BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barney and Robin should not have divorced in How I Met Your Mother

Hi I'm the Con, pleasure to join you in this. Sitcoms are not usually focused on the overall story or presentation as a whole. As such they present "twist" that will get the watcher to continue watching. How I Met Your Mother was famous for this in it's presentation of the "that could be the girl" scenario. On sitcom writing: 1. Sitcom writers in general are not known for their exceptional story talent. Most of their effort goes into the comedic effect, this show is a prime example of that. 2. The writers also make story decision based on budget, ratings, and how it will benefit the company, not how it will effect the story for re-watching value. On the message it sends: -Sitcoms are not prime examples of how you should live your life. Barney being a playboy is probably the biggest hint the show can give you as far as his relationship being an "example". Also some people get divorced and that happens. It would be more "real" than painting them in a working relationship given how outrageous Barney generally is. In my opinion(since this debate is opinionated to say the least) I think that part brought more realism to the show and gave the show as a whole a better "I can relate to it" feeling. I'm not sure this is really a proper debate, but there you go. I'll await the response.
The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange

I will be arguing the institution of a national commdoity exchange subsidized by the US government. For the purpose of the debate, we shall refer to it as the US National Commodity Exchange, or USNCE for short.- The USNCE will be a national marketplace designed for the buying and trading of all commodity goods. - The USNCE will deal in international and national commodity exchanges. - The USNCE will be supervised by a federal commision, and subjected to the US department of customs.- All commodity trades within the nation will be subjected to a low commodity tax, at a 10% rate of purchase.- The USNCE will come with a online format, and commodity resources will be kept as credits until trades are completed.This proposal is a result of a lot of thinking I've been doing on inner growth and racket stimulation. The US has several commodity exchanges, most prominent being the Chicago Board of Trade. Unfortunately, the US has never had a commodity exchange that services all legalized products, or is truly nationalized. I have great intrest in doing this debate, and I hope a expierienced and intelligent opponent accepts this debate.
The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange

I will have to tip my hat to my opponent. This is truly a piece of art. As you might be able to tell his blank argument provides great social commentary, the emptiness of the page represents every libertarian idea on government and regulation ever constructed. This man is a genius. He summarized with great brilliance, every belief about government intervention in the economy and private enterprise. It is also functions as a compilation of every Ayn Rand"s argument on the benefit of regulation and government intervention in the economy. Check and Mate, sir. I am but a David going up against an intellectual Goliath.
existance of god

Seeing as how the topic is "existance (sic) of god" instead of "A god exists", I can only assume the author of this topic means whether or not I am in favor of the existence of a god. In other words, because we are assigned to be pro and con, the topic as s/he worded it is normative (what ought to be) instead of descriptive/factual (what is). My stance as pro, then, is not that a god DOES exist, but that I would be IN FAVOR OF the existence of god. A god is defined as a Supreme Being, meaning not subject to human emotions, physical/mental constraints, etc. Since a god is not subject to human constraints, a god can be all-knowing and all-powerful, whereas humans can't be. Since a god is all-knowing, a god can be an objective arbiter of justice, something that no person can ever be. While we may disagree with a god's conception of justice, that's because we are people and just can't comprehend "the plan." In the end (this life or the next) everyone would get their due.
Human Cloning

Human Clones Would Lessen Diversity and Evolution There has been many studies on the affects on revolution from cloning. Of course, this aren't human subjects, only plants, but the same science it used. The cloning of plants have actually led to extinction in some cases. Clones, because they have the same genetic makeup as one of those before them, do not have genes that are mixed and changed based on their environment and the environment of their surrogate mother and donor. This would cause the subject to be more susceptible to new diseases and changes in the environment that could be hard to overcome without adaption. This could be explained with the example of hip dyspepsia in dogs. Dogs of purebred often are more likely to have hip dyspepsia, while mutts have the genes from two species, and, depending on the breed makeup, would have the genes to counter the disease two times more than the purebred. This is because the genes are different, coming from each parent. The impact the loss of diversity caused by cloning in humans could be massive. Cloning could "eradicate genetic variety," since there will be no need to reproduce sexually, since women can asexually. As time passes, and cloning becomes more common, less and less evolution will take places since genes will not be be changing. In places like the United States, where there is very large amount of diversity, this could be a problem as the nation loses its identity due to this and people. Evolution and diversity are two very important parts to living in a stable species and society, something that could be threatened with human cloning. 1) www.as.wvu.edu/~kbarbutt/EvolutionPage/Studentsites/cloningpage/CONS2.html 2) www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=106 3) www.allaboutpopularissues.org/arguments-against-cloning-faq.htm
Human Cloning

Scientists have come to the conclusion that if they are able to duplicate healthy heart cells in heart attack victims, they can reverse the effects. If this idea is nourished, and developed, many lives will be enhanced, and saved. If the heart attack did not take a person's life at the time of occurrence, there is plenty of time for it to take its toll. Heart attacks take a toll on everyone in a family. There is stress on the permanent damages, there is emotional trauma from the victim, and there is going to be physical damage as well. Heart attacks are horrifying things, and if someone does not have to suffer the consequences of one, then they should not. If they can lead a happier, healthier life afterwards, then we need to get them there. Irregular heart beats, Cardiogenic Shock, and heart rupture are all after effects, or potential risks of a heart attack. From any of those symptoms, a person can lose their life. Cardiogenic shock is the sudden drop in blood pressure causing the heart to be unable to pump blood all over your body and to your organs. Heart rupture is what is sounds like: damage to the heart wall, causing it to rupture. Although it can be avoided, heart attacks still happen. To save those who suffer from these disastrous events, scientists need to invest in human cloning. If they do not, we will miss out on great things that mankind can achieve. Sources: 1. www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotecg-Environ/cloning/bioBenefits.html 2. www.humancloning.org/allthe.php 3. http://www.servier.co.uk...
Human Cloning

The Legality of Human Cloning One of the most prominent issues with human cloning is the legality of it all. There are simply too many problems, even after the clones are created, to make any of it beneficial. The questions asked don't truly have a correct answer, but that is the entire point of having the questions at all; Who would be considered the parent? Is it the surrogate mother, who actually gave birth to the child, or is the the donor since they are biologically related? There is no wrong or right answer chosen out for society, and the debate and which is which is unnecessary for places where human cloning is already banned indefinitely. Which brings us to another problem. The clone, is a genetic copy of someone else. It has the potential to be exactly like them with their phenotypes and based on nuture as well. How can we document them tor a governmental database when some are the same as the others? When two finger prints are the same and parent turns on child and vice versa? The legal situation, even after human cloning, if it were to be legalized, would be too complicated to be worth it and make it far too difficult for the life of the clone. 1) novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/events/dolly96/DollyEthics/htm
Human Cloning

Cloning could be our way to find a cure to baldness, eliminate defective genes, and once again, faster recovery. If we are able to eliminate these things, then the human race could be potentially be perfected. How could we resist something so great with the ability to accomplish this task. By eliminating defective genes, not only would the human race be closer to perfection, we would be able to ensure no person would have to suffer any genetic disorder known. People would not have to suffer many of the trials that they do now, if research for cloning be legalized. All defective/useless genes could be gone forever, so no one would ever have to deal with the pain of them ever again. The cure to baldness is pretty self-explanatory. It is just another step to perfection. It is a simple step, but a large one. Many people suffer from things as simple as not having hair. They are ousted, teased relentlessly, and have to deal with insecurity. Balding may be a natural thing, but if it can be avoided, then why shouldn't it be? There are numerous things that come from this that can help so many people. All of which cannot happen if we do not allow ourselves to be open to the idea of it. Sources: 1. www.humancloning.org/allthe.php 2. www.healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-human-cloning
Human Cloning

Human Cloning Would Fail Too Often There are a vast series of possibilities than can, and most likely will, occur in cloning of any kind. The enucleated egg and transferred nucleus may not be compatible, and therefore will result in failure for example. Another example would be that the egg and transferred nucleus do not go through division properly, failure of implantation at all, or miscarriages and failed pregnancies are all significantly high percentages. The list of other probable complications goes on and on. The animals born so far show that even if they do manage to survive past pregnancy, birth, and the first few hours of time, often have defects after birth. The most common of which is LOS, or having abnormally large organs. This shortens the life span severely, and causes blood and breathing problems during life. Humans may have to experience the same thing with their clones. should they survive. Success rates in animal cloning are from 0.1 to 3 % and that is what lives for the first week. Are we prepared to put mankind through the extreme emotional and physical trying that cloning would cause? Already with clinical fertilization, after five attempts to create a zygote that have failed, the chances of succeeding drop 15% each time. Imagine what the probability would be with cloning, a technique we haven't mastered in the slightest. It's simply not advisable. 1) learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningrisks 2) www.babycenter.com/0_making-the-decision-to-end-fertility-treatment-6083.bc
Human Cloning

In the case of development of cloning, we could provide faster injury repair to victims of all kinds. We could further our knowledge and use in plastic, reconstructive and cosmetic surgeries. We could learn to clone different kinds of organ cells (kidneys, livers, hearts), to replace in case of malfunction. Scientists could provide revolutionary transplants of new, healthy cells to replace the unhealthy, sick cells. Victims of car accidents, burns, cancer, anything you can name will benefit from this. This time of cloning is not to make a new "being" to "steal" parts from. It is to clone parts of your own body to heal you. By using techniques of cloning, a cure for cancer could be found, and used. An abundance of lives will not only be improved, but saved all together. Cells that are cloned are thought to generate quicker. If a new, healthy cell repopulates quickly, then it can soon replace and eventually overrule the sick cells, therefore healing the person. Because the body would recognize the cell as its own, there is not a chance of the immune system attacking and destroying it, as it may with other transplants.By using replicated spinal cord cells, they could be transplanted into victims with spinal cord injuries. Quadriplegics could see their feet moving across the ground in their lifetime. Who are we to deny them that right? A cure for cancer could also come from this because scientists may be able to find how to turn certain cells on and off in different areas creating an end to the malfunctioning cells production. Leukemia could also be cured as children and adults can receive bone marrow transplants.Even if cloning is not taken to the extreme, such as cloning entire persons, it can benefit the population in ways people could never imagine. People that are injured in more "simple" ways would be able to heal faster. Football players would be back in the zone after a few games instead of missing a full season. Instead of missing the major basketball game where all the college scouts will be, a player can be back on the court for their high school game. Cancer patients, Leukemia sufferers, burn victims, all of these people could see an end to their suffering. Young and old can be helped. Why shouldn't they?Sources: 1. www.student.biology.arizona.honors2001/group01/medcloning.html2. www.humancloning.org/allthe.php3. www.healthreasearchfunding.org/pros-cons-human-cloning
Human Cloning

Human Cloning Does not Obey Scientists' Precautionary Principle It is standard for all scientists to study and use the precautionary principle or rather, think of the effect to each possible action. This is supposed to help be a guide to scientists, to help them make the right choice pertaining to them and the people around them. Failure to follow this principle has the well warned cautioned against possible outcome, which is what has been received many times in reckless situations. This principle can, and should be, applied everywhere. Even the most basic of genetic modifying can have unseen affects that we cannot control. An example of this would be the change to Bt's corn, which Monarch butterflies also suffered the drawbacks from because humans who modified it failed to follow the guidelines set forth. Regardless of what is said, cloned or not, this creation will be a human being, complete with emotions and physical pain and everything else that what we would call 'normal' humans. Would this be considered an overly dramatic measure, to clone humans when we do not know the potential risks of what might happen to the? Not only is this questionable, this is also illegal, to treat a human being, even cloned, so. Sources; 1) gm.or/2009/02/18/arguments-against-human-cloning/ 2) https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu...
Human Cloning

Research for genetic disorders of all varieties can be enhanced to the extreme. Sufferers of Parkinson’s, any kind of cancers, Down Syndrome, and so on may be able to see a cure for their disorder in their lifetime. By creating a cure, we can improve their quality of life exponentially. Why should we sit by idly watching someone suffer from something they cannot help if we can help them? If we can improve their living conditions, then we are obligated to. They cannot help themselves, and if we were in their position, then we would want research to be done for us also. With the development of replication, we can potentially create stem cells to be a renewable source to be used. Stem cells can be created by Therapeutic Cloning. They could potentially cure neurological, cardiovascular, and hematological (blood) diseases. They have developed and performed different versions of this type of cloning in the form of bone marrow and blood transplants. The performance of the operations has rescued many lives, and enhanced a plethora of others. (Points Of View: Cloning. By: Ballaro, Beverly and Sprague, Nancy)Because gentically disordered sufferers cannot help themselves, it is our job to. We are able-bodied, and that is not our doing, but that's just the fact. They cannot find their cure, so we must do it. All of the materials are present for us to use. With modern-day technology, and our advanced research/thinking, we have everything we need to make it happen. If we do not try in our best efforts to begin this testing to save all of these people, and think of ourselves selfishly, then we may as well bid farewell to the remainder of humanity.Sources: 1. www.humancloning.org/allthe.php2. www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/cloning/bioBenefits3. Points of View: Cloning. By: Ballaro, Beverly and Sprague, Nancy
Human Cloning

Human Clones Will Be Discriminated Against One problem with human cloning, is not so much the welfare of ourselves as humans the way we are currently, but the welfare of the clones that, if they were to be permitted, would stand among us as citizens of our own nations and members to our own individual groups and communities. It has been stated by UN that they have banned human clones from being made (although this is not binding) because of "potential abuse, prejudice, and discrimination." There is a great deal of potential for unnecessary prosecution to clones should they develop and grow to stand with the general population. Already, humans that are considered normal in their creation are prosecuted for race, ethnicity, religion, and a variety of other attributes to them. Cloning would add only another reason to cause contention within the people of the world. If the UN has already "banned" it, is it not something to be taken into careful consideration? Is it not in their best intention to protect the rights and welfare of human beings, even clones, in preventing the ordeal of actual human cloning? But discrimination is not the only hardship that human clones would be put through. Self-idenity and the pursuit of happiness is a human right, and today we as humans strive to help those who are restricted from this gain what they deserve. Human clones would potentially have unfair expectation to live up to the reputation of that whom they resemble. There would be no chance to create or seek a self-identity, because as far as appearances go, there is nothing uniquie about them. They are a genetic copy. A human clone would always be compared to the extreme to their predecessor. It is unfair to the human being itself, clone or not, to bring it into the world when all it would experience is a vast amount of fear and prejudice against it. Sources: 1) digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/sciko;/vol4/iss2/3/ 2) www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/11/us-clones-idUSL1127243320071111 3) www.linacte.org/cloneAM.html
Human Cloning

With the legalization of human cloning, infertility can and will be eliminated. Infertility affects many couples and individuals all around the world. It can stress any relationship or marriage. Being unable to have a child in this society makes a man seem like less of a man, and makes a woman feel worthless. (http://www.humancloning.org...) Getting rid of this factor would give individuals and couples everywhere the satisfaction of not only being a parent, but also in being able to reproduce. Because actual infertility treatments only work for about 10% of the people that receive them, they waste their money, and get the heartbreaking news that they cannot have a child. (http://www.as.wvu.edu...) Insurance companies and the government show no sympathy to this because it is not a "real medical condition". The current "treatments" tend to be very painful, and time consuming. Receiving the heart-wrenching news that you cannot have a child, and that there is no way to help can cause not only emotional trauma, but also physical trauma. It takes a toll on you, your partner, and even your family. It takes away from you mentally, emotionally, and physically. Many people would point to adoption as this point, but people want a child of their own, as silly as it may sound. They would want to feel like they are more of the actual parent if they can contribute to the making of "it". Infertility affects not only heterosexual couples, but also homosexual couples. Because homosexuals have the same genitals, they cannot reproduce with each other. As stated before, most couples would want to produce their own child. The use of human cloning can create a possible, a more "guaranteed" promise for success, and the satisfaction of having a child to love and to hold. Human cloning can create a much cheaper, easier way of receiving the child you have always wanted. Cloning can change homosexual/infertile couples' lives everywhere overnight. (http://www.humancloning.org...)
Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers

1. Students become homosexual because homosexuals have cooties. [1] The opponent seems to believe that we should expose our children to cooties. 2. Anders Behring was not a Christian, but rather a homosexual. He was hiding his homosexuality behind the guise of Christianity. 3. Read the Bible. Based on the testimony of the prophets, God is Great. .. And He is against homosexuality. Those who are homosexual will be banished to Hell. Children should not be exposed to them. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Clearly the opponent has no clue about the dangers of exposing cootie-infested homosexuals to our youth.
Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers

Rebuttal of argument 1: This isn't really an argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be teachers. All you state is that homosexuals serve as examples through their traits. By no means do students "become" homosexual because they may have a homosexual teacher, in the same way that a gay or lesbian student is unlikely to become heterosexual if they have a teacher who isn't a homosexual.Rebuttal of argument 2:Anders Behring killed 77 people. He was Christian. He was also heterosexual. I certainly don't want this man teaching my children, so it's a good job that one heterosexual killer does not mean all heterosexuals are mentall unstable murderers. So there was a heterosexual terrorist. Does this mean that heterosexuals shouldn't teach our children? You may say it's preposterous to generalise all heterosexuals because of one man, but you have done the same just with homosexuals.Rebuttal of argument 3:There is no proof that homosexuals are Satanists, or that Satan exists at all. This argument is invalid as it doesn't have any evidence to back up your "homosexuals are condemned" argument.I hope that you take my rebuttals into account, I look forward to your future arguments.
Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers

Argument 1:"A. Teachers are role models for their school pupils.B. Some teachers are homosexuals.C. Some homosexuals are role models for school pupils. D. A role model serves as an example through his/her traitsE. Some homosexuals serve as examples though their traitsF. I think, therefore I am."--Rene DescartesArgument 2: Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people. He was a cannibal. He was also homosexual. Would you let Jeffrey Dahmer teach your children? Neither would I. [1]Argument 3:According to the ontological argument by Descartes, God exists. According to the teachings of God, homosexuals are going to be condemned in hell. We should not let Satanists teach our children in schools.Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's refutations.[1] http://www.adherents.com...