BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Brain Transplants

My opponent says I did not give a full example that a whole-body transplant has been tested. But he does not realize that I do not have to provide such example since I have proven a whole-body transplant is not possible indirectly. Whether or not it WILL be possible in the future, it certainly IS not possible today. The two pieces of spinal cord can not heal together, or at least not fast enough for a whole-body transplant. The source that my opponent cited in round 3 actually supported the fact that nerve tissue that was damaged could heal back together, but it took about many years, much too much time for a whole-body transplant to be enjoyable. Because it takes many years for nerve tissue in the spinal cord to heal, the brain will not be able to control the heart which moves blood throughout the body and more importantly the brain. So if a brain was moved into another body, and placed on an artificial circulatory system, it will not be able to control anything in the new body, it would be just sitting there, thinking, but never doing anything and would not be able to communicate with the outside world. Even if the spinal cord did heal, the brain could not have 100% control of the body. The two bodies might not be programmed the same way so if the spinal cord could heal and the brain tried to make the heart beat, what if the heart doesn't beat? You can't make a brain try to learn how to beat the heart since it is an involuntary action. "Later, should brain transplants work, the natura death would apply to the nonbrain body parts. The natural deah idea culd revolutionized. " It's hard to understand what you're saying since I don't understand your made up words. English would be nice. Anyway, even if whole-body transplants will work in the future, that doesn't stop the fact that death of a brain is natural. That last sentence is totally incomprehensible. "We would obviously have to use life support to keep the body alive so it could support the brain. " Obviously. But it would be a nightmare to be on life support for many years since you can't control anything and you won't have any interaction with the outside world. No talking, not being able to see anything, not hearing anything. Would it be like living in hell so to speak? Heck, we wouldn't know since the brain could not communicate with anyone. "I agree we should have clinical trials. However, technology is advancing in such a way thatmany once impossibe things are now possible. " But whole-body transplants are (are means as of today) not possible. When new & faster methods of healing spinal cord injuries are tested and proven successful, only then would be the appropriate time for testing whole-body transplants on small mammals. But making whole-body transplants on humans legal today is ridiculous since there haven't been any trials on small mammals, and spinal cords can not heal together fast enough. It's just not possible today. Therefore, whole-body transplants on humans should not be legal since: It is Impractical It is Impossible It is Immoral Knowledge has been preserved throughout history without any help from whole-body transplants.
Brain Transplants

First I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to give a full example in which brain transplant has been tested. Because he has not, we can say that we will never know for sure if it could work. ON the n ote tha we would lose a life, possibly, we would only test on those whom want it, no unwillng patients. My opponent says that death is natural because it happens in nature. My opponent fails to see my point. Yes it is natural, now. Later, should brain transplants work, the natura death would apply to the nonbrain body parts. The natural deah idea culd revolutionized. I agree we should have clinical trials. However, technology is advancing in such a way thatmany once impossibe things are now possible. We would obviously have to use life support to keep the body alive so it could support the brain. To answer your last numbered statements: 1. Solid proof, not just theory? Give evidene link, please. 2. I said it would be for those who choose, as that is a right we citezens have. 3. A body is much more durable. http://www.emaxhealth.com...
Brain Transplants

Whole body transplants are not possible since the spinal cords aren't able to heal together. An example is a spinal cord injury in which a person becomes paralyzed. Spinal cord injuries can't heal and since the spinal cords of a brain and a different body would have to heal together to be a successful whole-body transplant, a whole body transplant would not be possible. There's your proof. "My opponent finishes by sayings death is natural. Of a body, yes. But the brain could simply use a new healthy body. The natural part could only apply to nonbrain bodyparts." Death is natural. Death of a brain is natural, since it happens in nature and the brain is part of a body. To say that the death of a brain is not natural is absurd. Plus, you did not try to refute my argument that "There should be clinical trials first, then if proving successful, only then should one consider making it legal." and you did not answer my question about what the point is in killing someone to use their body for someone else. 1. Whole-body transplants are not possible (I have proved this). 2. It is wrong & selfish to kill someone who is young, so you can extend your life. 3. Preserving information for long periods of time is as simple as writing something down on a piece of paper. These are reasons why whole-body transplants should not be legal. My opponent has yet to find a benefit and a good reason why whole-body transplants should be legal since he has the burden of proof.
Brain Transplants

Thank you for such an interesting topic. I looked into the comments section and you said that the resolution should be that a brain transplant ought to be legal. So I will refer to that as your resolution and ignore the one in Round 1. In your argument it looks like you mean brain transplant as moving a brain into another body, which is called a Whole-body transplant [1]. There's a problem with moving a brain into another body. It is simply not possible to transplant a brain into another body and make it control the new body. The spinal cords of the brain and the new body will be too scarred and the brain will not be able to control anything, and thus will die. The brain could live if the heart pumped blood to the brain, but the brain would not be able to control the heart. The soviets proved that you could keep a brain alive without a body by providing an artificial blood pump [2]. The reason why you cannot heal people who are paralyzed is because the spinal cord is damaged, and signals can't transmit well. A Whole-body transplant should not be legal because it is not possible. There should be clinical trials first, then if proving successful, only then should one consider making it legal. Plus, dying is natural, and a whole-body transplant would mean killing someone young, while keeping someone old alive. What's the point in doing this? 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.youtube.com... See youtube video and go to the 6:00 minute mark.
Brain Transplants

Full Resolution: The individual ought to be legal. I will not give the full effort, but I want to kind of find my legs, so to speak, on this topic. Best of luck to con. Brain transplants could be a very helpful tool. If a body is disabled, but the brain knows how to, say break a brick, brain surgery could be highly helpful. The new body would have to train yes, but eventually would break the brick, using only the body. Also, he brain could last longer because the new body would replenish it, thus we could preserve information for long periods of time. Last, I would like to note, that this surgery would be soly for the elderly, and disabled. The surgery would be given only upon request, not by force. Please do not get freaky serious about this, just keep it basic. Thank you kindly, and good luck.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G

Note: the "1G" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com..................... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com..................... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise they'll be nothing to debate). THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable. Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
DotA 2 is better than LoL

Hello, n1776! I will be your opponent for this debate! I would disagree with you. First, there aren't as much OP champions in League of Legends (LOL from now on) as there are in DOTA 2. Riot is doing a great job of keeping the champions balanced as much as possible. Second, you don't have to pay to play your favourite champion. You simply have to play the game in order to get the required amount of Influence Points (IP from now on) in order to buy a certain champion. While it is true that skins need to be bought with real money, your argument that players need to pay in order to play certain classes (champions) is invalid.
DotA 2 is better than LoL

Yes, but some players (myself included) enjoy grinding. There isn't a better feeling than earning something with your hard work. And what I like about League is the diversity. For example, 2 champions face off at middle. The skill of the player isn't the only factor of play. There are runes, masteries and summoner spells. I do enjoy playing DOTA, but I think League is better. P.S How many rounds of debates will we have?
Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective

You mentioned that not vaccinating your children is a criminal act, however vaccinating children that our too young can be incredibly dangerous for there health. In 1975, Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to 2 years old, The country"s infant mortality subsequently plummeted to such low levels that Japan now enjoys one of the lowest level in the Western world (#3 at last look). In comparison, the United States" infant mortality rate is #33. This shows that vaccinations pose a problem for babies in particular. If you mention that vaccinations are safe and effective then this contradicts your argument making me right. Consequently there are always things going wrong with vaccinations and for many vaccines are unethical. Moreover before vaccines are made they are tested on innocent animals who usually suffer prolonged amounts of pain. Consequently vaccines are irreversible and usually half the time made to look urgent by cheating pharmaceutical companies when they are actually unsecured. Moreover vaccines are also excessively used. Bacteria start to grow immune to vaccines, because vaccines are in many cases overused and the bacteria mutates and changes its pathogen. When this happens people can get affected from the same disease twice. My final point is that vaccines are also overloaded with many unneccasary chemicals and although I do acknowledge the fact that vaccines in some cases are very useful and can save lives, they can also do the contrary and kill people due to all the damaging ingredients that our used.
Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective

I have done this debate a few times, with less-than-challenging opponents. This debate is open to anyone, however please only accept if you are of the opinion that vaccines are bad or you consider yourself to be an 'anti-vaxxer'. I will borrow from my previous debates in my opening round, and from then on any responses will be driven entirely by this debate. - 10k characters- 4 rounds- 72-hour argumentation- 10-day votingThe resolution is as follows: On balance, vaccination is both safe and effective. I will contend that it amounts to criminal negligence not to vaccinate your children, and that the anti-vaccination movement should be held accountable for murder and crimes against humanity.
idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

you must be unaware that welfare in common parlance often if not usually means helping poor people. here is the definition. wel"fare G2;welG6;fer/Submit noun the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group. "they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families" synonyms:well-being, health, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, success, fortune; More statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need. "the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare" NORTH AMERICAN financial support given to people in need. plus you saw that is how i was using it and chose not to abide by that usage, rendering your arguments moot.
idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

the idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth only ten to a little more percent of federal spending is on programs for the poor. our spending is a somewhat arbitrary intake of our economic output.... if you measure it according to GDP, poor people spending is like two or three percent of GDP. the only thing a person in the usa can be sure of, if he's not disabled, is food and education, with a very small minority getting housing assistance. anything else comes from the states and most states dont add much. for example, you may or may not be in a state that expanded subsidizing healthcare to poor people under obama, and it's not really a tangible benefit. if you're lucky enough to get cash benefits, it's usually only if you have kids, limits to just a few years, and you have to work unpaid as if you have a job anyway. like ninety percent of spending is on social security, medicare, defense, and interest on the debt. this stuff is designed for helping everyone, not just poor people.
idea of a runaway welfare state is a myth

I am not debating whether or not the US is a welfare state according to your defintion. If that was the debate you wanted, put that fact in the title. Even under your better definition of "People in need" rather than "poor people" the elderly are considered to be in need by the expense of end-of-life care and the lack of income by not being able to work, hence, social security and medicare. Address my arguments, please, or forfeit this debate.
Dodecanese Dictator Debate No. 1 – Income Tax

I am confident that the voters will have taken due note of the points he made, as did I, but I should like to make it clear that the whole premise of the debate, together with the figures contained therein, was constructed so as to provide a platform to argue the relative merits of two tax competing systems without getting bogged down too much with real world distractions. With this in mind, I would like to launch my opening argument by stating that, if I were to become the supreme leader of San Antray, I would not be one of those despotic tyrants that so often seize the reins of power and ruthlessly oppress their countries' citizens. On the contrary, I would be an ethically-aware dictator who would govern with a strong social conscience, introducing legislation that would benefit the many, not just the privileged few. That's why I would ensure that burden of taxation would fall on those with the broadest shoulders by ensuring that the wealthy 20% of the population contributes the most, in absolute terms, to the government's coffers. This, despite the majority of the population benefiting most from the public services that the taxes pay for, especially when their dependents are factored into the equation, as my opponent rightly points out. But there is a moral as well as an economic case to be made here. The human race is only developed to the point it has because we have worked together as a society to achieve our successes. This has only ever been possible through the framework of social cohesion and a society will never be united in pursuit of its common goals if the prosperous few refuse to share some of their wealth with those less fortunate members of the community. It is this sense of noblesse oblige that forms the bond that keeps society together and prevents the majority from turning on the prosperous elite and dispossessing them of their wealth. In the final analysis, by paying more in absolute terms than someone on low wages, a high net worth individual is discharging his moral duty to assist those with greater needs and fewer resources. My opponent has chosen to defend a modified version of the equitable tax system I suggested so I will wait to hear more about that from him before I comment on it. Thank you.
Dodecanese Dictator Debate No. 1 – Income Tax

I will now move to CON, and accept the Burdon of Clash. I now move to recognize and observe the full resolution, which states: "The burden of tax should fall upon those with the broadest shoulders. " OBSERVATIONS: 1) "The broadest shoulders" is a metaphor that referrs whomever can accept the responsibility with the lest detrimental effects. 2) "The burdon of tax" This does not state whether all tax would fall on one party, which has been idetified as 'poor' or 'wealthy', or both parties. 3) "Should" This does not ask to prove definitiveness, just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. 4) My opponent assumes Pro ("I intend to take the position of Pro in favour of a percentage-based tax system. .. " Whereas I will assume Con, in which I will conclude that there should be a defined amount instead of a percentage) CONTENTIONS: 1) The amount of money in whatever that a percentage holds on a body does not always coencide to suit the person it taxes. My opponent states "Income tax should be set at 20% for all taxpayers, which would raise exactly the EUR50 million required to run the country. " In simplistic math, this is one-fifth of that person's paycheck. The person in question would more than likely live with other house members, presumably most would be family if the dictator was wanting the country to grow. The family would have many expenses to pay for. Their homes, their children, the food, etc. With it assuming the role of a tourist island, prices of the most odinary everyday things would skyrocket, forcing harder conditions for the "poorer" and dominate social class of the country. With mounting finiancial strain and an unstable island, due to it's current developing phase, people would be unattracted to stay there as a people, especially if they are likely to be assumed the poorer class. In US dollars, 15,000 Euros (today) is 72,046.0 EUR per year vs. the 112,428 USD of the richer class. In this, people would not be attracted to move there, even though the Euro is a 1.25 American dollars and of higher value, you'd still earn more in the US or, as a matter of fact, Europe. CLASH(ES): 1) In my opponents "Choices of Income Tax", for a. he states ". .. because it is unfair to force the rich to subsidise the poor. " This is a fallacy, and I ask the audience to disreguard it. 2) There are more than these two types of tax systems: a. Personal Income Tax- An indivudual income tax would be dependent of the net income of the individual (with some deductions permitted). In this, there are some correction and they are as follows: payments to the government, for taxpayers who haven't paid enough during the tax year and tax refunds from the government for those who've overpaid. They can allow losses from a certain income/investment to cancel out another. For example, a loss on the stocks may be deducted against taxes paid on wages. " (I will defend this one, since we use this and it is familar. ) NOTE(S): Clash no. 2 is also a contention of mine.
The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the prescription of antibiotics.

IntroductionThis debate is the final part of Bsh1's March Official Beginner's Tournament. Thanks to Sapphique for agreeing with me on the topic, and for being so patient while I was AFK for vacation! Rules1. No forfeiture2. All arguments must be according to the definitions provided.3. Appropriate conduct must be made: no profanity, inappropriate behavior, and/or trolling.Definitions restrict: put a limit on; keep under control.prescription: an instruction written by a medical practitioner that authorizes a patient to be provided a medicine or treatment.antibiotic: a medicine (such as penicillin or its derivatives) that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms.If my opponent has any issues with these definitions (or would like to add more), let us discuss them before acceptance.Format72 hrs/argument, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 words/argumentMy opponent may submit arguments/rebuttals as she sees fit with exception to the last round which will be for rebuttals/conclusions only. No new arguments in the final round.This should be very interesting since Sapphique and I have the same mentor: Whiteflame. Thanks for the help, sir, and good luck to you, Sapphique!