BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

Most people wont even abort babies because it is another risky topic to go with, and because of most people's religions they wont do it anyway. There may be few but it wouldn't really bring question to genetic testing because no one really question the reasoning behind an abortion. Most people just plain don't like it. In the future genetic testing will be needed and that's inevitable to deny. With further research the cure for cancer and other diseases can be found. Less death will occur but bring down food supplies greatly. A process for longer life could also be found out from genetic testing. Even gene mutations for different aspects of the body could give light to positive gene mutations like a smart gene or a gene that controls how athletic someone will be. I mean what if you could get these done? You would most likely get it if you had the money for it.
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

In a previous argument, you had mentioned that there are screenings for parents to see their unborn child and determine if they have a genetic disease or not. No is that a good thing or bad thing. Well, according to www.noso.edu, this is a problem. Yes, genetic testing for your unborn child can be a good thing, but some parents will rather abort their child if it ends up with a genetic disorder. The abortion rates will become bigger issue and people will start to question, should genetic testing be allowed for parents to run on their unborn children. Another issue this website had talked about was the discrimination of people with a genetic disorder. "insurance companies and employers would like to be able to determine insurance rates and employment statuses based on the genetic composition of people." If a person has a high risk factor of certain disease, they may be prevented from obtaining insurance. Which leads into the next topic, who should pay for a genetic testing?
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

Even though you don't receive an exact diagnoses sometimes as of now, there is still the fact of know what you might have. And with further research scientists could possibly get an exact result every time, its just a matter of cooperation and time. Your previous, "Genetic testing only identify the chances or probabilities." is false because genetic testing gives information on if a person has a genetic disease, if they can pass it on, and the chances of passing it on to their child. Another reason why genetic testing should be considered good is that it helps in other aspects of medicine as well. For example, according to http://www.nextavenue.org..., genetic testing can help find out how our bodies will react to certain drugs. This can help doctors give exact dosages and the right type of medicine to people. Genetic testing could also prove to help find cures in the near future. This could cure cancer and its death toll on the world's population annually. With further research, genetic testing could become very valuable to surviving.
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

You had mentioned that after genetic testing is done the patient is less stressed and has a feeling of relief. However, genetic testing does not relief that stress. Patients are going in to get a genetic test to see what is going on with their genes, however genetic testing aren't 100 percent certain. Genetic testing do not rule out every possibility of developing a disease. According to cancer.org, some test may be read wrong. Every lab has a different way of testing for a genetic disorder. Sometimes, getting a test wont even help a person out, the results will probably not show up. Genetic testing only identify the chances or probabilities. If a person reads positive, that doesn't neccessarily mean they are not getting that disorder. Yes, there are therapies to help a person calm their nerves, but genetic testing aren't going to statisfy them.
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

Even though most ethnic groups/ religions view genetic testing as wrongful or unnecessary, it does not go against the laws of nature and people do have the freedom of speech and religion. It could be possible that their religion doesn't view it as wrong or unneeded. For genetic testing there is multiple physiological aspects/views that are being dealt with. For instance according to www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/genetesting/page29 there is less stress after the testing is done. Knowing gives a feeling or relief. Other benefits of genetic testing are as follows: fewer checkups, informed decisions, and intervention. One question commonly asked about Genetic testing is "Does genetic testing go against the laws of nature?" Technically genetic testing does not go against nature because one main law of nature is that it is survival of the fittest, and by doing genetic testing humans are just adapting and changing. Society can greatly benefit from doing genetic testing.
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

Although genetic testing is a beneficial factor to help patients identify a genetic disorder, is it really the right thing to do? Genetic screenings/testing are going against the work f nature. Many religions and ethnic groups believe that doing genetic testing are to be immortal because they are interfering wit the work of nature. It is going against the work of god. Others have a fear that genetic testing will change the way humans reproduce. According to www.noso.edu, people fear that instead of natural reproduction, people will use fetus and embryo genetic screenings to select better for their child. Although genetic testing can be very beneficial, most people do not use it for the good.
Genetic Testing (use by medical insurance)

What is genetic testing? Genetic testing is the testing of DNA for chromosomal, gene, or protein changes. Genetic testing is good for identifying diseases that you are born with. According to http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... genetic testing can "confirm or rule out a suspected genetic condition or help determine a person"s chance of developing or passing on a genetic disorder." Based off the information given at www.genome.gov/19516567 genetic testing shows if someone is a carrier for a disease, which in turn can give insight on how much of a chance a child has of receiving the genetic disorder. The site also provided information on Prenatal and newborn screenings saying that they can be done to show if a child has a genetic disease. This makes it easier for the parents to know what is wrong and how to handle the disease. This makes everyday living with the disorder easier and more efficient. Genetic testing therefore should be allowed because of how it helps with identifying diseases.
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

You literally copied and pasted wikipedia. I did a little bit of background research, and I can't find "Gary Elms" under any list of British boxing champions. I'm not going to look through all of your sources, because this response should be brief as yours was. Regardless of whether or not Lee had a budding ground game, using a ground game requires closing the gap with a professional heavyweight. I'm sorry I didn't ask this earlier, but what takedown would Lee use on Ali? You don't just do a takedown, you need to prepare for it and it often comes through close contact (or clinch) with your opponent. Anyway, I'm not writing much more. Nothing in your cut and paste article suggested that he could beat Ali. Lee never fought anybody near Ali, and his professional record is dubious and much is based on hearsay. If I wanted, I could have posted sources saying that Ali backed away from professional fights and at times failed to defeat similar-sized opponents, but I did not because I did not have the extreme degree of reliability that I demand from sources. Even the statement from Dan Inosanto, as bold as it is claiming Lee could have been a top ranked lightweight fighter (lightweight is 135 in boxing) still doesn't make the cut because lightweights (135) never beat legendary heavyweights. They simply lack the power, it's a mismatch. I feel my opponent has not satisfied the burden of proof. The burden of proof was that he would have to provide solid evidence that a 135 lb. actor/fitness-guru could defeat one of the best heavyweight fighters in history. It was an incredibly difficult task, given there is no historical precedent in terms of fights that my opponent could cite, and Lee's dubious history as a fighter.
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

Cutting and pasting is not a legitimate form of argument. Besides, you cut and pasted internal citations without even providing the source. I told you I was going to be anal about sources, and sure enough I found a lot of these quotes on forums and Yahoo Answers. Yeah, it's all from wikipedia. I can do this too. "Nicknamed "The Greatest", Ali was involved in several historic boxing matches. Notable among these are three with rival Joe Frazier and one with George Foreman, whom he beat by knockout to win the world heavyweight title for the second time. He suffered only five losses (four decisions and one TKO by retirement from the bout) with no draws in his career, while amassing 56 wins (37 knockouts and 19 decisions).[2] Ali was well known for his unorthodox fighting style, which he described as "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and employing techniques such as the rope-a-dope.[3] He was also known for his pre-match hype, where he would "trash talk" opponents on television and in person some time before the match, often with rhymes. These personality quips and idioms, along with an unorthodox fighting technique, made him a cultural icon. In later life, Ali developed Parkinson's disease. In 1999, Ali was crowned "Sportsman of the Century" by Sports Illustrated and "Sports Personality of the Century" by the BBC.[4]"
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

Lee's strikes were certainly not as hard as Ali's. Force = Mass * Acceleration, and Lee's mass limited his output. Even in 135 lb. MMA matches, there are much less KOs than in heavyweight matches, and this is largely due to the size of the fighters. Lee would have little to no KO potential against Ali. My opponent cites Royce Gracie, and while Royce Gracie is an incredible fighter he also had around 40 lbs. on Bruce Lee and was unrivaled at his ground game. Bruce Lee had no ground game, especially not against Ali who would have been very difficult to take down. Gracie's insane ability in BJJ gave him an edge against larger fighters who had no ground game, but Lee is not Gracie. Gracie would never have been able to take his 220-230 lb. opponent's to the mat (nevermind keep them there) with a weight of 135. Additionally, yes, Bruce Lee had kicks and elbows. However, throwing an elbow requires being on the "inside" and these elbows could have only hit Ali's chest. Bruce Lee would have had to have got their in the first place through dodging or deflecting blows from Ali, which is easier said than done. Lastly, I don't think Bruce Lee's kicks even fall outside Ali's reach, and even if they did Ali would be able to close the gap relatively quickly if he could time it right. The main factor here is that Ali has a tremendous amount of KO power vs. a much smaller opponent, and Bruce Lee has never seriously fought anyone approaching Ali's level. I would lastly like to add that Ali has more fighting experience with 100+ amateur fighters and 60+ professional bouts...all with men atleast 80 lbs. heavier than Lee.
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

Good try...but here's where you're wrong: While Ali was very good with his hands...that was the only weapons that he had....2 hands. Lee on the other side had his hands (which by the way has been documented that his punches were so strong and fast, that he DID hit like a heavyweight. (Case in point..Ed Parker's 1964 Karate tounrament)). Lee also had his legs which he used for kicks and knee strikes..also..elbows, head butts, a budding ground game, and lets not forget, back when he lived in Hong Kong, he was a boxing champion which would have added to his experience. Don't let someone's size fool you....example Royce Gracie v. Ken Shamrock or Dan Severn, and other larger fellows he had to contend with.... ...back to you folks...
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

Ok, a few reasons why Ali has the upper hand. 1. Ali was one of the best heavyweight boxers in history. The man's professional record is ridiculous. He's knocked out men around 100 lbs. heavier than Bruce Lee, and is widely considered to be one of the best boxers in history. 2. Ali has an enormous size advantage on Lee. Ali was 6'3, 230 lbs. while Lee's height and weight is a little less clear. We can place it in a range of 5'6-5'8 and weighing 130-140. You simply don't see fighters Bruce's size nowadays take down heavyweights, never mind championship winning heavyweights. Additionally Ali's reach was 80 inches which would dominate Lee and leave him constantly vulnerable to Ali's punches. Make no mistake, Ali was a knockout artist who finished 37 of his 61 fights in them, with KOs for men 100 lbs heavier than Lee. One wrong move and Lee is in a world of pain. 3. Lee has largely escaped professional evaluation This has led to plenty of myth being attributed to Lee. We wouldn't think of any other fighters of Lee's size being able to beat one of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever, but Lee has this mystique around him. What Lee performs in movies are not his real abilities. 4. All else being equal, Muhammad Ali would destroy Lee. Lee has essentially no way of knocking out Ali, while Lee is constantly in danger of being KO'd. Ali has advantages in size, reach, boxing technique, and probably speed and strength although I can't get definitive measurements. It's pretty uncertain as to where Lee has any advantage besides kicks, which even then still leave him in Ali's reach. Any statement claiming a 135 lb. fighter could defeat a 230 lb. legendary heavyweight is going to require an immense amount of proof. Good luck trying to prove this. I'm going to be very critical of sources here because a lot of Bruce Lee/Chuck Norris fanboys tend to exaggerate the abilities of their idols immensely.
in their prime.....Bruce Lee would have a better chance of beating Mohammad Ali in street fight

The title (resolution) mentions nothing of weapons. When we judge fighters we don't generally judge how fighter A would do vs fighter B assuming fighter A had nunchaku. We should assume that both fighters are unarmed, but could potentially pick up something laying around the street. The fact is, there are rarely knives and guns laying around on the street and when we introduce weapons or guns into it, it becomes much more random. So, this leaves us with two options: a) We talk about how the fighters would compare using largely their own martial arts/boxing skills. b) We allow for the use of weapons which would introduce a huge element of unpredictability in in the debate if for example Lee found a sword or Ali used a gun or vice versa. I would suggest option A as it would greatly cut down on speculation, and could be argued with more precision.
Gilgamesh is the strongest Servant (Fate Series)

My opponent has forfeited; he is clearly unable to rebut me anymore. Vote Pro :) Ehhh Zeroskype vote Pro, I told you we'd NoobSnipe together right? =) Note that Gilgamesh can teleport people (Including himself, I think) with his Gate of Babylon. He transported Shinji (as stated in the Type Moon Wiki.)
Total legalization of all drugs

Con has compared the peaceful use of drugs to the capital crimes of murder and rape" this is a strawman, i do not believe that taking drugs is the same as murder or rape. i do however, believe that the line of reasoning pro uses to justify total drug legalization can also be used to justify more heinous crimes. i'm referring to pro's argument that people are going to do it anyway so we might as well legalize it, this reasoning would mean legalization of everything. "Obviously what one person does can affect another person's life" exactly this is why i have argued that legalization of certain drugs would be more harmful than beneficial. legalization would make crack cheaper and more easily available to people than it is now. the harms of this drug outweigh the benefits, most people can't just have a little bit of crack now and then. "
Total legalization of all drugs

1. alchohol my opponent has chosen to ignore the evidence provided that alcohol is harmful to both individuals and society at large. I urge voters to see this as a concession to con. 2. tobacco i argue that tobacco should be illegal and replaced by electronic cigarettes and nicotine cartridges. this will remove the negative health effects to others that pro ignores. "I still make my stand on the choice being the individual's responsbility." shows that he has not acknowleged that second smoke is a danger to people who have made the choice not to smoke. 3. other drugs i maintain that we not legalize production or sale of hard drugs like cocaine or pcp. pro believes that the choice to use these types of drugs only affects that individual, however these drugs cause people to lose perspective and do bad things. i did not advocate that we should give welfare money to crack moms who neglect their kids, i argued that they should be rehabilitate so that they can be positive members of society and take care of their children. 4. antibiotics antibiotics are drugs and total legalization would mean sale of them anywhere for anyone. this is clearly not good as people will buy them for themselves or their children when they have a viral infection or only a mild bacterial infection. as i argued previously this eventually renders the drug useless when it is actually needed for medical emergencies. p1 - "no one does a drug with the intent of killing someone after it. " no but people commit crimes to pay for their habit, people do horrible things under the influence of certain drugs that would not normally be done. whether because the person would be incapable of raping or because when not under the influence they would be able to restrain themselves. p2 - the point isn't tha doing drugs is the same as killing or raping, its that the line of reasoning used also could be used for the legalization of murder and rape. p3 - "Those parents would have done it whether or not it was illegal so what would it matter?" again murderers would murder whether or not its illegal, when we repalce get high with murder or rape suddenly that logic doesn't sound so appealing. p4 - irrelevant to the debate. p5 - ? p6 - it is your line of logic that supports those things. "Perhaps the drugs like meth that are "the first time you're hooked" drugs shouldn't be legal," is that a forfeit? meth certainly falls under all drugs. " but marijuana, shrooms, LSD, and others that are all mellow and have no harmful effects " i have not mentioned these drugs in my arguments, so bringing them up is a strawman.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

"My opponent started with a list of reasons that EverQuest was the most advanced MMORPG ever." - FALSE, If you read my previous arguments you will see that I never made that statement. My original and re-occuring statement is that "Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time". The reasons I listed were evidence that Everquest is the most revolutionary, NOT the most advanced MMORPG of all time. Given this fact, your argument is Null and Void. The fact that you are talking about the advanced features of Everquest and not the revolution, change, it created shows that you do not understand the argument. There are other games that are much more advanced than Everquest, yes, but there are no games that are more revolutionary than Everquest. In conclusion, Everquest is the most revolutionary MMORPG of All Time. Revolutionary because it was the first game to incorporate the great features of existing games (MUDS, Mushes, First Person Shooters, etc) into one interactive world. Revolutionary because it created the interactive online game following that exists today. Revolutionary because without Everquest, games like WoW, Final Fantasy Online, and Warhammer would not exist in the capability they do today. Dictionary.com defines "revolution" as: "a sudden, complete or marked change in something". Everquest sparked the change you see today. To deny that fact is ignorance. Everquest is and will always be the most revolutionary MMORPG of all time. Thank you for this debate. I enjoyed it immensely.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

My opponent started with a list of reasons that EverQuest was the most advanced MMORPG ever. The reasons he provided were as follows. -3D Character Modeling -First person viewing capabilities -Interactive NPC's with advanced AI -Complex economic systems -Advanced Tradeskill Platforms -Mobs requiring massive raiding parties As I have already pointed out almost all of these arguments are invalid. Several other precursors to Everquest contained features such as "Advanced Tradeskill Platforms", "Complex economic systems", and "Interactive NPC's with advanced AI", in fact in online MUSHes and MUDs you would often have large monsters requiring massive raiding parties. One such MUD on which I regularly played was Afterlife where occasionally the Tarrasque would awaken and players would have to band together in order to kill the beast. So that leaves us with these two arguments: -3D Character Modeling -First person viewing capabilities These arguments don't strike me as particularly revolutionary. Other online games had already pioneered advanced graphics for MMORPGs, a short list includes Ultima Online, The Shadow of Yserbius, and NEXUS. Other games also released had 3D Character Modeling, though often in the realm of first person shooters such as Quake, Doom, Duke Nukem, and others I have previously mentioned. So is EverQuest's only claim to fame that it synthesized two existing game genres into one? That seems like a very week legacy. While my opponent responded to my argument that instanced dungeons was a revolution of WoW, and they are, because while there were precursors and while EverQuest adopted the model for their expansion World of Warcraft was one of the first games to include instancing on such a wide spread basis. But if my opponent wants to expand to include expansions I can list off other ways that World of Warcraft and other games have continued to show more innovation and revolution than Everquest. In the first expansion of World of Warcraft the player world became 100% open through flight. Also with World Zone PvP objective players now had set goals to compete for in the actual world. This notion was picked up by Warhammer, and in a truly revolutionary way players can now reshape the world by over running and occupying foreign cities. So my opponent will offer up one last argument, that EverQuest was first, and thereby the most revolutionary. Clearly I've already demonstrated the EverQuest is not the first MMORPG, thus invalidating this argument even if it were true, but it is not. Simply because something is a predecessor of another thing does not make it more revolutionary. The plane flown by the Wright Brothers at Kittyhawk was monumental, but it was not the most revolutionary plane ever to exist merely because it