BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Could a female (XX) embryo be treated to produce a viable anatomical male.

No citation is required for this debate, but it would be appreciated. My understanding is somewhat rudimentary, and I am not interested in 'winning this debate' so much as learning something and asking questions. For ethics sake any reasonable mammal such as mice may be used, but the idea is that developmentally all mammals including humans start out female, but then the presence of a specific gene on the y chromosome causes the Wolffian male urogenital structures to be favored over the female m"llerian ducts. Certain genetic abnormalities such as xx males in nature tend to be sterile. A separate but related idea is that an xy male embryo may come to resemble an anatomical female but never produce viable eggs The argument is that an xx female mammal embryo may be treated with hormones to produce a viable xx male that produces sperm and may father only xx daughters. I would like someone to argue that this is in fact possible, and provide at least some evidence. :)
Atheism is more reasonable than theism

I appreciate Unitedandy's challenge and I accept. I agree with all the rules and regulations put forth by my opponent. I think he has done a good job in the structuring of this debate, I see no need for any improvement or add-ons. I look forward to a pleasant(though heated) exchange. I feel honored to debate such a well established debater as my opponent. I thank him and await his second round.
Atheism is more reasonable than theism

I’m sure we can provide a spirited and valuable exchange of ideas which is also entertaining. Second, my aim in this debate is not to convert (or deconvert) anyone. I only profess to show that, for the purposes of the debate, the reasons given for atheism will be superior to those for theism. As this is merely a preliminary round, I’ll just briefly introduce some definitions and debate rules, so we can get on to the real substance of the debate. DefinitionsTheism - By theism, I mean the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe. Atheism - disbelief in the existence of God(s); denial of theism. Reasonable - Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Burden of ProofThe BoP is shared. Pro must argue that atheism is more reasonable. Con that theism is more reasonable. It's that simple. Controversial statements or claims, should be, as far as possible, justified, particularly when they are disputed by the other party. Each debater is responsible for both defending their own case and for critiquing their opponent’s position. The debater who does the better job of this overall should be considered the winner. Debate rules1. R1 is for acceptance only2. Forfeits will result in loss of conduct point. Multiple forfeits will result in a concession.3. Dropped points will count as a concession.4. No plagiarism. All relevant content from 3rd parties must be sourced. ConclusionIf Con has any reservations, I ask he post them in the comments section before acceptance.
Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited

Contention I: Gateway Drug My opponent throughout this debate has yet to actually refute this point. He hasn't disproved the theory. I believe that since it cannot be proven or disproven, then we must look to what will protect society. Keeping it illegal would. We can't risk the gateway drug theory for it could increase drug addictions throughout the country. As, I have pointed out. The gateway drug theory is very likely to be true. Extend this point. Contention II: Criminal Activity My opponent has also not adequately refuted this point. I am using logic. From contention I, we can assume that people would then resort to crime to get harder substances. [Voting Issues] 1)My contention I has not been adequately refuted. Same for contention II. So, extend these. 2) My opponent has not made a case explaining why we should legalize them. He just tries to undermine why we shouldn't make them illegal. He has the burden of proof and he has not fulfilled that burden. For these reasons I urge a negation.
Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited

Gateway: The "mild highs that make them want more," is an assumption you make about all marijuana users. You also previously stated that Cocaine was "the most common step drug from marijuana." This humors me in that 1 in every 100 marijuana users have tried Cocaine. No matter how that ratio is scaled, it remains that 1% of marijuana users use the most common harder drugs, hardly enough evidence to hold the gateway drug theory legitimate. Perhaps one crucial factor that we have overlooked is that marijuana currently circulates not through pharmacies and such, but through the black market where other harder drugs are widely available. I say that it is extremely likely that marijuana users resort to harder drugs because of their exposure to them, in these unsafe environments where marijuana is being sold. By selling marijuana legally at certain places, it eliminates the user to have to get the drug illegally. (Why would any user risk the illegal black market over a safe legal place? Better quality? I don't think so. Drug dealers are notorious for giving mixtures of rat poison and bleach, saying that it was the substance they were seeking to buy) Lastly you say that marijuana produces "a better high," than alcohol. While they produce separate effects, it is quite a logical fallacy to say that someone who has had ten shots of hard liquor is no less intoxicated than one who has been smoking a joint. As to whether these two different impairments have the gateway effect, there is nothing currently that proves it. Again, that makes your theory an assumption and because the hard data behind all the studies are inconclusive, your statements, unfortunately, become invalid. Am I supposed to take your word for it over experienced scientists? Marijuana = More Legal Narcotics?: Marijuana would be legalized because it is different than the harder drugs and not as potent. The difference between marijuana and harder drugs would be made known to the public. Legalizing marijuana will work however it is not a simple process. Restrictions and law enforcement would be put in place to keep everything in check. After the first few months of regulating everything I am confident that legalizing marijuana will reduce crime. As proven above, the assumption that marijuana is a gateway drug obviously does not "hold water" and therefore eliminates a lot of problems presented to me. It has been shown in studies that something that is scarce or forbidden, is psychologically more appealing. When legalized, the consumption of it will rise at first then lower, because of this fact. But, don't take my word for it, look at Europe, where alcohol is more legal and more widely available to younger adults, and alcohol related car crashes occur much less. Because marijuana is not a gateway drug, and because it could be regulated closely under watch, I propose that legalizing marijuana could work.
Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited

I negate: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited [Contentions] Contention I: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. According to the Surgeon General (Year 2007) Marijuana is a gateway drug. This means that once a given high is established the user would seek a larger high from more harmful drugs. This includes Cocaine (the most common step drug from marijuana), LSD, and Heroine. Marijuana creates a high different from substances like Alcohol, which increases the urge for a greater high that can only be achieved through more harmful drugs. With marijuana more readily available, teens would more likely be hooked on it now, and thus make them want harder substances. Contention II: Increased Criminal Activity Since we have established that marijuana is a gateway drug we will now look to one major disadvantage to society, Criminal Behavior. Since marijuana would increase the urge for harder substances, which are illegal, then people would resort to crimes to obtain them. The addiction for drugs is so great that people addicted would go to great lengths to get these substances. Allowing marijuana in society would increase the want for harder substances which in turn would lead to higher crime rates. Furthermore, higher crime rates could lead to more violent activity. For these reasons I negate. [Rebuttal] "Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even "death." My Response: Ok, universalize your action. By allowing marijuana we should then allow any other harder substance. Yes, it may come with it's own set of responsibility but that doesn't mean that government should bend down and condone it. Furthermore, legal prescrpiton drugs have medical benefits. One reason for the illegilzation of drugs is for these 2 reasons: 1) Has no major medical benefits 2) The cons outweigh the pros Therefore, marijuana used for recreational purposes rather then medical should not be allowed for the public. Drop my opponents argument. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited

NOTE: Because it has already been established in many other debates, we know that marijuana is harmful to one's health. Unfortunately, so is alcohol, tobacco and...gasp...even the hamburgers we get from our favorite fast food chains so please don't waste your time proving that aspect. Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even "death." I am not a professional debater, and certainly not an experienced one on any level, so I know this may be unorthodox, but PLEASE list your problems with my statement with your arguments and it'd make me happy to answer/refute each one of them. :)
A 3rd civil war

Hmm. I hope this will be a fun debate, :D.'==Clarifications==1. The two opposing sides will be the civilian militias (who are trying to rebel) and the U.S. Military, who have the support of the U.N. (Who are trying to pacify/control the states)2. Society has been destroyed - meaning that this will most likely be a full-out war. (The CON probably won't agree to this, but I believe this will happen)3. Resolution will be something along the lines of "In a civil war, it is probable that the US Military, along with the support of the UN, will defeat uprising civilian militias."
Do you think a man should have a Wright to sell the wrights to there sperm

I am sticking with the debate. You just copied the same thing you said last round. Anyways, as I've said multiple times, you have the rights to sell sperm. You can copy this link to see more: www.legalmatch.com " Legal Topics " Family " Children " Surrogates "Jan 17, 2018 - The donor has no rights, obligations or interest with the child born as a result of the artificial insemination; and; The child born as a result of the artificial insemination has no right, obligation or interest with the donor."
Personal Retirement Accounts should replace Entitlements

R1: Acceptance and DefinitionsR2: Arguments and RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals and ClosingPersonal Retirement Accounts: Basically indivividual or jointly owned (say by married couples) accounts in which the owners save money to invest in various securities as they wish. Entitlements: The social welfare programs ran by the federal government including Medicare, and Social Security. Mostly financed by payroll taxes.
ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Forfeit noted. I will now rebut my opponent's contentions. "Contention 1: A democratic society...." A democratic society can also not be legitimate if the people's rights are not protected. Among these rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one man is to strip another of these rights he too should be punished for his actions and have some of his privileges and rights inhibited. "Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue..." Unfortunately, it is not the fault of the government that more minorities are criminals than whites. Supporting felon disenfranchisement, in no way supports racism. You're comparing apples and oranges. If a felon is disenfranchised, they are disenfranchised color - blind. Whether they are Asian, White, Hispanic or Purple does not matter, if a felony is committed, all felons should be punished in the same manner - because if they weren't that would be undemocratic as well. The point about the voices of the two minority groups being stifled is a baseless conjecture, Barack Obama is president. Despite what can be assumed about there being a smaller voting base many hispanic - Americans don't vote due to lack of citizenship. "Contention 4" - Basically continuation of Punishment restate his sentences "This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen." Actually, that is justice. It's like telling a toddler to sit in the corner and think about what he did;it forces them to pay for their mistakes for the rest of their life. People don't change, and a felony is serious. No matter how good a felon's life is after prison, a felony is serious and they should have to live with a "dumb" or regrettable decision for the rest of their life. By not having a say in the way the country is run, they are reminded of their faulty reasoning. They proved by committing a felony that they don't deserve a say seeing as they are incapable of deciphering between right and wrong. Reinforcement of my points: -- Due to the fact that voting is a privilege and not a right, felons should be stripped of this privileges due to their poor decisions and unreasonable actions. --Felons have proved that they are not entirely capable of making a rational decision and therefore could harm the will of the people. Felons have destroyed the social fabric and infringed upon another man's rights. They should be severely punished for doing so and if disenfranchisement is a beneficial and workable policy then it should continue in existence. Furthermore, due to the fact that my opponent has not clarified if he is advocating for the suffrage of incarcerated felons, ex - felons/paroled felons one can assume that he is advocating for the voting privileges for all of the above. It is unfortunate that AnimeFanTony forfeited in the previous round. I look forward to the next round and further rebutting my opponent's points.
ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I look for ward to this debate and hope my opponent does too. Value: Democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Definitions: Democracy:government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system Felon:a person who has committed a felony Ought:used to express duty or moral obligation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.
border defense

Para normal I have no idea why someone has challanged me to a debate, but I generally accept challenges so I might as well this one. That being said I think my opponent for extending this interesting challenge to me. Thus I present my case in some ammount of points. 1. There is absolutely no impact to my opponents argument, we haven't had a border defense before now and we haven't seen the impacts, why are we going to start seeing impacts now. 2. I ask that my opponent prove the impact on this issue, until he can there is nothing I can argue against. 3. I contest that they are not stealing jobs but rather taking unimportant jobs such as dish washing, picking fruit, or construction. This has multiple benefits. a. Acts as an incentive for American's to get a degree past high school, in turn increasing the potential of America as a world competitor. b. Restaurants can pay their dishwashers less in turn charging less money for the food you eat when going to the restaurant. c. Contractors can higher workers to build houses for less, meaning the cost of a new house decreases. This in turn makes it easier for the person in "a" to get a new house right out of college. d. Fruits and vegetables can be farmed at a lower cost, this allows the land owners to sell the fruits and vegetables at a lower cost while making a greater profit. This not only helps the agriculture industry but helps everyone who goes to the grocery store. e. The nice thing about illegal immigrants is that when we get sick of them, or feel that they aren't being beneficial we can just deport them without actually having to follow any legal bureaucracy. This saves us money through not having to house people in our jails. (As much as I hate this capitalist viewpoint....) 4. My final point for now. One that Americans don't seem to realize. Everyone on this earth is a human. The fact that someone is of a Mexican origin or an American (U.S) origin is of no consequence. Should a baby be given less of an opportunity simply because he or she was not born in the United States? Simply because he/she did not have the fortunate opportunity of being born into our special club? Birth is one of the most horrible ways to classify people, such classifications have lead to such startling events as the holocaust. In which an entire ethnicity felt itself superior because they were born the way they were. Such classifications should not be upheld my the United States government.
The Social Contract and Moral Obligations

Resolved:Due to the social contract, governments have moral obligations to their citizens which are superior to those it has towards non-citizens.Question for my opponent to answer and readers to ponder:Does a contract create a moral obligation?Clarification:What is being debated?Per rules in round one we see that no kritiks are allowed. This means that the assumptions of social contracts and moral obligations are not contestable. I am arguing that if social contracts and moral obligations are assumed, Governments have a greater moral obligation to their citizens then to non-citizens. Obligations:Obligation as defined by my opponent is “something one is bound to do.”A contract by its very nature creates an increased obligation. Con’s round one outlines the social contract as “the scope and duties of the government are determined by the agreement or contract.” Scope and duties is synonymous with their “obligations” that should be fulfilled. Obligations Are Weighted:The stronger the relationship, the stronger the obligation. For example, say there are two starving children. One is your sibling. Your relationship to them as a member of society creates an obligation. Your relationship to them as family creates an additional obligation. Likewise, imagine you signed a contract that you would feed your sibling. Your obligation is now influenced by an agreement in addition to the already existing obligations. Thus we see that relationships and contracts themselves increase obligations. Impact of a social contract:The social contract creates and defines both a relationship and a contract. As demonstrated this increases the moral obligation. Scarcity as an issue:There are cases where what is needed morally exceeds the capability of those who can provide. For example, back to the hypothetical I used earlier. What if you signed a contract to feed your starving sibling and there is another there starving and you only have enough food for one. If you split the food both will die. It is your moral obligation to fulfill your contractual promise to feed your sibling first. As there is not enough for both. This clearly shows that your moral obligation is stronger due to both the relationship and the contract. Summary of Arguments:Obligations are strengthen and increased by relationships. The social contract a nation with its citizens creates a relationship and contractual obligation. This increases the moral obligation that a nation has with its citizens vs. non-citizens. Overview:Obligations are weighted. A standing relationship/contract increases the moral obligation. The Social Contract adds to the obligation to help citizens vs non-citizensIn a case of scarcity the social contract obliges the government to care forits citizens firstFor my opponent to win he must argue that contracts do not increase moral obligation. This is an insurmountable task. The above demonstrates that Due to the social contract, governments have moral obligations to their citizens which are superior to those it has towards non-citizens.