BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

Personally, I am deeply invested in this issue. One day, I hope to make a future career off related medical practices, and as of right now, I cannot fathom how it could be unethical. Truth be told, I've always wanted to live happily ever after. Here's some background for the debate: Within contemporary debates on the future of human evolution, two very different perspectives have emerged on the developing biomedical and biotechnological transformations of the living world: the bioconservative as opposed to the biorevolutionary. Bioconservatism is perhaps best characterized by the notion that our technological advancements have effectively done away with natural selection, mutation, and random change. In short, natural human evolution is over. Or as distinguished geneticist Steve Jones puts it, "things have simply stopped getting better, or worse, for our species." Further, bioconservatives resist any kind of "artificial" change, and generally oppose, most prominently, genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive enhancement of human beings to overcome current (what they would call "natural") human biological limitations. The other side of this debate is the progressive, biorevolutionary position, which argues that human evolution is about to accelerate. We are on the eve, so we are told, of an era of artificial selection and personalized reproductive medicine: "designer babies," to use the popular term. Some scientists already predict that our genetically enhanced successors won't grow old and die, or that if we die, our brains will potentially be restored from digital backup. Others have predicted a biosingularity revolution, in which the exponentially-increasing intelligence of "posthumans" will result in explosive superintelligence. And yet, few bioethicists have turned their attention to the possibility of genetically pre-programmed emotional well-being, or happiness, or whatever you want to call it. Furthermore, implicit in this possibility is the accompanying idea that our descendants could lead lives bereft of any and all psychological pain. Some basic rules. The first round will be for accepting this debate, and Con can post any opening statements or questions. I accept full responsibility to make the first argument, but if my opponent wants to go first, he/she may do so. Finally, burden of proof is shared.
Yellow is actually purple

Porky Pro says: your picture is a f**king yu gio character and im the gay one?Yes.Pro the pig says: i make more in a week than you will in a f$%king month you little pr!c(Gay pride posters)Pink Pro says: i dont need evidence to prove i have a sight disorder nor do i need evidence to show that it's perception.My army of biased voters would disagree.Pinecone-collecting pro says: This argument was a joke and so are you so go f**k yourself!Pro seems to get a bit vicious here. If his argument was a joke, it was a failure as it didn't make me laugh.Posh Pro drops my arguments from round 1.Pillow-eating Pro drops my rebuttal to his argument from round 2.Precious Pro fails to back up his argument with evidence.
Yellow is actually purple

Pesky P*nis-loving Pro drops my arguments.Poorly pro says: Actually its all based on perception because to some people yellow is purple for me yellow is brown because I have a color disorder in my eyes. so as you can see yellow is purple, but yellow is also green blue orange purple, yellow can be anything due to the fact that its all based on perception.You give no evidence supporting this claim, but even if that were true, that would only back up your side of the argument if the resolution was 'One man's yellow is another man's purple', but it isn't. It's 'Yellow is purple'. No matter who's eyes/brain I have, I can still say that the purple I see is not the same as the yellow I see. Porky Pro says: I just knocked you out with a huge blow. That is so gay.ConclusionFor Pro to win, he must:-Back up his claims with evidence and sources.-Address my arguments with a sound rebuttal.-Address my rebuttal to his argument with a sound rebuttal.
Yellow is actually purple

Actually its all based on perception because to some people yellow is purple for me yellow is brown because I have a color disorder in my eyes. so as you can see yellow is purple, but yellow is also green blue orange purple, yellow can be anything due to the fact that its all based on perception. your confidence has deceived you as well as your sources because this argument was a fluke. I posted this to see how smart people really are and how their brain works and if they REALLY think. and you failed already in the second round. I just knocked you out with a huge blow. so create a come back after you wake up and rejoin reality. but for now lights out.
Yellow is actually purple

It may interest Pro to know that Yellow and purple are actually opposite colours, as purple is created by fusing the two other primary colours.When deciding whether one colour is another colour, a good idea is to look at the two colours. Yellow and purple certainly don't look alike [2] [3], so we must come to the conclusion that yellow is not purple.(P1) Yellow and purple are opposite colours.(P2) If something is the opposite of something, they logically cannot be the same [4].(C) Therefore, yellow is not purple.(P1) The only property of colour is ultimately its appearance.(P2) If all properties of two things are different, they are not the same thing.(P3) Yellow and purple's properties are all different.(C) Therefore, yellow is not purple.Pro is correct about onr thing though, I'm a stupid guy who wears crocs. I don't know why I chose to have crocodiles as my shoes. How stupid of me. Sources[1] http://willkempartschool.com...;[2] https://www.google.co.uk...[3] https://www.google.co.uk...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;(The third definition as an adjective is the relevant one)
Jesus' Love Is Infinite and God Is Just In Sending People To Hell

"Is infinity even possible? We don't currently have any examples of physical infinity, as we understand it infinity is impossible. Yet here you are, claiming a man has a love so great that it's infinite. This man loves serial killers, child molesters, terrorists and cannibals. Clearly this man is delusional, mentally unstable and incapable of moral thought." Example of physical infinity: The universe as we know is is infinite, we cant prove it is finite. It is infinitely expanding. The singularity in a black hole is a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com... On God loving serial killers and the like, it is a fatherly love, one of a parent, but infinite...He does punish those who commit atrocities to hell. revelation 21:8; 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars"they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." "That love would be meaningless Some people are deserving of love, some are not. When you decide to love those who do not deserve it, then you're diluting the meaning of your love." Who are you to decide who deserves love or not? This is the fallacy of atheism, the presumption to be a moral arbiter. To God, all are deserving of love, and all are deserving of justice. Hebrews 10:30; 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 "How could you ever prove how much love an individual had 1000s of years ago?" According to the bible Jesus is apart of God Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."15 John 5:17,18 - "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. If God is infinite, then Jesus' love is infinite too. I gave you physical examples of infinite, even though love isn't physical...
Jesus' Love Is Infinite and God Is Just In Sending People To Hell

Is infinity even possible? We don't currently have any examples of physical infinity, as we understand it infinity is impossible. Yet here you are, claiming a man has a love so great that it's infinite. This man loves serial killers, child molesters, terrorists and cannibals. Clearly this man is delusional, mentally unstable and incapable of moral thought.That love would be meaningless Some people are deserving of love, some are not. When you decide to love those who do not deserve it, then you're diluting the meaning of your love.How could you ever prove how much love an individual had 1000s of years ago?There isn't actually any method that would allow you to know or prove the amount of love someone had 1000s of years ago. A book of an account isn't testable, therefore you can't verify the legitimacy of the claims it makes. To trust an ancient books fantasy-like claims, is to do a great discredit to one's own intelligence. If you're willing to believe claims, rather than to rationalise, then why should we read what you have to say?
Texas could becomes its own nation

Unfortunately there are major flaws in your arguments.EconomyThe Texas economy is 36th out of 50 overall. Their debt per capita $8,7118.3% unemployment25% of adults do not have high school diplomas (50th) [1]You claim that Texas could stand on its own economically outside of the United States and that they might even surpass the United States when this is simply false. Texas's Gross "National" Product on the international scale is 15th overall but is second in the US by state. [2]The GNP of the US was $12 trillion in 2011 (adjusted) [3] while Texas's GNP was $1.3 trillion, 1/12th of the total US economy. The claim that Texas could surpass the US economy is unrealistic. Texas could not survive without any help from other countries. No country is self sufficient.Secession The United States government set a huge precedent in 1860 when they fought a long and bloody war to prevent states from leaving the Union. In order to become it's own country Texas would have to secede from the United States something that is not possible. "I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual." - Abe LincolnThis precedent and view that the Union is perpetual was strongly set at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. The United States would go to war (if necessary) to keep Texas in the Union, a war that Texas would not be able to weather.Simply put, Texas's economy is not as good as my opponent claims it to be and leaving the Union would be impossible.The resolution reads "Texas could becomes its own nation" [sic] and I have shown that Texas cannot become its own nation. Thank you. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.data360.org...
Texas could becomes its own nation

Thank you for accepting this Challenge, and yes those were the definitions I was leaning towards , Texas is as you stated before the Largest state in Mainland USA, for this reason Texas's economy would have the capability to surpass America's Economy with its own, doing more Exporting then Importing, because Texas is such a large state, it has a largely diverse climate, meaning Texas would have All Capabilities to survive on its own without any help from an county around it...
Texas could becomes its own nation

I put in very simple context, that Texas could become its own nation for several reasons as listed below 1 Texas has one of the best economies in The United States of America 2 with strong allies in Mexico, Texas could easily gain support for an independence movement 3 Texas, has a Governor, Rick Perry, who could lead the state of Texas into the delicate process of establishing a new nation. These are just a few reasons, Simply to establish the base of the Argument.
Texas could becomes its own nation

Yes, I already stated that Texas's economy was the second largest in the United States but even if it took its 1.3 trillion and walked that would leave the US with 10 trillion in GNP still. [1][3] While this would certaintly strike a blow to the US economy it would not as you say "sink" it. The oil and shipping industry would merely move over into New Orleans.Also your arguments seem to be based around the idea that Texas could take on any other single state on its own which is the case but militarily and economically it simply cannot stand up to the full might of all 49 remaining US states together. The US has 1.5 million active military personel [4] that take an oath to protect the United States and its Constitution during service. Even if Texas required military service they would be in service to the United States and not to the state of Texas meaning that this point is moot. This idea might have fit in 200 years ago in the early 1800's but now days state patriotism is much lower and very few people would choose to fight for Texas over the United States.The arguments stand. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com......[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] http://www.data360.org......[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Texas could becomes its own nation

Really, well there are also some flaws in your argument, Texas's Economy is ranked as the 2nd largest economy in the United States of America, Without Texas,America's Economy would sink, Furthermore, Texas has the second largest Population in America, second only to that of California, so if Texas, due to its ability in the 10th Amendment of the American Constitution, required all Men ages 18 and up to have Military Training, and be called into the ranks in times of war, Texas would be able to stand up to America, and secede,Thank you http://www.usatoday.com...
Gay marriage and adoption should be legalized nationwide in the US

Hello. I have been wanting to debate this for a while. I intend for this to be a CIVIL debate. Each side will receive three argument slots, meaning since I am setting the challenge, I will allow my opponent to argue first, with the understanding that they will limit their fourth round arguing space to a simple, one or two sentence "Thanks for the debate, blah blah blah" I look forward to debating you, whoever you end up being.
appropriate single payer system would be a better economic system than we have now

Well. I have to say I love this debate, so I'm looking forward to this. I'm quite familiar with your arguments, and would say that they present a misleading picture of the US status quo. For example, while it's true that we spend a lot per capita on healthcare, it isn't true that we spend less public money. That is, a slew of OECD countries (http://www.oecd.org...) spend less than we do publicly. Of course, we get less result. This goes against the idea we need more public spending to achieve more judicious spending. Much of the US excess spending comes from private payers, but it's misleading to look at this as a complete picture because of the massive cross subsidy the public system imposes on the private system. Medicare/caid are now paying ~89% of cost (that is, before profit) leading to private payers paying more than they otherwise would. Many hospitals have tried to circumvent some of the CMS loss leaders by opting out of EMTALA by closing their ER's. 1/3 of US ER's have closed over the last 15 years. So, the statement that CMS has lower administration is misleading because this is insufficient. CMS doesn't pay cost, and providers are increasingly refusing to either accept CMS or accept it as full payment of services. Even the Mayo Clinic is no longer taking CMS as full payment of services. You present some statistics regarding insurers as not value added. But this is misleading. First, CMS operates as a national payer. No insurer has this same ability. Much of the overhead could be reduced if only insurers could close superfluous state facilities. Moreover, CMS doesn't count fraud as part of overhead, and fraud runs rampant through CMS, while private payers count fraud prevention as part of administration. Again, administration is misleading. Further, CMS farms out the administration of its plan to regional insurers who tend to be more familiar with local facilities as well as farming out the regulatory network to private companies like JCAHO. But I think you're, forgive me, naive to think the government payer would operate on equal footing. It couldn't. It would either be an insurer of last resort, i.e. for the sickest, or it would muscle out the competition. Either proposition is a losing one. You suggest that single payer systems pay less, and while it's true, it doesn't capture the complete picture. That is, the OECD average rate of cost growth has exceeded the US average rate of growth for the last 15 years. Our healthcare system has serious problems, and I'd be happy to discuss alternative proposals with you, but the single-payer solution is a fantasy. I'd also ask if, in your view, the single payer solution would apply equally to every industry--why not nationalize energy? Surely we can 'save money' by reducing their payroll departments as well? I suspect you see the flaw.
Teachers should have guns

Imagine this. I assume you are a student like me, and you are in class talking to your friends. And sudenley, a frightend voice comes on the loudspeaker and says; "We have an active shooter in the building. Please perform the lockdown postions". You frightend hide in complete silence. Suddenly, a rumble of gunshots are heard. They get louder and louder. Suddenly you door flies open, and your teacher pulls out a Glock and starts firing. None of your classmates are hurt, and you hear that because of what your teacher did, only 2 people are injured. Teachers in the cause of an emergency should be able to take action incase of something horrible happening.
Government is not necessary to build roads.

I often hear it said that it is necessary for the government to build roads, implying or even stating that the private sector cannot do it. My goal in this debate is to refute that notion. By roads I am not merely talking about a small private side road but major roads that can be used by anyone. The first round is for acceptance only all other rounds are debate but no new points should be introduced the last round. If my potential opponent is confused about any aspect of this debate I would ask them to ask me about it before they accept. With that being said let's get this started.
Government is not necessary to build roads.

I will start out by giving evidence by way of examples of where the private citizens were able to do what he government refused or was unable to. A town in Hawaii built a road when the government refused [1] While anecdotal evidence is probably the least solid form of evidence I feel it could be helpful to talk about my own experience. About a block from where I used to live, the city dug a hole in the middle of street right in front of a major interaction and just let it sit there for 6 months. If a private company that was not contracted by the city did that they would have been fired long before that time. There are a number of examples of people fixing potholes on their street when the government refuses to act. Generally when this happens their neighbors are very appreciative of it. I have linked just one such example. [2] While not dealing with the building of the road itself this does deal with a directly related issue. Some people in the city of Tacoma Washington painted crosswalk lines at their own expense when the city refused to do so, and the city then spend money to have them removed. [3] As you can see from all these examples when private citizens are involved with the roads, they get it done a lot cheaper and in a more timely fashion than the government. This is because they have a more vested interest in having well maintained roads than the government does. There are privately controlled toll roads that can be for public use if the toll is paid. There are even private highways. In fact paying toll instead of taxes is more efficient since it cuts down on waste and only pays for what would be necessary from the amount of wear the road would receive. Looking back to the days of the Transcontinental railroad the government subsidies lead to corruption in the process of building the railroads. [4] You might think tolls would mean you are paying more but you must put into account this would replace taxes that would otherwise go toward road maintenance. I have shown how roads could be built and maintained without the government I now await my opponent's rebuttal. 1 . http://www.cnn.com... 2 . http://www.kpho.com... 3 . http://thelibertarianrepublic.com... 4 . http://www.fee.org...
god is stories

I will debate that God is not stories. This debate is not about whether or not God exist, instead it is about whether the concept of God should be defined as stories. I argue that God is a religious concept that many humans follow. Therefore, he should not be defined as stories since concepts are not stories. There are stories about God but that doesn't make the concept of God a story. The argument that my opponent uses to defend his position is nonsensical and contradicting -> "if nature is intended, its a machine, therefore god is stories." -> First, even if his premise is true that nature is intended (i.e. planned) that would not prove his conclusion that god is stories. In fact, the implication that the world has a plan contradicts his conclusion that god is stories as it suggest the existence of a God which would support my position that God is not stories.
Anarchy

I think some people aren't willing to live just by morals though, which is the main reason why governments are needed. Who will therefore enforce them? No one, that's who. Anyone who works to enforce and create law acts as a ruler. I agree that taxes are too high, but regardless, if we didn't have the services provided by governments, we'd all be screwed. I agree that it would in fact be ideal for humans just to cooperate, but what of the mentally ill and otherwise evil? Who will prevent them from creating a dictatorship if they have a small band of trained followers? It's human nature for many people to want power, which is why it's necessary for three-branched governments to exist to keep each other in check.
Anarchy

Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the elites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. This does not mean they stand for complete chaos though; they support co-operation and barter between individuals as profitable. Only without controls can humans truly live naturally and freely.
The U.S should NOT fight total wars.

That was a very good argument but not relevant to this specific debate. If we were arguing about foreign wars then the motion would have read: The U.S should NOT fight FOREIGN wars. If the debate was about that then you would have been right and I would have agreed with you fully. A TOTAL war is an all out war in which the opposing countries would use every weapon in their arsenal. In the case of the U.S it would mean using nuclear weapons along with every other weapon we would have. So your argument should sound something like "The U.S should fight total wars because it would end the war faster." Or something along the lines of that. It may have been wise to research what a TOTAL war is before posting an argument.