BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human Cloning

I will address con's main two arguments and submit why we should experiment with cloning. 1. "We could bring back Hitler or Bin Laden" I don't think con understands how cloning takes place, you aren't resurrecting this person and would need to have said person's DNA. Con's argument is also predicated on the assumption that Hitler and Bin Laden were inherently the way they were, which is not true either, or Con is just uninformed about how cloning works, both equally damning to the argument. 2. "We could bring back diseases" Again, this is not how cloning works, we are resurrecting that body and everything in it. What happens is the DNA from that person is used to create a new person following the DNA's Guidelines. The only disease that could be brought back is a genetic one, which is not transmittable. Now for why we should experiment with human cloning, of course when it is legally consensual. Most, if not all (I'll state when otherwise) of my statements are backed up or provided by humancloning.org 1. Stem cells Stem cells are hugely advantageous and human cloning is logically a huge step forward for that science. This is because when we combing stem cell research and human cloning technology it may be possible to produce the tissue needed for suffering people that will be free of rejection by their immune systems.Conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart failure, and degenerative joint disease may be made curable with human cloning and its technology if they aren't banned. 2. Infertility With cloning, infertile couples could have children. People go through horrible and painful, emotionally as well as physically, procedures just to have a small chance at having a child. Cloning solves this. 3. Plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgery. With human cloning research these procedures may not cause immune diseases due to foreign material in the body. We wouldn't have to use foreign material anymore. 4. Defective genes The average person carries 8 defective genes inside them. These genes allow people to become sick when they otherwise would have remained healthy. Cloning has the potential to solve this, gene treatments are already a thing outside of cloning, let's improve them. 5. Other Issues are Solved Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, liver failure, kidney failure, leukemia, cancer, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries, genetic disease testing difficulty, etc. Are all potentially and realistically solved by human cloning research. This sounds pretty attractive right? That's not even the best part about it. The advantages I've stated only scratch the surface of what human cloning technology can do for mankind. The vast amount of suffering and misery solved, the amount of improvements to lives added, and the worry of a lot of aspects of our health removed are the biggest and mountanous reasons why we s
Human Cloning

Human Cloning is not safe and there are many risks that we should not be willing to take. For one, what if someone gets this idea that they should bring back someone like Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden? Yes, you may say, they may act differently, but how would we know until we actually clone someone. Also, waht about unknown diseases that they may have. Recently, there was a girl found in the ice, preserved from over 500 years ago. So what if we cloned, her and say we didn't know about a disease that she had, and she brought it back. Many people could die. The risk is too great to have human cloning.
Deep South Turning Blue

I don't have much time to post a more extensive response to my opponent's argument. so I'll be rushing a bit here. I will admit that there are a number of factors that influence how people vote, with the deep south being no exception though it would seem just based on simple racial demographic trends that we could expect Georgia and Louisiana to turn blue by 2032. Assuming that turnout rates for all demographic groups remain the same, and assuming that the democratic share of the white vote in the south remains the same and assuming then Georgia should have a slight democratic lean in 2032, and Louisiana should be a tossup state around the same time. Source: http://www.dailykos.com...#
Deep South Turning Blue

Now, there are two demographic trends that I believe will provide the basis for the deep south shifting from Republican to Democratic control, the first trend is racial, the second trend is religious. In both cases, trends seem to indicate a shift away from traditionally Republican leaning constituencies, and a shift toward traditionally Democratic leaning constituencies. Starting with racial demographic trends, current evidence suggests that racial and ethnic minorities are becoming a larger portion of the population of the deep south. South Carolina's white population, for instance, is expected to fall below 60 percent of the state's total population by 2022, with whites falling to less than half of the state's total population by 2052. Georgia is expected to fall below 50 percent white by the year 2026, Mississippi by 2058, and Louisiana by 2038. Whites in Alabama are currently expected to remain a majority past 2060. [1] Now, according to exit polls from 2012, racial and ethnic minorities voted democratic by large margins, with democrats garnering 93 percent of the African American vote, 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 73 percent of the Asian vote nationwide. [2] Now, assuming that current demographic trends continue, simply based on racial demographics, it would seem that party control among southern states will likely shift from Republican to Democratic over the coming decades. As for religious trends, recent elections have shown white Christians to usually back the republican party, whereas non-white Christians have usually voted for the Democratic party. Of course what also needs to be considered is the irreligious vote, which has also been a significantly democratic leaning constituency[3]. The irreligious vote is important because I believe that will give the Democrats a larger share of the white vote as time goes on. This could prove especially useful in states such as Alabama and Mississippi, where whites are not expected to fall below 50 percent of the total population until well past 2050. As for the current religious makeup of the south, White Christians in Georgia are currently just 45 percent of the state's population, a percentage that increases to 48 percent assuming that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Orthodox Christians are taken into account, which I will do simply for the benefit of the doubt. States such as South Carolina and Mississippi are not especially far behind Georgia, with Mississippi having a white christian population just over 51 percent, and South Carolina having a white christian population just over 57 percent. [4] Now, with all this in mind, I argue that current demographic trends show a shift away from Republican leaning constituencies in many southern states, and this could give Democrats the advantage needed to shift party control away from Republicans and toward democrats in the deep south. Sources: [1]. https://www.americanprogress.org... [2]. http://elections.nytimes.com... [3]. http://www.pewforum.org... [4]. https://ava.publicreligion.org...
Deep South Turning Blue

My opponent has posted some arguments in the comments. Since I haven't had the full amount of time to prepare responses, I'll ignore those here and ask any judges to base their votes solely on the content presented in the three rounds of the debate itself. My opponent's responsive argument does not add anything particularly new to the dialogue. My opponent and I agree that the racial demographics of the Deep South are changing in ways that, at least at this point, look as though they will benefit the Democrats in the long term. But my opponent ignores the following key facts: 1) Similar demographic changes are happening throughout the nation. The Deep South will, for some time, remain a heavily white electorate, even as the rest of the nation becomes more diverse much more quickly. That would tend to make the Deep South the final redoubt of the GOP. If the Deep South turns blue, it will certainly be the one of the last parts of the country to do so. 2) Parties change strategies and coalitions to address changing demographics. It's a huge and unjustified assumption to believe that racial minorities will retain their advantages among racial minorities, especially if doing so means political extinction for Republicans on the national level. In a first-past-the-post voting system like ours, the polity tends to stabilize on two major political parties, each of roughly equal strength, adapting to the other party's strengths and weaknesses. It's very difficult to see the South turning blue before the GOP changes strategies in order to keep it.
Resolved: The U.S. should seek military action against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

1. He says points 1, 2 and 3 do not matter --> He dropped the framework which means the points he dropped outweigh his nebulous statements. Remember the framework dictates tht we have an obligation to protect human rights. Thus, points 1, 2 and 3 all link back to this framework. North Korea is worst human rights violator, the alternative of domestic change wont work, and we have the ability to. We have uality of forces and reserve troops on the korean peninsula plus South Korean Troops. 2. He says I dopped the argument that we just got done fighting --> I dont know what he is referring to, but if he means the middle east, then his analysis is still wrong because we would need only minimal infantry, since air and naval would be sufficient since North Korea is a peninsula surrounded by 3 of our allies. 3. "We dont got the best army" --> Myers writes: "A North Korean attack would stall after a few intense days and South Korean forces would soon be in position to overrun North Korea. American air and naval power would ensure the rapid collapse of the North Korean army." --> Extend the 3rd point that the North Korean military and weapons technology is outdated and obsolete, and also that our quality of military technology would ensure north korean defeat 4. He says my China analysis is wrong --> My source was Taylor from Comparative Strategy --> South Korea and Japan woumost likely join the fight as allies of the U.S. China would be neutral because they have better economic ties with South Korea and has no incentive to protect North Koea anymore. --> What about Wall Street? There would be basically no economic impact from this war...since no wall street comapnies have ties to North Korea since its n isolationist and communist nation --> What battle is happening in the U.S.? Im confused....are you drunk? ==Voter== Framework => protect human rights first => U.S. military action needed to liberate North Korean people from human rights abuses => we have the capability to overthrow regime Thank you
Resolved: The U.S. should seek military action against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

I dropped 1,2,3 because they don't matter. We just got done fighting(which YOU dropped). We don't got the best army. Wrong, China has reduced its ties with North Korea and has increased ties with South Korea Maybe not. But is it enough? Where's your source? Who else might join the war? What about Wall Street? What about the turmoil that will come? Fight the battle thats inside the US.
Resolved: The U.S. should seek military action against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

1. If we attack North Korea then China wuld go to war with us --> Wrong, China has reduced its ties wih North Korea and has increased ties with South Korea Taylor [3]: Since the ending of the Cold War, however, Chinese and Russian ties with North Korea have weakened, while concurrently their relations with South Korea have strengthened considerably. In 1992, for instance, Moscow ofﬁcially recognized Seoul, thereby essentially abandoning its alliance with Pyongyang. Likewise, although China remains North Korea’s largest trading partner and a major source of economic aid, two- way trade between the PRC and South Korea is currently 40 times that between China and North Korea, while the PRC is also now second only to America as a destination for South Korean foreign investment.Further, Beijing’s attitude toward North Korea has reportedly hardened in recent times based on a perception that Pyongyang’s approach to the current nuclear crisis is threatening these and other Chinese economic interests. ==Extensions== Extend points 1, 3, and 3 he dropped all of them
Evolution is scientifically proven

Argument Point 1: Fossils Before we begin this debate I think it is important to define evolution. Evolution is a "a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. " Evolution has generally occurred through natural selection and variation aka mutation. There are many evidences that disprove evolution. For example, let's take a look at fossils first. Many palaeontologists have collected trilobites and they have noticed that most of their textures differ with today's marine arthropods. For example, as we look at every marine arthropods today we could conclude that is obvious they didn't evolve from trilobites, trilobites had much harder and bigger shells, while crabs, lobsters and many other marine arthropods have shells that are much different. The source clarifies, "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of palaeontologists [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser (1). " [1]:. http://www.ucg.org... Point 2: Evolution is not happening now If the Evolution process was real it would've still been occurring, but it doesn't. We are gaining different varieties of animals and plants due to their sexual selections, not because they are evolving. Geneticists frequently had fruit and fly experiments. They tried to prove that these organisms would mutate, but sadly they have failed that objective. Jeffrey Schwartz a well-known evolutionist and a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh has stated, ". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed (2). " Point 3: Evolution never happened in the past Many evolutionists' evidence is based of the fossil records, but billions of fossils don't indicate that they have evolved through mutation or natural selection. According to Charles Darwin, ". . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. " Leslie Orgel, a leading researcher on the origin of life suggests that we have originated through chemicals, "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. " Leslie admits that the RNA could have possible formed fist, "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best (2). " [2]: . http://www.icr.org...
Evolution is scientifically proven

Evolution is the theory that life gradually evolves from earlier life forms over time. Scientists have discovered many human fossils varying in size, shape, body, etc. Humans thousands of years ago could walk upright (1). We as humans also share the same genes with apes as well (2). Evidence also shows we came from a common ancestor (3). As we can see, this is just some of the evidence for evolution. Sources: 1. http://humanorigins.si.edu... 2. http://humanorigins.si.edu... 3. http://evolutionfaq.com...
Evolution is scientifically proven

Rebuttals point 1: Dear opponent, I would just like to apologize for a considerably tardy response. I would right now like to clarify that not only trilobites have different textures, but many other animals too. Just to clarify, trilobites do seem very indifferent compared to many other marine anthropods, I don't see no point why you try to disprove my explanation because it was researched under experienced individuals for many years. Trilobites have much more dissimilarities than similarities with many other marine arthropods. First of all, it is not a fallacy that some fossil records give very thorough explanations for some of the concepts about this theory, but some don't seem to fit in. For instance, Darwin's theory mostly depends on something called "minute changes" meaning that organisms slowly transform into a new specimen. If his theory is factual as you say it is, then how come these fossil records don't show this change. Darwin says, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species) (1)"Source: [1]: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... Rebuttals point 2: Species are not currently evolving. As I have mentioned before most plants and many other organisms change due to their natural sexual selections. As for humans this change could be very possible due to our current environmental and ecological issues; it doesn't necessarily mean we are evolving. If humans would have been evolving this process would've significantly shown that we have evolved, but it doesn't. The facts that your source shows are infactual, this is supposed to be a quite fast process according to Darwin: "minute changes" (2).Sources:[2]: http://www.newgeology.us...
Evolution is scientifically proven

Con claims that Trilobites disprove evolution by their shells, when in reality, leaves out other body parts such as the eyes, body structure, and ekoskeleton which confirm evolution (1) I refute the claim that evolution is not happening by giving evidence. It's noted "there is a correlation between age at a woman's first menstrual cycle and age at first birth. That said, it's possible that the "inference" of the trend as a genetic trait was "contaminated" somewhat by "any element of culture " such as education, wealth or religion " that varied among families," It's noted "human populations are still evolving" (2). Sources: 1. http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk... 2. http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...
Is God Real

I would also like to point out that I am not going to try to prove that god is not real, I am not sure if that is possible. Instead I will examine your arguments in favour of gods existence and explain why I believe them to be invalid. Your first story, as I understand it, attempts to prove that the universe must have been created due to the fact that it is too complicated for any other possible explanation to be likely. I believe the statement 'every creation has a creator' is simply begging the question, as it assumes from the start that the universe is in fact a creation. How do we know that the universe was created? there must be some criteria for identifying something that is created versus something that occurs naturally? I would ask that pro defines these criteria more clearly, due to the fact that a large part of their argument hinges on this distinction. If in fact we assume that the universe has a creator simply because of its complexity as pro seems to imply,then we must also assume that any being we assign the title of creator to must also have a creator, because anything complex enough to create a universe must be complex enough to qualify as being created, if complexity is the only criteria for being a 'creation'. This results in an infinite regression, which I believe pro should be required to explain if this first argument is to be held as valid. Therefore, either provide an explanation for this infinite regression, or provide us with some criteria other than complexity that is required for something to be considered a creation. I will now address your second story, the one about the watch. To be quite honest I do not quite understand what this story was trying to say. If you are trying to say that the watches complexity and inability to magically reassemble itself is proof that it is too complex to have not been created similar to what you were saying in the first story then I would say my argument against the first holds true for the second as well. If I am misunderstanding your intent entirely then please forgive me and explain it more clearly in round two and I will address it then.
Is God Real

Now, I know this might be an overused debate, but I just want to get the feel for this website. Anyone who believes God is not real, please feel free to accept this debate, but let's keep it civil, so no calling the other person an idiot. So, getting into the debate, I believe that God is real, and I believe that there is tons of evidence to prove that fact. First, I'll start out talking about how every creation must have a creator. There is an old story that helps prove this concept. This involves Isaac Newton. He had an atheistic friend who liked to point out his beliefs. What Newton did, was get a very well hand crafted replica of the universe. He left it on his table and invited his friend over. When his friend got there, he commented on the replica and asked where Newton got it. Newton replied that it had just appeared there that morning. His friend put on a confused look and asked what that meant. Newton replied that he had been sitting there that morning, and it had just appeared out of thin air. His friend told him that that was crazy and that something like that could not happen. Now, obviously, the model did not appear out of thin air, but it does show what I mean by every creation must have a creator. Now, you may say, you can't prove that, because there was no materials to create the model with out of thin air. That is true, so here is another story. A man bought a watch and took it apart. He put all the parts into a box and brought the box into the woods. He sat there for a while, and then started shaking the box. In the box, he had put all the parts of the watch, so after a while he opened the box and was surprised to see that the watch was still taken apart. Now, this story is even crazier than the third, but it also shows that every creation must have a creator.
This is why you can't have a constitutional amendment that reads: "A marrige is between two people"

You are debating the morality of homosexual marriage. It is impossible to write a constitutional amendment that wont discriminate if you include same sex marriage in the definition. You can,'t say a marriage between to people and then have a bunch of exceptions. You did not address the issue of the debate at all. There is no legal definition anymore in the two states you mentioned,. The supreme courts just arbitrarily decided to add same sex marriages to the definition of marriage and made no attempt to rewrite it to include same sex marriages because it is impossible. You will have to allow brothers and sisters to also marry. And you know they will ask just to take advantage of the financial benefits.