BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

I will start by defending my case, then I will debate my opponents contentions, and finally discuss voting. My opponent states that I have no evidence for my claims of "human cloning will surely become more efficient" and "There is still much that is left to be explored, and many improvements to be made". I like to point out the fact that these improvements have not been made (yet), and that in time they will likely prove true. To support this, and to prove that it is indeed logical, I would like to relate it to another invention like the automobile or the many recent discoveries of improving health (like getting more sleep, a proper diet, low stress levels, and exercise). These discoveries are two examples of the many improvements that can be made. Lastly, I would like to relate this to the invention of the light bulb. Thomas Edison had failed thousands of times in the making of the light bulb, and if he had given up, it may never have been invented. The light bulb was surely a revolutionary invention, and if we give up now, we would never know what we would be missing. Now I will move onto my opponent's case. My opponent has stated that my arguments dealing with therapeutic cloning do not match the definition of cloning that was given in the beginning of the debate. My opponent had said cloning is "Technology used to generate a human that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing human". I would like to argue that although it may not match the definition exactly, it is still considered to be a major component of the main topic of cloning. Furthermore, the main topic is more important than a general definition. In any case that you would disagree, I would argue that neither I, nor my opponent had even noticed. This proves that it is simply unimportant compared to the relevancy in the overall debate. Finally, I would like to deal with voting. I strongly believe you should vote Pro because I have substantially defended, and argued my case. I debated fairly and didn't forget defend my case in the earlier rounds because I had been proven wrong, but instead because it would have been unfair to my opponent to defend my case for an entire round longer. For these reasons, Pro should win this debate.
In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

My opponent has stated that human cloning is unsafe and almost always fails to work properly. It is true that cloning can cause harm to embryos, and lead to various health disorders. I acknowledge the fact that in some ways cloning can be unsafe, but I would like to point out the fact that cloning is only in its early stages. There is still much that is left to be explored, and many improvements (especially in the general safety and reliability) to be made. My opponent has also stated that cloning is highly expensive, and inefficient. Like I have said, cloning has a lot of room for improvement since it is still in its early stages. As time goes on, human cloning will surely become more efficient. Like most new innovations, cloning is expected to be expensive at first. However, as time goes on and scientific breakthroughs in research are made, the price is expected to decrease. Human cloning certainly has potential, and should not be ignored for these reasons. (I will argue my case in the next round, as my opponent will be also)
In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

I would like to begin by offering a brief roadmap. I will begin by refuting my opponent's contentions and then I will return to my own case. I will begin with my opponent's first contention which states that if a patient at a hospital needs an organ donor, a cloning of that organ would be able to satisfy the need. However, I would like to point out that the process of cloning requires time, and the time it takes for an organ to reach maturity after being cloned is not short enough. A twenty-five year old who needs an organ transplant would require at least eighteen years of cloned organ growth before the organ is mature enough to be in use. In addition, organ cloning is highly expensive, and has never been successfully performed, even on more primitive animals such as rats or sheep. My opponent's second contention states that the practice of cloning could allow an improved medical system, though he provides no evidence to support ways in which the medical system could be improved through observing the results of cloning. Therefore, this contention is rendered invalid. The third contention that my opponent states is that it can benefit a family that is unable to have children, and unlike adoption, the child would be like the parents. However, the truth behind this is that the resulting child is not actually their child, and is not only similar to the parents, but identical to one of the parents, an exact replica, essentially an identical twin over a long age gap. The resulting being could not be considered their child, but as a copy of the parent. Cloning is expensive, and parents would most likely not be willing to pay extensive amounts of money in order to clone themselves for a child. Adoption would be preferable in these instances. In addition, cloning oneself to create a child prevents the evolution of humanity, since evolution is based upon changes within DNA. Since DNA is replicated in cloning, humans cannot evolve. My opponent's final contention is that cloning is necessary for advancements in improving the quality of life. However, this is not true, because of the dangers of cloning as I expressed in my first contention, those that are cloned are less healthy, and are likely to die earlier than most humans. Therefore, since more people are dying earlier, this is detracting from the quality of life, and therefore cloning is not good, and should not be legal. I would now like to return to my own case. My opponent did not refute any of my points, therefore they all still hold true. Human cloning is unsafe, as well as highly expensive and inefficient. For these reasons, human cloning should be illegal in the United States.
In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

Cloning in the United States should be legal. Human cloning allows us to recreate another human being, and can be very useful. If a patient at a hospital needed an organ donor, a cloning of that organ would be able to satisfy this need. Finding a compatible organ donor can be very difficult, and by doing this those problems would be eliminated. Through this process we could save many lives. The very practice of cloning could also help. If it was legal, researchers could learn a lot by mere observation. In turn, this could also lead to a better developed medical system in general. Why wouldn't you want that? Cloning can also benefit in terms of the family. People who would normally be unable to have children on their own would also then be able to. Unlike adoption, the child would actually be like the parents. Cloning is necessary for advancements in improving the quality of life.
In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

I negate "In the United States, human cloning should be legal". We define human cloning as technology used to generate a human that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing human. Human cloning is unsafe, because the process of cloning a human increases the risk of harm to the embryos due to the fact that there are more opportunities for failure, and therefore creates a greater risk to the cloned person throughout his or her life. According to the President’s Council on Bioethics, cloning to produce children is extremely unsafe, and therefore ought not to be attempted, and is ethically incorrect. According to Japanese cloning studies, cloned animals have compromised immune functions, higher rates of infection, tumor growth, other disorders, and they die earlier. The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts discovered that 4% of genes in cloned mice function abnormally. Therefore, since human cloning is unsafe and ineffective, it is not ethically correct, and should not be legal. Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient, because it almost always fails to work. According to the Human Genome Project, 90% of all cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring, and more than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce even one viable clone. Dolly, one of the world’s first cloned mammals, was one success out of two hundred seventy-six failures. Since nuclear transfers are expensive, and very few of them ever reach a successful cloning, it should not be legal.
God Exists

R1) What Created God? The universe needs a cause. To *prevent* an infinite chain of x created by y, y created by z, etc., as established by the Cosmological Argument, there needs to be a necessary transcendent being that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, non-abstract and, therefore, personal. [1] “The coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science ... is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization … upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing.” [2] As God is a *necessary* being, there is no other plausible explanation other than a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and maximally powerful being, such as God. R2) God’s Power at Present The God I shall be arguing for is a God of deism, a God who has *withdrawn* from the universe. Con has not justified why this is improbable, hence this is an invalid contention. I *never* claimed we had a “direct connection line” with God. Con must justify this. My theory is that we never had such a “direct connection line” with God, and, as mentioned, I shall not advocate for the God of any particular religion. R3) Where is God? Once more, I say I absolutely do not defend or support the beliefs of any religion. God is transcendent, and, therefore, *outside* the universe, in astral form. This, nonetheless, is irrelevant to the resolution, wherein Con must disprove the likely existence of God and I must prove it. R4) Why can’t we exist without God? I have provided 3 sufficient arguments that demonstrate why we can’t exist without God. The universe itself can’t exist without God, as there is no philosophical or scientific explanation for a fine-tuned universe, a non-personal creation (KCA) or how contingencies are rooted and sourced. If contingencies are not rooted at a non-contingent cause, then even the contingencies *beginning to exist*, which is undisputed by science, is impossible. R5) Subjective Reality “It seems God only has subjective reality …” There is absolutely no justification for this. I have presented three valid arguments that show God must exist physically and objectively. Until these arguments are refuted by Con, this contention is completely invalid. Conclusion None of the above arguments provide any good reason to think atheism is true, rather acting like an examination round. I have provided three arguments to think deism is true, whereas there have been no contentions to think atheism is true. Under a shared BoP, this is unacceptable. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...
God Exists

Okay I shall be presenting my argument, rebuttals next round. 1. Everything needs a creator. Primarily God has been accepted as the Creator of the universe, and second as a powerful being. Saying that the universe needed a creator, we define that everything needs a creator, for the universe is the space in which everything exists. So, who created God? We don't have a long family tree or history like we do for ourselves, thus we don't yet know who created the creator. 2. Where is his power now? In the past, it seems we had a direct connection line with God through which we got to know his name and created different religions. However, it seems that this sentient, super-intelligent and powerful being has gone dormant now, and doesn't seem to be doing anything that is majorly noticeable. Since you have chosen to defend deism, human activity can't be attributed to him, and so there seems to be nothing he is working on for the past 1000 years. A super-intelligent and powerful being would get bored much faster, and if he existed as a sentient being, he surely would have been noticed doing whatever he is doing. 3. Where is he? God isn't in astral or invisible form as past accounts in religions like Christianity, Hinduism, etc. refer to him coming to Earth in a human form. Now it seems its high time for him to return, with over-population threatening to cause all but few of his other species to be extinct. With deforestation still going on, animals soon would only be found in zoos. Isn't God their creator too? Some people say God is everywhere, but then air and internet are everywhere but still known. How has God remained hidden for so long? 4. Why can't we exist without God? Think about it, a deism God has no active part in the ruling of the universe. Even if it was about a theism God, would he not be against the atheists, because we are the most dominant living species on planet Earth, so we would be focused upon. If there was a deism God, allowing the world to go as it is, would he not be bored? Designing the universe is work of course, but eventually just adding more rubble would be boring, now wouldn't it be? 5. God - the sentient, intelligent, powerful and maximally great creator of the universe. Exist - have objective reality or being. It seems God yet has only subjective reality, that is why it is referred to as a belief.
God Exists

This is the challenge you requested. I thank lord_megatron for challenging me to this debate. I will be arguing Devil's Advocate as the proposition. Full ResolutionGod most likely exists. BoP is shared. DefinitionsGod - the sentient, intelligent, powerful and maximally great creator of the universe. Exist - have objective reality or being. Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering or kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be inside the debate or in an external link. No arguing in the comments section. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Further steps need to be taken on social networks to stop cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying has been a big issue, especially on social networks. Many people (including adults, even) can head online, head on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc. Boom. They have automatic access to cyberbully. And spite many attempts to stop this cruel phenomenon, it continues. Hurtful pictures, comments, rumors. Sometimes, this bullying has led to suicide. It needs to stop. I am pro, or for, having further steps taken on social networks to stop cyberbullying. I will gladly wait for con's reply. Thank you.
supporting islam is terrorism

I don't disagree that Islam will probably deteriorate at some point, but that still doesn't mean supporting it is terrorism. It seems you don't really have any solid claims, because all you do is claim without any sort of logic or evidence to it. For example you said "islam is the most pure form of hatred against humans", how so? You don't even explain yourself on that and you expect us to believe you. I don't think there's a need for me to say anything more at this point since you really didn't do a good job of proving that supporting Islam is terrorism.
supporting islam is terrorism

I do not believe supporting Islam is terrorism. I wish to point out that first, I'm opposed to religion in general so I'm actually opposed to Islam, however saying that someone who supports it is supporting terrorism is wrong. The actual tenets of Islam do not condone acts of terror or violence. While, yes, the Qu'ran has violent scripture in it, this does not mean the religion today supports violence. A majority of Muslims have not ever done a violent act and do not condone acts of violence or terrorism. Most Muslims, just like most Christians, do not actually follow every word of their holy book. The Bible too has many scriptures that incite violence, but majority of Christians do not act violently. In addition, it should be noted that terrorism is defined as "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... ) Supporting Islam, is not, in itself, a violent or intimidating act. Nor does it mean someone who supports Islam condones terrorism. So, while I would say supporting Islam is a foolish idea because religion is hierarchical and we should get rid of all hierarchy to be truly free, I argue that it is not terrorism to support Islam.
This house believes that forgiving is better than revenge

Revenge is what makes the war go on forever. If one want revenge and attacks the other. Them, naturally the other would want to fight back. It'll go back and forth forever. If someone eventually forgives and and forgets than the war would end. You sacrifice so many things in a fight. The opponent might eventually take something you really care about, and the escalate the war. It's better to forgive than to get revenge.
This house believes that forgiving is better than revenge

As Confucius said, 'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves' There is a great value in every act of forgiveness. Forgiving is the act of realizing that what has happened has already happened and that there is no point in letting it dominate the rest of your lives. Revenge is the desire to get even when someone does you wrong. It"s only natural to feel angry, to say 'I"m not going to let him get away with this'. However, revenge reduces you to your worst self, puts you on the same level with those spiteful people who you claim to regard with hatred. Now the question arises, what about those terrible crimes? Terrorist attacks, molestation, abuses, extra? Do we forgive them? There is a defined line between forgiveness and justice. Forgiving doesn't mean you'll sit there and helplessly forgive. No. Forgiving is taking justice without committing any of the sins you yourself. Let's says there were a bombing in one country and another country was blamed for this. Often, the families of the victims want to attack the country or the place back for revenge. So now what? One country attacks the other country. This country calls for war and attacks back. Adding to that, Revenge also has harsh aftereffects. Whether it's on a low scale, say a student revenge in school, or a high scale just like the example I mentioned. This is a never-ending chain. And this is what Confucius meant when he said, "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Thus, I would like to conclude by stating that forgiving hasn't hurt anyone. The same can't be said for Revenge. I await my opponent's response.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

There is a minimum size needed for something to exist ? Pro says " If you reverse the expansion, and follow the contraction back in time, at some point it would become so small that it would cease to exist" Is their a limit on how small something can be until it ceases to exist ? On what basis do you make this claim ? Potential infinites vs Actual infinites Pro says "If the universe had no beginning, then it must be infinite. Again, science is against that idea. Actual infinities do not exist in the physical world, to my knowledge. They can only be theorized, thus are only potential infinities" Why can't the universe be a potential infinite ? Is time actually real or just a concept in our heads ? Pro seeks to refute my argument on the basis that their is no fundamental actual existence of time but rather that time is just a product of the mind and is just as real as the flying spaghetti monster is, as Pro says "Time is a concept and measurement invented by humans"" But even if this is the case, this refutes Pros own arguments. If there is no real time, then there is no real past, and if there is no real past then there was never a point in the real past where the universe did not exist. Either time is. .. .. 1) Actually real - And there has never been a time/past where time did not begin to exist, thus the universe did not begin to exist. 2) Time is not actually real and is just a made up concept - And the universe did not really begin to exist. I look forward to Pros reply.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

KCA vs Argument from design and Argument from ignoranceTowards the end of their post, Pro makes an argument from design such as "Can you imagine the odds of everything coming together, by chance, in just the right balance and just the right temperature for life? ? Not only is life existent, but we came with just the right mix of chemicals to give us breathable air. " I remind Con this debate is on the Kalam Cosmological argument, the KCA makes no arguments based on "design". Pro says "On the other hand, in spite of centuries of trying, no one has been able to disprove God, or the Bible, or prove that He didn't create the universe. In absence of that proof, either way, I hope you conclude that it's more likely that a higher power, with a plan, designed and created the universe, and all it's complexities. "No one has being able to prove that we are not all brains in vats. Just because something has not be proven false is not the same as it being proven true. .. .. .. .. . "Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). " [1]Maybe, Maybe, MaybePro poses alot of maybes such as " Maybe the Creator has built roadblocks to our ability to know things. " & "maybe He put that immovable field in place as a way of making us humble ourselves, and admit that there may be something bigger, wiser, and more important, than ourselves. "Trouble is for every maybe, there is a maybe not, Maybe God did do all those things. .. .. .. .. then again maybe God didn't. Back to the KCAThe KCA makes claims that can't possibly happen inside of our universe, yet can happen outside of the universe. A double standard is used to allow God to exist and do things which without the double standard would be rejected. Pro doesn't regard that "getting something from nothing" is logically impossible. This refutes the claim that if something begins to exist it must have a cause. If you can get something from nothing, then its possible that if the universe began to exist then it might not have a cause. Pro for most of this debate, argued that time is a system of measure invented by us, and is not objectively real, thus something can't begin to exist, in the objectively real sense. I ask the vote go too the ConI thank Pro for participating in this debate. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...