BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
love on first site is true

I wouldn't"t call it love at first sight but lust at first smell (and sight). There have been numerous studies done on genetic compatibility between potential "mates". It all started with smelling T-shirts. In 1994 Claus Wedekind had 49 women and 44 men wear white T-shirts for two days straight without any cologne, perfume, deodorant then had the participants smell the opposite sex"s t-shirts and rate there affinity for the smell. The women were particularly good at this and (excepting those women on the pill) were able to pick out genetically compatible partners. "Women could potentially find "love at first sniff" due to compatibility genes that may help them find their best match." ( Effeietsanders, CC BY 2.0, Medical Daily 2013) Recently another study was done in which 238 participants were presented with pictures of both blue and brown eyed people of the opposite sex. The results, the woman rated the brown eyed men as more trustworthy. To test this further they changed the colors of the eyes of the males in the photographs. What they found was that it was not the eye color but the facial features of the males with brown eyes. "the brown-eyed males had a bigger nose and mouth, a broader chin and more prominent eyebrows positioned closer to each other, compared with the blue-eyed males. These features seemed to convey more trustworthiness to the participants." (Public Library of Science online journal, 2013) Love is more than genetic compatibility as mates. You don"t need to have any knowledge of a person"s mind, heart or soul in order to feel this, "love at first sight" feeling. It is merely nature"s way of trying to provide viable off-spring. "Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies." -Aristotle That is not simply smell.
love on first site is true

Intro: I am doing this because even though i compete in debate on a team and it involves mainly political issues and arguments i find philsophical arguments more interesting. Observation: This is more of a philosophical based topic so i put it under philosophy. Love is preety much a philosophical topic rather then something like minimum wage or the patriot act which are more economical/political based. Pro burden= defend the love on first site concept What is love on first site?= The popular form of love accepted in America, examples of it “I knew I would marry her after the first date.” Al Bundy, married 40 years “I met him, I am sure this time, He is The One.” Carrie Bradshaw, 40, single with a string of exciting but broken relationships behind her. Conclusion: love on first site shouldn't have to be explained but i presented this just in case. It's a very popular idea of love in America. Con= provide an alternative description of love in general/ flaws in the "love on first site" Round 1: Clarification/acceptance round 2: present side/arguments round 3: debate round 4: debate/maybe why you won. If you would like a change for something or 5 rounds instead of 4 state your request in comments. However i will only do so if you plan on debating me after i i complete your request.
love on first site is true

My opponent wrote, “You are more then twice my age” Geez, thanks for making me feel old. Just kidding. I didn't realize you were a kiddo. My opponent wrote, “There is nothing I can learn from something I can't understand/not interested in. I read a bit on what you presented and I don't have the intelligence yet to really respond.” Now you have triggered my maternal instincts. You are doing well for your stated age and you’re not lacking in intellect. Hang in there. My opponent wrote, “Also I am a math/politics guy anyway and may never be able to fully comprehend this anyway.” Try not to undersell yourself, to yourself. Do you want to try and duke the rest of this out?
love on first site is true

It would have been nice if you actually posted a good argument for round 1 so I could be aware of my mistake. I didn't realize I was debating someone way older who has been in collage and has had an occupation. You are more then twice my age loll with way more wisdom and experience . It's like a middle school debater going against a high school debater but a even bigger gap. I have no chance. Forgot to set age limit and thus I will FF There is nothing I can learn from something I can't understand/not interested in. I read a bit on what you presented and I don't have the intelligence yet to really respond. Also I am a math/politics guy anyway and may never be able to fully comprehend this anyway.
Animal Cloning

Point 3: Stops Hunger in Third World Countries Many countries in our world today are not able to give their body the basic necessities of vitamins, proteins, and carbohydrates that they need. Some people in those countries do not even eat all, and suffer many of the effects that come to that. Animal cloning is the solution to this and will stop world hunger as soon as possible. Many of the people that are already skeptical about animal cloning know and are curious on whether the cloned animals are edible enough for humans. If that, if the animal is actually safe to eat. Some of the scientists use different types of chemicals and other bases in cloning that can and will be harmful towards the human body. As said earlier, scientists are able to put any traits or genes necessary for the animal. So the people that are worried about this problem, it is there. But there is still a solution to this. Like Polly in the research, she was made with the XI factor, which was stated earlier that it is defect of hemophiliac. With cloning, many of the people in the third world countries who are suffering from this everyday will be able to eat. This then stop world hunger and then some. Scientist can also add any vitamins, nutrients, or proteins that will keep the human body nourished, so all of the people in those starving countries will be healthy.
Animal Cloning

Cloning is very expense no matter the organism you are wanting to clone. According to Sustainable Table, each clone of a cow costs close to 20,000 dollars with cloning rates success rates at 10%. One average it will take 200,000 dollars to clone one cow successfully when naturally it costs a 20,000 dollars to not only have a cow, but to raise it for 10 years no matter where you are at. Cloned horses have been known to go for as much as 150,000 dollars each and if you are interested in making a clone of your cat there is a private company that will cost 32,000 dollars.1 Even with the draw to some of these animals you may want, they will still have very different manners that any other animal and may still look different. Is cloning worth thousands of dollars or should that government money be spend on something more worthy. The government currently is not paying for cloning research within the United States, but private sectors are still dishing out the money. The cost to clone a dog typically take 15,000 " 20,000 dollars yet it costs about 100,000 to use for further research to making cloning more successful.1 Dolly one of the first cloned larger animals cost in excess of 750,000 dollars along with 276 failed attempts before one being successful.1 1 Bren, Linda. (2003). Cloning: Revolution or Evolution in Animal in Animal Production?FDA Veterinarian Newsletter 18(5). Washington, DC. - See more at: http://www.ilfb.org...
Animal Cloning

Point 2: Agricultural & Drug Production/ Livestock Farm animals could have a certain trait that codes for medically important proteins. In the research, one of the test subjects named Polly was cloned from a dead lamb. When cloning, the scientists then put a trait call the XI factor, which gives that animal a type of milk that contains rich nutrients and proteins deficient in hemophiliacs. Some of the traits can change a quality of meat or certain proteins needed in the human body for that animal. Breeding stock, male animals are neutered at a young age. They are never able to reproduce to any other species except their own. Scientist are able to clone the same male without that reproductive organs to have that clone have reproductive organs. This will and can lead to twice as much livestock with or without reproductive organs. The population will double and help scientists with research or with anything else that is needed for the males. The reason for taking those reproductive organs are to keep the desired genes for that animal. With cloning, the clone from the actual male can pass down that desired gene to it's offspring. Then any of the farmers or scientists can have a desired type of cow, sheep, pig or any other type of livestock.
Animal Cloning

If cloning were to become successful within our society along with mass production of offspring begins as a food source or other various reasons, the diversity of the offspring will decrease opening it up to the possibility of widespread infections. According to research done by Pongsiri "if biodiversity decreases, transmission events rise due to an increase in encounter rates among infected and between infected and susceptible hosts. Assuming that a rodent has a certain amount of aggressive encounters during its life, it transmits the virus in more cases if the small-mammal diversity is low, since aggressive encounters happen more often within the same species. A recent experimental field study conducted on wild rodent populations of different species in southwestern Panama backs this view. It showed that the relative abundance of Hantavirus hosts increases with a decrease in small-mammal species diversity." Currently we are having major issues within our crop industry with biotechnology creating clones in mass reproduction for food yield. With the lack of diversity within crops a recent bacterial disease has come about called Goss"s Bacterial Wilt which can deteriorate most of a field if susceptible. A representative from Monsanto stated, "We don"t have a clue on the current diversity of corn and soybeans extant in farmers" field, and this is unacceptable."2 If we relate this over to animals and we use them as a food source the same way, major food sources can be affected. Looking at history and what we have seen with other species and how quickly infections can spread over common organisms, clones become more susceptible due to same DNA. The inability for mutations to occur within germ cells limits the possibility of organism"s population to become immune to a virus and/or bacteria. If for example we do perfect cloning and we begin to clone animals for food or medical testing and one virus affects the entire population of clones, not only is there money wasted, but we will no longer have diversity within the population of animals to potentially create future population immune to this virus. 1.Pongsiri, M., Roman, J., Ezenwa, V.O., Goldberg, T.L., Koren, H.S., Newbold, S.C., Ostfeld, R.S., Pattanayak, S.K. and Salkeld, D.J.. (2009) Biodiversity Loss Affects Global Disease Ecology. Bioscience 59, 945"954 2.University of Vermont. "Biodiversity loss can increase infectious diseases in humans." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 December 2009.
Animal Cloning

Point 1: Revives Endangered and Extinct Animals It is very possible for extinct and endangered species to be cloned and come back to life. Though of course extinct animals are harder to find DNA or samples to use, endangered species are more possible to clone than extinct animals. For the fact that extinct animals are able to donate healthy, living cells, it is much easier to go through the process of reviving these species. Some animals such as the mouflon sheep, different types of deer, bison, and coyotes can then be revived and not go extinct. This can then maintain biodiversity in endangered species by practicing. These methods can keep and avoid the genetic reshuffling when sexual reproduction occurs. For example, the Bucardo was a very limited species. Scientists and other animal workers tried to breed other animals to save the Bucardo from total extinction. The closest thing to the Bucardo was an alpine ibex which is the cousin of the Bucardo. Though it is extinct now, cloning can easily solve this problem, even using the cells of an alpine ibex. Since cloning can choose whichever trait it can use, any cousins of an extinct species can revive an extinct species such as the situation that was used. Any other types of endangered species like bison and other animals shown above can be easier to revive and scientists can then research those animals that have been gone for many years. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... http://www.actionbioscience.org...
Animal Cloning

Cloning has been known to cause severe defects at birth along with many failed pregnancies due to the egg not being compatible with the surrogate mother, the egg not dividing properly, implantation of egg my fail, or just a miscarriage itself. According to the book Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning, out of 3156 sheep embryo"s they had tested that year and created in the lab only 50 (1.6 percent) were taken through the full term of pregnancy. After the birth of the 50 individual sheep, 26 percent of the sheep died within the first week due to complications. This leaves about 1 percent that make it past the first week of life, 99% at this point become deceased. 1 Along with a small percentage making it to birth, anywhere from 6-50 percent of these offspring will have a something called large offspring syndrome which typically is fatal according to the American Anti-Vivisection Society. Large offspring syndrome is when an offspring is born larger than the normal which can cause breathing and circulation difficulties. Another more rare condition called hydrops can occur up to 28% of clones can also be fatal. Hydrops is when a large amount of fluid builds up within the offspring"s tissues or organs causing complications with those organs. 2 With more than 95 percent of cloning attempts regularly causing death or severe health problems for cloned animals and their surrogate mothers, there is widespread recognition in the scientific and medical communities that cloning presents serious risks to the animal"s involved.3 Yet the FDA has repeatedly glossed over the animal welfare problems raised by animal cloning. In its risk assessment on cloned foods, the FDA dismisses any concerns by asserting that cloning poses no unique risks to animal health that are not seen with the assisted reproductive technologies already practiced by many large-scale livestock operations.4 In making such a flawed assessment, the FDA has completely ignored the tremendous increase in frequency with which animal health risks occur as a result of cloning. 1.Chavatte-Palmer, P., Remy,D., Cordonnier, N., Richard, C., Issenman, H., Laigre, P., et al. (2004). Health status of cloned cattle at different ages. Cloning and Stem Cells, 6(2), 94-100. 2.Young, L.E., Sinclair, K.D., and Wilmut, I. (1998). Large Offspring Syndrome in cattle and sheep. Review of Reproduction, 3, 155-163. 3.Heyman, Y., Chavatte-Palmer, P.,Berthelot,V., Fromentin, G., Hocquette, J.F.,Martignat, L., and Renard, J.P. (2007). Assessing the quality of products derived from cloned cattle: An integrative approach. Theriogenology, 67(1), 134-141. 4.Food and Drug Administration (2006). Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment, 107-116
Animal Cloning

Point 5: Research for Human Disease Using any animal models is the most common way to find cures, treatments, or any possible diseases that scientists may encounter in future reference. take the mouse for example. It is one of the most common animal species that is used for research on human disease. Some scientists need to have a certain type of mouse to continue in their studies. A mouse with a protein or type of disease that may help with further research. Scientist cannot always have one test subject because of the "trial and error" factor. This factor is when a scientist tests on a subject and either becomes successful with it or something drastic happens like death or the occurring of paralyze. This means that many scientists need to have more test subjects with the certain "guidelines" or "requirements" that the animal needs. This is when animal cloning comes into play. Cloning involves an exact replication, but also any alterations that the "maker" chooses to put into the animal. As said in paragraph one, some research needs the proper requirements for it to be successful. Things like proteins, enzymes, or anything that is needed. Cloning can put anything of that particular category into the animal. Not just that, but the numbers of the test subjects will increase in any amount that is needed for the research. When the maker of the animal is done or satisfied with the animal test subject, then the scientist can then proceed to make how many test subjects they want.
Animal Cloning

The first successful animal cloning in the 1990s has opened doors for bioengineers in what concerns the potential to clone animals in order to preserve species for the other generations to come. Cloning in general is regarded as a highly controversial issue but it may be useful in providing specialists with opportunities they have only dreamed of until now. Read on and find out how animal cloning could be useful in preserving species that are endangered and could become extinct during several years. Cloning endangered species is an idea that appeals to many scientists enthusiastic about reversing the effects that humans and nature have had on several species around the globe and which could lead to their extinction. One may think that animals cloning might be the solution to all the problems that come around when talking about endangered species, and yet there seems to be a quite strong opposition to this king of practice. Cloning endangered species is an issue for most conservation biologists and environmentalists mostly because they think this operation could deter donations to help preserve the natural habitat in which these wild species live. An unwritten rule in the world of animal conservation is that conserving the natural habitat in which these species live helps in preserving the species itself as it promotes reproduction. This in turn leads to the assumption that reproduction in captivity is therefore no longer needed to protect the species and this is why environmentalists and conservation biologists argue against cloning endangered species. At the same time, there are several reasons to believe that cloning endangered species may not work in the first place. A specialist had published a review in 2006 where he was explaining that cloning in animal conservation is impossible and if it may happen it will do so only by chance.
Animal Cloning

Point 4: Cloning in Medicine Stem cells are used repair and replace cells in the body that seemed to be damaged. In cloning, the stem cells from another clone can be transferred into the actual animal's body, helping it to be more healthy and without health defects. Though there are bone marrow surgeries to help problems or defects in the human body, the bone marrow is not very reliable. Most cells will identify the bone marrow cells as "foreign" and can easily fight the cells that are trying to help with the disease or any type of defect that is in the body. It would be an actual clone and is the most reliable of any of the other methods that medical scientists may use.
Animal Cloning

Losing gene diversity is another of the disadvantages of cloning. Gene diversity is what keeps an entire species from being wiped out by a singular virus if none of them have natural immunities. This is due to the lack of gene diversity. Gene mutations happen naturally, and help to explain why some people naturally are taller, shorter, or more athletic than others. Some people and animals naturally have a stronger immune system. If gene diversity is lost due to excessive cloning, there are no mutations to allow some of the cloned group to survive a newly introduced disease. Another of the disadvantages of cloning is that there are a lot of ethical considerations that would cause most people to protest. One of these ethical concerns is that cloning is unnatural, and considered "playing God." Another concern is the treatment of clones. Clones would have the same needs as non-clones of their species. Humane treatment guidelines would still apply. There is always a risk of cloning technology being abused. One of the main disadvantages of cloning is that the technology would have to be kept closely monitored. For example, imagine what a corrupt dictator could do with cloning. There will always be someone looking to use cloning for their own personal use, and many feel that the best way to prevent this is to not pursue cloning at all. 1.University of Vermont. "Biodiversity loss can increase infectious diseases in humans." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 December 2009.
'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

"People have rights and among these rights is a right to a trial by jury" they only have those rights with teh government. they don't have those rights with vigilantees. the question is whether vigilanteeism is okay here. "If this right isn't protected what's to stop someone from locking you up permanantly for not mowing the lawn?" mowing the lawn is in no way similar. i see your point in that we could argue that if vigilanteeism with bob is okay, someoe else might see it as permissible to lock me up for what they see as going too far with teh lawn. the problem, is that this relies on lunacy.. no one thinks that vigilanteeism is okay. the only difference here with killing him or not is a matter of imminency, whether it should be a killing is "about to occur" or "will occur soon enough". that's the extent of diffeence between killing him i the park v when he's about to kill someone. this is sufficiiently similliar enough that to compare it with not mowing the lawn is just poor judgment. "You may be mistaking this guy for bob which would be horrible since that would make you a murderer." i recognize that often or even usually that the person who might shoot him needs to be sure of the facts.given con just gives practical concerns of uncertainty, one might think con doesn't view killing him as inherently wrong. well, the shooter could have a special inside knownledge of bob and his murders. if that's the case, it's known 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he's the bad guy and will kill again. i realize his 'beyond a reasonable doubt' isn't the same as a jury's... but it's close enough cause society already views bob's death as okay, albeith with a slight tweek on what it means to be 'imminent'. yes there are practical concerns that we must weigh and consider. but again my point is that it's not inherently wrong. "By doing this you are also endangering the wildlife" con is just going off the deep end here. animals may be killed for practical purposes. no need to further dignify this with a response. con argues that the cops could handle the situation just as good or better. but that's the problem, the facts lend themslve sto the fact that they won't be able to. by teh time they get to where bob was, he will be gone. it is more effectively handgled by the guy who sees bob, as long as his certittude is high enough of all the facts. con argues he should be given a chance to surrender. sure, the guy who sees him can offer for bob to surrende. if bob doesn't, the n the guy should do what is necessary to stop him, up to and including shooting him.