BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eugenics

To respond with the citation I have found, (and keep in mind I remembered this I remembered this off of the top of my head) here one of many articles found simply by typing in human junk DNA states that 98% of human DNA is not used: http://en.wikipedia.org... and click on the subsection "Fraction of noncoding genomic DNA." I agree with my opponent in stating that my claims were a bit naive, but that is because it was the silver-lining and not the whole picture. The quest to perfect Eugenics WILL NOT be instantaneous and probably wouldn't even be mastered by the time we die, but the quest is still worth it in the end. My opponent states that utopia is an unachievable goal, and I say that eugenics is what makes utopia achievable. Perfection is achievable, but only with hard work towards this goal. DNA manipulation is a complicated process, but with the understanding we already have, we have already manipulated a rat's DNA to an achievable effect. We have also taken human cells and made them live twice as long using DNA engineering. On a monetary note, genetic engineering wouldn't be an extremely expensive procedure in general and it could be a public good that is paid for everyone. This would split up the cost and make it more (note this word) acceptable. And I am not saying that this procedure would be used by everyone, but it could be given to many. Plus as this becomes more and more popular, the procedure would be almost like a manufactured process. Computer programs would pinpoint target DNA of interest and fix them and technicians would have to be less qualified than the professionals that would foresee the operation. On the issue of manufactured discrimination, this is how life is in general. All eugenics would be doing was creating a larger upper class. I mean, doesn't the preppy kids in high school always down the lower castes of high school? Don't rich folk bag on poor people? Yet poor people and the lower castes play a major role in society that, although not seen by most people that way, play the largest part in society. On the issue of genetic mistakes, when I talk of eugenics, I am not thinking of creating a society in which everyone looks and acts the same, but looks and acts better. The genetic traits that would be altered are traits that could lead to physical and mental deformity. I wouldn't think of eliminating individuality as a whole. I believe individuality is extremely important in society as a way of having a self image. And as you can relate this to the fountain of youth, I can assure you this is completely different. Eugenics has significant physical evidence and peer-reviewed proof unlike the fountain of youth. I am telling you that a utopia is achievable after a period of transition. The upper class will expand to envelope the lower castes slowly until perfection is achieved.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

RIGHTS"I"d agree its an obvious statement that utilitarianism is a natural right but it it is exactly this which many don"t except. ""You claim it"s a principle of equal consideration but why is it not also a right? Do animals not have a right to equal consideration if this principle is correct? ""The right to life and most other rights are different than the right to equal consideration. It is a predecessor to ethical theories and not a right created after the theory. Therefore it does not suffer the same conflict as all other rights do with utilitarianism. "Ok, lets say utilitarianism is a right. .. what now? Does a right have any meaning on its own? No, a right is only meaningful if it is claimed that rights ought to be acknowledged, which would be a principle of a rights theory not utilitarianism itself. I pointed out in my last rebuttal that ethical principles are axioms whilst rights are not. There is no such thing as a rights that are predecessors to ethical theories since ethical theories are what give meaning to rights in the first place. "So as the debate title argues, if you accept utilitarianism you should accept animals as part of it. "Indeed, utilitarians should consider the interests of animals, but that is not actually what the title says: "If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans" Which is not the case since, as I lined out earlier, utilitarianism has no regards for rights of any kind. "Many utilitarians reject equal consideration of animals and when they state the happiness of the greatest number they only include humans in this number. " If it is the case that many contemporary utilitarians do not consider animals appropriately then not acknowledging this is due to my personal ignorance but also not of any relevance for my point.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

RIGHTS "Of course one can proclaim that utilitarianism is a natural right of all sensible organism but at this point we have distorted the terms beyond recognition, we might as well say that obeying the laws of physics is an inalienable natural right of everything. " I"d agree its an obvious statement that utilitarianism is a natural right but it it is exactly this which many don"t except. So as the debate title argues, if you accept utilitarianism you should accept animals as part of it. R32;R32;EQUALR32;R32; "R32;I assumed that, since every form of utilitarianism and every utilitarian I know of is in favor of moral considerations for animals, this would be self explanatory but there we go:R32; Since a lot of animals are able to have interests those are covered by the principle of equal consideration of interests. It is as simple as that. " This is the topic of the debate. Many utilitarians reject equal consideration of animals and when they state the happiness of the greatest number they only include humans in this number. However I am arguing that to do so is unjustified. You claim it"s a principle of equal consideration but why is it not also a right? Do animals not have a right to equal consideration if this principle is correct? "Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic from human nature, or from the edict of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights. "(2)" Which of these criteria does the right to equal consideration not meet. It appears it is a right. R32;"It is quite funny to claim that utilitarianism provides inalienable, natural rights since the clich" objection to utilitarianism basically goes like "It is ok for utilitarians to murder an innocent person if the organs can save two others" . .. .. which would violate the right to life. " The right to life and most other rights are different than the right to equal consideration. It is a predecessor to ethical theories and not a right created after the theory. Therefore it does not suffer the same conflict as all other rights do with utilitarianism.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

RIGHTS R32;"Utilitarianism does not provide any rights, it is however based on the principle of equal consideration." I would argue that equal consideration is both a principle and a right. There is not opposition in the terms that prevents this from being the case. This right (moral entitlement to have something) is the principle on which utilitarianism is based. Principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." There is a difference between rights that can be given if this gives the maximum pleasure and minimises the pain and the right of equal consideration which utilitarianism relies upon in order to give these created rights. EQUALR32;R32;R32; ""this supports the claim that non-human animals and humans should not be considered equal in terms of moral consideration." "These differences don't cancel out each other, in reality the more differing factors and circumstances one can mention the less "equal" non-human animals and humans get." I agree they do not cancel each other but the point I was rejecting you on was that intellect does not mean one species is favoured over another. If you accept this then animals and humans should share the right to equal consideration. R32;R32;"Just as a child is not treated equally to adults yet still has equal rights."R32; This is not the case because children do not for example posses the right to vote which would be equally ludicrous as giving that right to animals as Pro mentioned.R32; Response: as outlined at the start of the debate we are debating natural and not legal rights so the right to vote is not an adequate example. I assume you would respect the view that children have equal natural rights as other humans? If you do then you should accept that animals do also. "The last thing I could add is again that the equal consideration of interests is not a right but a principle but this principle is of course extended in to the animal realm." There has to be a reason given to extend this principle into the animal realm and you do not give one. The right to equal consideration would be an adequate reason to extend this to animals. The reasons for this right are grounded in the equal capacity between animals and humans to feel pleasure and pain.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

RIGHTS Utilitarianism does not provide any rights, it is however based on the principle of equal consideration. "Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something. Principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."(1) Yes, utilitarianism is a naturalistic ethical theory but even virtue ethics and natural-rights libertarianism can fall under that category. "natural rights are the sub-class of moral rights that humans have because of their nature.„(2)Whether or not these apply to animals is debatable but as I said, some rights are prescriptively useful for the utilitarian normative ideal, yet if they stand in the way of welfare, the utilitarian will dismiss these rights.EQUAL"An animal could be trapped and get extremely distressed it cannot get out. However, a human could be trapped (e.g. told to wait in a room at airport security) and not be so distressed." This does in no way contradict what I (and Singer) am proposing, in fact this supports the claim that non-human animals and humans should not be considered equal in terms of moral consideration. These differences don't cancel out eachother, in reality the more differing factors and circumstances one can mention the less "equal" non-human animals and humans get. Moreover equal consideration of interests is not synonymous with equal rights since rights are something that are held by all humans and by extension all animals. Rights theorists have always struggled with the question of what to do when rights stand in conflict with eachother and what rights to give that are universally applicable. "Just as a child is not treated equally to adults yet still has equal rights."This is not the case because children do not for example posses the right to vote which would be equally ludicrous as giving that right to animals as Pro mentioned.The last thing I could add is again that the equal consideration of interests is not a right but a principle but this principle is of course extended in to the animal realm. (1)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2)http://plato.stanford.edu...
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

Thanks for accepting my challenge. RIGHTS Utilitarianism gives the right of equal consideration. Its an egalitarian theory and therefore everyone has the right to be considered equally when making moral decisions. Since this right is not legal I can only see that it is natural since utilitarianism appeals to naturalism. It bases what is right and wrong on an aspect of nature, namely, pleasure and pain. Animals possess these natural features and therefore deserve the right of equal consideration under utilitarian grounds. EQUAL "Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances." A human"s mental capacity cannot be used to change the right to equal consideration. In some situations as in the example Con gave it does lead them to suffer more. However, this also works the other way. An animal could be trapped and get extremely distressed it cannot get out. However, a human could be trapped (e.g. told to wait in a room at airport security) and not be so distressed. The human knows they have a valid passport and that security probably just has a few checks to make. They use their mental capacities to reason that they will probably get through soon and therefore are less stressed than the animal. Therefore, human mental capacity should not change an animal"s right to equal consideration as this right is based on pain and pleasure. As pain and pleasure can be both enhanced and lessened by mental intellect depending on the circumstance, it cannot be seen as a significant factor in altering this right. Furthermore, equal consideration of interests does not mean that both animals and humans have similar interests. For instance living on an organic farm where you are given food/ shelter when needed etc. is sufficient to satisfy an animal but not a human. This does not mean they are not equal but merely that they require different things to maximize their pleasure and minimise their pain. Therefore I agree with you that animals should not be treated equally to humans but equal treatment is not synonymous with equal rights. Just as a child is not treated equally to adults yet still has equal rights. The pain and pleasure that humans and animals feel grants them a right to equal consideration.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

Thanks for instigating this debate, as Con I will argue that if I accepts utilitarianism I should accept that animals have equal rights to humans. Disclaimer: I am a utilitarian and a vegetarian myself yet I am not playing devils advocate.I chose Con for two simple reasons: "Equal" and "Rights"RightsUtilitarianism has no regards for natural rights, in fact proponents of natural rights and rights theories are most of the time direct opponents of utilitarianism. It is true that some rights are prescriptively useful for the utilitarian normative idea but as soon as rights stand in the way of welfare the utilitarian puts the rights aside.EqualSince I dismissed the "rights" part of "equal rights" I will treat equal as in equal moral responsibility."Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, adults who entered parks would become fearful that they would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment. The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon." (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics chap. 3)With this in mind it should be clear why animals are not to be treated equal to humans.
If you accept utilitarianism you should accept that animals have equal rights to humans

I will be arguing that humans have a moral responsibility towards non-human animals. This responsibility finds its grounding in a utilitarian moral framework. I will argue that animals should be included on an equal basis to humans when making moral decisions and that animals have equal rights to humans. These rights are based on natural and not societal reasons. Equal rights should be extended to non-human animals where practical (this may not be practical in some instances such as in the right to vote). This will be a debate over whether animals have these natural rights. Definitions. Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness and minimises pain, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
God does not exist

In this debate I (Pro) will be arguing against the existence of god.(Con) will argue for the existence of god.Definition: god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunesRules : no trolling no forfeitsRound one : acceptanceR2 :argumentsR3 :Rebuttals + argumentsR4 :RebuttalsR5 :RebuttalsI welcome a good opponent.
God does not exist

1. Faith precedes the physical evidenceEveryone is an atheist. Everyone doesn't believe in at least one God. A Christian believes in the Christian faith, because he happens to be brought up in a Christian country. If you happen to brought up in the middle east you will most likely be a Muslim, and I am sure that you do not believe in the ancient Egyptian sun god Ra, etc. As a Christian my opponent claims to know which one is the right one. If (Con) wants to advance on the claim that the Christian God is the right one, I will be happy to hear what he have to say about that, if he do it convincingly.Why choose any religion over another, since its based on blind faith.My opponent says: " My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith." Since we use the definition of faith:' belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof ', therefore I must point out that there may be the two kinds of faith. There is that religious, blind faith which is based on no evidence at all, on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, and there is that faith in the reasoning process or the scientific method. There is a huge difference between the two, since the faith in reason is reliable and rational, and the blind faith is unreliable and there is no reason to follow it. The argument " My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith." is nothing but meaningless. You don't need faith if you have the evidence, that's what faith means, simply throwing yourself in a illogical and irrational believe. 2. The idea of God is transcendent'Mortal man cannot paint an object or person that does not exist, or has not existed. Every painting is a result of a direct observation, memory, or copy of what somebody else has seen.' The man made illusion of God, came from the desire for authority, to have someone to tell you what to do, to take care of you while you live and after you die. It came before we knew that the earth orbit the sun, and It came from time when we didn't have any good answers for anything, and we needed explanation, even a bad one is better than nothing. Our first attempts in philosophy and general knowledge. Well, the claims of the bible are irrelevant in 21st century, the metaphysical claims are false, I can pay you (Con) the compliment as I assume you as a biologist and since you have background in science, you will agree with that. We know great deal about our cosmos, earth and origins. We don't need an explanation of how things came to be, as I argued in the first round, the supernatural explanations are unnecessary.There is no particular reason to suggest that Christianity is more true than any other myth or fantasy. As (Con) says himself nothing more than our on imagination and wishful thinking.
God does not exist

I feel a certain amount of excitement as I feel that I'm engaging in a friendly and civil debate. My background consists of an of undergraduate degree in biology, and" employment in the mainly scientific field of wildlife management. I'm also active in my church attendance and participation (Christian), and I have done so through a crisis of faith that resulted in discovering a balance between science and religion. I shall order my argument into 2 parts, and they are as follows: 1. Faith precedes the physical evidence The direction of these "existence of God" debates almost always becomes evidence driven. " My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith. " Definition Faith: belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" ( Hebrews 11:1) What is the evidence that Paul speaks of? I would argue that he means things or impressions that are intrinsic, or in the context of this debate, they are spiritual apprehensions. Such evidences are unmeasured to mankind, and ultimately individualistic. I would also note that because spiritual apprehensions are unmeasurable by extrinsic means, they can neither be supported nor refuted by science just as the existence of God. Physical or even metaphysical evidences of God's existence will always point to faith in them. " There is no telescope to look up and see His face, yet He didn't leave us in the dark. There are those who have seen him, but again you need faith to believe on the words of those who have. I believe that God has a comprehensible personage and can show himself according to his own will and purpose," and for those who have seen him in the flesh still must rely on faith. After all how many witnessed the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, yet called for His crucifixion, excusing Him to be an ordinary man. Our ultimate test is to worship by faith, and not by knowledge alone. 2. The idea of God is transcendent I will first illustrate this argument by a parallel in art. Mortal man cannot paint an object or person that does not exist, or has not existed. Every painting is a result of a direct observation, memory, or copy of what somebody else has seen. Any variation to that reality becomes a distortion of it, and is a result of both skill level and personal preferences in making distortions (keep in mind that these distortions are also linked to observable things), thus we get various forms and meanings of art that is separate from realism such as impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, etc. No matter the style of art, the central idea, color scheme, or shapes are tied to that which is real. My point is that mankind does not create the idea of god, but will distort the idea of God according to his or her own imagination or selfish desires. The idea of a supernatural being itself depends on the manifestation of a supernatural being to cause various ideas of god/gods as well as religion in all of it's variations.