BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetic modification of Humans is ultimately a good idea

Maybe I should clarify my point, In no way am I saying the government should enforce genetic modification of the populous. I'm saying that a private technology like Genetic modification need not be feared as the end of humanity but to the contrary. All procedures for adults would be voluntary and for children it would depend on the wishes of the parents. Children are not full members of society and have virtually every other aspect of their lives dictated by their parents. We already intervene medically for our children all the time. Cleft pallets, Reconstructive surgery, Bone marrow implants to stave off diseases. And children are already pressured and nurtured for specific goals, Careers etc. . This is just using the be tech. We have available to give humans the best possible outcome.
Genetic modification of Humans is ultimately a good idea

Voluntary for grown adults maybe. But unborn children can't give consent and should still be modified. Not only for preventative measures (curing diseases) but for whatever the parents should wish. For example, Parents should be able to give their child advanced athletic abilities if they wish to encourage them in sports. Since parents already pressure children into life choices they can also help genetically. The only caveat or limitation I would agree with is that all changes have to be "beneficial" overall. Ergo, Modifying someone to be a genius but as a result they will be paralyzed is infringing on the ability of that child to live freely as an adult and tantamount to child abuse.
Genetic modification of Humans is ultimately a good idea

The advantages of GMH are obvious, The possibility of extending lifespan, Elimination of genetic diseases, And the overall betterment of humans. Defending this position is more a matter of negating worries or disadvantages. Many people claim that it will become a new version of a caste system/racism that better able people will advance. However as technology improves it becomes cheaper and more abundant. Yes there will be super-humans at first, But they will be considered oddities or rare, And then they will become commonplace and abundant. Second objection: it will cause discrimination. Essentially yes, However there is already discrimination today. Today parents give their children advantages mainly through money and influence. GMH would have an advantage due to being "better", The argument that poop people will be left by the sidelines becomes irrelevant in an increasingly advanced, Wealthy, And above all automated society. A society which will come faster due to GMH.
Death Penalty

I'll make my arguments in this round and respond to his contentions in this round. 1) Deterrent. The one thing most people cannot deny is that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent. The issue is how much of a deterrent it is. Some studies have shown that the death penalty does not just decrease murder, but crime in general [1]. Some studies having the death penalty saving around 1,000 - 4,000 lives yearly [2]. When you are weighing lives, it generally far surpasses cost. The death penalty itself does cost a fair deal, but the amount it costs is offset by plea bargaining cost that reduce the amount greatly. When you factor in plea bargaining, it is actually cheaper to keep it than abolish it. The amount of deaths that come from it acting as a deterrent is by far the largest factor in this equation. 2) Justice The best argument in favor of the DP is that serves justice to the people who do wrong. The main point in a justice system is actually to provide justice. Undermining the system and not serving justice actually will make the system come into question. There are people that murder children, torture then, go on sprees. All of this is reason to enact equal punishment. Our entire law system is based on the code of Hammurabi [3]. This is basically stating an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Proper punishment receives proper punishment. There should be a right to execute people who go above and beyond to commit heinous crimes. 3) Prevention of further crimes What the DP also does is prevent people who cannot be rehabilitated from committing future crimes. Allow them to stay in prison opens up the chance for them to commit murders and other crimes in prison. While trying to rehabilitate people often results them committing more crime and going right back to where they were to start with. 4) Prison managmenet Sticking people in prison for life makes the prisons harder to maintain. There has to be a certain amount of guards per prisoner which in turn costs money. IT also makes the prison have to get more food, stick more money into maintaining people that are there for life while achieving nothing. The prison system is already stretched out, adding more people to it does not help. Add this in with the justice argument and you have a solution. Killing someone provides closure and serves justice, while doing so also mitigates the amount of prisoners in prison and stopping them from committing future crimes. Overall its a win win situation. [1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [3] http://eawc.evansville.edu...
Death Penalty

Sorry about the forfeit, I have been very busy with finals. #1- It costs more for the death penalty than the cost of life in prison. http://www.deathpenalty.org... California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978. California spends an additional $184 million on the death penalty per year because of the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row, and legal representation.The study"s authors predict that the cost of the death penalty will reach $9 billion by 2030. #2- Innocent while on death row. http://www.deathpenalty.org... The above link proves that inmates have been proven innocent while on death row, and sadly some have been killed and then later found innocent. #3- Who gets the death penalty? http://www.deathpenalty.org... The above link shows that the majority of inmates are African Americans. Another part to the article shows that only people with little wealth who cannot afford a good lawyer get the death penalty rather than life without parole. #4- Deterrence. http://www.deathpenalty.org... This link PROVES that the death penalty does NOT bring down crime rates. So why then would we implement a law that clearly is not working? The below links show the many other problems associated with the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.academia.edu... http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnesty.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.gallup.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://deathpenalty.procon.org... http://dawn.com... http://www.uscourts.gov... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.mapsofworld.com...
Planning for the future is a waste of time. Too much of our future is beyond our control.

My opponent stated that planning for the future is not a waste of time and that it can be a very important decision to make since. He claims that SQUIRRELS store food for later use and that early warning systems need to be put in place to deal with natural disasters. The point my quite unconscious opponent fails to understand is that in order to plan for one's future they must exert but time and energy. It is clear that to have a definite plan for the future is a great motivating factor for people to work harder and achieve their goals. But in many instances planning for the future, is not very sensible and many unforeseen events in life can turn things against one's plan. For instance, people often plan for their future and make huge investments in terms of money and other resources. It is likely that many of these plans do not work according to people's designs and as a result, they feel distressed. Nonetheless, I am inclined to favour the idea that planning for the future is a waste of time since too much of our future is beyond our control. Although planning for the future can motivate people, failure to realise one's dream can seriously affect their morale.
Planning for the future is a waste of time. Too much of our future is beyond our control.

Planning for the future is not a waste of time. It can be very important. Think about animals. Squirrels hoard acorns in the warm seasons so that they have food in the cold seasons when there are few or no acorns. When squirrels hoard acorns, they are planning and preparing for the future. If they didn't do this, they wouldn't have food in the winter. Another example is NORAD and the EAS. NORAD is a nuclear fallout shelter. In case of a nuclear apocalypse, thousands of people can live there in safety. The EAS is a system that alerts as many American citizens as possible of an emergency by interrupting television and radio broadcasts. This is the system that you hear on TV that makes annoying sounds and tells you about emergencies, such as a tornado or a severe blizzard. It's true that we don't know if or when an emergency (like a nuclear fallout) will occur, but if we don't plan for such emergencies, the damage can be much worse. Let's say there is a nuclear war (which scientists predict may happen in the next 40 years). Without any planning and preparation, like the EAS or NORAD, American citizens wouldn't know about this emergency and millions of people would die. Planning or not, millions of people will die anyway. But with planning, you can also save millions of American lives. Now think about kids. Kids and their parents have to plan for their future, because they need a plan for when the kid goes to college and they retire. They need to have a plan about where to get the money, what college, where to move to, etc. The future may be unpredictable, but planning for it is not a waste of time. By planning, we can prepare for the future so that the future is somewhat under our control.
Planning for the future is a waste of time. Too much of our future is beyond our control.

Over decades of time there has been great debates as to whether planning for the future is a waste of time since too much of our future is beyond our control. Only an imbecile would disagree with this statement. Planning is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal. Don't you think that your precious time can be spent doing something else rather than planning for the future. Planning for one's future requires patience, time and all together one's energy. We do not know what will happen in the next couple of seconds, minutes, hours, days, even so the next couple of years. The simple thought of sitting down to plan one's future prove some kind of insanity. Too much of our future is beyond our control, in order to plan one's future he/she needs to plan one step and prepare a plan B, a plan C, its even possible to take it to plan Z. Too much energy needs to be exerted to plan one's future which can be seen to be useless in this ever changing society.
teaching creationism in schools

Saying creationism is non-possible is irresponsible. I do agree the idea has flaws, and yes there is evidence to the contrary but there is no rock solid evidence against it. I don't think an idea should be condemned just because it is has a few things going against it. Evolution was denied validity because its heresy. People said it was impossible and untrue. If evolutionist said ," oh wait they're right. This idea is non-possible.", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Should we really decide validity on the topic of creationism? That seems oppressive and morally wrong. I agree with not forcing someone to believe in an idea but at least let them make a decision for themselves. Maybe they will go on to prove that idea true, and even if they don't at least they were able to live a life the way they choose.
teaching creationism in schools

I do agree with the idea of learning about many different ideas in school. But I do not agree with teaching non possible or not true ideas in schools. Creationism has been proven wrong on many levels and although evolution has not been proven 100%, there is enough possibility and proof to it existing that it should be taught about in schools. You don't want the future of the world learning untrue things. When there is new evidence about something different it should be taught in schools. But until then teach about what has scientific proof and evidence. (This was a great discussion Thanks for debating with me)
teaching creationism in schools

Evolution has strong evidence but as I have stated before it hasn't been proved. Even the biological clock ( which I have a lot of respect for, and I have written many a Thesis papers on ) is not 100%. For you who are not familiar with the biological clock, it is a device that takes the DNA of two creatures and predicts when they last shared a relative. The problem is it only uses patterns previously seen and predicts the information. If predictions proved a theory the Earth would be flat and the center of the universe. All the evidence we have so far for evolution is a chronological puzzle of fossils, DNA, patters, and estimates. I'm not saying it's not true but it only seems fair to teach children all theories and let them make informed decisions. This can lead to people trying to prove their ideas and many societal advances. Christians were some of the first to challenge the idea of a flat earth, Evolutionist have made many biological discoveries, Mayans made the most accurate calendar to date because priest told them to. Diverse cultures are what fuel growth.
teaching creationism in schools

I like your arguments. The reason why it does not SEEM possible is because science PROVES otherwise. Science states that the earth is still begin created. I also touched apon the order the bible says things were created. It says that humans were created the same time as everything else. That impossible because of many different findings such as history. History shows us dates of happenings. Hominids were discovered. These were the first humans. These Hominids were not able to build a tower to the heavens nor build a giant ark. Also if Noahs ark is real then how did he get all the animals in the world on this ark. These animals were all over the world and could not all survive in one common environment. Also That would be a pretty big ark. You talked about how the multiple writers shows multiple interpretations. Did the writers have solid evidence. Some of the interpretations on the torah say that studying in tents means going to study torah. That would be hard because the torah hasn't been written yet. But those interpreters did the same thing as the original writers they thought what made the most sense to them. Ignoring logic and science completely. So until you have actual evidence of creationism and the bible being completely real we will teach what has scientific evidence. (evolution)
teaching creationism in schools

You just brought down a huge piece of your argument. "Creationism states the world was created in six days and on the 7th day god took a rest. That dose not seem possible" it does not SEEM possible? That is hardly enough evidence to disprove a theory. And your claim on the bible being old, that in its self means it has knowledge of a period with very little record. The several authors just means it has several different perspective and correlated conclusions. Do you not think Mendel's research was scrutinized and changed, redone and re concluded. It is even suggested that his research was falsified by his aids. Is it not possible that the bible is an oversimplified altered record of the true happenings. There is as much speculation of the bible as there is with science. And please stop throwing the term proof around. I could get a specific result on a test 100,000,000,000,000 times over, but all it takes is the 100,000,000,000,001th result to be negative to prove a theory false. So a theory should be taught no matter how much "Proof" there is opposed to another.
teaching creationism in schools

Although there is not conclusive proof we can touch about evolution there is so much more proof about evolution then there is creationism. Creationism states the the world was created in six days and on the 7th day god took a rest. that dose not seem possible. Also the bible says the order of how things were created witch through scientific proof is shown to be false. Right now the argument for creationism is the belief in a book written so long ago and is surrounded with mystery. there is eveindence to prove that the bible was written by more then 1 author and that they lived over 100 years apart. Your evidence is non scientific in this argument so you have no possible way of proving creationism. Evolution can be proven through discoveries such as fossils and with other scientific data but the bible can not.
teaching creationism in schools

To begin with I would like to state I agree with a hybrid of different ideas. I do believe in the base of creationism though. My first argument is for the "Proof" of Evolution. Although there is strong evidence and several test that correlate with the theory, that's all we can truly claim evolution is. Unless we could relive everything or talk to god himself, we can never "prove" or disprove the theory. So on that bases we cannot decide what should be taught as a standard.
single sex schools

Hello, I am Eric. Today, we talk about sex of schools. We think opposite sex schools are much better than single sex schools. First, we can have more fun while studying. We are able to see things in different opinion and different angles. Second, it is a preparation for our future. In the future, all of us will go to work after we finished our study. In Society, there are men and women. You may have to work with some opposite sex people. So learning to get along with the opposite sex people will help you to adapt to the environment of society. Third, boys and girls can help each other. For example, boys can do some rough work and girls can do some careful work. For more detail, my partner Adam will explain to you.
single sex schools

Recent research shows that boys also benefit from single-sex classes. It is likely that teachers of a class of boys will adopt a teaching approach that encourages boys" tendencies during discussions to be direct and confrontational, loud and excited at times, and to interrupt each other as well as the teacher. Of course, not all girls and boys are going to be comfortable in single-sex classrooms, so it would have to be voluntary enrollment. But offering single-sex classrooms in public schools is the cheapest, most effective, and simplest "innovation" available to improve achievement, particularly in math and science.
the government should only recognize straight marriages

my sources are fine, and are nearly identical to every other source ive looked at. also, wikipedia uses external sources, so you can see where exactly the information came from. since you insisted on other sources, i will use the same sources you did. you have used gallup and the new york times websites, so here you go:http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.gallup.com...both those sources show that more people support gay marriage than oppose. every single recent poll i have found says the same thing, and you havent provided a source that says otherwise, even though you are supposed to be the one with the burden of proof. can we drop this silly myth now?moving on..."you stated that passing gay marriage would not increase the number of open gays"no i didnt"You stated that passing gay marriage would change society's view of it"no i didnt"I cited a government website which stated that gays do have a higher percentage of AIDS. This is a fact."-i dont deny that gay men have higher AIDS rates, but you have not shown sources that prove your assertion that AIDS rates would significantly go up as a result of allowing gays to marry. if you dont believe my sources, look it up for yourself...Vermont and New Hampshire have had legal gay marriage for longer than any state, and have among the lowest rates of AIDS.but since gay marriage hasnt been around for long in the united states, let's look outside the united states. the Netherlands was the first country to allow gay marriage in 2001. adult prevalence of AIDS that year was 0.2, and as of year 2009 it is still around 0.2 (among the lowest of other European countries)http://www.indexmundi.com...before you attack that source, i will point out that they got their information from here:https://www.cia.gov...since you implied that government sources are reliable, you shouldnt have a problem with cia.gov, and if you do, please provide sources that show that the Netherlands have had a dramatic increase in AIDS rates since they legalized gay marriage in 2001.-cars, pets, straight marriage, alcohol, etc, do cost the taxpayers money. we pay for roads, police enforcement, animal control, etc, and we have to make up for tax breaks that married straight couples get."The fact is that there are more gay men than lesbian women"-you have to show that we should ban ALL gay marriages, including lesbian marriages, that is what you agreed to. gay men having high AIDS rates does not justify banning gay women from marrying, who have much lower AIDS rates than straight people. why not ban only gay men from getting married, but allow gay women to marry?