BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Hello, So…You are saying that it is "good" to manufacture human beings to use as slaves, for cheap labor, and the usage of their organs. Disgusting. You would test dangerous and poisonous chemicals on them? You would treat them as slaves? You would harvest their organs and leave them to die? Wow. Do you realize what you are saying? I never suggested or even implied that they would "take over the world". You are being naï¿½ve. Republicanview was the one who said this, in the comments, not me. Of course they won't take over the world; that is silly. I am not living in a "fantasy world". You might be, though. You randomly assumed that I was of the belief that they would take over the world. Tell me are you a fan of slavery? Did you think that the Atlantic slave trade was morally acceptable? Because it is the same thing, essentially. These slaves were born and died in an environment of being inferior. Most did not question their treatment, because they never knew what it was like to be free. By your logic, this is OK. This vision is also very similar to the holocaust. They tested medicines and dangerous bio warfare weapons on prisoners in holocausts. Just like you are suggesting. They used them for labor without paying them. Just like you are suggesting. "I mean there would be a lot of security in the environment in which it was created" Yep…that's the holocaust all right. Do you perceive the Holocaust to be morally acceptable, gonovice? If you do, then the idea of cloning humans will still fit with your ideas. If you don't, then maybe you don't truly believe in this topic. For I enjoy challenging peoples beliefs to the limit, so they must rethink every aspect, and either end up even more confident in their beliefs, from understanding it more, or accept a new belief. Either way they become wiser. You suggest treating them like animals, euthanizing them on impulse, harvesting their organs, mentally breaking them down and using them for labor, and using them for medical research. This is what they do to Animals. You are promoting that one human being be a slave to another. -Harlan
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

I think that they could be used wisley for organ transplant. Some people in dier need of a kidney or liver may need a despereate act ande may be willing to go through with it. Like you said the research you could do with the clones would be absolutley AMAZING!!!. I love science and to reach a level of intellegence would be wonderful. I'm not saying they need rights. I think that if scientists who could properly create and destroy them should be able to use them. This isnt a creepy sci-fi thing its a develpment in science. whats so wrong with it? You're making it sound like if we clone someone their goingt o tyr and take ofver the world. Come on are you living in some fantasy world? cuz thats what it sounds like to me. I dont think that we need to give them rights. The creators of the clone would of course be in charge of what happens to it. It is a very slim chance that a clone would take over the world. I mean there would be a lot of security in the environment in which it was created and it would take a lot to have a clone take ofver the world. -nikki
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Hello, qonovice, Though it may sound "cool" it is not a good idea. I do not see how I can explain more without repeating myself. What part don't you understand? I will respond to what you have and then see if maybe I could make it clearer. Though it makes a great sci-fi movie, and the idea is very cool sounding, this is probably not a good basis for doing something so drastic (because it is cool). What are some reasons that you would want to clone a human: -Organ transplants. -Labor -Research All 3 of these are horrible. A person that was manufactured would have no rights. They would not legally have any rights, as they were never born. They would be the property of the manufacturers. Their natural instincts would be confused. They would have no parents. They would not have their own identity. There is no reason why you would need to clone humans that would not be deeply immoral and horrifying. Unless you can provide some reasons for cloning that would be a little more ethically acceptable, in which case we may discuss those.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

con didn't argue before that 18 was mature enough for most things, so we should make it for alcohol too. he even said himself that there is an issue of maturity with military etc. he is trying to back peddle. and on the point of whether 18 is old enough. it isn't. it is well established that drunk driving and reckless behavior occurs then, and that it is less and less in proportion to increased age. just because younger folks drink less, doesn't mean we they are more mature. it is well established the problems that affect society with danger happens at a younger age. being an alcoholic isn't the same as crashing into and killing another person because you're drunk. con is making my point about the age being proportinate to maturity etc. the only reason 21+ have more problems, is because that's when driking is legal. they drink much more, so they have more problems. what that statistic really demonstrates, is that drinking is more of a problem when you are younger, and decreases with time. as i've argued all along. notice it doesn't say 'drunk driving is worst when you are 35 or 45 etc etc'. con is basically just contradicting himself. for some reason con is continuting to argue about the 'taking an enemy IED" to the chest thing, despite the fact that he's admitted 18 is too young of an age. he may think 18 is mature enough, but he's not establishing this soundly enough. that one stat he gave is sufficient. 21+, or the younger you are, the more likely there's problems. hence, trying to reduce the drinking age more is not only completely irrational based on the data, but it's morally ridiculous. These things have everything to do with each other.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

Pro has made my argument for me. "the point is we peg it to a point where maturity is more a norm", "a point must be established, bottom line." We have already picked the point you are asking for. We as a society have deemed that the general age of responsibility and maturity is 18 years old. My argument is this: Why do we deem this as the median of general maturity for so many things, such as legal penalties, military enlistment, property ownership, employment, all things that have a significant lifelong impact on an individual"s life, but not alcohol. Either 18 is the number for everything or it is the number for nothing. Either it is arbitrary and should be raised, or it"s when the majority of humans are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. Pro also said that teenagers and adolescents were more likely to suffer accidents when alcohol was involved. He implied also that teens are in fact so immature that they can"t be trusted with alcohol. To be exact "if you look at accidents and alcohol problems, the increase therein is directly proportional to time". I agree, it"s proportional with time, but inversely. Middle age people are far more likely to drink alcohol to the point of alcoholism. In a recent study done nationwide in the UK "Only around three per cent of young people drank alcohol on more than five days in a week compared with 16 per cent of people aged 45 to 64". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and that "A new study published in late December 2012 found that middle-aged professional women consume more alcohol than their teenage children." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Further, drunk driving is the heaviest, not in the teen age group, but in people from 21-25 "Driving under the influence of alcohol was associated with age in 2010. The rate was highest among persons aged 21 to 25 (23.4 percent) (Figure 3.5). An estimated 5.8 percent of 16 or 17 year olds and 15.1 percent of 18 to 20 year olds reported driving under the influence of alcohol in the past year" (http://www.samhsa.gov...) So if you are implying that the age of 18 is an irresponsible age to allow alcohol, I submit that it"s older ages that are the majority of the problem; to the tune of 10% regarding drunk driving, and 13% for habitual drinking and alcoholism. We have drawn a line, that line is the 18th birthday. The data clearly shows that waiting to drink alcohol until a later age doesn't lessen the consequences of doing so irresponsibly, and I daresay it reflects that older people are equally if not more irresponsible about their alcohol use than even children below the age of eighteen. So to deny an 18 year old the right to consume alcohol while simultaneously demanding that he be employed, feed himself, suffer all the legal consequences we do, and possibly take an enemy IED in the chest is not only completely irrational based on the data, but it"s morally ridiculous. These things have everything to do with each other.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

con admits that the military age is too low, and that there is an issue of maturity at that age. surely. then, it follows that the issue of maturity is there for drinking too. just because we hold them to legal commitments doesn't mean we should let them drink if it means more deaths and reckless activity. if anything, we should raise the standard for legal commitments, but in any case one does not necessarily follow from the other. she points out that some 14 year olds are mature enough and some older are not mature enough. sure, if we could somehow establish who is who, we could do it on a case by case basis. but that is too dauting and impossible of a task. we just have to use norms of maturity and go from there. if you look at accidents and alcohol problems, the increase therein is directly proportional to time. so yes time alone does matter. a few years isn't a lot, but it's enough to make a difference, and if anything is argued about the small difference, it simply means we should raise the drinking age even higher than 21. the point is we peg it to a point where maturity is more a norm, not that we get hung up on this or that age and slippery slopes of 'if that, why not this' reduction. a point must be established, bottom line. if you find gun rights coinciding with alochol rights to be troubling, that just means we change up those rights. it doesn't follow that alcohol drinking should be lowered to 18 just because there may or may not be a problem there. these things have nothing to do with each other.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

I believe the reason the argument about Military Enlistment age is less to do with thinking 18-year-olds are mature and considerably more to do with the level of responsibility we"ve asked of them. As a woman who joined the National Guard on my 18th birthday, I can attest to the fact that I was not ready to make this decision, but the responsibility to uphold the decision for my enlistment period remained. Not being mature enough had no bearing on whether I had to finish my 6 years. I signed up, and I was expected to serve the time regardless. It"s not that we believe an 18 year old is mature at the age of enlistment, it"s that since they already are legally capable of being held to the commitment, there is no reason to hold a double standard with alcohol use. If maturity were the only defining factor, one 14 year old might be fine drinking, where one 25 year old might not be. We have already drawn the line at 18 years, and no matter the reason, this is when we hold a person responsible for things we would not hold a child of 17 responsible for. To arbitrarily decide that we are going to hold an 18 year old to adult standards, with adult consequences, except in the case of alcohol use, is irrational. Either the 18 year old can be held responsible to adult standards or not, not some at 18 and others at another age. I can see no defining characteristic of a 21 year old that an 18 year old doesn't have. Initially you might argue that they have more life experience, but note that an 18 year old and a 21 year old who attend college, for example, are still both attending college. Possibly both are still in dormitories surrounded by alcohol use, and likely both are still working in experience-not-required retail type jobs part time, if they work at all. Time alone hardly qualifies as life experience, let alone the kind that inspire them to make responsible choices regarding alcohol use. Drawing the line at 1 for some responsibilities and not others is an arbitrary double standard that serves only to make us feel better. I also submit this question: In what way is it rational to offer a 21 year old alcohol rights and handgun rights on the very same day? That is most certainly a recipe for disaster.
should homeschooling be illegal

you say Latin is a dead language well have you been to Texas there is a city called Corpus Christi which means the body of Christ in Latin it is also similar to other languages. so there was this lady and she learned Latin and she wanted to work as a doctor so on her resume it said she knew 6 different languages the guy interviewing her said how did you take the time to learn all these languages and she said i didn't i just learned Latin. OK fine i committed a fallacy and its called inductive reasoning. and i can draw well i will upload a picture later. social skills: well..........i have a TON of friends just to name a few... Nate Micah josh Calub Alan Jill Bencalub Steven Carissa Elana Brayen Hudson Bethany Anna Karris Kambri David Brooke Chloe etc... and i have ben in a few dates and i have had a few girlfriends in the past but not now. now you say parents are not equipped to homeshool well there are things called Co-Ops where one adult teaches 7-9 kids and they meet once a week and grade every thing teach you the things you need and tell you what to do over the next week and then you do that then you go to Co-Op the next week and repeat your parents dont have to tell you a thing...well thats all i have to sat right now good luck and God bless...
should homeschooling be illegal

Hello Con, I hope we can have a civil and level-headed debate. I will be arguing for the side that homeschooling should be illegal.Con spent the first round explaining, with obvious pride, the skills he has picked up from homeschool. Skills that, I would argue, are useless. Con knows Latin, a dead language that he will never use in the real world. He knows most (not all) state capitals and claims he can draw and label the whole world from memory. What good is that? These things can simply be Googled nowadays. He claims to know most fallacies. Apparently he forgot about the "anecdotal" fallacy, which he himself committed in this first argument [1].Besides, many of these skills can be easily acquired in a public school. Con claims he can "draw like a MASTER". I'd like him to show some examples of his work to back up such a grandiose claim. Going back to my point, every public school has an art class, always taught by a skilled artist who can help students hone their skills much better than any parent can. Every student has to learn the state capitals, and most schools offer programming and Latin classes, so pointing out these things doesn't really strengthen Con's argument.This debate was apparently created as a response to someone who said "You don't really develop social skills with home schooling". Not only do I agree with that assessment, but Con doesn't try to refute it. Examine Con's argument; at no point does he say that he has social skills. I don't seek to attack anyone personally, but it's rather obvious why homeschoolers have less opportunity to socialize. Unless they take part in a bunch of costly activities like camp, they miss out on the dynamics of friendship and dating that are essential parts of growing up.One final point I'd like to make is that most parents aren't equipped to be teachers. As someone who is studying to be a teacher, I can tell you that we're trained extensively in our subject, in child and adolescent psychology, and on the best educational practices. I know anyone can buy a homeschool curriculum, but these don't equip a parent to understand the nuances of teaching. And parents are especially prone to giving their children information that is either useless, like Latin, or wrong, like creationism. If a parent wants to give their child a religion-based education, that's fine, but at least send them to a private school and leave it to the professionals.Homeschooling isn't an adequate way to train children how to function in the social world or prepare them for adult life. For this reason, it should be illegal.Sources:1. https://i.imgur.com...2. https://www.whattoexpect.com...
should homeschooling be illegal

this idiot said "You don't really develop social skills with home schooling." well I am a homeschooler and I know LATIN, I can draw and label the WHOLE WORLD FROM MEMORY, I know most capitals(of the USA), I can debate fairly well, I know most fallacies do you even know one word in Latin? I can draw like a MASTER. I can program computers. .can you even DRAW just the USA? do you even know what a fallacy is? try drawing a descent circle. do you even know what 1011 to base 2 is?.........thought so. well I will see you in the debate. good luck and God bless...
should homeschooling be illegal

Thank you for the quick and polite reply, Con. Who was this Latin-speaking lady you speak of? Can you give me any sources that tell her story? It kind of sounds like a fake parable, but perhaps I’m wrong. And even if somebody were to put such a thing in their resume, it wouldn’t be true. Now it’s correct that many modern languages - Spanish, French, Italian, and more - are direct descendants of Latin. But reading one of them doesn’t give you the power to know them all; that’s not how the nature of language works. I’ll give you an example. Click this link and try to read what it says in the image, and no cheating! https://i.ytimg.com... Pretty much nobody can read it except scholars of philology. This is the Lord’s Prayer in Old English, another dead language which stopped being spoken a thousand years ago. It’s the ancestor of the English we’re speaking right now, and yet it’s entirely unreadable. So how could someone who speaks an even older language - Latin - possibly understand 6 different ones that went through millennia of change? Okay, I’ll admit, that was just a derail from the topic at hand on my part. I’ll get back on track. Con is fortunate enough to have parents who allow him to make friends. But there are certainly homeschooling parents who would prohibit their children from socializing at all and cloister them up at home. This might be for religious reasons, or mental health issues, or others. Children should be allowed to develop to their fullest potential, and not be left to the whim of their moms and dads. Con has informed me about the “Co-Ops” system, which I’ll admit I didn’t know about. But all it appears to be is a way for parents to rotate their homeschooling to give the others more free time. He ignored what I pointed out, that they don’t have the credentials necessary to teach a child. Also he didn’t say anything about public schools, which I can forgive because he’s never attended a public school, just as I have very little knowledge about homeschool. Con, if you think about homeschoolers who aren’t as fortunate as you, you’ll find that many of them aren’t blessed with friends, knowledge, internet, and freedom like you are. These problems can be solved by having them attend any sort of school, public or private. That’s about all I have to say this round, back to you!
We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink.

There you are, sitting in your brand new deck chair with your robotic pet when all of a sudden this whale of a humanoid starts waddling along in a bikini that's three billion sizes too small. That's put you off food for a few years.You wish you could get that chocolate-chasing boulder of blubber would get out of the way, because now you've forgotten what the sun even looks like. Is it square? Is it purple? Is it visibly in motion? You don't know. This crisp-crunching menace is blocking your view and has been doing said thing for about three years, because chocolate-chasers move about as fast as a dead tortoise.In all that time you have to think, you get a great scientific and sophisticated idea! "Why not modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink?" You think to yourself. That would make everyone's life more pleasent.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether we should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink. I wish for a good debate.I thank you.
We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink.

Pro concedes my Contention 1, that making sand less dense will not cause fat people to sink. Pro does not dispute that it would be incredibly time consuming to convert all the world’s beaches into low density sand. It would also be very time consuming to bury fast food under all the world’s beaches. A much better solution is to shoot fatties with some sort of density altering ray gun so that they float away into outer space. This solution solves all of Pro’s problems and keeps are beaches free of exploded human meat. Pro claims exploding fat people will cause it to rain fast food. This will just tempt the bronze Adonii of the beaches into eating French fries and becoming fat themselves. Not only will Pro’s plan ruin beaches by covering them in half digested McDonalds, it will ruin the beautiful people who belong on beaches by making them exceedingly rotund.
We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink.

I apologize in advance for this debate; I have nothing against fat people, some of my best friends are fat.Contention 1Making sand less dense will not cause people to sink.The density of sand is irrelevant to its ability to support obese humanoids. A typical engineering value for dry sand would be a density of about 100-135 pounds per cubic foot [1]. We can then calculate that if the capacity of sand to support humanoids was based on buoyancy, a 300 pound fatty mcgoo would displace 300 lbs/(135 pcf)=2.22 cubic feet.Human body fat has a density of about 0.9 kg per liter [2], or roughly the density of water (62.4 pcf). Thus a 300 pound calorie converter has a volume of approximately 300 lbs/(62.4 pcf)=4.8 cubic feet. We know that fatties walking on sand do not become half submerged, thus it is clear that sand does not support goo monsters through buoyancy.Sand is a solid state material which does not flow, so density is not the crucial parameter in its ability to carry load.The actual physics behind the behavior of sand and soils is quite complex, but the short story is that the shear strength, and thus the bearing capacity of the sand, is impacted by a number of factors and simply making sand less dense will not solve the problem of fat people.Contention 2Pro offers an incredibly obtuse solution to a very simple problem. Pro would have us invest massive amounts of resources into creating a device which would make sand less dense and then undergo the huge effort of using such a device on all the world’s beaches. Such a plan is clearly inane and unrealistic.The more obvious solution would be to create a device which would make fat people less dense so they float away off the beaches like so many cheeto-dust covered balloons.This preserves the natural order of the world- the bronzed and beautiful get ham-beast free beaches while the fatties stay in their basements or risk floating into orbit like the fleshy planets they are.Contention 3Letting fat people sink to the bottom of beaches would ruin our beaches. The fat people would die, decompose, and then explode like a beached whale- spewing half-digested slim jims and squid parts all over everyone on the beach.[3][1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...