BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are vampires evil? (Select "pro" if you think they are. Select "con" if you disagree).

No vampires are evil. They are never portrayed as heroic in any movies, books, television shows, etc. Vampires relate to the undead which in turn relates to demons. Regardless of religion they represent true evil and can scare many people when they are portrayed like Dracula and not Edward from Twilight. Do not compare humans slaughtering cows to vampires killing innocent people. Both are innocent, however killing that cow can feed plenty of people while killing that person may feed only one vampire.
Are vampires evil? (Select "pro" if you think they are. Select "con" if you disagree).

Vampires are not necessarily evil. They do not always kill their victims every time they feed. If they do exist, I am sure that there are probably some vampires out there that only kill when absolutely necessary. Vampires can, in fiction, to say the least drink fake blood, animal blood, blood from willing donors, blood from blood banks and blood from those whom they sedate, make a small cut on, drink a bit, heal the cut up and then let go again. I know that a lot of this is still taking without asking, but so is a lot of things that human beings do. When they kill a cow, human beings are doing something far worse. They are taking the life of that cow and, of course, this is generally without asking the cow (!)
Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized

NOTE: My opponent neglected to refute or address my arguments in any way. I assume that is his tacit agreement of the arguments. My opponent again restates his Pope quote. I again say that the Popes are wrong. Simply because they say something does not mean it is true. "So, We have no right to kill one's person have illness, who can't talk or shall we say in a comatose!!! And again its banned in all nations except for two because its morally wrong and against in the will of God:Exodus 20:1-17,Ten Commandments of GOd. and stated in the 6 of his commandments that thou shalt kill." They have a right to decide when the want to die. We can't take that away. We have to facilitate it. That's what euthanasia is for. The fact that it is illegal in most countries is irrelevant. Lawmakers are usually mentally stupid. Also, the sixth commandment said not to murder, killing is okay. Euthanasia is not murder. God is okay with euthanasia.
Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized

Euthanasia is killing one's people ill and not killing itself because of its illness. And about the phrase that you have:"Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II (March 25, 1995) have re-stated that the mission of the church is to celebrate human life, as the Gospel of life, that human life has a deeper meaning and beauty outside of what we see, that every human being must be respected, honored and loved, that we must praise and thank God for the gift of life." So, We have no right to kill one's person have illness, who can't talk or shall we say in a comatose!!! And again its banned in all nations except for two because its morally wrong and against in the will of God:Exodus 20:1-17,Ten Commandments of GOd. and stated in the 6 of his commandments that thou shalt kill.
Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized

Contention: Euthanasia is often the only moral course of action. If a terminally ill patient wants to end their life early, it is their choice to do so. We must follow their wishes. Not euthanizing would still result in death, only it would prolong the suffering of the patient. The Hippocratic Oath says do no harm. This means we have an obligation to spare the patient from his needless suffering. "Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II (March 25, 1995) have re-stated that the mission of the church is to celebrate human life, as the Gospel of life, that human life has a deeper meaning and beauty outside of what we see, that every human being must be respected, honored and loved, that we must praise and thank God for the gift of life." Obviously, they are wrong. A human life is only of value insofar that it pleases it's owner, the human it belongs to. If I am terminally ill, my life loses it's value, and I can renounce, and end the suffering.
Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized

50. "Euthanasia" is, of course, derived from two Greek words meaning "pleasant or painless death". This is one instance, among many in modern society, where a good motive is supposed to make wrong things right. A merciful motive (preventing pain or hardship) is held to make right something which, in itself and in other circumstances, would be admitted to be wrong (putting an innocent person to death). (http://www.rcam.org......) Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II (March 25, 1995) have re-stated that the mission of the church is to celebrate human life, as the Gospel of life, that human life has a deeper meaning and beauty outside of what we see, that every human being must be respected, honored and loved, that we must praise and thank God for the gift of life.
Walking has a More Negative Impact on the Environment than Driving

In this debate I will argue against the popular belief that walking to any given destination is more environment-friendly than driving to said destination. This debate assumes that the minimum distance that must be traveled over to reach the destination is ten miles. The debate also assumes that both the driver and the walker eat 2,000 calories a day, and are attempting to maintain their weight and currently doing so, and that both the driver and the walker are "at rest," making minimalistic physical motions unless otherwise stated. We shall assume that they both make motions to eat and drink, but these motions do not amount to physical activity, assuming that the definition of physical activity is any motion resulting in the burning of at least five kilocalories, hereafter referred to as either "kcal" or "calories." It is also assumed that the EPA's model for climate change is true. [3] I present the following argument to affirm the resolution. The average car in the UK will emit two lbs of carbon into the atmosphere when driving for three miles. [1] Therefore, when the average UK car drives ten miles, It emits 6.666666667 lbs of carbon. It is safe to assume that the typical man or woman in the UK will not burn over five calories to get into their car, and for the remainder of the car ride, they are physically "at rest." The average walker will burn 180 kcal walking for three miles.[1] Ergo, when walking for ten miles, the walker will burn 600 kcal. Because the walker burned 600 calories, he/she has to replenish them with 600 calories of food, as stated. Assuming that the walker will eat beef, and that 100g of beef will replenish 180 calories [1], the walker will need to eat 333.333 grams of beef to maintain his/her weight. Because of how the beef is raised and transported, 100g of beef will emit 7.934 lbs of carbon. [1] The walker will have emitted 26.420 lbs of carbon, as opposed to the driver, who did not eat the excess beef, emitted only 6.666666667 lbs of carbon. One can substitute beef for any other food item, and the result will be the same, but with varying numbers. I challenge my opponent to find one food item that the walker could eat that replenishes the 600 kcal and does not emit as much carbon as driving ten miles. [1] Because carbon emissions negatively impact the environment, this argument affirms the resolution. [2] [3] [4] Also, if it is considered that a scenario could arise in which two walkers walk together, and two drivers drive together in the same car, The ratio of carbon emissions from drivers to walkers is even lessened, as is proved by simplistic mathematics. I openly allow anyone to challenge me and prove me otherwise. Good luck. [1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [2] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [3] http://www.epa.gov... [4] http://www.ipcc.ch...
European Jews are Descended Almost Entirely from the Khazars

Debate currently impossible to accept, anyone who is interested in arguing "Con" may so in the comments. As Pro I will be arguing that European [Ashkenazi] Jews are not Semites but are almost entirely descended from the Khazars, a Turkic people that inhabited the land of Khazaria. Rules: -First round acceptance *and* opening argument. -Second round extension of argument[s]. -Third round rebuttals. -Fourth round rebuttals and closing statements; *no* new arguments. -10,000 character limit. -Open voting with minimum 2000 ELO. -Shared BoP. Definitions: 1. Descended a. To be related by genetic descent from an individual or individuals in a previous generation.
Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality.

Since a pressing issue has come up, I’m afraid my responses will be brief. “Unlike homosexuals, most overweight people are not in denial about the health issues that comes with being overweight. Aso, there are all kinds of weight loss programs. overweight people are not calling people bigots for that” My opponent has failed to address the fact that many homosexuals, including myself, are aware of the health risks our “behavior” is prone to. For that reason we take preventive measures. (i. e. wear condoms, get blood tests, et. al. ) When he says there are all kinds of weight loss programs, I can make the analogy that there are all kinds of medication for STDS. Lastly, my opponent makes the faulty claim that obese people do not call people objecting their behavior has bigots. Because, in many cases they do. And, in many cases, they, like homosexuals are right. “The original structure of the debate was set up to lure the voters away from homosexuality's main problem in which is the fact that homosexual behavior is a health hazard and a threat to public health. ” My opponent is incorrect. The structure of the debate was to address multiple issues of homosexuality. He did not. If he has addressed both marriage and adoption, THEN made his arguments on the STD epidemic in the fourth round, he would not have ignored the structure of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent has made one argument against homosexuality, asserting that it is a health risk factor. However, he fails to address that heterosexual behavior can also be a health risk, according to his arguments. While homosexuals may be hold the mass percentage of documented AIDS cases, heterosexuals 1. ) are prone to AIDS as well, and 2. ) are prone to a plethora of other STDS. To make a long story short, my opponents arguments do not justify the denial of acceptance of homosexuality. They are merely used as an excuse to continue to support open bigotry. I have argued two cases in which homosexuals actively contribute to society, asserting that they operate on a very similar basis as heterosexuals.
Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality.

Round 4. Homosexuality and Society Since the past 2 rounds haven’t been structured to address the issue of homosexuality and STD’s, I haven’t taken the time to address it. Since this round is far broader, instead of providing my normal arguments, I’ll use this space to specifically address my opponents misinformed argument. There are 5 reasons why my opponents argument should be ignored. 1. It does not address all homosexuals. While the nature of homosexuality does increase a man’s chance of having aids, there are specific measures many gay man take in order to avoid such a risk. The predominant one is wearing a condom and continually getting tested. Since my opponent fails at addressing the many gay men who do not have AIDS, his argument is not sufficient to warrant discrimination against my people. 2. It does not address any lesbians (female homosexuals) Another group my opponent fails to address are lesbians. Lesbians seldom find themselves victims of AIDS. This makes the percentile of all homosexuals without AIDS much different… hence, homosexuality in general should not be subjected to prejudice based on that argument. 3. It’s a slippery slope argument that leads to multiple questions. My opponent’s arguments also leads to many questions. The first, and most important is why stop at homosexuality. Since homosexuals are prone to dying of AIDS, why not discriminate morbidly obese people, who are prone to have diabetes? Why not discriminate against a soldier, who is a part of the institution that condones murder? My opponents arguments bring up far too many questions and still fails at addressing the point. 4. It’s an insufficient argument that does not take into consideration that AIDS is now very much controllable. Another thing my opponent’s argument ignores is the fact that AIDS no longer equals death. In many cases it is now a very controllable disease that does not stop people from living ordinary lives. 5 His arguments deviate from the original structure of the debate. The last factor against my opponent’s argument is that it deviates from the debate structure. In Round One, I clearly outlined the structure of the debate. It was meant to address two separate issues of homosexuality, which my opponent failed to do. In conclusion, my opponent’s arguments fails to address why all homosexuals should not be accepted because his arguments do not include all homosexuals. His arguments stigmatize all homosexuals because of the AIDS epidemic. However, his arguments fail to address any homosexuals who did not take part in the AIDS epidemic. Also, one can argue that the millions of people who died of AIDS died because the government failed to address the issue, not because they had AIDS. Since AIDS has become a major medical priority, far fewer people have died. To make a long story short… my opponents one argument is insufficient in addressing why people should not accept homosexuality. That’s it for now. I’ll see you in the final round!
Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality.

"My opponent fails to realize that homosexuality and parenthood does have pertinence in this debate because it is an example of homosexuality actively contributing to society in a positive fashion. Since I’ve argued this exact topic before, I’ll cannibalize off of the debate by quoting myself"My opponent fails to realize that good parenting doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a high health risk and homosexuality commonly triggers std epidemics.My opponent is using a tricky, deceitful tactic to lure the voters away from focusing on the core reason why homosexuality is bad for humans.1. Incestuous couples could be great parents.2. Polygamous families could be great parents3. Murderers could be great parents4. People who have sex with animals could be great parentsMy point is, being good parents doesn't change the human anatomy to sit well with high health risk behaviors.Gays who are good parents couldn't stop gays from triggering a syphilis epidemic after it was nearly eliminated.Homosexuality is a public health hazard. Show me a study that shows gay parenting stops std epidemics among gays? You can't because it doesn't .
Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality.

Homosexuality should be viewed as a high health risk behavior and discouraged because it is a high health risk behavior. Being predisposed to nicotine at birth doesn't mean we should embrace smoking. "Homosexuality does nothing to harm society" That's false. According to the center of disease control, Gays triggered the HIV epidemic in America and possibly among other countries as well. Gays Brought back syphilis after it was nearly eliminated. In other words, gay literally stopped a deadly STD from being eliminated. "Unlike incest and bestiality, homosexuality is something you are inherently born with" First of all, a study by Lisa diamond shows many gays were not born gay. One of the largest twin studies in Sweden shows the majority of gays became gay because of environmental factors, not genetics. Homosexuality is worse than incest because incestuous people seem to not have a problem with practicing safe sex. Aso, gays have the highest rates of deadly STDs than any other group on earth "meaning it should not be viewed as abominable. Aside from religious arguments, there are no sufficient reasons to not accept homosexuality" The health issues regarding homosexuality shows the human anatomy simply does not sit well with homosexual behavior because the human anatomy did not evolve to accommodate homosexual behavior. Better yet, the human anatomy seems to punish humans for practicing homosexual behavior. in other words, the human anatomy naturally responds negatively of homosexual behavior. . "This debate will address three important issues of homosexuality. The first is gay marriage, which I will simply argue that there is no sufficient reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. First of all, you would have to prove that gay marriage is a right considering other types of marriages aren't right including incestuouous marriage and polygame. "The second will be homosexuals as parenthood, where I"ll provide sufficient evidence to prove that homosexuals are equally affective parents". Thats irrelevant because it does not change the fact that the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior. The last question is more general, asking whether homosexuality "should be accepted by society" Any behavior that commonly triggers deadly STD epidemics should not be accepted as a healthy behavior
Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality.

Having debated this issue before, and under similar circumstances, I’ve decided to formally challenge BlackHomophobicAtheists, whose previous comments on the issue incited me to debate with him. We’ll be debating wheatear or not society should accept homosexuality. I’ll be taking the pro stance, asserting that society should accept homosexuality because it does nothing to harm it. My opponent, should he accept, will be arguing the opposite. Since this debate is somewhat eccentric, both parties must share the bop, meaning we both must prove our points. My opponent may make any definitions, so long as they are fully accredited and cited. Let’s keep this civil but impassioned! The debate structure is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions, and Opening Arguments. Round 2 : Homosexuality and Marriage (provide one’s consensus on gay marriage and it’s effect on society. ) Round 3: Homosexuality and Parenthood (provide one’s consensus on gay and lesbian parents and their effect on society. ) Round 4: Homosexuality and Society (provide one’s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned. ) Round 5: Closing Statements (no new arguments) (conclude one’s arguments with a brief statement as why one’s opinions are factual. This is also where you should place any remaining rebuttals. ) Opening Statements: Homosexuality does nothing to harm society. Unlike incest and bestiality, homosexuality is something you are inherently born with, meaning it should not be viewed as abominable. Aside from religious arguments, there are no sufficient reasons to not accept homosexuality. This debate will address three important issues of homosexuality. The first is gay marriage, which I will simply argue that there is no sufficient reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. The second will be homosexuals as parenthood, where I’ll provide sufficient evidence to prove that homosexuals are equally affective parents. The last question is more general, asking whether homosexuality should be accepted by society. I’ll use evidence from both my first two arguments, as well as additional arguments, to prove that homosexuals should no longer be victims to the continued persecution they experience. As a homosexual myself, I promise to be fervent in proving my assertions. I hope my opponent will do the same.
Stem Cell Therapy

This brings up the point though, should scientists try to prolong the lives of organisms by using scientific procedures such as stem cell therapy. Immortality shouldn't be sought after by medical techniques and procedures. According to Craig Hamilton, humans aren't able to live five hundred years. Even if stem cells eventually allow this to be medically achievable, humans wouldn't be able to handle the psychological stress behind being alive that long. The mind would be too overwhelmed with experience and knowledge. Dr. Aubrey Grey explains using stem cells to live longer wouldn't stop people from aging. A child would still grow and mature into a young adult, and that adult would continue to mature and stem cell therapy can't reverse or stop that. Living an extra four hundred years wouldn't stop aging. Dr. Grey also explains that people, are not interested in living longer if it means not being in good health, they are interested in living out their golden years indefinitely.
Stem Cell Therapy

Stem cells are still a safe and great discovery. Scientists have discovered a new use for stem cell therapy. They can prolong our lives. They found that our by replacing the old cells with new and young stem cells they can prolong our lives to where we can live up to twice our expected life span. The first test they did using this technique with was with lab rats. They took a mouse that was close to it's final days, and replaced it's cells with newer stem cells from a younger, healthier rat. The test rat lived twice as long as it's expected life span. Proving, that stem cells can be used to replace older, unhealthier, and overused cells to prolong our lives. Source: www.collective-evolution.com
Stem Cell Therapy

Stem cell therapy is used to repair damaged tissues but at potentially harmful risks. With stem cell therapy, cells are used to reproduce healthy cells. According to Ian Murnagham stem cells are injected where the damaged tissues need to be repaired but there is a chance that these cells could rapidly and uncontrollably reproduce, causing a tumor in the patient. Four years after the initial treatment, a boy developed tumors along his spinal cord and brain. The doctors also included that these tumors couldn't have stemmed from the boys own body. A factoring result of the treatment could be a weakened immune system as well. The white blood cells in a patient are reduced, and while minor colds and easily treatable flux are the most prevalent side-effect of this, the stem cells could get out of control. The patients body isn't ready to fight off any type of infection let alone genetically modified cells, foreign to the body.
Stem Cell Therapy

At what risk are these people being treated however? Adult stem cells are unreliable at best and backpack a lot of risks and complications. Adult stem cells are finite. There is a limited supply of what can be harvested and what can actually be used to treat a patient. The stem cells used on a patient may not even last long enough for the procedure to be worth it. The person may have to go in for treatment multiple times with limited results each time and those results only lasting a short time. DNA mutation are also much higher in adult stem cells. Cells could be altered at a chemical level changing how the cell functions, leading to complications. The mutation would be completely random; there is no way of telling which cells would mutate and which cells would perform healthily once inside the body. Moreover, pre-specialization occurs in adult stem cells. Stem cells can't be taken from just anywhere in the body and used to treat an issue somewhere else. The stem cells have to correspond with what is being treated. This makes obtaining an amount of cells that is useable even more complicated, time consuming, and costly.
Stem Cell Therapy

"....future use." At this point any kind of stem cell therapy is all talk and the hope of scientists. In fact, any trials are years away and successful human trials are even yawns away after that. Even if this type of therapy was accomplished, it would be completely in practical. Adult stem cells are difficult to harvest and grow and they are not able to be produced in large quantities. It requires a lot of resources and time to produce a decent amount of cells as well as a lot of money. Only the wealthy would be able to actually afford this type of treatment and this would create an even bigger gap between society social classes.