BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organ donation should be 'opt out' as opposed to 'opt in'

Hi Chloe_Louise, I would like to say thank you for this debate, I hope it is a fun one. While I personally agree with you in principle I will be playing a bit of devils advocate here. While I agree that the opt in by default would help the waiting lists and go a long way to solving things, in the UK as I am from and as has been mentioned by Pro, we are a country that prides itself in religious tolerance. I would first like to make an appeal to religion.If we had an opt in by default we would, by default be opening up organ donation where it might infringe on the persons beliefs and religions. As this person has no way of now saying no once passed away, and we have no way to know that he or she did not convert their beliefs just 5 seconds before any such tragic thing may happen, we cannot simply assume that their beliefs and religious practices accept organ donation by default.I feel that the only way we can avoid this is to have people state their preference before death, and if our waiting lists are suffering then perhaps efforts should be focused away from changing the legal default and put into raising awareness and opt in sign-ups. This would stop the possibility of anyone doing something which may condemn the person to hell by their beliefs from the practices of someone who has not even asked permission to any higher level than assumption that its ok.As a second point, paperwork can be mixed up, and people could be opted in by mistake, when they did not want to be.I look forward to Pros reply, thank you again :)
colin leslie dean work is a new literary genre

Unfortunately names of styles are fairly unoriginal.... It could simply be named „Rhymed free verse“ or „Rhymed verse“ However, most often this type of unmetrical, rhymed poetry is called a „Rhymed Prose“. A prose is often unmetrical and not rhymed, but a rhymed prose is, as indicated, rhymed but follows no specific meter. The Wikipedia page on “Rhymed Prose” states the following:“Rhymed prose is a literary form and literary genre, written in unmetrical rhymes. This form has been known in many different cultures. In some cases the rhymed prose is a distinctive, well-defined style of writing. In modern literary traditions the boundaries of poetry are very broad (free verse, prose poetry, etc.), and some works may be described both as prose and poetry. „So, no, Dean was not even the first to point out this particular genre or style. It has existed and been recognized for centuries before his birth. Classical Arabic culture named them “Saj”, An elaborate version of the rhymed prose was named “Maqama”, the Chinese had their own variation of rhymed prose called “Fu”, It was common apparently in the early Khariboli hindi texts and in European culture it was generally a defining feature of the Divine Office.It also was and is quite common in children books. For instance Doctor Seuss often wrote in rhymed prose, as you can see in the short children novel Green eggs and ham.we see that Dean did not invent this genre. This genre is not new in the world of literary works. This genre has and is well recognized in cultures all around the world. This genre is not new in any way or form and stretches it's length millennia back. This genre may have become less common as time marches on but it still is well known and well practised in the world of today. Dean is writing a Rhymed Prose, or a free verse that happens to rhyme. He is free to chose what genre he claims he is writing in, but as with all things concerning art, it is extremely unlikely that he will ever write something that nobody has written or observed before.
colin leslie dean work is a new literary genre

PLEASE TELL US WHAT GENRE THOSE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE ARE IN -and that would be the genre of deans work- if you cant then my claims stand two points 1) I did not say deans work is the FIRST of a new literary genre am just pointing out that it IS a new literary genre there may be other works in that style before but no one has pointed out they are in a new genre before all you have to do is prove/tell us the people who said those examples you gave are in a new genre -if you cant then my position stands it would be like people in the past writing in the style of parody but at that time not recognizing that their writing was parody ie a new genre - for that time 2)I did not say dean invented anything - "'invent" is not to be found any where in my claim what I said is colin leslie dean work IS a new literary genre there may be other before who wrote in deans genre but they did not recognize that their work was a new genre you ineffect have proven my claim by giving examples of non metrical rhyming work also if you say what dean has done was done before all you have to do now is tell us what genre the examples you gave people have before said they are in -if you cant then my claim stands all you have to do now is tell us what genre the examples you gave are in and that would be the genre deans work is in PLEASE TELL US WHAT GENRE THOSE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE ARE IN -and that would be the genre of deans work- if you cant then my claims stand
colin leslie dean work is a new literary genre

colin leslie dean work is a new literary genre you can see his work here http://www.scribd.com... his work it is not poetry-which is metrical - and it is not free verse-which is non metrical and no rhyme -thus deans work is a new literary genre as it is not metrical but it rhymes So here is how poetry is defined http://www.merriam-webster.com... poetry is defined to be 1)a : metrical writing : verse 2): writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and RHYTHM Definition of free verse http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... free verse n 1. (Poetry) unrhymed verse without a metrical pattern thus from the definition of free verse "which is not in metre or rhymes- and poetry-writing in metre deans work is neither poetry or free verse as it is not metrical but it rhyme thus it is a new literary genre
God does not exist. Prove your stance.

This debate is a remake, the original was accepted by an individual who has an inability to debate. I'm looking for a rational religious person to talk to. If you are not rational or have an I.Q of less than 80 then you should not accept this debate. Rules: 1. No Bible quotes are allowed as Bible quotes do not prove anything. 2. No insults. 3. State your views. 4. dsjpk5 is not allowed to vote on this debate, he a a known vote spammer and his votes don't mean jack. 5. This is meant to be an exchange of information and knowledge, if all you're going to do is take a stubborn argumentative stance with no regard for your opponents questions, then you will forfeit. If rule 4 is broken Moderators will be contacted. If any other rules are broken, points should be deducted at the voters discretion. Keep it as concise as possible we don't want to hear a rant we want substance. If you ain't got any then don't accept. My views: I don't think a God exists. Using 'God did it' is the same as saying 'it's magic'
God does not exist. Prove your stance.

Thank you for accepting. You begin by saying "Atheists seem to think that because we cannot see him means he doesn't exist. But gravity, wind, and atoms can't be seen" 1. Electron microscopes allow us to see atoms [1] 2. The effects of gravity and wind can be tested and are experienced in our everyday lives. We cannot test for God. -Your first argument- You argue that the world around us is too complex to occur naturally, yet are willing to state that this world was created by an infinitely complex being. If I were to explain the process's that created everything we see it would deviate from this entire debate, so if you want to know specifics we can private message. Within your first argument you attack the big bang and state "Nothing can't come from something" If that is true, then where did God come from? He either came from nothing or something. -Your second argument- The law of motion is: "Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia." To debunk this I can rely on a very recent discovery. Two separate research teams have created structures in which the atoms arrange themselves in a pattern that "repeats itself in time, rather than in space. these structures never settle down into a thermal equilibrium, they pulse to a regular beat without the need for any external energy source. This makes them atomic scale versions of perpetual motion machines that break two rules: Newton's first and second laws of thermodynamics. Proof of perpetual motion proves something can come from nothing. [2] -Your third argument- P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence- What caused God? P2 Because the universe exists, it must have a cause of existence- I could agree with this. P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, that cause must be an outside force- Proof of perpetual motion via the sources I've provided debunk the "nothing cannot produce something" argument, which if true tells us nothing, as God would then need a creator. P4 That outside force is God- It doesn't have to be, that's quite a logic jump you're making. P5 God created the universe- With all the suffering around the world, innocent people dying, if he did, then he did a poor job. A perfect creator would not create an imperfect universe, that would make him imperfect. [1] https://motherboard.vice.com... [2a] https://phys.org... [2b] https://motherboard.vice.com... [2c] https://www.newscientist.com... [2d] https://motherboard.vice.com...
(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

I will be arguing that the Christian God is benevolent rather than malevolent. Definitions: God:In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. [3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving. Benevolent:Characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings towards others. Malevolent:Wishing evil or harm to another or others,showing ill will or to be ill-disposed.
The Flag of the United States of America represents freedom in general.

The flag does indeed promote freedom. Have you ever heard the star spangled banner? "Gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there." The flag represented our country and the soldiers who fought for us. The fifty white stars represent the 50 states and and the 13 stripes represent the original Thirteen Colonies that rebelled against the British crown and became the first states in the Union. It not only serves as an "object," but you should look at it and be thankful that you are here in America with the freedom that you have. Yes, I have heard of the Star Spangeled banner. But just because it hints at it in a song does not mean our flag represents freedom. If we lost our constitution, if we lost all our rights, and we lost all our freedom, people would not look to the flag and say, "Hey, that's freedom right there." It's the constitution that the first amendement grants right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Our flag is not how we found freedom. It does not represent freedom. Yes, maybe we should honor the men that fought for freedom. But they fought for freedom, not a flag. Again, freedom cannot be represented in an object. And if it can, then all other free nations would have there flags represented too. England would have their flag represent freedom. Germany would. Australia would. That would mean that their would be constant infighting among the "free" whose flag represents freedom. Our flag represents our country. That's what every flag represents. The US Flag stands for the US. In the past I would've gladly stood for the flag because men of free thought helped in the process of making it. Now it represents the War on Oil and a President who can't even speak properly. We're war hungering fools and unless we can pick our fights wisely, our flag will never represent anything. It does not represent freedom because we are becoming less free everyday. We have the PATRIOT act in place that supposedly stops terrorism. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "The moment freedom begins to be taken away, it is lost forever." Our flag does not represent freedom because I have no right to privacy anymore. I can be monitered wherever I go. Yes, we broke from the British crown, but let me remind you that it was Britain in the first place that started forming the Bill of Rights. If it wasn't for their dictatored rule, we would not have a Bill of Rights.
The Flag of the United States of America represents freedom in general.

The flag does indeed promote freedom. Have you ever heard the star spangled banner? "Gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there." The flag represented our country and the soldiers who fought for us. The fifty white stars represent the 50 states and and the 13 stripes represent the original Thirteen Colonies that rebelled against the British crown and became the first states in the Union. It not only serves as an "object," but you should look at it and be thankful that you are here in America with the freedom that you have.
The Flag of the United States of America represents freedom in general.

The Flag of the United States of America does not represent freedom at all. I have a few arguments, but for now I will only bring out one. Freedom is a higher ideal/plane of thought. It is an idea of being free from everything that is restricting unto you. It cannot be represented in such a physical object. For example, the Christian God cannot be represented in an idol. Why? Because it is also a higher ideal of thought. It is a religion that has many ideals of thought and practice. So there God, cannot be represented in an idol, because of how high he is (I am an Atheist using Christian examples, heh heh). So just as God cannot be represented in idols, so can freedom not be represnted in idols.
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Why did Hitler rise to power? For the same reasons Donald Trump is now, for the most part. He polarized the population, and he instilled fear of minorities. He was a white supremacist who believed that all unlike him were against him and below him. I takes a certain degree of intelligence, a certain way of thinking, a certain level of sobriety to overcome the natural, instinctual levels of xenophobia. Hitler inspired a mob mentality around this idea of xenophobia, then manipulated the system. A person with such a mental capacity can easily realize why xenophobia is not the answer. They will grow from struggles, benefit from hardships. How are we to advance, as a species, without some struggles? As I already stated, hardships make one grow. If we apply this to our species, a couple trips and stumbles will no doubt occur in our march to perfection. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. For the sake of science, of knowledge, of growth, of humanity, we need to move forward, not stagnate. An essential stepping stone is this, to change who WE are, at the genetic level. The future of mankind rests in the hands of our generation. This has been, by far, the most engaging, interesting, and all-around best debate I have yet had on this site. Thank you.
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

First I'd like to address your claim that it would be a stepping stone to the perfect species. You state that struggling would make them a better person, but this isn't always the case. One example is a name I'm sure you've heard before, the notorious Adolf Hitler. He struggled throughout his life, even writing a book titled Mein Kampf. (My Struggle) Hitler caused the death of millions, and was a detriment to society. This "perfect human" would most likely be taunted as an outsider, and pressured by his parents and teachers to reach his potential. After all, they aren't perfect. They would be in an interesting situation, feeling alienated from and angry at his/her fellow humans, while also feeling sure they were superior. I'm not saying this will definitly happened, Here we have a person who has all the reason in the world to hate other people, and the intelligence to manipulate his way into power. Hitler, after all, was democratically elected. You may be thinking about my above point "Wait, couldn't we just engineer him to be ethically perfect too?" You said it best yourself, my friend: "no one ever has the right to impose ethical beliefs, or any other beliefs, onto others." To do this would indeed be wrong. It would also be exactly what is needed to make sure the child doesn't become a Hitler. So making this child puts you between a Hitler and a morally wrong place, because you have been tempted by the promise of a Gandhi. But you see, Hitler and Gandhi were both born to natural parents. Steps to a better species can be taken without the needless risk of genetic engineering. Yes, all good things come at a cost, but that doesn't make everything that comes at a cost a good thing. A chance for another Einstein, another Gandhi, another Mr. Sugihara, is indeed a good end, but it is not a guarantee. It's easier to hate than forgive, to be Adolf Hitler than to be Oskar Schindler, and this applies to anyone. In fact, it is natural. I must admit, you have made me think. This argument has shed some light on morality for me, and both of us, I'm sure, have learned something.
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

100% moral was a hyperbole, for nothing can possibly be 100% moral. No matter what, some will still be harmed. As moral as possible would be to make sure something works, and then to use it to the advantage of all. Any figure you can think of who is highly skilled, or is kind, or has any worthwhile trait, has suffered, and that made them a better person. The perfect human would be just that- perfect- and would be a stepping stone to creating the perfect species. The benefits of this end justify any minor, personal struggles.To say something is unethical and therefore shouldn't be done is to impose your personal set of ethics onto another. I personally think no one ever has the right to impose ethical beliefs, or any other beliefs, onto others, ergo, "Who are you to ...".In agreeing that a genetically engineered child may be bullied, I am not supporting your side. I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion that this would leave them any worse than the millions of other children who have been, are being, and will be bullied.Was Gandhi's peaceful protests justified because he intended to leave thousands of British officials unemployed? Was the Emancipation Proclamation justified because it condemned the loss of millions of today's dollars' worth of property? all good things come at a price.Thank you for the complement. I would have to say, though, I personally think you have been doing a much better job voicing your points. I do hope that changes. ;)
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Your argument is flawed. You say that it is "100% moral" and later claimed that all we can do to be ethical is try to help as many people as possible and hurt as little people as possible. In that case, it is completely wrong by your own definition. As I have said, genetic engineering can cause harm to many people unintentionally and in some cases intentionally. These negatives for many people outweigh the positives for one person, because the superiority wouldn't guarantee happiness for anyone, including the child. "Who are you to say anything is unethical." This is a fallacy because it assumes that who I am has any bearing on whether I am correct. Whether I am Barack Obama, Kim Kardashian, or I really am a platypus, my opinion on ethicality is just as valid as yours unless you can prove otherwise. Of course being better comes with challenges, and it is my argument that these challenges cause the genetically engineered child to have a worse life. You seem to be supporting my side by saying the child will be bullied. This is an expected result, and it is unfair to undermine an otherwise socially healthy child's social life by trying to make them "better." It is acceptable to cause harm if it couldn't be predicted and it was for a good cause, but to do this would essentially to condemn them to a childhood of being a freak. I would like to say that you have argued well, and I am enjoying this debate so far.
Genetic Engineering of Humans is Moral

Every single thing that ever happens, has happened, or will happen helps some and harms others. What is so special about humans, when most do not care about genetic engineering on other creatures? Natural selection is crueller than artificial selection. It is more likely for a random process to produce a negative than a conscious being to do so. We know what genes do what, and which ones to change to achieve an end. Is happiness measurable before the child is born? I doubt it is.Being better comes with challenges. Anyone with a gift instill jealousy for having it. The bigger/better your gift, the more you get teased/bullied/made fun of for having it. Who are you to say that anything is unethical. Biases are not always personal, they are often rooted in the time in which one lives. For millions of years people have had no qualms with slavery This does make slavery morally right, according to most humans. Who are you to say that they were wrong? In conclusion, no matter what we do, some will be helped and others harmed. All we can do is to work towards the goal of the least possible being harmed and the most possible being helped.