BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gene Therapy (Use)

Gene therapy is the only way to completely cure a genetic disorder. gtherapy.co.uk states that "The most important factor in the development o gene therapy is the fact that, for genetic disorders, there is only one way to cure the disease - replacing the defective gene with a healthy copy - and therefore gene therapy is the only hope of finding cures for such disorders." Also, from ndsu.edu, I got that gene therapy done in the germ-line of the body will treat both the patient and his/her reproductive cells, causing any offspring the patient has to have no chance of the disease. This can cause massive reductions in the number of people that have the disease, possibly even eradicating it if enough people are treated. This would be a major benefit for people with hemophilia or other serious genetic disorders. Why would people want to have this technology taken away when it could provide countless resolutions to previously incurable diseases? Finally, gene therapy is the way to have a complete cure. Alternatives such as protein therapy do provide the same result, but not with the completeness and absoluteness of gene therapy. Protein therapy involves directly inputting a correct form of the malfunctioning protein into the cells, causing the disorder to subside, but the proteins do eventually have to be replaced, causing the patient to have to have a routine of getting protein injections, whereas gene therapy is a one time thing that can even erase the disorder from a patient's future gene pool. This information was gathered from nanowerk.com. gtherapy.co.uk/pros-and-cons ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/student98/fleck.htm nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=14262.php
Gene Therapy (Use)

Being a relatively new area in medical research, the current knowledge of gene therapy is not enough to consider it safe and effective. There have been many nightmare cases in which gene therapy created new symptoms and ultimately resulted in the death of people. Some cancers and disorders are just not able to be cured through this. Although short term, drug therapy is a tried and tested method and therefore is deemed safer. The way gene therapy works is that a virus with the correct and non-defective genes is injected into this person (1). This in itself is a major problem. The virus, in many cases, would be rejected by the body because it would be detected as a foreign body. Once rejected, the body will fight it off more aggressive next time and all of the times after that. This calls in to question the true effectiveness of gene therapy. Another alternative and rarely used type of gene therapy is using naked DNA. Not only could it be attacked, but its ability to rapidly divide uncontrollably would cause more problems then without it. There was a story about a boy named Jesse Gelinger. He suffered from a rare metabolic disorder called OTC, or ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. He had to take 32 drugs daily for this disorder. He felt miserable until he heard about this "cure-all" gene therapy. He was quoted as telling his friend, "What's the worst that could happen?" after he had decided to undergo gene therapy. Indeed, the worst did happen. He went through an extreme inflammatory reaction in response to the vectors he received, and developed jaundice and a blood-clotting disorder, eventually leading kidney, lungs, and brain lose function. (2) All in all, gene therapy is not the completely safe and effective "cure -all" procedure that it is twisted to be. (1)http://www.gtherapy.co.uk... (2) http://www.gene.ch...
Gene Therapy (Use)

I read the article you sourced your information off of. The lifetime cost of the treatment is due to the patients losing the cells that are treated with the gene therapy and monitoring costs for the patient. If the technology were to advance, the viruses could be directed to target the stem cells of certain organs, discarding the need to re-inject treatment into the patient after an amount of time. This would reduce the cost of the procedure and allow lower class people to have access to it. About the split gene therapy could create between the rich and the poor, many current procedures already cause this. Low class people cannot afford treatment for cancer, whereas upper class can; rich people can pay for expensive surgeries, both life saving and cosmetic, that poor cannot. The price may drive some away from it, but in a world of natural selection, the rich will live on anyway, while the poor will die. This is the ugly truth, and so measurements should be taken based off of this. As for the abuse, yes it can happen, but there is abuse in everything, and law enforcement was founded to take care of things like this.
Gene Therapy (Use)

In reference to your statement that you made that," I highly doubt a process as powerful as this would go unregulated in today's world," wouldn't you agree that drugs are very powerful in this world? If so, aren't illegal drugs still widely used and abused regardless of the regulations? So it would not be far fetched to say that gene therapy may be regulated, but would still be abused. Also, what is to be considered "normal"? I have noticed that a big issue has failed to be brought up, and this is financial implications. A recently released Hemophilia B gene therapy procedure costs an excess of $300,000 a year, leading to over $20 million a lifetime (1). How would anybody be able to use these procedures unless they were very wealthy. Also, if the wealthy are the only ones with access to this procedure, it will create a bigger separation between economic and social status. The wealthy would be able to enhance all of their basic traits, leading to a take over of the rich. This world is survival of the fittest, and in this case, the wealthy could be disease or sickness free versus the poor, who wouldn't have access to this procedure at all. Only the rich would survive creating an extreme separation between classes. With potential risks and a very high price, is gene therapy really worth it? Sure it may do all of these things, but in reality, how effective would it be if only the wealthy have access to it? The high price makes it so that normal everyday people wouldn't have access to it. You previously said that gene therapy could rid the world of disease, but at what cost? If we were to try to eradicate diseases, sicknesses, and disorders from everybody in the world, how would we come up with the money? That would mean $300,000 a year for some people who can barely pay for their bills and food, let alone their children! Gene therapy may seem like a good idea for some, but due to the sheer price of it, it is not effective, as the number of people with access to it is very little. (1) http://www.nytimes.com...
Wolves are supposed to go extinct

Let me try clarifying my point a little better. I think that wolves are going to go extinct due to natural selection in the same way Neanderthals have gone extinct. Neanderthals have evolved into a weaker but stronger race, Humans. Scientists say that Neanderthals and Humans lived at one point at the same time. Neanderthals soon went extinct as Humans, The evolved smarter race, Went on. I think of the wolves situation being similar to the Neanderthal situation as they will soon go extinct while dogs, The smarter evolved wolves, Will last. Basically, I am saying that I think it's the same scenario as Humans and Neanderthals but with Dogs and Wolves.
Wolves are supposed to go extinct

Wolves are threatened, But they are not going to be wiped off the earth any time soon. They are not yet extinct and the supposition that they are "supposed" to go extinct shows that there is a false sense of urgency and importance for there to be no wolves left on this planet. Your definition of natural evolution is misleading. Evolution is the change/adaptation of species to suit change in the natural environment making them more likely to survive, Not go extinct. The reason wolves are threatened is because they are not protected under the endangered species act. This is because if a wolf endangers farmers or their livestock they have every right to kill it. Due to this, The number of wolves being killed goes up and the wolf population decreases. If wolves do go extinct, Humans are to blame. I feel that when you say "natural evolution" you where trying to say that it (the extinction of wolves) is inevitable. This is neither provable nor is it probable. In spite of this, Not all species of wolves are endangered, Only a few gray wolf species, The others are threatened but not likely to go extinct soon as there are approximately 150, 000 wolves in the world.
Poetry Debate

So answers to my poem: 1. Exactly, what my poem is about is that I am tired of people blaming time for their problems and that they should just enjoy it while it lasts. Maybe they don't realize how much time they waste but when they read my poem. they will. 2. Basically the whole poem is about how time is running out and there isn't enough time so the poem is shortened this is also why the final stanza ha three line unlike the others which have four. Now your poem: 1. It is true that poems have different rhyme schemes but isn't the whole point of a poem to be able to interpret it? 2. How are you so sure angles are beautiful? Also you are only 15, slightly older than Romeo was at the time of finding his "true love" Juliet and what happened to him? In my opinion, you are much too young to know the definition of love, let alone be in it.
Poetry Debate

Ok first off your poem Time is something that always changes ( I.E. Daylight savings time) , so people are bound to complain about it. I have heard people say that, and I hear some people warning me that time will go by fast. And people are bound to use their own opinion so if they blame time then let them. That is their problem. Next off I dont see what you are trying to say. sorry. Then my poem 15. 2nd. I have not seen an angel but with what I gather. Angels are beautiful so That is why I am comparing her to an angel Well the rhyme scheme is the one thing that sometimes people see confusing because poets have their own taste in rhyme schemes so we might not be able to interpret each others rhyme scheme. So I cant wait to see what you put for the final round. And good job in this debate
Poetry Debate

So first answers to my poem: 1. The first thing you picked out that the final stanza does not rhyme, I think that stood out to you unless I am mistaken? The final stanza makes the point that it isn't time's fault and we could be the problem wasting time complaining about it. 2. Are you telling me that you never heard a person say "I want more time"? I would say 20 out of 30 children in my class have said that before. 3. That was the whole point of the poem plus I din't have enough time to complete the poem, do you see what I'm trying to say? 3 And you're poem: 1. This might be personal but how old are you? I doubt you would have had much experience with love. 2. have you ever seen an angel before? I didn't think so, so how could you compare her to one? 3. I still don't understand the rhyme scheme you said you wanted the first and last sentence of each stanza to rhyme but they don't..
Poetry Debate

First off. Yes you do still criticize my poem. Second off thank you for that advice, but I want to wait a little bit just to know her better. now back to your poem and the defences you made. 1. Could you please tell me why the final stanza is meant to stand out? 2nd off. Why would anyone blame time. Could you give me a ratio of how many people blame time. 3rd. What you said for your 3rd point you could of just easily say YOLO. Anyway, You are not sounding cliche, but you could of have added another stanza saying how we do not have much time left. So your turn. And anyway like I said You still criticize my poem like it was a debate round.
Poetry Debate

Who cares if you get rejected, everyone does! What if she is the one and you never will know will you? Anyway for the response to my poem: 1. The point in the final stanza is it is not meant to rhyme, so it stands out to the reader as an important point. 2. My inspiration for this poem is that I am fed up with people blaming time for all their problems and, ultimately, that is what the poem is about. 3. It repetitive so the reader can know that there isn't much time left, I don't want to sound cliche but we're only on this Earth once and we need to enjoy as much of it as we can, not wasting time complaining about how there isn't enough time. What now? Do I still criticize your poem???
Poetry Debate

First off; Yes it is about a real person, and Yes I am scared to tell her. Because I have tried to get a girlfriend with many girls and they all said " No" Anyway I wrote this poem with this kind of rhyme scheme, because I felt that the first and the last sentence of each stanza should rhyme. Well I compare my heart to a dove because A dove represents peace, and so My heart is at peace when I think of her. Well When I call her an angel that means to me she is beautiful as an angel, I don't mean it to be blasphemous, and if people are offended by that, I am sorry, but this is just to compare with her, because Angels are said to be beautiful so that is why I am comparing her to an angel. And for brown and rejection having capitals I think that was an accident. I will have to change that later. Any way for you poem. First of all your rhyme scheme is good, Until the final stanza. 2nd what was your inspiration, because every poem has to have an inspiration. 3rd. of all I don't see why you added the Tick...tick...tick in there. It is your turn for this debate
Poetry Debate

So I am meant to say what's wrong with this? Okay, but before I start I say if this poem is about a real person, then go for it, give her the poem or if you're too scared slip it into her locker or something I know if a guy gave me this I would love it! Take no offence by this criticism, the poem is really good! Anyway: 1. This poem does not have a strict rhyme scheme- it rhymes in some places but doesn't in other's. 2. How can you compare your heart to a dove? To me, that does not make sense. 3. Comparing her to an angel can be seen as blasphemous to religious people. 4. Why does "brown" and "rejection" have capitals? That's all for now, your turn!
Poetry Debate

This is a poem I wrote titled " Her" For a long time I thought I would never know love until I found her, And my heart became like a dove. Her hair, oh her hair Is a beautiful brownish blonde With it this angel Just pulls me along Her eyes, oh her eyes. A beautiful color Brown Every time I look into them They spin me around and around. Her face, oh her face As pale as the moon Every time I see them It makes me want to swoon. Her lips, oh her lips A magnificent red When I see them I have happy thoughts in my head I wish I could tell her I wish I could But I am afraid of the Rejection I can get from her. I still have hope With a strong feeling thats for sure. No matter what, I love her.
Poetry Debate

Okay I guess what my poem is about is up for interpretation here goes my poem is called Tick,Tick,Tick: Time People hate it Time People blame it "We need more time" They pray "Too much time" They say Time Goes too fast Time It'll never last Maybe we should enjoy it, it won't last long Time, time, blink and it is gone Tick...tick...tick... I know it's not the best poem but comment, see what you think!
Poetry Debate

Ok what this debate is about; Well you ( the opponent) will write a piece of poetry on whatever your heart desires, then in the other rounds both the aff and neg will critique each others poetry. YOU CANNOT FORFEIT IN ANY WAY!! This will be five rounds long so the first round will be just about acceptance. So I hope that someone will accept this debate, And just to be clear I will not go easy. But Good luck. And let the 1st annual Historydude15 Poetry Debate begin. And by any topic I mean any topic, this does not have to be a certain topic.
The Holy Bible: Not the only Testament? #BookOfMormon

Now I can finally appreciate a good, healthy debate like you said. Too many times people are very angry and rude, thanks for the kindness.Many people who have read the B.O.M. have noticed the lack of women rights. I myself have not noticed the Bible heroines, if you could share some verses in the next round, that would be nice, I want to see those. In the meantime, I'll take your word for it. It is explained in the B.O.M. that women are not 'lesser' or anything, they just have different roles then men. For instance, it is very hard for someone by themselves to take care of their family (if they have kids) because its a two person job. Men and women share different responsibilities, and just like in real life, that is also seen in the B.O.M.. It should also be noted that women can take part in major things, just like in the Bible. Back to your example, in the beginning of the chapter, we see in the summary that it is only the daughters of Zion that are punished, meaning that they were responsible for their sins, not all women, which you suggested. In verse 26, the verse was explaining their punishment for doing worldliness things. That sounds bad at first, but as any good father would do, a spoiled child may need to be punished, or else they will grow with their bad traits. See Jacob 5:4In Alma 19:9, the queen sees her husband "dead" on the floor. She doesn't feel anything feeling Spiritual, however, she has faith (as explained in the next verse). Ammon then revives the king with the power of God. As you know, God asks us to simply have faith.I cannot at the moment explain the reasons of the 'she' in 3rd Nephi, but the B.O.M. says that the roles of a woman are very important. Elder John A Widtsoe says: "The place of woman in the Church is to walk beside the man, not in front of him nor behind him. In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The gospel, which is the only concern of the Church, was devised by the Lord for men and women alike” (Improvement Era, Mar. 1942, p. 161).This is supporting gender equality in the Church.In Corinthians 11:11 it says: "Nevertheless neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.Thus proving that God loves His daughters and sons equally.
The Holy Bible: Not the only Testament? #BookOfMormon

I myself am a Christian. I am very familiar with the Holy Bible. I have also read the B.O.M., Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants a couple of times. Although, I do not believe in Mormonism, I still have great respect for Mormons. I am NOT bashing the Book of Mormon, I am simply participating in a healthy and wholesome debate. :) Okay.... One of the doubts that I have concerning the Book of Mormon is the role women have in the B.O.M. In the Bible, women are judges, they lead wars, they are prophets, they are unafraid to defend their families. Meanwhile, in the B.O.M... When women are allowed to rule, everything goes to hell in a hand basket. 2 ne 13:12 See 2 ne 13:16-17,26, 14:4. 15:14 Women don't get or need spiritual witnesses it seems - Alma 19:9 The great and abominable church is female, hell is female, uncleanliness is female (admittedly wisdom is female) Jesus of the Book of Mormon uses negative female imagery - but in the Bible never does see 3 Ne 20:41
The Holy Bible: Not the only Testament? #BookOfMormon

I just want everybody to know that this debate is intended for people who are already Christian. I fight for the rights of the Book Of Mormon, which I will occasionally refer to as BOM. I will allow my opposition to start with the first argument, as well as their position. Just a heads up, you can use as many words as you want. I am going to try to stick to the same word count for overall fairness. After you, Challenger.
Socialism (new challenger)

Thank you con for the debate I had a lot of fun, I tried my best. In a capitalist society great advancements are made in the quest for improving products and services in the face of making more profit. This all sounds wonderful, but that is based solely on the economic perspective, and not reality. Capitalism pits one another in a race to reach a fictitious goal " that of wealth. In order to succeed in a purely capitalist society one has to compete against others, and thus a conflict arises between people or groups in the pursuit of money. Money is the obvious driving force of capitalism, yet it has been shown time and time again that rarely does money actually bring happiness, in fact, it always puts happiness just a few steps ahead of you. A survey asked people whether they were content with their income " the overwhelming majority made the claim that they would be happy if they made their boss" income. Which you would expect, but it doesn"t matter how much money you make " you desire more, and have the illusion that once you hit a certain amount, you will be OK with that amount, however...... We are human, and we do not work like this. Capitalism, in a growth-society, demands the majority of one"s waking life to be put to work, but usually not "natural" work in which the body has been evolved to fit into " but rather work done behind a desk, or using odd machinery, or repetitive tasks that burden the mind.Here is where capitalism stops being an ideal heaven of advancement and growth, but rather destroys that in which it claimed to improve " the life of the worker. Specifically in our capitalist societies, growth is not optional " it is obligatory " but we all know that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. Thus our "Business As Usual" paradigm will, at some point, necessarily slow, or come to screeching halt. For the destruction and use of natural resources is unsustainable, and growth not only of wealth but of population is impossible forever. Not only does all this raise the eye-glass to the problems of what seems a great economic practice, but it is also a fact that happiness is not dependent on money, wealth, or advancement in technology. In fact, it seems to be the opposite " the more advanced and reliant we become on technology, the more separated we become from each other. Next time you think something like capitalism is so simple and make a claim ever of "What could be wrong with that", please " nothing is so simple. https://www.boundless.com... http://www.counterpunch.org... http://www.forbes.com...