BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

And as i have previously mentioned the "Ethical high ground holds no water in science. We survived because we evolved. This is evolution on an accelerated scale one that we can and are breaking. To play to your ethics while furthering my point. "The power of The power of God lies not in nature but in man, not one man or a group of men, but in all men. Man has the power to create and destroy." Humans are meant to create new ways to survive. A hybrid with the abilities and genetic attributes of a gecko would be able to climb walls effortlessly and stand upside down on large construction projects. With such an ability mankind would be able to rapidly expand and build things that would take ten times as much effort if done by a normal human. A hybrid camel would be able to survive in the desert for long archaeological digs with almost not food or water. A hybrid with the ability to breathe underwater such as that of a seal or walrus would be able to do otherwise dangerous work with underground mining and cabling without the need of an oxygen tank and for longer periods of time. With such cross breeding in place the human species as whole will diversify as it was meant to be. For a more medical approach think of felines who have contracted the AIDS virus. In their genetic bodies lies the ability to turn the virus into a cancer. With that capability chances of removing the virus with Chemo therapy or other cancer treating agents go exponentially and with less damage than having to constantly ingest large amounts of highly destructive drugs daily. Not to mention the economical benefit. There lies within the human genome remnant genes that are similar to that of any species we put up to compare it with. by crossing these genes together the introduced genetics would trigger long dormant ones that would hold numerous health benefits. Game, set, match.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

I'm not against science I'm against the thought of humans trying to get inside an animals dna take it out put it inside another animals it is immoral and can have great consequences not only for animals but for plants fungi and even the solar system humans will push the boundaries of science until it brakes and when that happens the unimaginable can happen. the world is okay as it is minor changes are needed but genetically changing an animals dna is un needed we survived for thousands of years without it and we can survive another thousand years without it and until the day we die we will never need it.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

I have to say that last argument was rather ill conceived and the grammar involved made your point muddied and rather invalid. If you are saying that nature alone has the power to do such things then why are we as humans capable of doing so? Why would "Nature" create something that is capable of copying its abilities? The simple answer is it didn't. "Nature" merely gives the doors and the questions that Humans want answered. If anything the nature you are purposing is more of a reactive force than a driving one. While the "Ethical" high ground you try to reach crumbles under the quakes of science and reason that I have purposed I give you a gift. Nature is Science, Science is Nature. To explain Nature you must use Science. To further Science you must bend and mold Nature. Nature is more like a wild beast yet to be tamed. Science is the beast tamer working closely with the animal while figuring out its complexity and design and then how to use that design in its favor. Scientifically speaking we have been able to create corn and Wheat that can last longer droughts and larger yields because we have tampered with their "Natural" complexity and design. Medically speaking We have been able to eradicate disease by mutating and changing the disease itself into a cure. Venom a genetically lethal agent is recombined to make Anti-Venom a cure for the same source in which it was contrived. If you want to stop the evolution of mankind that is posed in Cross-Species Genetics Then you would first have to remove the vaccines and cures for known diseases and let them run rampant. Check.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

Aha you have fallen into mine. The dangers of implanting genes you pose is no more hazardous than the experimentation we do on animals for genetically superior ones that would produce more food. We have already started genetic manipulation when we started feeding hormones into the animals we raise on farms or in the supplementary vitamins we ingest to gain muscle or even lose weight. We are already messing around with the Human Genome all we are speaking about is a matter of degree, while you can try and head for the conservative and "Ethical" high ground you neglect the fact that most of your world is already genetically manipulated. And as for finding something in a dark room You have only proven that science is a matter of trial and error when pursuing an end. When you get a spike in your foot you learn that there is an issue linked to that step. and while more problems may arise that is just how humans will find ways to evolve. I have yet to hear one medical or scientific counter argument that displays why we as a whole species could not use the genetic traits favored in other animals to our own advantage and evolve along the way. To acknowledge a point made earlier. Science is a scrutinous business that requires more caution than gun ho antics. While Hollywood portrays such genetic crosses as a perverse and often reckless act. Science is rather meticulous in logging hours of data. Yes accidents may occur but when you look at accidents such as the discovery of penecilin. they are often fruitful to man kind. To even further my point "Nature" itself creates genetic manipulation let alone cross species breeding. Take a look at the Liger. a seemingly mythical creature that is real not because of man but because of the need to create diversity. Mutations create brand new strains of a species formerly though impossible. As humans we are merely seeing how far we can go, what can we do to create new ways of life and sentient ones at that. Ethics and conservative motives hold no grounds in science when the very ethics you seek to use are contradictory in and of itself.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

ha aha just as I have expected you have fallen into a trap. what about the dangers if we go Willy Nelly taking genes from other animals and putting them in humans bad things can and will happen. now its time for a good quote "science is like trying to find something in a pitch black room" combining genes is like putting spikes the copy itself in that dark room you have a chance to step on one and when you do there is nothing you can do to take it out sense there would be copy upon copy and we would have another problem on our hand do we really want to take a chance like that
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

While true nature intended for only like to produce like we are looking at a evolutionary step. We as human beings posses the ability to take our DNA and manipulate it to our will. Needless to say while breeding with other hybrids may present a problem. the issue with reproducing a hybrid with a human or two like hybrids would not be an issue. Using cross-species genetics the ability to transplant favorable genetic traits into another often human body to gain those traits, Would create vast genetic diversity and life that would be used for space exploration if their anatomy proved favorable to colonize an environment that would prove hostile to humans. On a side note besides any drastic changes in appearance such as scales instead of skin you could as theorized in "The Amazing Spiderman" film take the ability to regenerate lost cells on command from a zebra fish and then implant it into a patient with dementia the medical benefit would be tremendous and viable to answer if not cure to a normally life threatening disease.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

Rounds are as follows. Round 1) rules. 1: No trolling. 2: movies/games may be used as a referenced not used to base your argument. 3: we are civilized people, no flaming. 4: be polite and Respect/weigh both sides of the debate. Round 2) Opening arguments for/against. Round 3) Rebuttals. Round 4) new arguments. Round 5) closing arguments. It seems to me that with proper medical and scientific caution we could Literally evolve thousands of years with cross species genetics. My argument is two fold. First with the research into the human genome we are undertaking and the fact that many species offer bountiful benefits to humans, its logical we make cross-species genetics our next human evolutionary step. Secondly with this ability it would allow a large diverse population of hybrid sentient beings such as Lizardmen (Think Argonians for any ES players.) Cat/neko people (kaijit), birdmen. Bipedal hybrids offer new opportunities for our scientific curiosity and enjoyment for those who seek to change themselves into a hybrid for the benefits the species crossing would provide.
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

Contention 1: Creation of the Universe and Logic 1. We think that our actions and feelings are real, but that's because we don't know that we're being controlled. Just like the government's MK-ULTRA program, but that Disney conspiracy is for another time. You see we are being controlled so we have these "Feelings" but they're not real. For example, in the Matrix they expierence things and taste things in the Matrix, but it's all fake and nothing is real reguardless how much they believe it to be true. The Sims also have emotions too as I will direct you to the photo of their emotions bellow. 2) I proved Con wrong in part one and now we can see that if God is, and he is, playing this computer game I have broken Con's cycle of this argument already and I have prooved in a previous round that God is a computer nerd playing Sims. 3) God wants people to decide for themselves, that's why there's a free will button. but God did make his own character and favorite him above any others and that is Jesus Christ. He made him harshly and made people worship the gammer so he would get a little nerd bonner. (Yeah I'm not posting a pic of that) Contention 3: Attack on Con? My opponent says they are different, but if that's true then why does Juggle say that they are the same as they say so on my profile? My opponent has dropped the God's bad sense of hummor argument so I'll extend that across the tabel. Contention 4: Big Pictures. But time travel is real, if it is not how could I tell you of Billy Pilgrim's time travel and the aliens in the Trafalmadorians? I would be impossible if I didn't have time travel. God can be creating us figuratively, but the creation is the ideas for the characters that he puts in the game. So Con actually helps me here. Thank you and please vote Pro, because God created this game and that's how'd he would want it.
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

First Contention: Creation of the UniverseThe reason my opponent's logic is wrong is because of what he presents before us, so let's review his arguments a bit here. This is what he says, and at first it might seem technically flawless, but I will explain after.Pro believes:1) Reality, that we breathe, live, and have emotions, is all a game.2) The game (Sims) is something humanity created first3) But along with all other conspiracies or even religions and any type of belief, a god is controlling what we think/do/believe4) ...And we are all part of the game god is playing.Second Contention: LogicHere's the catch of what my opponent believes, and I'd be surprised to see him refute it: 1) Reality cannot be a game because WE are feeling it. (When we play Sims, the characters are controlled by us, but they do not have scientific brains or live in a real world. We witness their movement but the characters are fake.)2) "Sims" was created by us. Even if "god" created us in this game so we believe we created the game, the whole plot still wouldn't make logical sense and it would direct us back to the above (point 1 asks how WE could possibly witness anything at all or think about logic if we aren't real--just characters in a game)!3) The concept of religion, god, or any type of belief was created by us. Question: Why would, if god is making us part of an imaginary world GAME, he reveal to our fake selves who god and religion is? Answer: Third Contention: Attack on Con?Sure you're Catholic. That's not the same as Christian (http://www.debate.org...) and it doesn't prove you're not attacking me.Pro says "...this video...depicts of ways to drown, burn, strave electricute, and kill your Sims." Yeah but do the Sims have feelings? No, but you/we do. Fourth Contention: Big PicturesMy opponent says: "My opponent is just saying that I cheated, but that is false for I apply Kurt Vonnegut's time travel theory that I have become unstuck in time and I had give people the ideas for these photos so that I may use them for this debate against my opponent." He did not prove to me that time travel is real. In fact, he gave a completely invalid source! Check it out: http://insertsourcehere.com... Seriously?Question: If we are real/real-characters in a game (which, by the way, is impossible), what is the age of the Earth we live on? If it is what we think it is, why would a god play this game for that long instead of actually creating us literally, not imaginatively figuratively????!!!!!!!Answer: SO umm. Good luck....Last round when I'm not allowed to post anything. Have fun attacking me some more. Conclusion: Pro didn't prove himself and I refuted any statements he made. We are not Sims. Voters, who troll debated better? :DDD
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

Contention 1: Creation of the Universe. My opponent argues that the creation of the universe and the laws that govern it means that there is a higher power and I agree with him. You see the Sims: Earth game creators created the Game and the Big Bang was initiated by God when he began to download the game to his PC. This game (Sims: Earth) is much to that of Empire.goodgamestudios.com where the game system in in real time. It's also much like Civilization Revoloution where buildings can be built, wars are rage, and your nation increases culture. These games encompass Sims: Earth as they are subparts to help describe what it is like here by Playing Sims: Earth. Scientists argue that the universe will end in the case of the Big Crunch which is where the universe will shrink back into one point to prime perhaps for another Big Bang. (http://www.universetoday.com...) This is similar to someone resetting the game which means that God will one day press the reset button and we will eventually return to the current state. We do not know how many times God has played this game, but we do know one thing for sure. God is a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth. Contention 2: Logic My opponent argues the theory of "I think therefore I am," but he fails to realize that under this circumstance that this statement is false. As you can see in the photo above that Sims think and this shows that Con's argument is flawed as if sims can think and humans can think, then we must all be Sims. Contention 3: Attack on Con? I never attacked Con for his beliefs as I'm Catholic. (http://www.debate.org...) My opponent asks how if we are Sims then how can evil things happen. Well I present this video () it depicts of ways to drown, burn, strave electricute, and kill your Sims. Laddies and Gents God has one bad sense of hummor. Contention 4: Big Pictures. My opponent is just saying that I cheated, but that is false for I apply Kurt Vonnegut's time travel theory that I have become unstuck in time and I had give people the ideas for these photos so that I may use them for this debate against my opponent. The Trafalmadorian's view on time picts that time is constant and they view time as we view a stretch of the Rockies. It is always constant and will always be there, but you can always go back to it.
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

You see, because of pure mathematics and physical science, we can believe against Pro's resolution. Science Strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. Logic Common sense proves to us that there was such a thing as 'nothingness'! No matter if there was nothingness or if there wasn't, our lives are not derived from a game of Sims. If this unexplicable and complex world is part of Sims, then DeCarte's saying is wrong--even though his statement has been proven. If this is false than why do we think in the first place? My opponent is a hypocrite if he says he believes/relies on science yet does not believe we think and/or exist. :D Why you attacking me, B(p)ro?! Why he's shunning me for believing in God, I don't know, because he gave no reason that God is not real!!! Religious persecution here, people! Consider what my opponent said here: "...God deleting your actions and making you forget everything to where you question many things. This is also to sadisfy his sense of hummor which it is hard to satisfy a God so this is why he does this a lot." AND "You see God has a cruel sense of hummor so many people suffer in this harsh world for it." First of all, this is offensive because I am not that type of person, and, if I did believe in that type of God I would have a cruel sense of humor too! I'm the victom here. But I will attempt a rebuttal of these horrible statements that my opponent made. Firstly: We forget things because of neurotranmitters. [2] Secondly: if this world is so harsh, are we existing? How could we be Sims if our emotions are so complicating?! Explain, Pro. Please. Pro's big pictures They are just examples of how he came up with this resolution without originality or first-hand thought. Consider this: My opponent: "Why is Jesus always online. It's because he's playing Sims and spying on the terrorists for the NSA. He is keeping up safe." He contradicts himself. Earlier he said that God is the reason for the harsh happenings in our world. He's making jokes. C'mon, doesn't anyone take debating seriously anymore??? Sources [1] http://www.godandscience.org... [2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

Why is Jesus always online. It's because he's playing Sims and spying on the terrorists for the NSA. He is keeping up safe. Do you ever wounder why Jesus doesn't answer your prayers directly? It's because God has to go through his emalis and decide what to do with them. Sometimes he deletes them all and then he some accepts. Up next, .... wait...what was I doing here again? Have you ever walked into a room and forgot what you were doing? It's God deleting your actions and making you forget everything to where you question many things. This is also to sadisfy his sense of hummor which it is hard to satisfy a God so this is why he does this a lot. Do you wounder why you can't remember things from age 1 or even birth? It's because some people have a certain memory limit and God has to delete the older memories in order for you to gain new ones. Oh I wish he didn't make me forget I had homework due tonight. You see God has a cruel sense of hummor so many people suffer in this harsh world for it. Like how he had World War 2 happen just so he could tell Jew jokes.
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

What the heck is TOS? Is it an abbreviation for some sort of illness you receive upon accepting Lanaan's debates?! Nah I'm just playin wityoo. I always am.* Yeah, yeah, OF COURSE I accept that God exists. Why else would I be wearing clothes right now? [1] Why else would atheism be illogical? [2] Hmm? I thought so. *I think my opponent forgot to mention that this is a troll debate. Well, that's all for now, thank you for instigating yo. Now if I forfeit y'all readers know I laid down my contentions already. Just kidding (I always am). So vote Con!! [1] [2]
Resolved: God is just a computer nerd playing Sims: Earth.

This is a TROLL DEBATE that we both agreed to. Rules Round 1 is for rules and TOS by Pro while Con will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Pro will make contentions and rebuttles, while Con Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Pro makes rebuttles and conclusion, Con will states, "No round as argeed upon. " If Con says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearingAccepting means that you accept, for the purpose of this debate, that God(s) exists.
Polygamy should be legal

I find the lack of sources disturbing. I will get to that later. Also, I would like my opponent to focus on polygamy in general, not just polygyny.I Higher risk for STD's:I don't get it. STD's require better profiling, true. But that is not an argument against polygamy. The spouse must have consent before marrying, and no rational person would agree to marrying a person carrying a STD. So, if there is proper profiling, this point falls flat.II Polygynos men are not very good fathersOne, I need sources, citations, etc. Second, why would high-status men choose to marry more wives? What do they gain? Three, if there was an alternative reason for marrying apart from love, that would be for more children. If people wanted more children, then they would care for their health and safety. Fourth, my opponent have no sources for large number of children. 40 children, as is given, are only exceptions of the general-norm--less or no children. Families having more children have trouble trying manage their living. III Age gap and Gender Equality"Allegedly, when the competition for brides go up, men try to secure brides at younger ages."Why would they do that? Why does Con keep thinking men want more wives? Any why younger ages? This is not the 17th century, where women are treated as an "economic resource"."Competition drives men to use whatever connections, advantages, and alliances they have in order to obtain wives.."What competition? Why would men want to compete (I'm guessing with men in general) for wives? Also, women have freedom of expression. It is a democracy, after all. Marriage would not be possible without consent. IV Jealousy In my previous argument, I say, "If a person wishes so, he can have the consent from his previous spouse and marry another one. "That pretty much sums it up. If more attention is paid to one partner, the other can divorce. V Religious reasonsNo verse in the Old and New Testament states that polygamy shoud not be practised, without some ambiguity and vagueness. Therefore, there is no religious obstacle.VI It's pointlessCon seems to think just because (s)he thinks it's pointless, this debate is not worth having. Even if, "women are able to provide for and protect themselves", they could still fall in love with the same man. Polygamy gives people a chance to choose more than one partner. "...it seems that polygamy nowadays would just seem like greediness or turn into a competition between men on which one will have the most wives"Con seems to be stuck to this point. Where is the competition? Why would men compete for more wives? Even if, there is a competition, where would one get more spouses? For spouses, you need consent. With this, I have refuted Con's arguments. Sources:https://en.wikipedia.org...