BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Radical Life Extension technology is worth pursuing.

You stated in your paragraph about afterlife that we could not become invincible. The indefinite fact here is we do not know that. We also don't know if we can even increase our life span from what It is now. So if we are going to logically consider this we can't rule out anything especially when nothing is definite. Living to be healthy. The reality of it, is that this procedure wouldn't cure any kind of illness. It isn't some magic pill that cures cancer or rids you of aids. Currently 26.5 million adults have been diagnosed with heart disease.-http://www.cdc.gov... That is a fatal disease and you aren't going to cure it with this "medication". The reality of it is that these people are still going to die. 26.5 million people and that is just due to one disease. So this would only benefit the healthy, disease ridden humans. As great as that may seem the utter fact that you could be choosing one life over another especially one who is already outliving the other just seems inhumane to some. I love the idea but at the same time the probability isn't high. Obviously Cancer is a huge global issue. We have no definite cure and either way they are still struck by that awful disease that will end their life in most cases. This will be expensive!! Supply and demand- When there is a low supply there is a high demand. This isn't going to be an easy thing to mass produce. So the demand will be high because of the obvious reason of wanting to live longer. That being said the price will be high as in any other situation. Even if it isn't in our lifetime when it does come out millions are still going to die daily. Good Points Yes, this science will be absolutely astonishing. Life changing at least, and we'll have more experience, but if what we want is more life there is other ways to go about it. You made a point about healthier life styles, that alone could have added 20-40 years to some people's lifespan. I'm sure we will learn more about nutrition and growth later down the road and that will benefit, but the idea of a medication is a little unreal in my opinion, and we will be achieving longer lives as we already have been but through simple natural recognitions.
Radical Life Extension technology is worth pursuing.

Availability. That is my main issue. Obviously the demand would be high if this technology was created, and supply would be low considering the fact that the technology would be so new. Who would recieve the technology? My vote would be for the wealthy, because it's indefinite that this supply and demand aspect will cause the price of this technology to sky rocket. Do the wealthy deserve life extension more than the poor just because they can pay for it? I think not. It would cause a global controversy because those who couldn't pay for said "treatment" would still be dying while these wealthy, possibly undeserving, high class, individuals are living on with no worries. As it would be a great idea or concept to live on beyond the average lifespan, the aspect of worth would be excercised to a high extent. How do you tell if one life has more worth than another? What if said technology gets into the wrong hands? This is a radical statement, but what if a terrorist or a serial killer got ahold of this technology? Do we really want people like that living beyond their time? Is it worth it is my next question. Would it change the process of aging? Many issues come with age, by the age of 60 a large percent of beings are suffering from different illnesses and physical disadvantages. If we continue to live and add on years, will the same fate come? Will we still suffer these awful circumstances such as arthritis or loss of sight and hearing? Or would it get worse? Would extending the age in which we live just add on to more of our physical issues? Now, I do have some aggreements with this proposal. I see as to how this may appear humane, you get to live on to see your great grandkids possibly great great grandkids. Maybe even beyond that. You get more experience than you would have. Christians may disagree though, some do believe that god has a set plan for them. That their days are numbered by him. I don't have that argument but it will be apparent. That brings me to my next question. What if death isn't really death? We don't know what is beyond our earthly time and some will argue that death takes them to a better place and extending their life on earth is wrong.
Abortion should be outlawed, and being "pro-choice" is equivalent to being "pro-abortion."

It is very difficult to continue this debate, as my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Therefore, I uphold my claims that he must prove that all forms of abortion are unjust, whereas I must only prove that one form of abortion is just. Because my opponent has not refuted the claims I made in my initial argument regarding abortion in cases of rape or medical necessity, I have satisfied my burden. In not responding to those claims (let alone refuting them), my opponent has implicitly agreed, thus violating the terms of his own burden. I was even able to stay within the constraints of his burden (i.e. that life begins at conception), but still showed the need to transcend the scientific debate and look at things from an ethical standpoint. Whether you agree with my position or not, my opponent has not spent any time refuting the opposite side. The only vote, therefore, is a negative vote.
Abortion should be outlawed, and being "pro-choice" is equivalent to being "pro-abortion."

MikeGarcia, I was disappointed to see that you didn't post an argument this round. I look forward to your rebuttals in round three. There is not a lot I can say given that my opponent chose to not post a second argument (or was not available). I would like to reiterate that the burden of proof still stands: I must prove that abortion is just in just one case, whereas my opponent must prove that it is unjust in every case. Thus far, he has presented the idea that life scientifically begins at conception (a claim I did not dispute, but I did argue that simply having life does not imply that the life has value), and because life exists, it is unjust to end it. Throughout the use of analogies initially presented by Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, I showed that, in the case of rape or medical need, abortion is not unjust. I will continue to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical need, as it is often the most cut-and-dry of the various reasons for seeking a termination of pregnancy. These women deserve access safe and legal procedure that will protect both the right to their bodies, but also their right to life. As president Bill Clinton once said, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Giving up the baby for adoption is not always a viable means of dealing with the situation for these women, especially in the case of those wherein carrying the pregnancy to full term would likely kill the woman. A recent issue of Newsweek ran a story detailing the difficulties adopted children and adoptive parents can sometimes face, including kids so scarred by their biological mother's advice that they have severe emotional issues. Granted, this does not represent every adoptive experience, but it may more thoroughly highlight why other options are necessary. Without a rebuttal, it is difficult to further respond. I look forward to your argument in round 3, MikeGarcia.
Abortion should be outlawed, and being "pro-choice" is equivalent to being "pro-abortion."

This is a very hard subject to debate, simply because the two opposing sides operate on two very different premises. On my side, I acknowledge a human embryo, at any stage of development, a living human being. The other side chooses to arbitrarily choose a point at which life "begins." Or sometimes, the other side may even go as far to say that the mother chooses, herself, when her baby's life begins. But I am not here to present the other side. Before we start, though, let us PLEASE agree on the fact that being "pro-choice" is equivalent to being "pro-abortion." There IS a dichotomy in this debate, and if you are "pro-choice," you essentially condone the act of abortion, since you don't condemn it. It's like if I said I was "pro-choice" when it came to murdering someone in cold blood, and I said "well, I'm not for killing people at all, but it's someone's choice whether they want to kill someone or not." We're all (hopefully) against cold blooded murder, so let's realize that if you're "pro-choice," you're pro-abortion. Let me propose my pro-life argument in the form of a question: If you pro-abortionists could be convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that an embryo was a human life, would you recant your abortion stance? I understand the argument that an embryo has no feelings, etc., but is that a justifiable reason to end its life? Ask yourself, do you remember anything from the first year of your life? I would argue that you probably do not. How, then, do you justify killing something that has no awareness of itself on the sole basis that it doesn't have awareness of itself? A newborn baby has no awareness of itself. It has no previous knowledge of existence on which to base all the information flowing inside into the brain and nervous systems. In short, it has (at that stage) about as much "consciousness" and sentience of an animal. Using this argument, is it ethical to kill a newborn, solely based on the fact that it isn't "conscious" by our standards? A human being is a human being. Just as the liberal creed goes, "we should not judge" a human life by how far along down the road of life he is on, and we should not judge a human by whether he is conscious or not. We should judge a human life based on the fact that it is a human life. Conception is, scientifically, the point at which the human life begins. Are you going to argue with science?
Wrestling should not be an Olympic Sport

Hey all. I have a debate for school that really has me stumped. "Wrestling should not be an olympic sport". Now, I have my con contentions down no problem.1. Wrestling is the foundation of olympic sport2. Wrestling is a classic test of endurance and strengthI will find more.But for pro, I have no arguments at all. Why on earth should it not be an olympic sport? It seems to me that the only reason it was removed for the 2020 olympics is because it got bad TV ratings. Clearly this is not a good contention. Does anybody have any ideas? I tried the forum but didn't get any feedback. I know you guys are an awesome community and I thought you might have ideas.Nobody vote on this debate. Just accept and post some ideas, or if someone already has just post it in the comments. Thanks!
we will be debate about how school should us the money for what the kid want like to go on trips

My opponent has shown full well why kids should not be able to appropriate money at their whim. School is an educational institution, and kids would not seek to spend the money in their education's best interest. My opponent has spoken of the school building 'unnecessary' buildings, like a new gym. However, they would not have built it if the gym they already had was good enough. Also, why should students just be able to spend taxpayers' money on whatever they want? That's ludicrous. I don't pay my taxes so you can go to six flags, and neither does anyone else. What gives you the right to do with this money as you wish? It's not your money, it's the school system's money. Con out.
we will be debate about how school should us the money for what the kid want like to go on trips

you show not allow the school to have 100 percent over how the money is being used you want the school to keep the money and use it for all the wrong reason thing like bulid a new gym but not letting us go on trip like to six flag we like kids need fun i'm not say school is just fun but we need fun because if we dont get out we will be bored and not fun so there for i want the school to have a person who is teacher and pick 5 thing and kids can vote for what they want ones time a month that will be good so clear i believe that us as the student should have a say so about the way the money is being used
Cats are Better than dogs

I apologize about only including three rounds, I will make sure to include 5 later. Here we go. I believe that cats are better than dogs, because they can take care of them selves, you don't have to work as much as would for a dog, and in some cases they express the about the same amount of love that a dog does. A cat is a better choice if you have to get up early to go to work, and come back from work late. Dogs need a lot of attention, when your there or not, while cats crave attention almost only when your around. Sure, cats bring in occasional rats, or dead birds, but its not as bad as doggy doodoo on the front porch, or if your lucky the living room carpet. Shedding is also a pain, having to wake up with hair in your mouth, while cats can clean themselves. While dogs crave an occasional bath, and a teeth brushing, cats......well, maybe once a year. I have nothing against dogs, there great, dog is an equal pet if you have the time an the money, and if your enjoy the presence of dogs more than cats. Cats is the definite pick, if you want a friend around the house that you don't have to constantly attend to. Just My View, Good Luck
THBT bush is a good leader...nanimaho ka murag basura(visayan translation)

First I will say that I agree that George W. Bush has saved many lives as a result of the War on Terror. However this does not make him a good leader. George W. Bush has failed to gain support from either democrats or republicans. According to dictionary.com, a leader is "a person who rules or guides or inspires others". George Bush does not inspire the population and is despised by many. According to a Reuter's poll his approval rating was at 24% as of October 17, 2007. His policies have angered democrats and republicans alike. He has not even been able to gain support from his own party on some of his policies. Because of his inability to inspire the American populous, he by definition is not a good leader.
Hillary Clinton should be the President of the United States

I guess I win... again. Also, judges, feel free to vote for me. I have the best grammar that you could possibly imagine, so give me credit for it. Can you also give me at least one point for the forfeiture of the opponent? Thanks a lot. It would mean a lot to me. Can one of you tell me in the comments how to check your ELO, or rating on this website? Thanks. It would be a big help.
God doesn't exist

So personally I believe in the Christian God. However let's talk about a God in general. Over history and in different accounts there are many reports and beliefs of a God. Imagine if there were several blind men touching an elephant. Each of them would be able to describe certain features of the elephant but not the full thing. And considering there are so many arguments in history of a God existing, surely a God must exist no matter whether it is the one of Islam or Christianity. But I don't see how the Bible or other religious texts aren't a credible source of information. They had no cameras so the only way of recording happenings was to write it down. Just because it's about a god doesn't make it less credible than it being about a historical battle. There were that many recordings of a God in history most of them are probably fake. But one must be true or at least on the right track.
God doesn't exist

My argument is that due to the lack of credible evidence for God's existence the most reasonable position is to disbelieve in God. The burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, just as the burden of proof would lie on Bigfoot believers to make their case. Since the burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, then the debate I take it should focus on the Con side of this argument attempting to give credible evidence for God, while I on the Pro side will attempt to argue for the evidence put forward not being credible, unless it is genuinely credible in which case I would concede.
I Spy Debate

Very Close. I'm sorry, but it was the battle of Yorktown, during the revolutionary war. England and America met, and England was surrounded by General Washington and the French Fleet. England was fighting to keep it's land, but the USA was trying to take command of America. The was ended here, which went to the US because they were defending their land in America. I know the USA trying to take command but the winner was defending was a bit confusing. The thing is, England invaded America to take their land back, so America was defending, but if the British won, they kept the land, but if they lost USA took command. Good guess, and very close. Nice Job! Do you think my clues were too vague? I'm new at this.
I Spy Debate

This is and I Spy debate. The topic will be a place/historical place/ landmark/historical landmark. The first round will be acceptance. Then I will give a riddle. Then I will tell con if they are correct. If Con is correct, they get 7 points. If they don't know, I get 7 points. Here is a practice riddle. It may not be the exact same difficulty as my next, but it will be close enough. It was here, wear the two sides would meet In the end, the gray would retreat Over 40,000 americans dead And the blue, ended up ahead History hold's hit as a historic battle When Robert E, Lee retreated on his settle A battle, that not only decided a war But that left a country, very sore. I spy: the battle of Gettysburg
God Exists

Some people simply rely on their own personal faith, but I believe that without religion, the world would be so much simpler! You can't deny that religion has caused many deaths: Dating back to the 1700's there is records of Catholics vs Protestants and battles to rule the country! In certain religions, belief and faith can cause many obstacles or un-necessary problems and situation. Shabat for example, in Judaism can sometimes cause problems and many inconveniences, when is there really any need for it all? So I understand it isn't a topic that can really be ended, but I just think that for something so life changing, religion isn't worth all of the problems it can cause especially when it may not be true! Belief is also a very strong emotion and if you believe in God, then you have every right to, but don't you feel that it's a waste of time believing in something that probably isn't true? Wouldn't you feel stupid if you devoted your life to something make believe? I know I would!
surgical strike in Pakistan by India

While you are right, terrorism is a threat to humanity, I"d argue one can more easily prevent terrorism by keeping the terrorists alive. This helps in a number of ways, for example, we can get information from them. Maybe we could even reform them to help us(most likely though the media, which would raise western spirits and make the terrorist organisations somewhat sad). You should rethink, think about all the potential evidence and their plots to murder from a captured terrorist. This could save so many lives because of our knowledge.
I am more random than you.

Cherries tend to forfeit planes up at the cash register door; entangling in webs of blasting card games from the scissors. Power buttons emotionally charged with books on how to make trains out of space dust, connect with the dots formed from the dungeon's smelly carpet's fluff. I still do not know why the television projects a Jack of diamonds while the Ace falls down the chocolate tube of deceit. Perhaps the mind of dogs engage in twizzler games of blue not red strings. I would bet on lighter fluid while CNN will buy glue for the dogs to go to heaven under the pale moonlight.
I am more random than you.

When my parking lot blue's the skittle colored tea pot red, the feathers lifted the rocks with metal rods of glory. Her rubber shoes of bliss lay upon the castle seat, vaporizing pieces of shredded wheat despite the clean floor. My fingers are toes that separate when her ginger brother cries to the moonlight song of war. Three cups of cheese and one plate of juice is what makes the pain worth all the remote controls. While interesting, none of this answers the question pertaining to why my television and elbow all have the same circumference with regards to wine glass, so I guess we are in the dark....
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 yearsResolution:Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years.DefinitionsGlobal Warming - A process of climate change frequently associated with the warming of the environment due to man made pollution.115 Years - For statistical limitations to be 1900 to 2014 and early 2015Accelerating the water cycle - A sustained increase in water evaporation, or precipitation beyond the first 30 years of the 115 year range, or 1900 to 1930. Rules:Round 1: Acceptance, and Definitions. Round 2: Presenting of arguments(Pro)Round 3: Refutation Round 4: Closing StatementsBOP: Pro unless Con presents an argument then SharedThis will be a repeat of this debate:http://www.debate.org...
Debater's Choice

I answer CON by saying that I am trying to prove that DNA is the base morality-inducing agent, and that even though there are other factors that influence morality, like social influence, natural disasters, etc., without the evolution of such genes, there will be no moral complex present in an organism's race. I say that this also applies to humans. I am not trying to explain where learned morality,i.e. a set of rules taught by parents or other figures of authority, came from. Instead, I am trying to prove that morality indeed evolved at a primitive level sometime during the evolution of the human race. To repeat, I am not referring to morality as a part of child psychology and child development. Morality: 1. a code of conduct put forward by a society or, 1a. some other group, such as a religion, or 1b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or 2. a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. [1] Social Influence: The actions, reactions, and thoughts of an individual are influenced by other people or groups. Social influence may be represented by peer pressure, persuasion, marketing, sales, and conformity. [2] [1] - http://webspace.ship.edu...... [2]-http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Debater's Choice

Resolution: The morality of man evolved through the mutations of DNA. My position: the morality of man did not evolve through the mutations of DNA. My opponent's position: the morality of man evolved through the mutations of DNA Definitions (all dispute over definitions are to be settled with definitions from http://oxforddictionaries.com...) morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society; the extent to which an action is right or wrong. man - humanity, mankind, homo homo sapiens DNA - Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid evolve - develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form mutation - the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes; a distinct form resulting from a change in the structure of a gene. You may begin giving your argument in this round. If you do decide to begin establishing your case in round 2, please leave round 5 empty so that we have an even number of argumentative rounds between us. Since this is a clarification round, I ask PRO: are you trying to prove that DNA is the sole morality-inducing agent? Please clarify. Sources: http://oxforddictionaries.com... http://oxforddictionaries.com... http://oxforddictionaries.com...