BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

You're only using half my point here; you forgot the other half; you're not Galileo! He was a genius in his time and created a milestone in science and astrology. You didn't do jack. The difference between you and Galileo in terms of situation and skill is just massive. Now, in the 21st Century, we accept that which can present a reason other than because. If as your source said, if a scientist were to argue for the existence of magic, he would be ridiculed. True, because there is no evidence to prove magic. If he were to show valid proof, then people would be more inclined. This aesthetic has no reasoning as to why it is suitable for our society other than because, and then begins shouting tyranny and enslavement to sound revolutionary. You list exceptional people in the past who have suffered because they challenged the current way of life, but you fail to draw the line between you and those individuals, making you seem self absorbed than rebellious. I apologize if my points sound insulting or hurtful to you, but they are part of an argument that is formed by our recent string of debates which lets me determine what kind of debater you are, which helps me understand your point of view. I will most likely see you in another debate soon, as I rarely create my own debates, and there are so few appealing challenges online right now. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

con sys "con says "Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct." con says Galileo used logic and science to establish fact. The church does not. "fact is they said the same thing to about their view of the earth to oppose Galileo ie "we call it correctness because... it's correct" fact is they said the same thing to the impressionist painters they said the same to atonal musics musicians if people did not have the courage to be incorect you and the rest of you would still be worshiping the phallus-you would still be in a cave i have given example of my pint all con has said is "Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct." as I said to that they said the same thing to Galileo thus con has not refuted my point
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

Ok, first up. There's this thing called logic. Logic can be as good as evidence sometimes. Logic is objective and unbiased, and focuses on reasoning. Galileo used logic and science to establish fact. The church does not. This is a case hundreds of years in the past, and is of little relevance. Secondly, the church at the time was a dictatorship which led inquisitions and massacres. Don't say scientists dismissing and laughing at your incorrectness as "tyranny" The catholic church was a tyranny because it tortured and killed people. Stop trying to compare yourself to old masters, thinking that you are innovative and revolutionary. You and your idea are just playing minority to pretend that you're being oppressed. You call me insulting your poor poetry and writing skills tyranny? Then you make comparisons to Galileo? Don't make me laugh. You did this in the last debate too. You think you can compare yourself and your theories to the works of the old masters? The old masters of art, in both paint and poetry all had to fight the oppression of the systems they endured. But your "struggle" doesn't compare. You can't say anyone has put you on a torture rack and screamed; "say that the Aesthetics of Incorrectness is stupid! Say it!" and threatened you with eternal damnation. No crowds of art connoseurs have attended this debate to laugh at you like they did with the Salon rejects like the Impressionists. If you think this i out of place, then I use the source of your debate history, each anti conformist poet and style you've supported. Incorrect Aesthetics, like Anti Poetry and your erotic poetry, is a foppish and self absorbed Aesthetic. Oh, and Shakuntala, set your account to receiving messages, I'd like to propose a challenge to you, but I don't think there's any need to feel pressured by voters on it. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Abortion

1) Why do you support abortion? 2) If the fetus was proved human, would you become pro-life? 3) Why doesn't the fetus have any rights, in your opinion? (Or, what rights does it not have and why.) 1: I support the right to an abortion for several reasons, the first of which is the right to do what you please to your own body. Seeing as I believe that a fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body, it is her choice to abort it or not. My second is more of a moral issue. I am a utilitarianist, which is to say that I believe that the morally correct action is the one which produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Given that there are numerous instances of poor, relatively uneducated, young, women who have gotten pregnant, giving birth to the child would not only cause her more misery, because she would have to support the child, but the child would also have a great amount of unhappiness, because the mother does not have the resources to properly care for it. Abortion is a way to prevent this. 2: No. There are two reasons. The first is that the pro-life position is one of moral absolutism, saying that it is always wrong for an action to occur, which I think is completely untenable. There are instances where it is acceptable to kill a human, and if a fetus were shown to be a human, than those instances would apply to it as well. When there are exceptions to a morally absolutist stance, then that stance does not work. 3: A fetus only has the rights the mother wishes to extend to it. A fetus is, in essence, a parasite. It would be completely unable to survive without leaching resources from an outside source. The host, in this instance the mother, has the ability to dictate what rights the fetus does and does not have because the fetus is leaching off of her. Otherwise, it is akin to advocating that tapeworms should not be killed, because tapeworms have rights. If a mother does not wish to have a fetus is is no different than a tapeworm. My arguments are actually pretty well detailed above. I support the option of abortion, because I find the pro-life absolutism to be an untenable moral position, and because I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies.
Abortion

Alright. This is going to be simple, starting with an extension of my points, a rebuttal of my opponents new point, and then voters. First, my opponent responded to none of my arguments in his last argument, so they are conceded. Second, my opponents new argument. He essentially argues that fetus' are alive, and while the evidence he shows is incomplete, I get where he was going and will respond to it as such. There is one primary problem with this argument however. I have never disputed that fetus' are alive. I have merely disputed their humanity, as well as whether or not their rights, if we accept humanity, outweigh those of others. So whether they are alive or not is irrelevant. Voters. Pretty simple here. My opponent has basically conceded my arguments, as well as my value structure, so we look to the greatest happiness to decide what the correct course of action is. Given that I have shown that there are numerous situations in which the greater happiness occurs through abortion, and given that the burden of proof rests with my opponent, because he is supporting an absolutist moral system, which must be shown to be correct in ALL situations, I have won this debate.
Abortion

____ I'm so very sorry! I have an enormous research paper to work on. I cannot finish this. I urge you all to vote PRO for my ignorance and rude behavior. I'm sorry -- I will post my argument as is. ____ I'm going to try this from a new plane and then asses your rebuttals. Let me tell you the seven requirements for life: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis. 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. Homeostasis ________ A fetus can do all of these. According to http://physiologyonline.physiology.org... and HP Laburn , "The fetus produces much metabolic heat and loses it mainly via the placental circulation, across a fetomaternal temperature gradient of ~0.5ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½C. During maternal hyperthermia, the risk of noxious fetal hyperthermia is less than expected. The thermal protection appears to result from the fetus's own thermal inertia and consequences of maternal thermo-regulatory strategies." Thus, as we can see, a fetus has homeostasis. Organization ________ Since the fetus' body is composed of cells, it is, by definition, organized.
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

Thank you for a intriguing debate topic. I argue that, barring cases of genetic illness, genetic tampering should be illegal. Its cost is astronomical, meaning that only the richest people can afford to modify their unborn children. This would engender a generation of "designer babies" whose looks, intelligence, and physical prowess would be enhanced beyond that of the working class. The problem is clear. http://www.nature.com...
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

Again: there's a difference between luxuries and innate advantages. GM people would compete, but not just with other GMs. They would compete with normal people, driving them out of education and job opportunities. You admitted in R3 that people with extra power rarely use it for good. In the end, genetically modifying a select, rich few people gives them power that average joes can never compete with, irreversibly creating a genetic aristocracy. This scenario is rife with potential for abuse.
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

If GM people are allowed to occur, its not like all without GM would have their rights taken away. Everyone would keep the same amount of freedom. People with GM would be competing among themselves business wise. They would struggle for who can make more innovative, helpful, society beneficial products so that people buy more of them, and so their company profits the most. As I said in R3, GM people wouldn't become dangerous in today's society. It's not only cars. Flight. Vaccination. Etc.
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

There's a difference between the rich having a toy, which is what cars were then, as opposed to an innate advantage that could make them a superior species, biologically. You have admitted that "People with power do rarely use it for good." If GM people became dangerous, how would we stop them? They would be impossible to legislate against, since they would still be people with full rights; compete with; or make normal again (all gene changes would be permanently passed down).
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

When cars were invented, poor people were not able to afford the luxury. This wasnt 'fair'. Poor people were being 'punished' because the rich had a 'selfish' need to get around faster. Are you saying cars should of been made illegal years ago to make things even? That never occurred. Now, buses exist for the poorest of people, and most people, even poor people, can afford cars. This is because of the innovative businesses that took advantage of the technology. They would do the same with GM.
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

We have laws against murder, but it does occur. Our society cannot stop normal people from killing. The question is, do we want offenses to be committed by enhanced people, whom we stand less chance against? I don't believe so. Nor do we want rich kids to outperform ordinary ones. Only the enhanced kids would be sought after for college and jobs. Normal people would have a harder time getting jobs, get poorer, and never have a chance to catch up. Also, what evidence proves that GM is safe?
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

In our current society, we have rules to stop people taking advantage of others. People with GM would certainly use their power but it COULD not negatively affect people without it. The way our society runs NOW would prevent that. The only thing they could do is improve on themselves. In the process, however, possibly others. People with power do rarely use it for good-So you would give the government power to decide what one does with their body, or the baby that may be inside of it?
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

History has proven time and again that people with power rarely use it for good (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Ask yourself: would you really hand a random kid in a preppy college super strength? What about twenty of them? What about when they assume that they are "ultimate alpha males" and go on an Eliot Rodger style rampage with enhanced strength and intelligence? Also, the modifications have not been proven safe. One mistake has the potential to introduce permanent corruption into our DNA.
Genetic manipulation on unborn babies should be legal.

If I were genetically modified, and had higher intelligence, innovation, and problem-solving skills then others, any affect it would have on poor people is positive. I would have the skills to create new, more innovative, more advanced products, that would help ALL of society, not just the rich. These new products would open the doors for economic opportunity, sparking up companies and businesses who want to sell them. That would create a richer economy, and more openings in the workforce.
Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans

Pro in Round #3, argues that Con: “...has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly, gets a 15% rating on his profile on The Biggest issues,...” Con had hoped that Pro had more in his arsenal than this, as it was he who instigated this debate topic. Again he shows either an inability or a lack of desire to grasp the import of the 15% on the Big Issues on my profile. I am truly flattered that Pro has taken such an interest in my profile. I only wish he understood what he was looking at. At the risk of being repetitious, let it be noted that when he sees on my profile a 15% of the Big Issues somehow means to him I do not understand the issues. To every other user on this site, I dare say without exception, the meaning of it is evident and self explanatory. If he insists on claiming it matters, when I look at my profile I get an astounding 100% on the Big Issues. Outstanding! Backwardseden I dare say is the only user who cannot understand it. According to Pro, I have: “...no intelligence, no edumacation, has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly,...” This is the second time in this debate where Pro has offered my lack of edumacation to make his case. I let that twice made claim speak to who is educated, if it is of any import. Con would like to remind Pro of the topic posted by Pro. I quote from the title of the debate: “Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans”. Con has argued that God did indeed use intelligent design to create humans, while Pro went off topic to argue that humans are not created to perfection. Who doesn’t understand the topic? Intelligent design does not mean God had to create everything to be His equal. Intelligent design simply insinuates that it was intentional, with forethought and knowledge, not accidental. I have argued and demonstrated that the imperfect beings God created are more suited to give honor and glory to Him through the imperfect creations we are, having the capacity to do good or evil, and be rewarded accordingly, giving all creation a concrete example and reason to admire His mercy and benevolence as well as His justice. In the most recent round Pro states he is “...far far farrrrr too good…” for me. I can easily stipulate he is better than I, and I congratulate him on this. It is however a very small thing to be better than I. I would hope that he and everyone else I know would have better standards for themselves and push themselves further than to think they have done anything great by being better than I. If he or anyone else sets their goals so low, they will never achieve greatness. Again, I am hopeful that Pro can reengage in the battle which was of his making in offering this debate. If he has a valid counter to my statements, I am hopeful he will muster the strength to post them. Pointing out the obvious by saying I am not perfect will not carry his cause. Pro, please make your case that there was no intelligent design in creating humans.
Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans

Didn't read it.I cannot take up my precious and valued time with a known sociopath psychopath supreme elite egotist, just like his god in print thinks he is and yet he cannot even prove he even exists, who has no intelligence, no edumacation, has a 0% clue as to what the topic is about and thus cannot respond properly, gets a 15% rating on his profile on The Biggest issues, and especially has no genuine friends or loved ones. If he wishes to think he wins this debate, sure, let him. He's screwed up so bad in it, I do not wish to partake in it any further. He is an insult, a disgrace, abusive to my being and intelligence in which I have and he obviously doesn’t as proved by his RD1 facade of dripping wet hanky panky. I am far far farrrrrr too good for him. Conversation over.
Vladimir Putin is a Beneficial President to Russia

Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsMy opponent decides to start their argument with stating that Putin did not improve Russia in economy or politics without providing a solidified foundation. The current recession Russia is in is due to a global oil price plunge which would allow Russia (a nation that relies on oil as exports and income) to suffer heavily [1]. This price plunge is not under the control of Putin, and any person who understands the fundamentals of global economics would understand a leader is powerless to controlling the prices of oil, when it is balanced by supply and demand. My opponent did not refute my previous argument regarding the 800% rise in GDP of Russia and simply states reasoning that is a product of supply and demand, not economic actions.If my opponent decides not to stay within the confines of reasoning that Putin is indubitably a beneficial President, to Russia, international action should not be considered as a swaying reason in this debate as my opponent has listed above. I will also state, simply to entertain, that Putin has only taken military action against international law in Ukraine and Georgia. Both of which were to maintain Russian interests as a response to American troops and NATO arrivals both in Georgia [2] and Ukraine [3], respectively. I will not provide further incentive to this argument, as beyond the laying of facts, the matter becomes of perspective as both Russian and Western powers had used unconventional and controversial actions to advance their interests.Sources[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] http://www.cnn.com...[3] http://www.cnn.com...
Vladimir Putin is a Beneficial President to Russia

No, in fact, Putin has not improved Russia's position in the areas of economy OR politics. First, he may have grown the GDP numerically but the percent change is negative (see 1). As oil exports from Russia drop, so does the percent change of GDP, meaning that he is in fact failing the economic sector. Food prices are rising and benefits are falling, which is ironic because Putin is trying to return to the era of the Soviets. His nostalgia is the reason for his expansionism, and he is hurting the whole of Eastern Europe. Ukraine is not Russia. Belarus is not Russia. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are not Russia. Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova are not Russia. The era of the Soviet Union is over. He is trying to foster the same culture of xenophobia and snobbism that previous leaders such as Stalin did. I have no doubt that Stalin is Putin's role model, and for your information, due to Stalin's aggressive policies, Russian casualties in WWII were over a third of the total (2). Stalin was cruel towards his countrymen and was a hypocrite. Putin has fostered a culture of corruption, both in domestic leaders and international leaders. SOURCES: A. http://www.economist.com... IMAGES: 1. http://cdn.static-economist.com... 2. https://upload.wikimedia.org...
The Chicken came before the Egg

You are able to provide your own definentions. But i will also be providing definitions. 'The Chicken'- the domesticated chicken often found on farms. 'The egg'- the organic vessel in which an embryo first begins to develop. this means that your chicken, the chicken born in 2001, came after the the egg laid by a chicken the day before. also there has been no definention for the word came. 'Came'- to be subjected to the atmosphere of earth. also using this defintion, the egg that the chicken born in 2001 was hatched from touched earths atmostspehere before the chicken that was inside the egg. thereofre, the egg came before the chicken.
The Chicken came before the Egg

If you want to be anal about definitions, OK. Then, since the topic states "The Chicken" and "The Egg" rather than "a chicken" and "a egg", we must define them. And since you have failed to define them I will... The Chicken - A chicken that lives in New York City and was born on April 24, 2001. The Egg - An Egg that was laid by "The Chicken" two years after it's birth in 2003. Therefor, "The Chicken" came before "The Egg"