BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is no longer what may be termed "the land of freedom"

Hi. I'm Justin. I'm a citizen of the U. S. A. I will be the representing the Con side of this argument (America is still the land of freedom). As a policy debater, it is my tendency to refer to my opponents in the third person, as if I'm addressing a judge. If this bothers you, I will do my best to try and stop in future rounds. I will be arguing from three lines of reasoning. First, that America is still the leading beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world, and therefore no other country better deserves the title of the "land of freedom". Second, that America's Constitution, what outlines and confines the U. S. government, is based off the objective of freedom for all, and therefore freedom is still the heart of America. Lastly, I will be arguing that the freedom of America isn't from the government, but from the people. So long as the people desire freedom, America will be the home of the free. I accept your terms, and look forward to a very exciting and hopefully thought-provoking debate round.
The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon should be taken seriously.

Thanks to my opponent for offering an interesting topic, and I hope I can offer you a good debate.With respect to my opponent opening statements. I would gather that he will be trying to prove why we should take UFO sightings as serious science as some of these sightings come from "sufficiently qualified and credible witnesses". As such it is my opponents burden of proof to provide evidence for these sightings.In statement 1 you said the stakes are high. I think everyone would agree with that, but we need verifiable scientific evidence. It is necessary that this evidence is presented before science takes this seriously otherwise it falls outside of the scientific method.(1) If their is a phenomena and we attribute it to a UFO, then we need evidence of a UFO to make this claim valid.Further I would like to ask my opponent the following questions. In the second statement my opponent stated that it is logical to assume that if other intelligent beings exist "they have likely been here much longer than we have, and it would not be inconceivable that they have explored and/or colonized much of the galaxy." This is a statement that has no evidence, and as such I would like my opponent to present the evidence for this. I see no reason why it is logical to assume that if other intelligent life existed that they would be an older civilization than us.My opponent also stated that "Our electromagnetic emissions and atomic detonations would likely be quite detectable by any such civilization, and may spark their interest." Absolutely, and this is why the SETI project has been around since 1969 and has not come up with anything similar.(2,3) We are searching for alien life and we have not found it, so why would an alien race find our signals?I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://setiathome.berkeley.edu...
The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon should be taken seriously.

This is my first debate here, and I thought this topic would be fun. I'll be arguing "pro," that it makes sense for science to look seriously at the UFO phenomenon, and to take the extraterrestrial hypothesis seriously for the following reasons: 1) The stakes are high. If even one report of the phenomenon is attributable to extraterrestrial visitation, overlooking it would be a tragedy to science and humanity. 2) It would seem logical to assume that our galaxy may well be inhabited by other intelligent beings. If so, they have likely been here much longer than we have, and it would not be inconceivable that they have explored and/or colonized much of the galaxy. 3) Our electromagnetic emissions and atomic detonations would likely be quite detectable by any such civilization, and may spark their interest. 4) There are reports of sufficient quantity and quality by sufficiently qualified and credible witnesses that given items 1-3, the possibility that such occurrences may be genuine encounters with extraterrestrial craft and/or entities cannot and should not be discounted by rational scientists.
Gene Therapy

Cures genetic disorders, hereditary diseases and others deadly illnesses that cannot be treated with any kinds of medications or antibiotics. -Yes, it actually does cure these diseases the first person cured with gene therapy was On September 14, 1990, a four-year old girl suffering from a genetic disorder that prevented her body from producing a crucial enzyme became the first person to undergo gene therapy in the United States. Since her body could not produce ï¿½€œadenosine deaminaseï¿½€ï¿½ (ADA), she had a weakened immune system, making her extremely susceptible to life-threatening infections. W. French Anderson and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, took white blood cells (which are crucial for proper immune system functioning) from the girl, inserted ADA producing genes into them, and then transferred the cells back into the patient. This procedure was successful and the girl was able to increase the tolerance of her immune system. Good technique for diseases not researched yet -It is possible to find unidentified diseases through gene therapy; because what if somebody died from an unknown disease and doctors did not know how to cure this patient they only knew what it did to him and how it affected his body. In this is the case gene therapists and scientists can do research through gene therapy in an embryo to see if this disease hereditary or not. This would help severely because it could also prevent an outbreak of and dangerous transmissible disease. These unknown deaths could be tracked down before birth and possible fixed before it happens again to someone in a later generation of the family.
Gene Therapy

Rebuttal 1 · The cost of gene therapy is worth any price because it saves people lives. People that have a risk of getting cancer will not because of gene therapy and the alternative treatments for cancer such as kimo are also very expensive with no guaranteed cure. · Weighing out the cost of living a normal life in possibly a little debt has greater value than struggling throughout your life with cancer/HIV worrying if your treatments are really going to work. Rebuttal 2 · Scientists are changing the gene pool for future generations on purpose. They do this only with genes that have a future of negatively affecting the life of a human being. If a hereditary disease such as breast cancer is big in the family scientists will modify or replace that gene in order prevent this from happening not only in the next generation but for multiple generations to come. · Scientists will only do this with serious diseases or predicted problems that could possible occur not for simple attributes like hair color that is extremely rare therefore gene pools will not become the same, future diseases, blood clots, and heart failure will only diminish from this medical procedure.
Gene Therapy

Ethical Question: Is gene therapy ethical? Definition: Gene therapy is a method used to fix genes responsible for the development of diseases The first negative aspect of gene therapy is the excessive and often prohibitive cost of the therapy. · In order to treat infants with Epidermolysis Bullosa (a rare skin disease that causes intense blistering), the first year alone of gene therapy may cost up to $100,000 · Scientists have also begun developing gene therapy for treatment of the HIV virus o They estimate that the minimum cost will be $100,000 · The massive cost of these treatments creates a definite advantage for the wealthy. Those who are not as well off will be forced to rely on health insurance or they will have to scrounge up the money themselves. This is in addition to pre-existing medical bills. · Gene therapy is yet another aspect of the American lifestyle increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Another negative aspect of gene therapy is that, for certain types of gene therapy, we run the risk of permanently altering the human gene pool In one type of gene therapy commonly called germ-line therapy, the injection of new genes has a very high risk of altering the person's eggs/sperm. When these reproductive genes are altered, they are passed down to the person's descendants in their altered form. The descendant passes the mutilated genes down to their offspring and so on, and in a few hundred years, their will be no more normal genes in the human gene pool This is not an irregular circumstance. Many scientists and research organizations agree that we do run a large risk based upon their findings in various case studies. In experimental gene therapy, the mortality rate is very high. ° On September 17th, 1999, Jesse Gelsinger died as a result of an experiment. ° The test was for embryotic stem cell research. ° Within two days of the procedure he suffered from brain damage and organ failure and went into a coma. ° As high as 652 people die per year from experimenting with gene therapy. Immune system may attack cells and cells may attack vital organs · The immune system is designed to attack and destroy any intruders. · Depending on specific experiments, the immune system can respond in different ways to the procedure. · The immune system may react by attacking vital organs such as the heart or the liver. · There have been more than 800 gene therapy studies involving 5,000 U.S. patients since the NIH approved the nation’s first human gene transfer study in 1989. Yet there are no approved therapies despite 17 years of research · If there are no approved therapies yet, than there is no saying whether or not the immune system will react in a positive way to the experiment.
Gene Therapy

Ethical Question: Is gene therapy ethical? Definition: A method of replacing or manipulating a dysfunctional gene with a functioning one to help treat diseases such as hereditary diseases. This can lead to the cure of cancer, Parkinson's, Hemophilia, ect. Pro arguments: · Cures genetic disorders, hereditary diseases and others deadly illnesses that cannot be treated with any kinds of medications or antibiotics. · It can wipe out genetic diseases before they can begin and eliminate suffering for future generations · Good technique for diseases not researched yet · Give people a chance at a normal life that otherwise would not be able to.
Gene Therapy

Excessive Cost: Theoretically, every person has a chance of getting cancer or HIV/AIDS. But is it practical for every person to receive gene therapy? No. While people who actually have cancer of HIV may wish to invest in gene therapy, the other methods such as chemotherapy and radiation are significantly cheaper, and the success rate of them is 70% higher than the success rate of gene therapy. Therefore, the cost of gene therapy is ridiculous in comparison to cheaper, more successful treatments. Also, the vast majority of families are already in debt from previous medical bills. The excessive cost of gene therapy, compounded with interest, will only add to the mound of debt. Changing the Gene Pool: While scientists may not intended to change simple attributes, it is impossible to tell the unintended consequences of changing the human gene pool through gene therapy. By eliminating a virus such as AIDS, we may also eliminate blue eyes from the human gene pool. Also, it is impossible to predict every problem that can occur with gene therapy every time. Scientists would not intentionally change the human gene pool due to the risk of unforeseen consequences and the risk of complications involving the rest of the body. If we continue to change the gene pool, the future is very uncertain. Mortality Rate: As far as your argument about gene therapy techniques being relatively new; you provide no concrete evidence to show what the Medical researchers, institutions, and regulatory agencies are doing to ensure that the experiments are as safe as possible. Even so, they work as hard as they want, but as long as the gene therapy procedures are just experimental, and not officially approved, than there is no saying whether or not the procedure could be lethal. Until then, the mortality rate won't change drastically; there will still be a lot of victims who will lose their life participating in gene therapy. Immune System: Stating that processes are being researched only shows that there still isn't an answer to how they can produce a safe product that won't attack their immune system. Also, what are these treatments that are being developed and are they successful? You say there are treatments yet you only provide one example, in China, that only deals with one specific type of cancer. This is not always successful. The technique may be approved, but is it proved to be successful in more than a couple cases? Inserting p53 into the immune system may seem like a quick fix for stopping tumors from spreading, but in reality it is not healthy for the immune system because it can cause premature aging. Just because China, the only place where this is approved, uses this method, there is obviously a reason why no one else does.
On Net, Males are Not Systematically Privileged Over Females

Rules are Simple:1.) Burden of Proof is Shared2.) No SemanticsR1: I challgenge and Con acceptsR2: I will put forward arguments and Con will put forward their own argumentsR3 and R3: I will respond to Con's arguments in R2 and vice versa. New arguments can be introducedR5: Conclusios and Responses. No new ArgumentsOne more thing. I am not arguing that men are not privileged ANYWHERE. There are certain areas where men do have privilege. There are other areas where women have privilege.Both genders have areas they are disadvantaged. My argument is merely that men, on average, are not any more privileged than women. This includes ALL men and ALL women. Look forward to a good debate with a strong opponent.
Football is America's new pastime

The major disadvantage to playing football is the high risk of injury. Even with every possible safety precaution followed to the letter, scrapes, bruises, sprains, joint dislocations, broken bones and concussions are all possible on any play. Although the rules of most leagues at every level make a concerted effort to mitigate the risk of any of these injuries, the physical and often violent nature of the game make it difficult to remove entirely. Such injuries can be painful and may require significant time for rehabilitation. And now in rankings "HOCKEY" is the most watched sport compared to every nations.
The splitting of the sea is more probable then the Big Bang

The title says it all the splitting of the sea is more probable then the Big Bang. Once again this is not intended to be a religious debate in any way. I have three main arguments: The wonders So I'm Jewish and all the Jews who don't really believe in all the Torah say how it is just too incredible and impossible. An entire sea splitting! And then at the precise time lands on the Egyptians without the Jews being harmed! ? So I am not arguing that this is likely I am not even arguing that this happened. But let's examine the Big Bang. It is a theory that the world originated billions of years ago from an explosion at a single point. merriamwebsterdictionary. com That does not sound wondrous? Yes in the splitting of the sea an entire sea split but in the Big Bang an explosion created the whole world and that sea! Now what is more probable one sea splitting or an explosion that created trees, the ground, light, darkness, space, the Sun, the moon, the stars, the planets, every animal known in the world, creating animals and humans that eventually evolve, creating the millions of cells inside humans bodies, creating emotions, our brains, list goes on and on. So one explosion created millions of wonders and I think that is a lot less probable then the sea splitting. Again not saying that the sea splitting is probable. 2. Witnesses? So whenever something occurs like for example a crime scene, there often is not proof. This is certainly the case for both the Big Bang and the Splitting of the sea. But the police can get things going with witnesses. At the time period there were thousands of Jews claiming that they saw this happen. Crazy? Maybe but I don't think this is probable because what benefit do they get? Anyway it is irrelevant. Point is for thousands of years Jews were told that this occurred and maybe it didn't happen maybe they just believed one person but in the Big Bang, not a single person in history can testify to witnessing it occur. 3. Like a crime scene is there any evidence, like fingerprints maybe? For the splitting of the sea, oh yeah. There is proof of chariots in the Red Sea www. youtube. com/watch? v=Lzb4ekyX1kc and there actually is a possible scientific explanation that the winds triggered a reef. . http://abcnews.go.com... So obviously I haven't proved that it happened I just proved that it could have happened and that it is somewhat probable. As for the Big Bang, such proof does not exist. Conclusion The Big Bang is considered a theory but I don't think it is even a hypothesis. It is literally a guess not based on any facts. It is merely an assumption. Again not saying that it didn't happen but the splitting of the sea is more probable.
The splitting of the sea is more probable then the Big Bang

Just to be clear for all the athiests this is not a debate about relgion. I know athiests worship the Big Bang but please give me a chance. I'd like to thank my opponent in advance. The splitting of the sea is the one that occurred in the Bible. And the Big Bang is defined as a theory that the world orginated billions of years ago from an explosion at a single point. First round is for acceptance. I am not a fan of limiting the debate but please accept if you are committed. First round is for acceptance but keep in mind I have my argument ready so I'm just going to paste it once you accept. Good luck and I look forward to a thought provoking debate.
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

Okay. Here is my summary which is tole from round 2: "But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se."
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

I have stated my argument and faced the BOP with this statement: "a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se." Anyways, I belive we have reached what I like to call a split off point. Allow me to elaborate: every major issue has a point were there is really now way to argue for it, only your beliefs are your only argument. Like for instance: the death penalty argument's split off point would be: "is it hypocritical to kill someone because they killed another man?" Only your beliefs can really decide. In our case, it would be: "does abortion take away the freedom to pursuit a life and happiness?" So, I do not belive there is any need for more rounds because we have reached a split off point. Now, we must leave this argument to the voters.
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

That was an accident when is said baby instead of fetus. Perhaps most of the abortion reasons aren't incest or rape, but it doesn't mean that women don't abort fetus' for those reasons. And plus, all of the other reasons are perfectly good reasons for abortions. When I said It saves fetus' life per se, I meant saving it from the possibility of a terrible life that most people would rather die than endure. And The parent has legal (the need to have an italics keyboard on this website.) responsibility for the children under 18. But fetus' are they completley reliant on the mothers body to live, And they live inside they're mother, unlike children under 18. A fetus is part of a woman's body, not children under 18.
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

"If the drugs are administered, and the birth of the dead fetus is given, it is humane to the baby because it is painless." That right there is an admission that the fetus is a baby. "But one thing we can do to deter abortion Is if we instill a new adoption system: If a parent does not want a baby, than she should be able to put up the fetus for pre-adoption, and once the woman gives birth then the baby then goes to parents who will love it and care for it. Chances are this will lower abortion rates significantly. And once the woman signs up, she cannot abort the baby." Not sure how that argues against any of my points. "And the woman can choose to abort if it is a case of rape, incest, or if the fetus will have severe birth defects." Please take a close look at the chart, particularly the elective, incest, rape, and health bits- REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %) incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %) physical life of mother 0.1 % (0.01-0.3 %) physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %) fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %) mental health of mother ?? (0.1-8 %) elective --too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --economic --to avoid adjusting life --mother single or in poor relationship --enough children already --sex selection 98% (87-99 % Most abortions are because the mother had sex and didn't want a baby. Not because of rape or incest or health. And anyway, it isn't the baby's fault.(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...) "But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se." How can abortion save lives that it kills? And a child/fetus/baby is legally dependant on its parents until it is 18. Does that mean we should legalize murder of all those under 18? How can you say one would have much less pain if it is brutally butchered in the very body that is supposed to be safe? My opponent has yet to rebut any of my arguments. So, in addition to these old arguments, The new ones of Legal dependance Painful life And just plain irresponsibility And, i appologise, but pro, sorry I have not noticed this before, has the BOP. With that, I pass the buck to pro.