BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This poem is a love poem

con thinks he can win this debate by arguing love is subjective -just trying to be clever well he cant as con has accepted this debate we can assume because he does not find the the poems to be love poems all con has to do is tell us why he does not regard the poems to be love poems con has infact shot himself in the foot with his own argument con says "Love is not something that is - love is a ghost that only we can see for ourselves through our own senses. If I told someone I loved someone, and they told me "What? I never saw anything in them!", I wouldn't say "wow, you are an idiot", I'd say, "well, we all have our different ways of seeing things, so that's okay.". Then we go on our merry way." con has infact shot himself in the foot with his own argument trying to be a bit to clover I think proof con says ". If I told someone I loved someone,.." so I have told con that "This poem is a love poem" con now says " [if]they told me "What? I never saw anything in them! so I am asking con why he does not see love in these poems con just has to tell us why not see love in these poems from cons own argument "I wouldn't say "wow, you are an idiot", I'd say, "well, we all have our different ways of seeing things, so that's okay.". Then we go on our merry way." so con argues that around love we all have different views so please con tell us your view as to why these poems are not love poems just as I when YOU may have told me "[you]I loved someone" and I may ask you why you love them
This poem is a love poem

Can't debate subjectivity, Pro. Please stop with the tomfoolery. It's subjective. Art is subjective. These words have to do with our emotions, not evidence - tangible, objective and non-biased. Love is not something that is - love is a ghost that only we can see for ourselves through our own senses. If I told someone I loved someone, and they told me "What? I never saw anything in them!", I wouldn't say "wow, you are an idiot", I'd say, "well, we all have our different ways of seeing things, so that's okay.". Then we go on our merry way.
This poem is a love poem

Con has not told us why this poem is not a love poem here is my example showing that it is a love poem " Oh breeze in the trees Oh lapwing that flies kohl'in al-deen cries "taketh thee to the cunt my sighs taketh thee my grief the desires of I " in the cunt the waters of paradise lie though the cunt be far or near I cant divine " no resting place for I in the cunts quest for I kohl'in al-deen cries kohl'in al-deen sighs the cunts hole like a dark mole though the idol of I the secret of the cunt no one knoweth including I " now all con has to do is show us by example that the poem is NOT a love poem
Atheism = Theism, and science is a religion.

First of all, Pro fails to comply by the debate rules once more. Therefore, this results in a forfeiture by Pro. On top of this, he demands an answer to his question when he hasn't addressed one issue of my claims!This debate will continue if Pro responds to my claims, in order, and refutes them, or at least attempts to.If Pro does this, I shall answer his question. If he fails to, the debate will be over, as Pro has failed to comply to rules and forfeits.Extend all arguments once more.
Atheism = Theism, and science is a religion.

I wonder, due to the short amount of time between my argument and Pro's if Pro even read my statements. As well, his second arguments prove near nothing to the original claim of "atheism = theism, and science is religion". His entire R2 reasoning fails to provide any real argument for him. His whole goal is to stay along the parameters of the debate and prove that atheism is theism and science is religion.And while his statement of disbelief = belief is valid in a way, I fail to see any real reason for it. Disbelief is, as I defined "the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." Belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."By these definitions, disbelief is "the inability to believe" or "the refusal to believe".If you were to apply this to religion, theism would be "belief in a god/gods" and atheism would be "belief in the disbelief of a god/gods". So in a way, yes, belief is disbelief. But this does not mean atheism = theism, or science = religion, for that matter.Pro needs to counter my original claims, though, in his R3. If he fails to do so I have won the debate.Extend all arguments. I await Pro's arguments.
Atheism = Theism, and science is a religion.

I wish to debate spex on this topic, as I tried to accept this challenge before but someone beat me to it. By accepting to this debate you agree to the following definitions: Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods. Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 72 hours to argue, 10,000 characters max per argument. Any offensive content, including, but not limited to, swearing, derogatory language, and insulting will result in a forfeiture of the debate. R1: Pro's acceptance statement. R2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals). R3: Rebuttals. R4: More rebuttals. R5: Conclusion from both sides. Failure to comply to the rules results in a forfeiture of the debate. BoP is on Pro. Best of luck if you decide to accept. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...
Atheism = Theism, and science is a religion.

Pro fails to comply and the debate is now forfeited by his own hand.Pro's question of "am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it, and if you disbelieve the claim that I am holding a rock in my hand, what is your position on my claim?" contributes nothing to my claims. It does not respond to every single one, as Pro believes it does. It barely even responds to a few, let alone one. As such, Pro has refuted nothing as to my claims, and I have refuted Pro's question (see R3, where I prove in some instances disbelief is belief but it contributes nothing to atheism = theism), even though he states I have not. I think Pro is unaware of how a formal debate situation works.But to answer (directly), my answer is you never said IF you had a physical rock in your hand or not. You never stated this so I cannot answer it.Thank you, audience, if you have read through this debate. Vote wisely.
Human Cloning

We thank the opposing team, Sarah and Madison, for their challenge. However, we firmly believe that cloning humans for any reason is an unnecessary, dangerous, and ineffective process. Cloning humans is nothing more than a path that will lead to more ethical questions about the value of a human life. When it comes to any problems, human life is most important to us; people who support cloning do not have people in their best interest. They do not see the enormous amount of negatives that are associated with cloning humans including psychological damage to the clone of a human, overpopulation, and the potential to abuse such a powerful tool. Our opposition made some reasonable points for cloning humans such as single and infertile parents could have children, and certain people could be saved. Nevertheless, in contrast to all the positives of human cloning, the negatives related to the subject, mostly moral and ethical negatives coming from ethicists, psychologists, theologians and the church, as well as many mandated laws against the cloning of humans outweigh any benefits. Our main points highlight the difficult and danger with cloning; Dolly the sheep was only successful after 277 failed cloned sheep. We are concerned with how people will respond to the products of cloning, mainly how clones will be used. Are they considered individuals with rights or are they only seen as livestock waited to be slaughtered? Are they even considered people or just property? We see their views on cloning but we believe it is best of for the human race if cloning humans left alone. Cloning itself can be detrimental to society because of one thing: it does not causing a change in the gene pool. The same genes are being expressed, causing no biodiversity to occur. As a result, less organisms are able to adapt to a changing environment and species may even go extinct. In conclusion, the entire debate on human cloning boils down to one question, do the debatable benefits of human cloning outweigh the ethical and moral abuses? Scientists , Madi and Sarah want the world to believe that the answer to that question is yes. However, the ethical violations and scientific uncertainties far outweigh any possible benefits that human cloning could bring. Please don’t just vote for us, vote to save the world.
Human Cloning

Closing Statement: The cloning of humans is an ethical scientific advancement that should be pursued. The many benefits of cloning, such as the vast amounts of available study of the human body, research for diseases, assistance to infertile women, and the possibility of eventually finding a cure for fatal illnesses all outweigh the disadvantages. The question of what rights a clone would have and how a clone should be treated in society are all irrelevant. Clones would be created for medical research purposes only, and thus would not be given the same rights as a typical human being. Also, since the cloning of humans would be strictly used as a last resort and only in extreme cases, the objection that cloning would increase the human population and create a new race is extraneous. It is obvious that human cloning is a medical miracle that would greatly strengthen the medical and scientific community. Prohibiting the action of human cloning shows a lack of intelligence and an irrational fear against absurd results. In conclusion, the cloning of humans is an entirely ethical biotechnological method, and should be legalized all over the world.
Human Cloning

Arguments 1 and 2: In your original arguments you said that human cloning could help women who could not produce children. What changed your original argument to something where it would only be used for research? Even if cloning would only be used for things like research, this means that the clone is not considered an actual person but instead it is considered as an object. This also means that the clone would have no rights and would therefore have no say in anything. The situation that the clone is put in is considered unethical. Every human being has a right to have a unique identity and a right to ignorance about one’s future or to an “open future”, as stated in our first argument. It is not ethical to test on clones because there could be many implications. The cloning process itself is very dangerous. As already discussed, typical defects are malfunctioning lungs, a heart that doesn't work as it should, an imperfect immune system and abnormal size. In addition to something going wrong during the cloning process, so many things could go wrong while testing on these clones for treatments for diseases. Testing on human clones is just as bad as testing on animals. If something goes wrong during the testing, then that clone is stuck with that defect. It is not right to make them suffer for something that could potentially become a treatment. Argument 3: If cloning costs a lot of money, and there are other means of getting organs to people, then why should cloning even have to be an option? Why wouldn’t a human clone have the same rights as a human being? So many questions arise from this one issue that there would be many complications. Human clones would have a mind of their own and who’s to say whether or not they would go along with any of this. Also, if you clone a human and use their organs for someone else there could potentially be something wrong with that organ. Because the process of cloning takes up so much time and costs too much money, it simply is just not worth it to go along with human cloning. There is no reason to put someone in danger like this for something that might not even work out. Argument 4: Again, while you now state that human clones would be used strictly for research, your earlier arguments stated otherwise. Even so, if the cloning process was used only for research, it is a very dangerous process and there are many implications that come with human cloning. In addition, if humans begin to mess with nature, there could be many other problems. No doctor, scientist, or geneticist has or should be given the power to create life by means of genetic technology. Such power is lethal and could be abused. No mortal is above the natural law, and to tamper with nature equals disaster.
Human Cloning

Rebuttal to Rebuttal: Argument 1: It is perfectly ethical to clone humans for the purpose of research. The research victims will be treated like patients of research. They would not have the same rights as every natural born human would have. Only clones born of human intent (egg clones) would have the same rights as other human beings. This would help with research for other biotechnology such as the cloning of organs and other important factors. Argument 2: In the argument, it states that the cloning of an egg will lead to over population. However you imply that In Vitro fertilization does not. The cloning of an egg would aid in the process of In Vitro for women who cannot produce enough eggs. This would not cause over population because In Vitro fertilization is already legal. Also, we are talking about cloning the eggs in this case. Not dead people. As we have stated many times before, this would be last resort only. Also, to say that cloning humans would be ineffective is a false statement. Cloning humans still needs to be perfected and this is where the research would come into play. With research, cloning humans would become a great alternative. Argument 3: Human cloning does not necessarily mean that the clone would have to be killed after a single organ is used. The successful process of cloning a healthy human into a healthy clone would allow for multiple organs and body parts to be used to benefit humans already in need. Under the standards set for clones, which would need to be legitimate legal documents, a clone would NOT have the same undeniable rights as a human born through sexual reproduction. This standard, along with the understanding that cloning is strictly being used as a last resort, would not only mean that clones do not have rights, but it would also mean that cloning, and the expenses involved in cloning, would not become a regular, everyday process. It is obvious that cloning requires large amount of money, but the benefits such as keeping multiple people alive through organ donations, seem to outweigh the detriments. Argument 4: The ultimate goal of human cloning is to successfully end up with a healthy clone that can be used for vast amounts of medical research and technology. Yes, it took 277 times to clone a sheep, but that was progress. Everything in the medical community takes time, and eventually cloning will become less difficult. As stated multiple times, the clones would certainly be used strictly for medical purposes. We are in no way cloning humans to increases the living, working population. We are cloning humans to help find cures to diseases and allow for essentially unlimited testing. The standards of ethics, in relation to human cloning, will need to be changed. Clones will not have the same rights as humans, because they are not born with the same freedoms. Clones are created with a purpose. There are too many diseases in the world, such as AIDS and cancer, which are destroying our population due to a restriction on research. For this reason, clones would broaden the bounds by which scientists could test and create cures.
Human Cloning

Rebuttal to argument 2: If cloning is used to help women who are not able to produce children, there will be an over-population. Overpopulation could then lead to fewer resources for everyone, increased poverty, less space for everybody else, and we would be more susceptible to diseases. In addition, if a child had gotten killed for whatever reason that mother could feel free to get their child cloned. However, this cloned child would not be the same as the original child. There are also many other solutions to women who can not have children. These alternatives include In Vitro Fertilization, sperm donors, surrogates, and adoption. These ways are much more effective and there is a much better chance that your child will be healthy. Why risk the health and safety of someone if there are better options out there? Rebuttal to argument 3: If you need to get an organ from a human clone you would have to kill that person. It raises too many questions such as: if the person is an individual or if it is considered property? In this nation of America, every single person has undeniable rights including cloned people. Because of this, human cloning would lessen the worth of individuals and diminish respect for human life. These clones could also be subject to discrimination based on the fact that they are a human clone and not a product of sexual reproduction. In addition, human cloning would divert resources from other more important social and medical needs. The expected benefits from human cloning are limited and the funding could possibly be used in other areas that have more and better expected outcomes. Rebuttal to argument 4: While cloning may be another way of providing treatments for many diseases, there are other more effective ways of finding treatments. As said before, cloning is very dangerous and there could many defects. It took 277 attempts to successfully clone the sheep Dolly. If you use these clones for treatments, this would be unethical because the clones get no rights. In this situation, they do not get a say in whether they want to be used in experiments. It is as if they are being treated as animals rather than human beings. In addition, it raises too many questions on whether these clones should be treated like experimental subjects for diseases.
Human Cloning

Rebuttal to argument 2: Parents would not have the opportunity to clone their child for self-pleasure. Cloning would be strictly regulated and only used as a last resort. For instance, a family could not clone a child and then proceed to raise that child in their family and give him the same opportunities as the original child. Any human that is cloned would be closely watched for the rest of their life and it is very unlikely that a clone would ever be allowed out of a medical research facility. Therefore, there is no way that cloning could become a "regular social practice," because standards for cloning a child in particular would be extremely high and hard to reach. If a child were to be cloned, specific rules would have to be signed off on by a lawyer, the family, and multiple doctors and scientists before the procedure. The rules would include a part that insured that the family understood that the clone is being used for medical purposes and is in no way going to become a family member. The clone belongs to the sciences, and will be kept under the regulations of the doctors and scientists involved. The purpose of medical cloning of humans is not for the clones to have "actual feelings," but instead to cure a disease or help solve a medical problem. Rebuttal to argument 3: The risks of the people involved in cloning, such as the ovum or nucleus donors, or the woman who receives the embryo for donation would have to be well aware of all of the risks. Again, a legal document would have to be signed by a lawyer, the person at risk, and multiple doctors and scientists. The procedure is not to be taken lightly, and for that reason, every precaution necessary would be taken, including making sure that everyone who is involved is aware of the risk. Next, because the clone will not have the same treatment as a natural-born human, as that they are being used for scientific purposes, the biological age will not be an issue. The clone will be aged based on what the doctors choose. While it took 277 times to clone a sheep, that breakthrough was a scientific miracle and was well worth the time and money. There is no denying that cloning is expensive and dangerous, but with the benefits and research that could be achieved, it is a risk worth taking (however, only as a last resort). Rebuttal to argument 4: Human cloning is undeniably taking nature into one’s own hands. Most of science can be seen as such. However, the question of clones becoming their own race and potentially having everyone have the same genetic material is absurd. Based on the principles that we have laid, cloning is guaranteed to stay under control. Used only as a last resort means that there won’t be billions of clones wandering the earth. Also, in some cases, such as infertility or incurable diseases, nature needs to be taken into the hands of humans. In order to prolong the life of the human race, technology needs to be used to keep up with the ever-mutating diseases that are destroying our population.
Human Cloning

1. It is unethical to use cloning as a way to learn about the human body and biotechnology. Cloning is ineffective and it is almost guaranteed that there will be either deaths or some kind of failure. The majority of cloned animals have something wrong with them. They die in the womb, or soon after birth. Typical defects are malfunctioning lungs, a heart that doesn't work as it should, an imperfect immune system and abnormal size. The scientists have theories about why so many clones seem to go wrong. One is that molecules attached to the genetic material which are important in ensuring that only some genes are "switched on" at any given location in the body (so that, for instance, your brain cells are in your head, rather than in your stomach), are scraped off or damaged when the cell to be cloned is manipulated by the experimenters. Manipulation by experimenters is inevitable, not just when DNA is removed from the egg, but also when the new cell is inserted into it. The process disrupts development in other ways.
Human Cloning

Rebuttal to argument 1: Under our definition of cloning, the clone would be used strictly for medicinal purposes such as research. This means that the clone would not have a chance to live out a life that they wished. They would be created for an advancement of science and technology. The argument that the clone should be able to live with the same rights as a natural born human cannot be used because the exact purpose of the clone is determined by scientists and doctors. Under a circumstance in which cloning would take place, the person being cloned would have to be aware that the human clone of themselves would not have equal opportunities. The clone will not have a chance to prove his or her authenticity, because in reality he or she is not authentic; simply a clone created for a technological purpose.
Human Cloning

Is it ethical to clone humans? Human Cloning: the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human specifically for medical research or for a medical treatment. To be used strictly as a last resort. Arguments: It is useful for learning about the human body and biotechnology. The cloning of humans would allow for any number of tests to be done on essentially human guinea pigs. It can help with women who cannot produce children. Many women undergoing fertilization treatments are only able to produce one egg over a period of time. Cloning can help in making more eggs so that there is a better chance of fertilization. It can help those who need an organ. There can be an exact replica produced. Sometimes waiting on the donor list takes too long, or a perfect match isn’t able to be found, or the body may reject another person’s organ. Being able to use cloning as a treatment to get an exact replica would allow for a perfect match every time. It provides treatments for a variety of diseases. Research on the clones can help scientists gain knowledge about various diseases. A clone should only be made to test a cure for a disease once all other possibilities have been ruled out.