BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steroids should be banned in all sports.

Banned by who? Use apart from sports is acceptable? Is this your resolution? Anyway Steroids should NOT be banned in all sports. Certainly it is acceptable for private organizations to require its participants to sustain from steroids both legal and illegal. Major League Baseball, being a private (not government) entity, has the right to ban their use. The question is not about right but rather should or shouldn't they be banned in ALL sports. I concede that SOME sports they should be banned in, however not all. Contention One: Benefits for user can out weight cons. "Human Growth Hormone Studies of adults with growth hormone deficiencies show that injections of human growth hormone can: -Increase bone density -Increase muscle mass -Decrease body fat -Bolster the heart's ability to contract -Improve mood and motivation -Increase exercise capacity " http://www.mayoclinic.com... Contention 2: Spectator sports are economically based on the best of the best Steroids allow the athletes to be the best of the best. With-out steroid use spectators are not getting their full fill. When a spectator watches a Beauty Pageant the most beautiful women are required. Many of the women are enhanced by cosmetic surgery, such as a breast augmentation. This is socially acceptable, yet there may be much more significant risk with surgery than regulated steroid use. People have been using any product or knowledge they can to make themselves look better or perform better for centuries. Steroids, though a newer invention of man, is similar to make-up, cosmetic surgery, and diet supplements. Some sports such as competitive body building should allow the use of steroids for the same reason some beauty pageants allow breast enhanced participants. My intent isn't to say all sports should allow steroids, but some, should certainly have the right to allow.
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

..I see BUT! I still have some things to argue about Ferrari designers seem to design beautiful looking cars and increase the performance of the car at the same time. The new aero design of this car has 50% more downforce than it"s predecessor! Normally to get more downforce you increase the drag on the car, which ultimately slows it down. But by designing the body and intakes to smoothly flow air through channels designed to pump air flow out into the rear slipstream of the car, Ferrari manages to create more downforce without increasing drag. There are other factors that cause dirty airflow around and behind the car, including high pressure airflow in the rear wheels. It looks as though Ferrari has designed side intakes that not only push air to cool the twin turbo v8 engine, but also pull dirty air out of the wheel areas where it can smoothly exit the rear of the vehicle near the rear brake lights. Active aero flaps under the rear diffuser also adjust position automatically based on car speed to help keep the backend glued to the ground. The goal, more traction and more control. So this is why the Ferrari 488 GTB's side will win the debate!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

Yes I know, that the Ferrari wants to increase their efficiency like Porsche. But as I said, efficiency is for Porsche and power & speed is for Ferrari & Lamborghinis. Ferrari's lines and curves do inhale more air than the Lamborghini, which uses for its boost. But Ferrari has lots of medium sized intakes but the Aventador has one big one and few small ones, so inhaling air for both is kind of equal but Ferrari does have a slight advantage because it collects all the air around it. But I'm talking about aerodynamics, the tail wing for the Aventador SV is for smooth airflow to reduce the friction as I said before, but Ferrari's motor-operated tail wing is mainly for braking. I do agree that the driver in the 488 GTB has more visibility than the one at Aventador because its top is higher, but this gives the 488 GTB a little disadvantage on speed because since the top is high the air's friction would affect it, but not on the Lamborghini because it has a low top, which means smaller visibility but less air friction and smoother airflow. I have to disagree about the transmission, I know that the 488 GTB has duel clutch and the Aventador SV has a single clutch, it only makes a small difference and it really depends on the driver's opinion. And this: What do you mean the Aventador is tough to maneuver in tight spots? I know that Ferrari is rear wheel drive, so it can drift like in video games which gives Ferrari more agile in tight spots but that doesn't mean the Aventador isn't. The Aventador is AWD, so it can't drift like the 488 GTB, but it gives the Aventador turn with more grip and speed, instead of burning and wasting your precious tires.
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

Although there may be a diadvantage with a car made out of titanium-aluminide, but this ferrari has a twin-scroll turbocharger with a turbine wheel made of low-mass titanium-aluminide offers a 50 percent lower inertia than normal. In order to increase the efficiency, Ferrari engineers built the turbochargers to use abradable housing seals and ball bearings. Now, about the design... The lamborghini's design is better. Although it is less streamlined which can slow its speed down. The cons about the Lamborghini is that: 1. Poor outward visibility 2. Awkward shifting transmission 3. Tough to maneuver in tight spots What ya gonna say?!
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

Well, yeah. The Ferrari might have less emission and more mileage but for the hypercars, you need power. Ferrari 488 GTB Cost: $242,737 HP: 661 0-60mph: 3.0s RPM: 8000 Maximum Top speed: 205mph Mostly made out of: Aluminum Cylinders: V8 1/4 Mile drag: 10.5s Rear wheel drive Lamborghini Aventador SV Cost: Over $500,000 HP: 740 0-60mph: 2.8s RPM: 8400 Maximum Top speed: About 217mph Mostly made out of: Carbon Fiber Cylinders: V12 1/4 Mile drag: 10.7s (READ: This time is with the normal Aventador, since the SV has more power and toque, it is faster) All wheel drive Yes yes yes, I know. Ferrari is actually like $300,000 more cheaper but the Aventador's made out of carbon fiber, which is stronger and lighter, it has way more power and bigger and more powerful engine, and it's freaking all wheel drive! Also, People actually don't really care about the fuel economy and the emissions of a hypercar (Unless it's a Porsche), people like families with minivans care about it, because with hypercars like these, power and speed is the key. Also, if you're saying "Pfft, the normal Aventador takes 10.7 seconds to go across 1/4 miles, 488GTB does it better" Well, you're wrong. The Aventador SV is actually way faster than the normal Aventador and the 488 GTB's relationship with the famous 458 Italia i just like the Aventador SV and the normal Aventador. If you know what I'm saying, you know that the normal Aventador is faster than the 458 Italia, so you can't really compare and contrast 488 GTB with a normal Aventador. Now, the design... I have to agree that the 488 GTB's curves and air intakes are beautiful and well made. But can it beat the design of the Aventador SV? Nope Trust me, if I do a poll about it, I bet even the normal Aventador's design will beat the 488 GTB's. Also, the frame. What did Ferrari use? Did you just say aluminum? The ones that is used to build everyday family sedans and vans? What did Lamborghini use? Did you just say carbon fiber? The ones that is used to build hypercars such as Bugatti, Pagani, Koenigsegg and more? Wow. Carbon fiber has about four times the strength than the aluminum that Ferrari uses. But it has almost half the density of aluminum. But that's not it. The aerodynamics. You can see tail spoilers, new body kits, kind of like the Veneno on the Aventador. You can also see them too on the 488 GTB, but does it work smoothly as the Aventador? There are two reasons NO. One: Aventador has more kits that actually makes the air around it go smoothly around the car so the friction that the air causes is reduced, but 488 GTB doesn't have that much and 80% of the kit is actually used for inhaling air. Two: Carbon fiber vs aluminum, if you look at what I said, what do you think it's better? Well, you already know the answer. Beat that.
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

The newly turbocharged sports car makes far more power and torque than its naturally aspirated predecessor, helping it to go considerably quicker both in a straight line and around a track. It will do this while burning a bit less fuel and emitting a bit less carbon dioxide. GO FERRARI 488 GTB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lamborghini Aventador SV vs Ferrari 488 GTB

The famous hyper car brand, Lamborghini, has made a huge upgrade to their masterpiece, Lamborghini Aventador, into an Aventador SV. To this reaction, Lamborghini's rival hyper car brand, Ferrari, created the new masterpiece, Ferrari 488 GTB, I am on Lamborghini's side because I've been a fan of the Aventador since it first came out. To see Lamborghini Aventador SV photo: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... To see Ferrari 488 GTB photo: http://www.ferrari-zenith.ch...
Corporations Are People and Should Be Granted the Rights of People

Con came up with the following Jefferson's quote:"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"Where did you find that quote? It is not in the Declaration of Independence, please provide a reference to said quote. Our Unalienable Rights come from the Laws of Nature not from man. The US Constitution gives us no rights at all. The “Bill of Rights” are simply telling the government what rights the government has in protecting the Unalienable Rights of the individual. Another way to look at the Bill of Rights are actually 10 commandments from the people to the government. Starting with the First Amendment we have the phrase “Congress shall make no law...” In the Second, we have the phrase “... shall not be infringed.” The 10 Amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are simply telling the government, like the Ten Commandments loaded with similar phrases as “thou shall not(s)…” Con must realize man-made terms and definitions evolve in time. The Laws of Nature do not. As time marches forward new terms and definitions or new knowledge from the sciences will fine-tune the language, as the language evolves. The research from Takac and Bejan is new, adding depth to Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights, and Pro is using this new knowledge, from the Laws of Nature, as the foundation to the burden of proof. Simply put, all life and social systems once they come into existence (“Life”), they have the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival (positive-feedback); otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, packs, tribes, groups, governments, corporations, any living-system, they all have Unalienable Rights, “Granted” by the Laws of Nature, by the fact of their existence. Corporations are just like any social-group with man-made laws wrapped around to establish a corporate veil, tax structure, etc. Corporations are a group of humans, and by their existence, like humans, are “Granted” Unalienable Rights by the Laws of Nature. The US Constitution protects the Unalienable Rights of humans, effectively protecting groups of humans; hence, the corporations.
Corporations Are People and Should Be Granted the Rights of People

Seido (Con) I wish you a speedy recovery from your oral surgery. Con mentioned that “the majority of this debate will be interpreting laws...” The laws I will be focusing on starts in one of our founding documents, and on the eve of the Fourth of July, it is most fitting to begin with the US Declaration of Independence. In that document Thomas Jefferson made reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” Jefferson made claim that all “men” (aka humans) are “endowed ... with Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” According to Jefferson, Unalienable Rights are part of the Laws of Nature, not man-made. Recently, Takac presented scientific empirical evidence to verify Jefferson's claim: http://www.bookdaily.com...Unalienable Rights are an outgrowth of the physical Constructal Law:http://www.amazon.com... Since Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature applies to all living-systems (Takac). Living-systems range from a single living cell to social systems. That is, once alive (“Life”), has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of positive-feedback (survival, chemical/electrical, “Happiness” for us humans, etc).One social system, is in a form of a corporation, where its charter gives it the Right to corporate Life. The free market provides the corporation with Liberty, as it pursues Happiness through such objectives as profits, growth, etc.A corporation, like a human, is a living entity. A corporation maintains a set of humans. No humans, no corporations. The US Constitution's objective is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. Since a corporation is made up of humans, therefore, embracing and protecting Unalienable Rights naturally extends to the corporation. Within this context, the physical Laws of Nature trumps man-made laws.Corporations have the same Unalienable Rights as any living-system “Granted” by the Laws of Nature.
Corporations Are People and Should Be Granted the Rights of People

This debate revolved around the question of if corporations can be considered people and if they should receive the same rights as those that the American people have been granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The idea for this debate formed from the multiple Supreme Court of the United States rulings in regard to this issue, including the two about allowing corporations to donate money to political campaigns, and the recent ruling about corporations providing conception. The first two were primarily about whether or not corporations had free speech, and the most recent one was about if they had freedom of religion. The majority of this debate will be interpreting laws, and other such legal documents and definitions. . The Supreme Court did its own interpretation and found its own definitions and reasoning for its decisions. Interpretations are subjective and are to be left to the people debating the topics at hand. For this reason, the Supreme Court's rulings cannot be used as proof or evidence. Their decisions and reasoning may, however, be used to provide support for arguments that are made. The burden of proof will fall upon whoever takes the pro side of this argument. They are making the affirmative claim, and therefore must prove their statement. Given that the burden of proof falls upon the pro side, the rounds will be setup as such: Round 1: Con: This introduction Pro: Acceptance AND argument as to why corporations are to be considered people Round 2: Con: Rebuttal Pro: Rebuttal, further reasoning for the prior point, and why corporations should be given the rights that people have Round 3: Con: Rebuttal Pro: Conclusion Round 4: Con: Conclusion Pro: Please refrain from saying anything in this round. With this current setup, we will both have had an equal amount of rounds to debate. If you have any comments or questions about this debate, please leave them in the comments section.
Corporations Are People and Should Be Granted the Rights of People

My Friend Con, thank you for a good debate on an important subject. Following through with your debate rules stated in Round 1, Pro is “refrain from saying anything in this round” (aka further debate).And in saying that, please allowed me to mention, I feel your pain, in perhaps, not enjoying all those celebrated dishes of food on the birthday of our Independence, in the shadow of your “oral surgery.” And in closing I wish you a healthy “Life,” with ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral pursuit of Happiness.”
Fatalism

As I've already clarified, this is not just a matter of our epistemic limits. The whole point of everything I said last round is that after more than a century of observing sub-atomic particle movements, scientists have come to the decisive conclusion that determinism simply does not apply to quantum mechanics. We are not "unable to explain" quantum phenomena. In fact, we HAVE explained them -- as being fully indeterministic. The flaw in Pro's reasoning is his unwarranted assumption that the lack of determinism is an "imperfection". In other words, he is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning by assuming the truth of his conclusion in the process of affirming it. Starting from a tabula rasa state of mind (discarding whatever pre-existing intuitions we might have on the matter), there is no reason whatsoever to believe that blatantly-indeterministic particle movements are deterministic. That alone is enough to negate the resolution, seeing that the burden Pro imposed upon himself was to affirm fatalism as a TRUISM. But in addition to that, we have Nuemann's statistical proofs, the abductive failures of Bohmian mechanics, and the general scientific consensus on the issue, all of which provide positive reasons to reject determinism in quantum mechanics. The movements of sub-atomic particles is clearly indeterministic, and therefore Pro's syllogistic proof fails. SUBSTANCE DUALISMAgain, Pro has engaged in circular reasoning. He is assuming that determinism is true in order to assert that it must apply to the mind, by default. Starting tabula rasa, there is no reason to believe that this is the case. Last round, I provided a very straightforward (and uncontested) reason to presume autonomy of the mind -- the mind is an inherently first-person substance, and it's prima facie obvious from a first-person perspective that we have free will, so (absent any overriding reasons to believe otherwise) it would seem logical to think that the mind is similarly free of deterministic constraint. Contrary to Pro's assertions, there IS reason to believe that qualia is non-physical. .. that is what I spent much of last round explaining. Like I said, there's a fundamental ontological barrier to ever explaining qualia physically: consciousness is first-person, whereas matter is third-person. There's not much more for me to say here, since Pro basically just disregarded everything I said. Substance Dualism is true, and it completely defies fatalism by allowing for free will to exist. If you still believe that Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof (affirming fatalism as a truism), then I can only conclude that he is right and that you are indeed a deterministic robot -- one which has been programmed to be wrong.
Fatalism

There are two enormous flaws with my opponent's argument.QUANTUM INDETERMINISMPro case is based wholly upon the outdated, classical principles of physics. He seems to have completely forgotten about the 20th century and all the many groundbreaking scientific discoveries that came with it. In particular, quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Pro's conception of the universe by demonstrating that sub-atomic particles are NOT subject to predetermined fates. Their movements have been revealed to be largely indeterministic & random, and the closest physicists have come to quantifying them is calculating probability distributions [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. Let's consider the following overly-simplified probability distribution: "Particle X has a 30% chance of taking Path Y, and a 70% chance of taking Path Z". The only information this gives us is that if we repeat the junction an infinite number of times, the ratio of instances where it takes Path X vs. Path Y will approach 3:7. But at each individual junction, it is impossible to know which path the particle will take. There is no explanation for why Particle X would take Path Y instead of Path Z (or vice versa). The particle will randomly "choose" a path, with no indication as to which one until the moment of "decision". Modern physics clearly shows that particles' movements are not predetermined; they are spontaneous and acausal. SUBSTANCE DUALISMMy opponent makes the mistake of assuming a physicalist ontology. The conclusion of his syllogism is only relevant to the resolution if the universe consists entirely of physical particles, but that is not necessarily the case. In fact, we have good reason to believe that some components of the universe are distinctly non-physical, namely human consciousness. The most compelling argument in favor of this idea is that physicalism fails to explain qualia [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. In other words, no matter how much is known about the neurological mechanics of the brain, it will still be impossible to explain how we are able to consciously experience things from a first-person perspective. Matter is inherently impersonal and third-person, so at best, full knowledge of neurology would only be able to explain how human beings function as inanimate robots. How do we reconcile our faculty of conscious experience with the inanimate material reality of our brains? I propose the solution of Substance Dualism, the philosophy that another metaphysical substance exists apart from matter -- an inherently first-person mental substance ("mind"). Mind would interact with the physical brain to produce what we know to be conscious experience, and also serve as our source of identity. More importantly, being non-physical, mind would not be bound by the physical principle of determinism, thus granting us the capacity to exercise free will. That is literally the anti-thesis of fatalism, so by affirming Substance Dualism, I have won the debate.Over to Pro.
Fatalism

The ArgumentI argue that our fates are set, and that anything and everything we do is predetermined. (Random Corollaty: Nothing is truly random)Rules1) This debate is made impossible to accept. Apply in the comments section below if you would like to take CON.2) If you apply, I must have evidence (i.e. past debate history) that you will not forfeit. If you forfeit, I autmatically win.3) No trolling. Trolling results in an automatic loss for the party responsible and will be gauged by the voters4) No kritiks. You lose if you somehow run a kritik of any kind.5) If you are capable of accepting this debate - then you didn't need to apply in the comments section. I will glady take you on since I don't think any of these rules will be an issueStructureRound 1: acceptanceRound 2: constructiveRound 3: refutationsRound 4: crystallizationDefinitionsFatalism -the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.I am arguing fatalism as a truism. Burden of proof is on me.
Could a female (XX) embryo be treated to produce a viable anatomical male.

An organism's sex is wholly dependent on the organism's sex chromosomes. In humans, for example, they are what we refer to as the X and Y chromosomes (as I'm sure you are aware; I'm trying to be thorough, not patronizing). The genetic information required for a fertile female is wholly contained within the X chromosome. Conversely, the genetic information required for a fertile male is contained within the Y chromosome. However, the Y chromosome is not sufficient for a functioning cell and requires an X chromosome to run a fully-functioning cell. Hormones alone cannot induce production of proteins not coded for in DNA. Therefore, an embryo with XX sex chromosomes cannot be be induced to become a male. DNA editing or addition is required.