BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

My opponent completely ignores my last two posts. He says, “My opponent has argued that abortion is a good idea not that stem cell embryonic stem cell research should be expanded.” However, in my last post, I clearly said, “Embryonic stem cell research needs to expand because it can save more lives!” My opponent also states, “This is extremely irrelevant to debate and as much as the child could be a criminal, they could equally be the next Shakespeare or Mozart.” Two things are wrong with this claim. (1)This is very relevant to the debate, considering that it is a minor way that, once again, lives can be saved because of the drop in crime. (2) My opponent says they could equally be the next Shakespeare or Mozart without any solid proof or statistic. I do agree there is a small chance they could be great like this, however, statistics show that there is more of a chance that they will be criminals if they are poor rather than the middle and upper class. I have yet to see something that actually proves this wrong. My opponent says, “Stem Cell Research is fine as it is and is at an adequate level. It needn't be expanded.” False. If stem cell research expands, we can keep finding cures to even more diseases. And besides, is being "adequate" really enough? If we can take that extra step, we can go beyond being simply "adequate." It would be well worth the time.“Abortion is a separate debate topic altogether.” Also false. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research go hand in hand, considering that you need an abortion for that type of research. In fact, the controversial part of embryonic research is the fact that a baby needs to be aborted in order for it to happen.My opponent refutes my arguments even after I have proven them wrong, and lacks a clear, strong base argument. I have yet to see why it should not be expanded, other than the claim, “it isn’t necessary because it is just fine the way it is.” Please provide proof or some sort of statistic before you make your claim. I rest my case. Vote pro!!
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

My opponent says, “There is a comedic point raised that the crime rate would go down.” But the fact is, it isn’t comedic. Women who have unplanned pregnancies are more likely to become poor and have poorer children. Studies show that crime rates are higher among the poorer community. According to Jacksonfreepress.com, “Lower-class youth commit four times more violent crimes than middle-class youth. The total cost of crime in the U.S. is $2 trillion per year—$1.3 trillion comes from street crime and the remainder from economic crimes such as fraud. The victimization costs of street crime are approximately $700 billion per year. Poverty raises the cost of crime by at least $170 billion annually. Fifty-three percent of people in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.” Studies also show that embryonic cells can indeed cure cancer. If we do more research, we can find cures for other diseases. According to Americansforcures.org, “Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions that affect millions of people, including diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS), spinal cord injuries, blindness, and HIV/AIDS.” My opponent said that in the last round I merely explained it was a good line of research and didn’t need expansion. Healso says, “It already is covering transplants, therapy and many other factors of genetics and to expand it is unnecessary.” But my opponent ignores the fact that, as I mentioned above, there are at least 70 diseases that need to be cured. Stem cell research needs to expand because there is definitely a potential to cure those diseases. How can you say it won’t work or we don’t need to when we haven’t even tried? As I explained in my last postd in my argument above, embryonic stem cell research needs to expand because it can save lives! Conduct: My opponent uses the second round to rebut against my initial argument instead of presenting his opening argument despite the fact that I clearly stated “second is for opening arguments only” in the first round. Vote pro. Sources: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com... http://phys.org...
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

My primary issue is the that as it stands there is sufficient embryonic stem cell research and it needn't be expanded. It already is covering transplants, therapy and many other factors of genetics and to expand it is unnecessary (which pro never explained) all you explained was that it's a good line of research, not that it in any way needs expansion.There is a comedic point raised that the crime rate would go down. However I can easily say that most mind-blowing artists, scientists, writers and essentially anyone of a rather spectacular level of ingenuity cannot be determined whatsoever by their upbringing and almost always their upbringing was somewhat unusual but doesn't have a set pattern to what it should be. thus, we could most definitely be getting rid of people genetically predisposed to be the next Einstein or something of the likes.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

As you may or may not know, stem cells can copy themselves and develop into the body's different types of cells. However, there's a reason many think embryonic stem cells could be more useful than adult ones. Adult stem cells are multipotent; in other words, they can only turn into cells of that specific cell type. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can turn into ANY of the body's cell types. As you can see this would definitely be more flexible than adult stem cells.But what about abortion itself? Embryonic stem cell research could not expand without abortion. Many talk about how abortion takes away life, but ignore some key facts: The risk of a woman's death is lower in a modern abortion procedure than if she gives birth. Her chance of dying in an abortion is less than one in 100,000. The risk of a woman's death if she gives birth is 13.3 in 100,000. Abortion can lower crime. Criminals are often raised poor. Women who have unintended pregnancies also end up with their children being raised poor. According to Procon.org, "Some estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001." Less criminals and murderers in the world would mean more lives saved. Stem cell research already saves lives and is being used to treat diseases like leukemia. It could also help us find cures for over 70 major diseases and save millions of lives. So why abort an "innocent human being?" (And the embryo isn't really that innocent, considering that it is most likely going to become a criminal.) Think of the facts. If we could continue stem cell research, for every abortion, we would save another life. If this occurs, it will create something of an equlibrium; no lives added, no lives taken away. But in addition, we would save more women's lives because they are less likely to die in an abortion. And finally, the lives of innocent civilians would be saved because the crime rate would go down. So, if we continue abortion and stem cell research, we would in fact be saving MORE lives than if we abolished abortion. If you look at it this way, there would be less life with "pro-life." Expanding embryonic stem-cell research could save more lives than ever before.Please vote pro!Sources:http://www.americansforcures.org...http://abortion.procon.org...
bulding rest houses for tourist in national parks.

I think the raccoon in my backyard is telling me wildlife can live whether a house comes around or not. Frankly if you don't build rest houses and encourage tourists, you're going to lose your precious national park, because there is no way politically speaking people are going to leave such wide open areas with no economic use. "An imbalance" in the ratio of CO2 to oxygen would be a patent impossibility for the human species unless we all worked toward it as a goal, and I am entirely unaware of how it would lead to less rainfall. Even the global warming theorists (who have failed to provide for the scientific criteria for causation) tend to concede that more heat means more clouds means water rains more often, and make so far as I can see no reference to that ratio. But most importantly, exploit the earth or die. It's not a threat, it's a fact. Either one transforms the earth's raw materials into the requirements of one's life, or one dies. To live, man must produce goods. Even the man who produces nothing relies on this process, he is a parasite on the labor of other men. If for some reason some human process becomes unsustainable, the solution is not to institute regulations that are by nature unsustainable (the nationalization of parks, for example, is an act of theft from whoever previously owned the land, and increases the number of enemies of the government, leading if such practices continue to its overthrow and the use of the land again), but rather to stop producing so many new humans.
bulding rest houses for tourist in national parks.

good evening!! according 2 me bulding houses in national parks is a severe loss 2 wildlife or the entire ecosystems. there will also be problems to we the human beings, we do not get enough oxygen, or there will be imbalance on atmosphere... i.e. imbalance in the ratio of o2 and co2. may cause less rainfall, as a result of this lack of water to the people.....
People with Intolerable Views Should Not Allowed to Present their Intolerable Statements in Public.

So you are saying that a powerful government that controls EVERYTHING YOU SAY AND DO is good. You want the government to decide what is right and what is not right. If people had never presented their ideas, which the government considered "intolerable," then we would never have the countries we have today since all of them were under some other contries rule but rebelled for independence. EVERY COUNTRY. Also, not tolerating intolerable is also intolerable, If you think about it.
People with Intolerable Views Should Not Allowed to Present their Intolerable Statements in Public.

By assuming that the freedom of speech is guaranteed and by referencing the Bill of Rights, you constrain your argument by making it apply only to the US, while the truth is that intolerable views are dealt with differently elsewhere. If we look outside of the country to North Korea or such governments, views considered "intolerable" by the public and/or government were not publicly allowed, letting these regimes remain powerful and influential due to the repression of intolerable ideals.
People with Intolerable Views Should Not Allowed to Present their Intolerable Statements in Public.

Everyone has the freedom of speech and therefor can say anything in public. If it hurts someone, it is that person's fault to believe what the other person is saying. You don't always have to believe every negative thing the person says. You can just ignore them. Also, no body can take the freedom of speech away and that is why the Founding Fathers had to write the Bill of Rights.
People with Intolerable Views Should Not Allowed to Present their Intolerable Statements in Public.

I will take the Pro argument in this case, though I must say it's a shame that we are limited to 500 characters. I will play devil's advocate and argue that people with intolerable views should not be allowed to present their views to the public. For the sake of having enough text to argue, let's say that both rounds 2 and 3 shall be devoted to making arguments and rebutting, forgetting the formalities of thanking your opponent.
People with Intolerable Views Should Not Allowed to Present their Intolerable Statements in Public.

People can have intolerable Views. They can lead to something good such as a country can become independent, such as what Gandhi did, or it can lead to racism and even suicide when people present mean views against others. Please debate and vote on what you think. I am against this idea. I think people should be allowed to present their views no matter what. See if you can defeat me.
amy schumer is funny

I reiterate. This is chiefly a matter of personal taste. Rather than a topic for serious debate. Nonetheless. I will add to my argument a suggestion, that Pro's assertion may not be entirely based on M's Schumer's ability to generate humour. Pro's assertion may be focused more subjectively, rather than as an objective appraisal of her comedic abilities. Pro's age might suggest that M's Schumer is viewed as a more complete package. That is to say. By age, appearance and desirability as well as comedic talent. Con would assert that. When appraised on comedic ability alone. Amy Schumer is not necessarily "funny".
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US

I will start off with the topic of supposed racism involving crime. http://i61.tinypic.com...This graph depicts the victimization of homicides according to race. As you can see, the number of black victims is significantly higher than the number of Caucasians. This may seem disturbing, but...http://i58.tinypic.com...This graph depicts homicides by the race of the offender. The number of white on black homicides is actually the lowest of all, resting under 5%. The alarming number of black homicide victims is due to the high number of black on black incidents, which accounts for a little over 40% of the total. Unless one was to consider intra-racial homicides as discrimination, I would not say that discrimination is an issue here.Now with education.http://www.motherjones.com...The number of blacks graduating from high school has tripled to 84%. http://www.motherjones.com...The number of blacks receiving a college degree has quintupled to 20%These charts show that blacks are receiving a higher education than they were before. If discrimination was an issue, there would be little to no change with these numbers, but as you can see, they are on a steady rise.Next we will look at the state of poverty within the black community.http://www.motherjones.com...According to this graph, of those on the Needy Families List, only 32% of the black community is on welfare, which is highly contrary to popular belief.http://freebeacon.com...A poll done by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows that only 2% of the nation thinks that racial discrimination is a cause of the perceived poverty. Surprisingly, the majority opinion is that welfare is the biggest instigator of poverty, as it inhibits initiative.
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US

Here are some facts: -While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses " according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project. -The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. -Even when released from prison, race continues to dominate. A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. http://www.commondreams.org... -"Although many minorities are unprepared for college, whites who are just as unprepared are still presented with more opportunities and more likely to receive a bachelor's degree, the report says." http://www.usnews.com... -The stress of racism actually causes physical harm. http://www.boston.com... -Facing racism has been shown to cause mental health issues. http://psychcentral.com... (Most studies reviewed were conducted in the U.S. with younger people aged 12-18.) -Racist, particularly anti-black, attitudes are quite common. http://rt.com...
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US

If I had shown agreement with people who claim poverty and homicide to be examples of racism, you would have countered me. However, I did not. Showing two areas in which race is irrelevant does not negate the impact of racism in other ways.And as for "lingering hatred," some people are still prejudiced toward people of Irish and Italian descent. However, there are still institutional barriers for minorities, and prejudice toward them is significantly prevalent (judging by the links I've provided earlier), unlike the lingering animosity toward those specific white groups.Thus, I can conclude that racism exists on a larger scale than mere traces of behind-the-times beliefs.And this isn't totally relevant, but racism isn't going to go away by not talking about it. People don't stop being racist because their hearts grow three sizes; racism fades when it becomes socially and institutionally unprofitable. The reality is that race is a factor in things.
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US

"Interestingly enough, I never cited homicide and poverty as examples of racism, so those are irrelevant."How are they irrelevant because you failed to cite them? May I mention Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin? Crime is an extremely relevant example in talks of discrimination."Your education argument just boils down to 'it's not as big of an issue as it used to be.'"So? I stated when I accepted the challenge that "I will do my best to prove that despite lingering traces of racism in the U.S., it is not a widepsread issue." Hatred will always be around. It is impossible to eradicate it fully. But we have made progress in terms of allowing for more opportunities for blacks and in terms of accepting them as equal human beings. Those who believe otherwise are the ones who make racial discrimination a bigger issue than it really is. If we can simply drop the attempts to make race the factor in so many problems and just live together in peace, then we will never have to worry about discrimination!
Racial discrimination is an issue in the US

Interestingly enough, I never cited homicide and poverty as examples of racism, so those are irrelevant. Nothing you said negates the examples I did provide. Your education argument just boils down to "it's not as big of an issue as it used to be." But racism is still an issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So yeah. That may seem pretty short, but I pretty much covered everything.
Hillary Clinton is corrupt.

I am threadjacking this debate to hopefully convince others to not vote for Hillary. I will even prove that she is MORE corrupt than you say she is. My argument relies on the "conspiracy theory" a.k.a the BIGGEST election fraud in terms of dollars hidden to ever be perpetrated in the United States. I will then go on to at least cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 5 MILLION dollars Hillary recently donated to her campaign. For those of you who have seen the smoking gun video ignore this paragraph. Peter Paul is an international lawyer who attended Dartmouth for his undergrad years. He also helped the government in anti castro strings in the 70's. He was a good American. He did serve some time in jail. He became friendly with the Clintons in the early 90's due to representing the FABIO. In 1998 Peter Paul formed a company with the loveable STAN LEE who created Spiderman and other comics. These guys wanted Bill Clinton to promote their company after his presidency ended so they started donating heavily to the Clintons, hosting events for AL GORE and HILLARY. He hosted the farewell event for Bill and raised over 1 MILLION, charging 25k per couple per plate. In total, 1.5 MILLION was raised for her via these fundraisers. While doing paperwork Peter Paul realized that Hillary did not report these contributions and Peter went to the Justice Department about this and was even on 20/20. The California Supreme court upheld the lawsuit. The judge who tried the case was appointed by the Clintons and before the case said how Mr. Paul was a "thoroughly corrupt and discredited witness". The case was resolved through settlement and it was agreed that 721,000 was unreported. It should be noted the legal limit one entity can give is 25k and for FEC purposes this money counted as being from one entity. The case is ongoing but due to the election Hillary cannot be deposed as of yet. Most of my info came from http://www.newmediajournal.us... Other corroborating sites are http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.2004dnc.com... http://www.hillaryproject.com... http://www.peterfpaul.com... http://www.worldnetdaily.com... http://www.hillcap.org... http://www.sourcewatch.org... http://www.againsthillary.com... This info is all documented via video or letters. The media just hasn't picked it up much. A good video is here but there are others if you want to google them http://video.google.com... As a side note. For those who would bring up Tony Reko with Obama, Hillary has deep connections with him too. I am not arguing that Obama is innocent. http://www.drudgereport.com...
Hillary Clition Would be the worst president!

>>"yes i now is she gts in a jam her husband will get her out with out him she would be no facter with in this debate she has no idea what to do she relies on him the hole time to do this and that just to keep her campain running..." So your argument is that she could somehow manage to beat Bush to the bottom for worst president ever because even though she's extremely competent her husband has her back? That and some sexist tirades? Women make fine leaders as I covered in part one. I've seen nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton would be anything but a fantastic president. Certainly nothing to meet any burden of proof, less so considering how low the bar set due to our current president. ------ You make me worry about the youth of today. I've seen some individuals whose reasoning and understanding rivals my own, at young ages, but to see the flip side: I really worry. It's hard enough to piece together your arguments, then when I do, and make some sense out of them... they make less sense. Why did you even start this debate? You clearly are poorly informed about the world, and apparently spell about as well as you judge the performance of presidents. Couldn't you have posted your bigoted sexist argument in one round just as easily? Perhaps we should stop making schooling mandatory, you never hear about the kids who exceed their potential in those old coal mines.