BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Embryonic Stem cell research should be legalized

Do you know of anyone in your friends or family that has a mental or physical defect that affects their life? More than 134 million parents, children, and friends across the United States have one form of serious mental or physical deficiency. Specialists have found a likely cure for AIDS, Alzheimer"s, ALS, blindness, and even cancer. However, those who have very strong ethical and religious views have hindered the specialists and patients that could be helped by this "Universal cure". Stem cell research has been a large issue of debate since its discovery some 30 years ago. Even with so many good effects that can come from this misunderstood subject, many people still oppose it. It is our job as a generation to push back the paranoia and the risks, and together we might just cure these millions of people who need our help. If we could cure even a fraction, we would be one step closer to a world without disease. What is a stem cell? A stem cell is the cell from which an embryo, it generally multiplies for the first month until it differentiates into the different types of cells such as brain cells, skin cells, nerve cells, and so on. How can a stem cell be used? An extracted stem cell may be given chemicals in order to convert into any type of cell in the human body. Once a single cell has been converted, it will continue to multiply until a full organ is made. What are the benefits of stem cell application? Unlike extracting organs from the deceased or the living to give to critical patients with organ complications, stem cell research can make the organs inside of any well-designed hospital, reducing the risk of damage to the organ from transportation, the critical time needed to get the organ to the patient, providing more organs into the hospitals so there would be no "waiting line" and reducing he effects of rejection from the human body. Why do people oppose it? Members of the Catholic faith and others who share their morals feel that an unborn fetus must be terminated in order for the stem cells to be retrieved. What these people may not know is that stem cells can be retrieved from the "leftover" tissue samples that were not part of the fetus when formation began, also if a woman has needs to abort her child for any reason, the embryonic stem cells can also be harvested during that time. Research on adult stem cells taken from the bone marrow of a healthy adult, have already saved tens of thousands of lives due to the transfer of the cells to necessary areas. However the adult stem cells can only be used to replace a select few cells, while embryonic cells can be used to duplicated any cell in the human body, and possibly save millions more. Even with so many good effects that can come from this misunderstood subject, many people still oppose it. It is our job as a generation to push back the paranoia and the risks, and together we might just cure these millions of people who need our help. If we could cure even a fraction, we would be one step closer to a world without disease.
long Debate

Um... Alrighty then. Let me just... do some... uh... Yeah. 1. "i don't like to read long debate." a. This point is irrelevant when considering whether or not lengthy debates can be beneficial. b. As my opponent is quick to further admit, "i didn't even finsh readng your debate it bore me to death"; clearly, since my opponent hasn't even read my arguments, she couldn't respond to them; thus, both of my contentions stand, proving that, for debaters and readers alike, lengthy debates can, in fact, be beneficial. 2. Ranting a. I'm not entirely certain of the argument that my opponent is attempting to make here; at best, this is merely her personal opinion once again on how she does not enjoy reading long debates. b. Allow me to reaffirm that, simply because she does not enjoy reading in-depth discussion of topics does not mean that these long discussions are not beneficial to the parties involved (refer back to my contentions). I was assuming that my opponent would be able to provide legitimate reasons for why long debates are not beneficial to the intellectual community; hopefully, she is able to redeem her arguments in round 3; I know I'm willing to give her another shot, voters; and, you should be, too.
long Debate

A bit of a strange topic, to be sure, but I try to thrive on unconventionality; so, here we are. I don't think any definitions will be necessary, as 'long debate' is pretty self-explanatory; if it isn't, allow me to rephrase the resolution: "Resolved: Lengthy debates can be beneficial." Moving on, then. Contention I: Lengthy debates allow for self-expression. The name of this website is debate.org; it is a place for debate enthusiasts; in a proper discussion, it is only natural that some debaters will have a great deal to say; take note of the 8,000 character limit in most debates; this serves a dual purpose: it allows for posts to be reasonably lengthy, while still keeping the debate short enough to maintain the interest of potential voters. For the debater, the large amount of available characters allows for better articulation of certain arguments, which allows the debater to put out more content, which provides a better means of expressing one's beliefs and thoughts, which in turn enhances the quality of the intellectual discourse; for the debaters involved in the argument, this provides a greater level of enjoyment while debating, due simply to the freedom that is offered by the large character limit; and, as the primary purpose of debate is to enjoy the intellectual stimulation which comes from argument, and not necessary to win, then it would seem that lengthy debates serve their purpose for the debaters involved; ergo, lengthy debates can be enjoyable for the parties involved; ergo, lengthy debates can be beneficial. Contention II: Lengthy debates benefit readers. Lengthy debates provide great reading material for DDO veterans, but also serve as great role models for new debaters; a multitude of diverse arguments often pop up in debates, but without a large character limit, the hordes of different viewpoint would never be allowed to totally clash; if debaters can't put out the arguments they want, then the debate becomes meaningless; the debater in question can never improve, because readers lose interest, having nothing to read over and critique; lengthy debates offer a wide variety of viewpoints, which assists readers and potential voters in keeping an open mind, perhaps even giving them new ideas for their own future debates; plus, debate quality suffers due to length constraints, and readers lose interest, that's also potential debaters losing interest, which could prevent a lot of future debates from taking place simply because of bad first impressions, as it were. Thus concludes my opening arguments; and, with that, I'll hand it over to CON.
long Debate

I suppose that it was wishful thinking to expect an enjoyable debate on this. 1. "Big Words" a. I apologize if you have taken any offense to my diction. b. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand; refer back to my contentions, and my Round 2 arguments; I have clearly fulfilled my burden, whereas Con has not even acknowledged hers. 2. "reading" a. [. http://www.hookedonphonics.com...] I would love to say that this was a very in-depth, meaningful, challenging debate; but, I think it's pretty clear.
Tolkien was the best fiction writer in the last 1000 years

I chose to give reasons why I believe Dickens was the best. Its longevity and use in schools shows this, as I previously stated. This goes outside the realm of total copies sold. My opponent has made no arguments to combat my defintion for best (despite my request) and has chosen to give NO information about the LOTR. He also claims this debate, HIS debate, was a waste of time. Please blame him if you are to read all the way through this without gaining any meaningful knowledge on the LOTR. I hope all the readers understand the prevelance of A Tale of Two Cities in today's culture, despite being published in the 1800s.
Tolkien was the best fiction writer in the last 1000 years

My opponent has made it clear their book(s) is to reign superior to others. This is good vs. bad(or less good) I have asked my opponent to define best. He chose not to do so before the debate, or even ask to change the definition after I have given one. He has only refuted that the copies sold may be compromised due to school purchasing the book, and its longevity. To this I argue: -This book is SO GOOD, schools wish to teach it as part of their curriculum because of Dicken's magnificence in his writing and stories. -Its longevity is a reason in itself to why A Tale of Two Cities is the best book. It is still relevant with today's youth through school. My opponent tries to diminish the number of books sold by stating " just because people bought the book doesn't mean they enjoyed it. "This logic applies to both LOTR and ATOTC. So this is a moot point. My opponent has also not mentioned the word "scientific" until this past round. I am not sure of this debate is supposed to be philosophical, or scientific as my opponent has claimed it is both. I am very confused, but per my reasoning for best in the previous round, and the notes I have given this round, I have given far more merit to Dickens: A Tale of Two Cities as the best book.
Tolkien was the best fiction writer in the last 1000 years

This is not a scientific debate No, 'copies sold' does not indicate the best book. For instance, schools may have chosen to use Charles Dickens in their curriculum, forcing millions of copies to be bought. Also, the length of time the book has been out mean more copies will be sold for obvious reasons. Also, just because people bought the book doesn't mean they enjoyed it. And also, books can be handed down through generations and not always bought anew. So for them reason and many more I'm sure, copies sold does not indicate best book. As I said in the beginning. This is not scientific, how can one argue the genius of a story scientifically? As I also tried to explain in the comments - I ask the readers to look at my comment and comment themselves to say if they understood it or not. Clearly my opponent did not understand it. I clearly stated that this is not a philosophical debate about good and bad, but purely a clash of opinions. Of which, the more convincing of the two debaters would be decided by votes. Can we never have a debate about the magnificence of art, without know-it-alls trying to be smart. You spat your dummy out because I made your comment look foolish. I say spat your dummy out because you actually accepted my debate and ruined it for me, even though you knew you didn't want a serious debate and disapproved of my stance. Why not just ignore it and let somebody else who actually believes that another book is better than LOTR, and want to argue about it abstractedly, and not scientifically, accept the challenge? This is not s scientific debate. Please comment readers if you disagree, or if you see my point.
Tolkien was the best fiction writer in the last 1000 years

As my opponent has refused to define "best". .. I will. Best means who's book(s) was the most successfull by number of copies sold. By this, Charles Dickens book, A Tale of Two Cities, is the best book/author of all time beating out The Lord of The Rings by approximately 50 million copies sold. . http://en.wikipedia.org...This is a matter of fact, meaning Dickens was the best fiction writer writer in the last 1000 years, as well a Tale of Two Cities is the best work of fiction. This is not a subjective argument, per Pro's request. Per the definition of best (which I urged Pro to define in the comments, which he dismissed) I should already be declared the winner. I would be surprised to see any sort of rebuttal to this.
Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

I sincerely apologize, but, due to a significant increase in business, I shall likely be unable to participate in any debates. Since it is more sporting for me to concede than forfeit, and because I legitimately do wish to continue this debate, I simply request that we continue the debate at a later time, with the arguments of this one transplanted, so as to continue from this point. I left this late, in the hopes that my schedule would somewhat clear up, but have been unable to do anything about this schedule. My reiterated sincere apologies.
Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

see comments section. There is no need to appologize. Inarticulateresponses is my blog. I store my opening arguments, those i consider worth keeping, there. That being said, i would like to apologize for this ambiguity. I will furthermore not post any new arguments, although i have several. I did mention that i don't respond to arguments, but this is an exception. Please do not apologize for your accusations. In a form known as self-plagiarism, it is true. Back to you.
Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

While I hate to be a bad sport, I feel obligated to point out that my opponent's entire round 2 argument is plagiarized from the November 10th article of 'Inarticulateresponses.wordpress.com,' right down to the sources [1] (he has made minor edits, yet the article remains almost verbatim). Furthermore, my opponent used an almost identically plagiarized argument in his debate last week with Microsuck, 'Evidence against the Big Bang.' [2] In both cases, he cleverly made minor changes to the paragraph headings, so as to confuse plagiarism checking engines (this may not have been intentional, but it certainly worked).While my opponent's stolen argument certainly does make interesting points, and I don't mind refuting it, my wish is to debate Muted on the subject of evidence for and against the Big Bang theory, not an anti-atheism wordpress article. I will gladly refute any non-plagiarized arguments that he is willing to make in the further rounds. As of now, however, I consider this round forfeited by him.Sources[1] http://inarticulateresponses.wordpress.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...
Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

I decided to send this challenge early (since I have some time to write out the challenge). Please accept it, when you will. I doubt it is necessary to write out the rules, common conduct rules apply. For this debate, the definitions will be as follows: Evidence: Data gained through the scientific method, which uses testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. The Big Bang: The current most popular cosmological model of which I doubt a complete explanation is required. We will be debating from the singularity onwards. See [1] for more information. Should Pro wish, he may provide an explanation, which must be accompanied by equations, on how the singularity came about (Which he may do in the first round). Other than that, the Burden of Proof will be on Con. According to the falsification criteria set by Karl Popper: 1. Theory T predicts O will not be observed 2. O is observed Therefore T is false. Round structure: R1: Acceptance (Unless Pro wishes to use the argument two paragraph before) R2: Opening by Con, Pro may begin rebutting. R3-4: Arguments R5: Closing summary of arguments. No refutations may appear at this point. This is merely to consolidate one"s own arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

The federal government can't stop smuggling, marijuana is illegal and $40 bil. are spent to stop it, yet it is one of the largest cash crops in the U.S. and it comes from such countries as Columbia. Also the constitution is the supreme law of the land and it states in the 2nd amendment that the rights of the people shall not be infringed the def. of infringed is an act so as to limit or undermine (something); which means the rights can't be limited or undermined which gun control does.
Gun Control

In the bills for gun control, it states that additional funding will go to stoping the flow of illegal weapons. This is why gun control must be a federal bill, states themselves can not truly crack down on the weapons coming in from foreign soil. If we do start to 'crack down', then we will see less criminals with guns coming in from Columbia or wherever these assault guns may be coming from. Also US guns being sold are arming cartels that are killing border-police and other personel in Mexico.
Gun Control

Gun Control doesn't work in the United States. The top ten cities with the strictest gun laws are Chicago, New York, LA, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, Atlanta and out of these cites 7 of them are in the countries top ten gun homicides (Chicago, New York, LA, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit) and it has been calculated that 96% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally so bad guys will find a way to get an assault rifle while the good guys can't.
Gun Control

When I refere to gun control, i refere to the limits put out on firearms. The term "gun control" lately has been primarily directed toward the limits put out on assault rifles. When i refere to gun control in this debate, i refer to the later definition. I believe that one does not need an assault rifle to defend their selves. My policy is that all you need is a shotgun to ward off intruders. Hunting wise, assault rifles are not being used for hunting, and frankly you do not need a huge clip.
A Kamikaze is a Superior Alcoholic Beverage to a Midori Sour

Well, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I thought my opponent was referring to hand-mixed cocktails because he was complaining about the relative alcohol content. If you want a more potent, less sweet Midori Sour you can vary the quantity of the ingredients to suit your taste - more Midori and lime-juice and less sweet and sour should make the tincture a bit less sickly and if it's still not potent enough for you, simply add a shot of good quality Vodka to perk it up a bit. I refute my opponent's assertion that I employed stereotypes in my scenario, by the way. I don't know too many high-flying, international captains of industry whose firms accommodate them in $900 per night, 5-star hotels who spend their evenings drinking cheap alcopops in bus stations rather than sipping vodka Martinis in the cocktail bar! My opponent wrote: "I really hope that you aren't someone who has to slip a roofie into a drink to get a woman in bed. " I am not familiar with "roofies" but I assume they are some sort of date-rape drugs. I am pleased to advise my opponent that any such narcotic would be surplus to my requirements given that I'm fighting the girls off with a sh**ty stick as it is! (Shaka ediyordum, imzali Kï¿½ï¿½ï¿½k Kush! ) In conclusion, my opponent's assertion that a Kamakaze is a superior drink to Midori sour is merely a matter of personal taste. For him, the former is superior, others might enjoy the sweet and sour melon flavour of the latter, but I am not aware of any survey or report that has established the relative popularity the drinks an my opponent failed to point to one.
A Kamikaze is a Superior Alcoholic Beverage to a Midori Sour

Thank you for accepting my argument. Unfortunately, while entertaining, there are multiple flaws in your rebuttal. First of all, both a Kamikaze and a Midori Sour are mixed drinks. They cannot be purchased in premixed packages. This shows, one your lack of knowledge on the subject matter at hand, and two your lack of research into this debate. Second, your "story" makes uses extremely false generalizations and follows many horrible stereotypes. I hope that you don't really believe everything you just wrote or my faith in humanity has yet again dropped a few points. Third, while a night of mad passionate love is amazing, your ethics and morals come into question. Do you always need to get a woman drunk in order to sleep with her? I really hope that you aren't someone who has to slip a roofie into a drink to get a woman in bed. Since you failed to form an even decent rebuttal to my first argument there is no way you can possibly win this debate. My original argument stands, A Kamikaze is a superior alcoholic beverage to a Midori Sour.
A Kamikaze is a Superior Alcoholic Beverage to a Midori Sour

Everyone loves a good Kamikaze. Sweet, sour, and tanginess with just the right amount of alcohol. A kamikaze helps you reach your end goal of getting inebriated without having to sacrifice refreshing taste and drinkability. Most importantly, a Kamikaze is a superior alcohol beverage to a Midori Sour. A Midori Sour is no doubt sweet, delicious, and refreshing; but those aspects are its downfall. A Midori Sour is too sweet and delicious. A Midori Sour, by recipe is 1 1/2 parts Midori, 1 part sweet and sour, and 2 parts lime juice. That recipe in itself is the drinks downfall against the Kamikaze. Compared to the Kamikaze a Midori Sour is just too sweet. Unless you have the strongest sweet tooth in the world it would be impossible to drink enough Midori Sours to help you reach your end goal of inebriation. This is also due to the fact that Midori is only 20% alcohol by volume, where as the vodka in a Kamikaze is 40% alcohol by volume. Based on these facts alone it can be seen that a Kamikaze is a superior alcoholic beverage to a Midori Sour.
The Existence of God is More Probable than Not

I accept this challenge. PRO did not give any definitions so I will suggest some. God [1]the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.probable [2]1. supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof <a probable hypothesis>2. likely to be or become true or real <probable outcome>(We could use either definition. If something is true with probability >50%, then we can call it probable as in definition 2. However, in some instances, it may not be possible to give/compute a precise probability. In that case we can resort to definition 1.) exist [3]have objective reality or beingI will argue that God probably does not exist. I am looking forward to my opponent's arguments.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
We don't need 'teachers/schools' to access subjects in order to achieve.

"Making a bond is irrelevant" All I can say is wow... Anyways getting back on topic, Self teaching isn't the most efficient way of teaching... I mean people that go to school self teach themselves, but the have that **STABLE** platform to build off of. People in general can not build a self platform, they can only build off of it once it is established. Otherwise they would do one thing wrong and it would have a domino effect in the long run. Lets say the self taught themselves math, and they made a mistake somewhere that was never caught.. After a long time of doing that thing wrong you will be sure that's the way its done. It's kinda like practice make's perfects...UNLESS YOUR DOING IT WRONG. I think that computers are a great teaching tool "But" they can not teach us the way teachers can. And I am assuming you have a thing with school so that's why you are so bent on this idea...