BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning

Human cloning hasn't been tested also I think the "parents" would suffer more if having to deal with the deaths of failed attempts at clonig and who knows when the clone will be born and survive. Just like in the case of dolly the first mammal cloned but after 276 failed attempts. If i had these problems i would find a way to cope with it instead of having a clone of myself or my wife. A human clone lacks the traits to truley be indepoendant like having actual parents. Also in general public in western nations identified the most important problem with cloning is whether the clones actually have souls. How would you feel if you had the conditions you said that didnt allow you to have kids and you tried cloning but sadly had to see each failed attempt result in death of the clone? Would it really be worth it in the end? What about when the clone dies because no clone is 100% healthy how do you think the "parents" would feel losing the only "child" the had?
Cloning

I think that cloning should be aloud because it is a reproductive right. There are many people who aren't able to have genetically related children because of fertility issues like not being able to produce eggs or sperm. How would you feel if you had one of these issues and knowing cloning could help you have genetically related children, but you weren't aloud to because others thought it wasn't ethically right? I think it is your right to be able to have genetically through cloning and someone who thinks it's not ethically right shouldn't stop you. Cloning could also help people who are gay and lesbian have genetically related children.
Cloning

How do you feel about death? I for one don"t like it. But in the issue with cloning thats all it brings before 1 successful clone is made. Hundreds of pointless deaths before only one success like with dolly the first success at cloning a sheep. But what about the 276 attempts before dolly all ending in death. I am against cloning because it doesn"t really benefit us in anyway. I mean yea cloning could be used on some animals that have similar organs to humans but with all the failed attempts will it really be worth it or the clone born in time?
Cloning

Cloning is one of the potentially bests advances in science of all time. Cloning is the process of making a genetic copy of something through nonsexual means. Cloning happens naturally with plants, but not with most animals. In order to clone animals scientist have tried to transplant the genes of a cell into an unfertilized egg. The first cloned mammal was Dolly, a sheep who was successfully cloned in 1996. Since then there have been many more cloned mammals like cows and pigs. All of this cloning has started the debate on whether it would be alright to clone humans. I think that cloning should be aloud because, Cloning can help lesbians and gays have genetically related children and help couples who have fertility issues have genetically related children. Most of all cloning is a reproductive right and there is no reason that we should be denied that right.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

Attempts to artificially manufacture the "Universal Language" should stop. The implications of forcing a common tongue onto the world are horrendous. The idea of a 'universal language' clearly does not understand what communication barriers actually are - they have little to do with not speaking the same language. Universal Language creation clearly values convenience over respecting the beautiful variety of cultures. I am not against a universal language, but it should come along in its own time - not be created and distributed like a company manufacturing and distributing its product. I. Communication Barriers There is more to understanding one another than simply knowing what words mean, we should be focusing on improving relations and understanding foreign values " not memorizing words. Did you know that in Spain being exactly on time is not a cultural value like it is in the United States? It is important to stop assuming your cultural values are correct, to stop assuming other cultures are like yours, and to be more comfortable around differing cultural values. These steps will go much farther in improving international relations than throwing more time and intellectual resources at a universal language. II. Respect trumps Convenience. I imagine it would be very convenient for travelers not to have to learn a new language. However, respecting cultures by not imposing a common language on them is more important than the ease of tourists and international businesses. It is not like speaking a different language puts a physical wall between two people. You can always hire a translator, or better yet brush up on some key phrases. III. Don't Force It Maybe one day we will have a universal language, but no day soon. All attempts to date have failed and many have been presumptuous. A universal language should not be designed, it should develop naturally over time and include elements and nuances from all the cultures that contributed to it. As you can see, forcing a universal language to come about for conveniences sake doesn't even solve the problem of communication barriers. I look forward to the CON's response.
Attempts to create a "universal language" should cease.

Huh, not sure why my previous argument became BOLD like that. Sadly my opponent has yet to respond. Who knows, maybe they'll show up for the last round and crush my arguments! Wouldn't that be exciting? If not I clearly win by forfeiture. Attempts to create a "Universal Language" should cease. My main reason is that a universal language would not solve communication barriers between cultures. I was hoping for some clash on this. Anyone else want to debate this?
Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals

Hello! Nice to see you on this site. I am pretty interested in this topic and I gladly challenge agasint you.But I just want to set one rule that you, being the Pro need to show that society and individual is the "bigger" cause while I need to show that gun control problem is the bigger problem since it is agreeable that both contribute. So let us each show why one is the bigger problem. In this round, I will bascially set these terms and rules. At Round 2, I will present my first argument. Round 3, I will offer rebuttal to Pro's case and introduce another case of mine. At Round 4, I will offer some clash analysis and at Round 5, I will summarize the debate. Let us begin. If you have any objection, please leave a comment so we can start on Round 2.
Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals

In light of the recent shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, the media and anti-second amendment proponents have tended to spin these tragedies in a manor that reflects the issue of gun control in the United States. This debate is to determine if gun control is the main problem and should be highlighted or if the powers that be are ignoring other more important issues to propel their anit-gun campaigns. I will be taking the side stating there are much bigger issues involved in this and that gun control is not the problem here and should not be so fixated on by the media and government. I am making this 5 rounds so that the first round can be an introduction and accepting the debate. Round 2 will start the arguments with no set format of rebuttals for 2/3/4. Round 5 will be closing statements of your own arguments and positions and any final data.
God does not hate people or murder. He is very loving to everyone he created. (For backwardseden)

How are you today sir? I'm glad that you have accepted the challenge and that we can discuss our perspectives on this topic. Onto your argument, "That's not what the Bible says". Since this is quite unspecific, I'm not sure where to take it. If I'm correct sir, you are stating that the Bible does not show anywhere that God loves everyone. Unless this is an incorrect assumption, I will take the debate in that direction. Please, for the rest of this debate, feel free to use much more characters than you did in the previous round so that we can make as much of this discussion as possible. One of the most well-known verses in the Bible shows just how much love God has for his children. That would be John 3: 16, which reads, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Not only does this show that God loves the entire world, but it shows that he loved everyone so much that he was willing to sacrifice his son to save us. And this was not out of any ill intent towards his son. Jesus Christ, himself, volunteered to be the world's savior, and it deeply saddened God to see him crucified. To conclude, this single act alone does indeed show how loving God is towards his children. I look forward to hearing your responses.
God does not hate people or murder. He is very loving to everyone he created. (For backwardseden)

I have seen backwardseden accuse God of being evil so many times. He attempts to prove his points by simply pulling verses from the Bible out of oblivion, without looking at any context whatsoever in which they were given. It is my goal in this debate to prove to him that he is wrong in his reasoning, and that God is an extremely loving person who cares about everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. No insults of any kind will be allowed in this debate. Backwardseden has somehow come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to degrade, harass, and dehumanize people who disagree with him. This is never acceptable nor taught by anyone. All insults will be ignored. I will leave it up to backwardseden to begin the debate with his arguments.
Cats are Superior Pets to Dogs

When it comes down to domestication, cats are clearly the superior animal. Let me get two things out of the way here: 1. No, a cat cant bark and attack an intruder breaking into your home. 2. Yes, dogs are smarter than cats. First off, 1. If you rely on a pet to help defend your home you area coward and 2., Intelligence-wise, that doesnt matter so much when your dog is being a bad dog. A very bad dog! The facts speak for themselves: - Cats cost less to maintain - Cats dont beg for your attention, and if you like that then you need a gf/bf. - Cats dont start a **** storm when someone comes over - Dogs are smelly, cats are clean and naturally insect repellent. - Numerous video's on Youtube outweigh how much funnier cats are than dogs - Dogs need your approval, which is a sign of spiritual weakness. Cats dont need your approval, they are naturally independent bad-asses. *shades*
THBT Freedom of expression necessarily entails the freedom to be offensive.

Sorry, I didn't realize I'd have two meetings sprung on me today (literally, an aide brought me a letter from my MUN coach, and as we were changing classes the my debate chair told me about a meeting) so I'm gonna have to forfeit this round. Would you mind just forfeiting this debate and starting another so we can debate this properly? If not, I'll allow a concession to you and put the win on your record
THBT Freedom of expression necessarily entails the freedom to be offensive.

Thank you very much for reading. This is my first contribution to this website and I look forward to what lurks ahead. I invite anyone to challenge the motion. And I should also remind onlookers of the discussion that there is not much point in engaging with opposing ideas if they cannot accept their own fallibility, regardless of their stance on the motion. EDIT: The first round is for stating your participation. There are really 3 rounds of discussion.
We Should Abandon Nuclear Power

Haha No problem. Yes but you would be screwed either way. If you have a nuke flying at you your dead. Also The premise of the debate relies on the human race abandoning their nuclear weapons if a country holds onto their nuclear weapons then they have not abandoned them and therefore ""we have NOT abounded nuclear power"". To conclude No country on earth should have nuclear power even when used for civilian purposes. It is inherently dangerous, and the risk of a rogue nation acquiring it is too great. With the consequence to incomprehensible to imagine. The motion states we should abandon nuclear power. If the human race did not have access to such weapons there would be no chance of them being used against us. This would create a safer world for all. Albert Einstein once said ""The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except for the way we think, and we thus drift toward"s unparalleled catastrophes"" catastrophes such as the ones witnessed at Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three mile island, have proved him right. Let"s not provide the opportunity for him to be right again. Let"s remove all possibilities of another catastrophe, Lets abandon nuclear power as a human race once and for all.
We Should Abandon Nuclear Power

I am sorry for not answering you question directly. I shall attempt to now I think our definitions of ""we"" differ you define ""we"" as the population of the USA, however I live in the UK so the word ""we"" in your context will not affect me. In the context I am using the word ""we"" I refer to ""we"" as the human-race. In this context if we abandoned nuclear power, in effect ""if we as a human-race abandoned all forms of nuclear power"" then no country on earth would have access to such dangerous weapons. Also in this context of use of the word we ""other so-called Nuclear Countries are still researching, not throwing away their nukes"" would also abandon their nuclear program. This would make the world a much safer place. Yes the argument can be made that nuclear weapons saved lives in ww2 however there was no threat of Japan sending a nuclear bomb the other way. With more and more countries researching ""the bomb"" the risk of one coming the other way is increasing. Also you make the point ""In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?"" I suppose you say your last goodbyes it does not matter if you have nukes to fire back or not. if you have nukes coming towards you are dead. what defence will it make to you? Yes countries may be deterred from sending them at you in the first place. However if we as a human race don"t have any nukes because we as a human-race have abandoned them. They won"t have any to send at you To conclude the world is a much safer place if NO ONE has access to such weapons.
We Should Abandon Nuclear Power

You have posted good points and I commend you for quoting Einstein but please think about the questions I asked in round one.In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?Other countries could have nukes that we don't know about and well be disarmed and they will have power over us?And last what would you do if they asked you to get rid of ours first?But back to business "If we disarmed all of our nuclear weapons, we would be in a vulnerable position.""The U.S. should not completely disarm our strategic arsenal. The other so-called Nuclear Countries are still researching, not throwing away their nukes. We will just be left defenseless when it really matters. If India and Pakistan start launching nukes at each other, and we support one and not the other, and the other decides to launch at us, where are we then?""^^^^Unquote Then you are dead!"
We Should Abandon Nuclear Power

Albert Einstein once said ""The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except for the way we think, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes"" Consider an aeroplane every time one crash"s we learn something new, we then try to fix it, we consider them safe but still they crash whether mother nature human or mechanical to blame. These also affect nuclear power stations no matter how well we understand them or how well designed they are things will go wrong. But when a nuclear plant goes wrong the consequences can be catastrophic. On the 26th of April human and design error were responsible for the worst nuclear disaster of all time Chernobyl 190 tons of toxic material expelled into the atmosphere The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths including In the Gomel region of Belarus, incidence of leukaemia has increased 50% in children and adults The total economic damages to Belarus will be $235 billion with over 400,000 forced to evacuate and never return . Over 2,000 towns and villages were bulldozed. But safety is not the only concern in 2013 a critical Public Accounts Committee report stated that the private consortium managing Sellafield has failed to reduce costs Since 2005 the annual costs of operating Sellafield had increased from "900 million to about "1.6 billion. The estimated lifetime cost of dealing with Sellafield Is estimated to be "67.5 billion fuel may be cheaper in the short term but the long term costs are huge along with the initially capital costs 2007, Florida Power & Light ("FPL") estimated the total cost of building just two 1100 MW plants between $5,492/kW and $8,081/kW. Leading to a total cost of total cost of $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion, for just two 1100 MW plants. In contrast At Drax the western Europe"s largest power station they are converting 3 of their 6 coal fired boilers to run on biomass a carbon neutral renewable source of energy at a cost of only 700 million converting 3 of their 660 mw generators to be able to run off biomass generating a total of 1980 mw If you discount construction mining and transport nuclear produces less co2 than coal or oil but leaves waste that will remain detrimental to life 1000's if not 100,000 of years. We currently generate of about 12,000 metric tons of used fuel per year. We currently have no way of safely dealing with this. In response to my opponent I consider the debate to be of all forms of human use of nuclear power, we as a human race should also end our use of nuclear weapons if we as a human-race abandoned it there would be no danger of rouge nations such as Iran or North Korea acquiring them. Why should we give 5 people (leaders of nations who have nuclear weapons) the potential power to destroy life as we know it ? . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.ccll.org.uk... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Military Schools

First of all let me state that I currently go to a military school. Most of my research in this round is first hand and from here https://militaryschoolusa. Com/advantages-of-military-schools/ I believe that military schools are good and should be kept around. My reasons for this is that a military environment can better prepare a student for the real world. What I mean by this is that most military schools teach their students how to become leaders and focus on goals. It also teaches students to become independent by making them rely on themselves. Military schools also provide educational opportunities that public schools cannot. The student teacher ratio at a military school is much lower than public schools, Allowing students to talk with their teachers and better understand a subject. The college acceptance rate of military schools it commonly around 90%-99%. Besides schooling, Military schools also allow students to develop discipline and a military bearing. It is very common that students will clean their dorms and have room inspections to make sure everything is clean. Physical training is also very common, Allowing students to motivate each other and better develop themselves. Another part of military schools that you don't see at public schools is "character development". Character development is a weekly activity that most military schools do. What happens is that an alumni of the school comes in and talks about his/her experience at the school and what it has done for them. This helps students understand their potential which isn't ever seen at public schools. Something else you can see at military schools is brotherhood. Whether it is between students or between schools. I remember when Carson Long Military Academy, The oldest military academy in Pennsylvania, Shut down Valley Forge Military Academy, Currently the only military academy in Pennsylvania, Accepted their students and brought them here as their own. Also with military schools you get a brotherhood with you peers. At military academies everyone new goes through a plebe system. A plebe system allows student to make bonds with their plebe brothers and be truly accepted into the military academy family. I rest my case.
Gay Marriage

Why Homosexuality Must Benefit SocietyTo respond to my opponent, the reason homosexuality must benefit society is because its government's job to make laws that do. Homosexuality does not benefit society. Government only sees marriage as a procreation and financial partership. Without heterosexual couples, there would not be a society. "Just as we shouldn't ever be able to keep blacks out of restaurants that white people are in. It's the same thing. Gay marriage protests are going to be in the history books just like segregation was."This is irrelevant to a debate about gay marriage. "It's against the constitution to attack one group of people, and not allow them to have the same rights as anyone else."Because there is no ammendment exactly about gay marriage and wether it should be decided by the state or the federal government, its not constitutional because there is no full information on who decides it. Marriage is also not a right. There is no law that legalizes heterosexual marriages."The only reason it is not allowed, is because it is against the bible. But using the bible as the rulebook is also unconstitutional"My oppponent brings no sources to back him up. So we don't know if this is true. Also, the Constitution is the rulebook. We listen to the Constitution and what is says, but it gives no explanation on who decides gay marriage and if heterosexual marriages should be legal. So governments have the freedom to legalize and outlaw marriage."If a couple that has been together for, let's say, 60 years. A gay couple, that is. And, one of them dies, and they weren't allowed to get married. Let's say the house, the car, and others were in their partners name, and so there fore, they aren't entitled to what is rightfully theirs. It's wrong."Not its not. Its likely that the owner would put everything he owns in his will and then it would go to his partner.I am actually a little confused with my opponent as he seems to be making no sense.However, here is the conclusion.ConclusionI have proven that homosexuality does not benefit society because in the government's eyes it does not. I have proven homosexuals are bad parents. I have proven that there are no laws about marriage. I win the debate.Conduct: TieSpelling and Grammar: TieArguments: ConSources: Con