BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos.

I must apologize for the misunderstanding I have caused my opponent. The congressional definition does indeed list pathenogenesis. However, my contention is that it is improper to include parthenogenesis on that list as it cannot result in a viable embryo in humans. I do agree with my opponent on the poor definition of “viable” used in the congressional bill. By that definition a tennis ball would be considered viable. I believe the phrase, “and could be brought to term” needs to be added to make the definition meaningful. I’m afraid Con is mistaken on the origin of Dolly the sheep. Dolly was in fact a product of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, often simply known as “cloning”) [1] [2], which undisputedly results in a viable embryo. SCNT is considerably different from parthenogenesis, most notably in that SCNT results in a full set of chromosomes taken from an adult cell while parthenogenesis only results in a half set (only inheriting the half from the egg and without the complimenting half from the sperm). Additionally, SCNT does not transfer all of the original genetic information as the mitochondrial DNA is not transferred [3] where as parthenogenesis does not result in a hybridized DNA mix. As you can see these two processes are quite distinct and cannot be considered evidence for one another. Parthenogenesis occurs as a natural mode of reproduction in many plants and invertebrates, and even some reptiles and sharks [4]. However, parthenogenesis does not occur naturally in mammals, and artificially induced parthenogenesis does not result in a viable embryo. “Mammalian parthenogenetic embryos invariably die in mid-gestation from imprinted gene defects and placental hypoplasia. Based on chimera experiments, trophoblastic proliferation is supposed to be inhibited in the absence of a male genome.” [5] Essentially, without key functions of the male half of the genome (which is absent in parthenogenesis) a fetus cannot develop. In cases where this is reintroduced in some way, either by creating a chimera with a normal embryo or by using some form of nuclear transfer, embryos have been brought to term [5]. But those methods will already result in a viable embryo. In essence, adding cells derived from parthenogenesis to an existing embryo will not necessarily stop the embryo from developing, and may result in a perfectly healthy birth. However, parthenogenesis itself will not result in a viable embryo. In conclusion: Parthenogenesis should not be included on the congressional definition of an embryo because, as I have shown, it cannot create a human life. Therefore, stem cells created from parthenogenesis should not be restricted under the Federal research ban. #1 http://en.wikipedia.org... (broken link, click "sheep") #2 http://adsabs.harvard.edu... #3 http://en.wikipedia.org... #4 http://en.wikipedia.org... #5 http://dev.biologists.org...
Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos.

Pro- posted; "My opponent raises an excellent point regarding my second premise. The Federal research ban does not specifically protect human embryos, only prevent the use of Federal funds for research activities which may harm or destroy human embryos."I would like to ad the fact that the Federal Research ban also forbids the "creation of new embryos" for the purpose of such research.Pro added; "I assert that the Federal research ban seeks to protect embryos during this period of moral and legal limbo between “potential” and “life”, until such time as the question of when life begins has been answered to the public’s satisfaction."I can appreciate my opponent (Pro's) assertion and what it is based upon. I used to hold a very similar opinion myself. However, as I stated above it is not unclear to an increasing number of people as to when and how a human being's life begins. As Human beings, we do not undergo 'metamorphosis' in our life cycles. We (unlike frogs, butterflies, etc) are the same organism at the moment of a successful fertilization/ conception that we are when we reach adulthood.We (humans) don't have sex, create an organism that is "less than a human being" and have that organism eventually "morph" into something we will finally accept as a "child."Biologically, It's already a child even at conception. My opponent (Pro) again continued, saying; "In order to better clarify this matter, I attempted to find the actual text of the relevant legislation. Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but searching the Library of Congress [1] returned a consistent definition of a human embryo as “any organism…that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis , cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” It is moist interesting that my opponent has provided one of the very definitions that directly undermines his claim that "Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos." By the very definition Pro has provided, they ARE. Please note the bolded text in the definition.My opponent then added the term viability to the debate which is NOT required to determine what an embryo is, but rather a term to assess it's ability to continue living. Quote; "And a definition for viable as “material obtained from the in vitro fertilization process that is transferable into the womb.” It's worth noting that even a dead embryo could be transferred to a womb. An ability to be transferred (dead or alive) will not change what the embryo is (or was). Pro posted; "If Con can show that an embryo created by parthenogenesis is in fact a viable fetus, and could potentially be brought to term, then yes I will concede that it is appropriate for them to fall under the Federal research ban."I thank Pro for the above comment as it is very much a fact that an embryo created by parthenogenesis can be brought to term. Dolly the sheep was created from an embryo using this method.http://scienceray.com...See Comments
Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos.

My opponent raises an excellent point regarding my second premise. The Federal research ban does not specifically protect human embryos, only prevent the use of Federal funds for research activities which may harm or destroy human embryos. My premise is that the intent or purpose of the Federal research ban is ultimately to prevent ethically questionable research practices on the beginning of a human life. Whether life begins at the point of fertilization, first heart beat or some other point is an issue of much public debate. But one clear fact is that at the point of fertilization the new embryo has the potential to develop into a human child, given the right care and conditions. I assert that the Federal research ban seeks to protect embryos during this period of moral and legal limbo between “potential” and “life”, until such time as the question of when life begins has been answered to the public’s satisfaction. In order to better clarify this matter, I attempted to find the actual text of the relevant legislation. Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but searching the Library of Congress [1] returned a consistent definition of a human embryo as “any organism…that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis , cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] And a definition for viable as “material obtained from the in vitro fertilization process that is transferable into the womb.” [6] If Con can show that an embryo created by parthenogenesis is in fact a viable fetus, and could potentially be brought to term, then yes I will concede that it is appropriate for them to fall under the Federal research ban. However, I do not see how this is possible. Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent (see [7] for an excellent illustration). Given that the egg only has one set (23) of these chromosomes, how could stem cells created by parthenogenesis ever become a viable fetus capable of developing into a healthy child? It is missing a full 1/2 of its chromosomes! Therefore I maintain that stem cells created by parthenogenesis should not be included in the above definition of an embryo. #1 http://thomas.loc.gov... #2 S.30 -- Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act http://www.gpo.gov... #3 H.R.2951 -- Patients First Act of 2011 http://www.gpo.gov... #4 S.88 -- Ethical Stem Cell Research Tax Credit Act of 2011 http://www.gpo.gov... #5 S.1557 -- Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005 http://www.gpo.gov... #6 S.51 -- Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act of 2007 http://www.gpo.gov... #7 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos.

Many thanks to my opponent 'Pro' for presenting this debate challenge. It's clear that my opponent has a high regard for life and has no lack of concern for the ethics that come into play in a situation where an embryo CAN"become a viable fetus." As Pro quoted from the link he provided; A parthenote cannot become a viable fetus, and therefore does not hold the same ethical ambiguity that using an embryo does. I hope to inform my opponent during this debate that an embryo created by way of "Parthenogenesis" actually can go on to become a 'viable fetus.' As to my opponents 2nd comment; The US Federal research ban is intended to protect viable human embryos, but not their precursors: unfertilized eggs and sperm. My opponent's claim is a bit misleading. The ban is on the use of Federal funds for research involving the creation of embryos (new cell lines) viable or not for use in Stem cell research. LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org...My question for Pro is this; "If I can show you that an embryo created by parthenogenesis can in fact be brought to term or at the very least can become a 'viable fetus' will you agree that the ban should in fact remain in place against using Federal funds for that practice?"
Parthenogenetic stem cells are not embryos.

The US Federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research should not apply to parthenogenetic stem cell research. I make this claim based on two premises: A parthenote cannot become a viable fetus, and therefore does not hold the same ethical ambiguity that using an embryo does. The US Federal research ban is intended to protect viable human embryos, but not their precursors: unfertilized eggs and sperm. To quote a November 2011 Scientific American article, "Human embryonic stem cells typically come from fertilized eggs. In 2007, however, scientists at International Stem Cell, a California-based biotech firm, reported the first successful creation of human stem cell lines from unfertilized eggs. They used a process called parthenogenesis, in which researchers use chemicals to induce the egg to begin developing as if it had been fertilized. The egg—called a parthenote—behaves just like an embryo in the early stages of division. Because it contains no genetic material from a father, however, it cannot develop into a viable fetus." [1] For these reasons, I say the NIH guidelines and federal laws should not define parthenotes as embryos and federal funding should be made available for research based on parthenogenetic stem cell derived lines. [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Cigarettes should be illegal.

You may be thinking why would I be con on this topic. Well I don't think it should be illegal. Instead we should at least CHANGE IT.The main reason people smoke cigarettes is because they shove as much nicotene as possible in there. Many people know the downsides of cigarettes, but they can't stop because of all the nicotene in them. If there was less nicotene people could quit far easier than now. Also cigarettes don't really need to have to have all those chemicals inside. The companies just do it to make more $$$$$MONEY$$$$$. The cigarettes companies make them unsafe and forcefully addicting. Do you really think that making it illegal is going to stop it? If you say yes was I could give you a list on illegal drugs that are being sold still and no taxes are being collected on them. Make them less addicting and more safe and just taxes them even more. So many jobs would be lost with no cigarette factories. Those people with no jobs are going to make unemployment shoot up as the Apollo missions to the moon.Parents are irresponsible and don't take watch to make surew their kids don't take there cigarettes.In conclusion with higher taxes on cigarettes, less nicotene,less harmful chemicals,economic benefit, and more vigilant parents far less people will die of smoking.
Cigarettes should be illegal.

I am looking for a debate on whether or not cigarettes should be illegal or legal. Cons of cigarettes: Tobacco use leads to disease and disability. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, and diabetes. For every person who dies from a smoking-related disease, about 30 more people suffer with at least one serious illness from smoking. More than 16 million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking. Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030. Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers. If smoking persists at the current rate among youth in this country, 5.6 million of today"s Americans younger than 18 years of age are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.
Iced Tea is superior to Hot Tea

Hot tea is much superior to iced tea for multiple reasons. Hot tea is not only good as a relaxant, but it is also very good to keep your body warm on a cold winter night. You can put hot tea in a boiling pot and it will stay at the same condition. If you do this with iced tea, it will not longer be iced. It is also important to note that chewing on ice can cause severe brain and teeth damage.
Classrooms and schools should be segregated

My opponent has failed to post an argument; there's nothing for me to debate here. Instead I'll only substantiate my previous argument. " We shouldn't be segregating students, making them feel alone, harming their self image," I would like to bring up Jane Elliot's famous brown/ blue eyes prejudice experiment. It's a good read, and I highly recommend it. I'll leave a link here, http://study.com... http://dangerousminds.net... Elliot's Experiment on racism was set in her own classroom, with her young students as the test subjects. She wanted to see how her students would respond if she separated the class by eye colour. She told her class that people (students) with blue eyes were smarter, and better in many other ways, than people (students) with brown eyes. They were then treated better, and told them not to play with each other. Soon after, students, with blue eyes, began harassing students with brown eyes. Eventually, the class was divided. What happened in the experiment, can happen again if we segregate students, by academic level. There'll be two types of main students: 'Smart' and 'Stupid'. Students who are already academically superior, will gain a superior personality to the 'stupid' students' . More resources ,and time, will be spent on students who understand what they're doing, while leaving the students who are falling behind, to fail. They'll lose interest in school, seeing themselves as stupid. We already have special classes for students with autism in many schools. Students K-8 saw these students as weird, abnormal, we didn't want them to be around us. We also thought they shouldn't even be here. The 'stupid' students will be treated this way. I want to look at this again,"Let's take students who struggle in Math and place them in a classroom with a teacher and curriculum that suits them," this is already in High School and Middle School. Being in a lower class than others already make students feel pressured and more stupid than others, 'being in the idiot's class'. This proposed system is flawed, it makes students, who are failing, be left behind. What's important is the student. We already have systems like AVID and IB in schools that help students to get in college with different academic levels. Replacing the current one with the proposed system will not do anything. It can cause actual academic segregation and a decrease in Student's work ethic and mindeset, preventing the IB mindset.
Classrooms and schools should be segregated

"Our public education system has to be "one size fits all," that is correct, the system is universal, and it's so much more simpler than segregating students and hiring teachers who specialize in certain students. And it costs less. Schools can't afford to constantly spend money on these specialists for Primary, Middle, and High Schools. "We need to change the structure of schools by creating classrooms made up of students of similar educational and learning needs. If there are students who struggle with English as a second language, let's provide classrooms where curriculum and staff will serve them," there are already many programs and curriculums that are in many schools around the world. "Let's take students who struggle in Math and place them in a classroom with a teacher and curriculum that suits them." I've personally experienced, from many other students, calling me an idiot, even a retard, for not being at the same level of math as others. By segregating students, by academic level and grades, we will label them. Students are already labeled for being in a certain math class that shows that they struggle in math. Same with Science. "Personal attention often goes to students who are educationally, skillfully, behaviorally and/or mentally challenged. Although there is some segregation at the extreme top and bottom, our best and brightest are generally left to fend for themselves while the needy are attended to." When you say this, you're saying that the people who are failing and need help should be left behind, and only help the students, who are obviously able to handle themselves in the classroom. You're blaming the people who need help, and are asking for it, and working to graduate, and putting all the blame on them. Also teachers cannot focus on every student, they are busy grading and preparing classes and lessons. Focusing on where students are falling in the lessons are difficult when you're in charge of over 100 different students. And students can be suffering from mental disorders, like ADD, ADHD that makes it difficult for a student to pay attention in class. There's also depression that heavily effects a student's mindset and work ethic. External sources, that causes depression, that are legitimate, that effects students in negative ways. We shouldn't be segregating students, making them feel alone, harming their self image, and by wanting to leave behind these students that need help, in order to help the students who are already succeeding is moronic. This won't help. Even by giving them specialists to help them, there are outside programs like AVID and Khan Academy that can help students, and have been brought into schools for the students.
Classrooms and schools should be segregated

Today my 9th grade son expressed his frustration about how much time is "wasted" in school because his teachers are constantly tending to misbehaved, needy, and low performing kids. He is convinced he could save everyone a lot of time by staying home and completing high school on his own. My son is bright, serious about his education, completes his work, behaves in class, and does well socially. He should be a "poster child" for public education, right? Wrong! He is who our educational system chooses to ignore. Our public education system has evolved to be "one size fits all." Children of all aptitudes are taught together, at a level and pace suitable to the lowest performing students. Personal attention often goes to students who are educationally, skillfully, behaviorally and/or mentally challenged. Although there is some segregation at the extreme top and bottom, our best and brightest are generally left to fend for themselves while the needy are attended to. Societies ills are often manifested in the classroom. We cannot segregate low performers because patterns in race may be revealed. We cannot segregate mentally or behaviorally challenged students because in the eyes of the law, this is not equal access. We cannot remove continually disruptive children because they are assigned a medical acronym. In other words, sometimes when segregate a group of kids who have similar educational needs, a picture appears. Sometimes that picture may be politically incorrect and so we tuck that idea back into the hole in which it hides. We need to change the structure of schools by creating classrooms made up of students of similar educational and learning needs. If there are students who struggle with English as a second language, let's provide classrooms where curriculum and staff will serve them. If we have students who are ADHD, let's place them in smaller group classrooms with teachers who are adept at addressing their needs. Let's take students who struggle in Math and place them in a classroom with a teacher and curriculum that suits them. This is not to suggest that an entire school be segregated, it just means we should be able to use this strategy as a tool to address some of the problems in education without fear of retribution. Of course, it goes without saying that we must ensure protection from prejudice and illegal profiling.Until the educational system and society in general admits that students are not all equal in intellect, capability, motivation, etc., and that teaching to kids based on a mutual need is acceptable, we will continue to fail.
Crysis Vs Halo

As for multiplayer in crysis, it has much more contents than halo. First it has kill streaks (sounds like cod but plays nothing like it). You can customize your weapons alot, more than in cod and halo. as for armor you can upgrade it and make yourself look better. The graphics are amazing (especialy on PC). plus the multiplayer is more fast paced since you can kill people faster. In fact you can be invesible in the multiplayer still for a limmited amount of time, but you can be stealthy and get people by surprize.
Crysis Vs Halo

When you play crysis you can't just go all guns blazing. In halo, if you get spotted in halo you can fight because its not about stratagy. if you get spotted in crysis nad the map is full of enemies. They will call every squad in the area to go after. And then........................................................................ THERE IS NO ESCAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!