BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed.

Firstly, I will make it clear what I mean by 'Genetically modified soldiers' as I have made it unclear. When I say this, I don't mean simply injecting humans with a syrum to enhance performance like steroids. I mean actually making a super human, and cloning it. My opponent may claim it is preposterous that a Human can be cloned to the point of an army, however, 13 children were cloned by 1 doctor( . http://www.clonaid.com...) . She is now in a court case, but it makes it feasible that an army of clones could be made with a combination of mass production machinery and groups of scientists. This takes away my opponents 2nd argument, as humans will not be directly involved and their lives will not be destroyed by a syrum. Now, I will rebut my opponents first point. My opponent claims that should this technology fall into rebel or terrorist hands, it will have sever consequences. However, as I have stated above, they would have to be build massive cloning labs to produce such a 'weapon'. Yes, this technology would be dangerous in the hands of Russia and China, but so are nuclear weapons. Do China and Russia have the technology? Yes. Have they used it? No. The reason deadly technologies are rarely used is because the owners know the implications of them. My opponent says that 'War has become more brutal and deadly precisely because of the advance in technology and not despite of it. '. However, he has not given an alternative. If my opponent believes that war has become deadly because of technology, he needs to give an alternative to my idea. You see, the technology we have been given is external equipment. They provide help to the soldier, provided they don't jam, crash, etc. If a super soldier was developed, war would be easier because you are not developing the software, you're replacing the hardware. You can add as much software and external hard drives to a computer as you want, but it still has a limit. (Note: This is a metaphor)
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed.

Genetically modified: Enhanced in some way, either by utilising bacteria, computer chips or enhancing cells on the human, not the equipment. To adopt con you must: 1. Believe that an enhanced 'super' soldier should never be used in combat. 2. Be able to come up with 2 points why they shouldn't,and be able to rebut 2 of my points. During this debate I will refer to genetically modified soldiers a super soldiers. To start I will give my points: 1. It will make war easier: How many soldiers are needlessly killed because they couldn't see the enemy, get from A - B fast enough or couldn't take any more bullets. A super soldier would be able to do all of these faster and better. Needless to say, if you're average soldier can get from X-Y in 2 hours, and a super soldier could make it there in 1 hour before the enemy has time to prepare more, the who has a better chance of succeeding? Often rebels can beat a soldier because they're both human, but a super soldier could react faster, hit him quicker and defeat him because they aren't on equal footing 2. It will save lives: Thousands of lives would be saved monthly by not deploying your brother's, sister's, cousins, son's, daughters to a dangerous battlefield and risk losing them. If a super soldier is out there, there will be less hassle if one dies, as they have no family to tell, and are expendable. I'm not saying get rid off a regular human soldier. We need a human armies as well, but we need a super soldier to take care of dangers normal troops couldn't deal with without huge casualties. 3. We need super soldiers: As time progress's, so does war. We need to be able to deploy troops with the confidence that grieving families won't come into the equation. Battlefields are increasingly hostile, as missiles from miles away can attack squads before they see it coming. Fortified positions can rip through bullet proof armour and attack aircraft show no mercy. Super soldiers can not only withstand more punishment, but succeed at higher rates. My opponent's may argue that we cannot fund it at the moment and I agree, but when we have our post-recession boom, it will surely be fund able then
"Intelligent Falling"

(This debate is reserved for JCMT, evermore read it and post comments.) "Maths is usless with out science, like science is uncomplete with out maths." Understanding this theory is a big step, also I understandably get why. This theory (Intelligent falling) consists of a number of things, which are mathmatics, science and intelligence. Unlike its arrive gravity, which consists of randomness, chance and none intelligence. The opisite to "intelligent falling". When a child is at a science lesson in school, he/she will learn about gravity as being a fact, being random, chance bound and unintelligent. This is simply not true. Infact this argument of mine (intelligent falling) is so easy to comproheand that I believe I could write all the answers in this argument alone. If you do not use maths or science on anything it appears random. Say I twisted a tap, you would say that the strenth and the amount that the tap rotated was random, if you did not use maths or science by measuring me twisting the tap. It will seem random as you do not know the strenth or angle of the rotation. All things are random with no maths or sciences involved. For example: Throw a stone across a feild will look random, put a huge graph behind the stone which is being thrown and you will be able to plot the stone into the graph. Just because we do not know the mathmatics or science behind it does not mean its random or done by chance. Now link this to the moon: The moon orbits the earth, you can calaulate the orbit of the moon with maths and science. Meaning that it makes sense not randomness, just like the stone thrown behind the huge graph. Infact it is so obivous that the moon was intelligently placed there that you dont need a graph. Because the earth and the moon acts just like a drawn out graph. If you say "well would it be intelligence if I accidently kick a load of stones?" I would answer: Not by the standard that it was a accident, overmore you could measure accidently kicking small stones by taping the event and by placing a graph underneath the small stones. Accident or not, it makes no difference. You can easliy tell by this that intelligence was implied to this universe by God if you like it or not! Just say that the planets, stars and that the nights sky has graph paper printed on it. (Not such thing like stones and humans.) Instead of us graphing the moon like we can to stones being thrown, God has graphed the moons, planets and the suns, solar systems and the galaxies. By intelligently placing them This is the fact of "intellignet falling" Thank you.
"Intelligent Falling"

Responses: >> "That a stone when falling APPEARS random. " No - it does not. >> "Since the theory of gravity is random." No - it is not. >> "As once studied falling stones it shows that it is not random." Considering it's not random in the first place... studying it shows the specifics of its falling motion. >> "How about refering to my comments. "I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope... I've never seen any graph paper." I didn't mean that, but use you mind and imagen there being graph paper." Your comments are immaterial - the nonsense you post in the the debate fields are. This hypothetical graph paper stuff about there being some sort of evidence for "Intelligent Falling" when looking at the stars is ludicrous. >> "The earth is only 6000 years old. More danger of huge waves are starting to occour (26/12/04) Boxing day. 2006. For example." The earth has been scientifically shown to be FAR older than 6000 years. Or do you have an "Intelligent Fossil" theory on that too? The notion that the moon getting farther away exerts more force on the earth's ocean's is quite contrary to Newton's equations concerning gravity - equations that somehow work for everything except the ludicrous notion of "intelligent falling." >> """as gravity has no mind." Further down the page "It is not random"" By you saying this means that having no mind means that your actions would be random. As you have no mind to tell what is good or bad, meaningfull or pointless etc.... Then you say gravity is not random. Swallowing your words I think there." If you had taken the time to read my debate, you would be able to glean the information that gravity has no mind, yet is not random because there's no chance involved in the concept. Gravity always works. There's no "chance" or "randomness" involved! ************************************ This debate has been nothing but my opponent spewing incoherent nonsense with no facts or reasoning to back it up. He simply asserts theories that make no sense and contradict some of the oldest established laws of science. The worst part is that his defense against this system being impossible is that "God did it" - a weak defense at best, and in this case - simply more nonsense. "Intelligent Falling" is nothing but a nonsensical attempt to interject intelligent design into the very foundation of modern science.
"Intelligent Falling"

Very important that you remember this: That a stone when falling APPEARS random. Since the theory of gravity is random. Gravity does not exist. As once studied falling stones it shows that it is not random. Scince maths is not random and niether is science. As you study a stone falling with maths and science. How about refering to my comments. "I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope... I've never seen any graph paper." I didn't mean that, but use you mind and imagen there being graph paper. "BHAHAHAAAAA - the earth was in more danger of flooding when the moon was closer. Clearly the moon cannot be here to stop the earth from flooding if moving it farther away reduces the risk of floods..." The earth is only 6000 years old. More danger of huge waves are starting to occour (26/12/04) Boxing day. 2006. For example. ""as gravity has no mind." Further down the page "It is not random"" By you saying this means that having no mind means that your actions would be random. As you have no mind to tell what is good or bad, meaningfull or pointless etc.... Then you say gravity is not random. Swallowing your words I think there.
Cute atheist butt

Contention 1: Conversion My opponent must take into consideration that if a religious person deicdes that they are no longer religious and therefore becomes an atheist, this does not mean that they will automatically gain any sterotypes associated with atheism (including the stereotype that my opponent is proposing. My opponent's burden requires them to prove that all atheists havve cute butts. Converted atheists must have been theists previously and as a result of this, we can tell that they must not have been born with cute butts (according to your logic). Once converted to atheism there are no scientific studies regarding this topic that suggest that theists that have converted to atheism have any changes occuring in their butt. Contention 2: Opposite Conversion This is very similar to my first contention except it is the other way round. If an atheist decides that they believe in God or a particular religion then their butt does not change in any way, shape or form because of this factor. If my opponent can provide a study that proves me wrong then I recommend that they find it and link it to me however I will be extremely surprised if they mangage to do so.Contention 3: Children If all atheists have cute butts then this raises similar issues regarding the first two contentions. If a theist is born with a theist butt then a theist that has converted to atheism should suffer no changes in their butt because of this. If they then have children that are brought up as atheists does that mean that they have an atheist butt or a theist one? They are atheists however they are descendants from theists. This raises major questions and inconsistencies. The same applies vice versa for an atheist that has converted to a theist. Children aren't technically religious when they are young because they do not know what God means and therefore they cannot develop a justified opinion of God. Beliefs come when you are old enough to weigh out the different religions and beliefs and decide which one you think best suits your beliefs. Since the decision of your religion isn't always passed down from your parents a theist born from an atheist parent will have an atheist butt (according to my opponent's logic). Conclusion Your religion does not determine the cuteness of your butt unless you can objectively prove this. The only way that a religion can determine the butt is if everyone from a certain religion is primarily based in one area or country. This is not a direct result of religion though. It is based on your nationality not your religion.
Search Engine Optimisation

Is it Okay to create landing pages in SEO that are tailored for particular keywords? For example this page is tailored for the keywords SEO Prices: http://www.bluepointseo.co.uk... My thoughts are it is Okay to create landing pages targeted at keywords providing they"re offering useful information as to what the searcher Googled or Binged for example. Obviously, it"s not Okay to create a page that advertises clothes and display a page about dirty mags instead to a searcher.
Homosexual parents are as fit to raising children as Heterosexual parents.

Please post a response for the debate. This is the exact reason I started a completely fresh one, to make there not be an opponent who forfeits rounds. No matter what happens, I will post an argument for round 4, but it would help if you had an argument for round 3. This round, however will only be this rant about you actually trying to back up your side of the debate. That's why you accepted to debate this topic.
Homosexual parents are as fit to raising children as Heterosexual parents.

I am here to state that homosexual parents are not capable of raising children. Children are better off with two biological parents. This already has been proven and is old news, yet it affects this debate in a way that proves homosexual parents are much worse for the children and they should not be their parents at all. Some have assumed that the well being of a child is simply the presence of two parents, but instead the presence of two biological parents is better for the well being. There is father love and the mother's love in an offspring's' psychological well-being and health that affect the child a great amount. If one is missing, the child does not develop as well as he would with biological parents. When boys have caretakers of both sexes, they are less likely to engage in "women-devaluing activities and in self-aggrandizing, cruel, or overly competitive male cults." Many say that having homosexual parents does not affect the child's character. Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has created a study that proves this wrong. I will briefly state some flaws in the children's behavior that children of lesbian parents have: 1. They are 3 times more likely to be unemployed 2. They are 4 times more likely to be identified as something other than completely heterosexual 3. They are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting 4. They are 4 times as likely to have been raped This next one may not be a disadvantage, yet it shows that the homosexual parents don't treat their children well: 5. They are 10 times more likely to have been touched sexually by a parent or other caregiver This is completely terrible and shows that homosexual parents are not fit and immature in raising children. Many have claimed that children are as likely to be gay with same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. The study has found this to not be true. Children of homosexual fathers are 3 times as likely to be identified as something other than heterosexual and 4 times for children of lesbian mothers. Daughters of lesbian mothers have 4 times as many female partners and daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many than daughters of heterosexual parents. Sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male sexual partners than sons of heterosexual parents. This says that it has a very large impact on the child and the previous statements are wrong. This concludes my statements for round 2 and I wish my competitor the best of luck for the last round. I may have said most of this in my other debate, but I want the information to be fresh again and for my opponent to try and argue against my claims this time. Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.ctfamily.org... http://factsaboutyouth.com... http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://www.frc.org...
Homosexual parents are as fit to raising children as Heterosexual parents.

Last time I debated anything was 10 months ago, and although I won, I won unfairly. My opponent didn't debate a single thing leaving me to not do anything. I decided to go back on this website and try again. This time, the voting period is longer and more people can see this debate before the voting ends. Also, there's four rounds, so instead of there being only two rounds to debate in, there's three (applying that the first round is only accepting the debate). My position remains the same as my previous debate. Homosexual parents are less fit to raising children than heterosexual parents, and hopefully we can have a better debate over this. If you choose to accept it, make sure that you debate for all of the rounds instead of leaving like last time. I just want a good debate here. Thank you in advance.
Live bullying vs Online bullying (which is worse) pro= live con= online

Apparently my opponent failed to read the article i gave as a source therefor he didn't know that the kid had died in the hospital in response to an induced coma used to increase his survival rate, but to no avail he died of the injurys placed upon him by the bully. I have proven that there are some situations in which you cannot walk away. I rest my case.
Live bullying vs Online bullying (which is worse) pro= live con= online

Ok since round 3 is for rebuttals i shall begin with your statement "Even though that live bullying is a threat to the teenagers of the modern world, you still have the ability to walk away from it.' The problem is, in a lot of places you cannot walk away from it. See: http://abcnews.go.com... By saying that "it's on the internet until the owner takes it away" you have proven my point that its easy to get rid of online bullying. I await your rebuttal.
Live bullying vs Online bullying (which is worse) pro= live con= online

Online bullying is bad, like all forms, but live bullies don't just post spam on your FB or texts or email, they attack your mentally and physically in person in front of the whole school or youth group. Online bullies have access to many resources from which to attack, yes, but eventually they form a pattern in which you can either counter attack or defend. Live bullies on the other hand, can attack at random and embarrass you in front of your friends and peers. Unlike online bullies you will never see it coming as it is entirely based on the whims of the victor. I await your argument (no rebuttals)
Donald Trump is not Racist: Change my Mind

Ok, I will present other evidence, The tape has not been released yet, But here is a video of him saying what it is like to be black https://www. Msn. Com. . . , Seeing as you didn't give me anything to rebut, I will just provide you with some more evidence. Back in the 70's trump tried to avoid renting houses to African Americans, And gave preferential treatment to Caucasians. Back then, This was normal, Segregation was just ended, But many still hated African Americans, However, That does not make it right to avoid renting them houses. He also hated it when black people worked at his casinos, Even going as far as saying "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. " I think that the guy is lazy. And it"s probably not his fault, Because laziness is a trait in blacks. " Again, In the time, Not racist, Now, Racist. Donald called out ads to kill 5 black people accused of raping a white woman, If this was true, It was a good call, However, 10 years later, They found DNA evidence that proved them innocent(I will admit this one could have just been a mistake). (https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . Is for all evidence in this round) I hope that you can successfully rebut these, Thanks for(hopefully) taking the time to read this.
Donald Trump is not Racist: Change my Mind

"Back in the 70's trump tried to avoid renting houses to African Americans, And gave preferential treatment to Caucasians. Back then, This was normal, Segregation was just ended, But many still hated African Americans, However, That does not make it right to avoid renting them houses. " The source you gave is not the full link, It just says "https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . " but doesn't finish the link. Typical DDO. Until I can see the source, I do not know that it is true, And why shoud what he did 50 years ago be relevant today? Can you give more current examples? "He also hated it when black people worked at his casinos, Even going as far as saying "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. " I think that the guy is lazy. And it"s probably not his fault, Because laziness is a trait in blacks. " Again, In the time, Not racist, Now, Racist. " I debated this point with another person. The conclusion I came to was that I looked at hyperlinks in their Ny times source, Maybe it is your source also, And found out that only 1 person claimed that was the case. If not, Correct me if I am wrong. In my opinion, One person making an allegation isn't enough evidence to claim Trump is a "racist, ' and even if it is true, It could've been taken out of the context of the situation, And we don't know the whole story. You also claim "In the time, Not racist, Now, Racist. " So why would we judge him now for something that wasn't considered racist back then? "Donald called out ads to kill 5 black people accused of raping a white woman, If this was true, It was a good call, However, 10 years later, They found DNA evidence that proved them innocent(I will admit this one could have just been a mistake). " Sometimes Trump can say things without thinking. I do not know much about this situation, But I don't know why skin color is always a factor to the left in determining if someone is racist who judged other people. You say it could've been mistake, And there is no evidence that Trump is deliberately talking shots at black men, So con basically concedes this one. I appreciate con taking the time to read this. Please try to post the link again. If not, Post it in the comments.
Donald Trump is not Racist: Change my Mind

I will debate you, And since you said that you want us to change your mind, I guess I will go first. I am going to focus on one thing for this round because I have found that if I try to do more than 2 I just end up making a bullet point list For starters, Trump has been recorded saying the "N-word". (if you do a quick google you can find it). Now I am sure that you understand why this would be racist, But for others, I am going to explain it. Since before slavery existed, White people called black people "Negros" and this wasn't too bad because black people also went with it. But when slavery started, They started to call them "Nig***", And this was an extremely offensive term that was mainly used when they were whipping them, It was also used when they were just talking bad about them. Now they call themselves "Ni***" but it is just as a way to talk to each other. The song "I'm not racist" puts it really well, "The power in the word 'Nigga' is a different sin We shouldn't say it but we do, And that just what it is But that don't mean that you can say it just 'cause you got nigga friends Nigga, That word was originated for you to keep us under And when we use it, We know that's just how we greet each other And when you use it, We know there's a double meaning under" Thank you for reading this. Hayden