BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophilia is right

"sometimes so we need to accept things that happen and move on". Not all things we should just accept. If you get raped, You should not just accept that. If your relative gets murdered, You shouldn't just accept that. As for STDs, They won't always be here, And they should not be accepted. Most are treatable and the only one that isin't (HIV) is recieving less diagnosies annually(https://www. Cdc. Gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance. Html). However, They still exist and pedophillia spreads them to innocent children who don't know any better. This infringes on the rights of the child. "Sex is a natural thing and its also a stress reliever" It is a dangerous activity unless done for reproductive pourposes. It is dangerous not only because STDs spread, But also due to the potential for pregnency. I know kids don't get pregnant, However, If they continue to have sex with each other from when they are 5 to when they are adults, Then unintended pregnencies and abortion rates skyrocket. This dissatisfies both the left and the right for different reasons. "plus if kids rape other kids then that would be like "spreading the word" so to speak. " You spread the word by telling people that you were sexually abused as a child. Then the pedophil might recieve justice for rape. "Showing other kids what their sexual desires are and if they don't like it then, Move on and find something they do like. " If they enjoy it, Then they might continue to do it to the extent where they continue as adults, I already had this rant 2 paragraphs up.
Pedophilia is right

Well, I mean STDs are gonna always be here. It's a fact o flife and life sucks sometimes so we need to accept things that happen and move on. Sex is a natural thing and its also a stress reliever plus if kids rape other kids then that would be like "spreading the word" so to speak. Showing other kids what their sexual desires are and if they don't like it then, Move on and find something they do like.
desgner babies

"Because it"s an extreme technology. We"ll never really be able to tell if it"s safe without doing unethical human experimentation. And if it does work, the idea that it could be accessible to everyone is specious. We can"t even get universal childhood vaccinations. We hope now that we"re going to get expanded coverage and health care, but to think we"ll supply fertility treatments to everyone, not just people with infertility problems " that"s going to break the bank in a hurry." Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 09 Mar. 2009. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Scientists don"t even know if designer babies are even safe. Scientists don"t even have the research for making designer babies so it may not even be safe. Some people think that making designer babies is safe to do but others think it might not even work. I just think if you don"t even know if its safe, that we shouldn"t be putting lives into risks. If scientists had more research, making designer babies would be safer and wouldn"t put anyone into risks. I know making designer babies can help kids but it can also put the designer baby into risk.
desgner babies

According to Hughes, using reproductive technologies " in this case, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which doctors screen embryos before implanting them " for cosmetic purposes is just an old-fashioned parental impulse, translated into 21st century technology. If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, says Hughes, then genetic modification is perfectly fine, and restricting it is an assault on reproductive freedom. "It"s in the same category as abortion. If you think women have the right to control their own bodies, then they should be able to make this choice," he said. "There should be no law restricting the kind of kids people have, unless there"s gross evidence that they"re going to harm that kid, or harm society." Sited from 'Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 09 Mar. 2009. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.'. "Hughes" makes a good point and says there is nothing wrong with the fact if it it's the women's right to choose, it's not like we're forcing them. Women need more rights, and is it fair to take this decision away from them? i don't think so ...
desgner babies

"While PGD has long been used for the medical purpose of averting life-threatening diseases in children, the science behind it has quietly progressed to the point that it could potentially be used to create designer babies. It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction." Naik, Gautam. "A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Jan.-Feb. 2009. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. This technique called PGD can cause diseases that can be life threatening to the child you are having. I really think that if something can risk your life then why do it? I know that making designer babies can help siblings but why would you have a baby just for your other kid if you won"t even take care of it? They are some benefits from making designer babies, you get a baby how you like it and it can help another child get better but how do we even know if it will even work? I just think we shouldn"t risk their lives. Do you have any evidence for your argument.
desgner babies

It can't help to try can it? my opponent may be correct about them being made to help their siblings, but isn't that a risk to take? after all, we're already preventing life from being born, why not use that life to cure other people, people who really need THAT babies DNA or parts to survive? Embryo screening, for example, is sometimes used to create a genetically matched "savior sibling" -- a younger sister or brother whose healthy cells can be harvested to treat an older sibling with a serious illness.It also is increasingly used to weed out embryos at risk of genetic diseases -- such as breast cancer -- that could be treated, or that might not strike a person later in life(An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus). PGD is a technique whereby a three-day-old embryo, consisting of about six cells, is tested in a lab to see if it carries a particular genetic disease. Embryos free of that disease are implanted in the mother's womb. Introduced in the 1990s, it has allowed thousands of parents to avoid passing on deadly disorders to their children. Does this really sound like such a bad thing? It seems to have help before...
desgner babies

Ever dreaming of your child having blue eyes? Or green eyes? Well this is a process called designer babies. Designer babies is when you get to pick the traits of your baby. I think that making designer babies is bad, they can cause diseases and may not even work. Doctors use designer babies for transplants and people with cancer or diseases that need an extra body part (like for an organ or for bone- marrow transplants,) the doctors make a kid that is a genetic match to the sibling. When making designer babies, you use a technique called PGD when the embryo of the child when it"s 3 days old is tested to see if it has a genetic disease. Scientists don"t know if making designer babies is even safe. My opponent probably believes that it is good to make designer babies because it can help people with diseases get better. However, I think we shouldn"t be allowed to make designer babies because of the risks it can cause and of how little research scientists have.
desgner babies

I believe that scientist and biological specialist, should be able to make 'designer babies' if the parents are willing to. It's a completely necessary step, into creating a world of stronger , and more intelligent people. Not only is this a discovery ,that could very well not only change the world, but with minds like theses, it could change the way we think as well, stopping war, economic problems, theses kids could make something better. There is nothing wrong with a little enhancement...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thank you, contradiction, for agreeing to debate Kalām cosmological argument. In this debate, I shall show how the KCA is a poor argument and really holds no water. In the first round, I will allow contradiction to post his arguments. ROUNDS 1) Opening arguments from contradiction 2) First rebuttals 3) Second rebuttals 4) Closing arguments/fourth rebuttals. Good luck and I am looking forward to am engaging debate.
Contender's Pick

I decided to give my opponent a fair chance by rushing like hell also. Lee Harvey Oswald was a KGB spy and likely was on a secret mission from them to kill the president. He also showed signs of brain washing. 'GULAG KGB spies still use brainwashed people to set up murders, suicide-murders, massacres and many other crimes (like 4 suicide-murders in Fairfax in December 2005-2006 to "greet" the exhibition about GULAG labor camps) and since GULAG KGB agents recently organized a successful campaign against President Obama in 2009 (see links below), it looks logical to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald could be a KGB spy, and JFK assassination was organized by the same or similar KGB people." http://www.normalbreathing.com...
Contender's Pick

Also, I apologize for the extreme lack of content in this argument and will aim to post much more in Round 3 as I am on break. It seems that I've overestimated the amount of time and devotion I'd have along with procrastination. I will only have time for a single contention and then it'll be on to Con. I will make sure to post a legitimate case in Round 3. I will assume that the BoP is shared in regards to this topic. Pro must prove that Lee Harvey Oswald has acted alone in the assassination of JFK, while Con goes against the status quo and proves that more than one person was directly involved in the assassination. ________________________________________________________________ C1: Lee Harvey Oswald was the only one who directly shot Kennedy. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was fatally shot in the head while traveling in a presidential motorcade. 80% of the 51 witnesses have reported they heard three gunshots in total. [1] Furthermore, in the Warren Commission Hearings, three bullet shells were found in the sniper's nest where Lee Harvey Oswald had been seen in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. [2] Due to this, it's highly unlikely that there was another person physically involved in the assassination of JFK, and Lee Harvey Oswald was directly the sole perpetrator in the crime. [1]. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... [2]. http://history-matters.com...
Contender's Pick

I'm starting to get pissed because everyone's assuming I'm a dumbass (partly true), and I've decided that maybe I should focus more on the debating aspect of the site, as I think most people only think of me as a social butterfly, and am pretty sure lots of people would want to ban me if they could. Whoever accepts; make sure you have a topic ready. If you're arguing for Pro, post your constructive case first. If you're Con, simply state your topic and only acceptance. Depending on the topic, BoP is on Pro or shared.
Contender's Pick

My opponent has failed to forward any case for Oswald acting alone. He's only forwarded one about him being the only shooter which does nothing to to prove he wasn't financed by outside forces. The guy literally worked as a double agent, being a spy in the United states before defecting to the KGB. Whether he was brainwashed or not it's unlikely he acted alone. Being a double agent, it's possible and even likely that either the CIA or the KGB orchestrated the president's assassination. In order for my opponent to win this, he must not only destroy my case but he must forward his own as to why Oswald acted alone. "If Oswald was brainwashed into an assassination for the KGB, his captors would make sure he would do it discreetly in order to avoid the exploitation of their conspiracy." Not if the KGB/CIA needed a Patsy. Somebody had to take the fall so the true conspirators aren't being investigated because authorities think, they've found their man. "Due to his history not pertaining to the KGB at all, it's virtually impossible for Ruby to be a member of the same conspiracy as Oswald. Which leads to my next flaw." No but Ruby is proof of a conspiracy. Sure it's possible he acted alone and wasn't part of the conspiracy but I doubt an ultra successful business man is randomly going to start assassinating people. The narrative just makes no sense. How was that guy smart enough and sane enough to climb to the upper echelons of economic and social stratospheres but he is this nuts? The narrative is full of holes. "1. If Oswald was brainwashed, the results of the autopsy would have discovered his mind being controlled. 2. The autopsy has had no such result or confirmation. 3. Therefore, Oswald was not brainwashed." Autopsies aren't going to show things like changes in psychology or being hypnotized. "Oswald had been brainwashed to kill President Kennedy. Dick Russell also alleged Oswald had been a hypnotized assassin in his book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, an account of Russell's investigation into the subject of Richard Case Nagell. Nagell stated that during the summer of 1963 he had discovered that Oswald was "undergoing hypnotherapy" from JFK conspirator David Ferrie." http://oswald.jfkassassination.net... Later on Russell took back what he said, presumably because he was threatened by insiders for getting too close to the truth. Oswald was most certainly brainwashed'
On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!

I am, I admit slightly confused by his answer because I feel that at certain points what he states does not make much sense. In any case I hope I can decipher and answer his contentions. 3. Of Logical Positivism:(3.1) I find my opponent's contention baffling to say the least. It was this very contention which made even Ayer accept, and admite regarding this theory: 'the problem is, that it is almost all wrong'. While my opponent asserts that Logical Positivism can be experimentally verified, he gives no method by which it can be experimentally verified. The theory that: anything that is meaningful must have an experimental test, has no experimental test. The reason is that it is a proposition, a theoretical proposition which Logical Positivism asserts. Also this is not circular logic, it is called reducto ad absurdum, when you assume a proposition true, and then after assuming it true test it through, or build on it until it reaches an absurdity. My opponent needs to answer this. (3.2) Pure Mathematics, such as the example I gave: x^2+3x+2=0 cannot be tested empirically, it is a concept of pure mathematics. That does not mean that it is not right, it does, when used in other equations provide the conceptualization of necessity and therefore is necessarily sound. My opponent did not answer this. 4. Of Pragmatism:(4.1) My opponent states that Pragmatism is ambigious, he never informs us how it is ambigious. Secondly I would like to reiterate that Pragmatism mentions: 'practical difference'. So while gibberish makes no practical difference and is meaningless, the question of whether God exists makes much difference to Ethics and Metaphysics and is therefore not meaningless. Similarly should like gibberish make a difference with the responses of others, it would be known as language and would be meaingful. (4.2) I have no idea what the last statement my opponent gave means, to me it is meaningless. [1]. http://www.philosopher.eu...[2]http://cw.routledge.com...[3]http://positivists.org...[4]http://real-philosophy.livejournal.com...[5]http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com...Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!

I'll go right in like the romanian debate monkey.1.2 this ole argument states positivism is self refuting. I think positivism can be verified, we can emperically verifiy that no statements that cannot be verified have meaning. This means we should have no statement which is meaningful, but makes no predictions in reality. What would such a statement look like? Take figgitnoah. Figgitnoah is meaningless, but we see it makes no predictions and isn't verifiable. Being verifiable means it exists in the world we take figgitnoah and see it is not verifieable and meaning it doesnt exist in the wolrd it cannot exist in the world. If it cannot exist, it's either meaningless or self refuting, but this means the same thing. Moreunder, in order to disprove this, you must assume logical positivism. You have to assume meaning to these words to refute the idea, making this claim circular.1.3, my arguments were verifiaing logical positivism. 1.4 Math is a concepulaization that can be verified. It is tautological, a single item is 1. This means they have verified themselves. Remember "In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful" they can be logically verified.Positivism must be true, as any negation would be illogical and negative. Prag theory2.1 Pragmatisim is ambigious. Like a heap of sand, we have a heap and keep adding sand till it becomes a pile. What is the nature of this difference? It makes no sense. Also pragmatiism would say everything is meaningful. Every thing makes a differnece in our brains, we think of the word iegruhgu and our brains try to make sense of it, the word has made a difference.Also why is prag prag incompatible with positivism? Being verifiaable makes a difference so it means prag prag theory is just an ambigious theory that refutes nothing.
On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!

Logical positivism states only verifiable statements are meaningful. Logical positivism is known to be true for many reasons, for one a meaningless statement makes no predictions. Take the statement "I number 8 for uahvu with my electric sex pants" you cannot verify this, as it makes no predictions about the real world. Same with "rhurhurh" no statement that can be verified is made. Everything that is meaningless cannot be verified simple, you cant verify "rgur". It is also knowble by looking to ourselves. Self introspection reveals something interesting. P1. We can introspect and verify many things about ourselves. P2. These things must be meaningful, else we dont have any of it verified. P3. By knowledge alone, we have proven to be meaningful, it must be verifieable. C. Verifcationism is true C2. QED Logical Positivism is true. C3. I am right
On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!

Shalom Alecium! This debate is regarding Logical Positivism the theory that is used by Hume, Russell and in general all empiricists, et cetera. It is also known as Logical Empiricism. It is defined as: 'Logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy that embraced verificationism, an approach that sought to legitimize philosophical discourse on a basis shared with the best examples of empirical sciences. In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful.' What this means is that anything which has meaning, any knowledge which can be verified must be verified experimentally. So all knowledge which cannot be empirically verified is meaningless because we cannot neither call it true or false. I will be arguing against the resolution, and negating it, however since there is a shared burden of proof I will be expected to come up with a counter theory of knowledge. My opponent must start immediately and may not write anything in the last round except: 'no argument as agreed upon'. No deconstruction or Kripkean semantics are allowed, and will result in a 7 point loss. I thank my opponent in advance. Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
christians should reject that stoning people so much, was ever initiated by God

we also see that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God might be for violence but we see o reason why he'd be for killing people for every little sin under the sky. violence might be okay sometimes, but too much is just crazy talk. so we have the weight of Jesus' words, and what a rational human being sees as reasonable, and we conclucde stoning was not God ordained.
christians should reject that stoning people so much, was ever initiated by God

Well thank you on summing up my debate argument and giving it a review that was in itself silly as to the fact that you did not bring up any evidence as to why we should reject stoning. I do on occasion go to a church and when I last went there the priest had a sermon as to why the bible is Gods' word. Since we are debating about whether God initiated stoning I will do you the favor of looking at the old and new testament,Which are in fact as we believe the word of God and quote acts of violence that God has in fact allowed.... For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste (Isa 60:12). Thus says the Lord of hosts, "" Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:2-3). (Saul did not carry this command fully in that he spared some cattle as booty. For this action God rejected Saul as king of Israel (verses 8-9, 13-15, 26), and gave the kingdom to David, although even David killed only men and women in the conquered lands of other nations and spared the cattle. (1 Sam 27:8-9, cf. 2 Sam 8:2) These are perfect examples that say God accepts Violence and initiates it also in the opening quote of pro we clearly see that God accepts violence so in essence what i am saying is God allows violence.And stoning certainly is violence
christians should reject that stoning people so much, was ever initiated by God

most of con's arguments are rants about how unreliable the bible is. it doesn't really even follow as to how that means Christians should still embrace that GOd directed their predecessors to sonte people. it's just a nonsequiter on con's part. the other point has some merit to it, some persustion, but not enough, and nothing definitive. he says Christians have caused all kinds of genocide and murders and wars throughout time, so why wouldn't they be into stoning or thinking it's from God? the problem, what Christians choose to do, their personal actions, are not necessarily God directed. personal sins. but what the bible says might be God directed. their personal decisions don't have anything to do w whether or not the bible is God directed, or whether it's credible that stoning was from God. there's some general culture points that might make it more likely that GOd directed it, but it's way too off to tie directly enough to stoning etc. con basically says too much that doesn't follow.