BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

Yes, I know that we don't have the most efficient way of transplanting kidneys, this is why a lot of people favour cloning, but at least we have another way of transplanting kidneys. We don't have another way for curing Alzheimer's, which is why we should focus on those problems that don't have solutions first, and then go back and tinker with the solutions we already have. And my source answered your question "where is your source for spontaneous combustion." We ARE an early stage for this technology, and that doesn't mean that I don't want to eradicate it completely, it just means that I don't want humans to be used for research yet (since human research costs WAY more, as in hundreds of thousands more than animal research) and I think that the money we save from using only animals should be put towards something that we need more. We need to prioritize everything we want to use money for, we can't just throw money at everything and hope for the best. No, we need to section off all our money, giving more to places that need it most and giving less to places that don't need it as much.
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

You say that we already have transplants. This is true. However, there is an upper-limit to how well transplants will work between anything but identical twins. The human immune system has a tendency to attack foreign objects, and transplanted organs work this way too. If someone gets a kidney transplant, they will be on steroids for the rest of their life since that is necessary to suppress their immune system enough that it does not attack the 'invading kidney'. Your source does not prove much except that we are in an early stage for this technology.
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

I know technologies will get more efficient, but how many more millions of dollars will that take to make them more efficient? Cloning is mainly only used for transplants and couples that want a child, but you don't NEED cloning for either of those. We already have transplants and adoption agencies. I think the money that would go to cloning should go to help cure cancer or Alzheimer's disease because those don't have alternatives, and thus shouldn't get any money, especially taxpayer dollars to keep it running. That money should go to somewhere that desperately needs it, not cloning. Oh and, spontaneous combustion in clones isn't actually called that, it's just that the clones mysteriously die, for unknown reasons, and very young, and most doctors don't know why. Oh and I have a bunch of sites, "In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death." -http://www.ornl.gov... Do you want more sources? Just tell me if you need something. :)
I will not contradict myself

Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON IN THE SAME ROUND the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com............ 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
I will not contradict myself

Previous ContradictionMy opponent claims that the contradiction that I pointed out, namely that he said that the government should not be able to force us to do anything and that he also said that businesses should be regulated is false because he did not mean that the government should regulate everything. The problem with this is that he never clarified this position when I asked him the question. Instead, he specifically and definitively answered "No" to forced action and "Yes" to regulations of businesses. When governments regulate businesses, they are forcing the businesses to do things. He cannot change his answers to squirrel out of contradictions. New Contradictions1. My opponent said that he is Pro-Life, but he then said that Compulsory Vaccination is not good. This is a contradiction because compulsory vaccination has saved thousands of lives. Smallpox, for example, was eradicated as a result of compulsory immunization.2. My opponent says that the right to life limits the right to liberty, but then says that compulsory immunization is bad. One of the reasons that compulsory immunization is done is to protect the rights of individuals with weak immune systems (such as infants and the elderly) through "herd immunity". Insofar as this is true, liberty is being restricted for life, which he agrees with as per his answer earlier.3. He also said that the government should not be able to make us do anything, and then he said that the government should be able to force its citizens to pay taxes. 4. The third question in Round 1 that I asked is if groups had the right to force people to purchase their services. He said "No". He now says that governments have the right to force citizens to pay taxes. Since taxes are taken in exchange for services, the government (a group) is forcing people to purchase services. He has contradicted himself again since he says that one group (gov) has this right. 5. My opponent says that he is Pro-Life, but he then says that stem cell research is good. Since the core of stem-cell research involves harvesting embryos and using their embryonic stem cells, he has contradicted himself again (the procedure causes a loss of fetus life, which he is against). Please do not let him attempt to add new answers to these questions. That is unfair.New Questions1. Is the Earth sad? 2. Is the Earth happy? 3. Is eating red meat linked to increases in cancer rates?4. Has Obama dealt properly with Iran?5. Should the Cuban Embargo be uplifted in order to show support for Castro? 6. Are women always treated better than men in the United States?7. Do you support "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? 8. Do you uphold your duties?9. Is it your duty to support the president in a time of war?10. Is clean drinking water bad?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction:The question is "should government be allowed to force you to do anything?" To which i answered no because things such as abortion or buying certain products i do not believe the government should be allowed to make you do. I believe they should have some influence on business because governments main role is to build infrastructure, but i do not believe they should be allowed to make individuals have abortions. Just because i believe the government should regulate some things does not mean anything. There was no contradiction. 1. Is compulsory vaccination good? No. 2. Do you support President Bush? No. 3. Are men always treated better than women in the United States? No. 4. Should children have the right to vote? No. 5. Should 17-year olds be tried as adults? no 6. Does the government have the right to tax its citizens? yes 7. Is stem cell research good? Yes. 8. Do you support PETA? No. 9. Are vegetarian diets healthier than omnivorous diets? No. 10. Should the U.S. government use economic sanctions? No.
I will not contradict myself

Questions1. Is compulsory vaccination good?2. Do you support President Bush?3. Are men always treated better than women in the United States?4. Should children have the right to vote?5. Should 17-year olds be tried as adults?6. Does the government have the right to tax its citizens?7. Is stem cell research good?8. Do you support PETA?9. Are vegetarian diets healthier than omnivorous diets?10. Should the U.S. government use economic sanctions?Contradictions1. First he tells you that governmental regulation of businesses is good, but then he tells you that the government should not be allowed to make you do anything. This is a contradiction. Regulation can only be good if the government has the power to force people to do things.
I will not contradict myself

1. Are you pro-life? yes 2. Do you believe God is omniscient? Trick question, Don't believe in a god. 3. Do groups have a right to force others to purchase their services? no 4. Is governmental regulation of business good? yes 5. Is it good to have clean drinking water? no 6. Are men and women equal in the United States? no 7. Are you a birther? no 8. Should juveniles and adults be treated equally? no 9. Should the government be able to force you to do anything? no 10. Does the right to life limit the right to liberty? yes
I will not contradict myself

I have seen several of these debates, but have not participated in any. Questions1. Are you pro-life?2. Do you believe God is omniscient?3. Do groups have a right to force others to purchase their services?4. Is governmental regulation of business good?5. Is it good to have clean drinking water?6. Are men and women equal in the United States?7. Are you a birther?8. Should juveniles and adults be treated equally?9. Should the government be able to force you to do anything?10. Does the right to life limit the right to liberty?
Resolved: DDO sucks at/cannot do math

DDO makes calculations and IS THEREFORE A CALCULATOR DDO calculates: win ratio, ELO, percentile & forum post count http://www.debate.org... This requires math. http://www.debate.org... It's deliberately and correctly sorted first by days/weeks/months unit of measurement and secondly by number, not by length of time. Most months have more than 28 days (4 weeks) so often 1 month =/= 4 weeks. http://www.timeanddate.com... Pro is refuted
Resolved: DDO sucks at/cannot do math

Evidence that DDO cant math:1) DDO has no calculator. Go ahead and try to find one on this site, I dare ya2) DDO cannot use a calculatorIts a website3) DDO cant do math conversionshttp://www.debate.org...3 days < 10 days but 10 days is GREATER THAN 1 week, which DDO apparently doesnt knowhttp://www.debate.org...4 weeks = 1 month, but apparently, DDO is not aware of such a concept. Your move Con
Resolved: DDO sucks at/cannot do math

"Calculators dont make mistakes, whereas DDO does" I debunked these "mistakes" "It does a very terrible job at doing so" Pro gave no evidence to support this. "The picture says 'Voting PERIOD', meaning it should be organized by length, not type. " "Voting Period" describes what they are, not how they are sorted. "A month is always closer to 4 weeks than 5. " Closer to 4 weeks =/= 4 weeks I debunked Pro"s claims that DDO does bad math.
Resolved: DDO sucks at/cannot do math

"DDO makes calculations and IS THEREFORE A CALCULATOR"Calculators dont make mistakes, whereas DDO does, therefore it cant be a calculator "DDO calculates: win ratio, ELO"It does a very terrible job at doing so"It's sorted first by days/weeks/months unit of measurement"The picture says 'Voting PERIOD', meaning it should be organized by length, not type. "1 month =/= 4 weeks."Months arent long enough to fill 5 weeks, since 31 is the max. A month is always closer to 4 weeks than 5.
Lebron James Is More Clutch Than Kobe Bryant

This is my first official sports debate. I am taking the unpopular position that Lebron James (Player on Miami Heat) is more clutch than Kobe Bryant (Player on Los Angeles Lakers). Rules: No semantics Con can either make his argument in round 1 or 2. Not both, as I will be only using the second round for my arguments. Burden of proof is shared. I have to show Lebron James is more clutch than Kobe Bryant and con has to show that Kobe Bryant is more clutch than Lebron James. Thank you
god is real to a believer

beliefs are required for the christian god to be true according to the bible im saying if some believe they are in the matrix, are they not in the matrix? god made everything when i ask a believer about origins. i know god is not real, nature is not a construct or creation as it would be a machine.. life is nature.. but anyway thats probably a different discussion i guess delusions are real to the person experiencing it.. if beliefs are true, god becomes real if one believes in it.. while one believing god is not true would make that true as well.. beliefs are not true
god is real to a believer

I have to admit, It's difficult to interpret your arguments but I'll give it a shot....so belief not required?Required for what? the world is not real man, i know the plugs in your arms dont showThat may be the case, or it may be complete non-sense, however I do know for a fact that I exist, because I experience it. How is this helping your argument by the way? so you admit god is not true? you admit it is just faith? or the total emptyness of desperat guess? I don't believe god exist, no - but that doesn't make it so. You see even in the absence of evidence we can't know for certain. It IS unlikely, and furthermore completely absurd, but we can't completely rule it out. However i can say that something cannot remain real for some while unreal for someone else. Only delusions and opinions can. beliefs are not trueWhat are you saying?! Please clearify.
god is real to a believer

Quoting the bible is an obvious fallacy because the bible is the origin of the said claim. It's like saying that [A] is real because [A] says so. Whilst perception and opinions are subjective, truth is universally objective. Reality cannot be BOTH [true for someone] AND [false for someone else]. It doesn't matter how we choose to perceive, approve or dismiss each others belief, we can only hold opinions on what we BELIEVE to be true or false, it does not change the outcome! If your claim is that god is real to the believer, it must also follow with the claim that god is real to everyone else, which is a completely different argument.
god is real to a believer

You're confusing termonology here. Arguments are never true or false, they are either valid or invalid. The conclusion of valid arguments are either true or false, they can not be both or neither.If I understand you correctly, which is kind of difficult, your argument is:- beliefs exists- god is based on beliefs- therfore god existsThis is NOT a valid argument because the premis is true but the conclusion can be false. Because the belief (which exists) that god does not exist contradicts the argument. If I believe in a 9/11 conspiracy (belief exist), then that would mean that god exists because I hold a belief, wouldn't it? Of course not! Your logic is flawed beyond belief!
climate change is fake

While you do have a point, it doesn't make sense. The American people tend to turn a blind eye to the topics that they are not interested. If the warming is not happening, how do you explain the strange temperature jumps that have occurred over the past few years? Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if there was no cause? As I have said, the American people won't focus on something if it isn't interesting or food. So the media spotlight drifted off to Oak Island and the Alaskan Gold Rush TV shows. The people don't care about it, so they don't pay attention. There's also something for you to think on. What happens to the chemicals that are emitted when gasoline and fuel burn? What happens when an oil rig goes down in flames, releasing hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the oceans? Coca-Cola can remove the rust of your car's bumper, what happens to all of those fumes? It's been proven that breathing in the burning chemicals poisons you, so where do the chemical fumes go?
climate change is fake

It's real Alright, here's the big question. How do we prove this argument true or false? Let's look at the facts. One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations such as National Geographic and NASA have given provable theories about this topic. Also, there is no corruption involved with a person understanding the fact that the chemicals we burn every day of our lives are killing us. Our planet is not infinite, it's resources will eventually dry up, and the human race will overpopulate the planet without the proper measures. The fact we know and understand this crisis has nothing to do with our morality and our honesty. My opponent in this debate is straying to far into biased waters, and if he's not careful, he'll get swallowed up by the giant shark called FAILURE. Climate Change exists, and it IS killing our planet.
climate change is fake

climate change is fake and all people who believe in this fake phenomeon are corrupt. first of all if climate chagne is real, then why it not cold right now in mississippi? also, john coleman the weather channel founder said this; ""There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant "greenhouse" gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years" "there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid" "
If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

OMV = Objective Moral ValuesBurden of ProofI think Pro has mis understood the resolution. Pro says "“If God does not exist, OMV do not exist,” which means he must negate and say that OMV can exist without God. "In order to affirm the resolution Pro as to show that the existence of God is the ONLY possible way OMV can exist. Pro says " It may be the case that God does not exist, in which case objective moral values (OMV) do not exist. "Pro merely asserts that Gods' non existence = therefore OMV do not exist. I ask Pro to provide justification for this, I certainty do not agree that this is a given. As Pro is affirming the resolution, it isn't enough to just assume the resolution is correct until proven other wise, since you are the Pro seeking to affirm the resolution. The Resolution: If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not existSpeciesism"To claim that our morality is somehow objective is to be guilty of speciesism"Its not necessary that human morality be objective in order to defeat the resolution. The resolution isn't Human morality is objective. As such I don't challenge the points made about humans having relative morality, and remind Pro that they have to prove the impossibility of objective morality existing absent God. Absurdity of Condemnation and Societal ConsensusPro asks "On atheism, how can something be condemned as being truly wrong? "Because it hasn't been proven that God is the only way that OMV can exist. Therefore its possible that OMV exists, even absent God, thus the atheist can condemn something as being truly wrong. If Pro is saying that the atheist is in a contradiction by implying OMV, then once again Pro would have to prove the existence of God is the only way for OMV to exist, until proven, the atheist is not caught in a contradiction. Pro asks Also, please answer this: are you a determinist? I take it you ask me this question in a free will sense, that is to say do we have free will, or are our decisions or my decisions totally the result of causality absent some kind of personal choice. In that sense I would say I believe in free will (probably not as much as others) but never the less I would say it exists. But I would also say I recognized that this is more of an unproved assumption on my part, and unproved assumptions are the most likely to be wrong. I would also add as Christopher Hitchens once said when asked about whether he believed that free will exists, he replied something along the lines of yes I believe in free will, because I don't think I have a choice in whether I believe in it or not. Hitchens did point out the irony in this statement, but he also made the point that the theist also believes in free will. .. .. .. .. .cause the man up stairs wouldn't have it any other way. I look forward to Pros response.