the bacteria are only a result of a disease and are not the cause of the disease. This was proven by Antoine Bechamp who was Luis Pasteur's competitor in his famous (infamous) germ theory. https://www.naturalnews.com...
Germs don't cause disease

first of all you have provided me with an unreliable source from an unknown website. I would just like to mention that I am 16 years old and aspiring to become a Doctor and I have so many different ways to exsplain why you are wrong. First your point about the poo already being in your body. yes it is already in your body but it is in your large intestines not your stomach and the way it gets to your stomach is by it going through your mouth. To avoid this you need to wash your hands after doing a poo. Once it is in your stomach it will be able to enter your body much more easily and get into your blood stream. So that was about the bacteria entering your body now I am going to explain how it will make you ill and give you a disease. So when the Bacteria/ germs enter your blood stream your white blood cells will try to fight it of. If this works then you are fine but if It doesn't the bacteria double in size after a set amount of Time. With so many colonies of bacteria the bacteria starts to use up your sources such as glucose, oxygen and necessary things for life. This makes you ill because you will have no energy, your temperature will go up because you want your antibodies to work faster and in more serious cases you will struggle to breath.This is a clear explanation on how Germs cause illnesses and diseases. You mentioned that Professor Pettenkofer swallowed a glass of cholera. Well first, explain to me how John Snow prevented Cholera in 1854 from restricting access to the board street pumps water. It wasn't just a miracle. I will now explain to you the science behind being infected by cholera. When cholera gets into your Body's it enters the gut. Our immune system usually cannot defend agains these micro organisms, it then completely takes over. It turns the body into the ideal conditions for that particular organism. The body will change its living conditions so the bacteria is at its optimum and will restrict bodily functions from happening, such as the small intestines absorbing water which causes diarrhoea. cholera will have completely taken over the body and you would eventually die. My last point is about a fairly new discovery and it is about some pathogens being nearly identical to your bodies cells. So when these mimics enter your body ,your body won't see them as foreign and ignore them overtime. But once they do they will start attacking them. The problem is that since they are near copies to your own cells your antibodies will start attacking your own cells. And as you can see it is quite a problem. This information was given to me from a Medical consultant which specialises in gastroenterology.
Germs don't cause disease

The concept that bacteria in poo can kill you is ridiculous. Mainly because everybody has plenty of poo already in their bodies and its not doing them any harm. Therefore, how can eating poo cause any harm? The reality is that poo normally doesn't cause any harm. But poo is made of more than just bacteria. Poo is made mostly of rotten proteins. These proteins can become toxic and give off ammonia gas which is a deadly gas and can kill you fast. Normally, proteins are excreted before they become too toxic. Thus, if you eat a poo that has been sitting in the toilet for a few days then this poo will contain plenty of ammonia causing protein. Thus, its the toxic chemicals that will kill you and not the bacteria. Bacteria are just harmless scavengers which aid digestion. If you don't have any bacteria in your gut you will starve to death because you need bacteria to breakdown the food that you digest. Professor Pettenkofer swallows a glass of Cholerae bacteria and survives without getting sick. During his career Koch identified and isolated a large number of bacterial strains and was a supporter of the theory that these germs were the main causes of disease. This placed him at odds with Pettenkofer's broader approach to disease that involved many other environmental factors in addition to the activity of the germ of a disease.[6] The two scientists conflicted most notably over the subject of cholera. In one specific case, Pettenkofer obtained bouillon laced with a large dose of Vibrio cholerae bacteria from Robert Koch, the proponent of the theory that the bacteria was the sole cause of the disease. He consumed the bouillon in a self-test in the presence of several witnesses on 7 October 1892. He also took bicarbonate of soda to neutralise his stomach acid to counter a suggestion by Koch that the acid could kill the bacteria. Pettenkofer suffered mild symptoms for nearly a week but claimed these were not associated with cholera. http://www.healingourchildren.net... https://www.naturalnews.com...
Germs don't cause disease

You are going on about how fecal infection is not effecting illness but clearly it does. During the medieval times all the way to the 19th century there is clear evidence of human waste effected the poor and rich. During the medieval and renassiance times, open sewers were normal and not thought off until diseases took lives. The government band open sewers and pouring waste into the street this act alone saved thousands of lives in an instant. Therefore showing that human waste is directly linked to disease. Although this was a long time ago there is another link and this was Florence Nightingale, Nightingale had Cleaned up hospitals amazingly and one of the big factors that she had cleaned was the exposed waste of the human body. Infection have a direct link to poo since poo contains germs which enter the body via open wounds or your mouth when eating.