BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human Cloning

I believe that human cloning should be legal because wars could be fought without the risk of losing a human you would only lose a copy of a human. That being said we could also make new jobs for human cloning, so those people out there with little food or money could find a job as being a test subject, which would help refine human cloning. Say you mom or dad recently died, if you have something like a hair sample or a fingernail then you could recreate them and have a new mother/father.
Philosophy Debates are just mental fights to feel superior

I don't argue that your point isn't valid in some cases; only that there's no clear and verifiable way to know another's motivations. Examples of possible motivations based on personal experiences: Entertainment Education Brain games - to keep your mind sharp Product research Actually looking for an answer to a question To help one make a decision I would be interested in your argument as to how these motivations can be linked to some desire to prove one's superiority over another.
Philosophy Debates are just mental fights to feel superior

No trolls. I propose that the true goal, conscious or unconscious, of a philosophical debate is the same goal of a boxer or MMA fighter. The goal is to prove your superior to another, the only difference between boxing and philosophical debating is you use your mind rather than body to feel superior. One might mask their true intentions by saying their goal is to expand the depths of their mind and knowledge, but this is a lie to themselves and their opponent. 3 rounds, start with your argument and any questions.
Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

My opponent has not responded to why his computer won't allow the google doc to open. I've told him (on his profile) that it's working fine on every computer I can get a hold of. So there's no reason not to be able to respond.But even if, he neglected to respond to the arguments I made against his case that were outside of the google doc. Those he could've easily responded to without needing to open up the google doc. Since he neglected to do this, count this as a concession and extend all my refutations.
Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.This will be an LD-esque debate. All types of LD cases are acceptable. Round uses will break down as such:Round one - Con presents rules, pro presents first case.Round two - Con presents case and rebukes, pro defends and rebukes.Round three - Con defends and rebukes, pro defends and rebukes. No new arguments in this round.The rounds were structured this way to keep things as close to LD format as possible. I await my opponent's case.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

- Refuting The Notion That The Constructal Law Caused The Universe The problem with this line of reasoning is that laws of nature don't directly cause anything to begin to exist, they are merely descriptions. The law of gravity doesn't cause planets or moons to begin to exist for example, it is the force of gravity which does this. The law of gravity is just what describes the behaviour of the force but a description doesn't have sufficient causal powers itself. So even if the Constructal Law is true, that doesn't mean the law describing this behaviour could account for the beginning of the universe. - My Oppoent's Support For The First Premise Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument Still Fails Let's say that the Constructal Law (we will call it the CL) existed at the same time as the beginning of the universe at t=0 as my opponent implies, and didn't exist prior to the universe either temporally or ontologically. This means that the CL began to exist at t=O, but what reason do we have to believe that the CL had a cause? There must be some reason which justifies the notion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Since Pro implies the CL itself began to exist, and had offered no external reason to believe the CL had a cause then it is still the case that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unjustified based on his argumentation. The CL is not a causal principle that applies to whatever begins to exist, it is merely a description of universal evolution through time. My opponent is using a law which he has not shown supports the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to try to support the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Even if the CL was a causal principle (which it isn't), perhaps it only applies to that within the universe and not the universe as a whole, or, perhaps there is another universe not described by the CL, maybe there is a supernatural world not described by the CL. All of these possibilities make it clear that the CL in no way shape or form is sufficient to support the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. - Conclusion My opponent has failed to support the Kalam Cosmogical Argument as he has given no good reason to believe the first premise is true, all he has given us is some restrictive evolutionary principle that holds true in our universe, but not a causal principle that necessarily applies to "whatever begins to exist". He also said the CL caused the universe but laws of nature are descriptive and don't have the power themselves to create so this is false as well. Since my only job was to show that my opponent's reasoning to support the argument fails, and I have done so, one must be compelled to vote Con. As per the rules my opponent will argue and rebuttal no more, and simply put ". .. " as we have each had 3 rounds to argue.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Con stated, "However, in order for it to be true that the universe has a cause, it must be true that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" prior to the universe; not just after the universe exists (since causes are prior to their effects)." The universe cause (the constructal law) and existence (Big Bang) happened simultaneously (aka at the same time). Therefore, cause did not happen after the universe existed. In other words, cause and existence happened at time equal zero (t=0) at the Big Bang event; otherwise, we will not be here. The constructal law is the law of evolution. If the Big Bang happened before the cause of evolution we would not be here because there will be no difference between t=0 and any moment after zero. Therefore, the cause of evolution must be there at t=0 so any moment after zero will be different. If Con claimed "causes are prior to their effects," then the Burden Of Proof is on Con that the constructal law happened before t=0.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

- Problem With My Opponent's Response My opponent says that all through the known time of the universe it is true that whatever begins to exist has a cause because of the Constructal Law he cited. Even if this is true it still wouldn't support the notion that everything that begins to exist has a cause, just the notion that everything that begins to exist has a cause after the universe already exists. However, in order for it to be true that the universe has a cause, it must be true that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" prior to the universe; not just after the universe exists (since causes are prior to their effects). - Shifting The Burden Of Proof My opponent asks if I can show that his causal implications are false, I do not have to. All I have to do is show Pro hasn't succifiently supported the premise(s) properly, not actually do any falsification. Even if I was to grant what he is saying is true, I have still shown why it isn't proper justification for the premise in question. - Conclusion My opponent's support for the first premise fails. Thus, the argument has not been sufficiently supported. Also, Pro implies a shifting of the burden of proof.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause"All through the known time of the universe, “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” From the existence of pure energy flow at the “beginning” of time (the Big Bang) to today, the existence of everything has a cause defined by the constructal law. The result is everything existing today including Con and Pro having this debate. Can Con prove this was not to be the case?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

My job is to show why Pro's reasoning to support the argument fails. To do this all I have to do is point out that this reasoning lacks any justification for believing the first premise: "P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause" Since his reasoning to support the argument lacks justification for this premise, Pro has not met his burden of proof in this debate. My opponent additionally presents The Constructal Law, which is as follows: "For a flow system to exist in time (to live) it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents. " The problem is that with regards to The Big Bang model my opponent sites, time also began at the moment of The Big Bang [1], as Stephen Hawking notes: ". .. The universe has not existed forever. Rather the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in The Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. " - Stephen Hawking [2] This means that the universe as a whole is not within time, because that would suppose time existed before the universe. Since Pro's Constructal Law only applies to that which is within time; it cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Ergo, Pro's reasoning here fails as well. Even if it isn't necessarily the case that time began with The Big Bang, Pro must show that it is not the case to sustain his burden of proof. This has not been done. -Conclusion- My opponent has failed to sufficiently support the premises of the argument. Since I have shown this, I have met my burden in this debate. Sources [1] . https://www.google.ca... [2] . http://www.hawking.org.uk...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Thank you Con (Rational_Thinker9119) for listing a segment of Kalam's philosophy pertaining to your list of (P1, P2, C) here in Round 1. May we both enjoy a mutual learning experience. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to exist shortly after the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org...) C: Therefore, the universe has a cause defined by the physical constructal law (http://www.tandfonline.com...)The constructal law: “For a flow system to persist in time (to live) it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

My opponent must argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. The argument is as follows: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2. The universe began to exist C: Therefore, the universe has a cause My job will only be to show that my opponent's reasoning to support the argument fails. My opponent will post his/ her first round immediately. Since I spent a round here explaining the rules, my opponent in his/ her last round will simply put "..." so we each have the same amount of rounds to argue.
The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

I agree to my opponenent's definition of the word "suspend", and agree to her framework under the stipulation that her cost:benefit ratio is not purely monetary, and other benefits woudl be considered as well. Also, sorry if I look like I don't know what I'm doing throughout the round, but this is my first time using a Public Forum formatted argument, so a few things may not be the way they're supposed to. I negate due to the following the contentions: Contention 1: In the modern economic climate, we need good relations with the Middle East in General. Subpoint A: America's economy is dependant upon oil imports According to arabamericangiving.org's report on the importance of Arab oi9l to the United States, "The American economy needs oil for energy production and for fuel. Oil is the most important source of power in the US, where alternative sources of energy have not been developed extensively. About 40 percent of the energy that is used in the United States every year comes from oil. American society is based around the car, so the US requires a lot of oil for fuel as well as for energy production. Oil provides about 97 percent of the fuel used by American vehicles, including ships, trains, planes and automobiles. Oil is also a source of important chemicals for a number of industries, such as the plastics and textile industries. " To put it simply, we require oil imports in order for our economy to function properly. Subpoint B: The Middle Eastern region provides the majority of oil exports. Radford.edu's table on geographic oil location shows that 66.4% of all proven oil reserves are in the Middle Eastern Region. It also shows that 54.1% of all identified oil reserves are located in the Middle Eastern region. When approximately 60% of America's oil is imported, the importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves increases considerably from the American viewpoint. Subpoint C: America needs good relations to ensure oil imports This point is fairly self-explanatory and is based on common-sense logic rarely than evidence, but if you want me to I can scrape up some studies on this. The basic premise is that when our relations with a nation are good, we have more access to their exports and at better prices. If we ensure good relations to not only Pakistan, but as many major powers in the middle East as well, we can ensure available and cheaper oil imports. Sorry for the half-assed subpoint, but unfortunately I have to rush now, very sorry! Sources: http://www.arabamericangiving.org... http://www.radford.edu... http://www.quoteoil.com...
Funnier Jokes Wins.

This guy goes to a bar that's on the tenth floor of a hotel. He sits down and has a couple of drinks, then stands up, announces loudly that he has had enough, and goes over and jumps out the window. Now, there are two men who are sitting at a window table, and having that natural human curiosity about the grotesque, watch as this man plummets to certain death. However, just as he is about to hit the ground, he rights himself, pulls his feet underneath himself, and lands gracefully. He then turns and comes back into the building. Naturally, the two men are amazed. The guy comes back into the bar, orders a few drinks, then repeats the process. The two men at the window seat are astounded! When the guy returns and repeats the procedure AGAIN, the two men stop him before he jumps and ask him how on earth he does that. He replies "It's simple, really. There's an air vent down by the ground, and if you catch the updraft, you can right yourself and land on the ground with no problems." Then he proceeded to jump out the window again. Well, these two men decided that they just HAD to try this, so they jumped out the window, and SPLAT! -- made a mess hitting all over the ground. Meanwhile, the first guy has made it back up to the bar. When he sits down to order his drinks, the bartender says "Superman, you can be a real ------- when you're drunk!"
Funnier Jokes Wins.

A couple was on their honeymoon, lying in bed, about ready to consummate their marriage, when the new bride says to the husband, "I have a confession to make, I'm not a virgin." The husband replies, "That's no big thing in this day and age." The wife continues, "Yeah, I've been with one guy." "Oh yeah? Who was the guy?" "Tiger Woods." "Tiger Woods, the golfer?" "Yeah." "Well, he's rich, famous and handsome. I can see why you went to bed with him." The husband and wife then make passionate love. When they are done, the husband gets up and walks to the telephone. "What are you doing?" asks the wife. The husband says, "I'm hungry, I was going to call room service and get something to eat." "Tiger wouldn't do that." "Oh yeah? What would Tiger do?" "He'd come back to bed and do it a second time." The husband puts down the phone and goes back to bed to make love a second time. When they finish, he gets up and goes over to the phone. "Now what are you doing?" she asks. The husband says, "I'm still hungry so I was going to get room service to get something to eat." "Tiger wouldn't do that." "Oh yeah? What would Tiger do?" "He'd come back to bed and do it again." The guy slams down the phone, goes back to bed, and makes love one more time. When they finish he's tired and beat. He drags himself over to the phone and starts to dial. The wife asks, "Are you calling room service?" "No! I'm calling Tiger Woods, to find out what the par is for this damn hole."
Funnier Jokes Wins.

A man escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns and finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair, while tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom. While he's in there, the husband tells his wife: "Listen, this guy's an escaped convict, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck." If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain, do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you." To which his wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He wwas whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked me if we had any vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you too!!"
Funnier Jokes Wins.

Sure fire ways to annoy fellow passengers in an elevator ... * Make race car noises when anyone gets on or off. * Grimace painfully while smacking your forehead and muttering: "Shut up, dammit, all of you just shut UP!" * Whistle the first seven notes of "It's a Small World" incessantly. * Sell Girl Scout cookies. * On a long ride, sway side-to-side at the natural frequency of the elevator. * Shave. * Crack open your briefcase, peer inside and ask: "Got enough air in there?" * Offer name tags to everyone getting on the elevator. Wear yours upside down. * Stand silent and motionless in the corner, facing the wall, without getting off. * When arriving at your floor, grunt and strain to yank the doors open, then act embarrassed when they open by themselves. * Greet everyone getting on the elevator with a warm handshake and ask them to call you Admiral. * On the highest floor, hold the door open and demand that it stay open until you hear the penny you dropped down the shaft go "plink" at the bottom. * Stare, grinning at another passenger for a while, and then announce: "I've got new socks on!" * When at least 8 people have boarded, moan from the back: "Oh, not now, damn motion sickness!" * Meow, occasionally. * Bet the other passengers you can fit a quarter in your nose. * Frown and mutter "Gotta go, gotta go!" then sigh and say "Oops!" * Show other passengers a wound and ask if it looks infected. * Sing "Mary had a little lamb" while continually pushing buttons. * Walk on with a cooler that says "Human Head" on the side. * Stare at another passenger for a while, then announce "You're one of THEM!" and move to the far corner of the elevator. * Leave a box between the doors. * Ask each passenger getting on if you can push the button for them. * Wear a puppet on your hand and talk to other passengers, with it. * Start a sing-along. * When the elevator is silent, look around and ask "is that your beeper?" * Play the harmonica. * Shadow box. * Say "Ding!" at each floor. * Lean against the button panel. * Say "I wonder what all these do" and push the red buttons. * Listen to the elevator walls with a stethoscope. * Bring a chair along. * Blow spit bubbles. * Pull your gum out of your mouth in long strings. * Announce in a demonic voice: "I must find a more suitable host body." * Carry a blanket and clutch it protectively. * Make explosion noises when anyone presses a button. * Wear X-Ray Specs and leer suggestively at other * Draw a little square on the floor with chalk and announce to the other passengers that this is your "personal space"
Funnier Jokes Wins.

Thanks to my opponent for requesting this debate. If anyone doesn't know how this works, it is quite simple. Each round, each debater posts one joke. Whoever has funnier jokes wins. I will be defending by title and wish good luck to my opponent. :) A doctor and a lawyer were talking at a party. Their conversation was constantly interrupted by people describing their ailments and asking the doctor for free medical advice. After an hour of this, the exasperated doctor asked the lawyer, "What do you do to stop people from asking you for legal advice when you're out of the office?" "I give it to them," replied the lawyer, "and then I send them a bill." The doctor was shocked, but agreed to give it a try. The next day, still feeling slightly guilty, the doctor prepared the bills. When he went to place them in his mailbox, he found a bill from the lawyer.
Funnier Jokes Wins.

Bill Gates died in a car accident. He found himself in Purgatory being sized up by God... "Well, Bill, I'm really confused on this call. I'm not sure whether to send you to Heaven or Hell. After all, you enormously helped society by putting a computer in almost every home in the world and yet you created that ghastly Windows 95. I'm going to do something I've never done before. In your case, I'm going to let you decide where you want to go!" Bill replied, "Well, thanks, God. What's the difference between the two?" God said, "I'm willing to let you visit both places briefly if it will help you make a decision." "Fine, but where should I go first?" God said, "I'm going to leave that up to you." Bill said, "OK, then, let's try Hell first." So Bill went to Hell. It was a beautiful, clean, sandy beach with clear waters. There were thousands of beautiful women running around, playing in the water, laughing and frolicking about. The sun was shining and the temperature was perfect. Bill was very pleased. "This is great!" he told God, "If this is Hell, I REALLY want to see Heaven!" "Fine," said God and off they went. Heaven was a high place in the clouds, with angels drifting about playing harps and singing. It was nice but not as enticing as Hell. Bill thought for a quick minute and rendered his decision. "Hmm, I think I prefer Hell" he told God. "Fine," retorted God, "as you desire." So Bill Gates went to Hell. Two weeks later, God decided to check up on the late billionaire to see how he was doing in Hell. When God arrived in Hell, he found Bill shackled to a wall, screaming amongst the hot flames in a dark cave. He was being burned and tortured by demons. "How's everything going, Bill?" God asked. Bill responded - his voice full of anguish and disappointment, "This is awful, this is not what I expected. I can't believe this happened. What happened to that other place with the beaches and the beautiful women playing in the water?" God says, "That was the screen saver". Thanks for the great debate. I laughed my butt off. Rematch?
Funnier Jokes Wins.

Two bored casino dealers were waiting at a craps table. A very attractive blonde woman arrived and bet twenty thousand dollars on a single roll of the dice. She said, "I hope you don't mind, but I feel much luckier when I'm completely nude". With that she stripped from her neck down, rolled the dice and yelled, "Mama needs new clothes!" Then she hollered "YES! YES! I WON! I WON!" She jumped up and down and hugged each of the dealers. With that she picked up all the money and clothes and quickly departed. The dealers just stared at each other dumbfounded. Finally, one of them asked, "What did she roll?" The other answered, "I thought YOU were watching!" Moral: Not all blondes are dumb, but most men are gullible. REASONS FOR DECISION IS APPRECIATED. GOOD ROUND.