BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning

Imagine a person with a severe injury. Like maybe they are paralyzed with a severe back or neck injury. Or maybe someone who has lost a limb. Or possibly in the not so distant future, you could have an exact copy of yourself. Stem cells and cloning may be able to fix those things. Stem cells are a type of cell found in the embryonic. They are an almost base cell. Because later on pregnancy they begin to turn into all the cells the body will use (e.g. brain, muscle, heart, skin, bone etc.). But they turn into anything that they are near. So if you place stem cells combined with certain chemicals and DNA next to someone's brain it could repair brain damage. This is caused by the stem cells cloning themselves into the cells around them. This type of cloning is called therapeutic, it is used to help animals, and hopefully at one point people too. There is another type of cloning that literally allows us to make an exact copy of creatures through birth. It has only been tested on animals and is still very basic and in the early stages. There are still some obstacles to get over but if we push through with some hard work and dedication we will be sure to have cloning become something very well possible. There are obviously going to be some complications. One complication that we have is that the cells we are taking we are trying to make them feel like they are brand new, and although we can make them think they are new, they don"t always act like it. This means that some cells may die much earlier than normal causing the animal or creature to die earlier too. We are working on this issue and seem to be progressing very well. But in my opinion stem cell research and cloning should push on because I see in the future that this will become very useful. And may even save thousands of lives and make even more lives better.
Should the US support Israel

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. BoP are basicly on Pro's side. Since when Palestina attacks Israel? Israel is just expanding their territory over palestine. Where did you heard that Palestine attaks the Israel? Do you even heard on Gaza? there's a lot of Palestinian dies in there since 2014. 1.http://www.presstv.ir... 2.http://www.middleeasteye.net... There're my proof to show that Palestinian being killed by Israeli exactly near gaza tunnel with air strike
Should the US support Israel

I accept your challenge. US shouldn't support Israel for some reason. The condition at the middle east now is very thrilling. Every people on war and if US are backing Israel for support on war then it will not end the problem. US seems to ends everything with war and war, why don't we create peace in the existence of the world. The war will just causing problem on everything. Economy, health, education, that were the most intriguing part of a country. And US supporting Israel will be bad as the Vietnam war back at 1970s
Should the US support Israel

Israel has expanded its territory after it has fought off its enemies during wartime. It held on to those territories because they were claimed after the war. Everyday there are stabbings car rammings shootings and bombings by Palestinians against Israelis. Israel has every right to extinguish any threat to its security and its citizens. Israel has killed civilians but not willingly. The Palestinian terrorists use civilians as human shields and run to the media when Israel accidentally kills a civilian. The difference between pro Palestinian extremists and Israel is that the extremists target civilians and that Israel targets armed aggressors. Israel has long been the peace seeker in this conflict.
All users should have the right to vote without completing three debates

I disagree in a way because let's say there is a troller who votes unfairly then the whole point of Debate.org will be scammed and unfair. Also, why are you on this site? I mean, if you want to improve then you have to start debating. This will help you improve and also lets other people know that this person knows how to debate and vote properly. This is in my opinion. As we go on further then I will elaborate further. Try to change my mind as we debate!
The polite lick on the 4 year-old girl's cheek

I assume by lick, You do no literally mean lick. I'm going to assume you mean "show affection to". There is a reason parents teach children to say no to strangers. Children that cannot defend themselves are prime prey for adults who are interested in them. From a parent standpoint, I agree with this post. But strangers? Strangers can be very dangerous to children they show affection to. For example, An adult showing affection to a four-year-old girl could have the want to kidnap or even rape the child. Not all strangers are polite. Even though I agree you should always be polite to strangers, If they begin showing affection it can be dangerous. Assuming you DO mean to literally mean to lick someone with your tongue, Just no. Not only is that extremely creepy and unwanted, But is dangerous. Licking a child is very odd and can be taken as some kind of sexual offence or assault. Licking a random child that does not wish to be licked especially is assault, And can make most feel very, Extremely uncomfortable.
The polite lick on the 4 year-old girl's cheek

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Seeking her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.
Should Global Warming be dealt with

Most of my arguments went unrefuted so I'll extend them across the board.I have shown the Greenhouse gas usage and it doesn't pose a significant effect on the envirnment. This was unrefuted from my Round 1 argument. I realize we're using fosil fuels, but you have no evidence we have reached peak oil/coal. You argument doesn't hold any weight, plus there are other forms of energy that could be used and the market generally adats to these things. I have shown evidence that the Temperatures are dropping and our ice caps are growing. Your argument is irrelevant. This is also false. If we look at the past two years we can see that there is less drought as rainfall has increased. [1]Sources1. ( https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...)
Should Global Warming be dealt with

What about the factories that put most of the gasses in the air. They are using fossil fuels as-well. We are almost out of fossil fuels and our ice glaciers that hold most of our fresh water is melting as a result to heightened temperature. Also as a result to heightened temperature alot of our water that we need and drink today is disappearing. Droughts are more and more likely and happen more and more often.
voting for trump is irresponsible

First of all I never said that lowering taxes increases revenues, though in the long term this is true- for example, if you taxes people 100% there wouldn't be ay moremoney in circulation anymore, so then ta revenues would be 0 from then on. Besides, just because Uncle Sam gets more money does NOT mean that overal revenues have increased. Taxes just get rid of work incentives, why would I go out and earn more money if I end up with less money after taxes? If you could earn 10,000$ but pay 20% taxes, you would have no reason to earn 12,000$ and pay 40% taxes, because, even though you earned 2,000$ more, you end up with 2,800$ less than last month after taxes. Getting rid of work incentives WILL reduce revenue since people earn less money. Second of all, getting rid of Obamacare will NOT leave people without healthcare. Everyone wo uses Obamacare really wants to get off of it, all it does is relace your current healthcare plan with the sh*ttiest one imaginable, then charge you money for it, on top of taxing you to subsidize it, and it inflates the healthare cost. So let's imagie a hypothetical scenario; tons of people are working with obamacare, then obamacare is repealed, they will most likely go get their previous healthcare plans that they had before obamacare, which will create competition amongst insurance companies. Even if you cannot afford another plan, it wouldn't matter; you would be better off paying out of pocket that with obamacare. Third of all, healthcare isn't that compecated, the industry behaves like any other industry, so Trumps plan doesn't really have to do much. Also I have now read his plan and its pretty basic, https://www.donaldjtrump.com...This will work, you don't have to be an expert to tell that since this is a really basic system. Clinton Conspiracies:These aren't conspiracy theories, we all know this:1. Hillary Clinton sold US military secrets to China:http://www.nytimes.com...2. Hillary Clinton let 500,000 Iraqi children starve to death (this is an exerpt from a news story)3. Hillary Clinton laughed about Kidaffi getting tortured to death:4. Hillary Clinton wants to instigate war with Russia:http://www.washingtontimes.com...5. Hillary Clinton isn't even the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party:That was Bernie, he won the primaries they just committed election fraud and gave it to Hilary Clinton. 6. Hillary Clinton killed JFK Jr:http://www.morningnewsusa.com...
voting for trump is irresponsible

this shows that revenue has gone down with tax cuts and up with tax increases http://www.factandmyth.com... it's a very simple idea, cut taxes, get less tax revenue. apparently con beleives in voodoo economics where that kind of common sense doesn't make sense. con then goes onto a tangent about how we can get flat taxes and do away with socialist programs. that doesn't have anything to do with trump though, because he desn't want to do that stuff. con doesn't even bother reading trumps health plan, he just takes trump at his word when he says things will be "great" etc. but all his plan says is things like opening up interstate plans so you can buy insurance across borders. con also doesn't respond to my specific examplels of why obamacare as gone would be a bad thing..... people will die and have unaffordable healthcare or none at all. that's irresponsible. con then goes on to list a bunch of conspiracy theories about clinton, showing that con will believe anything. might i sell you a bridge i have for sale? i might believe con if he had credible sources, but he doesn't, and the stuff he spews is so obviously made up or baloney that i it was true it'd be common knowledge or she wouldn't be getting the support. i gotta stop debating teenagers.
voting for trump is irresponsible

Let’s examine my opponent’s claims: “Trump wants to cut taxes and add another trillion a year to the deficit.” No, cutting taxes won’t necessarily increase the debt; in fact this would be the most responsible option for the long term, cut both taxes and spending. In fact, if we abolish all of these Socialist programs we could lower taxes to a flat rate of 25%, increase military spending, improve our education system, as well as pay off the national debt in 8 years, that’s how much money we are wasting with socialism. “He wants to repeal Obama care with no real alternative to replace it. People with Medicaid expansion would no longer have healthcare, millions won't have subsidies to make care affordable, and insurance companies won't be able to afford covering people with preexisting conditions. (They can't afford them to a large extent with the subsidies and mandate, but apparently trump wants neither of these things so that'd make the problem worse)” Actually Trump has a plan that he intends to replace Obama Care with, I haven’t read over it yet but I’m told it’s great. Either way, even if he didn’t have an alternative plan, it wouldn’t really matter, Obama Care is so bad that killing it and replacing it with nothing would still put us in a better position than we are now. Also, insurance companies are raking in billions, they won’t have any financial issues. “Trump’s views of immigration are okay but with his flip flop on amnesty, he's not far away from Clinton. He’s okay on trade but at least rhetoric wise he's the same as Clinton. “Those are the major things. Clinton is a status quo candidate. the only real difference is taxes and healthcare, and on those trump is irresponsible. thus anyone who would vote for him is being irresponsible.” The same as Clinton? Let me tell you a little something about Clinton; she is a lying treasonous war criminal, she sold US military secrets to china, she let 500,000 Iraqi children starve to death, she laughed about Kaddafi getting tortured to death, she had repeatedly tried to instigate nuclear war with Russia, she isn’t even the legitimate nominee of the DNC, and she murdered JFK Jr. You cannot pick a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton because there is no such candidate. Voting for trump is the most responsible thing you can do because Clinton is the worst possible candidate, Johnson is a Hillary plant who would rather pretend as though our problems are not there rather than address them, and Stein- well I like Stein but the problem is she doesn’t believe in the 2nd amendment and she can’t win. I cannot support someone who is going to take a pledge to “protect uphold and defend the constitution” if they don’t believe in the constitution. The point is Trump is the only responsible pick.
voting for trump is irresponsible

voting for trump is ureasonable trump wants to cut taxes and add another trillion a year to the deficit. our debt is becoming a national security issue. he wants to repeal obamacare with no real alternative to replace it. people with medicaid expansion would no longer have healthcare, millions won't have subsidies to make care affordable, and insurance companies won't be able to afford covering people with preexisting conditions. (they can't afford them to a large extent with the subsidies and mandate, but apparently trump wants neither of these things so that'd make the problem worse) trump's views of immigration are okay but with his flip flop on amnesty, he's not far away from clinton. he's okay on trade but at least rhetoric wise he's the same as clinton. those are the major things. clinton is a status quo candidate. the only real difference is taxes and healthcare, and on those trump is irresponsible. thus anyone who would vote for him is being irresponsible.
Crutches Suck

Crutches help people who hurt their legs walk. They are very good. They are comfortable."I'd been brought up on the Upper East Side in a WASP society, which was death on crutches." - Harry Matthews. (I don't know how Harry Matthews is but he is important so listen to his wize words)This guy would be brought up in death itself if it was not on crutches. This guy is very happy he has crutches. Although the picture does not clearly show this, he is saying "Come to pappa!" to the crutches. [2] This chick is also happy she has crutches. The smile is proof that crutches are great. [3]Now my opponent's argument."i have sprained my ankle, and have to be on crutches for to months. they are clunky, uncomfortable, and i can't carry anything while on them."You can't carry anything if you don't have them either"i haven't been able to move around for the past few days because my entire body hurts, so i am stuck in bed :/."Thats why you have crutches. So you can move.Crutches look nice and are very good. Vote con"i used to think they were cool,"They still are"they ended up under my arms "Thats the point."i nearly threw them in a fire"Stupid."vote for pro :)"Very bad sentence structurarly because the colon does not go next to the ending parentheses because you didn't have a starting one. It is grammatically incorrect. And its information is false. Do not vote for pro. End of storyVote for con because Crutches are great.[1]http://www.brainyquote.com...[2] https://www.google.com...;[3] https://www.google.com...;
Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society

IF I define a vbfdjk as rtoihrotih then a non-vbddjk is the opposite of rtoihrotih obviously.In the same way your definition of conformism was in fact merely a clear basis for defining non conformity i needn't go into unless you are retarded.You never proved conformity exists because your justification was this:If one is a non-conformist they are conforming to the idea of non-conformismAnd I told you that I can equally prove, using circular logic like you, that non-conformity exists uding this:If one is a conformist they are being non-conformists to the idea of non-conformismPlease return with an IQ of 100 :) Or more if you like.
Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society

For my conclusion, I will respond to my opponent's arguments, restate my own, and point out why Pro should win. I would like to say that the insults in my opponent's last rebuttal were completely unnecessary. There are multiple other ways to deal with responding to an argument, and this one was offensive. This should be one reason why you should down vote Con. To respond to my opponent's rebuttal, I would like to point out that the idea of non-conformity has yet to be proven to exist in this round. I mean sure, my opponent gave you a few scenarios where he believes non-conformity could exist, but since I provided a definition of conformity and even applied it to show you HOW non-conformity could not possibly exist, I don't see why circular logic applies here. My opponent hasn't ever provided a counter definition in this round, nor has he ever explained how non-conformism exists. And since he never explained why non-conformism exists, we have no reason to believe why it should. Therefore the "circular logic" my opponent presents in his rebuttal cannot exist. Since this is my last speech, it is not possible for me to provide a counter-argument if my opponent decides to finally explain why non-conformism does exist, and this would be completely unfair to my side, since I was attempting to argue it the whole time. To review the round: Argument 1) I provided a definition of conformity and applied it analytically to the resolution. My arguments to my opponent's are further explained above. 2) This argument talks about how society will eventually mold outstanding people to conform to their standards, especially in the case of bullying. This argument practically went unargued throughout the entire round. This should go to the Pro side. 3) The fact that conformity is a necessary part of our lives in order to prevent chaos went unargued in this round as well. This should be in favor of the Pro side as well. Basically all the Con provided you with were multiple misleading circumstances and a faulty circular logic argument. Now I hate to be "that guy", but since we have spent the entire round arguing the arguments Con brought up, it would be completely unfair to me if arguments previously not brought up would be brought up in the next and final speech, since I have no chance to argue them, and he had plenty of time to bring them up earlier. For all these reasons, I strongly encourage you to vote Pro in that conformism cannot be avoided in today's society. I'd like to thank my opponent for a great first debate on this site. Thank you.
Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society

I shall use my opponent's retarded logic against him.This is essentially his rebuttal:If one is a non-conformist they are conforming to the idea of non-conformismThis shall be my equally retarded comeback:If one is a confromist they are being non-conformists to the idea of non-conformism.This is using circular logic and I would like my opponent to re-address my round 2 debate with a decent rebuttal.
Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society

For my rebuttal, I will refute my opponent's arguments. Your first paragraph lists several examples of quote "non-conformists" (the reason why this is in quotations is because I believe they don't exist, as explained later). I would like to point out that even though they're not conforming to the most prevalent social conventions around them, they're still conforming to the idea of nonconformism and the right to be different. Non-conformism is definitely an idea with actual purposes and beliefs, an idea in which you agreed with in your classification of "non-conformist rebellions", meaning that these people had a belief worth rioting about. Basically all anything needs to be classified as being able to conform to is an idea or purpose, and since nonconformism believes in being different than the popular opinion, it is qualified as conformism. This idea was even backed up with a definition in my constructive. Moving on to your second paragraph. You begin to list several examples of where it is possible to be "non-conformist". However those examples can be misleading. Say I was an atheist and I, for some reason, thought it was a good idea to go on vacation to the Vatican, a very Catholic destination. Not only am I conforming to the idea of nonconformism, I'm also still an atheist, which is another classification I conform under. I may not conform to those around me, but obviously there are others in the world who are atheists and/or "non-conformists", so I would be conforming to them as well. I realize this is a very literal approach, but it still stands nonetheless. For these reasons my arguments should be preferred and still stand strongly in the round. Conforming is impossible to avoid.
Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society

So Goths rising in the punk era, punks rising in the hippie era, hippies rising in the industrial era is all conformism? Then who was the first huh? Throughout history people have shown again and again that non-conformist rebellions are always possible to arise, and the same human nature exists today.Go to the Middle East and be anything except Muslim, you're already a non-conformist. Go to Vatican City and don't be catholic, you are a non-conformist. Come to Britain on 11th November and don't do the two minute silence at 11 o clock AM for remembrance day, you are not conforming. The capacity to not conform in today's society is even more than in older days because we can travel worldwide to cultures whereby our very skin colour itself is a means of not conforming. Thus I really don't see how your point stands in any way whatsoever. Conforming is not unavoidable.
Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Love is "a strong positive emotion of regard and affection" http://www.google.com... In the context of patriotism, love implies concern and caring for the status and future of one's country. The alternatives are various levels of indifference or, in the extreme, hatred. It is best for society if each citizen of a country takes a positive interest in the status and future of his country rather than indifference or hatred. Therefore patriotism should be taught and encouraged.