BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning

I would like to say that you have stated your side very well, but I still disagree with you. First of all, I would like to point out that I never said scientists wanted to use cloning as a form of reproduction. I have researched cloning on my own, and know that they think there will be enough humans in the future. Second, skipping to the "cloning is not what some people think it is," comment. I know it does not make an exact copy. You cannot transfer one's memories into another. But how would it be for a child to grow up to look exactly like the parent--different experiences or not? Then, when Aunt Sally prattles on about, "Oh, you look just like your mother!", she's not kidding. I know every person is different. I have a twin sister, and we're extremely different for all our similarities. Thirdly, going back to my comment on blasphemous, creating people is what our Lord does, and people have no right to step into that territory. It completely goes against my ethical standards, which I will not abandon. And I am not saying it is the only reason cloning a "homo sapien", as scientists call us, is religiously wrong. Another point is people would think they are God's level, creating clones. I disagree with it being helped to improve. I don't think cloning could or should ever be a normal process. And the reason that scientists think cloning a human now is unethical now is because the clone would be terrible. Possibly misshapen, short lifespan, ill, etc. But if they could fix that, they would not find it unethical anymore. The low success rate may be a warning sign. And about having a cloned child, many hereditary diseases can be fixed, or at the least controlled. All in all, weighing benefits and downs, I believe cloning is not a process that should be brought back. It was banned due to the continuously low success rate, and should not be brought back. People are not to be chemically made by scientists. That is not how it goes. I am led to believe that before we start cloning, we should exhaust all other possibilities, especially in the medical world.
Cloning

First of all I would like to address the religious side of this debate. I believe what you mean by blasphemous was that scientists would be creating people which is what God does. As a Christian that was why I was against cloning before I started my research. But now I feel differently. Scientists have no drive to establish cloning as a reproduction process. In fact, they feel the opposite. Scientists feel that there will be enough humans in the future that there will be no need to establish cloning. Also, in my opening statement I said that cloning should be continued. I do not believe that cloning is at the best quality it could be, but that it should be helped to improve. Scientists are far from establishing cloning as a normal process. They feel that it would be unethical to even begin cloning humans, because of their low success rate. Most clones become disfigured. I have read two articles that prove my statement. Also, cloning is not what some people think it is. Cloning does not create an exact duplicate of the person. Instead it creates a person who looks the same on the outside but clones would have different experiences than their counterparts. So they would be different people. Additionally, cloning of a child from a single parent I do not believe will be widely used. Instead some parents might choose to have a clone because they have a known hereditary disease. In conclusion I would like to state that cloning is not perfect. I know that. But with help it could be a process that could help change the world for the better.
Cloning

Okay, I'm going to try and make this short and sweet. First, I can see the ups of cloning--I truly can. I can see benefits and advancing medical. But here's the thing--it's inhumane. I see no problem with duplicating cars, shirts, etc., but when you start to duplicate living things, you step into the Lord's territory. As a Christian, I find that completely wrong. Next, anything cloned won't live as long. That's a fact. Before banned, cloned animals died early; as well, they were sickly and weak. Is that want you want? Instead of a donor organ, a cloned organ that last half--or less--as long? And while cloning a child from a single parent may get rid of hereditary diseases, the child will look exactly like the parent. We don't want a boring world where you look just like your mom or dad. Seriously. Again, the child would be weak and get sick a lot. That's not a good life, if you can call it one. Cloning animals is bad enough. But cloning humans is even more inhumane, inhuman, and blasphemous. These are only a few of the reasons that lead me to believe that cloning is not a good way to gain knowledge for the world.
Cloning

I was recently assigned a persuasion paper for school. My chosen topic is cloning. Before I began my research I knew very little about the topic, only that it was highly controversial. But after only some beginning research I now believe otherwise. Cloning is a process that should be continued. I feel this way because cloning has many health benefits. Such as, cloning can be used to clone failing organs to replace old, or damaged ones. Also, by cloning a child from a single parent hereditary diseases could be averted. Additionally, cloning can be used to advance medical research. Using the process of cloning scientists could clone diseased cells and genes. By doing this scientists could have a large supply of specimens to test with no effects to a patient. These reasons and more lead me to believe that cloning is a process that could benefit the world.
Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

You seem to be contradicting every little thing I say... Instead of picking apart my points of argument, why don't you lay out some better points? Now back to this debate. Many other students and I both find it very hard to concentrate when people are eating in class. It's very hard to concentrate on what the teacher is saying while you're hearing someone chew next to, behind, or in front of you. Before you try and tell me that not everyone finds chewing annoying, I'm going to tell you that I already know that. I'm just speaking from personal knowledge. Many students do find listening to someone chew extremely annoying. As I said before, I find it very distracting when I have to constantly listen to people pulling their hands in and out of bags. You just gave me your opinion and said "I don't consider it distracting at all." I find it odd you said that, because I thought we weren't giving out opinions on here? You certainly keep calling me out on that. You said, z"What if a student wasn't able to eat breakfast? What if there are hostile conditions at their home? What if they are poor and cannot access breakfast foods...." Let me just say that it shouldn't be the school's responsibility if students aren't able to eat at home. (That's a completely different argument though, so I won't get into it.) But back to the being hungry part... If you don't eat for 6 and a half hours, you're not going to die. A you're not even going to pass out. Almost people don't eat for that long. If you're constantly eating, you will become obese sooner or later. (Again, this is a completely different argument. So I'll just leave it there.) All of you're comments are just contradicting my arguments... You need to state your own points next time :)
Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

First, let's get something straight- I am a girl. Back to the argument... Eating in class distracts other students because it's very hard to pay attention while you're listening to someone chew. Most students eat snacks like chips, goldfish, etc that are in bags. So you're also hearing the student constantly put their hand in the bag and pull their hand out of the bag. In reply to your comment about how students don't always eat unhealthy snacks... Most students do eat unhealthy snacks. For example, was in a class where this girl pulled out a great big family size bag of goldfish! She ate it the entire class. And when students do eat foods like carrots, that doesn't solve the tire problem. Carrots are probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat. Now, back to how you shouldn't be hungry during class. School starts fairly early. Usually between the hours of 7 to 8. As long as you eat breakfast before you go to school, you shouldn't be hungry for your morning classes. Break is also fairly early in the morning. So that's giving you another opportunity to eat. I know everyone doesn't have a break time. Even if you don't have a break, you still shouldn't be hungry. I have been at school for a very long time now, and I've never even eaten lunch at school. For more than 10 years now, I've brought one small snack to school. (ex: pretzels). I'm still alive! Moving on now... After break, you go to a few more hours of classes. A then, you have lunch where you have another opportunity to eat! After lunch, you have a couple hours left before you go home and can eat again. That's more than enough eating time if you ask me. Another note: There is a time and a place for everything. Class time is for learning, not eating.
Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

I accept. Pro is advocating for a chance in the status quo, so it follows that the burden of proof is on him. Pro says, "School already gives you a break and a lunch time where you can eat." This is true, but utterly irrelevant and non-topical because it doesn't address the resolution unto itself. Students may have a lunch break -- his remark is deceptive, as it suggests that schools give two breaks, and I know from experience that this is not the general rule -- but this doesn't address at all the subject of whether they ought to be allowed to eat in class. What if they're hungry at an earlier or later time and cannot focus on their studies unless they eat? Lunch time, really, is an arbitrary line that suggests that all students have similiar eating patterns and their hunger will emerge at the same time, but clearly this is not the case.Pro says, "You shouldn't be hungry during class at all." He makes this nonsensical assertion which he utterly fails to substantitate. Why shouldn't you be hungry during class? Why shouldn't you want to eat after an hour-long Calculus class? Moreover, why should Pro be able to dictate your eating patterns and disallow you from eating, removing the choice to do so from you? Even if Pro thinks you shouldn't be hungry, why should he able to say that you cannot eat? Pro says, "If people are so worried about childhood obesity, then why are teachers still letting kids eat in class?" This point is absurd for a number of reasons. First, he is conflating two issues: childhood obesity and teachers allowing kids to eat in class, when these are clearly two completely separate issues, and he hasn't shown to us any link between the former and the latter. Until he does that, any conceivable connection should be discarded. Childhood obesity is a problem, but how is snacking during class the cause? You could eat carrots, for goodness' sake, or something light and healthy. You don't need to eat a Big Mac. Pro says, "One of the main contributing factors to obesity is snacking." He provides absolutely no evidence of this claim, so we ca discard it outright."Pro says, "It's also distracting to other students." He provides no evidence of this claim at all. Even if it were distracting, how is that a justification for disallowing students to eat? Other students are allowed to eat, as well, so this is in no way unfair to them. To recap my case: (1) Eating in class doesn't hurt anyone (2) Breaks are good, natural and conduvie to learning (3) Students have different eating, so imposing one universal standard is unwise and offensive(4) Pro shows no link between obesity and snacking(5) Snacking in class could even be a way of encouraging students to eat healthy. The resolution is negated.
Bottled water is harmful

Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): "(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking." Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!
Bottled water is harmful

In response to my opponents challenge. "Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. " "The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water."(1) "The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. " (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...
Bottled water is harmful

I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.
homosexuality is not a sin

So, to summarize. Pro started off with an argument that focused heavily on the Old Testament. I explained those passages and how it is clear that they were referring to restrictions on the Hebrew people. Pro never directly addressed my points in that regard and eventually decided that the Old Testament was irrelevant. I showed scripture that refuted that idea and even explained what is meant by Jesus' intention to fulfill the Law. Pro also attempted to pass off Paul's clear condemnation of both male and female homosexuality by making it out to be a kind of "gotcha" argument. I explained that Romans 2 actually is a continuation where Paul, having outlined various sins now instructs the people how to use this information. In Romans 2, he is telling them that they must not be hypocrites and it is not their place to judge, God will do that. I also addressed marriage by showing that a marriage requires copulation, something that is forbidden in a homosexual relationship, so homosexual marriage is, by default, forbidden. Having established that the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality as sin and having established that marriage would not be allowed due to the prohibition on homosexual relations, I rest my case. Vote Con. :) Oh and I will once again point out that I am not anti homosexuality or anti gay marriage. Taking the side in a debate where I defend the proposition that such things are considered sinful by a religion does not mean I think they are wrong. To make that leap, I would have needed to also have taken the position of agreeing with the religion. I do not, and it was cheap of Pro to ask for an honest debate and then when it was pointed out that the Bible does, in fact, ban homosexuality and impose a death penalty, to label me a bigot.
homosexuality is not a sin

What you are viewing as an "ad hominem" are obvious facts regarding you, so if you have some issue with how you are, I recommend you try bettering yourself. Given how you are trying so very hard to defend the anti-homosexuality eisegetical interpretations on the Scriptures, is proof that you are not pro gay marrage, and that you do beleive all of the Scriptures. I have had anti-homosexuality religious folks like you try stating so many lies about your intentions, and many other things. Your words prove otherwise. And, this is not a debate, it is a YouTube comment section. I bet you even ignorantly still beleive that the sin or one of the sins of "Sodom" was homosexuality. Not one of the links you provided refutes the one I provided, in fact the opposite is true. There is nothing in any of the Scriptures that states that only the moral aspect of the Law of Moses is still to be followed by Christians. Either Christ fulfilled all of it, or He failed. That includes the 10 Commandments. Jesus even did away with the restrictions regarding the Sabbath in the 10 Commandments while He was alive. I am not even sure why you care about the Torah, in your mind the homosexual aspect is backed up by the New Testament. The same is true for all the 10 Commandments but the ones regarding the Sabbath. Remove temple prostution and idolatrous sex orgies, and your beloved verses in Romans would not have existed. Would you care to get into how the Apostle Paul felt about many other things that are considered irrelevant, and even ridiculous? Here is a fact for you, for a homosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender would in fact be them giving up what is natural for them for what is unnatural for them. I am not stating that has anything to do with those verses, where (at least the vast majority were heterosexuals) were engaging in all forms of sex in a orgie, but in the mind of someone like Paul, it was all shocking, and all unacceptable. So, you go look up "THE TRUTH ABOUT ROMANS AND HOMOSEXUALITY" Then come back and prove it wrong. If you do not, that will be you fully admitting that you are wrong.
Mobile phones in school should be banned

I explained the position I was arguing already. It would be absurd to ban cellphones from entering the physical school building, and when I took this debate I understood the resolution to be referring to classes, not the school property. The voters my decide whether I departed from the intent of this debate; however, the clear and logical interpretation is that cellphones should not be allowed in class. And it really would be pointless to argue that cellphones should not be allowed inside the building. They are very useful to the students and faculty, both in emergencies and for normal everyday communication. The only problem with them arises in the classroom, where they are a major distraction and a powerful tool for cheating. That has been my case. I will refrain from raising any new arguments this round, but there a re a few points my opponent brings up I would like to answer.1. Calendar"is better to write down dates of examination right in the class to remember all details instead of waiting till students get to their lockers. "Which is why students should be writing down assignments in the notebook they are using in class, rather than pulling out their cellphones. Cellphones offer no advantages there.2. Information"Pro claim that Internet sources are unreliable. I assume he thought of Wikipedia. "Actually, I am referring to the vast amount of misinformation on just about any topic which is freely posted on the web, and is only a google search away. There is no fact-checking in the blogging world, pseudoscience websites are innumerable, and under no circumstances would a reputable school encourage its students to replace it's reputable textbooks with information from who knows where. This ruins the whole point of having a teacher, a library, and textbooks.3. Playing games or listening to musicAgain, as playing games or listening to music is banned in class, this is no reason to allow cellphones in class.4. CalculatorThe iPhone calculator(s) are very useful, but not all phones are nearly that convenient. Not all phones even have calculators; but they all do have the ability to aid students in cheating. My opponent passes over this lightly by saying the teachers should not allow the cheating. That's easy to say, but almost impossible to tell if a student is using his phone as a calculator or to look up answers. If they are banned from the classroom, the teacher has a much easier time preventing students from cheating. This is just common sense. Finally, for my arguments:1. ) Cellphones distract students from the lessons and 2. ) Cellphones with cameras and/or Internet connection aid students in cheating on exams and quizzesMy opponent thinks we agree here, but misunderstands. I never agreed that teachers were the problem; as I said last round, "a lack of strict enforcement against cellphones in class is exactly the problem. " It's the rule against cellphones that is needed, not more pressure on the teachers. The disadvantages of allowing cellphones in class outweigh any slight advantage they might have, and I think I've established that.