BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophilia is normal

I extend my arguments to the next round, but I also want to add one more thing in this one. To say that something is "normal" is a subjective statement. Something is only normal when it is common or an of course of the situation. Pedophilia is not common nor is it an of course when viewed through the lens of genetic and social development. Unlike such things as homosexuality, pedophilia is not something you are born with, it is an attraction you obtain through whatever psychosis you are afflicted with (whether this be from being molested yourself, confusing friendship or affection from a child with sexual attraction, or from being unable to control your sexual impulses and letting it take over your reasoning). I don't know if pedophilia is really treatable or if it's a forbidden fruit that poisons the mind forever, like cannibalism or killing.
Pedophilia is normal

Hello, I am in this debate to say that I do believe that Pedophilia is normal and I am looking forward to my opponent's response and this potential debate. I will start by giving out my argument: What is Pedophilia? Pedophilia is an allegedly mental disorder when adult (clinically, 16 and over) men are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (11 and under). I will say that this is not about "Pedophilia" as in the mainstream misuse of the word, such as using it to refer a child-rapist, which is wrong. This is the use of the word when it is the love between to partners, one young and another adult (I actually rather want to call this for Pederasty as a replacement due to my connotations with the word, "Pedophilia"). I do not believe that a prepubescent child can be consent, but, naturally, a 12 or 13 years old is sexual mature, that is an established fact, why should that be illegal then? Why is the legal age of consent 15 or 16, when the nature, the destiny has decided 12 or 13, depending on the sex? I will say that I do not believe a mental disorder can come up, depending on the age, that is impossible. If the 15 years old was with an 11 years old, while there would be social stigmas to it, it will clinically still be normal, but as soon as the 15 years old become 16 (clinically adult) and he is still with his 10 or 11 years old girlfriend, he suddenly become a pedophile and has a mental disorder, that sound irrational to me. How can a disorder, diseases, etc. follow the law of US and social morality? Doesn't it play its own games? A Pedophile or Pederast is not limited to a child (that is child-molesters as it is easier to control them), a Pedophile or Pederast likes a person who is, unfortunately (but I wish to be fortunately), young or a child. It is a common and natural custom that Pedophilia is happening, in animals and as well as in humans. I do believe that Child-molestation is a mental disorder, but simply not Pedophilia. That was my argument for Pedophilia is normal. I look forward to anyone responding.
Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

Definition of transhumanism;"Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."- WikipediaIt is the opinion of the Pro that transhumanism is a fundamentally good idea and that it should be embraced by humanity as a result. Is it the goal of the Con to prove otherwise. Rules:1. By accepting the Con agrees that forfetiure of any round by either the Pro or Con will result in an immediate forfeit of the ENTIRE debate for the offending party. 2. The Con will simply state acceptance for the first round. No dense introduction necessary.
Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

Many of the Con's arguments are flawed and fallacious. "Technology mustn't be explored when the potential for harm is too great."This is an appeal to consequence and fear. By that logic none of science should be explored due to the potential for abuse. Abuse and misuse will always be present. "The idea that Trans-Humanization being affordable is, at most, wishful thinking. Trans-Humanization could, at most, become affordable in partial operations to the US/EU middle class. 80% of Earth will still not be able to afford this (prior source in R2). While this claim doesn't demote Trans-Humanization, as all technology ultimately works that way, it wasn't intended to. It was intended to refute your claim that is would solved poverty and other issues in places like Africa."I don't see how you can make such sweeping generalizations. Every piece of technology from televisions, to cell phones and personal computers have gone down in price dramatically since their inception. "Moore's Law is nice, but has closed to no effect in Africa. After 100 years, we can get a 500 gigabyte Laptop with 6 gigs of memory for only $398.00 (7), when 1 gigabyte by itself used to cost $189,000 just 33 years ago(8), and still only 15.6% of Africa can afford to own a computer (based off internet usage).(8) While Internet Usage has increased a lot in Africa, this isn't because Africans are getting richer. The number has skyrocketed only because of more modern nations like Egypt, Libya, and South Africa buying Computers, while the majority of African nations still can not afford clean water."I don't think the Con understands Moore's Law. Moore's law has nothing to do with affordability but rather the speed at which technology grows. The African example is completely out of context. "Glitches are rampant in modern software, and only increase with hardware complexity." Of course there will always be rough patches where technology fails and things go wrong but that is the case in any complex system that changes rapidly over time and certainly is not exclusive to transhumanism."The greatest inconvenience most parents admit to when raising a growing child or teenager is buying new cloths. With Tran-Humanization, you'd be outgrowing and replacing entire body parts."Why does the Con assume such things will be an absolute necessity in such speculative topic? "Pro has dropped the following of my Arguments:- IV: Durability- V: Overpopulation"I didn't drop your arguments. There was simply nothing to address as the previous points leading up to them had be refuted in the previous round. "Conclusion:The benefits of Trans-humanization are outweighed by the harm it would do, and the potential (and in many cases, obvious) threats it poses to humans and all of humanity."That isn't true at all because the vision of transhumanism and it's possible faults as I have listed are entirely fixable and adaptable.
Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

I hope to have a healthy and fruitful discourse. Here I will outline my points as to why transhumanism should be embraced by humanity as a whole. I. Biological LimitationsThe human body is an astounding marvel of biology. The human body has a variety of tools to fight off infections, heal wounds and regenerate damaged elements of the body. However with all these biological advantages, the human body still has woeful limitations as to what it can handle in terms of biological incursions and damage. The human race is plagued with a variety genetic and hereditary disorders. Some of these disorders such as Huntington's disease completely strip away a person's humanity as they degenerate into death from a slow and increasingly painful incapacitation. Transhumanism provides an answer for this. Through proficient genetic engineering, neuro genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease can be wiped out entirely within a few generations technology permitting. Auto immune disorders (such as AIDS) can be wiped out through biological augmentation. With these examples in mind transhumanism can provide effective methods to overcome our biological limitations. II. Standard of LifeAnother problem of humanity that has crippled it's advance in many parts of the world is poverty. As mentioned in my previous point, biological augmentation and implantation can increase the standard of living dramatically without the need for costly, risky, and ineffective humanitarian efforts in many parts of the world. With biological advancements human beings will be more capable at handling the difficulties of third world lifestyles. Disease and sickness can be overcome far more easily with the advances in augmentation to allow the body to resist far more hardships then it could normally. III. A Cure for the Human ConditionTranshumanism provides a door way into a possible cure for the human condition. It is no secret that even in the most richest and opulent places in the world, greed, violence and destruction still follow. Mass shootings, terrorism and economic disaster are prevalent. Humans beings still today with all of our technology advances display a stunning lack of rationality when put in certain critical situations. With neuro augmentation of the brain it is entirely possible that would could modify the very way we could perceive the world. By extending our consciousness through technology; humanity could effectively destroy the negative and destructive aspects of human nature. By doing this we would be able to permanently discard these destructive aspects of the human condition and bring forth a golden age for humanity.
rap battle

Oh ok, I guess that was better but you still suck, did you not get the letter? No one likes you, you are the disgrace I am almost sure that faggot is your race. You are such a terrible rhymer. Yo lines are out of style, Sit back little woman, let me rap a while I am so good, that you dream about me my rhymes are as good, as bread is on cheese You mess with me, you get your sh**t slapped Im pretty sure we know, who won this rap You are gay, a real queer It makes me wonder why youre still here.
rap battle

Yeah, I'll close the door. Right on your face. Those rhymes were just poor. You're a disgrace. Kid you're out of your depths. Sit back, take a breath. Chill and relax, 'fore you meet your own death. I'm a rap master crushing your wack crap. I stay on beat and make your heart collapse. Try to step and act hard, I make your bones snap in half. Make you scamper back to your dad on your knees screamin' "I failed you!" No need to say more cause I clearly outplayed you. You look nervous now, all checkin' your Seiko. Turn to your mother now praying she'll save you. Tears in your eyes yellin' "This is too PAINFUL!"
rap battle

Yo.. YO.. Step into your turf with my breath and a verse, Blast my dope rhymes, leave you dead in a hearse. Try n' step to me, I slit your throat till you hope To bleed out before you hear my next words. My ly-ri-cism leaving you with no hope, Try and spit back but have a lump in your throat. Comin hard and fast make your fro sweep back. Eyes open wide like you just seen a ghost. WHAT?!
Bullies Should Not Be Charged In Connection To The Death of a Peer

This argument stems from the idea that a bullied party goes on to commit suicide should criminal action be taken against the people who supposedly bullied the party? I take the position that no action should be or can be taken. The debate stems from an opinion question: http://www.debate.org...First Round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round - keep it short for conclusion purposes mainly.bully - one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
Bullies Should Not Be Charged In Connection To The Death of a Peer

Debate Conclusion1. Suicide Is a Solitary ActionMy opponent tries to wrongly pin assisted suicide onto bullies which just doesn't fit. Assisted suicide is still solitary in nature as a single person decides whether they want their life to end. Assisted suicide only exists because the person requesting suicide usually no longer has the means to kill themselves. The choice is still entirely their own. If the choice is not entirely their own it would be a case of euthanasia which is neither assisted suicide and neither can be attributed to bullies or bullying. My opponent continues to wrongly spout that bullies hand someone a loaded gun. Firstly, unless someone physically hands someone a loaded gun this description just doesn't fit. Secondly, even if someone did hand a person a loaded gun and they use that gun to kill themselves that is neither assisted suicide nor is it criminal.Therefore, suicide remains a solitary action and assisted suicide cannot be pinned on bullies. 2. SemanticsI am saddened to see that my opponent took this debate and dragged it fully into one about semantics. This is not only supremely frowned upon on this site and reminds me why putting "no semantics" is usually necessary but it is also poor conduct. It shows that my opponent cannot defeat my arguments on his own merits.To clarify, bullying in the context, and perhaps I should have been more clear, was supposed to refer to simple yet prolonged bullying. My examples, which my opponent ignored, were good examples of what I had in mind. As soon as "bullying" crosses into the realm of stalking or harassment it is no longer bullying but criminal behavior. 3. Solidifying My CaseA. Suicide is a decision unilaterally made by the person taking their own life. If the decision is not unilateral it is not considered suicide. Suicide is not a criminal action.B. Bullying as defined is not criminal. C. Adding two non criminal actions together, especially when the correlation between the two usually isn't that strong cannot lead to a criminal outcome. Therefore, bullies cannot be charged in suicide cases. While this debate was not as clear as I would have liked it to be, my case still stands. My opponent tried to mire the debate in useless and deceptive semantics. There is nothing that can link someone's actions, even if they are cruel to their suicide. Suicide isn't criminal and usually there are lots of factors that go into someone taking their own life. You cannot charge all or even any potentially guilty parties. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.
Bullies Should Not Be Charged In Connection To The Death of a Peer

Suicide Is a Solitary ActionSuicide, by definition, is a solitary action. You must choose yourself and take actions as an individual to secure your own death for it to be considered suicide. If someone else makes this decision for you then it is not suicide but manslaughter or homicide. For it to be considered suicide you must unilaterally make the decision yourself and the party engaging in the act of suicide must take responsibility for their own actions. Why is this important? Other Similar CasesOutside of insanity, it is widely known and a sad accepted fact that when someone commits suicide there is usually an outside force that has driven them to a mental state in which suicide is then considered. However, no one is ever charged in a suicide case. Why? Because suicide is a solitary action. Consider these cases which are well documented causes of suicide. .. BankruptcyDeath of a Loved OneDivorceAlcoholism/Drug AbuseIf we are to argue that bullies should be charged in suicide cases we must also claim that banks, deceased loved ones, divorce parties and alcohol vendors should all be charged in suicide cases. If we want to argue that outside parties who may or may not have influenced a suicide are culpable we must extend this culpability to any party that could be conceivably connected to a suicide. This is unfair and unjust. UnfairThis type of policy would cause people to rethink perfectly legal actions. If you snap at a coworker are you going to set them off? Are you going to be charged for being short with someone? I can't divorce my wife, she might kill myself and I could go to jail. This would unfairly limit the freedom of people to act as they choose. This again stems from suicide being a completely solitary act. Being harsh at work isn't a crime. Neither is loaning to someone. But these types of actions could result in criminal prosecution if suicide leads to charges. This is completely wrong. This makes you have to ask: why is bullying different from any of these other cases? The answer is, it isn't. This is why bullies cannot and should not be charged in connection to a suicide. It just isn't a viable position of justice. Thank you.
The Catholic Church teaches Jesus is the savior of the world.

To support my claim, I would like to offer the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 528 "The Epiphany is the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah of Israel, Son of God and Savior of the world. " There you have it; The Catholic Church teaching that Jesus is the "Savior of the world. " I look forward to reading my opponent's response. Source: . http://www.scborromeo.org...
God is alive

Firstly lets start of by logical thinking why wouldn't be a God, if there wasn't how did we get here it's weird to say we just a spontaneous explosion happened for no reason by the way the spontaneous explosion that I am talking about is evolution (Cosmic evolution) I think the logical explanation would be that in the beginning God created the heavens and the universe and all that in them is even so where do we get our morals from of there is no God. How do you tell right from wrong and you could say that I decide right from wrong well lets say for example if you for example we met and you said something that annoyed me and I decided to beat you up but because I believe in a God that teaches about loving everyone and forgiveness I decided not to beat you up and just leave it I hope you're getting my point. If you want scientific evidence in the next round let me know
Wood Pencil vs Mechanical Pencil

Having tough time there huh! So what having trouble there? On the topic then. Wood pencils r much more effective in writting things with woody Some may we will totaly should replace the wood pencil with plastic one as it is recycled in future My fear is that we should now we destroying the tree For such common things that can have a best replacement At end i know my place I m destroying the beautiful word. For habitting such tree cutting products. I now make that We should use mechanical pencil as much to reduce tree wood uses I now improve my habits about our environmental responsibility
Wood Pencil vs Mechanical Pencil

Thanks for accepting my topic And also thankfull for ur counter views on books vs movies discuss its open my mind pretty much on open thinking. We start from here then, Wooden pencil as we uses it on daily writhing, Drawing, Painting, Etc. . . Wood pencil is far a kind of satble market. Evey one feels comfortable with the wooden pencil except for damaged break wooden pencil every boy hate them, Even i and u also i guess. Suppose take a example here, When it comes to exam written work with pencil many of use i guess the wooden pencil for these rather then mechanical. And wooden pencil gives a good dynamic grip as it is made from wood. In plastic pencil its totaly sucks the gripping pattern get printed on our finger some times. And a relative science fact is that plastic pencil grip is harm full "exception here is that if its not made up of rubber" due to not producing strain when the force of finger grips it. One and all The drawings, And artistic work r done by most or totally by wooden pencil only Because we can change its nip point as per we need. Which is not in case easy for mechanical pencil as it has a fixed pointer. Once i heard a very crazy complaint that the mechanical pencil lead is lighter "not dark" As compare to wooden one. As i m wooden p side i not in favour the reason on treeing cutting stuff its world demand need we can reduce as much. The fact that wood is more preferably more comfortable then the plastic kind of thing As it is eco-friendly But i have also one counter on my own side that the poor tree r getting sacrifice for these objects. But the woody one shows greater impact far lot then the mechanical one.
Wood Pencil vs Mechanical Pencil

Choosing writing utensils is often hard. Should you use a wooden pencil, Or a mechanical pencil? There are many factors, Including efficiency and eco-friendliness. I think the mechanical pencil is better than the wooden pencil because it beats wooden pencils in both aspects. First, Mechanical pencils are more efficient. With mechanical pencils, One doesn't have to get up every two minutes to sharpen their pencil and they don't have to worry about words written down seeming too thick. Second, A common misunderstanding is that mechanical pencils are less eco-friendly due to them being made of plastic. Production of plastic that is used to create mechanical pencils results in lots of chemical waste which is hard to remove, And bad for the environment. And the plastic which is thrown away when one breaks a mechanical pencil usually goes to landfill or is dumped in the ocean. Although I agree that plastic is not eco-friendly, I still maintain that they are more eco-friendly than using wood, Because production of wooden pencils require chopping trees, Which are currently an important resource we have on earth. Once one buys a mechanical pencil, They do not need to buy another one unless they break it. With wooden pencils, You will need to buy a new one every few days once you finish using it, And with billions of people using them, Costing earth lots of trees every day. In conclusion, I think mechanical pencils are better than wooden pencils because they are more efficient and better for the environment.
Religion delays societal development

The vast majority? I believe a better example would be in undeveloped countries, where religion is literally their form of government. As a result, these countries are poverty-stricken, war-torn, and in most cases, have corrupt leaders.No, as I said before, religion doesn't harm society, it only slows it's development. Not every individual is needed to make progress in society, but the inclusion of every individual would result in a much faster pace at which society progresses.
Religion delays societal development

First of all, it may not be solely an American issue, but America is definitely a hotspot of support for creationism. Outside of the U.S., the vast majority of people believe in modern evolutionary theory. Second, you're welcome to take it up with the Pew Forum. If you can point to specific methodologies used that you believe affected the results of the survey, or reasons why it doesn't apply here, I will happily listen to you; until then, I will trust their results. Your main point is about the advancement of human civilization in general. As has always been the case, advancement - defined simply as a general upward trend in sophistication and civilization - does not require the resources of every human being on earth, at all times. The fact that people occasionally, or even frequently, take time to think about a god is completely irrelevant. Religious people contribute plenty the rest of the time, as I've already shown. The time used - or wasted, as you would have it - to think about god is not enough to negatively affect human growth and development.
Religion delays societal development

I believe you mean the remaining 23%. No, I don't think that a small percentage of people who believe in creationism could "harm" society, it also doesn't take away from the fact that 23% of church-goers are living in the past. Besides that fact, I believe that survey is incorrect as I doubt all Americans were contacted for this survey let alone church-goers. Not all Catholic Americans go to church. I also have to point out this argument doesn't specifically pertain to American society. I also find I am repeating myself. I am fully aware that there were, and still are religious individuals who have contributed to modern society, and I even named a few. Yes, people can be religious and still benefit the advancement of society. However in the moment they are conceiving an idea that will do so, they are not thinking about a creator. It's the same case vice versa, when an individual contemplates an all-powerful being, they are not processing ideas that will further said advancement. Therefore, when that individual is thinking about God, that individual is at a standstill.